Australia Proposes to Reform Packaging Regulations, Involving EPR for Packaging

On September 27, 2024, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) of Australia released the Reform of Packaging Regulation Consultation Paper. This document outlines three proposed options for reforming Australia’s packaging regulations. Any feedback can be submitted before October 28, 2024.

Background

Australia currently applies a national co-regulatory framework for packaging under the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011 (UPM NEPM). Businesses that produce or sell packaging or packaged products in Australia with an annual turnover of $5 million or more shall fulfill their obligations through two main pathways: Becoming a Signatory to the Australian Packaging Covenant (the Covenant) and joining the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) Reporting to their state or territory government agency under the UPM NEPM. Each state or territory has legislation and/or policies reflecting the UPM NEPM. However, concerns have been raised that the existing system is neither effectively managing the environmental impacts of packaging nor providing a robust framework for industry compliance.

Proposed Options for Reform

Option 1: Strengthening administration of the co-regulatory arrangement

This option aims to enhance the current framework through stronger enforcement, as well as education programs to minimize businesses fail to fulfill packaging-related responsibilities. It emphasizes the 2030 Strategic Plan from APCO to support industry to meet the Covenant goals. While funding arrangements remain unchanged, Australia will continue to set membership fees and implement eco-modulated fees starting in 2027.

Option 2: National mandatory requirements for packaging

This option would dissolve the existing co-regulatory arrangement in favor of mandatory requirements for regulated entities. These entities would need to register with the government and comply with all mandatory requirements, including bans on problematic materials and chemicals of concern, progressive bans on packaging to mandate the minimum recyclability performance, and the implementation of the minimum recycled content thresholds. The government may also impose cost recovery fees to cover administrative expenses.

Option 3: An extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging

This option proposes a national EPR scheme that includes industry-level outcomes and mandates for regulated entities. Similar to Option 2, it would require compliance with various regulations; however, eco-modulated fees based on recyclable design would replace progressive bans. This scheme aims to implement variable fees for packaging placed on the market, potentially increasing government funding for initiatives that promote a circular packaging economy.