EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING IN SOUTH AFRICA

The report outlines recommendations for implementing a mandatory EPR policy for plastic packaging in South Africa, focusing on the structure of Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), stakeholder roles, fee modulation, and compliance mechanisms. It advocates for a centralised PRO model, the integration of informal waste reclaimers, and the use of eco-modulated fees to incentivise sustainable packaging design. The document draws on international case studies and stakeholder engagements to suggest a transparent governance structure and a centralised data management system to track material flows and ensure target achievement.

• The report recommends that the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) pursue a long-term goal of establishing a single, centralised Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) with specialised departments for different materials to reduce administrative complexity and avoid duplication of investment.
• A precise definition of 'producer' (or obliged company) is essential; the report suggests it should encompass any entity that controls plastic packaging design characteristics or places such packaging on the consumer-facing market, including importers, brand owners, retailers, and converters.
• To incentivise eco-design, the report proposes implementing differentiated EPR fees based on the recyclability of materials and formats in practice and at scale, where less recyclable materials incur higher fees.
• The integration of informal waste reclaimers is identified as critical for the success of the EPR policy, with suggestions for a hybrid payment system that combines a basic service fee with the market value of collected materials.
• There is significant policy misalignment regarding waste collection responsibilities; while the Waste Act and National Waste Management Strategy assign collection to municipalities, the EPR Regulations assign it to PROs and producers.
• The report recommends that EPR fees should cover the full net costs of PRO activities, including collection, transportation, sorting, reuse, recycling, final disposal, administration, and public awareness campaigns.
• Effective monitoring and compliance require a centralised data management system, potentially managed by an independent clearinghouse or the South African Waste Information System (SAWIS), supported by third-party audits of material flow data.
• Enforcement of EPR regulations should prioritise administrative penalties—such as fines, suspension of producer licences, or banning packaging from the market—over jail sentences, which should be reserved for repeat offenders.
• EPR targets should be ambitious, material-specific, and based on agreed-upon methodologies and 2019 (pre-Covid) baselines, with a suggested margin for error between 3% and 5%.

APA

Arp, R., de Kock, L., & Manyara, P. (2021). EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING IN SOUTH AFRICA. WWF South Africa. https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_synthesis_report.pdf

Chicago

Arp, Reinhardt, Lorren de Kock, and Peter Manyara. EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING IN SOUTH AFRICA. WWF South Africa, 2021. https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_synthesis_report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Arp |first1=Reinhardt |last2=de Kock |first2=Lorren |last3=Manyara |first3=Peter |title=EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING IN SOUTH AFRICA |publisher=WWF South Africa |date=2021 |url=https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_synthesis_report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{arp2021extended, author = {Arp, Reinhardt and de Kock, Lorren and Manyara, Peter}, title = {{EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLASTIC PACKAGING IN SOUTH AFRICA}}, institution = {WWF South Africa}, year = {2021}, url = {https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/epr_synthesis_report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }