The Hidden Cost of Green Policies: How Ethiopia’s Plastic Bag Ban May Empty the Pockets of the Poor

By Ethiopian Tribune Correspondent

In the narrow alleyways of Merkato, Addis Ababa’s sprawling commercial heart, Almaz Tadesse clutches a worn plastic bag containing her daily bread purchase. The 34-year-old domestic worker, who earns barely 4,000 birr monthly, doesn’t realise that her simple act of carrying groceries could soon cost her a fine equivalent to half her monthly income. Ethiopia’s new plastic bag legislation promises environmental salvation, but critics warn it may deliver economic devastation to those who can least afford it.

A Tale of Two Burdens

Ethiopia’s Council of Ministers has approved a draft law to ban the import and production of single-use plastic materials, introducing penalties that range from 2,000 to 5,000 birr for mere possession of plastic bags, and up to 200,000 birr plus imprisonment for production or import. For perspective, the minimum fine represents more than a month’s wages for millions of Ethiopians who survive on less than 100 birr per day.

This legislation arrives as the second wave of Ethiopia’s anti-plastic offensive. In 2023, the government quietly raised excise taxes on plastic bags from 40 to 103 birr per kilogram a 157.5% increase that manufacturers absorbed through higher prices. Now, with possession-based penalties targeting end-users directly, Ethiopia has created what economists term a “dual extraction mechanism”: producers pay higher taxes whilst consumers face criminal charges.

“This is taxation by stealth,” argues Dr Mehari Taddele Maru, an economist at the University of South Africa. “The government frames it as environmental protection, but the revenue generation aspect is unmistakeable. When you criminalise poverty-driven behaviour, you’re essentially taxing desperation.”

The Global Playbook of Environmental Taxation

Ethiopia’s approach mirrors international trends where environmental policies serve dual purposes. Ireland’s pioneering plastic bag levy in 2002 generated over €200 million annually whilst reducing usage by 90%. Similarly, the UK’s bag charges produced £180 million yearly, officially directed to charities but functioning as consumer taxation nonetheless.

Kenya, which implemented remarkably hefty penalties in 2016, offers a cautionary tale. Despite having what many consider the world’s strictest plastic bag ban, enforcement failures created opportunities for corruption, with police extracting informal “taxes” through bribes. The result: plastic bags remain ubiquitous in Kenyan markets, whilst poor vendors bear the enforcement burden.

Mexico and Hong Kong adopted retailer-focused charges that consumers ultimately absorbed through inflated prices a less visible but equally effective method of transferring environmental costs to the public. Ethiopia’s model is more direct and potentially more regressive.

The Mathematics of Inequality

The social mathematics are stark. For Ethiopia’s urban poor, who comprise approximately 30% of city dwellers, a 2,000-birr fine represents catastrophic expenditure. Many rely on plastic bags not by choice but necessity they’re waterproof, durable, and often the only available containers for transporting injera, vegetables, and other essentials.

“Rich people use designer reusable bags and drive cars,” observes Ato Bekele Gerba, a street vendor in Piazza. “We walk everywhere and need bags that won’t tear in the rain. Now they want to fine us for being poor?”

The enforcement mechanism amplifies this inequality. Whilst affluent Ethiopians shop in air-conditioned supermarkets with alternative packaging options, the urban poor frequent traditional markets where plastic bags remain standard. Police presence is also higher in low-income neighbourhoods, making poor citizens more vulnerable to detection and fines.

Treasury Windfall or Environmental Fund?

Revenue projections suggest Ethiopia’s plastic penalties could generate substantial government income. With approximately 15 million urban households and assuming modest enforcement rates, penalty collections could reach hundreds of millions of birr annually comparable to entire ministry budgets.

The government hasn’t specified how penalty revenues will be utilised, raising transparency concerns. International best practice, exemplified by Ireland and Wales, directs such funds to environmental projects or public awareness campaigns. Ethiopia’s lack of explicit commitment to environmental reinvestment fuels suspicions about fiscal motivation.

Ethiopia’s recent amendments to excise tax policies, which became effective in April 2023, demonstrate the government’s aggressive pursuit of revenue diversification amid economic pressures. The plastic bag penalties represent another income stream during a period of currency devaluation and inflation.

Environmental Effectiveness Questioned

Research on plastic bag policies reveals mixed environmental outcomes. A 2024 study of 208 countries found that whilst bans reduce visible litter, they often increase air pollution as consumers switch to paper alternatives or resort to burning plastic waste—common practices in countries with limited waste management infrastructure.

Ethiopia’s environmental gains from the policy remain uncertain. The country’s waste collection systems are inadequate, particularly in rural areas where 80% of the population lives. Without corresponding investments in waste management infrastructure, the ban may simply relocate the plastic problem rather than solve it.

Moreover, enforcement capacity is questionable. Ethiopian parliamentarians have noted that 70% of citizens lack clarity about which plastics are banned, echoing implementation failures seen in Delhi and other cities where confusion enabled predatory enforcement against vulnerable populations.

Winners and Losers

The policy creates clear beneficiaries beyond the treasury. Manufacturers of cloth bags, paper packaging, and other alternatives stand to profit from forced market transitions. Import businesses dealing in substitute materials will capture market share from displaced plastic bag producers.

Law enforcement agencies may also benefit through expanded authority and potential for rent-seeking behaviour, as witnessed in Kenya’s experience with selective enforcement.

The losers are predictably those with least political voice: urban poor households, small-scale vendors, rural communities with limited market access, and informal sector workers who depend on plastic bags for daily survival.

Alternative Pathways

Successful plastic bag policies elsewhere offer lessons for Ethiopia. Wales achieved 96% usage reduction through phased implementation education campaigns followed by gradual penalty introduction. France used tax revenues to subsidise reusable bag distribution to low-income families. Denmark ties environmental fines to income levels, ensuring proportional impact across social classes.

Ethiopia could adopt progressive penalty structures, provide free alternative bags to low-income households, or invest penalty revenues in waste management infrastructure. Such approaches would maintain environmental objectives whilst avoiding regressive taxation.

The Road Ahead

As Parliament considers the plastic bag legislation, questions persist about whether Ethiopia is pioneering environmental protection or perfecting stealth taxation. The distinction matters for millions of citizens who face criminalisation of behaviours driven by economic necessity rather than environmental indifference.

The global experience suggests that effective plastic bag policies require transparency, equity considerations, and genuine environmental investment. Ethiopia’s current approach prioritises revenue generation over these principles, risking policy failure and public alienation.

Unless modified to address inequality concerns and specify revenue utilisation, Ethiopia’s plastic bag ban may join the ranks of well-intentioned policies that enrich treasuries whilst impoverishing the vulnerable. The environmental benefits, meanwhile, remain uncertain a poor trade-off for a policy affecting millions of lives.

The Ethiopian Tribune continues monitoring parliamentary deliberations on this legislation and its implications for environmental policy and social equity.