This blog post is based on the presentation and remarks by Alexander Batteiger, GIZ, PREVENT Waste Alliance, delivered during the GGKP webinar Activity Options for Action Plans for Brominated, Chlorinated and Other New POPs, held on 22 January 2026.
As countries develop action plans under the Stockholm Convention and related frameworks, a central challenge is financing the environmentally sound management of products containing hazardous substances, including persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is increasingly discussed as a practical financing approach to support sectoral circularity and the responsible management of products that may contain hazardous substances.
“In the long run, EPR is one of the most promising sources to tackle the financing of sustainable management of e-waste and end-of-life vehicles.”
– Alexander Batteiger, GIZ, PREVENT Waste Alliance
Financing challenges on the ground
Many developing countries are experiencing a rapid increase in products that contain POPs, including electronic equipment, batteries and vehicles. This growth is driven by rising domestic consumption, imports of new and used products, and the energy and mobility transition, which introduces additional material streams.
In practice, informal collection, dismantling and recycling provide livelihoods for many people, but these activities often focus on valuable fractions such as metals. Non-valuable or hazardous components are frequently disposed of by dumping or burning, leading to toxic contamination and serious environmental and health risks. Even where small and medium-sized recyclers aim to operate sustainably, they face barriers linked to complex product composition, limited local treatment options for certain fractions, and the absence of markets for hazardous plastics.
Where markets for sustainable end-of-life management are unregulated or only partially regulated, there is no level playing field. Sustainable recyclers are often outcompeted by actors that do not comply with environmental and safety standards, making environmentally sound management difficult without dedicated financing mechanisms.
Why EPR matters for circularity
EPR is a policy approach that makes producers responsible for their products along the entire lifecycle, including the post-consumer stage. The underlying principle is that the entity benefiting from placing a product on the market should also bear responsibility for managing environmental externalities at end of life.
EPR implementation often follows a phased approach. Short-term interventions may include alternative financing mechanisms or pilot schemes to test sustainable collection and treatment. In the medium term, countries can establish Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) and begin building infrastructure. Over the longer term, fully functioning EPR systems can provide stable financing and improved framework conditions for sustainable recyclers.
Core EPR design principles
The design of EPR systems varies by country, but clear roles and responsibilities are essential. Experience shows that mandatory EPR schemes deliver better monitoring and enforcement, lower levels of free-riding and broader waste coverage than voluntary approaches.
EPR systems may be structured as financial schemes that organize funding flows, or as operational schemes that actively organize collection and recycling. Responsibility can be individual, with companies running their own schemes, or collective, with sectors acting together through PROs.
Governments lead EPR policy development, including setting targets, enforcement and monitoring. Producers and importers are responsible for ensuring the collection, sorting and recycling of their products, while PROs fulfil obligations on their behalf and coordinate between actors. Consumers, waste management operators and municipalities also play important roles, particularly where municipalities already manage waste collection.
Stakeholder interests
Stakeholders have distinct expectations of EPR systems. Citizens and consumers seek affordable products, clear communication on EPR-based financing, and tangible environmental improvements without higher taxes or municipal fees. Municipalities expect EPR to fit within existing waste management structures and improve service quality.
At the same time, waste managers and recyclers look for increased business opportunities, while informal collectors seek to remain in business and improve their conditions. Producers want fair competition, mandatory participation for all producers, stable rules and strong enforcement against free riders.
Successful EPR implementation, therefore, depends on structured stakeholder consultation and repeated dialogue. Clear producer registers and consistent enforcement mechanisms are critical, including coverage of online marketplaces and imports of used products, which should be treated as new products within EPR schemes.
Tools and global collaboration
To support countries and practitioners, PREVENT Waste Alliance developed the EPR Toolbox, an interactive resource with fact sheets, guidance on roles and responsibilities, collection and recycling, country reports and training materials. Building on this work, PREVENT, together with UNEP, OECD, WWF, GIZ and partners, launched the Global Action Partnership for EPR in October 2023.
The partnership works through three pillars: a curated EPR knowledge library, a helpdesk providing tailored technical support to governments and PROs, and a global community of practice to foster exchange and collaboration.
Looking ahead
EPR is not a short-term solution for building recycling infrastructure, but it can improve framework conditions and de-risk investment over time.
No country has all the recycling capacities needed for complex waste streams such as e-waste. Decisions must be made on which treatment steps can be carried out locally and which fractions should be shipped internationally, in line with international agreements such as the principle of proximity under the Basel Convention.
EPR can provide predictable financing for the collection and pre-treatment of hazardous substances and support their environmentally sound disposal. While EPR alone will not solve all sustainability or product design challenges, it can complement product-related regulation and, over time, support incentives such as eco-modulation of fees.
As countries update action plans for POPs, integrating EPR can help close financing gaps, strengthen circular economy systems, and reduce long-term environmental and health risks associated with persistent chemicals.
To learn more about the Global NIP Update project, visit Global NIP Update | Green Policy Platform.
For a deeper dive into the GGKP webinar Activity Options for Action Plans for Brominated, Chlorinated and Other New POPs, you can access the full recordings and materials here.
This article was curated by Mark Schulman, Content Editor, GGKP and reviewed by Soomin Bae, Project Support Consultant, GGKP.
