An apparent welcome step of the central government for banning single-use plastic (SUP) has been viewed with scepticism by various quarters. The apprehension of its success stems from the fact that many times such attempts have been made with limited or no success. The impacts of plastics have been increasingly felt now with multiple pieces of evidence emerging not only from many other parts of the world but also from India.
Microplastics emerge as finer pointers of its prevalence across our food chain, water and air. However, the major factor of SUP for India in immediate terms is its visible presence along drains, tourist spots, across railway lines, open drains, river banks and coastal beaches. World average plastic consumption is about 2.5 times higher than India, however, its impacts on long-term use and its indiscriminate disposal have started showing its impact.
India generates about 3.3 million metric tons of plastic waste per year, as reported by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). India’s national per capita plastic waste generation is 7.6 gm/day. Goa leads first, which produces 61.2gm/day followed by Delhi & Chandigarh (CSE, 2020). Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh together generate two-thirds of the country’s plastic waste.
The restricted activities during the pandemic led to an exponential rise in home delivery for almost all categories of products. Food and groceries packaging primarily accounts for the largest SUP consumption. Even when a pandemic has ebbed, the demand for home delivery still remains high. The current list of banned SUP items includes – earbuds with plastic sticks, plastic sticks for balloons, plastic flags, candy sticks, ice-cream sticks, plastic plates, cups, glasses, cutlery (forks, spoons, knives), thermocol for decoration, straw, trays, wrapping or packaging films around sweet boxes, invitation cards, cigarette packets, plastic or PVC banners less than 100 micron and stirrers.
Mumbai and its adjoining regions witness the impact of plastic consumption and unregulated disposal during monsoon times along beaches and sea fronts. The issue of SUP’s impact on the environment can be judged from the fact that their damages cannot be reversed through clean-up processes. Mangroves patches across MMR have been impacted with huge quantities of plastic debris which cannot be manually cleaned. Many tourist spots near Mumbai are becoming hotspots of plastic litter, especially in valleys which are inaccessible and cannot be cleaned.
Earlier, bans on products and the quality of plastics used based on thickness have not been very successful. The popular perception of poor outcomes has been linked to inadequate enforcement; however, it cannot be the only reason for use of banned plastic products. There is a need to reassess the issues of the ban on SUPs. It will be important to assess the overall need of specific product categories where plastic was being used and provide alternatives.
A few important reasons for the ban not working out have been: the unavailability of workable alternatives, the effectiveness of the alternative to meet the needs of the product manufacturer and its use, the cost of the alternatives, local availability and finally user acceptance. An example of an earlier ban was when plastic spoons/cutleries were replaced with wooden alternatives, the impact on forests increased and, in many cases, the products were imported. The social aspects of those who are involved in this sector also need serious consideration.
The current ban must be combined with various other supporting decisions besides strict enforcement. Some of these could be:
Identify alternatives and support their use through certification. It’s needed as many times the alternatives are pushed with camouflaged look/compositions
Government must create a framework where SSI and small entrepreneurs are given incentives for material and supply chain
Corporates procuring these materials must partner on a long-term basis so that business (job) uncertainty is minimised.
Analysis of alternatives (for example paper cups/bags, clay-based pots/cups, poor quality cloth bags etc) must include the real impacts that they cause. They can be many times not sustainable alternatives if the sources are not sustainably managed.
Finally, the SUP ban must be viewed as a new opportunity for all the stakeholders to evolve and think differently. The strict enforcement of regulations alone will not yield the sustainable result that we all look forward to. The better start line for India can be to review all single-use product manufacturing and import with a view to meet the larger objectives of a resource efficiency-based circular economy.
(Rakesh Kumar is the former director of the CSIR- National Environmental Engineering Research Institute)