Amendments to Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging to cover street binned and littered packaging waste in Wales

Number: 53806

Welsh Government 
Consultation document

Amendments to Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging to cover street binned and littered packaging waste in Wales

Date of issue: 30 January 2026 
Action required: Responses by 24 April 2026

The original policy intent of the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for packaging (pEPR) was that producers would be obligated under the scheme for the cost of the collection and disposal of packaging items littered on the ground and those disposed of in public litter bins. This was the policy contained within the first consultation which sought views on the draft pEPR regulations, published in Feb 2019 [1] and undertaken jointly by the four nations. That consultation sought views on the inclusion of litter in the scope of full net costs of managing packaging waste as part of pEPR. The consultation contained a section on ‘costs relating to littered packaging’ which proposed ‘that producer fees cover the full cost to local authorities of dealing with littered and fly-tipped packaging waste. Further work would be required to determine these costs and would need to take account of the introduction of any DRS.’

The response to the consultation published in July 2019 [2] highlighted the widespread support for this proposal. The consultation response also covered the overarching principles and outcomes, definition of full net cost recovery, fees and incentives to encourage more sustainable packaging, point of compliance and obligated businesses, supporting improved collections and infrastructure, mandatory labelling, recycling targets, governance arrangements, compliance monitoring and enforcement. 

In March 2021 a second consultation [3] was published, setting out more detailed proposals. It proposed that producers of commonly littered packaging would be made responsible for litter and refuse management costs, including binned packaging and ground litter. It was proposed that this would include costs incurred by local authorities, other duty bodies, litter authorities, and statutory undertakers. It would also include a contribution towards costs incurred by charities, not-for-profit organisations, litter picks and provision of bins on land that is accessible to public free of charge. 

The joint government response from all four nations published in March 2022 [4] , confirmed that pEPR would be implemented in phases, with household packaging waste and packaging in street bins managed by local authorities being addressed first, with further work to explore options for commercially collected waste to follow. The response also stated that modulated fees based on recyclability would be introduced in year two and gave some further details on the threshold for producers, labelling, recycling targets and the appointment of the scheme administrator. 

Regarding litter, the March 2022 consultation response stated:

“In England and Northern Ireland, we will not introduce payments for packaging waste that is littered; Scotland and Wales are considering steps to obligate producers for these costs and will come forward with their proposals in due course.” 

The response also stated:

 “The Scottish and Welsh Governments remain committed to the position set out in the consultation: that the cost of clearing packaging from the ground (referred to as ‘ground litter’ in the consultation) is included in producer costs, reflecting producers’ responsibility for packaging design and material choice, and that this obligation would incentivise producers to reduce the amount of single-use packaging and take other steps to prevent litter arising.”

“The Scottish and Welsh Governments are considering steps to obligate producers in respect of these costs, where this packaging is placed on the market in Scotland and Wales respectively and will set out their intentions in detail in due course.”

A third consultation was published in March 2022 [5] and sought views on some of the technical and administrative aspects of the scheme such as reporting requirements and the interface with a DRS. A response to this was published in October 2022 [6]. This consultation did not include any matters specifically related to litter.  

In July 2023 a fourth consultation [7]  was carried out, sharing the draft regulations and seeking views on the clarity of responsibilities of producers, local authorities and others. The consultation also confirmed that packaging payments would be deferred until October 2025, and that local authority payments could be deducted by up to 20 percent if they are not delivering efficient and effective services. 

The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 came into force on 1 January 2025 [8] . This was followed by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 that amend the initial regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2026 [9]. 

The purpose of this consultation is therefore to gather views on the way in which the pEPR scheme should be developed to account for ‘on the go’ packaging waste which is placed in public bins or littered in Wales. This would require the amending of the legislation, using powers such as those under the Environment Act 2021.

The timing for the potential changes discussed in this consultation document has not yet been confirmed and depends on the outcome of the consultation. However, it is likely that any changes would be introduced for year 3 of the scheme (2027-28) at the earliest.

