Market Report

No change in June - so it seems

NL-Tilburg, 24 May 2026

Contrary to what one might expect, there is still no indication of what the recovered paper market will look like in June. None of the mill buyers from paper and board mills are giving the slightest indication, and those who do are talking of unchanged prices for most grades.

Exports are a key factor for the various low grades. Nothing is happening there. In South-East Asia, the outlook is ‘unchanged’; in India, prices are under pressure, with some grades simply not being purchased at the prices of previous orders. No major price drops, but the appeal of exporting is clearly waning across all export destinations, given the current complexity of container bookings, securing transport, and finding and therefore loading the necessary containers, as well as the required inspections at certain destinations.

This will only lead to lower exports and thus greater availability on the European market, which is not favourable for future price trends. Do we need higher prices? Given the cost trends and the increasingly stagnant decline in generation, higher prices could be part of the solution. The best solution is, of course, to adjust purchase prices downwards. But apparently, the fear of losing even more volume is the reason for taking a tight line on purchasing. How this relates to the negative trends in the recycling sector’s results, where players are also concerned about the effects of upcoming (for paper) or already existing (for plastics) export restrictions, is difficult to understand. It seems that the solution is being sought in the sale of companies. And in that context, in particular, processed volume is a key factor. 

P(E)RN

In the UK, a real storm has erupted over the news that Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has floated the idea of scrapping the P(E)RN system.  All possible interest groups have expressed their outrage and, above all, their concern. Why? That is the question, but it is not being asked. Rather, the concern is that it would be a catastrophe for the recycling sector, with far-reaching consequences for companies processing recovered paper and plastics.

With the introduction of EPR (extended producer responsibility), the PRNs were initially set to be phased out, but eventually it was decided to retain this system after all and integrate it into the EPR scheme. The question ‘why?’ would be more appropriate in the context of this decision.

The PERN system is a scheme whereby companies that place packaging on the market do not pay the full cost of recycling. Local authorities are left to bear a large proportion of the costs. By purchasing P(E)RNs, companies that place packaging on the market can buy their way out of the obligation to recycle. By purchasing PERNs, which, depending on the market, range from £0.50 per tonne (paper) to over £300 per tonne for plastics, and everything in between, the obligation is fulfilled. Accredited companies, final processors and exporters of paper/cardboard or plastics can issue these PERNs based on the volume they process or export.

It is a system highly susceptible to fraud, as numerous incidents have already demonstrated, and this has only led to increasingly stringent measures by the supervisory body, the EA, which is charging ever-higher fees (which companies wishing to be accredited must pay) and employing staff who are completely unfamiliar with the sector to approve or reject applications for accreditation. In reaching this decision, the EA has, in the meantime, informed applicants on several occasions that they are behind schedule due to limited capacity, so that for many, no decision has yet been made regarding accreditation, which in fact should have come into effect as of 1 January this year. The result is that a large number have been accredited, but a large number have not. Where has the level playing field gone? After all, those who can issue a PERN can pay higher (purchase) prices in the market than those who cannot and/or put a part in their pockets.

What does this mean for companies that place packaging on the market? They can shirk their recycling obligations for a song. It is mainly the local authorities that foot the bill, either directly when the waste is collected, or indirectly by having to deliver waste that could be recycled to so-called MRFs, where  ‘mixed recyclables’ (paper/cardboard, plastics, glass, tin) are accepted, only to be ‘sorted’ into streams that are barely saleable or recyclable, or are so contaminated that the returns are low or negative.

The MRFs, usually owned by large waste management companies who invest tens of millions in them for contracts spanning decades, then determine what the local authorities pay as ‘gate fees’. If this proves insufficient, the rejection system is often applied: the composition of the waste is not as agreed, and so on. In short, the local authorities are left holding the baby, and so are the taxpayers. 
Now, one might think that a contribution of £300 towards plastic recycling is rather a lot, but collecting plastic with rear-end-loaders already costs more than £300 per tonne, as it has little weight. It is benefitting from being transported alongside the heavier items of paper, glass and tin. How much plastic packaging could a rear-end-loader collect door-to-door in a single day? 1,000 kg? Or would it be less? In that case, the costs would quickly rise to £800 per tonne, and the ‘recycling’ process hasn’t then even started yet. Nowadays, plastic recycling is limited by running it through the MRFs and compacting it, only to send it off to incineration. Previously, it was mostly exported to third world countries, but we have since seen the consequences of that.

In short, the companies responsible for placing the packaging on the market do not pay for recycling, the PERN system has completely collapsed, and the public is footing the bill. One might, of course, consider whether the public should not ultimately be paying the higher cost contributions from market players anyway. But that would then only happen on a level playing field, where competition exists.

Developments in the current recycled plastics market once again indicate that things are not going well with the P(E)RNs. Much of the export from the UK goes/went to the mainland, particularly the Netherlands and Belgium, from where exporters then took it outside the EU. This now appears to be more or less coming to an end with the export ban and the resulting notification requirement from 21 May. The PERNs issued require (verified) processing by companies with R3 status. Trading companies on the continent that import and export do not have R3 status, but can pass goods on to R3 companies. The fact that plastic exports from the UK to the continent have already been significantly reduced suggests that this rule has at least been applied creatively.
Conclusion:  Only recently, the Labour government declared the separate collection of recyclable waste to be sacrosanct. In effect, it means then: out with the MRF’s. And now: out with the P(E)RNs. Well done, Mrs Reeves!

More plastic recycling news: Viridor, the British waste management company, has announced its intention to close its plants in Scandinavia that chemically process recycled plastic.  This brings an end to chemical plastic recycling in Oslo, Skive and Malmö, plants which Viridor only recently acquired full ownership of in 2024. The reason: the technology works, but the market for the regranulate does not. A brief explanation well worth remembering! 

Price indication

Price indication in Europe for low grades of recovered paper, sorted, baled and ex works are now between € 60 and € 80 per tonne. These prices are depending on quality, available volume, region and loaded weight.

Look here at the Price chart >> 
  
The price chart gives an indication of the price  of mixed paper, separately collected, in the Netherlands free delivered mill over the last 10 years.
Scrolling over the top of the columns gives the exact price indication in Euro's per ton.