The incidence of environmental pollution through the inappropriate disposal of plastic bags and its attendant consequences to the environment and human life cannot be over-emphasized.
Research has shown that a single plastic bag could take up to at least a hundred years to at most a thousand years to fully degrade or get decomposed. The effects of this becomes that they get stuck in the soil, thus releasing toxic chemical substances (phythalate acid) that deteriorate the soil’s quality. This is not to talk of the effect it has on sea life as research has revealed that about a hundred thousand sea animals die from consuming plastic bag debris attributable either due to choking or from the toxic chemical content used in producing plastic bags. Blocked sewage systems (which aids flooding) are often due to improperly disposed plastic bags that clog the water way in sewer systems.
The above concerns are obviously part of the reasons which gave impetus to the House of Representative to conclude its part of the deliberations and law making process towards passing the Plastic Bags (Prohibition) Bill into law on Tuesday, 21st May, 2019.
The Bill - a 3 clause document – was deliberated upon by the House Committee on the Environment and Habitat (a Committee of the Whole) and passed. It is expected that the Bill will be transmitted to the Senate for its own deliberation and approval before proceeding for executive assent to be passed on it.
While waiting for the Senate and Executive to do the needful, it is the aim of this article to analyze the provisions of the Bill towards seeking out the loopholes inherent therein and hopefully, bring the attention of the relevant stakeholders to same before the Bill is passed into law.
The Bill proposes that the usage, importing or selling of plastic bags be criminalized. According to the Bill, where a retailer offers a plastic bag to a customer to package the items bought from the retailer, the retailer is liable to be punished. The implication therefore is that the customer is not liable even though he or she received the plastic bag. The Bill further proposes that a customer must be offered a paper bag by the retailer at the point of sale.
On the other hand, the Bill also proposes to criminalize the manufacturing of plastic bags that are meant to be sold. Importation of plastic bags for the purpose of selling same or using them as carryout bags is also proposed as a criminal offense in the Bill.
Noteworthy in all of these is the fact that any person found guilty of breaching the contents of the Bill (after it must have come into law) will be liable to pay either a sum not exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000) as fine or be imprisoned for a term of not more than three years or a combination of both punishments. In the event that it is a company or organization that has run afoul of the provisions of the Bill (after same must have been enacted into law), such company or organization shall be liable to pay a fine not exceeding of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000).
While the effort of the House of Representatives must be commended in path-finding this cause, certain provisions of the Bill (as well as the absence some provisions which are considered vital) are quite worrisome especially when same is critically considered.
The Bill concentrates only on plastic bags emanating from customer and retailer relationships, production companies and importation as though those are the only means that plastic bags emanate from to become waste. The incidence of sachet foods - like “pure water”, paste sachet tomato, sachet powdered milk, etc - especially in a country where most Nigerians still live under the poverty line and can only afford to buy items in smaller proportions usually packed in little plastic bags is one major method wherefrom plastic bags contribute towards environmental pollution.
It is further observed in the Bill that the manufacturing of plastic bags can only be criminalized where same is done for commercial purpose. Hence, where manufacturing of plastic bags is carried out for a purpose otherwise than for sale, the manufacturer will be considered having acted legally. This clearly defeats the purpose of the Bill. Same line of thought also applies to the provision relating to importation of plastic bags as according to the Bill, the only situation where criminal intent can be established in such a scenario is where the importation is done with the purpose of selling the plastic bag or using same as a “carryout bag”. As if the above lapse was not enough, the definition of what a carryout bag is was not provided anywhere in the Bill. This leaves room for further ambiguity.
In addition to the above, it is observed that the outright ban of plastic bags without, at least, giving a period within which plastic bags can be phased out is one measure that will most likely yield little or no success. In a country where everyone desires a plastic bag to package even the littlest of commodities, it is wondered whether such attitude will immediately phase out without adopting other friendlier measures for a start before proceeding to the stricter regime of banning plastic bags. This will allow for a gradual transition towards the bigger picture. Consequently, it is suggested that it should be incorporated in the Bill that, as a first point of action, a regime, taxing customers who desire to use plastic bags as well as producers or importers of plastic bags should be put in place and made operational within a time frame before deploying the measure of a total ban; by which time the users and producers of plastic bags would have naturally grown disaffectionate with using plastic bags. This idea has been deployed in several countries and nations of the world (including the United Kingdom) and is yielding success. In New Zealand, the government gave a six months ultimatum commencing from August, 2018 to phase out the use of plastic bags before deploying a complete ban. The United States capital, Washington D.C. also deployed the taxation measure in 2009 while using the funds amassed as a result towards cleaning up the Anacostia River. The result was that there was an 85% reduction in the consumption of plastic bags from 22.5 million bags per month to 3.3 million bags per month. It is advised that Nigeria takes cue.
In a world where recycling has now become a viable solution to the problem of waste management, one is quite surprised at the absence of that option in the Bill. Research has shown that a ton of recycled plastic bags has the potential to save about 685 gallons of oil as the polyethylene used in the production of plastic bags comes from petroleum, a non-renewable source. The manufacturing process of plastic bags involves deploying lots of energy. By recycling one ton of plastic bags, 5,774 kilowatts/hour is saved. One ton of plastic bags that is recycled can also save 30 cubic yards of landfill space. The recycling model will also help to avoid drastic loss of jobs that banning the production of plastic bags for sale will inevitably lead to.
It is advised that the above considerations should be had especially by the Senate while it considers the Bill before it as whatever is worth doing is worth being done properly.