- The Pearl Protectors’ Marine Waste Brand Audit Report 2022-2023 finds a small number of products by a few local companies polluting Lankan coasts the most
The products of a mere 14 companies make up 80% of the marine waste found in 16 coastal locations of Sri Lanka, while 74 companies account for the remaining 20%, as per a recent survey. What is more, only 18 products comprise 53% of all marine waste found in those locations.
The gravity of Sri Lanka’s marine waste problem and how the products of leading companies are contributing to the same were highlighted in a recent survey report titled “Marine Waste Brand Audit Report 2022-2023”, which was issued by conservation organisation The Pearl Protectors. The survey, called a “marine waste brand audit” covered a number of coastal areas in the Western, Southern, and Eastern provinces, and was aimed at identifying major marine polluters in Sri Lanka along with the brands responsible for the larger percentage of marine waste. It was conducted in September 2022, concurrent with the inter-monsoonal period.
The report highlighted the need to identify polluters and brands while providing adequate solutions to mitigate the impact of plastic pollution on Sri Lanka’s coastline.
Plastic: An existing and worsening problem
The report highlighted plastic as one of the major reasons for marine pollution. Adding that Sri Lanka has been categorised as one of the nations with the highest concentration of microplastics found in the surrounding seas, the report noted that the island is also increasingly disposing plastic waste into the marine environment. It explained that plastic waste, which is added to the ocean through garbage dumping, rivers and canals, and disposed waste from fishing and cargo vessels, has increased marine waste found in the seas off Sri Lanka, while trans-boundary marine litter has posed a major challenge to the island’s marine ecosystem.
Noting that plastic waste, largely single-use plastic, results in various challenges to the marine environment, the report said that in addition to the impact caused to the marine environment, pollution caused by plastic impacts the health of humans and affects various economic industries.
Among the direct impacts caused to the marine environment are the formation of microplastics, which are mistakenly consumed by marine life, thus causing adverse impacts to their health and the sustainability of the marine ecosystem; entrapping reefs, corals, seagrass meadows, mangroves, and the seabed, resulting in restricted space for marine life to regenerate and the lessened quality of such habitats; polluting coastlines, resulting in unapproachable beaches which cause degrading nesting sites for turtles and habitats for various crustaceans; suffocation or incurable illnesses in larger marine life such as turtles, whales, dolphins, and dugongs due to the consumption of plastic; the toxification of the sea with various chemicals released during the breakdown process of plastic in the ocean; and marine litter remaining in marine ecosystems for centuries, thus hindering these ecosystems’ natural flow.
The report said: “Since the Covid-19 pandemic, plastic usage and plastic pollution have increased, with new pollutants such as surgical face masks made of polypropylene (PP) entering the waterways and eventually ending up in the ocean. During beach cleanups conducted throughout the past three years in Sri Lanka, The Pearl Protectors has identified plastic bags, food wrappers and packaging, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and lids, plastic sachets, and plastic straws as being the top five plastic pollutants, in respective order, found on the shorelines of Sri Lanka. As food wrappers and packaging are hardly recyclable, the higher the chance of them breaking into microplastics, thus making it difficult to be collected from the environment.”
The survey and its findings
The survey was conducted in 16 coastal locations in the Western, Southern, and Eastern provinces. These locations include beaches in Negombo, Bopitiya, Crow Island, Modara, Galle Face, Wellawatta, Dehiwala, Mount Lavinia, Ratmalana, Moratuwa, Egoda Uyana, Panadura, Kalutara, Midigama, Ampara, and Batticaloa, and they had been considered to contain moderate to severe levels of marine litter washed up on the coasts.
The survey identified a total of 84 manufacturing companies and 188 product names that had presumably accounted for marine waste, and the categorisation and auditing process of the marine waste had been based on the names of the companies from which the marine litter originated and the name of the product or brand. Overall, waste that was surveyed included plastic waste, glass, and metal that were initially produced for retail purposes, and excluded paper, nurdles, Styrofoam, plastic cutlery and straws, cigarette butts, plastic toys, plush toys, rubber products, PP, microplastics, and biodegradable waste.
A total of 8,057 individual waste items had been surveyed under three categories, namely branded waste (items that carry a brand or company name), unbranded waste (items that do not carry a brand or company name), and trans-boundary waste (items that were not originally manufactured and distributed in Sri Lanka).
The analysis of the collected data looked into three key focus areas, namely the composition of branded waste, unbranded waste, and trans-boundary waste, identifying the top polluting companies, and identifying the brands responsible for the larger percentage of marine waste. The survey had identified a number of leading companies as responsible for producing marine waste in the areas that were covered through the survey.
