www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

Crédit photo : Arnaud Bouissou/MEDDTL

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

The French experience

Global Forum on Environment: Promoting Sustainable Materials

Management through EPR

OECD, Tokyo, 17 June 2014

20/02/14 2

14 EPR schemes in France

• Generally household waste, but some professional too (WEEE, furniture)

• First scheme in 1992 (packaging) – 4 new schemes launched in 2012

20/02/14 3

A ‘centralised PRO’ model

• To fulfil their obligation, producers set up individual or collective PROs

• Producers generally decide to set up one single collective PRO per scheme – although they are free to set up more than one.

• Each producer pays a fee to the PRO depending on the volume of products marketed

•

Collective PROs are:

• Non-profit private companies

• Set up and governed by producers themselves

20/02/14 4

Two models of operation• ‘Financial’ scheme – municipalities remain in charge

e.g. household packaging; graphic papers

• ‘Organisational’ scheme – producers directly in charge

e.g. WEEE; batteries and accumulators; tyres

PROProducer MunicipalityWaste

management operator

€ € €

Waste management

operatorPROProducer

€ €

20/02/14 5

Participative governance focused on dialogue

• Detailed terms of reference for PROs

– Re-negotiated every 6 years among all stakeholders

• Government approval for periods up to 6 years

– PROs commit to abide by the terms of reference and describe how

• Dialogue remains intense during these 6-year periods

– Meetings every 3 months – mutual information, troubleshooting

Producers MunicipalitiesWaste

management operators

NGOs (Environmental,

consumers)Government

20/02/14 6

Growing financial flows

• ~1.4 bn€ collected by 2015

• Of which ~700 M€ redistributed to municipalities

• (Total costs for municipal waste management: ~9.4 bn€)

20/02/14 7

Key questions and challenges

20/02/14 8

1) Responsibility - PROs & municipalities

Who is in charge? (in ‘financial schemes’)

Municipalities demanded EPR schemes to reduce their costs

But municipalities want to choose how they operate

Who bears the costs?

e.g. household packaging:

Where does this take us?

PROs want more ‘operational’ models to optimise costs

Municipalities reluctant – free administration, local employment

Government – satisfied with current balance

PRO: 80% Municipality 20%

20/02/14 9

– Waste management operators now face a single buyer

• a normal consequence of the EPR principle

• also a way to optimise the system

– But some consider this a ‘distortion of competition’

• which could hamper innovation and ‘biodiversity’ of operators

Transparency displayed by the PRO can help (tenders based on public procurement rules, previsibility, short/small contracts)

Regulation is key to bring balance to the system (terms of reference, day-to-day control, sanction when necessary)

2) Competition - PROs & waste management operators

15/01/14 10

3) Prevention and Eco-Design

• Requirements in terms of reference include:

– Quantitative prevention targets

• e.g. packaging : PRO had to reduce packaging volumes marketed by 100,000 tonnes over 5 years

– Differentiated fees (price signal based on recycling cost/ecodesign)

• e.g. WEEE: +20% fee for a computer with Hg lamps

• e.g. papers: -10% fee for papers based on >50% recycled paper

– Quantitative reuse targets:

• e.g. textiles: 70% reuse by 2019

– Set aside reusable materials for social economy structures:

• e.g. furniture: PROs grant access to reusable materials before collecting waste

20/02/14 11

Conclusions

• EPR = a useful tool for Governments Excellent to kickstart an industrial waste management network

Brings results

Requires public control (cf. terms of reference)

Dialogue itself is fruitful

www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable,et de l'Energie

Thank you for your attention