Veroli Zhimo
The ban on single-use plastics (SUPs), which came into effect on July 1 this year, seems to have remained largely on paper. On June 30, 2022, the Nagaland government partially modified the Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules 2021 notified by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, banning identified single-use plastic items which have low utility and high littering potential by 2022.
The items included ear buds with plastic sticks; plastic sticks for balloons; plastic flags; candy sticks; ice-cream sticks; polystyrene (thermocol) for decoration; plates, cups, glasses, cutlery such as forks, spoons, knives, straws, trays; wrapping or packing films around sweet boxes; invitation cards; cigarette packets; plastic or poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) banners less than 100 micron; and stirrers.
Along with this, the notification further stated that manufacture, import, stocking, distribution, sale, and use of carry bags made of virgin or recycled plastic “shall not be less than 120 microns in thickness from December 31, 2022.”
But almost four months since the ban came into effect, little has moved on the ground and the banned items continue to be in rampant circulation in almost every part of the state and by all accounts, the rest of India.
The ban on SUPs in India was first attempted in 1999 with the ban on thin polythene bags. Since then, three national and numerous state laws have been enacted to phase out SUPs. While every ban has been more stringent than the previous one, the result is that in over two decades, the Centre and State have been unable to eliminate even one SUP product, including the thin polythene bag.
So, why have the bans failed?
The foremost factor is the lack of alternatives to SUPs and the government’s failure in promoting them. So far, the government’s approach has mostly been that once the ban is enforced, alternatives would emerge to fill the gap. But this has not happened in Nagaland simply because there is no supportive infrastructure and incentive to produce alternatives in volume.
Another factor would be the impracticable time frame for phasing out these products. The bans have been imposed either immediately or within few months, providing little time to the industry and users to adapt. Experience worldwide shows that a total ban on widely-used products requires a staggered approach to change the economy and public behaviour. An example would be the European countries that have given themselves at least a decade to eliminate SUPs. Nagaland, on the other hand, wants to do it in months!
The success of bans on SUPs can also be linked to local waste management practices. States with long-running campaign on waste management such as Sikkim and Kerala have been more successful in implementing the ban, indicating that a sound waste management ecosystem, including segregation, collection, and recycling, is a prerequisite to manage SUPs. Such local waste management practices are almost non-existent in Nagaland.
Most importantly, reducing SUPs requires a long-term vision, strategy and targets for the consumers as well as enterprises that depend on the plastic industry. The goal, while implementing bans, should not just be to eliminate SUPs but also to reduce plastic production and consumption, improve waste management and reduce plastic pollution.
In about two months, the 2022 deadline would have arrived, but before that, the governments at the state and centre must come to a realisation that the ‘command and control’ approach towards fixing environmental problems is leading us nowhere. If it were, the government wouldn’t have to keep imposing the ban every few years.
Hastily enacted legislations seldom deliver the desired effects. Rather, the focus should be on identifying past and present failures or successes before such a ban is notified again.
Comments can be sent vzhimolimi@gmail.com
.
