With World Environment Day (WED) around the bend (5 June) the Government is scrambling to organize the state apparatus to make it appear that tangible action is being taken to address the serious issue of this year’s global theme of ‘Ending Plastic Pollution’. As such, this week has been labelled ‘National Environment Week’ with the Ministry of Environment taking the lead in organising several plastic-linked pollution reductions programmes.

Sri Lanka’s plastic pollution problem is massive, and much of it ends up at sea, which then makes it a regional and global problem. However, there is little public discourse or national effort regarding addressing the problem seriously. What happens often is that when a ‘key calendar day’, event or a high-profile visit is in the making, Sri Lankan authorities begin an annual stage play of action, only to convince themselves and perhaps the odd visiting dignitary or senior government leader that the issue is being addressed. According to some estimates as of 2020, Sri Lanka generated in excess of 1.5 million metric tonnes (MT) of plastic waste, and much of that ends up in the ocean. Countries which surround the Indian Ocean, even land-locked ones are known to be heavy polluters of the Indian Ocean. Marine life and especially sea birds are known to consume a large volume of such pollutants and have resulted in their numbers declining significantly.

According to analysts, plastic pollutants are generally divided into two categories: megaplastics and microplastics. Megaplastics (sometimes referred to as macroplastics) are plastic products larger than 20mm, including plastic toothbrushes, cups, bottles, bags, chairs, or vehicle parts. Gradual exposure to UV-light, chemical interactions with water, and collision with other debris result in degradation of megaplastics to form microplastics. A 2020 report by the think tank Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute (LKI) said that according to their research, that this process varies, taking anywhere from 20 years for a small plastic bag to 500 years for a plastic water bottle. The ocean floor is littered with heavier megaplastics, which have sunk down to cooler temperatures, resulting in less exposure to the sun and a less likely chance of degradation. Primary microplastics refers to debris that is under 20mm when entering the marine environment (such as microfibers, microbeads, and plastic pellets), while secondary microplastics are created from the degradation of megaplastics. The small size of microplastics make them easily digestible at all levels of the food chain. Plankton, birds, turtles, mammals, and fish have all been found to have ingested mega and micro-plastic debris, either incidentally or while mistaking them for food. Ingestion of plastics can have various health implications for marine life. Chemicals such as flame-retardants and pesticides can cause sickness in organisms, while consumption of sharp objects can result in internal wounds, especially in seabirds. Larger plastics can also cause the illusion of fullness for organisms, leading to nutrient-deficiency and starvation.

Some studies have found that ocean pollution is already impacting Sri Lanka, with some suggesting that microplastic pollution is one of the main causes of rapidly declining fishing stocks along the Sri Lankan coast. More than 60% of Sri Lanka protein intake comes from fish. According to the LKI report, Sri Lankan fish exports are worth 1.3% of national GDP as of 2020 and provide much needed employment opportunities. Pollution also impacts tourism, an industry which the Government has pinned its hopes on to sling shoot the island out of the ongoing economic crisis. 

Sri Lanka needs to get serious about plastic pollution. In 2019, Sri Lanka was one of 187 countries to agree to add plastic to the Basel Convention, which regulates the movement of hazardous materials between States. However, laws – regulation and international agreements mean little without concrete action. The State must act to build awareness, reduce demand for plastic products and prevent plastic pollution at the source. It is better to reduce plastic use and waste, than to combat plastic pollution downstream. The time to act is running out.