UK Government Finalizes EPR Packaging Fees: Highest Charges for Fibre-Based Composites

UK Government Finalizes EPR Packaging Fees

The United Kingdom has announced its final fees for its packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme. The pricing list includes plastic and fiber-based composites, with the highest pricing on the list, whereas glass and paper will remain at the lowest prices under the new scheme rules. It will require suppliers and producers to pay a fee based on how difficult it is to dispose of the packaging.

• The fees covered under the PackUK scheme will fund the local authorities to pay for the disposal and recycling of waste packaging materials.
• The new EPR fees are in a similar range to the government's suggestion last year, except the fiber-rates have witnessed a little high.
• The EPR Scheme was initially supposed to start in October 2024, but it will come into action from 2025 to 2026.
• The fiber-based composite is valued at £461 per tonne, being the highest, followed by plastic at £423. On the other hand, the fees for the glass were at the lowest rate of £192. The government stated that the fees were calculated on the basis of the cost required to manage the household packaging waste and the total amount of packaging waste.

Pros and Cons explained by the Industry Experts

The alliance of fibre-based packaging criticized the current fees by arguing that it will push companies to use cheaper and less sustainable packaging. On the other hand, the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association believes that the initiative is in the right direction as it will use recyclable metals like steel and aluminium.

Paul Synnott, co-chair of the Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging and managing director of Seda UK, said:

“The decision to raise base fees for fibre, whilst lowering fees for plastic will incentivise producers to use more plastic or to import cheaper, less sustainably sourced fibre from overseas - this is a misfire and a backfire.

The Association mentioned in a statement,

“Fundamentally, the disparity remains when the base fees are translated into real-life product packaging, resulting in the financial incentive to switch to lighter-weight yet harder-to-recycle materials.”