It has been five years since the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) launched South Africa’s first rollout of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations. These regulations were introduced to support the emerging circular economy and to track and improve South Africa’s sustainability performance across multiple waste streams.

EPR gives effect to the “producer pays principle”, whereby the responsibility to dispose of products sustainably and effectively rests with the producer, rather than solely with the consumer. This has required companies to reassess their products from design to end-of-life, reformulating material choices, manufacturing and distribution processes, and considering what ultimately happens to their products once they reach the end of their usable life.

While companies may manage this independently, the administration and compliance obligations can be outsourced to Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs). These organisations are mandated to manage EPR compliance on behalf of producers, enabling them to focus on operations while ensuring compliance is properly tracked and administered.

Keith Anderson, CEO of eWASA, a registered PRO, explains:

“When EPR was first introduced, there was some confusion regarding the mandatory nature of the regulations. Five years on, producers are far more aware of their obligations, and PROs have played a critical role in that awareness. Education formed a key part of our early mandate, ensuring producers understood what was required, why fees applied, and how those funds were utilised.”

Challenges to Be Overcome

A recurring concern among PROs is the lack of enforcement against non-compliant producers. Anderson notes:

“The entire premise of EPR functions only if participation is universal. Although the regulations provide for penalties against free-riders, there has not yet been a notable instance of enforcement against producers who have failed to comply.”

Non-compliant producers, commonly referred to as ‘free-riders’, benefit from the EPR framework without contributing financially. By avoiding compliance costs, they are able to offer lower prices, creating unfair market advantages while contributing to environmental harm.

Free-riding is not unique to South Africa. It is a global issue, particularly in relation to cheap online imports that bypass regulatory frameworks. PROs face the challenge of securing industry buy-in, while compliant producers question why they should effectively subsidise non-compliant competitors.

Another challenge has been inconsistent fee structures across PROs. Artificially low fees may attract members but can undermine the sustainability of recycling outcomes. Anderson clarifies:

“Technically, PROs are not competitive entities in the traditional sense. We are not-for-profit organisations. When fees are lowered outside reasonable norms, it disrupts the entire value chain.”

Misinformation has also presented difficulties, particularly where producers receive incorrect legal advice regarding their EPR obligations. While self-managed schemes are permitted, many producers underestimate the complexity, cost and audit requirements involved.

Growth of the Sector and the Country

Despite these challenges, Anderson emphasises that the overall impact of EPR has been positive. “For a framework that had never previously been implemented in South Africa, industry uptake has been relatively strong,” he says.

One of the most significant structural outcomes has been the growth and formalisation of the recycling and waste management sector. EPR funding has enabled recyclers to scale operations, invest in mechanisation, improve compliance, and create jobs throughout the value chain.

Improved data integrity has also been a major development. For the first time, credible and audited data exists regarding volumes placed on the market and materials collected and recycled. Such data enables more realistic and evidence-based target setting.

Has EPR Moved the Needle on Recycling?

According to Anderson, measurable environmental outcomes have been achieved. In the electronics sector alone, recycling rates of approximately 40% are being achieved, with figures independently audited.

Beyond financial audits, verification extends to recycling claims, training initiatives and waste picker support programmes. In 2025 alone, eWASA invested millions of rand in safety equipment, infrastructure and downstream processing capacity, investments made possible through EPR funding.

Shifting Design, Operations and Mindsets

EPR has also influenced upstream decision-making, particularly in product design and material selection. Producers are increasingly considering recyclability and repairability at the design stage, aligning with global movements such as right-to-repair.

Education and awareness initiatives funded through EPR have further supported this shift, extending to schools, universities and industry stakeholders, and strengthening the broader circular economy discourse.

Beneficiation initiatives have demonstrated how recovered materials can generate additional economic value. Examples include recycled glass being used in infrastructure projects, illustrating the tangible economic and environmental benefits of circular economy implementation.

Lessons for EPR 2.0

As South Africa prepares for the next phase of EPR, several lessons are clear: enforcement must be strengthened to ensure a level playing field; fee structures must reflect realistic operational costs; and collaboration between PROs, government and industry must be enhanced within competition law parameters.

“EPR is not a tax,” Anderson concludes. “It is an investment in infrastructure, compliance, employment and long-term sustainability. If properly enforced and intelligently refined, the next five years can deliver even greater impact than the first.”