Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

Africa’s Path to Zero Waste: Reflections on The Zero Waste Academy 2025

By Desmond Alugnoa and Ama Asiedu 

For nearly a decade, the GAIA Africa team has been providing technical expertise to support the successful implementation of zero-waste models across Africa.

Between June and July 2025, we hosted our first-ever Africa Zero Waste Academy. Our goal for the academy is to empower individuals and organisations with the knowledge and skills to implement zero-waste solutions throughout the continent. It also aims to serve as a growing platform for the practical deployment of sustainable waste management in cities.

This initiative builds upon the pioneering work done by our colleagues in other regions, as well as the Africa-specific academies held in Tanzania and Morocco.

What a journey it has been! This was not just training; it marked the emergence of waste management changemakers.

A Dream Rooted in Community

When we launched the Africa Zero Waste Academy, the goal was clear: to build the next generation of African Zero Waste champions. We knew the solutions to our continent’s waste crisis already existed in our compost heaps, in the knowledge of our waste picker movements, and our traditional reuse practices. All we needed was to connect the dots through effective collaboration.  For six weeks, over 40 participants from 18 African countries met online to explore the foundations of Zero Waste. Using an online platform called Moodle, they completed structured modules, submitted real-time community assignments, and participated in weekly live discussions guided by facilitators. The learning was not just theoretical; participants audited their household and neighbourhood waste streams, mapped informal waste systems, explored composting and plastic reduction strategies, developed advocacy campaigns, and drafted project plans tailored to their local context. By the end of the online seminars, one could feel it: this group was ready for more.

Then came the in-person magic. From 7 to 11 July 2025, selected participants travelled to Durban, South Africa, for hands-on training, field visits, and development of waste storytelling skills. Together, participants visited real zero-waste communities, learned from frontline waste workers, shared project ideas, received feedback, and celebrated their graduation with dancing, joy, and unity. For some, it was their first international experience. For all of us, it was a life-changing opportunity that provided a learning platform.

Real People, Real Impact

The impact of the Academy lies in the stories participants told after the training. These are the seeds of systems change—local, tangible, unstoppable. Below are a few of them.

“The Africa Zero Waste Academy didn’t just teach me strategies. It gave me a community. I now have a network of passionate individuals across Africa I can rely on for guidance, collaboration, and support in implementing real Zero Waste solutions. That kind of solidarity is priceless.”– Sabrina from Namibia.

“I’ve already started composting in my backyard. My neighbours are curious, and we’re planning a training for the whole community.” – Fathia from Ghana.

What Comes Next?

The Africa Zero Waste Academy 2025 may be over, but the journey continues: alumni will implement and scale their projects. We are grateful for collaborating with groundWork to host this event in South Africa and expand our horizons to work with other pioneering zero-waste implementers for future versions of the academy. GAIA Africa will continue to provide mentorship and support, and we’ll gather again, bigger, bolder, better! To the participants, facilitators, funders, and partners, thank you for sharing your belief in this vision. You showed that Africa is not waiting to be rescued from waste; we are rising to lead. Keep following our work. 

Our zero waste future is African, and it’s already here!

ENDS.

The post Africa’s 2025 Zero Waste Academy first appeared on GAIA.

GAIA Africa Hosts Media Briefing to Mobilise African Journalists in Support of an Ambitious Global Plastics Treaty

GAIA Africa hosted an online media briefing for African journalists ahead of the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) on the Global Plastics Treaty. Held on July 24, the session emphasised the critical role of journalists in amplifying the key priorities of African civil society, urging governments to adopt an ambitious position against plastic pollution, and unpacking the treaty’s regional implications.

Africa has played a leading role in the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, beginning with the adoption of AMCEN Decision 19/2—a landmark mandate by African ministers that firmly established the continent’s priorities. This decision solidified the African Group of Negotiators’ (AGN) common position, committing the region to advocate for a legally binding global treaty that addresses plastic pollution across its entire lifecycle—from production to disposal—while safeguarding human health and the environment.

Since then, Africa has consistently demonstrated unity, leadership, and moral authority on the international stage, gaining global recognition and respect. As the negotiations advance, this momentum must not waver. Leaders must now carry this spirit forward into INC-5.2 with renewed determination, upholding their commitments and acting with the courage, integrity, and ambition this moment demands.

Merrisa Naidoo, GAIA Africa’s Plastics Program Manager and a leading coordinator of the region’s engagement in the Global Plastics Treaty process since INC-1, delivered a timely briefing on the treaty’s progress and the continent’s priorities ahead of INC-5.2 this August. She underscored that while the science is clear and global support for a bold, binding treaty to end plastic pollution is stronger than ever, the process is being held back by a lack of good faith and political will. “Now, more than ever, we need courageous leadership,” Naidoo stressed. “We have the evidence. We have the momentum. What we’re missing is the commitment to act.”

Civil society members from across Africa, who actively advocate for a strong Global Plastics Treaty, shared their expectations ahead of the upcoming negotiations. Drawing on diverse backgrounds and lived experiences, these speakers highlighted critical issues, including the elimination of toxic chemicals in plastics, the establishment of a robust and equitable financial mechanism, and, most urgently, the need to reduce plastic production at the source. Their powerful interventions represented voices from South Africa, Ethiopia, Ghana, Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya, demonstrating a united continental call for an ambitious treaty that puts people and the planet before profit. When it comes to the African people, unity can be seen from south to north, from east to west.

Eskedar Awgichew of EcoJustice Ethiopia shared his perspective, stating, “in my country, Ethiopia, we are witnessing a growing surge in petrochemical infrastructure linked to plastic production. Yet local communities face a serious gap in environmental oversight and public health protection. This is where harm begins, and where justice must be rooted”. 

Mohamed Kamal of the Greenish Foundation, Egypt, emphasised “we need African negotiators to connect with the pollution we face on the ground and recognise that waste management alone is not enough to solve the problem and we have to tackle it at the source, at production.”

Rico Euripidou of groundWork in South Africa stated, “there are an alarming 16000 chemicals found in plastics, and we need a Plastics Treaty that eliminates the most harmful toxic chemicals in plastics.”

This was further emphasised by Dorothy Otieno of CEJAD Kenya, citing that “research conducted in Africa has revealed the presence of toxic chemicals in children’s toys and the food chain.” She underscored that this treaty is fundamentally an African treaty, and as a net importer of plastics, the continent stands to benefit significantly from the elimination of toxic chemicals in plastics.

Nadine Wahab of Sustainable Network Egypt powerfully called out that we are at a stage of the negotiations where we must prioritise effective, inclusive, and transparent decision-making. “We need to restore trust in multilateralism. The INC must not fall into the traps we’ve seen in other environmental processes, particularly the climate negotiations, where procedural ambiguity and politicisation have hindered ambition.”  

“Many African countries are burdened by substantial debt, and there is an urgent need for the Plastics Treaty to establish a dedicated Multilateral Fund (MLF) to support effective implementation across the continent,” said Jacob Johnson Attakpah from GAYO Ghana. 

Finally, Sarah Onuoha of SRADeV Nigeria highlighted the critical importance of the human rights impacts that plastic pollution has, stating that, “We must recognise that plastic pollution directly impacts livelihoods. In the Nigerian context, journalists have a key role to play in advocating for environmental justice and promoting solutions that alleviate poverty while supporting national development efforts.”

With INC-5.2 on the horizon, speakers urged the Global South to stand united and approach the negotiations with determination and urgency. The road ahead may be challenging, but Africa’s message is resolute: we will not back down, nor will we settle for anything less than a treaty that delivers real solutions to end plastic pollution.

ENDS

Press contact:

Carissa Marnce, GAIA Africa Communications:  carissa@no-burn.org | +27 76 934 6156

###

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

The post [Media Release] African CSOs Unite to Share Global South Priorities Ahead of INC-5.2 first appeared on GAIA.

El Tratado global de plásticos: Una oportunidad histórica 

En marzo de 2022, la Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente tomó la decisión de encomendar la elaboración de un primer Tratado Global de Plásticos, una norma internacional legalmente vinculante destinada a reducir la contaminación por plásticos en todo el mundo que cubra todo el ciclo de vida del plástico. La crisis provocada por el plástico es cada vez mayor y tiene un impacto devastador en el medio ambiente, la salud humana, los derechos humanos, la justicia ambiental, los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, la biodiversidad y el clima. Se necesitan acciones globales urgentes para abordar esta crisis. Como se ha demostrado en numerosos estudios, el plástico se encuentra en todas partes, no sólo en los ecosistemas y la atmósfera, sino también en los alimentos que comemos, el agua que bebemos e incluso en el interior de nuestro cuerpo. Para que el Tratado Global sobre Plásticos sea eficaz a la hora de revertir el aluvión de contaminación plástica, es necesario que existan mecanismos y soluciones para abordarlo dentro de los límites planetarios y climáticos. Este tratado es una oportunidad para hacer las cosas bien. Tiene el potencial de ser uno de los acuerdos medioambientales más importantes de la historia.

 Para más información: https://www.no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty/. 

