Lifetime cost of plastic 10 times higher for low-income countries than rich ones, revealing crippling inequities in plastics value chain

WWF
Posted on 07 November 2023

New report estimates low-income countries, despite consuming less plastic, incur a total lifetime plastic cost that is 10 times higher than wealthier countries.

The structural inequities built into the current plastics value chain not only distribute the burdens of plastic pollution unequally among countries, the burdens are also disproportionately borne by those least equipped to remedy them, thereby worsening the crisis.

WWF calls on all governments to agree on a treaty with harmonized, binding global rules that can remove inequities reinforced and exacerbated through our current take, make, and waste plastics system.

NAIROBI, Kenya (7 November) – A WWF-commissioned report developed by Dalberg1 warns that the true cost of plastic on the environment, health and economies can be as much as 10 times higher for low-income countries, even though they consume almost three times less plastic per-capita, than high-income ones.

The report estimates that the total lifetime costs of a kilogram of plastic is around US$150 in low- and middle-income countries, which is eight times the US$19/kilogram incurred by high-income countries2. When comparing just low-income countries and their wealthier counterparts, the cost differential rises to 10 times with low-income countries hit with costs of US$200 a kilogram.

These unequal costs have substantial implications for low- and middle-income countries like Kenya, where negotiators will converge from 13-19 November for the third negotiations of the global treaty to end plastic pollution. Six years ago, Kenya took a bold step against plastic pollution by banning single-use plastic bags. Today, the country continues to struggle with illegal imports of single-use plastic bags, highlighting the problem’s transboundary nature and the crippling inequities inherent in the current plastics value chain that put countries like Kenya at a disadvantage no matter what bold action they take.

“Our take, make, waste plastics system is designed in a way that unfairly impacts our planet’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged countries. Instead of resolving the world’s plastic pollution crisis in the most efficient way, the system shifts the bulk of the costs to those least equipped to manage them, with no accountability placed on those who produce and use the products in the first place,” said Alice Ruhweza, WWF International’s Senior Director of Policy, Influence and Engagement.

“The report signals the urgency of an immediate overhaul of the current plastic system. Business-as-usual could be a death sentence, not only for a growing number of animals but also for many of our world’s vulnerable and marginalized communities as a result of increased health risks including ingestion of harmful, toxic chemicals and increased risk of flooding and disease. The global plastic pollution treaty is our chance to change this by including binding and equitable global rules on production and consumption.”

The report finds that low- and middle-income countries bear a disproportionately large burden of the costs associated with plastic pollution as a direct result of three structural inequities that reinforce the current plastics system.

The first inequity is that the system places low- and middle-income countries at a disadvantage in that they have minimal influence on which plastic products are produced and how they are designed and yet are often expected to manage these products once they reach their end-of-life. Product and system design considerations are typically made further upstream in countries with extensive plastic production and by multinational companies headquartered in high-income countries. As of 2019, only 9% of plastic waste is being recycled. Currently, around 60% of global plastic production is for single-use products, which are designed to be (and so cheaply valued that they can be) thrown away after just one use.

The second inequity is that the rate of plastic production, particularly for single-use plastic, is far outpacing the availability of technical and financial resources for waste management when it reaches its end-of-life in low- and middle-income countries. Without reducing plastic production and consumption, low- and middle-income countries will continue to bear the highest burden of plastic pollution’s direct environmental and socio-economic impacts.

The third inequity is that the system lacks a fair way for holding countries and companies to account for their action, or inaction, on plastic pollution and its impact on our health, environment and economy (for example, through mandatory extended producer responsibility schemes in each of the countries they operate in). With no common obligations across all jurisdictions and companies for supporting a circular, just and non-toxic plastics economy, low- and middle-income countries end up paying the steeper price.

Establishing and implementing a UN global plastic pollution treaty based on harmonized and binding global rules can help us create a fairer system that empowers low- and middle-income countries and prioritizes the most effective and efficient solutions. An example of such a rule would be regulating the most high-risk plastic products, polymers and chemicals - those that can cause the most harm or are most likely to cause pollution - so that we can lessen the strain on countries, especially those with fewer resources, in managing plastic waste. Similarly, the opportunity to create global product design rules can help to ensure that products are designed to be reused and/or recycled regardless of which country they are produced or used in.

In November, countries will join the third of five negotiating sessions on a global treaty to end plastic pollution3. WWF calls on all governments to agree on a treaty that includes:Banning, phasing out or phasing down high-risk and avoidable plastic products, polymers and chemicals of concern.

Global requirements for product design and systems that can secure a safe and non-toxic circular economy, which prioritizes reuse and improvements in recycling.
Robust measures for supporting considered and effective implementation that includes sufficient financial support and alignment of public and private financial flows, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.“Many of the options included in the treaty’s first draft have substantially weaker language and less specific obligations, making it tempting for governments to revert to old bad habits of relying on national or voluntary action rather than creating common regulations. But our report has shown that relying on individual government decisions results in an unfair system where burdens are not only unequally distributed, they are borne by those least equipped to remedy them,” said Eirik Lindebjerg, WWF International’s Plastics Policy Lead.

