Plastic Waste Management

DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Preface:
Swachh Bharat Mission has been able to achieve significant strides over the last 4 years by providing
underserved areas access to toilets and encouraging their sustainable use. More than 300 plus districts in
India are now ODF with a toilet coverage of nearly 79% in rural India. As we chart the course ahead for
SBM and increasing ODF coverage in India, it is an opportune moment to develop a comprehensive
framework for ODF sustainability and ODF plus activities, namely Solid and Liquid Resource Management
in rural areas. Organizing the solid and liquid resource management markets in rural areas will crowd in
investment from the private sector, and lead to long-term stable job growth in rural communities. With
appropriate policy nudges, these can be scaled up into opportunities for growth in rural India. This SLRM
draft document serves as a platform for building a rural SLRM implementation framework for Plastic
Waste Management to various stakeholders from districts and states across India. Each technological
theme (plastics, menstrual health, biodegradable waste, animal waste, grey water and faecal sludge)
explored here addresses a particular type of waste, the challenges present and recommends solutions for
sustainable value generation.

With such trends in urban India there is also a need to make rural India capable of managing their plastic
waste. Plastic waste has emerged as a major problem in rural areas and the issue of management of plastic
waste will also become challenge overtime. As population in India is forecasted to experience an
unprecedented growth from currently 1.31 billion to 1.65 billion by 2030, the management of plastic waste
in rural areas needs innovative solutions to address the challenge. There needs to be a development of
plastic waste management in order to stop unsafe and hazardous methods to dispose plastic waste.
Through this document MoDWS aims to create an action plan and way forward for Plastic Waste
Management and bring forward various policy frameworks, technologies for rural areas. If implemented,
it could make an important contribution towards transforming this important sector of the country’s
economy.

Concrete and game-changing steps have to be taken for Plastic waste management to achieve the goals
we anchored in this document. MoDWS would like to thank wholeheartedly the support, objectives and
comprehensive action plan / way forward provided by various intellectuals, organizations, departments
and institutions for plastic waste management in Rural India. We would like to thank Mr. Ritesh Kumar
(Joint Secretary, MoEF), Mr. Manoj Kumar (Director, MoEF), Dr. Thallada Bhaskar (Professor, CSIR), Mr.
Haren Sanghavi (Immediate Past President, AIPMA), Prof. K. K. Pant (IIT Delhi), Prof. S. N. Naik (IIT Delhi),
Mr. Dharmesh Shah(GAIA Technologies), Dr. Kaveri Gill (Professor, Shiv Nadar University), Ms. Divya Tiwari
(Saahas), Ms. Richa Chaturvedi (Karo Sambhav) and Ms. Lakshmi Narayan(SWaCH). The Ministry would
also like to acknowledge KPMG and Dalberg who were principally involved in framing this document.

Disclaimer and Notice to Reader

The information provided in this book is designed to provide helpful information on the subject discussed.
The comments received during consultation will be considered during the final preparation of the thematic
resource book. The content, structure, form and wording of the consultation draft are subject to change
as a result of the consultation process and as a result of review, editing and correction by MDWS.

The information contained herein is subject to change and does not commit MDWS for any factual error.
Managing Plastics Waste in Rural India 4
CONTEXT 4
PRODUCTION OF PLASTICS 8
CURRENT DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT PRACTICES 9
NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLASTICS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN RURAL INDIA 10
POLICY BACKGROUND 11
NATIONAL RULES AND GUIDELINES ON PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT 11
STATE LEGISLATION BANNING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS 12
POLICIES ON EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR) 13
POLICY APPROACHES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT 14
TECHNICAL OPTIONS 17
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN CURRENT POLICY 19
IMPLEMENTING PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN STATES & DISTRICTS 22
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES 22
CASE STUDIES 24
MANAGING PLASTICS WASTE IN RURAL INDIA

CONTEXT

More than 15,000 tonnes of plastic waste are generated across India every day.
An increasing fraction of this plastic waste is found in rural areas, as the reach of
retail corporations and commercial organizations grows, and also as SMEs for
plastic production increase in number.

In spite of a paucity of reliable data on the volume and mix of plastic waste in
rural areas, it is becoming increasingly clear that plastics are posing significant
environmental and health challenges in rural communities. Plastics are disturbing There are more than
local ecological balances and show up in water and land as micro-plastics. In their 15,000 tons of plastic
macro-form, they act as physical barriers, degrade soil quality, and get ingested waste generated in
by livestock and also other fauna, lead to blockages in drains and streams. India daily; more than
40% of this quantity is
Plastic waste disposal methods in rural India are often basic and uninformed and
disposed unsafely
further exacerbate the challenge. The open burning of plastics generates toxic
emissions such as carbon monoxide, dioxins, and nitrides. Low-quality plastics,
common in rural India, also leach out toxic additives.

Plastics waste management has been looked at through the policy lens for at least
two decades. Most policy measures have focused on segregation, collection, and
in certain cases banning the use of certain categories of plastics altogether.
However, most of this had traditionally been focused on urban India.