La próxima ronda de negociaciones o Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación (INC) para el tratado sobre los plásticos (INC-5.2) tendrá lugar en Ginebra, Suiza, del 5 al 14 de agosto. Las negociaciones se celebran bajo los auspicios del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA)

Las negociaciones se pueden seguir en línea aquí

Agenda INC-5.2 

Las negociaciones adoptarán dos formas oficiales: sesión plenaria (retransmitida en directo en el sitio web del PNUMA) y grupos de contacto, de carácter confidencial según las reglas de Chatham House. Habrá cuatro grupos de contacto, dos de los cuales se reunirán en paralelo en un momento dado. Las negociaciones están dirigidas por el Presidente, el Embajador Luis Vayas Valdivieso de Ecuador, y son negociadas por los países de las Naciones Unidas, llamados Estados Miembros. Este es el texto que los Estados Miembros negociarán en el INC-5.2 (ver los comentarios de GAIA aquí).

De acuerdo con la Nota de Escenario que el Presidente ha publicado recientemente, el flujo de las negociaciones puede ser el siguiente:

• 5 de agosto: Sesión plenaria de apertura
  • 10:00 a.m. – Breve sesión plenaria de apertura, sin declaraciones orales por parte de los Estados Miembros (con la posibilidad de enviarlas previamente a través del portal en línea), posible espacio de 30 minutos para intervenciones de observadores (declaraciones de la sociedad civil).
  • Las cuestiones de organización se abordarán aquí: Reglamento interno, adopción de la agenda.
• 5-8, 11-14 de agosto: Grupos de contacto
  • El grueso de las negociaciones se dividirá en cuatro «Grupos de contacto», cada uno de los cuales negociará diferentes grupos de artículos del texto del tratado.
• 9 de agosto: Sesión plenaria de “Balance”.
  • Los presidentes de cada Grupo de Contacto presentarán un breve informe sobre sus avances.
• 10 de agosto: Consultas informales
  • Consultas informales entre los miembros (sin reuniones formales).
• 14 de agosto: Plenaria de cierre

Otra oportunidad para alcanzar un tratado sobre plásticos sólido 

A continuación se resumen los últimos avances en las negociaciones previas al INC-5.2. Para obtener un resumen de los resultados del INC-5, consulte nuestro informe. Para obtener más información sobre los resultados de las INC anteriores, consulte nuestro archivo de noticias.

Somos la mayoría

Al término del INC-5 en Busan, Corea del Sur, a finales del año pasado, quedó claro que, aunque era evidente que se necesitaba más tiempo para negociar las disposiciones del tratado, los países ambiciosos superaban ampliamente en número y aislaban al pequeño grupo de países que buscaban debilitar el texto final del tratado. En un momento especialmente emotivo, Juliet Kabera, de Ruanda, leyó una declaración en nombre de más de 85 países en la que se hacía hincapié en su compromiso común con un tratado jurídicamente vinculante que consagrara los objetivos de reducción, la eliminación gradual de los productos químicos nocivos, una transición justa y un mecanismo financiero equitativo. A continuación, instó a todos los presentes en la sala que apoyaban un tratado ambicioso a ponerse de pie, y el 90 % de los asistentes se levantaron y aplaudieron. Fue un momento muy emotivo en la sala y un recordatorio de la determinación de la mayoría. Hasta la fecha:

• 103 países firmaron en apoyo de una Declaración sobre los polímeros plásticos primarios.
• 85 países firmaron la declaración «Standing Up for Ambition» (Defendiendo la ambición).
• 94 países firmaron una Declaración sobre productos plásticos y sustancias químicas preocupantes.
• 100 países firmaron  una propuesta de texto para adoptar un objetivo de reducción de la producción de plásticos.
• 151 países apoyan una propuesta para un mecanismo financiero específico y equitativo.

Lea la respuesta de GAIA al anuncio del INC-5.2

Ministros de Medio Ambiente unidos en la UNOC: «La llamada de atención de Niza para un tratado de plásticos ambicioso»

En la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Océanos celebrada en Niza (Francia) en junio, los ministros de Medio Ambiente y representantes de 96 países (la mayoría de los Estados miembros de las Naciones Unidas) reafirmaron su compromiso de garantizar un tratado de plásticos sólido en una declaración coordinada por Francia titulada «El llamado de Niza para un tratado ambicioso sobre los plásticos».

Los líderes de la sociedad civil aplaudieron la reafirmación de la declaración sobre la necesidad de un tratado que establezca un objetivo mundial para la reducción de la producción de plásticos, la eliminación gradual de los productos plásticos más problemáticos y los productos químicos peligrosos, y que incluya mecanismos de seguimiento y presentación de informes para garantizar que los países cumplan sus objetivos, así como margen para reforzar los compromisos en función de los nuevos conocimientos científicos y los impactos sobre la salud y el medio ambiente.

Otra mención destacable en la declaración es el llamamiento a adoptar prácticas estándar de toma de decisiones, en caso de que no se alcance un consenso. Esto aísla aún más a los pocos países obstruccionistas que han insistido en la toma de decisiones por consenso como táctica para paralizar las negociaciones y debilitar la ambición del tratado final (véase aquí para más detalles).

Aunque la declaración no recogió varias demandas de la sociedad civil, en general las organizaciones sin fines de lucro acogieron con satisfacción la declaración como un punto de partida, y no un máximo, de ambición en las negociaciones.

Lea la respuesta de GAIA a la publicación del llamado de Niza.

Preparando el escenario: el proceso de negociaciones

A continuación se resumen las medidas de procedimiento que están en juego en las negociaciones del INC-5.2.

La tiranía del consenso frente al voto por la democracia

En anteriores INC, un punto conflictivo central ha sido el intenso debate sobre el Reglamento, concretamente el artículo 38 (1), que establece las normas de votación. Un pequeño grupo de países, entre ellos Arabia Saudí y Rusia, han utilizado lo que podrían haber sido cuestiones de procedimiento rutinarias como herramienta para socavar un tratado sólido, y proponen un poder de veto total sobre el texto del tratado, abogando por el consenso exclusivo, sin posibilidad de votación si no se alcanza dicho consenso.Las disposiciones sobre votación son una herramienta de negociación clave que puede ayudar a llevar a las partes más obstructivas a la mesa de negociaciones. En el  INC-2 de París, se dedicó mucho tiempo a discutir las Reglas de Procedimiento, lo que llevó a los negociadores a alcanzar una tensa tregua, en la que se adoptó provisionalmente una disposición sobre votación y se añadió una declaración interpretativa a la regla 38. Esto se ha convertido en un tema controvertido que los Estados miembros han evitado abordar, ya que los países más intransigentes siguen insistiendo en que solo haya consenso.

Sin embargo, a medida que los países se han ido mostrando más decididos a que el INC-5.2 sea el último INC y a alcanzar un tratado firme como resultado, la convocatoria de una votación parece ser la única salida al estancamiento del consenso, permitiendo que sea la voluntad de la mayoría la que dicte el tratado resultante, en lugar de la de unos pocos obstinados.

Esto va en contra de la norma establecida en otras negociaciones internacionales, como el exitoso Convenio de Minamata sobre el mercurio, y esencialmente permite que un solo país demore aún más o incluso pueda bloquear por completo la capacidad de la comunidad internacional de lograr que se consagre un tratado racional. 

¿Estará presente la sociedad civil?

Según un informe del Centro para el Derecho Ambiental Internacional (CIEL), 220 lobistas de la industria química y de los combustibles fósiles se registraron para asistir al INC-5, formando el grupo más numeroso, incluso más grande que cualquier delegación nacional u organización de la sociedad civil. Además, obtuvieron un acceso amplio a representantes gubernamentales de todo el mundo, incluso desde dentro de las propias delegaciones de sus países.

Mientras que la industria que se beneficia de la crisis del plástico ha tenido vía libre en las negociaciones, el acceso de la sociedad civil se ha visto severamente limitado, e incluso los propios países, especialmente los del Sur Global, han sido marginados mediante prácticas excluyentes, como la falta de servicios de interpretación adecuados en las salas de negociación. En el INC-5, la sociedad civil fue físicamente excluida de las negociaciones, en violación de nuestros derechos y de la práctica habitual. 

Cuestiones clave a tener en cuenta en el INC-5.2

A continuación se resumen los posibles problemas conflictivos en las negociaciones del INC-5.2.

La batalla sobre la producción de plástico

Un punto clave de tensión en las negociaciones hasta ahora es la inclusión de recortes ambiciosos y vinculantes de la producción de plásticos en el tratado final. La gran mayoría de los países (más de 100) que participan en el proceso de negociación se han mostrado abiertos a incluir objetivos de reducción de la producción en el tratado, tal y como se refleja en el artículo 6, opción 2, del borrador del texto del presidente. Sin embargo, una pequeña pero poderosa minoría, compuesta principalmente por países productores de combustibles fósiles, ha intentado sabotear las conversaciones con tácticas de obstrucción y argumentando que la contaminación por plásticos sólo comienza en la fase de eliminación.

Una de esas tácticas es cuestionar la definición de dónde empieza el “ciclo de vida”, a pesar de los numerosos antecedentes en política ambiental internacional, que dejan claro que el “ciclo de vida” empieza en la extracción. Los Estados miembros ya se han comprometido a elaborar un tratado que abarque todo el ciclo de vida del plástico. 

