Confusion over kaveera ban

By  Ronald  Musoke

On  April  15  the  National  Environment  Management  Authority  (NEMA)  started  to  enforce  the  ban  on  light  weight  

against  NEMA  enforcing  the  ban.  It  said  the  government  was  lifting  the  ban  immediately  ‘to  allow  for  consultations.’

In  an  unusual  move,  however,  NEMA  took  to  the  airwaves  to  in-­‐‑

by  raiding  the  biggest  supermarkets.  There  was  confusion  as  -­‐‑

ity,  Shoprite  and  Uchumi,  and  seized  tonnes  of  the  lightweight  plastic  shopping  bags  commonly  referred  to  as  ‘kaveera.’  Was  the  

prime  minister?  Were  their  jobs  safe?Many  wondered  if  this  time  

time  NEMA  had  said  they  were  to  implement  the  law  on  polythene  -­‐‑

another  statement  cancelling  its  April  14  position.  It  said,  following  ‘consultations’,the  government  had  decided  to  go  ahead  with  the  ban  while  consultations  continue.The  statement  said  the  ban  applies  to  the  importation,  local  manufacture,  sale  or  use  of  polythene  car-­‐‑rier  bags  but  would  exclude  polythene  packaging  materials  for  use  in  agriculture,  industries,  medicine,  research  and  science,  sanitation,  construction,  and  exports.  It  also  directed  manufacturers  and  distrib-­‐‑utors  to  establish  polythene  collection  centres  across  the  country  and  intensify  public  sensitisation  on  polythene  waste  management.

-­‐‑rial  for  customers.  Some  improvised  with  boxes,  others  advised  shoppers  to  carry  satchels,  and  enterprising  business  people  intro-­‐‑

Menace: A drainage system in Kampala clogged with polythene bags. INDEPENDENT/JIMMY SIYA

NEWS  ANALYSIS

14

up  and  tasked  with  preparing  a  Cabinet  

on  kaveera.  Throughout  the  next  month  of  May,  shoppers  appeared  to  accept  that  it  was  the  end  of  kaveera.

Confused government?But  as  Ugandans  waited  for  the  min-­‐‑

isterial  policy  statement,  on  June  18,  Jim  Muhwezi,  the  minister  of  information  and  national  guidance  released  a  new  statement  saying  the  government  had  lifted  the  ban  on  plastic  bags.  Apparently  the  government  had  

acknowledged  the  ‘controversy’  surround-­‐‑ing  the  implementation  of  the  ban  and  

study  the  issue  again.  Interestingly,  the  next  day,  on  June  19,  another  statement  from  his  

NEMA  issued  their  own  statement  the  same  day,  saying  the  ban  on  plastic  carrier  bags  is  still  in  forceSo  why  does  the  government  keep  issu-­‐‑

ing  these  confusing  statements  to  the  pub-­‐‑lic?  And  who  exactly  is  responsible  for  the  policy  confusion?  

It  was  later  enshrined  in  the  Finance  Act  

Bags  and  Other  Plastics  for  Exceptional  Use)  

NEMA  had  failed  to  implement  it.Part  of  the  problem  is  that  the  govern-­‐‑

ment  is  caught  in  between  two  very  power-­‐‑ful  constituencies,  the  environmentalists  and  the  manufacturers.  The  manufacturers,  recyclers,  and  traders  who  have  been  using  ‘consultative  meetings’  to  lobby  the  govern-­‐‑ment  to  lift  the  ban  say  they  have  invested  

ready  to  see  their  investments  go  to  waste.  They  also  cite  job  losses  to  thousands  of  employees.  But  the  environmentalists  insist  the  economic,  health  and  social  costs  far  

distinguishing  plastic  bags  of  30  microns  from  those  above  30  microns.  Technically,  a  micron  is  a  unit  of  length  

that  equals  one  millionth  of  a  metre  accord-­‐‑ing  to  the  International  Bureau  of  Weights  and  Measures.  In  layman’s  language,  however,  30  microns  is  about  as  thick  as  two  human  hairs.  In  other  words,  very  thin  kaveera.  The  problem,  therefore,  is  not  that  bags  of  

