This report explores the Nordic countries’ experience with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), an environmental policy approach that extends the responsibility of producers to include the environmental impact of a product. With a particular focus on EPR schemes for plastic products, the report aims to extract practical insights for the development and expansion of EPR schemes globally.
The methodology involves a literature review and semi-structured interviews with authorities in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The information is then analyzed and discussed with focus on lessons learned in terms of challenges and success factors.
A theoretical conceptualization and discussion of EPR is also laid out in the text and forms a basis for the analysis.
In summary, the report notes very diverse implementations of EPR across the Nordics, ranging from more comprehensive schemes to more nascent efforts, with varying challenges and success factors. Mandatory EPR legislation/systems in the Nordic countries cover a diverse range of product categories such as packaging, electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, tires, end-of-life vehicles, pharmaceuticals, and single-use plastics, except for Denmark where mandatory EPR Schemes have only recently started to be implemented.
The countries struggle with different issues related to EPR systems. Challenges include administrative burdens, unclear definitions and roles, and limited influence on upstream conditions such as product design and waste generation. Obstacles to EPR implementation also include economic and informative responsibilities. The fee structure and reporting obligations differ between the Nordic countries, making compliance complicated and resource intensive for international producers. Harmonizing design requirements, reporting, and fees within the EU is recommended to streamline administration.
Overall, collaboration between producers, municipalities, and Producer Responsibility Organizations, coupled with transparent systems, all seem to be success factors for effective implementation of EPR schemes, as long as the responsibilities are clarified, and economic models are negotiated and accepted by all parties.
Key learnings also emphasize the efficacy of single waste stream systems, such as the PET bottle return system. This seems to be true regardless of the systems being mandatory or voluntary, connected to less material complexity or their reliance on material quality standards such as rPET. Although it is not feasible to introduce separate systems for each packaging type, more stringent design requirements could be helpful, in combination with development of material quality standards for more types of recycled plastics. Linking design requirements to differentiation of fees can have positive effect on recyclability. Harmonizing EU-level standards and supporting sorting and recycling capacity is also crucial to reach recycling targets. It is important to measure the actual recycling rate, something that has been corrected in the EPR for plastic packaging.
Better enforcement of the regulation and sanctions for non-compliance is desirable, but often difficult for authorities to manage due to limited resources. Enforcement mechanisms, such as mandatory producer registers, could also be helpful. To combine EPR with other policies, such as weight-differentiated waste fees and landfill bans, could form a more comprehensive approach to promote a circular economy.
The report concludes that EPR should be viewed as a complement to policies directly targeting waste generation sources. That way, EPR could be part of an efficient policy package.