www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

Crédit photo : Arnaud Bouissou/MEDDTL

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

The French experience

Economic Instruments for Greener Products in Eastern Partnership

Countries

OECD, 7 March 2014

20/02/14 2

Key principles and rules• EPR: producers (product makers or importers) are in charge of

managing waste from their products

• French law specifies which categories of products fall under an EPR obligation

• For these categories producers must set up individual or collective schemes

Each producer pays a financial contribution to the collective scheme, depending on the volume of products marketed

Collective schemes (PROs – Producer Responsibility Organisations) are:

• Not-for-profit private companies

• Set up and governed by producers themselves

• Approved by the French Government for periods up to 6 years

20/02/14 3

14 EPR schemes in France

Typically 1 single collective scheme for each waste flow

Generally household waste, but some professional too

4 new schemes launched in 2012 and currently getting operational

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

Collective schemeProducer Municipality

Waste management

company

€ € €

Waste management

company

Collective schemeProducer

€ €

20/02/14 5

Participative governance

• Specific terms of reference for collective schemes

– Re-negotiated every 6 years among all stakeholders

• Government approval for periods up to 6 years

– Collective schemes commit to abide by the terms of reference

• 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 ahead

20/02/14 8

EPR schemes… and municipalities

• Who bears the costs? (in ‘financial schemes’)

Municipalities demanded the schemes to reduce their costs

But they remain attached to their ‘free administration rights’

What is the balanced ‘cost coverage’?

e.g. household packaging:

• Where does this take us?

Producers want more ‘operational’ models to optimise costs

Municipalities reluctant – free administration, local employment

Government – positive for public interest, but careful

Collective scheme 80%

Municipality 20%

20/02/14 9

• Competition issues

• Waste management operators now face a single buyer

• Could hamper innovation and ‘biodiversity’ of operators

• Collective schemes operate in a central position

• A normal consequence of the EPR principle

• Also a way to optimise the system and make it more professional

• But other stakeholders consider this a ‘distortion of competition’

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

EPR schemes… and waste management operators

20/02/14 10

EPR schemes and Government: an efficient policy instrument• Producers really take over

– Responsibility is centralised

– Brings results! e.g. for collection and reuse/recycling rates

– Built-in cost internalisation and optimisation

• A versatile tool for the Government…

– Of course public control is key

– Re-negotiating the ‘terms of reference’ regularly allows a detailed piloting of the system and helps set the bar higher

– A tool with environmental, economic, social dimensions (but which requires focus!)

• Dialogue per se takes us foward

www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

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

Thank you for your attention