“Compromising on a treaty mainly based on national action will just take us back to where we were – divided and unable to stem the onslaught of plastic pollution. We can no longer act as if plastic is a cheap throwaway commodity. It has huge costs for some of the most vulnerable communities who have no power to change the system. Inaction will result in a higher cost for all of us. Countries must dial up ambition and finalize a treaty with harmonized and binding global rules if we are to achieve an equitable plastic value chain and want a future free from plastic pollution.”

ENDS

DOWNLOAD WWF REPORT PDF

https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/english---wwf_enabling_global_equity_webv.pdf

For further information, please contact news@wwfint.org

Notes to editorsThe report: 'Who Pays for Plastic Pollution? Enabling Global Equity in the Plastic Value Chain' is published here.How is the “true cost” of plastic calculated: The ‘true cost’ of plastic is based on a model devised by experts at WWF and Dalberg that considers the minimum lifetime cost of both upstream production and downstream waste management, and compares these costs between high, middle and low-income countries as of data from 2019. While many of the costs cannot be quantified, reflecting the gaps in available data and understanding of the full impact of plastic pollution, it does include quantifiable costs such as the cost of producing virgin plastic, greenhouse gas emission costs, costs on ecosystem services of marine ecosystems and direct waste management costs.

Though presented as ‘monetary costs’ of one kilo of plastic, it’s important to note that countries do not actually pay these costs, the costs are used as an indication of the disproportionate burdens plastic poses on countries with different national incomes.
The multiplier of eight and 10 are predominantly linked to the mismanagement of plastic waste and costs to the marine environments. Wealthier countries for example often displace and reduce their waste management costs by exporting their plastic waste to lower-income countries to process. The total lifetime cost for one kilogram block of plastic waste in a high-income country for example, is US$19, compared to eight times that for middle and lower-income countries at an average of US$150, and 10 times that for lower-income countries, at US$200. When we compare costs across lifetime marine ecosystem services, and how plastic leakage impacts these, it yields a cost of US$149 for low and middle-income countries compared to US$17 for high-income countries. Even still, the true impact borne by low and middle-income countries from plastic pollution is likely to be far greater.

The third session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a globally binding treaty on plastic pollution (INC-3) will run from 13-19 November in Nairobi, Kenya. 

For a briefing note on what to expect from INC-3, and what WWF would like to see the negotiations accomplish, click here.

For an explainer on the Zero Draft, the first version of the treaty text that will form the basis of the upcoming negotiations, click here.

For WWF’s Global Plastic Navigator, a platform for tracking countries’ positions on the inclusion of global bans and phase-out requirements for certain plastic categories of concern in the global treaty to end plastic pollution, click here.From the report - selected case studies by region:

Latin America

Brazil:

 Marine and terrestrial impacts of plastic pollution More than 10 million tonnes of plastic enter the Brazilian domestic market each year.
In addition, Brazil imports 12,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year, a rate that grows by 7% annually. As waste imports increase, so does the amount of waste that is being mismanaged. If current trends continue, Brazil could become the 4th largest generator of mismanaged plastic waste.
The growing rate of plastic pollution in Brazil results from system gaps, in particular limited infrastructure and capacity for waste collection and recycling. Only 22% of cities in Brazil collect waste for recycling

Brazil’s precious coastal ecosystems, wildlife and communities bear the greatest brunt. And pollution is now threatening the Amazon Basin.

Africa

Kenya: 

Efforts to reduce pollution hampered by absence of global regulationKenya banned single-use plastic bags in 2017 in a bold step to reduce plastic pollution, but a lack of similar rules in neighbouring countries has resulted in plastic bags piling up in Kenya.

Plastic bags continue to pollute Kenya through porous borders which give way to the smuggling of the bags in shipments of plastic materials exempt from the ban, like packaging products.

Six years after the ban, plastic bags are piling up in Kenya’s Dadach Boshe dump. Locals have reported the deaths of goats from swollen stomachs and fatal health issues caused by the ingestion of plastic bags.

Asia Pacific

Fiji: 

Structural barriers in waste management Tourists, who arrive in the small island state of Fiji, generate seven times more plastic waste per person per day than Fiji’s residents.

Despite developing environmental legislation and strategies for waste management, Fiji’s capacity constraints (small economic scale and workforce) has meant that only one of its eight disposal sites satisfy current environmental standards, resulting in a plastic leakage rate of 25%, or nearly 4,000 tonnes of plastic pollution each year, equivalent to filling 80 swimming pools with 500ml plastic bottles.

In addition, Fiji’s remote location, limited scale and a lack of investment mean that Fiji has struggled to establish viable recycling markets and is seeing an increased reliance on burning its waste or filling up its landfills.About WWF

WWF is an independent conservation organization, with over 30 million supporters and a global network active in over 100 countries. WWF's mission is to stop the degradation of the Earth's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. Visit www.panda.org/news for the latest news and media resources and follow us on Twitter @WWF_media.

Plastic certificates: Greenwashing or a step to climate neutrality?

A new brand of offsetting allows companies to call themselves "plastic-neutral" while continuing to use plastic themselves. What's it all about?

Plastic waste has become a feature of seas and beaches around the world

Plastic waste and microplastics are everywhere. On Mount Everest, in Arctic ice and the deepest ocean trenches, in the stomachs of animals, in our food, drinking water and even our blood. Such ubiquity is a reflection of how much plastic we make, which is now 200 times more than back in 1950. And so far, we have only managed to recycle around 9% of it.

