Today, many conservation projects are located in the Global South. Yet most of them lack emphasis on the consequences they can have on local livelihoods who often depend on natural resources. This article explores how the Mashpi nature reserve in Ecuador impacts local livelihoods. The findings are based on field research and interviews conducted on the ground in the Choco-Andino region of Ecuador. 

—

“Some people have access to knowledge that others do not have […]. The other people do not think about what’s going to happen to planet Earth, they are thinking about what they’re going to eat the next day because they don’t have money,” said one of the two teachers from the village school. 

In Mashpi, a rural village of no more than 200 people bordering the Choco-Andino cloud forests of Ecuador, tensions emerge between making a living and saving the land. Located 120 kilometres from Quito, the capital of Ecuador, the village has witnessed the growth of environmentalism in recent years. Environmental protection has emerged not only from a movement of local activists but also from an economic interest brought by the growth of ecotourism. 

However, whilst concerns about the environment are growing throughout Ecuador, remote communities still struggle to meet their basic needs. And it is these communities that, in the context of land privatisation and tourism, are often marginalised. 

Whilst wealthy Western tourists are increasing in the region, the economic benefits of such growth is not felt when walking throughout the small village: houses with rooms with no walls; fresh produce and milk delivered only once a week by trucks coming from the city; a village school consisting of two classrooms that only opens on mornings; and a damaged bridge to access the village, whose reparation have to be planned and paid for by the community since no money is flowing in from the state. These are the realities of rural life in Ecuador. 

A few kilometres on the other side of the river is a tropical paradise of cloud forests and biodiversity, with trails made for tourists and a luxurious hotel built to experience the wilderness, or what is left of it. The contrast is striking. Ecotourism is supposedly financing the protection of the forest, allowing for international income to flow into local needs. Yet, outside of the boundaries of these private lands, people lack economic resources and basic infrastructures for their day-to-day life.

Private conservation has seen its rise in recent years, especially in the Global South, where “green development” promising the protection of environmental resources whilst promoting local economic growth is promoted. In Mashpi,  ecotourism has become a profitable way for private investors to keep the land intact whilst offering wealthy tourists a wilderness experience. 

Ecotourism is certainly a more sustainable way to make use of the land as an economic resource, notably in a local context of intense logging activities and illegal hunting of wildlife. Yet, despite being a good step towards environmental protection, the industry only profits a small number of individuals, whilst marginalising rural communities from their own land.

You might also like: Explainer: What Is Ecotourism?

Who Is to Blame For It?

One reason for such inequalities is the lack of governmental support and regulations, which leads to the privatisation of activities and services and thus reinforces the uneven distribution of power and wealth. 

In a national context where the central government offers no on-the-ground presence to enforce laws and regulations, the privatisation of land for conservation seems like the only option. Not having laws in place would allow for the unregulated exploitation of land and natural resources  exploited by various actors through logging, agriculture, illegal mining, and hunting activities. 

What happens in Mashpi is not unique. Today, many low-income countries are put at the centre of conservation priorities due to their unique biodiversity and landscapes, yet none of them have enough political and economic strength to support effective environmental protection. Consequently, money flows through alternative pathways: civil society on one hand and private actors on the other. 

But how could both be reconciled? Can economic development be coupled with environmental protection, even within the poorest regions on Earth? 

Everything comes at a price. If conservation happens on the private level, uneven power relations are likely to arise, with communities often marginalised in the process. Yet, today, relying on public efforts is not sufficient. The poor economy of Ecuador forces the government to support oil extraction, since it brings more money in and is thus more profitable for the government. And despite the country’s wills to protect its lands and recent efforts to enhance indigenous rights and improve environmental protection, the efforts on the ground are still minimal.

Ecuador’s Legacy of Poor Land Tenure Regimes

Exploring the history of land tenure and governance in the region is crucial to understand the role of land conservation in Ecuador.

Land rights are poorly established across rural Ecuador, with land often belonging neither to the states nor to the people. Land ownership is either overlapping or non-existent, and this long history of non-existing land titles can often complicate or prolong the process of land titling.With land ownership comes rights, control, and power. Often, when land is bought from the poorest, power is also taken from them.

Conservation projects are inherently embedded within these local land tenure regimes.

In recent years, the term “green grabbing” has been used to refer to the appropriation of land and resources for environmental ends. If not done correctly, conservation can recreate new forms of colonialism and land grabbing, leading to the marginalisation and sometimes relocation of local populations.

