CIWM urges Prime Minister not to delay EPR and consistency

The letter to Rishi Sunak was co-ordinated in response to recent reports that a further delay to EPR, due to begin next year, is under consideration (see letsrecycle.com story).

It outlines that any pause to EPR now would cause “paralysing uncertainty” and “totally undermine confidence in these reforms”. This would also have an impact on consistent collection, which “would have to be scrapped because EPR is funding this”.

Economy

It has been rumoured that there is concern within government that the proposals will add to household bills during a cost-of-living crisis, with the government facing much lobbying from producer groups recently as well.

While the CIWM in the open letter acknowledges the challenges confronting the UK economy and the potential impact of these reforms on household finances, it highlights that the legislation will also “generate fresh employment opportunities, foster economic growth, and contribute to the country’s pursuit of net-zero objectives.”

The CIWM outlined that neglecting the implementation of EPR would mean that the “burden of commercial recycling expenses will persistently fall on the public,” leading to reduced investments in recycling infrastructure due to waning confidence in the legislative framework. This, in turn, would significantly impede the progress of the UK’s green economy.

‘Environmental leader’

CIWM President Dr Anna Willetts said: “CIWM has been supportive of these reforms throughout, working closely with Defra officials to help mould them and move them forward. We continue in that manner and are here to support Defra and the Government in getting the job done. With strong Governmental leadership we can move the world beyond waste, show the UK to be the environmental leader it has the potential to be, and grow the green economy with new jobs and skills. We urge the Prime Minister to waste no further time and to push on with the implementation of EPR and publishing the Government’s plans for consistent collections.”

The body explained in the letter that its role as an institution representing around 5,700 individuals gives “the widest possible view and, perhaps more pertinently, an objective rather than partial view, given that our goal is for improvement in the management of all wastes and resources.”