2.2 b. legay, insights from eu - france
TRANSCRIPT
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 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