India’s new EPR framework for non-ferrous metals: Strong foundation, modest ambition
The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has recently notified the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Amendment Rules, 2025. The legislation, which will come into force from April 1, 2026, introduces a comprehensive Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for non-ferrous metals, including aluminum, copper and zinc and its alloys.
While the move represents a significant step toward circular economy principles, a critical examination reveals both promising environmental intentions and concerning implementation challenges that may undermine the rules' effectiveness.
The journey towards these rules began with a draft notification, the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Second Amendment Rules, 2024, which was published on August 14, 2024. This initial publication invited comments and suggestions from the public.
As mentioned in the notification, the central Government thoroughly reviewed all feedback received during this sixty-day period. Following this consultative process, and exercising its powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the government finalised these rules as an amendment to the existing Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.
Environmental potential of EPR framework
The new rules establish an ambitious recycling target structure that progressively increases from 10 per cent in 2026-2027 to 75 per cent by 2032-2033 for products made of non-ferrous metals. This graduated approach acknowledges the time required for industry adaptation while setting clear long-term expectations.
The framework covers an extensive range of products, from beverage cans and packaging foils to electrical fittings and furniture, demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of non-ferrous metal applications in the Indian economy.
A central feature of this regulatory framework is the establishment of an online portal by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). This portal will serve as a single point for data collection and will manage registration for all entities involved in the non-ferrous metal waste ecosystem, including manufacturers, producers, collection agents, refurbishers, and recyclers.
It will also facilitate the filing of half-yearly and annual returns, the fulfillment of EPR obligations, and the transaction of EPR certificates. Producers can meet their EPR targets by purchasing these certificates from registered recyclers through the online platform.
The CPCB will be responsible for operating and maintaining this portal, coordinating with state pollution control boards, developing guidelines, conducting inspections and organising awareness and training programmes.
Implementation hurdles, systemic constraints
Despite these positive aspects, several fundamental concerns emerge when examining the rules' practical implementation potential. CPCB is tasked with developing and maintaining a comprehensive online portal within six months of the rules' commencement. This timeline appears optimistic given the complexity of creating a system that must handle registrations, certificate generation, trading platforms and compliance monitoring for multiple stakeholder categories across the country.
The rules place enormous responsibility on CPCB without adequately addressing the institution's capacity constraints. The board must not only develop technical guidelines and standard operating procedures but also conduct random compliance checks, training programmes and awareness campaigns. This concentration of responsibilities in a single agency raises questions about the feasibility of effective implementation and monitoring.
Administrative complexity, impact on smaller players
The registration requirements for manufacturers, producers, collection agents, refurbisher and recyclers create multiple layers of bureaucracy that may disproportionately burden smaller enterprises. While the rules mandate that entities cannot operate without registration, they provide limited guidance on how small-scale informal recyclers, who currently handle a significant portion of metal waste, will be integrated into the formal system.
The environmental compensation mechanism, while necessary for deterrence, lacks clear calculation methodologies. The rules state that compensation guidelines will be issued by CPCB, but the absence of specific penalty structures creates uncertainty for businesses attempting to assess compliance costs. The sliding scale for compensation refunds based on subsequent compliance timelines, while progressive, adds complexity to an already intricate system.
Infrastructure gaps & technology limitations
The rules assume the existence of adequate recycling infrastructure and technology, but India's current capacity for environmentally sound recycling of non-ferrous metals remains limited. The requirement for recyclers to ensure "environmentally sound management" is admirable, but the rules do not address how the necessary technology upgrades will be financed or implemented, particularly for smaller recycling operations.
The conversion factor formula for EPR certificate generation depends on technologies and other factors to be determined by the CPCB, creating regulatory uncertainty. Without clear technical standards and conversion factors, businesses cannot accurately plan their compliance strategies or investment requirements.
Governance challenges in enforcement & monitoring
The rules establish a Steering Committee with representatives from various government departments and industry associations, but the committee's decision-making processes and accountability mechanisms remain unclear. The provision allowing the central government to relax filing deadlines by up to nine months, while providing flexibility, may undermine the rules' urgency and effectiveness.
The coordination between central and state pollution control boards, while mentioned, lacks specific protocols for information sharing and enforcement consistency. This could lead to varied implementation standards across different states, potentially creating compliance disparities and enforcement challenges.
The provision for industrial space allocation for recycling units and worker skill development programmes shows understanding of the socioeconomic dimensions of waste management. The requirement for bulk consumers to establish collection points distributes responsibility across the value chain, moving beyond traditional producer-focused approaches.
Institutional roles, responsibilities under EPR framework
The Bureau of Indian Standards is responsible for revising and issuing new standards related to these rules within six months of amendment, ensuring quality and safety. A Steering Committee, chaired by the CPCB chairperson and comprising diverse representatives, oversees the overall implementation, monitoring and supervision of EPR, resolving disputes and recommending target revisions.
Non-compliance leading to environmental or public health damage incurs environmental compensation, imposed by the CPCB after due process. This compensation does not negate EPR targets, which can be carried forward for up to three years. Partial refunds of compensation are possible upon subsequent compliance. Funds collected are utilised for environmental restoration and proper waste management.
Limited ambition in recycled content targets
The draft notification published on August 14, 2024 provided context that is absent from the final notification. The draft begins with a compelling preamble stating:
Whereas, in a rapidly changing world, the utmost concern today is pollution and scarcity of resources. Ores and minerals of metals are non-renewable natural resources which have an ever-growing demand at the global level and across sectors, making it imperative to reuse and recycle already extracted metals. Recycling of these non-ferrous metals provides social, economic and environmental benefits apart from the potential for employment generation;
And whereas India's mineral-rich areas are under dense forests and inhabited by tribal communities, recycling reduces extraction pressures due to the growing demand for metals and will prevent loss of livelihood and destruction of forests and vegetation cover.
While it is encouraging that the government recognises the importance of circularity with such comprehensive understanding, there appears to be a significant gap between the ambitious environmental rhetoric and the practical implementation targets. The minimum recycled material usage requirements are surprisingly modest: Starting at just 5 per cent for 2028-29, and reaching only 10 per cent for aluminum, 20 per cent for copper, and 25 per cent for zinc by 2031-32.
Schedule-XIII of the Rules specifies minimum recycled material usage targets for new products made of non-ferrous metals.
This disparity raises questions about whether the implementation targets adequately reflect the urgency and scale of the environmental challenges outlined in the draft's preamble.
When consulted regarding whether these targets are adequately ambitious, RN Chouhan, senior principal scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru Aluminium Research Development & Design Centre (an autonomous body under the Ministry of Mines, Government of India), responded: "There are certainly examples of industries using higher quantities of recycled materials. This target percentage represents a necessary step for entities currently using only virgin materials or using less recycled material and serves as a good starting point. However, the government may introduce more ambitious recycled material usage percentages in the future."
Regarding reliance on informal operators in non-ferrous metal recycling and the current rule's impact on them, Chouhan stated: "JNARDDC has already, developed a portal through the Recycling Promotion Division, which was established by the Union Ministry of Mines under JNARDDC to promote recycling of aluminum, copper, lead, and zinc. The division's major focus areas include transforming recycling industries into a formal ecosystem, technology upgradation, capacity building, research and standardisation."
In conclusion, India’s EPR rules for non-ferrous metals present a progressive yet challenging framework for sustainable waste management. While the policy sets a strong regulatory foundation, its effectiveness will depend on addressing key implementation hurdles.
A major concern is the integration of informal recyclers, who play a crucial role in India’s waste ecosystem but risk being sidelined without structured inclusion. The government must develop targeted strategies — such as formalisation incentives or cooperative models — to ensure their participation rather than displacement.
Equally critical is strengthening the capacity of implementing agencies like CPCB, which will require enhanced resources, technical expertise and decentralised monitoring mechanisms to enforce compliance effectively.
Additionally, transparency in EPR certificate trading and recycling audits must be prioritized to prevent fraud and build industry trust. If these challenges are met through collaborative governance, adaptive policies and robust infrastructure investment, the rules could significantly boost recycling rates while balancing environmental and economic priorities. The coming years will be a decisive test of whether this ambitious framework can transition from policy intent to measurable, on-ground impact.