Introduction

In January 2018, Vanuatu banned plastic bags and few other single use plastic items. Recently, 16 March 2023, Vanuatu’s invited Pacific Countries to commit for a fossil-free Pacific, the signatory countries – Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Tonga, Fiji, Niue and the Solomon Islands – urged all Pacific nations to make their island states fossil-fuel free as soon as possible and global leaders to agree to phase out coal, oil and gas production in line with the goal of limiting global heating to 1.5C.

Plastic is a Fossil Fuel, like oil and gas, commonly used to ignite fires in Vanuatu.

Like Paris agreements defining future targets – like ‘kicking action’ to 2030, 2040, 2050 – stating “as soon as possible” may imply some risks. If the talk is not accompanied with immediate walk. Moreover if nothing really practical is consistently done very quickly, it can be a recipe for encouragement of inaction. Another unintended consequence is encourage people to consider any future talk not very seriously.

The majority of children who understand the difference between right and wrong, voluntarily and rationally opt to do the right thing, without delay. Unfortunately, this level of simple and straight rationality doesn’t seem to apply to adults anymore, particularly within adults in leadership positions frequently negotiating conflicting interests.

Why, knowing about the immediate negative consequences of a action, or inaction, should we continue to do the wrong thing today, and the next tomorrows for the next 10 to 30 years? And are we all sleep well by behaving this way? Generally speaking: Yes. And that’s basically the main outcome of Paris Agreements: the global and universal acceptance of a lowest common denominator, where preserving individual interests, even if a threat to the common good, became more important than the planetary interest, human wellbeing, health or human survival.

The majority of the children, understand and would be proudly motivated to act daily around a statement with this nature: “Save Tuvalu and You Save the World”. This simple, practical and strong statement, was overwritten by a global mind set of global citizens that have now all the excuses to quit from their responsibilities. Any possible efforts are “now officially projected to the Future”. The Present doesn’t require any efforts. We live the present free of efforts, as those are to be based on futuristic targets. So, presently we live ignorantly happy, despite of the scientific evidence being more available globally and regularly published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports.  And this is the context of making plastic public policy review in 2023: Slow pace and no sense of urgency.

Although Vanuatu seems to be recognised for its environmental, wellbeing and climate crisis actions, there was some doubts, and steps forward and backward taken, including reversing publicly announced decisions from authorities. Examples are the ban of plastic bottles (PM Salwai stated in his announcement that it was his government’s priority to protect Vanuatu’s environment and oceans and to keep the country “clean and safe.”) and the ban of diapers (Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu announced the ban at a conference in Port Vila this week. It follows research which categorized and recorded the rubbish produced on the island nation. The ban will cover plastic cutlery, polystyrene cups, plastic drinks stirrers and some types of food packaging. Mr Regenvanu said nappies were the largest single item of waste in Vanuatu’s capital.  “Eliminating (nappies) alone will disproportionately reduce plastic waste,” the minister said).

Vanuatu to ban disposable nappies in plastics crackdown: ‘We had no choice’

Fortunately, is ok to decide one way today, when there is a change to improve the decision, tomorrow. The approach of the Plastics Policy of Vanuatu is progressive, considering time to allow monitoring of data, community consultation, giving time to find alternatives to the products that are being proposed for a next ban of single use plastic items. That is why Vanuatu’s approach is internationally recognized as a best practice .

Vanuatu’s leadership of tackling plastics is appreciated, as well as the intentioned donors assisting Vanuatu’s authorities and private sector. This analysis was made considering extensive discussions with various communities working together to fight plastic pollution, organization with community leaders of clean ups of beaches in Pango and Mele, Takabe river, 2 Mele rivers, Erakor Lagoons, Seaside communities in Port Vila,  Port Vila CBD with Vanuatu Police Force,  1 Km of Beach in Pele, in Efate, 3 km of beach at Big Bay and Port Orly Beach, and Sarakata river in Santo. It also considers the information collected informal and formal communications with “experts in plastic waste” in international workshops both in Vanuatu, and participations on-line.  It appreciates the impressive Vanuatu’s capacity to attract multi million Vatu in bilateral and multinational investments from donors in studies, reports and consultancies. This analysis considers the publicly available literature review, including scientific articles, hoping that it can influence a public policy. It was shared with members of the Vanuatu Climate Action Network. This NGO network that will present a paper to the Government with recommendations for the next phases of the Plastic Policy review and implementation. The Department of Environment Protection and Conservation of Vanuatu is responsible to define the review the current policy , after consultation with other stakeholders, including the private sector. The Vanuatu’s economy can benefit from Vanuatu’s progressive approach towards environmental protection. The Policy reforms of plastics and phase out fossil fuels should not be seen as a threat to businesses, but as an opportunity to build a unique competitive advantage, to develop opportunities, while respecting the nature and future generations.

