Nairobi city council policy and regulatory framework for waste reuse in kenya

POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE REUSE IN KENYA

Dr. Leah Oyake-Ombis

Chief Officer-Environment and Forestry

Presentation Outline

• Introduction• Current situation• Policy gaps• Efforts towards Policy development• Effects of Policy directives• Lobbying for better Policies• Opportunities in existing Policies• Conclusion• Recommendations

21-05-2015 Environment and Forestry Sub-sector Nairobi City County2

Introduction

• Several policies have been developed but are characterized byincoherency.

• They are poorly coordinated within the Solid WasteManagement (SWM) sector and have not rationalized thepotential contribution of both state and non-state actors toSWM.

• In Kenya, policy and regulatory frameworks are mainly focusedon plastics yet there are other waste streams that are reusedand others which are reusable but have not been explored.

• EMCA provides procedures and standards to regulate themanagement of solid waste and categorized waste (e.g.hazardous and non-hazardous) in order to facilitate its propermanagement.


Current Situation• Existing policies have been broad and not specific to the plastic

production sub-sector. Nevertheless, they have beeninstrumental in facilitating access for the plastic production sub-sector to manufacturing technologies.

• The zero rating taxation on imported technologies is anincentive and has acted as a push factor and could explain thecurrent diversification of production resulting in the differentsocio-technical routes. Absence of taxation of importedmachines benefits industries in twofold:

1. Efficient production due to availability of latest technologies.

2. Short periods of investment returns resulting in steady growthin the sub-sector.


Policy Gaps

• EMCA which is a national policy, fails to encourage re-use andrecycling of solid waste through economic incentive provisions.

• The national medium term plan (2008-2012) of Kenya Vision2030, proposes the development of waste managementstrategies where youth groups can be engaged but fails torecognize the potential of material recovery.

• The Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and EmploymentCreation (2003-2007) recognizes the dysfunctional state of cityauthorities- currently the county governments and the absenceof a waste recycling policy. However, it fails to recognize thealready existing actors engaged in the SWM sector and to buildupon these niches by assigning them responsibilities andfacilities.


Policy Gaps

• The Draft National SWM Strategy of 2008 strategy fails tooperationalize this into concrete actions and there is nodeliberate attempt to coordinate, harmonize and focusactivities of all – state and non-state – actors towards theambitions of sustainable waste management as formulatedin this plan.

• The National Exports Strategy (NES) has been slow torecognize the differentiation of the plastic manufacturingsub-sector that calls for urgent attention in the developmentof regulations on quality and safety of its products. Theimplication of this has been a poor up-take of semi-processed plastic waste materials at the internationalmarket, which negatively affects the overall diversification ofthe industry’s products.

21-05-2015 Environment and Forestry Sub-sector 6

Efforts towards Policy Development

• In 2003, UNEP facilitated a technical working group todevelop policy instruments, to be piloted in Nairobi, for themanagement of plastic bag waste.

• After almost 4 years of consultations, negotiations andlearning from best practices from both developed anddeveloping countries, the technical working group haddeveloped two sets of policy packages.

• The first set of policy measures included the launching ofan aggressive public awareness creation and anti-littercampaign; the development of an effective recyclingsystem; support for the improvement of a waste disposalsystem; the introduction of a voluntary code of practice forretailers; and the introduction of a minimum thicknessstandard of 20 micron for plastic bags used for shopping.


Efforts towards Policy Development• The second set of policy measures contained the adoption of an

advanced minimum thickness standard of 30 micron by themanufacturers; the introduction of a levy charged on plasticbags; and the support by the government for the developmentof alternatives to petrochemical–based carrier bags. To assistthe policy implementation, a Plastics Management Fund (PMF)was to be created.

• During the 2007/08 budget speech, the Minister announced animmediate ban on manufacturing of plastic bags of less than 30micron thickness and further proposed an excise duty of 120%on plastic bags to take effect in January 2008. This betrayedthe spirit of consultation in policy making and failed to pre-empt the ramifications of such unilateral decisions.


Effects of Policy Directives

• As a representative of one of the plastic production companies(Hi- Plast Ltd) recounted, the directive compelledmanufacturers to abruptly upgrade their productiontechnologies, resulting into a series of consequences.

• Foremost, manufacturers had to incur an unexpectedinvestment in order to stay in business.

• As not all manufacturers were able to comply, enterpriseclosures resulted in job losses.

• Another immediate and significant impact of the Minister’s2007/08 Directive on plastic bags related to the consumereconomy. Because plastic manufacturers transferred thefinancial burden of the excise duty to consumers, prices for allplastic carrier bags increased, resulting in an upsurge of pricesof basic commodities such as salt, sugar, bread and milk.


Effects of Policy Directives

• Manufacturers had additional costs following the directive thatbanned manufactured bags of less than 30 micron thicknesswhich had to be destroyed and recycled.

• Moreover, demand for plastic bags decreased as consumerstended to reuse bags, since the bags of 30 micron thicknesswere more durable. This led the chairman of East AfricanPlastics Association, who was also the chief executive officer ofHi- Plast group of companies, together with othermanufacturers to start a youth campaign to recover all plasticbags within Nairobi’s environment in support of plastic wasterecycling.