IN 2016, THE PLASTIC WASTE RULES WERE EXTENDED FOR RURAL AREAS FOR THE
FIRST TIME, WITH SPECIFIC DUTIES DEMARCATED FOR GRAM PANCHAYATS.

While some States and local bodies have made guidelines compliant with these
rules, there are challenges with their acceptance and implementation.

The lack of segregation of plastics waste, the absence of organized systems of

collection and efficient aggregation, poor economic value in low-grade (thin)
plastics, and the livelihoods associated with plastics production have been the
key categories of challenges.

This Plastics Waste Management Implementation Framework for Rural India is

meant to provide actionable guidance to States & Districts in implementing a
well-considered approach to managing plastics waste in their regions. The
document is structured into six parts focusing on the profile of plastic waste in
rural areas, existing policy landscape, technologies that can be adopted, and
implementation frameworks for state mission directors for SBM and district
collectors across the country.
Profile of Plastic Waste

Summary of this section:

- Plastic waste is not homogenous. Different types of plastics demand special attention from a waste
management point of view.
- Most commonly found plastics in rural areas (polythene bags, bottles, etc.) are thermoplastics. They
are relatively easy to recycle but difficult to collect viably at scale given the low density in rural areas.
- Plastics found in electrical and cooking appliances are mixture of thermos/thermosetting plastics.
They are technically challenging to recycle at scale, but also not very common in rural areas.
- Plastics in India are produced by over 30,000 units, 90-95% of them being small-scale informal
entities. This proves it challenging to enforce quality standards and recycling processes.
- 60%1 of all plastics produced in India are currently recycled. PET bottles have a recycling rate of 90%.
There is a strong network of informal scrap dealers who recycle plastics but they are susceptible to
macroeconomic shocks and taxation policies.
- Plastics continue to threaten the quality of our land, water and air. Unsafe disposal of plastics in
rural areas is becoming prevalent and will come at massive costs to the rural ecology and economy.
- Some kinds of plastic do not decompose at all, others could take up to 450 years to break down,
leaving a vexing problem to address.

There are several types of plastics in circulation across India, found in a variety of consumer products and they
vary on whether they can be recycled and if so, is the recycling process economically feasible.

Seen through this lens, plastics can be classified into three categories:

1. Plastics that are not recyclable from a technical standpoint: These are
plastics found in electrical and cooking appliances for instance ; laminate The mix of plastics in a
packaging such as Chips and Biscuit packaging and PVC pipes etc. District will determine
2. Plastics that are recyclable but the recycling process is not economically the recycling pathways
viable: Low quality plastic bags that are technically easy to recycle but are that are viable options
far too scattered to be collected efficiently fall within this category;
polyester clothing along with bags and foot wear made from plastic are not
economically recyclable.
3. Plastics that can be recycled in economically viable ways: Plastics such as
PET bottles that are both technically recyclable and also viably collected fall
within this category.

Technically, plastics get divided into two categories:

- Thermoplastics are those that do not undergo changes in their chemical composition when exposed
to heat, and thus can be moulded repeatedly.

1
Https://Economictimes.Indiatimes.Com/Industry/Indl-Goods/Svs/Paper-/-Wood-/-Glass/-Plastic/-Marbles/India-Wants-
To-Double-Consumption-Of-Cheap-Material-In-5-Yrs-What-About-Its-Plastic-Waste/Articleshow/59301057.Cms
 - Thermosetting plastics can melt and only be shaped once. They are challenging to recycle at scale
given existing technologies.

Figure 1: Categories of plastic waste and illustrative examples

Across the country, 80% of post-consumer plastic waste is thermoplastics, the remaining being
thermosetting. Naturally, thermal treatment methods can only be performed on thermoplastics.
Thermosetting plastics are harder to recycle, but can be broken down using chemical and mechanical
processes.

Within thermoplastics, there is a wide variety of materials that are found in most common products. Some
prominent examples are shown in the figure above, and summarized as follows:
 - Polyethylene (PE): most inexpensive plastic products contain polyethylenes. They are of
three sub-types:
o High density polyethylene (HDPE) is found most commonly in toiletry bottles, plastic
cases and plastic bags
o Low density polyethylene (LDPE) is found in furniture, tiles and curtains
o Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is found in disposable drinks’ bottles, food jars,
plastic films, etc. There is over 900,000 tonnes of PET produced in India annually.
- Polyvinyl chloride (PVC): primarily found in electrical casing, irrigation/ plumbing pipes and
flooring
- Polystyrene (PS): disposable cups, plates and packaging material
- Polyesters (PES): fibres and textiles
- Acrylics and Nylons: fibres, toothbrush bristles, casing of electronic equipment

Thermosetting plastics are found more commonly in products with specialist uses. Some examples
are:
- Polyurethanes (PU): cushioning foams, plastic materials found in cars
- Fibre Reinforced Plastics: storage tanks, septic tanks, building material, etc.
- Bakelite: insulating parts in electrical fixtures, laminated products
- Polyester resins: sheet moulding compounds, toners, etc.
- Vulcanized rubber: buffer material used in shoes and tyres, among other things

The e-waste and MHM have not been considered in this resource book in detail and are being deal
separately.
 PRODUCTION OF PLASTICS

The production of plastic materials is done in more than 30,0002 units across India
that are estimated to employ 4 million people. Approximately 90% of these units are
small and medium-sized enterprises, often producing low-grade plastics in
unorganized and informal ways. It is particularly difficult to monitor and regulate
production of plastics in these enterprises.

