Sri Lanka’s recent move to stop retailers from giving polythene shopping bags free of charge has begun to change consumer behaviour, according to traders and Government officials. However, environmental activists warn that the measure remains legally and politically incomplete unless the money collected from consumers is directed into a public environmental fund and the wider plastic problem is addressed at the level of production.
The current rule came into effect on 1 November 2025 through a Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) directive issued under the CAA Act. It prevents traders from issuing, free of charge, shopping bags made of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), commonly referred to as ‘sili-sili bags’. Retailers are also required to state the price of such bags on the bill issued to consumers and display the price clearly at the place of business.
A drop in use
Since then, major retailers have charged consumers for polythene bags, commonly at rates of Rs. 3 and Rs. 5 depending on size. The stated policy aim is to discourage single-use plastic consumption. Deputy Minister of Environment Anton Jayakody said the measure had had a visible impact.
“What has been happening since last November is that any retailer – especially major supermarkets – will levy a fee of up to Rs. 5 per polythene bag. This is being done to discourage and reduce the overall use of plastic bags. Initially there was about a 50% reduction in plastic bag use at retail outlets. That percentage has now declined to about 40%,” he said.
Traders have also observed a reduction, though at a slightly lower level. Azath Ameen, a member of the Pettah Traders’ Association, said customer use of plastic bags had dropped by around 30–35%.
“There has been a reduction in plastic bag use by customers. Some have opted to bring recycled plastic bags with them, but those are only a handful. I would say I have seen a reduction of about 30–35% in the use of plastic bags,” he said.
However, Ameen said that traders themselves had also had to adapt to the rule.
“From our end, we have had to adapt to the situation. As such, we have now opted to purchase thicker plastic bags that are less harmful to the environment. However, that has also resulted in us incurring a small loss because these bags are more expensive to purchase,” he said.
The Government says it is not earning revenue from the current charge. According to Jayakody, the money collected from consumers does not go to the State.
“The Government does not earn anything from this levy. However, we have informed retailers to provide a small incentive to consumers who bring their own shopping bags with them as a form of promotion. Some retailers are doing this, I believe. There is no plan yet to introduce a polythene tax,” he said.
Tracking the funds
This is where environmental activists see a major gap. Climate Action Now Sri Lanka Co-Founder Melani Gunathilaka said the present system allowed retailers to collect money from consumers without ensuring that the funds were used for environmental purposes.
“The problem at present is that the levy charged from consumers for the purchase of polythene bags is going into the pockets of retailers such as major supermarkets, instead of going into a Government fund which would benefit the State and ultimately the citizenry. However, as far as I know, under the current legislation, there is no mechanism to create or operationalise such a fund. Therefore, at present, this money is being earned by supermarkets,” she said.
Her concern is linked to fresh litigation by the Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ). “In May this year, a court case was filed by the CEJ seeking to establish an environmental conservation levy mechanism using the charges currently imposed on shopping bags, arguing that the funds should be directed to a Government environmental fund rather than retained by private businesses.”
The case was fixed for further hearing on 3 November.
The problem of accountability
For Gunathilaka, the current arrangement also creates a deeper accountability problem. She argues that retailers and producers continue to place plastic packaging on the market while the financial and behavioural burden is shifted to consumers.
“This is problematic because supermarkets are, on one level, responsible to consumers for providing packaging for the goods they purchase. Instead of continuing to issue plastic bags and charging a levy for them, they could have moved towards biodegradable, compostable, or otherwise more environmentally sustainable alternatives. However, they are still issuing plastic bags and charging a levy, and that levy currently does not go into a Government fund, as far as I know,” she said.
She added that plastic policy should not focus only on the point of sale.
“The broader solution to the plastic problem should be sought at the manufacturing level, not only after the product has already been manufactured, sold, and placed in the market. Addressing the problem only at the point of sale takes responsibility away from merchants and manufacturers and places it on consumers.”
This concern becomes sharper in the debate over Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the proposed national environmental legislation. EPR is generally understood as a system that places responsibility on producers for the collection, recycling, and end-of-life management of products and packaging they place on the market.
Sri Lanka’s proposed environmental reforms have been presented by Government officials as a way to shift the burden of plastic and polythene waste management from the public to producers.
However, Gunathilaka said that the National Environmental (Amendment) Bill contained an internal contradiction.
“Politically, this is problematic because it places the main accountability and responsibility for plastic waste on consumers. The second issue concerns the new National Environmental (Amendment) Bill. The bill includes Extended Producer Responsibility. In the definition of ‘producer’ in Subsection 6, consumers are not included. The definition covers manufacturers, importers, distributors, converters, and sellers. This is consistent with the internationally standard understanding of EPR.”
However, she argued that the operative provisions of the bill then added consumers as responsible parties alongside importers, manufacturers, vendors, and handlers.
“However, Subsections 2 and 3 then explicitly add consumers as responsible parties alongside importers, manufacturers, vendors, and handlers. These subsections therefore directly contradict the stated definition of ‘producer’. They also extend legal and financial liability, including criminal liability under Subsection 5, to consumers for the end-of-life management of products they purchase,” she said.
Gunathilaka stated that this was unfair because consumers did not design packaging, manufacture products, or decide what materials were placed on the market.
“Consumers’ purchasing ability is usually shaped by their socio-economic status. Sustainable or eco-friendly goods that come with biodegradable or compostable packaging are often sold at higher prices. As a result, consumers from lower socio-economic backgrounds are often unable to purchase those goods. In addition to the burdens they already face because of their economic position, they are also given responsibility and liability for plastic packaging that they had no role in designing, manufacturing, packaging, or placing in the market,” she said.
The path ahead
The issue therefore has two layers. The first is the current shopping bag charge: it may reduce plastic bag use, but the money collected from consumers does not currently go to the State. The second is the proposed EPR framework: while the Government presents it as a producer-responsibility mechanism, activists are concerned that consumers could still be treated as legally responsible parties.
Sri Lanka’s polythene bag charge has produced measurable behavioural change. Both Government and trader accounts indicate a reduction in use. However, the policy remains contested because the charge operates at the point of consumption, while the plastic problem begins much earlier – in design, production, importation, distribution, and retail packaging decisions.
For the current measure to become more than a consumer-level disincentive, the Government may need to clarify three matters: where the money collected from shopping bag charges should go, whether a legally recognised environmental fund will be created or activated, and whether future EPR rules will place responsibility primarily on producers rather than consumers.
The outcome of the case filed by the CEJ could also affect the national plastic policy as a whole.
Until those questions are answered, the polythene bag fee will remain a partial environmental measure: useful in reducing consumption, but incomplete as a system of plastic accountability.