The UK governments have agreed to cede power over the controversial extended producer responsibility programme to a new producer-led organisation.
The move, which has been greeted as a major victory by the FDF, has been confirmed in a letter seen by The Grocer penned by environment minister Mary Creagh and her counterparts from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish governments.
It said the government had set up a “co-design process” which would lead to the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation (PRO), with the design being led by leaders of the FDF and other food industry leaders.
The governments promised to act on the recommendations of the new group, saying they were determined EPR should launch “on a firm footing”.
“The four nations of the UK are committed to exploring ways to ensure greater producer and industry leadership, integration and engagement within packaging EPR, including the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation,” says the letter.
“We will act on the recommendations of this group, to maximise value chain involvement whilst providing robust governance for the scheme administrator.”
The FDF has long called for a producer-led EPR system, whilst a recent report by the Policy Exchange cross party think tank warned that without producers being given the reins to run the system, they risked simply pumping money into a bottomless money pit, with no guarantee it would lead to better local authority recycling.
With fears over the cost of EPR growing as next October’s date for the first invoices to land gets closer, the move to put producers in the driving seat was welcomed.
“With EPR expected to cost at least £1.7bn in 2026 alone, it is essential that it delivers value for money and boosts Britain’s recycling rates,” said Jim Bligh, FDF director of corporate affairs and packaging.
“All successful EPR schemes are led by producers, so it is very welcome that the UK’s four governments have decided to follow international best practice.
“A producer-led organisation can harness the expertise of manufacturers and the waste value chain, to create a true circular economy for packaging recycling.
“This includes boosting investment in infrastructure, supporting councils to run effective and efficient services and working with producers in all sectors to use more recycled content and cut down their use of packaging.”
However, today’s breakthrough in the battle for control over EPR comes with continued turmoil for the scheme after dozens of wine and spirits companies called for the government to delay the rollout.
The WSTA said that with less than six months to go until the “costly, confusing and badly managed environmental tax” came into force, businesses were increasingly exasperated.
More than 80 businesses have signed a joint letter asking Defra to “put the brakes on” until the scheme is ready, claiming there is insufficient clarity for a commercial organisation to set pricing strategies, including the extent to which they will pass new costs on to customers or adjust pricing or contracts with retailers.
It warned the crisis was most pronounced for SMEs and importers with lower cash reserves and limited access to financing.
The WSTA said that with uncertainty over the estimated fees for EPR still rampant, there would inevitably be a huge knock-on impact on other aspects of EPR, including setting up the scheme administrator, mandatory labelling plans and accounting guidance, which would also have to be put back.
“Defra sensibly delayed EPR by one year, however it is clear that the scheme is not ready to roll out and a further delay is required to make sure the costs are realistic and known in advance,” said WSTA chief executive Miles Beale.
“Wine and spirit businesses are working towards using less packaging and making it more recyclable, but the scheme currently set out is unfair and unfit for purpose. A delay would mean industry and Defra could work together to find a fairer, clearer and more sustainable resolution.”
Lee Evans, managing director of Condor Wines, one of the companies that signed the letter, added: “As an SME, or any type of business, when setting pricing you cannot afford to wrongly forecast your costs and with EPR we are still not able to see accurate figures. “Our customers need us to provide 2025 pricing before mid-December, so we are already working internally to forecast and prepare for these changes.
“Without a lack of clarity on EPR costs we are more likely to wrongly forecast and this could be detrimental to our business.”
Simon Doyle, general manager of Concha y Toro, added: “EPR is a major reform of responsibilities for, and costs of, recycling, so it is crucial that all involved have absolute clarity on how any transition should be managed. Whilst the policy objectives may be clear, the process of implementation is not.
“Producers are to be responsible for collecting another tax on behalf of government without certainty on what these taxes will be, how we should collect them or account for them.
“It is critical that Defra and all involved in managing EPR listen to the legitimate concerns of the wine industry and take stock of how much more effective implementation could be if due time were given to work.”
No comments yet