4.2 M. Sponar, guiding principles from EU experience

428 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
428
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
35
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 3
  • 5
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 4.2 M. Sponar, guiding principles from EU experience

    1. 1. Extended Producer Responsibility – EU guidance OECD Global forum 17-19 June 2014,Tokyo Michel SPONAR, European Commission, DG Environment
    2. 2. Outline 1. Background • Why EPR? • EPR – main lessons 2. New study on EU EPR's  Approach, objectives  Main results 3. Key principles for guidance 4. Conclusions – next steps
    3. 3. Additional study on EPR Objective • Identify 'golden rules' and/or minimum requirements for sound EPR schemes Approach • Comparison of the performances of existing EPR's • For 6 waste streams in depth analysis of 6 case studies • Identification of the best practices • Combination of desk research, interviews and stakeholder consultations Timing • Study to be published on July 2th 2014
    4. 4. 4 Batteries ELV Packaging WEEE Graphic Paper Oils Austria Sweden Germany Ireland Finland Belgium Switzerland Netherlands Belgium United Kingdom France Finland Belgium Germany Netherlands Finland Netherlands Germany Denmark Slovak Republic Austria Latvia Sweden Spain Netherlands Austria Czech Republic France Italy France Finland France Denmark Portugal United Kingdom Sweden
    5. 5. General findings • Around 200 EPR schemes operational in the EU • Packaging, WEEE, ELV's and tyres and batteries dominant • But also: paper, oil, medicine, textile, furniture, specific hazardous waste, agriculture foil, etc. • Confirmation of the variety (cost efficiency, type of organisation, responsibility, control etc.) • Lack of comparability/transparence • No one singe model
    6. 6. Packaging – fees paid/recycling rates
    7. 7. Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes on packaging (2010 or 2011) Note: The x-axis starts at 50%.
    8. 8. Key principles Objective: Improve cost effectiveness/acceptability of EPR schemes by a combination of :  Legislation  Recommendations/guidance  At European/ OECD, National/Regional and local levels Supporting measures are essential: Landfill/Incineration taxes/bans, pay as you thrown systems, incentives/penalties for municipalities
    9. 9. Clear objectives • Define EPR and clarify its objectives • High environmental standards • Take back obligation • Not to be mixed with EcoDesign Directive (condition to place a product on the market) • What if profitable chain? Added value compared to administrative burden • Definition of targets • Aligned with the waste hierarchy • Recycling/reuse - at least EU targets • Prevention?
    10. 10. Permanent dialogue • A permanent dialogue between all involved actors producers - retailers - citizens – waste collectors – municipalities/private operators – sorters – recyclers – authorities in charge of controlling the system • Clear definition of the responsibilities – who is responsible for what?
    11. 11. Ensure transparency / control Combination of public and auto control based on risk analysis • Clear verified and accessible reporting • Audits by third parties • Maximum level for overall costs, rules for reserves • Enough public resources • Efficient actions against free riders (average % maximum) • Focus on statistics and quality/reliability • Specific measures for small producers/importers • Export of waste
    12. 12. Fair competition • Clear procedures to designate operators (open tenders/standard cost reimbursement in the case of municipalities) • Non-discrimination for producer/importers • Specific rules for specific waste streams/products • One or several collective schemes? • Profit/non profit? • Who should own the collective schemes?
    13. 13. True and full costs • True cost principle - fees have to be linked to exact costs/recyclability of the products • Full cost principle • Collection, sorting minus revenues from sales of materials • Safety nets – control of costs • Full coverage of the territory by an high density collection network (adapted to habitat) • Information • Littering? Surveillance?
    14. 14. Conclusions – next steps Publication of the study (early July) Adoption by the Commission of the package on 'circular economy' including revised targets and minimum EPR requirements (2014) Co decision procedure in 2014/2015 (European Council and Parliament) Development of guidance document on EPR
    15. 15. Thank you for your attention ! Additional sources of information: DG ENV “waste” website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment//waste/index.htm Study on Economic Instruments: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/use.htm Additional study on EPR: http://epr.eu-smr.eu/ Target review: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm

    ×