IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/05-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility in Flemish Waste Policy: Evaluation of the Introduction of the Duty of Acceptance

Author

Listed:
  • R. BRACKE
  • M. DE CLERCQ

Abstract

In order to implement extended producer responsibility in the Flemish waste policy, the Flemish government introduced the duty of acceptance in the Waste Decree. At the moment, the duty applies for paper, batteries, vehicles, tyres and electrical and electronic equipment. Producers are obliged to set up free of charge take-back collection systems for the disposal of their products in the post-consumption phase. As such, market failure is corrected by reconverting social costs into private ones, respecting the polluter pays principle. For the practical execution of the basic rules laid down in the legal framework, negotiated agreements are concluded with sector associations. This sector-based policy approach allows setting up efficient collection and disposal networks taking into account the specific characteristics of each waste product rather than implementing a uniform system. Although the duty of acceptance confronts producers with waste management responsibilities, they have actually succeeded in shifting most of the burden to the recovery sector. As waste management organisations have become the rightful owner of end-of-life products, they were able to create a rivalry amongst waste management companies. This enabled them to impose the recovery targets, to which the producers have engaged themselves in the negotiated agreements, on the recovery sector. On the one hand the monopolistic position of these waste management organisations stimulates market concentration in the recovery sector, setting aside small and medium sized companies, which could lead to negative monopolistic consequences. On the other hand, this entails a positive effect on the environmental performance of the recovery sector. Moreover, a lot of management tasks are passed on from government administrations to these private waste management organisations so that more government resources can be spent to tailor-made waste policy making. Additional resources and learning experiences have significantly improved the quality of more recently concluded negotiated agreements. Convinced that this innovative policy approach contributes to the overall goal of sustainable development, the government has already planned to start up additional sector-based policy programs based on the duty of acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Bracke & M. De Clercq, 2005. "Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility in Flemish Waste Policy: Evaluation of the Introduction of the Duty of Acceptance," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 05/302, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
  • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:05/302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_05_302.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Runkel, 2003. "Product Durability and Extended Producer Responsibility in Solid Waste Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 161-182, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Asuncion Arner Guerre, 2022. "The Extended Producer Responsibility for Waste Oils," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(2), pages 210-217, March.
    2. Fleckinger, Pierre & Glachant, Matthieu, 2010. "The organization of extended producer responsibility in waste policy with product differentiation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 57-66, January.
    3. Kinokuni, Hiroshi & Ohori, Shuichi & Tomoda, Yasunobu, 2021. "Advance disposal fee vs. disposal fee: A monopolistic producer’s durability choice model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Brice ARNAUD, 2014. "Extended Producer Responsibility and Green Marketing: an Application to Packaging," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2014-04, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. M. Dubois & J. Eyckmans, 2015. "Efficient Waste Management Policies and Strategic Behavior with Open Borders," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(4), pages 907-923, December.
    6. Eugénie Joltreau, 2022. "Extended Producer Responsibility, Packaging Waste Reduction and Eco-design," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 527-578, November.
    7. Faten Loukil & Lamia Rouached, 2014. "Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility: Comparative Analysis of Packaging Waste Management," Working Papers 879, Economic Research Forum, revised Nov 2014.
    8. Yusuke Kuwayama & Nicholas Brozović, 2017. "Optimal Management of Environmental Externalities with Time Lags and Uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 473-499, November.
    9. Peter H. Egger & Christian Keuschnigg, 2023. "Resource Dependence, Recycling, and Trade," CESifo Working Paper Series 10553, CESifo.
    10. Ishimura, Yuichi, 2022. "The effects of the containers and packaging recycling law on the domestic recycling of plastic waste: Evidence from Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    11. Pangburn, Michael S. & Stavrulaki, Euthemia, 2014. "Take back costs and product durability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 175-184.
    12. Jayashree Mahajan & Asoo J Vakharia, 2016. "Waste Management: A Reverse Supply Chain Perspective," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 41(3), pages 197-208, September.
    13. repec:hal:cesptp:hal-00641867 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Irene Pollach & Arno Scharl & Albert Weichselbraun, 2009. "Web content mining for comparing corporate and third‐party online reporting: a case study on solid waste management," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 137-148, March.
    15. Sophie Bernard, 2019. "Multidimensional Green Product Design," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1183-1202, April.
    16. Arner Güerre, Asunción, 2018. "La eficiencia de la responsabilidad ampliada del productor en la gestión de aceites usados con diferenciación del producto/The Efficiency of Extended Producer Responsibility in Waste Oil Management wi," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 789-810, Septiembr.
    17. Xi Sun & Karsten Neuhoff, 2024. "Realizing the Value of Recycling – Assessing the Elements of a Policy Package," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2069, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Brice Arnaud, 2017. "Extended Producer Responsibility and Green Marketing: An Application to Packaging," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(2), pages 285-296, June.
    19. Aarnio, Teija & Hämäläinen, Anne, 2008. "Challenges in packaging waste management in the fast food industry," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 612-621.
    20. Massarutto, Antonio, 2014. "The long and winding road to resource efficiency – An interdisciplinary perspective on extended producer responsibility," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 11-21.
    21. Hiroshi Kinokuni & Shuichi Ohori & Yasunobu Tomoda, 2019. "Optimal Waste Disposal Fees When Product Durability is Endogenous: Accounting for Planned Obsolescence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 33-50, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Waste management policy; extended producer responsibility; negotiated agreements; duty of acceptance;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:05/302. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.