1. Experience of the
implementation of EU
Directives based on EPR
principles
Olivier De Clercq
DG Environment, Waste Management and Recycling Unit A2

2. Outline
1. Implementation of EU Waste legislation
2. EPR Guidance Study

3. 1. Implementation of EU Waste
legislation

4. Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling
Waste Framework
Directive
(Includes Municipal and Construction
Demolition waste)
Waste Shipment
Regulation
Landfill Directive
Incineration
Specifications
Packaging
Mining
waste
Sewage
Sludge
PCB/
PCT
Vehicles
WEEE &
Restriction
of use
Batteries
In red: with targets
FrameworkTreatmentStreams

5. European Binding targetsEU Targets Recovery Recycling Collection rate
Packaging 2008 60% 55%
Cars
2015
95% 85% 100%
Electronics
2006
2016
2019/21
70% 50%
min 4 kg per inhabitant per year
85% of WEEE arising (recast)
Batteries
2011
50% to 75%
(efficiency)
2012 25%
2016 45%
Tyres 2006 0 landfill of tyres
Biowaste
diverted
from landfills
2006 reduction to 75% of the 1995 level
2009 reduction to 50% of the 1995 level
2016 reduction to 35% of the 1995 level
Municipal
waste
2015 Separate collection: at least paper/metal/plastic/glass
2020 50% recycling household waste

6. Waste as Resource
PREVENTION
PREPARATION FOR REUSE
RECYCLING (COMPOSTING)
OTHER RECOVERY
DISPOSAL

7. Source: Eurostat 2012
Municipal waste generation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
CZ
PL
SK
LV
EE
RO
LT
EL
HU
SI
BG
BE
SE
PTEU
27
FI
FR
IT
UK
ES
DE
AT
NL
M
T
LU
IE
CY
DK
Kgpercapita
2004
2010

8. Municipal Waste Treatment (2011)

9. Number of countries at different levels of the
municipal waste management hierarchy

10. Focus on Implementation - Packaging waste
Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
BE
BG2014
CZ2012
DK
DE
EE2012
IE
EL
ES
FR
IT
CY2012
LV2015
LT2012
LU
HU2012MT2013
NL
AT
PL2014
PT
RO2013
SI2012
SK2012
FI
SE
UK
Percent(%)
Recycling Energy Recovery
Recovery
Target
2008Recycling
Target
2008

11. Participation cost per material in 6 Member States with different level of recycling performances
Differentiated application of Producer Responsibility
Source: derived from Pro Europe 2011
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Aluminium Glass Paper - cardboard Drink carton
€/ton
BE - High
DE - High
CZ - High
FR - Middle
CY - Low
LT - Low

12. Source: Arising based on UN University study estimates, Collected based on Member States reports under Eurostat validation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AustriaBelgiumG
erm
anyDenm
arkG
reece
SpainFinlandFranceIreland
Italy
Luxem
bourg
NetherlandsPortugalSw
eden
UKBulgariaCyprus
Czech
RepublicEstoniaHungary
Lithuania
Latvia
M
altaPolandRom
aniaSloveniaSlovakia
Arising 2006 Collected 2008 85% target (2016 proposed)
Curent collection Target:
4 kg per year - from 2 0 0 9 for
New M S (except Sl - 2 0 0 8 )
4
New targets for e-waste recycling
Kg per year and per capita

13. 2. EPR Guidance Study

14. Study on EPR
 Objectives
• Describe, compare and analyse different types of EPR systems
operating in the EU.
• Identify necessary conditions and best practices for the functioning of
EPR systems.
• Propose and assess options to promote an optimal use of EPR systems
across the EU.
 Timing
• Study launched in December 2012 for 15 months
 Project team : BIO Intelligence Service, in partnership with
Arcadis, Ecologic, Institute for European Environmental Policy
(IEEP), Umweltbundesamt (UBA).
 Project website: http://epr.eu-smr.eu /

15. EPR Study 2013: Selection
of MS for case studies
15
BATTERIES
ELVs GRAPHIC
PAPER
OILS PACKAGING WEEE
Austria Austria Finland Belgium Austria Denmark
Belgium Finland France Finland Belgium Finland
Denmark Germany Netherlands Germany Czech Rep. France
France Netherlands Sweden Italy France Ireland
Netherlands Slovak Rep. Portugal Germany Latvia
Switzerland Sweden Spain Netherlands Sweden
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom

16. 16
Case-studies content
 Legal framework and objectives
 General legal framework
 Targets
 System functioning
 Role of system actors
 Producers
 Retailers/distributers
 Municipalities
 Waste collection and treatment
operators
 System performance
 Cost efficiency
 General governance
 Governance of PROs
 Control of the system
 Control over performance reporting
• Risk assessment
• Reporting and monitoring
• Data availability
 Financial control: free riders and
penalties
 Competition
 PROs
 Treatment operators
 Ecodesign and prevention
 Impact on consumers
 Advantages / success factors
 Disadvantages /challenges
 Best practices and potential Golden Rules

17. Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes on packaging (2010 or 2011)
Note: The x-axis starts at 50%.
Benchmark

18. Benchmark
Figure 1: Cost effectiveness of EPR schemes for portable batteries in 2011

19. 19
Case studies – Existing practices
Share of responsibilities
 EPR builds on existing waste management
responsibilities (e.g. local authorities for
municipal waste management) or replaces it.
 Great diversity of approaches:
 « Simple » financial responsibility (e.g. Packaging
Recovery Notes in the UK)
 Financial responsibility through contracts with
municipalities (e.g. Eco-emballages in France)
 Partial operational responsibility (e.g. Fost Plus in
Belgium, most WEEE systems studied)
 Full operational responsibility (e.g. graphic paper in
Sweden)

20. 20
 Dialogue among stakeholders was identified as a key to
success (public national and local authorities, producers,
retailers, waste management companies, consumers, NGOs,
etc.)
 From frequent and organised consultation to few or no
dialogue
 e.g. : Administrative Advisory
Commissions in France
Organisation of dialogue
Case studies – Existing practices
Share of responsibilities

21. 21
 Most EPR schemes have the obligation to finance the
management of end-of-life products
 True cost principle: Reflect the EOL costs in the producers’ contributions
 Cost-coverage: Full cost coverage by EPR schemes or shared burden?
 Existing EPR schemes vary on several aspects:
 Costs covered: operational costs for separately collected waste and/or
mixed waste; communication; audit/control; etc.
e.g. separately collected waste for most EPR schemes; residual fraction included in costs covered by
Eco-Emballages (France)
 Percentage of cost covered: Full or partial
e.g. 100% of operational costs (on the basis of a “standard” level of service) for most schemes ;
objective of 80% for Eco-Emballages in France, no requirement in some countries (e.g. in the UK)
Case studies – Existing practices
Costs

22.  Two levels of (possible) competition
 Producer Responsibility Organisation(s): one centralised or several
competing PROs?
 Waste management industry: how does an EPR scheme contribute to
fair competition in this sector?
 Three most frequent configurations
 EPR schemes managed by one single PRO
 EPR schemes managed by several competing PROs, coordinated by a
clearing-house
 Free competition of PROs
Presentation of the issue and existing practices
Case studies – Existing practices
Fair competition

23. 23
 The need for reliable and comparable data is confronted to
difficulties of measuring EPR schemes’ performance
 Perimeter varies: Household/commercial and industrial
waste; products covered; separately collected and residual
fraction; etc.
 Data availability and confidentiality: especially when
several PROs are in competition
 Methods for data collection and reporting:
Recycling rates = Recycled quantities / Waste arising
Costs = Collection + transportation + sorting – revenues +
etc.
Case studies – Existing practices
Transparency and control

24. 24
 Control of the implementation of EPR schemes targets
three aspects:
 Control on free-riding
 Control on collection and treatment operations
 Control on PROs
Control : Presentation of the issue and existing
practices
Case studies – Existing practices
Transparency and control

25. 5 key principles
Ensuring a permanent dialogue between all involved actors
producers - retailers - citizens – waste collectors –
municipalities/private operators – sorters – recyclers
Ensuring full transparency
Ensuring cost effectiveness
Ensuring a proper control
Ensure a fair competition

26. Implementing the principles
National legislation
• Clear definition of the responsibilities – full financial
responsibility on producers, precise requirements for the
other actors
• Reliable system of sanctions - € per tonne
• Targets - at minimum EU targets, progressive targets
• Recognition procedure for collective schemes
• True cost principle - fees have to be linked to exact
costs/recyclability

27. Recognition procedure for collective schemes
• Full coverage of the territory by an high density collection
network (adapted to habitat)
• Public information
• Audits, maximum overall costs
• Non-discrimination for producer/importers
• Specific rules for specific waste streams/products
Implementing the principles

28. Organising efficient control
• Risk based - combination of public and auto-control
• Enough public resources
• Clear verified and accessible reporting
• Efficient actions against free riders
• Focus on statistics and quality/reliability
• Export of waste – full application of the Waste shipment
regulation (business to business contracts, controls on the
field)
Supporting measures
• Landfill/Incineration taxes/bans, pay as you throw systems,
incentives/penalties for municipalities
Implementing the principles

29. Thank you for your attention!
DG ENV “waste” website:
http://ec.europa.eu/enviro
nment//waste/index.htm
Olivier.De-
Clercq@ec.europa.eu