Break Free From Plastic

In Brazil, the plastic crisis isn’t limited to the streets, landfills, or recycling cooperatives. It also extends to the courts, legislative assemblies, and decision-making forums that determine who bears the costs of pollution and who participates in the solutions.

Since 2017, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) has been working to ensure that the rights recognized in Brazilian law do not remain merely on paper. Its strategy combines legal counsel, strategic litigation, research, and institutional advocacy, based on one premise: the problems affecting communities require collective responses.

“The IDC was founded at a time when Brazil was undergoing a profound political and administrative crisis. There was a great deal of important legislation that remained on paper and was not implemented,” explains Tatiana Bastos, president of the organization. In that context, a group of legal experts and allies decided that defending constitutional rights required coordinated action.

Nearly a decade later, the Institute has established itself as a national, multidisciplinary, nonprofit organization based in Rio de Janeiro. Its network brings together more than 150 partner organizations in nine Brazilian states and the Federal District, including waste picker cooperatives, rights advocacy groups, communities, and social collectives.

Its work is structured around three pillars—democracy, inclusion, and the environment—and, within the latter, plastic pollution is taking on an increasingly prominent role.

For Direito Coletivo, the plastic crisis cannot be addressed solely as a pollution problem. Its consequences are distributed unevenly and particularly affect those working at the bottom of the waste management chain.

Waste picker cooperatives face the consequences of a system that puts large quantities of packaging on the market without ensuring that it can be recovered or sold. Materials that fail to find buyers end up becoming waste, imposing economic and labor costs on those who sort them.

“For us, the fight against plastic isn’t just an environmental cause—it’s also a social justice cause,” says Bastos. “Much of the burden of poor plastic management falls on those who work directly with recycling: the recycling cooperatives.”

This perspective guides the “Less Plastic, More Justice” project, which seeks to hold manufacturers accountable and defend the rights of recycling workers. One of the pillars of the project was the study “Recyclers for Less Plastic,” conducted in partnership with Fluminense Federal University (UFF), GAIA, and Break Free From Plastic (BFFP). The study found that plastics with low recyclability could account for between 45% and 64% of the rejected waste analyzed at the participating cooperatives.

Although some of these containers are marketed as recyclable, in practice there is no market or economic viability for their recovery. The study estimated monthly losses of between 1,200 and 3,700 reais (approximately 235 and 725 USD) per cooperative, in addition to up to 15 hours of work per month spent sorting materials that are ultimately discarded.

The data made it possible to move from research to action. The IDC used the evidence to support a public civil action aimed at holding the companies that produce this packaging accountable and brought the debate to the Rio de Janeiro Legislative Assembly. “It was a rare case in which we managed to close the loop: technical research, institutional advocacy, and legal action, with waste pickers at the center of the strategy,” notes Bastos.

This experience encapsulates one of the organization’s core commitments: generating knowledge that can be transformed into legal and policy tools while ensuring the participation of those most affected by the crisis.

Waste management has opened up another area of work for the Institute: the expansion of incineration projects, including those presented under concepts such as waste-to-energy or energy recovery.

Bastos explains that these projects are moving forward in various Brazilian states despite the socio-environmental impacts highlighted by organizations, including emissions of toxic pollutants and the potential disincentive to material recovery.

Among the cases he mentions are the Barueri plant in São Paulo, touted as Latin America’s first waste-to-energy facility, and a similar project in Rio de Janeiro that, as she explained, was in the licensing phase.

In light of these processes, the IDC identified a problem that transcends the specific characteristics of each project: the lack of coordination between lawyers and the organizations working on the ground. “Legal action against these projects was highly fragmented: lawyers, social movements, and local organizations were working in isolation, without access to legal precedents, court documents, or shared strategies,” explains Bastos.

To address this challenge, the organization created a working group for legal advice and coordination that connects lawyers from different regions of Brazil. The initiative includes regular meetings, the exchange of experiences, a shared database of case law and technical documents, as well as templates for legal instruments that can be adapted to the needs of each region. The goal is to strengthen local capacities and prevent each community from having to start from scratch when facing an incineration project.

The IDC’s growth is also reflected in its network. According to data shared by Bastos, the organization went from 100 partner organizations in 2023 to 124 in 2024 and 151 in 2025.

