When it comes to purchasing plastic Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) credits, many traders go the extra mile to provide sourcing documents along with the credits. The rationale behind this practice is to ensure that the credits being acquired to meet EPR obligations are legitimate, genuine, and not counterfeit.
However, it’s important to note that nowhere in the Plastic EPR rules or the Environmental Compensation (EC) guidelines is there any mention of a requirement for Producers, Importers, and Brand Owners (PIBOs) to verify the authenticity of EPR credits through these documents. The responsibility for ensuring the legitimacy of the credits lies with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and appointed auditors, who are tasked with conducting regular and thorough audits of the information provided by Plastic Waste Processors (PWPs).
Why Are Documents Provided with EPR Credits?
The practice of providing documents with EPR credits can often be traced back to a few key reasons:
- Inflating the Prices of EPR Credits: By attaching additional documentation, traders can justify higher prices, creating an impression of added value or legitimacy.
- Maximizing Margins in Transactions: The more complex and document-heavy a transaction appears, the easier it becomes to increase profit margins.
- Increasing Labor Hours in a Single Transaction: Additional documentation often means more work, which can lead to higher charges for the time and effort involved.
Do Documents Prove the Sanctity of EPR Credits?
Documents alone are insufficient to establish the authenticity or sanctity of EPR credits for several reasons:
- Reuse of Documents: The same set of documents can be provided to multiple parties, casting doubt on their validity.
- Limited Proof of Processing: Sourcing documents typically only prove that plastic waste was collected. However, EPR credits are supposed to be generated based on both collection and processing, and these documents don’t necessarily confirm that processing has occurred.
- Inability to Differentiate Waste Types: There’s no straightforward way to distinguish between post-consumer and pre-consumer waste through documentation alone. Since most Brand Owners prefer the collection of post-consumer waste, this poses a significant challenge.
Conclusion
If the collection of documents does not contribute to achieving the primary objective of ensuring the legitimacy of EPR credits, why are these documents being bundled with the credits? Is this practice merely a tactic to mislead buyers? It’s time we start a meaningful conversation around this issue and reassess the real value of these documents in the EPR credit system.
Disclaimer: Above content does not constitute any legal advice and is only provided for educational purpose.
Climeto Sustainable Services Private Limited is an environmental consultancy. If you need any more information on the above you can contact us:
For Business Enquiry : business@climeto.com
For General Enquiry: info@climeto.com
Reach directly via call: +91-90399 46410