To respond to this consultation, please download and complete our response form at the back of this document and email: WelshGovernmentEPRProgramme@gov.wales or post to: 

pEPR Policy Team
Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Division
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff 
CF10 3NQ

Large print, Braille and alternative language versions of this document are available on request. 
Contact details for further information:

EPR Policy Team, 
Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Division, 
Welsh Government, 
Cathays Park, 
Cardiff CF10 3NQ 

Email: WelshGovernmentEPRProgramme@gov.wales 

Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg / This document is also available in Welsh.

The Welsh Government will be data controller for Welsh Government consultations and for any personal data you provide as part of your response to the consultation. 

Welsh Ministers have statutory powers they will rely on to process this personal data which will enable them to make informed decisions about how they exercise their public functions. The lawful basis for processing information in this data collection exercise is our public task; that is, exercising our official authority to undertake the core role and functions of the Welsh Government. (Art 6(1)(e)) 

Any response you send us will be seen in full by Welsh Government staff dealing with the issues which this consultation is about or planning future consultations. In the case of joint consultations this may also include other public authorities. Where the Welsh Government undertakes further analysis of consultation responses then this work may be commissioned to be carried out by an accredited third party (e.g. a research organisation or a consultancy company). Any such work will only be undertaken under contract. Welsh Government’s standard terms and conditions for such contracts set out strict requirements for the processing and safekeeping of personal data.
In order to show that the consultation was carried out properly, the Welsh Government intends to publish a summary of the responses to this document. We may also publish responses in full. Normally, the name and address (or part of the address) of the person or organisation who sent the response are published with the response. If you do not want your name or address published, please tell us this in writing when you send your response. We will then redact them before publishing. 

You should also be aware of our responsibilities under Freedom of Information legislation and that the Welsh Government may be under a legal obligation to disclose some information. 
If your details are published as part of the consultation response, then these published reports will be retained indefinitely. Any of your data held otherwise by Welsh Government will be kept for no more than three years.

Your rights 

Under the data protection legislation, you have the right: 

• to be informed of the personal data held about you and to access it 
• to require us to rectify inaccuracies in that data 
• to (in certain circumstances) object to or restrict processing 
• for (in certain circumstances) your data to be ‘erased’ 
• to (in certain circumstances) data portability 
• to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who is our independent regulator for data protection 

For further details about the information the Welsh Government holds and its use, or if you want to exercise your rights under the UK GDPR, please see contact details below:

Data Protection Officer: 

Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ 
e-mail: dataprotectionofficer@gov.wales 

The contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office are: 

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF 

Tel: 0303 123 1113

Website: https://ico.org.uk/ 

The Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for packaging (pEPR) is a UK-wide scheme that came into effect on 1 January 2025 through the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 [10]. Although Extended Producer Responsibility is devolved, all four governments within the UK had committed to bring forward a UK-wide scheme. The scheme requires producers to cover the full cost of managing household packaging waste. This includes the costs of collecting, sorting, recycling and disposing of packaging once it is discarded by consumers. Obligated producers are required to register with a regulator in the UK, submit accurate packaging data, pay the applicable fees and retain relevant records. 

The intended outcomes of the pEPR regulations are to deliver the following environmental benefits:

• The use of environmentally sustainable packaging;
• The prevention of packaging becoming waste;
• An increase in the reuse of packaging, and in the quantity and quality of packaging materials recycled; and a reduction in the packaging material placed on the market.

The scheme is administered by PackUK  [11] , a body hosted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and operating on behalf of all four UK nations. Packaging producers must pay fees which vary depending on the quantity and types of packaging they supply. In the first year (2025-26), producers pay flat fees based on tonnages of each type of material. From year two (2026-27), fees will be adjusted based on recyclability using a red-amber-green (RAG) rating system. 

PackUK passes these fees on to local authorities who collect and dispose of household packaging waste. The anticipated payment values to the 22 local authorities in Wales totalled nearly £88.7m for year one (2025-26), based on letters sent in July 2025 [12] . Local authority payments are calculated using a model that factors in rurality and deprivation, government policies, tonnage of waste collected and managed and the estimated composition of the waste. The model does not include costs associated with business waste, street bin waste or litter  [13]. 

