THE STATUS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF POLYTHENE BAGS IN UGANDA AND POLICY DIRECTION

Transcription

1 THE STATUS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF POLYTHENE BAGS IN UGANDA AND POLICY DIRECTION A paper presented at the EAWMC 2017 Conference held at Protea Hotel, Kampala on the 24 th 25 th August 2017 By DANIEL BABIKWA (PHD) DIRECTOR: DSCPE NEMA,UGANDA

2 INTRODUCTION The History of polythene carrier bags in Uganda Polythene Carrier Bags (what are they? Policy boost The threats Policy intervention and efforts at regulation The Finance Act and the BAN Efforts to implement the ban Challenges to the ban implementation

3 The History of polythene carrier bags in Uganda Polythene carrier bags are a relatively new phenomenon in Uganda They first appeared in the early 1980s, after being introduced by Ugandan traders to the Middle East, Dubai in particular. They looked fancy, convenient, exciting and trendy, and won themselves a popular name by then LATEST By the beginning of the 1990s they had began showing all signs of becoming a nuisance in the environment Unfortunately, at the time when environmental threats from carrier bags were getting increasingly alarming, the desire and strategies to boost local industry through different forms of investment were also being concretised and igniting a historical war between ecology and economy!

4 The Investment Code Act Cap 92 The Code prioritized the plastic and packaging industries among the projects to be accorded special treatment; The Act under Section 13 accorded the priority projects benefits including 0% tax rate on importation of capital goods and equipment and a tax holiday ranging from 3 6 years depending on the level of investment. Aware of the potential dangers of the above, the Act under Section 18, imposed as implied terms and conditions of the investment license, obligations by the investor to take necessary steps to ensure that the operations of his or her business enterprise did not cause injury to the ecology or environment

5 Cont. The investment boom in the plastics industry was evidently abusive and in 1992, government of Uganda agreed to regulate the importation of polyethylene packaging materials, A tax was imposed to gradually discourage their production in the country and a time limit was set in which both manufacturers and importers were to phase out their operations and revert to production and importation of environmentally friendly packaging materials. In 1993, the government decided that although the ban of polyethylene packaging materials was desirable for environmental protection, it would be done selectively and on a phase out approach basis. This change of position on the ban of polyethylene materials promoted importation, production and use of polyethylene materials which continued unabated culminating into the current crisis levels

6 Cont. In the 2002/2003 national budget, government increased excise duty on all polyethylene and plastic containers from 20% to 50%, This increased the unit price of the cheapest polyethylene bags from 50/= to 100/= and a tax of 13% was levied on the gross import value of polythene raw material which led to widespread importation and smuggling of polyethylene and plastic containers into the country.

7 Early civil society response In December, 2002 Greenwatch, an NGO filed a suit against Attorney General and NEMA contending that Article 245 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda enjoins government and parliament to take measures for protection and preservation of the environment from abuse, pollution and degradation; to manage the environment for sustainable development; and to promote environmental awareness. The ruling of court was delivered in The NGO sought court orders that; the manufacture, distribution, use, disposal of plastic containers, plastic food wrappers, all other form of plastic commonly known and referred to as kaveera violates the rights of citizens of Uganda to a clean and healthy environment.

8 Cont. the manufacture, use, distribution and sale of plastic bags and plastic containers of less than 100 microns be banned. NEMA be directed to issue regulations for the proper use and disposal of all other plastics whose thickness is more than 100 microns including regulations and direction as to recycling or re-use of all other plastics.

9 Ban on plastic carrier bags In 2009 and 2010, the government enacted the Finance Act, 2009 and The Finance (Permitted Plastic Bags and Other Plastics for Exceptional Use) Regulations of The Act 2009 prohibits the importation, local manufacture, sale or use of polyethylene bags and materials. The Ban mainly affects plastic carrier bags used for conveyance of goods. The law does not provide for specific microns because the other permitted plastics for exceptional use may vary in micron.

