Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has traditionally been adopted in high-income countries but is now gaining momentum in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In these countries, EPR has the potential to play a significant positive role in accelerating progress towards a circular economy and reducing packaging pollution. It can provide sustainable financing for packaging collection, improve the waste and recycling systems for packaging (with responsibility fairly shared across industry) and create critical positive incentives to help companies to reduce unnecessary packaging and re-design packaging for reuse or recycling. Packaging EPR on its own cannot solve all waste management challenges in LMICs. Packaging only constitutes around 20% of municipal solid waste in LMICs and cannot finance the entire waste management system. Since packaging EPR funds should be ring-fenced for investment into collection, sorting, and recycling of packaging materials, parallel investments in broader waste management infrastructure and system developments are essential alongside EPR policy implementation. EPR policy should be simple and designed in close collaboration with stakeholders (including industry and informal sector representatives)3 and should include a set of regulatory principles set by policymakers (such as performance targets and timelines, financing and fund management, governance structure, monitoring, compliance, data reporting and protection). The existing CGF Optimal EPR principles, developed by CGF member companies in 2020 (see Box 1), provide a valid framework to guide EPR policy developments in LMICs. Additional recommended guidance for policymakers and implementation institution(s) is also required alongside these principles to reflect the LMICs context. Designing and successfully implementing packaging EPR in LMICs is complex. While models continue to evolve and adapt to local contexts, no single approach has addressed all key challenges. LMICs face specific difficulties in designing and implementing EPR due to (1) the high demand it places on government institutions, (2) the basic waste management and recycling infrastructure gaps in many countries, and (3) the need to integrate waste pickers’ and their organisations that are an essential part of the recycling system. Six additional guidance elements are identified , alongside the existing CGF Optimal EPR principles. Of these, three elements are particularly challenging and require careful attention in EPR policy design and implementation: Institution(s): Current EPR institution design and governance differs widely by country. The biggest distinction is between a centralised EPR model (common in high-income countries) and a decentralised market-based EPR model (e.g., in India). A centralised single-institution / single Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) model 5 (responsible for managing the EPR Obligations) governed by producers 6 through an industry-run Board of Directors is the preferred long-term approach as it aligns best with CGF Optimal EPR Principles and best supports delivery of the seven core functions 7 (see Annex A). If an alternative governance model is chosen, it should still ensure all core functions are effectively fulfilled. Infrastructure: Packaging EPR relies on basic waste management systems for successful implementation and cannot fully fund a solid waste management system. Mobilising the financing required to build and operate functional waste management and recycling infrastructure is a key challenge. EPR policy design and implementation should help attract public or private sector investment and be directed to help close local infrastructure gaps. Informal Sector: In many markets, the informal sector plays a central role in the collection and recycling economy, contributing significantly to the collection, sorting and processing of packaging waste. It is possible to design EPR systems that integrate waste pickers,8 but in practice, funds often flow toward government-run or formalised waste systems, risking their exclusion. EPR policy design and implementation should recognise waste pickers as key actors and integrate them through action across three key pillars: 1) participation in EPR set-up and governance, 2) fair and consistent payment mechanisms, and 3) contracting directly with waste picker organisations.