35% of plastic consumption is in packaging, and 23% is in building and construction.

Other relevant categories are transport (8%), electronics (8%) and agriculture (7%). Indian packaging
Consumption of plastics in consumer goods is growing at an alarming rate, and much industry is valued at
of this growth is likely to be rooted in rural areas. over USD 32 Bn and
offers employment to
INDIA’S PLASTIC CONSUMPTION IS GROWING, BUT REMAINS LOWER THAN more than 10 lakh
MOST OTHER DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES3. people across the
country through
~10,000 firms
This comparison is presented in the figure below.

Consumption of Plastics per capita (kg/person)

120

100

80

60

40

20 35% of plastic
consumption is in
0 packaging.
USA Europe China Brazil India Global
Average

2
HTTP://FICCI.IN/SPDOCUMENT/20690/PLASTIC-PACKAGING-REPORT.PDF
3
AIPMA, Plastindia, TATA Strategic Analysis; 2017
 CURRENT DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT PRACTICES

Only 9,205 tonnes of plastics, which correspond to approximately 60% of the

total quantity generated, are recycled4 daily.

6,000 TONNES OF PLASTICS IS EITHER DISCARDED OR BURNT IN UNSAFE WAYS.

Discarded PET bottles in India are typically collected by scrap dealers for INR. 14-
15/kg. 90% of all PET bottles are recycled in India. They are shredded, washed
and sold as ‘flakes’, and used to make upholstery and apparel. There are more
than 40 large manufacturers who use recycled PET as raw material. Flakes are
sold to them for Rs. 50-100/kg. The mechanical recycling business for PET alone
is estimated to be worth Rs. 3,000-4,000 Cr annually5.

CPCB has issued guidelines on co-processing plastic waste in cement kilns. They
direct municipal authorities to set up collection and storage arrangements, as PET bottle recycling
well as signing MoUs with cement kilns. The cement plants are directed to use is Rs 3,000 – 4,000
plastic waste as an alternative fuel and raw material and monitor emissions as crore INR business
per standards6. These arrangements are currently active in around 15 cement annually.
plants across the country.

A thriving informal market for recycling plastics in India has emerged, mostly
concentrated in urban India. This industry, however, is susceptible to economic
fluctuations. For instance, scrap dealers in India have seen the price of their
products fall substantially in the last year owing to two main reasons: taxation
and drops in global oil prices. There was a GST rate of 12-18% on scrap material
which was eventually dropped to 5% in October 2017, which drastically dropped
tonnage in circulation in this market. Additionally, the drops in crude oil prices
globally have made virgin plastics available more cheaply, reducing prices in the
scrap market even more.

4
CPCB 2013 report
5
CSIR NCLI resources (www.petrecycling.in)
6
CPCB Guidelines on Co-processing of Plastic Waste in Cement Kilns 2017
 NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLASTICS WASTE MANAGEMENT IN RURAL INDIA

The prevalence of plastics in the rural waste mix presents unique and persistent
challenges:

- Their non-biodegradability threatens permanent effects on the rural

ecology: plastics have been shown to severely contaminate land and water
bodies as they attract and sustain other pollutants.
- They regularly block drainage channels: both natural channels like streams
and small water bodies, and artificial channels like UGDs and open drains.
Choked drains are breeding grounds for disease-causing pathogens and
cause waterlogging.
Plastic bags in the
- Their current disposal methods reinforce environmental harm: for their
soil can take up to
disposal, plastics are either burned indiscriminately in landfills or used as fuel
1000 years to
cakes; both practices release toxic pollutants into the immediate decompose
environment and have the potential to cause grave illnesses.

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR SOUND PLASTIC WASTE

MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING IS ESSENTIAL SO IT IS TREATED AS A RESOURCE IN
RURAL AREAS ALSO.

The next section looks at the policy landscape that has governed plastics waste
management in India over the years.
 POLICY BACKGROUND

Summary of this section:

- The Plastic Waste Rules 2016 offer directives to Gram Panchayats on segregation, collection,
transportation, processing and disposal of plastic waste in their areas of jurisdiction.
- They also place liabilities on the producers of plastic waste to contribute to collection and disposal. These
have proven challenging to enforce, since rules do not establish clear targets, and most producers are
small and informal.
- Several states have followed from these rules to ban plastic bags below 50 microns in thickness, but these
bans have faced several hurdles in implementation.
- There are various lessons we can learn from the international context: Sweden has invested in
aggregation centres that make plastic collection feasible, France has placed bans on plastic bags and
suggested alternatives, Rwanda has carried out a strict enforcement of their ban on plastics, and China
recently stopped importing plastic waste from other countries to protect its air quality.

Policies pertaining to plastic waste management have traditionally been crafted through the solid waste
management perspective, with some guidelines on plastics recovery and recycling methods.

