The scope of the methodology is limited to specific SUP banned by the Indian government under PWM Rules amended till date (MoEFCC 2018 and MoEFCC 2021). The entire life cycle of SUPs and its alternatives (i.e., such as extraction, refining, processing of petroleum products for producing plastic raw material, production of SUPs, production of alternative raw materials, production of alternatives, transport and end-of-life emissions) is considered for estimating the climate co-benefits. The specific SUPs and the alternatives considered in the methodology are illustrated in Figure 1. These alternatives should be comparable to SUPs in terms of quality and intended function, and like SUPs, should be designed for single use. The methodology shall not be used for calculation of carbon credits under domestic or international markets.

Climate mitigation co-benefits assessment

The methodology defines a baseline scenario and then an alternative scenario. Afterwards, by using the production quantity for SUPs and alternatives and their corresponding emission factors, the mitigation cobenefits can be determined. The entire process is outlined below in Figure 2

For the effective estimation of mitigation co-benefits from the transition to alternatives following the SUP ban, it is essential that certain parameters are consistently monitored and reported. Monitoring is fundamental to applying the methodology in practice and requires sufficient resources, technical capacity, and financial support. The methodology has been designed to strike a balance between obtaining accurate estimates of mitigation benefits and ensuring that monitoring remains practical and feasible for stakeholders. In this context, two categories of parameters are defined: parameters to be monitored (refer Annexure A), which involve data directly reported by manufacturers, importers, and regulatory bodies; and default parameters, which are derived from established scientific databases.

To streamline monitoring, the methodology applies a materiality threshold of 5%, meaning emission sources that collectively account for less than 5% of total estimated emissions may be excluded from calculations without affecting overall accuracy

The default factors are emission factors derived from secondary literature review, with priority first given to state specific literature, then national (Indian), regional (Asian), and finally international literature. Emission or default factors include the production of raw material, the manufacture of the product (SUP or alternative), and end-of-life for the identified SUPs and their alternatives. A tiered approach has been developed for assessing production emissions of SUPs to account for varying data availability at the ground level. The approach comprises three tiers: if the total weight of banned SUPs is available, Tier 1 emission factors are applied; if data on the weights of different polymer materials used for SUP production are available, Tier 2 emission factors are used; and if weight data for each specific banned SUP are available, Tier 3 emission factors are applied. For more details, refer to the SUP co-benefit methodology

The proposed methodology offers a flexible and robust framework for measuring climate co-benefits based on the data available on the ground. The accuracy of mitigation benefit estimations improves with the degree of data segregation and granularity. Conversely, when only limited datasets are available, the accuracy of the mitigation benefits calculated is reduced. The table below provides an overview of the various options available under this methodology. It also outlines the minimum parameters that need to be monitored and the corresponding approach to be followed for calculating climate co-benefits under each option.

Table 1 (Contd.):Overview of various options available within methodology

Source: Authors

Based on the above analysis in Table 1 , it is clear that the prerequisite for applying the co-benefit methodology is that the weight of alternatives in both the baseline3 and project scenarios must be monitored. Building upon this foundation, the accuracy of the methodology can be progressively enhanced by incorporating additional parameters such as the annual MSW, the percentage share of SUPs in the MSW, and the weight of total SUPs, polymer materials, and segregated SUPs, depending on the financial resources and monitoring budget available.

Climate adaptation co-benefits assessment 

Banning SUP can lead to various types of adaptation and resilience benefits such as reduced impacts from flooding, higher resilience of agricultural production due to improved soil quality, reduced impacts from lack of precipitation due to contamination of clouds by microplastics, etc. However, estimating these benefits is complex as they span a wide range of physical, social, environmental, and economic aspects across variable timescales. One approach to estimating adaptation benefits is calculating the avoided losses, which is the difference between the avoided direct and indirect damage to various systems (human, infrastructure, and nature) (EEA, 2023). This approach can also be applied to quantify the adaptation and resilience benefits of the SUP ban.

