Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging Consultation Document 24 March 2021

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging Consultation Document 24 March 2021 Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging Consultation Document 24 March 2021 1 of 213 We are the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We’re responsible for improving and protecting the environment, growing the green economy and supporting our world-class food, farming and fishing industries. We work closely with our 33 agencies and arm’s length bodies on our ambition to make our air purer, our water cleaner, our land greener and our food more sustainable. Our mission is to restore and enhance the environment for the next generation, and to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. © Crown copyright 2021 This information is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ This publication is available at Gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] www.gov.uk/defra 2 of 213 Contents 1. Executive summary .............................................................................................. 4 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 14 3. Background ........................................................................................................ 21 4. What we want to achieve – principles, outcomes and targets ....................... 26 5. Producer obligations for full net cost payments and reporting ..................... 45 6. Producer disposable cups takeback obligation .............................................. 64 7. Modulated fees & labelling ................................................................................ 70 8. Payments for managing packaging waste ....................................................... 88 9. Litter payments................................................................................................. 134 10. Scheme administration and governance ..................................................... 144 11. Reprocessors and exporters ......................................................................... 158 12. Compliance and enforcement ....................................................................... 166 13. Digital design .................................................................................................. 172 14. Implementation timeline ................................................................................ 174 15. Costs and benefits of proposals ................................................................... 180 Annexes: ............................................................................................................... 185 Annex 1: Refillable/reusable packaging ............................................................. 185 Annex 2: UK-wide single management organisation ........................................ 190 Annex 3: UK-wide administrator and compliance schemes ............................. 194 Annex 4: Comparison of the two approaches against Extended Producer Responsibility principles ..................................................................................... 199 Annex 5: Plastic film and flexible packaging ..................................................... 205 Annex 6: Biodegradable and compostable plastic packaging ......................... 209 3 of 213 1. Executive summary Introduction 1.1 The UK Government and the Devolved Administrations are committed to protecting the environment and have all signalled their strong intent to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging so that producers pay the full costs of dealing with the waste they produce. These commitments include those in the 2018 Resource and Waste Strategy for England; the 2019 Conservative Manifesto; the Scottish Government’s Making Things Last; the Welsh Government’s Beyond Recycling, A strategy to make a circular economy in Wales a reality; and Northern Ireland’s 2019 Waste Management Plan. 1.2 Powers are being taken through the Environment Bill to enable the introduction of Extended Producer Responsibility schemes. In addition, in order to comply with the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol under the EU Withdrawal Agreement, the UK Government must ensure that Northern Ireland continues to transpose the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, as amended. The Directive was most recently amended by the Waste Circular Economy Package which requires Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging. 1.3 The system of producer responsibility for packaging has been in place in the UK since 1997 and has helped to increase recycling of packaging waste from 25%, 20 years ago to 63.9% in 2017. Over this period, we exceeded all UK and EU packaging waste recycling targets, and the cost of compliance to business was kept low when compared to countries in Europe. 1.4 However, as with any system that is over 20 years old, it needs reform. In 2019 Government1 set out the case for significant reforms to the current system in the consultation document Reforming the UK Packaging Producer Responsibility System. This included making producers responsible for the full net cost of managing packaging once it becomes waste, setting more ambitious targets for producers, and introducing clear and consistent labelling for recyclability. It recognised that the reforms must result in a packaging producer responsibility system that has a positive long-term impact, and works well for all stakeholders, for the UK and for all parts of the UK. Given the integrated nature of the packaging value chain and that many manufacturers and retailers operate across the UK, the proposals were based on the continuation of a UK-wide approach. 1.5 The consultation received 679 separate responses and 34 campaign responses. These were strongly supportive of the outcomes and principles 1 Unless otherwise stated “Government” refers to the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. 4 of 213 underpinning the reforms, and broadly supportive of the proposals. In response to the consultation Government outlined its intent to progress these policy proposals, introduce an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme in 2023 and take primary powers in the Environment Bill to enable it to implement the reforms. 