Involving street vendors in the process to determine the appropriate enabling conditions would not only help the design of the policy, but can also support the emergence of simple and innovative solutions.

By Satyarupa Shekhar and Om Prakash Singh

With the intergovernmental negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty just a few days away, it is opportune to discuss India’s approach to plastic pollution. The Single Use Plastic Ban (SUP Ban) by the union government of India came into effect from 1 July 2022. What the country needed was an ambitious and comprehensive regulation to strongly curb the plastic crisis. However, the current regulation mostly targets street vendors and small retailers, while leaving fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies and e-commerce retail out of its gamut.

The Problem

The SUP Ban is based on a flawed methodology, one that was prepared by the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers – a serious conflict of interest in itself because the DCPC has the mandate to increase the production and consumption of petrochemicals and plastics. The notification was released by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) under the Environment Protection Act 1986. Neither MoEFCC, nor any related ministry, such as Labour, Health, Consumer Affairs or Urban Affairs, undertook any consultations with street vendors before the Ban was notified.

The SUP Ban was notified on 12 August 2021 and became effective on 1 July 2022, thus giving the street vendors less than a year to transition. While the industry was consulted, and provided opportunities to provide their inputs as the notification was being drafted, street vendors had no opportunities to be involved in the policy making process. Local authorities across the country use this notification to evict street vendors on the pretext of littering, perpetuating the narrative that they are the polluters, and many even extort money. In a survey in 2023, street vendors in various cities across the country stated that they have paid INR 200 to 5,000. The Ban states that the Government of India will work on providing alternatives, so far they have provided street vendors neither alternatives nor support to find alternatives.

Lobbying for favourable terms

Many companies were part of the process from 2016, and so had more than six years to redesign their products, packaging and supply chains. The FMCG and plastics industries have also consistently lobbied for favourable terms, as is exemplified in changes in definitions and targets for plastic pollution. For instance, in the Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules 2016 multi-layered packaging (MLP) was to be eliminated by 2018, giving the industry two years to redesign packaging of sachets (flexible pouches). However, in the PWM (Amendment) Rules 2018, it was permitted for MLP to be used if they could be recycled. The PWM (Amendment) Rules 2021 redefined ‘recycling’ to include incineration in WTE plants or cement kilns. While the PWM Rules 2016 bans the use of sachets for gutka and pan masala, they can be used for shampoo, condiments, oil, detergent, and thousands of other products. The SUP Ban 2022 does not include sachets (flexible pouches). Industry estimates that about half of the plastic produced in India is for single-use packaging, but the SUP Ban covers only 2-3 percent of the total.

The Solution

While the SUP Ban 2022 provides the right impetus to street food vendors to transition away from certain SUPs, a more comprehensive policy is needed to curb all the other SUPs. Public policy should compel the industry to transition away from SUPs, targeting production rather than usage of SUPs. Reusable bags and containers for fruits and vegetables, grains and condiments, and dairy and meat are traditional practices. These need an impetus through a combination of policy, enforcement, consumer awareness, and most importantly, mandates to the FMCG and e-commerce companies. For street food, however, the solution needed to respond to the main conditions – food that would be freshly cooked and consumed on the street (footpath), quick turn-around time, and affordable. It should be hygienic, easy to use, and convenient for the vendor as well as the consumer.

The #PlateAgain programme advocates for major street food hubs to have a Dish Washing Centre (DWC), each with a commercial dishwashing machine, and adequate reusable utensils to service anywhere between 50 to 250 street food vendors. Commercial dishwashing machines can clean 300-700 plates per hour. The DWC would also have an option to manually clean larger cooking utensils, and delivery carts. Clean plates, bowls, cups, glasses, and cutlery would be delivered to each street vendor at the start of their business hours, and collected back at the end of the day. Street vendor collectives could determine the user fees, manage the DWC staff, and ensure that the vendors maintain an SUP-free vending zone. They could also expand their washing services to caterers, bartan banks, or small eateries for a fee.

Direct Benefit to Consumers

The #PlateAgain programme will yield several benefits to the city, such as reduced waste and litter, waste management infrastructure and costs, reduced traffic and emissions (from trucks and tempos carrying waste), and improved public health, water and air. A direct benefit to consumers is the elimination of toxicity and chemicals associated with SUPs. For street vendors, the expected benefits of the public-public partnerships are licences, and an assurance that they will not be evicted, thus allowing them to make the monetary and emotional investment in setting up this new system.

Promote Reuse Systems

In the final round of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, scientists and activists are calling on governments to design a comprehensive instrument to address the plastics crisis. Such an instrument would drastically reduce petrochemicals, and phase out polymers and chemicals of concern. It would promote reuse systems with standards and targets that would encourage manufacturers and retailers to adopt reusables, and redesign their products, packaging and delivery models. Finally, it would establish a financial mechanism to ensure that dedicated funding is available for developing countries from developed ones.

Foundation of Scientific Evidence

Bans and restrictions on SUPs must be strengthened with other existing and new instruments: i) producer liability for negative impacts of plastics, ii) producer responsibility for post-consumer waste, iii) mandatory redesign targets, iv) standardisation framework for product circularity, v) controls on planned obsolescence. Policies can be supported by financial instruments, such as taxes and subsidies, that incentivise reuse and disincentivise SUPs. For instance, GST on stainless steel plates is 18 per cent, as it was on polystyrene plates (till they were banned in 2022); such a high tax rate serves as a deterrent as it substantially increases the initial investment needed for the transition to reusables. Similarly, we should revert to the Indian flag being made only of khadi, and subsidies to khadi enterprises, while banning polyester flags and plastic sticks, and removing subsidies on the production and manufacture of polyester.

India’s position in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), or Conference of Parties as they are also known, should be determined by science. There is an established foundation of scientific evidence of the impacts of plastics, chemicals, and fossil fuels on health, environment, and climate. There also exists centuries of indigenous knowledge and traditional practices on reuse. Involving street vendors in the process to determine the appropriate enabling conditions would not only help the design of the policy, but can also support the emergence of simple and innovative solutions.

Satyarupa and Om Prakash are public policy advocates grounded in systems change and social justice principles. Their interests include the climate crisis, plastics and petrochemicals, and environmental justice.