NATIONAL RULES AND GUIDELINES ON PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2016, released by the MoEF
in 2016, offer a series of directives to all urban and rural local bodies (Gram
Panchayats).

THE PLASTIC WASTE (MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING) RULES 2016 STATE THAT
“EVERY LOCAL BODY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SETTING UP
OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SEGREGATION, COLLECTION, STORAGE,
TRANSPORTATION, PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL OF THE PLASTIC WASTE EITHER ON
ITS OWN OR BY ENGAGING AGENCIES OR PRODUCERS.”

Specifically, for gram panchayats, the rules say that “every GP either on its own
or by engaging an agency shall set up, operationalise and co-ordinate for waste
management in the rural area under their control and for performing the
following functions:

- Ensuring segregation, collection, storage, transportation of plastic

waste and channelization of recyclable plastic waste fraction to recyclers
having valid registration; ensuring that no damage is caused to the
environment in the process
- Creating awareness among all stakeholders about their responsibilities
- Ensuring that open burning of plastic waste doesn’t take place”
- Some of the roles of other Stakeholders in PWM,2016 are also described
below in chart below:
 Producer Retailer Generator Rural Local Bodies

1. Responsibility 1. Only registered shopkeepers 1. Waste generator 1. Setting up of

towards waste or street vendor shall be includes institutional infrastructure for
collection based eligible to provide plastic generators, event segregation, collection ,
on EPR carry bags for dispensing organizer shall take storage, transportation ,
2. Establish a system commodities steps to minimize processing and disposal
for collecting back 2. Plastic bags or multilayered generation of plastic of plastic waste
the plastic waste packaging which are not waste 2. Create awareness among
generated labelled in accordance with 2. No litter plastic waste stakeholders about their
3. Obtain rules shall be liable to pay 3. Segregate waste and responsibilities
registration from fines as per local byelaws handover to 3. Seek assistance of
SPCB 3. Registered shopkeepers authorized agency producers and such
4. Sales to or street vendors to pay 4. Pay user fee as system while setting
registered plastic waste prescribed by bye up system for plastic
processors management fee of laws of the Local waste management.
5. Phasing out of minimum 48000 @ Rs Body.
MLF 4000/Month to local body

Role of key stakeholders as per PWM, 2016

Additionally, the Guidelines on SLWM in Rural India, released in 2014, encourage

Gram Panchayats to push for segregation at source and centralized collection.
These guidelines establish a multi-tiered model, with distinct responsibilities for
the state, district, block and GP levels. Broadly speaking, states, districts and
blocks are asked to issue standards for best practices and institutional support
for capacity building, while GPs are asked to be the implementing agency. This
policy document quotes earlier guidelines wherein Panchayati Raj Institutions The SBM (G) guidelines
(PRIs) are asked to establish mechanisms for refuse collection and disposal. For reinforce the role of GPs
instance, it refers the Rural Sanitation and Hygiene Strategy 2012-2022, which are the primary agency
indicated that “a GP will view SLWM as an obligation”7. responsible for the
design, implementation,
The SBM (G) guidelines reinforce the role of GP as the primary agency responsible operation, and
for “design, implementation, operation and maintenance” of SLWM systems. maintenance of SLWM
systems.
Older national-level guidelines 8 call for SHG-linked models that can provide
employment to locals. Once the GP is able to aggregate plastic waste from
households, SHGs can be organized into manufacturing collectives that create
articles like ropes and bags out of shredded plastic.

STATE LEGISLATION BANNING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS

There have been several policy initiatives banning specific plastic products by
state and central governments in India. 17 states have passed legislations
banning the manufacture, stock, sale and use of plastic bags. Haryana, Himachal
Pradesh, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tripura, Delhi and
Chandigarh have enacted total bans on plastic bags. Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have enacted bans in some

7
GoI 2011 document
8
Technical Note for Solid and Liquid Waste Management in Rural India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of
Drinking Water and Sanitation, and UNICEF - 2010
areas within their states. Most of these bans have been in place since the mid-
2000s.

Additionally, the 2016 guidelines have raised the minimum thickness of plastic
bags from 40 microns to 50 microns. Street vendors and retailers providing plastic Plastic bans have been
bags in both rural and urban areas are mandated to pay a waste management announced in 17 States
fee of Rs. 4000 per month. The National Green Tribunal also placed a ban on but have seen limited
plastic cutlery in 2017, but it is yet to be implemented in earnest. success.

Several manifestations of bans these have been attempted across the country
over the last ten years. Delhi, for instance, has seen versions of bans on plastic
bags in 2009, 2012 and most recently, in 2017. Both the Delhi government and
the National Green Tribunal have directed these bans. A rigid ban on the use of
polythene bags below 40 microns was enacted in Uttarakhand complying with
the 2012 solid waste management rules. The state still saw copious amounts of
plastic bags infiltrating from neighbouring states. The mobility of plastic waste
makes state-wise bans particularly challenging to implement.

POLICIES ON EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a concept where manufacturers and

importers of products bear a significant degree of responsibility for the
environmental impacts of their products throughout the product life-cycle,
including upstream impacts inherent in the selection of materials for the
products, impacts from manufacturers’ production process itself, and
downstream impacts from the use and disposal of the products.