1.6 Since this first consultation, the Environment Bill has been scrutinised in the House of Commons and will be carried over to the next parliamentary session (when the Report Stage will be completed in the House of Commons). We have undertaken additional review of consultation responses, evidence development and stakeholder engagement to develop proposals further. This work has enabled Government to confirm its preferred approach to many key elements of the reforms and to seek views, through this consultation, on the specific details of implementing its preferred approaches. 1.7 For some areas Government seeks more views on broad options. Where this is the case it will be important for Government to form a clear position soon after consultation to allow the focus to shift to legislating. As a result, we will look to actively engage stakeholders in these areas during consultation to help facilitate broad consensus. Summary of proposals and benefits 1.8 As a result of the proposals set out below, and assuming the introduction of recycling consistency proposals in England and an ‘all in’ deposit return scheme, our analysis indicates a total UK packaging recycling rate by 2030 of 78%, with the estimated recycling rates for each material exceeding those set in the European Union. The recycling rates for glass (96%), card (86%) and steel (93%) are ambitious and close to the maximum likely to be achievable. The recycling rates estimated for aluminium of 69% and plastics 62% are lower, but we expect these to increase once the collection and recycling of other aluminium packaging and plastic film and flexibles are included in our analysis. 1.9 We estimate this increase in the recycling of packaging will generate 3.1 million tonnes of traded carbon benefits and 1.3 million tonnes of non-traded benefits over the appraisal period (2023-2032). This represents £412m of benefit to society2. This does not include additional savings resulting from reduced packaging use as these have not been quantified at this stage. 2 The impact assessment for EPR accounts for the portion of costs and benefits. Specifically, it includes the impact of modulated fees on EPR materials, the collection of plastic films and flexibles, and mandatory take back of paper cups. It excludes the benefits of increase recycling of deposit return scheme materials, and, while being funded by EPR producers, it does not include the costs and benefits of consistent collection of other packaging materials such as pots tubs and trays as these are accounted for in the consistency IA. 5 of 213 1.10 Under the proposals set out in this consultation, packaging producers will be made responsible for the full cost of managing the packaging they place on the market. Government estimates that their costs will be in the region of £2.7bn in the first full year of implementation. 1.11 This cost transfer, from the public purse and those who dispose of packaging waste, will incentivise producers to question whether the packaging they use is necessary, could be reduced or not used at all. Government also proposes introducing obligations, possibly in the form of packaging reuse targets from
Recommended publications
  • Item 4.4 Towards Zero
    TOWARDS ZERO BYRON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY STRATEGY Technical Report 20 FEBRUARY, 2019 CONTACT DOMINIC SCHLIEBS Associate Technical Director – Waste Advisory T 07 3337 0010 Arcadis M 0432 469 083 120 Edward Street E [email protected] Brisbane QLD 4000 Copyright © 2015 Arcadis. All rights reserved. arcadis.com BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL TOWARDS ZERO: BYRON WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY STRATEGY Technical Report Dharshi Hasthanayake, Tayla Edmunds, Joshua Benjamin, Duncan Lummis, Dominic Schliebs Author and Richard Collins Checker Dominic Schliebs Approver Dominic Schliebs Report No R02 Date 20/02/2019 Revision Text 02 This report has been prepared for Byron Shire Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Integrated Waste Strategy Development dated 29 March 2018. Arcadis Australia Pacific Pty Limited (ABN 76 104 485 289) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. REVISIONS Approved Revision Date Description Prepared by by 01 02/11/18 Draft for review DH, TE, DS & RC DS DH, TE, JB, DS & 02 20/02/19 Final DS RC V CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3 Scope ............................................................................................................................. 3 Strategic framework...................................................................................................... 4 2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Council
    D R A F T 立法會 Legislative Council LC Paper No. CB(2) 2559/02-03(05) Ref : CB2/PL/FE Report of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene for submission to the Legislative Council Purpose 1. This report gives an account of the work of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene from July 2002 to June 2003. It will be tabled at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 2 July 2003 in accordance with Rule 77(14) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council. The Panel 2. The Panel was formed by a resolution passed by the Council on 20 December 2000, as amended on 9 October 2002, for the purpose of monitoring and examining Government policies and issues of public concern relating to food safety, environmental hygiene and agriculture and fisheries. The terms of reference of the Panel are in Appendix I. 3. Hon Fred LI Wah-ming and Hon Tommy CHEUNG Yu-yan were elected Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Panel respectively. The membership list of the Panel is in Appendix II. Major work Avian influenza 4. The Panel had been closely monitoring the surveillance system and the enhanced hygiene measures to reduce recurrence of avian influenza following the three outbreaks in Hong Kong in December 1997, May 2001 and February 2002. As an Investigation Team was appointed by the Administration to investigate the causes of the last outbreak in February 2002, the Panel had held further discussions with the Administration on the investigation findings and recommendations to control avian influenza.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Report 2007
