4.1 A. Prag, policy guidance from OECD work

409 views

Published on

Published in: Environment, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
409
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Would like to hear from other countries! Please contact us.

  • Main points: whilst we spend a lot of time discussing the challenges facing EPR, important to reflect on the achievements of existing successful schemes.
    The case studies are highlighting some successes as well as challenges.
    Some of the key achievements and challenges are shown here. The aim of policy guidance is to tip the balance towards more opportunities.
    We can never be 100% about the causality of EPR being the sole driver of these changes, but we can observe where positive conditions exist where EPR has been implemented
  • 10 areas divided into 4.

    Overall – horses for courses point. Heard about product and country differences yesterday. Where else would you consider drinks cans, computers and cars in the same policy area?

    Other 3 areas are just one way to cut the cake.
  • The red and green areas are all covered in some detail in the original guidance – the challenge now is to update that guidance based on recent experience.

    The purple area covers new and emerging issues which received less attention in the original guidance.

    I don’t have time to go through all of these now. I will focus on competition, because the OECD Competition policy has worked in this area.
    And I will focus on DfE because it remains the “holy grail” of EPR policy.

    And I will focus on intergrating the informal sector as this is a key challenge for dvg countries
  • Lord’s cricket ground. It is not flat and never has been.
    Beware a playing field that is not level even when it initially appears to be so!
  • Products: impacts of producers in a collective scheme price-fixing fee they pass on to consumers. Lack of competition leading to higher price than necessary passed on to consumer. Reduced competition within prod market due to increased info between firms

    Among PROs: evidence of increased efficiency with multi PROs (DE), especially once market was established. But multi WEEE PROs in the UK with high fees and not much switching – onerous exit clauses conneceted with strong legal liabilities

    Downstream: long contracts with PROs can exclude other waste mgt companies and, conversely, can exclude entry of other PROs because the existing PRO has snapped up the only provider able to enter the market. Conditions can change over time, especially as waste streams start to increase in value.

    A key recommendation is therefore for regular policy review at all these levels. EPRs at different levels of maturity may operate more efficiently with differing levels of competition and liberalisation.
  • Informal sector is an issue in both OECD and non-OECD countries. Make distinction between illegal operators in an otherwise strictly enforced OECD country, and true informal sector in non-OEC D. But both are challenging for EPR.

    Informal actors tend to be responsive to what money can be made on secondary materials markets, so an objective for EPR policy in dvg ctries is to identify those markets and to seek to offer incentives that are at a higher price than offered on informal markets.

    Build on systems in place – in particular collection processes
  • Important Note: experience shows that diff fees can in some cases lead to high compliance cost that outweigh incentive provided by differential. Very careful and ongoing assessment of market impacts required.

    Mention also value of waste – notably e-waste – what can policy-makers do to encouarge new business models – leasing, servicing – are there fiscal options , for example?



  • The red and green areas are all covered in some detail in the original guidance – the challenge now is to update that guidance based on recent experience.

    The purple area covers new and emerging issues which received less attention in the original guidance.

    I don’t have time to go through all of these now. I will focus on competition, because the OECD Competition policy has worked in this area.
    And I will focus on the more emerging issues.
  • 4.1 A. Prag, policy guidance from OECD work

    1. 1. EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY Andrew Prag, OECD Environment Directorate 18 June 2014 Towards guidance for policy makers
    2. 2. • The changing context since 2001 • What are we learning from case studies • Initial emerging areas for policy guidance Outline
    3. 3. Changing context for EPR since 2001 2014 Intrinsic value of waste International trade of waste Globalisation of value chains and producers Urgency of waste accumulation in non-OECD countries Internet sales and new market opportunities 2001 More countries developing EPR
    4. 4. Case studies currently feeding into the OECD review
    5. 5. Some lessons from case studies Increasing recycling rates Cost transfers Better recycling technologies Competition and trade concerns Free-riding Leakage Low data quality and transparency If concerns are adequately addressed in EPR policies Main challenges Main achievements Better recyclability Not reducing overall waste Consumer awareness
    6. 6. 10 areas for guidance emerging Governance Economic Emerging issues Overall EPR instruments tailored to specific product and country context
    7. 7. 10 areas for guidance emerging Governance Clear roles and responsibilities Early and full consultations Adequate transparency level Economic Multi-level competition assessment Clear performance targets & full cost recovery Encouraging “DfE” and waste prevention Emerging issues Integrating the informal waste sector Anticipating impacts of changing waste value Free riding and ownership in new market conditions Overall EPR instruments tailored to specific product and country context
    8. 8. 2.5m Competition concerns: A level playing field… or is it?
    9. 9.  Need for regular policy assessments of multi-layered competition concerns  Seeking a balance between competition and a stable, predictable investment framework Competition concerns on three levels Product market impact Competition among PROs Impacts on collection, sorting, treatment markets Competition concerns
    10. 10. • Understand the role of informal and/or illegal actors  EPR design should seek to provide greater incentive than local materials markets  Build on existing informal networks where possible  Provide strong regulation to eliminate harmful practices and to ensure non-valuable waste is captured Integrating the informal waste sector • A challenge for OECD and non-OECD countries UK Ghana
    11. 11. • Recyclability and waste prevention as separate objectives • Key policy challenges : – Globalised production – can one country’s EPR make a difference to global design? – Differentiated fees and individual producer responsibility: can they be cost effective and efficient?  Policy design should consider how differential fees can help to target individual producer recycling costs  International (and national!) co-ordination of policy where possible to maximise influence on product design Encouraging design for environment Collective responsibility: uniform fees Individual financial responsibility: fully differentiated fees Partly differentiated / modulated fees Increasing strength of design change incentive
    12. 12. 10 areas for guidance emerging Governance Clear roles and responsibilities Early and full consultations Adequate transparency level Economic Multi-level competition assessment Clear performance targets & full costs recovery Encouraging “DfE” and waste prevention Emerging issues Integrating the informal waste sector Anticipating impacts of changing waste value Free riding and ownership in new market conditions Overall EPR instruments tailored to specific product and country context
    13. 13. Thank You! Andrew.Prag@oecd.org 13
    14. 14. Anticipating new market conditions • Internet and other new market outlets: ensuring EPR definitions and enforcement can capture new actors • Increasing value of waste: – Reassessing need for EPR when waste streams reach positive value – Beyond average value: understanding heterogeneity in the waste stream – Considering how to support new ownership structures (leasing and services)  Need for continuous evaluation of the environmental and social value of EPR policies and periodically assess scheme boundaries

    ×