Plastics’ circular economy for the Galapagos Islands? Exploring plastics governance with implications for social and ocean equity in a UNESCO World Heritage Site

IntroductionIn an era dominated by plastics (i.e., The ‘Plasticene’ Haram et al., 2020), where synthetic plastic materials and chemicals are pervasive in our daily lives, industries, and natural environments, it is crucial to focus on addressing the underlying structural causes of marine plastic pollution, particularly those affecting remote islands and coastal communities of the global ocean. Conversely, within the context of the Blue Economy transition, which emphasizes the sustainable use of ocean resources, integrating equity and sustainability into development policies presents a key opportunity to address the systemic and root structural causes of marine plastic pollution (Bennett et al., 2023; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2019; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2021; Simon et al., 2021). Plastic production and pollution policies are deeply intertwined with the legacies of colonialism and the persistence of global inequities, which have shaped the production, consumption, and disposal of plastics (Liboiron, 2021; Fuller et al., 2022). The unchecked proliferation of toxic and wasteful plastics, driven by monopoly capitalism and the influence of powerful multinational corporations (Jacques, 2023; Mah, 2022), drives these inequities, disproportionately affecting low-income and historically marginalized communities (Vandenberg and Ota, 2022; Vandenberg et al., 2024). Ineffective and inequitable waste management systems further entrench these disparities. Thus, developing a truly equitable and just circular economy for plastics necessitates critically examining these institutional and historical issues, ensuring that new policies do not perpetuate the same inequities they seek to resolve. An equitable circular economy requires bold solutions to eradicate the root causes of marine plastic pollution while championing sustainable management, environmental justice, and social equity.The environmental management and ocean governance literature increasingly recognizes equity as a multidimensional concept that includes distributional, procedural, recognitional, and contextual dimensions, as defined elsewhere (Croft et al., 2024; Crosman et al., 2022; Friedman et al., 2018; Law et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2014, McDermott et al., 2013, Ota et al., 2022). This call for advancing an equitable approach to environmental management emerges as a need to challenge how approaches to address global environmental change have often been developed in alignment with Eurocentric scientific and academic theories and methodologies. These approaches lack direct and meaningful engagement with diverse and plural forms of knowledge, values, actions, and practices that other cultural groups, especially in the Global South, apply to solve everyday socio-ecological challenges. Hegemonic research-to-action strategies tend to be based on partial and limited design frameworks that marginalize the varied range of knowledges and practices of on-the-ground actors that are essential to advance partnerships and collaborations for more effective and innovative knowledge-action initiatives to address environmental change. In this context, the role of ocean equity frameworks - aimed to dismantle systemic inequity and inequality through the governance of oceans - is of paramount importance (Crosman et al., 2022; Ocean Nexus, 2022; Ota et al., 2022). In doing so, equitable interventions should recognize and address the systemic issues that cause inequities such as colonial oppressions, structural racism, and exploitative policies that benefit the already wealthy while worsening the poor, and building up plans and monitoring programs aimed to reverse these causes (Ocean Nexus, 2022). The diversity and heterogeneity of knowledge and value systems across different social actors and resource users particularly in the Global South, require a recognition of the existence of both ontological plurality (diversity in ways of existing in the world) and epistemic plurality (diversity of ways of knowing the world). Thus, collaborative forms of environmental governance must be able to accommodate equitable representation of diverse knowledges and value systems and provide spaces of inclusive dialogue and seats with equal voices at the table for social actors and rightsholders representing all facets of this plurality (Kovacs and Pataki, 2016; Ludwig and MacNaghten, 2020). This is particularly important for addressing plastic pollution as it ensures that the perspectives of diverse stakeholders, rightsholders, and knowledge holders, including marginalized communities and those directly affected by it, are included and equitable solutions can be developed to tackle the root causes of the issue.A specific showcase to study local ocean governance and equity to foster interventions that are socially equitable, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable in remote islands is the Galápagos Islands, which are at the crossroads facing environmental changes because of the emerging and cumulative multiple-anthropogenic stressors, affecting the complex socio-ecological systems of both the Galápagos Marine Reserve and Galápagos National Park (Alava et al., 2022). Among the human-made stressors impacting the islands, plastic pollution (i.e., contamination by macro- and microplastics) in tandem with other toxic chemicals (e.g., persistent organic pollutants and mercury) is affecting the unique marine-coastal ecosystems, endemic species, and coastal fishing communities heavily reliant on seafood (Alava et al., 2014; Alava and Ross, 2018; Alava