Sustainability Now: Creating a circular economy for Sri Lanka

Before the industrial revolution started in England in the 18th century consumer products were handmade locally and consumed at a small scale. Since then the development of machines, the rise of the factory system, computerisation and fast moving IT developments gave our production and consumption systems another shift towards more efficiency and more mechanised processes. Finally, globalisation has contributed to a system where consumer products are sourced in one set of countries, produced in another set and consumed again in another part of the world.

Where these developments have increased the living standard of many people, they have also led to the creation of a “throwaway society” which has taken a toll onto the natural and social environment we live in. Where earlier milk and other goods were delivered in glass bottles and the empty bottles were left at the doorstep for collection the next morning, where grocery stores used to give paper bags if they gave away any bags at all, and consumers were used to bringing their own basket or cotton bag when buying groceries; nowadays the “convenience” of plastic bottles, plastic bags and other one way utility products and utensils has taken over. Similarly, broken items were repaired and not disposed like today, just because it is cheaper and seemingly less hassle to buy a new item than repairing the old one.

In his recent book ‘Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life,’ Robert Reich analyses the relationship between contemporary capitalism and democracy. He outlines how the relentless fight for profit, investors and consumers have made gains, but citizens and the democratic process have fallen behind. Our consumer behaviour has shifted to one-way, fast fashion, cheap and full choice for everyone – no matter if we need these products or not. Our attitude changed from “what do I need”, to “what do I want” to “I should have everything because I deserve it”.

Accordingly Peter Wilby in the New Statesman newspaper mentions “Supercapitalism’s brilliant answer to increasing durability is to elaborate and refine so that goods feel obsolete almost as soon as you buy them…Business talks of “consumer demand”. But nobody ever marched to demand an end to recyclable milk bottles, more upgrades for mobile phones, more cheap Chinese imports.” 

Across the past years, noticing that this sort of consumer behaviour is backfiring on society and environment, there are a couple of models which evolved proposing alternatives for a more sustainable lifestyle. One of them is the circular economy approach. One might argue that there is nothing new about it and that many societies have practiced this before; reality is, that even if we did, we have sooner or later given in to supercapitalism and forgotten about the importance to live in sync with nature and people.

The circular economy approach is opposing the state-of-the-art linear take on of take-make-use-dispose and is advocating for a cyclic approach, where “waste” becomes the resource for something else with the help of renewable energy. Circular economy differentiates two types of products: biological and technical. Biological items are designed to re-enter the biosphere safely and technical items are designed to circulate at high quality in the production system without entering the biosphere. Nature does not know a concept such as waste, why do we? Nature is perfectly based on a circular approach, so can we! 

Since the concept was introduced economists have taken it on and advocate for it globally. McKinsey for example estimated that shifting towards circularity could add $ 1 trillion to the global economy by 2025 and create 100,000 new jobs within the next five years. So far some large organisations around the Ellen McArthur Foundation have taken on that concept and are in the process of developing viable business models where the EUs Circular Economy Framework for example introduced higher recycling targets and a landfill ban on recyclable materials across all 28 EU member states.

By having a look at this alternative model, we could take on several challenges in Sri Lanka which we face today: energy; pollution of air, land and waterways; increased waste creation, and so on. With this approach Sri Lanka could on the one hand side become a best practice for zero-waste and circular industrial processes, focus on resource recovery in the country, protect its natural environment which in turn will lead to various benefits – from a high standard of living for each being, to reduced health issues, increased profit from sustainable tourism, minimised pollution, less spending on energy related imports, increased energy independency, attracting highly-qualified Sri Lankan human capital who currently resides in other countries with a perceived higher standard of living, international reputational gains which in turn attract investors and projects to Sri Lanka – the list of benefits is long. Sri Lanka is small enough to make this possible and big enough to be showcased as good example, at least in the region. 

The time is now as rapid developments are spreading across the country with a large number of new infrastructure investments taking place. After the long war which kept the country imprisoned, it is now about to grow and bloom. Therefore it is now where the right decisions have to be made to ensure that Sri Lanka grows towards a sustainable future. We already face the consequences of climate change, and we know that this is just the start. We can use the current development drive, the investments and project opportunities to build a smart and sustainable country.