France has implemented 14 extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes since 1992 to promote sustainable materials management. Producers fulfill their obligations by setting up collective producer responsibility organizations (PROs), which are non-profit companies governed by producers. There are two models of EPR scheme operation: "financial" schemes where municipalities remain in charge of waste management and "organizational" schemes where PROs are directly in charge. Governance of the PROs focuses on participative dialogue and negotiation of detailed terms of reference between stakeholders every six years. EPR schemes in France now collect over 1.4 billion euros annually and redistribute about 700 million euros to municipalities. Key ongoing questions center around the appropriate balance of responsibilities between PROs and municipalities

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 Municipality
Waste
management
operator
€ € €
Waste
management
operator
PROProducer
€ €

5. 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 Municipalities
Waste
management
operators
NGOs
(Environmental,
consumers)
Government

6. 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€)

7. 20/02/14
7
Key questions
and challenges

8. 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%

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr
Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable,
et de l'Energie
Thank you
for your attention