For an organization dedicated to strategic litigation and the defense of collective rights, expanding the network allows it to conduct assessments and provide legal support to cooperatives, Quilombola communities, and collectives in different regions of the country. “None of these cases moves forward in isolation; they all rely on networking,” says Bastos.

This logic also explains the Institute’s participation in BFFP. For the IDC, being part of an international movement provides access to research, facilitates the exchange of strategies, and connects the experiences of local organizations with a global agenda.

The collaboration with GAIA and BFFP, in particular, has helped advance research on recyclability and corporate responsibility, as well as broaden the dissemination of its findings. “Participating in BFFP is very important for the IDC because of the access to technical expertise that this network provides,” says Bastos. “Organizations from different countries produce top-tier research and evidence on the plastic crisis, which directly strengthens our own legal and advocacy work in Brazil.”

International coordination also makes it possible to connect local problems with dynamics that transcend borders. Cooperatives and communities facing specific problems in a municipality can link their demands to movements in other countries and to companies operating on a global scale.

For Direito Coletivo, the need for a legally binding global plastics treaty stems from the limitations of current responses. “We need a robust, fair, and legally binding treaty capable of reducing plastic production at its source, rather than merely addressing the problem once it has already become waste,” argues Bastos.

His concern extends beyond the content of international commitments to their implementation. From his perspective, an ambitious treaty requires binding targets, clear timelines, and monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance.

IDC’s experience in Brazil informs this position. Its work stems precisely from the need to translate rights and commitments into concrete actions, with mechanisms for enforcement and participation.

“The Global Plastics Treaty must move from paper to practice,” says Bastos. “For those of us who work directly with the people suffering the concrete effects of this crisis—such as grassroots recyclers—the urgency lies not only in negotiating a good treaty but also in ensuring that it translates into effective public policies and real accountability on the part of manufacturing companies.”

The Institute’s position thus links international negotiations to the day-to-day challenges faced by cooperatives, communities, and local organizations. A treaty would not be an end in itself, but rather a tool whose effectiveness would depend on its implementation on the ground.

September 2026—The central objective of the LAC meeting was to strengthen regional coordination, celebrate collective lessons learned, and establish shared strategic priorities to guide our joint work in the coming years toward environmental justice and zero waste.

In the first part of the day, participants collectively reflected on the political, social, and environmental realities of the different countries. Discussion sessions were organized on topics related to zero waste in educational settings, pyrolysis, and organic waste, followed by a celebration of the milestones that have marked our work since we last met in Lima in 2023.

For Karla Escoto of Basura Cero Nicaragua, “Being part of this gathering has been rewarding and rejuvenating. These gatherings not only allow us to exchange experiences and share the actions being taken by each of the organizations working toward zero waste, but they also enable us to have that direct contact, to humanize our actions, to share, to rethink our approaches, and to know that despite the different circumstances and contexts in each country, we continue to make progress from our own communities, working hand in hand with young people, local communities, and grassroots waste pickers.”

Other important opportunities included training sessions led by the members themselves and discussions centered on the region’s strategic priorities, with the aim of making progress on common goals that will guide our joint work in the coming years and recognize the capabilities that exist within the alliance.

“The gathering reaffirmed the value of sharing what we do in our communities. We were able to share the experience of León Cortés, but also to listen to and learn from other organizations in the region. That exchange strengthens our work and reminds us that, even though our territories are different, we can learn from one another.” said Julia Picado of the Asociación Defensores del Monumento Natural Zona de los Santos in Costa Rica.

The three-day gathering concluded in a festive atmosphere with a “causes fair,” where organizations presented the work they are carrying out in their territories. The shared experiences provided a better understanding of the diversity of work that sustains the movement and the various ways in which organizations are advancing environmental justice and zero-waste initiatives.

For Tania Ricaldi of CESU-UMSS in Bolivia, “The Santiago Gathering was a space for dialogue, listening, and mutual learning that allowed us to share experiences with zero-waste practices. These experiences show that through local action, solidarity, and creativity, we are building and rebuilding relationships and transformations that are essential for the care of life.”