La otra es debilitar el texto sobre la reducción del plástico utilizando los términos “economía circular” y “circularidad” como eufemismos, señalando un énfasis en las medidas posteriores únicamente (gestión de residuos), en lugar de llegar a la raíz del problema. Hay pruebas contundentes de que el plástico como material no es “circular” e inevitablemente se convierte en residuo.  Esta minoría afirma que el plástico sólo se convierte en contaminación en la fase de eliminación, a pesar del consenso científico y de las protestas de millones de personas de todo el mundo cuya tierra, aire y cuerpos están siendo envenenados por esta industria. El plástico no se convierte en contaminación, el plástico es contaminación desde el momento de la extracción de los combustibles fósiles. 

¿Se consagrará la transición justa en el tratado?

Una transición justa en el marco del tratado debe promover un cambio sistémico que respete los derechos humanos y permita a las comunidades más afectadas a lo largo del ciclo de vida del plástico -en particular los recicladores y los Pueblos Indígenas- vivir y trabajar con dignidad, libres de los daños de la industria del plástico. Una transición justa debe ser verdaderamente inclusiva, desde la toma de decisiones hasta su aplicación, y permitir a las comunidades afectadas definir su propia visión de un mundo sin plástico, y garantizar que ninguna comunidad se vea afectada por los sistemas futuros. 

Específicamente, el tratado debe mantener un artículo dedicado a la transición justa, así como mantener su mención en el preámbulo y en los objetivos. Una Coalición por una Transición Justa, formada por un grupo diverso de actores afectados, entre las que se incluyen Pueblos Indígenas, comunidades de primera línea y recolectores, ha acordado por unanimidad que es necesario reducir drásticamente la producción de plástico para proteger sus vidas y su derecho a un trabajo seguro y digno.

Para más información, consulte las Recomendaciones de la Alianza Internacional de Recicladores en la Sección II, Parte 12, sobre la transición justa.

¿Quién paga la cuenta? Un mecanismo financiero adecuado para su propósito 

Un tratado sobre plásticos será tan sólido como lo sea su financiamiento; para garantizar su implementación efectiva, los países en desarrollo deben tener acceso a recursos adecuados. Esto implica un mecanismo financiero específico que incluya contribuciones obligatorias de los países con mayores niveles de riqueza y producción de plásticos, con el fin de apoyar a los países de ingresos más bajos para cumplir con el acuerdo, especialmente a los pequeños Estados insulares en desarrollo del Pacífico. Este fondo debe contribuir a reparar injusticias históricas, canalizando recursos desde los países más responsables de la producción y exportación de plásticos hacia los países que han cargado con los mayores costos, particularmente en el Sur Global, y financiar una transición justa.

Ha habido gran impulso en torno a una propuesta del Grupo de África, GRULAC, Islas Cook, Fiyi y los Estados Federados de Micronesia para la organización de un mecanismo financiero específico centrado en la equidad, propuesta que ha sido respaldada por más de 150 países.

Existe un debate sobre si el tratado debe financiarse con fondos públicos o privados, especialmente por parte de los países donantes. El problema de dejarlo en manos del sector privado es que este tendría control sobre a dónde va el dinero y quién lo recibe, lo cual constituye un proceso altamente antidemocrático que antepone las ganancias al bienestar social. Otra amenaza es la posible inclusión de mecanismos financieros ampliamente desacreditados y promovidos por la industria, como los créditos plásticos o la “compensación”. Los créditos plásticos han demostrado repetidamente que no reducen realmente la contaminación por plásticos. Incluirlos en el financiamiento del tratado solo otorgaría a las empresas una licencia social para seguir contaminando. (Ver un artículo académico reciente que resume la evidencia contra los créditos plásticos y los vincula con los fracasos de los créditos de carbono).

Además de un fondo específico, una tasa sobre los polímeros podría servir como un poderoso mecanismo financiero, así como también eliminar los subsidios a la producción de plásticos, los cuales actualmente ascienden a 30 mil millones de dólares anuales solo en los 15 países principales productores de polímeros plásticos.

Detengan las chimeneas

GAIA ha monitoreado la creciente promoción de la quema de residuos en hornos de cemento. y otros incineradores, los créditos de plástico, y el “reciclaje químico” en el contexto del tratado (a veces bajo la bandera del propio Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente), todo influenciado por la industria y con la amenaza de socavar los objetivos del tratado de erradicar la contaminación por plásticos. 

Posibles resultados del INC-5.2

A continuación se resumen los posibles resultados del INC-5.2, entendiendo que nadie tiene una bola de cristal y que las negociaciones siempre pueden tomar rumbos inesperados.

Mejor resultado posible: Lograr un tratado sólido

La sociedad civil mantiene la esperanza de que el INC-5.2 concluya con un texto acordado para un tratado de plásticos sólido, que pueda ser ratificado antes de fin de año. Este texto debería consagrar las prioridades que se enumeran a continuación y contar con un mecanismo financiero adecuado. El tratado también debe incluir disposiciones que permitan añadir y modificar el texto mediante anexos en futuras reuniones de implementación (COP), para reflejar los últimos avances científicos sobre los impactos sociales y ambientales de la contaminación por plásticos. Las COP también deben permitir votaciones sobre estos anexos, y establecer que los países que ratifican el tratado entren automáticamente en vigor a menos que opten por excluirse (modelo de “opt-out” en lugar de “opt-in”), para asegurar una adopción más amplia.

Analistas de políticas predicen que romper el estancamiento del consenso mediante votación será esencial para lograr un tratado de plásticos ambicioso.

Para más información sobre las rutas hacia un tratado efectivo sobre plásticos, consulte nuestro resumen de políticas.

Buen resultado: Avanzar en la mayor parte del camino

Existe la posibilidad de que los negociadores finalicen la mayor parte del texto del tratado, y solo se requieran reuniones adicionales para resolver temas menores antes de su ratificación.

Resultado intermedio: Sin texto acordado, se convoca a otro INC

Uno de los posibles resultados es que los Estados miembros y la presidencia decidan que se necesita más tiempo para resolver puntos críticos del texto del presidente, lo que llevaría a un INC-5.3, INC-6 u otras reuniones posteriores al INC-5.2. Podría ser razonable dar más tiempo a los negociadores para llegar a un acuerdo, siempre que cambien las condiciones procedimentales, de modo que los Estados miembros no repitan las mismas dinámicas esperando resultados diferentes. En particular, si los Estados miembros finalmente solicitan una votación en el INC-5.2, rompiendo el bloqueo que ha generado la insistencia en el consenso hasta ahora, entonces nuevas negociaciones pueden justificarse, ya que se darían en un contexto diferente.

Mal resultado: Un tratado débil

Si la mayoría de los Estados miembros decide ceder ante unos pocos países que insisten en un tratado débil (sin estas prioridades), las consecuencias para el clima, la salud humana y la justicia ambiental serían devastadoras. Sin embargo, incluso en este peor escenario, aún hay esperanza. Un grupo de Estados miembros ambiciosos podría decidir formar una “Coalición de voluntades” y desarrollar un proceso de tratado fuera del PNUMA, que podría derivar en un tratado mucho más fuerte. Si suficientes países de ingresos altos y socios comerciales ratifican ese tratado, se generaría presión para que otros países también se adhieran posteriormente, para evitar barreras comerciales y económicas. Así, la universalidad podría alcanzarse con el tiempo bajo condiciones más sólidas. Ya existe un precedente para este enfoque en otros procesos de tratados (ver capítulo 5 de nuestro resumen de políticas). Esta ruta está lejos de ser perfecta y podría enfrentar desafíos relacionados con financiamiento y acceso de la sociedad civil a las negociaciones, pero sigue siendo una opción posible si las conversaciones actuales fracasan.

También es importante destacar que, incluso si las negociaciones del tratado de plásticos no culminan en un acuerdo sólido, el trabajo de la sociedad civil ya ha salido fortalecido: gracias a la articulación del movimiento, la producción de investigaciones científicas clave que respaldan las negociaciones, las relaciones construidas con líderes gubernamentales, la mayor visibilidad de la crisis del plástico, y la comprensión global de que el plástico es contaminación —y que mientras no se regule ni se reduzca su producción, no habrá una solución real a esta crisis.

