EPR Focus: Elevating Extended Producer Responsibility beyond collections

The global spotlight on national waste legislation is intensifying, and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) stands at the forefront. EPR offers a compelling solution for financing sustainable waste management, embodying the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Simply put, EPR mandates that producers, importers, and brands take responsibility for the lifecycle of their products, either by directly managing waste or contributing financially to its recovery.

Consider a major player like Coca-Cola, for example, which introduces approximately 3 million tonnes of plastic annually into the waste sector. Under a robust EPR framework, it would be accountable for the collection and processing of this plastic. Alternatively, a financial contribution, potentially around USD 300 million (roughly 10 cents per kilogram or a minimal 0.2% increase on a 500ml bottle), would fund the necessary recycling efforts.

The appeal of EPR lies in its ability to shift the financial burden of waste management from general taxation to the producers and ultimately, consumers of the products generating the waste. However, the current implementation of EPR regulations often falls short of its potential.

A review of existing ERP legislations by BVRio and Kolekt, as well as insights from advising several governments, reveals an understandably prevailing ‘trial-and-error’ approach, with some implementation timelines stretching beyond a decade in many of the approximately 40 countries with existing EPR frameworks.

KOLEKT has identified 21 critical decision points that governments must address to optimise EPR regulations and expedite implementation by at least five years. 

Over the coming weeks, we’ll address them all, starting with:

Decision Point 17: Expanding EPR Fees Beyond Collection to Infrastructure Development

A significant limitation of many EPR regulations is the narrow focus of fees on collection, sorting, and transportation. This overlooks the critical need for robust waste processing infrastructure. What happens when existing waste facilities are inadequate to handle the volume of collected waste?

The reality is that effective waste management requires comprehensive solutions. In the Netherlands, despite a relatively high plastic recycling rate of 54%, substantial volumes are still incinerated or exported. This raises crucial questions about managing diverse waste streams, including construction, textiles, electronics, tires, agriculture, and low-value plastics.

The core issue is that current EPR fees are insufficient. Covering collection costs addresses only a fraction of the problem. To achieve meaningful impact, EPR fees must be doubled to facilitate critical investments in waste management infrastructure. This includes:

• Expanding and upgrading final disposal facilities: Recycling plants, composting facilities, sanitary landfills, and waste-to-energy facilities.
• Enhancing collection infrastructure: Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), specialised transport vehicles, and improved waste collection systems.
• Incentivising waste reduction: Supporting initiatives that promote circular economy principles and minimise waste generation.

While EPR fees should be a primary funding source, they need not bear the entire burden. We recommend a strategic approach where EPR funds are used to co-invest or subsidise alongside private sector investments. This leverages the commercial viability of many waste management infrastructure projects.

Key Recommendations for Policymakers:

• Reassess and significantly increase EPR fees: Ensure fees reflect the true cost of comprehensive waste management, including infrastructure development.
• Expand the scope of EPR fees: Move beyond collection to include investments in recycling, processing, and disposal infrastructure.
• Promote public-private partnerships: Leverage EPR funds to attract private investment in waste management infrastructure.
• Prioritise waste reduction and circular economy initiatives: Integrate EPR with broader strategies to minimise waste generation and promote sustainable consumption.

By adopting a holistic approach to EPR, governments can transform waste management from a burdensome expense to a driver of economic and environmental sustainability.