    Sustainability Report 2007 Sustainability Report 07 KYOCERA MITA GROUP Corporate Attitude Corporate Attitude Special Feature (Interview) Corporate Motto Corporate Motto Respect the Divine and Love People Preserve the spirit to work fairly and honorably, respecting people, our work, our company and our global community. Environmental Report Management Rationale To provide opportunities for the material and intellectual growth of all our employees, and through our joint efforts, contribute to the advancement of society and humankind. Management Philosophy To coexist harmoniously with nature and society. Harmonious coexistence is the underlying foundation of all our business activities as we work together to create a world of abundance and peace. Social Report Environmental Data Round-table Discussion Involving Third Parties 01 KYOCERA MITA Sustainability Report 2007 Editorial Policy and Duration Contents This report covers the environmental protection activities conducted at domestic business sites of Kyocera Mita Cor- Corporate Attitude 01� poration and its affiliates during fiscal year 2006 (April 2006 to March 2007). Corporate Motto ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・�01� We used the Environmental Reporting Guidelines of the Jap- Top Commitment・ ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・�03 Corporate Attitude anese Ministry of the Environment as a reference in prepar- � ing this report. The history of our environmental efforts be- fore fiscal 2006, as well as activities at our overseas plants, Special Feature (Interview) 05� are also contained herein. , , , This year s cover design, like last year s, represents our cor- Kyocera Mita s environmental � � porate motto, "Living Together–harmonious coexistence with management approach, � nature." embodied in its long-life printers/� � Business sites of Kyocera Mita Corporation multifunction machines Japan: Head Office, Yoga Office, Tamaki Plant, Hirakata Plant Guest: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Vermont Waste Characterization Study
    2018 VERMONT WASTE CHARACTERIZATION FINAL REPORT | DECEMBER Prepared14, 2018 for: VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, SOLID WASTE PROGRAM Prepared by: With support from: 2018 Vermont Waste Characterization FINAL REPORT | DECEMBER 14, 2018 REPORT TO THE: Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Solid Waste Program Prepared by: With support from: 2018 VERMONT WASTE CHARACTERIZATION | FINAL REPORT Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 Gate Surveys to Determine Generator Source ................................................................................................. 1 Residential Waste Composition ........................................................................................................................ 3 ICI Waste Composition...................................................................................................................................... 4 Aggregate Composition .................................................................................................................................... 4 Materials Recovery Rates ................................................................................................................................. 5 Construction and Demolition Waste ................................................................................................................ 5 Backyard Composting ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Different Types of Environmental Labelling (ISO Type II and III Labels): Proposal for an Environmental Labelling Strategy
    FINAL REPORT DG Environment, European Commission Study on different types of Environmental Labelling (ISO Type II and III Labels): Proposal for an Environmental Labelling Strategy September 2000 Prepared by: Charles Allison & Anthea Carter This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the trading name of Environmental Resources Management Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk. Environmental Resources Management Eaton House, Wallbrook Court, North Hinksey Lane Oxford OX2 0QS Telephone 01865 384800 Facsimile 01865 384848 Email [email protected] http://www.ermuk.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ERM was contracted by the Eco-labelling unit of DG Environment at the European Commission to undertake a Study on Different Types of Environmental Labelling (ISO Type II and III labels): Proposal for an Environmental Labelling Strategy. The Terms of Reference for the study are provided in Annex A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Within the context of the background described above, the aim of the study is to examine the role of ISO Type II and III environmental labels at EU level in order to formulate potential options for a European Environmental Labelling Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Trash & Recycling Rates Effective 7/1/21
    XXXXXX Second Quarter, 2021 Single-family Home Edition Trash & Recycling Rates Effective 7/1/21 Rates for 1-unit homes include trash, compost, Rates for 2-4 unit homes include trash, compost, recycling and bulky pickup service. recycling and bulky pickup service. • Minimum trash service capacity is 20 gallons per unit. • Choose individual or shared containers to meet your needs. 20 gal $30.14/mo. $90.42/qtr. 32 gal $36.37/mo. $109.11/qtr. 64 gal $76.30/mo. $228.90/qtr. 20 gal 32 gal 64 gal 96 gal 96 gal $122.63/mo. $367.89/qtr. $46.13/mo. $52.36/mo. $92.29/mo. $138.62/mo. You will be billed an additional $138.39/qtr. $157.08/qtr. $276.87/qtr. $415.86/qtr. $15.99 per unit per month for recycling service. • Free backyard collection service for qualifying frail seniors and disabled residents. • Rate discount available for qualifying, low-income seniors. Contact Waste Management at 510-613-8710 to apply. Recyclables Must Be Loose! Recyclables must be placed loose into your recycling cart, free of a plastic bag liner to ensure workers are able to see the items and separate them by material type. Why aren’t plastic bags, film plastic, clear thin plastic and bubble wrap accepted in the recycling cart? Film plastic contaminates the recycling and slows down the recycling process by jamming or damaging machines used to separate recycling by material type. When film plastic and plastic bags mix with other recyclables, they are difficult to sort out. Plastic bags also create a health and safety hazard for recycling workers.
