Impact of Policy Design on Plastic Waste Reduction in Africa

Abstract

Single-use plastic (SUP) is an important product group in plastic pollution with various measures managing it within its lifecycle. Africa has the highest single-use plastic bag (SUPB) policy adoption by region globally, but the plastic problem persists, raising policy design concerns on effectiveness. This paper explores plastic policy design on plastic waste reduction in Africa. Using gap analysis and integrative propositional analysis, the status, scope, and variability of policies are assessed against a reference model. There are 48 active policies in 39 of the 55 countries in Africa. Of these, three countries have transitioned from plastic bag bans to SUP policies to manage more plastic products, and two countries have transitioned from SUPB charges to SUPB bans. There are 12 packaging policies, 29 bag policies, 2 bottle policies, 1 utensil and polystyrene boxes policy, and 1 straw policy. Themed SUP and packaging policies loosely cover plastic products. Four of the nine packaging policies analyzed are SUPB policies by design, as they explicitly mention the control of bags rather than primary packaging. Sixteen policies are designed for biodegradability restrictions, while ten policies are total bans on single-use plastic products. The lack of definitions and coherence and provision of exemptions in policies result in plastic waste traceable from exemptions, in-policy, undefined SUP, out-of-policy SUP, and non-SUP sources. The use of different policy mix instruments to manage plastic within its lifecycle was identified in African countries. The design of new policies should consider these shortcomings to enhance plastic waste management by explicitly identifying products and outlining management measures for excluded plastic products within the same plastic group for SUP or packaging policies in the absence of a global or regionally binding plastic policy.

1. Introduction

Single-use plastic (SUP) includes packaging, consumer and institutional products, and microbeads designed for single use or use within a short time span are an important product group contributing to the plastic pollution issue [1,2,3]. Approximately 55% of plastic waste is SUP, primarily comprising packaging (47%) [4,5]. Plastic waste, especially packaging waste, has the lowest recycling rates due to low market value and contamination risks [1,5]. Addressing plastic pollution requires upstream waste prevention and downstream waste recovery measures within the plastic lifecycle.

The average plastic consumption rate in Africa is 16 kg/person/year compared to the global average of 43 kg/person/year and 100 kg/person/year in Western Europe and North America. Africa and Latin America are the fourth largest producers of plastic waste after Asia, Europe, and North America [6]. However, underdeveloped waste management systems coupled with illegal waste imports make Africa the second largest emitter of mismanaged plastic waste after Asia globally [7]. Plastic waste generation is expected to triple by 2060, and even worse, possible infrastructure developments may not meet the rapid plastic waste generation in Africa due to rapid urbanization, population growth, and trade liberalization [8,9]. Furthermore, the surge of plastic waste from personal protective equipment (PPE), takeaway packaging, and overpackaging recently linked to the COVID-19 pandemic outlines uncertainty in plastic waste management [10,11].

Plastic waste, including micro and nano plastic, has socio-economic and environmental effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems [12,13]. 2R (Reduce and Reuse) policies address plastic waste prevention at the international, regional, national, and local levels. The adoption and implementation of plastic policies have been studied by various scholars, including global drivers such as international pressure due to the transboundary nature of plastic pollution and the international political agenda currently emphasizing the plastic problem [14]. General national stakeholder interests emphasize the plastic menace and external benefits of environmentalism include improving tourism, sustainable finance, environmental leadership, and health risks [15]. Additionally, the revitalization of livestock farming, and protection of wildlife from ingesting plastic litter are lead factors in various African countries [16].

Currently, there is no binding international treaty on plastic pollution (2023 September), with an agreement set for 2024 under the coordination of the United Nations Environment Program. Regionally, the African Union (AU) has no regional Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) on plastic pollution except indirectly through other agreements such as the “Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want,” “Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area,” “Africa Blue Economy Strategy,” “African Union Plastic Pollution Initiative,” and “Durban Declaration” [17]. Among the sub-regional bodies, only the East African Community (EAC) established a regulation, namely, the “East African Community Polyethene Materials Control Bill, 2016” in 2017. The bill proposes to ban SUPB after one year but exempts plastic used for industrial packaging, household goods, and furniture and endorses sustainable packaging and recycling. All East African countries have proceeded to establish plastic laws. Studies have established that 10 of the 16 states comprising the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and 12 of the 16 Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) countries have plastic policies [16,18].

Policies adopt regulatory, economic, rights-based, and behavioral instruments to manage plastic. Regulatory approaches apply complete or partial bans that fully or partially limit consumption, while economic instruments use taxes or charges at points of sale on products to disincentive usage. Rights-based approaches include extended producer responsibility (EPR) and deposit systems that assign rights and duties to products for management. Lastly, behavioral instruments target behavior change by creating population awareness [19,20]. Regulatory instruments are more dominant in Africa compared to economic instruments in Europe. Asia moderately applies the instruments, while in Oceania, bans are slightly predominant [2].

Globally, single-use plastic bag (SUPB) policies induce a 36–96% reduction with successful implementation [21]. The most documented case from Ireland applied a US$0.08 SUPB tax in 2002 and reported a 90% reduction, that is, 328 bags/person/year to 14 bags/person/year [3]. In Africa, South Africa and Botswana reported initial short-lived success in the usage of SUPBs after adopting SUPB levies. Nevertheless, the levies were decreased after lobbying from the plastic industry [22]. Rwanda’s plastic imports under HS Code 3926, “Articles of plastics, and articles of other materials,” were reduced from 5000 to 175 tons between 2004 and 2016 due to the 2008 plastic bag ban [6]. Kenya’s ban has reported a reduction in SUPBs and increased adoption of reusable bags [23]. However, the success of policies is undercut by a lack of alternatives, smuggling, and the plastic industry [13]. In this way, quantitative information is being collected in Africa as well. However, the effectiveness of plastic policies is limited or undocumented due to a lack of enforcement, monitoring, evaluation, and recent adoption in most African countries [2,24].

Persisting plastic pollution has resulted in policy design and coherence as topical study areas in the European Union (EU), Asia, and Pacific regions [25,26,27]. Policies are made of specific elements, including a title, citation, definitions, exemptions, and fines, that interact within its design with structural logic [28]. Policy coherence ensures the interactions of policy elements reduce conflict within the policy and with other policies, to guarantee the policy’s success [14,29]. Thus, policy design studies establish the relationship between active policies and recurring plastic pollution. To build and improve on studies on plastic policy, considerations are made to scrutinize SUP policy design in Africa.

Reviews of plastic policies, including in Africa, have been performed within the global context to capture the above themes [3,13,21,30,31,32]. In some instances, Africa as a study context is lump summed with the Middle East, limiting the clarity of results for the region. Regional studies [24,33] and subregional studies have also been conducted in Southern Africa [16], Western Africa [18], and East Africa [15]. In the process, descriptive and comprehensive databases on plastic policies have been established. Notably, the studies that are exploratory have focused on SUP policies but largely on SUPB policies since they are most commonly adopted. Such documented data include the year of announcement/adoption, policy status (active, under review, or revoked), legal type (law, decree, notice, or directive), type of policy (ban or levy), decision structure for policy adoption, policy summary, policy drivers, national awareness campaigns and effectiveness.

The focus of this paper is thus policy design and coherence rather than describing existing literature. The present paper explores the extent to which currently designed policies influence plastic waste reduction in Africa by assessing the status, trends, and variability of SUP legislations, and potential sources of plastic waste from transboundary flows due to different policies adopted by countries. The study applies gap analysis in plastic policy analysis in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific [25,26,30,34] to identify policy strengths and weaknesses in plastic waste management in Africa since such a study has not yet been conducted. This study aims to inform policy stakeholders on the problem of persistent plastic pollution, enforcement challenges, and illegal plastic flow against existing instruments for strengthening the policy design process. The results highlight current active plastic policies in African countries by product categories, namely SUP policy, packaging policies, and product policies such as SUPBs. Additionally, the inclusion and omission of specific products with SUP and packaging policies are discussed with the potential use of policy mix instruments explicitly mentioned in policy documents. Finally, the qualitative implication of status, scope, and variability leading to plastic waste generation and prevention is considered.

2. Materials and Methods

Gap analysis assesses the current state of a phenomenon against a reference model, outlining the existing and missing features in a policy for subsequent improvement proposals [26]. This research adopted gap analysis applied in waste policy studies [25,26,30,34]. Policy documents were identified and scrutinized based on policy elements by referring to a coding scheme modified from the literature [26,30], as shown in

Table 1. Modified coding scheme used for policy elements, data capture, and analysis (Farrelly et al., 2021; Diana et al., 2022 [26,30]).

