The Government of India’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for plastic waste management faces scrutiny. A report from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) has brought into light critical flaws in the implementation of the 2022 EPR guidelines, revealing that many of the largest plastic polluters are not adequately participating in the system. The findings indicate a pressing need for reform to uphold the “polluter pays” principle effectively.
About Extended Producer Responsibility
EPR is an environmental policy approach that holds producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products, particularly at their end-of-life stage. The 2022 guidelines require manufacturers, importers, and brand owners to register on a centralised portal and meet specific targets for collection, recycling, and re-use of plastic packaging. This aims to incentivise responsible production and waste management practices.
Current Registration Landscape
As of late 2023, approximately 41,577 stakeholders registered on the EPR portal. Notably, 83% are importers, while producers, who contribute 65% of plastic packaging, represent only 11% of registrations. This discrepancy raises concerns about compliance and accountability, as many major contributors to plastic waste evade registration.
Fraudulent Practices and Their Impact
The CSE report uncovered alarming instances of fraud, with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) identifying 700,000 fake certificates generated by plastic recyclers—38 times the legitimate capacity. Such malpractices undermine the integrity of the EPR system, driving down certificate prices and reducing the motivation for genuine recycling efforts.
Disparities in Reporting and Capacity
The report marks discrepancies between reported and actual waste processing capacities. For instance, cement plants claimed to process 335.4 million tonnes of plastic waste annually, despite having a verified capacity of only 11.4 million tonnes. This inconsistency marks the urgent need for better regulatory oversight and accurate reporting mechanisms.
Inclusion of Key Stakeholders
A critical gap in the EPR framework is the exclusion of urban local bodies and informal waste collectors, who play a vital role in managing plastic waste. Their lack of representation deprives them of necessary support and incentives, placing an undue burden on local governments and hampering effective waste management.
Path Forward and Corrective Measures
Despite the challenges, the CSE report suggests that there is still time for corrective action before the guidelines’ deadline in 2027-28. Proposed measures include recognising the informal sector, eliminating fraudulent practices, and encouraging accurate reporting on plastic waste generation. Additionally, standardising packaging materials could enhance recyclability and facilitate better waste management outcomes.
