Hazards of plastic pollution are arising out of single-use plastic. It is any plastic material that is used only once and then disposed of immediately. It has short-term usage. Plastic is made of petrochemical residue which is derived from fossil fuel petrochemical byproducts from the petrochemical industry. Polymers serve a wide variety of industrial purposes.
Across various industries plastic finds a massive application right from the cosmetics industry to the pharmaceutical industry to automobiles in every single sector the day to day-to-day life plastic has become omnipresent. Plastic straws and plastic packaging materials, plastic bags, plastic cutlery, and plastic spoons are plastic commodities that are used only once. In most cases, we dispose in an unscientific manner. The single-use plastics are very hard to collect and manage this waste. These petrochemical polymers have a very long shelf life. They are not biodegradable and remain in the environment for thousands of years. As a result, they can leech toxins into the environment.
It is a serious hazard to the environment, biodiversity, and humans as well. The Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 cast Extended Producer Responsibility on Producer, Importer, and Brand Owner. Extended Producer Responsibility shall be applicable to both Pre-Consumer and Post-Consumer Plastic Packaging Waste. It also provides the roles and responsibilities of Producers, Importers, Brand Owners, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or Pollution Control Committees, Recyclers and Waste Processors for effective implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility. Accordingly, the Producers, Importers and Brand Owners (PIBOs) and Plastic Waste Processors (PWPs) shall have to register through the online centralized portal developed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
International convention on plastic waste
The Basel Convention deals with the Transboundary of hazardous waste. It includes any waste that is dangerous to the environment and poses a risk to human health and biodiversity is classified as hazardous waste under the convention. It includes plastic waste, toxic heavy metals as a biohazard, and other chemical agents that are hazardous including radioactive substances. So, this convention ensures that the Transboundary movement that is dumping of waste from one country to another is tackled or prevented. The very disturbing trend is that hazardous waste is often dumped from developed countries to the least developed countries.
For example, developed nations like the US and Europe are developed economies that produce a lot of hazardous waste. To protect their environment, they dump plastic waste and any other hazardous waste on developing and underdeveloped countries. This Transboundary hazardous waste is dangerous. During the movement itself, there could be leakage of hazardous substances threatening the environment or it places an unfair burden on undeveloped countries or developing countries which increases the environmental and health risks.
Whereas the developed countries that contributed to the waste will get away with the responsibility. Under the Basel Convention, a separate provision was added to deal with plastic pollution. In 2019 during the conference of parties to the Basel Convention plastic waste was separately added. Under the basic convention norms, a call was given for the global community to focus on plastic waste management and ensure that developed countries don’t dump their plastic and hazardous waste on developing or undeveloped countries.
Then UNEP took up the initiative and held a conference in Nairobi 2022. All countries agreed that they need a global treaty to eliminate plastic pollution. Within two years by 2024, they set a target that will have a global treaty that will be legally binding on all governments which pushes our fight against plastic pollution.
Evolution of extended producer responsibility
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a concept where producers are held responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, including disposal and recycling. It is a crucial step towards sustainable waste management and environmental protection. In India, EPR was first introduced in 2000s, with the launch of the National Environmental Policy (NEP) in 2006. The policy aimed to promote sustainable development and environmental protection by encouraging EPR. In 2011, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) introduced the E-waste (Management and Handling) Rules, which made it mandatory for producers to manage their e-waste.
In 2016, the MoEF introduced the Plastic Waste Management Rules, which made it mandatory for producers to manage their plastic waste. The Ministry also notified The Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 as plastic waste is part of solid waste, therefore both the rules apply to managing plastic waste in the country. These regulations make it mandatory for producers to manage their waste and recycle their products.
To streamline implementation process of EPR, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, in its fourth Amendment to the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2022, notified ‘Guidelines on Extended Producer Responsibility for Plastic Packaging’ in the Schedule II of the Rules. These regulations mandate the generators of plastic waste to take steps to minimize generation of plastic waste, not to litter the plastic waste, ensure segregated storage of waste at source and hand over segregated waste in accordance with rules. The rules further mandate the responsibilities of local bodies, gram panchayats, waste generators, retailers and street vendors to manage plastic waste.