Extended producer responsibilities have a rich history in the West across

different industries and product categories.

IN EUROPE, THERE IS PRECEDENCE FOR PLASTIC-GENERATING CORPORATIONS TO

Pilot EPR schemes
ESTABLISH PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY ORGANISATIONS (PRO) WHICH COME have been
TOGETHER TO TAKE BACK WASTE FROM THE CONSUMERS. implemented but
need greater clarity
LONG-TERM AGREEMENTS WITH PRO CAN ESTABLISH MARKETS FOR COLLECTION,
on roles and also
GUARANTEED BY SECURED REIMBURSEMENTS FROM BRANDS WHO ARE LIABLE TO
establishment of
PAY FOR COLLECTION AS PER THE POLICY. penalties.

The Indian 2016 Plastic Waste Management Rules also address the question of
extended producer responsibility (EPR).

They mandate plastic producers, importers and brand owners to contribute to

the collection of plastic waste that is introduced by them. However, the rules do
not lay out specific targets that have to be adopted by these entities. The EPR
guidelines for e-waste have been made much more explicit, with fixed targets for
producers and distributors of electronics.
However, progress has been less certain: at present, EPR obligations are largely
being met on a sporadic and scattered basis under CSR. Certain companies are
establishing contracts with agencies and NGOs to fund the collection and storage
of plastic waste from mostly urban areas. These partners then supply this plastic
waste to recyclers or cement kilns, typically. To make these processes more
systematic and regular, there is a need to clarify the role of brands and producers
and establish their liabilities. Targets must be issued by central or state bodies for
plastic producers and manufacturers to collect and reintroduce minimum
proportions of their contributed waste. A natural place to start the
implementation of this policy would be among non-food grade plastic
manufacturers.

Implementation of EPR in rural management areas:

The key difference in the rural and urban areas wrt Waste Management is that
urban areas are densely populated while rural are dispersed and per capita waste
generation is also less. Most waste processing and recycling facilities are also
located in urban pockets.

Challenges:

• Mostly smaller SKUs are consumed in rural areas that add to primary
collection cost
• Lesser consumption of high value packaging like PET, Paper, Card Board
etc. as a result there is no cross –subsidisation for low/no value items.
• Cost of secondary collection and transportation to Recycling facilities
(mostly located in urban areas) is high as villages generate smaller quantity, are
dispersed and remote.
• Producers and PROs would meet mandatory EPR targets from urban
centres as there are no regional targets.
• The unbranded and fake products would add to the ‘free rider’
phenomenon and increase cost.
• Program visibility is higher in urban areas hence brands would like to do
the programs in urban areas to improve their image among the consumers and
government authorities.

Opportunities:

• Block level aggregation would address many of the above challenges and
provide the bulk quantity required to attract waste management and recycling
facilities.
• Bringing in Bonus points for collection from rural areas can pull
producers to rural areas.
• Getting support from fertilizer and seed companies etc. as rural areas are
their key customers.
• Opportunity to setup things from scratch, as there is no legacy
infrastructure.

POLICY APPROACHES FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Plastics waste management systems within Sweden, France, Rwanda, & China are
particularly worth attention.

• Sweden has perhaps the most robust waste management system in the
world, with less than 1% of its household waste ending up in the landfill.
The success of their plastics waste management system is rooted in the
following factors: Well-designed bans and
o The omnipresence of recycling stations, that are no more than a proximate network of
300 m away from any residential area collection centers are
o Strict segregation at the household level into recyclable and the two ingredients of
biodegradable waste success in the
o Application of high environmental standards. Even as 50% of the international context.
household waste is burnt in energy recovery systems to generate
electricity, the smoke from these plants is said to be 99.9% non-
toxic, and is filtered through dry filters and water

• France is one of the few countries to have placed a blanket ban on all
disposable daily-use plastics including cutlery and bags. The law was
passed in 2016 and prescribes a phase-out for these plastic goods by
2020, suggesting replacements for these products made of biologically
sourced materials.

• Rwanda instituted a zero-tolerance policy toward plastic bags. This has

largely resulted in ostensible cleanliness in even the most densely
populated urban areas. The success of this policy is rooted in three
factors:
o Extremely high fine structures, particularly for businesses that
sell produce in plastic waste. This eats into their revenues
substantially. Additionally, citizens can be imprisoned for the use
of plastic bags.
o Behaviour change campaigns that involve the entire
communities to raise civic cleanliness standards.
o Political will in Rwanda allows for sweeping legislation to be
implemented effectively.
But this policy comes with some challenges. There has been a growth in
illegal and underground trade of plastic bags, as a result of this rigid zero-
tolerance policy.