Problem description

Plastics and the environmental impacts

Adverse impacts of littering of single use plastics in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including in marine environment, have not stopped since Vanuatu’s initiative of banning plastic bags and other items since 2018.
Existent regulations have not necessarily been fully enforced, as it is still visible some of the banned items in the market or littered in the environment.

Bans are not a full solution for plastic littering. If not taken out from the environment plastics will remain with extremely damaging consequences for the natural ecosystems in the next hundreds or thousands of years. Vanuatu is not addressing cleaning plastics from the damaged environment, and doesn’t seems to have any plan. Many think that clean ups are a waste of time, until the roots cause are addressed. The roots causes are not being addressed, and the Plastic Waste Tap is actually running wider.

Plastics and the Public Health impacts

Plastics is not only an environmental discussion but a major Public Health problem. Particularly in Vanuatu where diabetes is prevalent . There are serious scientific evidence that plastics impact human health. “A recent study found that microplastics can latch on to the outer membranes of red blood cells and may limit their ability to transport oxygen. The particles have also been found in the placentas of pregnant women, and in pregnant rats they pass rapidly through the lungs into the hearts, brains and other organs of the foetuses.”
So far,  there is no statements by Vanuatu’s Public Health Department. Microplastics are found in human tissue, blood and milk of breastfeeding mothers.

Plastics a dominant fossil fuel material contaminating organic food and drinks

Plastic was invented by Alexander Parkes, who patented this new material in 1862 as Parkesine. “The chemical properties that have made plastic an incredibly useful and durable material also make it difficult to dispose of, with some types taking thousands—even tens of thousands—of years to degrade in landfill.” In 2023, there are still research about the long term negative effects to the environment, climate change and human health. In spite of the already known negative effects, there is very little willing to restrict its production or importation. The fossil fuel petrochemical industry is the most powerful global lobby able to influence governments decisions even against the public and future generations interest.

The impacts on the environment and public health, previously mentioned, should be enough to immediately “close the plastic tap“. Unfortunately, plastics have been only discussed  from a environmental point of view in Vanuatu. Jobs and Economy Versus Environment seems to be approached chosen, even before starting a discussion.  The Public Health Department as been silent, probably not taking note to scientific articles like Microplastics Could Be Disrupting Sex Hormones, Finds New Study or Hormone-disrupting chemicals in plastics may raise diabetes risk in women: study. Regionally, the SPREP has been also watering down studies on the potential effects of plastics on public health, when issue is raised in workshops. Probably because is an institution focused of environment and not on public health. World Health Organization doesn’t seem to be interested in the topic too.

The Vanuatu’s Kava is a major unique organic product from Vanuatu and today is associated plastics in the way is produced and commercialized.

Recommendations

1. Plastic policy is not an environmental policy. Public Health, Climate Change, Social, Cultural,  Economic Development, Job Creation and the Nation Fiscal opportunities are important aspects of a plastic policy

The Vanuatu’s plastic policy is seen as mainly an environmental policy, focus on addressing pollution. This narrow approach makes it vulnerable to private sector pressures, as ignores fundamental chemical negative effects of plastics in human health and climate change effects that, by it self real threats to the future profitability of businesses. Businesses gain if stimulating to think into in the future. Vanuatu is vulnerable to climate disasters. Plastics is a main contributor for global warming that create climate disasters from which businesses are also affected.

There are enough research available to take the impacts on public health as a serious matter. This means that plastics also has consequences in the health public expenditure. Public health decisions should be conservative enough to defend the Human Life.

Plastics are not only made of fossil fuels but they release methane and methane and ethylene, two powerful greenhouse gases, and the rate of emission increases with time. The emissions occur when plastic materials are exposed to ambient solar radiation, whether in water or in the air, but in air, emission rates are much higher. Dispose plastics in landfill is not a solution and recycling just preserves plastics in the environment to make its climate effects sooner or later.

These facts need to be understood simultaneously by Public Health, Environmental and Climate Change authorities, experts and donors. Restrict policy development as a “inside of the box” initiative makes the policy initiative uncomplete, vulnerable to criticism subjected to failure. Multidisciplinary policies are stronger. A plastic policy should also consider social and cultural aspects of plastics such the effects of communities of living surrounded by plastic waste. The public financial aspects of plastics are not to be disregarded. Some practical questions could be: What is the cost of depolluting the Lagoons, Takabe or Mele rivers or the Oceans? Is depolluting an obligation of free willing volunteers? Should we depend on donors funds to protect ‘the Paradise’? What is the cost of keeping the “Paradise” clean? Should plastic importers and producers make their profits, blaming the poor infrastructure of the country and consumers behavior for bad plastic disposal that causes ecological disasters, and go away with it?

Some countries became practical and less cynical about the problem: do not accept the polluters blaming consumers for plastic waste. These countries took seriously the government society regulation responsibility. So, now they have a fair, generally applicable tax to plastic imports produce (eg. UK and Spain) making a clear incentive to a transition from plastics to better materials, promoting innovation and less dependency on fossil fuels. Businesses are free to incorporate the legislative reform an continue with their “Business as Usual” or are also free to opt to re-think and reconvert their business model. Consumers have now better options and are note imposed with buying plastics when they are interested in other products.

Countries are free to define an appropriate context to its conditions. Preserving a unique Paradise may be a reason to think outside of the box, before the Paradise is no more.

2. Plastics public policy decisions should be oriented by evidence

Vanuatu have an extensive investment in plastic waste data collection, by multiple donors. Unfortunately, there with very little data available to the public.

Anyway, a simple observation of a picture of Etas landfill is more than 1000 words and demonstrates that plastic bottles and diapers are a major plastic item. Most likely these two items needs to be addressed in a next ban, particularly because the previous decision of banning these items (2017 and 2019) were already based on evidence from previous years.

Considering that there are alternatives available to plastic bottles, metal or glass bottles, and disposable diapers, reusable diapers. It seems that the cost of disposing these single use items has to have a major cost consideration as far as environment, public health and climate.

3. Government and Vanuatu’s Public Service can benefit from leading efforts to reduce the use of single use plastics, educate its members and lead the countries to the necessary change, using public communications infrastructure to increase awareness and schools to promote environmental and wellbeing education 

It is inevitable that governments will need to act quickly to progressively eliminate plastics items in a faster rate considering the open petrochemical industry plan to increase plastic production. Governments will have to provide encouragement to the private sector to find alternatives. But, as of 2023, many public institutions continue to use public funds to buy water plastic bottles for workshops, events and catering functions, like there was no drinking water available in taps of the Vanuatu public institutions, hotels or other public venues.

Port Vila’s Water Utility company won few awards in recognition of water quality, it is regulated by a government authority that controls water quality. Water in plastic bottles is 2000 more expensive than tap water.

Companies do not produce water, water is available as part of the Planet Earth for Billions of years, before human existence. In fact, only in the last decades companies produce and sell water plastic bottles that eventually contaminate the drinking water and other drinkable liquids with microplastics and chemicals. It would be cheaper  and more beneficial to the environment and health to offer reusable and washable bottles to each public servant to drink tap not only in a workshop or training venue but anywhere.

To accelerate Vanuatu’s international commitments to phase our fossil fuels and reduce green house gas emissions, members of the government and public servants, should be well informed on the climate science and plastic issues, to make a public pledge to refuse plastics in an informed way. This would not only be a symbolic action, but a considerable change that provides Vanuatu’s leadership with the ownership of the Vanuatu’s initiatives leading to fossil-fuel free Pacific. Setting the example and encouragement to other Nations.

The public education system and public media is underused to make people aware of the issues caused by plastics. It could help consumers to take the right decisions to reduce its consumption. Same could apply to sugar products, usually accompanied by plastics and chemicals. Knowledge can change behaviors.

Children’s education a fundamental to accelerate and consolidate change.  Active children from Vanuatu concerned with plastic pollution at the Erakor Lagoons were asked by a Educational Institution from the Netherlands to be represented in a educational book fighting the plastic pollution, published in Amsterdam in October 2022, in its efforts to educate European people. Education on plastics is necessary in any effort to change and improve the Environment and People’s wellbeing. But the little investment done in Vanuatu, is mainly done by grassroots organizations, sustained by volunteering free work.