et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2021; McMullen et al., 2024; Muñoz-Abril et al., 2022; Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023; Schofield et al., 2020). A transition from a traditional linear ‘cradle-to-grave’ economy to a circular system that reduces waste and leakage, embracing reduction, reusing, recycling, and recovering via a circular economy for plastics in Galápagos has been suggested (Jones et al., 2023); however, the consequences and social-ecological impacts of implementing such a circular approach have yet to be critically evaluated, especially with the introduction of plastic— a material not locally sourced from their Galápagos coastal communities’ land.Aiming to address the plastic pollution problem impacting the socio-ecological systems of the Galápagos Islands, it is paramount to question and identify the potential inequities resulting from implementing a plastic circular economy model that resembles a complicated challenge. This not only includes objectives to better understand how plastics are affecting the structure and functions of natural and social systems (i.e., ecosystems, species, and coastal human communities), but also to explore the potential inequity and inequality gaps resulting from the implementation of a plastics’ circular economy model (Figure 1). Understanding these dynamics is the foundation of solution-oriented research and is necessary for developing a community-grounded equitable intervention framework. Within this premise and considering that ocean plastics affect coastal and developing nations more than developed nations, we: (1) Argue that implementing a circularity economy of plastics may be challenging in remote oceanic islands such as small island developing states (SIDS) and the Galápagos Islands, where plastics are not locally produced, and are difficult to be repaired or recycled, and where ocean plastic pollution disproportionately affects local communities who already face social and equity challenges; by, (2) Demonstrating that the circular economy model may not effectively ensure natural or marine resources availability and address ocean inequity in coastal communities impacted by plastic pollution, as the current and future generations from these communities are unable to fully participate in the plastic circularity economy, thereby exacerbating ocean inequity in remote islands. This issue is especially relevant within the framework of the blue economy, where ensuring ocean sustainability and equitable solutions are essential.Corporate accountability for the life cycle and circular economy of plasticsAlthough the plastic pollution problem is an inherently complicated issue, influenced by complex global supply chains, international trade policies and mechanisms, and powerful global market networks and actors, it can be largely attributed to the lack of industrial or corporate accountability for producing toxic and wasteful plastics and ineffective and inequitable solid or plastic waste management systems that are enabled through legacies of colonialism and racial capitalism. Ultimately, plastics governance has prioritized end-of-life approaches that are focused on symptom-targeted solutions, rather than solutions that address the root cause of the problem, which requires targeted efforts to limit plastics production (O’Neil, 2019; Vandenberg and Ota, 2022). As it stands, the industries or companies that should be accountable and responsible for addressing the plastic waste emissions avoid responsibilities by derailing regulatory actions and redirecting responsibility of the problem to actors outside of their supply chains, such as consumers and waste managers (Figure 1); while advocating for and supporting advances in technological solutions that keep governance focused on end-of-life solutions and away from potential production restrictions (Vandenberg, 2024; Tangpuori et al., 2021). Moreover, industry and state actors enable waste management systems to operate as a form of waste colonialism, by allowing high-income nations to dump plastic waste in low-income “pollution havens” (Owens and Conlon, 2021) or “shadow places” (Plumwood, 2008) with limited regulation, cost, or local political power. It is therefore critical to recognize that systematic issues within social organizations, power dynamics, and governance structures are at the heart of and central to social inequity and inequality in ocean sectors. These factors must be considered when assessing sustainable development initiatives and policies aimed at mitigating and reducing plastic use and pollution. For example, the regional contribution to the plastic pollution footprint in the Galápagos Islands’ coastlines and beaches can be assessed by analysing the overall quantity of branded plastic litter, as demonstrated by Muñoz-Pérez et al. (2023). Their study identified 98 manufacturers contributing to plastic pollution in the islands, with four corporations as the top polluters accounting for 53.2% of the total plastic items. Specifically, the AjeGroup contributed to 20%, followed by the Coca-Cola Company (18.2%), Tingyi Holding Corporation (8.8%) and Pepsico (6.2%). The remaining 46.8% of plastic pollution was attributed to other companies (Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023). Along with a life cycle assessment for plastic waste management, the plastic circular economy was prescribed as a panacea to address the negative externalities and impacts of plastic production emissions and marine pollution by The United Nations Global Plastics Treaty to combat global plastic pollution (UNEP, 2022), mainly pursued by developed countries from the Global North (i.e., European Union, North America), acknowledging the complexity of the Global North versus Global South binary meta-categorization debate (Haugh