As we are well aware, the Ministry of Environment has taken a firm decision in regard to the imposition of the ban on sachet packets, inflatable toys, and cotton buds with plastic stems. According to the extraordinary gazette, the ban is scheduled to be implemented with effect from 1 April 2021, according to the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) which will be acting as the regulator. Responding to a question raised with regard to  suggested alternatives, CEA Waste Management Division Director Sarojini Jayasekara, speaking to The Sunday Morning Business,  said: “The immediate alternative for the sachet ban, as communicated to us, is that brands that keep their product packaging or bottling to 100 g or 100 ml 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 are below the quantity of 20 g or 20 ml.” Commenting further, Jayasekara said the CEA will allow companies to phase out the products currently in the market and look at implementing a monitoring mechanism as to whether the brands continue to introduce such packaging after 1 April 2021. In consideration of this gazette, let us discuss how this is going to impact leading companies and consumers in Sri Lanka.   Corporates Speaking to The Sunday Morning Business, Hemas Holdings Ltd. FMCG Managing Director Sriyan de Silva Wijeyeratne said that Hemas would be asking for an extension, since the company already has many products that are currently in the manufacturing process, materials coming down from abroad, and products already on shelves. “We are absolutely supportive of this direction and we are fully behind it, but where we struggle is the process of it being executed, as matters regarding providing adequate time have not been addressed by the Government. Hence, an extension would be requested to meet our solutions,” Wijeyeratne said. When inquired about what would be the alternatives for sachet packets that are currently being produced at Hemas Holdings, Wijeyeratne said that if all players are given the same set of guidelines, adequate time, and other related regulations, then the entire industry could readjust for alternatives. Elaborating further, Wijeyeratne said that different packaging size options can be considered in terms of alternatives for the entire industry; for instance, increased size of the packaging and the different form of larger packaging, biodegradable packaging, etc. However, he said that some of these options are very expensive for consumers to pay, thereby bringing the question of willingness to purchase, considering these options. “Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, there is little appetite from consumers for the willingness of something environmentally effective, as we still don't have that trend coming in yet. Hence, this has to be done through the regulation,” Wijeyeratne added.   Impact When questioned regarding how Hemas Holdings will cater to lower-income families in terms of providing essential sachet packets, he said the decision taken by the Government definitely has consequences. Therefore, if the Government wants the lower-income people to still access these products for the price point, then the Government needs to think of a subsidy mechanism. “For instance, if sachet isn't allowed, a larger packaging which has two or three usages of the same product but is given at the same price per gram should be introduced – but with the same price level, or else, if it's not practical, a 5% tax per unit of sachet could be implemented,” he added. When contacted by The Sunday Morning Business, Unilever Sri Lanka Spokesperson Johann Munaweera noted that Unilever Sri Lanka is committed to the Government’s objective of reducing plastic pollution. In this regard, the organisation is “reducing virgin plastic content on the one hand and using reusable, recyclable, or compostable elements in our packaging on the other, while also, aiming to collect more plastic than we sell”. Munaweera also pointed out that most of Unilever Sri Lanka’s brands contain recyclable packaging, as a result of a strategy implemented over the last two years to significantly reduce the amount of plastic used in packaging. Another mitigation strategy the organisation uses is to collect more plastic than it sells. To this end, it has partnered with a growing network of local councils to collect plastic waste. It has also enlisted the support of retail partners and its network of door-to-door entrepreneurs to collect plastic waste at trade points, while functioning a mega collection mechanism to extract waste disposed of in natural reserves.   A circular economy “In terms of single use plastics, what we believe would create a viable and lasting impact to Sri Lanka are sustainable solutions aligned to the principles of a circular economy. The solutions should take into consideration the right technology, engage all partners across the value chain, and look for long-term strategies that can sustain a flourishing economy, whilst preserving our environment,” elaborated Munaweera. “A circular economy for plastics would also help the economy advance by generating opportunities for livelihoods, technology, and investments around plastic waste management, such as waste collection, segregation, processing, recycling, re-use, and waste to energy conversion of non-recyclable waste. It would also enable consumers to continue experiencing safe and affordable daily essentials.” To further this ideal, Unilever looks forward to partnering with the Government and other relevant stakeholders to implement sustainable solutions that mitigate any environmental impacts in the country.   Consumers According to him, there will be more than one entity affected by the implementation of this ban. “Some of the low-income earners would find it less interesting, less attractive, and less affordable, so they will alter their lifestyle where they will probably consume less of what they desire to spend that money for the increased price of essential products; for example, they will stop purchasing books to purchase a shampoo product.”   Industry Wijeyeratne said that in terms of an industry or a manufacturing plant producing these items, the impact could be much drastic and this is due to the adverse impact which will be present after an increase in the price level of essential products. “When prices rise, the quantum of demand will go down. We must definitely approach the environmental issue; it is an absolute must, but we must also balance the interest of consumers in regard to supporting them with what they demand,” he emphasised. Giving the concluding remark, Wijeyeratne urged the Government to not take decisions that will impact the dynamics of the industry. “For instance, the decision should not be made to make one competitor better than the other, but it should be a level playing field for everyone,” he added.   