Why extended producer responsibility (EPR) isn’t working – and how we can fix it

by Seema on 07/05/2025 No comments

Wherever you’re reading this, stop and take a look around you. You’re likely surrounded by products deliberately designed for short lives: packaging thrown in the trash after a single use, electronics with built-in obsolescence, appliances that can’t be repaired and fast fashion that unravels after a season.

For decades, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was touted as the solution – a policy idea that makes producers pay for the environmental cost of their products. The theory is simple: if companies are made responsible for their products after use, they will design better, longer-lasting, less polluting products.

But that’s not what happened in practice. A new report by Zero Waste Europe, which analyses the past 30 years of EPR implementation in the EU and beyond, shows waste levels are still rising, recycling rates are stagnating, and reuse rates have actually fallen drastically over this time¹. Many producers have simply paid fees to comply – without improving how they design, deliver or market their products.

Something has gone seriously wrong. The idea of EPR remains powerful – but today’s systems need a major rethink if they are to live up to their promise.

What is EPR?

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is exactly what it sounds like: extending the responsibility of manufacturers beyond the point of sale. Instead of letting products become someone else’s problem at end-of-life, EPR policies make companies responsible – financially, logistically, and sometimes physically – for what happens to their products and packaging after consumers finish using them.

Originally, this was intended to make the environmental impacts of products a business cost, thereby creating incentives for producers to design products that are easier to reuse, repair, and recycle – or better yet, to prevent waste in the first place.

But too often today, this “responsibility” has been watered down. Companies have ended up paying nominal fees to fund waste collection, take-back programmes or a few extra recycling bins – effectively a “pay to pollute” scheme.

How the current system works

Today, most EPR schemes work like this:

Producers pay fees into a collective system, often run by a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO).
The PRO funds the collection, sorting, and recycling (or disposal) of waste products.

Producers claim this ‘closes the loop’ – but in reality, the system has serious flaws:

End-of-life The focus remains heavily on recycling, not on preventing waste or promoting reuse. This treats waste as inevitable, rather than something to be avoided through better design and infrastructure. As the Zero Waste Europe report shows, implementing EPR without reuse targets has had the effect of making reuse the least favoured option.

Fee structures Producers often pay based on weight or general material type (e.g. ‘metal’ or ‘plastic’), without strong enough “eco-modulation” to reward truly sustainable designs and penalise bad ones. This weakens the incentive to innovate.

Eco-modulation adjusts EPR fees based on the environmental performance of individual products, making it cheaper to do the right thing, and more expensive to pollute. Example: a reusable glass bottle = lower EPR fee. A multilayer plastic sachet that can’t be recycled = much higher EPR fee. The goal is to create a strong financial incentive to design products that are better for the environment – not just to manage waste but to prevent it.

Lack of regulation Many PROs are industry-controlled and self-regulating, leading to a conflict of interest. Producers have little motivation to set ambitious reuse targets or high environmental standards when they effectively police themselves. At the same time, the revenue they provide to the government gives them a platform for lobbying and allows them to claim that “something is being done”.

Lack of transparency It’s often unclear what PROs’ targets are (e.g. is “recycling” measured at the collection point or on delivery to a recycling plant?); whether they are being met; how funds are being used; or what really happens to the waste collected. As a result, municipalities and taxpayers still shoulder much of the burden of management. Fraud and greenwashing are real risks.

Lack of integration It is very rare in current EPR legislation that the treatment of the collected waste is specified or controlled. PROs can therefore follow any existing waste management laws, whether these send plastic for incineration or closed loop recycling. In other words, EPR can only work well if there is already a good waste management system in place.

So at best the current EPR system locks us into endless waste management and does nothing about waste prevention, resource efficiency or a just transition; at worst it actively fights against these outcomes.

How we could make EPR work

EPR can still play a major role in creating a circular economy, but only if it’s fundamentally restructured to follow the waste hierarchy, with prevention first. This is what it would look like:

Priority for prevention and eco-design: The first goal is to reduce the amount of waste we generate. EPR funds help build reuse systems, refill networks, and repair services – not just more waste treatment infrastructure. EPR fees strongly encourage reusable, durable, and non-toxic designs.

Strong eco-modulation: Fees clearly reward sustainable products and penalise polluting, wasteful ones, sending tangible financial signals to drive better design.

Deposit return schemes (DRS): Consumers pay a small surcharge for packaging and are thus incentivised to return it to a collection point in order to get a refund, enabling producers to preserve reusable items or ensure high quality recycling. (DRS are a type of EPR and are proven to be the most efficient and effective way to achieve high collection rates of packaging. Many countries that have implemented a DRS have achieved collection rates of over 90%.)

Clear, ambitious targets: Mandatory targets for waste prevention, reuse, recyclability, and toxic material phase-outs are at the core of EPR legislation, not just recycling rates. Targets are clearly defined (i.e. when and how they are measured), progressive and ensure the local waste management system is equipped (or can be over time) to deal with them effectively.

Independent governance: Producer Responsibility Organisations are independently managed and regulated, with strong public oversight to avoid industry capture.

Transparency and public accountability: Open access to data, third-party verification and monitoring and meaningful penalties for non-compliance is standard.

Integration with other policies: EPR is one piece of a wider resource management strategy, considered together with waste management, climate, health and other material resource policies, so they are all compatible. Bans, cap and trade, production reduction, reuse targets, taxes and other policy instruments are used alongside EPR to mutually support circularity.

If EPR systems are redesigned along these lines, they can become powerful drivers of innovation, sustainability, and climate action instead of a symbol of greenwashing and weak “pay to pollute” policymaking. The Global Plastics Treaty negotiations will play a key role in determining whether this happens.

It seems obvious that producers must be held responsible not just for managing their waste – but for creating less of it to begin with. Truly extending their responsibility means looking beyond “recycling” to designing products and building infrastructure, like DRS, that make circularity the easy choice, not the exception.

In Indonesia in 1999, 76% of beer and soft drinks came in refillable containers. In 2019, this had dropped to just 4%.

Plastics treaty talks end in deadlock

by Seema on 10/12/2024 No comments

It was supposed to be the final round of UN negotiations for a global plastics treaty. In the end, INC-5 wound up without an agreement – though not without progress.

The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea from 25 Nov to 1 Dec 2024, with almost 4,000 people in attendance. The Chair, Luis Vayas Valvidieso, was under intense pressure to seal a deal. He spent the week imploring countries to find common ground and “get it done”, even agreeing to closed door negotiations for almost three days – a flagrant disregard for transparency that left scientists, civil society groups and rights-holders most impacted by plastic pollution out in the cold.

But still a deal was not to be. The talks only highlighted the deep divisions among countries over three key issues: limiting plastic production (Article 6), regulating toxic chemicals (Article 3), and funding (Article 11).

A minority of so-called petrostates – major fossil fuel exporters – continued to block any attempts to cap or reduce plastic production, arguing this was irrelevant to the issue of pollution. They rejected scientific evidence of the harms of petrochemicals and claimed plastic was essential to progress, climate goals and the “right to development“.

However the majority of countries, covering both the Global South and Global North, were determined to include binding obligations to reduce plastic production, the phaseout of harmful plastic products and toxic chemicals, and a dedicated fund to support treaty implementation. They pointed to the UNEA resolution to take a full life cycle approach to plastic pollution and recalled the thousands of studies linking plastic chemicals with serious health issues.

With Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the inspirational delegate from Panama.