-­‐‑guish.  Rather  the  problem  is  that  the  law  is  

Shamim  Nabatanzi,  an  administrator  at  the  Uganda  Plastic  Manufacturers  and  Recyclers  Association  (UPMRA)  told  The  Independent

Ugandan  towns  of  Kampala,  Mukono,  Jinja,  Wakiso  and  Mbarara.    She  says,  however,  

UPMRA  has  half  that  number  registered  as  

Presumably  then,  each  of  these  is  manu-­‐‑facturing  the  same  ubiquitous  black,  white,  or  yellow  light  weight  shopping  bags  and  the  even  lighter  transparent  bags  used  in  packing  at  smaller  shops.  Most  of  these  bags  are  unmarked.  Even  if  NEMA  found  that  some  of  them  were  above  30  microns,  it  is  virtually  impossible  to  say  which  fac-­‐‑tory  manufactures  which.  In  other  words,  NEMA  cannot  scrutinize  each  batch.    That  is  why  it  favours  a  blanket  ban  on  polythene  shopping  bags  of  below  30  microns.  But  Nabatanzi  says  it  is  also  wrong  for  

the  government  authorities  to  focus  on  local  manufacturers  when  up  to  80%  of  poly-­‐‑thene  shopping  bags  used  in  the  country  is  imported  from  Kenya.“Like  it  or  not,  kaveera  is  a  hot  cake  (and)  

even  if  our  members  are  clamped  down,  there  are  many  others  producing  kaveera  ‘underground’  in  homes  and  remember  

80%  of  the  kaveera  comes  from  outside  Uganda  through  smuggling,”  she  says.Since  it  started  in  mid-­‐‑April  this  year,  

critics  of  NEMA  say  it  rushed  into  taking  action  following  the  refusal  by  Parliament’s  

provisions  of  the  July  2009  Finance  Act  that  prohibited  the  manufacture  or  importation  and  distribution  of  plastic  bags  below  30  microns.Whatever  the  reason,  Gerald  Musoke  

Sawula,  the  NEMA  deputy  executive  direc-­‐‑tor  told  The  Independenton  June  22  that  NEMA  would  not  relent  on  the  polythene  bag  ban.  But  he  quickly  added  that  the  ban  would  only  work  when  manufacturers  stop  producing  and  buyers  stop  buying.  “Kaveera  has  been  with  Uganda  for  the  

last  25  years  and  therefore,  implementing  

take  years.”Beatrice  Anywar  Atim,  the  shadow  minis-­‐‑

ter  for  water  and  environment  and  a  mem-­‐‑

in  Parliament  supports  NEMA.  She  told  

The  Independenton  June  22  that  the  kaveera  manufacturers  cannot  keep  asking  for  time  because  they  have  nothing  to  show  from  the  grace  period  they  got  last  time.  “They  have  done  nothing,”  she  says,  “It’s  just  greed.”Anywar  says  the  kaveera  ban  has  since  

2009  been  frustrated  by  some  cabinet  minis-­‐‑

Dr.  Francis  Epetait,  the  MP  for  Ngora  -­‐‑

culture,  Animal  Industry  and  Fisheries  told  The  Independent  that  many  Ugandans  are  

-­‐‑ing  food  cooked  in  kaveera.  He  said  kaveera  releases  cancer-­‐‑causing  substances  into  the  food.  “It  is  annoying  and  frustrating  to  see  the  

he  said,  “Those  lifting  the  ban  on  kaveera,  deep  in  their  mind  know  that  kaveera  is  

clogging  the  drainage  system.  In  the  rural  areas,  people  are  misusing  kaveera.”  In  addition,  when  kaveera  is  burnt  in  the  

open,  especially  under  low  temperatures,  it  creates  dioxin-­‐‑like  poisonous  materials  which  cause  cancer,  skin  diseases,  endocri-­‐‑

