EU Digest | Discussion about introducing DRS in France 

France does not have a DRS in place, yet, in recent years, has made efforts to reduce and recycle waste. In 2012, it started with the extension of simplified sorting instructions, introducing the separate collection of all plastic packaging waste, and the modernization of separation machines – the system has been rolled out to cover 98% of the territory in January of this year. This system is believed to have improved France’s separate collection rate of PET bottles from 2017and 2020 to 61% in 2021, at a growth rate of 3p.p. per year (Sources: UNESDA and Cercle National de Recyclage CNR). Additionally, France has singular return machines here and there, based on a ‘system of reward’ (the consumer does not pay a deposit, but receives a very small gratification amount upon return). Furthermore, the country adopted an anti-waste and a climate law in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The anti-waste law stipulates that studies about the impacts of a DRS have to be conducted and a decision on its implementation shall be taken in 2023. To this day, 4 studies are being carried out by ADEME, but only one of them is finalised, concluding that an ‘immaterialistic’ approach (thus, a digital DRS) is technically not yet viable. Despite the other studies not yet being concluded, the French government has taken up talks about the introduction of a DRS earlier this year. This also comes as a reaction to the proposed obligatory DRS in the PPWR. The government is currently consulting a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholders are discussing different angles in three working groups: the first is on general aspects of the DRS for recycling; the second on how to reach the European objectives without DRS;  the third on the reuse of packaging.

There has been wide-spread opposition against the introduction of DRS altogether voiced mainly by local authorities, represented by the Cercle National du Recyclage (CNR). The first reason for this opposition is the environmental impact of the DRS system: it duplicates the separate collection service necessitating at least 50 000 new collection machines which consume natural resources and energy. Furthermore, the DRS would reduce the inflow of PET bottles into the household waste system.  Since household waste is owned by municipalities, this would result in a reduction of their income from onward sale of PET which is currently at around 600-700 EUR per tonne. Furthermore, municipalities invested huge amounts in new machines in the sorting centers over the past years. This allowed spreading out the simplified sorting system for all citizens across France between 2012 and January this year, as mentioned above. The now fully harmonised separate collection system is another reason for some stakeholders’ reluctance to introduce DRS and hereby change the system again – there is concern that citizens would get confused by changing rules and previous investment would be lost. Furthermore, according to the CNR, the separate collection rates are already quite high in some regions, they even exceed 80% in two regions. They argue that this shows that high collection rates can be achieved without a DRS. Another argument by CNR is that a DRS will not guarantee an improvement of the quality of recycling. EU-wide, there are countries with without a DRS that have an above-average recycling rate (ES, IT) and countries with a DRS that have a below-average recycling rate (e.g. SE, DK). Overall, to CNR, it makes more sense to improve the current system of collection, in order to achieve the separate collection rate targets, but also other targets, such as recycling and quality recycling targets. France is also working on separate collection packaging waste disposal in public space with an objective that 100% of the population can sort tis packaging by 2025.

The government is said to decide on whether to introduce a DRS in June. Meanwhile, France advocates in the Council that the means (DRS or other) to reach the collection targets for single-use plastics should remain open and that the regulation should keep a technologically neutral approach.