Ban or phaseout to eliminate plastic pollution

INQUIRER PHOTO / RICHARD A. REYES

Negotiations have been ongoing over a global treaty to end plastic pollution, including tackling global bans and the phaseout of certain plastic products, including single-use plastics or SUPs. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Philippines believes that a regulation of this scale could have significant implications for the Philippines, hence the implementation should be holistic and inclusive and must prioritize the well-being of people and the planet.

A ban means outright prohibition on the manufacture, import, export, distribution, sale, and purchase of products, while a phaseout means gradual elimination or reduction within a given timeframe.

When SUPs find their way into the ocean, they pollute our waters and threaten our ecosystems. They jeopardize marine life through ingestion or entanglement, while also choking our waterways and contaminating the food we consume, the water we drink, and even the air we breathe. A Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq study found that 70 percent of plastic pollution found in coastal cleanups are SUPs.

Prohibition can safeguard the Philippines’ diverse marine biodiversity, covering coral reefs, fish, and endangered species such as sea turtles. Global bans and phaseouts also benefit our waste management sector. WWF Philippines works closely with informal waste workers who significantly contribute to plastic waste collection, sorting, and recycling. They pick and sort through wastes from public areas, dumpsites, and rivers, and earn from them though not every plastic waste has equal value.

A recent WWF report found that Filipinos generate about 2.15 million metric tons of plastic waste annually, with 62 percent being low-value SUPs such as sachets. However, only 9 percent of plastics used are recycled, while 35 percent leak into the open environment. Global bans and phaseouts can require companies to move away from producing low-value plastics, resulting in reduced nonrecyclable plastic in waste streams. This would mean decreased contamination and increased recycling rates of high-value plastics that also benefits waste workers.

WWF determines which types of plastic should be banned or phased out based on their problematic and avoidable properties, including “pollution risk” and “elimination feasibility.” Pollution risk refers to the probability of the plastic ending up in the environment, affecting it and human health. Elimination feasibility meanwhile checks the feasibility of prohibition, phaseouts, or phase-downs based on the availability of alternatives, affordability, and acceptability of changes, and impacts on specific countries or groups, among other factors.

A ban on certain SUPs should be applied as common global rules rather than between and within countries only, so as to have a level playing field where no country faces the risk of investors or businesses moving their operations elsewhere.

The phaseout should also afford sectors and communities time to adjust to changes. This involves delineating timelines and objectives, while providing support and incentives for compliance. Support may come as vocational training, financial aid, and alternative livelihood programs.

The government also needs to engage businesses, civil society organizations, and affected communities in the planning and implementation to ensure that diverse perspectives are considered and addressed. There should be collaboration with other countries and international entities to synchronize efforts, share best practices, and mobilize resources.

The global plastic pollution treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for countries to solve this transboundary crisis that causes economic, health, and environmental damage. To have the biggest impact across the full lifecycle of plastics, there must be global bans or phaseouts on plastic products with the highest pollution risks, global product design requirements in place, a robust financial package including mechanisms to secure a just transition for vulnerable groups in the plastics value chain, including the informal waste sector, and a mechanism for gradual strengthening of such measures. Embracing a holistic and inclusive approach that prioritizes the well-being of people and the planet can advance sustainable development and environmental stewardship.

There should also be support for national measures such as the implementation of the extended producer responsibility law, which obliges big businesses to recover a portion of their plastic packaging waste. The law encourages businesses to reduce unnecessary plastic use, explore alternative delivery systems for their products, and ensure that the necessary packaging won’t end up in landfills.

As global negotiations proceed, WWF Philippines continues to pilot and support solutions to the plastic pollution crisis through its No Plastics in Nature or NPIN project. NPIN works across the life cycle of plastic to reduce the amount of new plastic produced, increase the reuse of plastic already in circulation, and eliminate leakage of plastic into nature.

Julius Guirjen is the program manager of WWF-Philippines’ No Plastics In Nature program.