Objetivos generales del tratado

Instamos a los gobiernos a que garanticen que el instrumento emergente incluya:

• Objetivos obligatorios para limitar y reducir drásticamente la producción de plástico virgen, acorde con la escala y gravedad de la crisis de contaminación por plásticos, y alineada con los límites planetarios. Ello incluye, entre otros, la eliminación de plásticos de un solo uso y otros productos y aplicaciones de plástico no esenciales, innecesarios o problemáticos, incluidos los microplásticos agregados intencionalmente. Este sistema debería estar respaldado por medidas para evitar que aquellos países que no son partes en el tratado socaven estos acuerdos.
• La prohibición del uso de químicos tóxicos en todos los plásticos vírgenes y reciclados basados en grupos de productos químicos, incluidos los aditivos (p. ej., retardantes de llama bromados, ftalatos, bisfenoles), así como polímeros notoriamente tóxicos (p. ej. PVC). 
• Objetivos legalmente vinculantes, con plazos determinados y ambiciosos para implementar y ampliar la reutilización y la recarga a fin de acelerar la transición, dejando atrás los plásticos de un solo uso. En consecuencia, el tratado debe rechazar las soluciones falsas, y los sustitutos lamentables, así como soluciones tecnológicas contaminantes e ineficaces como el “reciclaje químico”, la incineración, la conversión de residuos en energía y el coprocesamiento de RDF rico en plástico en hornos de cemento, el comercio internacional de residuos, créditos de plástico y otros sistemas que perpetúan la situación actual y apoyan la producción continua de plástico y la contaminación provocada por los plásticos en detrimento del clima, la salud humana y la salud ambiental.
• Una transición justa hacia medios de vida más seguros y sostenibles para los trabajadores y las comunidades en toda la cadena de suministro de plásticos, incluidos aquellos en el sector informal de residuos; y el abordaje de las necesidades de las comunidades de la primera línea afectadas por la producción, incineración y quema al aire libre de plástico. Este enfoque requiere respeto por los derechos humanos y los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, y el debido reconocimiento del conocimiento tradicional y la experiencia de los pueblos indígenas y tribales originarios de las tierras afectadas, así como de las comunidades locales, los recolectores y los recicladores del sector formal para resolver la crisis.
• Las disposiciones que responsabilizan a las corporaciones contaminantes y a los países productores de plástico por los profundos daños a los derechos humanos, la salud humana, los ecosistemas y las economías que surgen de la producción, utilización y eliminación de plásticos.  Las disposiciones también deberían proporcionar soluciones basadas en la ciencia, incluidos los conocimientos tradicionales y la ciencia tribal. 
• Del mismo modo, el tratado también debería establecer requisitos jurídicamente vinculantes, armonizados y accesibles al público para asegurar la transparencia de las sustancias químicas en materiales y productos plásticos durante todo su ciclo de vida. 
• Los contaminadores deben mantenerse fuera del proceso del tratado. Las reuniones INC deberían resultar en un tratado que limite la influencia de entidades con conflictos de interés (como los productores de plásticos) en el trabajo en curso de la Conferencia de las Partes (COP) para un eventual tratado.
• La toma de decisiones por votación en las COP permitirá fortalecer el tratado con el tiempo.

Referencias clave 

GAIA “Wrap-Up” Report on the Outcome of INC-5 Informe de GAIA sobre los resultados del INC-5

GAIA’s Pathways to an Ambitious Plastics Treaty policy paper Documento de políticas de GAIA: Rutas hacia un tratado ambicioso sobre plásticos

GAIA’s Comments on the Chair’s Draft Text  Comentarios de GAIA sobre el borrador del presidente

Artículo académico sobre los créditos plásticos

Academic paper with the scientific argument for plastic production reduction  Artículo académico con el argumento científico para la reducción de la producción de plásticos

Todos los recursos de GAIA relacionados al Tratado de plásticos

Contacto para los medios

Camila Aguilera | Camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 8913 6198

The post Guía de prensa: Tratado mundial contra la contaminación por plásticos INC-5.2 first appeared on GAIA.

The Global Plastics Treaty: A Historic Opportunity 

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly decided on a mandate to create the world’s first Plastics Treaty, a legally binding international law aimed at reducing plastic pollution worldwide, and covering the full life-cycle of plastic. Plastic is a growing crisis with devastating impacts on the environment, human health, human rights, environmental justice, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, and climate. Global actions to address this crisis are urgently needed. As numerous studies have demonstrated, plastic has been found everywhere, not only in ecosystems and the atmosphere but also in the food we eat, the water we drink, and even inside our bodies. For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective in reversing the tide of plastic pollution, mechanisms and solutions to address it need to exist within climate and planetary boundaries. This treaty is an opportunity to get it right and open a path for comprehensive national policies to regulate plastic production and consumption. It can potentially be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

 For more information, visit https://www.no-burn.org/unea-plastics-treaty/. 

The next round of negotiations or Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for the plastics treaty (INC-5.2) will take place in Geneva, Switzerland August 5-14. The negotiations are held under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

For those following online a webcast is available here.

Upcoming Online Journalist Briefings 

LinkedIn Live: INC-5.2 Plastics Treaty Primer

Date: Jul 24, 2025, Thursday

Time: 10PM Malaysia | 4PM Rwanda | 8AM Mexico | 7AM PST 

Register: https://www.linkedin.com/events/7349287367825870850/

Civil society leaders from around the world as well as Member State delegates from Rwanda and Panama will discuss what’s at stake at the Geneva negotiations, and the path forward for a strong plastics treaty. 

Africa

Date: 24 July 2025, Thursday

Time: 3pm GMT

Register: https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/O7GoIfh7Soe0HuLdxcHx-Q 

This media briefing aims to empower African journalists to effectively report on the upcoming INC-5.2 negotiations of the plastics treaty, spotlighting key priorities from African civil society and negotiators. 

Asia Pacific

Date: 23rd July Wednesday

Time: 11:30 AM – 1:00 PM IST (Delhi) | 1:00 PM Bangkok | 2:00 PM Kuala Lumpur | 6:00 PM Suva

Register: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_MORLqhxsR-qxlX-p-me0QQ (bit.ly/preINC52briefing) 

This media briefing grounds the plastics treaty negotiations within the Asia Pacific context, with speakers from across the region. 

United States

Date: July 23, Wednesday 

Time: 12pm PST | 3pm EST

Register: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_EGzyBYiQTuib9h1tuf_hsA

Leading plastics treaty experts from across the U.S. will offer insights on the U.S. delegation’s participation in the global plastics treaty negotiations and contradictions in the U.S. ‘s position. 

Latin America and the Caribbean 

Press briefing recording  (spanish only)

Taller para periodistas: La crisis del plástico y el Tratado global de plásticos

INC-5.2 Agenda

The negotiations will take two official forms: plenary (live-streamed on the UNEP website), and contact groups, which are confidential in nature according to Chatham House Rules. There will be four contact groups with two occurring in parallel at any given time.  The negotiations are presided over by the Chair, Ambassador Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador, and are negotiated by the countries in the United Nations, called Member States. Here is the text that Member States will be negotiating at INC-5.2 (see GAIA’s comments here). 

According to the Scenario Note that the Chair has recently released, the flow of negotiations may be the following: 

• August 5: Opening Plenary
  • 10am brief Opening Plenary, no verbal statements for Member States (opportunities to submit in advance on the online portal), potential 30 minute window for observer interventions (civil society statements)
  • Organizational matters will be addressed here: Rules of Procedure, Adoption of Agenda 
• August 5-8, 11-14: Contact Groups
  • The bulk of the negotiations will be split into four “Contact Groups,” each negotiating different groups of articles in the treaty text.
• August 9: “Stocktake” Plenary
  • Chairs of each Contact Group will give a brief report of their progress
• August 10: Informal Consultations
  • informal consultations among members (no formal convenings)
• August 14: Closing Plenary

Another Chance at Clinching a Strong Plastics Treaty

The below summarizes the most recent developments in negotiations leading up to INC-5.2. For a recap of the outcomes of INC-5, please see our report. For more information on the outcomes of previous INC’s please see our news archives. 

We Are the Majority

At the close of INC-5 in Busan, South Korea, late last year, it was clear that, although more time was clearly needed for negotiations on the treaty provisions, the ambitious countries vastly outnumbered and isolated the small group of countries looking to weaken the final treaty text. In one particularly rousing moment, Juliet Kabera of Rwanda read a statement on behalf of over 85 countries emphasizing their shared commitment to a legally binding treaty enshrining reduction targets, phase-out of harmful chemicals, a just transition, and an equitable financial mechanism. She then urged everyone in the room who supported an ambitious treaty to stand up, and 90% of the people present leap to their feet and applaud. It was a powerful moment in the room and a reminder of the determination of the majority.  To date: 

• 103 countries signed in support of a Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers.
• 85 countries signed the “Standing Up for Ambition” statement
• 94 countries signed a Declaration on Plastic Products and Chemicals of Concern
• 100 countries signed a text proposal to adopt a plastic production reduction target 
• 151 countries support a proposal for a dedicated, equitable Financial Mechanism 

Read GAIA’s response to the announcement of INC-5.2.

Environment Ministers United at UNOC: “The Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty”

At the United Nations Oceans Conference in Nice, France in June, environment ministers and representatives from 96 countries (the majority of United Nations Member States) reaffirmed their dedication to securing a strong plastics treaty in a declaration coordinated by France entitled, “The Nice Wake-Up Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty.”  

Civil society leaders applauded the statement’s reaffirmation of the need for a treaty to have a global target for plastic production reduction, to phase out the most problematic plastic products and hazardous chemicals, and to include monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure that countries remain on target, as well as room to strengthen commitments based on emerging science, health, and environmental impacts. 

Another noteworthy inclusion in the statement is the call for standard decision-making practices, if consensus cannot be reached. This further isolates the few obstructive countries who have insisted on consensus decisionmaking as a tactic to stall negotiations and weaken the ambition of the final treaty (see here for details).  