The cost of dealing with ground litter and emptying public bins is not included in the current regulations. 

Drinks containers made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), steel, or aluminium between 150ml to 3l in size are excluded from pEPR disposal fees, pending the introduction of a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS).  

Producers must report packaging data to the relevant environmental regulator, which for Wales is Natural Resources Wales (NRW). NRW is responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcement. 

Large producers must collect and report a variety of data, including whether the packaging they produce is household or non-household, whether it “commonly ends up in public bins”, whether it is reusable and whether it is a drinks container. A list of items that commonly end up in public bins, “commonly littered items”, is provided in the guidance  [14]. 

Previous consultations have already established support for the principle of including litter in pEPR. Change is needed in order to align the regulations with the original policy intent of pEPR, which was that producers would be obligated for the cost of the collection and disposal of packaging items littered on the ground and those disposed of in public litter bins. 

Litter is a significant environmental and social problem in Wales. It pollutes land and waterways, harms wildlife, negatively impacts the visual landscape and affects people’s sense of pride in place. The majority of litter (by item count) is packaging waste  [15]. Litter also imposes a financial burden on local authorities that are responsible for collecting and disposing of it.

The ‘polluter pays’ principle is at the heart of the pEPR regulations, with the principle being that producers are responsible for the entire lifecycle of products and packaging that they place on the market, including the costs of waste management at end of life. Collecting and disposing of litter is an activity that is currently being paid for mostly by local authorities, and in some situations other organisations, rather than producers. Therefore, the current pEPR scheme does not cover the full costs of managing all packaging waste and there is still a clear need for it to include littered packaging. 

Ground litter is sometimes a result of illegal behaviour of some consumers, and not all litterers are identified and brought to justice. Research from Keep Britain Tidy has shown that enforcement action is costly to implement and has a limited impact on littering  [16] . This view is backed up by the experience of Keep Wales Tidy, who note that “enforcement cannot work in isolation” and involves significant challenges in delivery  [17] . 

In any case, the illegality or otherwise of the disposal route is not relevant to the responsibility of the obligated producer. The fact that a package was illegally littered should not absolve producers of the costs of managing that litter, any more than it absolves local authorities of the responsibility of dealing with it. Consumers will not always follow the correct procedures for disposing of their waste – the fact that a consumer might put a recyclable item of packaging in a residual waste bin rather than recycle it does not change the producer obligation to cover the costs of managing that waste; the same is true for all local authority waste management routes, including litter. However, not all ground litter is the result of illegal activity. High winds or overloaded bin infrastructure can also lead to ground litter. Litter placed in public street bins is a legitimate disposal route that incurs costs for local authorities to collect. 

The Welsh Government remains committed to the position set out in previous consultations, that producers should be obligated for the costs of clearing packaging waste from the ground and from public litter bins, reflecting producers’ responsibility for packaging design and material choice, and that this obligation would incentivise producers to reduce the amount of single-use packaging and take other steps to prevent litter arising.

The costs of managing litter include:

• provision of bins
• provision of vehicles and equipment for collection 
• operational costs of emptying bins and transporting the waste to a treatment facility
• operational costs of collecting ground litter and transporting this waste to a treatment facility
• costs of anti-litter communications and campaigns 
• costs of monitoring and auditing street cleanliness 

The activities of litter picking and emptying public bins are often integrated with street cleansing and other services such as grounds maintenance, gulley clearance and graffiti removal, and are not easily disaggregated. The same people, vehicles and equipment can be involved in several different jobs simultaneously. This approach is more cost effective than carrying out the services separately but does make the costs of any one activity difficult to quantify. A high proportion of the costs are fixed (such as staff, equipment and vehicles) regardless of the quantity of litter collected. Furthermore, not all litter is packaging, and other litter will still need to be collected regardless. 

Whilst splitting the costs of an integrated service and attributing a proportional share to packaging litter might be considered a fair approach, it must be noted that such a cost share would not be realised as a saving if a local authority did not need to collect that material, because other services would still be required, such as collecting non-packaging litter. 