Stand up for ambition

The emergence of this coalition of 100+ countries, led by Panama, Rwanda, Mexico and Fiji and backed by the EU, Switzerland, UK and Australia, was the high point of the talks. Appearing midweek, they swiftly gained the upper hand, using strong language – “if you’re not contributing constructively… then please get out” – that completely changed the energy and dynamics in the room.

At the closing plenary session, Juliet Kabera, the Director General of the Rwanda Environment Management Authority, received a thunderous standing ovation for her statement vowing to “stand up for ambition”.

For most observers, the failure to reach an agreement at INC-5 was a victory for courage over compromise. Instead of succumbing to the relentless petrostate bullying and watering down the text, progressive countries stood firm and opted for no treaty over a weak treaty. This leaves the door to real change very firmly open.

A failure of process

Indeed, the real failure at INC-5 was the process itself. Negotiations have gone much the same way over the last three rounds of talks: a text is proposed by the Chair with instructions to find an agreement or consensus. Countries then proceed to share their views, with the petrostates systematically vetoing whole articles and obfuscating every line with qualifications, additions and deletions. This results in an unintelligible and unusable document that has to be “streamlined” at the next round, before the process begins all over again.

Instead of switching up this failing formula at INC-5, the Chair simply increased the speed of the loop, bringing out two new streamlined proposals, one on Friday and one on Sunday, as each previous version was mangled within hours.

As Ana Rocha, Global Plastics Policy Director of GAIA, put it, “we cannot keep doing things the same way and expect different results – that is the definition of insanity. The ambitious majority needs to do whatever it takes to get these negotiations back on track and reclaim the spirit of multilateralism.” That might involve insisting on their right to vote on a text, instead of trying to find consensus, or even taking the whole process outside of the UN.

Broader implications

The divisions exposed in Busan have clear parallels with the challenges faced in the climate negotiations, where petrostates have been stalling progress for decades. Their orchestrated effort to obstruct and derail all multilateral environmental agreements needs to be recognised for what it is and seriously addressed by the UN. There are precedents for this, such as the conflict of interest policy used in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Failure to act decisively on plastic production will hinder broader environmental goals, including climate targets, as we know this sector alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060. Failure to act quickly will also intensify the looming public health crisis, as petrochemicals bioaccumulate and our exposure is growing every day.

A treaty in 2025?
INC-5 ended with negotiators agreeing to reconvene their session in 2025 – this will be known as INC-5.2, rather than INC-6, as it is a continuation of the same meeting. The date and venue is likely to be announced in January, and it is expected to take place within the first half of the year. This gives the new coalition of ambitious countries a few precious months to demonstrate strong leadership, intensify diplomacy and address the challenges of the process and vested interests to ensure we get a treaty that can truly end plastic pollution.

Trash Hero at the treaty talks
As a UNEP-accredited observer, Trash Hero is able to attend all INC meetings. We join our colleagues in the large civil society delegation that advocates for strong and just measures in the treaty and support the communications and advocacy work done in exhibition booths and side events around the meeting venue.

Last chance for a fossil phase-out?

by Seema on 23/11/2024 No comments

Forget COP 29, the plastics treaty is the most important environmental agreement in the world right now.

Is there anyone left – except the oil industry – who doesn’t roll their eyes at the mention of the climate COP? These conferences have become synonymous with blatant conflicts of interest, empty “blah, blah, blah” posturing of world leaders, and a frustrating inability to deliver real progress.

But next week in Busan, South Korea, there’s a glimmer of hope. UN member states are convening at INC-5, at what is expected to be the final round of negotiations for a global treaty to end plastic pollution. This is the chance for governments to show they are serious about tackling the harms of plastic overproduction and consumption. And a strong agreement, capable of addressing the interlinked crises of wildlife loss, chemical pollution and climate breakdown, could set in motion the fossil fuel phase-out that has eluded the climate convention for three decades.

The hidden driver of climate change
Plastic is not only a source of pollution choking oceans and poisoning ecosystems but also an important and overlooked driver of climate change. 99 percent of plastic is made from fossil fuels and, as production skyrockets, it’s become the world’s fastest-growing source of industrial greenhouse gases, pumping out more than double the emissions of the aviation industry.

Plastic also contains a staggering 16,000 chemicals. Less than 1 percent of these are regulated, most are untested, and around 4,000 are known hazards to human health. These are substances that bioaccumulate and are linked to cancers, respiratory and neurological problems and hormone disruption. Microplastics carrying these toxins permeate our air, water, soil, and even our bodies.

The plastic crisis impacts us all, but it’s felt hardest in poor communities, often in the Global South, where plastics are produced, burned, or dumped.

We can do better than the Paris Agreement
Since November 2022, countries have been going back and forth on what the plastics treaty should include, how to enforce it, and who will fund it. The good news is that the measures needed for meaningful change are all still on the table. Just as importantly, so are provisions for monitoring, compliance and transparency. These key elements were missing in the Paris Agreement: its voluntary approach has allowed emissions to climb year after year.

At INC-5 then, negotiators face a crucial question: will they learn from Paris or repeat its mistakes?

How to build an effective treaty

Binding commitments
Deep, rapid cuts in plastic production are required to avoid breaching the 1.5°C warming limit. Analysis shows a minimum reduction of 12% to 17% per year, starting now, will be necessary. This needs measurable targets, deadlines and penalties, not hollow pledges.

Global implementation
Treaty measures must apply universally, with no exemptions under “special national circumstances” – the excuse countries used in the Paris Agreement to sidestep action.

The principle they invoked – of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) – was originally intended to recognise the differing roles of countries in causing environmental crises and their corresponding financial needs and obligations. It was never meant to allow countries to choose whether or not to pollute.

Issues like harmful chemicals in plastic are impossible to address if countries claim CBDR. Without transparency and strict regulation across the board, we end up with piecemeal bans that leave gaps in protecting public health.

Sufficient and predictable funding
Another critical lesson from the climate COPs is the need for a dedicated global fund to support developing countries and those hit hardest by plastic pollution. Here is where the principle of CBDR should be applied. Wealthier countries and the plastic industry itself must provide this funding, with investments in redesign, repair, and reuse – not just waste management.

Civil society and rights-holders
Those directly impacted by the plastic life cycle, from waste pickers to fenceline communities and Indigenous Peoples, must be involved in shaping the treaty and their needs reflected in the final text.

But there is a very real danger of their voices being drowned out. The UN still recognises business and industry reps as “stakeholders” in environmental fora. Like at the climate convention, they are officially invited to the talks, often as part of government delegations. This conflict of interest is a major hurdle for good faith negotiators in Busan.

The fight against Big Oil
More than 60 countries have already called for the treaty to include binding phasedown targets for fossil fuels, enforced through global caps on plastic and petrochemical production. Many more support a treaty grounded in environmental and climate justice, public health and human rights.

On the other side, a vocal minority of oil-producing countries insist that solving plastic pollution is just a matter of improving recycling and waste management. They downplay the harms of plastic as “unproven” and argue the benefits to society outweigh the risks.

It’s a bold position that ignores the UN Environment Assembly’s resolution that the treaty address the full life cycle of plastic – from fossil fuel extraction to disposal. It also flies in the face of tens of thousands of studies confirming plastic’s devastating impacts on health, ecosystems, and the climate.

Meanwhile, these same countries plan to triple plastic production over the next 30 years, investing in petrochemical plants and promoting flawed and dirty technologies like chemical recycling. At COP28, their promise to transition away from fossil fuels was carefully applied only to “energy systems” – not plastics.