While the declaration missed several demands from civil society, overall non-profit organizations welcomed the statement as a floor, not a ceiling, of ambition in negotiations. 

Read GAIA’s response to the release of the Nice Wake-Up Call.

Setting the Stage: the Negotiations Process

The below summarizes the procedural issues at stake in negotiations at INC-5.2.

Ministers Waiting in the Wings

Ministers from Member States will attend INC-5.2 at the controversial invitation of UNEP’s Executive Director Inger Andersen. Although no ministerial segment is included in the INC mandate, dedicated informal ministerial roundtables are planned for August 12th to 14th. 

The Tyranny of Consensus vs. Voting for Democracy

In previous INC’s, a central sticking point has been the fierce debate over Rules of Procedure, namely Rule 38 (1), which dictates voting procedures. A small group of countries including Saudi Arabia and Russia have used what could have been routine procedural matters as a tool to undermine a strong treaty, and are proposing full veto power over treaty text by advocating for consensus only, with no opportunity for voting if consensus cannot be reached. Provisions for voting are an essential bargaining chip that can serve to bring the more obstructive parties to the negotiating table. At INC-2 in Paris, extensive time used to argue over Rules of Procedure led negotiators to reach a tense truce, where a provision for voting was adopted provisionally and an interpretative statement was added to rule 38. It’s turned into a can of worms that Member States have been hesitant to open as the bully countries have continued to insist in consensus only. 

However, as countries have become more determined to make INC-5.2 the last INC and come out with a strong treaty at the end of it, calling for a vote seems like the only way out of the consensus gridlock, allowing the will of the majority to dictate the resulting treaty, instead of the stubborn few. 

The standard for voting provisions has been set in many other successful international negotiations like the Minamata Convention on mercury, and the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. 

Will Civil Society be in the Room? 

According to a report from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-5, a larger group than any national delegation or civil society organization, and gained extensive access to government representatives from around the world–including from within their country delegations. 

While the industry profiting from the plastics crisis has been given free reign in the negotiations, civil society access has been severely limited, and even countries themselves, particularly in the Global South, have been sidelined through exclusionary practices like failing to provide adequate language interpretation services in negotiating rooms. At INC-5, civil society was physically locked out of negotiations, in violation of our rights and standard practice. 

Key Issues to Watch at INC-5.2 

The below summarizes the potential lightning rod issues in negotiations at INC-5.2.

The Battle Over Plastic Production

A key tension point in the negotiations thus far is over including ambitious and binding plastic production cuts in the final treaty. The vast majority of countries (over 100) engaged in the negotiation process have remained open to including production reduction targets in the treaty, reflected in Article 6, option 2 of the Chair’s draft text. However, a small but vocal minority, primarily made up of fossil fuel-producing nations, have sought to sabotage the talks through obstruction tactics and by arguing that plastic pollution starts only at the disposal stage.

One such tactic is to call into question the definition of where the “life-cycle” starts, despite numerous precedents in international environmental policy, making clear that the “life-cycle” starts at extraction. Member States have already committed to developing a treaty that covers the full plastic life-cycle. 

The other is to dilute the text on plastic reduction by using the terms, “circular economy” and “circularity” as a dog whistle, signaling an emphasis on downstream measures only (waste management), instead of getting to the root of the problem. There is overwhelming evidence that plastic as a material is not “circular” and inevitably becomes waste.  This vocal minority claims that plastic only becomes pollution at the disposal stage, despite the scientific consensus and outcry from millions of people around the world whose land, air, and bodies are being poisoned by this industry. Plastic doesn’t become pollution, plastic is pollution from the moment of fossil fuel extraction. 

Will Just Transition be Enshrined in the Treaty? 

A just transition under the treaty must promote systemic change that upholds human rights and allows communities most impacted across the plastic life-cycle–particularly waste pickers,  Indigenous Peoples, and frontline and fenceline communities– to live and work with dignity, free from the harms of the plastic industry. A just transition must be truly inclusive, from decision-making to implementation, and allow impacted communities to define their own vision for a plastic pollution-free world, and ensure no communities are impacted by future systems. 

Specifically, the treaty should retain a dedicated article on just transition, as well as retain its mention in the preamble and objective. A Just Transition Coalition made up of a diverse group of impacted stakeholders including Indigenous Peoples, frontline communities, and waste pickers  have unanimously agreed that drastic plastic production cuts are needed to protect their lives and right to safe and dignified work. 

For more information, please see the International Alliance For Waste Pickers Recommendations on Section II, Part 12 on Just Transition section.

Who’s footing the bill? A Financial Mechanism Fit for Purpose 

A plastics treaty is only as strong as its budget; in order to ensure its proper implementation, developing countries must have access to adequate resources. This means a dedicated financial mechanism that includes mandatory contributions from high-wealth and top-plastic producing countries to support lower income countries to meet the agreement, especially pacific small island developing states. This fund must help right historical injustices by funneling money from the countries most responsible for plastic production and export– to countries who have borne the brunt of its costs, particularly in the Global South, and finance a just transition. 

There has been lots of momentum around a proposal from the Africa Group, GRULAC, Cook Islands, Fiji and Federated States of Micronesia for the organization of the dedicated financial mechanism that centers equity, and has been supported by over 150 countries. 

There is a debate over financing the treaty using public vs. private finance, especially from donor countries– The problem with leaving it to the private sector is that they will have control over where the money goes and who gets it, a highly undemocratic process that puts profit over social good. Another threat is the potential inclusion of widely debunked, industry-promoted financial mechanisms like plastic credits or “offsetting.”  Plastic credits have shown time and again that they do not actually reduce plastic pollution. Including them in treaty financing will only give companies a social license to pollute. (See a recent academic paper summarizing the evidence against plastic credits, tying it to the failures of carbon credits).  

In addition to a dedicated fund, a polymer fee would potentially serve as a powerful financial mechanism, as well as eliminating plastic production subsidies, which currently add up to US$ 30 billion annually for direct subsidies in the top 15 plastic-polymer-producing countries alone. 

Stop the Smokestack

GAIA has been monitoring the rise of industry-influenced promotion of burning waste in cement kilns and other incinerators, plastic credits, chemical “recycling,” and substitution with other single-use materials (like bioplastic) instead of reuse systems, all of which not only cause even more pollution, but shift the focus away from production cuts, which undermines the treaty’s aims to eradicate plastic pollution. 

Potential Outcomes of INC-5.2

The below summarizes the potential outcomes of INC-5.2, with an understanding that no one has a crystal ball, and negotiations can always go in unexpected directions. 

Best Possible Outcome: Landing a Strong Treaty

Civil society remains hopeful that INC-5.2 will conclude with an agreed upon text for a strong plastics treaty, which would be ratified by the end of the year. This text would enshrine the priorities listed below, with an adequate financial mechanism.  The treaty must also make provisions for adding and amending the text through annexes at future implementation meetings (COPs) to reflect the latest science on the social and environmental impacts of plastic pollution. COPs must also allow for voting on these annexes, as well as make the annexes “opt-out” vs. “opt-in” for ratifying countries, to ensure more widespread adoption. 

Policy analysts predict that breaking the consensus deadlock through voting will be essential to securing an ambitious plastics treaty. 

For more information on the pathways to an effective plastics treaty, read our policy brief. 

Good Outcome: Getting Most of the Way There

There is a chance that negotiators finalize the majority of the treaty text, and will only require  meetings to resolve minor issues before the ratification.

Middling Outcome: No Agreed Upon Text, Another INC

One potential outcome of the negotiations is that Member States and the Chair will decide that more time is needed to work out critical sticking points in the Chair’s Text– leading to an INC-5.3, INC-6 or other meetings after INC-5.2. It may be appropriate to give negotiators more time to agree on a treaty, as long as procedural conditions change so that Member States do not repeat the same dynamics and expect a different result. Namely, if Member States finally call for a vote at INC-5.2, loosening the stranglehold that consensus has had on the negotiations thus far, then further negotiations can be justified, as the conditions for those negotiations will have changed. 

Bad Outcome: A Weak Treaty

If the majority of Member States decide to capitulate to the select few countries insisting on a weak treaty (devoid of these priorities), there will be devastating consequences for the climate, human health, and environmental justice. However, even in this worst case scenario, there is still hope. A group of ambitious Member States could decide to form a “Coalition of the Willing” and develop a separate treaty process outside of UNEP, which could result in a much stronger treaty. If enough higher income countries and trading partners ratify the treaty, it creates pressure for other countries to sign on after the fact, to avoid complicated trade and economic barriers. Universality then, could be achieved over time under stronger conditions. There is an established precedent for this in past treaty processes (see chapter 5 of our policy brief.) This route is far from perfect and can face issues related to funding and civil society access to negotiations, but is still an option on the table if current talks fall through. 

It is also important to note that even if plastics treaty negotiations do not culminate in a strong treaty, civil society’s work has already been strengthened through movement alignment, consequential scientific research conducted to support treaty negotiations, the relationships we’ve been able to forge with government leaders, the increased visibility of the plastics crisis, and the global understanding that plastic is pollution and for as long as production is not regulated and reduced, there will be no meaningful resolution to the crisis. 