It would be prudent to exclude the costs of end disposal / treatment of littered waste, to avoid potential double counting, because these costs are likely to be already covered by the existing pEPR scheme. It is considered that most local authorities would typically dispose of litter together with other waste, once collected, through waste transfer arrangements. The changes proposed here are therefore focused only on collection costs. 

Analysis commissioned by the Welsh Government on the costs of binned waste and ground litter collections by local authorities indicates potential costs of managing littered packaging waste of around £15-16m per year in Wales. Ground littered packaging is estimated to account for approximately two thirds of this cost, with the remaining one third for packaging waste in public bins. The cost of collecting littered waste is much more expensive per tonne than that of waste collected from kerbsides or household waste recycling centres. 

Recent analysis commissioned by the Welsh Government found that the majority (around two thirds) of ground litter was categorised as packaging, by item count. The composition of waste placed in public bins is the subject of a separate UK-wide study commissioned by Defra. 

We are considering the options to amend the legislation and processes that would allow ground or binned litter packaging waste to be included in pEPR for Wales. This would include recovery of costs related to local authority collection of ground litter and waste from public bins. Further detail about the options is provided below.

This consultation runs for twelve weeks, from 30 January to 24 April 2026. 

The purpose of this consultation is to gather stakeholders’ views on policy options for including binned and ground litter in the scope of pEPR in Wales.

We want to hear your views on the following areas: 

• Part one – potential policy options for how to calculate producer fees for producers of littered packaging 
• Part two - how to allocate payments to local authorities, and how to account for efficiency and effectiveness in litter management 
• Part three - the definition of ‘relevant authorities’ who manage litter

Part One – Producer fees policy options

We are considering three potential policy options for allocating litter fees to producers. A description of each option is provided below, along with a high-level indicative process flow diagram. 

Option A – Flat rate

Under this option, all producers would pay a flat rate fee per tonne of packaging placed on the market. Litter costs could thereby either be subsumed into the overall costs of managing packaging waste or could be invoiced to producers separately. Litter costs would be payable by all producers in proportion to the quantity of packaging they produce. 

This option is simple and relatively cheap to operate and might not require local authorities to report separate litter management costs annually. However, collating actual litter management costs from local authorities at intervals (such as every 3 to 5 years) would still be helpful as a reference point to ensure that the overall unit price is still appropriate. This option is the most straightforward to implement. 

The disadvantage is that the system does not in a targeted way encourage producers to take any action to reduce littering and it imposes costs equally on producers, including those whose products are not commonly littered. It also diverges from the prior declaration of intent to separate litter and household collection costs as set out in a previous consultation on pEPR. 

To calculate the levels that the flat fees would need to be set out at would require data on the costs of litter collection. The total costs per tonne of managing littered packaging waste can be calculated by dividing the total costs of managing littered packaging waste of all local authorities, by the total tonnage of litter collected. The collection element of the main pEPR fees (which vary by material) would need to be deducted from this to calculate only the additional cost of collecting the littered items (instead of collecting them through kerbside collections or other proper routes). This additional cost per tonne of collecting littered packaging waste would then be shared across all packaging placed on the market according to the proportion of all packaging that ends up as litter. 
 

Option B – Focus fees on commonly littered items

In this option, only producers of commonly littered items would pay a fee for their commonly littered packaging placed on the market, with fees determined by product type, size and material. 

This option would result in those producers who produce items that are more commonly littered shouldering the burden of litter management costs. This means the solution is more targeted to commonly littered items. 

However, this approach would be more complex to administer; it would require more granular data and greater clarity on litter management costs and litter composition data would need to be more regularly updated. Additionally, the data from producers about packaging placed on the market might need to be more granular than the current pEPR system requires, if different items were placed on the list in future, in order to ensure that commonly littered items can be correctly identified. 

