Humanity is overconsuming natural resources and generating waste at an unsustainable rate. The packaging industry has grown due to new materials like plastics replacing traditional materials after World War 2. Packaging is now used for both transporting products and marketing. In India, packaging waste is growing along with municipal solid waste but there is a lack of data and most packaging waste ends up buried rather than recycled. Extended producer responsibility aims to reduce packaging waste by making producers responsible for managing waste from their products.

1. Packaging Waste & Extended Producer Responsibility
“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”- Mahatma Gandhi
Introduction:
Humanity is overshooting Earth’s ecological limits, consuming resources and generating waste at an unsustainable rate.
Under a “business as usual” scenario, by 2030 the resource capacity of two Earths will be required to keep up with our
one Earth’s natural resource consumption, according to World Wildlife Fund and Global Footprint Network. In this
context, we simply cannot afford to bury valuable packaging materials. Many of our current production and consumption
patterns have not begun to shift toward systems of long-term sustainability.
Economists have for long debated over the Needs and Wants presiding in a free market. However, when it comes to the
quotidian application of Packaging Materials, the commoner often gets confused, voluntarily or involuntarily, in
distinguishing the needs from wants for the use of packing in our society. The packaging industry is an ancient industry
that has been around since the early days of man and encompassed crude packaging materials and designs to meet the
needs of hunting and gathering to survive. Paper and cardboard became important packaging materials in 1900s, however
with the invention of plastic, it started replacing paper as a packaging material.
General use of plastics in packaging applications has started after World War 2. Polyethylene was produced in abundance
during the war years and became an easily found material in the market right after the war. In the beginning it replaced the
wax paper used in bread packaging. The growth in plastic packaging has sped up since 1970s and with today's technology
and conditions, these previous materials have been replaced by more suitable and economic materials such as glass, metal,
plastic, paper and cardboard. During those years packaging was used only for transport and storage, but with these new
materials it has also begun to advertise the product. So now packaging is part of marketing policy. This is because
packaging creates the distinction between the same type of products sitting side by side on shelves.
Packaging encompasses a wide range of material types across paper, board, plastic, metal, glass, wood and other materials.
The largest share of global packaging is accounted for paper and board packaging with sales of $165 billion in 2003,
equating to 38% of the market. Paper and board will remain the single largest element of the market into 2009, growing at
an annual rate of around 4% in real terms, driven on the one hand by rising demand in fast-growth national markets as well
as steady growth in secondary/ bulk packaging across the globe.

2. Global Packaging Industry
The global consumer flexible packaging market is worth $58.3 billion in 2011 and is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 4.1
percent to reach $71.3 billion by 2016, according to the latest research from International. A new study from Pira, “The
Future of Global Flexible Packaging to 2016,” shows how flexible packaging market growth has been driven by the
replacement of traditional pack types such as metal cans, glass and plastic bottles, and liquid cartons across a wide range
of end-use sectors. The tonnage for the global consumer flexible packaging market is projected at 18.1 million in 2011 and
is forecast to reach 22.5 million tonnes by 2016.
Plastic packaging accounted for 30% of sales, with rigid plastics alone taking an 18% share of the market. Rigid plastics
was the fastest growing sector of the market during the period 1999-2003 at an annual rate of 6.2% to $77.2 billion. This
was driven by several factors: rising demand for PET bottles in soft drink and bottled water markets; the consistent
substitution of traditional metal, glass and sometimes paper-based materials in food and other markets; increasing
incursions by packaging as a whole into food markets, particularly in the case of meat, fish and poultry products; and rising
consumption of ready-meals and other convenience-oriented products. Rigid plastic packaging will continue to be the
fastest growing sector of the market, with consumption forecast to progress at an annual average rate of 6.5% in the period
to 2009 to reach $116 billion, with consumption of flexible plastic packaging also set to grow at an above-average rate,
driven by rising demand in fast-growth markets in Asia and other emerging regions.
Across other sectors, metal packaging, accounting for 18% of the market in 2003, is set to grow steadily, but will lose
further share to plastics in beverage markets with food cans also losing share. Glass packaging, meanwhile, accounting for
7% of the market, will see only steady growth as further share is lost to plastics across food, beverage, healthcare and other
key end-use sectors.
The global packaging market stood at $799 billion in 2012, increasing by 1% over 2011. Sales are projected to increase
by 3% in real terms for 2013 to $824 billion. Smithers Pira forecasts annual growth of 4% per year to 2018 in the world
packaging market, with sales to reach over 1 trillion US dollars by 2018.Globally, Plastics comprise of 42% of packaging
with the combination of rigid and flexible plastics in packaging. India and China are the fastest-growing national markets
for consumer flexible packaging according to Pira, together accounting for 44.0% of world flexible packaging consumption
growth during the forecast period.”
The packaging industry has grown higher than GDP in most of the countries. In a developing country like India, it grew at
a CAGR of 16% in the last five years and valued at over USD 32 Billion in FY 15 and offers employment to more than 10
lakh people across the country through ~10,000 firms approx. The Indian packaging industry constitutes ~4% of the global
packaging industry. The per capita packaging consumption in India is quite low at 4.3 kgs, compared to countries like
Germany and Taiwan where it is 42 kgs and 19 kgs respectively.
In the coming years it is expected to grow at 18% p.a. wherein, the flexible packaging is expected to grow at 25 % p.a. and
rigid packaging to grow at 15 % p.a. The overall packaging industry in India has a huge growth potential and is expected
to reach ~USD 73 Billion in the year 2020.
Packaging Industry in India:
In India, the industry is driven by key factors like rising population, increase in income levels and changing lifestyles.
Growth prospects of end-user segments are leading to rise in the demand of the plastic packaging industry. Demand from
rural sector for packaged products is being fueled by the increasing media penetration through the means of internet and
television. In the words of the famous management thinker Peter Drucker “If You Can't Measure It, You Can't
Improve It,” lies one of the most daunting challenges of the Indian Packaging Waste Industry. The unavailability of
concrete data in terms of packaging waste is the main issue for India.

