In 2017, Valpak, the compliance, recycling and
waste services company, carried out a review
of the main EU systems for EPR for Packaging
across major EU countries.
Ben Storer, Senior Technical Advisor at Valpak,
explains that the “PackFlow 2025” study
researched what elements were essential to
successful EPR schemes. “We looked at what
full net costs may mean, and look like, as well
as what could be learned from other schemes.
This has formed the baseline for our proposals
and feedback for EPR Reform consultation. It
has been broadly welcomed by the industry,”
he says, adding that the report’s findings
helped the European Commission finalise its
proposals for a Circular Economy Package
- including significant changes to EPR for
packaging.
This year, Storer explains, has seen the UK
Government seeking detailed consultations
on proposals for how the UK system could be
improved and changed in the future.
“This led us to further develop our thinking
and develop a “hybrid model” for EPR,” says
the technical advisor, adding: “The hybrid
model was referenced and referred to in
the DEFRA consultation responses and we
believe it provides all the beneficial aspects
of the other models. We hope it will be taken
forward further by the Government.”
He offers a stark warning in terms of EPR: “The
biggest change will be the move to full net
costs. This means producers will be expected
to pay the entire costs for collecting, recycling
and disposing of packaging in future, rather
than just a contribution towards it.”
Of course, a move to full net costs, he says,
puts a much higher emphasis onto data
reporting and ensuring that this is accurate,
as this drives costs.
He suggests any future system should be
designed to use this extra funding to increase
efficiency, improve the quality of recycling
and develop further recycling infrastructure
in the UK.
Meanwhile Scott Butler, WEEE Fund Project
Manager with the not-for-profit Joint Trade
Associations (JTAC), a collection of electronics
industry trade bodies including TechUK, is
keen to see new innovation and technologies
adopted in the sector.
The UK-based WEEE Fund was developed by
some of the major producers as a reaction to
UK WEEE regulations. “In short,” he explains,
“if producers don’t meet the WEEE collection
targets, they can pay a fee into the fund,
based on the average cost of collection
plus some escalators – so it’s designed to
encourage collection.”
Funds collected are then invested in new
schemes and research projects, many of
which wouldn’t otherwise go beyond the
drawing board.
The WEEE Fund – which has so far raised more
than £8 million - is one of a number of such
schemes; many set up by producers working
in the same space.
The Fund provides financial support to
research projects – with the evaluation panel
looking for innovation. It also offers Local
Authority and community organisation
grants, with Butler saying they “look to
support collection and reuse schemes.”
“Thirdly, we invest in communication and
behaviour change. We are embarking on a
major consumer facing campaign in 2020 to
educate and encourage WEEE recycling,” he
reveals.
The WEEE Fund is currently backing research
into the sources and destinations of WEEE
in the UK – in the hope that it will help
producers meet future collection and
recycling targets.
Dr Chris Robertson, Head of Product
Regulatory Compliance at RINA, the
global assessment, technical consultancy,
engineering, inspection, certification and
research organisation, agrees with Kevin
Bradley that what’s needed is a level playing
field.
He says: “Everyone should have to do the
same thing, but it’s patchy and depends
on which sector a company operates in, in
terms of compliance. The sensible thing to
do is to try and anticipate what legal and
other changes are coming up – and ensure
you understand what this means in terms
of compliance requirements, financial
obligations, and market access.”
Issue 42 PECM
55