EPR in Latin America: Regulatory momentum meets fragmented implementation

EPR legislation is expanding across Latin America as governments seek to reduce packaging waste and advance the circular economy, but fragmented regulations and socioeconomic realities continue to hamper implementation. 

Across Latin America, many countries have adopted national EPR laws or regulations that assign producers responsibility for packaging waste. These include Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. However, the scope and regulatory status of the legislation vary between these countries and also differ regionally. 

Chile and Colombia have developed EPR rules for packaging, while Brazil and Mexico have shared responsibility schemes and reverse-logistics models that effectively act as an EPR. Meanwhile, other countries such as Ecuador and the Dominican Republic have legislation that either covers specific packaging categories or is still in the implementation phase.

Packaging Insights sits down with Martha Ricardi, director of Latin American strategy at the non-profit Association of Plastic Recyclers, and Rodrigo Leiva Neumann, director of environmental consultancy Valoryza, to discuss how EPR legislation is expanding across the region, as well as the challenges inhibiting its effectiveness and full-scale adoption.

“The development of EPR frameworks for packaging in Latin America is advancing rapidly, yet compliance remains uneven,” Ricardi tells us. “Broadly speaking, the region is transitioning from a basic waste management culture toward sophisticated circular economy models, though widespread adoption is still emerging.”

Leiva Neumann explains that while many regulations related to the circular economy and packaging waste management have incorporated the idea of EPR, only a handful of countries have comprehensively implemented a scheme.

Leading the EPR way

Latin America’s broad spectrum of EPR legislation is driven by various socioeconomic conditions, political and governance structures, and societal concern about packaging waste.

Latin America’s EPR landscape remains fragmented despite expanding producer-responsibility legislation.Most notably, Ricardi and Leiva Neumann point to Chile and Colombia as regional leaders of EPR legislation. Enacted in 2016 with obligations beginning in 2023, Chile’s EPR law has established operational collective management systems and mandatory recycling targets for containers and packaging, underscores Ricardi.

“Colombia is another strong leader through Resolution 1407, which has institutionalized producer responsibility and pushed consumer goods companies to meet mandatory recovery targets,” she further states.

Alongside Uruguay, which was the first country in Latin America to introduce a packaging-specific EPR, Chile and Colombia have “operational collective EPR schemes that meet recycling targets,” remarks Leiva Neumann.

Regional approaches

The experts also highlight Mexico and Brazil’s waste management and circular economy strategies. 

“Mexico has had a successful packaging [industry] collective EPR scheme for several years, focused on PET bottles, which has achieved recycling rates comparable to those in Europe,” says Leiva Neumann. He is referring to the nonprofit, industry-led initiative established in 2002, which has operated as a voluntary, de facto EPR scheme rather than a legally mandated system.

However, the recent General Law on Circular Economy (LGEC), published in January 2026, establishes a comprehensive national EPR framework, with specific obligations to be introduced gradually.

Ricardi explains: “Mexico is experiencing a decisive transition phase driven by the LGEC. This framework is beginning to shift the paradigm by laying the groundwork for producers to assume greater responsibility for the circularity, recovery, and recycling of their products.”

Brazil, the region’s largest country, has a different approach to EPR, explains Leiva Neumann, which revolves around a model called “reverse logistics” or “shared product responsibility.”

“Schemes are operated by organizations funded by the entire packaging value chain (producers, distributors, and packaging manufacturers), and the operational tasks are carried out by waste picker cooperatives,” he adds. 

Infrastructure gaps, limited investment, and inadequate waste-picker inclusion hinder effective implementation.Reliance on waste pickers reflects a key difference in waste management systems in Latin America compared to the US and EU. In 2022, the International Alliance of Waste Pickers, which promotes the importance and role of people working informally, was officially recognized at the UN International Negotiating Committee for a global plastics treaty.

Implementing EPR

EPR in Latin America is increasingly important as the impact of packaging waste continues to be observed across the continent. In 2025, a study conducted by Brazilian researchers found that plastic pollution in the Amazon poses a serious health risk to Indigenous communities and ecosystems.

Ricardi and Leiva Neumann tell us that, while there is motivation for EPR in the region, adoption is hindered by a lack of infrastructure, investment, and harmonization.

“The main shortcomings [of EPR implementation] lie in the lack of resources allocated to government agencies and lobbying against EPR by the industry, which prefers to engage in low-cost greenwashing activities,” argues Leiva Neumann.

Moreover, he says that a lack of sorting infrastructure and clear policies, as well as mechanisms for the inclusion of waste pickers and a just transition, also hinder effective EPR.

Ricardi similarly notes an infrastructure problem, explaining that the region faces a “severe shortage” of high-capacity material recovery facilities and food-grade recycling plants, which is compounded by the “variable” quality of material entering the market.

“Without design for recyclability protocols, even adequate infrastructure can struggle to efficiently process poorly designed packaging,” she adds.

Last year, researchers challenged the competency of two Brazilian waste management laws and argued for better public-private partnerships and improved policy frameworks.

Ricardi says that the “patchwork” of rules, definitions, and criteria can complicate operations for multinational producers, who must navigate disparate compliance rules across countries and within the same market.

She concludes: “It is essential to ensure that the resources generated by EPR schemes, the State, and industry-led efforts translate into effective improvements in collection, sorting, traceability, and recycling capacity.”