Overall aims for the Treaty

We call on governments to ensure that the emerging instrument includes:

• Mandatory targets to cap and dramatically reduce plastic production,  commensurate with the scale and gravity of the plastic pollution crisis and aligned with planetary boundaries. This includes, but is not limited to, the elimination of single-use plastics, and other non-essential, unnecessary, or problematic plastic products and applications—including intentionally-added microplastics. This system should be supported by measures to prevent countries that are not parties to the treaty from undermining these agreements.
• Bans on toxic chemicals in all virgin and recycled plastics based on groups of chemicals, including additives (e.g., brominated flame-retardants, phthalates, bisphenols) as well as notoriously toxic polymers (e.g. PVC). 
• Legally binding, time-bound, and ambitious targets to implement and scale up reuse and refill to accelerate the transition away from single-use plastics. Correspondingly, the treaty must reject false solutions, regrettable substitutes, and polluting and ineffective techno-fixes such as “chemical recycling,” incineration, waste-to-energy, co-processing of plastic-rich RDF in cement kilns, international waste trade, plastic credits, and other schemes which perpetuate business as usual and support continued plastic production and pollution to the further detriment of the climate, human and environmental health.
• A just transition to safer and more sustainable livelihoods for workers and communities across the plastics supply chain, including those in the informal waste sector; and addressing the needs of frontline communities affected by plastic production, incineration, and open burning. This approach necessitates respect for human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and due recognition of the traditional knowledge and expertise of Indigenous and tribal original people of the lands affected, as well as local communities, waste pickers, and formal sector recyclers towards resolving the crisis.
• A dedicated financial mechanism that provides new, additional, dedicated, adequate, accessible and predictable funding on a grant basis to enable eligible developing countries implementing the treaty core obligations.
• Provisions that hold polluting corporations and plastic-producing countries accountable for the profound harms to human rights, human health, ecosystems and economies arising from the production, deployment and disposal of plastics.  Provisions should also provide science-based solutions—including traditional knowledge. 
• In the same light, the treaty should also set publicly accessible, harmonized, legally binding requirements for the transparency of chemicals in plastic materials and products throughout their whole life-cycle. 
• Polluters should be kept out of the treaty negotiations. The INCs should result in a treaty that limits the influence of entities with conflicts of interest (like plastics producers) in the ongoing work of the Conference of Parties (COP) of the eventual treaty.
• Decision-making by voting at the COPs to allow the treaty to be strengthen over time

Key References 

GAIA “Wrap-Up” Report on the Outcome of INC-5

GAIA’s Pathways to an Effective Plastics Treaty policy paper

GAIA’s Comments on the Chair’s Draft Text 

Academic paper on plastic credits

Academic paper with the scientific argument for plastic production reduction 

All GAIA resources relating to the Global Plastics Treaty

Media Contacts

Global Press Contact: 

• Claire Arkin | Claire@no-burn.org | +1 (973) 444 4869

Regional Press Contacts: 

• Africa: Carissa Marnce | carissa@no-burn.org | +27 76 934 6156
• Latin America: Camila Aguilera | Camila@no-burn.org | +56 9 8913 6198
• Asia & the Pacific: Robi Kate Miranda  | robi@no-burn.org I +63 927 585 4157
• United States & Canada: María Guillén | mariaguillen@no-burn.org | +1 609 553 4569

Spokespeople

The GAIA Network has a diverse delegation of members going to INC-5.2, mostly from the Global South. Our spokespeople can give you on-the-ground perspectives on how plastic has impacted their region, and the solutions that they are building rooted in equity and justice. They specialize in climate and plastics, corporate accountability, health and toxics, waste colonialism, false solutions (e.g., “chemical recycling”, incineration), environmental justice, policy, and more. Contact us to arrange an interview. 

About GAIA 

GAIA is a worldwide alliance of more than 1,000 grassroots groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals in over 90 countries. With our work we aim to catalyze a global shift towards environmental justice by strengthening grassroots social movements that advance solutions to waste and pollution. We envision a just, zero waste world built on respect for ecological limits and community rights, where people are free from the burden of toxic pollution, and resources are sustainably conserved, not burned or dumped. 

Follow us on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, and LinkedIn for live updates during INC-5, and our regional accounts:

GAIA Africa: Instagram, Facebook

GAIA LAC: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn

GAIA Asia Pacific: Instagram, Facebook, LinkedInGAIA US Canada: Instagram, Facebook, Twitter

The post Press Kit- Plastics Treaty INC-5.2 first appeared on GAIA.

The issue of organic waste management is particularly pressing in cities around the world, including Nigeria, where organic waste constitutes, on average, 50 percent  of municipal waste. In some cities, this figure can be as high as 80 per cent.

While there are numerous challenges to managing organic waste in Nigeria, there are also significant opportunities for resource recovery and environmental sustainability. A significant portion of this waste is often sent to landfills, leading to various environmental and health issues. However, with effective strategies, such as composting and other sustainable management initiatives, organic waste can be converted into valuable resources. 

This is why the Centre for Earth Works in Nigeria is working to enhance the skills of waste pickers, transforming them into waste ambassadors who will contribute to effective organic waste management. 

This initiative is part of the broader project “Mainstreaming Organic Waste Management Across 11 Countries,” which is being implemented by members of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) in various African nations. Funded by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the project aims to reduce methane emissions by promoting practices such as waste source separation and diverting organic materials from landfills.

In this article, the fourth instalment of our ongoing series showcasing the impactful work of our members under this initiative, we highlight a conversation with Benson Dotun, the Executive Director of the Centre for Earth Works. He shares his insights and experiences as Nigeria’s partner in the “Mainstreaming Organic Waste Management Across 11 Countries” project.

1. Can you provide an overview of your organisation and its mission, highlighting your key activities and focus areas?

Centre for Earth Works (CFEW) is a research-driven, youth-led non-governmental organisation passionate about securing the Earth and committed to promoting environmental sustainability and community empowerment. We aim to foster a sustainable future by raising awareness, encouraging green practices, and empowering communities to take proactive steps toward environmental stewardship.

CFEW’s wide range of initiatives includes research, waste management, policy advocacy and community empowerment. Our project on community waste management has transformed waste into valuable resources, creating opportunities while addressing the environmental impact of waste. 

Additionally, CFEW is leading the Green School Initiative, which focuses on educating and empowering students to adopt sustainable practices. By integrating environmental education into schools, the initiative equips young minds with the knowledge and skills to champion sustainability in their communities.

Moreover, CFEW’s work promoting green skills like plastic knitting and composting has empowered individuals to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. CFEW has successfully mobilised support for its projects through partnerships with other organisations and stakeholders. We continue to strive to innovate and expand our impact. CFEW’s efforts are not only transforming local communities but also setting a model for sustainable practices that can be replicated across the country and beyond.

2. How has membership with the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) influenced your organisation’s work, and what benefits have you derived from this partnership?

Being a member of GAIA has been transformative for us at CFEW. It has expanded our access to global knowledge, deepened our capacity, and connected us to a strong network of like-minded people through webinars, workshops and projects.

 The collaboration and solidarity within GAIA and even BFFP show that we are not alone in this work of development and change. 

Through the benefit of strategic training, resource sharing, and global visibility from GAIA, CFEW has garnered capacity and led many initiatives that have recorded high successes and impacts among different groups and across communities.

3. What are your thoughts on the waste crisis that many countries in the region are facing?

The waste crisis in Nigeria and many African countries is both a threat and a wake-up call. 

From poor infrastructure to a lack of political will in waste management, the system has long neglected the informal actors and the value of waste or the need for environmental stewardship. 

This has affected communities in the country who do not have the knowledge or the facilities to guard themselves from the impact when it hits. 

CFEW sees opportunity especially in scaling up community-based solutions centred on people, not profit alone, since people are the main drivers of the problem and the solution.

4. Your organisation is part of the Mainstreaming Organic Waste Management Across 11 Countries CCAC project in Africa. What has attracted your organisation to this project, and what are your hopes for organic waste management work in your country?

We were drawn to this project because organic waste makes up a huge portion of municipal waste in many communities in Nigeria and contributes a very significant amount to the impact of climate change through methane emissions. Yet, it’s rarely prioritised. 

The CCAC project in Africa and Nigeria is a timely intervention.  It has helped promote sustainable practices like composting, reusing, and repurposing organic waste to reduce methane emissions and engage community members, especially in low-income communities, marginalised groups, women, and youth. 

Through the involvement of these groups, organic waste will be seen as a viable resource for use and help cut down the extent of emissions caused by the indiscriminate disposal of organic waste in dumpsites and landfills.

5. Under the CCAC project, what are the primary campaigns or initiatives your organisation is currently implementing to address organic waste management challenges? [i.e. Training on source separation and organics management, outreach to waste picker groups, policy work, local & national government engagement, education campaigns].

Under the CCAC project, our main activities focused on training informal waste pickers in the community on source separation and composting. We trained 50 waste pickers from the Hwolshe community in Jos Plateau State, teaching them how to compost organic waste and properly separate their waste.

These waste pickers, now referred to as “waste ambassadors,” have formed a cooperative since we implemented awareness programs in the community, markets, and schools. These programs aimed to educate the public on effective waste sorting and composting practices.

Additionally, we engaged in policy advocacy to encourage government recognition of waste pickers and promote waste management using the Zero Waste Approach. This advocacy involved sharing vital information and knowledge at different levels in Plateau State, from local leaders to various government agencies. These efforts represent a significant step toward fostering positive and lasting change in waste management practices.

6. What has been a personal milestone or most memorable moment for your organisation working on this project?

A standout moment for us was the establishment of CFEW’s collection facility for various types of waste, particularly organic waste, along with a centre for training and practical skills acquisition in waste management. 

During a follow-up visit, the women waste pickers in the Hwolshe community, who initially had minimal knowledge about composting, confidently presented the compost they created from their household waste. They also showcased their homemade gardens nourished by the compost. 

Another remarkable action was the waste pickers conducting community outreach and using their voices to educate people about better waste management practices. This experience served as a powerful reminder of the purpose behind our work: when people are equipped with knowledge, meaningful change begins.

7. What are the most pressing issues related to organic waste management in your country, and how do these challenges continue to influence how your organisation works on the issues?

Part of the many challenges experienced in the Jos metropolis and Nigeria are a lack of awareness, poor waste separation practices, and limited policy enforcement due to inconsistent waste management systems in the state. 

There is now a need more than ever to raise the bar in awareness creation on the opportunities around organic waste, with emphasis on its high impact on agriculture, income levels, and health, besides its significant contribution to the general climate change crisis based on the amount of methane gas emission. 

These problems have forced us to create more locally driven methods and community-focused educational programs nationwide.

8. Looking ahead to the next few years, what type of needs or support do you anticipate continuing advocacy on organic waste management in your country?

We know that advocacy is only stronger with a support system behind it. We are looking to continue and deepen our partnership with GAIA and CCAC. What we need the most are capacity-building opportunities and platforms to amplify the voices of grassroots actors who are doing the work but often remain unheard. 

We also hope to receive policy guidance to influence systemic change at the local and national levels. With this, our advocacy will not just continue, but it will grow stronger and have more impact.

9. How does your organisation’s work on waste management intersect with social justice concerns, and how do you address these intersections in your advocacy and programming?

Our waste management work is rooted in justice, especially for informal workers, women, and underserved communities. We advocate for fair treatment and due recognition of unnoticed groups or individuals. We ensure our projects include marginalised voices, we push for climate solutions that do not leave anyone behind, as part of our core values is inclusiveness. 

CFEW works in continued partnership with GAIA and upholds what it stands for and its guidelines on environmental and social justice in all of CFEW’s interventions.

10. Are there any quotes, mottos, or beliefs that the organisation tries to adopt in all its work?

At the Centre for Earth Works, we believe “simple ideas backed by constructive action can change the world.”

ENDS.

The post How Centre for Earth Works (CFEW) is Transforming Waste Systems in Nigeria first appeared on GAIA.

Watch the video × Your browser does not support the video tag.

Plastic is a growing crisis with devastating impacts on the environment, human health, human rights, environmental justice, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, biodiversity, and climate. Global actions to address this crisis are urgently needed. As numerous studies have demonstrated, plastic has been found everywhere, not only in ecosystems and the atmosphere but also in the food we eat, the water we drink, and even inside our bodies. For the Global Plastics Treaty to be effective in reversing the tide of plastic pollution, mechanisms and solutions to address it need to exist within climate and planetary boundaries. This treaty is an opportunity to get it right and open a path for comprehensive national policies to regulate plastic production and consumption. It can potentially be one of the most significant environmental agreements in history.

sign the petition en español Newsroom .stk-509bff5-inner-blocks{align-items:flex-start !important;}.stk-509bff5 {padding-top:26px !important;padding-right:26px !important;padding-bottom:26px !important;padding-left:26px !important;}.stk-509bff5 > .stk-separator__top svg{fill:#ad604f !important;} Newsroom Archive at YouTube

Go to our playlist and watch past newsroom videos.

.stk-9bbd232 {background-color:#ffffff !important;border-top-left-radius:0px !important;border-top-right-radius:0px !important;border-bottom-right-radius:0px !important;border-bottom-left-radius:0px !important;overflow:hidden !important;box-shadow:none !important;bottom:-19px !important;flex:1 0 var(--stk-button-group-flex-wrap, 0) !important;}.stk-9bbd232:before{background-color:#ffffff !important;}.stk-9bbd232 , .stk-9bbd232 .stk-button{width:100% !important;}.stk-9bbd232 .stk-button{min-height:0px !important;background:#ecb848 !important;border-top-left-radius:8px !important;border-top-right-radius:8px !important;border-bottom-right-radius:8px !important;border-bottom-left-radius:8px !important;}.stk-9bbd232 .stk-button:hover:after{background:linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) !important;opacity:1 !important;}:where(.stk-hover-parent:hover, .stk-hover-parent.stk--is-hovered) .stk-9bbd232 .stk-button:after{background:linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) !important;opacity:1 !important;}.stk-9bbd232 .stk-button .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child{height:0px !important;width:0px !important;opacity:0.6 !important;transform:rotate(0deg) !important;}.stk-9bbd232 .stk-button .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child, .stk-9bbd232 .stk-button .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child :is(g, path, rect, polygon, ellipse){fill:#942924 !important;}.stk-9bbd232 .stk-button__inner-text{color:#942924 !important;}Watch more here Read the latest plastics treaty news Region --> console.log("Post Type: post / Taxonomy chosen: plastic-treaty-news")console.log("Query Arguments: {"post_type":"post","posts_per_page":3,"orderby":"date","order":"DESC","tax_query":[{"taxonomy":"category","field":"slug","terms":"plastic-treaty-news"}]}") News Plastic Treaty – News [Media Release] African CSOs Unite to Share Global South Priorities Ahead of INC-5.2

GAIA Africa Hosts Media Briefing to Mobilise African Journalists in Support of an Ambitious Global Plastics Treaty GAIA Africa…

Read more July 25, 2025Carissa Marnce Plastic Treaty – News Guía de prensa: Tratado mundial contra la contaminación por plásticos INC-5.2

El Tratado global de plásticos: Una oportunidad histórica  En marzo de 2022, la Asamblea de las Naciones Unidas para…

Read more July 23, 2025Claire Arkin Plastic Treaty – News Press Kit- Plastics Treaty INC-5.2

The Global Plastics Treaty: A Historic Opportunity  In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly decided on a mandate…

Read more July 21, 2025Claire Arkin Browse all plastics treaty news Read our policy briefs/submissions Region --> console.log("Post Type: resources / Taxonomy chosen: ")console.log("Query Arguments: {"post_type":"resources","posts_per_page":3,"orderby":"date","order":"DESC","tax_query":[{"taxonomy":"resources_category","field":"slug","terms":"resources-policy-briefs"}]}") Plastic Treaty – Policy Briefs Análisis del texto del presidente del INC del Tratado de plásticos desde las organizaciones latinoamericanas y del Caribe miembros de GAIA

Las organizaciones de Latinoamérica y El Caribe que venimos haciendo seguimiento al proceso de negociaciones para un Instrumento legalmente…

Read more July 24, 2025Camila Aguilera Plastic Treaty – Policy Briefs Pathways to an Effective Plastics Treaty (Bahasa Melayu)

Laluan kepada Perjanjian Plastik yang Berkesan – Plastik – 5 Jun 2025 Menjelang INC-5.2, para perunding perlu membuat beberapa…

Read more July 3, 2025Agnes Mampusti Plastic Treaty – Policy Briefs Trajectoires vers un traité efficace sur les plastiques

À l’approche de l’INC-5.2, les négociateurs doivent trancher un certain nombre de questions décisives, que cette note d’information se…

Read more June 6, 2025Agnes Mampusti Browse all policy briefs/submissions Issues in Focus

Plastics Crisis: Challenges, Advances and Relationship with Waste Pickers

Negotiations must include the recognition of the historical work of those who have recovered more materials and in the most efficient way: the waste pickers.

ENG ESP PT Rommel Cabrera/GAIA, 2019. Waste pickers collecting separated waste from households. Tacloban City, the Philippines.

Overview of the Plastics Treaty/Tratado sobre plásticos

Plastic pollution does not respect borders. It is in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink, and even in our bodies. A new binding legal instrument, covering the entire lifecycle of plastic, is required to tackle this planetary crisis.

ENG ESP FR

The Plastic Waste Trade

Top exporters such as the United States, Germany, the UK, Japan and Australia are placing a disproportionate toxic burden on the environment and communities in importing countries. A Global Plastics Treaty can enact stricter measures on the waste trade to prevent environmental injustices.

ENG ESP FR

Plastic and Waste Pickers/Recicladores

Plastic takes up a large percentage of the waste handled by waste pickers. Consequently, they are one of the most vulnerable occupation groups that stand to be impacted by the global plastics treaty. The treaty must establish the legal frameworks required to improve working conditions for waste pickers.

