Christopher Mahove
Harare—Zimbabwe’s continued failure to decisively enforce a ban on thin plastic bags is quietly pushing the country toward an environmental crisis, one in which ecosystems are slowly choked by waste.
Thin plastics fragment into microplastics that contaminate soil and water, reduce soil fertility, and enter the food chain through fish, livestock and crops. Over time, these pollutants accumulate, threatening food security, biodiversity and public health.
Although authorities have, over the years, announced several measures to curb plastic pollution, most have remained largely symbolic.
Regulations exist, but enforcement has been weak, and the situation has worsened amid the rapid expansion of informal trade.
Zimbabwe’s Environmental Management Agency (EMA) Act, together with Statutory Instrument 98 of 2010 (Plastic Packaging and Plastic Bottles Regulations), bans the manufacture, commercial distribution and importation of plastic packaging with a wall thickness of less than 30 micrometres.
The law specifically targets “thin plastics” or single-use carrier bags, which are widely blamed for environmental degradation, choking livestock and blocking drainage and sewer systems.
Plastic bread packaging, typically measuring up to 25 micrometres, is exempt from the ban.
Despite the clarity of the legislation, thin plastic bags remain commonplace.
Authorities have offered no convincing explanation for why their use has increased in recent years instead of declining.
Environmental advocates argue that Zimbabwe can still change course by combining stronger policy enforcement with innovation and public participation.
Investing in locally produced alternatives—such as cloth, paper or biodegradable bags—could not only reduce pollution but also create much-needed jobs.
Justice Zvaita, board chairperson of Climate Action Network Africa and programmes coordinator for Climate Network Zimbabwe, says the failure to enforce plastic regulations is rooted in systemic, institutional and socio-economic challenges.
“While the laws exist on paper, enforcement remains weak due to limited regulatory capacity, inadequate monitoring mechanisms and insufficient political will,” Zvaita said. He added that EMA is often under-resourced, lacking personnel, transport and technical tools to carry out regular inspections at borders, manufacturing sites and retail outlets.
“The non-enforcement of existing plastic bans stems from a combination of weak institutional capacity, strong economic counter-pressures and insufficient political will,” he said. “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws are a vital mechanism to transform this dynamic by internalising the cost of waste management into product prices.”
Zvaita also pointed to corruption and informal cross-border trade, which he said allow banned thin plastics—often cheaper—to flow in from neighbouring countries, undermining local compliance.
He noted that the lack of affordable alternatives for low-income consumers and small businesses further complicates enforcement. Many depend on cheap plastic for daily packaging needs.
“Without accessible substitutes such as reusable bags, paper or thicker compliant plastics, enforcement feels punitive rather than supportive, breeding public resistance,” Zvaita said. “Solving plastic pollution requires moving beyond bans alone toward a circular economy where responsibility, innovation and equity converge.”
EMA spokesperson Amkela Sidange, however, downplayed the scale of the problem, insisting that the agency continues to enforce the law.
“Statutory Instrument 98 of 2010 remains a critical pillar of the agency’s strategy to reduce plastic pollution and protect ecosystems from non-biodegradable waste,” Sidange said.
She claimed EMA regularly conducts nationwide monitoring and enforcement blitzes, penalising manufacturers and retailers found in possession of plastic packaging below the 30-micrometre threshold. Non-compliant materials, she said, are routinely seized at ports of entry and warehouses, while repeat offenders are prosecuted.
Sidange added that EMA carries out continuous public awareness campaigns and engages industry players to discourage the distribution and use of thin plastics.
“Since the promulgation of the SI, the country has realised a meaningful reduction of thin plastics in the formal sector, although they continue to find their way into the informal sector,” she said.
EMA, she added, is also engaging industry on the gradual phase-out of single-use plastic carrier bags, noting that thin plastics are difficult to recycle, easily wind-blown and a major cause of blocked drainage systems, flash flooding and livestock deaths.
Zvaita argues that well-designed and rigorously enforced Extended Producer Responsibility laws—requiring manufacturers and retailers to fund and manage waste collection and recycling—could be transformative.
“EPR addresses the problem at its source by applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle,” Zvaita said. “It generates dedicated, industry-funded finance for collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure, relieving the burden on local authorities.”
The environmental cost of inaction is already visible. Urban flooding has become more frequent as storm drains clog with plastic waste. Wetlands, already under pressure, are losing their ability to filter water and buffer floods.
Wildlife—from cattle in communal areas to birds in national parks—ingest plastic or become entangled in it, often with fatal consequences.