As negotiators prepare for the final negotiating session to develop a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution (INC-5), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has emerged as a crucial policy mechanism for consideration.
As negotiators prepare for the final negotiating session to develop a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution (INC-5), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has emerged as a crucial policy mechanism for consideration. While the current bracketed compilation text[1] includes various approaches to producer responsibility, we must ensure that any final agreement establishes clear requirements for producers to take financial and operational responsibility for their products throughout their lifecycle.
Producer Responsibility (PR) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) represent approaches to managing product waste. Traditional PR focuses primarily on waste management, with obligations like take-back requirements or recycling fees. For example, simple bottle deposit schemes represent a PR approach, where producers are only responsible for the direct costs of container recovery.
EPR extends these obligations across the entire product lifecycle, incorporating both upstream design changes and downstream waste management responsibilities. The French CITEO system demonstrates comprehensive EPR, where producers pay eco-modulated fees covering full system costs while incentivising eco-design.
EPR can generate sustainable funding for waste management while incentivising better product design and supporting circular economy objectives. While traditionally associated with packaging, EPR can be effectively applied across all plastic-containing products, including electronics and electrical equipment (EEE), automotive parts, textiles, fishing gear, and agricultural plastics.
EPR can be mandated by Governments, or voluntarily led by industry. In either scenario, it can be implemented through individual producer schemes, collective systems managed by Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), or hybrid approaches.
Under EPR schemes, producers may be required to carry out at least one of the below actions:
These requirements create direct financial incentives for producers to reduce waste, improve recyclability, and invest in circular economy solutions.
The form that EPR could take depends on the level of ambition committed to – EPR activities under different levels of ambition are described below.
Comprehensive Financial Responsibility: Requires producers to cover 100% of waste management costs, including collection, sorting, recycling, and disposal. Includes modulated fees based on environmental criteria such as recyclability, recycled content, and design for circularity. Examples include:
Mandatory Collection and Recycling Targets: Sets legally binding, progressive targets for collection, recycling, and/or reuse rates with enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance.
Mandatory Take-Back Schemes: Requires producers to establish or finance systems for collecting their products at end-of-life, ensuring effective reuse/recycling or disposal. This could include requirements for convenient collection points e.g., within their own stores, other’s stores e.g., supermarkets, or public spaces e.g., public car parks.
Infrastructure Development Mechanisms: Mandates producer investment in collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure. Could also include requirements for technology transfer and capacity building in developing nations.
Basic Legal Frameworks: Establishes fundamental EPR obligations in national law, including producer registration, reporting requirements, and basic fee structures. Sets clear definitions and scope of materials covered.
Harmonised Reporting and Monitoring: Implements standardised methodologies for data collection, verification, and reporting for producers across jurisdictions. Requires third-party auditing and transparent public disclosure of performance metrics.
EPR redirects financial responsibility for waste management from public authorities to producers. By implementing EPR globally through the treaty, large sums of revenue could be generated annually for waste infrastructure, while municipalities could see their waste management costs reduce significantly.
Key economic benefits include:
Countries with well-designed EPR systems typically see recycling and reuse rates increase, and plastic leakage fall. These improvements stem from both downstream waste management enhancements (funding for better infrastructure) and upstream design changes (incentives from fees resulting in shifts in product design).
Primary environmental benefits include:
EPR can serve as a powerful mechanism for addressing waste management disparities between nations. Through the treaty, EPR can ensure multinational companies take equivalent responsibility across all markets where they operate, while providing sustained funding for waste infrastructure in developing countries. This creates a more level playing field while supporting technological advancement in emerging economies.
Critical equity outcomes include:
EPR is crucial to the Global Plastics Pollution Treaty, offering significant economic, environmental, and equity benefits. While high-ambition EPR schemes can generate substantial funding for waste infrastructure and significantly reduce global waste, even less ambitious EPR elements can yield important outcomes. For example, infrastructure development mandates facilitate improved waste management and basic EPR frameworks provide key legal structures which set the groundwork for waste reduction. Even these foundational schemes lead to economic benefits (new jobs and market signals for more sustainable product designs) and environmental benefits (increased recycling rates and reduced landfilled waste). EPR therefore has the potential to make a key contribution to our progress in addressing global plastic pollution.
[1] The compilation text is a working document that combines all the different country proposals for the global plastics treaty into one organised document. It serves as a starting point for negotiations at INC-5 by showing all suggested options for different parts of the treaty, before countries agree on final treaty text.
We must ensure that any final agreement establishes clear requirements for producers to take financial and operational responsibility for their products throughout their lifecycle.
