2021 (1) TMI 1306 - Tri - Indian Laws

Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules), including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in terms of Rule 9(4) of the Rules - HELD THAT - Regretfully, steps taken by the MoEF for finalizing EPR regime are too slow. We note that the PWM Rules were framed in the year 2016 in place of 2011 Rules. There is no justification for long delay in finalisation of EPR models even after more than four years of the publication of the Rules. The same may now be finalised at the earliest, preferably within three months from today. The State level authorities also need to take necessary effective steps for enforcement, including coercive measures. EC and penal action regime proposed by the CPCB may be duly implemented by the CPCB, State PCBs/PCCs, State Level Monitoring Committees and all other concerned authorities. District Environment Committees constituted in pursuance of order of this Tribunal in Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur Ors. may also monitor compliance of PWM Rules and give their respective reports to the State Level Committees. The CPCB may continue to coordinate with the State Level Monitoring Committees, the State PCBs/PCCs or any other authorities with reference to the steps taken by the State Level Monitoring Committees in coordinating with the concerned Local Bodies, Gram Panchayats, Waste Generators, Producers, Importers, Brand Owners, Recyclers, Manufactures, Retailers and Street Vendors in accordance with the rules. Whenever, necessary CPCB may issue further directions from time to time in the light of experiences gained considering different suggestions and viewpoints, including the suggestions of the Oversight Committee for State of UP. The application is disposed of.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules).
2. Compliance with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) under Rule 9(4).
3. Enforcement of the Tribunal's order dated 20.07.2018.
4. Compliance with directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. Directions issued by the CPCB for PWM Rules compliance.
6. State/UT compliance status and action plans for PWM Rules.
7. Finalization of EPR policy framework by MoEF&CC.
8. Environmental compensation and penal action for non-compliance of PWM Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 (PWM Rules):
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the PWM Rules, 2016, noting the hazardous impact of unscientific plastic waste management on the environment and public health. The Tribunal's order dated 20.07.2018 directed the enforcement of these rules across all States/UTs, which had not been adequately complied with.

2. Compliance with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) under Rule 9(4):
The Tribunal highlighted challenges in implementing EPR, which assigns responsibility to producers, importers, and brand owners for managing plastic waste. The MoEF&CC was tasked with finalizing a policy framework for EPR, which remained pending.

3. Enforcement of the Tribunal's order dated 20.07.2018:
The CPCB filed an execution application for the enforcement of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal found that most States/UTs were not complying with the PWM Rules and directed them to take necessary steps.

4. Compliance with directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court had issued directions in Karuna Society for Animals and Nature v. UOI to prohibit the use, sale, and disposal of plastic bags and to implement door-to-door garbage collection. The Tribunal reiterated these directions for compliance.

5. Directions issued by the CPCB for PWM Rules compliance:
The CPCB issued directions on 30.06.2016 for implementing thickness norms for carry bags, preventing littering of plastic waste, and submitting annual reports. The PWM Rules outline responsibilities for local bodies, waste generators, producers, and other stakeholders.

6. State/UT compliance status and action plans for PWM Rules:
The CPCB's report indicated significant gaps in the preparation and execution of action plans for PWM Rules implementation. States/UTs were directed to finalize time-targeted action plans and provide compliance reports to the CPCB.

7. Finalization of EPR policy framework by MoEF&CC:
The MoEF&CC was considering three models for EPR implementation: Fee-based model, PRO-based model, and Plastic Credit Model. The Tribunal directed the MoEF&CC to finalize the National Framework for EPR within three months.

8. Environmental compensation and penal action for non-compliance of PWM Rules:
The CPCB proposed an Environmental Compensation regime for improper plastic waste management. The Tribunal directed the CPCB and State authorities to implement the EC and penal action regime and to ensure compliance with PWM Rules through periodic meetings and enforcement strategies.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the MoEF&CC to finalize the EPR framework within three months and emphasized the need for effective enforcement by State authorities. The CPCB and other concerned authorities were instructed to implement the EC and penal action regime and to monitor compliance with PWM Rules. The application was disposed of with these directions.