Non-effective of market based approach
In response, the CPCB has taken two significant actions. First, it commissioned an audit of nearly 800 firms, representing almost a fourth of the 2,300 registered recyclers who had traded certificates. Second, it undertook a comprehensive overhaul of the security features on the EPR trading platform, although this has delayed the Recycled process of filing returns for 2023-24 by several months. The CPCB has described these 2.5% problems as “teething issues” associated with implementing a large-scale electronic system.
While the audit is necessary, it should be a one-time initiative to avoid undermining trust in the system with annual, lengthy investigations. Although the CPCB has the authority to impose heavy fines, the process is lengthy and fraught with legal challenges. A market-driven approach to solving plastic waste has a significant but limited effect. Greater efforts must be made to curb plastic production and promote sustainable alternatives. Addressing the root causes of plastic waste and enhancing the effectiveness of recycling systems are crucial in mitigating India’s plastic waste problem. India is dealing with a massive plastic waste problem. According to a report of CPCB of India.
It generates four million tons of plastic every single year which is extremely toxic and hazardous. The plastic does not break down easily; it lasts in the environment for decades or centuries. It can leak toxic hazardous material into soil and the water system thus polluting them. It can be extremely hazardous for both flora and fauna even to human health. Out of four million tones only 25% are recycled. Hardly around one million tons of plastic waste have been recycled according to the government.
A way to earn plastic credit
There are enough rules and MOEFCC which is the nodal ministry, to deal with plastic waste. It notified the plastic waste management rules in 2016. Along with it create a regulatory framework for managing and recycling plastic waste. It also introduced the concept of EPR extended producer responsibility. This principle is under the e waste management rules. E waste is more hazardous. The producers, those who are essentially involved in the production, usage and importing of such hazardous waste they were given the extended responsibility to handle that hazardous product throughout the lifecycle.
Those are importing electronic items into the country like the companies, the producers, the manufacturers and the packaging assembly companies. Those who are selling the products so these entities would be accountable or responsible for the entire life cycle of the product and they must ensure that the hazardous e waste will come back to the recycling system, and it can be recovered along with scientifically handling the hazards toxic waste. Now this same principle extended to plastic waste management as well.
The importers, producers and large industries which use plastic packaging material would be primarily responsible for ensuring the recycling of plastic in the industry. They must work with recyclers or set up the infrastructure needed for collecting plastic waste scientifically and dispose of it in a scientific manner. So, this responsibility has been placed on the producers and industries through EPR. The data shows that very little plastic waste is being recycled in India. Just 25% has been recycled, a large part of it is getting dumped in landfills. It’s being disposed of in an unscientific manner.
This poses a significant environmental risk. It’s also burnt in incinerators. Several municipal bodies and corporations work with contractors who burn solid waste material along with plastic. This contributes to air pollution and emissions as well.
Fake EPR certificates:
India introduced a market-based mechanism under EPR model. To enforce EPR and hold the producers accountable an online portal was created. The environmental ministry set up an online portal for EPR. Those who are recycling plastic waste in India the recyclers can apply for certificates after they recycled certain amount of plastic waste. They must upload the proof and documents showing that this much quantity of plastic water has been recycled by this recycler. Once this is verified by the environment ministry an EPR certificate has been issued which is owned but he recycler. The recycler can sell these certificates.
The polluting industries will buy this certificate. Those who are using plastic which are not able to recycle on their own so they have EPR on them they will meet this responsibility by paying the recyclers and purchasing those certificates. It is very similar to the carbon market or carbon trading mechanism. One entity which reduces emissions will earn carbon credits. And trade them on the carbon market where the polluter who has breached the emission limit will purchase the carbon credits. It’s an incentive to those who are reducing emissions, and it penalizes those who are not focusing on reducing emissions. The same model is tried here with respect to EPR.
Suo moto by quasi judicial bodies
Taking Suo motu cognizance news item titled “6 lakh fake pollution -trading certificates unearthed in three States” in The Hindu, Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member issued notice to the Central Pollution Control Board (‘CPCB’) and Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change at Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka. In the matter at hand, the news item revealed the discovery of 6,00,000 fake Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) certificates by CPCB from audits at four plastic-recycling companies in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka.
