The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, recently released the draft Environment Protection (Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging made from paper, glass and metal as well as sanitary products) Rules, 2024 for comments. The regulation uses a similar framework as the Plastic Waste Management Rules on EPR (5th amendment) 2022. These rules mandate that producers, importers, and brand owners (PIBOs), including online platforms/marketplaces and supermarkets/retail chain register on the centralised online portal, and fulfil their extended producer responsibility (EPR) towards recycling, recycled content and end of life disposal, meeting the targets set for each.
Prioritise action over aspiration
The draft rules aim to promote a circular economy and ensure environmentally sound management of post-consumer paper, paperboard, glass, metal packaging — excluding non-ferrous metal-based packaging covered under Hazardous Waste and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016 — and sanitary products. The preamble states that by encouraging reuse, recovery and recycling, the government intends to create new economic opportunities, green jobs and innovations.
In addition, the rules state that EPR will promote sustainable packaging as per guidelines prepared by the Central Pollution Control Board. These guidelines will be driven by criteria such as promoting reduced packaging material through design, designing for recyclability, using recycled content in packaging, and considering environmental impact in design.
However the draft falls short in actualising the vision, by omitting reuse both in the scope and application of the rules and not awarding targets for reduction in packaging material.
It is a known fact that without mandatory reuse and refill targets — especially for glass — the rules cannot achieve its goals of resource conservation and generation of wealth from waste. The key must be to advocate for returnable glass packaging with clear targets, and move to a multi-lifecycle circular approach. In addition, there must be targets imposed for reduction as defined in the preamble for rules.
Read more: Citizen Clinic Chennai: How to move towards being a ‘zero-waste’ household
Missing interlinkages
While the draft rules state that rules apply to packaging made of paper, glass, and metal (excluding non-ferrous metal-based packaging covered under the 2011 rules for hazardous and other wastes), the lack of a clearly defined schedule may lead to ambiguity. The rules must align with existing Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) guidelines on packaging for glass, metal, paper and sanitary products and include an exhaustive list of applications as an annexure.
For example, this list should include distilled water glass bottles; aerated water glass bottles (with crown or cork); medicinal round bottles; glass containers for preserved fruits; glass liquor bottles; and glass beer bottles.
In addition, for importers it might be useful to add the government’s 2023 circular as an annexure, which details the list of permitted and prohibited items. Further, given that the list clearly states that all such material imported must only be recycled or used in manufacturing, the targets for importers must be set accordingly.
Extending the scope of the rules to sanitary waste
EPR for sanitary waste management, has been long overdue. Improper sanitary waste disposal has been an increasing problem in India, but it never was prioritised as a serious issue; so, there was no uniform separate stream of collection and no data or documentation on the generation of sanitary waste.
The SWM 2016 Rules only stated that generators must wrap securely used sanitary waste as and when generated in the pouches provided by the brand owners or a suitable wrapping as prescribed by the local body and place the same in the bin meant for nonbiodegradable waste. This gave brandowners a free pass from exercising their responsibility and placed the onus on the consumers.
However, in the current draft there are more problematic issues:
- Definition is not comprehensive: The current definition of sanitary products as “products consisting of diapers, sanitary towels or napkins and incontinence” is not consistent with the new draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024, which includes tampons in this definition. However, both these definitions are very product centric and fail to encompass the full range of items that fall under this category.
The Bureau of Indian Standards includes Sanitary napkin b) Pantyliner c) Maternity pad and d) Period panty and it is important that consistency is maintained across other rules and standards. According to Dr Lata Ghanshamnani, practising ophthalmologist and co-founder of NGO, RNisarg Foundation, the definition must be expanded to “any item contaminated by body fluids namely saliva, sweat, urine, stools, blood etc”. This will cover everything under this category that is sold by brands.
- Incineration takes precedence over waste prevention in sanitary waste: The draft rules mandate that PIBOs ensure that all sanitary waste collected is disposed of at a registered incinerator. This undermines the efforts of many groups towards promoting sustainable menstruation and diapering.
The government should align with the Draft Menstrual Hygiene Policy (MHM) 2023, which promotes environmentally friendly menstrual hygiene products, including developing biodegradable or reusable products and implementing eco-friendly menstrual waste management systems. The Ministry must consider this and set targets for PIBOs to include reusable sanitary products in the EPR.
The draft MHM policy also specifies disposal mechanisms and states the importance of developing comprehensive guidelines for menstrual waste management, including awareness, education, segregation, disposal and promoting sustainable solutions. It also emphasises promotion of research on waste volumes, types, and effective handling techniques, focusing on non-biodegradable, special, and hazardous wastes. These have to be done while prioritising recycling and waste minimisation across various sectors and segments of the economy. - PIBOs’ responsibility in sanitary waste collection system: The voluntary nature of responsibility for the collection and transportation of sanitary waste is problematic. The previous Solid Waste Management Rules of 2016 had mandated systems for brand owners to collect and manage packaging waste and provide financial assistance to local authorities, but even that proved ineffective. Therefore, it is crucial that the government not only mandate sanitary waste collection and transportation, but also impose substantial penalties for non-compliance, potentially including environmental compensation.
Informal sector ignored and invisibilised, yet again
It is widely acknowledged that informal waste workers in India play a crucial role in collecting, sorting, grading and trading dry waste such as paper, plastic, metal, and glass. However, the draft rules have entirely overlooked and neglected their contributions.
Both the PWM Rules 2011 and 2016 mentioned waste pickers in the definition. The PWM 2016 as amended in 2018 rules included a clause stating that local bodies shall engage civil societies or groups working with waste pickers, but this was not referenced in the EPR guidelines on plastic.
This omission persisted until the 2024 amendment, which mandated that local bodies must provide information on the following: waste pickers in informal sector (concessionaire or own resource) deployed for (a) collection (b) street sweeping (c) transportation (d) segregation (e) processing (f) disposal and the details of waste pickers engaged in plastic waste management (ward wise).
Some areas of concern that persist are
- Promotion of a parallel economy by allowing PIBOs to set up separate stream collections: A vibrant marketplace for paper, metal and glass already exists, facilitated by informal recycling networks.
For example, a systematic collection of various paper products, including old newspapers, white and coloured paper, magazines, and cardboard, is already in place for households and offices. Some of these collection networks are organised by itinerant buyers at the bottom of the informal recycling value chain, who in turn connect with neighbourhood scrap dealers. While specialist scrap dealers exist, many are material agnostic. Promoting a parallel economy risks marginalising these actors by restricting access. - Lack of data on informal recycling networks: The draft EPR rules recommend establishing collection points without mapping existing recycling infrastructure in formal, informal or private spaces. This could result in inefficient resource allocation, duplication of efforts and fragmented markets, as seen in the case of e-waste, rather than resource generation.
Other missing elements in the existing draft
- Failure to account for the needs in the Himalayas and other mountain ecosystems and remote areas including places like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakswadeep. Targets for EPR must be clearly set and responsibility accorded.
- We have seen the inefficacy of EPR credits in the PWM Rules, as it led to various malpractices, including fraud through the generation of fake EPR trading credits and sham recycling operations. This only allows temporary solutions to the problem and undermines the preamble of the rules, which is waste reduction, redesigning packaging, channelising investments in recycling infrastructure and actually fixing producer responsibility.
- The rules must account for multi material packaging, and all such mixed materials will need to be factored in within the existing EPR.
- In the committee for EPR under SWM Rules, it is important that representatives of waste picker organisations and recycling associations are also included.