    [Show full text]
  • About Nordic Swan Ecolabelled
    About Nordic Swan Ecolabelled Packaging for Liquid Foods Version 1.4 Background to Nordic Swan Ecolabelling 17 December 2020 Contents About Nordic Swan Ecolabelled 1 1 Summary 3 2 Basic facts about the criteria 3 3 The Nordic market 5 4 Other labels 7 5 The criteria development process 12 6 Food packaging and sustainable development 13 6.1 RPS analysis 13 6.2 Material in the product group 20 7 Justification of the requirements 24 7.1 Product group definition 24 7.2 Overall requirement areas 25 7.3 Requirements of Nordic Swan Ecolabelled packaging 28 7.4 Requirements of constituent substances 45 7.5 Requirements of chemical products and constituent substances 56 7.6 Quality and regulatory requirements 70 7.7 Processing tools 71 7.8 Areas that are not subject to requirements 71 8 Terms and definitions 74 103 Packaging for Liquid Foods, version 1.4, 17 December 2020 This document is a translation of an original in Swedish. In case of dispute, the original document should be taken as authoritative Addresses In 1989, the Nordic Council of Ministers decided to introduce a voluntary official ecolabel, the Swan. The following organisations/companies are responsible for the official "Swan" Nordic Ecolabel on behalf of their own country’s government. For more information, see the websites: Denmark Iceland Ecolabelling Denmark Ecolabelling Iceland This document may only Danish Standards Foundation Umhverfisstofnun be copied in its entirety Göteborg plads 1, DK-2150 Nordhavn Suðurlandsbraut 24 and without any kind of Fischersgade 56, DK-9670 Løgstør IS-108 Reykjavik alteration. It may be Tel: +45 72 300 450 Tel: +354 591 20 00 quoted from provided [email protected] [email protected] www.ecolabel.dk www.svanurinn.is that Nordic Ecolabelling is stated as the source.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Materials Management Advisory Committee Report to the General Assembly July 1, 2021 I
    Illinois Materials Management Advisory Committee Report to the General Assembly July 1, 2021 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4 A) Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 B) Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 6 C) Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 7 II. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 9 A) Overview of Illinois Environmental Laws and Regulations ............................................................... 11 1) Illinois Environmental Protection Act ............................................................................................ 11 2) Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act ....................................................................................... 12 3) Solid Waste Management Act ........................................................................................................ 12 4) Material-Specific Laws ................................................................................................................... 13 5) Pollution Control
    [Show full text]
  • Labelling for Environmental Purposes a Reviewreview of the State of the Dedebatebate in the Wworldorld Ttraderade Organization
    tkn thematic paper January 2003 trade knowledge network Labelling for Environmental Purposes A reviewreview of the state of the dedebatebate in the WWorldorld TTraderade Organization By TomTom RotherhamRotherham Associate, International Institute for Sustainable Development About the Trade Knowledge Network http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.nethttp://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net The goal of the Trade Knowledge Network (TKN) is to foster long-term capacity to address the complex issues of trade and sustainable development. TKN is a collaborative initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development; and kindly supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Labelling for Environmental Purposes: A review of the state of the debate in the World Trade Organization Copyright © 2003 International Institute for Sustainable Development Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development All rights reserved International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 0Y4 Tel: (204) 958-7700 Fax: (204) 958-7710 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.iisd.org __________________________________________________________________________________________ The author would like to thank Doaa Abdel Motaal,
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Waste Management by Enhancing Reusable Packaging
