According to Bill Naude, chairperson of the Plastics Federation, demand for plastic bags has fallen by up to 90% since the government introduced legislation making the use of heavier gauge carrier bags compulsory.
Plastic bag manufacturers hope consumers have overreacted and that more will be prepared to pay for bags in time. But a year after a similar “Plastax” of â,¬15c was introduced on bags in Ireland demand fell by 90% in that country.
The Irish industry only comprises four companies employing 177 people. South Africa, on the other hand, has a mature industry employing more than 4 000 people.
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism claims the new regulations have succeeded and that the plastic bag agreement is good for the economy.
But does it honestly believe that no workers will lose their jobs, when bag production by South Africa’s largest manufacturer is down by 70%?
When the new legislation was introduced the department said 1 800 to 3 800 jobs would be created in the recycling industry. How, when the demand for plastic bags continues to drop?
The agreement provides for the creation of a not-for-profit company funded by a 2c levy on bags, which among other things, will promote efficiency in the use and disposal of bags and create between 180 and 220 permanent jobs. With a drop in demand, where will it find the funding?
The department claims that by making carrier bags slightly thicker and controlling the use of printing ink, value is added in terms of recovery and recycling. The question is, how much?
Two hundred thousand thinner bags, at five grams each, are required for a ton of plastic. Post-consumer plastic film fetches about R1 000 a ton, as it is heavily contaminated. The mandatory increase in gauge means 100 000 bags still have to be collected for a ton of plastic — hardly stimulating recycling.
If the government and industry were serious about recycling they would assign the bags a real value and agree to pay for returns. But this would cost money.
Scavengers for recyclables concentrate on landfill sites where thicker bags are in a lower state of entropy. The benefits of pulling bags out of the dump need to be measured against the health risk — whether bags are thin or thick, contamination is a problem.
The collection of plastic bag litter will likely be left to municipalities. Voluntary clean-ups account for less than 5% of beach litter collected, and the figure is probably much lower for roadside litter. In addition, the thick bags will last much longer outdoors.
The department claims the regulations will modernise the economy and increase South Africa’s competitiveness. The opposite is true. Plastic bags started out at a 30-micron thickness in the 1980s, but because of advances in materials and processes have now been reduced to 17-microns or less.
This global trend of “dematerialisation” is an example of the “reduce” principle. The regulations are a step backwards, and will make South African bag exports uncompetitive.
One intention of the regulations is the re-use of the thicker bags. However, the thin bag was extensively reused as a kitchen tidy bag. A major constraint on the re-use of plastic bags is contamination from meat and milk spills and leakage from detergents. Here, the gauge does not make a difference.
Thin bags fulfil an important role in separating detergents and meat from other groceries. I have heard that one supermarket packs meat and dairy products in thin bags before repacking them into the customers’ re-usable bags. How would the department respond to this?
Less than 40% of retailers signed the agreement to charge for bags and reduce the price of goods accordingly. This means large retailers must subsidise food prices to the tune of more than R200-million every year.
According to Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mohammed Valli Moosa, the government will not monitor the regulations. We can only hope retailers act with integrity and reduce food prices with their savings.
What of the other 60% of retailers? Many seem to have jumped on the bandwagon and are charging for bags. They have no obligation to reduce prices with the money they save. They are enjoying a “double dip” — charging for bags that used to be free and making a profit on them. This will increase inflation and hit the man in the street.
It appears the minister is not interested in legislating on this point. The elements of the agreement that require regulation do not include charging for the bags, which is a matter of negotiation between the large retailers, the government and labour.
The retailers would have you believe that the cost of the 24-litre bag is 46c — 38c plus the 2c levy, plus 5c VAT. It would be interesting to calculate the true cost after volume discounts and other rebates.
The large retailers agreed on three standard sizes of bags at standard prices, as they were terrified that one retailer may charge less and that the public would switch allegiance to that store.
The retail industry employs 70 000 packers, most of them casuals. The agreement obliges the retailers to retain their jobs. But the 60% of retailers that did not sign the agreement have no obligation to retain the packers. Can the country afford the additional unemployment?
Paper bags use more resources, cause more pollution during production and transport and take up more landfill space than plastic bags. But paper bags are not regulated. Already several retailers have moved across to paper bags. Does the department believe the manufacture of paper bags should be promoted?
By reducing its lifetime, plastic bag litter can be managed at acceptable levels. Since the United States legislated that beverage ring carriers must be photodegradable, there has been a tenfold reduction in these articles observed as litter.
Plastic bags in South Africa make up only 5% to 10% of roadside litter and 2% of beach litter. A tenfold reduction would surely reduce them to a manageable level.
Felix de Kleijn is managing director of the company Evergreen Environmental