By Mukundi Mutasa
Barely two weeks after Zimbabwean media reported a consumer outcry regarding the ‘ban on plastics bags’, has the Environmental Management Agency attempted to clarify the position.
Statutory Instrument 98 of 2010 “gives directives that retailers and all other manufacturers should stop distributing carrier bags below 30 microns,” an official of EMA, Estas Mabwe, was quoted by the NewsDay as saying.
The reasoning behind targeting plastic bags that are below 30 micrometers is that they are too thin to be reused, making them a menace to the environment and the surrounding social system because of the poor system of their disposal.
The littered plastics are guilty of killing domesticated animals and wildlife, as well as blocking drainages and the general surface pollution, while their burning results in air pollution.
While their environmental impact cannot be denied, though sometimes said to be overemphasized, this fiasco exposed the media and EMA’s poor communication regarding this ‘ban’, as well as overall poor strategizing on the part of the government.
The media’s role is to inform the populace prior to that ban being imposed, communicate the reasons, and mentally prepare the readers or listeners for when the ban is put to effect.
EMA on the other hand should communicate to the media in as clear a way as possible so that its actions are not misinterpreted. This clearly was not the case resulting in the confusion.
For example, had the issue about the 30 microns been communicated clearly and well in advance, the shortage of plastic carrier bags would have been averted. At least the retailers would have explored other options which would have not inconvenienced consumers.
Masimba Biriwasha gave a clearer picture of the inconvenience that one shopper, Felix Makasa, went through after purchasing goodies, only to be shocked by news that the retailer had no plastic bags for Makasa to pack his goods in.
Makasa was quoted as arguing that banning the plastic bags is “not a solution; there should have been an alternative plan.”
How then was this ban implemented in the absence of a clear-cut alternative plan backed by proper legal framework?
Flashback to August 2010, the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation reported that the government was going “to phase out the use of plastic bags replacing them with paper carrier bags which can easily decompose.”
Does the term ‘phase out’ mean the same to the government, EMA, industry and consumers in this case? Maybe not!
For example, the ZBC reported that the retailers requested a two year phase-out period. However, they were certainly caught by surprise when the ban took effect as early as January 2011.
In any case, under normal circumstances, this transition would have also been integrated in the state’s annual budget, as has been the case in the East African Community where member states were compelled to cater for this phase-out in their respective budgets.
Uganda’s 2010 budget, for example, specified how this transition was going to be carried out and instructed the plastic manufacturers to wind up business while imposing restrictive taxes (120%) on the importation of thicker plastics.
The law made it a punishable offence, either three years in jail or a fine of an equivalent of US$1500, for anyone caught in possession and using the plastics, beginning in January 2010.
The wave of these bans on plastics in the EAC member states started way back in 2006 in Tanzania and has been enforced since then, making this a good case study for EMA and the relevant government department to learn from.
In southern Africa, South Africa is one country that has also taken a lead on this. The country outlawed its ‘national flower’ in 2003 though the move from plastics with an average of 17 microns to the 30 microns plastics had started as early as 2001.
These plastics were called the national flower because of how they covered much of the surface after being poorly disposed of.
In comparison to Uganda where offenders face prison terms of three years, South African retailers who are caught handing out the plastic bags “now face a fine of 100,000 rand ($13,800) or a 10-year jail sentence,” reported the British Broadcasting Corporation.
As a result, shoppers are compelled to take bags with them when going shopping, or else they will have to buy thicker, stronger and recyclable plastic bags.
This has resulted in the selling of environmentally friendly shopping bags bearing logos of the major supermarket chains such as Pick n Pay and Shoprite.
Some of these shopping bags have even spilled into Zimbabwe because of the cross-border socio-economic activities between the two countries, including emigration.
To further show how plastics are an eye-sore when thrown all over, Rwanda encouraged thousands of workers to take a day off in 2004 so as to pick up the plastics that had littered the country, as reported by the BBC.
Citizen involvement might be essential, but such cleanup campaigns must be complemented by the legal frameworks to limit a repetition of the past.
In Zimbabwe’s case, there will of course be sectors who will feel that EMA’s approach, and that of the government, exudes traits of heavy-handedness.
That feeling would not have been there had there been consultation and a clear phasing-out plan before jumping the gun to impose such restrictions in the absence of alternatives.
Surely, Zimbabwe can learn from the experiences of those who did it, and those working towards implementing their environmental policies.
Implementation of policies without consultation and a clear strategy will not work and this will likely become one of the classic examples of a policy with good intentions applied badly.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
