Subscribe
India’s Paryavaran NITI Manthan conference revealed that 6.2 million tonnes e-waste was generated in FY24.
Only 10 per cent of it was formally recycled.
Of an estimated Rs 51,000 crore in material value, over Rs 21,000 crore is lost to inefficiencies.
Rs 20,400 crore remains technologically unrecovered.
On May 4, 2026, a one-day national conference, Paryavaran NITI Manthan, was convened in New Delhi, bringing together policymakers, regulators, and industry representatives to deliberate on circular economy implementation, with a specific focus on Extended Producer Responsibility in the e-waste sector.
The event, organised under the aegis of NITI Aayog and the Material Recycling Association of India, saw participation from senior officials across ministries and regulatory bodies. Among the key speakers were officials from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Central Pollution Control Board and the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, along with representatives from industry bodies and recycling companies.
But beyond the formal framing of “strengthening the e-waste ecosystem,” what emerged from the session,particularly from presentations attributed to NITI Aayog,was a clearer acknowledgment of systemic inefficiencies that continue to undermine India’s circular economy ambitions.
India generated 6.2 million tonnes of e-waste in FY24, projected to more than double to 14 million tonnes by 2030. Yet, formal recycling capacity remains limited to around 2 million tonnes, leaving a vast gap between generation and processing. As a result, only about 10 per cent of e-waste is formally recycled, far below global benchmarks. This gap becomes more consequential when viewed through the lens of value. E-waste contains nearly 33 per cent metals, including precious and critical minerals. The total economic value embedded in India’s e-waste is estimated at Rs 51,000 crore, of which Rs 30,600 crore is technically recoverable.
However, actual recovery remains limited. The informal sector accounts for roughly Rs 6,545 crore, while the formal sector contributes about Rs 2,805 crore. Nearly Rs 21,250 crore is lost due to inefficiencies, while another Rs 20,400 crore remains locked in materials that current technologies fail to extract.In effect, the system is not merely underperforming, it is structurally configured to recover selectively.
A similar trajectory is unfolding in the lithium-ion battery sector. Demand is projected to grow from 29 GWh in 2025 to 248 GWh by 2035, with waste volumes increasing nearly ninefold. These batteries contain critical materials such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite, offering significant opportunities for resource recovery, reduced import dependence, and emissions reduction. Yet, as discussions indicated, the current policy and economic framework is not aligned to capture this value efficiently.
The current framework focuses on a narrow set of materials, primarily copper, aluminium, iron, and gold, while excluding a wider basket of critical minerals. This results in a system that may meet compliance targets but does not maximise recovery. In the battery segment, the mismatch is sharper. Low-value chemistries such as lithium ferro phosphate remain economically unattractive for recyclers due to the absence of high-value metals. Without differentiated EPR pricing, these waste streams are effectively sidelined.
Even compliance timelines reflect this disconnect. Batteries designed for 15-30 years of operational life are subjected to EPR cycles that begin much earlier, creating a misalignment between regulation and material reality.
At the operational level, traceability remains weak. The absence of mandatory chemical composition disclosure, combined with the lack of integration between GST systems and EPR portals, creates gaps in verification. What is reported as recycled is not always what is materially recovered.And throughout this system, the informal sector continues to play a central role,without formal recognition.
Discussions during the session also pointed to the need for greater alignment between EPR systems and financial tracking mechanisms, particularly through integration with GST-linked verification to improve traceability and reduce discrepancies in recycling claims.
This direction closely echoes the Centre for Science and Environment’s (CSE) Relax the Tax (2025) report, which had recommended aligning GST policy with EPR objectives by linking GST incentives to verified recycling through formal channels. Such an approach would strengthen authorised recyclers, improve transparency in material flows, and enable a gradual integration of informal actors into the formal system.
The institutional divide remains a key constraint. While EPR is administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GST falls under the Ministry of Finance. Operating in silos, these frameworks continue to limit the effectiveness of both.
A shift in narrative was visible during the session. The emphasis is gradually moving from compliance metrics to effective and efficient recycling,from meeting targets to recovering materials. This shift, however, requires structural changes. It requires expanding the scope of EPR beyond high-value metals, integrating informal collection systems, and strengthening verification mechanisms to ensure that recycling claims reflect actual outcomes. There were also indications that institutional changes are underway, including plans to roll out a common EPR portal, beginning with plastics, aimed at streamlining compliance systems.
As CPCB Member Secretary Bharat Sharma noted:
“We need to go beyond compliance towards effective and efficient recycling,beyond just gold and copper recovery. The informal sector must be integrated into material collection systems. A ticket-based mechanism to be introduced for complaint redressal.”
The conversation has clearly moved forward. The gaps i.e. limited scope, weak monitoring, misaligned incentives, and informal dependence, are now acknowledged within policy spaces.
But acknowledgment alone does not resolve structural contradictions. What emerged from the discussions was a clear recognition that the problem is no longer about policy absence, but about execution.
Strengthening implementation will require institutional continuity that can withstand frequent administrative transfers and restructuring, alongside the creation of dedicated Central Authority, or at the very least specialised desks (as a part of any of the concerned ministry), focused on recycling and industrial waste streams.
Representative of MRAI, who are one of the organizer, also underscored the need for sustained engagement with industry and stronger capacity at the ground level, where much of the regulatory intent currently weakens in practice. Equally critical is the establishment of feedback loops that allow policy to evolve based on implementation outcomes, rather than remain static. In effect, the transition now hinges on whether India can move from drafting circular economy policies to managing them as an ongoing system, where vision, regulation, and execution are continuously aligned rather than sequentially disconnected.