• While anticipating the possible long term impacts of theMinister’s 2007/08 Directive on plastic bags on theirinvestment, a number of plastic bag manufacturers started toexplore alternatives of using their processing installations toproduce biodegradable plastic bags.


Plastic Bag Policy Implications on 2 Commonly used Bags

Source: Oyake- Ombis, L., 2012


Carrier bag size 9″*15″, per 1000 bags

(Ksh.)

7″*12″, per 1000 bags

(Ksh.)

% cost increase compared to 10 micron

bags

Cost at 10 micron thickness 284 177 -

Cost at 20 micron thickness 569 354 100%

Cost at 30 micron thickness 854 531 200%

Cost at 30 micron with 120% excise duty 1878 1168 560%

Lobbying for better Policies

• The chairman of the East African Plastics Association submitteda proposal to the Minister to review the 2007/08 Directive onplastic bags with the following recommendations:

o To share the 120% excise duty (which was mainly borne byplastic shopping bag manufacturers) with manufactures ofother plastic materials meant for commercial use, like plasticsheets used in horticulture and the building industry.

o Substitution of the ad valorem excise duty of 120% with aspecific excise/levy of USD 20 per ton on all imported rawmaterials for the manufacturing of plastic bags to be remittedto a SWM Fund.

• The SWM Fund had a broader scope as compared to the PlasticManagement Fund earlier proposed by stakeholders.

• Manufacturers also wanted an immediate legislativeamendment to allow plastic bag manufacturers to manufacturebags of at least 14 microns thickness.


Opportunities in Existing Policies

• The government’s commitment to participation in RegionalTrade Arrangements (RTAs) has reduced trade barriers withinthe East Africa region. This policy has stimulated much growthwithin the conventional recycling industries.

• Arising from the policy instruments for management of plasticbags and the subsequent amendment to the Finance Act of2007, only bags of 20 micron and above are to be produced inKenya.

• Furthermore, an excise duty at the rate of 50% of excisablevalue is charged on plastic shopping bags payable by themanufacturer.

• These regulatory measures are likely to be windows ofopportunity for the development of plastic waste recycling inKenya and for the conventional recycling route in particular asit has a long history for recycling backed by an elaboratenetwork of internal waste material supply.


Opportunities in Existing Policies

• The plastic production sub-sector has benefited from a numberof programmes under the liberalization policy. The KenyaInvestment Act of 2006 which provides a ‘one-stop-shop’ forlicensing and registration of business has effectively reducedthe bureaucratic procedures that hamper investment flowsthrough increased time spent in the registration process.

• The Draft National SWM Strategy of 2008 stipulates a statutory30% of waste recovery within city jurisdictions by the year2018, and to progressively recover over 50% of the waste bythe year 2030. These targets are in line with the environmentalaspirations of Vision 2030.


Opportunities in Policy

• The National Exports Strategy (NES) has beeninstrumental in deepening the existing traditionalmarkets and supporting expansion of Kenyan productsinto new markets segments.

• This has positively influenced the growth of theconventional recycling route where its products havegained access to the East Africa region and CommonMarket for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)markets.



• The National Industrialization Policy which wasformulated in 2008 to help fast track the realization ofKenya Vision 2030 has not been sensitive to the uniquerequirements of the plastic production sub-sector.

• The policy recognizes innovations as being central inmeeting the rapidly changing consumer needs andstandards.

• It further proposes to intensify innovations in prioritysegments of the manufacturing sector and commit todevelop capacity in order to meet international standardrequirements. For example, plastic manufacturing sub-sector has been listed as requiring up-grading some ofits products through collaboration of the industry andpublic institutions such as KEBS and KIRDI.



• The National Industrialization policy framework has thepotential to create a wide diversification of the plasticmanufacturing sub-sector if products of home-grownindustry and export of semi-processed waste materials couldbe picked as potential innovations for further development.

• Such a move would enable fast-tracking of standardization ofplastic waste products which so far have not obtained anycredible certification in order to access both local andinternational markets.

• It would also be a big incentive in the promotion of bothexports of waste materials to China and competitive marketaccess to home-grown recycling industries’ products.


Conclusion

• The SWM policy provisions are still largely centred on theclassical approaches of efficient collection and landfilling.

• In cases where recycling of solid waste is mentioned, they failto provide a framework and operationalized strategies withinwhich non-state actors are stimulated and incentivized toengage.

• SWM policies also fail to capture financing mechanisms that cansupport resource recovery.

• Finally, weak enforcement hampers realization of some of theexisting policies. For instance, ‘Extended ProducerResponsibility’ should be enforced so that the principles of‘closed loop recycling industry’ and ‘circular economy’ can berealised.


Recommendations

• Policies should address the concerns of the actors:

o Yard shop operators should be facilitated to form associations.

o Conventional recycling industries bemoan exorbitant utility bills.

o Home-grown recycling industries need technological support.

o Export of semi-processed PET plastic waste are sub-standard.

• Any city waste management strategy should include wasteseparation at source to ensure that actors within the recyclingchain are guaranteed of less contaminated plastic waste.

• Development of rules that require industries to take backcertain quantities of plastic waste from the SWM system shouldbe spearheaded by policy actors such as NEMA, KEBS, KIPPRA,Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Industrialization, andKAM.


Nairobi city council policy and regulatory framework for waste reuse in kenya

Environment

Transcript of Nairobi city council policy and regulatory framework for waste reuse in kenya