Focusing fees only on commonly littered items does not allow for cost recovery of other items that are littered but not on the list. Recent research from WRAP suggests that only 64 percent (by weight) of collected litter consisted of items currently on the commonly littered items list. Furthermore, this includes some drinks containers that may be part of a future DRS and so may be less likely to be littered in future. Litter is not always dropped by individuals and also comes from kerbsides on collection days and from bulk haulers and waste transfer stations, meaning that any item of packaging could end up as litter. If additional pEPR fees were added only to commonly littered items and there were no changes to the items list, then only approximately 64 percent of packaging litter management costs would be recovered. 

Option C - Hybrid

A hybrid option would be to have a portion of the costs funded by producers of commonly littered items (as per option B) and the remainder funded by all packaging producers (as per option A), with higher fees for producers of commonly littered items. 

This option would still have the disadvantages of cost and complexity to manage, even more so than option B, but the advantages of this option are that it would allow for cost recovery of all litter costs and it would allow for a fairer split of costs between producers of commonly littered items and other producers. 

Question 1. Which policy option for producer fees do you think is the best solution?

Please select one of the following options: 

• Option A – Flat rate
• Option B – Commonly littered items
• Option C – Hybrid
• An alternative solution – please provide details in response to question 2 below.
• Unsure or no preference 

Question 2. Please provide an explanation or reasons for your preferred policy option. 

(Free text answer)

One challenge that applies equally to all of the options is identifying which producers should bear the litter costs for Wales specifically, since we do not currently hold data on tonnages placed on the market by nation. If the tonnages placed on market data is only at a UK-wide level, but litter management costs are only applied in Wales, then a methodology is needed to allocate the share of packaging placed on the market that is assumed to be disposed of in Wales. A reasonable assumption would be to say that packaging is distributed evenly across the population. However, there might need to be an exemption for any producers who can demonstrate that their products are not sold in Wales but only in other parts of the UK. 

Question 3. What do you think is the best way to ensure that producer fees are levied proportionally to producers supplying products to Wales?

Please select one of the following options: 

• Allocate a share of charges to all producers based on the share of the UK population that resides in Wales
• Use nation of sale data supplied by producers to identify the share of products sold in Wales for each producer
• Another method – please provide details in response to question 4 below.
• Unsure or no preference

Question 4. Please provide an explanation or reasons for your answer to the previous question. 

(Free text answer)

Part Two – Local authority payments, efficiency and effectiveness

Question 5. What is the best method of determining the total costs of local authority litter management (including emptying public bins and clearing ground litter) for pEPR? 

Please select one of the following options: 

• Use cost estimates from recent research by Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). 
• Require local authorities to submit litter management cost data annually to PackUK
• Another method – please give details below in response to question 6
• Unsure or no preference

Question 6. Please provide an explanation or reasons for your answer to the previous question. 

(Free text answer)

Producer fees for littered packaging waste could be passed on to local authorities according to the tonnage of litter they collect. This would be relatively straightforward, if Wales local authorities have records of the tonnage of litter collected. 

If rates differed for different materials, then composition analysis of collected litter would also be required. A default assumed composition could be agreed in cases where actual composition data was unavailable. 

Alternatively, payments to local authorities could be allocated with a fixed rate based on population, number of households, and/or total area of relevant land from which litter is cleared. 

Question 7. What is the best method for allocating litter payments to each local authority?

Please select one of the following options: 

• A flat rate for all litter, with litter payments to local authorities based on the tonnage of litter collected
• Different rates for different materials, with payments to local authorities based on both tonnage and composition of litter collected
• Allocate litter payments to local authorities based on population or number of households
• Allocate litter payments to local authorities based on area of ‘relevant land’ from which litter is cleared  [18]
• A combination of the above
• Another method (please provide details in response to question 8)
• Unsure or no preference

Question 8. Please provide an explanation or reasons for your answer to the previous question. 

(Free text answer)

Efficiency and effectiveness

In the pEPR regulations, “the “efficient disposal costs” of a relevant authority are the disposal costs the relevant authority would incur if it provided an efficient waste management service”.

“a relevant authority provides an efficient waste management service if the disposal costs of the authority are as low as reasonably possible, taking into account— (a)the waste management service provided by the authority; and (b) any other factors specific to that authority, or to the area in relation to which it exercises its waste management functions, which in the opinion of the scheme administrator are likely to affect its disposal costs”.