Policy Element	Term	Definition as Applied in the Research
Title		Policy title as stated in the policy document
Citation		Statement in a policy document introducing what a policy entails
Policy type	Category policy	Policy that covers a family of single-use plastic such as SUP policy or packaging policy
	SUP policy	Policy that covers all single-use plastics including packaging and SUP items.
	Packaging policy	Policy that covers both primary and secondary plastic packaging.
	Product policy	Policy that covers a single plastic product or item made fully or partially from plastic
Instrument		Mechanism to reduce or manage the plastic problem
	Regulatory instrument	Command and control instruments in form of bans
	Total ban	Prohibition on the consumption of all SUP item(s) in all forms and restrictions
	Partial instrument	Prohibition on the consumption of SUP item(s) with certain exemptions or restrictions.
	Economic instrument	Monetary instruments such as taxes and levies on SUP items
	Main instrument	Policy mechanism to reduce and manage plastic pollution identified by policy title or citation.
	Supporting instrument	Any other mechanism to reduce or manage plastic pollution mentioned within the policy document.
Interpretation		The definition of terms as used in the policy document and the context of understanding a policy
	Single-use plastic items (SUP Items)	Products include packaging, cutlery (straws, knives, plates, stirrers, etc.), beverage cups, cotton buds, cigarette butts, balloons, balloon sticks, wet wipes, and sanitary items.
	Plastic packaging	Items used for protection, containment, handling, delivery, and presentation of goods from producers to consumers.
	Product definition	Refers to the description of an item, fully or partially made from plastic. Product names were also considered as product definition
	Undefined SUP	SUP that falls under category definition but are unmentioned or unlisted in a policy, hence have unclarified status.
	Primary packaging	Packaging in direct contact with the product, especially from manufacturing and includes bottles, containers, food packaging, food containers, beverage containers (PET bottles), wrappers, and packets.
	Secondary packaging (Bags)	Packaging used to carry goods from retail centers. Most include carrier bags, and flimsy/barrier bags
	Plastic carrier bags	Bags with or without handles used to carry products from retail centers to a destination by consumers
	Barriers bags	Thin or film bags at retail centers used for packaging, safety and grouping products
	Exemptions	SUP defined and permitted for circulation under the scope other controlled SUP.

. A step-by-step application of the methodologies is explained in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2. First, the identification and tabulation of policies in Africa were performed following the plastic policy type. Subsequently, policy content was extracted and coded in a table based on the policy elements, terms, and definitions stated in Table 1. Subsequently, gap analysis was used to check the existence and missing policy elements explicitly mentioned in the policy documents. For instance, the existence of citations, products covered by the policy, and so forth. The interaction and logic of policy elements were assessed to strengthen gap analysis that only identifies them. In this regard, integrative propositional analysis (IPA) used in comparative policy analysis was applied to supplement gap analysis. IPA considers a policy as a system of interacting and integrated propositions that can be evaluated qualitatively (and quantitatively) based on the policy text. The text evaluation enables the identification of weak logic for policy improvement [28,35,36,37].

2.1. Policy Identification and Selection Criteria

The first process involved tabulating national, legally binding plastic policies in Africa from peer-reviewed journals and reports in an Excel list with subtitles including country, title, geography (national or regional), product type, and status (active, under review, or revoked). Policies considered were legislation, notices, and guidelines (Supplementary SI). The list was cleaned for duplicity by policy title and years of adoption/implementation. Policies were excluded if they were inactive (under review or revoked), regional (a province only), or national but place-specific, e.g., national parks only. The policies were subsequently counted by title and classified under SUP policies, packaging policies, and product policies by country (Figure 1). SUP policies target both packaging and plastic items. Packaging policies target primary and secondary packaging, while a product policy targets one specific plastic item.

Original (in English) or English-translated versions of policy documents were downloaded from existing inventories developed by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University [38] and the Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter Digital Platform (Global Partnership on Marine Litter 2022), or on the internet as of March 2023 [39]. These inventory sites update plastic policy data regularly; therefore, a new comprehensive search for policy documents was not warranted for this study. When two or more policies in a country existed, the latest policy was analyzed if the policy text explicitly repealed the old. Otherwise, both policies were included in the study. Text from policies was extracted based on a modified coding scheme from [26,30] and copied into an Excel file (Supplementary SII). Policy elements were extracted from Mauritius, Senegal, and Rwanda SUP policies (Table 1). Four policy documents could not be found online. Their inclusion in the count was to maintain consistency with published information. However, they were not subjected to gap analysis or IPA.

2.2. Data Analysis

The existence of policy clarification, category/product definitions, listed plastic items, exemptions, main instrument, and supporting instruments were considered for gap analysis. SUPB policy characteristics were distinguished between SUPB carrier and barrier bags from policy and policy definitions while conducting product mapping. The existence was established in three ways: tick (✔) for a policy element explicitly mentioned, circle (o) for a policy element inferred, and dash (−) for missing policy elements. Inferred policy elements are elements covered by the policy title but whose status is undefined or unlisted. For instance, when the SUP policy provides a definition to include all SUPs and lists SUP items under the policy, it leaves the status of other SUPs under the umbrella definition undefined. Policy elements explicitly exempt were marked with an (E).

