The death of Mr. C K Rajkumar made the news on October 7, 2020. An innovator and entrepreneur at heart, the article honoured  Mr. CK Raj Kumar as the ‘sachet king’. His shampoo-in-a-sachet (Velvette) was the first on the FMCG scene in India in the 80s, making an entry well before even industry giant Unilever, through its subsidiary Hindustan Unilever.  Since those humble beginnings, the market pie of sachet shampoos in India has grown in leaps and bounds. By some accounts, single serve shampoo sachets now constitute 70 percent of the sales value in India.

The economic success of the sachet

A sachet can be described as a flexible, single-serve (or small serve) pouch that is smaller than an A4 sheet of paper and made of either single-layered or multi-layered plastic.The mechanism for the success of sachets is really quite simple.  A brand, which hitherto might have been the mainstay of the middle-class, once it is miniaturised and sealed into a sachet, can be bought by even the most cost-conscious. This has led to brands positioning their sachet products as pro-poor, almost leading one to believe that this is a form of service they are offering to the community. CK Prahalad’s 2004 book ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, created exactly such a call, urging companies to rise to the challenge of serving the poor; in Bill Gates’ words ‘fight poverty with profitability’. Sadly, the most creative rise to the challenge that companies offered was through the sachet deployment strategy.

However, does the purchase of a sachet-product actually depend on the purchasing power of a person?  A 2009 study found that even three decades after Dr. Rajkumar’s innovation, market penetration for sachet-packaged shampoos only stood at 14%. An opinion piece in the Harvard Business Review, meanwhile, advised corporations that making products smaller and cheaper did not necessarily offer them guaranteed  access to the ‘poor’ market. It cited an example from the Dharavi slum in Mumbai, where residents had several innovative ways of cutting costs of essential products, without depending on sachets (and brands) to do that for them.

In fact, some academicians question the rationale of brands attempting to sell mini-products to low-income communities. Instead of treating these customers as a group with very specific needs and demands, who can be served through innovation and creative delivery, companies want to cut innovation costs and merely re-package their product in smaller quantities and flood markets with these miniatures. More importantly, they continue doing this even when other modes of delivery might be more successful.

As a case in point, HUL has created campaigns such as Shakti to  target the rural markets. On the face of it, the campaign is projected as promoting ‘rural hygiene’ and empowering women; what it actually does is train local village women to act as sales agents for the company where they go door-to-door selling sachets of HUL products. When a door-to-door campaign is being deployed, why still sell sachets when a refill-reuse system could so easily be set up? It appears that Unilever, even under such ripe conditions, is reluctant to discontinue the use of sachets and promote refill systems. This FMCG giant alone sells 27 billion sachet units in the country annually.

One could conclude that brands selling sachets to be ‘pro-poor’ is merely illusory. So who are these companies actually selling to? The newer markets these companies have discovered are not necessarily the poor who are now embracing the new packaging and the reduced price, but an increasing number of urban users (who could otherwise have afforded the product in larger quantities and in a bottle);  imagine a single-dose coffee sachet carried to work; a shampoo sachet carried to the gym; a face cream sachet carried on an overnight business trip. Companies, having created the perception that time is money are now capitalising on the perceived convenience, hygiene and correct dosage features of the sachet. This is what enables them to sell in sachets across income groups.

The environmental disaster from the sachet

The problem with plastic-packaging (unlike glass bottles or tin containers) is that they have no inherent value or purpose, once emptied of their contents. This problem is much more pronounced in the case of sachets. They are designed to be discarded after one use, and are impossible to collect back. Sachets typically comprise more than one layer of plastic, and are often combined with layers of other materials such as paper or metal (foil).

Even when collected, the multiple layers of a sachet cannot be separated, thus making it impossible to recover and recycle the different materials. Even a single-layered sachet (made of a single material), because of the additives used for colouring the product or imbuing it with flexibility, fire retardant properties etc, cannot simply be melted and extruded into new products without significant toxic releases from the process.

As the properties of a sachet make it a hard candidate to be recycled, refuse derived fuel (RDF) is now on the ascent as a ‘meaningful way’ of making use of plastic waste. The explanation the public is being offered is that these tonnes of plastic waste need no longer be ‘waste’, but a useful source of energy. An outstanding example is the increasing number of cement kilns which are now running on plastic waste. This is nothing but an unholy nexus between plastic manufacturers and cement companies. Both industries have a proven track record of pollution and contribution to the climate crisis. And the two have now joined hands under the pretense of creating a circular economy. All that RDF does is amplify the toxic properties of plastic through the burning process.

Neither pro-poor, nor climate friendly

The sachets’ small size, which gives it a 5-star rating for convenience, is also the reason they are hard to collect. That they additionally have little to no re-sale value means that they are not worth being collected and transferred to any site by waste pickers. They therefore lie where they are discarded, until finally one day, either rainwater borne, or wind borne, they are transported into conduits and culverts of a storm water drain, causing local flooding. Ultimately, whether it ends in a landfill or blocking a storm-water drain or in a garbage pile or as refuse derived fuel or in an incinerator, a sachet’s end of life journey is typically in the backyard of a  low-income community. All this, ostensibly from a product that was designed to open up a world of branded opportunities to the poor.