Experts have long been warning that we can't recycle our way out of the global plastic crisis, but some companies and NGOs are now offering companies the chance to become "plastic neutral" by offsetting. It's a growing industry.

How plastic offsetting works 

Companies looking to offset their plastic pay a fee to NGOs and companies in the plastic offset sector. This money is used to collect a corresponding amount of plastic either from the service providers themselves or from third-party providers in developing countries. In some cases the plastic is also recycled. 

Marine life is also endangered by plastic waste

These service providers offer their customers so-called plastic neutral certificates or plastic "collection credits." 

One of the pioneers in the market is the New York-based company rePurpose Global. When companies invest in its collection and recycling programs, they receive a "plastic neutral” certificate which means they can then market their own products as such. Conversely, however, they can continue to use plastic at the same time.

In a statement to DW, rePurpose Global said it does not certify companies that don't share "a genuine commitment to reducing plastic use," and that it provides brands and companies with "ethically recycled plastic" from its "impact projects, to support their move towards 100% circular supply chains." 

Alix Grabowksi, Director of Plastic and Material Science at conservation group WWF, says it would be logical to expect that products claiming to be plastic neutral have no impact in terms of waste. "But that's not really the case."

"I think it's quite misleading for a company to make a claim like plastic neutral when you could still find their products in nature," she says. 

Companies certified as "plastic neutral" support better waste concepts,

 but they can continue to use plastic packaging

Is plastic-offsetting just greenwashing? 

Market analysis by the US NGO "The Circulate Initiative" sees a clear risk of greenwashing, above all due to a lack of transparency. Of 32 offsetting projects studied, just three make the connection between climate change and plastic consumption. 

Tom Zoete from the environmental organization Recycling Netwerk Benelux is also skeptical.

"The entire life cycle of plastic is associated with resource consumption, petroleum and energy to produce plastic, transport and so on," Zoete told DW, adding that only those who do not consume plastic can be "plastic neutral."

What is not always clear with such offsetting schemes, is what happens to the plastic itself, and so far there have been no studies detailing the impacts. 

rePurpose Global claims to collect seven million kilograms of plastic per year that would otherwise have ended up in the environment. Of that, it says 100% of the recyclable plastic is made into clothing, trash cans or materials for road and housing construction. 

What can't be recycled is burned to create a source of energy for the cement industry, replacing coal in the process. Critics say this merely amounts to one dirty fuel being replaced by another, and that it adds to air pollution. 

For Grabowski of WWF, the marketing tools are more of a problem than the actual projects, many of which she says are working to improve waste management and wages in the places most affected by plastic pollution.

This March, 200 countries reached the first ever consensus on mandatory rules for plastic production, consumption and disposal by 2024. WWF called the agreement historic.

Recycling 'myth'

Products and packaging made of plastic: The petrochemical industry earns as well

99% of plastic is made using fossil fuels, and the industries involved in its manufacture have a vested interest in continued manufacture. Not least since the International Energy Agency predicts that petrochemicals will soon be the biggest driver of petroleum demand. 

This spring, Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of the State of California, launched a far-reaching investigation against ExxonMobil.

He has accused the oil giant of having known for decades about the dangers posed by plastics and of engaging in an "aggressive campaign" to perpetuate the "myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis."

ExxonMobil denies the allegations.

This article was originally published in German.

Newly hatched Florida sea turtles are consuming dangerous quantities of floating plastic

by David Duffy and Catherine Eastman, The Conversation

Deceased post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtle next to plastic pieces found in its stomach and intestines. Credit: Gumbo Limbo Nature Center, CC BY-ND

Plastic pollution has been found in practically every environment on the planet, with especially severe effects on ocean life. Plastic waste harms marine life in many ways—most notably, when animals become entangled in it or consume it.

We work as scientists and rehabilitators at The Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience and Sea Turtle Hospital at the University of Florida. Our main focus is on sea turtle diseases that pose conservation threats, such as fibropapillomatosis tumor disease.

However, it's becoming increasingly hard to ignore evidence that plastic pollution poses a growing, hidden threat to the health of endangered sea turtles, particularly our youngest patients. In a newly published study, we describe how we examined 42 post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtles that stranded on beaches in Northeast Florida. We found that almost all of them had ingested plastic in large quantities.

An ocean of plastic

Ocean plastic pollution originates mostly from land-based sources, such as landfills and manufacturing plants. One recent study estimates that winds carry 200,000 tons of tiny plastic particles from degraded tires alone into the oceans every year.

Plastics are extremely durable, even in salt water. Materials that were made in the 1950s, when plastic mass production began, are still persisting and accumulating in the oceans. Eventually these objects disintegrate into smaller fragments, but they may not break down into their chemical components for centuries.

Overall, some 11 million tons of plastic enter the ocean each year. This amount is projected to grow to 29 million tons by 2040.

Post-hatchling sea turtle being treated at Gumbo Limbo Nature Center. Credit: Gumbo Limbo Nature Center, CC BY-ND

A microplastic diet

Many forms of plastic threaten marine life. Sea turtles commonly mistake floating bags and balloons for their jellyfish prey. Social media channels are replete with videos and images of sea turtles with plastic straws stuck in their nostrils, killed in plastic-induced mass mortality events, or dying after ingesting hundreds of plastic fragments.