• China, in 2008, made it illegal for vendors to give out plastic bags for free.
o This reportedly led to a drop in their usage by roughly 50% in two
years.
o Additionally, China had built its waste to energy capabilities over
the years.
- Between mid-2000s, until late 2017, China was importing
around 50 mn tonnes of waste annually, including plastics,
paper and textiles.
- These were primarily from the US and European countries.
85% of the plastics collected and sorted by the EU were
exported to China annually.
- This was typically done on ships that would transport
consumer goods from China to these countries, and
otherwise return empty.
- However, burning of this waste to convert to energy was
severely affecting the air quality in China. This is likely due
to insufficient quality of filters and scrubbers in these plants.
- Consequently, China has called for a ban on import of waste
from EU nations and the US, which is currently in effect.
TECHNICAL OPTIONS

Summary of this section:

- There are four pathways for the management of plastic waste: re-extrusion (entering waste into
manufacturing cycles for the same product), mechanical recycling (physical processes like
shredding that make plastic waste manageable), chemical and thermal recycling (altering the
structure of plastics and extracting valuable products) and energy recovery (pyrolysis/gasification
to generate energy)
- There are benefits and challenges of all approaches, but they all hinge on effective segregation
and collection of plastic waste.
- The 2016 Plastic Waste management rules encourage the use of plastics in road construction and
in energy recovery. These processes are promising, but are yet to be accepted as mainstream
disposal methods.
- This section provides a menu of technical options that can be used to build strategic plastic waste
management systems.

There are, essentially, four pathways to manage plastics waste.

Figure 2: Pathways of plastic waste management

Figure 2 represents the various technological pathways for solid plastics waste
management.

• Re-extrusion: This category of management systems involves the

introduction of clean scrap of single types of plastics that can be re-entered
into manufacturing processes to produce similar materials. This is typically ATTERO RECYCLING is now
collecting and processing about
difficult because scrap plastic, particularly in rural India, is not segregated by
1,000 metric tons a of e-waste
type and is not clean enough to re-enter manufacturing as it is. a month from over 500 cities
• Mechanical Recycling: This category includes the variety of mechanical includes plastic waste in India,
processes performed on plastic waste, before it is introduced in and extracting precious metals
like platinum, gold and
manufacturing processes. It is primarily performed on simpler, single-
selenium from the trash.
polymer plastics like polyethylene. There are several types of mechanical
processes, and they typically involve the following steps: cutting/shredding,
 separation of contaminants, milling, washing and drying, extrusion and
quenching with water. Some prominent examples of mechanical recycling
are:
o PET, found in disposable bottles, commonly undergoes shredding
and extrusion at scale to produce carpets, apparel and bottles in the
US and Europe. The landscape for this recycling in India has been
explained in previous sections.
o This technique can also be used to manufacture sheets, pipes,
buckets and other household items with the addition of additives.
o Road construction through plastics involves mixing of bitumen with
plastic materials that have undergone mechanical processes.
Details on this technical process are presented in the following
section.
o The success of these processes is made challenging by requirements
of homogenous plastic types that necessitate segregation by type.
• Chemical and Thermal Recycling: Chemical recycling uses advanced
technical processes that convert plastic materials into smaller constituent
molecules which can then be used as feedstock for the production of
petrochemicals and plastics. Thermal processes involve heating plastics
under controlled temperatures with/without catalysts. Depending on the
conditions created for these treatments, they are categorized into three
categories: pyrolysis, gasification and hydrogenation. The output of these
processes are typically either gases with high calorific content or oils. There
are several advantages associated with chemical and thermal processes:
o They typically don’t require segregation by plastic type, and are able
to treat heterogeneous mixes
o They can supply useful and valuable feedstock to the petrochemical
industry; these materials have a variety of uses, ranging from heat
and electricity to specific chemical products, and thus have
organized markets in place
However, there are also some environmental concerns, since some of the
other by-products like chars can be particularly harmful. Thermal processes
could also require external sources of heat and energy, making them
expensive and potentially unviable.
There are some examples of plastics-to-fuel plants in India, explained in the
following section.
• Energy Recovery: The various methods under this category burn plastic to
produce energy in the form of heat, steam and electricity. Experts believe
that these processes should only be performed if other recovery processes
fail. Plastics like polyethylene and polypropylene have a higher calorific value
than kerosene and gas oils. There are several environmental concerns
associated with these processes due to the emission of carbon dioxide, as
well as some carcinogenic pollutants. In India, this process is commonly used
to provide energy to cement kilns.
 TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS IN CURRENT POLICY

The 2016 rules on plastic waste management discuss two particular pathways for treatment covering
mechanical as well as the energy recovery option:

PLASTICS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION (MECHANIC RECYCLING)

The Central and State Governments have endorsed the construction of roads
that supplement bitumen with plastics. The 2016 Solid Waste Management
Rules require local bodies to dispose plastics such that they can be integrated
into road construction as per guidelines issued by the Indian Roads Congress.
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) guidelines on the use of plastics in
roads have also been issued.

Road developers across

THE PROCESS TO INTEGRATE DISCARDED LOW-GRADE PLASTICS (GENERALLY WITH
the country have been
A MAXIMUM THICKNESS OF 60 MICRONS) WAS DEVELOPED BY DR. VASUDEVAN AT
mandated to use
THE THIGARAJAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AT MADURAI. plastics as per PWM
rules 2016
Exploiting the binding properties of plastics, his design substitutes some of the
bitumen and saves 8% of the cost of road construction on average. Approximately
1 million plastic bags are shredded, dried and mixed with bitumen to lay 1
kilometre of a new road9 . Plastic roads save one tonne bitumen for every
kilometre laid (bitumen costs ₹50,000/tonne) while net saving in the plastic road
would be ~Rs. 30,000/km of constructed road.