The sachet then, once perceived as shimmering with opportunities to help the poor, is now fast losing its sheen. With millions of tonnes of plastic already accumulating in landfills, people and governments are waking up to the fact that sachets are a waste nightmare. The big players in the business like Unilever and Nestle are jostling for space in what is essentially a very crowded market. Market research after market research indicates that sachets are becoming the mainstay of the Indian middle class. It’s now there for all to see that the poorer communities who are touted as the beneficiaries of the sachet business, are actually the victims of the sachet market.

It is well within the reach of companies and brands to cope with a complete sachet ban. They just have to bring their much celebrated innovation powers and design capacity, to create solutions that are truly pro-poor. Refill and reuse systems are all possible for brands to achieve to let them continue selling across geographical areas and income brackets. Come on brands! Let us see some of that determination that innovators and entrepreneurs brought to the business to create sachets in the first place! Let’s right this wrong!

About the image
Creator: Vivek Prakash
Credit: Bloomberg
Copyright:  2014 Bloomberg Finance LP

October 25, 2021 --- The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo are ranked as the world’s top plastic polluters for the 4th consecutive year according to Break Free From Plastic, whose latest global Brand Audit report also charges the same leading plastic polluters for fueling the climate crisis.   

Global beach cleanups were carried out by more than 11,000 volunteers in 45 countries to identify the most common plastic polluters. This year’s Brand Audit found nearly 20,000 Coca-Cola branded products, which represents more pollution than the next two top polluters combined—as has been the case each year since 2019. This suggests that Coca-Cola’s pledge to collect one bottle for every one sold is having little impact on the company’s plastic pollution.

PepsiCo also remains one of the top three plastic polluters for the third year in a row. Despite the company’s recent voluntary commitments to halve the use of virgin plastic by 2030, PepsiCo will need to make a more ambitious shift to reusable containers in order to move down the list, given the sheer volume of PepsiCo branded plastic pollution being collected around the world.

For the first time since global brand audits began in 2018, Unilever has risen to become the #3 top polluter during the same year that the company is serving as a Principal Partner for the UN climate change summit COP26 in Glasgow. Given that 99% of plastic is made from fossil fuels, and that the fossil fuel corporations are actively shifting their focus to plastic as an increasing source of revenue, Unilever’s role in COP26 is particularly insulting.

All of these companies are contributing significantly to both the climate crisis and the plastic pollution crisis.

Abigail Aguilar, Plastics Campaign Regional Coordinator, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said:
“It’s not surprising to see the same big brands as the world’s top plastic polluters for four years in a row. These companies claim to be addressing the plastic crisis, yet they continue to invest in false solutions while teaming up with oil companies to produce even more plastic. To stop this mess and combat climate change, multinationals like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Unilever must end their addiction to single-use plastic packaging and move away from fossil fuels.”

Ahead of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, this year’s Brand Audit shines a light on how the plastic industry is fueling the climate crisis, i.e. how Fast Moving Consumer Goods companies (FMCGs) like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Unilever, are driving the fossil fuel industry’s expansion of plastic production. 

Ahmed Elhadj Taieb, BFFP Youth Ambassador and General Secretary of Youth for Climate Tunisia, said:
“Younger generations are set to inherit the climate and plastic crises exacerbated by these polluting corporations who do not have concrete and real measures to avert these crises. The plastic industry's expansion plans will contribute to locking the world into a catastrophic high-emissions trajectory, hurting our chances of reaching below 1.5 degrees Centigrade (°C). We cannot continue with business-as-usual anymore, so we are taking action to hold these corporate polluters accountable.” 

Emma Priestland, Global Corporate Campaigns Coordinator, Break Free From Plastic, said:
“The world’s top plastic polluting corporations claim to be working hard to solve plastic pollution, but instead they are continuing to pump out harmful single-use plastic packaging. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels, including the significant amount of fossil fuels that are or will be turned into plastic. FMCGs need to reveal the extent of their plastic footprint, reduce it significantly by setting and implementing ambitious targets, and reinvent their packaging to be reusable and plastic-free. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Unilever should be leading the way in finding real solutions.” 

Recent studies have exposed that the top corporations behind the plastic pollution crisis are also contributing to the climate crisis. Consumer goods brands like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Mondelēz, Danone, Unilever, Colgate Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, and Mars, reportedly all buy packaging from manufacturers supplied with plastic resin by well-known petrochemical companies such as Aramco, Total, Exxon, and Shell. 

