Plastic and the paradox of development

The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop a Global Plastics Treaty recently concluded in Busan, South Korea. World leaders failed to deliver an agreement despite over 100 member states—representing billions of people—committing to a strong, ambitious treaty that addresses plastic production. The delay stems from oil-producing states with petrochemical interests, which have continuously tried to water down the treaty by invoking the “right to development” as one of their key arguments.

But what does “development” really mean?

According to the United Nations, the right to development is “an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”

In essence, this provides a broad framework for societal progress and fair distribution of benefits. Yet in practice, equating development solely with economic progress has increasingly been used by corporations and industries to justify environmentally destructive and socially inequitable “development projects,” including the unchecked proliferation of plastic.

This notion of development is deeply rooted in history. Postwar modernization models linked development with economic growth, especially from the perspective of industrialized countries. Development was often used as a tool to assert power over less industrialized nations—a concept central to Dependency and World-Systems theories, which explain how Global South countries are exploited to fuel the advancement of the Global North.

This dynamic is glaringly evident in the context of the plastic crisis. Large corporations, predominantly based in the Global North, produce billions of single-use plastics daily, leaving Global South countries, such as the Philippines, to shoulder much of the burden. Studies have revealed the increasing presence of microplastics, from the air we breathe in Metro Manila to the marine food sources we consume. Alarmingly, microplastics have even been detected in human bodies and placentas.

Even when viewed through the traditional economic lens, plastic production does not significantly contribute to a country’s progress. A study found that plastic production accounts for just 0.6 percent of the global economy. Reducing dependence on plastics is unlikely to impact economic growth.

The greatest irony is that plastic has led to more losses than gains. Under the guise of convenience and accessibility, it exploits the socioeconomic vulnerabilities of developing countries. The costs of plastic production, unchecked use, toxic recycling, and incineration are ever-increasing, encompassing the burden of managing plastic waste and its impacts on communities and the environment. Those who profit from plastic production rarely bear these costs; rather, low-income countries and marginalized communities do. A report highlighted that the true cost of plastic on the environment, health, and economies can be up to 10 times higher for low-income nations.

The late Dr. Nora Quebral of the University of the Philippines Los Baños defined development as the “transitioning of communities from poverty in all its forms to a dynamic, overall growth that fosters equity and the unfolding of the individual potential.” Her words resonate even more deeply today, as development tends to be weaponized to advance profit-driven agendas.

Development must uphold human rights and dignity, respecting the right to a clean and safe environment. It should promote equitable growth for all and not just for a privileged few. Most importantly, it must operate within the resource limitations of our planet while actively working toward its restoration.

To achieve this, we need a strong Global Plastics Treaty that cuts plastic production and supports a green and just transition to a reuse-based, circular economy. The extended talks in 2025 are critical, as countries build on the momentum and settle unresolved issues. The world is watching, and leaders must act now to develop a strong treaty that protects people and the planet.

—————–

Eunille Santos is a communication campaigner at Greenpeace Philippines, currently pursuing a master’s degree in development communication at the University of the Philippines Los Baños.