Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Who should pay for plastic recycling?

Stuart Foster

Where would the funds to sup­port an improved UK plastics recycling infrastructure come from – and is the Government really going to continue to push plastic packaging to achieve recycled content when there are many viable alternatives?

Funding support through extended producer responsi­bility (EPR) could be years away, but the capital invest­ments to take us down the right road are required now. Equally, more assurances will be needed around material availability, security of supply and end market demand for recyclate before private invest­ments can be realised.

There is also the question of unintended consequences and, importantly, whether higher recycling targets or a proposed tax on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled content will actually help to increase recycling levels and cut the amount of plastic that leaks into the environment.

On funding, a reformed EPR system for plastic packaging could be the solution. Through EPR, the producer pays an upfront fee proportional to how much product they place on the market. This levy could help to fund an improved col­lection and recycling infra­structure.

We know that businesses are willing to pay more into a pro­ducer responsibility system to ensure that it is adequately funded and works effectively, but a recent study found that, on average, only 45% of product and packaging waste in the EU is covered by EPR.

An added benefit of such a scheme is that it provides packaging producers with the incentive to be more innova­tive at the design stage to make packaging easier to recycle.

But in reality there is a gap between the proposals and what might be considered to be the most sensible and immediate course of action.

And while we reach for a plastic recycling utopia, there remains a significant level of confusion about how the tar­get will be achieved while also ensuring that packaging remains fit for purpose.

There is a risk that in striving to meet a 30% minimum recy­cled content target at any cost, we will simply divert recycled material which already has a profitable end market towards food-grade applications, at significant expense, without delivering any meaningful environmental benefit.

And those currently manu­facturing and importing plas­tic packaging which contains less than 30% recycled material may simply become free-riders in the system or opt to pay the tax, which begs the question: what will the Treas­ury allocate these funds to?

Stuart Foster is chief executive at Recoup

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.