Executive director of the Environmental Services Association (ESA), Jacob Hayler, said the fees offer reassurance for circular economy
investors over the continued direction of travel for resource and waste policy under the new government. He continued: “The announcement also provides much-needed clarity to obligated packaging producers to enable them to prepare for the introduction of charging from 2025 – helping to build a more complete picture of the economics of the new regime.
“The Resources and Waste Strategy reforms remain essential to delivering progress against binding national recycling targets; to reducing waste; and to delivering green growth – so visible policy progress after a prolonged period of stagnation and uncertainty will undoubtedly boost confidence among the organisations and investors responsible for delivering these beneficial outcomes.”
Robbie Staniforth, director of policy and innovation at Ecosurety, said that today’s news is another significant milestone on the road to EPR implementation. He added: “Given remaining cost uncertainty of the new system, it is understandable that the Government has given a range of expected costs. These indicative fees will allow packaging producers to start the complicated process of agreeing internal budgets for these new costs in 2025. Approaches for how they use these indicative figures will vary, dependent on each individual company’s budget setting process. We are pleased to see that the figures are similar to the predictions we have been supplying members for the last few years using our industry-leading tool.”
Jim Bligh, director of corporate affairs and packaging at the Food and Drink Federation, said Defra should now empower producers to manage the scheme, encouraging investment, green jobs and innovation in packaging: “Food and drink manufacturers support the government’s zero waste goal and are committed to a cleaner environment. We welcome the long awaited release of base fees for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which helps manufacturers take more responsibility for packaging and helps them plan for 2025 costs. With EPR expected to cost at least £1.4 billion in 2025, it’s crucial that funds are used to improve recycling infrastructure. Everyone must work together to ensure EPR drives value, boosts recycling rates, and fosters a circular economy.”
Steve Gough, chief executive of Valpak, part of international circular economy specialist Reconomy, emphasised that the Valpak PackFlow report is said to have played a crucial role in the fees. He added: “Defra’s long-awaited guidance on EPR fees brings more clarity to the industry around the EPR regulations and provides guidance for producers to plan for their 2025 budgets.
“With the next set of base fees to come in September once more robust data has been verified by regulatory bodies, we are approaching the longer-term certainty that producers need to ensure they are meeting their compliance requirements. We welcome this guidance from the government and look forward to supporting all stakeholders as they make vital progress towards a more circular economy.”
Dr Nick Kirk, technical director at British Glass, said that while it will always support sustainable practices and principles behind the scheme, the weight-based fee structure fails to recognise the attributes and benefits of glass. He said: “Glass is 100% recyclable, can be recycled an infinite number of times without loss of quality, and has a low environmental impact in terms of chemical leaching due to its inert nature. We welcome the decision to adopt higher fees for lighter packaging materials, however, we urge Defra to go further by adopting a units-based approach to avoid jeopardising the glass industry; EPR in this current form is not a material-neutral policy.”
He concluded: “We urge the government and stakeholders to reconsider the fee structure of the EPR scheme in advance of the second set of illustrative base fees due to be published in September. Adopting a cost per-unit system will drive better environmental outcomes, as individual units of packaging impact the environment rather than the weight of packaging. Defra must avoid market distortion through EPR and develop a more equitable and competitive market for all packaging materials. We call on the government to consult packaging industries further on the EPR fees, and to delay the introduction of EPR in the meantime.”
Claire Shrewsbury, director insights and innovation at WRAP, said that an EPR scheme for packaging is essential to better managing the “enormous” range of materials used in packaging, a lot of which becomes waste. She added: “It will play a pivotal role in shifting to a circular economy, and a zero-waste world. We welcome the clarity that the publication of these illustrative fees gives to businesses. Now, businesses can better plan their packaging with a greater focus of designing out waste. Of course, EPR needs to be part of a holistic approach to packaging – even removing it in the case of fresh uncut fruit and vegetables. We hope to see retailers and brands embrace other environmentally positive initiatives, such as mainstreaming refill and reuse models, as they adjust to the EPR scheme.”
Tom Giddings from Alupro said the organisation welcomes the release of these long-awaited illustrative base fees for packaging EPR; noting that the fees “raise more questions than answers”. He added: “Firstly, we were very concerned to read in the accompanying notes that aluminium fees were based almost exclusively on residual waste disposal costs, which simply does not align with the experience of our members in the UK aluminium recycling market, where non-beverage packaging is regularly recycled from kerbside collections in the same way as beverage cans. Additionally, aluminium packaging can be recovered even after incineration from the bottom ashes; thousands of tonnes were recycled back into the circular economy last year through this route alone. Therefore, Defra’s assumptions and data for aluminium appear flawed or outdated.
“Secondly, the dataset used to support these costings is from as early as 2017; this is simply unacceptable, as both the market and recycling performance has changed drastically since then. For example, the aluminium all-packaging recycling rate has risen by over 15% in that time! EPR and associated costs must be based on more recent data and costs.
Lastly, it appears to us that the methodology for how different materials have been calculated in inconsistent. For example, glass has its own model of costs; why? Another example would be where for wood and other materials, which have also (like non-beverage aluminium) been assumed to go to residual waste, those categories have significantly lower associated costs. We’re looking forward to engaging with Defra officials over the coming weeks both to better understand how these numbers were generated and to supply more up-to-date and relevant data to support the next round of figures.”
Subscribe for free