www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy Crédit photo : Arnaud Bouissou/MEDDTL Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) The French experienc Global Forum on Environment: Promoting Sustainable Materials Management through EPR OECD, Tokyo, 17 June 2014
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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 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)