10 Private sector reactions and responses to the Ban According to the manufacturers, the ban was rushed with no stakeholder consultation and did not take into consideration the Regional 30 microns policy. They petitioned the President for policy reversal on several grounds i.e.: - a) that alternative packaging material should co-exist with plastics as many industries utilize plastic packaging materials which cannot be easily substituted. - b) that the plastics industry uses some of the bi-products from the oil and gas industry and the threat to the sector would affect others sectors too - c) that the ban would result in loss of jobs for thousands of employees in the sector - d) that government would lose income in form of taxes from the carrier bags - e) that investors would lose their money invested in the manufacturing of carrier bags yet they were genuinely licensed All these affected and dragged the initial implementation process for some time

11 Positive Actions by th private sector Promotion of recycling and a solution Establishment of plastic collection centres in different urban centres Support to plastic waste collectors groups Change of technology to produce more environmentally friendly carrier bags Voluntary stoppage of use and eventual surrender of plastic existing carrier bags to NEMA Provision of alternative carrier bags which are environmentally friendly

12 Ban implementation In April 2015, NEMA resumed implementation of the ban under the Finance Act 2009 and it was heavily supported by the public. In April, Cabinet made recommendations on how to enforce the ban and constituted an inter-ministerial consultative committee to examine the matter and prepare a cabinet paper for consideration and decision. This equally derailed enforcement as the manufacturers reiterated their known contentions against the ban. The paper emerging from the consultations convinced the cabinet to uphold the ban and allowed NEMA to continue enforcing.

13 Day 1 of the enforcement Media engaging one of the NEMA staff during enforcement

14 Steps taken by NEMA In August 2015, Cabinet passed a resolution to maintain the ban on plastic carrier bags as was already being implemented by NEMA. Following this pronouncement, NEMA did the following; relaunched massive public education and awareness on dangers and impacts associated with plastics and plastic carrier bags across the country through community meetings, print and electronic media; Held consensus meetings with manufacturers, traders, MTIC, KCCA and other MDAs; Mobilized and sensitized LGs to implement the ban; Held meetings with supermarkets and departmental stores within Kampala to stop distributing and selling the plastic carrier bags;

15 Cont. carried out enforcement targeting distributers and retail outlets in Central, Eastern and Western regions (18000kg of Plastic Carrier bags was seized and destroyed); On 14 th September, 2015 issued a notice to all plastic carrier bags manufacturers to stop the manufacture, distribution and sell of the banned materials. Safely disposed of the seized kaveera stocks

16 Seized carrier bags from shops

17 Enforcement NEMA truck load of Seized plastic carrier bags

18 Cont. NEMA official recording carrier bags to be seized

19 Challenges encountered in the management of the carrier bags threat in the country Resistance from the manufacturers and traders characterized by many unethical acts Contrary and contradictory messages from different MDAs (NEMA, MWE, MTIC, MOFEP, URA, UMA, KACITA etc.) and lack of a stronger unifying voice. Limited participation by others Agencies and NEMA S limited human resource to sustain the exercise The high cost of enforcement The apathy of Ugandans regarding government laws and policies Politics during the peak of the enforcement exercise Multiple exemptions The lucrative nature of the banned product

20 Lessons and policy implications There is no shortcut to removing the environmental threats caused by plastic carrier bags other than a continued total ban on production and distribution and its effective implementation Whereas recycling can be another way to deal with the problem, the current local capacity to recycle is too low to bear meaning results in the near future especially given the poor waste handling practices of Ugandans in general; The investment in recycling is not in vain with the banning of plastic carrier bags as the plastics recycling machines will continue to be useful to deal with products of polythene which are not banned; The plastics industry will not collapse as a result of enforcing the ban since only one item of the products being produced (only carrier bags which forms less than 1% of polythene usage in society) are banned. The industry can sufficiently thrive on other products.

21 Lessons and policy implications The problems caused by plastic carrier bags are also due to the existing low levels of Environmental literacy among Ugandans There is need to invest heavily in environmental literacy creation well beyond the current awareness, to empower the public to make the right environmental choices and resultant actions (reject kaveera in all its forms) There is also need to invest in a more people-centred and community based approach to getting rid of Kaveera from the environment Recognize and reward those companies, businesses and individuals who have responded positively and promoted the cause of the ban since its implementation in 2015.

22 Cont. Mobilize government institutions to implement the ban within all their areas of influence. For example: Schools, government offices, Military, Police and Prisons, Urban authorities URA should intensify its efforts to block illicit importation of carrier bags into the country; There are many stakeholders each with a designated role and each stakeholder should take cogniscent of the others roles thus:- MWE, MTIC, MFPED, MAAIF, MoH, NEMA, KCCA and other MDAs with supportive functions in implementing the ban on plastic carrier bags. Local Governments should be encouraged to establish Ordinances and bye-laws to regulate and control use of plastics given their negative impacts.

23 Last word Only when the last tree is cut, when the last fish has been caught, when the last river has been poisoned, only then you will know that money cannot be eaten Old American Indian proverb Thanks for listening