If left unchecked, plastic production alone could exceed the global carbon budget by 2060, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

UN member states must now choose whether to stop this happening.

The world is watching
Can negotiators deliver an effective treaty in just one week, with industry lobbyists hovering and a “need for consensus” pressuring them to water down the text rather than risk a vote?

Yes – but only if the world is watching. Governments must feel the pressure to support an ambitious, effective treaty that serves science and public interest, not corporate agendas.

International agreements can and should be more than a stage for world leaders to claim progress without commitments. We deserve treaties that are fit for purpose.

So, all eyes on Busan: if negotiators get it right, the plastics treaty could become the world’s most impactful environmental agreement, offering a path to cap fossil fuel production, restore planetary health and build a fairer, safer and more sustainable future for all.

Seema Prabhu is programmes director at Trash Hero. Trash Hero World attends the plastics treaty talks as a UNEP civil society observer.

What is the waste trade? Your questions answered

by Seema on 28/08/2024 2 comments

When you put your trash in the bin, do you really know where it goes?

In this post we’re exploring the waste trade, a widespread, yet little-known practice that moves mountains of trash around the globe.

What is the global waste trade?

The waste trade is the exchange of waste materials between countries. Various types of waste get exported and imported, including hazardous, non-hazardous, recyclable, and non-recyclable waste.

What countries are involved in the waste trade?

Many countries take part but the direction of trade is mainly one way. Waste is exported from wealthy developed countries to low- and middle-income nations. The primary destinations for waste exports are countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Central Asia and Eastern Europe are other common destinations.

Waste is exported and imported by both government agencies and private companies.

Why is waste traded internationally?

Most countries in the Global North produce more waste than they can deal with. Overpackaging and overconsumption are the norm. For example, the USA represents 4% of the global population but generates 12% of global municipal waste. And then there is industrial waste, which is many, many times greater.

Environmental regulations in these countries are usually strict and the costs of recycling or disposal are high. Exporting waste avoids these inconveniences, while taking advantage of the low labour costs and much weaker regulations overseas. This effectively outsources the burden of waste management to the recipient country.

How much waste gets traded?

It is difficult to get exact numbers on the amount of waste traded globally in any year. However, it is estimated to be in the 100s of millions of tonnes, with significant volumes of hazardous, electronic, and plastic waste being moved across borders.

Why do countries agree to import waste?

While some, correctly sorted, materials – scrap metals, for example – might have value, the main reason why countries accept waste imports is because they have little choice. Global inequalities mean developing countries rarely have the economic power or influence to turn down these containers, especially if they are dependent on the exporting nations for trade, loans or investment. This situation has led the waste trade to be viewed as a form of colonialism, as it mirrors historical patterns of exploitation, pollution and human rights violations.

It is estimated that 15 – 30% of waste shipments are illegal. Containers are often mislabelled (e.g. as “recyclables”, “paper” or “commodities” when they are nothing of the sort) or sent to unauthorised facilities. Bribes are used to get past officials. Interpol has expressed concern about the rise of organised criminal gangs working in the plastic waste trade – and the lack of resources to investigate them.

What happens to the waste?

Whether imported legally or illegally and regardless of the intentions of the exporter, the majority of imported waste is mismanaged. Some common scenarios include:

Illegal dumping: waste is disposed of in unauthorised areas, such as rivers, forests or even inside villages. Waste from UK supermarkets was found dumped in communities in Myanmar and Malaysia. Tonnes of toxic incinerator ash from America were rejected by several countries, before some was smuggled into Haiti for unlawful disposal and the rest thrown in the ocean.

Unsafe recycling: waste is processed in low-tech, often illegal, recycling facilities, by workers with few rights or safety protections. Illegal recycling centres in Malaysia were found processing German waste.

Incineration: waste is either openly burned, often near people’s homes, sent to cement kilns, or sold as fuel.

How does the waste trade affect recipient countries?

Environmental harm

Toxic chemicals from dumped waste contaminate soil and water.
Waste burning of any sort releases harmful chemicals into the atmosphere – contributing to respiratory problems and climate change and leaving behind highly poisonous ash.
Dumped plastic waste causes biodiversity loss and disruption of food chains. Southeast Asia is struggling with marine pollution and ecosystem damage following a surge of plastic waste imports.

Economic harm

The influx of foreign waste overwhelms local waste management systems. Countries that barely have capacity to deal with their domestic recycling now have to deal with thousands of tonnes of additional trash.
The influx of waste also lowers market prices for recyclable materials. This leaves local waste pickers, most of whom already work in precarious conditions, further impoverished.
Significant public funds are needed to clean up illegally dumped waste, as well as deal with the long-term health and environmental consequences.

Social and health impacts

Entire communities find themselves living next to other people’s waste and unwittingly exposed to toxic chemicals.
Marginalised groups, including children, are often forced into sorting imported waste. They lack legal protections and face serious health risks.
Mismanaged plastic waste can worsen environmental disasters such as flooding, increasing the risk of disease outbreaks.

Examples:

Ghana is inundated with used clothing from Europe and the United States, impacting local textile industries and causing environmental damage.
Africa has become a dumping ground for electronic waste, exposing workers to toxic substances and polluting the environment.
An investigation at an abattoir in Kenya found 35kg of plastic in the stomach of a cow.

How does the waste trade affect exporting countries?

The waste trade is the dirty secret of high-income countries.

Most of their citizens have no idea that the waste they dutifully put in the bin marked “recycling” is then sent overseas and often ends up dumped or burned. Countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan are repeatedly praised for their “good waste management”, yet they were among the top plastic waste exporters in 2023.

This lack of public awareness has serious consequences.

Firstly, it gives people the false impression that their waste is being managed efficiently, so nothing needs to change. If everything is being “recycled”, why bother to change patterns of consumption? Companies feel no pressure to produce less waste, nor to invest in local waste management.

Secondly, it perpetuates another dangerous myth – that the Global South cannot handle its waste and is largely responsible for the plastic pollution crisis. This narrative neglects to point out that much of the “mismanaged waste” originates from producers in the Global North.

Exporting countries need to be open about and be held accountable for the waste they ship overseas.

What regulations are there to manage the waste trade?

The Basel Convention exists to control the transboundary movement of explosive, flammable, toxic, or corrosive waste and its disposal.

Signatories have agreed to:

Seek explicit permission from the recipient country (prior informed consent, or PIC) before exporting their hazardous waste.
Reduce the generation of hazardous waste.
Restrict the movement of hazardous waste.
Implement procedures and standards for the safe handling and disposal of hazardous waste.

While these measures have improved the situation, many developing countries feel they do not go far enough.

They would prefer to see a complete ban on hazardous waste exports, including hard-to-recycle plastic. The EU has agreed to this, recently banning the export of any waste to non-OECD countries from the end of 2026.

Can recipient countries do anything about the waste trade?

Recipient nations are increasingly taking a stand against the dumping of foreign waste within their borders:

Thailand will implement a plastic waste import ban from 31 December 2024.
Vietnam enforced import regulations in 2018, after containers of waste began to pile up in their ports.
The Philippines returned 1,500 tonnes of waste to Canada in 2018 – it was labelled as recycling but contained rotting household waste and electricals.

But more regional collaboration, for example within ASEAN countries, is needed to develop a stronger position; and more resources are needed to investigate and stop trafficking.

How can we stop the waste trade?

No country wants to be a dumping ground for others’ trash.