In Ecuador particularly, decades of land grabbing still impact people’s perception of land tenure to this day. In the late 1970s, colonialists, known as “colonos,” took over fallow lands, which were previously owned by indigenous communities, often for petroleum expansion or logging. The Green Revolution of the 1990s facilitated the growth of large agricultural corporations and led to the marginalisation of small farmers, thus reinforcing the sense of fear towards large-scale land ownership.

Histories of land use tenure are often present within the memory of local communities. In Mashpi, the creation of the private nature reserve can be seen as a new form of colonialism, as it recreated power dynamics similar to those of the colonial history of the region.

When interviewing members of the neighbouring community, many highlighted how only a small fraction of it was employed at the reserve. Most employees come from the city and have applicable skills such as English, a valuable asset to be employed as tour guide in the reserve. Moreover, the money earned by private tourism was not redistributed to the local community and only profited the reserve owners and employees. The project thus not only took away land from the community but it also created little new economic opportunities. 

Creating Opportunities Despite Inequalities 

Not everything is black and white.

When I interviewed members of the local community living right next to the new reserve, many of my interviewees reported that once they realised that the eco-tourist lodge created jobs and employed people from the communities, they started perceiving the project differently. 

Within the region, work opportunities, notably with long-term contracts and fair salaries, as offered in Masphi, are rare for local inhabitants. “When they first hired me to work, they paid me 170 dollars at that time, and I had never held 170 dollars in my life,” one of the rangers employed from the village said, pointing at his hands. Whilst the land was indeed privatised and restrictions were given over resource use, the creation of the reserve also allowed for new job opportunities to rise.

The new source of income of some community members also meant that a greater amount of money flowed within the community. One interviewee from the local village said: “I have a sister who has a business in the community of Mashpi […]. With my money that I earn here I go and make purchases […] so the money that we generate here is redistributed in the area.”

Moreover,  with the growth of ecotourism in the region and the support from local NGOs, neighbouring communities have come to undertake their own tourism project based around nature. The natural assets of the village, notably the Mashpi river and its waterfalls, are promoted through the construction of infrastructures (wooden pavilion, benches) for tourists to enjoy the riverside.

The growth of the tourism sector remains an improvement for rural communities since it allows them to be in charge of their own businesses, produce revenues and make use of the natural assets present in their lands.Yet to this day, most of the revenues from ecotourism are generated in the private reserve, and community-based activities remain poorly profitable.

Can Conservation and Development Co-Exist?

In short, the answer is yes. Conservation can, in some cases, lead to economic growth and favour local communities. However, most projects coming from private actors or international organisations, if not conducted carefully, risk falling into colonialist and neoliberal dynamics.

Some of the most important things to consider when implementing a new conservation project are to include all actors in conversations and to promote collaborative decision-making approaches. This means getting local communities involved from the early stages of the project and making sure that all actors are beneficiaries of the project. Another important aspect is to propose alternative support to local inhabitants to help with the transition towards new local land-use practices – such as jobs training and English classes for tourism. 

Conservation and tourism, if done ethically, can provide the Global South with a new economic pathway that benefits both nature and the people.

The post Private Conservation and Ecotourism: A Case Study of Rural Development in Ecuador appeared first on Earth.Org.

In the mist of growing environmental actions and climate change mitigation promises, let us pause and reflect. What are we trying to protect? Has climate become the new focus, and plants been forgotten?  The climate discourse has been diverging and distorted across the last decade. We need to remind ourselves of the true ecological crisis at stake.

—

Reading new releases in scientific research, I came across this new study. A scientific paper released December 2023 that compares a photovoltaic field to a forest in its ability to store carbon. The study concluded that, under arid conditions, a photovoltaic field is a better emission reduction solution than planting trees. 

One of the main reasons for this is the fact that trees, although absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2), also absorb heat from the atmosphere, due to their low reflectance properties (also known as albedo). The study revealed that it would take up more than a decade of photosynthesis to compensate for the heat effect of planting trees. Meanwhile, it would take only two and half years for a solar farm to compensate for its heat emitted, thanks to the energy it produces.  

I understood the point of the study: while it sounds promising, an afforestation project in the desert is both counterintuitive and counterproductive. If the goal is to cool down our planet, creating a photovoltaic field, in this case, would be more effective. Yet, if you ask me, covering a desert of silicon panels seems as intriguing as planting a forest on arid lands.

