This chapter begins with a discussion of why government is involved in EPR systemsThe term “EPR systems” is used in this document to refer to the laws, policies, governance structures, and the ensemble of organisations and operations involved in EPR in a given jurisdiction. It includes government agencies, and the EPR chain, i.e. collectors, processors, end use industries, producer responsibility organisations, and clearinghouses. “EPR schemes” is intended to be a narrow term, referring to entities in the EPR chain, especially producer responsibility organisations (PROs). that, on first glance, are intended to lessen the role of the public sector in end-of-life management. Four typical governance structures are then presented and their advantages and disadvantages discussed. The role and status of producer responsibility organizations (PROs) are characterized and the debate over non-profit versus for-profit status for PROs is discussed. From there, the chapter looks at governance functions in EPR and their allocation among different stakeholders, as well as the resources needed for government participation in EPR systems.

This chapter investigates the effect of EPR schemes on competition in markets. While consensus exists between different jurisdictions on how to assess these effects, there are also differences. Among other things, the chapter demonstrates widespread agreement that: i) EPR policies should be as pro-competition as possible, ii) monopoly should not be the default structure for producer responsibility organisations (PROs), iii) agreements among competitors to establish PROs should be assessed externally; iv) competition authorities should not distinguish between voluntary and government-sponsored agreements; v) waste collection, sorting and treatment services should be procured by transparent and competitive tender.

One of the key objectives of extended producer responsibility is to shift responsibility for end-of-life management to producers and therewith incentivise them to invest in design-for-environment (DfE) in order to minimise waste management costs. However, due to the fact that most EPR systems have been implemented in the form of collective producer responsibility, DfE incentives have often been found to be very weak. This chapter discusses some of the ways that can help to strengthen these incentives, such as through the implementation of full cost recovery from producer fees, the use of variable rather than fixed producer fees, as well as modulated fees that take account of product design features.

This chapter examines the role that the informal sector plays in extended producer responsibility (EPR) systems in middle-income countries. It is intended to supplement the 2001 OECD guidance manual on EPR which had focused on EPRs in OECD countries and which did not examine the role of the informal sector in any depth. The main findings of the chapter are that while there are serious concerns about downstream informal dismantling and recycling which can generate negative economic and environmental impacts, the potentially positive contribution of informal waste collection and sorting activities is increasingly recognised. As a result, the policy objective has shifted from “rescuing” to integrating informal workers into formal waste management systems. Recent experience also shows that failure to doing so can seriously undermine EPR systems.