So far, however, scientists don't know a lot about the prevalence and health effects of plastic ingestion in vulnerable young sea turtles. In our study, we sought to measure how much plastic was ingested by post-hatchling washback sea turtles admitted to our rehabilitation hospital.

Post-hatchling washbacks are recently hatched baby turtles that successfully travel from their nesting beaches out to the open ocean and start to feed, but are then washed back to shore due to strong winds or ill health. This is a crucial life stage: Turtles need to feed to recover from their frenzied swim to feeding grounds hundreds of miles offshore. Feeding well also helps them grow large enough to avoid most predators.

We examined 42 dead washbacks, and found that 39 of them, or 93%, had ingested plastic—often in startling quantities. A majority of it was hard fragments, most commonly colored white.

One turtle that weighed 48 grams or 1.6 ounces – roughly equivalent to 16 pennies – had ingested 287 plastic pieces. Another hatchling that weighed just 27 grams, or less than one ounce, had ingested 119 separate pieces of plastic that totaled 1.23% of its body weight. The smallest turtle in our study, with a shell just 4.6 centimeters (1.8 inches) long, had ingested a piece of plastic one-fourth the length of its shell.

[You're smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation's authors and editors. You can get our highlights each weekend.]

The Sargasso Sea is an important feeding ground for immature Atlantic sea turtles, but the same currents that concentrate seaweed there also carry drifting plastic trash. Credit: University of Florida, CC BY-ND

Consuming such large quantities of plastic increases the likelihood that broken-down plastic nanoparticles or chemicals that leach from them will enter turtles' bloodstreams, with unknown health effects. Ingested plastic can also block turtles' stomachs or intestines. At a minimum, it limits the amount of space that's physically available for consuming and digesting genuine prey that they need to survive and grow.

Turtles at this life stage live at the ocean's surface, sheltering in floating mats of seaweed, where they feed on invertebrate prey such as zooplankton. These floating seaweed mats gather in the Atlantic, in an area known as the Sargasso Sea,which is bounded by four major ocean currents and covers much of the central Atlantic Ocean. The area is heavily polluted with plastic, as both seaweed and plastic travel on and are concentrated by the same ocean currents. Our study suggests that these baby turtles are mistakenly feeding on plastic floating in and around the seaweed.

Post-hatchling sea turtles are young and need to feed and grow rapidly. This means they are particularly at risk from the harmful consequences of ingesting plastic. We find it especially troubling that almost all of the animals we assessed had ingested plastic in such large quantities. Plastic pollution is only one of many human-related threats that these charismatic and endangered creatures face at sea.

Stemming the plastic tsunami

Since plastic persists for hundreds of years in the environment, clearing it from the oceans will require ingenious cleanup technologies, as well as lower-tech beach and shore cleanups. But in our view, the top priority should be curbing the rampant flow of plastic that is swamping oceans and coasts.

Earth's ecosystems, especially the oceans, are interconnected, so reducing plastic waste will require global solutions. They include improving methods for recycling plastics; developing bio-based plastics; banning single-use plastic items in favor of more sustainable or reusable alternatives; and reducing shipment of plastic waste abroad to countries with lax regulatory regimes, from where it is more likely to enter the environment.

Our observations in post-hatchling turtles are part of a growing body of research showing how plastic pollution is harming wildlife. We believe it is time for humanity to face up to its addiction to plastic, before we find ourselves wading through swathes of plastic debris and wondering what went wrong.

160 turtles caught in plastic waste rescued from Bangladesh beach

---

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why haven’t plastic-eating bacteria fixed the ocean plastic pollution problem?

Scientists have discovered enzymes from several plastic-eating bacteria. So, why are our oceans still full of plastic pollution?

Credit: Naja Bertolt Jensen / Unsplash

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Many enzymes only work for one specific kind of plastic, but much of our trash combines several kinds of plastic.

 
Enzymes work (and bacteria live) only under certain environmental conditions, such as those found in a controlled laboratory. We won't be able to sprinkle plastic-eating bacteria into the ocean.

 
Even if we could, the enzymes or bacteria could produce toxic byproducts.

Scientists from the University of Texas announced they’ve created a plastic-eating enzyme that could keep billions of pounds of plastic out of landfills.

Now, if that sentence gives you déjà vu, you’re not alone.

Followers of science news may have seen similar exciting headlines over the years, from 2008’s Science Fair Project Isolates Plastic-Eating Microbes–about a 17-year-old science fair winner who got bacteria to degrade plastic bags by 43%–to last month’s New Enzyme Discovery is a New Step Towards Beating Plastic Waste, wherein British scientists developed an enzyme that could break down PTA, an ingredient in plastic bottles.

You’ve seen lots of similar titles in between: “New super-enzyme eats plastic bottles six times faster,” “Plastic-eating bacteria could help aid global recycling efforts,” etc., which give the impression of a silver bullet (itself undoubtedly recyclable) that will slay our monstrous plastic problem.

Why are these plastic-eating bacteria just twiddling their thumbs? We’ve got a crisis to deal with!

So what is taking so long? Why are these bacteria just twiddling their thumbs while we have a crisis to deal with?

It turns out there are a few reasons things aren’t so simple:

Plastic isn’t all the same. Many enzymes or bacteria only work for one specific kind of plastic, and much of our trash combines several kinds of plastic.

