Can EPR resolve plastic waste scourge?

On 13th August, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has released the Extended Producer Responsibilities (EPR) Directives, 2026 with immediate effect. These directives, which are binding under law, have been a long term demand of environmentalists in order to define the responsibilities of producers, importers and brand owners for dealing with the plastic waste generated from their products, extending their responsibility past the point of sale to a consumer. The previous interim government had begun drafting these guidelines and it is encouraging to see the new elected government maintains continuity with the reform agenda undertaken by their predecessors. The Directives include within its scope all recyclable and non-recyclable plastic products and the manufacturers, importers and brands behind them. However, export goods are excluded from the obligations presented under these Directives. 

The EPR directives carry a number of key details including the division of plastics into 5 categories - Rigid Plastic (bottles, containers, PVC), Flexible Plastic (films, sachets, multilayer packaging), Styrofoam or Expanded Polystyrene, non-banned Single Use Plastics (SUPs) and a category of “Others” which include cigarette filters, sanitary napkins and diapers. It creates tangible and ambitious mandatory targets for collection and recycling - 30% and 15% respectively within 3 to 5 years. It notes the differences in capacity between larger and smaller industries and gives them specific timelines for compliance. It furthermore creates a compliance mechanism including registration with the Department of Environment (DoE), submitting annual progress reports and compels producers to organise buy-back schemes or designate specific Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) to handle compliance with the EPR Directives. 

These Directives are a timely development as Bangladesh has struggled with rampant plastic pollution. Rivers and canals have been choked out as plastic waste ends up in waterbodies on its way to being washed out to the Bay of Bengal. Microplastics are ubiquitous in our lives, societies and environment. And the situation is only getting worse. 

Plastic consumption in Bangladesh has increased significantly over the years. Urban per-capita consumption rose from 3 kg in 2005 to 9 kg in 2020, while Dhaka recorded an even higher consumption rate of 22.5 kg per person. In Dhaka, 646 tonnes of plastic waste was collected daily according to a 2021 study by the World Bank. 

According to the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Bangladesh generates roughly 800,000 tonnes of plastic waste annually, with only 40% recycled. This relies on 300 formal facilities supported by a vast, hard-to-monitor informal sector.

The persistent increase in both plastic production and consumption, coupled with inadequate waste collection and insufficient waste management presents significant challenges. Plastic debris from urban areas, packaging materials, fishing gear and household waste often ends up in rivers such as the Buriganga, Turag, Padma, and Meghna and threatens marine life. For all intents and purposes, there are really no rivers among the thousand plus rivers that snake through the country that are free from plastic pollution. These plastics gradually degrade into smaller fragments and leach into the air, soil, water and inevitably are then ingested by humans.
Achieving ambitious environmental targets and restoring waterbodies requires reassessing current plastic production, consumption and waste management. The MoEFCC must therefore enforce a stringent compliance regime, ensuring producers take responsibilities to effectively shift the paradigm of plastic pollution.

Bringing different sized plastic product manufacturers under compliance is particularly important because small-scale manufacturers make a significant contribution to the production and distribution of SUP products as well as to the waste processing and recycling sectors. The real challenge will be to bring the informal sector into the compliance net and a concerted action plan is required by MoEFCC on how to do so. The Directives provide for a listing process of “Obligated Entities” that represents the first stage of implementation of the Directives, following which these entities would have to register with the DoE within six months. This listing itself is a massive task and will set the tone for how effective the compliance regime will be. The Directives encourage the DoE to take assistance from other government agencies and non-government institutions and it is essential that this initial listing is done with adequate stakeholder consultation and inter-agency coordination. The registration process cannot be at a voluntary discretion and instead must be held to the established timeline with a penalty regime for non-compliance. 

Companies will have to meet the mandatory collection and recycling targets within just a few years. While this is commendable, there has to be an assessment of new infrastructure that has to be built to meet these targets, such as recycling plants. Obligated entities have needed to set aside financing for necessary infrastructure, segregation and collection. The specific mention of buy-back schemes and deposit-return schemes to aid collection is a welcome addition and will hopefully spark a cultural change in society regarding mindfulness around waste disposal. Such schemes should be introduced urgently in coastal areas to prevent further devastating marine pollution and as troubleshooting before launching on a national scale. 

An interesting addition in the Directives is the inclusion of “Producer Responsibility Organisations (PRO)” that will be contracted or established by plastic producers to carry out the obligations under the EPR Directives. This adds both a layer of bureaucracy and shield for the obligated entities, but also does create a system for specialised service providers to integrate into the plastic waste value chain through dedicated EPR project funds from the obligated entities. Waste collected above the required target can be sold as plastic credits to other institutions or in international markets through a government-approved system so there is an incentive to meet the targets. 

Beyond financing infrastructure and end-of-life management, companies are mandated to take active measures to raise public awareness on the harmful aspects of plastic waste and promote alternatives. It is important to note that plastic waste handled by local government authorities is excluded from the calculation of a company's EPR targets and without cooperation between the local government which is responsible for much of household waste collection. It may be difficult for producers to reach their targets. Another key gap within these Directives that should be addressed in the future is in relation to design. While it is mentioned that organising entities should endeavour to create alternative reusable products, it does not specify the need to redesign existing products and packaging to reduce the amount of harmful plastics used or to redesign products to promote recyclability and reusability. This is especially pertinent to the issue of microplastics, and the need for producers to ensure to the best of their capabilities to prevent microplastic contamination. 

A recent study by the Environment and Social Development Organisation (ESDO) found that microplastics were detected in 26 of 34 toothpastes sampled that are widely available in the Bangladesh market. This clearly indicates an issue in the production stage that needs to be addressed, before the products even come to market. 

The EPR Directives represent an important step in combatting the scourge of plastic pollution by removing the impunity of producers and defining their responsibilities beyond the point of sale. While some gaps may remain, and questions of implementation can only be answered by observing performance and compliance over time, this is still a welcome initiative that creates the skeleton for a robust framework, ambitious yet achievable mandatory targets and imposes resource allocation toward changing our waste collection, management and disposal systems. However, its success will hinge on how well the compliance regime holds, how well it can acknowledge and grapple with the informal sector plastic waste industry and most importantly, how well it can change the culture among consumers and producers alike.