By Samuel ALESU-DORDZI\xa0
Plastics are regarded as major contributors to both terrestrial and oceanic contamination. When they end up on land, these materials do not degrade over time.
Their tracks are persistent and long-lasting. Plastics and their derivatives, such as microplastics and nanoplastics, have been associated with the contamination and death of fish and other aquatic creatures, ocean acidification, and the degradation of marine ecosystems. Due to their low weight, these materials readily travel across borders, affecting multiple regions (thus highlighting their cross-border implications).
Given the extensive evidence regarding the effects of plastics, one might reasonably expect that the recently enacted Environmental Protection Act, 2025 (Act 1124) would have segregated plastics similarly to how it handles pesticides, electronic and electrical waste, and other dangerous materials, thereby taking decisive action against their usage.
But it does not.
Before proceeding further, let us briefly address the Act. The present Environmental Protection Authority Act from 2025 (Act 1124) primarily combines two key statutes: the Environmental Protection Agency Act from 1994 (Act 490) and the Hazardous and Electronic Waste Control and Management Act from 2016 (Act 917).
Due to this merger, the legislation fails to significantly alter the environmental regulatory framework as many had hoped.
The legislation notably falters in addressing plastic regulations. Given the significant and extensively documented impact of plastics as a primary cause of contamination both terrestrial and aquatic, one might expect such crucial environmental policy to offer substantial guidance on the government’s strategy for tackling this problem. However, the term “plastics” is absent from its stipulations, and it fails to outline concrete measures for combating plastic pollution.
The regulations concerning plastics are somewhat obscure and “concealed” within the wording: “hazardous waste and other wastes.” A thorough examination reveals that plastics fall under the broader category of “other wastes.” According to section 44, “other waste” refers to “waste derived from households or residues resulting from the burning of domestic refuse and categorized in the Sixth Schedule into types of waste ‘demanding particular attention.’ ” Several kinds of plastics included in this general classification of “other waste” encompass:
(a) Polyethylene (PE), utilized in plastic bags and bottles; (b) Polypropylene (PP), found in food containers and automotive components; (c) Polystyrene (PS), used for foam cups and packing materials; (d) Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), employed in toys and electronic devices; (e) Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), commonly seen in water and soft drink bottles; (f) Polycarbonates (PC), applied in eyewear and robust plastic storage solutions; and (g) Polyether resins, which find application in coatings and various foams.
Under Part C of the Sixth Schedule, the legislation states that the aforementioned types of plastic necessitate “special attention.” However, it remains unclear exactly what is intended by this requirement for “special attention” regarding these specific kinds of plastic.
One might compare the expression “categories of waste needing special attention” [as mentioned in Part C of the Sixth Schedule] with “categories of waste subject to control” [as outlined in Part A of the Sixth Schedule].
From these provisions, we can infer that the law addresses the management of waste disposal but stops short of taking stringent measures like banning single-use plastics. This inevitably raises the query: “Who bears responsibility for the ultimate disposal of plastics?”
The clarity regarding this query isn’t very strong, although there’s a hint within the legislation. The initial choice for disposal appears to center around the idea of a circular economy.
The legislation outlines the concept of a circular economy as encompassing industrial procedures and economic actions that:
(a) are inherently designed to be restorative or regenerative;
(b) ensure that resources utilized within these processes and activities retain their maximum utility for extended periods;
(c) minimize waste via advanced designs of materials, goods, and systems, along with innovative business strategies.
As such, the circular economy stops plastics from becoming waste prematurely, which leads to a decrease in both waste and pollution.
Another method for allocating accountability for managing plastics is through “extended producer responsibility.” According to the legislation, this principle indicates that “producers bear liability for every stage of their products’ life cycle—from initial design until disposal—including waste collection and recycling processes.”
Simply put, “extended producer responsibility” requires manufacturers and plastic producers to cover all costs associated with managing the waste they create.
The issue with the concepts of the circular economy and “extended producer responsibility” lies in their ambiguous application as outlined in the legislation. The pertinent clause merely states that the Authority should encourage “the use of new eco-friendly technologies, including… extended producer responsibility and the circular economy.” However, the Act lacks specifics about implementation, such as timelines for execution.
Without a full prohibition on single-use plastics, one might have anticipated some form of phase-out timeline being proposed—perhaps spanning ten years or more. However, such a provision is absent. Given that a phase-out schedule has been implemented under Section 120 for polychlorinated biphenyls, there’s no logical reason why this strategy couldn’t also apply to single-use plastics.
To sum up, when discussing single-use plastics and plastics in general, little progress appears to have been made. Efforts seem directed towards their management rather than imposing an outright prohibition or establishing a phase-out timeline. Despite the identified weaknesses and challenges, the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility—if clearly defined and implemented—has the capability to function as an effective market-driven mechanism compelling businesses involved in the production and generation of plastics to develop novel approaches for decreasing both the pace and scale of plastic contamination.
Samuel is a Partner
AudreyGrey Law
Email: [email protected]\xa0 \xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0
0558166311 / 0302913998
\xa0\xa0\xa0\xa0
\xa0
AudreyGrey Law is a specialized legal, tax, and professional service provider offering corporate law, tax consulting, compliance, company secretary duties, regulatory adherence, and strategic advice for businesses from both home and abroad looking to enter Ghana’s market. This firm focuses on delivering tailored services along with comprehensive assistance so clients can concentrate on their primary operations. Their proficiency covers areas such as corporate and commercial law, taxes, labor laws, maritime regulations, environmental legislation, migration policies, compliance issues, bankruptcy law, alongside connected financial and accounting tasks.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc.
Syndigate.info
).
