• English
  • Deutsch
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
YouTube icon
Header image Ecologic

Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

This study, launched in October 2012, seeks to identify performing EPR schemes for different waste streams (e.g. ELV, WEEE, Batteries, Packaging, Paper, Used Oil) and prepare detailed case studies, in order to identify common characteristics across schemes, which could serve as a guide for improving the effectiveness of such schemes. The study should allow the Commission to formulate new proposals to ensure an optimal use of EPR schemes. The study is available for download.


Citation

Monier, Véronique et al. 2014: Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). BIO Intelligence Service; in collaboration with Arcadis, Ecologic Institute, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Umweltbundesamt (UBA).

Language
English
Author(s)
Author(s)
Véronique Monier (BIO Intelligence Service)
Mathieu Hestin (BIO Intelligence Service)
Jérémie Cavé (BIO Intelligence Service)
Ilse Laureysens (Arcadis)
Emma Watkins (IEEP)
Hubert Reisinger (UBA)
Funding
Year
2014
Dimension
227 pp.
Project ID
2670-07
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1. CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
1.1 Context and objectives
1.2 Methodological approach
1.2.1 Panorama of EPR schemes in EU-28
1.2.2 Selection of waste streams and case studies
1.2.3 In-depth analysis of 36 case studies
1.2.4 Exploration of four main issues related to EPR design and implementation
1.2.5 Guiding principles
1.2.6 Stakeholder consultation
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EPR SCHEMES IN THE EU
2.1 Existing EPR schemes in EU-28
2.2 Performance of EPR schemes in the EU
2.2.1 Batteries
2.2.2 ELVs
2.2.3 Oils
2.2.4 Packaging
2.2.5 WEEE
2.3 Focus on 36 case studies
2.3.1 EPR systems functioning
2.3.2 Systems performance
2.4 Is there such thing as a ‘best performing’ EPR model?
CHAPTER 3. MAIN TOPICS CONSIDERED FOR GUIDANCE
3.1 Share of responsibilities and dialogue between stakeholders
3.1.1 Issues under consideration
3.1.2 Findings from the case studies
3.1.3 Taking stakeholders' expertise into account
3.1.4 Towards guiding principles
3.2 Cost coverage and true cost principle
3.2.1 Issues under consideration
3.2.2 Findings from the case studies
3.2.3 Taking stakeholders’ expertise into account
3.2.4 Towards possible guiding principles
3.3 Fair competition
3.3.1 Issues under consideration
3.3.2 Findings from the case studies
3.3.3 Taking stakeholders’ expertise into account
3.3.4 Towards possible guiding principles
3.4 Transparency and surveillance
3.4.1 Issues under consideration for transparency
3.4.2 Issues under consideration for surveillance
3.4.3 Findings from the case studies
3.4.4 Taking stakeholders’ expertise into account
3.4.5 Concluding remarks
3.4.6 Towards possible guiding principles
CHAPTER 4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Statement n°1: Clarification of the definition and objectives of EPR
4.1.1 Guiding principle
4.1.2 Policy options
4.2 Statement n°2: The shared responsibilities principle
4.2.1 Guiding principle
4.2.2 Policy options
4.3 Statement n°3: The full net cost coverage principle
4.3.1 Guiding principle
4.3.2 Policy option
4.4 Statement n°4: The true end-of-life costs principle
4.4.1 Guiding principle
4.4.2 Policy options
4.5 Statement n°5: The fair competition principle
4.5.1 Guiding principle
4.5.2 Policy options
4.6 Statement n°6: The transparency principle
4.6.1 Guiding principle
4.6.2 Policy options
4.7 Statement n°7: The reporting harmonisation principle
4.7.1 Guiding principle
4.7.2 Policy options
4.8 Statement n°8: The monitoring and surveillance principle
4.8.1 Guiding principle
4.8.2 Policy options
CHAPTER 5. ANNEX
5.1 Preliminary analysis of EPR in the EU
5.2 Organisational aspects and share of responsibilities between actors
5.2.1 Type of PRO responsibility
5.2.2 What exactly does the PRO do?
5.2.3 Role of Local Authorities
5.3 True cost principle and cost coverage
5.3.1 Organisational costs coverage
5.3.2 Which kind of costs are taken into account?
5.3.3 Is there a minimal level of service and/or geographical coverage defined by legislation?
5.3.4 True cost: to which extent does the fee reflect the real ‘end-of-life’ cost of products?
5.3.5 Comparing technical performances
5.3.6 Comparing cost-effectiveness
5.4 Fair competition
5.4.1 Is there competition among PROs?
5.4.2 Is there competition among WM operators?
5.5 Transparency and surveillance
5.5.1 Transparency
5.5.2 Monitoring of free riding
5.5.3 Surveillance of collection and treatment operations
5.5.4 Surveillance of PROs
5.6 Recommendations

Keywords
product stream, batteries, ELVs, graphic paper, oils, packaging, WEEE, Europe, analysis, case study, questionnaire