-­‐‑sion  and  human  fertility.  He  said  NEMA  needs  to  be  given  credit  and  support  instead  of  being  frustrated  by  the  government.    On  the  issue  of  people  losing  jobs  because  

of  the  ban,  Epetait  says  people  should  not  get  jobs  at  the  expense  of  other  people’s  health.  “What  percentage  of  recycling  is  going  on  compared  to  the  volumes  being  put  out  in  the  environment?”Asked  about  what  she  thinks  about  the  

ban  on  kaveera  by  NEMA,  Nabatanzi  says  the  only  problem  UPMRA  has  with  NEMA  is  that  they  do  not  come  out  clearly  to  say  the  gauge  of  the  kaveera  that  they  have  banned.  “We  also  agree  that  it  is  dangerous  to  the  

environment  but  it  is  also  important  to  man-­‐‑age  it,”  she  says,  adding  that  she  is  not  sure  if  the  manufacturers  increased  the  gauge  of  the  kaveera  to  even  100  microns  that  would  

-­‐‑tion  for  kaveera.“The  money  NEMA  has  used  to  enforce  

the  ban  could  have  been  used  to  sensitize  

users  who  do  so.”  “Ugandans  need  to  be  educated  on  how  

how  to  sort  the  waste.”      “If  kaveera  was,  for  instance,  being  sorted  well  and  stockpiled,  our  companies  would  buy  this  assorted  kaveera  at  competitive  prices,”  she  said.Nabatanzi  says,  of  the  30  registered  poly-­‐‑

thene  manufacturers,  20  have  recycling  sec-­‐‑tions  manufacturing  products  such  as  plas-­‐‑tic  pipes,  plastic  tanks,  plastic  sandals  and  plastic  bins.    These,  she  says,  recycle  over  15million  kilogrammes  of  kaveera  every  month  but  that  is  because  they  are  operat-­‐‑

Ruhakana Rugunda Jim Muhwezi

July 03 -‐ 09, 2015

NEWS  ANALYSIS

15

invested  close  to  Shs  77  billion  ($25m)  over  

over  3000  workers  although  at  the  moment  some  of  the  workers  have  been  sent  away  because  of  the  current  ban.  Nabatanzi  says  if  the  ban  goes  ahead  and  UPMRA  mem-­‐‑bers  go  out  of  business,  then  the  govern-­‐‑

with  the  manufacturers.  “The  government  will  have  to  compen-­‐‑

sate  the  manufacturers  because  it  is  the  government  which  told  them  to  come  and  invest  here.”

Kaveera the hot cakeInformation  on  how  much  kaveera  is  

produced,  used  and  dumped  in  Ugandan  environment  is  scanty  but  according  to  NEMA,  close  to  40  million  kilogrammes  of  polythene  bag  waste  is  released  into  the  environment  and  most  of  it  accumulates  in  the  soil  each  year  within  the  country.On  the  other  hand,  UPMRA  say  they  are  

still  compiling  information  regarding  how  much  kaveera  is  produced  in  the  country  every  year.  But  their  estimates  point  to  80%  of  lightweight  polythene  shopping  bags  used  in  the  country  being  imported  from  Kenya.    URA  disagrees.  James  Kisale,  a  

The  Independenton  June  25  that  it  is  wrong  for  UPMRA  to  give  the  impression  that  smuggling  contributes  the  biggest  percent-­‐‑age  of  kaveera  in  Uganda.    He,  for  instance,  says  in  the  whole  of  

2014,  URA  impounded  about  14,000  kilo-­‐‑grammes  of  kaveera  entering  Uganda  from  Kenya.  He  added  that  as  far  as  this  year  is  concerned,  URA  has  so  far  impounded  

Kisale  wondered  if  indeed  Kenya  was  contributing  up  to  80%  of  the  available  kaveera  in  the  country,  then  why  would  the  local  manufacturers  and  recyclers  be  mak-­‐‑ing  noise  to  ensure  that  the  ban  is  lifted.

also  insist  manufacturers  should  consider  the  millions  of  farming-­‐‑related  jobs  that  thrive  when  the  soils  are  not  damaged  by  kaveera.

