Extended Producer
Responsibility:
A strategy to achieve circular economy in plastic packaging
Countless
applications of plastic along with its matchless characteristics have
resulted in the exponential growth in its consumption across the globe.
Its durability, one of its hailed benefits, is at the same time being
reviled as the biggest threat the polymer is posing to the environment.
BBC recently reported the discovery of a plastic sandwich wrapper from
Scotland’s Cairngorms National Park dating back by almost three decades
with no signs of degradation, which clearly demonstrates its durable
nature and threat.
Based
on the 'polluter pays' principle, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
for the plastic sector was first introduced in India under Plastic Waste
Management (PWM) Rules, 2016. The rules imposed the onus of collection,
transportation, scientific disposal and management of post-consumer
plastic on its producers, importers, and brand owners (PIBOs). Though
the rules mandated installation of the waste collect-back system and
respective plan submissions by PIBOs to the state pollution control
boards (SPCBs), the lack of clarity of the mechanism, registration
norms, unpreparedness of PIBOs and poor municipal capacities resulted in
poor implementation of these regulations.
It was in FY 2018 that the country started taking meaningful steps
aligned with EPR, following an amendment of the PWM rules providing
clarity on the registration norms. Recently, in FY 2020, the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has introduced the draft
Uniform Framework for EPR, spelling out the responsibilities of the
centre, urban local bodies (ULBs), and PIBOs as well as other
specifications. Three models proposed in the framework for waste
collect-back systems include a polluter fee, Producer Responsibility
Organisation (PRO) and the plastic credit model.
Under the fee-based model, PIBOs are mandated to contribute to an EPR
corpus fund at the central level based on the normative cost borne by
ULBs to manage the waste generated. Under the PRO model, PIBOs rely on a
certified PRO who manages the recycling on its behalf for a negotiated
sum. Under the plastic credit model, PIBOs need not recycle their own
waste but recover/recycle an equivalent amount of waste to meet the
obligation. Under all models, PIBOs are mandated to furnish appropriate
evidence for the waste processed from accredited processors. The
framework has held the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as the
body responsible for forming a national level PRO Association and
monitor and report the entire EPR mechanism.
The
countries that have successfully implemented the EPR have limited their
scope to specific types of plastic waste and have an established
segregation system. However, India's draft framework has not clearly
defined its scope nor does it have a solid segregation system. The
devolution of the EPR corpus fund from the centre to the local level can
improve its accessibility and reduce approval and permission timeline
enabling faster implementation. The framework currently based on the
'polluter pays' principle should take into consideration the strategies
to minimise the production by introducing regulations for design
improvements such as design for environment, design for collection, and
design for recycling/reuse to delay the end of life and provide other
incentives and impose punitive measures at the upstream sector.
The framework should also consider listing feasible alternative
materials having evaluated its sourcing sufficiency and environmental
footprint in comparison to plastic. Additionally, systematising steps to
link back waste to its producers and ensuring proper enforcement and
monitoring, EPR will prove to be one of the powerful tools to curb the
plastic waste crisis in India. ■
References
Sherine Thandu Parakkal
stparakkal@devalt.org
Back to Contents
|