3. Out of 30,000 processing units, about 75% are in the small-scale sector. The small-scale sector, however, accounts for only
about 25% of polymer consumption. The industry also consumes recycled plastic, which constitutes about 30% of total
consumption. With the increasing population, the management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the country has
emerged as a severe problem not only because of the environmental and aesthetic concerns, but also because of the sheer
quantities generated every day. According to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 27,486 TPD (Tonnes per day)
of MSW was generated in India during 2011–12, with an average waste generation of 0.11 kg/capita/day. Of the total
waste generated, approximately 89,334 TPD (70 per cent) of MSW was collected and of that only 15,881 TPD (12.45 per
cent) was processed or treated (Annual Report, CPCB 2013). Segregation at source, collection, transportation, treatment,
and scientific disposal of waste were largely insufficient leading to degradation of environment and poor quality of life.
Based on current MSW generation estimates and current waste management practices, the estimated greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the solid waste sector would be around 1,142.5 Gg/year.
In addition to the MSW, waste streams like e-waste, packaging waste, and construction and demolition debris are also
making life of urban local bodies difficult as they have the mandate to manage them. The e-waste is of particular concern
as it is not only one of the fastest growing waste streams, but also its improper management is introducing different
hazardous/toxic chemicals in ecosystem. As per the statistics of the CPCB, total national generation of e-waste is around
8 lakh tonnes per annum out of which, only around 2 lakh tonnes per annum are treated by authorized recycling facilities.
Packaging waste comprises a wide range of materials that are derived from multiple items used as packaging material.
Presently, packaging material waste is being managed along with MSW. Packaging material can be broadly classified as
food and non-food packaging materials. Non-food packaging makes up almost 80–90 per cent of packaging by weight and
its quantity is rising day by day. Some amount of recyclable packaging waste— such as paper, plastic, glass, metal, and
cartons—is not picked up, because it is soiled substantially, or is directly buried under a huge pile of waste, in the bin or
at the disposal site. Quite often, rag pickers focus their search and recovery on a few varieties of recyclables that have good
returns. Other materials are discarded. Hence, much potentially recyclable waste from streets and bins ends up at the
disposal site, along with other domestic waste and street sweepings. Rag pickers, who search disposal sites as well as
streets, nevertheless recover some of those materials; however, most of the packaging waste gets buried.
India reportedly salvages and recycles around 60 per cent of MSW, though most of it is collected and recycled by informal
sector using rudimentary technologies. It is reported that in developing countries around 15–20 million people are engaged
in waste recycling activities—in some cities 2 per cent of the population. More than 1 million people are engaged in waste
recycling activities in India. It is also reported that informal sector (waste pickers) removes around 10–15 per cent of waste
every day from city streets and is key to solid waste management system in any city. There is, therefore need for skill
enhancement, modernization of recycling technologies, and institutionalization of informal sector. The organic waste
(around 50 per cent of total municipal waste with high moisture content) can be composted and compost can be co-
marketed by fertilizer companies to ensure its effective utilization and support composting facilities financially.
According to an assessment carried out by NEERI in 2005 in 59 selected class I and II cities (NEERI Report, 2005) where
class I cities refer to those cities having at least 1,00,000 population including the metros, whereas cities having population
of 50,000–1,00,000 belong to class II category. The per capita generation of waste in Indian cities ranges from 0.17 kg–
0.62 kg/capita/day, depending on the size of the city as well as the socio economic profile of the population. The waste
composition also depends on a wide range of factors such as food habits, cultural traditions, lifestyles, annual season,
climate and income, etc.
As per Indian Institute of Packaging, 200 million metric tons/year of Municipal Solid Wastes, with per capita figures
ranging from 168 kg/person/year in 1999 to 200 kg/person/year in 2000, is generated in India out of which 32 million
tons/year corresponds to Packaging Wastes.