To demonstrate variability, IPA was performed based on interactions and interrelationships between the policy elements and the main policy instrument. The interactions of elements strengthen or weaken a policy, determining whether a policy remains intact and, as a result, effective or ineffective (Figure 2). The existence of strengthening relationships (+) was derived from citations, full definitions, and supporting instruments. Weakening relationships (−) were partial instruments (partial bans and economic instruments), partial definitions, and exemptions that enable SUP circulation likely to end up as municipal solid waste (MSW). Fines were not assessed at the design level due to the complex nature of inducing deterrence. The output sought from the methodologies were (1) Scope: specific SUP targeted, untargeted, or with unclear status in a policy; (2) Variability: similarities and differences between policies; and (3) Sources of plastic waste from general policy designs.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Overview of Plastic Policies in Africa

National policy adoption is jurisdiction-specific [13]. The triage of existing databases identified 48 active nationwide plastic policies in 39 countries, mainly comprising 3 SUP, 11 packaging, and 28 SUPB policies. Most countries have one policy targeting one plastic product (SUPB). Seychelles has the highest number of policies (5) targeting multiple products. SUP and packaging policies broadly cover multiple products per category and, more explicitly, when plastic products are mentioned in the policy. The scrutiny of products in the SUP and packaging policies indicates very few countries explicitly list products in their policies. The highest number of explicitly legislated products (8) are in Mauritius and Senegal (

Table 2. Number of policies and corresponding number of plastic products explicitly mentioned in policies by country.

Countries	Plastic Policies	Plastic Products
Seychelles	5	6
Mauritius	3	8
Senegal	1	8
DRC	1	6
Togo	1	2
Zambia	1	3
Zimbabwe	2	3
Benin; Mali	2	1
Other Countries	1	1

). In addition to certain category policies, SUPBs are cumulatively addressed in all African countries with a policy making it the highly targeted SUP item.

3.2. Scope of SUP Policies

SUP policy as a category policy involves interactions between SUP policy definition, products targeted by the SUP, and the status of other SUP products as waste prevention targets. The subject focus was driven by SUP making half the plastic waste [4,5]. Two of the three SUP policies in Africa are transitioning from SUPB policies. Mauritius adopted the SUP policy in 2020, independent of its bag (2020) and PET bottle (2001) policies. Senegal’s 2020 SUP law repealed the 2015 law on flimsy plastic bags, while in Rwanda, the 2019 SUP law repealed the plastic bag ban of 2008. Mauritius and Rwanda are East African countries; however, it is difficult to establish whether policy diffusion occurred between the countries. Rwanda stands as a beacon of environmental leadership, being the first country in Africa to adopt a SUPB ban [15] and, subsequently, the first to adopt a SUP policy. Mauritius’ SUP policy adoption is driven by the tourism agenda [18]. Senegal, a West African country with a coastline, employs a total ban on the production and circulation of SUP compared to the bans on non-biodegradable plastics in Rwanda and Mauritius.

Figure 3 shows a policy design based on non-biodegradability restrictions in Rwanda and Mauritius. In the Mauritius SUP law (2020), Section 4 of the policy states, “No person shall import for home consumption, manufacture, possess, sell, supply or use any non-biodegradable single-use plastic product specified in Part I of the Second Schedule” and with products identified in Section 3.3. The policy defines SUPs as plastic products used once, in line with the widely adopted description of SUPs globally. However, Mauritius explicitly provides provisions for the exemption of primary bag packaging through its bag policy in the First Schedule, part II, clashing with the general definition of SUPs in the SUP policy by qualifying the usage of barrier bags and primary packaging. The policy is allocated a minus sign due to partial restriction, the existence of exemptions, and the uncertainty between the broad SUP definition adopted and the identification of specific plastic products managed. The wording in Rwanda’s SUP policy prohibits bags and SUP items. SUP items are defined in the Rwanda SUP law (2020), Article 2.1, as disposable items designed to be used once before discarding or recycling. This structure introduces limits on SUP management in Rwanda by excluding primary plastic packaging outlined as “SUP items” as opposed to "SUP." Here, to some degree, we see Rwanda and Mauritius eventually having the same design by wording and exemptions, respectively.

