Extended Producer Responsibility At A Glance
Extended Producer Responsibilityat a glance1. What is Extended ProducerResponsibility (EPR)?The essence of EPRExtended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is anefficient resource management tool wherebyproducers take over the responsibility for the endof life management of their used products. Thiscan include collection, sorting and treating thesefor their recycling and recovery.Its basic feature is that actors across thepackagingvaluechain(manufacturers,importers and retailers) assume a significantdegree of responsibility for the environmentalimpact of their products throughout their lifecycle. This includes products’ ‘upstream’ impactlinked to the selection of materials, productdesign and production processes as such, aswell as ‘downstream’ impact relating to theproducts’ use and disposal.In so doing, producers accept their responsibilitywhen designing their products so as to minimisetheir life-cycle environmental impact. Theythereby assume legal and economic liability fortheir products’ environmental impact, startingfrom the design phase.EPR is therefore about “extending theproducers’ responsibility to the post-consumerstage of a product life cycle”1. Through EPR,Member States also share public serviceresponsibilities with private companies, whichhave to assume these themselves.The policy first appeared in the early 1990s in afew European Member States, especially forpackaging waste, and has later on expandedacross the EU and beyond2. Since then, EPRhas contributed to significant increases inrecycling rates and public spending savings onwaste management, and helped decouple wastemanagement from economic growth.EPR Goals1. To provide incentives for eco-design:Through EPR, producers establish an efficientend-of-life management for their products. Thisspurs them to design products that are easier todismantle, reuse and recycle. Consequently,products’ total environmental impact decreasesand waste prevention is stimulated.2. To create a sustainable production andconsumptionpolicy:EPRencouragesseparate waste collection and recycling, as it isoften implemented to help Member States toreach their recycling targets. By doing so, EPRalso ensures citizens’ cooperation, as they needto separately collect and sort their waste in orderto facilitate recycling processes. This entailspromoting education and awareness raising1OECD (2001) Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual forGovernments, OECD, March, Paris2European Commission, DG Environment (2014) Development of Guidanceon Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
campaigns towards consumers, aimed atencouraging separate collection and recyclingwhile discouraging littering.3. To reduce landfilling andrecycling and recovery channels:developEPR has proven to be an effective wastemanagement tool for various different wastestreams and can help divert waste from landfills.EPR moreover boosts the use of wastemanagement options that are higher up in thewaste hierarchy than landfilling, notablyrecycling.EPR in practiceEPR is an individual obligation as companiesthat place products on the market areresponsiblefortheirproperend-of-lifemanagement. In practice, however, producersoften work collectively to exert this anisations (PROs), which are also calledEPR or compliance schemes.PROs should be non-profit collective entities, setup and fully owned by the industry that is boundby legislation3. Therefore, PROs becomeresponsible for meeting recovery and recyclingobligations on the industry’s behalf.Some PROs have a public service mission andoperate in a non-for-profit or profit-not-fordistribution basis, but others, owned byinvestors and/or the waste managementindustry, actually seek profit. Non-profit systemsdeploy a holistic approach to wastemanagement, embracing both waste preventionand recycling. Coupled with their operationalimplementation, they maximise environmental,economic and social benefits.Generally, PROs exert the following functions: Organise, often together with the localauthorities, the take back of postconsumer products. Ensure recovery and recycling targetscompliance. Assist companies in (packaging) wasteprevention, eco-design promotion &communication materials towards thewaste holder, together with the localauthorities. Verify the data and reporting of thosecompanies. Report to national authorities.EPR in legislationThe legislative framework for the development ofEPR at the European Union level is composedof both general waste legislation, and specificdirectives framing the recovery and recycling ofspecific waste streams.The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)sets the general framework for wastemanagement in the EU. It enables MemberStates to set up EPR schemes.The EU has moreover issued waste streamspecific directives, inter alia for packaging, wasteelectrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), end-of-lifevehicles(ELV),batteriesandaccumulators (B&A). While WEEE, ELV andB&A require Member States to set up EPR forthe products they cover, there is currently noobligation to set up EPR schemes for packaging.However, at least for household waste, mostMember States (25 out of 28) have chosen to doso.3The obliged industry includes packaging producers, packers, fillers anddistributors of products, as well as retailers and importers of packagedproducts.