4. Plastics Waste Economy:
Because of their combination of unrivalled properties and low cost, plastics are the workhorse material of the modern
economy. Their use has increased twenty-fold in the past half-century, and is expected to double again in the next 20
years. Today nearly everyone, everywhere, every day comes into contact with plastics – especially plastic packaging, on
which the report focuses. While delivering many benefits, the current plastics economy has drawbacks that are becoming
more apparent by the day. After a short first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value, or USD 80–120 billion
annually, is lost to the economy. A staggering 32% of plastic packaging escapes collection systems, generating
significant economic costs by reducing the productivity of vital natural systems such as the ocean and clogging urban
infrastructure. The cost of such after-use externalities for plastic packaging, plus the cost associated with greenhouse gas
emissions from its production, has been estimated conservatively by UNEP at USD 40 billion – exceeding the plastic
packaging industry’s profit pool. In future, these costs will have to be covered. In overcoming these drawbacks, an
opportunity beckons: enhancing system effectiveness to achieve better economic and environmental outcomes while
continuing to reap the many benefits of plastic packaging.
Plastics have brought massive economic benefits to these sectors, thanks to their combination of low cost, versatility,
durability and high strength to-weight ratio. The success of plastics is reflected in the exponential growth in their
production over the past half-century Since 1964, plastics production has increased twenty-fold, reaching 311 million
tonnes in 2014, the equivalent of more than 900 Empire State Buildings. Plastics production is expected to double again
in 20 years and almost quadruple by 2050. Plastic packaging – the focus of this report – is plastics’ largest application,
representing 26% of the total volume. As packaging materials, plastics are especially inexpensive, lightweight and high
performing. Plastic packaging can also benefit the environment: its low weight reduces fuel consumption in
transportation, and its barrier properties keep food fresh longer, reducing food waste. As a result of these characteristics,
plastics are increasingly replacing other packaging materials. Between 2000 and 2015, the share of plastic packaging as a
share of global packaging volumes has increased from 17% to 25%7 driven by a strong growth in the global plastic
packaging market of 5% annually. In 2013, the industry put 78 million tonnes of plastic packaging on the market, with a
total value of USD 260 billion.10 Plastic packaging volumes are expected to continue their strong growth, doubling
within 15 years and more than quadrupling by 2050, to 318 million tonnes annually – more than the entire plastics
industry today
Item
Assessed
Packaging %
in MSW
Total
Quantity
(*1000 MT)
Paper & Board 6 120000
Glass 2 4000
Metals 2 4000
Others 2 4000
Total 12 24000
Plastics 2.5 5000
Film/Laminates 1.5 3000
Total 16 32000
4%6%
2%
42%
2%
44%
Percentage of Wastes
Plastics
Paper & Board
Metal
Food/Garden
Glass
Others

5. Plastic packaging is an iconic linear application with USD 80–120 billion annual material value loss
Today, 95% of plastic packaging material value or USD 80–120 billion annually is lost to the economy after a short first
use. More than 40 years after the launch of the well-known recycling symbol, only 14% of plastic packaging is collected
for recycling. When additional value losses in sorting and reprocessing are factored in, only 5% of material value is
retained for a subsequent use. Plastics that do get recycled are mostly recycled into lower-value applications that are not
again recyclable after use. The recycling rate for plastics in general is even lower than for plastic packaging, and both are
far below the global recycling rates for paper (58%)12 and iron and steel (70–90%).13 PET,14 used in beverage bottles,
has a higher recycling rate than any other type of plastic, but even this success story is only a modest one: globally, close
to half of PET is not collected for recycling, and only 7% is recycled bottle-to-bottle.15 In addition, plastic packaging is
almost exclusively single-use, especially in business-to-consumer applications.
In addition to the 14% of plastic packaging collected for recycling, another 14% is sent to an incineration and/or energy
recovery process, mostly through incineration in mixed solid waste incinerators, but also through the combustion of
refuse-derived fuel in industrial processes such as cement kilns, and (at a limited scale) pyrolysis or gasification. While
recovering energy is a good thing in itself, this process still loses the embedded effort and labor that went into creating
the material. For energy recovery in mixed solid waste incinerators, in particular, there are also concerns that over
deployment of such incineration infrastructure can create a ‘lock-in’ effect that, because of the large capital investments
but relatively low operating costs involved in building up and running such infrastructure, can effectively push higher-
value mechanisms such as recycling out of the market. Many organizations have also raised concerns about the
pollutants that are generated during energy recovery processes, which can have direct negative health effects if adequate
pollution controls are not in place, as is often the case in the developing world. Also, even if appropriate pollution
controls are in place, the resulting by-products need to be disposed of. Furthermore, an overwhelming 72% of plastic
packaging is not recovered at all: 40% is landfilled, and 32% leaks out of the collection system – that is, either it is not
collected at all, or it is collected but then illegally dumped or mismanaged. This analysis of the global flows of plastic
packaging materials is based on an aggregation of fragmented datasets, often with varying definitions and scope. The
analysis not only reveals a significant opportunity to increase circularity and capture material value, but also highlights

6. Global Flows of Plastic Packaging Material in 2013
the need for better alignment of reporting standards and consolidation on a global level. Specific efforts could be
dedicated to improving the data from developing markets with informal waste sectors

