Proposed ban
Sri Lanka’s newly elected Government decided to ban certain plastic products during mid-2020 after the successful election campaign of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The campaign ensured that the usage of plastic was banned throughout the election campaign, setting precedent to other candidate campaigns in avoiding the usage of plastic decorations. Meanwhile, during June of 2020, the coastal stretch of Mount Lavinia saw unprecedented amounts of plastic waste gushing onto the shore prompting immediate action by the Government to control the plastic waste spillage. In October 2020, the ministers of the Cabinet gave the nod to a plastic ban proposal which was developed by the Central Environment Authority (CEA). The ban includes:
- Sachets which are under the weight of 20ml/g and which do not contain edible products or medicinal products will be banned
- Use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material for packing agrochemicals used for any process, trade, or industry will be banned
- Inflatable toys except balloons, balls, water floating/pool toys, and water sports gear will be banned
- Cotton buds with plastic stems except plastic cotton buds used for medical/clinical treatment will be banned
The ban was initially to be introduced by 1 January 2021, but was delayed due to the pressure by manufacturing companies and due to the delays in the legal sector. The proposed ban was then successfully gazetted to be implemented from 1 April 2021 onwards.
Apart from the delays, major flaws in the proposed ban were identified and are as follows;
- Cotton buds are generally used for medical and hygienic purposes where the exception clause added to this section in the proposed ban could hinder any legal action which could be taken against plastic cotton bud manufactures after the ban is implemented
- All inflatable toys fall under the exception clause where they are either used as floating toys or as balls or balloons making this ban completely ineffective
- Only a small portion of plastic bottles will be banned under use of PET or PVC material for packing agrochemicals as these are mostly only found with plastic pesticide bottles. In most cases, a glass bottle is the prevalent substitute
Dilemma in the sachet ban: Survey
A survey on sachets was conducted during the early stages of 2021 to determine the characteristics of the sachets sold in Sri Lanka. Both types of sachets containing consumables and non-consumables were surveyed where the range of weight was up until 60ml/g. A significant sample amount of 64 sachets were used for the survey analysis where the purpose was to determine if the sachets are beneficial or non-beneficial towards scale of economies and to determine which sachets will be banned with the Government’s new regulations.
According to the survey analysis, only 19 sachet brands from 64 will be banned from 1 April 2021 onwards. This is since the Government only sanctions sachets which are under 20ml/g and sachets which contain non-consumables. If the Government-proposed ban is implemented, only 30% of all sachets will be removed from the market.
If the Government had instead proposed the same ban with both types of sachets containing consumables and non-consumables, which are under 20ml/g, 46 sachets out of 64 could have effectively been removed from the market. This accounts to 72% of sachets banned from Sri Lanka.
56% of sachets found in the market consisted of edible and medical products where the proposed ban will be ineffective against the majority. According to the survey, the top three sachet manufacturers in Sri Lanka are Unilever, Nestlé, and Hemas accounting to 45% of sachet brands available in the market.
If the Government genuinely desires to weed off the single-use plastic menace from Sri Lanka, a proper time frame mechanism is required to periodically advance in the follow-up towards banning various other plastic items without providing clauses and exceptions. The recent proposed ban as a whole prohibits only a very insignificant amount of plastic from Sri Lanka. If the definition of a single-use plastic sachet is considered to be a size dimension of 144cm2 or contains equal or less than 50ml/g in weight, 91% of sachets can be removed from our markets, leaving space for better-packaged products while providing optimal benefits for the customer, seller, and the manufacturer.
The survey also highlighted how 55% of sachets are non-beneficial to the consumer in the long term. The quantity of product received for Rs. 1 with sachets is far less compared to purchasing the same product at a higher quantity. This effectively hinders the saving capacity of an individual who purchases sachets on a continuous basis while also making it difficult to make a habitual improvement due to the leakage of income to purchasing sachet products.
Eight percent of sachets have equal price distributions compared to purchasing in bulk, while 37% of products show an added benefit to the consumer through purchasing sachets. The reason for this price alteration can possibly be attributed due to the higher cost in non-sachet product packaging and being sold at supermarkets. The markup price of products found at supermarkets is considerably high compared to average items found at local grocery shops.
Best way out
The above survey analysis determines that the proposed ban on sachets will not have significant impact towards reducing or eliminating sachet use from Sri Lanka. To see an effective implementation of regulating the use of sachets, the primary task is to set a bottom cap on the size and the weight of plastic packaging which includes sachets. The position paper presented to the Ministry of Environment by The Pearl Protectors highlights how setting a bottom cap can both be beneficial to the consumer and the environment. The secondary task is to eliminate the use of commercial sachet usage through a transparent process and in a timely manner. This can be achieved by introducing locally manufactured plastic alternative packaging and incentivising bulk sales. The third phrase should be to introduce a circular production phrase where packaging byproducts or discards must not enter the environment as waste; instead can be reused or upcycled. Meanwhile, national awareness needs to be highlighted towards habitual changes in product purchasing while emphasising carrying self-containers/pouches for product collection. With effective implementation, Sri Lanka has the potential to set global standards on how to stay away from an impending global disaster due to increased sachet production.
Meanwhile, solutions of collecting used sachets have been presented throughout recent history as a possible solution to the increasing sachet waste, but history shows us how these programmes have continuously failed. Unilever, which producers over 40 billion sachets annually, conceptualised a method called “Pyrolysis” in India in 2012. This meant that sachets collected can be heated to create fuel oil and recover 60% of the energy. Heated sachet is converted from a molten state to a vapour state where the condensed vapour is stored in a storage tank. Though this process can be useful, the ineffectiveness of being able to collect the total used sachets led to this method being portrayed as a greenwash.
Other possible alternatives which manufacturers can introduce is to establish automated vending machines where non-consumable products can be sold without packaging. Instead provide a one-time-use package to the consumer where the consumer can be incentivised to reuse the container/pouch/packaging for refilling. Smaller vending machines can be introduced to grocery stores while larger machines can be installed at supermarkets. Meanwhile, the Government of Sri Lanka must consider the severity of the increasing manufacturing of sachets. With effecting regulations, incentives, and awareness on sachets, equal benefits can be harnessed for the consumer, manufacturer, seller, and the environment.
(The article was written by Muditha Katuwawala and the survey was conducted through The Pearl Protectors Advocacy. The author can be reached through dmkatuwawala@gmail.com)
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.
Instagram: @pearlprotectors
