EPR systems that accelerate the circular transition: Requirements for the Belgian Textile EPR

For this reason, we call on Belgian policymakers, at both federal and regional levels, to include at least the following five pillars in this new national EPR legislation:

Enforceable circular targets

EPR systems only reach their full potential as catalysts for the circular economy when legislators establish legally binding circular targets. This is already common practice in other EPR systems [1]. Targets must at least focus on

For instance, manual sorting for reuse can be more expensive than sorting for recycling or downcycling (which is often more automated). Establishing specific (local) reuse targets ensures that collected clothing is only recycled if it is unsuitable for reuse. Furthermore, local reuse targets can support social initiatives and create local employment. While it is important that repair is also scaled up within the EPR for textiles, this is harder to measure; we therefore propose supporting repair initiatives financially instead of setting targets for them.

Targets must serve as a minimum threshold, with performance exceeding this threshold being rewarded. In many current EPR systems, the targets discourage producers and producer responsibility organisations (PROs) from continuing to finance activities once the targets have been met – even when additional resources are available. Belgium can break this pattern by, for example, linking targets to the share of waste that is not collected separately, or by introducing incentives for performance above the minimum threshold.

Recognise the diversity of textiles

Current EPR legislation for textiles in the Netherlands and Belgium focuses primarily on fashion, whereas textiles encompass a much broader range of products. The difference in use – e.g. hotel and hospital linen, workwear, and protective clothing versus fashion – as well as the difference in quality, means that EPR legislation cannot treat textiles as a homogeneous group.

A first proble.

In the Netherlands, for example, a reporting obligation applies to professional textiles, but the targets do not differentiate between consumer textiles and professional textiles. This creates a gap between the legal targets and the ability of certain producers to meet them. Professional textiles are often less suitable for reuse (due to logos or safety regulations), but because they are often of higher quality and more durable, there is greater potential for high-quality recycling. Belgian EPR legislation must ensure that targets align with reality by including specific provisions for professional textiles alongside those for consumer textiles.

Inclusive governance

Problems around governance currently hinder the efforts of key stakeholders, such as social enterprises, municipalities, and recyclers, to establish high-performing circular systems for textiles. At present, the boards of directors of most PROs consist primarily of representatives from a few large producers. As a result, the perspectives of other crucial stakeholders are not taken into account, and this does not lead to sufficient accountability regarding the performance of the PROs.

In addition to the minimum requirements in the European Waste Framework Directive (WFD), we propose that Belgium should mandate the involvement of a broad group of stakeholders from the textile value chain, both in national legislative processes (the design of the EPR) and in the governance of the PROs themselves. Inclusive governance must not be limited to advisory boards or consultative bodies: it must also include voting rights for various groups within the board of directors and the policy-making process.

Among other things, this must ensure representation for waste processors, retailers, consumer representatives, producers, and social actors such as HERW!N, Groep Maatwerk, and RESSOURCES, who have been dedicated to the separate collection and reuse of textiles for decades. At the same time, they provide employment for a large group of people. Inclusive governance can help to better align the textile system with market reality as well as with circular and waste targets.

Progressive funding

In addition to performance-based targets, it is essential to unlock resources to finance the non-profitable parts of circular initiatives and prevent the EPR from merely supporting the status quo (collection and disposal). This can be done by requiring the PRO to reserve a specific percentage of its revenue for, among other things, reuse systems, high-quality recycling, repair and rental initiatives, and educational activities.

The level of contributions is currently linked to the cost-coverage rule (as defined in the EU WFD), which states that a PRO may not collect more than is necessary to finance the system and meet legal obligations. However, by reserving a mandatory percentage of contributions or revenue in a circular fund, Belgium can stimulate innovation and the development of crucial circular infrastructure [3].

We propose that this fund should invest at least in: a) repair infrastructure, b) marketplaces for the exchange of used textiles, c) communication and awareness campaigns on sustainable consumption, d) alternative production methods (such as on-demand production, rental, and innovative materials and dyes).

This fund can be managed by the PRO itself (if it is under inclusive governance) or by a neutral body representing various circular players.

Keep the option open for multiple PROs

The question of whether to allow multiple PROs must be viewed from the perspective of necessity. To achieve a well-functioning, ambitious, and transparent EPR system in Belgium, the requirements described above must be integrated. If these cannot be guaranteed within a monopoly PRO, the option for multiple PROs must remain open.

As is evident in the Netherlands, competition can break the status quo, raise ambition levels, and ensure that the EPR continues to evolve. However, this only works if a robust legal framework is in place to prevent a race to the bottom – in other words, by setting ambitious targets and ensuring sufficient financial resources that are distributed fairly.

Signatories

Bond Beter Leefmilieu COSH! Dressr Fair Resource Foundation Febelsafe HERW!N Les Petits Riens Spullenhulp LLCE Recare about Shoes

OXFAM Belgium Repair Together Asbl Repair&Share RESSOURCES TERRE undo.software ViTeS.BE vzw Zero Waste Belgium Zero Waste Europe

Footnotes

[1] The Netherlands has established a calculation of targets based on the volume of textiles placed on the market; in France, the target for separate collection is based on the average volume (tonnes) of textiles placed on the market over the past three years. The recycling target is based on the volume (tonnes) of separately collected and sorted, but not reused textiles. The reuse target is expressed in tonnes, while the local reuse target is based on the total volume (tonnes) of reused textiles; in recent EU legislation, the batteries regulation stipulates that the initial collection rate is calculated using the volume of batteries collected in 2023, divided by the average sales of the three preceding years (2020, 2021, 2022) (as indicated in Annex XI);

[2] A new policy proposal in the Netherlands suggests a levy via a digital product passport of approximately 1 euro per 0.1 kg of fossil-based plastic textiles.

[3] For example, a fund that allocates at least 10% of EPR fees to reuse (5%) and repair activities (5%) to make this sector more profitable and create local jobs. Moreover, this measure aligns with the European Parliament resolution on the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles. Inspiration for the fund could be drawn from the French example, which directly targets social economy actors.