2. Key EPR aspectsOperational aspectsThe companies bound by EPR legislation mustproperly handle the end-of-life management ofproducts and their packaging either individuallyor by setting up collective entities, mainly PROs.These are in charge of ensuring the recovery ofthe used products, usually by co-financing,either organising or coordinating the collection,as well as sorting and recycling aspects, whereapplicable, of packaging waste. For industrialand commercial packaging waste, tasks includesteering and monitoring.An industry-owned PROs can be mandated bythe obliged industry to take responsibility forcollection or take-back, and sorting or recycling,thus shifting the individual responsibility to acollective one. The mandate should be issued bycompetent authorities in the form of anaccreditation or a license. The latter has toensure that the most sustainable system isestablished, at the lowest cost for both societyand producers.EPR systems also need to guaranteeconsumer interests are served, andeducation and communication goalspursued. This is especially important in theof household packaging.thatthatarecaseAt the municipal level, PROs must establish andmaintain the necessary infrastructure for thecollection, or take-back, and the sorting ofpackaging waste. Citizens should be equippedwith an easy access to infrastructure, enablingthem to sort waste on a daily basis, so thathousehold waste collection can be deployed. Atan industrial and commercial level, as packagingwaste is often directly collected by wastecollectors, PROs must, at least, establish amonitoring system for both packaging quantitiesthat have been put on the market and collectedas well as recycled.Transparency and financingPROs should guarantee that, once packagingwaste is collected, it will be treatedappropriately. This is especially relevant ifrecyclers have to be paid to recycle thepackaging waste. As such, PROs need to havea solid financial basis. Governments have toestablish a strict authorisation process so thatonly reliable organisations with secure financescan receive a license.Transparency is an important feature of PROs.In a bid to seek transparency, EPR schemesprovide annual reports explaining how theobjectives set out by their respectivegovernments have been fulfilled. These reportsshould be audited by an independent andcompetent third party. When conditions are notfulfilled, sanctions ranging from fines to licensewithdrawal should be applied.Furthermore, transparent procedures will avoiddiscriminating between domestic companies andimporters, while also guaranteeing that largecompanies and small and medium enterprises(SMEs) are considered on an equal footing. Theimpact packaging has on the environment doesnot depend on its size or the producer’s origin.Particularly in relation to packaging waste arisingat the municipal level, EPR schemes gather thenecessary financial contributions from theirmembers so as to co-finance the collection,sorting and recovery of packaging waste, if thisfalls within their system’s scope.Fundingrepresents a substantial part of the costcalculation for a packaged product. In line withEPR objectives, the collected fees have to takeinto account the end-of-life costs of a particularpackaging. This is also how EPR contributes toshifting the responsibility for the used packagingfrom taxpayers to both producers andconsumers of packaged goods.Each stakeholder can only be financiallyresponsible for the operations falling under theirremit and influence. In this respect, ‘reasonablefinancing’ should be provided by the obligedindustry so long as it covers the take-back, orseparate waste collection and treatment, of theirown packaging, within their dedicated collectionsystems at the municipal level.Packaging waste that is either littered or ends upwithin municipal solid waste should not be partof producers’ financial responsibility.