et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 1, the circular economy of plastics per se is an ideal concept promoting a life cycle assessment strongly relying on the circularity of plastic materials for solid waste management by considering a new plastics economy constantly flowing back and forth from plastic production to consumption and back via a closed loop system through recycling, reduction, and reuse (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016; O’Neil, 2019). Yet, the plastics circularity economy model may still perpetuate inequalities and neglect the potential environmental justice consequences due to the lack of equitable interventions and solutions available to the most exposed coastal communities and marginalized minority groups, i.e., Indigenous peoples (Bennett et al., 2023; Liboiron, 2021; McMullen et al., 2023; O’Neil, 2019; Vandenberg and Ota, 2022). Low-income, developing nations may well be concerned with the plastic circular economy approach because these nations have less legal and technical capacity to implement an infrastructure and a system to support the circular economy approach. The people living in oceanic, remote, and continental coast areas, mainly Indigenous and native communities, from developed and developing countries, have common and unique public health, food safety, and security issues in the face of pervasive ocean pollution by marine plastic and microplastics. Thus, a circular plastic economy may not work as intended for SIDS, communities inhabiting remote, oceanic islands such as the Galápagos Islands, and some developing or undeveloped countries. Plastic pollution management in the Galápagos: a wicked problemAccording to Schofield et al. (2020), the pervasive nature of plastic pollution is becoming a wicked problem in the Galápagos Islands. At a glance, however, the coastlines of the Galápagos have remained virtually unchanged since Charles Darwin visited the islands, except for localized urbanization on three to four of the larger islands and the ubiquitous marine anthropogenic litter and plastic contamination that is now found in some beaches, waters and endemic species of the archipelago (Alava et al., 2014; Alava and Ross, 2018; Jones et al., 2021; Schofield et al., 2020; Schofield et al., 2021; Alava et al., 2022; McMullen et al., 2024; Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023). In the human-populated islands of the Galápagos, on the other hand, the level of municipal waste collection and local shore cleanup initiatives are becoming high and fairly organized in urban areas of the islands despite challenges to improve the local solid waste management infrastructure (Alava et al., 2014; Alava et al., 2022). Galápagos is also the first province of Ecuador to implement clear policies and regulations to ban and reduce the use and commercialization of single‐use plastics (Alava et al., 2022), including plastic bags (e.g., high‐density and low‐density polyethylene bags) and disposable Styrofoam (expanded polystyrene) food containers (Galapagos Government Council, 2021; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019). Contrasting to these regulatory efforts, uncontrolled and illegal dumping of solid waste in the islands still constitutes a critical challenging issue compromising the future of the Galápagos systems' health in the short and long terms (Alava et al., 2014; Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023; UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019). Moreover, the recurrent incidence of massive international fishing fleets (e.g., Asian‐flagged vessels) operating as illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities around the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and within the waters of the Galápagos Islands and the Galápagos Marine Reserve (Alava and Paladines, 2017; Alava et al., 2022) are also plausible mobile and major sources of plastic debris and waste (Alava et al., 2022; Jones et al., 2021; Schofield et al., 2020). Schofield et al. (2020), for example, identified plastic bottles with Asian labels found on the islands' shorelines, recently. Similarly, ocean circulation modelling predicted the global and regional oceanographic pathways and sources of floating plastic debris in the southeastern tropical Pacific, identifying continental coasts as emission sources of plastic pollution (Jones et al., 2021; Schofield et al., 2020; Van Sebille et al., 2019). These coastal regions include the Pacific coast of South America and Central America, including nations such as Costa Rica, Panamá, Colombia, southern Ecuador, and mainly Perú, as plausible main inputs to the archipelago and plastic pollution resulting from maritime traffic (Van Sebille et al., 2019; Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023). In the Galápagos, for example, traceable plastic products and branding information identified 14 nations as sources of transboundary plastic pollution. Among these, Perú accounted for 46.14% of the total, followed by Ecuador and China contributing to 24.4% and 18.32%, respectively (Muñoz-Pérez et al., 2023). Meijer et al. (2021) also revealed that Ecuador has a 12% share of plastic waste emitted to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean via rivers or 1,136 tons per year. Conversely, Ecuador releases 0.09 tons of plastic waste exported by air. The permanent emission and oceanic transport of anthropogenic marine plastic debris from urbanized and industrial nations, including Asian and South American continents, suggest that current management practices to address plastic pollution are likely to have limited impact. Additionally, the plastics’ circular economy may not effectively benefit the human and coastal fishing communities of the main islands of the These challenges the transboundary nature