In 2019, Jamaica implemented a phased ban on single-use plastic bags, straws, and polystyrene products. The ban, established under two 2018 ministerial orders, prohibits the importation, distribution, manufacture, and use of these items, aiming to reduce plastic consumption, production, and waste in Jamaica's environment. The state agency responsible for its implementation, The National Planning and Environment Agency (NEPA), aimed for complete market scarcity of banned items, cessation of their production, changes in consumer behaviour, adoption of reusable bags, and positive compliance from trade and industry. Five years later, though the responsible portfolio minister has said the ban “has been bearing fruit,” the policy's effectiveness is debatable.
NEPA considers the ban a success based on the reported compliance of formal business sectors, and the increased use of alternatives to “scandal bags”, plastic straws, and polystyrene food containers. There were more than 50 prosecutions in relation to violations at the ports suggesting some level of enforcement.
While the reported increase in the use of alternative paper and reusable bags in major supermarkets and retail outlets suggest a reduction, there have been reports that some retail and wholesale outlets still have plastic bags in storage, and distribute them with purchases. Plastic bags are still on the scene as they are found to be the most frequent violation during state-mandated compliance checks. This finding was confirmed by the Bureau of Standards during a probe on the ban itself after finding that sample bags purchased in downtown Kingston were in violation following a series of tests.
Another measure of success might be found in the 12% decrease in plastic bags from 2014 to 2023 as recorded by International Coastal Cleanup Day data, however, figures are still climbing but are yet to reach pre-ban levels. This metric is inconclusive since variables such as volunteer count and ability may have been inconsistent across the years. Further, a report from the NSWMA reveals there has been only a 0.3% reduction of plastics in the waste collected since 2019. There is no other local waste characterisation data that could provide more reliable evidence regarding any measurable change in plastic waste that could be attributed to the ban.
So, the available data is inconclusive, theoretical, or shows little impact. Meanwhile, there have been pronouncements by others that the ban has failed. Opposition members of parliament have deemed the ban’s impact negligible due to a lack of robust public-education campaigning. Agency representatives also attribute a lack of legislative support to the NSWMA Act as a contributing factor to the ban’s meagre results.
Other stakeholders who have deemed the ban ineffective have pointed out that this is due to the availability of alternatives. Plastic bags not covered by the law are entering the market, defeating the purpose of the ban and having no real difference on the environment. Several manufacturing facilities were displaced by an increase in imports of alternatives such as reusable bags. However, some of these are suboptimal in terms of cost, convenience, and durability, potentially discouraging changes in consumer behaviour especially in market districts.
The apparent lack of success can be attributed to various factors. First are the loopholes, which the state itself has recognised, since the law prohibits only single-use polyethylene or polypropylene bags, and those only up to 24” x 24” in size and 0.03mm in thickness, drinking straws made from the same polymers, and polystyrene packaging, with certain exemptions for those with disabilities.
Globally, bans are among the most popular policy responses to reducing the usage of plastic shopping bags; the experiences of other jurisdictions reveal the limitations of this approach. While bans may seem straightforward, they often lead to unintended consequences and fail to address the underlying drivers of plastic pollution. CAPRI’s 2018 report, “Managing Plastic Waste: Single-use Plastic Bags” recommended a cess, or a fee, on plastic bags, rather than a ban, due to the apparently inevitable risk of the emergence of plastic bag black markets.
Australia had a similar experience when it attempted to ban plastic shopping bags. A reduction was observed in use of the banned bags, but there was an almost commensurate increase in the use of other types of plastic bag, offsetting the reductions. Like Jamaica's ban, that policy restricted specific single-use plastic bags, but there was an increase in alternatives not covered by the law. Overall, Australia’s attempt to reduce single-use plastic bag consumption did not reduce overall plastic consumption.
The Jamaican government has stated its intention to strengthen the ban and implement new strategies for enforcement. A NEPA assessment proposed that the current ban be augmented through support for alternative biodegradable materials— research shows that bans are most effective when paired with alternative consumption options—and implementing deposit refund schemes, either legislatively or voluntarily, to improve plastic consumption regulation.
Deeming Jamaica’s plastic bag ban a success or failure is premature; further assessment methods are needed. Antigua and Barbuda, along with Barbados, implemented similar bans around the same time. Analysing their experiences could provide insights into the policy’s prospects in Jamaica. Given the issue of plastic waste in Jamaica and neighbouring islands, such scrutiny is warranted, and CAPRI is undertaking this study.