The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in 2023 had unearthed more than 6,00,000 fake pollution-trading certificates from audits at four plastic-recycling companies in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka, public documents show.
Multiple sources from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and from the plastic waste recycling industry confirmed to The Hindu that the potential number of fake certificates could be manifold as these were only four of the 2,348 plastic waste recyclers registered with the CPCB. Only a small fraction of these recyclers has been physically verified as recycling the claimed amount, sources said.
Between 2022-23, the latest year for which information is available, there were about 18,000 companies that use plastic packaging and were registered with the CPCB, which manages the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, as either producers, importers or ‘brand-owners’. They had a collective target of recycling about 3.3 million tonnes, with the Ministry data suggesting that on average more than 85% of the target was met. The Plastic Waste Management Rules mandate all companies that use plastic packaging to register with the CPCB. Not complying with these targets can invite fines.
OPINION | Unpacking the new set of e-waste rules
These certificates, or EPR certificates, are used by thousands of companies that use plastic packaging in some form for business operations and are legally obliged to either ensure that a prescribed percentage of the plastic used annually is collected and recycled, or that they buy enough certificates to make good on their targets. The mandated targets change every year. In 2022-23, for instance, companies were expected to recycle 70% of the packaging used in the previous two financial years. For 2023-24, it is 100%.
Certificates are generated by registered plastic waste recyclers, who collect plastic waste and recycle them. Every tonne of plastic recycled by them generates a certificate. As per a report by the CPCB this May, nearly 3.7 million tonnes worth of certificates were generated but given that companies have differing obligations, the exact number of certificates they buy from recyclers is not clear. While 6,00,000 fake EPRs were bought by packaging companies as part of meeting their obligations, is unclear who bought these certificates as the break-up is not publicly available.
OPINION | Remoulding the Global Plastics Treaty
The details vary, but the basic pattern in how recyclers produced fake certificates is similar. The four recycling companies, Enviro Recyclean Pvt. Ltd (Karnataka), Shakti Plastics Industries (Maharashtra), Technova Recycling India Pvt. Ltd and Asha Recyclean Pvt. Ltd, were hauled up for claiming to have generated many more EPR certificates than the installed capacity of their plants. The malpractice came to light after the CPCB conducted physical checks on their premises.
Certificates generated by recycling companies are considered legitimate only if the recyclers are actually able to sell the recycled plastic. In the case of these companies, they were unable to establish proof of these sales to the visiting CPCB officials. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has, as on March ‘24, ordered Technova to shut down following violations. The Hindu couldn’t confirm if the other companies have got similar orders.
EDITORIAL | Plastic solution: Beyond the Global Plastics Treaty
A typical notice, for instance to Technova, says: “The Unit has generated EPR certificates of the order of 97,200 tonnes and transferred certificates of 95,200… quantities mentioned in the invoices are fallacious and very high compared to the declared production capacity…”
A senior official privy to the recycling process said the EPR generation and recycling process had ‘systemic’ problems. The State pollution control boards are expected to verify that every plastic recycling company recycles the quantities they claim and that they have the claimed manufacturing capacity. “This rarely happens, and companies upload details online and are verified without checks. What has come to light now is only because of a random audit by the CPCB where only a few companies are inspected,” the official said.
Companies were expected to file their compliance targets for 2023-24 by June this year, however the timeline has been extended as several companies said they were unable to fulfill the requirements.
month
Please support quality journalism.
Please support quality journalism.