The concept was curious: comparing nature to technology. And yet, this approach is becoming increasingly common, in an era where fighting climate change is increasingly dominated by technological solutions and carbon capture has become one of the main subjects of discussion. We look at trees as carbon capture technologies. We forget that they breathe, live, die. 

But there is more to it. As an ecologist and conservationist, my studies focused mainly on understanding living organisms, the way they interact with each other, and understanding natural cycles: the air, the wind, the soil, the water. Nature across scales. Lives across climates. Yet today, most of the discussion revolves around one component of this immense cycle: carbon dioxide. While the climate crisis must be tackled, and quickly, we must find a balance between focusing on CO2 and protecting ecosystems. 

Aside from the intrinsic value of nature, whose beauty and curiosity are, according to me, worth saving, protecting ecosystems has a far greater reach. By saving plants, and the system within which they live, we save cycles. Water, energy, oxygen. The things that keep us alive, that regulate the Earth. What made the appearance of life possible in the first place. Care for nature is a need rather than an interest, since without it, we cannot exist. Yet we seem to forget it.

People are less and less connected to nature. Populations are increasingly living in urban areas and away from natural landscapes. Additionally, the political discourse around climate change emphasises on a purely technical focus: emissions, carbon, climate, temperatures. But the risk of simplifying the environmental crisis under these simple terms, often exasperated by media coverage, is to forget the systems within which climate is attached to, and forget why we are trying to regulate it in the first place. 

The effect of climate change has been observed by scientists and ecologists for decades, raising concerns for the wellbeing of ecosystems. Yet this issue has now become a political matter, a growing concern not only for nature per se, but about the way in which nature can and will serve us: natural resources, ecosystems services. Perhaps a realisation that capitalism has driven us away from the land, a reminder that if the little green sprouts die, we will starve and die, too. 

The climate change discourse has moved beyond our dependency over natural resources into re-questioning the organisation of our society as a whole. On a warmer planet, the marginalised will be further marginalised. The victims of our globalised economy will be the first one to suffer from rising sea levels, wildfires, droughts, and extreme weather events. An exacerbation of the inegalitarian society within which we are living. Maybe a realisation of the weakness of our system, that “growth” only means so little. 

What surprises me even more is how we tend to entangle the climate discourse with the international development discourse. The “white saviour” comes back to the rescue by not only reducing emissions but also saving marginalised groups. We offer “clean cooking alternatives” to communities for which the bare necessities of societal needs are not being met, such as accessing health care and a secure access to food to feed the family. Why change the structure of our own energy systems in the western and wealthy world when we can save the poor and ask them to use renewable energy instead? 

We become heroes. Yet trees are still falling, hunger is still spreading.

We cover the mould with paint to avoid dealing with the root of the issue. 

Now coming back to solar panels versus trees in the desert. Both are nonsense. Think of preserving both the desert and the rainforest. Get the carbon capture, but also keep the hydrological cycle healthy, the rain falling in autumn, the freeze coming in winter, the beetles reproducing, the leaves breathing. 

Think abundance, not scarcity.

We destroy trees to make money then spend money to build carbon capture technologies and climate mitigation plans, to replace the services that the trees were providing in the first place. We are stuck in a vicious circle and seem unable to pause it.

It is thus a matter of thinking further. Picture the whole ecosystem, not just the gas exchange. Think life, not degrees. Think people, not carbon. 

You might also like: Nature Credits Can Succeed Where Carbon Capture Technologies Failed

The post Where the Climate Discourse Has Gone Wrong appeared first on Earth.Org.

A new study reflects on the current uneven distribution of biodiversity data, its link to social inequity, and its impact on modern environmental policies. When looking at a world map of all biodiversity records, the geographical disparity is striking. Some regions of the word contain a far greater number of records than others. While the US is fully covered by data points, Brazil and China visibly have a much lower coverage, despite hosting some of the world’s key biodiversity areas. This disparity highlights the geographical bias of environmental research which, contrary to what the name might suggest, is not limited to geographical locations. For instance, some species groups are more recorded than others. To understand what this research gap means, we must first look at the current science on the distribution of environmental monitoring.

—

Research Gap: Why Does it Matter? 

Research gap in environmental science is a real issue, and even more so today. Nowadays, nature can be transformed into economic assets, carbon stored by plants can be quantified and sold as carbon credits, similarly, biodiversity can now be monitored and transformed into biodiversity credits. This way, the rise in carbon and biodiversity markets facilitate money flows towards regions that lack economic support for the protection of. Yet, in order to determine the natural assets of a region, one needs data. And this is where inequalities are impactful: regions with higher records of biodiversity will find it easier to justify and access finance for environmental protection.

