The fourth round of Global Plastics Treaty negotiations (INC-4) is happening in Ottawa from 23-29 April 2024. LEARN MORE

Protect our planet! Last chance to join the call for a strong Plastics Treaty. SIGN THE PETITION NOW.

Protect our planet! Last chance to join the call for a strong Plastics Treaty.
SIGN THE PETITION NOW.

The fifth round of Global Plastics Treaty negotiations (INC-5) is happening on 25 November to 1 December 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea. LEARN MORE!

Protect our planet! Last chance to join the call for a strong Plastics Treaty. SIGN THE PETITION NOW.

MEMBER LOGIN

Navigating
Plastic Pollution
Financing:

Challenges and Opportunities

REGISTER NOW

In 2022, governments agreed to UNEP Resolution 5/14 recommending developing an international legally binding instrument (ILBI) aimed at addressing plastic pollution across its life cycle. Several studies have published estimates to visualise the scale of the problem, with the Nordic Council of Ministers (2023) projecting mismanaged plastic to nearly double to 205 MT by 2040, from 110 MT in 2019, under a business-as-usual scenario. OECD (2022), meanwhile, warns that plastic waste generation is expected to triple by 2060. The treaty should incentivize financial flows away from plastic production and towards activities like reuse, product design, and improved recycling and waste management.

Substantial investment is necessary to address plastic pollution. UNEP Finance Initiative (2023) estimates that interventions focused on system change and single-use plastic reduction could cost USD 1.64 trillion. Developing countries, meanwhile, face a significant financing gap of up to USD 500 billion, for implementing safe waste management infrastructure, supporting reuse models, ensuring a just transition for informal workers, cleaning up legacy plastic waste, and addressing human health impacts (Minderoo Foundation 2023).

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, through the ad hoc intersessional open-ended expert group, has identified financing mechanisms (2024) such as a proposed plastic pollution fee, credit schemes, and EPR systems.

All photos used on this page were shot by Ezra Acayan on assignment for Break Free From Plastic.


Event Overview

Policies play a vital role in accelerating the adoption of such plastic solutions. While governments and businesses recognize how reuse and refill solutions can prevent plastic pollution and contribute to plastic production reduction, enabling policies are still lacking at national and global levels. The webinar examines promising policies that enable and drive investment to the right kind of solutions. 

This panel discussion is organised by the Center of Science and Environment and Break Free From Plastic as part of the Plastic Parleys webinar series. It serves as a curtain-raiser to the Fifth INC Session, scheduled for November in Busan, South Korea.

For media enquiries or report author interviews, please reach out to:
Devayani Khare, Asia-Pacific Communication Officer: devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org
Report Launch & Panel Discussion

Plastic Pollution Financing: Challenges and Opportunities

13 November 2024

15:00 - 16:30 India

16:30 - 18:00 Jakarta

17:30 - 19:00 Manila

This panel discussion is organized by the Center of Science and Environment and Break Free From Plastic as part of the Plastic Parleys webinar series. It aims to:

  1. Highlight the limitations of financing mechanisms such as EPR systems, plastic credit schemes, and a global pollution fee.
  2. Discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with these mechanisms in addressing plastic pollution.
  3. Foster dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders to develop innovative and effective approaches to plastic pollution financing.
REGISTER NOW
Watch the recording
Report 1

Extended Producer Responsibility Compatible with Planetary Boundaries

Joan Marc Simon, Zero Waste Europe
KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

1. While EPR has successfully mobilised resources for waste management, it has not led to a reduction in waste generation. In many cases, waste volumes and absolute environmental impact have increased despite EPR implementation.
2. EPR systems have generally improved collection and recycling rates in those places where legislation has provided the right guidance, but have struggled to promote waste prevention and reuse or discourage waste disposal (landfilling or waste burning technologies).
3. The implementation of EPR in the Global South faces unique challenges, particularly in ensuring fair prices for waste workers and integrating informal sector workers.
4. Governance issues, including lack of transparency, compliance with guidelines and conflicts of interest, have hindered the effectiveness of many EPR systems in delivering the best environmental and social outcome.
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
Report 2

Mismanaged Sachets: Will EPR Solve the Plastic Problem?

Dominic Hogg, Equanimator

KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

  1. There is no single definition of ‘sachet.’ They are often defined as small, single-use flexible packaging formats used for food and cosmetics products. Current policies, however, have varying definitions, from ‘10g or 10 ml of product’ in India to small format packaging containing up to 50g / ml of product in Indonesia.
  2. Ideally, EPR should directly support waste management services, often managed by local governments, by generating sufficient funds from producers to fully cover the net costs of all end-of-life packaging management. However, the effectiveness of current EPR schemes in contributing to government-led collection services and other waste management activities remains uncertain.
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
Report 3

Unpacking EPR for Plastic Packaging in India

Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh and Aniket Chandra, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)

  • KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

    1. Key stakeholders like urban local bodies, waste pickers, who manage the plastic waste and engage in critical activities like collection, transportation and recycling do not find a mention and thus have no incentives from the EPR guidelines in India.

