We Must Focus on Behavioral Shift and Not Just Cleanup, Says Environmental Activist Afroz Shah

As a lawyer, I understood early on the importance of tackling plastic waste holistically or what we call the cradle-to-grave approach. But I had to start somewhere, and beach cleanups were the low-hanging fruit. They served as a powerful tool for awareness and hands-on learning. When people collect plastic from beaches, they begin to question where it comes from and how it ends up in the ocean. It also directly protects marine life, as ocean plastic is deadly to them.

Over time, we moved beyond just cleanups. We addressed the entire lifecycle, from preventing waste (pre-litter), managing existing waste (litter), to handling it after it's discarded (post-litter). What began as clearing legacy waste has now evolved into a broader effort towards a circular economy. This journey connects deeply with global issues like plastic pollution, marine debris, and even climate change - all of which stems from irresponsible consumption and inefficient resource usage. If plastic can be recycled, letting it pollute nature is simply a lost opportunity.

We work across all three stages of plastic waste management, engaging over 400,000 people in Mumbai and expanding to rural areas. Currently, we have completed work in 25 villages and aim to reach 200 more. This isn’t a one-off campaign for us, it’s a way of life. I often say my work is a “date with the ocean”- something you return to daily out of love and commitment.

For us, cleanup is just the visible part, the real work truly begins in the mind. Pollution starts in the head and must end there and thereby what we are truly focused on is behavioral change. Whether it's training people to keep plastic clean for recycling or engaging young minds, the goal is to shift attitudes.

We collaborate with over 90 schools and colleges, reaching about 200,000 students. We also partner with corporates through town halls and deep-dive sessions, helping them understand the difference between necessary and unnecessary plastic. Every day is packed from morning visits to slums to corporate sessions - all aimed at building a future where humans and other species can coexist.

The global plastic treaty currently under negotiation has four key components - banning unnecessary plastics, cleaning up legacy waste, enabling circular economy and strengthening waste management. Interestingly, we have already been implementing all of this in Mumbai, even before a global consensus is reached. My message to world leaders has always been clear: don’t create policies detached from ground realities, instead focus on micro details and make them implementable.

As a lawyer, I also see gaps in our national approach. India lacks a Circular Economy Act, that’s a critical piece missing not just here but globally. People often confuse circular economy with waste management, but the former is about reducing waste before it even occurs, while the latter deals with what’s already generated.

Another major gap lies in our Constitution. Environmental governance lacks a clear mandate. I believe we need an amendment to list “environment” under the Concurrent List (List III), allowing both state and central governments to legislate effectively, instead of relying heavily on international conventions.

Then there’s the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policy, which is progressive on paper, asking producers to take back plastic in proportion to what they generate. But the cost of retrieving waste from nature, especially small sachets and multilayered plastics is far higher than the cost of production. Without factoring in this “economic retrieval cost,” the policy remains skewed.

And of course, implementation is the toughest challenge in a country of 1.5 billion people. That’s why we focus so heavily on behavioral change - because laws alone can’t do the job. Every individual we inspire at the grassroots helps bring those laws to life.

In the past, environmental issues like dirty beaches were often taken to the Bombay High Court through public interest litigations. But with the formation of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), a specialized body now handles such cases, though High Courts still have the authority under Article 226. Often, out of prudence, they refer matters to the NGT.

However, the challenge with both NGT and Pollution Control Boards is the lack of ground-level evidence. For instance, during Maharashtra’s plastic ban, I was invited to advise the government. I cautioned against arbitrary bans based on anecdotal reports, like those from district collectors. Instead, I suggested conducting year-long scientific studies with a sample size of at least a million, covering different socio-economic groups, to truly understand plastic consumption patterns. Laws need to be grounded in data, not guesswork.

This same flaw is visible in global policymaking too - like in the Global Plastic Treaty. While the intent is good, much of it lacks a strong scientific basis. You can't just ban something because it shows up in beach cleanups. Comprehensive studies are essential to differentiate between necessary and unnecessary plastics or safe and unsafe materials. Without evidence-based policymaking, laws risk being ineffective or even counterproductive.

The issue is that it is rarely discussed. If environmental powers were clearly included in the Constitution, both Parliament and state legislatures could create better and evidence-based laws. Right now, we are leaning too heavily on international conventions instead of empowering our own legal system. Environment is treated as a residual power of Parliament, which is a major gap in our constitutional framework.

The current process of negotiating the global plastic treaty is deeply flawed— it’s driven more by diplomatic negotiation than solid evidence.

As a lawyer, I find it baffling that such a complex issue affecting 7 billion people is being tackled in week-long sessions stretched over just two years. In contrast, our Constitution was built through detailed committee work over years, each aspect studied thoroughly before becoming law.

That’s what the treaty process needs - dedicated committees working full-time on each element for at least a year, backed by data—not just broad statements and vague drafts shuffled around.