3. How does EPR work?EPR models varyEPR can be implemented in many differentways. Thus far, in Europe, 30 countries4 haveimplemented EPR in their legislation and theindustry has set up PROs. In some of thesecountries, the scheme has achieved greatsuccess, particularly due to clear legislationcoupled with genuine cooperation between all ofthe actors involved in the waste managementchain. Actors include governments, localauthorities, producers and waste managementorganisations. PROs in hands of obliged industry (Belgium,EPR schemes rely on either national regulationsor specific legislation for the waste streams theyare part of. For example, EPR schemes forhousehold and municipal waste are generallybased on the producers’ financial responsibilitybecause they have been mostly introducedwhen the schemes were already in place andmanaged by local public authorities. By contrast,the EPR implementation for non-municipal wastevaries significantly, and can for example bebased on business-to-business arrangements.Solely in Belgium, the obliged industry has setup a specific PRO for industrial and commercialwaste, VALIPAC. Its major role consists ofmonitoring packaging collection and recycling, inrelation to the volumes brought on the market,collecting the respective data and motivatingcompanies to separately collect their packagingwaste.Not all PROs have the same functions. As EPRrequirements differ between countries, the roleof PROs vary as well. In Sweden, for instance,producers have to participate financially only inthe treatment of end-of-life vehicles whereasthey have full financial and organisationalresponsibility for graphic paper.Key differing features include the following: Type of responsibility, either financial ororganisational. Presence of competition among PROsand among waste treatment operators. Transparency and surveillance featuressuch as free-riders’ surveillance, wastemanagement activities and PROs.Czech Republic, Ireland, Italy, France, Netherlands,Norway, Portugal, Spain): Obliged industry createsone common non -profit entity that collects thenecessary funding,cooperates with localauthorities and ensuresrecycling in the mostcost-efficient and environmental way. Dual model (Austria, Germany, Sweden): Industryhas full operational and financial responsibility overcollection, sorting and recycling. There is a separatecollection system designated to local authorities buttheir influence is minimal. Sharedmodel(France,Spain,Belgium,Netherlands, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovenia,): Theresponsibility is shared between industry and thelocal authorities based on common agreementsregarding collection. Municipalities are responsiblefor collection, and often for sorting of packagingwaste, arising on the municipal level, while industry’sfinancial responsibility differs from country to country. Tradable Credits Model (UK, partly Poland): Thereis neither a link between industry and municipalitiesnor differentiation between commercial andpackaging arising at the municipal level. Vertical integrated systems (Germany, Poland,Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria): Several, usuallyprofit-orientedentitiescompete to attract obligedcompanies. In vertical integrated systems, wastemanagement differs from country to country. Sharing the collection infrastructure (Germany):Inhabitants have access to a common container andthe collected packaging waste is split between thevarious PROs prior to being sorted. In this case, thecost distribution is established by a clearing house. Competing on the infrastructure (Estonia): EveryPRO offers its own container to inhabitants. PROs only responsible for packaging arising atthe municipal level (Belgium, Germany, France,Spain), for commercial packaging (Belgium), or forintegrated packaging waste streams (Netherlands,Italy, Czech Republic). Each PRO in a separate district (Poland,Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Malta, Latvia,Lithuania): Each PRO signs up with as manymunicipalities as needed to fulfil targets according tomarket shares.4Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy, Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Serbia,Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Macedonia and Bosnia.
This graph illustrates PROs’role within the product andwaste management circularprocess.4. EXPRA members’ case studiesEXPRA members focus on household separatewaste collection as one of the main pillars ofpackaging waste recovery. In 2013, EXPRApublished three case studies for Belgium, theCzech Republic and Spain that further illustratethe system’s functions.In Belgium, the EPR system for householdpackaging in place is based on the sharedresponsibility principle. Waste is a regionalcompetence (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels). Assuch, every region develops its own wastepolicy. However, when it comes to packaging, allthree regions have a common agreement onEPR. Municipalities are responsible for thehousehold waste collection and treatment, butthey transferred their competences to their intermunicipal company which acts on their behalf.Fost Plus is an EPR organisation that handlesthe operational activities of collecting, sorting,and recycling in Belgium. For the promotion andcoordination of recycling of both industrial andcommercial packaging, there is another EPRplayer, VALIPAC.In the Czech Republic, EKO-KOM covers thetake-back and recycling of more than 80% of thepackaging waste on the market. This is possibledue to its established partnership with 6,000municipalities, in which 99% of Czech residentslive. Thanks to its transparent and effectivesystem, the country ranks amongst the best inthe EU in terms of both packaging wasterecycling and financial costs spent on sortingand recycling, per citizen, per year.In Spain, there is a Spanish Waste Act in forcethat places responsibility for the collection ofhousehold waste on municipalities. However,when it comes to specific regulation onpackaging, waste is established by thePackaging and Packaging Waste Act 11/1997.Based on the latter, as an EPR scheme forpackaging waste, Ecoembes must finance theextra costs for the selective collection of lightpackaging and paper/cardboard packagingwaste. At the end of 2012, Ecoembes had 107operative agreements with local and regionalgovernments.
