1) The document discusses extending producer responsibility (EPR) to better promote resource productivity and waste prevention in increasingly resource-constrained economies. 2) It proposes making the feedback loop between product and waste policy stronger by linking ecodesign requirements to treatment standards under EPR schemes. This could help EPR incentivize design for the environment and durability. 3) The document also questions whether the scope of EPR should expand to include collection costs, to avoid issues like "cherry picking" and ensure proper incentives throughout the product lifecycle. It explores options for optimizing collection costs to further promote circularity.

1. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 1
OECD Global Forum on Extended Producer Responsibility
Tokyo Japan 17-19/06/2014
Setting EPR in a resource constrained economy
EPR & Design for the environment
Stephane Arditi
Product & Waste Policy Manager

2. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 2
EEB: the environmental voice of European citizens, observer in the
OECD Working party on Resource Productivity and waste prevention
We stand for
environmental justice,
sustainable
development and
participatory
democracy.
Our aim is to ensure
the EU secures a
healthy environment
and rich biodiversity
for all.
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

3. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 3
EPR in context
upstreampolicy.org
 One instrument among others (regulatory, economic, information)
 No one fits all solution, depends on economic situation, history and
maturity of waste policy,...
 Polluter pay principle, but not necessarily leading to resource use
optimisation
Question:
Can we model EPR to deliver on resource
productivity and waste prevention
in a more and more resource constrained
economy?

4. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 4
A prospective view on EPR
 Make EPR work for resources use optimisation & reducing
environmental impacts?
 What scope for EPR?
 What possible governance of EPR?
powerhouse360.com

5. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 5
EPR & Design for the environment
Ensuring a feedback loop between waste and product policy ...
WASTE PRODUCT
... Making the
feedback loop
a virtuous circle
EPR
EcodesignTreatment standard
Design costEnd of life fees
Regulatory/
technology push
Market pull/
resource pricing

6. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 6
Operational approaches to make EPR work for DfE
 More consistency between ecodesign requirements and treatment
standards (e.g in Europe: Packaging & packaging waste law; Ecodesign &
WEEE)
 Modulation of end of life fees / Individualisation of EPR
(e.g in Europe: French way of developing EPR schemes, Taiwan and ADF
differentiation)
 Performance contract for B2B /Leasing B2C
(e.g all over the world: Paying for the copiers service)
 End of life fees paid according to return rate
(experience still to be documented... Oregon and Washington mentioned)
Note: the 2 last ideas = moving EPR beyond waste management, towards waste prevention,
product durability, service providing

7. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 7
greenpeace.org
en.wikipedia.org
Landfill or burn EPR untreated streams
= miss opportunitiesValuable material wasted
=> benefits wiped out
Discussing an option (For Europe? And
beyond?):
Today, landfilled or burnt EPR untreated
streams=> not separately collected => not
handled and generally not paid by EPR
schemes (with exceptions such as Belgium).
Tomorrow, paid by EPR, but not to
collection operators, rather to independent
(environment) agency reinvesting the fund
for DfE innovation, waste prevention and
improved separate collection actions.

8. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 8
Questioning the scope of EPR
yesterday
today
Challenges:
 Poor collection performances: a loss for all
Not addressing collection within EPR means not addressing the
costly part, but is collection under control of producers?
 If collection not covered by EPR, “cherry picking” risks increase
Overall waste management for EPR covered streams (simplistic view)
profits
collection
collection
treatment
treatment
costs

9. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 9
“Cherry picking” issue
Interrupt the feedback loop between product design and end of life
costs (des-incentivise design efforts)
Foster sub-standard collection and treatment practices
(getting the most valuable material for the cheapest cost)
Undermine proper reporting on/monitoring of collection and
recycling
First answer: Implement instruments for improved and comprehensive
collection:
collection targets, including for specific product categories (EU
example);
differentiate remuneration to collection operators (JP&FR
examples);
 and proper enforcement

10. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 10
Optimising collection costs radically ?
lagerverkauf-cottbus.com
From whole appliances to critical parts...
Design for durability,
for repair, for service
Tomorrow?
collection treatment
profitscosts
sz-wholesaler.com
www.rspinc.com

11. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 11
Towards a value chain governance
Optimising products for the environment, while keeping control on
value chain to avoid leakages of most valuable/hazardous materials.
Producing Repairing Consuming Collecting Recycling
?
Authorities
PRO
Producing Repairing Consuming Collecting Recycling
Authorities
PRO
Informing
Informing
Fom...
To...

12. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 12
Challenge: sharing not diluting responsibility
Direction 1: EPR orchestrating responsibilities
Actors along the value chain remunerated according to fulfilment of
responsibilities
Enhanced internal control as none have interest to lose their remuneration
possibility
Authority to strategically frame towards resource productivity and enforce
Direction 1 bis: Focus on non valuable streams (experience in Kenya)
But also considering hazardous legacy & the certainty that “valuable” is
assessed versus proper treatment standards.

13. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 13
EPR to lever resource productive circular economy
Material ownership
Product as a resource reservoir
Maximising business
opportunities/minimised material input
mrw.co.uk

14. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 14
Conclusion
EPR to help combine more product and waste policies and deliver resource
productivity results.
Next step of EPR could aim at direct waste and resource use prevention in a
logical complementary step after securing sound treatment and maximizing
recycling. How to create through EPR scheme (but not only) incentives for
product durability, upgradability & reparability - product modularity?
Concrete implementation existing here and there and concrete opportunities
existing in Europe with revision of packaging and packaging waste legislation,
and with the current definition of WEEE standards combined with possible
resource use requirements in ecodesign policy.
A possibility could be to gather together these existing practices and
opportunities and document them within OECD updated guidance

15. OECD-Global Forum – EPR & Design for the environment Tokyo 17-19 June 2014 15
Thanks for your attention
Stephane Arditi
Product & Waste Policy Manager