The same applies to policy. 

Policies and regulations for environmental protection are often targeted towards areas of high ecological priority. The priority of an area is once again determined by the data available, including biodiversity rates, the presence of endangered species, forest density, deforestation risks, etc. 

Consequently, the uneven distribution of environmental data could have important impacts on environmental governance and policy, prioritising some areas and marginalising others. But where do these biases come from and what are the factors driving environmental monitoring? 

You might also like: Nature Credits Can Succeed Where Carbon Capture Technologies Failed: An Interview with Walid Al Saqqaf and Amit Ghosh

Existing Inequalities in Environmental Research 

Geographical location is where we observe the most disparities in environmental data distribution. This is due to multiple factors: accessibility to different locations, research interest and priorities, technologies available, and, unsurprisingly, the wealth of a country. 

Indeed, biodiversity monitoring is often proportional to a country’s GDP. A 2024 study on the current uneven distribution of biodiversity data found that high-income countries have seven times more observations per hectare than upper middle, lower middle, and low-income countries. 

When looking at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), a data repository compiling billions of species observations worldwide, disparities in environmental research become apparent. Indeed, 79% of the available data comes from just ten countries, with a staggering 37% from the US. 

But the uneven distribution of environmental data goes beyond countries and their financial resources.

Accessibility, for instance, is another important driver of environmental monitoring, since researchers will mostly likely monitor data in places that are easy to access. More than 80% of biodiversity data worldwide are recorded within 2.5 kilometres (1.6 miles) from roads. While favouring accessible places over remote areas is somewhat understandable, this inevitably also discriminates against low-income nations, which lack the financial resources to build adequate road infrastructure and transportation. 

Data recorded through citizen science can also be a driver of data disparities. Citizen science refers to the participation of the public in recording scientific observations. Whilst this method of observation can be highly valuable for scientific research, it can be highly biased. Indeed, citizen observations are more likely to represent certain groups of species. This is because individuals are more likely to record animals which are easily spotted, or which spark their interest, such as birds or rabbits, for instance.

Another strong bias in environmental data lies within the research topics of environmental studies. For instance, while some species are largely monitored, others are considered less relevant. Birds, a favourite of wildlife enthusiasts, are by far the most overrepresented species, accounting for 87% of all GBIF data. This applies to biomes, too. Generally speaking, urbanised regions and terrestrial ecosystems are the most represented by studies, whilst tropical regions are poorly represented, despite being the most biodiverse biomes in the world. 

These disparities are explained by many factors, often reflecting socio-demographic realities. Disparities in environmental research can be linked to historical legacies of armed conflicts, political regimes, corruption, democracy, economic development.

You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity

The Impact of Data Disparities

Inequalities in data availability can have strong social, political, and environmental consequences.

For instance, environmental threats such as invasive species might be observed at an earlier stage in areas of high monitoring coverage. Actions and investments towards environmental management are thus more likely to occur in these research hotspots. 

The aforementioned study suggests this could favour, for instance, government-managed parks – which are more monitored and whose database is more important – over indigenous lands – which might not be tracked and monitored by scientific publications despite hosting a significant (often higher) number of animal and plant species. And so, indigenous communities risk being marginalised.

The Future of Environmental Data

In recent years, more technologies are becoming available to access environmental data, such as remote sensing, satellite imagery, or artificial intelligence. Ecological modelling can be a powerful tool, too. Biodiversity can be modelled using other environmental factors, such as climatic and altitudinal ranges, giving us an accurate idea of the global distribution of flora and fauna. 

Despite existing solutions, to this day, the coverage of environmental data remains uneven, and research efforts are still lacking in places that require urgent conservation efforts. Research gaps should thus be carefully considered to avoid the marginalisation of certain regions and communities in environmental finance and policy.

The post Research Gap: The Geographical Bias of Environmental Data appeared first on Earth.Org.

Moving away from plastic is a necessity, and both the public and private sectors are taking active steps towards the reduction of plastic production and distribution. However, for an effective, long-lasting impact and to avoid the unintended consequences of plastic-free policies, efforts need to happen across all sectors.

