The Senate, voting 22-0-0, passed on third and final reading last January 31 a bill establishing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for plastic packaging wastes.
Senate Bill No. 2425 seeks to “institutionalize the EPR mechanism as a practical approach on efficient waste management, waste reduction and development of environmentally friendly packaging products.”
The bill was crafted in response to the clamor to regulate single-use plastics. "It is not a solution in itself, but it is a move in the right direction, I believe. We need to rescue our country from being a marine litter culprit and demonstrate that a developing country can and will make this work," Senator Cynthia Villar said.
EPR pertains to the “environmental policy and practice in which obliged companies have the responsibility for the proper and effective recovery, treatment, recycling or disposal of their products after they have been sold and used by consumers.”
By adopting EPR, our lawmakers hope to reduce the generation of plastic packaging waste, as well as improve the recyclability or reusability of such wastes.
“Obliged companies” include producers, manufacturers and importers of consumer goods using plastic packaging who will be responsible for making financial contributions to support the collection, recovery, transportation, processing, recycling and disposal of the plastic packaging wastes used on their products, which are sold and distributed within the country in traditional physical stores, distribution outlets or online shopping platforms.
While excluded among the obliged companies, micro, small and medium enterprises or MSMEs are not precluded from voluntarily practicing EPR or being part of companies or organizations practicing EPR.
The bill states that obliged companies may voluntarily organize themselves to form or opt to authorize a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to come up with a viable collective EPR program and have it implemented.
Obliged companies implementing EPR programs would also be eligible for tax incentives. However, fines ranging from P5 million to P20 million were proposed as penalties for failure to comply with the mandated EPR, as well as failure to meet the targets imposed by the bill.
The bill provides for varying compliance targets for large and medium-sized enterprises to enable them to adjust to their EPR duties and responsibilities and improve their performance over time.
At the House of Representatives, the counterpart House Bill 10696 institutionalizing EPR on plastic products was also approved on third reading on January 31.
While welcoming the moves of lawmakers to tackle the waste crisis through the establishment of EPR, environmental health groups pushing for a zero waste and toxics-free society believed that both the Senate and House bills should be further strengthened to prevent pollution throughout a product’s lifecycle.
“EPR, in its true sense, is a mechanism that obliges producers to be responsible for the entire life cycle of all their products (i.e., from design and production all the way to final disposal after use/consumption). In this sense, EPR aims to encourage improvements to the product life cycle in order to decrease the total environmental impact of products and their packaging,” the groups clarified.
“While we laud the Senate for recognizing the need for an EPR law in the Philippines, we are deeply concerned that the application has been limited to a single material, i.e., plastic packaging. This is an unwarranted limitation of EPR that will not fully address the garbage problem in the Philippines. To be effective, EPR must apply to any and all products produced.”
“The responsibilities of the producers are not limited to collection, recovery, treatment, recycling of plastic packaging,” the groups emphasized. “The key responsibility of producers should be to increase reusability of packaging, redesigning of packaging and delivery, and remodeling business models with the main objective of waste reduction and elimination.”
The groups also insisted that EPR should go hand in hand with phasing out non-environmentally acceptable products and packaging such as single-use plastics, saying that “banning SUPs at the production addresses the problem upstream.”
“Even countries with institutionalized EPR schemes are still struggling with the volume of wastes. Without concrete plans and policies on banning single-use plastics and as long as waste will not be addressed at source, EPR will not be enough. Given the state of the alarming climate crisis, we have to make lasting and genuine solutions. No more quick-fix, no more band-aid solutions,” said Coleen Salamat, Plastic Solutions Campaigner of the Eco Waste Coalition.
We hope that our lawmakers will take into account civil society’s views and recommendations and come up with legislation that will stop pollution at the source.
Eco Waste Coalition and Laban Konsyumer Inc. support the common advocacy on promotion of consumer right to product information and to non hazardous products , especially those that pose risk to human health and the promotion of consumer right to a healthy and safe environment .
Atty. Vic Dimagiba
President, Laban Konsyumer Inc.
Email at [email protected]