Neil Tangri, Science and Policy Director of GAIA, said:
“Despite their promises to do better, the same corporate polluters make the brand audit list year after year. It is clear that we cannot rely on these companies to do the right thing. It’s time for governments to step up and enact policies to reduce waste and hold producers accountable. Reducing plastic production is the only sure way to reduce plastic pollution, but our analysis of nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement (NDCs) shows that very few countries have made serious commitments to do so. Current investments in expanded plastic production mean that plastic will take upwards of 13% of the 1.5°C carbon budget by 2050. If world leaders do not take bold action to reduce plastic production, there is no way that we will meet the 1.5°C target and avoid climate catastrophe.” 

Close to 300 organizations in 76 countries have signed an open letter to COP26 delegates demanding a shift away from fossil fuel extraction and plastic production, and an investment in zero waste alternatives. 

This year, Break Free From Plastic’s brand audit–an annual citizen action initiative that involves counting and documenting the brands on plastic waste found in communities–collected 330,493 pieces of plastic from 45 countries through 440 organized brand audits conducted by over 11,000 volunteers across the globe. 

###

About BFFP –  #breakfreefromplastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,000 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the shared values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain—from extraction to disposal—focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions.www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

Notes to Editors:
1. Link to this year’s report
2. Brand Audit Toolkit
3. Q&A’s
4. BRANDED Volume III: Demanding Corporate Accountability for Plastic Pollution. (2020)
5. A Greenpeace USA report titled “Climate Emergency Unpacked” recently exposed the connection between the climate crisis and plastic pollution.
6. GAIA report titled, “Wasted Opportunities: A review of international commitments for reducing plastic- and waste-sector GHG emissions” uncovers how country commitments to reduce their climate footprint fail to include plastic reduction and zero waste systems. More information about the connection between waste and climate can be found at no-burn.org/cop26-plasticburns.

Regional Press Contact: 

Europe & Africa: Bethany Spendlove Keeley
Bethany@breakfreefromplastic.org +(49) 176 595 87 941

United States & Latin America: Brett Nadrich
Brett@breakfreefromplastic.org +1 (929) 269-4480

Asia & the Pacific: Jed Alegado
Jed@breakfreefromplastic.org +(63) 917 607 0248

Global Press Contacts:

Carolina Gonzalez, Global Communications Lead, Break Free From Plastic
Caro@breakfreefromplastic.org | +1 (646) 991-1013

Capucine Dayen, Global Communications Lead, Plastic-Free-Future, Greenpeace USA
cdayen@greenpeace.org | +33 6 47 97 18 19

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
claire@no-burn.org | +1 ‪(856) 895-1505

Mary Lou has led cleanups and collected litter data at this particular location 45 times since 2011 with her volunteer-run nonprofit, Be the Solution to Pollution. After years of collecting litter data, however, these changemakers took their activism to the next level with brand audits. Doing a brand audit takes that citizen science one step further by identifying the companies that are responsible for the plastic waste washing up on beaches and littering communities worldwide. 

Recently, both Mary Lou and Laura became Climate Reality leaders through the Climate Reality Project and are founding members of Climate Reality Massachusetts Southcoast. They have both become increasingly aware of the multiple connections between plastic and climate change so the brand audit was a joint effort between the two organizations, Be the Solution to Pollution and Climate Reality Massachusetts Southcoast. They also collaborated with youth leaders from our local chapter of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate justice network advocating for a Green New Deal in the USA.

We decided a Brand Audit would be a helpful activity to educate people about where plastic is coming from and why we need corporate responsibility for plastic pollution. Often, beach cleanups focus on personal responsibility and curbing littering, but with the brand audit, we shifted our focus to the companies responsible for creating the plastic in the first place. The audit gave us the information we needed to specifically call out the brands responsible for the disgusting beach litter you see above in our photos.

We had 62 volunteers of all ages participate in data collection and several helped sort plastics by brand onto a tarp so we could mail representative samples back to the companies that produced the plastic. It’s time these companies clean up after themselves, instead of us always cleaning up after them! We have done countless cleanups for years; more plastic debris always washes up soon after our cleanups.

Our volunteers recorded a total of 1,859 plastic waste items.  The top polluters were Dunkin Donuts, Poland Springs and Pepsico. We gathered plastic into boxes and mailed it back to these polluting companies with a letter created using the template from BFFP, which was especially empowering. This is called a return to Sender! Check out the Brand Audit Toolkit to learn more, so you can do this too.

The Brand Audit takes data collection to a new level by adding brand names to as many plastic waste items as possible.  As we entered names into the spreadsheet provided by Break Free From Plastic, parent company names popped up.  It was shocking to see the number of brands all owned by a small number of parent companies like The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo and others. 

Following the beach cleanup and brand audit, we had speeches from three local youth including a nine-year-old, two middle schoolers, and a college student from our local hub of the Sunrise Movement. Their speeches ranged from a detailed explanation of how plastic and climate change are intertwined (complete with citations!) to an impassioned plea to companies to break free from plastic and stop polluting and littering our world. One of our speakers even came up with her own acronym to help solve the problem! Empowering our youth to speak up about the problem and how it makes them angry is an important part of our mission. You can see their speeches and more about the day here.

