This paper is intended to highlight and partially address a major gap in the landscape of literature and practice on waste plastics. Across the world, a variety of new methods for treating waste plastics have emerged in recent years, both at the macro and micro scales. However, relatively little has been done to assess and compare the safety of these approaches from a human and environmental standpoint.
This paper is not intended to signal that the plastics crisis can be solved through collection and recycling alone. Action to substantially reduce single-use plastic and replace it with refillable, reusable and packaging-free alternatives should be our first response. However, in a crisis of this magnitude we need to take action at every level simultaneously – safe collection and recycling is one way of doing so.
Tearfund’s Rubbish Campaign drew attention to the scandal of mismanaged waste, and single-use plastic packaging in particular. It has led to us pursuing an increasing programme of research and advocacy aimed at improving decision-making around safer waste management. The statistics speak for themselves:
- As many as one million people die each year from diseases caused by plastic and other mismanaged waste. (No time to waste, Tearfund, 2019)
- Two billion people, one in four of us globally, do not have access to regular bin collections. (No time to waste, Tearfund, 2019)
- Each year, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies distribute billions of pieces of single-use plastic packaging in countries and contexts where large amounts will end up burned on street corners and open dumps, or dumped on land or in waterways. (The burning question, Tearfund, 2019)
Tearfund is calling on large FMCG companies – and in particular, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, PepsiCo and Unilever – to do four things (in summary):
1. declare the amount of plastic they use in each country,
2. reduce this substantially,
3. collect and recycle what’s left, and
4. do so through developing fair partnerships with waste pickers.
Change has begun to happen, albeit slowly and fitfully (see Rubbish Campaign league table).
As Fast Moving Consumer Goods companies begin to reduce the amount of plastic packaging they place on the market, and in particular to collect more of what’s left, clear questions are emerging. What should happen to plastic that has been collected for recycling? Where should recycling investments be directed? As NGOs and social enterprises have begun to address the scandal of plastic waste locally, similar issues have surfaced in relation to micro-level processing techniques. And policy-makers have found themselves facing dilemmas as mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility systems are designed.
This paper, summarising an independent academic review, is primarily intended to speak to FMCG companies, although we hope it will also prove useful for policy- makers, activists and community practitioners asking similar questions.
Nigel Harris Chief Executive, Tearfund
Executive summary
Alongside efforts to reduce plastic waste, large amounts of plastic waste will be collected for recycling over the next decade as a result of commitments made by some of the world’s largest fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies. Processing the additional material will require a massive upscale to infrastructure and changes to the logistical networks through which plastic waste flows from the point of generation to its transformation into useful products. Stakeholders across the plastic waste value chain are eager to explore new and innovative ways to process plastic waste to retain the maximum value from its material or energetic properties. New technologies under the banner of ‘chemical recycling’ (eg pyrolysis, depolymerisation and solvent-based purification) are being explored by innovators, who are keen to extol their potential to reduce material losses and energy use in comparison to more conventional approaches. In several examples, plastic waste that has been collected for recycling has been diverted to processes that seek to recover energy or convert it into fuel; particularly where the material is unsuitable for conventional mechanical reprocessing or where recycling infrastructure is lacking.
In this rapidly evolving landscape, people have started to question whether some of the processes used to recover value from plastic waste result in a better overall outcome for human health and the environment. A particular concern is that technology will be implemented in countries that lack effective, well-resourced and independent regulation, resulting in the emission of hazardous substances and materials into the environment. This review was written to improve understanding of some of these approaches, new and old, and to answer questions about which technologies should be supported. Eight approaches were identified for being actively explored by FMCG companies as potential solutions to the plastic pollution crisis (Table 1). Evidence for their impact on human health and the environment is summarised in this report, which is complimented by a more detailed review, submitted to an academic journal for peer review (Safely recovering value from plastic waste in the Global South: Opportunities and challenges for circular economy and plastic pollution mitigation).
Each approach was assessed according to its impact on the environment; public and occupational health; and commercial prevalence and maturity. This enabled a further assessment of their suitability for implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) including the risk that they may be operated below safety standards. They were arranged into three groups (Groups 1–3) as shown in Figure 1, according to their relative risks and/or the availability of evidence, the first of which is subdivided into two further sub-groups (Groups 1a and 1b).
The mechanical reprocessing technologies in Group 1a are the least impactful on the environment and health, while being both mature and appropriate for implementation in LMICs, where they have been carried out at scale for at least 40 years. There are still some shortcomings with mechanical reprocessing, such as high loss rates, which can result in the mismanagement of residues. However, with improved management of feedstock and waste collection infrastructure these can be mitigated to an extent.
Tags: Safety first: recovering value from plastic waste