8. Journey of Packaging Waste
Introduction to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR):
Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, shifts the responsibility for post-consumer waste from taxpayers and municipal
governments to the companies that produce the packaging, creating incentives for producers to reduce the amount of
packaging they create, increasing packaging recycling rates, providing revenue to improve recycling systems, and reducing
carbon and energy use.The concept was first formally introduced in Sweden by Thomas Lindhqvist in a 1990 report to the
Swedish Ministry of the Environment. In subsequent reports prepared for the Ministry, the following definition emerged:
"[EPR] is an environmental protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total environmental
impact of a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life-cycle of the product and
especially for the take-back, recycling and final disposal
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that holds producers responsible for the post-use collection,
recycling, and disposal of their products (Lifset 1993). The basic concept is to promote environmental impact reduction at
end of life by making manufacturers internalize the end-of-life costs of their products so as to incentivize the design of
products that are more recyclable and have lower toxicity and to ensure there is sufficient and stable financing for running
a collection and recycling system for post-use products (Mayers et al. 2012). Shifting responsibility to producers for
packaging can lead to internalization of end-of-life costs and creates an economic incentive for producers to reduce
packaging and switch to easier to recycle materials.
The Organization for Economic and Community Development (OECD) defines EPR as an environmental policy approach
in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s lifecycle. The
OECD maintains EPR policy is characterized by “shifting responsibility (physical and/or economic; full or partial)
upstream toward the producer and away from municipalities; and providing incentives to producers to take into account
environmental considerations when designing their products. “Further, while the OECD says that all entities involved in
the packaging chain have some responsibility to reduce the lifecycle impacts of a product and its packaging, EPR holds
that primary responsibility lies with the producers or brand owners, because they make design and marketing decisions
which most directly affect the recyclability of packaging.
At least 47 other countries have some form of used packaging legislation that requires companies to take shared or full
responsibility. In addition to the 27 EU member states, Canada, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are among countries
with EPR packaging mandates

9. Components of EPR:
The process to implement the EPR concept typically involves the following three stages. First, an appropriate policy
instrument that embodies the EPR principles is identified and a legislative framework is developed. Second, the legislation
is translated into an EPR program. This involves designing a set of detailed operational rules (e.g., the specific mechanisms
to finance the operations of the program and to monitor the legal compliance of each entity involved, within the parameters
of the legislation). For example, many states in the United States have adopted a collective form of the EPR legislation
(i.e., there exists a centrally operated network that handles a mixture of products from multiple manufacturers in an
aggregate manner). Note that there is no definite boundary between these two stages: while some states adopt e-waste laws
with high-level guidelines (e.g., South Carolina General Assembly 2010), there is also state legislation that already contains
some operational details (e.g., Washington State Senate 2006). The final stage is the execution of the EPR program into a
working system in practice. This stage is characterized by numerous interactions among multiple stakeholders whose own
managerial and operational strategies are affected by the EPR legislation, and thus each of whom has its unique perspective
toward the program.
Typology of Producer Responsibility:
Since the introduction of solid waste management policies in the 1970s, local public authorities have mainly been
responsible for household/municipal waste management. Extended Producer Responsibility systems for products which
result mainly in household/municipal waste either build upon this responsibility to finance it (partially or completely), or
replace it altogether for the respective product/waste type. The situation is different for EPR schemes on products, which
result in non-municipal waste. A significant part of non-municipal waste is typically managed through B-2-B arrangements
(historically, the ‘polluter pays’ principle has applied to the professional waste producers).
EPR schemes are often described as being ‘financial’ EPR schemes when the responsibility of waste management is left
to municipalities and the financial responsibility is left to producers. Contrastingly, they are described as being
‘organizational’ EPR schemes when the physical responsibility of waste management is transferred to the producers. In
reality, there is a great variety of schemes, and the border between these two models is blurry. The producers’ responsibility
within an EPR scheme may be defined as:
‘Simple’ financial responsibility: Producers have no obligation but to finance the existing waste management channels
(e.g. through Packaging Recovery Notes in the UK). This study shows that schemes using this model have few other
incentives to improve waste management, apart from the financial incentive.

