Every day, millions of Ugandans buy bottled water, soda, cooking oil, bread and countless other packaged products.
A few hours later, much of that packaging becomes waste.
Some is collected. Some is recycled. But much of it ends up in drainage channels, wetlands, roadsides, open dumps and already overstretched landfills.
Uganda generates an estimated 600 tonnes of plastic waste every day, yet less than 40 percent is properly collected and managed. The remainder becomes somebody else’s problem, local governments, taxpayers, communities and the environment.
This raises an uncomfortable question.
Who should pay for managing the waste created by products long after they have been sold?
For years, Uganda’s waste debate has focused on collection trucks, dumpsites and clean-up campaigns. These are important. But they address what happens after waste is generated rather than who should bear responsibility for it in the first place.
Uganda wants cleaner cities.
Uganda wants more manufacturing.
Uganda wants more jobs for young people.
Yet every day we discard materials that could contribute to all three objectives.
Plastics, paper, glass and metal packaging are increasingly recognised around the world as valuable industrial inputs capable of supporting recycling industries, manufacturing enterprises and circular economy businesses. What many people see as waste can also be raw material, feedstock for industry and a source of jobs.
The question is whether Uganda’s policies adequately reflect that reality.
Around the world, countries are increasingly adopting a principle known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
The idea is simple.
Those who place products and packaging on the market should contribute towards the cost of collecting, recovering and recycling that packaging once consumers have finished using it.
In other words, responsibility should not end at the supermarket shelf.
Consider a plastic bottle purchased in Kampala.
Once the drink has been consumed, somebody must collect that bottle. Somebody must transport it. Somebody must sort it. Somebody must recycle it or safely dispose of it.
Every step costs money.
The question is whether those costs should continue falling largely on taxpayers and local governments, or whether producers and importers should share responsibility for the waste generated by the products they profit from selling.
This issue is becoming increasingly important as Uganda’s urban centres continue to grow.
The tragedy at Kiteezi served as a painful reminder that waste management is not merely an environmental issue. It is also a public health, infrastructure and governance challenge. As cities expand and consumption increases, waste management costs will continue to rise. Simply creating larger dumpsites cannot be a sustainable long-term strategy.
What Uganda requires is a system that reduces waste, increases recovery and ensures that responsibility is shared more fairly across the value chain.
Importantly, such a system would not only reduce pollution.
It could also stimulate economic activity.
Waste collectors could earn more stable incomes. Youth-owned aggregation businesses could emerge and grow. Recycling enterprises could expand. Manufacturers could gain access to locally sourced recycled materials instead of relying entirely on imported inputs. Investments in recycling infrastructure could create new opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship.
In effect, waste could move from being a municipal liability to becoming an economic resource.
Of course, businesses often argue that additional environmental obligations increase operating costs. That concern deserves consideration.
But an equally important question remains.
If producers do not contribute towards managing packaging waste, who should?
Should it be municipalities already struggling with limited budgets?
Should it be taxpayers?
Or should communities continue bearing the environmental and public health consequences of unmanaged waste?
These are policy choices.
Increasingly, countries around the world are concluding that responsibility for waste management should not rest solely with governments and consumers. Those who place packaging on the market should also play a meaningful role in managing its environmental consequences.
Uganda’s waste challenge is often discussed as a problem.
It is. But it is also an opportunity.
An opportunity to build recycling industries.
An opportunity to create jobs.
An opportunity to strengthen manufacturing.
The product may be sold.
The profits may already have been earned.
But the packaging remains.
Someone must manage it.
Someone must bear the cost.
The question policymakers should confront is simple:
Should that burden continue falling largely on taxpayers and local governments, or should those who place packaging on the market assume a greater share of responsibility?
The answer may determine whether Uganda’s growing waste challenge becomes an environmental burden, or the foundation of a cleaner, more competitive and more circular economy.
Dr. Juliet Kabasiita Kiiza (PhD)
Climate Change and Green Economy Specialist
jkab75@yahoo.co.uk
English 