Nema bungled plastic bag ban campaign

A day after the polythene bag ban took effect, the National Environment Management Authority (Nema) was fire-fighting.

The trending headlines online were about the authority denying having shut down plastic-manufacturing plants, saying it had not ordered police to check cars for plastic bags and accusations against its officers, police and county askaris extorting money from those who ran afoul of the law.

Environment CS Judi Wakhungu gazetted the ban on February 28; yet six months later, it appears as if the grace period was inadequate.

Kenya had unsuccessfully attempted to ban the plastic bags thrice—in 2005, 2007 and 2011.

CELEBRATING BAN

Instead of celebrating the ban, however, people panicked. Warning messages urged people to throw away all plastic bags in their handbags and vehicles because police were doing random inspections.

Flower and tree seedling growers and sellers sensed loss of business; their trade thrives on their ability to grow the plants in the plastic bags for sale, ready for transplanting.

Nema’s communication strategy (or lack of it) then comes into focus. While the objectives may have been clear (to foster a clean and healthy environment for all), Nema failed to delineate its audience and their concerns.

This led to the roadside plant nursery industry’s concern, the manufacturers declared a loss of 60,000 jobs and shoppers were left confused, wondering what alternatives they had.

The enforcement strategy was also lacking. Nema created a vacuum by failing to outline their actions, leading to other people taking advantage of the ambiguity.

This forced the authority to hastily announce that neither the police nor the county askaris had been assigned the role.

PLASTIC BAGS

With all the plastic bags now hoarded in the houses and offices, Nema has promised to come back with a message on appropriate disposal methods—creating yet another vacuum with the lack of a timeline.

In all of six months between gazettement and implementation, Nema had time to be clearer and more engaging in its messaging.

We have seen goats and cattle rummaging through dumping sites full of plastic in towns and in the savannah countryside where the ranchers and nomadic people graze their herds.

What impact does that have on the animal’s health, the consumers of the meat and the economics as some of the animals die before their time?

All these are messaging opportunities that Nema could have utilised.

They could have been more graphic—including using video and short films, as well as story telling on radio and television—to ensure as many people as possible got to hear the news of the ban, know why it was necessary and what to do in the different situation.

TARGET AUDIENCE

More important, however, is the authority’s ability to clearly define the objectives of the campaign, the target audience and the key messages.

This would be followed by tactics to reach every target audience.

Hopefully, Nema intends to evaluate the campaign and will draw useful lessons from it.

It is hoped that they will realise that imposing a fine of Sh4 million on people who have never seen that amount of money is out of turn and the alternative of a year in jail is ridiculous.

This is simply creating avenues for the enforcers of the ban to engage in corrupt deals to ‘free the victims’.

Nema must not let its day in the sun be dampened by the cloud of ambiguity. It should engage all its audiences and point them to solutions and provide answers to their questions—and do so in a timely fashion.

 Ms Gitau is a communications consultant and chairperson of The Chevening Kenya Alumni Association and also the Public Relations Society of Kenya. [email protected]