The One Bermuda Alliance generally supports the concept of the Single Use Plastics Act 2026 but at the same time we feel it is important to point out what this Bill does, and doesn’t do, in terms of its overall impact.
It is also important to consider the consequences of becoming too exuberant in rushing though regulations covering items for which there are few if any – cost effective replacements. Bermuda is not a major contributor to global plastic waste and marine pollution. As a community, we cannot afford unnecessary price increases.
With Bermuda being a small island jurisdiction with limited land mass, residents generally, and inherently recognise the importance of eliminating waste where we can and protecting the ocean and our natural resources.
The history of this initiative is interesting and demonstrates that most people and businesses in Bermuda care about this issue and have made efforts on their own to reduce the usage of single use plastics.
Many businesses have made changes on their own and moved to alternatives in areas where they can – without causing significant inconvenience, additional cost or sub-standard service quality that could lead to safety issues.
An example is containers for hot food and drinks that are weakened by the heat of the contents and can leak or spill – causing injury.
It is interesting that when this topic was introduced in the 2018 Throne Speech – it was presented as promise to eliminate single use plastics by 2022. And while most environmental groups support more aggressive policies, there were some local marine scientists who, at the time, were reported to have described the initiative as low hanging fruit designed for credit rather than impact. The report says, they instead recommended that Government deal with the Bulk Waste Dump at the site of the former airport if the goal is to really make a difference to protect the marine environment. This is a sentiment that continues to be shared by local fishermen today.
Then-Minister Roban said the ban would initially cover styrofoam take-out containers, cups, single use bags, utensils and straws. He also said that the intention was to potentially introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, distribution and use of these items by the end of 2025.
The Minister also announced that a procurement policy was going to be put into place for all government departments – before the end of 2021 and ahead of the legislative bans. He also committed to institute a charge on single use plastics. Hopefully, that will be reconsider and set aside. As people are already annoyed by the sugar Tax, for which – there has been no accountability in terms of health benefits or otherwise.
As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. So, perhaps instead a punitive approach – government could consider incentives and bringing people along. Perhaps a positive move would be duty relief on non-plastic alternatives, to make the alternatives more affordable.
Importers, grocery stores and restaurants – while generally supportive of moving away from single use plastics – again warn of unintended consequences of banning items where suitable, cost-effective alternatives for certain uses – either don’t exist or are prohibitively expensive – therefore not really, an alternative at all.
In speaking with some of those same people, they will tell you there are still items that are difficult- if not impossible – to adequately replace without prohibitive consequences. And, that is not because they don’t want to.
We have to be realistic.
We are a tiny market with little to no buying power. Almost everything we buy is imported from North America, and the selection of product and packaging available to us is what is generally universal distribution.
I note that the Act says items will not be banned until the Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is satisfied that cost effective alternatives are available. How is he going to make that determination? And, what percentage increase qualifies as reasonable, particularly given our high costs and affordability challenges?
We also question the six-month time span businesses will have to dispose of their inventory once an item becomes prohibited. Businesses often buy in bulk so, at any point in time they could be carrying large inventories, the cost of which will be passed on to the consumer.
In order to demonstrate clear commitment to the environment, perhaps it would be good for Government to match this initiative with educational programmes and greater public awareness of appropriate waste management. Specifically, information and greater advocacy on recycling – including plastics, and anti-littering campaigns, encouragement for proper containers for trash collection and community clean-ups drives. These are initiatives that would have real impact.
It would be great to see this as something more comprehensive than a ban – but rather a banding together around a number of initiatives that will really make a difference. Locally and globally.
