More on EPR

What is EPR?

The OECD defines Extended Producer Responsibility as “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.”[1] Other interpretations of EPR exist which are somewhat broader and may incorporate responsibility for issues which arise during the consumption phase of the product life cycle.[2] In the context of waste management, EPR may refer to involving producers, either physically or financially, in the process of collecting, processing, recycling or disposing of post-consumer waste. 

Product Stewardship is a term associated with Extended Producer Responsibility and preferred by producers in North America. The US EPA gives the following definition of Product Stewardship: “Product stewardship is a product-centred approach to environmental protection… Product stewardship calls on those in the product life cycle--manufacturers, retailers, users, and disposers--to share responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of products.[3]

The two terms are frequently used interchangeably and a clear distinction between EPR and Product Stewardship remains to be established.

EPR Rationale

EPR schemes may be justified on the basis of a range of resourcing, logistical, technological, environmental and/or social justice grounds. They tend to incorporate or be consistent with concepts such as “Polluter Pays”, “Life-cycle Assessment” and “Full-cost Accounting”. 

Extended Producer Responsibility schemes share a common perspective that some of the adverse effects associated with consumer products are best targeted by dealing with the producer. The logic of this perspective contends that producers are frequently responsible for many of the most significant decisions concerning a product. These decisions may cover such issues as product design, pricing, packaging, distribution and consumer information. For a regulator, policies which affect the obligations of producers may thus be justified by their ability to influence these decisions. 

Policy makers may wish to address the upstream impacts of products such as the associated consumption of resources, pollution and greenhouse emissions. In addition, policy makers may aim to address the downstream impacts of products such as process interference, financial costs to Councils or the environmental costs of landfill. The strength of EPR approaches lies in their potential to develop links between upstream and downstream activities, impacts and responses.

Goals of EPR

Extended Producer Responsibility schemes may seek to achieve a range of outcomes. They may be directed towards resource conservation, litter control, reducing reliance on landfills or incinerators, promoting the waste hierarchy or promoting cleaner production. Extended Producer Responsibility schemes may simply be aimed at shifting the costs of waste management away from ratepayers towards some private source of funds. 

The objectives listed above may sometimes be complementary. For instance, there is research from NSW to suggest that CDL schemes provide a financial dividend to kerbside recycling services while serving to reduce litter with respect to beverage containers. Schemes which mandate recycled content levels may help to reduce resource consumption while increasing demand and therefore prices of recyclate. In such cases, Local Government’s financial interests would be closely aligned with environmental objectives.  

Examples of EPR

A diverse range of Extended Producer Responsibility schemes can be found throughout the developed world. These schemes include:

• The container deposit scheme operating in South Australia since 1975 aimed at encouraging the return of beverage containers[4];
• The packaging ordinances of Germany and Sweden which mandate producer take-back of packaging[5]; and
• The recycling certificates scheme in the UK which requires manufacturers who use packaging to purchase recycling services[6]. 

In addition to these ‘true’ Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, Product Stewardship schemes have been implemented around the world, including:

• The scheme operated by the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation in the US which recovers NiCad batteries for recycling[7];
• The National Packaging Covenant in Australia which collects dues from Industry signatories to sponsor improved packaging recycling[8].
• Numerous schemes across many different material types in various states of Canada.[9]

The list of programs provided above show that Extended Producer Responsibility schemes vary in their style and ambition. Some are mandatory schemes imposed on industry by government, while others are voluntary schemes put forward and implemented by industry groups. The German ordinance aims to confer complete responsibility onto the producer for dealing with their waste, whereas the Packaging Covenant aims to apportion a minor segment of responsibility to the producer. The Packaging Covenant calculates contributions based on company revenue whereas other schemes link the level of responsibility directly to the quantity of material put out into the community. 

Frameworks for EPR in Australia

The Resource Recovery and Waste Avoidance Bill is currently in stasis but there have been suggestions by the WA State Government that this Bill would include provisions for Extended Producer Responsibility schemes to be implemented in WA. It is currently unclear what types of Extended Producer Responsibility frameworks are being considered by the Government. 

In NSW the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001 provides for regular assessment of waste streams to develop an annual priority list of products which might warrant Extended Producer Responsibility policy responses. The producers responsible for listed waste streams can be put on notice that they must address issues in relation to their products or face mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility schemes[10]. 

