Kirchherr et al. (2017) collated 114 definitions of a CE and argued that a common theme among them is that they describe the concept to be a combination of reduce, reuse, and recycle practices, and not a modification of systems geared toward economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and social equity. These three circular processes are usually termed as the “3R framework” highlighted by authors such as King et al. (2006) and Ghisellini et al. (2016). Other frameworks based on modifying the 3R framework with additional features that aim to holistically encompass the CE processes have been formulated and used by other specialists. For example, the 4Rs used by the European Parliament (2008), 6Rs used by Sihvonen and Ritola (2015) as a product's end-of-life technique, 9Rs by Van Buren et al. (2016) and 10Rs described by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2017) (see Table 1). The CE concept often contrasts with linear economy where materials are sourced, converted to products, and then used by the consumers who dispose of them after use. Kirchherr et al. (2017) defined CE as an economic system that replaces the “end-of-life” concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling, and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes. CE operates at the micro level (products, companies, and consumers), meso-level (eco-industrial parks), and macro level (city, region, nation and beyond), with the aim of accomplishing sustainable development, thus simultaneously creating environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations. CE is enabled by novel business models and responsible consumers who, for example, implement circular processes in their production or consumption, respectively. However, the concept has also been criticized as being too vague to be used practically (Valenzuela and Böhm, 2017; Corvellec et al., 2021). Critics of the model claim that it is more of a theoretical than a practical concept to drive sustainability of scarce resources and wastes commonly associated with the traditional linear economy (Corvellec et al., 2021). Despite these critiques, the CE concept is increasingly gaining prominence and has been widely adopted by stakeholders exploring mechanisms to address the impact of climate change, waste management, and environmental conservation.

Sustainability has emerged as a strong component in Rwanda's social and economic development journey post-1994 genocide. In 2005, Rwanda adopted Organic law No. 04/2005 which determines the modalities of protection, conservation, and promotion of the environment (Government of Rwanda, 2005). The adoption of the 2005 Organic law followed a 2004 study by the Rwanda Ministry of Environment which found that plastic litter threatened agricultural production, contaminated water sources, killed fish and created visual pollution that tarnished the image of the country (Dsilva, 2019). This law established the initial framework for policies relating to sustainability. Indeed, guided by the Organic law of 2005, in September 2008 Rwandan parliament passed Law N57/2008 which prohibited the manufacture, importation, use, and sale of polyethylene bags in Rwanda. The law defined polythene bags as synthetic plastic made up of numerous simple chemicals called ethene (monomer). In August 2019, this regulation was expanded to include other single-use plastic products, including straws, bottles, and food containers (Government of Rwanda, 2019).

Protecting the environment and sustainable management of natural resources has become integral in Rwanda's national development plans. It was a central part of Rwanda's Vision 2020, in which Rwanda sought to diminish pressure on natural resources and reverse environmental degradation (Government of Rwanda, 2012). In the successor Vision 2050, conservation is recognized as important to the sustainability of the tourism industry and the preservation of Rwanda's national heritage. Through Vision 2050, the government plans to continue positioning Rwanda as the global frontier for conservation (Government of Rwanda, 2020).

