Is there no hope for a net-zero future?

The ambitions of a net-zero future are being stymied by the exponentially increasing use of plastic, stagnated and disappointingly low global recycle levels, and the illicit trade of plastic waste into third world countries. Tackling this issue has become a question of climate justice as dumped plastic harms the health and environment of third-world countries.

Humans have become addicted to plastic. It was estimated that in 2019, global plastic production totalled 368 million metric tons. Due to plastic’s durability and affordability, its market value continues to increase, but only 20 per cent of it is recycled globally. A recent report published by the research group Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) points out how plastic waste from the United States of America, Europe and Australia is being dumped in countries of Southeast Asia and Africa. The illicit trafficking of plastic waste is an emerging trend first pointed out by a report published by Interpol. The report, titled ‘INTERPOL’s Strategical Analysis On Emerging Criminal Trends in The Global Plastic Waste Market Since January 2018’, indicated that there has been a considerable increase over the past two years in illegal waste shipments, primarily rerouted to Southeast Asia via multiple transit countries to camouflage the origin of the waste shipment. This illicit trade has linkages to a criminalized supply chain involving brokers, recycling companies, shipping entities and corrupt officials who are responsible for arranging the shipping of waste.

Who are the main players?

Countries in Europe and North America have very limited recycling facilities. As country leaders pledge for a net-zero future, lack of recycling facilities and a never-ending production cycle of plastic complicate the situation. Producing over 42 million metric tons of plastic waste, the United States of America is by far the world’s largest generator of plastic waste. Coincidentally, it also ranks third among other coastal nations for contributing litter, illegally dumped trash, and other mismanaged waste.
Over the last 30 years, developed nations have formed a pattern of shipping their recyclable plastic to developing nations that lack the infrastructure to manage it. The nations on the receiving end are mostly located in the global south, primarily China, Malaysia, Indonesia and other developing countries from Asia and Africa. In 2017, China announced that it would no longer purchase plastic scrap shipments and serve as the “world’s garbage dump”. In the trade of banned plastic waste, Turkey has also become a key node. The report stated that Turkey is looped in the circuit due to its “permissive regulatory environment”, financial interest in generating revenue from receiving foreign waste, and the presence of criminal groups. The report also found that Turkey’s port staff and pollution investigators lack the technical knowledge required to identify illegally trafficked waste once it reaches their shores. They also lack the resources to trace back the country which is trying to dump their waste in Turkey.

How is this illegal practice possible?

The Basel Convention is an international treaty designed to prevent the transfer of hazardous waste from developed to developing countries. Despite this and other legalisations, low-quality and difficult-to-recycle plastic scraps continue to find their way to developing countries. The GI-TOC report found that waste exporters are skirting regulations and finding loopholes to dump plastic waste, especially through shipping routes. The report found several recycling companies and waste brokers engaging in fraud. They conceal the shipments of banned plastic products by camouflaging them among other goods. These waste exporters are illegally dumping waste, getting past inspectors by either paying them off or mislabelling their cargo. This way, the plastic waste incorrectly appears to be in compliance with international agreements. Often, shipping routes are designed to incorporate several stops across countries so that by the time the shipment arrives at the final destination, it is not clear to the inspector as to where it came from.
The illegal traders continue to find loopholes through the system, making it all the more difficult for countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, who are making an effort to send back the banned plastic scraps. Companies involved in the trade have not been formally charged with anything as their names are mostly never mentioned in reports. However, one of the larger waste companies in Britain, Biffa Waste Services, was fined 350,000 pounds back in 2019 for shipping contaminated waste to China by labelling it as ‘fit for recycling’.
The GI-TOC report also emphasized how this problem is “not just a white-collar crime”. There is evidence to show how polycriminal groups involved in the trafficking of plastic waste also deal in drugs and prostitution. On several counts, the waste-recycling companies have also been accused of human trafficking and sourcing cheap labour (termed as modern slavery). The unsustainable disposal practices of hazardous foreign waste contaminate the health of local communities. In the long run, this can lead to irreversible environmental problems and health issues. In nations like Indonesia and Malaysia, the burning of plastic waste is highly common. Once the fumes generated through the incinerator are released into the environment, they will pollute soil, water and air, and poison food production.

What is the solution?

The International Criminal Court has started laying higher prominence around an ecocide and its possible inclusion among the crime. The Stop of Ecocide foundation’s expert panel defines a crime of ecocide as an “unlawful act committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” It is crucial to break the trafficking networks and actors present in the deal by increasing the involvement of agents ensuring climate justice.
Given the serious lack of recycling infrastructure, it is virtually impossible to manage plastic waste given current production statistics. The first and foremost solution would be to reduce plastic consumption and replace non-biodegradable components with an easily recyclable option. There is a need to bring in an institutional change, given the exponentially growing plastic waste trade, increased reliance on raw plastic and an ever-increasing demand for single-time use plastic. On a global level, nations need to be rethink the current waste disposal model and build on their existing recycling infrastructure. Moreover, there is a need to increase the involvement of communities on the ground who are the most affected by mounting plastic dumps. Proponents from the industry, people engaged in plastic production and supply, regulators, law enforcement agencies and NGOs need to be a part of the solution and have to be converted to agents of change. The gravity of the situation needs to be communicated and explicitly understood by nations to ensure that the developing economies achieve environmental justice and are on the path of a net-zero future.