PLASTIC BANS AND PHASE-OUTS

The study uses a dynamic input-output model to compare a business-as-usual baseline against two scenarios: an immediate ban (2024–2025) of four products and a phased withdrawal (2025–2030) of six others. Findings indicate that both interventions lead to positive economic outcomes, including real GDP and employment expansion, while reducing the costs of externalities. However, the transition would cause job losses in plastic production and a modest net increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to increased activity in substitute-producing sectors.

• The study identifies 10 high-risk plastic products for restriction: four for immediate banning (plastic stirrers, straws, oxo-degradable additives, and microbeads in personal care products) and six for phase-out by 2030 (barrier bags, lollipop sticks, polystyrene fast-food containers, takeout food sachets, single-use plastic tableware, and plastic-stemmed cotton buds).
• Both the ban and phase-out scenarios are projected to result in positive economic growth compared to the baseline. Real GDP is expected to increase by approximately 12% under the ban scenario and 14.5% under the phase-out scenario, compared to a baseline growth of 11.5%.
• Implementing the bans and phase-outs would lead to significant cost savings regarding externalities. The projected total cost of maintaining the business-as-usual scenario until 2030 is R47.8 billion, whereas the ban and phase-out scenarios offer savings of R1.5 billion and R2.5 billion, respectively.
• Employment is expected to increase overall, but the impact varies by sector and skill level. While sectors like agriculture and mining would see job gains, the plastic products sector would face workforce reductions, with the phase-out scenario resulting in a loss of approximately 19,900 jobs.
• The transition may lead to a modest net increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While emissions would decrease in the plastic products sector, they would rise in mining and manufacturing due to the production of substitute goods, resulting in a cumulative increase of 0.37% for the ban and 0.58% for the phase-out scenarios.
• Plastic pollution in South Africa has severe human health implications, particularly through the open burning of waste, which accounts for 56% of plastic leakage. This process releases persistent organic pollutants like dioxins and PCBs, contributing to respiratory and chronic diseases in marginalised communities.
• The report highlights the risk of 'greenwashing' and warns that simply replacing plastic with other single-use materials may not be environmentally superior. It emphasizes that a successful transition requires systemic changes, including refill and reuse models and behavioral change.

APA

Rossouw, R., Gihring, K., Pettersson, K. C., & Kasner, S.-A. (2023). PLASTIC BANS AND PHASE-OUTS. WWF South Africa. https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/web-wwf-plastic-phase-out-report.pdf

Chicago

Rossouw, Riaan, Katharina Gihring, Kiera Crowe Pettersson, and Sally-Anne Kasner. PLASTIC BANS AND PHASE-OUTS. WWF South Africa, 2023. https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/web-wwf-plastic-phase-out-report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Rossouw |first1=Riaan |last2=Gihring |first2=Katharina |last3=Pettersson |first3=Kiera Crowe |last4=Kasner |first4=Sally-Anne |title=PLASTIC BANS AND PHASE-OUTS |publisher=WWF South Africa |date=2023 |url=https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/web-wwf-plastic-phase-out-report.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rossouw2023plastic, author = {Rossouw, Riaan and Gihring, Katharina and Pettersson, Kiera Crowe and Kasner, Sally-Anne}, title = {{PLASTIC BANS AND PHASE-OUTS}}, institution = {WWF South Africa}, year = {2023}, url = {https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/web-wwf-plastic-phase-out-report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }