Environmental Policy Challenges

Can government policy and the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility (a.k.a. EPR) be the much needed magic sauce to curb urban plastic pollution? Karnataka produces about 44 tonnes of plastic waste daily, with only 57% of this waste being recycled. To tackle this, a quiet but meaningful approach may soon be underway. The Karnataka state government has asked bottled water vendors to buy back used plastic bottles before selling a new one. It’s a move grounded in the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR is a principle that holds producers accountable for managing their products across the complete product lifecycle, including after they’ve been used. It’s a step forward. But EPR, on its own, can only go so far. Existing challenges from the currently available eco-system ... 1. Glass alternatives to plastic (single-use) bottles present logistical challenges. There aren’t enough bottling plants (making for higher prices as well), and transporting glass is both transporting heavier and more fragile cargo. 2. Even when plastics are recyclable, the informal sector (which handles 50–80% of India’s plastic recycling) lacks the scale to keep up. 3. Karnataka has 143 recycling units with a capacity to recycle 2.1 lakh tonnes annually, but significant amounts of non-recyclable plastic are sent to cement factories for use as fuel, raising environmental concerns. 4. Adoption and compliance remain weak. According to a 2024 CSE report, 83% of the EPR portal registrations are those of importers. While producers who are responsible for most of the plastic packaging comprise just 11%. I believe what could add serious momentum is greater public participation and public-private collaboration. 3 markers of EPR showing significant results would be … → When citizens know they can return packaging, even if for a nominal value → When businesses are supported to set up reverse logistics → When reuse becomes more accessible than disposal Himachal Pradesh tried leveraging EPR in 2019, by implementing a similar buy-back policy for non-recyclable and single-use plastic waste. The government purchased such waste at ₹75 per kilogram from registered rag pickers and households. Approximately 1,300 tonnes of plastic waste have been collected under this policy. Karnataka’s proposed initiative is a step forward, however, I believe that for significant change, citizens, businesses, and policymakers must work together. P.S. What incentives would motivate you to participate in a plastic buyback program? Let me know in the comments! #Sustainability #PlasticWaste #CircularEconomy #EPR #Recycling

Big Week For Plastic. Anyone else following the Geneva talks? The city’s in full negotiation mode this week as INC-5.2 gets underway. The last stretch of talks to finalise a global plastics treaty, and the outcome could shape the future of packaging for decades. The ambition's to create a legally binding agreement to tackle plastic pollution from production to disposal. But getting there means untangling decades of conflicting priorities, economic interests and political pressure. The focus is simple, but the politics aren’t. Countries are trying to agree on a legally binding plan to tackle plastic pollution at every stage of its life. That means talking about what gets produced, how it’s used, what goes into it, and who’s responsible for cleaning it up. Packaging sits right in the middle of the debate. There appears to be growing support for a cap on virgin plastic production. Over 100 countries back it. The idea is to stop the flow at the source and push industry investment into reuse, recycling and alternative materials. But big producers aren’t on board. The US, China and others are calling for the focus to stay on waste, not supply. That disagreement alone is slowing everything down. Chemical regulation is another sticking point. Some parties are pushing for stricter controls on additives like PFAS, along with full disclosure on what goes into plastics. That’s a challenge for brands using multi-layer films, barrier technologies or opaque formulations. But without transparency, there’s no real way to track impact or enforce standards. Extended Producer Responsibility is also under discussion. The idea’s to make companies legally and financially responsible for the full life of their packaging, including clean-up and disposal. Not a new concept, but if this becomes global law, it changes the equation for design, sourcing and cost. Then there’s the issue of fairness. Developing countries are being asked to hit the same targets without the same infrastructure. The treaty text includes references to support and flexibility, but so far, there’s little agreement on what that looks like in practice. Even the basics are still contested. Delegates can’t agree on definitions, on the scope of the treaty, or whether health impacts should be included. And with no formal voting procedure in place, a handful of countries can block consensus. That’s happened before, and it could happen again. All very complex, but the direction’s appears clear. Brands and manufacturers are facing a future where business as usual won’t cut it. If this treaty lands with teeth, it will impact everything from sourcing to design to disposal. What’s being decided in Geneva is more than policy but a marker of where the world is heading and how fast the packaging industry is expected to move. No brand is too big or too niche to be affected by this Worth keeping an eye on! Where should the responsibility land first design, production, or policy?

UN Member States started negotiations in March 2022 on a new global treaty to tackle plastic pollution. More than two and a half years later, this past week's summit in Busan was supposed to be when the treaty would be finalised. But it's not to be. According to Politico, the oil-rich plastic-producing nations blocked any caps on plastic production, which halted the treaty train in Busan. Multilateral agreements are complex and slow, which means forward-looking nations should move ahead and implement policies that reduce production and consumption of plastics along the whole value chain. Implementing a charge on consumers for single-use plastics has been highly effective in many countries. In Singapore, supermarket operators reported a 70% to 80% decrease in the carrier bags used since the mandatory 5c charge was introduced in July 2023. There are two other policies that the SG government should consider. First, mandate the use of recycled resin for plastic products sold locally, similar to the EU legislation that requires 25% recycled plastic by 2025 and 30% by 2030 for PET bottles. This creates a steady market demand for circularity. Second, provide authoritative science-based advice on the types of carrier bags and food packaging that are less environmentally harmful in SG. This would dispel misconceptions and clarify debates (such as whether paper is better than plastic bags). Context is important because we burn most of our waste and there's little or no composting done. In 2016, the National Environment Agency commissioned the National University of Singapore to conduct a lifecycle assessment (LCA) of the environmental impacts of different types of packaging. A useful factsheet was published in 2018 (https://lnkd.in/gDucbemt). It's timely to do a follow up LCA and publicise the findings. To do things right, we first need to know for sure what are the right things. #tackleplasticpollution #lifecycleassessment

Here is a story of a plastic ban that increased emissions: In 2020, New Jersey (NJ) banned plastic and paper bags in all stores starting May 2022. Shockingly, this led to NJ's plastic consumption increasing three-fold after the ban. An assessment report found that the total number of plastic bags dropped by 60% as the ban had hoped for. But this initiative led the residents of the State to switch from thin plastic film bags to thicker, reusable bags. The issue was that these thicker bags were made of non-woven polypropylene, which takes a lot more plastic to make and isn't easily recyclable. All in all, these heavier bags led to the GHG emissions rising by 500%! Adding to this, there were also issues with how the consumers used the bags, instead of using it multiple times, they would only use it two or three times, resulting in these bags piling up at their homes or landfills.

Circular Economy Roadmap and Action Plan in Indonesia (2025-2045) from Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas Republic of Indonesia This document serves as a strategic reference for stakeholders in driving Indonesia’s transition from a linear economy to a circular one. The Circular Economy Action Plan spans a 20-year implementation period (2025–2045), focusing on five priority sectors - food and beverages, retail (with an emphasis on plastic packaging), textiles, construction, and electronics - which together represent nearly one-third of Indonesia's GDP. The roadmap outlines various strategies grounded in the 9R framework: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, and Recover. These principles apply across the entire value chain, from production, distribution, and consumption, to the end-of-life phase of products.

I have documented plastic pollution in Kenya for over a decade, and one thing remains constant, single-use plastics dominate the waste I encounter. Between 2013 and 2017, plastic carrier bags were everywhere, littering streets, drains, rivers, and landscapes. After the 2017 ban, their presence reduced drastically. In the years that followed, I saw more plastic drink bottles blocking drains and floating in rivers. But, in the last two years, I’ve observed a significant drop in their numbers, a sign that increased recycling efforts might be making a difference, especially for PET. The prices for PET bottles are also improving. However, new challenges persist. Banned clear plastic bags are still widely used, especially in low income areas. Small shops use them to package anything from cooking oil to milk. Food wrappers or flexibles are another growing problem, they’re hard to collect and even harder to recycle. Another type of plastic waste I have come across is polystyrene foam and Croslite (the material used in Crocs). I believe these are among the worst, as they break down quickly into tiny pieces that can easily spread through wind and water. I have photographed so much waste from these materials. To address plastic pollution; 1.      We need more bans on single-use plastic. 2.      Extended producer responsibility. 3.      Deposit and return schemes. 4.      Refill systems. 5.      Improved designs that support circularity and environmental sustainability. 6.      Improved waste collection and infrastructure. #RethinkPlastics to #BeatplasticPollution

Could some circularity policies go against competitiveness and environment?🤔 Ten years after the first EU circular economy roadmap, we face an uncomfortable truth: Europe's circularity rate has stagnated and recycling capacity in key sectors is declining. The paradox is that this isn't happening despite our policies. It's happening because of them. Take PET plastic. We set ambitious recycled content targets in the Single-Use Plastics Directive to drive investment in recycling infrastructure. The result? Approximately 1 million tonnes of recycling capacity lost or never developed. Why? Because we designed mandates that can be met with cheaper imported recyclate rather than European post-consumer waste. European recyclers can't compete. Facilities close. Collected plastic goes to incineration. Bad for competitiveness, bad for the environment. This forces us to confront what we're actually trying to achieve: - Are we maximizing global circularity metrics—even when that undermines European recycling industries, exports jobs, and results in incinerating perfectly recyclable collected waste? - Or is circularity supposed to be at the core of our industrial policy, creating resilient local value chains and aligning economic with environmental goals? Current policy suggests we've chosen the former while claiming the latter. I understand the legal constraints. WTO rules create real limitations. But when France announces it will implement proximity principles for recycled content in 2026, it shows member states are filling the void left by EU-level creativity. We found WTO-compatible solutions for CBAM, for critical raw materials, for countless other challenges. Why not for circularity? The US Inflation Reduction Act and China's Five-Year Plans show what happens when industrial policy is backed by state apparatus. The EU has detailed regulations but minimal financial commitment and little integration with trade, state aid, or procurement policy. The main problem is that we regulate circularity while continuing to subsidise the linear economy. Unless the EU changes the economic incentives, the market today favours linear over circular products. After ten years, we need honesty about trade-offs between supporting European industry vs. providing cheap inputs, local resilience vs. global efficiency, ambition vs. WTO compliance and real commitment for circularity. If circularity is truly core to EU industrial policy we must design policies that actually build European market for circularity. The current path—ambitious targets, cheap imports, minimal investment—is failing both competitiveness and the environment. What are your ideas on how to fix this? I have elaborated on potential ways to address this challenge in a substack article: https://lnkd.in/eiZs_sT7 #CircularEconomy #EUPolicy #Recycling #Sustainability #IndustrialPolicy #GreenDeal