The Santiago meeting will be remembered as a moment to celebrate what has been achieved and to outline the steps needed to develop strategies that will enable progress toward new goals and reinforce the achievements already made.

September 2026— Waste management must no longer be viewed only as a public health issue but must become a priority for climate action. That was one of the key messages of the “International Zero Waste Seminar: The Strategic Role of Organic Waste in Climate Action and the Democratization of Solutions,” organized by GAIA, Break Free From Plastic (BFFP), and the Zero Waste Chile Alliance.

The event brought together 50 representatives from more than 26 municipalities in Chile, 45 organizations from over 15 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, government officials, grassroots waste pickers, and academics, who shared experiences on public policy, composting, recycling, repair, and local waste management.

Methane was at the center of the discussion. Marcelo Mena, executive director of the Global Methane Hub, emphasized that “if we reduce methane emissions, the drop in temperature would be practically immediate,” and argued that reducing organic waste is one of the most effective and cost-efficient measures to move in this direction.

Juan Pablo Escudero, a researcher at UCLA’s Emmett Institute, highlighted the contribution of new technologies in identifying sources of methane. “The big climate action isn’t just about stopping the burning of oil. We have to look at waste,” he stated.

The seminar focused particularly on the potential of organic waste to produce compost, regenerate soil, and reduce emissions.

Mariela Pino, a methane mitigation campaigner for GAIA Lac, noted that “waste management is no longer just a public health issue” and that its connection to climate change requires a different approach. Pino argued that moving toward zero waste requires maximizing the recycling of organic and inorganic materials, implementing separate collection systems and source separation, and ensuring adequate funding.

She also highlighted the importance of linking waste management to soil protection and food production: “We have to view waste not only as a public health issue, but as part of a socio-environmental economy that generates significant benefits,” she said.

The case studies presented showed that these solutions are already being implemented. In the Quinta Normal municipality of Chile, for example, a pilot program for organic recycling at open-air markets is underway, while in Melipeuco, the municipality has been working since 2021 on a local zero-waste strategy in collaboration with local communities.

Meanwhile, Fértil Compostaje, a family-run farming business in Chile’s La Araucanía region, processes between 20 and 30 metric tons of agricultural waste to produce compost. Its director, Germán Jara, warned about the deterioration of agricultural soils and stated: “We’re not burying waste; we’re burying the solution to regenerate our soils.”

The role of grassroots waste pickers was another key focus of the meeting. Soledad Mella, from the National Association of Waste Pickers of Chile, called for the transition to zero-waste systems to incorporate those who have historically sustained material recovery. “A just transition isn’t about moving waste from one place to another—it’s about shifting power, investment, and opportunities toward those who sustain recycling,” she said.

From Brazil, Roselaine Mendes, international secretary of the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Waste Pickers (RedLacre), highlighted the importance of providing economic recognition for the work of waste pickers. “Simply making a living from the sale of materials isn’t sustainable. We need to be paid for our work,” she noted.

The seminar also addressed the progress and challenges of Chilean public policies, including the Extended Producer Responsibility Law, infrastructure for organic waste management, public education, and coordination among national, regional, and municipal governments.

For Magdalena Donoso, regional coordinator for GAIA and BFFP in Latin America and the Caribbean, the progress achieved is the result of the organization and perseverance of various stakeholders. “Agendas shift when those with unyielding determination decide to organize and take action before success seems possible, and they persevere because they refuse to accept that what makes no sense should continue to be perpetuated,” she stated.

The meeting concluded with a call to strengthen collaboration among governments, municipalities, social organizations, waste pickers, communities, academia, and the private sector to accelerate local solutions that reduce emissions, prevent waste, and move toward zero-waste systems.

PUBLIC STATEMENT BY LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ORGANIZATIONS FACED WITH THE LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE 2026 PLASTICS TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

September, 2026.

The undersigned organizations, which have been monitoring the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations since 2022, wish to express our deep concern and alert the public to the following facts:

Since the beginning of 2026, only so-called “informal” meetings have been taking place between heads of government delegations, and according to available official information, these modality of meetings will continue to be held to address the fundamental issues for negotiating the Global Plastics Treaty. These meetings are conducted behind closed doors and in confidence, without access for observer organizations, which severely limits the transparency of the process and prevents informed participation by civil society. This situation creates a worrying lack of transparency surrounding key discussions for the future of the treaty and marginalizes the voices of civil society organizations that defend the public interest.

