Plastic Pollution Needs a Regional Crackdown, Not Just National Bans

Single-use plastic bags, bottles, packaging and other disposable products are used briefly, but their environmental footprint lasts for decades. A new study published in Sustainability argues that the challenge is not simply whether countries ban plastic products, but whether they build governance systems capable of managing plastics across their full life cycle, from production and consumption to collection, recycling and disposal.

The study, authored by Abdihakim Ahmed Mohamed and Özlem Canbeldek Akın, examines regulatory frameworks for single-use plastics across countries in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development region, including Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. It uses the region as a case study of a wider governance problem facing many developing and institutionally fragile regions: plastic pollution is rising, but waste systems, enforcement capacity and regional coordination remain uneven.

The paper notes that plastic production rose from 1.7 million metric tonnes in 1950 to 360 million metric tonnes in 2018, with packaging among the major uses. Most plastic waste is landfilled, dumped or leaked into the environment, while only a small share is recycled. For Africa and other developing regions, the pressure is intensified by rapid urbanization, population growth, weak waste-management systems, limited recycling infrastructure and inconsistent enforcement..

Bans make headlines, but systems make impact

Plastic bans are politically visible and can be useful, but the study warns that they are not enough. Several countries in the region have adopted prevention-oriented approaches based on direct restrictions or bans. Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and partly Kenya fall into this category, with Eritrea introducing one of the region's earliest direct plastic bag prohibition regimes in 2002 and Somalia moving toward targeted plastics governance in 2024.

These measures matter because they target plastic consumption at the source. Where enforcement is credible and alternatives are available, bans can reduce visible plastic pollution and shift consumer behavior, but the research shows that many ban-based approaches remain narrow. They often lack recycling systems, extended producer responsibility, economic incentives and wider life-cycle governance. In reality, this means a country may prohibit certain plastic products without creating the collection, sorting, reuse and recycling systems needed to manage what remains.

A second group of countries, including Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan and South Sudan, regulates plastics mostly through broader environmental, pollution-control or waste-management frameworks rather than dedicated single-use plastic laws. This gives governments broader institutional coverage, but it can also dilute accountability. General environmental laws may recognize pollution as a problem without directly regulating plastic production, imports, product design, consumption or producer obligations.

Bans can reduce certain products, but they cannot by themselves build a circular economy. A serious plastics strategy needs prevention, producer responsibility, recycling infrastructure, waste segregation, public awareness, green procurement, penalties and regional coordination. The study's conceptual framework links these tools to environmental law principles such as prevention, precaution, polluter pays and cooperation.

Kenya points to the stronger model, but not a finished one

Among the countries reviewed, Kenya stands out as the most integrated model. The study finds that Kenya combines preventive regulation, waste governance, recycling measures and responsibility-based approaches within a broader circular-economy framework. Its governance architecture includes the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, the Sustainable Waste Management Act 2022, Waste Management Regulations 2024 and Extended Producer Responsibility Regulations 2024.

Kenya's model moves beyond the familiar politics of bans. It links plastic regulation to producer responsibility, recycling obligations, collection systems and life-cycle management. In other words, it asks not only whether consumers should stop using certain plastics, but whether producers and importers should help pay for the recovery and management of the waste their products create.

The study's comparison of responsibility-based and circular economy measures shows that Kenya is the only country in the reviewed group with clearly identifiable provisions across bans, restrictions, taxes, extended producer responsibility, recycling and penalties. Other countries show partial, indirect or emerging measures, while producer responsibility remains weak across much of the region.

Yet Kenya is not presented as a perfect model. The study notes that implementation constraints remain, including incomplete waste collection, infrastructure limitations, informal waste systems and enforcement gaps. It is an important reminder for policymakers: advanced legal design does not automatically translate into environmental results. Laws require institutions, financing, monitoring systems, public compliance and waste infrastructure.

The role of informal waste workers is especially significant. The study highlights that informal actors often support collection, sorting and recycling, particularly in urban areas, but their limited recognition in formal frameworks, including extended producer responsibility systems, weakens the effectiveness and scalability of waste management. For developing countries, integrating these actors through incentives, protections and formal coordination may be essential to building realistic circular economy systems.

The next frontier is regional coordination

Fragmented national rules can weaken the fight against plastic pollution. If one country bans certain products while a neighbor does not, plastic goods and waste can continue moving through cross-border markets and poorly regulated waste systems. The study argues that cooperation is central because plastic pollution crosses borders through trade, marine systems, rivers and waste flows.

IGAD's Regional Plastic Pollution Prevention Strategy and Implementation Plan is described as a key step toward addressing this gap. The strategy reflects growing recognition of the need for coordinated responses, stronger waste systems, circular economy measures and regional collaboration. However, the study also makes clear that regional governance is still emerging. Compared with the European Union, IGAD countries have made progress on bans and restrictions, but producer responsibility, recycling targets, labelling rules, economic instruments and harmonized monitoring remain underdeveloped.

For policymakers, the practical path is not to copy highly integrated regulatory blocs overnight. The study points instead to phased harmonization: common definitions of problematic single-use plastics, shared recycling and recovery targets, minimum standards for producer responsibility, and regional monitoring of plastic production, imports, consumption, collection, recycling and transboundary waste flows.

The study is strongest as a governance map and policy diagnostic. It reviewed 41 national and subnational legal instruments across eight countries using a structured comparative legal-analysis methodology. But it does not systematically measure enforcement outcomes, behavioral change or actual reductions in plastic pollution, which the authors identify as an important area for future research.

Plastic pollution will not be solved by isolated bans, symbolic laws or fragmented waste policies. It requires coordinated governance across the plastics life cycle, from design and consumption to collection, recycling and disposal. For IGAD and many other developing regions, the real test is whether governments can move from product control to system change.