Ecoveritas calls UK EPR delay bittersweet

A United Kingdom-based consulting firm, which says it has helped support the government of that nation in planning an extended producer responsibility (EPR) system for packaging, calls a recent decision to delay implementation of the EPR system “bittersweet.”

Kathy Illingworth, head of sustainability and consulting at Oxford, U.K.-based Ecoveritas, says the decision by the U.K.’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is “unfortunate but necessary due to a lack of clarity on costs for businesses.”

The one-year delay Defra announced pushes back inauguration of the EPR system until October 2025.

“We’re yet to come across anyone who disagrees with the direction of travel,” Illingworth says of packaging EPR in the U.K. “But, for an ambitious reform, it has long been apparent that there were too many missing puzzle pieces and far too many detractors before its launch.”

The consultant contines, “It’s bittersweet. This pause for thought should allow Defra to build in more clarity, but there is certainly a job to be done to rebuild confidence. At the same time, all eyes will be on the industry now, who, having gotten the delay they wanted, should rally around a good policy for the planet and the environment.”

The announcement came around the same time a United States-based group and a consulting firm based in Brussels issued a report saying EPR or “bottle bill” systems do not lead to reduced beverage sales when they are put into effect (a concern sometimes expressed by beverage makers).

Illingworth says the one-year delay ideally will be used to iron out potential wrinkles and not result in additional roadblocks. “Inevitably, there are suspicions the full strategy might never happen. But any failure to achieve a U.K.-wide reform of waste and recycling services within a reasonable time scale would be a case study of back-sliding, incompetence and political amnesia.”

She continues, “Perhaps the government can now make progress on the consistency of collection by local authorities, which will be essential if EPR is to be the effective policy we know it can be.”

Looking forward, the consultant comments, “We must now prioritize agreeing and setting the fees this summer so that affected companies can plan for these additional costs.”

Illingworth adds, “Despite the further delay and the risk that the scheme’s implementation is lost in the run-up to the [U.K. 2024] election, Ecoveritas stands ready to work with government and industry to design an EPR scheme that delivers a high level of recycling and effectively tackles packaging waste.”

In the interim, Ecoveritas says the U.K. public “will continue to bear the cost of packaging recycling and disposal, with investment in recycling infrastructure likely harder due to a loss of confidence in the legislative framework.”

Illingworth, though, says she is hopeful the damage done to any remaining ambition is not “terminal,” and points to the fact that companies should now be collecting data outlined in a 2023 regulation.

“The good news is that the data reporting legislation has become law, and the requirements remain as it is, so at least the government can more accurately assess the amount of packaging placed onto the market in 2023 and 2024 before introducing new fees.”

Illingworth concludes, “EPR has been five years in the making, and the level of innovation and the pace of change from packaging manufacturers is impressive. Many packaging manufacturers will have put a lot of thought into designing something that will hit EPR requirements, particularly where different players in the packaging chain have different responsibilities. We now must ensure [the policy] is realistic and give producers all the information they need--and resist continuously changing it.”