We were fortunate to have a reporter from the local paper stay for our entire event.  She was very observant and asked great questions.  We ended up on the front page of the Sunday paper! We followed our brand audit up with a webinar later in the month about Toxic Plastics and Climate Change that featured Mary Lou, as well as BFFP’s global brand audit coordinator Sybil Bullock, and recent Goldman Environmental Prize winner Sharon Lavigne. And our work continues - we have plans to do our next brand audit on August 8, 2021!

About the authors:

Mary Lou Nicholson - Founder of Be the Solution to Pollution shoreline cleanup group, Climate leader with Climate Reality Project Southcoast MA, member of the education committee for Operation Clean Sweep in New Bedford, MA and professional nanny for 28 years.  On a mission to persuade people to switch to reusables and skip single use plastic since 2011. On Instagram as @marylou4oceans.

Laura Gardner- Chair of Climate Reality Massachusetts Southcoast, a new chapter in 2019. Teacher Librarian at Dartmouth Middle School in Dartmouth, Massachusetts and mom to two fabulous kids. On Instagram, Twitter, and Goodreads as @LibrarianMsG

Quezon City, Philippines —The pollution watchdog EcoWaste Coalition lauds the House of Representative for passing a national regulation on single-use plastic, which signifies a first step towards eradicating plastic pollution in the country. 

“We welcome the timely passage of House Bill 9147 and we now challenge our Senators to act and pass a stronger national single-use plastic regulation. The Senate version should be more aggressive, responsive and promote genuine solutions to curb plastic production and consumption and should not promote dirty solutions such as plastics offsetting, plastic credit, incineration and thermal treatment,” said Coleen Salamat, Plastic Solutions Campaigner of EcoWaste Coalition.

With 190 affirmative votes, zero negative, the House of Representatives approved in the final reading the House Bill 9147 last July 28, 2021. The bill sets a gradual phase-out period for different plastic products and imposes accountability to plastic producers and manufacturers. 

Similar bills on the regulation of single-use plastics have been filed in the Senate since 2019 but, so far, none of the bills have moved beyond the Committee level.      

2020 data from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Environmental Management Bureau, revealed that four hundred and eighty-eight (488) local government units have ordinances banning single-use plastics. With this, the stand of the local government against plastic pollution is evident.

“We only have a few weeks left in the legislative calendar and with the 2022 national elections fast approaching, we believe that now is the right time to pass the national regulation on single-use plastics. Our environment and communities cannot afford to go back to start with this bill in the new Congress,” said Salamat. 

It can be recalled that in 2019, Palace officials warmed up to the idea of a plastic ban. As the lower house passed House Bill 9147, the group urged the Philippine Senate to act in response to this. With the increasing plastic consumption due to the pandemic, plastic waste is estimated to increase by 300%. 

 # # #

For more information, please contact:

EcoWaste Coalition
info@ecowastecoalition.org   

On June 30, 2021, Climate Tracker and Break Free from Plastic launched a report titled The Plastic Pandemic: Has COVID-19 Shifted the Media Discourse on Plastics in Southeast Asia?, which assessed media coverage of plastics in Southeast Asia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The report, which is the first of its kind as it delves into the narrative frames used by journalists to communicate the issue of plastic pollution in Southeast Asia, draws from an in-depth analysis of media coverage in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines as well as interviews with a total of 43 journalists and media practitioners from the region. 

The report found that plastics, which are made from fossil fuels, were rarely discussed in the context of climate change. “Since climate change is one of the threats to long-term stability in Southeast Asia, there is really a need to address the plastics problem with renewed urgency,” said Patricia Valerio, Climate Tracker Research Manager. 

“Despite the efforts of Break Free from Plastic Asia Pacific and its members to shift the narrative, more work needs to be done in countering greenwashing and PR stunts of corporations which are geared towards stopgap measures,” added Jed Alegado, Senior Communications Officer for Break Free from Plastic, Asia Pacific. “Clearly, we need to strengthen the link between plastics and climate in the Asia Pacific region.” 

Another one of the report’s main findings is that, since media coverage focused on reducing plastic consumption instead of production, there was a heavy focus on individual responsibility and little scrutiny of plastic producers. The increase in plastic waste that accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly shift this discourse. 

“I found the notion that Southeast Asian media coverage is focused on individual responsibility instead of corporate and government accountability most compelling,” said Janssen Calvelo, Break Free from Plastic’s Network Organizer for Southeast Asia, about the report. “It posits that there is still much work to be done in sending the message that unless multinational and large corporations stop plastic production and ASEAN governments implement enabling environment through policies, real and substantial solutions to plastic will not be achieved.” 