    Effective waste management by enhancing reusable packaging AHMED BADER BABADER A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Liverpool John Moores University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2015 I ABSTRACT This research aims to propose an integrated method, which combines all the aspects required to reduce environmental impact from waste packaging and to increase knowledge on the best way to enhance reusable packaging. Through a review of the extant literature, a conceptual framework was designed of the most important dimensions to enhance reusable packaging amongst society and industries The main contributions in the research are the development of a Social Behaviour Aspect Model (SBAM) and the creation of reusable packaging attributes checklist. The SBAM can help industries focus on having high knowledge about reuse of packaging and to cooperate with communities to develop personal and social values and norms during the designing of reusable packaging. SBAM is the output from the first phase, which showed the importance of making an effort to develop packaging for consumers to reuse. The reusable packaging attributes checklist can provide a guideline for manufacturers/designers who intend to develop packaging sustainability performance through designing reusable packaging, and contribute to meet and interpret the reuse of packaging requirements and procedures. It also determines the environmental impact of reusable packaging attributes, which many industries are concerned about. The reusable packaging attributes checklist is the output from the second and third phases. The System Dynamic (SD) method was the approach used to determinate the interaction between social aspects and reusable packaging. The Normal Average, Codes and Coding and factor analysis with Principal Component Analysis (PCA) approaches were used to determine the reusable packaging attributes checklist.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrition Labelling Toolkit
    Nutrition Labelling Toolkit The Nutrition Facts tables, illustrations and photographs used in this Toolkit are for illustrative purposes only. Nutrient values within the tables do not represent any particular food or product. Any resemblance of the pictures and illustrations to any products is coincidental and does not represent any specific product found in the market place. The Nutrition Labelling Toolkit provides guidance on the interpretation of the nutrition labelling requirements under the Food and Drug Regulations. This guidance document is intended for use by inspectors of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It may also be used by manufacturers, importers and distributors of food products, and consultants. The information in this document is intended for instructional purposes only and does not in any way override the Food and Drugs Act or the Food and Drug Regulations. Where there is a conflict between the Food and Drugs Act and/or the Food and Drug Regulations and this Toolkit, the Act and/or Regulations will supersede the Toolkit. Table of Contents Note: To assist readers in finding the answers to specific questions, each section begins with an expanded and annotated Table of Contents. Section A Introduction Purpose of the Nutrition Labelling Toolkit ....................................................................................................1 References and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................2 Classes of Food for the Purposes
    [Show full text]
  • IV. Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, and Waste Reduction [ORC Section 3734.53 (A)(5)-(6)]
    Darke County Solid Waste Management Plan Update 2015 IV. Reference Year Population, Waste Generation, and Waste Reduction [ORC Section 3734.53 (A)(5)-(6)] A. Reference Year Population and Residential/Commercial Waste Generation The population of Darke County in the reference year, 2012, was estimated to be 52, 507. This estimate was published by the U.S. Census Bureau and is based on the 2010 census.1 Ohio’s solid waste law states that when a municipal corporation is located in more than one solid waste district, the entire corporation is to be included in the jurisdiction of the solid waste district where the majority of the population resides. As a result of this requirement, the Darke County Solid Waste Management District population must be adjusted. The Village of Bradford is located in both Darke and Miami Counties. The Miami county population of Bradford is greater than the population residing in Darke County. Therefore, all of the Village of Bradford is included in the Miami County Solid Waste Management District. The Village of Burkettsville is located in both Darke and Mercer Counties. The population in Mercer County is more than the population in Darke County so the entire population of Burkettsville is included with Mercer County. The adjusted population of the Darke County Solid Waste Management District for the reference year is 51,675. This is the Darke County SWMD population for 2012 which will be used throughout this Plan. Table IV-1.A. Reference Year Population 2012 Darke County population before adjustments 52,507 Less
    [Show full text]