4. Any input or new study to improve public policy should be based on previous efforts and studies already done

From the amount of investment already made in Vanuatu on plastics, waste management studies and reports, it is recommendable that the information become public, or at least, available to new consultants, in order to prevent “reinventing the wheel” new studies. From the amount of studies and consultancies done, referenced in the end of this paper, it is likely that there was the risk of not build on previous studies, considering that many studies have become drafts with no further action. 14 waste, environmental management and plastics consultants approached Erakor Bridge Community or Vanuatu Clean since 2018. Contact information of previous consultants were shared information to any new visitor.

Again, considering the efforts made in studies, consultancies and reports, it would be reasonable to put some proportional investment in education and awareness would reasonable as a fundamental component to create real change. Social media is also underused in Vanuatu for civic educational campaigns. Musicians, Actors and sports public figures in Vanuatu have excellent skills to be part of educational and awareness campaigns. In the absence of public investment in education for the environmental and wellbeing education or public health, local industries contract the Vanuatu available skills to promote plastics and sugar, indirectly, pollution and NCDs.

5. Any decision on the policy should consider the planned speed of increasing plastic items to be released in the market by the petrochemical plastic industry. A slow and progressive ban of new items won’t be enough to combat the speed of importations of new plastics items to be disposed in Paradise.  

So how large is the problem? Plastics have been around since about 1950 and, that year, its production resulted in about two million tonnes (MT) of plastic pollution. By 2020, the exponential growth in plastic production increased that figure to about 400 MT. At this rate, plastic production is expected to double by 2040 and increase by 2.5 times by 2050. Unless we change how we make and manage plastics, the problem of plastic pollution will keep on growing. 

Eg. in spite of the availability of wood pegs to hang cloths to dry, the private sector is ingenious enough to invent plastic pegs from different colors and different quality of plastics, usable from once before broken till few times, for different prices.

A plastic policy playing catchup in the phased out plastic bans while private initiatives come up with new plastic items may not be the solution to preserve Vanuatu’s Paradise.

6. Next items recommended to be banned.

Plastic Bottles and Diapers have been already announced (2017 and 2019) by the government has items to be banned. These two particular items are commonly visible in the environment on land, lagoons and rivers and the Ocean. Plastic Bottles and diapers are also significantly visible in the landfill of Etas, a reasonable representative sample of plastic waste importation and production in Vanuatu.

The plastics regulations are clear, bans are to be phased. Any review of the legislation is a good time to bring these items again into the discussion. The evidence from data collection from SPREP and community involvement in clean ups show that it would be recommendable that these should be banned in the next review of the regulation. Recycling of diapers and plastic bottles is inexistent. The industry made no significant investments in recycling.

Other items recommended are: ear buds with plastic sticks, plastic sticks for balloons, balloons, candy sticks, ice-cream plastic sticks, use of plastics to sell peanuts, and plastics used in ice block juice, plastic pegs, plastic flag holders, .

Alternatives to plastic items suggested

Vanuatu is leading in the Pacific and should learn from Sikkim, a leading state of India on beating plastic pollution. Sikkim was the first state of India to Ban plastics bags in 1998 and plastics bottles in 2022. Water bottles banned are from 2 litters and below and there are environmentally friendly alternatives – bamboo bottles – promoting economic development and job creation.

Diapers – Vanuatu has the full capacity to offer alternatives to diapers. Mamas’s Laef is only an example of a local business prepared to offer alternatives since 2019. The reverse of the ban, delayed preparations of other local businesses to develop alternatives.

Plastic Bottles – Plastic bottles are used Vanuatu in commercialization of water and sugary artificially juice.
Water can be commercialised without plastic bottles, in refill stations. A metal bottle can be found by the cost of 700vt in Port Vila. Businesses should be encouraged to contribute to the Public Health and Environment by government. 2000 years ago, Romans promoted the development of fountains where drinking water was provided for free. Water is life… What are the challenges for the Port Vila, Luganville and Lenakel with the respective utility providers to focus on the creating fountains of drinking water?

Water Sanitation and Hygiene donor programs are significantly available in Vanuatu, assisting water resources department, and may help to assist possible decontamination of water resources in natural sources with poor water quality. Distribution of plastic bottles of water do not seem a reasonable and sustainable solution. Sugary artificial juice are unhealthy and cause diabetes. There other packaging solutions than plastic bottles that can be used to sell better juice, including in refill stations in reusable packaging. A single metal or glass bottle can be used for water, reused for juice, reused for tea, reused for coffee, reused for wine and reused for kava. It is ok to wash a bottle in 2023.