Journalists across the region also faced multiple challenges in reporting on plastics. For example, in Malaysia, physical safety emerged as a concern among journalists who wanted to conduct investigations on plastic recycling factories. “Freedom of information is important and good for everyone,” said Heng Kiah Chun, Greenpeace Malaysia Campaigner, about the lack

of freedom-of-information laws in Malaysia. “Journalists and activists are having a hard time accessing reliable data from the government.” 

Still, the report shows that plastics were negatively framed across all Southeast Asian countries studied — an encouraging sign for advocates against plastic use. “The most interesting part of the report is learning that our effort since at least two decades ago to push the narrative against plastic pollution has been successful,” said Rahyang Nusantara, Indonesia Plastic Bag Diet Movement National Coordinator. “In Indonesia itself, 93 percent of media articles framed plastics negatively.” 

Journalists who want to deepen their reporting on the problem of plastic pollution are welcome to get in touch with organizations such as Break Free from Plastic and its partners. 

“Media practitioners, as well as those who are helping in further professionalizing this noble work, can get help from civil society organizations working on plastic pollution. We can offer collaborations, leads, and help in framing and angles of your story ideas,” Alegado said. “We need to dig deeper into the plastic pollution crisis from production up to disposal as well as its links to other social and environmental justice issues.” 

“Plastic pollution does not only impact our environment, but also has long-lasting and well-documented impacts on human rights, climate change, economy, and diplomacy, to name a few,” added Calvelo. “Feel free to reach out to us for more information and case studies.” 

Both the full report and an executive summary can be found here. A podcast that gives an overview of country researchers’ perspectives can be found on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and Stitcher. 

For more information, please contact the following: 

Jed Alegado
Break Free from Plastic Asia Pacific Senior Communications Officer
jed@breakfreefromplastic.org 

Yvonne Tan
Malaysia Researcher
yvonnetanyf@gmail.com 

Ariel Adimahavira
Indonesia Researcher
adimahavirariel@gmail.com

Kadesiree Thossaphonpaisan
Thailand Researcher
kade.thoss@gmail.com

ĐỗThuỳTrang
Vietnam Researcher
dotrangplvn@gmail.com 

Patricia Valerio
Philippines Researcher
Climate Tracker Research Manager
patricia@climatetracker.org

Quezon City, Philippines— Environmental organizations, civil-society groups, faith-based institutions, academe, and community-based organizations are calling on the government for effective and sustainable environmental protection during the anniversary of the passage of the Clean Air Act into law on June 23. The Act prohibits the use of incinerators for waste disposal. The Philippines is the first nation in the world to ban incinerators outright. 

In particular, the various groups are calling on the government to drop efforts to legalize garbage incineration through the Waste-to-Energy Act authored by Senator Sherwin Gatchalian. The groups are calling on the government to instead pass long-term, comprehensive waste management policies and safer practices that would reduce waste.

“Senator Win Gatchalian’s Waste-to-Energy Bill would defeat the purpose of the Clean Air Act and must be junked immediately by the 18th Congress. This proposed bill will only favor big waste management companies who will profit at the expense of taxpayers, local communities, and the environment. We demand that our government officials and lawmakers perform their sworn duties to enforce environmental laws and hold polluters accountable, ” stressed Aileen Lucero of the EcoWaste Coalition. 

“What we need is a strong political will among our leaders and the government’s sincerity in addressing environmental issues such as excessive waste production and disposal. With the current pandemic, there must be a united plan in mitigating these problems by disallowing the funding of dirty energy projects like waste-to-energy incinerators which endanger the health of citizens due to the release of harmful greenhouse gas, and poisonous chemicals such as dioxins and furans,” she further said.                                         

In a letter sent to the Senate last month and signed by the groups, they reiterated the need for stricter implementation of environmental laws and the potential harm WTE technologies and facilities pose to human health, communities, and the environment.

“The government should pursue solutions that genuinely protect and preserve the constitutional rights to health and a balanced and healthful ecology. One key problem with Waste-to-Energy technologies is that they legitimize continued extraction from the environment; while also contributing to climate change, polluting the environment and threatening human health. WtE technologies promote a false narrative that harms efforts to pursue real sustainable solutions aimed at reducing waste production and achieving a circular economy,” said Lievj Alimangohan of No Burn Pilipinas. 

“Although several laws were passed together with the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 to protect our communities and the environment, such as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000; Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990; the Philippine Mining Act of 1995; the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998; and the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004, among others, but still these laws are the most notoriously violated and unfunded in our country,” added Rei Panaligan of Plastic-Free Pilipinas Project.

They also said there are viable and eco-friendly solutions to address our waste problem without resorting to polluting disposal methods like burning and incineration.

“WTE facilities do not provide a safe, technologically advanced means of waste disposal but with the Zero Waste approach, barangays have managed to reduce and eliminate waste off our streets and even saved millions of pesos while creating jobs,” said Archie Abellar of GAIA Asia Pacific.