Background on sachets  The concept of sachets was introduced by FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) market players on the basis of affordability and as a measure of resource allocation. Someone who cannot afford a full bottle of shampoo or any other equivalent product can use a sachet as a one-time usable product based on the requirement. A good reason why sachets are currently predominantly available in the trade is that it is a cheaper alternative that can be afforded by anyone including low-income families. The advantage from the manufacturer’s end is that by using sachets, it helps allocate raw materials effectively and allow them to reach the market efficiently. In light of this, we spoke to a plastic cotton bud company that would be subjected to this ban within the time frame given by the Government. A senior company official, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Sunday Morning Business that the industry has already found an alternative in terms of producing cotton buds to the general public. “However, we are planning on asking for an extension as it will take time to get down the essential manufacturing products from our international supplier,” the official said. When inquired whether the prices will go above the current selling rate, the official said: “Plastic is inexpensive; however, the alternative for cotton buds would be paper or wood, which generally has a higher price than plastic. As such, the prices will definitely go up as the cost of production of the industry would go up.” When contacted by The Sunday Morning Business, Unilever Sri Lanka Spokesperson Johann Munaweera noted that Unilever Sri Lanka is committed to the Government’s objective of reducing plastic pollution. In this regard, the organisation is “reducing virgin plastic content on the one hand and using reusable, recyclable, or compostable elements in our packaging on the other, while also, aiming to collect more plastic than we sell”. Munaweera also pointed out that most of Unilever Sri Lanka’s brands contain recyclable packaging, as a result of a strategy implemented over the last two years to significantly reduce the amount of plastic used in packaging. Another mitigation strategy the organisation uses is to collect more plastic than it sells. To this end, it has partnered with a growing network of local councils to collect plastic waste. It has also enlisted the support of retail partners and its network of door-to-door entrepreneurs to collect plastic waste at trade points, while functioning a mega-collection mechanism to extract waste disposed of in natural reserves.   A circular economy “In terms of single use plastics, what we believe would create a viable and lasting impact to Sri Lanka are sustainable solutions aligned to the principles of a circular economy. The solutions should take into consideration the right technology, engage all partners across the value chain, and look for long-term strategies that can sustain a flourishing economy, whilst preserving our environment,” elaborated Munaweera. “A circular economy for plastics would also help the economy advance by generating opportunities for livelihoods, technology, and investments around plastic waste management, such as waste collection, segregation, processing, recycling, re-use, and waste to energy conversion of non-recyclable waste. It would also enable consumers to continue experiencing safe and affordable daily essentials.” To further this ideal, Unilever looks forward to partnering with the Government and other relevant stakeholders to implement sustainable solutions that mitigate any environmental impacts in the country.   Consumers According to him, there will be more than one entity affected by the implementation of this ban. “Some of the low-income earners would find it less interesting, less attractive, and less affordable, so they will alter their lifestyle where they will probably consume less of what they desire to spend that money for the increased price of essential products; for example, they will stop purchasing books to purchase a shampoo product.” Industry Wijeyeratne said that in terms of an industry or a manufacturing plant producing these items, the impact could be much drastic and this is due to the adverse impact which will be present after an increase in the price level of essential products. “When prices rise, the quantum of demand will go down. We must definitely approach the environmental issue; it is an absolute must, but we must also balance the interest of consumers in regard to supporting them with what they demand,” he emphasised. Giving the concluding remark, Wijeyeratne urged the Government to not take decisions that will impact the dynamics of the industry. “For instance, the decision should not be made to make one competitor better than the other,but it should be a level playing field for everyone,” he added.   Background on sachets The concept of sachets was introduced by FMCG (fast-moving consumer goods) market players on the basis of affordability and as a measure of resource allocation. Someone who cannot afford a full bottle of shampoo or any other equivalent product can use a sachet as a one-time usable product based on the requirement. A good reason why sachets are currently predominantly available in the trade is that it is a cheaper alternative that can be afforded by anyone including low income families. The advantage from the manufacturer’s end is that by using sachets, it helps allocate raw materials effectively and allow them to reach the market efficiently. In light of this, we spoke to a plastic cotton bud company that would be subjected to this ban within the time frame given by the Government. A senior company official, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Sunday Morning Business that the industry has already found an alternative in terms of producing cotton buds to the general public. “However, we are planning on asking for an extension as it will take time to get down the essential manufacturing products from our international supplier,” the official said. When inquired whether the prices will go above the current selling rate, the official said: “Plastic is inexpensive; however, the alternative for cotton buds would be paper or wood, which generally has a higher price than plastic. As such, the prices will definitely go up as the cost of production of the industry would go up.”   