To stop the waste trade definitively, countries need to take responsibility for their own waste. If it can’t be managed locally, it should not be produced or allowed on the market.

Exports of plastic and other hazardous waste from high-income to low and middle-income countries should be completely banned, following the lead of the EU.

For this ban to be effective, it will need to be supported by:

a reduction in plastic production;
robust, society-wide reuse systems; and
more efficient sorting, management and monitoring of waste.

Without such measures, the illegal trade in waste will only increase.

As individuals, we can make others aware of the practice of shipping waste overseas and end the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. We can also promote zero waste lifestyles and systems to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be managed in the first place.

Negotiators for the new Global Plastics Treaty are also attempting to address all of these issues. Trash Hero is advocating for the inclusion of strong and effective measures to stop the waste trade and solve other issues caused by plastic production. Join us by signing this petition.

Waste trade watch list

Links to great, short documentaries showing the waste trade in action:
➤ Your plastic waste might be traded by criminals – DW [12:30]
➤ Tracking devices reveal where recycling really goes – Bloomberg [13:01]
➤ Trashed: The secret life of plastic exports – ABC News [27:51]
➤ Thailand is tired of recycling your trash – Bloomberg [10:31]
➤ The environmental disaster fuelled by used clothes and fast fashion – ABC News [30:02]
➤ Ghana children work in toxic haze of e-waste – Al Jazeera [2:13]

Global Plastics Treaty Jargon Buster

by Seema on 15/04/2024 No comments

If you care about plastic pollution, the announcement of a Global Plastics Treaty from the UN is big news. It means the problem is now internationally recognised and countries will have to work together to solve it. The final agreement could limit new plastic production, stop toxic chemicals and make sure products are designed for reuse.

But getting there isn’t easy. The negotiations involve almost 200 countries, with a lot of different interests. They need to follow certain rules for discussion and there are thousands of pages of documents produced. If you’re not a lawyer or policy geek, it can be hard to understand what’s going on. So we’ve made a guide that breaks down some of the terms used in the treaty discussion – and why they are important. The more people know about what’s happening and what’s at stake, the better chance we have to get a strong treaty to protect us and the planet.

So educate yourself and others! And follow us on social media @trashheroworld to stay informed about the upcoming rounds of negotiations.

1. The Instrument
Not a guitar or a piano! The Instrument is what the UN calls the Global Plastics Treaty. Its official title is the “international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment”. “Instrument” is just a legal term for any kind of formal document that records rights or duties.

Why not just call it a treaty? Because “treaty” has a specific meaning in international law. And there are other types of international agreements, like conventions, accords, declarations or protocols. As we don’t yet know what form the “instrument” will take, the UN uses this neutral word to cover all possibilities.

Having said that, it is most likely that the future treaty / instrument will be a “convention”. Ideally it should be a specific convention, where the countries’ obligations and commitments are written directly in the text.

The other option is a framework convention, where the text only agrees to do things in principle and leaves the details of how and when to be negotiated later. The framework model was used in the climate change treaty (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC), and countries are still debating actions and targets almost 30 years after it was made. COP29 will be held in Azerbaijan in November 2024 and will likely be more “blah blah blah“.

2. INC – Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
This is the name for the group of UN member states that are discussing the future plastics treaty. The INC is facilitated by a secretariat of staff from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and it is funded by various member states. There are five meetings or sessions of the INC currently planned, roughly one every six months over two years. If the treaty is not ready after this, the member states will need to decide how to carry on. The schedule is as follows:

Nov 2022: INC-1 @ Punta del Este, Uruguay
May 2023: INC-2 @ Paris, France
Nov 2023: INC-3 @ Nairobi, Kenya
Apr 2024: INC-4 @ Ottawa, Canada
Nov 2024: INC-5 @ Busan, S. Korea

3. COP – Conference of the Parties
COPs are usually linked with the climate change treaty, but it’s a general term for what comes after any UN convention is agreed upon: the countries who signed it (the “Parties”) gather to review how it’s going and whether it needs changes. The COP for the climate convention happens every year. Some other treaties, like the Convention on Biological Diversity, hold a COP every 2 years. For the plastics treaty, it has not yet been decided how often the Parties will meet.

4. Observers and conflict of interest
Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the UN has recognised the importance of having stakeholders present at any discussions about the future of our planet. They created nine “Major Groups“:

Women
Children and Youth
Indigenous Peoples
Non-Governmental Organisations
Local Authorities
Workers and Trade Unions
Business and Industry
Scientific and Technological Community
Farmers

Accredited representatives of these groups – like Trash Hero World – are called Observers. This doesn’t mean we just sit and watch things happen, though! Observers can join the INC negotiation sessions, make statements and written submissions and also receive information about what is happening in between the negotiations. But we are not able to vote and can only speak if there is time after the member states have finished.

The Observer system is not perfect. Different Observers have different levels of access and participation. Sometimes the logistics of joining all the meetings prevent some groups taking part – not everyone can afford the costs and many struggle to get visas. Observers’ rights to speak or attend meetings can also be refused by the member states – some are more friendly than others to civil society.

The whole system is a bit too friendly to certain powerful stakeholders, like the business and industry representatives, who are often invited to join official government delegations. The INC has not yet addressed the conflict of interest created by allowing the plastics industry to take part in the negotiations.

5. Plenary, contact groups, informals
At the INC meetings, the opening and closing sessions are held in plenary. This means they are open to all participants and live streamed for the public. But the main negotiations happen in Contact Groups.

Contact groups are formal meetings, usually dedicated to a particular topic, but they are not live streamed and are subject to the Chatham House Rule. This rule allows anything said in the meeting to be shared and used later, but only if the speaker is not identified. This in theory allows for a more open discussion.

If you see news reports during the INC meetings that say things like “Certain states tried to stall negotiations”, without specifying which ones, this is the Chatham House Rule in action!

The third type of negotiation is the “informal”. As the name suggests, these meetings are not recorded at all and are used to discuss sensitive issues, often between smaller groups of countries.

6. MEA – multilateral environmental agreement
An agreement between 2 countries or states is called bilateral and between many countries, it is called multilateral. The Global Plastics Treaty will be an MEA. There are already more than 250 MEAs covering everything from tuna fish to the ozone layer. This treaty needs to fit in alongside them and not duplicate or contradict anything they do. There is quite a bit of discussion about how best to do this, especially in relation to the BRS – Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm – conventions that regulate the production, use, trade and disposal of hazardous waste and chemicals, a lot of which is plastic.

7. EPR – Extended Producer Responsibility
This term refers to a wide set of measures that could be included in the treaty to make sure manufacturers of plastics (and the products and packaging made from them) are held responsible for the health and environmental costs of their products across the whole lifecycle.

At the most basic level, EPR means requiring companies to collect and recycle more of their waste. A stronger set of measures would also mandate targets for reduction of single-use plastic, design and infrastructure for reuse, labelling of the ingredients in plastic and fines for harms caused.

8. CBDR – Common but differentiated responsibilities
This is the idea that, while all countries share the responsibility for solving global environmental problems, not all countries are equally to blame. Countries in the Global North have typically done more to harm the climate and the living world and, as a result of that exploitation, now have more money to fix it. CBDR says they have an obligation to help countries in the Global South, who are less responsible. These developing nations need financial support to manage the impacts of plastic pollution and to take the actions that will be recommended by the treaty.