An efficient service is therefore one that delivers the outcomes of the scheme in a way which reflects value for money. It would be reasonable in principle to reduce funding for any authorities whose service was not run efficiently, considering relevant factors at a national level and specific to the service, the authority and the area. However, measuring what constitutes good value for money in litter collection is challenging. 

In the current financial climate faced by local authorities, the service may only be delivering the minimum that is necessary in respect of litter, and therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the current costs incurred by local authorities are reflective of efficient costs. This would be the starting point. In future, to guard against increasing expenditure which may not be efficient, a requirement could potentially be introduced for local authorities to provide evidence to the scheme administrator that the increased expenditure is necessary to deliver an efficient and effective litter collection service. 

PackUK states that its assessment of effectiveness “will take into account a number of listed factors, such as the proportion of packaging waste (both in each packaging material stream and overall) being recycled, total amount of packaging waste managed and the demographic and geographical characteristics of the authority area”  [19] . 

It is difficult to apply these definitions directly to the management of packaging litter. The proportion of litter that is recycled may be of interest, but it is not related to the effect of the litter clearance and collection service which is to remove the material from the ground and empty the bins. As outlined above, the subsequent disposal and/or recycling of this littered material is likely to be integrated with the disposal and recycling of kerbside collected and other waste streams, meaning that the disposal aspect is already covered by pEPR. Neither is the total amount of packaging waste managed an indicator of the effectiveness of the litter collection service as a higher volume of litter managed might just mean there was more litter to start with and may not be indicative of the proportion cleared. 

Overall, an effective litter service may be thought of as one that achieves the desired effect which is ultimately a litter-free landscape. The Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse (CoPLAR) sets out the duties of local authorities, designations for different land uses, the standards of cleanliness that must be maintained and the maximum permissible response times for restoring littered land to the acceptable standard for each land-use designation. The Local Environmental Audit and Management System (LEAMS) is one way to assess performance against CoPLAR. However, both CoPLAR and LEAMS are currently being revised. Regular and thorough environmental audits are also expensive to operate. 

Improving effectiveness might also increase costs, since it may mean additional services provided, either in terms of frequency of clearing, locations covered or bins provided.  

An alternative would be to require local authorities to demonstrate that they have undertaken certain actions such as create a litter strategy and carry out a minimum level of litter management services. This option would not rely on CoPLAR, LEAMS or surveys, so would be easier to implement. Instead, to demonstrate that they are operating an effective service, local authorities could be required to submit annual evidence and/or declarations of the litter management activities they have undertaken. This might include:

• having an in-date litter management strategy, with actions identified to reduce litter
• a report on litter management activities carried out, with key performance indicators (e.g. proportion of streets/areas covered, frequency of collections, tonnage of litter collected per capita, proportion of litter recycled) 
• evidence of public communications campaigns against littering 
• report on litter compliance and enforcement activities undertaken 

Due to the wide range of costs currently incurred by local authorities in Wales for their litter management operations, we think that any adjustments to local authority payments for efficiency and/or effectiveness would need to be delayed for at least twelve months following the introduction of litter payments to allow time to carry out more research and better understand the cost data and drivers. 

Question 9. Do you agree that adjustments to local authority litter payments for efficiency and/or effectiveness should be delayed for twelve months after litter payments being introduced, to allow time to gather extra data on local authority litter management performance?

Please select one of the following options: 

• Yes – delay adjustments for twelve months after litter payments introduced
• No – introduce adjustments at the same time as introducing litter payments 
• Unsure or no preference

Question 10. What do you think is the best way to account for efficiency in local authority litter management?

Please select one of the following options: 

• Cost per tonne of litter collected
• Cost per capita
• Cost per hectare of relevant land from which litter is cleared
• A combination of the above
• Another method (please give details below)
• Unsure or no preference

Question 11. What do you think is the best way to account for effectiveness in local authority litter management?