These roads have been tested to be stronger and more durable than their regular
counterparts.
VVeerbhadhra Street, Erode
ONE IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF ADOPTING THIS PROCESS AT A LARGE
More than 1200 kms of
SCALE IS THE GENERATION OF COTTAGE INDUSTRIES AND LOCAL EMPLOYMENT IN plastic waste mixed roads
PLASTIC COLLECTION AND SHREDDING. in rural areas have been
laid by DRDA, Tamil Nadu,
As this technology gained traction, Tamil Nadu’s government was able to distributing a min of 40
organize women into small businesses that would collect and shred plastics, after Kms for each district.
receiving subsidies to buy and operate shredding machines10. The women were
then able to sell shredded plastic to authorities and contractors for a small profit.
If assisted with the right policies and safeguards against the interests of
corporations, this can lead to sustainable job creation in rural areas.

Till date, however, the technology is far from becoming mainstream. It has been
pioneered by some states and cities, but has not been able to find broad-based
applicability. Tamil Nadu has built over 1000 km of new rural roads per year from
2012-2015 using some component of plastics. Jamshedpur has been able to
direct its plastic waste to aid construction of roads as well.

9
Report from The Guardian
10
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/Women-take-up-the-cause-of-tackling-plastic-
menace/articleshow/15115749.cms
This is likely due to one or more of the following reasons:

- Poor segregation and collection. Chennai’s plans to collect plastic bags

and shred them at scale to supply for road construction were halted after
just one year (in 2014) due to a shortage of plastic. Lack of formal supply
chains in the collection and delivery of large quantities of plastic bags
precludes this process from becoming a stable and viable alternative to
regular roads.
- Environmental concerns. While roads built through this process are
believed to be of better quality, there are concerns that with gradual
wear and tear, they are likely to shed polymer fragments into the air and
soil.

PLASTICS WASTE TO ENERGY

Both SBM and MoEF guidelines encourage the implementation of waste to
energy plants. The CSIR- Indian Institute of Petroleum developed, in 2014, a
process of converting polyethylene and polypropylene to gasoline or diesel.
These plastics account for approximately 60% of all plastic waste11.

Another encouraging example of this technology in action is in Pune, where

Rudra Environmental Solutions collects waste from 15,000 households every day
and is able to produce fuel at the rate of 600 litres/tonne of plastic12.

There is a successful waste to fuel plant in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu run

by Paterson Energy. The plant sources plastic waste from nearby automobile
industries and paper manufacturers to run a plant at a capacity of 7.5
tonnes/day. The oil generated as a result of these processes is sold at Rs.
40/litre on average. This model generates 500 litres of oil for each tonne of
plastic waste and is being scaled up with the technical assistance of IITs, CIPET,
and viability gap funding.

Despite the potential they offer, there are several barriers to upscaling plastics to
fuel plants. Apart from administrative inefficiencies, there are three main
challenges to mainstreaming plastics-to-fuel plants:

- Nature of waste mix. Lack of waste segregation results in plastic waste

being too wet and unsuitable for use in these processes. They require
energy to be dried before use, and this often renders processes
unviable.
Poor supply of plastics
- Poor systems of collection. Despite the ~15,000 tons of plastic waste
waste has been the key
generated in India daily13, most waste-to-energy plants had to curtail
reason why several
operations or shut down completely14 due to a shortage of trash to use
waste-to-energy plants
as inputs, indicating failures in plastics value chains.
have shut-down in India.

11
NDTV “Recycling Plastic Waste in India”
12
NDTV
13
CPCB Plastic Waste Management Report 2013
14
NY Times, “Why India’s Waste-to-Energy Industry Won’t Catch Fire”
- Lack of financial viability. Even after subsidies for land and collection
are given, the operational expenditure of these plants remains high. The
technology used requires regular up keeping. As a result, the end-
products (fuel or electricity) can’t compete with other sources of
generation are often priced out of the market.
- Environmental concerns. As discussed before, thermal and energy
recovery processes carry environmental risks as there are hazardous by-
products involved at most stages. Emission standards and guidelines
need to be issued and enforced to ensure there is no damage to the
environment.
 IMPLEMENTING PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN STATES & DISTRICTS

Summary of this section:

- In the implementation section of this document, there are three components: a set of guiding
principles to motivate decision-making around plastic waste management, high-level guidelines
for state SBM directors, and a detailed framework for district collectors to implement
- As guiding principles, there is an urgent need to reconsider strategy around bans. They need to be
enforced with strong IEC modules and stricter enforcement, as will as viable alternatives for plastic
products.
- Subsidy-driven models should be replaced with output focused models. MoUs should be signed
with companies to accept plastics as inputs, and bulk purchasing can be undertaken by
governments. This can sustain market-driven cycles of plastic waste management.
- Collection of plastic waste should be formalized and local entrepreneurs should be supported
financially and institutionally.
- EPRs should be leveraged to place burdens on large producers for collection of plastic waste.
- There should be strong IEC and monitoring across the value chain to ensure that systems are
working optimally.