It’s important that the principle of CBDR should only apply to the financing of actions included in the treaty, not to the actions themselves. Some countries are already arguing that their “special national circumstances” excuse them from following any globally agreed standards. Using CBDR in this way will weaken the treaty as it lets individual countries choose whether or not to keep polluting.

9. Rules of Procedure (RoP)
They may sound like boring administrative details, but the draft rules of procedure that determine how the treaty gets decided are one of the hottest topics at the INC meetings. The big debate is whether member states should have the right to vote on decisions if they cannot reach an agreement, as stated in Rules 37 and 38.

Why would countries not want to vote? Some are afraid that, if they were on the losing side, they would be forced into doing things they don’t want to do. They prefer every decision to be made by consensus, which means a unanimous (100%) agreement is needed to pass.

However, this also means if just one country out of the 175 present disagrees with a proposal, nothing can happen until it is modified to a (usually weaker) version that the country will approve. In other words, decisions that are already agreed by a large majority of countries can be hijacked by powerful minorities.

As we head towards INC-4, the RoP are still in a draft version, which is a big risk as we get deeper into the negotiations. Powerful oil-producing countries will push for consensus so that they can veto any attempt in the treaty to limit their activities.

10. (Revised) Zero Draft (RZD)
The zero draft is a suggested text for the treaty prepared by the INC Secretariat after INC-2 in Paris. It contains all the different options for ending plastic pollution across its whole life cycle. At INC-3 in Nairobi, the text was discussed by member states and multiple pages of suggested new wordings were added. This resulted in the RZD, which is almost twice the length of the original.

At INC-4, this new text will be the basis for negotiations. For more about the zero draft and what it covers, see our Instagram post or check out the video to see what we think the treaty should include.

A legal drafting group will be set up at INC-4 to start summarising the text into a more workable version, while the countries try to find common ground on some of the more controversial points, like reducing plastic production.

—

If this guide was helpful and you’d like to know more about any other topics related to the Global Plastics Treaty or plastic pollution in general, drop us a comment below and we’ll see if we can cover it!

The burning issue of incineration

by Lydia on 21/09/2023 No comments

Clever marketing promotes incineration as an efficient, green, and even “zero waste” approach to energy and trash. We can make our waste “disappear” and produce energy at the same time – who wouldn’t want that?

So why has the EU banned new incinerators? And why do we believe that it has no place in the world of zero waste?

What exactly is incineration?

The term ‘incineration’ covers processes that burn waste, with or without oxygen, usually to produce electricity, heat or fuel. It includes things like waste-to-energy, chemical recycling, pyrolysis and plastic-to-fuel. Each process treats the trash slightly differently, but their impacts are similar. So, as we dive in and examine three bogus claims made about incineration, we’ll group them all together.

Myth 1: Incineration is an efficient way to deal with waste

Incinerators are sold as big energy generators for cities, but the reality is they are hugely inefficient. Their fuel – municipal waste – is rarely sorted. This means it contains a lot of food, which has a high water content, making it hard to burn. Of the fuel put in, often less than 20% can be recovered as energy. This number would be even lower in the Global South, where municipal waste typically contains higher levels of organics. In comparison, coal power has a 35% efficiency rate and natural gas 42%.

This means a typical incinerator can only cover about 5% of a city’s energy needs. Let’s look at this at a household level. The average family (depending on where you live) produces 2.98 tonnes of waste per year. On average, burning 1 tonne of waste will produce 160 kwH of electricity, which can power a house for ten days. So the trash from one household in a whole year can power their house for less than a month.

In addition, incineration plants are neither cheap to build, nor to run. They require expensive specialised equipment such as pollution control systems, air quality monitoring, wastewater management and waste disposal systems. These add up: incineration costs $190-$1200 per tonne, compared to landfills costing $5-$50 per tonne. The low efficiency of incineration makes it hard to generate revenue from selling energy and balance the high set-up and operational costs. Consequently, seeing any return on investment can take 20 – 30 years.

Myth 2: Incineration is an environmentally friendly, renewable energy source

Incineration produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other means of energy production. And of all the ways to manage plastic waste, it has the biggest climate impact. Burning one tonne of plastic for energy recovery will result in a net emission of 0.9 tonnes of CO2, even after offsetting the virgin fossil fuel that was saved in the process. This is compared with 60kg of CO2 for landfilling the same amount.

Incinerators are also a major source of fine particulates, heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. As such, they should be equipped with expensive air pollution control systems, and often are in the Global North. These systems work by reducing the toxins in the exhaust gas and concentrating them into other byproducts like fly ash, slag and wastewater. These residuals are hazardous but are often still used in building materials or disposed of in landfills. Inevitably they will find their way into the environment, eventually entering the food chain. In the Global South, more lenient regulation and lower budgets mean even basic air pollution controls and safe disposal of byproducts are often skipped.

Exposure to dioxins, furans and other toxins leads to serious health issues. Studies in communities living near waste incinerators reveal a significantly increased rate of certain cancers, respiratory and neurological diseases, stomach ailments, fatigue, risk of miscarriages, birth defects and premature births. Disproportionately, it is marginalised communities that are exposed to such pollution. In the US, 8/10 incinerators are close to low-income communities or communities of colour. As the EU has stopped investing in new incineration plants, there has been a push to set up more in the Global South. This means that even more vulnerable communities are being exposed to harmful toxins.

Finally, incineration is often touted as “renewable energy”, as waste is constantly produced. However, the calorific part of waste is largely made up of non-renewable fossil fuel materials, such as plastic, that cannot then be reused. And, when the calorific percentage is low – in cases where there is a lot of organic material mixed in – incineration facilities often end up supplementing with virgin fossil fuels to keep the fire burning. This happens in China, where they depend on coal to keep their incinerators going.

Myth 3: Incineration is “zero waste”

The definition of zero waste centres around the conservation of natural resources, by designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste.

Incineration is the opposite of this. By using waste as fuel, resources are destroyed, including materials such as metal or glass, which are reusable, or organic materials that could create compost.

Its high investment cost and the need to keep the fire burning around the clock means it relies on the continuous production of waste, especially fossil fuel-based plastic. The volume of waste produced can actually increase in a situation where an incinerator is present.

For example, Denmark predominantly manages its waste through incineration. They currently produce the highest levels of waste per person per year in the EU: 845kgs! This is far more than the average, which is 505kgs. Once an incinerator is built, it creates a lock-in effect, which means there is no incentive to reduce waste at all.

Incinerating rubbish also removes any incentive to sort and recycle it, because doing so reduces the amount available to burn. In 2019, a policy came into force in Shanghai, China to separate organics and recyclables from municipal waste. This resulted in 54% of waste being diverted from disposal, compared to 21% prior to implementation. The unforeseen consequence was that there was not enough waste for their incinerators to run. In May 2023, there were 88 days of closures across the city’s 12 plants, due to a lack of fuel.

One other positive aspect of zero waste is that it supports employment in the waste management sector – sorting, composting, recycling – as well as additional jobs around reuse, refill and repair. Incineration takes all of these livelihoods away. The jobs it creates are far fewer and carry a higher risk of toxic exposure.

So when you see any industry-sponsored promotion of incineration as “efficient”, “renewable” or “clean and green”, you can now call this out as greenwashing.

Instead of destroying resources, heating the climate and creating unsafe communities, local and national governments must help implement systems supporting zero waste. This will lead to more jobs, less emissions and healthier people! Do you agree? Then, share this blog post with anyone who thinks incineration could benefit their community.

