The ambition behind Defra’s proposals for extended producer responsibility (EPR) was welcomed at the Resources and Waste Strategy Revisted conference this week, amid warnings that producers are “shocked” by the cost of the proposed system.
The conference took place on Wednesday (12 May) and was brought to a conclusion by a panel discussion on EPR, featuring Steve Gough of Valpak, Simon Ellin of the Recycling Association, Paul Van Danzig of Wastepack, Simon Rutledge of Biffa and Hilary Tanner of the Local Government Association.
Sarah Foster, the recently appointed managing director of Comply Direct, chaired the discussion.
Panellists: (clockwise from top left) Sarah Foster, Comply Direct; Paul van Danzig, Wastepack; Simon Rutledge, Biffa; Simon Ellin, Recycling Association; Steve Gough, Valpak; and Hilary Tanner, Local Government Association
The conference also featured earlier discussions on consistent collections (see letsrecycle.com story) and a deposit return scheme (DRS) (see letsrecycle.com story).
Discussion
Steve Gough, Valpak’s chief executive, suggested the overall policy direction of the consultations was “extremely good”, saying: “It is aiming for better environmental outcomes and we have always been in support of that.” His view was largely backed by the other panellists.
“The money should be there for local authorities, but I have concerns about the high costs on the business side”
Mr Gough went on to highlight the importance of consistent collections and labelling proposals which would “create simplicity for the consumers”.
But, he said that concerns about the cost of the proposals had been expressed by Valpak members. “The money should be there for local authorities, but I have concerns about the high costs on the business side.”
Echoing concerns raised during the day about the proposed implementation timescales, he said: “The ugliest part of this is the timetable. We have heard comments today from aggressive to bonkers.”
He was also not in favour of bringing new legislation, such as for the DRS, during an existing PRN compliance year.
Welcomed
Similar views were expressed by Simon Rutledge, Biffa’s group external affairs and sustainability manager, who said that his company strongly welcomed measures that focused on sustainability and real closed loop recycling. He was also pleased that despite a delay, all three consultations were now out together.
On the timetable, he said that it was bad that it was so tight, but that one of the biggest problems could be if there were four different versions of DRS and EPR throughout the UK. “The positives are that they are trying to align these, apart from Scotland and DRS.”
Costs
Wastepack’s Paul Van Danzig said the costs of the EPR system could prove a stumbling block. He warned that producers could become disenfranchised with the system.
He said: “While I think the EPR proposals are a great opportunity to reform the current set of producer responsibility legislation, I think those paying the bill will be disappointed, and could become disenfranchised.
The consultation included proposals to provide free business waste collections for packaging, costing £1.5 billion
“The costs are astronomical. It seems clear that council tax won’t be reducing as a result, and it also appears that ultimately the citizens will pay for EPR at the checkout. I estimate the cost per household at £100 per year. I don’t think this has been highlighted. I worry that if the Daily Mail get hold of this, for example, it could be a disaster.”
However, Hillary Tanner said producers “have a choice about whether this is passed on to consumers”. She added that the legislation is “long overdue”, and the LGA wants to find out if this money is additional or not. “It might free up some money which at the moment is used for packaging for something else.”
Business
Defra’s revised estimates indicate that the annual packaging waste management costs that producers will be required to pay will be in the region of £2.7bn in the first full year of implementation. This is made up of £1bn for packaging waste collected from households, £1.5bn for packaging waste collected from businesses, and £200m for the management of bin and ground packaging litter.
When asked if producers were willing to stump up the extra costs, Mr Gough said Valpak had held various meeting and its members had expressed shock at the expense.
He said the explanation of the transfer of costs was “generally understood”, but people were “struggling to get their heads around” the added £1.5 billion for business waste.
“People are saying they don’t need this on top of Covid and everything else happening. I understand the timelines from government, though, but how quick this is coming has also come as a shock.”
Markets
Simon Ellin meanwhile went on to discuss what would help UK reprocessors and reprocessing development. He said changing the balance of UK and exports with regard to plastics was welcome.
“We’re criminals if we export this now, so the plastics tax will stimulate domestic reprocessing,” he said.
“Fibre is the more difficult one. There is no requirement in the legislation for investment in the UK. We also have the highest commercial energy costs in Europe, which makes us uncompetitive. A Chinese mill group three to four years ago were looking for cardboard recycling mill in UK; their biggest concern of all was the UK planning system.
“If you want to put a mill down in China, it’s up in a year. In the UK in three to five years it could still not be through planning. Per year energy costs are also $20 million more. I think these are the main barriers for UK reprocessors.”
The post EPR ambition welcomed but ‘shock’ at costs appeared first on letsrecycle.com.
Source: letsrecycle.com Packaging
