Transitioning from policy development to implementation 

This is precisely why knowledge sharing events such as this convening are so important.

Transitioning from policy development to implementation is often the most challenging phase of environmental reform. Through practical technical sessions, participants explored global EPR models, lessons learned from India's implementation experience, digital monitoring systems, compliance mechanisms, financing approaches, and strategies for integrating informal waste workers into formal waste management systems. The exchanges enabled stakeholders to move beyond concepts and engage directly with the operational realities of implementing EPR in Sri Lanka. 

Sri Lanka's transition towards EPR is already being built on a foundation of demonstrated success. Through the Mandatory Reporting and Collect-Back (MRCB) pilot, established following the 2021 EPR Roadmap spearheaded by the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, the country has shown that producer-led recovery systems can deliver tangible results. The pilot safely managed 1,586 tonnes of plastic waste, surpassing its original target of 488 tonnes by more than threefold. Since the launch of the voluntary reporting portal in December 2022, industry participation has steadily expanded, with 35 of 50 consortium companies registered and 28 actively reporting. The wider recycling ecosystem has also strengthened considerably over the past seven years: the number of PET recyclers has doubled, monthly PET collection has increased from 300 to between 450 and 500 metric tonnes, and the recovery network now includes more than 15 material recovery facilities and over 100 waste collectors. 

Technical sessions between CEA officials, the EPR Expert Committee and international experts examined the draft EPR regulation in detail. As currently drafted, it begins with rigid PET packaging, with scope that can be widened later through its schedules. Manufacturers, importers and brand owners are obligated, while waste processors must also register with the CEA. Targets are differentiated by producer type and turnover and producers will require setting up or joining an approved EPR Compliance Scheme, individually or collectively, and non-compliance carries a fee linked to the market price of the recycled material. The draft is technology-neutral and provides for a one-year grace period and a concessionary period for corrective action.

The comparison with India yielded practical lessons rather than a template. Participants highlighted the need to build digital registration, reporting and verification systems before target-year obligations take effect, and to reconcile producer declarations with processor receipts through chain-of-custody or weighbridge records rather than relying on self-reporting alone. 
 

Importantly, the workshop fostered dialogue among the many actors who will be central to the success of an EPR system. Government institutions, producers, importers, recyclers, local authorities, waste management operators, and informal waste workers all have an essential role to play. Building consensus and shared ownership among these groups is vital to developing a system that is practical, inclusive, and capable of delivering measurable environmental and socio-economic outcomes. 

Local authorities, who are on the front line of waste management, cannot do it alone; they need the financial and physical support that EPR can bring, along with a common platform to work with producers. Informal collectors recover the vast majority of consumer-level plastic before it reaches landfill, were a particular focus. For collectors, the gains include greater price stability and compliance funding that reaches the people doing the collecting. Formalisation is not only a welfare measure; it is how collected tonnage becomes verifiable tonnage.