Fritz Flanderka: Managing Director at Reclay Group, responsible for legal/public affairs and strategy since 2005 20+ years experience in the development of postconsumer waste management programs, including designing and implementing EPR for Germany‘s Green Dot scheme Founder and former Managing Director of PRO Europe Author of numerous publications on EPR

1. Regulatory challenges in the implementation and
operation of EPR Laws and Regulations
Dr. Fritz Flanderka, Managing Director, Reclay Group
25th November, 2015

2. I. Introduction
II. EPR – a global policy instrument
III. EPR – a complex regulatory approach
IV. Challenges
V. Summary
2
Content

3.  Owner-operated, medium-sized company (founded in 2002)
 International recycling and waste management service provider
 Setup and operation of take-back and recycling schemes
 Advising companies and governments on developing sustainable
waste management solutions
 Over 3,000 clients
 Turnover:185 million EUR (2014)
 12 offices worldwide
 230 employees
 Headquartered in Cologne, Germany
1. About Reclay Group
3
I. Introduction

4.  Managing Director at Reclay Group, responsible for legal/public affairs
and strategy since 2005
 20+ years experience in the development of postconsumer waste
management programs, including designing and implementing EPR for
Germany‘s Green Dot scheme
 Founder and former Managing Director of PRO Europe
 Author of numerous publications on EPR
2. Personal Background
4
I. Introduction

5. www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/ext
1. What is EPR?
5
II. EPR – a global policy instrument
“Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy
approach under which producers are given a significant
responsibility – financial and/or physical – for the treatment
or disposal of post-consumer products. Assigning such
responsibility could in principle provide incentives to
prevent wastes at the source, promote product design for
the environment and support the achievement of public
recycling and materials management goals.”

6. EPR legislation in place
II. EPR – a global policy instrument
6
2. Already existing EPR programs

7.  Germany: Implemented in 1991, the German system has proven
successful on the European and international stage
 European Union: Implementation of EPR schemes in all Member
States
 North America: EPR programmes cover a wide array of products and
are primarily designed and implemented at sub-national level
1. Examples
7
III. EPR – a complex regulatory approach
Extended Producer Responsibility is increasingly recognised
worldwide as an efficient waste management policy to help
improve recycling and reduce landfilling of products and
materials.

8.  Asia: EPR schemes and regulations in Japan and the Republic of
Korea; implementation process has started in some rapidly emerging
economies
 OECD: EPR first defined in the 2001 OECD Guidance with a review
and update in 2014 (mainly focused on the issue of waste picker)
8
III. EPR – a complex regulatory approach

9.  Integration of a large number of actors is necessary:
 Obliged parties (industry and retailers)
 Collective compliance schemes
 Consumer
 Municipalities
 Private waste management companies
 Administration (ministries, law enforcement agencies)
2. Actors
9
III. EPR – a complex regulatory approach

10.  Need to coordinate operations of many actors
 Financing
 Target setting (i. e. recycling quotes)
3. Actor coordination
10
III. EPR – a complex regulatory approach

11.  Consideration of:
 Settlement structure/coverage
 Pre-existing collection systems (public waste collection, informal
sector)
 Social Structures
1. Adaptation to national specificities
11
IV. Challenges
There are different requirements and conditions in every
country → no blueprint for the implementation of EPR!

12.  Industry and retailers
 participation obligation in compliance schemes?
 Importing industry
 authorized representatives?
 Registration requirements
 Verification of participation in compliance schemes
 Reporting requirements
2. Determination of obliged parties
12
IV. Challenges

13.  Approval requirements
 Monitoring
 Competition between multiple schemes
3. Collective compliance schemes
13
IV. Challenges

14.  Voluntary participation?
 Organization of compliance schemes (household collection / bring
system)
 Educational work and public awareness components at local and
national level (media campaigns)
4. Consultation of consumers
14
IV. Challenges

15. Inclusion of municipalities is of greatest importance:
 They have a significant political influence regarding the stability of
the system.
 They are the local link to consumers and the first contact point for
all concerns.
 They provide information and educational work on site (waste
removal calendar, local campaigns etc.)
5. Participation of municipalities
15
IV. Challenges
Crucial question:
Do municipalities have to coordinate with take-back systems or
are they legally responsible for the collection?

16. Equally important is the inclusion of the private waste management
sector:
 Inclusion at all levels of the value chain necessary
 Essential for sorting and recycling (investments, access to world
wide markets)
6. Private waste management sector
16
IV. Challenges
Reliable legal frameworks are necessary to guarantee significant
investments of the waste management companies!

17.  Consultation of ministries (environment, industry, competition, etc.)
for approval process and monitoring of supra-regional requirements for
obliged parties (compliance schemes, i. e. industry and retailers)
 Local monitoring through lower authorities
7. Administrative requirements
17
IV. Challenges

18.  EPR has proven successful on the international stage and will gain
further acceptance.
 The reasons for implementing EPR vary – economic factors are often
as important as environmental ones.
 There is no one size fits all!
 When implementing EPR there is a wide range of challenges which
need to be met. → The devil is always in the details!
 EPR programs can only be succesful when adapted to the local
conditions. The inclusion of all relevant actors needs to be ensured!
 Before starting EPR programs, it is a necessity that the law is in force.
Every party needs to know it‘s role!
18
V. Summary

19. 19
Thank you!