    2. EPR for plastic packaging has been reduced to PIBOs simply procuring certificates from PWPs at throwaway prices thus reducing the liability and accountability of the PIBOs and undermining the “polluter pays principle” on the basis of which the laws were notified.

    3. Only the compliance status of 25% PIBOs and 62% of PWPs is revealed by the CPCB, with remaining unaddressed

    4. The highest non-compliance was observed for Category II plastics, which is also the highest circulated plastic packaging.

  • 5. The March 2024 amendment to the EPR guidelines under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 has reclassified multi-layered plastic MLP packaging used to package fritters, chips, biscuits and other small formats of packaging including sachets into flexible plastic packaging- most of them are used widely by the FMCG sector.

    6. Cities across the Indian sub-continent have been struggling to deal with MLP packaging which is often termed as “problematic” with a very small fraction going towards mechanical recycling and processing - most of the processing happens in cement co-processing plants.

    7. This reclassification of MLP into flexible plastic (Category II) takes away the pressure from PIBOs to better design their plastic packaging better keeping the end of life of plastics in consideration while making plastic packaging, and continue to burden local governments to bear the operations and the financial brunt of collecting and managing problematic formats of plastic packaging.

  • 8. PIBOs are paying only 10 percent of the total cost especially for MLP packaging.

    9. The CSE report suggests critical reforms in the EPR systems to be initiated by the policy makers and regulators to ensure that the objective EPR system for plastic packaging in India is not compromised. Since the implementation of the guidelines span till fiscal year 2027-28 – corrective measures, if taken timely can help to run a well-designed market driven EPR system. The flow of fake certificates and the tendency observed among the responsible processors and recyclers need to be prevented with appropriate measures to strengthen the implementation.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
Report 4

A Deep Dive into India's Centralized Portal for Plastic Packaging

Siddharth Ghanshyam Singh and Shrotik Bose, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)

  • KEY HIGHLIGHTS:

    1. No manufacturers of virgin plastic feature on the portal despite EPR guidelines mandating registration for manufacturers

    2. 41,577 PIBOs had registered on the centralised portal. 83 per cent of the registered PIBOs are importers, 11 per cent are producers and 6 percent are brand owners.

    3. The Producers cumulatively have placed 65 per cent of the plastic packaging in the Indian market, followed by 26 per cent by the brand owners, importers despite being the highest in numbers have only introduced 9 per cent of the plastic packaging introduced in the Indian market.

    4. The registered PIBOs have introduced 23.9 million tonnes of plastic packaging on the Indian market since the launch of the centralised EPR portal in April 2022.

    5. Almost 66 per cent of the plastic packaging introduced on the Indian market is flexible in nature which is difficult to collect and thus recycle, 25 percent of the plastic packaging is rigid in nature and 9 per cent comprises the aseptic (cartonized) plastic packaging.

  • 6. In October 2023, the state and central regulators such as SPCBs and CPCB revealed that plastic waste recyclers in 3 states were indulging in the generation of fake certificates. A total of 7 lakh fake certificates were generated by the plastic recyclers- this was 38 times more than their claimed recycling capacity of all the plastic waste recyclers put together. The CPCB imposed a cumulative fine of 355 crores on these violators.

    7. The fake certificates were procured by the PIBOs whose identity is being withheld by the Central Pollution Control Board- the national regulator of the EPR implementation in the country. No known action has been taken against these PIBOs again defeating the purpose and principle of the EPR guidelines.

    8. CSE analysis found that similar malpractices are being found in Delhi, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu by plastic waste recyclers. However, these are not reported by SPCBs or CPCB.

  • 9. End-of-life disposal service providers, such as waste-to-oil, waste-to-energy, and cement co-processing facilities, showed a similar pattern across several states. Co-processing plants generated 3000 percent more certificates than their approved processing capacities.

    10. These malpractices have disrupted the market driven mechanism on which the EPR guidelines were based thus increasing the supply of certificates in the market and driving the cost of EPR certificates to the rock bottom.

    11. Recommendations in the report include use of a portal to report accurate numbers for plastic waste generation, Baseline cost studies for plastic waste management help establish a benchmark for fair pricing of recycling certificates and prevent undervaluation in the market. Product standardisation plays a critical role in improving the recyclability of plastic waste by ensuring that packaging materials and designs are uniform, which simplifies the recycling process.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
© 2024 Break Free From Plastic. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy