We propose amending the current product stewardship provisions to replace them with a more effective range of tools to introduce EPR schemes for a range of products.
What is extended producer responsibility?
EPR describes a suite of policy instruments that shift financial and/or operational responsibility for material recovery and waste management upstream. This means the responsibility is on producers, importers and retailers, instead of falling by default on councils, communities, future generations and nature. Following a ‘polluter pays’ principle, an EPR framework extends responsibility for products – instead of just placing them on the market, producers need to manage and reduce any negative environmental effects.
Current examples of EPR are product stewardship schemes and deposit return schemes (such as a container return scheme). Although the terms ‘EPR’ and ‘product stewardship’ are sometimes used interchangeably, EPR emphasises additional responsibilities for producers.
Current section 23 (regulations in relation to products, materials and waste) will be carried over with minor and technical amendments to ensure legislative cohesion with the proposed EPR framework.
The proposed EPR framework would include provisions for taking the following actions.
- Determine the product/s of interest, including products to be excluded (declaring priority products would change from a statutory to a non-statutory process).
- Identify and place obligations on parties subject to requirements (such as ‘first responsible suppliers’).
- Identify other roles and responsibilities (eg, for the Minister or Secretary for the Environment (Secretary), the regulator or the producer responsibility organisation (PRO) which manages the scheme).
- Enable key financial controls (such as scheme charges or refundable deposits) to be set and adjusted by the PRO or in regulation.
- Set parameters for how an EPR scheme is established and operates (such as target recycling return rates, input methodologies1 to help determine scheme charges, and scheme design standards) and for any consequences for lack of performance. This could include scheme-specific requirements such as labelling or other matters allowed for in Part 2 of the WMA.
- Establish an appropriate compliance monitoring and enforcement (CME) framework.
- Ensure appropriate transparency to assess performance of an EPR scheme and hold parties accountable (which may include reporting and data sharing), while also managing commercial sensitivities of information shared through the scheme.
Further details are outlined in appendix 1.
Any future EPR schemes would be established in regulations and would require a full assessment of costs and benefits and consultation with affected parties.
We seek your views on whether the Secretary should be able to set input methodologies. This will enable the Secretary, if necessary, to prescribe how certain component costs for scheme charges should be set, which will minimise the risk of inappropriate fees and spending.
We also seek your views on removing provisions for government accreditation of voluntary product stewardship schemes as the limited participation and coverage and the administrative costs of accrediting and monitoring voluntary schemes are not justified. Voluntary schemes could continue but would not be accredited under the legislation.
1 Input methodologies are a tool that the Secretary for the Environment may use to help determine charges for EPR schemes. Input methodologies can be used to ensure an EPR organisation is managing fees and costs appropriately.
