The clock is ticking towards environmental catastrophe, but the international community remains frustratingly gridlocked. As reported by The Guardian on August 13th, 2025, crucial negotiations for a legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution have stalled dramatically, just one day before a critical deadline at the INC-6 talks in Ottawa. While diplomats debate timelines, definitions, and financial mechanisms, nations like Kenya and Tanzania, bearing the brunt of plastic waste impacts, are refusing to wait. They are doubling down on ambitious national regulations, showcasing both the urgency of the crisis and the limitations of fragmented action.

 

The Global Impasse: Ambition vs. Obstruction

The core of the treaty deadlock revolves around fundamental disagreements. A coalition of ambitious nations, environmental groups, and many developing countries advocates for binding global rules targeting the entire plastic lifecycle, from drastically reducing virgin plastic production (a major point of contention) to designing products for reuse and recycling, and ensuring proper waste management. Opposing this are major fossil fuel-producing nations and some actors in the plastic industry, who are pushing for a treaty focused solely on waste management and recycling, effectively sidestepping the need to curb production at its source.

The failure to agree on core obligations and a clear timeline for finalising the treaty text casts a long shadow over the process. Without unified global action, the transboundary flood of plastic waste (much of it single-use packaging exported from wealthier nations) will continue unabated, overwhelming the waste management systems of countries like Kenya and Tanzania. The spectre of “waste colonialism” looms large.

 

The East African Context 

Kenya stands as a beacon of proactive legislation in Africa. Its landmark 2017 ban on plastic carrier bags (one of the world’s strictest) demonstrated political will and significantly reduced visible plastic litter. However, recognising this was just the first step, Kenya has embarked on a more comprehensive journey:

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Regulations (2022, ongoing implementation): This is Kenya’s cornerstone strategy. It mandates producers (brand owners, importers) of plastic packaging and specific priority waste streams (including e-waste and tyres) to take full financial and operational responsibility for the collection, recycling, or environmentally sound disposal of the post-consumer waste they generate. Producers must register with the Kenya Extended Producer Responsibility Organisation (KEPRO), submit waste reduction plans, and meet increasingly stringent targets for collection and recycling.
• Plastic Action Plan (PAP): Complementing EPR, the PAP outlines a holistic roadmap involving government agencies, industry, and citizens to tackle plastic pollution across its lifecycle.
• PET Bottle Ban (Proposed): Reflecting its ambition, Kenya’s Environment Ministry has actively explored a ban on PET bottles (standard for water and soda) by 2025/2026, pushing aggressively for reusable alternatives. While facing industry pushback and implementation challenges (establishing robust return systems), this signals a clear intent to target high-volume single-use items beyond carrier bags.
• Enhanced Enforcement: The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) has intensified crackdowns on illegal manufacturing, importation, and use of banned plastics, imposing significant fines and closures.

 

Kenya’s message is clear: producers must be accountable, and systemic change, not just waste collection, is imperative. The stalled treaty makes achieving ambitious national targets more challenging, as it fails to regulate the global production surge flooding the markets.

Tanzania followed Kenya’s lead with its ban on plastic carrier bags in 2019 (Plastic Carrier Bags Regulations). Enforcement, particularly in Zanzibar and border areas, remains an ongoing challenge; however, a political commitment has been established. Tanzania is now moving towards a more structured framework:

• Draft EPR Regulations (2024/2025): Mirroring global and regional trends, Tanzania has developed draft EPR regulations targeting packaging waste (including plastic), electronics, batteries, and end-of-life vehicles. These regulations, expected to be finalised soon, will compel producers to finance and manage the collection and recycling of their post-consumer products. Establishing effective Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) and nationwide collection infrastructure is the next critical hurdle.
• Phased Approach to Bans: Beyond carrier bags, Tanzania has implemented bans on specific single-use plastic items within protected areas (national parks, conservation areas, beaches) and is considering extending bans to other problematic items like plastic straws and cutlery, particularly in the tourism sector vital to its economy.
• Focus on Waste Management Infrastructure: Recognising that bans and EPR require a foundation, Tanzania is investing (with international support) in improving municipal waste collection and exploring waste-to-energy projects, though plastic recycling capacity remains limited.

 

For Tanzania, the global treaty stalemate is a double blow. It undermines efforts to control imports of unnecessary plastic packaging. It hinders access to predictable international financing and technology transfer, crucial for building the recycling infrastructure needed to make EPR successful.

 

Why the Treaty Matters for East Africa 

The stalled treaty isn’t just a diplomatic failure; it has tangible consequences for Kenya and Tanzania due to:

• Transboundary Waste Flood: Without global rules restricting production and exports, both countries remain vulnerable to becoming dumping grounds for plastic waste disguised as “recyclable” material from countries with lax regulations.
• Unlevel Playing Field: Strong national regulations like Kenya’s EPR can put domestic producers at a perceived disadvantage if neighbouring countries or major exporters lack equivalent obligations. A global treaty creates common standards.
• Financing Gap: Implementing ambitious national plans (EPR infrastructure, recycling plants, enforcement) requires massive investment. A robust global treaty was expected to include a financial mechanism to support developing nations in this transition.
• Combatting Waste Colonialism: Only binding global restrictions on waste trade can effectively end the practice of wealthy nations shipping their plastic problems to Africa.

 

Way Forward

Despite the Ottawa setback, the INC process isn’t dead. Further negotiations are expected, but momentum is lost, and the level of ambition is in jeopardy. Kenya and Tanzania’s response is instructive: they cannot afford to wait.

Their continued push for stringent national regulations, such as Kenya’s trailblazing EPR system and Tanzania’s developing framework, sends a powerful signal. It demonstrates that action is possible and necessary, even without a global accord. It pressures industry to adapt and innovate for circularity within these markets. It empowers citizens to demand accountability.

 

However, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall solely on nations already grappling with limited resources and the visible impacts of pollution. The global community, preeminent producers and historic polluters, must break the deadlock. Kenya, Tanzania, and the African Group have consistently championed a strong treaty. Their national actions prove their commitment. The world must match it with a binding global ambition before the plastic tide becomes completely unstoppable. The stalled talks in Ottawa are a profound disappointment. Still, the determined march towards a plastic-free future in East Africa continues, underscoring the harsh reality that while the planet waits for consensus, the pollution only grows.