The situation is such that during this year it has been impossible for us to fully exercise this role due to the working modality adopted by the chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), Ambassador Julio Cordano.

While heads of delegations hold meetings to address the substantive aspects of the negotiations, observer organizations have been relegated to virtual meetings with the INC presidency. During these sessions, the only available interaction mechanism is a chat, which is clearly insufficient to foster genuine dialogue. These virtual spaces neither substitute for nor can replace direct interaction between observer organizations and government delegations, which is an essential component for ensuring effective and meaningful participation in the negotiation process.

This format of online meetings with the INC presidency only allows us to learn general guidelines and organizational aspects of the process, information that is largely already public and does not offer real opportunities to exchange perspectives with national delegations, present evidence and recommendations during substantive discussions, or contribute to strengthening the positions that governments bring to the negotiating table.

We firmly believe that the participation of observer organizations cannot be limited to receiving information about decisions already taken or about the planning of the process. Meaningful participation requires access to spaces where the contents of the treaty are discussed, and the possibility of dialogue directly with government delegations before and during the definition of their positions. Excluding civil society organizations from these bodies reduces the transparency of the process and weakens the principles of participation and accountability that should guide the construction of a global treaty of this relevance.

We denounce this practice as contrary to the principles and standards of environmental democracy, which in our region are enshrined in the Escazú Agreement, particularly regarding access to information, public participation, and transparency in environmental matters. These principles require that decision-making processes be conducted with openness, timeliness, and effective participation of stakeholders.

Therefore, it is legally paradoxical that the president of the INC, who was a promoter of the Escazú Agreement in the region, adopts working methods that do not conform to the principle of progressivity, recognized in international environmental law as an obligation to advance in a sustained manner in the expansion and strengthening of access rights.

In this regard, the implementation of closed spaces and the restriction of substantive interaction between observer organizations and government delegations constitute a clear regression in the standards of participation previously achieved in the negotiation process itself, weakening the minimum democratic guarantees that should govern the drafting of an international instrument of this nature. Ultimately, these are implementing procedures that restrict the effective influence of observer organizations.

Even more concerning is the INC president's request that observer organizations appoint representatives from among our organizations. Implementing this measure will widen the gap between our organizations and government delegations, limit the diversity of voices, and diminish the wealth of scientific, technical, territorial, and public policy contributions that our organizations directly share with our governments during negotiations.

In this context, civil society organizations working to protect human health, planetary health, ecosystems, and independent science denounce our exclusion from discussion forums that define essential aspects of the treaty. This situation has limited our timely access to the debates, hindered our ability to understand the evolution of government positions, and restricted our capacity to contribute independent scientific evidence, technical expertise, and experiences from territories directly affected by plastic pollution.

Our role as civil society is to accompany the negotiations, understand and analyze the positions of our governments, and contribute to strengthening decision-making through evidence and independent recommendations free from industry conflicts of interest, incorporating the realities of the affected communities and territories and oriented towards the protection of the public interest, human rights, human and planetary health, and ecosystems.

For all the above reasons, we call upon the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee, Ambassador Julio Cordano, and the Board of Directors of the INC to reestablish mechanisms that guarantee effective, direct and meaningful participation of observer organizations in all stages of the negotiation process.

A global treaty on plastics can only aspire to be legitimate, solid and ambitious if it is built through a transparent, inclusive process that respects the principles of environmental democracy.

Signatories:

Acción Ecológica México, México   

Aliança Resíduo Zero Brasil

Alianza Basura Cero Chile

Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador

Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración GAIA 

AMAR Associação de Defesa do Meio Ambiente

BREAK FREE FROM PLASTIC

Centro de tecnologías aplicadas de Argentina

CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra, El Salvador

Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración, Argentina

Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco, México

Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ -Guatemala

Colectivo Viento Sur, Chile

El Poder del Consumidor, México

FAS, PANAMA

FUNAM, Argentina

Fundación Agua Clara, Venezuela

Fundación PlastiCo. Project, Ecuador

Hospitais Saudáveis, Brasil

Manos Abiertas La Bandada, Argentina

Mingas por el Mar, Ecuador

Organización Ecologista Piuke, Argentina

RADA, Chile

RAPAL, Uruguay

Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente. República Dominicana

Taller de Comunicación Ambiental, Argentina

Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Toxisphera Associação de Saúde Ambiental, Brasil

Youth Accion Co:Lab

August 2026—Civil society organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean denounce the lack of opportunities for effective participation in the negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty and warn of the impact this situation has on the transparency and legitimacy of the process.