The NSW Legislation does not prescribe the instruments which might be deployed as part of a mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility response, nor does it identify any particular industry or waste stream for attention.  The Minister for the Environment is granted substantial discretion in choosing to proceed with an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme. It seems likely that each industry targeted for Extended Producer Responsibility policy responses would heavily lobby against such a move and that the Minister would be subjected to considerable pressure to select the least onerous instrument.

In Victoria, the non-regulatory, state government agency, EcoRecycle, works closely with EPA Victoria and industry on product stewardship initiatives for priority products. Priority products were identified in the Towards Zero Waste Draft.[11]  This approach has resulted in pilot industry programs for the return of paint and waste electronic and electrical equipment.[12]  EcoRecycle works to have Product Stewardship provisions incorporated into sustainability covenants between industries and EPA Victoria. Introduced in June 2002, these instruments may take a variety of forms, including the form adopted by the National Packaging Covenant,[13] where an industry wide agreement is backed by a regulatory backstop (the NEPM in the case of the National Packaging Covenant). 

In South Australia, a newly formed non-regulatory, state government agency, ZeroWaste SA performs a similar role to the Victorian EcoRecycle. It is mandated to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill in SA and will pursue a strategy of actively targeting industries whose products or activities are large contributors to landfills. It is empowered merely to encourage these industries to do more, on a voluntary basis, to reduce their contribution to landfill. Thus SA, like Victoria, will invite producers to take responsibility for a particular set of impacts, but without final recourse to regulated EPR responses. However ZeroWaste anticipates that industries will be motivated by financial and technical assistance offered by the Government, by the promise of better relations with the EPA as the environmental regulator and by the prospect of enhanced public relations. 

The Position of the Municipal Waste Advisory Council

The Western Australian Local Government Association Policy Statement on Extended Producer Responsibility is available here.  This policy statement was developed by the Municipal Waste Advisory Council on behalf the Association. 

References

[1] See Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments or visit the OECD website http://oecdpublications.gfi-nb.com/cgi-bin/OECDBookShop.storefront/EN/product/972001041P1 accessed 4/03/2004

[2] See Grass Roots Recycling Network - EPR principles Or visit Grass Roots Recycling Network website http://www.grrn.org/epr/epr_principles.html accessed 4/03/2004

[3] See US EPA_What Is Product Stewardship? Or online visit US EPA Website http://www.epa.gov/epr/about/index.htm accessed 4/03/2004

[4] This scheme has operated in SA since 1975 and contentiously proposed in other jurisdictions. The Institute for Sustainable Futures published a comprehensive study into CDL in 2001, see http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/CDL_Report/ accessed 22/04/2005

[5] Early movers in EPR and distinctly different in approach to the North American programs, see ISF Vol I, http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/CDL_Report/#volone accessed 22/04/2005

[6] This system was considered by the Report on Market Based Instruments to better manage Australia’s waste streams, see http://www.deh.gov.au/industry/waste/mbi/pubs/study.pdf    accessed 22/04/2005

[7] A good example of the “North American Approach” regarding EPR, see The Product Stewardship Movement by Mary Walls and Margaret Palmer, http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-RPT-prodsteward.pdf  accessed 22/04/2005

[8] Described by the Department of Environment and Heritage, see National Packaging Covenant Home Page http://www.deh.gov.au/industry/waste/covenant/ accessed 22/04/2005

[9] The Canadian Product Stewardship approaches have been summarised by the New Zealand statutory body Zero Waste, see http://www.zerowaste.co.nz/assets/Govsolutions/Jesson-IndustryStewardshipandProducerResponsibilityinCanada.pdf   accessed 22/04/2005

[10] The NSW Scheme invites specific industries to take action themselves and empowers the Minister to establish EPR schemes in cases where voluntary response are not forthcoming or are inadequate, see http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/waste/warra.htm accessed 22/04/2005

[11] See the Victorian Waste Strategy entitled Towards Zero Waste http://www.ecorecycle.vic.gov.au/www/default.asp?casid=3300 accessed 22/04/2005

[12] EcoRecyle Victoria Product Stewardship Programs are summarised here http://www.ecorecycle.vic.gov.au/www/default.asp?casid=2736 accessed 22/04/2005

[13] EPA Victoria has an info page on Sustainability Covenants here http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/Sustainability_Covenants/default.asp accessed 22/04/2005