While Rwanda has consistently used the plastic ban to position itself as champion of CE and sustainability in Africa, few studies [see for example, Behuria (2021)], have explored the implementation of such policies in Rwanda without focusing much on their climate-change and conservation related effects. While scholars have explored implementation of environmental protection policies in Rwanda (Siegel et al., 2011; Nibeza, 2015; Danielsson et al., 2017; Whyte et al., 2020; Behuria, 2021), a few studies have explored strategies adopted by Rwandan manufacturers to ensure compliance with anti-plastic regulations [see for example, Behuria (2021). Similarly lacking is research exploring the effectiveness of government support to manufacturers following the ban on plastics and the implementation of CE-related policies. Existing studies tend to focus on the business-government dynamics environment and the politics surrounding the implementation of policies banning plastic (Behuria, 2019, 2021), or the environmental impacts of plastics, approaches to alleviate plastics and the attendant effects of such policies on the country's image, such as the “cleanest city” moniker given to Rwanda's capital Kigali by media commentators and scholars (see Hakuzimana, 2021). Other scholars have also found that despite efforts to make Rwanda a plastic-free country, scientific studies on plastic pollution and the impact of adopted policies in Rwanda are still lacking (Hakuzimana, 2021). The absence of such studies makes it challenging to obtain reliable data, and to understand the implications of adopted policies, for example, on the business environment. However, the lack of studies on the impact of sustainability-related policies, such as CE policies on business is not unique to Rwanda. In Africa, investigations on the impacts of CE policies on business, though upcoming are still limited (Andersen et al., 2021; Behuria, 2021). The limitation of studies on Africa is partly due to the lack of reliable data sources (Andersen et al., 2021) and the reluctance of businesses to participate in empirical research involving their relationship with the government, which is true in the case of our study. In states like Rwanda, with a centralized political system and a high degree of government involvement in business (Behuria, 2015, 2021), manufacturers often fear that their data may be transferred to authorities, whom they often perceive as “policing” them through environmental regulations. Furthermore in East Africa, such fears are not unique to Rwanda as manufacturers in Kenya and Uganda (Behuria, 2021), and Tanzania exhibited similar sentiments (Andersen et al., 2021). Lastly, the reluctance of manufacturers to participate in empirical studies, as one business leader informed us, is further caused by the fact that researchers do not always share the results of their studies with the private sector.

As aforementioned, the study thus sought to explore the experiences of Manufacturers in Rwanda as they navigate the ban on plastics and Rwanda's drive toward sustainability. More specifically, the questions we explored include: What are the challenges manufacturers face in their transition to alternative materials (question 1)? What strategies did Rwandan manufacturers adopt as they transitioned from the production or use of single-use plastics, which are prohibited, to alternative materials (question 2)? How has the Rwandan government been supporting manufacturers as they transition—and what other form of support do businesses require as they transition (question 3)? Finally, how does circular economy principles feature in Rwanda's sustainability policies, including national development plans (question 4)? Since Rwanda is a leading pioneer in plastic regulation and CE policies in Africa, a critical analysis of the experiences of its private sector with the implementation of related policies offers lessons other jurisdictions may consider in developing plastic management regulations and other green policies.

The study employed a descriptive qualitative research design based on qualitative data collected through field interviews with Rwanda manufacturers and desk review of literature on CE-related policies in Rwanda. Descriptive studies systematically describe a situation, problem, phenomenon, service, or programme (Kumar, 2011). The research was informed by the study focus, which sought understand the experiences of Rwandan manufacturers with the plastic ban policy.

Study participants were identified through a purposive sampling technique, which identifies respondents based on the nature and intent of the study (Groenewald, 2004; Tongco, 2007). The sampling process involved a desk study of firms manufacturing or using plastics in their business operations, and those responsible for implementing economic and sustainability policies in Rwanda. This resulted in the classification of firms into either primary or secondary manufacturers. Primary manufacturers are firms that manufacture single-use plastics, while secondary manufacturers are firms that use single-use plastic products to develop their final product. For example, a plastic bottle manufacturer would be classified as a primary manufacturer, while a water company that uses the bottle to package water for sale is classified as a secondary manufacturer. The total sample included 35 respondents comprising 14 primary manufacturers, 14 secondary manufacturers, three government agencies and two leading industry groups representing manufacturers (see Table 2). Despite this large sample, empirical data was collected from only nine participants, comprising four primary manufacturers, four secondary manufacturers and the government agency responsible for implementing and enforcing environmental policies in Rwanda. Some of the targeted respondents declined to participate despite ethical assurances and our framing of the study as necessary in understanding the experiences of firms as Rwanda implements CE policies. As aforementioned, businesses in Rwanda, and indeed most East African countries, are often reluctant to participate in studies that examine their relationship with the government (Andersen et al., 2021; Behuria, 2021). Manufacturers that participated in the study shared our view that the study could help inform policy changes that positively improve the business environment. The interviews were complemented with reliable secondary materials including media reports that contained statements from business leaders and business community representatives such as officials from Rwanda Association of Manufacturers and the Private Sector Federation (PSF), public officials such as the Rwandan Minister for Environment and Members of Parliament. The sample size is summarized in Table 2.

Secondary data was collected through a desk review of the Rwandan CE landscape by reviewing Rwanda's sustainable development policies and its adoption and implementation of regulations to manage plastics. The review covered academic articles, media publications, and government policy documents. The academic documents reviewed were those discussing CE concepts and its implementation, and those examining implementation of regulations banning plastics in Rwanda and Africa broadly. For media articles, the study focused on publications by leading Rwandan business and environmental journalists; these included their interviews with public officials such as parliamentarians and ministers. Finally, the study reviewed key Rwanda policy documents related to environmental conservation and sustainability, national development plans such as Rwanda Vision 2020 and Vision 2050 and the country's manufacturing-related policies. These documents outline Rwanda's sustainable economic development plans and related policies. Following desk research, empirical data was collected from the sampled population through field interviews using semi-structured questionnaires. The questionnaires were designed to collect information on business responses to the plastic ban, challenges faced, and available government support to enhance transition. Semi-structured questionnaires allowed participants to share their experiences broadly, allowing the researchers to ask follow-up questions based on participant responses. The data was manually cleaned and analyzed thematically to identify themes and patterns that respond to the research questions.

Results of thematic analysis of qualitative data show that there are two broad categories of challenges that manufacturers experienced as they transitioned from single-use plastics to environmentally friendly packaging. These challenges are classified as internal and external and summarized in Table 4.

Considering the ban of single-use plastic, the study sought to understand the available support provided by the government to support manufacturers. Thematic analysis of interviews indicate that manufacturers received support in the form of capacity development on the production of alternative materials, financial support, and tax exemption. In addition, the policy is implemented in phases, allowing them to transition their processes gradually. Moreover, firms that use plastic in their operations may apply to the government for a special waiver to the policy that enables them to continue using plastics in their operations. Given the highlighted challenges, the study explored what form of interventions would better support manufacturers in their transition processes. Table 5 summarizes the available government support and the type of interventions required.

This research question sought to understand the strategies and approaches manufacturers adopt to transition to production or use environmentally friendly materials. Seven of the eight firms interviewed (87.5%) reported having a transition plan. The strategies adopted under these plans include being flexible to easily adapt to changing government policy, working with recycling and waste management companies to collect and process plastic waste, engaging in consumer awareness activities, and using new packaging materials such as paper bags and glass in replacement of plastics. Thematic analysis of the data collected from firms that reported having transition plans is summarized in Table 6.

The key aspect of this study was to understand the implementation of CE-related principles in Rwanda. One of the research questions thus sought to explore how CE-related principles feature in Rwanda's sustainability and national development policies. The results indicate that since banning single-use plastics, Rwanda has consistently been implementing sustainable development policies and encouraging the adoption of CE principles. Rwanda has adopted various policies that align with the 10-R principles of circular economy (R0, Refuse; R1, Rethink; R2, Reduce; R3, Reuse; R4, Repair; R5, Refurbish; R6, Remanufacture; R7, Repurpose; R8, Recycle; R9, Recover) as summarized in Table 7.

The implementation of anti-plastic legislation in Rwanda has not been without challenges. Studies have found that while most SMEs are aware of the benefits of CE-related policies, their uptake of CE in business model development is hampered by various barriers, including a lack of financial resources and technical skills (Rizos et al., 2016; Andersen et al., 2021). For the firms studied, the policy resulted in increased business costs to acquire alternative materials and a lengthy licensing process to obtain exemption to the law from the environmental agency—for those eligible businesses. Primary manufacturers that initially produced plastic packaging have struggled to acquire capital to invest in a circular production process, such as introducing new technology to create alternative materials. They suffered from skills shortages as most were not better trained on new business models at the industry and managerial levels, a challenge further compounded by the lack of overall employability skills among graduates in Rwanda. Those firms are unable to compete by innovating new products or business models aligned with the new policies were forced to wind-up their operations (Participant 3).

More than 17 years since Rwanda first banned plastics, the most widely used packaging material, the country has not been able to produce or find a reliable source of alternative packaging materials. Secondary manufacturers that require packaging materials in their operations continue to face a supply crisis and have been unable to find a reliable supply chain to support the scale of their operations. When available, the alternative materials are costlier compared to plastics. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are particularly affected, as one Rwanda-based fruits and vegetable processing company that exports to European and North American markets reported. Though the firm has transitioned and mainly uses paper-based packaging instead of plastics, it noted that paper bags are not appropriate for packaging agricultural products as wet consumables can easily destroy them. According to the company:

Previous studies found that the plastics prohibition in Rwanda increased the packaging cost for manufacturers (Danielsson et al., 2017). For instance, following the ban on single-use plastics, the price of packaging materials for the food-processing industry increased from RWF 29.55 (USD 0.03) to RWF 118.20 (USD 0.12) (Afadhali, 2022). One firm that transitioned to packaging its products in aluminum bags saw the cost of the final product increase from RWF 236.40 (USD 0.24) to RWF 305.35 (USD 0.31) per unit. For Inyange industries, one of Rwanda's largest manufacturers, the price of packaging increased from RWF 59.10 (USD 0.06) to RWF 295.50 (USD 0.30) (Afadhali, 2022). Meanwhile, a plastic straws manufacturer noted that they invested Rwandan Francs (RWF) 250 million (US$241,000) to start the factory years ago, but would require at least RWF600 million (US$578,592) to invest in new technology to produce eco-friendly straws (Nkurunziza, 2022).

Internally, Rwanda lacks the capacity to develop a quality and reliable supply of packaging materials, and most secondary manufacturers rely on imports. Rwanda spent US$9.7 million on imports of polythene packaging in 2015, despite its ban on polythene bags (Bishumba, 2018). One firm observed that: “we have to import our material because we are looking for better quality material, and as you know Rwanda hasn't reached that level yet” (Participant 8). Before Rwanda introduced anti-plastic policies, chemicals, rubber, and plastics production accounted for <1 percent of its GDP in Rwanda. This was despite plastic production growing at an annual rate of 4.5 percent between 2004–07 (Jian and Martin, 2022). Between 2004 when Rwanda first banned plastic bags, and 2016, imports of plastics sharply reduced, falling from 1,092 tons in 2003 to just 18 tons in 2006, before bouncing back in 2008 when Rwanda formally introduced the national law banning plastic bags (Jian and Martin, 2022). Imports remained generally low, around 100 tons per year between 2009–2011 and reached 323 tons in 2016. Meanwhile, exports have drastically reduced (Jian and Martin, 2022).

The reliance on imports brings the added challenge of transportation and high import fees. Transporting materials to Rwanda can be very costly, especially if the shipment is made by flight (Government of Rwanda, 2016). According to one of the participants, the implication of the high cost of imported packaging materials makes the entire product more expensive in both local and export markets, resulting in lost or low market share. The participant reported that “the only issue is the packaging which makes the entire product more expensive… during the COVID-19 pandemic period, we had to ship all our packaging material by flight which cost us a lot money” (participant 3). Rwanda relies primarily on imports for non-agricultural products, including packaging. But transporting materials to Rwanda can be very costly, especially if the shipment is made by flight (Government of Rwanda, 2016). A manufacturer of paper products noted that the challenges of being a landlocked country and fluctuations in exchange rates make raw materials expensive since it results in high transportation costs (Participant 3). Similarly, due to lack of managerial and technical skills, some firms are forced to bring in foreign labor, which is costly and sometimes unreliable when workers have to repatriate to their home countries on short notice or when movement is hindered due to global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Policies that support the development of firms' internal and industrial capacity to manufacture alternative materials to plastics and in general, innovate new business models and products are necessary to support firms' transition process. Policies that aim to develop Rwanda's nascent manufacturing industry will not only support continued business operations during the transition process but will help alleviate Rwanda's over-reliance on imports in the long term. Participants noted that monetary and non-monetary incentives such as training needed to support previous manufacturers of single-use plastics to align their business models with CE principles, for example, in developing alternative packaging to plastics. Besides, firms also need training and tools to respond better to changing government regulations. This is especially crucial since most products, including Rwanda's famous Akabanga chili, are still packaged in plastic bottles. While most products can be packaged in glass, the industry does not yet exist. The packaging sector is cross-cutting since packaging is required by manufacturers across all sectors. Developing the local capacity to manufacture sustainable packaging materials will be crucial since the manufacturing industry is key to realizing Rwanda's national development priorities.

Except for one company, all the firms interviewed have not fully transitioned their business models and still use plastics at some point in their operations. The firms interviewed adopted different strategies to ensure compliance with plastic regulations and transform their operations from linear to circular production models. The strategies include employing a flexible approach to business strategy development based on monitoring, and responding to government policy-making since the law kept changing, building long-term relationships with suppliers and credit institutions, investing in new products and technology, training graduates with required business skills, and utilization of the special authorization license that allows eligible companies to import or use plastics in their operations.

Though this was not a critical part of our study, we found that the firms are engaged in some form of circularity. All firms encourage their clients to practice recycling and proper waste disposal. For example, manufacturers who use single-use plastics in their product development process work with waste management companies in the waste disposal process. One firm manufactures construction products and plastic-sheeting materials used in greenhouse firms has a contractual agreement with its clients. The contract requires clients to return the materials to the company for recycling post-usage (Participant 4). These firms also use a mix of paper-based products and non-prohibited plastics. Meanwhile, a leading manufacturer transitioned from packing water in plastic bottles to glass bottles but reported that making glass is costly, and there is no reliable supply (Participant 6).

A primary manufacturer of single-use plastics reported that starting the transition process earlier, when the policy was announced in 2008 was instrumental in their overall shift and continued business stability. The company shifted from producing plastic products to the production of paper-based packaging products. The company adopted an approach where instead of importing and supplying bags, it imports plastic reels and manufactures them locally for clients authorized by the environment management authority (Participant 3). Effective communication and cooperation of suppliers is also crucial in ensuring a seamless transition process. A paint manufacturing firm whose imports initially came wrapped in plastic bags reported that when the ban came into place, they informed their suppliers of the policy change. The suppliers had no alternative but to comply. While this particular company was not directly affected, they acknowledged that their suppliers may have incurred additional costs in finding alternative packaging.

In general, businesses appeared to support the regulatory processes that protected the environment and noted that such regulations, if well implemented, are crucial to the long-term sustainability of their business and consumer markets. For example, Participant 6 reported that:

Though Rwanda has banned plastics, companies can apply for a special exemption to import or use plastics in their operations (discussed in the next section). Due to shortage of alternative materials in Rwanda, especially packaging, and the lack of reliable supply, Rwandan firms are taking advantage of the special permit. According to the Rwanda Environment Management Authority (NEMA), manufacturers must apply for a license every time they import a prohibited plastic product (Participant 9). While some of the firms interviewed complained that the licensing process is time-consuming and the license itself amounts to the government policing their business, they understand it is the only way for them to continue some of their operations. To cope with the lengthy process, firms sometimes engage in marketing activities that sensitize their clients about their product and the process required to buy the product. Both firms and clients need a license to sell or purchase regulated plastics. The companies thus engage their clients first-hand and ask them to consider the time it takes to get the license to purchase the products. Firms reported that sometimes clients are frustrated by the process and often request them to apply on their behalf, which transfers the time-related costs to the business.

Collaboration between government and private sector in adopting CE and sustainability policies is intensifying in Rwanda. In June 2021, the Rwanda Private Sector Federation, an industry body, and the Rwanda environment management authority jointly established the Sustainable Management of Single Use Plastics Project (PET) (REMA, 2021). The PET project comprises three components: (i) collection, transportation, disposal, and recycling of single-use plastics, (ii) capacity development, research and awareness raising, and (iii) financial contribution from industries and importers. The project intends to contribute to Rwanda's plastic waste management processes through funding by private-sector companies who produce, import, or use plastic products in their business processes. As part of the project, the private sector federation expects to mobilize about RWF690.6 million (RWF) (US$0.7 million) during the first 5 years of the collaboration. Under the project one Rwandan investor has invested over US$3 million in a project that recycles plastic waste into construction materials (Moraes, 2021). In August 2021, the environment agency announced that all eligible manufacturers requiring special authorization to import plastic materials into Rwanda would have to contribute to the programme (REMA, 2021). Each firm that imports products packaged in single-use plastics into Rwanda will contribute RWF 90 (US$0.87) per kg of imported products; or US$90 for a ton of plastics imported. However, this requirement contributes to unfair competition between local manufacturers and importers since firms that export to Rwanda are not required to contribute to the Fund. While the private sector seeks to mobilize funding from their members for the project, the government has not provided similar financial incentives to complement their efforts. Indeed, most investments following the plastic ban, including in plastic waste management have come mostly from the private sector or the donor community.

