Following the release of the UK Government’s response to its consultation on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), organisations across the waste and resources industry have begun to react.

Packaging

CIWM

In a statement yesterday, the Chartered Institute of Waste Management (CIWM) expressed concerns that some of the original proposals were significantly ‘watered-down’, asserting that this could lead to a system that is ‘not as impactful as that which was previously outlined’.

Continuing, CIWM stated that it was ‘surprised’ at the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) decision to reduce litter payments for packaging to material in bins and not for ground litter, stating that this may make calculations of cost ‘more complicated for local authorities and producers than it needs to be’.

On Defra’s decision to decrease the minimum threshold at which organisations would be obligated by EPR requirements, CIWM affirmed its support, saying that, “for EPR to be truly effective it needs to encompass as much material as possible.” The body added that it would like to see Defra and the devolved governments look to lower the threshold further.

Concerning the requirement to collect film by 2027, the body warned that ‘there is uncertainty over how many recycling facilities are ‘film-ready’ or easily adaptable, and CIWM is not aware that these concerns have changed or been addressed since the consultation’.

The continuation of the Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) system, CIWM says, could help address its concern that the EPR proposals did not provide clarity on any support that will be targeted specifically at the reprocessing sector. The body acknowledged that there would be concerns about how the PRN system and the new payment mechanism would work together, stating that it is ‘unclear if this could lead to reduced payments into the scheme administrator’, with less funding available for collectors of packaging. The two funding streams running side by side, CIWM asserts, could cause ‘unneeded complexity’.

The body expressed frustration at the Government’s intention to class the Scheme Administrator as a public body, questioning why this was not built into the 2021 consultation.

Lee Marshall, Policy and External Affairs Director said: “The industry has been waiting patiently for the Government’s long-awaited response to the consultations, so it is good we now have detail about how Defra and the devolved governments intend to move forward.

“It is frustrating that it has taken this long and the fact we still do not have the responses to the DRS and consistent collections consultations is not ideal in trying to consider these key changes in the round.

“Irrespective of this, the government’s response to the consultations certainly appears to have diluted the original intention for producer responsibility for packing in the UK. This will make achieving net-zero that bit harder and means the UK is in danger of taking longer to move to a world beyond waste”.

The Recycling Association

The Recycling Association has stated that its members will be ‘breathing a sigh of relief’ at the Government’s response to the EPR consultation.

In its original response to the consultation, the organisation had criticised the proposals on business waste for looking to ‘fundamentally change’ the way these materials were collected. It warned that the original proposals could have put some of its member companies out of business.

The Recycling Association chief executive Simon Ellin said: "Our Members will be breathing a sigh of relief this morning that their businesses and the jobs they create would not be ended by Government policy.

"The decision to set up a taskforce to look at how business waste collection can be funded by EPR is a sensible one, and a timescale of up to 2026/7 gives plenty of opportunity to come up with good proposals that work in the interests of recycling and waste businesses, producers, retailers and other stakeholders.

"Business waste collections work well, and only need slight improvements to continue to work effectively. This will be the position of The Recycling Association and one we will advocate via the taskforce.

"We also welcome that the PRN/PERN system will stay in place until at least this date, as it gives some certainty to our Members. It is a system that largely works, but we agree with the need for reform to remove the fraudulent operators that have undermined the system.

"For those that export, the proposals look like ones we can work with. It remains disappointing that there is no aim to introduce maximum contamination limits so that exporters know the criteria to operate legally, rather than the uncertainty we have now.

"However, we support the idea of the UK moving to end-of-waste for fibre and we hope that this can be incorporated into EPR.

"I'm also pleased to see that the Scheme Administrator will be a public body. This reduces the risk that it will be influenced by one particular sector, but is likely to take into account the needs of all stakeholders.

"Overall, I'm pleased to see that Defra has recognised the strengths of its original EPR proposals, but also addressed many of the weaknesses.

"However, with the Consistency of Collections and Deposit Return Scheme responses not published yet, the devil will be in the detail when it comes to the overall bigger picture.