“Municipalities and barangays in the country are already practicing zero-waste which is a circular system that minimizes unnecessary extraction and consumption, reduces waste, and ensures that products and materials are reused or recycled back into nature or into the market,” he added.

# # #

For more information, please contact:

Geri Matthew Carretero
Communications Officer
09176216901
Plastic-Free Pilipinas Project 

The Plastic-Free Pilipinas project is a collaboration of #breakfreefromplastic members EcoWaste Coalition, GAIA Asia Pacific, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Health Care Without Harm Southeast Asia and Mother Earth Foundation. The #breakfreefromplastic is a global movement working towards a future free from plastic pollution.

June 22, 2021 -  Top fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies are churning out plastic pollution ‘solution’ projects that do very little to solve the plastic pollution crisis. The Break Free From Plastic global movement has tracked and analysed projects that seven major companies and eight alliances claim are part of their response to plastic pollution. Titled “Missing the Mark: Unveiling Corporate False Solutions to the Plastic Pollution Crisis", the report categorizes 265 corporate projects to determine how much attention companies are giving proven solutions such as reuse, compared to false solutions. Out of a total of 265 projects running from 2018 to April 2021, only 39 were focused on reuse and a total of 226 projects were designated as false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis as defined by experts from the Break Free From Plastic movement. The report analyzed the initiatives of  Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, Mars, Inc., Mondelez International, Nestlé, Unilever and Coca-Cola Company, consistent top polluters in the global brand audits conducted by Break Free From Plastic. 

“The world’s top polluting companies claim to be tackling plastic pollution, but the evidence for how serious they are is in the numbers. These companies are pursuing false solutions that range from potentially damaging at worst, and simple wishful thinking, at best. What the findings reveal is that only 15% of the projects are proven solutions like reuse, refill, and alternative delivery systems. Instead, these companies are investing in projects that do little to eliminate single-use plastics.” said Emma Priestland, Break Free From Plastic Corporate Campaigns Coordinator. 

The report ranked the companies from absolute worst to least worst. It finds that Procter & Gamble is the absolute worst at solving plastic pollution, and Unilever the least worst, but still performing poorly. 

Greenpeace USA Global Project Leader Graham Forbes said: 

“This report offers yet another example of big brands failing to prioritize reuse and the reduction of throwaway packaging. It is clear that reuse-based alternatives are essential for these companies to remain viable in a climate-safe future and end their contributions to the plastic pollution crisis. Instead of working with the fossil fuel industry to promote false solutions, these companies must end their reliance on single-use plastics and scale-up systems of reuse globally.”

Yuyun Ismawati of Nexus3 Foundation in Indonesia and  a member of the expert panel which analyzed the corporations’ initiatives, said:

“In Asia, we’ve been seeing a lot of these false solutions that these companies and their alliances are peddling. Chemical recycling creates new toxic waste; plastic to fuel or Refuse Derived Fuel is contrary to the circular economy, and plastic offsetting is upsetting because it fails to answer the plastic crisis. These types of initiatives show a lack of ambition and prioritization of alternative product delivery methods. Multinational corporations have more than enough resources to invest in new delivery systems, reuse, refill and redesign, that would allow for a dramatic reduction in the use of single-use plastics. They should change the way of doing business and stop greenwashing.” #ends 

CONTACT: 

Jed Alegado
Senior Communications Officer - Asia Pacific
+639176070248
jed@breakfreefromplastic.org 

Brett Nadrich
Communications Officer - US
+1 (929) 269-4480
brett@breakfreefromplastic.org 

Lys Mehou-Loko
Communications Officer - Europe
+31621494684
lys@breakfreefromplastic.org

Break Free From Plastic works to envision a future free from plastic pollution that advances environmental justice, social justice, and racial justice all together as part of a single, globally-connected Movement for Justice.

The plastic pollution crisis disproportionately impacts communities of color, including particular harm that the petrochemical industry does to Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities in the U.S. Earlier this year, UN human rights experts denounced environmental racism in the “Cancer Alley” region of Louisiana with the following historical context: “Originally called Plantation Country where enslaved Africans were forced to labour, the petrochemical corridor along the lower Mississippi River has not only polluted the surrounding water and air, but also subjected its mostly African American residents to cancer, respiratory diseases and other adverse health effects.” Additionally, the Clean Air Task Force estimates that 1.8 million Latinx people in the U.S. have increased odds of respiratory illness and fertility issues because they live within one-half mile of an oil and gas facility. Many of these companies are extracting and refining fossil fuels in order to make plastic, and generating toxic emissions in the process. Beyond the issues caused by this “upstream” pollution, there are additional challenges around plastic incineration, landfill, and other “downstream” waste in communities of color across the country.

We are honored to work together with groups who are protecting their communities from the harmful impacts of plastic at every part of its lifecycle. Today, in recognition of Juneteenth, we are celebrating a few of the many inspiring Black community groups leading this fight in the U.S. 