10. Financial responsibility through contracts with municipalities: Producers establish contracts with municipalities to
collect and manage waste (e.g. packaging in France). The producers’ motivation to improve waste management depends
on the type of contract and on the dialogue with municipalities. The financial contribution of producers can be conditioned
to quantitative results reached by municipalities (in terms of collection or recycling rate), quality check, or requirements
on the type of collection and treatment schemes to be implemented.
Financial responsibility and partial organisational responsibility: Some activities are kept under the responsibility of
municipalities (e.g. collection whether implemented directly by public waste collection operators or contracted to private
companies), backed financially by producers, whereas some other activities (e.g. sorting, recovered materials reselling)
are under the responsibility of producers (e.g. packaging in Belgium).
Financial responsibility and full organisational responsibility: The producers subcontract activities to professional waste
collection and treatment operators (e.g. WEEE in France), or even own part of the collection and treatment infrastructure).
In many EPR schemes, the producers’ responsibility may be handed over to producer responsibility organisations (PROs),
which act on behalf of the producers.
Benefits of EPR:
Here are some of the most compelling reasons for why companies should take responsibility for their packaging waste:
• It is not good business to throw away billions of dollars of reusable resources.
• Business needs to prepare now to function sustainably in a world of dwindling natural resources and increasing
commodity costs.
• Increasing recycling of packaging can help reduce a company’s carbon footprint.
• A few major companies are beginning to confront their responsibility for post-consumer packaging and will set the
standard for other companies to follow.
• Higher recycling rates will build new secondary materials markets that generate thousands of additional “green” jobs.
• Other countries have pioneered producer responsibility models that the U.S. can learn from as it develops an EPR
packaging policy for the 21st century.
• Cash-strapped state and local governments are beginning to look toward producers to help develop and fund effective
recycling programs.
EPR- United States of America:
U.S. EPR proponents recently unveiled a more robust EPR definition. The Product Stewardship Institute, Product Policy
Institute, and California Product Stewardship Council solicited input from stakeholders from business, government, and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in an effort to reflect progress made in the past decade since the product
stewardship movement emerged in the U.S. Their new definition, released in April 2012, states that EPR is: a mandatory
type of product stewardship that includes, at a minimum, the requirement that the producer’s responsibility for their product
extends to post-consumer management of that product and its packaging. There are two related features of EPR policy: (1)
shifting financial and management responsibility, with government oversight, upstream to the producer and away from the
public sector; and (2) providing incentives to producers to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of
their products and packaging.
U.S. packaging recycling rates lag behind other developed countries by significant amounts. Denmark has an 84%
packaging recycling rate, Belgium is at 78%, the Netherlands at 72%, Germany at 73%. The U.S. recovery rate is estimated
at 48.3% for packaging and 52.7% for paper and paperboard products. There are some bright spots; the U.S. does well in
paper recycling, but aside from paper, just 22% of remaining packaging is recycled. Only 12.1% of plastic packaging, the
dominant packaging of the future, is recycled. There are other troubling trends: beverage container recycling rates have
dropped 20% over the last two decades. One quarter of the U.S. population still doesn’t have access to curbside recycling.

11. More than 40 billion aluminum cans, the most valuable beverage container material, are still dumped annually into landfills
in the U.S. According to Alcoa, this wasted material could provide enough aluminum to build 25,000 jetliners!
EPR laws and policies are already firmly established in the U.S. for several product categories. More than 70 producer
responsibility laws are in effect in 32 states, covering batteries, mobile phones, paint, pesticide containers, carpet,
electronics, thermostats, and fluorescent lamps – but not packaging. Twenty-three states have passed EPR laws requiring
technology makers to take responsibility for end-of-life management of electronics. Container deposit laws, structured as
EPR programs in eight of the 10 states that have them, are a major success story. The U.S. recycling rate for beverage
containers is only 35%, but in the 10 states with deposit laws, recycling rates range from 66% to 96%. However, these
laws have not expanded to apply to other kinds of consumer packaging. A recent assessment of marine debris concluded
that a substantial cause of this debris entering the sea is inadequate waste management infrastructure and inappropriate
disposal. Concern about ocean plastic has resulted in more than 60 cities in California and 100 cities in the U.S. banning
or restricting use of polystyrene foam food packaging and another 28 California municipalities banning plastic take-out
bags.
Deposit Laws in U.S.
The major success story of packaging recycling in recent decades has been, ironically, another example of extended
producer responsibility — container deposit laws. Ten U.S. states have laws that require a five or 10 cent consumer deposit
on soda, beer, and sometimes water bottles, which is refunded when the containers are returned, providing a financial
incentive for consumers to recycle. Eight of the 10 state deposit systems are structured as industry managed EPR systems,
the other two are managed by government. Despite repeated attempts by major beverage companies to repeal or weaken
the laws, container deposit legislation is the most effective proven method for bottle and can recycling. While the overall
U.S. recycling rate for beverage containers is only about 35%, in the 10 states with deposit laws, recycling rates range
from 66-96%. When the consumer claims a deposit by returning materials to a retailer or recycling center, the retailer
generally bills a beverage distributor for the deposit as well as a handling fee of one to three cents to cover the cost of
processing containers. While beverage companies are required to fund the system, their costs can often be offset by the
sale of used containers to plastics, metals, and glass recyclers. In addition, companies often make windfall profits on
containers when consumers fail to claim their deposit and put containers in curbside recycling instead. In some states like
California, unclaimed deposits flow to the state, which has steered hundreds of millions of dollars into improving curbside
and other forms of container recycling. However, such systems can also be subject to revenue grabs by states that borrow
or raid the funds to plug general revenue deficits.
Deposit laws have only gained traction with bottles and cans, leaving the majority of consumer packaging waste to be
landfilled or recycled at the expense of taxpayers. The growth of deposit laws has been stymied by the persistent opposition
of the beverage industry. Beverage companies view deposits as an unfair tax, especially viewed in the context of other
industry sectors. Conveniently located drop-off locations can carry high fixed operating costs. More fundamentally,
beverage companies object to paying for collection and recycling of bottles and cans while producers of food and consumer
goods packaging, many packaged in the same materials, do not. Even within the beverage sector, deposit laws have been
limited in coverage by companies who used their political clout at the state level to prevent deposits on milk, juice, distilled
spirits, and wine containers, even though these products are also consumed in high volume and packaged in the same
materials as beer, water, and soft drinks.
Indeed, no other companies that generate significant amounts of paper or packaging – whether it’s billions of boxes used
in Amazon’s mail order business; Procter & Gamble’s signature brands Crest, Pampers, and Tide; or Kraft’s Nabisco and
Maxwell House — have to pay a penny for collection and recycling of no beverage packaging in the U.S. Beverage
companies may be justifiably faulted by environmental groups for resisting deposit legislation; environmental advocates
may be justifiably faulted for failing to prioritize recycling of the vast majority of consumer packaging.