ENG ESP FR

Toxics and Health

Plastic contains toxic chemicals that leach into our food, water, and soil. Out of about 10,000 chemicals used as plastic additives, few have been widely studied, let alone regulated. A treaty must address plastic’s toxic burden.

ENG ESP FR

Plastic and Climate Change/Los plásticos y el cambio climático

Plastic is a significant contributor to climate change throughout its lifecycle. By 2050, emissions from plastic alone will take up over a third of the remaining carbon budget for a 1.5 °C target. A plastics treaty must impose legally-binding plastic reduction targets.

ENG ESP FR

Chemical “Recycling” and Plastic-to-Fuel

Faced with increasing pressure from lawmakers and civil society to reduce plastic production and greater awareness of the limits of mechanical recycling, the petrochemical industry has been peddling chemical “recycling” and “plastic-to-fuel” as a primary solution to plastic pollution. However, after billions of dollars and decades of development, these approaches do not work as advertised. A plastics treaty stands to be undermined if it embraces these industry-backed false solutions.

ENG ESP KOR FR

Waste Incineration and Burning Waste in Cement Kilns

Burning waste emits climate pollution and other toxic chemicals, and is the least energy-efficient and most costly method of energy production. A plastics treaty must adopt a moratorium on new incinerators and encourage a roadmap to phase out all existing incinerators by 2030.

ENG ESP FR

Burning Waste in Cement Kilns

Burning plastic in cement kilns results in toxic emissions, threatening the health of workers, communities and the environment, especially in low-income countries in the Global South. Widespread burning of waste in cement kilns would also worsen the already devastating carbon footprint of the cement industry. A plastics treaty must phase out burning plastic waste in cement kilns.

ENG ESP FR

Plastic Neutrality and Credit

The global plastics treaty provides an important opportunity to officially discourage or ban the use of plastic credits before they become widespread. Doing so would avoid the incredible amount of regulatory oversight needs —both in the private and public sectors— to organize and
manage international plastic credit markets. The collective efforts could be better spent on reducing plastic production rapidly.

ENG ESP FR

Zero Waste Finance

A transition from a plastic-reliant economy toward a circular zero waste economy requires effective mobilization and allocation of financial resources. Public and private finance have distinct and intersecting roles to play in supporting and scaling up innovations for waste prevention, redesign, alternative delivery and reuse systems as well as improving existing waste collection and recycling systems.

ENG ESP FR

Extended Producer Responsibility

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies seek to improve the environmental and social performance of products by holding producers and brand owners accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products. The global plastics treaty must embed well-designed EPR policies in it, guiding producers to prioritize upstream solutions.

ENG ESP FR

Bioplastics

The global Plastics Treaty must focus on plastic reduction and reuse, instead of substituting a plastic single-use item for a bio-based, biodegradable, or compostable one.

ENG ESP FR Webinars Watch the most recent Plastics Treaty webinars .stk-c116e84-inner-blocks{align-items:flex-start !important;}.stk-c116e84 {padding-top:26px !important;padding-right:26px !important;padding-bottom:26px !important;padding-left:26px !important;}.stk-c116e84 > .stk-separator__top svg{fill:#ad604f !important;} Webinar Archive at YouTube

Go to our playlist and watch past webinars.

.stk-086fc1e {background-color:#ffffff !important;border-top-left-radius:0px !important;border-top-right-radius:0px !important;border-bottom-right-radius:0px !important;border-bottom-left-radius:0px !important;overflow:hidden !important;box-shadow:none !important;bottom:-19px !important;flex:1 0 var(--stk-button-group-flex-wrap, 0) !important;}.stk-086fc1e:before{background-color:#ffffff !important;}.stk-086fc1e , .stk-086fc1e .stk-button{width:100% !important;}.stk-086fc1e .stk-button{min-height:0px !important;background:#ecb848 !important;border-top-left-radius:8px !important;border-top-right-radius:8px !important;border-bottom-right-radius:8px !important;border-bottom-left-radius:8px !important;}.stk-086fc1e .stk-button:hover:after{background:#ecb848 !important;opacity:1 !important;}:where(.stk-hover-parent:hover, .stk-hover-parent.stk--is-hovered) .stk-086fc1e .stk-button:after{background:linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 0%, linear-gradient(90deg, transparent 0%, transparent 100%) 100%) 100%) 100%) 100%) !important;opacity:1 !important;}.stk-086fc1e .stk-button .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child{height:0px !important;width:0px !important;opacity:0.6 !important;transform:rotate(0deg) !important;}.stk-086fc1e .stk-button .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child, .stk-086fc1e .stk-button .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child :is(g, path, rect, polygon, ellipse){fill:#942924 !important;}.stk-086fc1e .stk-button__inner-text{color:#942924 !important;}Watch more here

Previous Next GAIA Africa Global Plastics Treaty Webinar Series | Part 1 Finance and the Global Plastics Treaty

The new global agreement on plastic pollution will require financial resources to achieve its objectives. There are costs associated with implementing and complying with new legally binding controls at the global level. New, additional, stable, accessible, and adequate financial assistance have to be made available to developing countries and economies in transition to comply with and implement the new legally binding agreement which is a priority area for the Africa Region. As such, for the 3rd part of the Global Plastics Treaty Webinar Series, we learned about what the existing financial landscape looks like to address plastic pollution and what lessons can be learned from funding mechanisms developed for existing MEAs (Multilateral Environmental Agreements) and much more….

Watch GAIA Africa Global Plastics Treaty Webinar Series | Part 2 The Zero Draft

In this Global Plastics Treaty webinar held on September 21, we learned more about what the Zero Draft is, what GAIA & BFFP’s analyses have been thus far about the Zero Draft and how you can use the Zero Draft in your advocacy efforts. GAIA’s Global Policy Officer Sirine Rached and BFFP’s Global Policy Officer Semee Rhee led the discussion.

Watch GAIA Africa Global Plastics Treaty Webinar Series | Part 3 How the Global Plastics Treaty Came About and Why It Matters?

This is the first part of this series held on 14 September 2023 with our esteemed speakers Ana Rocha, GAIA’s Director of Global Plastics Program and Merrisa Naidoo, GAIA/BFFP’s Africa Plastic Campaigner who presented to us a general overview of the plastics treaty, how it came about and why it matters.

Watch GAIA ASIA PACIFIC Financing for Plastic Pollution

The Financing for Plastic Pollution webinar explores the challenges and the promising potential for genuine (Zero Waste) solutions and a Just Transition. Panelists provide experiences from working with impacted communities, understanding of multilateral financing, subsidies and similar fiscal incentives, and International financing institutions, as well as multi-stakeholder engagement. Speakers: Ana Le Rocha, Director Global Plastics Program, GAIA Ronald Steenblik, Senior Technical Advisor, QUNO Nalini Shekhar, Co-founder and Executive Director, Hasiru Dala Mayang Azurin, Deputy Director for Campaigns, GAIA Asia Pacific

Watch GAIA ASIA PACIFIC EPR Framework in Asia: Challenges and Opportunities

The global issue of plastic pollution requires community-driven solutions based on solid evidence. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, which have been in existence for over two decades in various forms, are gaining renewed attention due to ongoing negotiations for a #GlobalPlasticsTreaty. This webinar aims to explore the challenges and lessons associated with EPR implementation across Asia. It will provide insights into the practical aspects of implementing EPR policies, highlighting the gaps between policy frameworks and on-ground realities. The goal is to identify opportunities for enhancing EPR through treaty negotiations and national advocacy efforts.

Watch

Previous Next

The post GAIA at INC-5.2: Advocating a Binding Global Plastics Treaty to End Plastic Pollution first appeared on GAIA.

© ANR Colombia

El martes 24 de junio, la Plaza de Bolívar de Bogotá amaneció cubierta de toneladas de plásticos para representar cómo se vería la ciudad sin el trabajo de las y los recicladores, y para manifestar que el trabajo de los 60.000 recicladores de Colombia se está viendo afectado por los bajos precios del material de reciclaje. 

Más de 30 asociaciones de recicladores de base coordinaron llevar veinte camiones desde distintos puntos de la ciudad a la Plaza Bolívar para descargar 12 toneladas de botellas plásticas PET para denunciar el desplome de los precios del material y la consecuente precarización de sus condiciones laborales.

Según estimaciones de la Asociación Nacional de Recicladores (ANR Colombia), en los últimos dos años, los precios por kilo de PET han pasado de los $2.800-$3.000 ($ 0.75 USD) a $1.600 ($ 0.40 USD), lo que no solo representa una baja en los ingresos de las y los recicladores, sino también en algunos casos pérdidas cuando se considera el costo logístico total por kilo recolectado y vendido.

© ANR Colombia © ANR Colombia

 Las organizaciones de recicladores exigieron una reunión con el gobierno nacional para abordar sus demandas como la creación de un fondo económico financiado con el impuesto al plástico de un solo uso, políticas públicas claras que regulen el precio de los materiales reciclables, reconocimiento legal y económico del trabajo del reciclador, y acceso a salud, pensiones y sueldos dignos.

The post Toneladas de plásticos inundaron Bogotá: Recicladores protestaron por caída de precios first appeared on GAIA.