—

Plastic: A Global Issue

Plastic, single-use plastic, recyclable plastic, bioplastic, biodegradable plastic… You have surely come across one of these materials on your way to work this morning, whilst buying your take-away on your lunch break, or during your daily grocery run. Or maybe you are actively trying to reduce your plastic consumption and have managed to avoid all these plastic temptations.

Whilst plastic has changed a good deal the way we pack, transport, and use food and other commodities, it is now at the centre of many conversations around environmental pollution and our global waste crisis. 

The product is toxic, in every sense of the word. It is estimated that humans could be ingesting the equivalent of a credit card’s worth of plastic each week. Besides having detrimental effects on humans, plastic also directly impacts our planets’ health, with about 8.4 million tonnes of plastic waste polluting the oceans each year. Marine wildlife is one of the main victims of such pollution, with approximately 200 species of marine animals likely to ingest plastic in their life, and about 17% of them listed as endangered. Additionally, plastic production uses up huge amounts of energy and water.

You might also like: 8 Shocking Plastic Pollution Statistics to Know About

The negative impacts of our plastic economy have been widely reported and accepted, and plastic is now being targeted in many policies aimed at reducing its production and usage as well as finding more sustainable alternatives. Yet, in a society that has developed a dependent relationship with this “sacred” material, the efforts required to get away from it need to be multiplied. 

The overwhelming amount of plastic generation significantly contributes to our global overwhelming waste production. Some of the most littered products worldwide are drinking bottles, carrier bags, and food wrappers, all of which can be found at your local grocery shop. 

Plastic-Free Policies

To tackle the plastic crisis, many policies and regulations have been put in place to reduce its production and consumption. 

In 2019, the European Commission set out a target to make all plastic packaging reusable, recycled, or sold in a cost-effectively way by 2030. Many countries today have bans on carrier bags used. France, India, and Madagascar, for example, are banning the use of plastic carrier bags, while countries such as the UK, China, and Colombia are imposing a price on their use, to reduce overall consumption rates.

Moreover, in response to consumer concerns, retailers as well as individual brands are trying to reduce their plastic packaging and present themselves as environmentally conscious. 

Alternative plastics, such as bio-based plastic – or biodegradable plastic – which are compostable or degrade safely in the environment, are being introduced as new packaging methods. Some prefer to switch to paper, or other recyclable materials. Some decide to remove packaging altogether, whenever possible.

Yet to what extent are these plastic regulations effective? And what are the possible negative impacts of the alternative solutions to plastic? The plastic problem is more complex than it seems.

You might also like: 8 Sustainable Packaging Solutions to Solve the Plastic Waste Dilemma

Environmental Assessment of Alternative Packaging Materials

It can be easy to accept any alternative as being a better option to plastic. After all, plastic is the harmful material targeted by policies, thus the more we reduce it, the better. Yet making the best socio-environmental decisions requires a more nuanced understanding of plastic alternatives.

For instance, paper bags have been found to require four times the amount of energy needed to produce a plastic bag. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions might thus be more significant for their production, increasing the overall carbon footprint of the product. However, the footprint decreases if the paper is recycled. This goes to show that the overall emissions of a product depend on many factors throughout its lifecycle. 

Considering all the aspects of a material lifespan to calculate its footprint is known as to the life-cycle analysis (LCA), which allows to measure the environmental impact related to the full supply chain of a product, including raw material acquisition, production, energy usage, transport, end-use. This type of analysis – which also takes the social health impact of these stages into account – is crucial when rethinking our plastic economy.

For instance, given the current limited support and regulatory framework on how to move away from plastic, decisions taken by private actors might be uncoordinated, risky, and end up creating more harm than good. 

Grocery retailers have voiced their concerns and mentioned that they were aware that, by switching from plastic to non-plastic materials, they might add up to their carbon footprint. These trade-offs must be considered to find the best alternative possible. Moreover, greenwashing can also affect the plastic-free movement. Retailers will be more concerned by their ability to say they reduced plastic, without double thinking the strategy they take to move away from it. This can be to decisions producing other harmful environmental and social impacts, and thus cancelling all the benefits made by reducing plastic in the first place. 

Shaping Consumer Behaviour

Another crucial element to consider when adopting a plastic-free strategy is the response to consumers to alternative packaging methods. Indeed, transitions need all stakeholders to be involved in order to be successful. For instance, whilst providing paper bags rather than plastic bags is a common option, such a solution will only have a positive impact if consumers actively participate in recycling. Effective communication around plastic and waste-free behaviour should thus be used to effectively reduce consumption and promote circular waste practices.