13. EPR- European Union:
In July 2014, the European Commission published a proposal to review recycling and other waste-related targets in the
EU, to encourage the transition towards a Circular Economy through the use of waste as a resource. It also aims to
improve the transparency and cost effectiveness of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes by defining
minimum requirements in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The following are some frequently asked questions in
the context of this policy discussion in relation to EPR for used packaging.

14. EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive:
The EU Directive on waste (or ‘Waste Framework Directive’) is an environmental protection measure which establishes
how waste should be managed within the EU. It aims to reduce the environmental impact of waste and to encourage
efficient use of resources through reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery. The Waste Framework Directive was last
revised in 2008. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) is an EU harmonization measure, meaning that
it establishes common (i.e. harmonized) rules that enable packaging and packaged goods to trade freely throughout the
EU. It has twin objectives: to help prevent obstacles to trade and to reduce the environmental impact of packaging. It
defines ‘Essential Requirements’ on packaging design that packaging must meet in order to benefit from the free movement
guarantee and it sets targets for the amount of used packaging that must be recycled or otherwise recovered in all EU
Member States. The European Commission proposed the PPWD in the early nineties because different national
environmental measures were causing competitive distortions and obstacles to the free movement of packaging and
packaged goods. The PPWD has been a key driver of the steady increase in packaging recycling and recovery rates since
its adoption in 1994. According to the latest 2012 official EU data, 64.6% of used packaging has been recycled and 78.5%
recovered. However, national differences in transposition have led to different ways of implementing the PPWD and there
is a wide variation in packaging waste management performance in the EU-28.
EPR legislation under Waste Framework Directive:
In the context of the WFD and PPWD, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that extends the producer’s
full or partial financial and/or operational responsibility for a product to the post-consumer state of a product’s life cycle
in order to help meet national or EU recycling and recovery targets. The PPWD requires Member States to set up “systems”
for the return and/or collection and reuse or recovery, including recycling, of used packaging from the consumer or other
final user in order to meet the PPWD’s targets). Thus, the PPWD imposes the legal obligation of meeting the legal recovery
and recycling targets on Member States. However national legislation arising from transposition of the PPWD may, and
often does, delegate this legal obligation to producers/importers. EPR schemes that are set up at national level have been
established to enable public authorities and producers/importers to meet obligations relating to the recycling and recovery
of packaging waste. Almost all Member States have assigned responsibility for meeting recycling targets to producers,
who have set up EPR schemes for used packaging to secure compliance. Since the PPWD does not specify how EPR
should be implemented by Member States, practices differ in terms of how responsibilities and costs for packaging waste
collection and sorting are divided between the involved actors (e.g. producers, local authorities, private or public waste
management companies or consumers) and the requirements that EPR schemes have to meet to obtain a license to operate.
The role of EPR schemes is to take over the producer’s legal obligation (imposed by Member States) to meet national
packaging recycling and recovery targets, in particular for consumer packaging waste. EPR schemes do this by ensuring
that packaging waste is collected, sorted and recycled according to legal targets. This activity is funded by the material-
specific fees paid by producers/importers to EPR schemes for the packaging that they place on the national market. These
fees are charged based on the tonnage (weight) of packaging the producer puts on the market and consequently incentivize
material optimization. Today, annual fees paid by producers to packaging EPR schemes in Europe are estimated at €3.1
billion. Fees per tonne of packaging material placed on the market vary from country to country partly because the
obligations and responsibilities differ per Member State. The fees paid by producers to EPR schemes typically cover all or
a significant share of the costs of separate collection/sorting of used packaging and consumer awareness activities. In some
Member States, the fees paid to EPR schemes are used to pay private or public waste management companies who collect
and sort post-consumer packaging waste (e.g. Spain, Czech Republic), and in other countries these fees are paid to local
authorities who collect packaging waste separately or appoint contractors to do so on their behalf (e.g., Austria, Belgium,
Sweden). Collected and sorted used packaging is then sold to recyclers or, sometimes, to energy recovery operators.
Typically, the revenues from sold secondary material are used to help offset the financial contributions of producers and
importers to the EPR schemes. However, some Member States’ EPR schemes have a different operational design from the
model described above (e.g., UK, Poland). In the following diagram, the activities in the shaded green area are those which
typically are managed by EPR systems for used packaging set up by producers.