Nonetheless, the government has welcomed projects that support its CE and sustainability initiatives. This is evident in the rapidly increasing number of waste management and recycling companies, including start-ups engaged in other CE-related initiatives in Rwanda, as observed during fieldwork. By 2019, there were about fourteen recycling companies compared to none in 2008. Together, these companies recycle 70–80 percent of the total plastic waste in Rwanda. These firms have been critical in the sustainable disposal and management of imported plastic waste in the country and in promoting the recycling culture, despite facing financial and technological challenges. Some of the imported plastic include plastic from ports of entry, mainly the airport. One recycling company estimated that they collect more than a ton of plastic waste each week from the airport alone.

In addition to the Sustainable Management of Single Use Plastics Project (PET), the government continues to collaborate with the private sector, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and civil society organizations. Initiatives involving civil society include promoting voluntary actions such as the National Circular Economy Forum that encourages business to lead in establishing a coalition on plastics and knowledge exchange between SMMEs and large companies. Rwanda has also developed policies that feature CE-principles in an effort to balance between growth and environmental efficiency (see Table 6) and is developing a draft National Strategy on CE. According to REMA, Rwanda will continue to explore initiatives and legal frameworks such as an environmental levy on imported consumer goods packaged in single-use plastics, training and research on circular economy and circular business models (Participant 9).

Manufacturing is a sustainable growth engine that serves as an impetus for innovation and generates economies of scale. The Rwandan government has provided some support, including tax incentives, to companies willing to invest in plastic recycling equipment or manufacture environment-friendly alternatives. However, the manufacturing industry in Rwanda is still in its infancy stages, evidenced by the reliance on the import of most non-agricultural products. Regular collaboration between business and government remains crucial in balancing Rwanda's sustainability objectives and the development of the manufacturing industry.

As the manufacturers who participated in the study observed, Rwanda should complement private sector initiatives, for example, by developing partnerships with financial institutions to offer capital or credit to assist firms to acquire the necessary technology to transition from linear to circular production models. The government should also continue raising awareness of the importance of CE in business efficiency. However, activities should be targeted to educate firms on how to repurpose their business models, including through research and development (R&D) support to allow them to remain relevant in the ever-changing marketplace. Manufacturers are aware that business regulations and policies are bound to change at some point in response to developments in society. However, they cautioned that the uptake of CE principles in business may be hard if firms are not trained on critical methodologies for meaningful CE-based business model innovation. Encouraging research and development may also allow manufacturers to dig deeper and discover more ways of incorporating circular economy principles into their processes.

Furthermore, Rwanda needs to develop local capacity to produce alternative materials to plastic or develop a reliable global supply chain. This is necessary to cushion its manufacturing industry from the perennial shortage of packaging materials. Indeed, countries considering Rwanda's approach to the plastic ban should conduct an internal analysis to determine the potential impact of the ban on plastics on manufacturers and consumers beyond the well-documented positive environmental benefits. The challenges facing Rwanda firms after the prohibition are parallel to the challenges facing countries in the transition toward green energy. For example, the debates on the effectiveness and sustainability of green energy vs. fossil fuels such as coal in massive industrial development are necessary for job creation. In Rwanda, initial research on the potential impact of the ban on plastic seemed to have focused on the improvements in the environment and other dividends, such as the clean-country view, and largely ignored implications on the broader economy, such as constraints faced by manufacturers.

Finally, Rwanda should work with local and international stakeholders to address the situation that warrants the issuance of exceptional authorization to import single-use plastics. While the license is necessary to ensure Rwanda complies with its international obligations, it indirectly hinders innovation and full adoption of the CE principles in business and other sustainability policies. Local manufacturers will likely continue to rely on the incentive until a local industry develops to provide alternative packaging materials. International companies exporting to Rwanda, protected by non-discriminatory clauses of global trade agreements, will similarly lack incentives to develop alternative packaging materials for products destined for Rwanda. Initiatives such as an international treaty to ban plastics which Rwanda participates in, if successful, could help address this challenge (United Nations, 2022). Rwanda should also consider joining the coalition of WTO countries participating in The Informal Dialogue on Plastics Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade (IDP) that seeks to complement discussions in the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) (WTO, 2022). Despite its leadership in plastic management policies, at the time of writing, Rwanda was not among the 75 WTO members (including eight African countries) participating in the IDP, which is gradually emerging as a forum for setting informal agenda on trade in plastic products within the WTO framework.