Figure 4 shows the SUP policy design in Senegal, structured as a total ban on plastic products outlined in Section 3.3. In the SUP policy, SUP is a product designed to be used once before discarding. The Senegal, SUP law (2020), Article 4, states that “the production, importation, possession with a view to sale, sale, provision to the user, use, in any form whether single-use plastic products or disposable plastic products are prohibited.” The policy provides exemptions on plastic bags for packaging food stuff management of plastic bottles through EPR schemes. This design makes Senegal’s policy more cohesive as a total ban on plastic products within the SUP product list. Additionally, Senegal has the application of downstream supporting instruments for plastic products in circulation.

3.3. Scope of Packaging Policies

Packaging policies are category policies that include primary and secondary packaging, with SUP items outside the policy scope. As previously noted, packaging waste makes up 47% of plastic waste [4,5], positioning the associated policy as important to mitigating plastic pollution. Nine of the eleven plastic packaging policies were subjected to scope and variability analysis due to the availability of policy documents. Studies on packaging policies have been overshadowed in literature by SUPB documentation [16,22,23] and are presented independently under Section 3.4. The earliest packaging policies were adopted in 2001 and 2004 in Mali and Benin, respectively, with the most recent policies adopted in 2018 in DRC, Mali, and Zambia. Policies are predominantly based on partial nonbiodegradability restrictions in these countries. In countries with more than one policy, Mali applies an EPR policy on packaging and a ban on non-biodegradable bags, and in Zimbabwe, a thickness ban on plastic packaging and a polystyrene polymer product ban have been implemented. Policy mixes in Zambia include an EPR on packaging and a thickness ban on SUPBs, while in Cameroon, a non-biodegradable ban and thickness ban on packaging were applied. Packaging policies like SUP policies have similar uncertainty with the status of primary packaging that is either undefined or exempt. This undefined status creates a grey area in policy enforcement and introduces such plastic into circulation with or without a management plan. However, full exemption of primary packaging in packaging policies created SUPB policy by design in Burundi, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, and Zambia even though the policy is titled packaging. DRC provides the most comprehensive plastic packaging policy in Africa by covering the status of all plastic items under primary and secondary packaging (

Table 3. Product mapping in SUP, packaging, and multi-product policy designs in Africa.

					Secondary Packaging		Primary Packaging				Single Use Plastic Items
Country	Year of Adoption	Policy Instrument	Category/ Product Definition	Policy Coverage	Carrier Bags	Barrier Bags	Beverage & PET Bottles	Containers	Sachets Wrappers	Non-Food Packaging	Beverage Cup	Cutlery		Plates		Straws		Stirrers	Lids
Mauritius	2020	NBB	Yes/Yes	SUP	✔	E	✔	o	o	E	✔	✔		✔		✔		✔	✔
Senegal	2020	Ban	Yes/Yes	SUP	✔	o	o	o	✔	o	✔	✔		✔		✔		✔	✔
Rwanda	2019	NBB	Yes/No	SUP	✔	o	Out of policy				o	o		o		o		o	o
Mali	2001	EPR/NBB	No/No	Packaging	✔	o	o	o	o	o	Out of policy
Benin	2004	Tax	Yes/Yes	Packaging	✔	o	E	E	E	E
Zimbabwe	2010	TB/Ban	Yes/Yes	Packaging /PS *	✔	✔	E	E	E	E
Togo	2011	NBB	No/No	Packaging	✔	o	o	o	✔	o
Cameroon	2012	NBB/TB	Yes/No	Packaging	✔	✔	o	o	o	o
Burkina Faso	2014	NBB	Yes/No	Packaging	✔	o	E	E	E	E
DRC	2018	NBB	No/Yes	Packaging	✔	✔	E	E	✔	✔
Burundi	2018	NBB	Yes/No	Packaging	✔	o	E	E	E	E
Zambia	2018	EPR/TB	Yes/Yes	Packaging	✔	✔	✔	E	E	E
Seychelles	2013–2020	NBB/EPR	Yes	Multiple products	✔	E	✔	Out of policy			✔	✔	✔		✔		Out of policy

Abbreviations: Ban, total ban; NBB, nonbiodegradable ban; TB, thickness ban; EPR, extended producer responsibility; ✔, explicitly mentioned; E, explicitly exempt; o, status undefined; Tax, pollution tax from disposable plastic packaging; * Ban on polystyrene polymer products.

).