of the problem, by regional emissions from fishing and oceanic transport of marine plastic pollution. This emphasizes the need for a international and the political of regional and international to foster solutions to combat the plastic footprint - a wicked problem in the Within the framework of the blue economy, sustainable and equitable approaches must the economic of local communities with the of marine and a economy on collaborative efforts that these communities in ocean resource circular economy an equitable for the since the human to the the and human in has been a of debate and people the Islands of that is compromising the sustainability and of the socio-ecological systems that the islands to do to be challenging that have yet not been fully Within that the for the systems to the a more and debate has local who have to in policies (e.g., the and to limit and the and of and practices (e.g., the local to have a to reduce the of plastics in the circular economy for plastics has been as a innovative approach for the sustainability of the Galápagos Islands (Jones et al., 2023). this is to and or plastics to continental Ecuador to and the plastic pollution problem from local human including and or urbanized of the to the coastal and the unique marine of this UNESCO World Heritage a circular economy of plastic may not work as combat plastic pollution in oceanic remote islands such as the Galápagos Islands, local ocean governance and sustainable interventions should to and systemic social inequity and inequality in ocean sectors. Thus, as to a transition to the circular economy of plastics, as a or colonial approach can and social-ecological negative impacts in the face of to plastic and with chemicals or and potential from plastics via recycling, and that affect local public health and the of the that should not be plastics and emissions into the marine and coastal communities of the Galápagos Islands a circular economy model as it not address the inequity and inequality framework (Figure 1). This circular approach may to a new form of colonialism as a transition a circular economy for plastics, as a environmental to plastic pollution that may an intended colonial (Liboiron, 2021). to the circular economy is an unable to have the impacts of the of materials through the economy et al., while the of resources, at a is a waste and a closed loop is a closed Thus, the with the circular economy is the that the nature of the economy can a in sustainable because it is a circular system an with into to sustainability and sustainable et al., 2022). already the problem that a economic model and the need to reduce material use by that sustainable concept the that economic provide a to the social and objectives within of sustainable Thus, necessary are to an equitable may to foster the of plastic use and combat the pollution footprint a plastics economy in and the Galápagos Islands. the social and inequitable consequences of integrating just a circular economy approach to plastics, in UNESCO remote islands, and developing and nations are In this context, inequality in who causes plastic pollution, who impacts and and who can it and provide solutions with those who have the political to the to from a plastic and foster a of the life cycle et al., 2021). The people high consumption of plastics from a pervasive plastic and those who supply it disproportionately affect the or of plastic pollution explore the of a circular economy of on the impacts of plastics and on consumption and changes within the local coastal communities heavily reliant on local and seafood for and work should be so, the and by the local to information on traditional and local practices for and human with community-grounded solutions, and equitable interventions for equal and to waters and seafood and for via ocean governance ocean equity within the local context and local and traditional knowledge, and environmental justice are paramount for coastal communities affected by plastic pollution and other environmental changes and anthropogenic In this context, new collaborative research and frameworks are to ensure that the health and environmental of people living in and remote communities can be with and environmental and health programs to ensure equal and to public health and pollution for a ocean and oceans of plastics (Alava et al., 2022; et al., 2023; McMullen et al., 2023; et al., 2022). Ultimately, this approach in with the development and implementation of community-grounded policies should dismantle systemic inequity key of the Blue Economy (i.e., the Blue Economy to the development of based on marine resources that improve the of sustainability and social equity and industrial development with the of 2016; and Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2021) - via the governance of the oceans by championing interventions that are socially equitable, environmentally sustainable, and economically viable to ensure that the inequality gaps are and the local are to benefit from the ocean and the implementation of solutions via in the face of plastic community-grounded with actions and local regulatory to and reduce plastic production, with a for plastics’ end-of-life solutions, are to combat the of global plastic pollution and implement at the level in nations and plastics to and remote UNESCO Global Heritage such as the Islands. These efforts should also global plastic governance by including equitable interventions and equal to pollution and with environmentally materials that plastic materials it consumers in the first This is of paramount importance in addressing the inequality to ocean equity and environmental justice in plastic pollution management for the most exposed people and marine in impacted remote, communities such as those existing in the Galápagos Islands.