On 10 July 2022, the influential US non-profit organisation, Ocean Conservancy, issued a formal apology to more than 700 organisations for the damage their report, ‘Stemming the Tide’, has caused since it was released in 2015. In addition, they rescinded the report, removing it from their website and have ceased all promotion of and reference to it.
The prominent and oft-cited report claimed that the majority of plastic entering the ocean came from a small geographical area in East and Southeast Asia. It named five Asian countries (China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand) as those responsible for more than half of the plastic polluting the world’s oceans. It created a damaging narrative that would influence the response to the plastic pollution crisis for years to come.
Alongside their apology, the Ocean Conservancy shared two peer-reviewed journals that more accurately highlighted the roles and responsibilities of all nations in preventing plastic pollution from entering the ocean and examined holistic solutions founded on the principles of circular economy 1.
Why was the report so damaging?
The report presented a flawed analysis of the problem – focusing on reducing ‘leakage’ rather than reducing production. It ultimately failed to recognise the sizeable contribution of wealthier, more developed countries to the ongoing plastic crisis, as well as promoting incineration and other false solutions
For decades, countries in the Global North have overproduced plastic and promoted recycling, rather than reduction, as a long-term solution. Sadly, “recycling” systemically involves large quantities of waste being exported to developing countries for processing, putting immense pressure on waste management systems that are already struggling. The report failed to recognise this practice and its impact, instead creating a narrative that Asian countries were responsible for the crisis. This enabled the Global North and plastic producers to continue business as usual, as the problem lay elsewhere.
The Ocean Conservancy also promoted false solutions in the report, primarily the incineration of plastic, which was a cause for concern in many ways. Incineration contributes to climate change by releasing dangerous levels of toxins and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, leading to health problems for those exposed to or living close to, the incineration plants 2. It also traps municipalities into producing more waste to feed the machine, disincentivising waste separation and encouraging more use and production of plastic.
By condoning this ‘solution’ in the report, governments were galvanised to adopt and promote it. It undermined the hard work of many NGOs in the region who were fighting incineration and created severe obstacles to positive change that would help reduce plastic pollution.
Why was the report retracted?
In 2015, in response to the report being released, over 700 organisations, signed an open letter that critiqued the report and pointed out the potential impacts such an inaccurate report can (and did!) have. Environmental groups worked hard to try to correct the narrative. They provided evidence about the organisations that largely came from the Global North, that were responsible for the thousands of tonnes of plastic waste entering the environment. They also worked hard to debunk false solutions such as waste incineration, ‘waste to energy’ and chemical recycling.
You can read more about the science behind these here – a new website by Break Free From Plastic that analyses proposed ‘solutions’ and uses science to debunk greenwashing and myths surrounding how we should be dealing with plastic pollution.
Thanks to their hard work, and the perseverance of many organisations, including GAIA and Break Free From plastic, the Ocean Conservancy finally rescinded the report and recognised its failings and inaccuracies:
“In Stemming the Tide, Ocean Conservancy focused solely on minimizing the amount of plastics entering the ocean. We investigated and included incineration and waste-to-energy as acceptable solutions to the ocean plastic crisis, which was wrong. We failed to confront the root causes of plastic waste or incorporate the effects on the communities and NGOs working on the ground in the places most impacted by plastic pollution. We did not consider how these technologies support continued demand for plastic production and hamper the move to a circular economy and a zero-carbon future. Further, by focusing so narrowly on one region of the world (East and Southeast Asia), we created a narrative about who is responsible for the ocean plastic pollution crisis – one that failed to acknowledge the outsized role that developed countries, especially the United States, have played and continue to play in generating and exporting plastic waste to this very region. This too was wrong.”
What happens now?
Since the Ocean Conservancy released the apology and retraction, many organisations have been working with them to help repair the damage done.
Froilan Grate, Regional Director of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), has said that they are, along with the members and allies from the #breakfreefromplastic movement, “taking steps with the OC to restore the much-needed justice for the impacted communities in Asia.”
You can read GAIA and Break Free From Plastics’ full response to the apology here.
As an organisation with an active presence in Southeast Asia, Trash Hero World is delighted to see this report being retracted. While these countries are indeed on the front lines of the plastic crisis, blaming them for the situation was unfair and unwarranted. We look forward to the work Ocean Conservancy will do to repair the damage done and hope that they – and others – will now support the good work towards real, zero waste solutions that is being done in the region.
If you see this narrative anywhere – of these countries being blamed for ocean plastic or the promotion of incineration as a solution to plastic waste – then please help to debunk this myth and share this blog post so we can finally stop this false perspective from spreading.
Footnotes:
read more