Most plastic-recycling efforts focus on PET, the plastic used in plastic bottles. PET represents about 20% of global plastic waste. It’s chemically easier to break down than polyethylene or polypropylene, types used in plastic film and food packaging.

That’s an important caveat: most of these solutions would only put a dent in our plastic problem, rather than solve it entirely.

Many solutions only work under special conditions. Often, the reactions or bacteria only work at certain temperatures, in special environments, or after extended periods of time. The harder it is to create the conditions, the less practical it is to do it at scale. This also means that it’s unlikely bacteria will solve the issue of plastic pollution already in nature — more on that soon.


They cost too much. These processes can be expensive. Further, most solutions simply break down plastic to its original monomers, which are really only useful for creating more plastic.

This has two problems: one, it doesn’t reduce the amount of plastic in the world, and two, making new plastic is already really cheap. Creating a costly factory, shipping tons of waste to it, and having bacteria slowly churn out ingredients that are worth virtually nothing — and still aren’t biodegradable — isn’t a great business model or arguably even an efficient use of taxpayer funds.

It’s not necessarily safe or effective to release in nature. Often there’s an assumption that this bacteria could be released to chew through the mountains of plastic we currently have buried in landfills, swirling in the oceans, or scattered as litter.

But even if bacteria or enzymes could work under totally unregulated conditions, it could have toxic byproducts, destroy plastic that is still in use (like, say, the device you’re using to read this right now, cutting you off from finishing this valuable article), or require releasing tremendous quantities into an area to make a difference.

So, for now, these technologies could really only be used within our existing recycling systems, rather than being a fundamentally new alternative. We will still have to sort, collect, and process all the plastic we want the bacteria to eat.

Fortunately, there’s also some good news: scientists from Japan to Saudi Arabia to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory are working on these problems, and things are improving.

For example, the recent discovery at UT-Austin identified an enzyme that cuts the time to break down plastic to a matter of hours, and it can work at the relatively attainable temperature of 50° C (122° F). And it was found using an AI algorithm that could continue to iterate and improve its performance.

Fortunately, there’s also some good news: scientists from the US to Saudi Arabia to Japan are working on these problems, and things are improving.

And the first demonstration plant dedicated to enzyme-based plastic recycling recently opened. French firm Carbios, which runs it, announced they have successfully produced new plastic bottles from PET with a process that makes them infinitely recyclable.

That is a breakthrough worth celebrating. Today, even if plastic is recycled (over 80% is not, including over 90% in the US), it can generally only be turned into lower-quality plastic, for niche uses like carpeting.

Traditional mechanical recycling processes are expensive and inefficient, requiring waste to be sorted, shredded, cleaned, melted and pelletized — and discarding any batches contaminated with food or incompatible materials. Chemical recycling processes can often create their own toxic byproducts.

Carbios is planning to create a commercial-scale facility by 2024, and while it doesn’t expect their plastic to be as cheap as freshly made varieties, they hope environmentally-minded companies and consumers will pay a little extra for it. Plus, its approach will allow plastic to be recycled from mixed garbage more efficiently and with less waste.

We don’t have to rely on miracle bacteria to do our dirty work.

Time will tell if new processes will help chip away at our plastic problem. In the meantime, other scientists and companies are creating biodegradable materials that can replace plastics altogether, from MIT’s cellulose-based solution to companies using bacteria to grow sustainable materials. Governments in Europe are taking another approach and banning harder-to-recycle plastics.

And of course you don’t have to wait for any of them — individuals around the world are finding creative ways to reduce their own plastic use. Exciting as they may be, we don’t have to rely on miracle bacteria to do our dirty work.

This article was originally published by our sister site, Freethink.

 

The Struggle Against Plastic Choking the Mekong

Plastic litter lining the banks of the Mekong (Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

Published Dec 22, 2024 8:19 PM by Dialogue Earth

 

 

LONG READ

[By Anton L. Delgado]

On Son Island in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, Le Trung Tin scatters fish feed into his ponds, where dozens of snakehead fish leap through the surface in synchronised bursts. “I taught them how to do that,” he says proudly, tossing another handful of feed at his fish.

The scene looks idyllic, but Le’s fish farm is a reluctant response to an escalating crisis. For decades, he made his living fishing the Hau River, a distributary of the Mekong. But in recent years, plastic waste clogged his nets and strangled the fish. “I had no choice but to stop,” he says. “Everything was tangled – trash, nets, even the fish themselves. It was hopeless.”

Now, Le relies on enclosed ponds using filtered water to keep his fish alive. “I built this ecological environment free of plastic waste, chemical spills and [protected it from] extreme weather,” he says.

(Video: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

Le’s experience reflects the wider challenges facing the Mekong. Stretching over 4,300 kilometres from the Tibetan Plateau to the South China Sea, the river supports nearly 70 million people and some of the world’s most biodiverse ecosystems. Yet, it is one of the most plastic-polluted rivers in the world and among the 10 rivers in Asia that carry the vast majority of plastic to the sea. The Mekong dumps – by some estimates – tens of thousands of tonnes each year into the ocean, with plastic waste accumulating along its banks, tributaries and lakes.