3.4. Scope of Product Policies

3.4.1. SUPB Policies

SUPBs constitute most product policies controlled in all African countries, with 28 standalone SUPBs in 11 category policies. By title count, policy designs mostly apply total (12), biodegradability (12), and thickness (7) restrictions with few charge and mixed instrument aspects on SUPB usage. In a few cases, partial restrictions transition to full bans due to previous policy failures [22]. Botswana’s 2018 ban replaced the 2007 levy, while Tanzania’s 2019 ban replaced the 2016 SUPB ban. Djibouti SUPB policy restricts importation with no determination text on usage including locally produced SUPBs. Thirty-five policy documents were subjected to scope and variability analysis due to text availability. SUPBs include both carrier and barrier bags. In the absence of a product definition, the status of barrier bags remains undefined in the policy and applies to carrier bags only. The inclusion of flat bags with handles and gussets was interpreted as barrier bags in this research, as found in policies from Zambia, Botswana, and Kenya. Total and partial restrictions indicate a fair distribution of such undefined status, with barrier bags fully restricted in only three countries (

Table 4. Types of main policy instruments applied to SUPB.

Restriction Scope	Instrument	Countries
Ban on carrier and barrier bags	Total ban	Kenya, Mauritania, Tanzania, Congo
	Non-biodegradable ban	Cameroon, DRC, Eritrea
	Thickness ban	Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Uganda, Tunisia
Ban on carrier bag with barrier bag status undefined	Total ban	Senegal
	Non-biodegradable ban	Rwanda, Togo, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon
	Thickness ban	Mali
Ban on carrier bag with exemption on barrier bags	Total ban	Mauritius, Botswana, Cape Verde, Gambia, Morocco, Seychelles
	Non-biodegradable ban	São Tomé and Príncipe,
	Thickness ban	Malawi
Ban on plastic bag imports	Non-biodegradable ban	Djibouti
Charge on carrier and barrier bags		South Africa (Also applies a thickness ban)
Charge on carrier bags only		Benin, Algeria, Mozambique, Lesotho

). This is attributable to the necessity of barrier bags serving as the sachet economy, a market in developing countries where manufactured consumer products are primarily bought in small quantities and repacked in bags rather than bottles or jars, including drinking water distribution [18,23]. SUPB policy cohesion is achieved in three countries. Thirty-two countries require additional policy mechanisms to manage either carrier or barrier bag flow downstream due to partial restrictions, exemptions, or undefined status on barrier bags.

3.4.2. Multiple Product Policies: The Case of Seychelles

Seychelles has five policies on multiple product policies: a non-biodegradable ban on SUPB (2017), utensils and polystyrene boxes (2017), and takeout straws (2019), a PVC label ban on beverage bottles (1994), and a levy on PET bottles (2020). Utensils are defined as forks, spoons, knives, plates, bowls, cups, and trays. The multiple product policy employed by Seychelles triggers design concerns about whether SUP is better managed wholly or at the product level. In SUPs and packaging policies, some products are undefined, weakening their management. Product policies provide a one-on-one management plan as a solution. Additionally, product policies provide a fine print of exemptions. The Seychelles straw law Section 2.1 provides an exemption for prepacked beverages or products with straws. There are limited studies on refined plastic waste characterization in many countries from Africa [40] to inform policy item targets in plastic policy. Plastic waste monitoring programs in marine environments provide products likely to become marine litter, informing recent SUP policies [41]. Thus, countries should establish plastic waste generation patterns for policy development since it is a tedious process to design each policy per product.

3.5. Complementarity of Policy Instruments

Policy classification is largely derived from policy titles setting the main policy instrument in publications. Policy designs complement main instruments with supporting instruments for the downstream management of plastics, especially due to exemptions, other sources of plastic pollution, or traceability. These supporting instruments include extended producer responsibility (EPR) and related mechanisms, such as source registration, source labeling, source reporting, recycling, and product designs. It is important to emphasize that EPR can stand alone as a main instrument. SUP and packaging policies reported supporting instruments in varying degrees depending on the design, the highest being seven instruments in Senegal. This concentration of supporting instruments is primarily found in SUP and packaging policy mixes due to undefined plastics and increased exemptions (

Table 5. Policy instrument mix in SUP and packaging policies by country in Africa.

