Lakshya Sharma
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has emerged as a critical strategy for sustaining a circular economy model in waste management around the world. EPR policies are regulatory frameworks that make producers responsible for the end-of-life management of their products with the aim of incentivizing sustainable product designs and supporting the achievement of collection and recycling targets (OECD, 2001). The effectiveness of EPR initiatives depends considerably on the legal provisions and institutional mechanisms put in place for their implementation.
Fundamental Principles of EPR Legislation
Clearly defined responsibilities: EPR legislation should delineate obligations for producers to collect and treat end-of-life products, along with mechanisms for compliance assurance from producer responsibility organizations (Lindhqvist, 2000). Targets and timelines need to be statutory mandates rather than voluntary commitments.
Inclusion and scope: EPR frameworks are shaped by product coverage depending on waste volume, toxicity, and eco-impact. While packaging and e-waste dominate earlier EPR efforts, the principles apply across sectors like batteries, tires, lubricants, construction materials etc. (OECD, 2014).
Incentivizing sustainable product designs: Modulated fee structures can incentivize producers to account for end-of-life costs during manufacture through material selection, recycled content use and durability improvements (Watkins et al., 2017).
Roles of multiple stakeholders: Participation and accountability of producers, municipalities, environmental agencies, waste management firms and informal sector is key to EPR success (Kaffine & O'Reilly, 2013). Guidelines for engagement and operational roles of stakeholders need policy support.
Financing mechanisms: Legislation could designate advanced disposal fees collected on new product sales as the financing model for EPR systems. This ensures availability of funds for collection mechanisms and treatment infrastructure (Fan et al., 2018).
Transparency & reporting: Public disclosure and annual reporting provisions in the EPR regulations enhance governance and continuous monitoring of performance targets around collection and recycling (Van Rossem et al., 2006).
Global Policy Models for Legislating EPR
European Union: EU’s Waste Framework Directive made EPR mandatory for e-waste and batteries in 2006 and set the precedent for individual nations to enact regulations - like laws mandating take-back systems in Germany since 2005 and modulated fees for plastic packaging in France starting 1999 (Watkins et al., 2017).
Canada: Provincial EPR laws facilitate inter-municipal funding mechanisms for collection infrastructure through non-profit Product Stewardship Corporations across diverse waste streams like packaging, tires, e-waste, with producers partially funding and participating in the framework (Lehman, 2019).
Japan: Early EPR mover with legislation like the Container and Packaging Recycling Law (1995), establishing the roles of constituencies within a formal institutional system for waste management responsibilities (Hotta et al., 2009).
Emerging Economies: In countries like China, Brazil, India - informal waste recycling sector poses a key challenge for EPR design around integration of these stakeholders into the formal system through state support and transition funds (Linzner & Salhofer, 2014).
While EPR practice has rapidly evolved over the past decades, greater accountability needs to be fixed in legal statutes and policy frameworks to enable better monitoring and performance improvements in existing programs alongside supporting new product categories. As nations plan for a circular economic future, binding and direct producer responsibility embedded in legal obligations rather than just voluntary initiatives will be the way forward.
Addressing Legal Gaps in EPR Implementation
While policy frameworks for extended producer responsibility have gained traction globally, legislative progress in developing economies with major waste challenges has been slow and inadequate.
In countries like India, current regulations cover only a few waste streams, leaving huge implementation gaps (Pandve et al., 2011). Sporadic state laws fail to address inconsistent compliance burdens for producers, limited financing for waste collectors and infrastructure deficits around segregation and recycling (Singh and Ordoñez, 2016).
In the absence of national EPR statutes, rival industry-led voluntary programs in India show poor performance on targets and disclosure standards, lacking monitoring or punitive deterrence for non-compliance (Atasu and Subramanian, 2012). Fragmented governance also enables regulatory arbitrage across state boundaries.
China enacted solid waste laws recently in 2020 along with a new Circular Economy Promotion Law, aiming for a mandatory, nationwide EPR framework and restrictions on single-use plastics (Liu et al., 2021). However, the legislation needs elaboration on operationalizing targets, roles and duties of stakeholders (Stahel, 2019). For instance, leveraging the informal sector that handles 80% of waste recycling activity can facilitate wider adoption (Permana et al., 2015).
Thus EPR design and legislation for many developing countries is still at a nascent stage compared to Europe, North America or Japan which have had policies in place since the 1990s. Bridging this legislation gap with sound policy frameworks will be vital to scale solutions for the exponentially rising waste challenges facing emerging economies.
Fan, J. L., & Lai, K. H. (2018). Circular economy in Taiwan: A strategy under development for sustainability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 138, 188-19.
Hotta, Y., Visvanathan, C., & Watanabe, K. (Eds.). (2009). 3R policies for Southeast and East Asia. Institute for Global Change Adaptation Science (ICAS), Ibaraki University, Osaka.
Kaffine, D. T., & O'Reilly, P. (2013). What have we learned about extended producer responsibility in the past decade? A survey of the recent EPR economic literature. OECD Environment Working Papers, (58), 0_1.
Lehman, P. K. (2019). Resource recovery from waste: business models for energy, nutrient and water reuse in low-and middle-income countries. Routledge.
Lindhqvist, T. (2000). Extended producer responsibility in cleaner production: Policy principle to promote environmental improvements of product systems (Doctoral dissertation, Lund University).
Linzner, R., & Salhofer, S. (2014). Municipal solid waste recycling and the significance of informal sector in urban China. Waste Management & Research, 32(9), 896-907.
OECD (2001), Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Atasu, A. and Subramanian, R., 2012. Extended producer responsibility for e-waste: Individual or collective systems. Production and Operations Management, 21(6), pp.1042-1059.
Liu, Y., Ren, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, L. and Wang, R., 2021. Overview of waste plastics recycling in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, p.105105.
Pandve, H.T., Patil, S., Kakde, D.A. and Badjate, M.C., 2011. Awareness regarding biomedical waste management among biomedical waste handlers. Indian Journal of Community Health, 23(1), pp.27-28.
Permana, A.S., Towolioe, S., Aziz, N.A. and Ho, C.S., 2015. Sustainable solid waste management practices and perceived cleanliness in a low income city. Habitat International, 49, pp.197-205.
Singh, N. and Ordoñez, I., 2016. Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. Journal of cleaner production, 134, pp.342-353.
Stahel, W.R., 2019. The circular economy: A user's guide. Routledge.
OECD (2014), The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris
Van Rossem, C., Tojo, N., & Lindhqvist, T. (2006). Lost in transition? Extended producer responsibility in the EU. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Life Cycle Management in Gothenburg (pp. 470-472).
Watkins, E., Gionfra, S., Schweitzer, J. P., Pantzar, M., Janssens, C., & ten Brink, P. (2017). EPR in the EU plastics strategy and the circular economy: A focus on plastic packaging.
Comments