The document discusses the origins and evolution of extended producer responsibility (EPR). It traces the development of EPR from the 1980s when waste problems increased and interest in waste prevention grew. EPR was first proposed in 1990 to shift responsibility for waste management from municipalities to businesses. EPR aims to incentivize producers to facilitate recycling through design and make reuse and recycling the main option. While EPR was initially applied to packaging, it has since expanded to other product categories like electronics and batteries. The implementation of EPR led to increased collection and recycling rates for materials like glass and paper but faced challenges for complex products and ensuring design changes.

1. Extended Producer Responsibility
– origins and evolutions
WEEE Forum Conference
Malta, 26-27 April 2017
Thomas Lindhqvist
International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE)
Lund University

2. 1980s – the prelude
• Consumption society
keeps on growing
• Waste problems are
more in focus
• Increased interest
for waste prevention
– though mainly for
production waste and
pollution
• Problems with toxics
from products in landfills
and incinerators
• Recycling results are
overall not impressive
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Total
Manufacturing
Use phase
Total annual emissions of chromium in tonnes
Data source: Kretsloppsdelegationen rapport 1997:14, Fig. 21:3

3. The challenges
Situation in the mid-1980s:
• Demand for improved waste treatment
• Demand for more recycling
That is
• More effective systems for collection and
recycling
• More money for collection and recycling
• Better products (design changes)

4. 1990 – Extended Producer Responsibility
• Elements of an emerging
approach in several countries
• Report to the Swedish Ministry
of Environment
(förlängt producentansvar)
• Translated to English for a UNEP
workshop we organised in 1992
• “Slowly” accepted and
translated to more languages

5. EPR Principle
• Principle coined in 1990
• Extended =
More than before
• Producer =
From municipality to businesses
• Responsibility =
Financial (who pays)
Physical (who organises)

6. Why EPR?
• From limited recycling to making
re-use and recycling the main
option
• Facilitate recycling through
design improvements
• A need to create new incentives
for market actors and in
particular manufacturers
• Connect waste management
costs to consumption decisions

7. Introduction of EPR
• Starting with packaging
• 1991 German Packaging
Ordinance -> Duales System
Deutschland (DSD)
• Followed by other European
countries (and non-European)
• Extended to other product
categories: cars, electrical and
electronic equipment,
batteries, tyres, textiles, …

8. Implementation for Packaging
• A lot of recycling
• More recycling of glass and
paper/carton
• New systems for plastics,
metals, composites
• Change of design of
packaging –
less materials,
more recyclable
• But still many remaining
challenges
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Packaging recycling in EU [%]

9. EPR for complex products
• Relatively easy to formulate the
goals for packaging and other
“simple” products
• More difficult to have
reasonable and useful targets for
complex products
• Need for dynamic incentives,
where producers are rewarded
by cost savings
• After more than a decade
Europe was ready with directives

10. Problematic features of directive
• Inconvenience for
consumers
• Recycling of mass and not
always value
• Unclear about the role of
producers
As a result, weak incentives for
new design of products and
new take-back systems

11. What has happened?
But also a lot of good results!
Much more collection and recycling,
much more interest for end-of-life
from producers and others
• Focus on collection and
simple recovery
• Compromises
• Fear of new approaches
• Lack of control
• Lack of monitoring

12. Products not to be in mixed waste
0 20 40 60 80 100
Batteries
Glass
Metal
Plastics
Newsprint
WEEE
Paper
Carton
Light bulbs
Paints
Chemicals
Other lamps
Pharmaceuticals
Food waste Survey of Swedish citizens
2015
Question: What products
used in the household
should not be thrown in the
mixed waste but discarded
into some separate
collection system?
Source: Swedish EPA 2015-05-26
%

13. Special challenges – products with value
• Leakage to short-lived
second hand markets
• Leakage to inferior recycling
treatment
• Fluctuating value of
materials create volatile
situation and unclear
recycling conditions

14. EPR and Morale
• EPR is not about putting moral
blame on producers
• EPR is about finding effective and
efficient solutions to problems
• Responsibilities should be allocated
so that problems are addressed in
the best way
• The one who can change should be
given responsibility (= producers)
and incentives for change

15. So …
• When you work with products you
should believe in change and
technical development
• Let’s also believe in opportunities
for new and more sustainable
products
• Let’s believe in creativity and new
approaches to problems
• And let’s have policies and practice
that reward such changes
• Thank you for your
attention!
There are win-win solutions
to be discovered in many
areas! As here, making
recycling possible by clean
yoghurt packaging, while
also not losing product.