For the inclusion of EPR in the treaty on plastic pollution

Faced with the global emergency of plastic pollution, States decided, on March 2, 2022, to launch negotiations for a binding international legal instrument on plastic pollution within the framework of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). After two rounds of negotiations in Punta Del Este and Paris, the third round, which took place from November 13 to 19, 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, was to constitute a turning point, since the States were brought to discuss the zero-draft prepared by the President of the negotiations.

Jean Hornain is the Managing Director of Citeo, on behalf of The Producer Responsibility Coalition.

This first draft text represented a good basis for negotiations, responding to the resolution 5/14 by considering the entire life chain of plastics and including voluntary and binding approaches.

However, this round of negotiations did not achieve the expected results. A mandate was certainly given for the drafting of a new version of the zero text, which was published in December 2023, but which is only a compilation of the States’ proposals, but no agreement could be found on the organization of intersessional work. Indeed, the latter would have made it possible to effectively prepare for the next round of negotiations in Ottawa, Canada from April 23 to 29, 2024, by allowing technical discussions on the major issues of this treaty, thus developing a common understanding of the concepts, and to explain the different modalities and applications.

Within these negotiations, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) benefits from a certain resonance. It is the subject of a dedicated article in the zero draft, for which the States have proposed new editorial options. Among them, the proposal around a binding approach appears relevant. It indeed proposes to extend EPR to reduction and reuse, and not to understand it solely on the aspect of recycling, considering the entire chain of life, as well as national circumstances, capacities, and the just transition. This article on EPR must be supplemented by a dedicated annex, for which no proposal has yet been made. This must provide for and describe the principles, modalities, and minimum requirements so that EPR can be applied and implemented in such a way as to allow a full system of collective responsibility for all actors and stakeholders.

EPR was also at the heart of many discussions in Nairobi. Several States consider it to be a relevant instrument in the proper implementation of the treaty. However, there are numerous inaccuracies and confusions about it, limiting it to simple waste management or assimilating it to a tax. It is therefore more than necessary to remember what EPR is. This is the work that the Producer Responsibility Coalition has carried out. It is the first of its kind, bringing together more than 40 EPR organisations from each continent, facing a variety of structural, economic, and political challenges to struggle against plastic pollution.

• The OECD defines EPR as an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of its life cycle. This approach underlines the idea that producers must take financial and/or organisational responsibility for their products’ end of life through measures applied throughout their life cycle, from design to management of waste generated by these products. Over time, EPR encourages companies to produce more sustainably, innovate and contribute significantly to reducing their own environmental impact. 

Producers placing products on the market may mutualize this responsibility by entrusting it to an external entity to act on their behalf. In this case, they declare data on their products put on the market each year and pay their contribution subsequently.

• EPR systems pool resources nationally or subnationally to fund end-of-life recovery of products placed on the market in their sectors with a view to reducing their environmental impact. EPR also funds programmes on eco-design/reduction, reuse, waste minimisation, improving recyclability, compostability and anti-littering, as well as awareness and education campaigns.
• To achieve these goals, a PRO must adopt an innovative approach enabling it to improve the environmental efficiency of products throughout their life cycle. Such an approach enables it to propose practical solutions to its members and fund new activities and R&D projects to enhance its own role.
• To guarantee its effectiveness, EPR system requires a sound regulatory framework designed and steered by the state in coordination with all relevant stakeholders (e.g. companies, local authorities, industrial waste management operators, consumers, and environmental protection groups).
• Contrary to what many believe, EPR is not a budget or taxation tool. Aligned with their extended respective responsibilities, producers directly pay contributions to PROs that fulfil their obligations. These contributions are used to form a permanent, dedicated fund that ensures solidarity, fairness and accountability, and which finances waste management infrastructures and operations. This funding often extends to eco-design, reuse, and citizen awareness-raising measures. Moreover, it offers the predictability needed to make key investments ensuring an efficient, long-term waste management system. 
• To ensure confidence in an EPR system and guarantee its successful implementation, it is essential to collect data so that products are traceable throughout their life cycle. This is also crucial for ensuring that the PRO is properly accountable for its activities considering targets set by regulations.

Despite disappointing results in Nairobi, we call on States to remain engaged in these negotiations and to maintain ambitious objectives. A reminder at a high political level of the importance and urgency of these negotiations is also essential. On this basis, a mandate for intersessional work on EPR for INC-5 could be concluded by the Parties at Ottawa.

The coalition of Producer Responsibility Organisations will continue to engage in these negotiations and in the promotion of EPR, which represents a relevant and effective tool in the implementation of the future treaty and responding to national constraints and needs. A knowledge-sharing platform on EPR, gathering all worldwide players of EPR and hosted by the future Treaty secretariat, could ultimately help to improve this deployment.