Please select one of the following options: 

• COPLAR compliance audits  
• Street cleanliness based on surveys – such as LEAMS 
• Recycling rates of collected litter 
• Evidence of a litter management strategy and action plan
• A combination of the above
• Another method (please give details below)
• Unsure or no preference

Question 12. Please provide an explanation or reasons for your answers to questions 9, 10 and 11. 

(Free text answer)

Part Three – Relevant authorities

Local authorities have a duty to keep ‘relevant land’ in their area clear of litter, as far as is practicable. Relevant land includes all land that is open to the air on at least one side and is either publicly accessible or under council control. This includes beaches, and highways that they are responsible for. 

However, not all costs related to litter management are the burden of local authorities. Some litter will end up in places that fall under the responsibility of other duty bodies, such as:

• waterways 
• trunk roads, which are the responsibility of the Welsh Government’s Trunk Road Agents (TRAs)  [20]
• land owned by Crown authorities, educational institutions, Network Rail and rail and tram operators, and water companies – these organisations are responsible for litter on their own land.

Litter is also sometimes collected by community groups and the voluntary sector. There is no definitive list of duty bodies collecting waste. Furthermore, there is no central source of data on litter collection costs for these other duty bodies either so further work would be needed to determine such costs.

Whilst local authorities must keep areas clear of litter, there is no specific statutory requirement for local authorities to provide litter bins and often this is done by parish or town councils. 

The current pEPR regulations only include household waste. In Wales, workplace recycling regulations apply to places such as transport hubs. The definition of household waste for the purposes of pEPR is different from that for the purposes of workplace recycling. 

For these reasons, we think it is reasonable to focus on detailed cost modelling for local authorities initially. However, we are considering whether there should also be a ‘bidding pot’ that PackUK could administer to enable other duty bodies and litter groups to bid in for multi-year delivery revenue streams.

Question 13. Do you think that litter management payments should be made to other organisations that manage litter, as well as local authorities? 

Please select one of the following options: 

• Yes
• No
• Unsure or no preference

Question 14.  Do you support the idea of a bidding pot for other organisations who manage litter?

Please select one of the following options: 

• Yes
• No
• Unsure or no preference

Question 15. Do you have any alternative suggestions for how to address funding for organisations other than local authorities that manage litter? If so, please outline these here.

(Free text answer)

Question 16. Please provide an explanation or reasons for your answers to questions 13, 14 and 15. 

(Free text answer)

All parts

A draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) has been prepared to support this consultation. This is available as a separate document on the consultation website.

Question 17: Please let us know if you have any comments on the RIA. 

(Free text answer)

Question 18: We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to convey them: 

(Free text answer)

[1]Consultation on reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system - DEFRA.GOV.UK

[2]Packaging waste: changing the UK producer responsibility system for packaging waste - GOV.UK 

[3]Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging- DEFRA.GOV.UK

[4]Extended Producer Responsibility for 
Packaging: Summary of consultation responses and Government
response- GOV.UK

[5]Consultation on Reforms to the Packaging Waste Recycling Note (PRN) and Packaging Waste Export Recycling Note (PERN) System and Operator Approval - DEFRA.GOV.UK

[6]Packaging waste recycling notes reform - GOV.UK 

[7]Draft producer responsibility obligations (packaging and packaging waste) regulations- GOV.UK

[8]The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 - LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

[9] The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 - LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

[10]The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 - LEGISLATION.GOV.UK 

[11]PackUK - GOV.UK

[12]Local Authority payment values: Wales - GOV.UK 

[13] Methodology and procedure for calculating 2025 to 2026 payments - GOV.UK

[14]Packaging data: what to collect for extended producer responsibility - GOV.UK 

[15]Composition analysis of litter waste in Wales

[16]The Effectiveness of Enforcement 
on Behaviour Change - IPSOS.COM

[17] Rethinking enforcement for littering and dog fouling - KEEPWALESTIDY.CYMRU

[18]Litter and refuse: council responsibilities to keep land clear - GOV.UK

[19] Glossary of Terms - GOV.UK 

[20] Managing our roads | GOV.WALES