The global plastic pollution crisis has continued to gain attention, drawing fierce debate and discussion among nations and organizations committed to finding sustainable solutions. A recent gathering held from November 25 to December 1, 2024, during talks for a global treaty on plastic pollution, highlighted the divide between advocates calling for comprehensive measures and industries seeking to minimize their responsibilities.
Located in Busan, South Korea, these negotiations encountered significant tension between two contrasting narratives. On one side, the High Ambition Coalition, alongside zero waste activists and many scientists, insisted on adopting measures aimed at tackling the entire life-cycle of plastics, from their creation to disposal. This group argues for policies aimed not just at improving waste management or recycling efforts, but also addressing the production of plastics themselves, which lies at the heart of the pollution issue.
Conversely, arguments from a minority of states and representatives of the petrochemical industry attempted to deflect calls for stricter regulations on production. They contended instead, with claims of inadequacies within recycling frameworks and waste management systems as the primary culprits behind plastic pollution. This approach, critics argue, minimizes corporate accountability and unjustly places the burden on developing nations where pollution often manifests most visibly.
The impact of this debate on millions of informal waste pickers is particularly notable. These workers, primarily located across Asia, South America, and Africa, play instrumental roles by collecting and recycling plastic waste. Often working under harsh conditions and facing severe economic challenges, many of these individuals rely on their work for survival. Their contributions significantly minimize the amount of plastic waste, particularly concerning what ends up contaminant oceans.
Despite their importance within recycling economies, waste pickers have long faced stigmatization and were often deemed as merely engaging in “dirty work.” The lack of official recognition leaves their livelihoods vulnerable, and prevailing environmental regulations frequently overlook their operations, hindering efforts for improvement.
Malpractices such as accelerating privatization of waste management create competing interests against these informal laborers. Consequently, as plastic pollution strategies gain traction, waste pickers confront the dual threat of losing their means of livelihood and the urgent desire to improve their working conditions.
Waste pickers have mobilized, particularly during these treaty negotiations, demanding recognition of their historical contributions to reducing plastic pollution and the inclusion of justice objectives within treaty clauses. The framing of "just transition," advocated by labor groups and social advocates, calls for policies to not only enrich environmental sustainability but also compensate and uplift the workers reliant on polluting industries.
Already, their efforts are garnering attention, with backing from influential bodies like the UN Environment Assembly and even support from some sectors of the petrochemical industry. Agreements reached during the Busan negotiations signal potential progress, incorporating some of the waste pickers’ requests and showcasing the importance of inclusive approaches to pollution management.
The principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR) gives rise to important discussions about how waste systems can be oriented toward inclusion. Under this framework, producers are held accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. Advocates argue for greater focus on how these systems can assist marginalized groups, particularly women and others within vulnerable sectors.
While advancements within treaty discussions represent victories for informal workers, skepticism remains. History has shown many promises of sustainable recycling programs seldom translate to actionable results on the ground. The concept of circular economies, where the focus is on material recovery and reprocessing, often gets clouded by market-driven agendas prioritizing profits over people.
Take Bengaluru, India, for example. The implementation of inclusive recycling programs reveals the nuances tied to equitable outcomes. Academic insights argue such practices must dig deep, recognizing embedded injustices throughout systems from production to waste management, rather than presenting inclusive markets as panaceas.
So, who truly stands to benefit from these shifts? While some studies show inclusive recycling can create pathways for improved livelihoods and reduced pollution, ensuring authenticity requires verification and accountability from companies like Coca-Cola — noted for their significant role as plastic polluters. Recently, the company backtracked on its commitments aiming to reduce plastic waste and greenhouse gas emissions, leading to backlash from environmental advocates.
This divergence demonstrates the necessity of vigilance and discernment when examining partnerships formed between environmental governance and large corporations. Some argue unequivocally against reliance on market-driven mechanisms, emphasizing the need for systemic changes to stymie the flow of plastic waste at its source.
Establishing equitable practices for the waste management sector hinges on recognizing informal workers like waste pickers. Their agency is often overlooked within broad market proposals, underscoring the importance of legislative frameworks incorporating their voices. The hopes and security for these individuals depend significantly on negotiations translating commitments made at international forums back to local contexts. Enhancing waste management strategies necessitates listening to those who have historically been on the sidelines.
The international dialogue around achieving circular economies, just transitions, and equitable outcomes will remain key as the world navigates plastic pollution. It’s clear the solutions are far from straightforward, and without dedicated efforts from all sides involved, the risk of remaining trapped within unsustainable practices persists.
Lessons drawn from the failure to finalize agreements at the Busan negotiations signal the urgency to rethink approaches toward tackling plastic pollution. With rising concerns over environmental justice and systemic inequalities, the challenge lies not just with addressing plastic waste but averting another missed opportunity for constructive partnerships capable of creating genuine change.