The EPR certificates are used by companies that utilize plastic packaging to meet legal obligations by ensuring that a percentage of the plastic that they are using is recycled. Enviro Recyclean Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka), Shakti Plastics Industries (Maharashtra), Technova Recycling India Pvt. Ltd (Gujarat), and Asha Recyclean Pvt. Ltd (Gujarat) were implicated. As per the new piece, the CPCB found that these companies claimed to generate far more certificates than their actual recycling capacity permitted for.
It was also alleged that the recycling companies generated and sold fake EPR certificates without recycling the plastic waste. The CPCB, on physical inspection, found the discrepancies between the claimed recycled quantities and the companies’ actual capacities and sales records. This malpractice undermines the integrity of the EPR scheme, which is designed to promote the recycling of plastic waste. The companies that purchased these fake certificates may not have met their recycling obligations, leading to potential environmental harm due to the non-recycling of significant amounts of plastic waste.
The Tribunal said that the issue raised substantial issues relating to compliance of the environmental norms, especially compliance of Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (‘Rules, 2016’). The Tribunal impleaded and issued notice to and the Ministry of Environment,Forest&ClimateChange(Maharashtra),Gujarat),(Karnataka).
Loophole on fair market based transparent mechanism
To ensure that plastic waste recycling goes up and those responsible will be held accountable. There is a major problem. This portal has several flaws. Cyber security flaws. It led to hackers hacking into portals to steal the certificates and sell them on the black market. Thousands of certificates are stolen by hackers, raising doubts about the very credibility of this market-based model. It has been found out through audits that many recyclers were submitting fake claims.
They wouldn’t have recycled the plastic that they are claiming. Most of them would lie or exaggerate the number. In collision with corrupt officials, they have been able to get fake certificates on a massive scale so these two have been the operational problems when it comes to a market-based model of dealing with plastic waste regulation. The market-driven approach may not really work. The CPCB has taken countermeasures with the environment ministry to plug these gaps.
The Pollution Control Board stated they were strengthening cyber security measures and conducting through audit of all the recycling firms. India has around 2000 plus recycling firms which are registered with CPCB and around 800 of them which are suspected of resorting to such malpractices are being audited by the Pollution Control Board at the environment ministry. But on the security measures the government is trying to address that but still there are flaws with the system. The market-based model may not be the best model for plastic waste management.
Global treaty on plastic pollution
There is a Global convention all set to come up with a global treaty on eliminating plastic pollution. The hazards of plastic substances that India is going to deal with the plastic pollution. If the global treaty on plastic succeeds, then all the countries need to implement a ban on plastics immediately. Over the years the plastic will break down and leech toxins into the environment, water bodies, and soil increasing toxicity. It can lead to severe health consequences from hormonal imbalance, or the risk of cancer goes up significantly as these plastic constituents tend to accumulate in the food chain it’s a huge threat to marine organisms, especially microplastics. Much evidence shows that microplastics have already entered the food chain even in breast milk. It is a major contributor to pollution. That’s why the global community is trying to act against plastic pollution, especially in dealing with single-use plastic.
Those industries and factories that produce plastic exports and imports are responsible for establishing the whole life cycle for managing plastic waste. They must set up collection centers and incentivize consumers to come out and contribute plastic waste. They must spread awareness among the people as well. To encourage them to come out and contribute plastic waste. Then they must scientifically process, recycle, and manage the entire hazardous waste material which is the essence of Plastic waste management rules. It places an obligation on the industry, the pollution control board. It places an obligation on various authorities at the central and state levels to enforce these rules. Recently India took a big step when using single-use plastic. The Prime Minister of India has personally led a campaign calling for a ban on single-use plastics. India’s approach was the elimination of single-use plastic.
Accordingly, several state governments in India entirely banned the production and usage of single-use plastics. Even the new rules 2022 amended rules of plastic waste management rules identify 19 categories of single-use plastic that have been banned by the environment ministry. Until now India’s approach was to eliminate single-use plastics to ban the production and usage of single-use plastics. These amended 2022 rules applied to the production of single-use plastic and even the export and import of single-use plastic. A few states have tried implementing it as well. There has been a lack of enforcement at ground level by several vendors, institutions, and outlets that still use single-use plastic because there is no other viable alternative as such. Materials might be available which can replace plastic, but the problem is very expensive. Since the 1960s the world largely moved towards plastics for packaging and various industrial purposes. India had sustainable alternatives before. The point is it’s not as cheap or accessible as plastic. The sudden shift away from plastic is also going to cost the economy.