This section of the document outlines guidelines for plastic waste management at three levels:

1. Guiding principles. At the outset, this document establishes key features around which specific
interventions can be built.
2. High-level guidelines for State SBM directors. This part of the document provides a template for state
SBM directors to follow such that constituent districts and GPs can attain a sustainable plastic waste
management system.
3. Implementation framework for District Collectors. A detailed implementation framework covers the
sequence of steps district administrators need to take, and assists them with the various
considerations they will have to make.

I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Given the challenges and key policy gaps that exist in rural plastic waste
management, States should adopt policies that lead to the creation of a
sustainable ecosystem across the value chain. While specific policy interventions
might vary depending on the context within the State, these key design principles
should be generally applied:

• Bans should be carefully defined and strategically enforced: Not all

plastic is bad and this should be kept in mind while developing a plastics-
ban approach in different States. Low-thickness plastic bags are usually
best banned and several States have already banned the production of
plastics bags. Such bans should be considered by other states as well
and efforts made to implement them through a strong system of
monitoring and penalties. So far, State bans have not been unsuccessful
 in part because they don’t account for porous state boundaries and also
the absence of viable alternatives to plastic bags. Policies enforcing bans
should have the following features:
o Bans need to be paired with strong IEC modules that reinforce
a sense of ownership across communities. Administrators
should ensure that strong IEC campaigns are in place to make
bans successful.
o Alternatives for plastic products should be suggested as part of
these bans.
o Administrators at decentralized levels should be empowered to
enforce policies.
• Moving from capital subsidies to output arrangements. Existing
government schemes are built around capital subsidies and have several
requirements on mechanical inputs that make projects unviable.
Additionally, an upfront subsidy can lead to construction cost inflation
and suboptimal use of technologies. Buyback arrangements of outputs
after establishing clear quality standards will be a better model. These
can be negotiated with O&G PSUs, private corporations in the
petrochemical industry as well as large construction contractors. For
low-value plastics that will not be viably picked up due to market
dynamics, the government can institute bulk purchasing from collectors
at fixed rates, similar to MSPs for crops.
• Formalize collection through entrepreneurs in rural areas. States must
encourage individual or SHG oriented last-mile entrepreneurs for
plastics waste collection and provide them with formal contracts at
the village or GP level as well as connecting them to plastics
aggregation points. This can follow models similar to the ‘Surya Mitra’
scheme launched for solar energy. Access to credit, training and other Formalizing the waste
enabling mechanisms to local entrepreneurs should be provided as well plastics collection chain,
as establishing links with technologies that can use plastics as inputs. linking GPs to points of
Additionally, collection and aggregation centres should be established aggregation, and
in rural areas. GPs should be linked to existing and upcoming supporting local
entrepreneurs is key.
aggregation centres. This will systematically reduce transport costs and
make collection viable for local entrepreneurs.
• Leveraging EPRs and placing the burden on producers. Through a
combination of extended producer responsibility (EPR) levers (which
can only be feasibly activated with large manufacturers), as well as strict
monitoring of informal and unorganized producers of plastics,
governments should place the burden of sourcing plastic waste for
recycling on rural areas on the producers. States should fix
proportionate targets for recycling to be executed by brands and
producers within areas of their administration. This is likely to be
extremely important in the face of increasing rural penetration of
formally produced goods.
CASE STUDIES

1. Case Study for Effective IEC to implement plastic bans:

Sikkim became the first Indian state to ban plastic bags in 1998. Discarded plastic bags were believed
to be the main cause of chokes in drainage systems that resulted in landslides. Since the ban, the
state has been at the forefront of IEC and behaviour change campaigns, propagating the use of
sustainable materials in consumer products. There is a very high rate of consumer awareness on the
perils of plastic bags, bottles, etc. and several initiatives such as “Plastic Free Days” are undertaken
to maintain the low tolerance for this waste.

2. Case Study for collection and segregation

Producers and importers of plastics in Sweden are mandated to create recycling stations at optimal
locations so that effective collection of plastic waste can take place. This contributes to a near-perfect
collection and disposal rate across the country.

There are some new online waste collection services in India (www.thekabadiwala.com and
www.junkart.in) that offer door-to-door collection services for recyclables. They buy waste on pre-
determined rates and sell it onwards to vendors who recycle, upcycle or refurbish waste.

The Ambikapur district in Chhattisgarh has implemented the successful collection and segregation at
source and which is further segregated at secondary & tertiary segregation SLRM centres with the
help of SHGs. This requires building infrastructure in the form of SLRM centres and IEC from general
public including youth and students.

3. Case Study on EPR implementation

Saahas Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. Has established MoUs with large producers of plastics like
Britannia and HUL. They collect post-consumer waste through aggregation centers and supply the
collected scrap to either mechanical recycling centers or cement kilns for energy recovery.

4. Case study on usage of plastics in Road construction

The Chhattisgarh state government in 2015 passed an order prohibiting the production and use of
plastic bags in the state. In Ambikapur district, all existing plastic and polythene waste is being
proposed to be used in construction of local roads