"EPR has the potential to transform the recycling sector for the better, and along with consistency of collections, is likely to lead to the UK producing high-quality recyclate. That can only be a positive."

Environmental Services Association

Commenting on the Government’s response, Executive Director of the Environmental Services Association (ESA), Jacob Hayler, said: “A new and properly functioning EPR regime is key to unlocking greater recycling and more resource-efficient packaging formats in the UK, and we welcome the greater clarity that Defra’s response to the last round of consultations now brings.

“Although essential in the long term to meeting recycling targets, managing payments to businesses for the household-like packaging waste they collect has been among the most contentious and complex areas to design within this new regime and a desirable solution that works for all parties has yet to be found.

“We are therefore pleased to see Defra focus on implementing and assessing the regime first before any introduction of business waste payments, which will be subject to the work of a dedicated taskforce.

“However, under the announced plans, it is critical that any distortions in the PRN/PERN market are addressed and properly enforced by regulators to ensure that recyclable material collected does not simply haemorrhage to export markets.”

Ecosurety

Robbie Staniforth, Innovation and Policy Director at Ecosurety, said: “The summary shows that UK Governments have taken a pragmatic approach to improving the packaging recycling system in the UK.

“The incentive to recycle for packaging reprocessors has been retained for the immediate future ensuring that producers of packaging can have a direct impact on recycling. We hope that the modifications to the PRN system outlined in the accompanying consultation will drastically improve the current system and lead to higher recycling rates in the UK.”

Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee

In a statement, the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC) said that it is ‘pleased to finally have some clarity on EPR’, alongside some insights into what the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) will look like. However, LARAC notes that it would have preferred that the three linked consultations of EPR, DRS and consistent collections were published together to ‘enable councils to be able to plan strategically’.

LARAC asserts that the initial omission of business waste collections from EPR is ‘disappointing’, and will see a lack of transparency on their collection and processing costs to include in the EPR fees, adding that this could result in the persistent use of general waste bins at business premises. This, LARAC notes, comes despite the application of the waste hierarchy and separate collection of metals, plastics, paper and glass in England being a legal responsibility since 2011.

The original impact assessment for non-household municipal (NHM), or business waste, identified 1.4 million tonnes of plastic, aluminium, steel, paper/card and glass as being in NHM residual waste by 2023. These materials, LARAC states, will now not be collected until at least 2027, ‘which questions whether the volumes of EPR materials in residual waste collected from households will be sufficient to stimulate the development of UK recycling infrastructure that is so desperately needed’.

LARAC echoes CIWM’s uncertainty over what film and flexible plastic collections will look like, saying ‘we don’t know what collection system(s) will be legally compliant as there is no information yet on what consistency will be, so we don’t know how the material will be made available to the market.’

Continuing, LARAC asserts that ‘there is insufficient infrastructure in the UK to recycle film and flexibles now, and given the timescale for EPR funding to become available and procurement timescales for councils: is Defra accepting the offshoring of this waste problem? This approach is experiencing increased shipping costs and diminishing markets resulting in recyclable material ending up in disposal solutions for convenience, which does not sit well with circular economy principles.’

The organisation questions a ‘lack of understanding on how the money flows and how that will affect delivery timescales and measurable change happening’. Noting that councils cannot let collection or treatment contracts until they know details on consistency and how much money they have to spend, LARAC states that ‘there is not enough clarity to give confidence to councils that they could begin any procurements now.’ The organisation also outlines its hopes for the imminent release of the second consultation on consistent collection’s response, allowing for ‘greater clarity and strategic direction for councils.’

LARAC highlights decisions such as the scheme administrator being a single body, the mandated takeback of disposal paper cups by retailers, and the standardisation of packaging recycling information as successes, but notes that the EPR’s focus on household collected materials will see local councils and residents ‘undergo change first’. The organisation maintains that local taxpayers should not be made to cover any funding shortfalls when these policies are implemented, stating its intention to work with the scheme administrator to ensure this does not occur.