Plastics and the role of extended producer responsibility

Plastics will play an important role in a future net zero economy: they are lightweight, they are hygienic and they extend the life of perishables such as food, avoiding the resource impact (and GHG impact) of food waste, to give just some examples.  Clearly, however, there needs to be significant change in the way plastic products and packaging are designed, the choice of plastics used, the durability and longevity of the plastic products, and the availability of UK collection and recycling infrastructure to ensure our plastic resources are reused to a much greater extent than they are now.  The impact on the environment of fugitive plastics is well documented and the public awareness is high (the so-called Blue Planet II effect), driving government action.  New legislation will be required, and alongside the plastic tax announced by the Treasury, the Environment Bill introduced into Parliament in October makes provision for range of measures such as further extending the role of producer responsibility, new charges and mandatory reporting of resource use (the Bill has fallen following the dissolution of Parliament for the general election, but will be coming back if the Conservatives obtain a majority, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats also have ambitious environmental objectives on plastics).  

On 3 December I joined a panel, chaired by Baroness Byford as part of the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum, to discuss what we need from this legislation.  In particular,  I was asked to address the legislative ambitions for extended producer responsibility ("EPR"), where the producer (and therefore the consumer) pays the full cost of the environmental impact of the products, rather than the majority of those costs falling on the public at large.  Under the current proposals, this would include the producer paying for collection and recycling facilities, the costs of dealing with fly tipping, and funding consumer information campaigns.

I made the following points:

1.  The law must be 'as simple as it can be': there is of course a certain amount of complexity necessary for a regime such as EPR, but when all is said and done, those who are responsible for EPR, from product designers to the supply chain to waste collections and recyclers, need to be able to understand it.  There is a real risk in seeking to make EPR the 'answer to everything' because if it is too complicated, industry will not accept it, political faith in the regime will falter, and we will lose an opportunity to embed these changes for the long term.  Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good: we can always improve it once it is working and accepted.
2.  EPR must be fair.  There will be winners and losers, but it must be objectively clear why that is the case, and it must not be vulnerable to accusations of being arbitrary.  Good science is essential to underpin the regime.
3.  It is fine for obligations to sit with a number of actors (as the current producer responsibility regime does now) but the biggest burden must weigh most heavily on those who can influence the outcomes: if the EPR is to work in changing behaviours it needs to focus on those who can exert most influence on those behaviours.
4.  It must have industry buy-in.  It is great that the public has been very active in the consultations, and long may that continue.  However, the legislative draftspeople must ensure that what is enacted works for those who will be working with it, and so the voices of those who will be most affected need to be heard.
5.  It must be enforced strongly enough.  Enforcement should not be unduly heavy, but it cannot be too light: those investing in driving the changes that we want to see under the EPR cannot be left at a competitive disadvantage against those who do not.  Fraud has also been a real problem for producer responsibility schemes to date: we cannot let criminality undermine a more extensive (and far more costly) EPR regime.  Good enforcement requires adequate funding of the regulators, whether through fees or Grant in Aid, and well trained officers.

It was clear from the panel debate, and indeed the morning seminar as a whole, that we have a real opportunity to influence the future of resource use in the UK and make lasting improvements.  It is an opportunity that we cannot let go to waste.