The organizations, which have been following the negotiations since 2022, note that throughout 2026, heads of government delegations have participated in so-called “informal” meetings to discuss substantive aspects of the treaty, while observer organizations have been denied access to these forums.

Instead, they have been invited to virtual meetings with the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC), led by Ambassador Julio Cordano, in which the primary means of interaction available is a chat function.

“The Global Plastics Treaty cannot, under any circumstances, create new ‘sacrifice zones’ or consolidate existing ones—zones marked by opacity and decisions made without public input—and observers are working to ensure that this does not happen. Keeping them on the sidelines of delegate meetings is not merely a procedural decision: it is a political act that widens the gap between those who make decisions and those who suffer the consequences. If the treaty aspires to be fair, it must be participatory from the very beginning,” explains Cecilia Bianco of the Argentine organization Taller Ecologista.

According to the organizations, this approach prevents them from timely contributing independent scientific evidence, technical expertise, and the experiences of communities and territories affected by plastic pollution, as well as from understanding and contributing to the debate on the positions that governments bring to the negotiating table.

They also expressed concern over the INC Chair’s request that observer organizations designate single representatives. They believe this measure could limit the diversity of voices and reduce the range of scientific, technical, and territorial contributions available to the delegations.

The organizations maintain that the lack of substantive participation represents a step backward from the standards previously achieved in the negotiation process itself and runs counter to the principles of environmental democracy, particularly those related to transparency, access to information, and public participation established in the Escazú Agreement.

“We have insisted that the Escazú Agreement represents a benchmark of progress for our region. Therefore, it is concerning that, while Latin America and the Caribbean have made progress in recognizing higher standards of transparency, access to information, and public participation, the negotiations for the global treaty on plastics are adopting procedures that restrict the opportunities for participation that civil society had enjoyed in earlier stages of the process. This change represents a step backward in terms of participation and transparency, particularly given that these negotiations will shape responses to a global environmental and public health crisis.

“This situation is even more paradoxical in a region deeply affected by ‘Waste Colonialism,’ which historically has received and borne a disproportionate share of the impacts of plastic pollution and waste generated by other countries,” states Larisa de Orbe of the Mexican organization Acción Ecológica.

In light of this situation, the organizations are calling on INC President Ambassador Julio Cordano and the Executive Board to reestablish mechanisms that guarantee direct, effective, and meaningful participation by observer organizations at all stages of the negotiations.

The organizations maintain that a global treaty on plastics can only be legitimate, robust, and ambitious if it is developed through a transparent, inclusive process that respects the principles of environmental democracy.

Signatory Organizations

Acción Ecológica México; Alianza Resíduo Zero Brasil; Alianza Basura Cero Chile; Alianza Basura Cero Ecuador; AMAR Asociación de Defensa del Medio Ambiente; Libérate del Plástico; Centro de Tecnologías Aplicadas de Argentina; CESTA, Amigos de la Tierra (El Salvador); Coalición Ciudadana Antiincineración (Argentina); Colectivo Ecologista Jalisco (México); Colectivo Tz’unun Ya’ (Guatemala); El Poder del Consumidor (México); FAS (Panamá); FUNAM (Argentina); Fundación Agua Clara (Venezuela); Fundación PlastiCo. Proyecto (Ecuador); Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA); Manos Abiertas La Bandada (Argentina); Mingas por el Mar (Ecuador); Organización Ecologista Piuke (Argentina); RADA (Chile); RAPAL (Uruguay); Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente (República Dominicana); Taller de Comunicación Ambiental (Argentina); Taller Ecologista (Argentina); Toxisphera Asociación de Salud Ambiental (Brasil).

Read the full statement here.