Recycling plastics is a myth, it is mainly a marketing strategy, but basically non-existent in Vanuatu
Since the first Plastic ban in 2017 that there is no real change on the entrepreneurship initiatives to recycle plastic in Vanuatu. The very few insignificant initiatives are not sustainable or were simply marketing initiatives, as demonstrated by communities that partnered to organised various clean ups at Pango Beach, Takabe river, Erakor Lagoons and Mele rivers. Considering the lack of serious plastics recycling initiatives, donor funds already allocated to plastic bottles were made available to turned plastic bottles into compressed pallets of plastic bottles to be disposed in Etas landfills. No doubt, an one off improvement in the plastic bottle collection, not any plastic waste. A targeted discriminatory selection of plastic waste. Collectors were encouraged to move out of the environment only plastic bottles, leaving any other kind of plastic waste in the place it was. Unfortunately it was underestimated the amount of plastic bottles disposed in the wrong place. There was not enough funding to pay to collectors by the charitable organizations. Producers and importers of plastic bottles unfortunately didn’t express any solidarity to the charitable organizations by sharing some funds from the profitable business, and collectors were not so happy with the impressed with the well intentioned initiative. Anyway trash can be treasure. The well intentioned donor funds were finished. But another donor decided to fund, once in a lifetime, the export of clean plastic to be recycled, which unfortunately increased Vanuatu’s carbon footprint on shipping transportation of plastic waste.

These initiatives funded by donors are not really encouraging “beating plastic pollution”, neither encouraging importers an producers of plastics to be accountable for the damaged caused by their business. In fact, they constitute an indirect subsidy to plastics polluters (fossil fuels), producers and importers, which continue to be unaccountable for the pollution they cause to Nature, simultaneously a threat to Public Health. Ultimately, these well-intentioned initiatives do not promote Environmental Justice and subtlety blame consumers for plastic pollution. Unintentionally, these initiatives may create harm, damaging the motivation of grassroots groups which are genuinely based of free will and concern of protecting the environment. A one off payment, once in a lifetime for cleaning the environment is not sustainable and not dignifying to a significant number of volunteers that demonstrated willing to clean the environment. Some organisations use charity in a vertical direction, with a paternalistic view, seeing solid waste collectors as ‘scavengers’, poor, uneducated, deprivilege citizens, which is not the case in Vanuatu. Collecting rubbish should be seen as a dignifying activity regardless of the social status, which volunteers should not to be shame of, particularly in Vanuatu. It is ok to pick rubbish for free, not an undignified action, even if not valued.

Non existent Deposit schemes

Some may say that there are successful solutions practiced in developed countries were more than 90% of plastic bottles are recycled. Yes, in Paradise there sustainable and positive stories about plastic bottles. They keep being send by car, plane, shipping to the islands, like there there are no drinking water. The same energy and carbon footprint to distribute plastic bottles around the islands of the archipelago needs to be duplicated to collect the same bottles to be returned to a recycling Centre. Apart from the environmental cost of a deposit scheme operations are actually the plastic importers and producers that are prepared to pay for the investment, or another donor is prepared to subsidize the pollution operation scheme?

Two decades ago, Germany set up a simple scheme to reduce plastic waste. When people buy drinks in a disposable plastic bottle, they pay a small extra fee and get that back by depositing the used bottle at a return centre. Many other countries have similar incentives. But has the intervention actually cut Germany’s use of single-use plastics? There’s little evidence for that, says Antaya March, a researcher at the Global Plastics Policy Centre, which was set up in 2022 at the University of Portsmouth, UK, to conduct independent assessments of plastic-waste management around the world. The scheme did entice people to return their plastic bottles, thus reducing littering. But it was also followed by an unintended increase in single-use bottles, March says — perhaps because people felt reassured that it was fine to buy drinks in plastic bottles that would be recycled.

Recycling is not fine for the environment, health and climate change. And deposit schemes are biased and focused of Recycling, ignoring Reusing, and Reduction of plastics, not really respecting the logics of circular economy.

7. Introduction of plastic packaging tax

Taxing Polluters should be seen as a complementary system to Plastic Bans, and an encouragement to good business sustainable practices. If it is possible to have a better product, why have a bad and harmful one?