Want to bust more myths? Check out our blog post that exposes the truth about plastic credits.

5 tips to reduce plastic waste in the wider world

by Lydia on 01/08/2022 3 comments

Changed your habits? Now it’s time to change the world!

Lists of advice on how to reduce your plastic use are all over the internet. If you’re reading this, perhaps you already own a bamboo toothbrush, carry a reusable bottle and bag and shop at refill stores. Maybe you separate your waste like a pro and made other zero waste swaps that have reduced the amount of plastic you use in your day-to-day life. In which case, congratulations! It’s not always easy, but being the change you want to see and leading by example are the best way to start your journey to reduce plastic pollution.

Everything you do in this respect helps to normalise the concepts of reuse and refill and hopefully inspires others to do the same.

But although you are doing your part, it might feel like nothing is changing in the wider world: in the news, you see there are still millions of tonnes of plastic being produced each year. Other than avoiding plastic in our own lives, what can we do to stop this?

As individuals it may feel like there is not much we can do. But at Trash Hero, we have found there are there are many easy actions that can help get companies, communities and governments on board to support the reduction of single-use plastic.

We’re happy to share them with you here. If you are ready to go a step further on your zero waste journey, read on for our five top tips to reduce plastic in the world around us.

1. Learn to spot greenwashing

the image on the left shows a bottle that says 'hello I'm a paper bottle' the image on the left shows that label being removed to show a plastic bottle underneath

Greenwashing is when a business promotes its products or practices as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” when actually they are not. Many cases of greenwashing are easy to spot, but some are much harder.

When a big company uses green colours, or images or language suggesting “nature” to market a product in throwaway packaging, this is a sure sign of greenwashing. But it can also be more subtle. Many fashion brands put out “sustainable” clothing lines and boast about their eco-credentials, when these products make up only a tiny percentage of their output.

You can find more examples and information on our greenwashing factsheet

Other resources include our handy toolkit for spotting greenwashing and a new website dedicated to the topic.

Why do we need to spot greenwashing at all? Because the practices give people the impression that something is being done about issues like plastic pollution and climate change. They allow companies to get away with doing, in reality, very little to solve environmental problems. Greenwashing is so prevalent and considered so serious that many companies are now being sued for making false claims about their sustainability.

If we can spot greenwashing and expose it to those around us, it helps to keep the pressure on companies to make real changes to the way they operate. You could even share your observations on social media!

2. Change the story

Three girls from thailand are crouching on the floor putting an arm in the air triumphently. They are smiling at the camera in front of a trash hero Ao Nang sign

Since the 1970s companies have been pushing the blame for the pollution they cause onto consumers and governments. With single-use plastic, they tell a story about “litter” and “irresponsible people” and say the problem can be solved with education, better recycling and waste management.

The reality is that many multinational companies have designed pollution into their packaging and delivery systems. They continue to produce single-use plastic in the face of evidence that it is toxic, not easily recycled, damages our environment and causes climate change. Why? Because it is cheaper for them to do so: the old reuse and refill systems (that single-use plastics replaced) required having employees and infrastructure. Now, we are expected to throw packaging away and let someone else deal with it.

It is important that people understand they are not to blame for the current crisis. Instead, plastic pollution needs to be stopped at its source. Large companies can change the way they package their materials, ‘turning off the tap’ of plastic, not relying on public services to mop up their mess.

A great way to help others understand about the wider changes needed to solve the problem of plastic, is to share this short animation, The Story of Plastic. If you would like to know more, search for the full-length documentary version, which explores the issue in depth.

3. Do a brand audit

Two images. One shows a girl with a piece of paper filling in information and one shows a man crouching down and collecting cans. There are also plastic bottles in the picture

Another effective way of holding multinational companies accountable is to collect data about them. There is an easy way for individuals to get involved in this, in the Brand Audit Report, a global citizen science project organised by Break Free From Plastic.

A brand audit is ideally carried out on litter picked up at a cleanup, but it can also be done on items in your household trash. It involves recording the brand and type of each plastic item found. For example, how many plastic Coke bottles or how many plastic Nestle sachets there are. Break Free From Plastic have been organising brand audits since 2018 and from the data they collect they produce a report that identifies the top polluters. These yearly reports have played a huge part in shifting the narrative from plastic waste being the responsibility of citizens to that of the producers.

Contributing to this data is a fantastic way to increase the pressure on the top polluters to change the way they package their products.

Get in touch with your local Trash Hero chapter to see when they are next doing a brand audit or conduct your own! This year, you can send in your contribution up to the end of September.

4. Support a zero waste business

Trash Hero bottles next to a sign in a cafe that says 'bring your own'

Maybe your favourite cafe gives a discount for bringing a reusable cup, or you have a local deli that lets you bring your own container for cheese or cooked meats. Businesses such as these are encouraging people to use less plastic and supporting a sustainable business model that undoubtedly has a positive impact on the environment.

When you find such a place, it’s a great idea to support them. Some ways to show support are to tell your friends about it, share their page on your social media or tell the staff that you support and love what they are doing. If you don’t have such a shop in your area, why not try starting a conversation about refills by asking if you can use your own cup or container and explaining why.

The more we support businesses that are implementing real solutions to the plastics crisis, the more that will open! And, consequently, more pressure will be put upon larger companies to do the same.

5. Become a Trash Hero

four photos with groups of people smiling and looking at the camera, they are all wearing trash hero t-shirts. A mix of adults and children, some are collecting plastic

No cost, no sign up – just show up! It is that easy to become a Trash Hero.

Our Trash Hero chapters do weekly cleanups which have an immediate and positive impact on the environment. After each cleanup the volunteers come together to discuss the waste they have just removed and think about where it came from.

These activities allow us to engage with a wide range of people from the local community, which is a great way to get everyone from schools, businesses, families and local government thinking about waste – and hopefully, start to implement real changes to reduce the plastic they use.
Find a Trash Hero near you or get in touch to find out how to set up your own chapter.

Whatever you chose to do beyond changing your own lifestyle, the most important thing is that you are doing something. It can feel a little overwhelming at times, but remember small changes done by many people lead to big impacts! To keep yourself inspired make sure to follow us online and tag us in any tips you have to reduce plastic across the globe!

183 participants from 80 chapters join Family Meetings in May

by Lydia on 23/06/2022 2 comments

After two and a half years of online meetings, this year we were finally able to have our Trash Hero Family Meetings in person!

Family Meetings are our regular volunteer training and team-building events that celebrate our chapters’ achievements and facilitate the exchange of knowledge, experience and skills that will benefit both their community and the wider Trash Hero mission.

It's great to know how people or companies contributing to pollution are distracting out minds, to know how to achieve our goals and know the extent of the situation or problem in each chapter. In addition, the whole meeting is very good for refreshing the slack spirit' - Mr Con, Trash Hero Tuaran, Malaysia, Mary 2022

Two trash heros at the meeting, one with a laptop the other smiling

Pre-pandemic they were held in person in our major countries of operation: Czech Republic, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Switzerland and Thailand.

In 2020 and 2021 we moved these meetings online, which allowed us to reach volunteers in other countries that had never previously attended a family meeting. They saw fantastic levels of attendance with 276 people in 18 different countries attending a series of online meetings in 2020. In 2021, 174 people from 15 different countries joined the Trash Hero global meeting, and Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Switzerland hosted their own Family Meetings. These meetings helped to keep our movement vibrant during a challenging period, but nothing could match the energy of in person discussion and interaction.