16. Factors Influencing the Cost of EPR used for Packaging:
The Commission has concluded that there is no link between the level of the EPR fees and the level of performance of an
EPR scheme in terms of meeting national packaging recycling targets. However, there are many factors that impact the
costs of separate collection and sorting of used packaging for recycling or recovery, such as the:
 Range and types of used packaging separately collected (e.g. all, some or no post-consumer packaging,
industrial/commercial packaging),
 EPR fees paid by producers/importers are weight-based (fees are charged based on the tonnage – weight - of
packaging the producer puts on the market and consequently incentivize packaging material optimization) and
material based (e.g. different material collection and sorting costs, sale value of the recycled/recovered material,
different material fees also allow for competition among the packaging materials to drive further sustainable
solutions for packaged products),
 Range and types of collection points (e.g. kerbside from households, bring banks, industrial/commercial/
institutional outlets),
 Level of operational efficiency of the collection and sorting system,
 Geographic coverage of collection schemes (e.g. nationwide or densely populated areas only, percentage of
population covered),
 Transport distances and frequency of collection (population density, distances between collection points and from
collection to sorting/recycling facilities),
 Negotiating power of EPR schemes and municipalities, Single or multiple schemes providing compliance leading
to the presence or absence of competition on fees in a Member State,
 Cost structure of different operational EPR schemes,
 Level of enforcement by national authorities to prevent free-riders,
 Extent of competitive tendering along the collection and recycling value chain and competition among the
collection and recycling providers in a country,
 Level of efficiency/maturity of municipalities’ infrastructure (and whether or not collection of used packaging
subject to EPR obligations can use the municipalities’ infrastructure),
 Cost of collecting municipal solid waste, landfilling and general operating costs, such as labour, fuel, rent on
buildings etc.
Minimum Performance Requirements on EPR Schemes in EU legislation:
The Commission’s proposal aims to drive the transition towards a Circular Economy and views Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) as a critical concept to achieve higher recycling rates in order to secure a sufficient supply of high
quality materials for the economy in Europe. With the aim to improve the transparency, cost effectiveness and recycling
performance of EPR schemes the Commission defines minimum requirements in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD).
While these general requirements would improve the EPR concept, they are not sufficient to address the specific challenges
faced by EPR schemes for used packaging. Legal minimum requirements in the PPWD are needed because national
legislation does not provide a clear regulatory framework for EPR schemes for used packaging. This is particularly
important where competing schemes operate at national level, to ensure that they operate to the same minimum standards.
In many cases, national legislation does not assign a clear responsibility to national authorities to control and enforce
requirements to ensure good governance of EPR schemes for used packaging and to prevent free-riders. This leads to a
lack of transparency and allows some EPR schemes to ‘cherry pick’ the most valuable materials or to focus only on used
packaging that is easy to collect (e.g. from commercial and industrial sources, or densely populated areas), which creates
an uneven playing field for other EPR schemes and a lower recycling performance overall. An uneven playing field will
prevent the EU from reaching the recycling objectives, as it undermines the economic and/or environmental viability of
the EPR model and would ultimately lead to suboptimal packaging waste management, with an adverse effect on national
packaging recycling rates.

17. Solid Waste Legislation and EPR: India:
The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, led by Mr. Prakash Javadekar, announced the new Solid Waste
Management Rules 2016 and Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, earlier around March-April this year. Mr. Javadekar
intimated that 62 million tonnes of waste is generated annually in the country at present, out of which 5.6 million tonnes
is plastic waste, 0.17 million tonnes is biomedical waste, hazardous waste generation is 7.90 million tonnes per annum and
15 lakh tonnes is e-waste. He added that only about 75-80 per cent of the municipal waste gets collected and only 22-28
per cent of this waste is processed and treated. This was the first time that the producers (i.e persons engaged in
manufacture, or import of carry bags, multi-layered packaging and sheets or like and the persons using these for packaging
or wrapping their products) and brand owners have been made responsible for collecting waste generated from their
products. They have to approach local bodies for formulation of plan/system for the plastic waste management within the
prescribed timeframe. Earlier, EPR was left to the discretion of the local bodies. The salient features that stand out of these
2016 rules as compared to the earlier version are:
 Rural areas have been brought in ambit of these Rules since plastic has reached to rural areas also. Responsibility
for implementation of the rules is given to Gram Panchayat.
 Increase minimum thickness of plastic carry bags from 40 to 50 microns and stipulate minimum thickness of 50
microns for plastic sheets also to facilitate collection and recycle of plastic waste
 To bring in the responsibilities of producers and generators, both in plastic waste management system and to
introduce collect back system of plastic waste by the producers’/brand owners, as per extended producers’
responsibility
 To introduce collection of plastic waste management fee through pre-registration of the producers, importers of
plastic carry bags/multilayered packaging and vendors selling the same for establishing the waste management
system
 To promote use of plastic waste for road construction as per Indian Road Congress guidelines or energy recovery,
or waste to oil etc. for gainful utilization of waste and also address the waste disposal issue; to entrust more
responsibility on waste generators, namely payment of user charge as prescribed by local authority, collection and
handing over of waste by the institutional generator, event organizers.
 First time, responsibility of waste generators is being introduced. Individual and bulk generators like offices,
commercial establishments, industries are to segregate the plastic waste at source, handover segregated waste, pay
user fee as per bye-laws of the local bodies.
 Plastic products are left littered after the public events (marriage functions, religious gatherings, public meetings
etc) held in open spaces. First time, persons organising such events have been made responsible for management
of waste generated from these events.
 Use of plastic sheet for packaging, wrapping the commodity except those plastic sheet’s thickness, which will
impair the functionality of the product are brought under the ambit of these rules. A large number of commodities
are being packed/wrapped in to plastic sheets and thereafter such sheets are left for littered. Provisions have been
introduced to ensure their collection and channelization to authorised recycling facilities.
 State Pollution Control Board (SPCBs) will not grant/renew registration of plastic bags, or multi-layered packaging
unless the producer proposes the action plan endorsed by the concerned State Development Department.
 It also emphasized promotion of waste to energy plants. The rules mandate all industrial units using fuel and located
within 100 km from a solid waste-based Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) plant to make arrangements within six months
from the date of notification of these rules to replace at least 5 per cent of their fuel requirement by RDF so
produced.
 Producers to keep a record of their vendors to whom they have supplied raw materials for manufacturing carry
bags, plastic sheets, and multi-layered packaging. This is to curb manufacturing of these products in unorganized
sector.
 The entry points of plastic bags/plastic sheets/multi-layered packaging in to commodity supply chain are primarily
the retailers and street vendors. They have been assigned the responsibility of not to provide the commodities in

