By Sarah Hannan
The Ministry of Environment has taken a firm decision about imposing a ban on single-use plastics. The gazette is scheduled to be published on 31 March 2021, with the ban coming into effect from 1 April 2021 according to the Central Environment Authority (CEA), which will be acting as the regulator.
When The Sunday Morning asked CEA Waste Management Division Director Sarojini Jayasekara whether they have suggested alternatives, she noted: “The immediate alternative for the sachet ban, as communicated to us, is that the brands would keep their product packaging or bottling to 100 g or 100 ml. That is to completely discontinue the production of sachet type packages that are used to market personal care products such as shampoos, conditioners, hairstyling gels, lotions, and creams that were below the quantity of 20 g or 20 ml.”
Jayasekara said that the CEA would allow companies to phase out the products currently in the market, and would have to look at implementing a monitoring mechanism as to whether the brands continue to introduce such packaging after 1 April 2021.
While the government decision is already being challenged by industry giants who are affected by the impending ban, with the grace period being requested to be extended from three months to one year, there also seems to be speculation that some brand producers would exploit the quantity stipulated to their advantage.
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Hemas Holdings Ltd. FMCG Managing Director Sriyan Wijerathne said: “Say we agree to stop introducing products in sachets after the ban and our competitors exploit the minimum quantity of product that can be contained of 20 g or 20 ml and design packaging to accommodate 22 g or 22 ml and introduce it to the market, we do not think the Government could take any action against that. The question then arises as to whether this policy on banning single-use plastics will have any impact at all.”
We then cross questioned Jayasekara on what they have to say, should such an incident take place and whether action would still be taken against them. Responding, Jayasekara stated: “If the producers are looking at turning the cut-off quantity to their advantage, by producing packaging at 22 g or 22 ml, that would be unacceptable and unethical. Furthermore, the monies spent on designing machinery to cater to that requirement could actually be better used in switching to alternative packaging options.”
Public responsibility
However, producers have claimed that although it is convenient to bring in policy changes, changing the behaviour patterns of consumers to co-operate in disposing the plastics responsibly has not been effective. Many operational collection points only receive about 2% of the total packaging that is released to the market. Whereas the rest is disposed irresponsibly, it probably ends up in landfills, waterways, and, in the end, the ocean. “While we look at supporting the Government in the initial stages of reducing plastic packaging introduced to the market, or switching to alternative/biodegradable packaging, we will also have to look at creating awareness among the public on responsible waste disposal. We have taken the initial steps by introducing clearly categorised collection bins for various plastic waste. That means the public has a responsibility in assisting the State as well as us corporates to work towards achieving this goal,” Wijerathne added.Responsibility of corporates
Centre for Environmental Justice Executive Director Hemantha Withanage meanwhile pointed out: “Even though we have made countless efforts in Sri Lanka on waste management, we have always failed. In the past weeks, waste-to-energy projects have been underway, transforming waste into a resource. If we can properly manage this process, it will help us save a lot of money. Today’s world is concentrating on recycling as much as possible. There are a lot of resources and costs involved in products, hence, disposing them after use is no longer affordable. We must concentrate on recycling and reusing as much as possible.” The CEJ recommended that while the single-use plastic ban is imposed on lunch sheets, shopping bags, sachets, small plastic bottles, and other selected items, there needs to be a project that collects large plastic bottles, plastic containers, and yoghurt cups, while other items marked as recyclables should be collected and recycled 100%. The CEJ also recommended that the CEA could also mandate the producers to take full responsibility on ensuring that the plastic packaging they release to the market is recycled. Withanage remarked that the corporate narrative that “plastic pollution is a waste management issue caused by individual consumers” is a false approach. “It is time that they take responsibility and initiate a longstanding action. Corporates are trying to defend that PET bottles are not single-use plastics, which is an incorrect statement. Although they claim that plastics can be recycled, only 2% can be fully recycled, and only 12% has recyclability including upscaling and downscaling. 88% of plastic goes to waste dumps and the ocean.”A temporary fix
While environmentalists and the CEA are trying to pin the burden entirely on the corporates, Wijerathne said that gazetting the ban is more a temporary fix than a permanent solution. “We are not against the Government’s decision to ban and reduce the use of plastic in our day-to-day life. However, imposing a ban in this manner will only make matters worse, with some attempting to steer away and still continue to release packaging in different sizes. Ideally, what should happen is a gradual transition towards a more nature-friendly option of packaging whilst creating awareness among the consumers so that a behavioural change could be instilled.” Hemas Holdings Ltd. has initiated a plastic usage reduction project which is looking at a long-term programme where they can educate consumers on recycling and disposing packaging in a more responsible manner, in order to reduce the damage that single-use plastics are causing to nature. “Once the behavioural change is visible, then they would reach out to a more sustainable packaging option. You cannot get a person who has been using products in sachets to switch to purchasing a larger quantity the next day just to keep up with the government regulations. Consumer education needs to be in place and the Government should allow the companies sufficient time to phase out from the use of single-use plastic as well.” Wijerathne suggests several steps that could be rolled out over a period of time, which are consumer education, government tax concessions to brands that are switching to eco-friendly packaging so that they could sell the products at a more affordable rate, and switching to alternative packaging options where they would change the machinery and use recyclable or reusable packaging.Next step – food packaging
While the debate will go on about personal hygiene product packaging, at the moment the CEA is also looking at the next phase of the single-use plastic ban. Sharing further information about the next phase, CEA Waste Management Division Director said: “We are now looking at reducing the sachet use for food items as well. That needs to be closely looked into, where we would consider the essentials which are packaged in such quantities. Before sachets were introduced, people would purchase items that are only needed in their kitchen in bulk quantities. One such non-essential item that we see packaged in sachets is sauce. If you do not use sauce on everything your household will not purchase a bottle of sauce.” Jayasekara opined that reducing the food industry packaging use would be the most challenging thing given that we are amid a pandemic and to adhere to health and safety guidelines, it is compulsory that food items are well packed and secured. She noted that it would be a project that would require more discussions among the stakeholders as well as changing consumer behaviour in purchasing single serve products. Attempts to contact Unilever Sri Lanka and John Keells Holdings for comment proved futile.