A study reported that, whilst consumers were highly concerned about plastic consumption and willing for the system to change, only 23% affirmed that plastic packaging would be a barrier to buying a product. Indeed, despite consumers’ interest in and awareness of the issue, price and quality are often higher priorities when choosing their groceries. Efforts by policies and retailers should thus provide the best alternative solution considering both consumers’ willingness to change and their conflicting priorities.  

Moreover, miscommunication over plastic-free alternatives can lead to a lack of understanding by consumers on how to behave with different materials. A 2020 report affirmed that retailers were concerned that “compostable” plastic might be treated by consumers as normal plastic, or discarded as general waste, potentially ending up harming the environment more than reducing its impact.

Whilst an important goal is to move away from plastic, an even more important one is to reduce our overall global consumption and waste behaviours. Thus, a more important message to consumers, perhaps, is to reuse packaging and bags and take additional care when storing fresh products, to extend their product storage life. 

Alternatively, increasing packaging-free behaviour is one of the most effective ways to prevent waste and plastic use. This can be done by increasing access to refill methods and packaging-free shops. In the Philippines, for example, 60% of supermarkets had refill stations in 2019. These types of initiatives can nudge consumers to make more sustainable decisions.

You might also like: An Easy Guide to Sustainable Grocery Shopping

The Issue of Bio-Based and Biodegradable Plastics

The word “bio” is attractive, it sounds environmentally friendly, and immediately makes us feel better about our purchase. But do we truly understand its meaning? 

Bioplastic, also called bio-based plastic, is a plastic produced using renewable plant-based sources such as lignin, oils, starch, and cellulose, contrary to traditional plastic, which is made from fossil fuels. Bioplastic differs from “biodegradable plastic” or “compostable plastics”, which refer to plastics made of molecules having the capacity to break down naturally, like decomposition.

Similar terms for significantly different materials can make it confusing for consumers to differentiate and can also lead to a mismanagement of waste due to a lack of knowledge on how to deal with alternative materials. Consumers aside, even scientists are still lacking some understanding on these new materials. For instance, biodegradable plastics can often take many years to decompose and require specific waste treatment conditions, which are necessary to release their biodegradable abilities. A recent study revealed that if biodegradable plastic was thrown away in the environment, it could end up being as harmful to the environment as normal plastic. 

Additionally, current low demand for these plastics, high costs, and the waste treatment requirements needed to manufacture them disencourage large-scale usage. These issues also highlight the current gap in knowledge on how to remove traditional plastic from packaging, and the need for new adaptive waste management methods.

More on the topic: Can We Rely on Bioplastics to Save the Planet?

Food Waste and Conservation of Food in a Non-Plastic World

When discussing food and packaging, one last important factor to consider is the potential change in food waste rates in response to alternative packaging methods.

Indeed, one of the functions of plastic packaging for food products is to extend their shelf life and prolong the freshness. Indeed, plastic acts as a barrier to oxygen and air moisture, preventing food contamination by biological bodies found in the environment. By optimising product quality and usability, plastic can contribute to a reduction in household food waste. This is why removing it needs to be coupled with adaptive behaviour change by consumers and increased awareness on food waste. 

Whilst food can be safely and adequately stored without plastic, this requires an understanding of food storage, notably for consumers who have been used to this type of packaging for a long time and are not aware of how to properly store food otherwise.

Ways Forward Towards a Non-Plastic World

One of the main issues to tackle according to retailers is the lack of common practices or methodology to tackle with plastic-free strategies. This lack of coordination and guidance might be at the heart of the problem. Thus, future actions should not only focus on removing plastic from grocery stores but on creating an effective system where consumers, waste management systems, governance and private companies are all synchronised to minimise plastic use and waste. Additionally, emphasis should be put on consumer awareness, promoting behavioural change.

Moving away from plastic is a necessity, and both the public and private sectors are taking active steps towards the reduction of plastic production and distribution. However, for an effective, long-lasting impact and to avoid the unintended consequences of plastic-free policies, efforts need to happen across all sectors. 

A plastic-free world is possible, and slowly, efforts are being gathered to tackle the plastic crisis. Yet plastic is not the only enemy, and all environmental and social impacts need to be accounted for. 

You might also like: We Need Sustainable Food Packaging Now. Here’s Why.

The post Are Plastic-Free Policies Effective? appeared first on Earth.Org.