Plastic enters the Mekong in myriad ways – agricultural runoff, unregulated dumping and a flood of single-use packaging from upstream countries like China and Myanmar. It accumulates in hotspots like Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia and the wetlands of Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, where this plastic waste threatens biodiversity, food security and human health.

The unchecked proliferation of single-use plastics, combined with a lack of waste management infrastructure across the region, has resulted in widespread mismanagement of plastic waste – much of which is neither recycled, incinerated nor properly disposed in landfills. Vietnam, often ranked as the world’s fourth-largest contributor of mismanaged plastic waste, also accounts for a significant share of marine plastic debris, highlighting the country’s struggle to address the crisis effectively.

Addressing the Mekong’s plastic pollution crisis will require coordinated efforts from regional governments and transboundary organisations, however experts say a lasting solution requires a bold global agreement limiting plastic use and production, combined with enforceable regional policies.

A global crisis: Will the plastics treaty deliver?

Hopes were high as national negotiators gathered in Busan, South Korea, to finalise the Global Plastics Treaty – an ambitious UN effort aimed at tackling the global plastic pollution crisis. However, the talks were adjourned earlier this month without agreement, leaving campaigners frustrated in their push for the treaty to address both ends of the crisis: limiting plastic production and improving global waste-management systems.

On Sunday 1 December, the final day of the summit, Eirik Lindebjerg, global plastics policy lead for WWF, said governments were “no closer to agreeing on a solution to the worsening plastic crisis.”

“For too long, a small minority of states have held the negotiation process hostage. It is abundantly clear that these countries have no intention of finding a meaningful solution to this crisis,” he continued in a press release. “It is unjust that those who bear the greatest burden of plastic pollution are being denied the opportunity to forge a solution among themselves by those profiteering off the unregulated production and consumption of plastic.”

Critics also point out that previous global agreements to resolve environmental crises, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, have fallen short of their goals due to weak enforcement mechanisms and the influence of powerful industry lobbying groups.

A plastic bag full of waste floats down the Ruak River, a tributary of the Mekong on the border of Myanmar and Thailand. Nearby, a rescued elephant plays in the water. The United Nations Environment Programme warns plastic pollution could triple by 2040, threatening the biodiversity of this rich ecosystem (Image: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

Plastic production has doubled over the past 20 years, with over 400 million tonnes produced annually. Single-use plastics, which make up half of this total, are particularly problematic, accounting for a significant portion of the waste clogging rivers like the Mekong. While technological solutions like recycling and waste-to-energy plants are often advocated by industry, their impact pales in comparison to the scale of production.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has warned that plastic pollution could triple by 2040 without drastic action.

“The price for inaction is far greater than wasted time, it puts both planetary and human health on the line and sets us up for a scenario where ambition could diminish over time,” says Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business with WWF. “We can’t back down on delivering a legally binding text that finally puts us on a course to eliminate plastic pollution,” he added.

Local fisher Boonrat Chaikeaw catches a net full of trash as he plies the Mekong’s waters by Chiang Khong on the border of Thailand and Laos (Image: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

Dialogue Earth visited four plastic-waste hotspots along the lower reaches of the Mekong – Chiang Saen in Thailand, Phnom Penh and Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia and Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. These sites showcase the problems the plastics treaty needs to address: waste from newly produced plastic, the damaging impact of plastic waste on local people and the transnational nature of the problem.

Chiang Saen, Thailand: Where the Mekong’s plastic problem peaks

In northern Thailand, the Mekong flows past Chiang Saen near the Golden Triangle, where Thailand, Myanmar and Laos converge. Here, plastic waste collects in growing heaps along the riverbanks. The debris – food wrappers, plastic bottles and fishing nets – has floated downstream from upstream countries like China and Myanmar, clogging tributaries like the Ruak River.

“Sometimes it feels like the waste never ends,” says Poonyawee Srisantear, who manages a local elephant camp. Mahouts (elephant keepers) at the camp regularly collect rubbish from the riverbanks to protect their elephants. “The smell of food clings to the plastic and elephants often mistake it for something to eat,” she explains. “When they swallow it, it can be life-threatening to them.”

(Video: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

Although plastic waste is visible along the Mekong’s banks, quantitative information remains scarce. In recent years, international organisations have tried to quantify the scale of the problem.

Thailand, like many Mekong countries, also struggles with inadequate waste management systems, which exacerbate the problem. Over 150 plastic-waste hotspots have been identified across the country. A 2023 study detected close to 1,000 official and unofficial waste sites across Southeast Asia, nearly a fifth of which were located within 200m of a waterway. Almost half of these were in the five Mekong nations of Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

A volunteer douses a burning pile of rubbish at an unofficial dump site next to the Tonle Sap River in Cambodia. The lack of proper waste management exacerbates the problem of plastic pollution in most Mekong countries (Image: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

Chiang Saen is also the site of one of the Mekong River Commission’s (MRC) upcoming video monitoring stations, part of a broader initiative to track plastic flows across the basin. The MRC serves as an intergovernmental advisory body and the video monitoring system dovetails with its new protocols for riverine microplastic monitoring; the first guidelines standardising water health monitoring across the lower Mekong basin.

“We need more [and better] data to drive policy change,” says Phan Nam Long, a water quality officer with the MRC. “Without information on the scale of the problem, we cannot create effective solutions.”

Critics, however, argue that such monitoring efforts fall short of addressing the underlying problem, in part due to the MRC’s limited advisory role to the region’s governments.

