What aspect of development does Kavera meet?

By Naomi Karekaho

If human development is enhanced wellbeing and potential whose underlying purpose is to provide emotional, social, economic and sustainable fulfilment, where does kavera fit?

Kavera is a threat that takes 400 years to degrade in the environment, yet there are stronger, homemade and equally convenient alternatives.

The most common argument fronted in favour of kavera is the economic one that is rooted in the liberal trading atmosphere where investment in kavera attracts employment, expanded tax base and provision of variety which is necessary for choice.

But the figures presented by the ‘kavera team' are not accurate.

They provide benefits from the entire range of kavera production lines including that which is not banned like packaging and construction, among others. Understanding whether kavera is economically beneficial or not, requires disaggregation of data to determine what accrues to plastic carrier bags only which might be much less than we are told.

Secondly, environmentally friendly alternatives to kavera can provide sustainable social livelihoods to vulnerable groups. During the period of kavera ban enforcement, youth groups had started making paper bags, women groups had increased weaving of mat bags (kikapu), baskets (bibbo) and sacks. Continued kavera production is killing potential for this level of enterprise.

The dangers of continued use of kavera include causing cancer, choking soils, clogging water bodies and killing animals. It destroys everything agricultural, yet over 70% of Uganda's population live off agriculture. There is no meaningful case for kavera at any level, be it environmentally, economically or socially.

Public demanded for a total ban in 2002 through a public interest litigation case of Green Watch Vs Attorney General and NEMA, where court pronounced that permitting plastic carrier bags was an infringement of the right to a clean and healthy environment.

Needless to say, cabinet sustained the ban in 2015. On March 30, 2016, court dismissed the application against NEMA and awarded costs to the institution citing a right to clean and healthy environment over short term economic gain and  consideration to the majority of Uganda's poor that survive at hand of environment which gives freely. Which leads to the question, at what point will the ‘team interested in kavera' agree to co-operate with the Government and the public?

Abuse of grace period

The ban was announced in 2009 and a grace period was given to those that had stock to dispose of it and allow time to the manufacturers to design new production lines to include recycling of products in stock. Surprisingly, when a notice was issued that enforcement of the ban was to resume, the team started petitioning cabinet for more time.

Insolence

‘Team Kavera' have undermined the law and mandate of concerned Government institutions. They continue to defy Cabinet directives, Court orders and enforcement. They operate secret production lines under the guise of storage units, do not label their products correctly and distribute free kavera to weekend open markets as well as resort to insolence through negative publicity and filing court cases to circumvent the ban.

Excuses

There are issues raised around smuggled kavera. But smuggling is illegal and URA is effectively handling this matter and has impounded piles of smuggled kavera awaiting safe disposal. Besides, once there is compliance to the law, smuggling will cease to be an issueas use/sell will be outlawed in Uganda

Recycling

Issues to do with investment in recycling should be allayed since there is still a lot of recyclable materials (the exempted plastics) in the country to enable these factories that have installed recycling units to continue operating without necessarily using/producing the banned plastic carrier bags.

At the end of the day, we need a compromise between what is absolutely necessary for a greater majority of Ugandans as opposed to the benefits due to just a few for the sake of the environment. Although, environment could tolerate development efforts, it cannot do so infinitely amidst increasing soil erosion and declining soil fertility; deforestation; pollution of land, water and air resources; loss of biodiversity and degradation of water resources.

The writer is the spokesperson of the National Environment Management Authority