The evolution of a dialogue on EPR for plastic waste management in Sri Lanka is considered a landmark, for finding common ground among stakeholders with divergent views on the subject. The Sri Lankan private sector was initially dissatisfied when a state-led EPR approach was mooted. Subsequently, even in the absence of legal provisions to impose EPR in the country, continuous and active involvement of the sector in developing and executing an industry-led, country-wide, plastic-type focused voluntary EPR scheme has led to a useful way forward.
Leading this dialogue, over the past few years, the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce (CCC), with the technical support of Biodiversity Sri Lanka, has been sensitizing the private sector on the critical need of introducing an EPR solution for addressing rapidly growing plastic waste in the country. With strategic direction provided by a multi-stakeholder steering committee, an EPR Roadmap was developed using a consultative approach. In this process, several sectoral stakeholder consultations targeting key industry sectors yielded some useful policy-level inputs and insights. Simultaneously, a review of global EPR practices from six countries helped to identify applicable EPR policy instruments for Sri Lanka.
The EPR Roadmap proposed three likely instruments for plastic waste management as applicable to Sri Lanka: A Deposit Refund System, an Advance Disposal Fee-based System, and a Mandatory Reporting and Collect-back System. The Roadmap also contained several over-arching proposals required to establish an efficient plastic waste management regime in Sri Lanka. A Perception Survey revealed that 90% of both government and private sector respondents endorsed the Roadmap whilst 80% of private-sector respondents expressed willingness to commit resources for the implementation of the preferred Mandatory Reporting and Collect-back System. These findings were complemented by Market and Socio-Economic Studies which provided useful information on the plastics value chain and consumer perceptions on handling plastic waste. Additionally, several key informant interviews provided more information and addressed information gaps. A consumer survey targeting 500 households across selected urban areas of the country, provided an understanding of the dynamics of household-level plastics waste management.
In moving forward, it is imperative to facilitate a continuous, transparent dialogue between all stakeholders in working out the finer details of the preferred Mandatory Reporting and Collect-back System. The Industrial sector is an effective intermediary in facilitating such a dialogue. The introduction of sudden and ad-hoc government decisions in the recent past, banning several plastic categories has contributed to many a debate among the state and private sectors on the merits and demerits of using a more holistic policy application. If EPR policy signals at the national level are not consistent, a situation may arise when the private sector may be reluctant to undertake long term investments to manage their plastic footprint. Contrary to empirical evidence, our studies show that Sri Lankan companies prefer individual EPR implementation strategies and approaches for plastic waste management, using a facilitated process under the guidance of the Government of Sri Lanka and industry associations. They can then employ their own innovative, plastic waste collection methodologies and channels and can also demonstrate commitment to minimizing plastic leakage to the environment, creating a positive brand image.
