Cleaning streets and collecting litter from the highway costs the Local Authorities in Zambia thousands of kwacha each year at a time when council budgets are under increasing pressure. This is money that Local Authorities could be spending on improving roads and delivering other vital services. Therefore, in December 2018, the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA) issued Statutory Instrument (S.I) No. 65 of 2018 in order to enforce the principle of the extended producer responsibility. With this background, this essay seeks to discuss the extent to which the S.I No. 65 of 2018 can be effective in controlling plastic pollution in Zambia. it will start by describing the Extended Producer Responsibility principle, then will discuss the extent to which S.I No. 65 can be effective in controlling plastic pollution in Zambia. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach under which producer are given a significant responsibility – financial and or physical -for treatment or disposal of post-consumer products (s58(1)). This can include collection, sorting and treating these for their recycling and recovery (environmental management act no.12 of 2011). EPR, as a principle of product policy, was introduced in legislative acts in the early 1990s to address the life-cycle issues of products, using a target-oriented approach, instead of traditional command-and-control type regulation (Daniel Kaffine and Patrick O’Reilly, 2015.6). Therefore, the EPR policy is characterized by the provision of incentives to producers to take into account environmental considerations when designing their products (Véronique Monier and others 2014.10). As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014), puts it, “while other policy instruments tend to target a single point in the chain, EPR seeks to integrate signals related to the environmental characteristics of products and production processes throughout the product chain”. In contrast with the traditional solid waste management approach, EPR involves a shift in responsibility, that is administratively, financially or physically from governments or municipalities and consequently taxpayers to the entities that make and market the products that are destined to become waste (Véronique Monier and others 2014.10). To this extent, EPR still constitutes the implementation of the polluter-pays principle (PPP), but induces a change in the definition of the ‘‘polluter’. Whereas in the classical version of the PPP the polluter was the individual directly causing pollution - that is the consumer, within the EPR framework the polluter is the economic agent who can play a decisive role in avoiding pollution, for instance. through eco-design efforts (Michael W. Toffel and others 2008, 2). In practice, if a manufacturer introduces 200MT of polymer packaging material in the market, then it is responsible for collection of 200MT of post-consumer plastic waste. Therefore, to achieve its objectives, the regulation requires producers to take responsibility for the collection and recycling of their products after the end of the lifespan, transferring the costs from local councils to the private sphere of the economy (European Commission, 2014). Therefore, EPR has the potential to help address this pervasive problem which costs Local Authorities huge amounts each year. It is believed that applying EPR to the biggest and most intractable litter sources – food and drink packaging and carrier bags in particular – could save councils millions of kwacha per annum, a big help during difficult economic times for councils (Michael W. Toffel and others 2008, 4). The economic reasoning behind the EPR concept is to have producers internalise treatment and disposal costs so that they have an incentive to design products that last longer and are more easily treated after use (Véronique Monier and others 2014.10). Therefore, within the framework of EPR lies a key tool to facilitate the use of available resources more efficiently, to keep secondary raw materials within a countries boundary, and to provide improved access to strategic materials. As such, EPR also paves the way for the development of a more resource-efficient and circular economy, sustaining a national and regional recycling society (Environmental Management (Extended Producer Responsibility) Regulation, 2018, (r3(2)(h)). Hence, EPR is a key element in implementing a sustainable production and consumption policy, promoting resource efficiency, high-quality recycling, substitution, use of secondary raw materials and the production of sustainable goods. As a result, it has the potential to improve the environmental performance of products throughout their life cycle, while meeting industrial and consumer needs (EMA 2011, s58(3)(a)). For example, plastic bags or flat bags have become more durable and are recyclable which also reduces the use of virgin raw materials. With the introduction of EPR, producers are encouraged to incorporate changes in the design of products in order to be more environmentally sound. This in turn, makes the products to be easier to dismantle, reuse and recycle. In this way, the total environmental impact of a product decreases and waste prevention is stimulated. This also provides an incentive for producers to become innovative in the design of their products at the same time making them recyclable. For instance, the design for plastics changed in the sense that the thickness has been increased to above 30 microns, which is more recyclable (Véronique Monier and others 2014.10). EPR if implemented properly has the potential to reduce landfilling of waste and lead to increased recycling, under environmentally, healthy and socially desirable conditions. In this way, EPR can create meaningful jobs in the recycling and waste management sector. A good example that can be used to illustrate the reduction of waste generation is the deposit-refund systems on bottles. That is, when one wants to buy a bottled drink such as Fanta or Coca-Cola, one must either present an empty bottle or pay a deposit when buying the drink, or enjoy the drink from the premises - As a result, waste generation is reduced as bottles are reused in the next production of drinks (Tomas Santa Maria Gonzalez, (2018, 10). The full internalization of environmental costs allows financing the sustainable and economically efficient management of waste. The environmental costs, at the least, include costs for pollution prevention and the collection, recycling and treatment of waste. These environmental costs are incorporated into the price of products. As a consequence, the consumer, and not the taxpayer, bears all costs related to the waste he has produced, which is more socially fair (Véronique Monier and others 2014.10). In addition, producers can partner with municipal councils, since waste management is civic bodies, primary responsibility. Support by producers can help ensure more sustainable waste management practice as producers can provide incentives to homes and streets that facilitates source segregation of waste which in turn makes it easier for recycling. Furthermore, producers can provide incentives that will compel people to take back the product when it has reached its end-of-life, this can be in form of money or a discount or reduction on the waste management fees or tariffs (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2019, 3). However, EPR programs vary widely in their implementation models, for example, in the products considered, the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, or the different instruments and organization mechanisms (CCME, 2019, 6). The different schemes also vary in their technical and economic performance (European Commission, 2014), as they are influenced by national and industry characteristics. Even if EPR focuses on the responsibility of the producers or importers for products which are placed on the market, many other actors play a role in reaching the objectives of the scheme. This includes: consumers, that is individuals or companies, as the final users of a product, and as the actors who are responsible for discarding products through the right channel – for example, by separate collection, secondly, local authorities whose responsibility is to manage municipal waste and more generally for the environmental quality of their territory, thirdly, waste management companies as waste management operators investing in infrastructure and R&D in order to improve collection, sorting and recycling processes, and finally, social economy actors; retailers and so on (Tomas Santa Maria Gonzalez, 2018, 8). The achievement of a good national level EPR performance is the result of each stakeholder’s contribution towards a common goal. Therefore, any national EPR scheme should define the respective responsibilities whether organizational or financial of each stakeholder to the extent that it plays an important role in the system. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution when allocating the responsibilities. Nonetheless, precise roles should be defined at the national scale, in accordance with the respective financial or operational obligations (Michael W. Toffel and others 2008, 4). However, if these stakeholders are not willing to do their role, especially individuals who are the final users of the products, then the EPR becomes obsolete (Tomas Santa Maria Gonzalez, 2018,8). For EPR to be effective Public authorities should endow relevant administrations with sufficient staff and material means necessary to fulfil effective monitoring, enforcement, and to define proportionate sanctions. This is especially relevant in the case of non-attainment of the targets or non-respect of the requirements set in the regulation and in the authorization agreement. In spite of these laws, Zambia may only make little progress towards achieving the intended goals of the EPR principle – in the sense that Zambia have very good environmental laws on paper, but implementing and enforcement has proved to be a very big problem. This can be owed to luck of funding and lack of manpower to monitor and enforce the law, which is evident in other sectorial laws such as the Forestry Act (Michael W. Toffel and others 2008, 4). The implementation of the EPR policy is to dis-incentivize the use of poly bags by setting up pricing mechanism for them and also to establish rules of recycling by local authorities. However, merely putting a price on the plastic bags does not stop littering or generation of waste. At first, people will complain about the price and buy less plastic bags, but in the long run people will stop feeling the pain of buying plastic and will budget for more, as plastics only cost one kwacha (K 1) which can only buy a chewing gum (Environmental Management (Extended Producer Responsibility) Regulation, 2018, (r10(2)). Furthermore, EPR literature has been heavily tilted towards the experience of developed countries, particularly Europe and USA, with comparably less research on the challenges particular to developing countries. Nevertheless, Zambia lack well-established waste management systems on which effective EPR depends (Daniel Kaffine and Patrick O’Reilly 2015, 6). In addition, the cost and environmental effectiveness of EPRs depends on external factors (European Commission, 2014.76), particularly: Country demographics and geography, Development of waste management infrastructure, Value of secondary material on the national market, Awareness and willingness of citizen to participate, and the existence of complementary waste policy instruments. These considerations need to be carefully transposed to Zambia, a developing economy with an incipient recycling industry (OECD, 2016. 26). From this discussion, it is clear that Zambia has a long way to go if it is to achieve the goals of S.I No. 65 of 2018. There is need to develop a sustainable infrastructure based on source segregation and development of waste management infrastructure in the country. Not only so, there is need to inculcate values or willingness in the citizens as they play an important role in the effective implementation of EPR (Michael W. Toffel and others 2008, 4). For that reason, the extent to which S.I No. 65 can be effective in controlling plastic pollution in Zambia is to a moderate extent, as some conditions for effective implementation of EPR are yet to be mate (CCME, 2019, 6). In conclusion, this essay began by describing EPR as a policy approach under which producer are given a significant responsibility either financial or physical -for treatment or disposal of post-consumer products. It went further and discussed the potentials and loopholes of EPR in Zambia and came to a conclusion that EPR will only be effective to a moderate extent in controlling plastic pollution if the conditions for effective implementation are not mate. Bibliography: Legal Sources/ Acts/ Legislation Environmental Management Act No.12 of 2011. Environmental Management (Extended Producer Responsibility) Regulations, 2018. Journals Articles Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, (2019) CANADA-WIDE ACTION PLAN ON ZERO PLASTIC WASTE, Phase 1, PN 1289 European Commission (2014) Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Gonzalez Tomas Santa Maria, (2018) Challenges in the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility policies: The case of Packaging in Chile, Research Project - SOEE5020. Kaffine, Daniel, and O’Reilly, Patrick, (2015) ‘What Have We Learned About Extended Producer Responsibility in the Past Decade? A Survey of the Recent EPR Economic Literature’, Oecd. Monier Véronique, Hestin Mathieu, Cavé Jérémie, Laureysens Ilse, Watkins Emma, Reisinger Hubert, and Porsch Lucas, Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Final Report, 2014 Nash, Jennifer and Bosso Christopher. 2013. “Extended Producer Responsibility in the United States: Full Speed Ahead?” Regulatory Policy Program Working Paper RPP-2013-04. Cambridge, MA: Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University. Comments may be directed to the authors. OECD (2014) ‘The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges’, Global Forum on Environment: Promoting Sustainable Materials Management through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), (June), p. 17. OECD (2016b) Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance. Paris. Toffel W. Michael, Stein Antoinette, and Lee L. Katharine (2008) Extending Producer Responsibility: An Evaluation Framework for Product Take-Back Policies. Working Paper 09-026