“It is fine for the MRC to monitor. Yes, the more information, the better. But that can’t be the only thing the MRC or the Mekong nations do,” says Niwat Roykaew, also known as Kru Thi (teacher in Thai), an environmental activist, who founded the Mekong School. “We can see how the garbage impacts the river. We can see how the garbage impacts those dependent on the river. That is enough information for us to begin to act.”

Niwat wants to see a basin-wide accountability framework to tackle plastic pollution. But with no agreement from the UN in Busan, he questions whether the Mekong region will be able to overcome its own divisions to establish a unified approach.

“All the countries that share the Mekong River must share the responsibility,” he says. “Plastic is choking the river and the consequences affect us all – from the fish we eat to the water we drink.”

Recent studies conducted along the riverside near Niwat’s school underline his point.

“We’re addicted to plastics, now more than ever,” says Panate Manomaivibool, an assistant professor at Thailand’s Burapha University. Over the course of a year, ending in July 2022, his team collected 2,650 large waste samples from the waters around the Golden Triangle. He adds: “Compared to the scale of the problem, attempts to fix it are tiny.”

Panate’s research determined that 91% of the waste was plastic, with labels indicating around 30% originated in Myanmar and nearly 20% in China, underscoring the transboundary nature of the challenge. “Plastic pollution has already contaminated our food chain and all life in the Mekong,” he warns.

Panate tells Dialogue Earth he tries “to be optimistic that we are not yet at the irreversible turning point”, but fears the region’s addiction to plastic will be hard to break.

“We are the first generation facing this problem on this scale. Our ancestors, even our parents, were never exposed to this level of plastic pollution,” he says. “Without an alternative, our countries will always choose to use the cheapest, easiest option. For now, that remains plastic.”

The confluence of the Ruak and Mekong rivers marks the point where Myanmar, Laos and Thailand meet, an area known as the Golden Triangle. Over 4,300 km in length, the Mekong passes through or marks the borders of six countries (Image: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

The Thai government has taken action by announcing a ban on plastic waste imports from 2025, a move inspired by China’s 2018 restrictions, which redirected foreign waste to countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand itself. Yet domestic plastic consumption continues to rise.

“The more people there are, the more the city develops, the economy grows and the use of plastic increases,” says Saksan Chuamuangpan, director of Chiang Saen’s Public Health Department.

Waste production in the district has skyrocketed from two tonnes per day two decades ago to 15 tonnes today, he says, and warns a joint effort is needed.

Tonle Sap Lake: Cambodia’s beating heart

In Cambodia, Tonle Sap Lake – a vital freshwater fishery for Southeast Asia – is increasingly choked by plastic waste. Each monsoon season, the Tonle Sap River reverses flow, carrying waste upstream into the lake. This cycle has made the survival of the lake’s ecosystems ever more uncertain.

Since assuming the role of Cambodia’s environment minister last year, Eang Sophalleth has made addressing plastic pollution a priority. As part of a national anti-plastics campaign he has called on half of Cambodia’s 17 million inhabitants to reduce their use of plastics.

“Plastic is our number one enemy,” he said at the September launch of the campaign.

Cambodia also joined the Global Plastic Action Partnership last year and signed an agreement with Laos to tackle cross-border plastic pollution. But the focus has been on changing public perception and plastic habits, with little mention of plastic manufacturers or waste management improvements. Eang says only when plastic reduction targets are met, will a major clean-up of Tonle Sap Lake, the nation’s main source of protein, take place. “There’s no point in cleaning if we’re throwing away more than we clean up,” he said.

As it stands, though, much of the plastic continues to accumulate in fishing nets and along the shorelines, with little evidence of progress on waste reduction.

The propeller of a fishing boat on Tonle Sap Lake, jammed by a plastic bag. Fishers on the lake, and elsewhere along the Mekong, face a daily struggle with plastic waste, which breaks their motors and clogs up their nets (Image: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

In Kampong Phluk, a fishing village on Tonle Sap Lake, plastic waste disrupts daily life for local communities. Sophal Sea, director of the NGO Bambooshoot, says the debris is damaging livelihoods. “The nets get tangled, motors break down and fish stocks are declining,” he says.

Welcoming the government’s apparent focus on plastic, he adds: “This is the first time I’ve heard government leaders promise that kind of support.” However, he stressed the need for political support and regulations to address the systemic issues fuelling the crisis and to wean Cambodia off what he described as its “trash culture”.

Plastic disposal options are scarce in villages surrounding the lake, leading residents to dump waste directly into the water.

“Most people don’t know how to dispose of their waste properly. They just throw it everywhere,” says Srey Toch, a litter picker with River Ocean Cleanup who has joined Sophal and a group of volunteers to collect rubbish at the confluence of the Tonle Sap and Mekong rivers.

Srey Toch’s observations are corroborated by Sovann Nou, River Ocean Cleanup’s executive director, who attributes the problem to inadequate household and industrial waste management, combined with limited awareness amongst the public regarding the impact plastic waste has.

Walking along the riverbank, he stops to hold up some of the debris: plastic tarps, bottles and tyres. At one point he pauses to pick up a dead turtle lying among the waste – its death a stark reminder of the toll plastic pollution takes on wildlife.

