CONCISE VERSION - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO UFEPR

Please click here for the downloadable letter.

Comments and Responses to Guideline Document Uniform Framework for Extended Producers Responsibility (Under Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016)

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change - June, 2020

Comments may be sent at ad.raju@nic.in, gupta.dharmendra@gov.in on or before 31st July, 2020

The Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR) (Under Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016) is a welcome provision when there has been a dramatic increase in plastic pollution and the inclusion of the industry or producers to take responsibility for their plastic waste is of extreme importance.

In India, approx 25,940 tonnes of plastic waste is produced everyday of which a large portion is trashed. A key reason why so much plastic ends up in the trash is because nearly 50% plastic is being made into single-use items (Plastics Oceans International) and no amount of management and recycling will solve the issue unless production systems are made responsible and sustainable which should be the main vision of extended producer responsibility.

PM Modi urged people to make India a plastic-free (especially single use plastic - SUP) nation during his Independence day speech of August 15, 2019 and the same was declared at the UN General Assembly 2019. Extended producer responsibility provides an excellent opportunity to move closer to this target which is also aligned to SDG 12 of sustainable consumption and production, and to close the tap on unnecessary plastic production.  

Recommendations for the Draft EPR Framework

1.  EPR needs to commit to sustainable production and design by making producers / brand owners adopt sustainable material and design systems for their products to eliminate non- recyclable packaging like multi-layered plastics, styrofoam, etc. We recommend that the continued production of such low value, non recyclable MLPs and others, and use of unnecessary plastic packaging be strongly disincentivized for the producers through explicitly spelt out provisions of taxation or others, to steer them towards looking at sustainable design and material choices.
2.  The Uniform EPR framework being “geography neutral” does not recognise the socio-ecological specificities and regional needs that exist. For mountains, where waste management is challenged with higher costs, special provisions must be made to overcome this through levy of cess/ surcharge to finance better collection and management. We also recommend a viability gap funding provision to be made for waste entrepreneurs (as PROs)  for the mountain states.
3. The models that form the main component of the EPR are complex and hard to comprehend and need to be explained in greater detail. We recommend that a thorough consultation with key stakeholders on the provisions of the models be made before they are finalised.
4. The framework deems all plastics to be same, but low value non recyclable plastics mainly MLPs, styrofoam, PVC and other non recyclable plastic that do not flow back into the recycling stream must be looked at separately and companies must be strongly disincentivized for their continued production.
5. The plastic credits system advances pay and pollute and gives companies free rein to keep producing single use plastics, while offsetting the pollution caused by buying credits. This model enables paper trading and companies taking real responsibility and mountains stand to lose out greatly under this provision. We recommend that this plastic credit system is set around geographical parameters with recovery of plastic waste from mountain states to be given special preference by the PIBOs.
6.  This model enables paper trading and companies taking real responsibility and mountains stand to lose out greatly under this provision. We recommend that this plastic credit system is set around geographical parameters with recovery of plastic waste from mountain states to be given special preference by the PIBOs.
7. Companies earning plastic credit by burning of their waste through waste to energy, cement kilns and plastic roads is counter-productive as these are polluting and add to the climate crisis. We recommend that the EPR document totally removes this provision and plastic credits be provided only for recycling targets being met.
8. For consumer awareness, a labeling system must be designed to enable consumers to choose products of producers who are participating in the EPR scheme through a mark on the package, such as the Green Dot scheme.
9. Incentives to producers who innovate design systems in reaching their products to the consumers through bulk and package free buying systems minus the plastic packaging should also be provided.
10. Clarity on roles and responsibilities of the different institutions must be specified and local bodies must be empowered for implementation of EPR. States must be enabled to make EPR accountable and to access the resources of EPR.
11. The framework must ensure inclusiveness so that existing smaller players who are currently engaged in the provision of the much needed service of waste recovery do not ultimately lose out.
12. There must be provision for representation of people from various backgrounds such as independent environmentalists and subject matter experts who could provide regular and objective feedback should also be built into the framework
13. Rural plastic pollution needs to be recognised and the framework should include Panchayati Raj Institutions and traditional bodies where the guidelines talk about ULBs as these rural and traditional bodies serve the same functions and are the main vehicles of Swachh Bharat Mission.