The following three parameters are identified to assess adaptation co-benefits, reflecting the increased climate resilience of urban ecosystems resulting from the SUP ban. These parameters were selected based on their direct linkage to urban resilience, data availability, and relevance to both local and national climate objectives. The methodology will compare the baseline year data and against the succeeding project year to assess the climate co-benefits.

Parameter 1: Reduced blockage in storm drains

Plastic waste scattered in the environment blocks storm drains and increases the risk of flooding. The ban’s reduction in the SUP will reduce this blockage, thereby increasing the climate resilience of urban infrastructure.

Parameter 2: Prevention of plastic from water bodies

SUP/plastic waste is disposed off in water bodies directly or indirectly. This contaminates the marine environment and its ecosystem and also enters the food chain and drinking water sources (Woods et. al). Reduction in the SUP due to the ban will prevent it from entering the water bodies.

Parameter 3: Contribution to climate resilience of vulnerable communities

The SUP ban would reduce the consumption of unnecessary and avoidable use of plastic. These can be substituted by sustainable alternatives, which would lead to employment in this sector. In this context, an assessment of employment will be undertaken along with the number of workers affected by the SUP ban to understand the sector’s adaptability.

Each parameter is linked with measurable indicators, data requirements and suggested data sources in the Annexure B, forming the basis for periodic monitoring and aggregation at city, state, and national levels.

Existing regulatory monitoring requirements and gaps

This section outlines the existing monitoring requirements and processes stipulated by government bodies for various stakeholders. To integrate the methodology within the policy framework, it is essential to first assess the existing monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements and processes mandated by the government for SUPs. By conducting a comprehensive assessment of the current local MRV requirements and processes, a roadmap can be developed to integrate the climate co-benefit MRV requirements within the existing structures and align it with the prevailing reporting processes.

Following monitoring requirements are stated for different stakeholders from SUP producers to recyclers in PWM regulation amended till date (MoEFCC 2018, and MoEFCC 2021).

• Archived data from the earlier registrations by plastic raw material manufacturers which included details of supply of raw materials to SUP producers (Form - III); and by SUP producers, brand owners, and importers’ (Form I) on type and capacity of SUP manufactured can be used, if its available. This reporting is no longer valid owing to the SUP ban.
• Recyclers must apply for registration or renewal through Form II, reporting waste generation, collection, transportation, and disposal, along with characterization reports and sources of waste acquired, and submit an annual report (Form IV) by April 30 each year detailing technologies used, quantities of plastic waste received, processed, recycled, and sent to landfill.
• Urban local bodies (ULBs) must submit an annual report (Form V) to the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) by June 30, summarizing plastic waste generated, collected, recycled, reused, and disposed of within their jurisdiction.
• ULBs must also follow the CPCB’s Standard Operating Procedure for Assessment & Characterization of Plastic Waste (CPCB SOP) for data collection (CPCB 2024).
• TNPCB would compile this data and submit a consolidated report (Form VI) to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) by July 31, including total plastic waste generated, quantities processed, and actions taken on non-compliance.

For a detailed list of data requirements under each Form (I, II, III, IV, V and VI), please refer to Annexure C.

A summary of all parameters currently being reported as per PWM regulation amended till date (MoEFCC 2018, and MoEFCC 2021), with respect to mitigation co-benefit methodology, is illustrated below in the Table 2.

Based on Table 1 and Table 2 it is evident that there are certain gaps within the existing monitoring framework established by the PWM regulation regarding the parameters to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring. As discussed earlier, the minimum parameter that must be monitored for applying the climate co-benefit methodology is the quantity of alternatives used in both the baseline and project scenarios. Building upon this foundation, the accuracy of the estimated benefits can be enhanced by incorporating additional parameters such as the percentage share of SUPs in the annual generation of municipal solid weight, and the weight of total SUPs, polymer materials, and segregated SUPs, depending on the financial resources and monitoring budget available.

To effectively utilise the climate co-benefit methodology, it is therefore recommended that at least the annual weight of alternatives be monitored as a prerequisite for estimating climate co-benefits, while the additional parameters mentioned above is recommended to be measured progressively to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the estimations depending on the available budget and data.

Approach to develop the methodology 

The methodology to assess the climate co-benefits, namely, mitigation and adaptation, was developed through a multi-stage process focused on ease of implementation while allowing for scientific rigour where needed. A comprehensive review of international and Indian studies on SUP bans was undertaken to identify the parameters and the methods with which the climate co-benefits can be assessed. This was followed by relevant stakeholder consultations, including pollution control boards, climate change cells, urban local bodies, and alternative manufacturers and plastic recyclers in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu to gather practical insights and refine the methodology. Further, four regional workshops were also conducted with Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) in New Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore and Goa to evaluate the parameters, the data availability to estimate them and for training needs assessment (the “TNA workshops”). The approach also prioritised interoperability with existing waste management and climate reporting systems to ensure consistency, comparability, and scalability across regions.

Need for methodology to assess climate co-benefits of SUP ban

The methodology aims to quantify the climate co-benefits from the SUP ban. As a result, the methodology should be leveraged for targeted capacity building, equipping personnel with the technical expertise on how and what data metrics should be collected. By standardising this, the methodology can provide high quality output that directly links the SUP ban or the plastic reduction to ‘climate avoidance’. As this data collection process matures and achieves greater accuracy, the resulting outputs can be integrated into the Tamil Nadu State Action Plan on Climate Change (TNSAPCC), or any other state reporting framework.

This section of the report outlines the roadmap for integrating the proposed climate co-benefit methodology into Tamil Nadu’s state initiatives and India’s existing policy and institutional framework. Based on the assessments carried out in the earlier sections; evaluation of the current MRV framework, findings from stakeholder consultations, a Theory of Change (ToC) was developed with the goal for incorporating the methodology into existing framework.

A TOC is a comprehensive framework for planning, participation, and evaluation, which defines the logical steps needed to achieve a long-term goal (integrating methodology in this case). It involves analysing the problem statement, identifying the key barriers to change, and outlining the specific activities that need to be implemented. These activities are mapped to create a causal chain of outputs and outcomes that lead to the ultimate impact—integrating the co-benefits methodology into existing policy and decision-making processes. Based on this TOC, actionable recommendations will be provided for stakeholders at various levels—short-term, medium-term, and long-term.

Additionally, the section will also highlight the assumptions underlying the TOC, acknowledging the potential risks, uncertainties involved and propose strategies for mitigating these risks, ensuring that the integration process is both robust and adaptable to changing circumstances.

Theory of Change

As outlined earlier, the TOC provides a comprehensive framework for addressing the identified problems. TOC begins by clearly defining the problem statement and the barriers that hinder progress. The ToC will then outline the proposed interventions, followed by a mapping of the anticipated outputs, outcomes, and eventual impacts of these interventions. Additionally, the ToC will include the key performance indicators necessary for monitoring and evaluating the success of the roadmap.

Problem statement

India has launched policies aimed at promoting a circular economy, such as the single-use plastic ban. However, there is a lack of a structured framework for reporting climate co-benefits (mitigation and adaptation) achieved through such policies, resulting in missed opportunities to fully capture and report these benefits. Through the current project, a methodology has been developed to estimate the mitigation and adaptation co-benefits arising from the single-use plastic ban that needs to be integrated into the existing policy and institutional framework, complementing current MRV arrangements and roles to enable consistent reporting of climate co-benefits. Integrating it in this way would strengthen alignment across programmes and improve the usability of results for planning and disclosure. Without such integration, the potential for achieving broader, more sustainable development outcomes is being overlooked. Additionally, barriers such as a lack of coordination among stakeholders, policy gaps, data gaps, and infrastructural limitations, as well as limited understanding of proposed methodology, hinder progress. Therefore, there is a critical need for an approach or roadmap that embeds such a methodology, complementing and aligning with the existing frameworks and infrastructure. This approach should identify existing barriers to the adoption of the methodology, align it with existing frameworks, and leverage synergies from current stakeholders and resources to incorporate the proposed climate co-benefit methodology, thereby enabling effective reporting of the climate co-benefits from single-use plastic ban policy.

Barriers identified

Several critical barriers were identified in Section 3.2 at different levels during stakeholder consultations. For developing the TOC, the identified barriers are grouped as follow:

Institutional and policy barriers:

• Complete enforcement of waste segregation into wet and dry waste, as well as between SUPs and their alternatives is required, which is essential for measuring the climate co-benefits.
• While the CPCB SOP has set out the process of monitoring SUP and their alternatives during usage and end of life, the ULBs must periodically track and report it, else it can lead to gaps in data and reporting.
• Lack of financial resources, and manpower, to undertake regular monitoring and reporting of the data required as per the methodology.
• Additional space and tools for measuring the SUPs and alternatives particularly at waste disposal sites.

Capacity barriers 

• Lack of understanding of climate co-benefits, particularly related emission mitigation and adaptation benefits from SUP ban amongst producers, importers, staff and officials.
• Lack of regular training and upskilling on impact assessment to enhance the skills of personnel in data collection, monitoring, reporting and the interpretation of climate co-benefits.

Proposed interventions (activities) 

Based on the identified barriers for adopting the proposed climate co-benefit methodology, the following interventions are proposed to facilitate its successful integration. These interventions will require financial and infrastructure resources, political will, and coordination among producers, state and central governments, urban local bodies, and staff at waste disposal sites. Some interventions can be implemented in the short term, while others may require a medium or longer-term commitment, which will be outlined in a later section of the report. Please note that the list of proposed interventions is not exhaustive and can be further refined based on the local context and policy framework. These interventions are based on the general challenges and barriers identified through stakeholder consultations conducted within this project and should serve as a guiding framework.

Secure official endorsement

Obtain formal endorsement or recognition from national and state level (in the form of official notifications or orders) for the proposed methodology. This recognition is crucial for ensuring the legitimacy and smooth integration of the methodology.

Directions to producers, importers, waste collection and disposal centres

Based on the official notification, direct producers’ importers, waste collection and disposal centres provide data points annually as required by the methodology to relevant government agencies. This will help in building a robust database for monitoring and reporting climate co-benefits.

Financial and resource allocation

Investigate any opportunity to secure a dedicated budget for monitoring and reporting as per the climate co-benefits methodology within the existing SUP ban framework. Additionally, leverage synergies with complementary policies and programs such as the Swachh Bharat Mission and CE initiatives. These collaborations can help secure the necessary budget to strengthen infrastructure and ensure adequate manpower for effective monitoring, while also supporting capacity-building and training programs for staff.

Consider also leveraging public-private partnerships to support the scaling of required infrastructure and training programs. Secure financial support to address infrastructure gap, for segregating, sampling, measuring and reporting SUPs and alternatives.

Regular training and capacity building

• Conduct regular training programs for importers, producers (both SUP and alternatives), Public Sector Enterprises, townships, officials, including those at the TNPCB, CPCB, ULBs, particularly in the solid waste management and storm water drain departments, and staff involved in waste disposal and management. These programs should focus on the importance of measuring climate co-benefits, data monitoring and reporting and on using the proposed methodology.
• Upskill officials and waste management staff to ensure proper segregation of waste, with a focus on SUPs and alternatives. Provide training on the appropriate methodology for measuring and sampling waste as per the CPCB SOP.

Establish SOPs 

• Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) with roles and responsibilities, quality control measures, and coordination protocols with ULBs, TNPCB, and other relevant bodies for measuring, monitoring and reporting data as per the proposed methodology. The latter will ensure consistent implementation, quality checks, and effective reporting.

Narrative for TOC 

This section will provide a narrative on how the roadmap will work in practice and include a visual description of the TOC. Based on the barriers discussed earlier, a pathway will be outlined to explain how the proposed interventions (activities)—through their outputs and outcomes—will overcome these barriers and ultimately achieve the objective of demonstrating the broader climate benefits resulting from India’s single-use plastic ban. Additionally, the key indicators to be measured for evaluating the progress of the roadmap’s implementation will also be highlighted.

TOC for overcoming capacity barriers

Figure 4 illustrates the TOC for overcoming the capacity barriers. The TOC starts with the identification of awareness barriers related to methodology. These include, low awareness about climate co-benefits; need for capacity building in monitoring; reporting aspects and using climate co-benefit methodology; and robust compliance with the requirement under the SUP Compliance Monitoring Module to monitor and report SUP use. To overcome these barriers, the inputs required are financial resources, manpower, and skill development. The proposed interventions are designed to feed these desired inputs so as to circumvent the barriers discussed.

Three interventions are proposed to overcome the awareness barriers. The first intervention focuses on addressing financial and resource allocation. A financial budget is required to design and conduct training programs aimed at building the capacity of personnel in waste segregation, sampling as per CPCB guidelines, and measuring, monitoring the parameters for climate co-benefit methodology. These training programs will help ensure that the expected co-benefits are properly reported. In addition to the budget, resources in terms of manpower and infrastructure are also required (discussed in subsequent TOC) to carry out monitoring, reporting, and verification according to the climate co-benefits methodology. This budget can be leveraged from state, central governments or ULBs by aligning with other policies, such as the Swachh Bharat Mission or circular economy initiatives, or by seeking funding from international donors. Further scaling of both the budget and manpower can be achieved through potential partnerships with public or private agencies (such as universities, think tanks, and public sector enterprises) in the form of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).

The second intervention involves developing training programs, Training of Trainers (ToT), workshops, or MOOCs on waste segregation and waste sampling, in line with CPCB SOP. Additionally, capacity building should focus on measuring and monitoring the necessary parameters as per the climate co-benefits methodology. Finally, personnel should be trained on using the climate co-benefits methodology and tool/ calculator for measuring and reporting these co-benefits, utilizing the MOOC already developed within this project.

The third intervention involves the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) with clear roles and responsibilities for stakeholders, including importers, producers of alternatives and SUPs, personnel at waste collection, waste disposal, recycling centres, ULBs, MPCB, and CPCB officials. These SOPs will outline the process for data reporting, specifying what data needs to be monitored, data collection templates, who monitors the data, who reports the data, whom to report to, and frequency of monitoring and reporting. Additionally, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) guidelines will be established for CPCB and MPCB officials to ensure the accuracy of the data reported. This process could be complemented by third-party checks to verify that the data reporting is indeed correct.

The immediate outputs expected from these interventions include securing the necessary budget and manpower to conduct proper monitoring and implement training programs. The long-term outcomes would involve a trained cadre of officials, from grassroots to ministry levels, skilled in waste segregation, measuring, sampling, monitoring, and reporting, and capable of using the climate co-benefits methodology. Additionally, the SOPs would be established. Building on these outcomes, the ultimate impact is that the methodology to be formally adopted and used by the Government of Maharashtra in its existing framework for reporting climate co-benefits resulting from the single-use plastic ban policy.

To effectively monitor that the envisioned TOC is implemented in practice, it is important to evaluate the progress through key performance indicators. The indicators for monitoring the progress of these proposed interventions include; overall budget and manpower allocated, the number of training workshops conducted, the number of personnel trained in various aspects of waste segregation, monitoring, reporting and using co-benefit methodology, and the number of ULBs, departments and organisations, that adopted the SOPs.

TOC for overcoming institutional and policy barriers

Figure 5 illustrates how institutional and policy barriers related to the adoption of climate co-benefits methodology are addressed. The TOC begins by identifying the key institutional and policy barriers. These include, lack of recognition of climate co-benefits methodology and their importance in robust monitoring and reporting of SUPs as required under the SUP Compliance Monitoring Module and their alternatives (from production to end-of-life); limited enforcement of waste segregation, and monitoring; and finally, limited infrastructure for undertaking monitoring and reporting at waste processing facilities in line with the co-benefits methodology. To overcome these barriers, the required inputs include government recognition of the climate co-benefits methodology and mandate to measure and monitor SUPs and alternatives. The proposed interventions are designed to address these barriers by ensuring the necessary inputs are in place.

Three key interventions are proposed to address institutional and policy barriers. The first focuses on obtaining official recognition of the climate co-benefit methodology to ensure wider acceptance and mandate data collection on SUPs and their alternatives across their lifecycle. As highlighted earlier, the minimum parameter to be monitored is the quantity of alternatives in both baseline and project scenarios. The methodology’s flexibility allows reporting of mitigation benefits based on available data and budget, with accuracy improving as more parameters—such as annual MSW generation, SUP share in MSW, and weights of total and segregated SUPs—are included. The second intervention emphasizes allocating budget to strengthen the infrastructure (space and equipment for waste segregation, sampling, etc) needed for effective monitoring and reporting. In addition to this, the budget will be required for manpower for conducting monitoring, and capacity building the personnel in monitoring and reporting (already highlighted in previous TOC). The third intervention involves piloting the methodology in cities. The results of these piloting exercises can then be analysed, disseminated, and promoted to encourage broader adoption across the state.

The immediate outputs expected from these interventions include the methodology being endorsed at national and state level, and the methodology operationally piloted in cities. The long-term outcome would involve the allocation of budget for the required infrastructure needed for the monitoring and reporting framework (budget for capacity building covered in previous TOC). The main outcome would include a larger uptake among cities, and other states. Building on the latter, the ultimate impact would be the formal adoption and usage of the methodology by the Government of Maharashtra as part of their existing framework for reporting climate co-benefits resulting from the single-use plastic ban policy.

To ensure effective monitoring and implementation of the envisioned TOC, it is important to evaluate progress through KPIs. The indicators for monitoring the progress of these proposed interventions include the overall budget allocated for strengthening infrastructure, and the number of cities and states that have endorsed the climate co-benefits methodology.

Assumptions

• In the implementation of the proposed TOC, certain assumptions have been made to reflect the external conditions and internal factors that are expected to support the adoption and implementation of the TOC.
• It is assumed that the political will to support the initiative will remain strong throughout the implementation process. This political backing is critical for the continued uptake of the methodology across cities, states and national level.
• Regular characterisation and value chain mapping of SUPs and alternatives would be undertaken by the ULBs, TNPCB, MSME Department, and other state agencies. Third party expert agencies may also be involved to ensure its robustness.
• Continuous cooperation between government, donors, PSEs and private sector will play an essential role in ensuring the methodology’s successful adoption.
• It is anticipated that, over time, government initiatives such as the Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE) initiative, the Swachh Bharat Mission, and other climate change awareness campaigns will enhance consumer understanding of sustainability, motivating them to adopt more environmentally friendly lifestyle choices. This increased awareness is expected to drive a conscious shift towards alternatives, thereby facilitating the broader adoption of this methodology for estimating the co-benefits of the SUP ban.

Risks and mitigation strategies 

At the same time, there are certain risks that could hinder the successful integration of methodology into the existing monitoring framework. Identifying and addressing these risks is essential for the successful execution of the initiative. The table below outlines the key assumptions, risks, the corresponding mitigation strategies and responsible stakeholders. The following risks have been identified in Table 3, along with their corresponding mitigation strategies to ensure the methodology’s effective implementation:

Table 3: Overview of potential risks and corresponding mitigation strategies

Source: Authors' compilation

By proactively addressing these risks and implementing appropriate mitigation strategies, the adoption and effectiveness of the methodology can be significantly enhanced.