THE Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022 lapsed into law on July 22, and is intended to place responsibility for the management of plastic waste — specifically, waste from plastic packaging — on the businesses that create it. Under the law, businesses with total assets above P100 million are required to participate; micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) are exempt, but are "highly encouraged" to follow the EPR program.

The law covers plastic packaging that is used to "carry, protect or pack goods for transportation, distribution or sale," including sachets, labels, laminates and other flexible plastic; rigid plastic packaging such as drink bottles; rigid plastic "promotional items" such as disposable plates, utensils, straws or signage; plastic bags; and rigid and foam polystyrene used for takeout containers, cups or packaging material.

Companies covered by the law must establish EPR programs for their plastic packaging within six months, or by the end of January 2023, and register these with the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC).

The EPR program must measure the company's annual plastic packaging footprint for 2022, and then use this as a benchmark for plastic waste recovery and diversion activities. By the end of 2023, companies must recover or divert 20 percent of their 2022 plastic footprint; the target will then double to 40 percent in 2024, with 10-percent annual increases to reach 80 percent by 2028. Covered companies are also required to file annual, third-party audited annual compliance reports. Penalties for non-compliance with the EPR Act are substantial, including fines up to P20 million or twice the cost of recovering or diverting the amount of plastic needed to comply, whichever is higher, and possible suspension of business permit.

However, the law does allow covered businesses to deduct EPR program costs from their gross income, and offers a wide range of compliance options in terms of handling plastic waste. These include plastic buy-back, exchange, or similar recovery schemes; recycling and other unspecified "sustainable methods"; transporting plastic waste to suitable processing or disposal facilities; cleanup of plastic waste pollution in coastal or other areas; establishment of a commercial-scale recycling, thermal treatment; or other waste processing facility; and partnerships with local government units (LGUs), community groups, or the informal waste sector to recover plastic waste.

Following the bill's passage in the Senate, Sen. Cynthia Villar, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change, said, "It [the EPR law] 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."

Nestlé Philippines, which may be the biggest company affected by the law, welcomed the new measure. In a statement, Nestlé PH Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kais Marzouki said, "Our vision is that none of our packaging, including plastics, ends up in landfills, oceans, lakes, or rivers, or as litter. We congratulate the authors and sponsors of this EPR legislation, which we have consistently advocated. Its enactment into law will be a major step in building a waste-free future and a circular economy."

Environmental groups, however, are not so enthusiastic about the EPR Act. In a statement urging former president Rodrigo Duterte to veto the measure prior to its lapsing into law, a coalition of environmental groups including Greenpeace Philippines, the EcoWaste Coalition, the Mother Earth Foundation, Gaia, Break Free From Plastic and Healthcare Without Harm said that although "[w]e laud the 18th Congress for finally addressing and acknowledging the producers' role [in] addressing waste management issues," the EPR bill "is not enough to address the waste crisis."

Among the flaws in the measure, according to the statement, are the EPR Act's focus solely on plastic packaging; the incompatibility of some of the permitted EPR activities with provisions of RA 9003 and the Clean Air Act (RA 8749), which prohibit "non-environmentally acceptable products and packaging" and incineration of waste, respectively; and the lack of requirements for producers of plastic waste to actually reduce the volume of waste generated.

"With regard to the EPR Act of 2022, I disagree that this is a step toward the right direction," Miko Aliño, Break Free from Plastic's project coordinator for Corporate Accountability told The Manila Times.

"While EPR as a regulatory tool can address plastic waste generation, policy makers and implementers should review the provisions whether it truly addresses plastic pollution. If not crafted well, EPR measures can be used to justify business-as-usual practices such as co-incineration and continued plastic production." "Ideally, EPR measures should involve internalizing negative costs of a product's life cycle; outline time-bound targets for reuse, reduction and recycling, and not just merely collecting plastic waste; prioritize waste prevention and reduction over recovery and recycling; and integrate the informal sector," Aliño added.

"Such measures, moreover, should be supplemented by other policies on single-use plastic bans, plastic tax, stricter waste trade regulations and keeping incineration bans."