			Supporting Instruments
Country	Policy Target	Main Instrument	Charge	EPR	Source Registration	Source Labelling	Source Reporting	Recycling	Product Design	Overpackaging	Polymer Restrictions	Degradability Restrictions	Awareness	Comment
Mauritius	SUP	NBB	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Bags	NBB	-	-	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Oxo ban
	PET Bottle	EPR	-	-	✔	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Senegal	SUP	Ban	-	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	Waste import ban
Rwanda	SUP	NBB	-	✔	✔	-	-	✔	-	-	-	✔	-	-
Togo	Packaging	NBB	-	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-
Benin	Packaging	Tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Bags	Ban	-	✔	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cameroon	Packaging	NBB/TB		✔	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
DRC	Packaging	NBB	-	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Burundi	Packaging	NBB	-	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Burkina Faso	Packaging	NBB	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Zimbabwe	Packaging	TB		✔	-	✔	✔	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-
	Polystyrene	Ban	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-
Mali	Packaging	EPR	-		✔	✔	✔	-	✔	✔	-	-	-	-
	Bags	NBB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Zambia	Packaging	EPR/TB	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Abbreviations: Ban, total ban; NBB, non-biodegradable ban; TB, thickness ban; EPR, extended producer responsibility; ✔, explicitly mentioned; Tax, pollution tax; Oxo, oxo degradable plastic.

).

Table 6. Policy instrument mix in product policies by country in Africa.

			Supporting Instruments in Plastic Policies in Africa
Country	Policy Target	Main Instrument	Charge	EPR	Source Registration	Source Labelling	Source Reporting	Recycling	Product Design	Overpackaging	Polymer Restrictions	Degradability Restrictions	Awareness	Comment
Seychelles	Bags	NBB	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Utensil and PS boxes	NBB	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Straws	NBB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	PET bottle	EPR	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Beverage Container	EPR	-	-	-	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-
Algeria	Bags	Tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Botswana	Bags	Ban	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Cape Verde	Bags	NBB	-	✔	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	✔	Reduction Targets
Côte d’Ivoire	Bags	NBB	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Djibouti	Bags	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Ban only
Republic of the Congo	Bags	Ban	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Food only/Oxo ban
Ethiopia	Bags	TB	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	Biodegradability labels
Eritrea	Bags	NBB/TB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gabon	Bags	NRB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gambia	Bags	Ban	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Kenya	Bags	Ban	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Lesotho	Bags	Tax	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Madagascar	Bags	TB	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	✔	-
Malawi	Bags	TB	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mauritania	Bags	Ban	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Morocco	Bags	Ban	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mozambique	Bags	TB	✔	-	✔	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
South Africa	Bags	TB	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Uganda	Bags	TB	-	✔	-	✔	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-
Tanzania	Bags	Ban	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Tunisia	Bags	TB	-	-	-	✔	-	-	-	-	-	—	-	Oxo ban
São Tomé and Príncipe	Bags	NBB	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	✔	-

Abbreviations: Ban, total ban; NBB, non-biodegradable ban; TB, thickness ban; EPR, extended producer responsibility; NRB, non-recyclable ban; ✔, explicitly mentioned; Tax, product tax or pollution tax; Oxo, oxo degradable plastic.

shows the policy instrument mix in product policies. Beyond waste prevention, there is source registration, a requirement for producers allowed to use and release SUPs into the environment to obtain approval from relevant government agencies in the three policy levels. Source labeling, printing producer information on SUPs, and reporting the amount of SUPs released into the market were noted in category policies. This enhances traceability by ensuring exempt plastics are traceable. Policy designers take cognizance of shortcomings in eliminating plastic and designing measures to manage any source of plastic waste. Awareness creation is, however, not captured in most policies except in Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, and Madagascar. The adoption of bans and charges is rarely successful in isolation without continuous public education on plastic pollution [42]. Similar variations in complementarity are available in Asia and the Pacific [26,27,34]. Notably, ASEAN countries have more policies on plastic waste imports [25] compared to the one policy from Senegal. The complementarity of instruments is important in policy cohesiveness since it seals sources of plastic waste. However, such policy designs push the burden of policy effectiveness to enforcement.

3.6. Implication of Status, Scope, and Variability of Plastic Policies to Waste Prevention

3.6.1. Policy Instrument Sources

This paper divides MSW plastic waste into SUP or non-SUP waste. Regulatory instruments like total SUP bans cover the defined SUPs whereby no plastic waste is expected with successful enforcement. Partial restrictions based on biodegradability, thickness, or recyclability enable approved consumption like economic instruments that induce anti-consumption through rational behavior [19]. These pathways enable plastic circulation and, therefore, the existence of some waste (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). The application of EPR anchors on additional costs associated with plastic waste management to incentivize both prevention and efficiency in recovery [20]. Thickness restrictions, while targeting waste prevention, also seek to improve the reuse and recyclability of plastic at the end of life [43]. Partial instruments, therefore, define in-policy sources of SUP waste as plastic products that are likely to become waste after consumption, such as a ≥ 30-micron thick bag or biodegradable bag.