18. plastic bags/plastic sheets/multi-layered packaging which do not conform to these rules. Otherwise, they will have
to pay the fine.
 Plastic carry bag will be available only with shopkeeper’s/street vendors pre-registered with local bodies on
payment of certain registration fee. The amount collected as registration fee by local bodies is to be used for waste
management.
Thermoset Plastics EPR Legislation in India:
Used widely in daily-use items like electrical appliances, coffee machines, toasters, automobiles, etc., thermoset plastic is
a material that can’t be remolded or recycled and often ends up in landfill, causing environmental problems. Its abysmal
collection rate for proper disposal adds to the problem. Noting that municipal bodies currently have no system for
collection, segregation and transportation of all kinds of plastic waste, the CPCB stressed that the primary aim is to
minimize use of thermoset plastic and send it only to cement kilns for co-processing through proper coordination if the
civic authorities fail to comply with the first option. It considers the disposal of thermoset plastic in landfill sites as a last
resort.
“The most preferred option is minimization of use of thermoset products and promoting use of alternate material, which
could be easily recyclable, reusable and degradable,” CPCB said in its guidelines, adding, “The collection of such waste
shall be done by manufacturing industries under Extended Producers’ Responsibility (which was notified in the recent
revamping of the rules) and by local authorities so that it could be taken to co-processing in cement kilns for recovery of
material and energy value present in the plastic waste”.
The guidelines added: “The producers of thermoset plastic, major user like industries, electricity authority in consultation
with local authority shall arrange to collect the waste and hand over to cement plants (sic). They shall maintain a record of
quantity generated and handed over to cement plant which shall maintain a record of quantity received and utilized.” It
added that producers of such wastes shall assist the cement plants for establishment of required facilities for utilization of
thermoset waste. The CPCB said the disposal of thermoset waste in a secured landfill site leads to major issues in cities
and landfill sites become unusable.
Conclusion:
State-of-the-art mining of our post-consumer packaging “trash” is a crucial step to propel us towards sustainable production
and consumption policies that will ease the stress on our planet’s limited natural resources and help feed, clothe, and shelter
a world population of nine billion people by 2050.Businesses that place substantial amounts of packaging on the global.
market should take responsibility for collecting and recycling post-consumer packaging.
Companies should prioritize engagement with peers and other stakeholders to reach agreement on binding state producer
responsibility legislation setting high packaging recycling goals for all individual kinds of packaging (75%+) and an
aggressive timeline for meeting them. A successful mandated EPR for packaging program in the U.S. should address all
packaging types, be financed and managed by producers, drive source reduction, require participation by all businesses
that produce packaging waste, and phase out use of non-recyclable packaging.
By supporting EPR laws and policies that drive more aggressive and effective collection efforts, companies can then make
commitments to use far higher levels of recycled content in product packaging, which, in turn, supports a circular system
ensuring a stable supply of post-consumer materials to use as new feedstock.

19. References:
 Roadmap for Management of Waste in India: Indian Institute of Packaging
 Efficient Waste Management: Dr Suneel Pandey Associate Director, Green Growth and Resource Efficiency, TERI
and Mr Suketu Shah Managing Director, Oxive Environmental Management Pvt Ltd
 ‘Plastic Packaging - The Sustainable Choice’: FICCI and Tata Strategic Management Group (TSMG)
 Market Statistics and Future Trends in Global Packaging: http://www.worldpackaging.org/
 A Brief History of Packaging: University of Florida (Kenneth R. Berger, reviewed by B. Welt)
 The New Plastics Economy - Rethinking the Future of Plastics: Ellen MacArthur Foundation
 Unfinished Business: The Case for Extended Producer Responsibility for Post-Consumer Packaging
http://www.asyousow.org/ays_report/unfinished-business-the-case-for-extended-producer-responsibility-for-post-
consumer-packaging/
 Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility: European Commission – DG Environment 2014
 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for used Packaging: The European Organization for Packaging and the
Environment (EUROPEN)
 Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016: Ministry of Environment and Forests
 Solid Waste Management Rules, 2015: Ministry of Environment and Forests