Consumer Speaking to The Sunday Morning Business, author and public policy specialist Thisuri Wanniarachchi said that due to this new ban, the negative externalities of this decision outweighs the positive externalities for consumers. Explaining further, Wanniarachchi said that due to the inflation rate (NCPI) of 4.6% as of January 2021, which has risen in comparison to 1.9% in January 2019, more and more people are struggling to put food on the table. “Working families, especially daily wage earners, are unable to bulk-buy essentials and thus rely on budget packs and sachets to make ends meet. In this context, the ban on single-use plastic sachets is a double whammy on low-income households,” Wanniarachchi noted. Adding to the sentiments, Wanniarachchi said that most multinational corporations that produce these sachets such as milk powder do so at little to no profit. “While I was Lead Analyst of the Ministry of Economic Reform, I had to negotiate with multiple corporations when putting together price formulae for essential commodities. During these negotiations, I learned that most multinational companies are happy to discontinue these budget packs and sometimes even use it as a threat when we push them to optimise their costing,” she explained. She said she personally believes that the best way to clean our environment and protect the planet from the climate crisis is by redistributing wealth through progressive taxation. Wanniarachchi said that due to climate injustice, the disproportionately high impact of climate change is faced by poor families, and the general public at large is to bear the burden of bearing environmental damage caused by economic activities. “This would mean that we have tax corporations to disincentivise pollution and refunnel that tax income generated to fund effective green solutions to the environmental problems we face,” Wanniarachchi said. “I find it amusing that we always choose to put the blame of our national problems on the poor, although most of them are caused by actions and a lack of action by the wealthy and powerful. It's time we built a more equitable society and made Sri Lanka a more livable place for all, not just the wealthy,” Wanniarachchi concluded.   Initial attempts to ban plastic The first attempt to regulate plastic use in Sri Lanka came in 1994 during the period Srimani Athulathmudali was the Minister of Environment. The proposal to ban high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags, along with several guidelines with less than 20 microns in thickness, was put forward. This, however, has not been implemented to date. In January 2007, a ban was imposed by former President Maithripala Sirisena who was the Minister of Environment at that time. Under Section 23W of the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980, Gazette Notification No. 1466/5 was issued banning the use of polythene that was less than 20 microns in thickness. However, this was not effectively enforced since it was not easy to measure thickness during raids. Then, a conservation levy was introduced for HDPE bags in 2008 under the Environment Conservation Levy Act No. 26 of 2008. However, it was abandoned after a Supreme Court (SC) order was issued against charging Rs. 2 for a plastic bag. Later on, former President Sirisena introduced a set of regulations in 2017 to stop the use of HDPE bags, lunch sheets, and polystyrene boxes. Gazette Notification No. 2034/33, dated 1 September 2017, was issued under the National Environmental Act for the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of polythene and related products. This measure prohibited the manufacture of polythene or any polythene product of 20 microns or below in thickness for in-country use or sale, offer for sale, offer free of charge, exhibition, or use of polythene or any polythene product which is 20 microns or below in thickness within the country. Additionally, Gazette Notification No. 2034/34, dated 1 September 2017, prohibited the manufacture to produce food wrappers from polythene as a raw material for in-country use, and the sale, offer for sale, offer free of charge, exhibition, or use of food wrappers manufactured from polythene as a raw material within the country. For the purposes of this order, “food wrappers” means lunch sheets; “polythene” includes HDPE, low-density polyethylene, and polypropylene. Furthermore, Gazette Notification No. 2034/35, issued in September 2017, also banned the manufacture of any HDPE bag as a raw material for in-country use, and sale, offer for sale, offer free of charge, exhibition, or use of any bag manufactured from HDPE as a raw material within the country. In addition to these, some others include Gazette Notification No. 2034/36 issued in September 2017 that prohibited open burning of refuse and other combustible matters inclusive of plastics; Gazette Notification No. 2034/37 issued in September 2017 that prohibited the use of all forms of polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene products, or polypropylene products as decoration in political, social, religious, national, cultural, or any other event or occasion; and Gazette Notification No. 2034/38 issued in September 2017 that banned the manufacture of food containers, plates, cups, and spoons from expanded polystyrene for in-country use, and the sale, offer for sale, offer free of charge, exhibition, or use of food containers, plates, cups, and spoons manufactured from expanded polystyrene within the country. However, none of these attempts made a significant impact on plastic pollution in Sri Lanka. This is mainly due to the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism by governmental agencies including the CEA. The solution to this problem is twofold: Firstly, having a firm, timely, and realistic decision for all corporates and manufactures in Sri Lanka with one regulation after considering the concerns issued by them; and secondly, for the government to start informing the people in a regular basis on this plastic ban issue so that all people can be prepared when things are in the execution stage by the corporates. By this, both parties mainly involved will be benefiting and an effective solution could be collectively taken in regard to resolving this issue.