3.6.2. Policy Scope Sources

Policy scope is the policy definition and listed products in the policy. SUP policies cover a broad spectrum of plastics and have a higher potential for waste prevention. At the same time, incomplete product definitions and listings introduce regulatory uncertainty of the unlisted SUP items, which increase in SUP and packaging policies. That is, whether they are subject to management even though they fall under the family of SUP definition but are not listed for management (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). DRC, Zimbabwe, and Zambia are the only African countries that provide clear packaging policy guidance on primary packaging. Considerations of policy instruments and scope dynamics give rise to out-of-policy sources of SUP waste that include SUP not considered by a category or product policy. Additionally, unclear policy definitions give rise to undefined sources of SUP waste.

3.6.3. Exemption Related Sources

Policies explicitly provide exemptions for various reasons. Primary packaging is explicitly exempt(Mauritius, Burkina Faso, etc.) or described using different phrasings, such as trade and manufacturing (Benin), packaging perishables (Cape Verde), and repacked foods (Seychelles). There are also industry exemptions such as agriculture, medical, pharmaceutical, military, scientific experiments, education, and construction. While these exemptions might lead to waste generation, the management of the waste streams should ideally be independent of MSW. Plastic waste management thus requires the improvement of other sectoral waste management categories. The other exemption reasons include hygiene (DRC, Burkina Faso, Congo) and food safety (Senegal). Waste management also receives preference under exemptions as garbage bags in São Tomé and Príncipe, Kenya, and the DRC. Exemptions result in exemption-related sources of SUP waste.

3.6.4. Transboundary Flow and Sources

The possible transboundary flow is based on different policy applications among neighboring nations. This avails SUPs in some nations while instigating their management in others. The possible flows include three levels: flow from countries without plastic policies to countries with plastic policies; flow from countries with partial restrictions, such as a thickness ban on SUPBs to countries with total restrictions, such as a total ban on SUPBs (same product flow); flow from countries with lower tier policy such as plastic bag policy only, where unregulated SUPs move to a higher tier SUP policy environment (Figure 5). Transboundary flow requires international or regional dialogue to harmonize policies and reduce plastic consumption. SUP policies have only been adopted in countries with small populations.

4. Conclusions

Plastic policies from Africa have been captured in global [3,13,21], regional [24,33], and subregional studies in Southern Africa [16], Western Africa [18], and East Africa [15], leading to the development of plastic policy data, primarily for SUPBs. The status of plastic policies in certain central and northern African countries has not been captured. Hence, a need exists for a regional study comparing plastic policies in Africa. Additionally, the persistent nature of plastic pollution has led to the exploration of plastic policies in mitigating plastic pollution with consideration of regional studies in Asia and the Pacific. This current study updates the list of active policies and qualitatively assesses plastic waste prevention and generation pathways.

SUPB (28) policies are the most dominant type, even though packaging policies (11) have existed since 2001. SUP (3) policies were more recently adopted in 2020 in Rwanda and Senegal and 2021 in Mauritius to target the management of more plastic products. Most policy (18) designs are anchored in nonbiodegradability restrictions, alluding to bio-based plastic as an alternative to conventional plastic. The category and product definitions and exemptions define SUP and packaging policy designs and products identified for management differed by country. Where such definitions are inadequate, exemptions availed, and partial instruments applied, SUP circulation occurs, resulting in less cohesive policies. Thus, sources of plastic waste can be mapped from policy design before implementation from partial instruments, policy scope, exemptions, and transboundary sources. Product policies provide a more targeted management focus but exhibit limitations in a diminished form. The design models anticipating plastic circulation beyond waste prevention apply supporting instruments (30), mainly EPR-based instruments, to enhance traceability and recovery.

To potentially increase the adoption of SUP policy instruments in African countries, the management of primary packaging and SUP items should be clarified in plastic policies, and potential sources of exempt plastic waste should be addressed. The management of transboundary sources of plastic waste will, however, require harmonization of plastic policies in the region. This research is limited by the qualitative assessment of policy details performed by authors and reliance on translated versions of policy documents from plastic policy databases. The association between plastic policy and plastic waste prevention can be assessed in-depth through field waste characterization of plastic waste in respective African nations. Additional research is necessary to map actual plastic consumption, littering, recycling, and disposal to inform the primary focus of SUP policy design targets. Future research is also needed on vertical policy coherence to assess the effectiveness of plastic policies with other national and international policies in the management of plastic waste in Africa.