5. Pre-conditions for a successfulEPR schemeA close partnership between local authoritiesand the industry-owned EPR organisation,based on mutual trust, is a necessary conditionfor the success as well as the economic andenvironmental sustainability of the EPRscheme, especially for packaging waste arisingat the municipal level. Local authorities and theEPR organisation have to agree on the mostappropriate collection system, taking intoaccount local particularities and complying withboth national and European requirements.According to the OECD, unclear and overlappingroles and responsibilities of different actors,including the relationship between public bodiesand PROs, constitute one of the maingovernance and administrative challenges forEPR systems. Policy makers have a key role toplay in clearly defining the respective roles , and consumers, and to ensure thatthese are enforced. The challenge for policymakers is therefore to assign specific functionsto each stakeholder while avoiding any possibleoverlap, loophole and conflict of interest.Waste management and recycling companiesare the operational heart of each wastemanagement system. They roll out the work anddeliver the final results. Their efficiency andinnovation will positively impact the economicand environmental performance of the EPRsystem. When running an EPR system within anopen market approach, other actors, such aswaste operators and investors, might have thenatural inclination to maximise profit and growtheir market share. However, waste operatorsshould not interfere in the coordination of theEPR scheme or act as a collector, sorter, orrecycler. Each actor in the value chain has adistinct role to play in accordance withcompetition and antitrust laws.EXPRA believes that, in order to avoid freeriders andensure a fair distribution ofstakeholders’ roles and costs, it is necessarythat the legislator introduces minimumrequirements in waste legislation. In the EU,these provisions should fallunder thePackaging and Packaging Waste Directive(PPWD). These minimum requirements shouldmoreover be accompanied by a strongenforcement policy as well as transparentmonitoring and reporting systems.About EXPRAFounded in 2013, EXPRA is the Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance – the organisation for packaging and packaging waste recovery and recycling systems which are owned by obliged industry and work on a not-for-profit or profit notfor distribution basis. EXPRA acts as the authoritative voice and common policy platform representing the interests of itsmembers, which are all founded and run by or on behalf of the obliged industry. Over the past 20 years, our 25 membersacross 23 countries, including 17 EU Member States, have co-organised the collection, sorting and recycling of usedpackaging (with a focus mainly on household packaging). They do this on behalf of the obliged industry in order to fulfiltheir legal take-back and recycling obligations, thus serving over 200 million inhabitants and recycling over 18 million tonsof packaging per year.For more information, please visit www.expra.eu or contact Joachim Quoden, Managing Director, joachim.quoden@expra.eu
Extended Producer Responsibility at a glance 1. What is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)? The essence of EPR Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an efficient resource management tool whereby producers take over the responsibility for the end of life management of their used produc
2.1. Extended Producer Responsibility and the role of PROs 2.1.1. The Extended Producer Responsibility policy Extended Producer Responsibility ("EPR") is a resource management system whereby packaging producers take over the responsibility for the end of life management of the package for their used
This document provides step-by-step instructions for the Producer Online Contracting Application process. TAKE NOTE: There are two options that apply for producer contracting: - Producer (Individual Producer only) - Producer Entity Agency (Individual Producer and Agency) This document has three sections: 1. Producer (Individual Producer Only) 2.
This document provides step-by-step instructions for the Producer Online Contracting Application process. TAKE NOTE: There are two options that apply for producer contracting: - Producer (Individual Producer only) - Producer Entity Agency (Individual Producer and Agency) This document has three sections: 1. Producer (Individual Producer Only) 2.
extended producer responsibility schemes. The Act defines such schemes as: [a scheme] for giving effect to an environmental policy in which the producer’s responsibility for a product (including physical or financial responsibility) is extended to the post-consumer stag
Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Design: Economic Theory and Selected Case Studies Margaret Walls I. Introduction Over the 15 or so years since the term extended producer responsibility was first coined in Sweden and the now-famous German
Extended producer responsibility obligations. 5. (1) Every producer shall bear extended producer responsibility obligation to reduce pollution and environmental impacts of the product that they introduce in the market. (2) A producer
EPR Extended producer responsibility, i.e. an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle EPR scheme Any system or scheme set up by one or several producers to
Superior Court of California County of Imperial “NOTICE OF UNCLAIMED MONIES” I, Maria Rhinehart, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of