June 19, 1865—known as Juneteenth—marks the emancipation of the last remaining enslaved African-Americans following the end of the U.S. Civil War. On June 19, 2020, the BFFP US Coordination Team launched Community Action Micro-Funds for Black Communities on the Frontlines of the Plastic Pollution Crisis. With the support of the Plastic Solutions Fund, we provided $40,000 in micro-funds in 2020 to support local organizations working on protecting Black communities from the impact of plastic pollution.

As the U.S. government recognized Juneteenth as a federal holiday for the first time this year, we are shining a light on the important work that seven environmental justice groups are doing to protect Black communities from the harms caused by plastic. 

In Louisiana, local leaders are working together to advocate for their fellow community members and stop the petrochemical industry. The Concerned Citizens of St. John the Baptist Parish (CCSJ) recently installed four new air monitoring sensors in collaboration with RISE St. James and other local organizations. This is vital work because St. John the Baptist Parish houses more than 200 refineries, plastic manufacturers, and petrochemical facilities, and the rates of asthma among children are 2.5 times higher there than the national and state averages.

With this air monitoring data, CCSJ and RISE St. James are developing informational flyers designed to raise awareness about the sources and risks of local industrial emissions. This project empowers residents to challenge industry-generated messages, participate actively in regulatory permitting processes, and advocate for community-centered solutions as they hold government and industry officials accountable for the harms of plastic pollution.

RISE St. James has also hosted community events that bring people together to celebrate their history while advancing their broader campaign to stop Formosa Plastics from building a giant petrochemical complex in St. James Parish, Louisiana. On June 19, 2020, RISE St. James hosted a Juneteenth convocation to honor the lives of their members’ enslaved ancestors who are buried on land where the proposed Formosa Plastics complex has been sited. In October, they also hosted an “All Saints Day Service” to celebrate the lives of their enslaved ancestors at the same gravesites. These events bring community members together to acknowledge the history of racial exploitation, discuss the ongoing prioritization of profits over people, and take action to realize environmental justice. 

In New Orleans, The Louisiana League of Conscious Voters has done incredible work on outreach, education and advocacy that enables Black Louisianians to know their rights and advance strategies to prevent the petrochemical industry from passing bills that would create more plastic pollution and decrease corporate accountability. 

At the same time, groups in Texas and Illinois are further advocating for change through their local municipalities. The Port Arthur Community Action Network has developed and proposed new City Hall programs to reduce plastic pollution, concentrating on intervening in the state permitting process to target petrochemical facilities directly in order to reduce all forms of pollution and environmental contamination. Meanwhile, after the Chicago Housing Authority canceled its recycling contract without any community input or prior notice, the People for Community Recovery developed a campaign to bring back the community-led recycling program and implement community education projects about the negative effects of plastics in the environment. 

Focusing on “downstream” pollution, the West Atlanta Watershed Alliance has installed and maintained floatable plastic trash interceptors within the Proctor Creek tributary and Chattahoochee River Watershed. In addition to collecting debris, this project has also created an opportunity to develop and evaluate measurable recycling and stewardship activities while enabling youth engagement and education on the environmental and public health impacts of plastics. Also in the State of Georgia, the Susie King Taylor Women's Institute and Ecology Center has been advocating for more compostable utensils and drinking products manufactured from biodegradable sources as part of their work pressuring corporations to change their plastic packaging practices and move towards building zero waste communities.

Across the United States, these inspiring leaders continue working to protect Black lives and communities from the impacts of plastic pollution and the petrochemical companies that cause this harm. Once again, we raise our voices together with one unified message: Black Lives Matter.

BANGKOK/PRAGUE – In recognition of World Environment Day 2021, the NGOs EARTH (1,3) and Arnika (2,3) have called for an end to hazardous waste exports and dirty recycling industries through the universal ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment (4). As the world enters the UN decade of ecosystem restoration, pollution from dirty recycling continues to devastate local environments and health around the world. Without universal ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment, this problem will continue.

After China’s 2018 waste import ban came into effect in January 2018, the amount of plastic scrap and e-waste exported to Thailand increased (5). Recycling processes, especially those related to plastic, have been identified as sources of dangerous pollutants (5). These pollutants could impact on the environment and livelihoods of communities living near recycling plants. In response, civil society organizations mobilized and called for prohibitions and regulation of imports of plastic scrap and e-waste. In August 2018, the Thai government produced a resolution to ban imports of e-waste categorized under the Basel Convention and a plan to phase out imports of general plastic scrap within the next two years.

EARTH conducted a data survey to determine whether the imports of plastic scrap and e-waste have changed with these governmental measures. According to data from the Customs Department, the quantity of plastic scrap – products under Custom Code 3915 (6) – imported into Thailand in 2017 is estimated at 152,737 tons (7). In 2018, after China’s ban, the quantity of plastic scrap imported increased to 552,721 tons (7) (see Table 1 for more information). EARTH found out that the number of new plastic industries that received permits increased to 289, larger than any in the past seven years (usually between 132 and 195 units per year) (8). Not only had the two-year plan to ban imports of plastic scrap not materialized, but in March 2021, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment and the Department of Industrial Works resolved to allow imports of plastic scrap for another six years.