As the Mekong flows south past Phnom Penh toward Vietnam, Eang expressed hope that other upstream nations will follow Cambodia’s lead in beginning to take steps to tackle plastic pollution. “If we clean up plastics, downstream communities like Vietnam will be grateful. We’ll all benefit,” he said.

Can Tho: Where the Mekong meets the sea

In Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, the river fans out into a vast network of tributaries and wetlands supporting millions of people through farming and fishing. Known as Vietnam’s “rice bowl”, this fertile region is also heavily impacted by plastic pollution, with much of the waste from upstream deposited in its waterways and rice fields.

By the time the Mekong reaches Vietnam’s Delta, the river carries the accumulated waste of its 4,300km journey.

“Most inland waste reaches the river through canals, especially during annual flooding,” says Nguyen Xuan Hoang, a researcher from Can Tho University’s College of Environment and Natural Resources. “Most of this plastic isn’t from Vietnam, but as the basin’s lowest point, we suffer the most.”

Back on Son Island, on the Hau River, Le has experienced this suffering firsthand, but switching to fish farming in enclosed ponds appears to have paid off. He notes a reduction in fish deaths, combined with an increase in profits compared to his previous ventures in the plastic-choked waters of the river.

“Living in harmony with nature is essential for fish farming, but it’s becoming harder in the delta,” he adds, acknowledging the additional effort required to shield his livelihood from the worsening environmental challenges.

For farmers like Trung Tin, in nearby Thoi Lai District, the pollution is impossible to ignore. Due to a lack of plastic waste disposal options, farmers often leave fertiliser and pesticide bottles in fields, fearing the release of toxins if they burn them. Rain washes these bottles and residues into the canals, polluting the delta’s waterways.

Rice farmer Trung Tin picks up plastic waste from his paddy field in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Lacking waste disposal infrastructure, he says farmers often have no choice but to leave used fertiliser and pesticide bottles – like the one he is carrying – in their fields (Image: Anton L. Delgado / Dialogue Earth)

According to Trung, who has farmed rice for over 20 years, “the climate now is not easy”. “The soil has less nutrition, and we must protect crops, even if it means using more chemicals.” Seeing discarded bottles in the river, he adds: “It’s scary to think about what’s in the fish we eat.”

Cong Thuan Nguyen, another researcher at Can Tho University, confirmed that agricultural waste from rice farms is a significant source of pollution. “We’re still trying to understand the full scale. The more we learn, the more the problem grows,” he tells Dialogue Earth.

In 2019, the Vietnamese government appeared to take steps to combat the plastic crisis, by announcing a ban on plastic waste imports starting in 2025. In 2022, it implemented the Extended Producer Responsibility policy, requiring companies to manage the recycling of their products and packaging to reduce waste and promote sustainability.

Despite these commitments, the country was the world’s fourth largest importer of plastic waste in 2022, adding to its waste management struggles. A significant proportion – up to 30% – of this imported plastic leaks into rivers and waterways, including the Mekong Delta, often carried by runoff or untreated wastewater.

As the 2025 deadline for plastic waste imports approaches, Vietnam’s ability to enforce the ban and transition to alternative recycling or disposal systems will be critical to reducing the plastic burden on the Mekong Delta and safeguarding the livelihoods it sustains. Among these challenges is the need for greater clarity from Vietnam, whose stance on INC-5 appears to straddle both national economic interests, particularly in the plastics industry, and broader commitments to addressing global plastic pollution. Moving forward, Vietnam will need to prioritise one over the other to demonstrate its commitment to tangible action.

Thailand, meanwhile, has expressed support for a legally binding international agreement to reduce plastic waste and mitigate its environmental and health impacts. However, its heavy reliance on single-use plastics and limited progress in addressing domestic waste management challenges raise questions about how effectively these commitments will be implemented. Similarly, while Cambodia has emphasised the importance of effective implementation mechanisms, including the establishment of national committees under Article 8 of the treaty, its capacity to deliver on these objectives remains uncertain. The country’s reliance on international collaboration, capacity-building and technical assistance underscores gaps in its existing infrastructure to tackle plastic pollution independently.

Meanwhile, grassroots efforts are working to clean the Mekong Delta despite overwhelming odds. Waste-collecting boats regularly navigate canals to remove debris and NGOs run educational campaigns to reduce dependency on single-use plastic.

The Mekong’s plastic crisis is not just a regional issue; it is emblematic of a global failure to manage waste sustainably. As the river carries tens of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste into the South China Sea each year, its plight underscores the urgency of solutions at every level – local, regional and global.

“We have not yet reached the summit of our efforts,” INC chair Luis Vayas said on Sunday, at the end of seven days of negotiation that concluded without consensus. The meeting was adjourned, with plans to reconvene next year, leaving questions about how soon tangible actions might address pressing issues like plastic pollution in the Mekong Delta.

Without intervention, the Mekong will continue offloading plastic into the South China Sea. From the first signs of plastic pollution in the Golden Triangle to the plastic-clogged canals of the delta, the river’s journey highlights the urgent need for coordinated, cross-border action to protect both the river and the millions who depend on it.

Anton L. Delgado is a multimedia journalist based in Cambodia, covering news and the environment across the region. He is also a former Pulitzer fellow.

This article appears courtesy of Dialogue Earth and may be found in its original form here. 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.