Comparative study on recycling rate
In South Korea, Curriculums cover environmental education from kindergartens through to elementary, middle, and high schools. Influential organizations have incorporated social environmental education in their programs. Some of such groups include: the Environmental Campaign Association, the Environment and Pollution Research Group, the Green Family, the Korean Environment, Scouts, the Young Women’s Christian Association, (YWCA), the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), and the Korean Institute of Environmental Education [111]. The Korean government highly publicized and implemented a Volume-Based Waste Fee (VBWF) system countrywide to reduce the quantity of waste and increase the rate of recycling.
The Korean government introduced several recycling policies, such as the Volume-based Waste Fee (VBWF) System, Extended Producers Responsibility, the Deposit Refund System, and the Waste Charge System. Up to now, the most successful recycling policies are the VBWF System and EPR [113]. The Wastes Deposit Program allowed manufacturers to deposit a cost in proportion to their production output and retrieve it in the amount in proportion to their records in reuse. Designed to encourage businesses to make the effort to recycle by offering financial incentives, the system faced criticism because companies simply paid the charge and did not make actual reuse efforts.
Importance of the informal sector: -Private companies or volunteers collect used products and donate them to the poor, sell them at low prices or export them to other countries. The recycling value chain has primary and secondary dealers, recycling micro and small enterprises, junk shops, intermediate processors, brokers, and wholesalers who conduct both formal and informal sector activities. Thus, because of revisions affecting permissions in the informal recycling sectors since July 2013, municipal governments in South Korea need to develop eco-friendly infrastructure aimed at the proper management and integration of the informal recycling sectors involving scavengers and waste pickers.
Support for introducing an EPR system through external experts The Ministry of Environment of Korea initiates overseas outreach and international cooperation as a principal field of foreign environmental cooperation in association with the country’s domestic environmental industry promotion policy. Subsequently, various cooperation projects such as technology cooperation consulting and initiation are carried out as a technology transfer medium for environmental management experience as well as to improve technology on recycling household waste, demolition waste, plastic residual products waste, and to generate energy.
Suggestions
The way forward to eliminate plastic mess focuses on recycling infrastructure, encouraging people to play a proactive role in the collection and disposal of plastic waste. Encourage the recyclers to focus on establishing more recycling plants. Ensure and scientifically handle all the plastic waste instead of just creating an incentive-based system through a market model where there is a possibility of such scams or fraud being committed. Instead, it’s better to focus entirely on creating the recycling infrastructure and work directly with the recycling industry. Pushing the producers and importers who are using plastic in the country to make that investment.
Conclusion
Market-based models are fair models on paper but in implementation, there are these practical problems and eventually plastic waste lying around and not being handled scientifically. To ensure that plastic waste is handled and commit to our sustainable environmental goals. It is important to improve the effectiveness of our recycling systems to address the root cause and focus on reducing plastic consumption. Create disincentives in the industry to minimize the usage of plastic be it for packaging, storage, etc. Find alternatives which are safer and cleaner. Encourage the adoption of alternatives and make it cheaper. Spread awareness among the public to reduce plastic consumption to move away from plastic dependency.
References
- SCC Online Blog – NGT ORDER: scconline.com/blog/post/2024/07/31/ngt-issues-notice-cpcb-moefcc-recovery-of-6-lakh-fake-epr-certificates-from-plastic-recycling
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/plastic-waste-management-amendment-rules-2022
- https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/roadmap-to-end-plastic-pollution-by-2040/
- Legal Framework Study of Extended Producer Responsibility:
- https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/2019___wwf___epr_legal_framework_analysis_vf.pdf
- Plastic mess related topic on THE HINDU news paper
- Article on ‘Extended Producer Responsibility for Plastic Waste’, by CS Anita Patil, Sr. Advisor, Bizsolindia Services Pvt Ltd. (May 2024)
Author: Lavanya KS is a 1st year LLM student at Chennai Dr Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam.