This is a cautionary tale of what can happen when a ban on a specific product is in place without robust mechanisms for alternatives. In the case of California, a ban on single-use plastic bags led to an increased use in thicker bags that were meant for multiple uses, but were only used once. This led to an overall increase in plastic consumption. Behavior change and incentives need to be a key consideration in the development of policies that are intended to reduce material consumption.

Why is the UN Plastic Treaty Failing? Negotiations for a legally binding #UNGlobalPlasticTreaty have faced significant challenges and delays, falling short of the initial target of finalizing it by the end of 2024. The primary reasons for this stagnation stem from #deepdivides among countries regarding the #scope #ambition of the treaty. ▶️ Production vs. Waste Management: A core disagreement lies in whether the treaty should address the entire lifecycle of plastics, including production limits, or focus primarily on waste management and recycling solutions. A coalition of over 100 countries, advocates for binding commitments to reduce the production of primary plastics emphasizing that curbing #production is essential to address the root cause of the plastic pollution crisis. However, a smaller group of nations, including major oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and the US, resist production caps, emphasizing waste management & recycling as the primary focus. ▶️ Economic Interests: The opposition to production limits from some countries is largely driven by #economicconcerns, due to their significant investments in the #fossilfuel and #petrochemicalindustries, which are integral to plastic manufacturing. Imposing production cuts could have detrimental effects on their economies & development plans. ▶️ Hazardous Chemicals: Another contentious area involves the regulation of hazardous chemicals used in plastic products. Some countries seek to include strict #bans and restrictions , highlighting their negative impacts on #humanhealth and #environment & some oil-producing nations, are reluctant to endorse stringent #regulations, citing potential disruptions to their industries. ▶️ Financing Mechanisms: Developing nations have stressed the need for adequate financial & technical support to implement the treaty's provisions, particularly concerning #wastemanagement #infrastructure & transitioning to safer alternatives. Wealthier nations have been hesitant to commit significant resources without a clear framework for action. ▶️ Decision-Making Processes: Disagreements regarding the rules for decision-making within the #negotiations, specifically on whether to rely solely on consensus or allow for majority #voting, have also slowed progress. During the most recent round of negotiations in Geneva, observers expressed disappointment at the slow pace and the lack of progress on crucial issues like production cuts and the regulation of #hazardouschemicals. While a #drafttreaty text exists, it reflects the numerous unresolved issues. The path forward will necessitate gigantic efforts to bridge these gaps, potentially exploring compromise solutions that balance environmental goals with economic realities and development. Without achieving a significant level of #consensus on these critical points, the effectiveness of the #UNPlasticTreaty in addressing the #globalplasticpollution crisis remains uncertain.

🇪🇺 The European Commission quietly tested the Circular Economy Act before Christmas Not with a regulation. Not with a proposal. But with a plastics pilot. This Communication is doing something important: it reframes the circular economy as industrial and trade policy, not environmental ambition. A few signals I wouldn’t ignore: ▫️Circular economy = economic security Recycling, secondary raw materials and reuse are now framed as tools to reduce import dependency and protect EU industry. ▫️Plastics as the stress test High volumes, volatile prices, unfair imports. If circular plastics can’t scale, textiles and electronics won’t either. ▫️Single Market logic is back Union-wide end-of-waste criteria and mass-balance rules aim to reduce fragmentation and give recyclers legal certainty. ▫️Trade defence enters circular policy Customs codes for recycled polymers. Stricter controls on “fake recycled” imports. Circularity is no longer naïve about global competition. ▫️Investment before targets Trans-regional circularity hubs. EIB alignment. Circular infrastructure treated as strategic capacity. What this really feels like: 👉 A policy rehearsal for the Circular Economy Act. 👉 Plastics today, but textiles, batteries and electronics are clearly next. The EU seems to be moving from circular ambition to circular statecraft. I’ll be unpacking the implications for EPR schemes, recyclers, producers and market surveillance over the coming weeks. Which part of this shift do you think will prove hardest to implement in practice? Read more here: https://lnkd.in/ePG_RSvY