'It helped me develop my understanding of the essential meanings of Trash Hero - the importance of building consistency, commitment in doing an action and inspiring people while staying humble. The word "family" in “family meeting” showed its true meaning. We have never met, but it felt like we are old close friends, having fun without being awkward.' - Rara, Trash Hero Muba, Indonesia May 2022

Once restrictions eased, many chapters held their own Chapter Family Meetings which allowed them to build their local teams and address the particular issues they face in their communities.

Then, finally in May, we were able to plan and host a full series of face-to-face meetings with our volunteers in Svatý Jan pod Skalou, Czech Republic (13 – 15th), Batu Buruk, Malaysia (13-15th), Bali, Indonesia (20 – 22nd) and Chumpon, Thailand (27 – 29th).

After reviewing feedback from past Family Meetings, and from our own experience of our 2020-21 zero waste training, this year in Asia we aimed to increase the levels of interaction within the meeting – facilitating more discussions and increasing knowledge sharing.

“I enjoyed the opportunity to plan together with team members, in order to properly divide tasks and have people help each other – [it] makes the job a lot more fun and easier.”

Nan – Trash Hero Ao Nang, Thailand

The meetings started with introductions: after 2 and a half years there were some new faces joining us! It was fantastic to finally meet people in person who we had previously only met on a screen.

Then it was time to get to work! We explored our values as a movement, cleanup organisation, strategic planning, social media best practices, brand audits and the big picture of waste. The volunteers got to know Trash Hero World and the work we do globally and there were also sessions where they could share their experiences of delivering programmes on the ground. This provides essential input that helps to shape the way in which we work and our activities moving forward.

'The meeting was an inspiration. I made new friends sharing the same values. I received a lot of new knowledge and solved problems that had been weighing on me' - Chan, Trash Hero Patong, Thailand. May 2022

One of the most popular workshops was strategic planning, guiding the leaders through ways to increase the influence of their chapters and how to get more people involved. This started with a presentation, then a session to put their knowledge into practice and create a long-term plan. We encouraged the chapter leaders to assess their current situation, set goals and create a step-by-step plan for achieving their aims.

As well as being an opportunity to share knowledge, the Family Meetings help our volunteers form connections with each other – creating a fantastic network of support and ideas. The friendships formed at the events last far beyond the three days spent together.

Each Family Meeting was organised as a zero waste event. People who attended brought their own reusable water bottles, or there were glasses for use, and refill stations were readily available. All food and drink was served with reusable tableware and snacks were wrapped in banana leaves. Across the 4 events we had 183 participants from 80 chapters. This means, based on a conservative estimate of each participant having 2 water refills a day, at least 1,098 single-use plastic bottles were prevented from being used.

In Czech Republic, the meeting was held in an idyllic location just outside of Prague. The team listened to lectures from guest speakers, discussed ideas and visited the Bohemian Karst Protected Landscape Area. From their guide, Pavel Skala, who joined the Family Meeting as a representative of the Třesina association, they learned about local butterflies. Other guest speakers were Martin Trávníček from the Pestré Polabí association and Arthur F Sniegon from the non-profit organisation Save Elephant. It was also great to see a large number of the volunteers at the Family Meeting were Trash Hero Kids!

'We were so happy to see each other and we all agreed it was the best Family Meeting so far' - Monika, Trash Hero Czech Republic. May 2022

The feedback we received and the knowledge we gained during the events help us create a stronger global Trash Hero Family and will be used to shape our programmes as we continue our fight against plastic waste.

Malaysia: 27 Participants, 13 Chapters

Czech Republic: 35 Participants, 8 Chapters

Indonesia: 88 Participants, 45 Chapters

Thailand: 33 Participants, 15 Chapters

“I increased my knowledge about how polluted and how threatened planet Earth is. The most important thing for me from this meeting is how honest and transparent financial management is in THI and THW. I also felt the family atmosphere that is so close between the participants.”

Arnold – Trash Hero Nagekeo, Indonesia

By providing refill stations at our family meetings we prevented 1,098 plastic bottles from being used in just 3 days

World Refill Day: How you can have an impact

by Lydia on 16/06/2022 No comments

Plastic production is increasing, how can we – as concerned citizens- change this? We want to inspire you to make small changes and demand bigger ones so that globally we have a meaningful impact.

This World Refill Day (June 16th) we’re taking a closer look at refill and reuse and discovering why they are the key to reducing plastic pollution. We’ll share what we’ve been doing to support refill and show you how you can also make an impact with your actions. We’ll show you how to encourage the support of businesses who are providing refills, motivate you to examine the way products are sold and ultimately inspire you to integrate more refillables into your household and routine.

So why do we need to refill?

Currently, 380 million tonnes of plastics are produced each year ¹_, over half of which are single-use plastics ² . Around 9% of this plastic gets recycled, with less than 2% being effectively recycled³. The rest is littered, landfilled, burned or shipped around the world for someone else to deal with. The sheer volume of waste being generated means even improved recycling is not a practical solution – even if plastic manufacturers would like us to think it is.

The only solution that we know works is to reduce the amount of plastic being produced, especially single-use plastic. Refill and reuse of containers and packaging is one of the easiest and most efficient ways to reduce the amount of plastic needed in the world. Making refill the norm can start at an individual level and then must be supported by the local business community, government infrastructure and eventually by big consumer goods companies.

The benefits of refill are not just limited to reducing plastic waste in the environment. Reducing plastic also has a positive climate impact by reducing CO2 emissions. Plastic production and use currently accounts for around 4% of global carbon emissions, more than the entire airline industry. Integrating more refills into your routine will also have a positive impact on your wallet. Refilling as much as you need rather than buying pre-packaged amounts often works out cheaper, as does refilling drinking water. Many businesses also offer discounts for people who bring their own containers for takeaway food and drink.

So what can I do as an individual?

Make refilling a habit

Think about your daily routine – where do you eat lunch? What items do you regularly buy in single-use plastic? Then try and find ways in which you can swap the single-use for reuse or refill.

The simplest way is to switch to a reusable water bottle. If you already own one, you can encourage others to do the same!

There are many places that offer free water refills, especially in countries where you can drink from the tap. Even in those where you can’t, local refill networks such as the one created by Trash Hero (see below) often exist to help people stay hydrated while avoiding single-use plastic.

To see the impact you have when using a refillable water bottle you can use our free Bottle Impact Calculator. Share your results online to inspire others – and don’t forget to tag us @trashheroworld!

It’s not just water bottles

Let’s remember, It’s not just water bottles that can be refilled and reused! You can bring your own reusable cups and containers at many takeaway places and markets and more and more stores are offering refills of day-to-day essentials such as toiletries, cleaning products and groceries.

Even without a local refill store you can still take action: try a reusable container for your lunch (home made or takeaway) and a thermos for your coffee. You don’t necessarily need to buy anything new to start this, there are things in our houses that will do the job! Old takeaway containers are great to reuse for a packed lunch and old jam jars are perfect for home-made instant noodles – there are endless options and ideas out there! Have a look through your cupboards and see what can be repurposed for your refill journey.

reusable plates, world refill day — Reusable plates – Trash Hero Indonesia Family Meeting

refillable pots, world refill day — Reusable plates – Trash Hero Indonesia Family Meeting

Start a conversation

Talking about refill and how easy it is helps to make the idea accessible and normal for people around you. Make it your aim to research as many places as possible in your local community that allow you to bring your own container for purchases, or ask your friends and neighbours if they have any recommendations for water refills or other reuse tips. Share your findings with your network so that others are encouraged to try.

If there isn’t currently any refill store in your area, maybe there is a friendly local business that you can approach. Try bringing your own cup or container and start a discussion or brainstorm ways in which they could trial refills in their stores. A conversation is the first step to changing behaviour and consumer feedback is extremely powerful.

Support businesses that care

As we’ve mentioned, your feedback as a consumer holds power. This isn’t just about refusing single-use plastic in bigger stores, but supporting those businesses that are offering refills. Be sure to tell them you love what they do, share their sites on social media and encourage others to go there too.

A great resource for refill and reuse programmes is the Living Landscape of Reduse Solutions database – it provides fantastic information about the different ways refill works to eliminate waste, as well as an up-to-date list of refill and reuse providers. You can use it for research or submit your favourite store to their database.

Demand change

It is important to remember that refill is not a new idea. In fact, not so long ago refill was the norm in most countries. For example, products such as milk and soft drinks were delivered in refillable glass bottles. It’s easy to revive these systems and even improve them with new technology and materials.

Whenever you hear a company talking about more or better recycling, remind them and those around you that the real solution is to reduce and reuse / refill. Only when they realise people understand the link between their products and pollution and climate change will they change their packaging and delivery systems.

It may feel overwhelming at times, but together we have the power to demand change and show commitment to that change in our daily habits and purchases.

So what are Trash Hero doing about refills?

The Trash Hero bottle refill programme offers a safe and affordable alternative to single-use plastic bottles. We provide stainless steel water bottles at cost price to local businesses, who then sell them on and provide free drinking water refills to any bottle owner. We have a network of more than 700 refill points, predominantly in Southeast Asia, but also in Czech Republic. A study looked at the impact of refilling the Trash Hero bottle alongside the equivalent number of single-use plastic water bottles and concluded: ‘As a direct comparison between packaging systems, the Trash Hero reusable bottle reduces your [CO2 emissions] by around 95% vs. single-use plastic.’ ⁴ To date, we have sold 102,470 bottles and estimate that 37 million plastic bottles have been avoided as a result of the programme.⁵

Another Trash Hero refill project saw us partner with Swiss cosmetics company, Schnarwiler AG, to launch a range of refillable beauty products with 100% natural ingredients. Essential items such as hand and body soap, shampoo, conditioner and body lotion are packaged in recycled glass bottles and refilled in local stores from bulk containers that are also washed and reused. Since the project started in 2018, the refill network has grown to 84 outlets and 11 hotels, including a popular national chain store, demonstrating that such projects can be implemented on a large scale. It is estimated that 52,882 plastic bottles (200ml) have been avoided thanks to refill.

We’d love to hear from you about your refill journey. Any great refill or reuse ideas that you’ve found helpful? Any stores in your area that you want people to know about? Share in the comments below or tag us on social media!

Footnotes and references:

Trash Heroes get creative with team-building!

by Lydia on 09/05/2022 No comments

At the very heart of Trash Hero, and indeed the driving force of it, are our volunteers. Every week hundreds of people across the world come together to help clean, educate, and work towards change within the communities they cherish. Trash Hero is formed of over 170 chapters and hundreds of volunteers who are dedicated to fighting plastic pollution.

One of the highlights of our year is the opportunity to gather together our volunteers by hosting ‘Trash Hero Family Meetings.’ This is where we come together, in our core countries of activity, to brainstorm ideas about zero waste, identify work to be done and to celebrate and thank those who have been organising cleanups and educational activities. It is a fantastic opportunity for volunteers to meet other like-minded individuals and allows lifelong connections and friendships to be formed.

It is also our opportunity to learn from them, as their local knowledge is invaluable and is used to inform our programmes and the way in which we work. Over the past two years we have had to move these gatherings online, which has seen record numbers of attendance but ultimately could not match the energy of an in-person event.

So, as restrictions started to ease at the end of 2021, we decided to offer our volunteers the opportunity to host their own mini family meeting within their local chapter. These team-building events, which we called “Chapter Family Meetings”, were funded by Trash Hero World. The chapters were given a budget and guidelines, but each had the freedom to plan whatever they felt would be a suitable celebration for them.

It was amazing to see the incredible ideas they came up with: camping trips; inviting community leaders to discuss reducing plastic in the area; mountain hikes; coffee meetings; lobbying to reduce single-use plastic; open discussions and brainstorming for future plans. Every event was filled with inspiration, community spirit, a passion for the natural world, and, of course, all were planned as zero waste events.

Here are a few highlights from the Chapter Family Meetings:

Trash Hero Mas

Trash Hero Mas has conducted over 75 cleanups since November 2020! They used the Chapter Family Meeting as an opportunity to open a conversation about zero waste with their village leaders – one of which is the Kepala Desa – and the leaders of local youth organisations. In Indonesia the Kepala Desa is the ‘head of the village’ and is an extremely influential and highly respected member of the community. These leaders have the power to implement and encourage change in their villages and can assist with finding real, long-term, solutions. By inviting them to take part and learn about our work, Trash Hero Mas have taken an important first step towards their goal of a zero waste village. The leaders have now agreed to support their activities.

Trash Hero Perlis

Trash Hero Perlis is located in Malaysia and was started in 2019. Since then they have conducted over 90 clean ups, removing over 33,000 kg of trash! For the chapter family meeting they organised a memorable camping trip. The agenda included: looking at ways to reward their volunteers, expanding their core team and how to improve outreach and promote ideas of zero waste. This was all done against a stunning backdrop with some fun activities. The event provided a great opportunity to bond while also conjuring up ideas to achieve their goals.

Trash Hero Pejarakan

Trash Hero Pejarakan is located in Indonesia and has been running regular cleanups and activities since 2019. For their Chapter Family Meeting they decided to take some youth groups on a trip through the mangroves. Mangroves are an essential part of the ecosystem and face many threats, one being increasing plastic pollution. Using traditional boats they toured the mangroves learning about the important role that they play.

This was a fantastic and educational tour that ended with a plastic-free snack and drinking water from a refillable water tank (rather than individual plastic bottles!) It was also a treat for the Trash Hero Kids that join the cleanup activities regularly, helping to reignite their passion for protecting our natural world.

Trash Hero Sukawati

Trash Hero Sukawati is located in Indonesia and was set up in November 2020 – already completing over 60 clean ups! For their Chapter Family Meeting they decided to look at how you can reduce waste in the kitchen. They found one of the key things is using local ingredients that are readily available and don’t come wrapped in plastic. Pak Imam Budaya, the chapter leader, was able to introduce these ideas to his team and their families while cooking together. He shared his passion for zero waste and, during the meal they prepared, they discussed future plans and goals. Cooking and eating together always brings joy!

So far the Chapter Family Meetings have taken place in 5 countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Czech Republic and The Netherlands and here are the numbers of how many chapters and people have taken part:

Indonesia: 43 chapters with 464 adults and 172 kids

Thailand: 8 chapters with 49 adults and 16 kids

Malaysia: 4 chapters with 53 adults and 4 kids

Czech Republic: 2 chapters with 17 adults

The Netherlands: 1 chapter with 15 adults and 2 kids

Overall, the idea of these events has been well-received by our chapters. They enjoyed both the opportunity to be creative and the benefits brought to their volunteers. We can’t wait to see what celebrations the remaining chapters come up with and what will be done next year – as this will now be a regular fixture.

Read more about what Trash Hero has been doing in our Annual Report 2021