-­‐‑

lines  handling  kaveera  production  hardly  employ  a  handful  of  workers.  This,  she  says,  means  that  the  recycling  plants  cannot  go  out  of  business  because  of  the  ban  since  they  are  engaged  into  producing  other  products  for  the  market.Irene  Ssekyana,  the  national  coordinator  

at  Greenwatch,  a  local  NGO  that  promotes  public  participation  in  sustainable  use  and  management  of  the  environment  told  The  Independenthave  been  promising  the  country  since  2008  on  a  strategy  that  would  ensure  that  kaveera  is  well  managed  within  the  coun-­‐‑

try.      “They  promised  to  set  up  collecting  centres  where  kaveera  users  would  dump  their  plastic  waste  and  make  it  easier  for  recyclers  to  pick  it.  They  brought  in  machin-­‐‑ery  to  engage  in  recycling  but  also  they  have  continued  manufacturing  the  banned  gauge  of  polythene  carrier  bags,”  she  said.Ssekyana  says  this  is  just  a  ploy  to  buy  

public  sympathy,  adding  that  the  lobby-­‐‑

interests.In  2002,  Greenwatch  brought  a  case  

before  the  High  Court  in  Kampala  arguing  that  the  rampant  and  uncontrolled  use  of  polythene  bags  poses  a  danger  to  Uganda’s  environment  and  therefore  violates  the  rights  of  Ugandans  to  a  clean  and  healthy  environment.Greenwatch  sought  a  court  injunction  

directing  the  government  to  restore  the  environment  to  the  state  it  was  in  before  plastic  pollution.  Greenwatch  also  sought  an  order  directing  the  importers,  manufac-­‐‑turers,  distributors  of  plastics  to  pay  for  the  costs  of  the  environmental  restoration.A  decade  later,  the  High  Court  ruled  that  

indeed  plastic  bags  are  a  danger  to  Ugan-­‐‑dans  and  therefore  the  government  needs  

urgency.”Going  forward,  Greenwatch  has  formed  

a  loose  platform  of  about  10  environmental  -­‐‑

tation  of  the  ban.  She  says  civil  society  agen-­‐‑cies  are  going  to  rally  the  public  to  ensure  that  the  ban  is  implemented.  “NEMA  needs  a  lot  of  support  at  the  

moment  because  although  they  are  trying  their  best,  they  are  also  being  pulled  and  torn  from  all  sorts  of  directions.”“We  commend  NEMA  with  the  way  they  

have  taken  on  the  issue.  We  shall  support  

them  all  the  way  and  we  shall  see  the  best  way  to  engage  the  citizens  and  take  the  

other  option  is  suing  the  manufacturers  or  supermarkets  that  continue  defying  the  ban.  “We  will  identify  one  and  sue  them  as  an  example  to  the  rest,”  she  said.She  added  that  if  investors  want  to  

blackmail  the  government  using  jobs  and  investment,  they  can  go  ahead  and  do  so  but  Uganda  is  not  going  to  have  investors  coming  here  to  destroy  the  environment  and  refuse  to  replenish  it.Meanwhile  Anywar  says  she  also  intends  

to  mobilize  Ugandans  just  like  she  did  dur-­‐‑ing  the  Mabira  Campaign  in  2007  to  shun  supermarkets  that  will  continue  using  kaveera.

Way forwardAccording  to  the  Washington-­‐‑based  

Earth  Policy  Institute,  around  the  world,  about  one  trillion  single-­‐‑use  plastic  bags  are  distributed  every  year  and  as  a  result  

waterways  as  well  as  choke  animals,  besides  blemishing  the  natural  landscape.Many  countries  have  responded  to  the  

kaveera  menace  by  implementing  bans  or  fees.  The  Earth  Policy  Institute  argues  that  Denmark’s  1993  plastic  shopping  bag  policy  has  probably  been  one  of  the  most  success-­‐‑ful  around  the  world.

-­‐‑ers  by  asking  them  to  pay  a  tax  based  on  the  bag’s  weight  but  stores  were  allowed  to  pass  the  cost  onto  consumers  either  in  bag  charges  or  absorbed  into  the  prices  of  

usage  in  the  country.  

Alternatives: NEMA wants Ugandans to embrace durable shopping bags to save the environment which is choking on kaveera. COURTESY PHOTO

July 03 -‐ 09, 2015

NEWS  ANALYSIS

16