Plastic waste management rules 2016-Critical view

In order to address the burgeoning rates of plastic waste disposal and to ensure its scientific management, Plastic Waste Management Rules (PWR), 2011, was introduced under the Environment Protection Act,1986. The rules established a framework which assigned responsibilities for plastic waste management to the urban local body (ULB) and set-up a state-level monitoring committee. The rules further addressed the issue of carry bags by setting minimum standards for the thickness and a mandate for retailers to charge a fee for each plastic bag made available. The 2011 rules were succeeded by the Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 which was far more comprehensive and sought to effectively address the issue of plastic waste. This version of the rules extended its purview and applicability to rural areas and plastic importers in the supply chain. Further, the minimum thickness of plastic carry bags was increased from 40 micron to 50 micron. The rationale for doing this was double-edged—that is, not only will the recyclability quotient increase, an increase in the manufacturing cost will deter retailers from supplying bags for free. The rules also mandated the producers and brand owners to devise a plan in consultation with the local bodies to introduce a collect back system. This system known as the Extended Producers Responsibility (EPR) would help assist the municipalities in tackling the plastic waste issue. As a part of the EPR, it also provides for collection of a fee from the producers, importers of plastic carry bags/ multilayered packaging in order to strengthen the financial status of local authorities and, therefore, the plastic waste management systems.
The 2016 rules were revised to be known as the Plastic Waste Management (Amendment) Rules 2018. Three major changes amongst others have been incorporated in the latter.

Firstly, the rules notify that under Section 9(3), the term ‘non-recyclable multilayered plastic has been substituted by ‘multilayered plastic which is non-recyclable or non-energy recoverable or with no alternate use’.

Secondly, Section 15 dealing with the pricing of carry bags has been omitted. The rule earlier required vendors, who made plastic bags available, to register with the respective urban local body and pay a fee of `48,000 annually.

Thirdly, the new rules attempt to establish a centralized registration system by mandating brand owners and producers operating in more than two states to register with the CPCB. While the rules have been introduced with an attempt
to mitigate the plastic menace, some concerns still remain.

Shortfalls and solutions

The unaddressed expression of EPR

The government and industry must aim at partnering and establishing effective and sustainable EPR implementation models. The idea of the EPR introduced by the 2016 rules was novel but lacked detailing. The EPR for plastic waste management would require similar detailing to that provided by the ‘Implementation Guidelines for E-waste’ relating to e-waste. There is a need for a real-time assessment and a state-wise mapping of producers, plastic demand and supply, thereby, formulating realistic and accountable EPR targets. Furthermore, pilot EPR models for low-hanging fruits such as the completely recyclable PET must be prioritized and explored. Municipalities may explore some successful models implemented in the state of Goa which includes measures such as the following:

• Tie-ups with local dairies for paying residents a specified amount for returning washed, empty plastic milk bags at the local dairy booths
•  Tie-up with Tetra Pak (company) for a buyback of empty packs

Further, India could also seek to explore multiple successful models implemented in other countries where producers take the responsibility of the product’s end of life by funding plastic waste management activities.

Sustainability of plastic waste management 

• As India progresses towards a circular economy, there is need to transition towards improved waste management systems with increased emphasis on information, education, and communication (IEC) amongst its citizens on the issues relating to plastic waste management. Though it is established that solid waste management (SWM) is a state subject with the rules further narrowing down the responsibility to ULBs, there has been little focus and emphasis on ensuring that the service is sustainable financially.
• Municipalities with a few exceptions are often found grappling for funds to meet expenses related to SWM as The Energy and Resources Institute’s (TERI’s) article on ‘Why Take Away the Cess meant to Clean India’s Mess’reemphasizes that there is an impending need for the central government to empower the ULBs financially. Although schemes such as the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan support the local bodies in their efforts by providing viability gap funding or tender document preparation support, there is a need to establish a mechanism to financially sustain this service that operates every day of the year.

Pricing of carry bags 

• The PWR 2018 amendment has done away with Rule 15 of its predecessor aimed at the pricing of plastic carry bags. It is envisaged that charging users for carry bags would be a key step towards initiating a behavioural change, albeit gradually. Results of a study conducted by the Delhi School of Economics on ‘Consumer Responses to Incentives to Reduce Plastic Bag Use’11 states that in developing countries, a blanket ban may not be the best possible solution and 82% of the consumers would switch from plastic bag use to own bags if the former were priced explicitly. Further, TERI’s article on ‘Fighting Plastics: Is Ban the Way Forward?’ observes that the success behind implementing a fee on plastic bags has been established as an effective strategy in cities around the world.

Enforcement of legislation 

• Although the government has been proactive in terms of formulating rules, the implementation of a few inclusions has been a challenge. For instance, the PWR 2016 calls for producers and brand owners to work out modalities of the EPR with ULBs within a period of 6 months of the publication of the rules. The implementation of the same may be taken up on a priority basis. Another instance is the ban on the use of carry bags less than 50 micron in thickness. The effective implementation of this legislation has been a challenge for many municipalities with the use of bags <50 micron persistent with roadside hawkers and vegetable markets owing to cheaper price and continued local manufacturing. Further, the latest CPCB report on the implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, acknowledges that the manufacturing, sale, and stocking of carry bags (<50 micron) has continued in majority of the states/UTs post the implementation of the ban. The situation, therefore, demands for increased monitoring and verification by the ULB staff.

Multilayered plastics (MLPs)

• According to the CPCB,13 an MLP refers to any material used for packaging that has at least one layer of plastic as its main ingredient in combination with one or more layers of paper and aluminium foil either in the form of laminate or a co-extruded structure.
• Most companies prefer MLPs as they are three times more waterproof, light-weight, reduce shipping volume, and help in increasing the shelf life of products, such as fruit juices and sweets by keeping them fresh for extended periods even at room temperature. However, recycling of this packaging remains expensive and a challenge owing to its multi-layered properties. The amendment under the 2018 version of the plastic law allows MLPs to be categorized under either recyclable, energy recoverable, or with some other alternate use.
  

By: Dr.Dharminder Singh