The ban on e-waste came into effect on 15th September 2020, prohibiting 428 types of e-waste. However, this ban leaves out types of e-waste that fall under the custom code 8548 (7). These include parts of machinery and electrical components (9). Since the promulgation of the ban, types of e-waste under the custom code 8548 are still being imported, albeit at a declining rate (7). Aside from this custom code, EARTH finds that the ban contains legal loopholes that allow many more types of e-waste to be imported (10). Under this condition, e-waste imports have continued into 2021 (7).

Between the incomplete e-waste ban and the reluctance to phase out plastic scrap imports, recycling factories in Thailand continue to grow (8). Miroslava Jopkova from the Czech NGO Arnika points to the differences between recycling plants in Thailand and the EU: “Many recycling plants in Thailand do not follow high safety standards like we are used to in Europe. These plants are very often a huge source of emissions of hazardous substances, with poor working conditions.”

Since 2017, EARTH has observed many recycling plants that burn and process metals without precautionary measures and emit airborne contaminants. “Dirty recycling industries have had a devastating impact on the environment and livelihoods in Thailand. On one hand, they have pushed out smaller waste processors and trash collectors, causing financial difficulties for many of them. On the other hand, the improper waste processing methods have caused pollution of the local environment,” explains Akarapon Teebthaisong, Research and Technical Officer from EARTH. “Pollutants such as heavy metals have contaminated the local atmosphere and water sources. Persistent Organic Pollutants such as Dioxins/Furans also pose the threat of long-term contamination of the eco-systems and of the food web, potentially threatening the health of the population on a regional to national level.”

Local communities have not been silent in the face of such threats. Thamonwan Wannapirun, leader of the Tha Than-Ban Song group, has been advocating closure of transnational recycling factories in her community, after their presence and operations led to severe contamination of the local waterway and groundwater wells as well as constant air and noise pollution: “We would like countries around the world to stop exporting their waste to countries with weaker legislation and poorer enforcement standards. Right now, Thailand has become a garbage dumping ground, and local communities like us are suffering from the consequences.”

Thamonwan would like to see countries around the world ratify the Basel Ban Amendment, as a significant step to ending the international trade in hazardous waste and dirty recycling. The amendment’s prohibition of imports and exports of hazardous wastes between member states will close the loopholes and end policies that allowed the continuation of e-waste and plastic scrap imports. “We would like the leaders of nations and industries to think of the masses of people living with the consequences of their actions. Every human deserves clean air, clean water, a clean environment, and a healthy livelihood. Please think of this and join the amendment. This will help the global effort to protect and improve the environment.” The main exporters of e-waste and plastic scrap to Thailand in 2021 and their status regarding the Basel Convention and the ban amendment are listed in Table 2 and Table 3.

Miroslava Jopkova from Arnika states: “When international waste trading and dirty recycling are not properly controlled they have an impact on communities. We urge the Thai government to ratify the Basel Ban Amendment (4), which will allow the prohibition of hazardous wastes in Annexes I, III, VIII, and IX. This failure to act is unfortunately common in other countries in ASEAN and around the world. Without the active commitment of states, international laws such as the Basel Convention (4) have no impact on the global effort to protect the environment. Therefore, as World Environment Day 2021 marks the global community’s entrance into a new decade of ecosystem restoration, we unequivocally call for an end to exports of hazardous wastes and dirty recycling industries through universal ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment.”

Table 1: Amount of imports of plastic scrap (HS3915) into Thailand between 2015 and 2021.

The information shown in the table is compiled and organized by EARTH. Source of raw data: Information and Communication Technology Center, Ministry of Commerce with cooperation of the Customs Department. URL: http://tradereport.moc.go.th/TradeThai.aspx.

Table 2: Main exporters of plastic scrap (HS3915) into Thailand in 2021 (January-April).

The information shown in the table is compiled and organized by EARTH. Source of raw data: Information and Communication Technology Center, Ministry of Commerce with cooperation of the Customs Department. URL: http://tradereport.moc.go.th/TradeThai.aspx.

Table 3: Main exporters of e-waste (HS8548) into Thailand in 2021 (January-April).

The Information shown in the table is compiled and organized by EARTH. Source of raw data: Information and Communication Technology Center, Ministry of Commerce with cooperation of the Customs Department. URL: http://tradereport.moc.go.th/TradeThai.aspx.

For more information please contact:

EARTH | Akarapon Teebthaisong – Research and Technical Officer: akarapon.t@earththailand.org, www.earththailand.org/en

Arnika | Miroslava Jopková – coordinator of the project: miroslava.jopkova@arnika.org, 

Arnika | Markéta Dosoudilová – international PR: marketa.dosoudilova@arnika.org

www.arnika.org/en