The number of branded waste items was 6,865, while the number of unbranded waste items was 1,038. A total of 154 trans-boundary waste items had also been recorded. The report said that the majority of the trans-boundary waste visibly carried labels stating the manufactured region as being South Asian countries such as India and Southeast Asian countries such as China, Malaysia, and Vietnam. A large number of food and beverage producers were among the top 14 companies that had produced products that had become marine waste, and the report said that these 14 companies make up 80% of the surveyed marine waste. The remaining 74 companies had accounted for 20% of the surveyed marine waste.
In addition, the analysis highlighted the top 18 product names or brands that are responsible for the largest percentage of marine waste in Sri Lanka. A total of 53% of all marine waste had been credited to 18 products, according to the report. Among them were manufacturers of biscuit, soap, soft drinks, milk powder, and ice cream. All remaining 170 products had accounted for 47% of the surveyed marine waste brands.
In addition, 13% of all the surveyed marine waste had been categorised as “unbranded” due to the lack of a visible label to identify the product name or the company name. However, based on visual characteristics, the report claimed that many PET bottles had a distinct linkage to a few of the top PET bottle manufacturing companies mentioned in the analysis.
With regard to trans-boundary waste, the report said that the positioning of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean allows many forms of marine waste to reach the island through the Indian Ocean and to wash up on its shorelines. During the process of reaching Sri Lanka, the report explained, trans-boundary marine waste could impact marine habitats by trapping marine life, acting as a carrier of invasive species that have a negative impact on native species, the possibility of breaking into microplastics, adding to the marine litter found in a region originally, and remaining in the environment without undergoing biodegradation.
The report added that plastic pollution has significantly increased due to undue advantages taken by many companies that are responsible for marine waste amidst the ongoing economic turmoil. Some of them concern reducing the size of packaging to maintain a competitive price, which results in increased amounts of marine waste, undermining the producers’ responsibility towards generated marine waste and disregarding “collect back” strategies, reducing the quality of the packaging, which hinders adequate waste management, and many forms of plastic waste breaking into microplastics.
According to the report, pollution is also increasing due to several failures on the part of the Government. These failures include the lack of an efficient strategy towards waste management, the inability to hold polluting companies accountable through effective policies and enforcement, the lack of resources to collect, segregate, and repurpose marine and general waste, and the lack of cohesion between the responsible authorities, agencies, and implementation bodies.
Finding solutions
The report stated that many steps could be taken to change the status quo, especially by the companies that produced goods that had increased marine waste.
It added that companies can proactively be responsible for the waste by looking into alternative packaging such as bulk packaging, plastic-free packaging and reusable glass bottle packaging, packaging made of aluminium, which has a high value for recycling collection, and withdrawing from using mixed plastic packaging. Companies should instead use easy-to-recycle packaging, paper packaging, and vending machines, the report said, explaining that although proactive solutions can be difficult to implement during an economic crisis, their long-term impact on both the company and the brand will be positive.
The report read: “Companies responsible for pollution can implement reactive measures to curb product-based waste. Many companies, including many of the top companies, are engaged in ‘greenwashing’ campaigns to deceive the public through ‘green initiatives’ or ‘sustainable’ product campaigns, which are merely a marketing strategy rather than an actual solution to the ever-increasing waste to the marine environment. Conducting spontaneous beach cleanups or establishing branded-waste collection points have failed to provide solutions to the key challenges of pollution.
“These strategies cannot be considered reactive, rather, these strategies can be considered a ‘scam’, considering the funds allocated to such ‘greenwashing’ campaigns compared to the profit generated. Companies must invest beyond ‘voluntarily’ agreeing to extended producer responsibility and towards ‘mandatory’ waste ‘collect back’ strategies through incentivising universal collection and safe disposal methods. Companies responsible for a larger percentage of marine waste can initiate zero-waste goals to achieve social and environmental rewards by setting achievable timeframes and genuinely pursuing the achieving of these goals. Through these methods, companies can actively engage in boosting Sri Lanka’s circular economy.”
In addition, the report said that companies can initiate simple solutions to increase awareness among citizens by avoiding the advertising of plastic bottles, publishing advertisements reminding consumers to dispose product waste responsibly, investing in river and canal strainers, investing in long-term environmental cleanups without using such for marketing purposes, and highlighting the concepts of reducing, reusing, and recycling.
“The Government of Sri Lanka has a key role in mitigating marine waste and supporting companies to adapt genuine and sustainable practices. Through effectively regulating and monitoring the minimum sizes for packaging such as sachets and PET bottles, the waste generated can be reduced significantly. The Government, through its mandated agencies and authorities, must facilitate waste collection and recycling, while providing adequate resources.”
Moreover, the report noted that mandated authorities such as the Central Environmental Authority, the Consumer Affairs Authority, the Coast Conservation and Coastal Resource Management Department, District Secretariats, Municipal Councils, the Marine Environment Protection Authority, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of National Planning, the Ministry of Finance, and the Department of Forest, must be responsible for cohesively implementing action plans and strategies towards preventing Sri Lanka’s marine environment from being destroyed due to marine waste.