Polluters Tax are appropriate approach in an governmental environmental and public health regulation. Today everyone accepts that tobacco and alcohol should be taxed. Sugar is already taxed. Why not Plastic containers and packaging?

UK introduced a Plastic packaging tax in April 2022 while keep banning plastic items. Spain had a similar move January 2023. 

Unlike bans, targeting specific items and probably companies who produce it or import it, a plastic packaging tax is general, and does not target specific companies or items. Is a generic objective move targeting harmful chemicals to both People and Nature. This approach promotes less conflicts between governments and businesses and generally better accepted by both consumers and businesses.

Vanuatu should be inspired by such types of legislation, if aims to be leading the fight for a cleaning environment.
As like the Vanuatu’s ICJ initiative, taxing plastic aims to create Environmental Justice, making polluters accountable for Loss & Damage. To better walk its talk, Vanuatu’s Government should consider contextualizing  such Public Policy aiming reducing the amount of plastics produced, imported and distributed to the majority of the islands of Vanuatu, protecting People and Nature and the future generations.

References:

A considerable amount of partners have been genuinely available to assist Vanuatu, responding to country’s requests mainly focused on government institutional capacity, private sector, and very little in education and awareness. In 2018 World Environmental Day conference at the Vanuatu’s National University a student said the plastics comes from trees.

Vanuatu’s has probably the biggest investment per capita in World on plastics and waste management studies pilot projects, which reports of the majority not really available to the public, or end up in extensive drafts never discussed or adopted.

1. Engineers Without Borders Australia;
2. Commonwealth Litter Program, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), United Kingdom,
3. Japanese International Cooperation Agency supporting Vanuatu Recyclers and Waste Management Association,
4. SPREP funds the Vanuatu Recyclers and Waste Management and Recycling Association
5. ANZPAC Plastics Pact (ANZPAC) supporting Vanuatu Recyclers and Waste Management Association,
6. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia supporting Vanuatu Business Resilience Business Council,
7. United Kingdom supporting a Plastic Strategy from Vanuatu Business Resilience Business Council. Vanuatu Clean provided an extensive feedback to the draft by email that was never acknowledged by VCCI. The strategy still a draft since 2020.
8. UK funds a draft for comment VANUATU NATIONAL PLASTICS FUNDING PLAN (2020-2024) plan
9. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) supporting the inexistent “Plastic Waste-Free Islands”, like Vanuatu.
10. Green Global Growth Institute funds Vanuatu’s ‘green entrepreneurs’, saying that It is particularly important to reduce single-use plastics such as straws, water bottles, and styrofoam containers, along with composting organic waste instead of sending it to the landfill.
11. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia subsidizing the private sector in its  first and only export of plastics.
12. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia subsidizing consultants to plastics producers .
13. A failed greenwashing strategy to “Fulfil the vision of both organisations to transform plastic waste into usable raw material with the capacity to become a revenue source for communities who are struggling with plastic waste management”.
14. South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) supports Sustainable Waste Actions in the Pacific (SWAP).
15. SPREP supports a draft of a National Waste Management and Action Plan .
16. United Nations Environmental Program supporting Vanuatu.
17. Multiple donors supporting the Vanuatu National Waste Management and Pollution Control Strategy and Implementation Plan 2016-2020 .
18. Asian Development Bank supporting Port Vila Municipality; 
19. Japan and France funds SPREP that implements waste management project in Vanuatu ;
20. Australia funds Vanuatu to implement Waste management project in Vanuatu 
21. UK funds a study to collect data on plastics in Vanuatu
22. France funds a study to collect data on plastics in Vanuatu
23. UK fuds a dialogue on plastics
24. Well intentioned World Vision funds clean up with funds destined failed recycling project
25. UK funds Vanuatu waste management study
26. UK, NZ and Australia funds Vanuatu Plastic Pact 
27. France Supports Vanuatu for an Effective and Sustainable Waste Management Solution
28. French Government-funded study proposes a Central Waste Recovery Center
29. Study aims to reveal sources of plastic waste on Efate’s coastline
30. World Bank supporting Vanuatu
31. UICN funds a marine litter study in Vanuatu
32. Plastic Pollution Prevention in Pacific Island Countries by environmental investigation agency
33. Kicking the plastic habit, one bottle at a time, may be too late… This first ever and, likely last shipment, was funded by IUCN’s Plastic Waste-Free Islands Project, and facilitated by not so Searious Business, making polluters unaccountable for the pollution caused.