lastic bags are one of the world’s top consumer products, the most ubiquitous, and one of the world’s most banned items. The proliferation of plastic in everyday life is hitting extreme levels and should be of concern for all nations.

According to recent research by Plastics Europe, the world produces around 359 million tonnes of plastic annually. Eight million tonnes of this plastic ends up in the oceans yearly, mostly through rivers, which are direct conduits of trash from some of the world’s fastest-growing cities into the marine environment.

The global market, valued at $568.9 billion in 2019 is projected to reach almost $1 trillion by 2035.The United Nations estimates that between one and five trillion bags are produced worldwide. Even using the lowest figure, this translates into two million bags per minute. The proliferation of bags is enough to overwhelm even Western nations‘ waste collection systems.

The consumption of single-use plastic shopping bags has grown exponentially because of their desirable properties, e.g., light weight, reusable, durable and inexpensive. However, plastic bags leave an adverse environmental footprint. They clog drains, endanger marine life and cause health concerns for people.

The environmental and socio-economic concerns have motivated many countries to impose sanctions on the production and use of plastic shopping bags. According to the United Nations, 128 nations have implemented bans on plastic bags and plastic bag regulation has grown quickly.

The plastic bag bans in Pakistan date back to 1994 when the Sindh government banned the production, sale, purchase and use of black polyethylene bags. Bangladesh was the first country to pass the bag ban nationally in 2002. Since then, many countries have passed similar laws.

The African continent now leads the world in bag regulations, with 34 countries adopting bans (or taxes). Kenya‘s penalties are the world’s harshest. The manufacturers, importers, distributors and users face up to $38,000 in fines or four years in prison.

Despite the ban, the consumption of plastic bags is widespread in Pakistan. A recent study surveyed the effectiveness of the plastic bag ban in Islamabad’s markets. The results showed that except for posh area markets, such as F-6, F-7, and F-8, the plastic bag ban was ineffective in the entire Islamabad Capital Territory.

The vast majority of retailers said that the plastic bags ban was quite effective at the beginning of the enforcement period in 2019. Markets were regularly monitored and fines were imposed. However, the enforcement regime weakened over time and retailers resumed plastic bag use. A significant reason why retailers resumed the use of plastic bags was that the ban was not implemented across the board. When one shopkeeper started offering plastic bags, using expensive polymer bags was no longer sustainable for the other retailers. The whole market reverted to plastic bags within a short time.

It is a classic case of the famous “dynamo effect,” large stores complied with the ban regime but small retailers generally defied it. Over 75 percent of retailers believe that they are unlikely to be caught and over 80 percent believe they are unlikely to be fined for violating the ban. These figures suggest that enforcement of the ban is weak and there is a sense of impunity among retailers.

The finding implies that the regulatory framework is inadequate and the penalties for violating the ban are not severe enough to deter retailers from using plastic bags.

Monitoring and enforcement generate deterrence but there are limits to such deterrence... The government should identify soft policy tools to encourage people to reduce the use of plastic.

Interestingly, bans are spreading around the globe but their effectiveness remains questionable. Whether the bans can significantly reduce plastic waste, which leaks into the oceans at an average rate of 8 million tonnes a year, remains to be seen, considering that plastic production is forecast to double by 2040 and may account for 20 percent of the world’s oil production by 2050.

Research indicates that the plastic ban policy yielded only short-term success. For instance, Hetauda Municipality in Nepal announced a ban on plastic bags in 1995. It faded away and the use of plastic bags returned to the pre-ban level within a year. Similar trends of ban dilution have been observed in other cities worldwide.

A ban on thin plastic bags was implemented in India in 2009. However, the ban’s efficacy was diluted within a year. Analogous results can be traced in Bangladesh where the production and distribution of plastic bags are banned but this ban is routinely violated.

In the Kenyan case, the bans seem compelling. This has allowed many policy experts to conclude that the bans have to be drastic and the penalties harsh so that people dare not ignore them. They say that if rules can’t be effectively implemented, then there is no need to make them. However, the Kenyan success has had a very high social cost and the ban has faced severe challenges. The ban has faced fierce opposition from the public and resulted in an estimated 100,000 job losses. It has also prompted the creation of “bag cartels” that smuggle illegal plastic bags from the neighbouring Uganda and Tanzania.

Geoffrey Wahungu, the director general of the National Environment Management Authority, conceded in an interview that the government failed initially to consider what alternative products could replace the banned plastics.

The political opposition to the bans is also high and has gained a boost from a handful of studies that have highlighted the limitations of bans. For example, Rebecca Taylor found that the shopping bag ban reduced about 40 million pounds of plastic waste in California. But she also found that sales of trash bags rose, offsetting the reduction in plastic bags to 28 million pounds.

Similarly, researchers at the University of Georgia suggest that banning the sale of plastic bags may come with a sidedish of unintended consequences. The analysis suggests that plastic bag ban policies, while they may be well-intentioned, may end up having the opposite effect. The issue is that grocery bags are viewed as single-use items but they often get a short second lease on life as liners for small trash cans.

Absent the shopping bags, people look for alternatives which the researchers suggest means they buy small plastic garbage bags (an additional cost to the households). Another argument against bans is that they disproportionately harm poor people who rely on free, inexpensive, sturdy sacks to carry goods and store belongings.

It can be concluded that the enforcement of the ban could be challenging for the regulators in Pakistan because of ineffective ban enforcement capabilities (such as limited financial and physical resources) at the disposal of the Environmental Protection Agency. Even if sufficient physical and financial resources were available, the strict and harsh enforcement of the ban might not be advisable because of the high social cost.

There is evidence also that monitoring and enforcement generate deterrence effects but there are limits to such deterrence. Therefore, the government should identify additional soft policy tools, such as incentives and nudges to encourage people to reduce the use of plastic.

The writer is an associate professor at the Department of Economics, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus.