Best Practices For E-Waste Management in Developed Countries

Best practices for E-waste Management in Developed Countries
Authors Puja Sawhney, Adelphi Research Mikael Henzler, Adelphi Research Stefan Melnitzky, AREC Anita Lung, AREC August 2008
This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication is the sole responsibility of above mentioned authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union."
Table of Contents
Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figures................................................................................................................................................. 4
Abstract...5
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Objectives of the paper ............................................................................................................ 6 1. E-waste generation trends ......................................................................................................... 8 2.1 2.2 2. Europe ................................................................................................................................ 8 Japan .................................................................................................................................. 8
Elements of effective e-waste management ............................................................................ 9 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 Europe ................................................................................................................................ 9 E-waste policy and regulations in Europe ................................................................... 9 Enforcement of the legislation ................................................................................... 10 Waste export from Europe .......................................................................................... 22 Main types of e-waste ................................................................................................. 23
3.1.5 Infrastructure for e-waste management including collection & logistics and reprocessing technologies ...................................................................................................... 25 3.1.6 3.2 Financial management of e-waste (cost to recyclers and consumers) ................... 28 Japan ................................................................................................................................ 29
3.2.1 E-waste policy and regulations in Japan ....................................................................... 29 3.2.2 3.2.3 Waste export from Japan ............................................................................................ 30 Main types of e-waste ................................................................................................. 31
3.2.4 Infrastructure for e-waste management including collection & logistics and reprocessing technologies ...................................................................................................... 31 3.2.5 Financial management of e-waste (cost to recyclers and consumers) ................... 32
4 Best practice on e-waste management ........................................................................................ 33 4.1 Europe ..................................................................................................................................... 33 4.1.1. Siemens/Fujitsu, Germany ............................................................................................. 33 4.1.2 Sharp UK........................................................................................................................... 34
4.1.3 Social Enterprises for better and sustainable WEEE Recycling, Austria .................... 35 4.1.4 Research pilot for re-use of CFT-Monitors , Austria ..................................................... 37 4.1.5 Standards in the Recycling of freezing appliances ....................................................... 37 4.1.6 EU wide standards on CFCs ........................................................................................... 38 4.2 Japan ....................................................................................................................................... 40 4.2.1 The case of Matsushita Electric (Lytle, 2003) ................................................................ 40 4.2.2 Mitsubishi Electric-Recycling Household appliances plastic, (Mitsubishi Electric, undated). .................................................................................................................................... 40 4.2.3 Nationwide Deployment of Home Appliance Recycling Plants .................................... 41 5. Lessons learnt on e-waste management from developed countries ........................................ 41 6. Conclusion. .. 47 Appendix 1: Product categories and examples of products covered by WEEE and RoHS as outlined in the Council Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Annexes 1A and 1B.......................................................................................................... 478 Appendix 2: Examples of Clearing House and Collective models in Europe ............................. 48 Appenidx 3: Competent bodies for information and data on e-waste and e-waste management........................................................................................................................................................... 52 References ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Tables
Table 1: Timetable for Implementation of the Directive Table 2: December 31, 2006, Targets for Recovery and Reuse/Recycling, by weight Table 3: Overview of Directive Implementation in EU 25 (2006) Table 4: Compliance schemes in EU 25 (2006) Table 5: Enforcement of EU legislation in some EU countries, 2006 8 9 10 11 12
Table 6: Estimated amount of WEEE currently collected and treated as a percentage of the total amounts of WEEE for the EU27, 2005 24 Table 7: E-waste management systems in Europe (Savage et al., 2006) Table 8: Overall Economic Impact across EU27 assuming FULL implementation Table 9: Japans production and trade in waste (2007) Table 10: Number of discarded cell phones in Japan, 2000-2004 Table 11: Changes in WEEE Thinking and Approach 24 28 30 31 42
Figures
Fig.1: Breakdown of WEEE in 2005 in the EU Fig 2: Japanese WEEE Takeback Systems A Consumer/Retailer based System Fig.3: "Super Green Strategy" - Aiming to become an environmentally advanced company Fig 4: WEEE Treatment Path 23 32 35 36
Abstract
The existence of well established legislation for Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and plenty of best practices from the European Union and in Japan is insightful particularly for rapidly developing countries such as India, which are facing partly the same problems but have different traditions, structures and waste management practices. This report concentrates on the main issues in the European and Japanese practice with WEEE, which can be also used in India. In the 1990s the focus was set on the control over toxic substances by means of smart design for recycling and manual disassembly of hazardous components in the recycling phase itself. Experiences of the last ten years show that electronic waste policies should serve multiple and broader societal goals. Developments in shredding and separation technologies have led to the realisation that dismantling as such does not bring the desired toxic control, as it depends much more on the destination of disassembled components, and there are relatively high costs involved. The recovery of valuable materials and energy preservation has also become much more important. There is an obvious change in thinking and approach to WEEE. Illegal and legal export concern a rising amount of WEEE partly because of the unclear distinction between used equipment and waste in practice. There are no criteria for reusability and only not legally binding EU-guidelines aiming to provide a common understanding. The amount of e-waste is continuously rising both in Europe as well as in Japan since the 1990s, in Europe not only the amounts per capita but also the absolute ones due to the enlargement of the Union from 15 to 27 Member states. WEEE is a very heterogeneous waste stream. Findings of latest research show that it is beneficial to collect more WEEE and to treat it with higher quality. In the EU the current amount of treated WEEE is estimated as being roughly between 25% for medium sized appliances to 40% for larger appliances, so there is a great potential for improvement. The comparison of the European and the Japanese legislation can give third countries useful insights and can stress the importance of the core elements of the law by analysing the consequences. The European WEEE directive sets still collections targets and the Japanese law recycling targets with very different implications. Following the subsidiary principle, the WEEE directive of the EU as the core of the legislation, only defines general requirements to comply with mandatory collection and recycling objectives. The modalities of the logistics and the organisation of the take-back schemes are left to the choice of Member States. Depending on the local traditions and structures two types of collection schemes representing different philosophies are established in several countries, the Clearing House and the Collective model, as example for each one Appendix II shows the System of Germany and the Netherlands with their pros and cons. In Japan, the legislation is similar to that in Europe . However, unlike the EU which uses environmental legislation, the emphasis is more on using technical advancement to deal with the e waste handling and management.
Good regulations and guidelines, enforced law are one side of successful tackling of the WEEE problem. On the other side there it the necessity of multi stakeholder cooperation. The example of CFC-recycling in Europe through the agreement on voluntary standards between the household appliance manufacturing industry, collection and recovery organizations and recyclers shows common efforts make possible progressive solutions. WEEE being a societal problem demands a societal solution where all stakeholders contribute in line with their positive influence on the solutions side.
Introduction
Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is one of the fastest growing types of hazardous waste globally. E-waste consists of waste from electronic products such as personal computers, mobile telephones and household appliances. Technical development of electrical and electronic equipment has shown a rapid growth over the past few decades with the manufacturers constantly offering new and better devices. Since, for many electronic equipment, it is often cheaper to buy a new device than to repair it, the rate of disposal has been on the rise. Thus, more and more obsolete equipment is thrown away and the amount of e-waste has significantly increased posing as a serious problem. E-waste is classified as hazardous waste due to its toxic ingredients, including heavy metals and harmful chemicals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic etc., with the potential to pollute the environment and damage human health when it is processed, recycled or disposed of. The growing awareness and sensitization of the increasing environmental impacts associated with e-waste and the development in the WEEE sector with the increasing occurrence of e-waste and its disposal have triggered initiatives at all levels in Europe and Japan. Producers, retailers and consumers all have a role to play in the management of WEEE under changed legislations in Europe and Japan. Apart from interventions from the government, the increase in the level of awareness among the users aimed at changing consumer behavior has been part of the strategy over the last decades in Europe and in Japan. This consequently has also forced manufacturers to adapt their products to the new demands. To serve the growing ecological thinking manufacturers also have to reconsider, innovate and adapt product lines, selection of material and marketing strategies in line with the current regulations in Europe and Japan.
1.1 Objectives of the paper

The objective of this paper is to present the e-waste situation in the European Union (EU) and Japan, highlighting measures taken in the form of legislations and best practices to manage electronic waste. The paper focuses mainly on the major issues regarding e-Waste management such as trends in e-waste generation and management. The implementation of the two main e-waste directives, namely Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Restriction on the Usage of Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) in the EU and the legislation on home appliances and personal computers, and lessons learnt from the adoption of the legislation and best practices in the EU and Japan have also been elucidated.
1. E-waste generation trends

2.1 Europe
In 1998, the amount of electrical and electronic equipment arising (EEE) as waste was estimated for the EU15 at 6 million tons. The new estimate of the current WEEE arising across the EU27 is between 8.3 and 9.1 million tons per year for 2005. This increase is due to the expansion of the EU, growth in the number of households and inclusion of items that may have been excluded previously (B2B). A number of forecasting assumptions were applied which predict that by 2020, total WEEE arising will grow annually between 2.5% and 2.7% reaching about 12.3 million tons. At present each EU citizen produces 17-20 kg of ewaste every year. Of this some 90% is still land filled, incinerated, or recovered without any pre-treatment (Savage, 2006). The current amounts of WEEE in the EU are roughly between 25% for medium sized appliances to 40% for larger appliances. According to a study conducted by the UNU in 2007, the returns of appliances lighter than 1kg are very low for all systems. In addition, the composition of EEE put on the market currently is different from that of WEEE arising due to changing product composition over time. This is especially the case for flat panel displays instead of CRT screens as well as the phase out of CFCs from refrigerators, Nickel Cadmium from battery packs and Polychlorinated biphenyls in capacitors.
2.2
Japan
The amount of e-waste generation has seen a continuous rise in Japan since the 1990s. The domestic production of the electrical and electronic industries (including electrical equipment, electronic equipment, communications equipment, controls equipment, electrical measuring instruments, light fixtures, storage/ dry batteries, wiring equipment, electric bulbs, etc.) as of the year 2006 showed an increase of 105.8% as against 2005 (JEMA, 2007) . For computers specifically, the total number of disused computers in 1995 was estimated at 30,000 tons. This number is predicted to increase to 100,000 tons by 2010 (METI, 2006). According to Japanese government sources, as much as 450 million tons (t) of waste is generated every year in Japan, of which 50 million t is municipal solid waste (MSW). At the same time, the number of final disposal sites is rapidly dwindling in the country. It is estimated that general waste landfill sites will be full within 10 years and that industrial landfill will be full by 2007/8 (DTI, 2005).
2. Elements of effective e-waste management

3.1 Europe
3.1.1 E-waste policy and regulations in Europe

The two main legislations related to e-waste management in Europe are Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (Directive 2002/96/EC) along with the complementary Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) which seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of WEEE throughout all stages of the equipments lifecycle, particularly at the end-of life stage, by encouraging the end-of-life management of the product, eco-design, life cycle thinking and extended producer responsibility (see Appendix 1 for a list of products covered under WEEE and ROHS). The key aims of the WEEE Directive are to (Savage et al, 2006): i) ii) Reduce WEEE disposal to landfill; Provide for a free producer take-back scheme for consumers of end-of-life equipment from 13 August 2005; iii) Improve product design with a view to both preventing WEEE and to increasing its recoverability, reusability and/or recyclability; iv) v) Achieve targets for recovery, reuse and recycling of different classes of WEEE; Provide for the establishment of collection facilities and separate collection systems of
WEEE from private households; vi) Provide for the establishment and financing of systems for the recovery and treatment Of WEEE, by producers including provisions for placing financial guarantees on newproducts placed on the market. Table 1: Timetable for Implementation of the Directive
Publication of WEEE Directive: Member States Transposition: Producer Responsibility: Substance Ban (RoHS): Meeting Recycling Targets: Source: ICSCG Circular, 2003
13 February 2003 13 August 2004 13 August 2005 July 2006 31 December 2006
The following table outlines the recovery and recycling targets to be met by EU Member States (excluding those who have received derogation)
10
Table 2: December 31, 2006, Targets for Recovery and Reuse/Recycling, by weight Product Category Recovery Target Recycling Target
* Target to be set by December 31, 2008. Source: Savage et al. , 2006
3.1.2 Enforcement of the legislation
The setting up of efficient collection schemes is necessary to ensure the achievement of the targets set in the Directive. Following the subsidiary principle, the Directive only defines general requirements to comply with mandatory collection and recycling objectives. The modalities of the logistics and the organisation of the take-back schemes are left to the choice of Member States. Before the WEEE Directive came into force several European countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark) defined national regulations and organised management schemes for WEEE. These systems respond to sometimes very different national situations and philosophies. Some of these countries will have to adapt their national laws when implementing the WEEE Directive. Other countries that have not developed any management systems are developing new ones in order to comply with the Directive (Savage et al, 2006). The transposition of the WEEE Directive was due before 13 August 2004. However, there have been delays. In some of the countries that did create a timely transposition did so by simply translating the EU Directive, without specifying how the legislation would be applied in practice. Another cause for delay is that further secondary regulations and clarifications are needed (Savage, 2006). The interaction and overlap with other areas of legislation, e.g. hazardous waste regulations, trans-frontier shipment regulations, health and safety related marking etc., could have been another factor leading to the delay of the transposition process and development of national legislation (ibid.).
11
Seven of the acceding countries asked for a temporary derogation from the collection, recovery and reuse/recycling targets in the WEEE Directive. Council Decision 2004/312/EC of 30 March 2004 granted Slovenia a 12-month extension and the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia a 24-month extension. Historical recycling deficit and low population density made it hard for these countries meet the targets within the timetable set by the Directive. Previously Greece and Ireland were given a two year extension citing similar reasons. Slovenia asked for and has received only one extra year. Cyprus, Malta and Poland who did not originally ask for derogation, also asked for similar derogations following publication of the Commissions proposal for derogation for the other seven acceding countries. A two year extension was granted to these three countries (Council Decision 2004/486/EC of 26 April 2004) (ibid.).
Table 3: Overview of Directive Implementation in EU 25 (2006)
Source: Savage et al. , 2006
12
Table 4: Compliance schemes in EU 25 (2006)
Source: Savage et al. , 2006 3.1.2.1 Enforcement of legislation in some of the EU countries
13
Table 5: Enforcement of EU legislation in some EU countries, 2006

EC Member Transposition/In force Key Provisions WEEE from Households - Municipalities must provide sites where households can return WEEE at least free of charge. Retailers must take back products free of charge on a 1:1 basis. From August 2005, producers are required to take back their own brands from municipal collection sites and to meet the costs of sorting and transport. Producers may set up their own systems for recovery of WEEE Historic Waste: Costs to be met through current market share on pay as you go basis Financial Guarantee: Required from individual compliers. Collective compliance scheme serves as guarantee B2B WEEE: Producers have a responsibility for B2B WEEE placed on market post-13 August 2005. Producers responsible for pre-13 Aug 2005 WEEE if replacement purchased, otherwise End User Responsibility Visible Fee: Allowed until 2011 (2013 Large Appliances) Collection of WEEE from households: Producers will be responsible for collecting Producers may fulfill their WEEE management, collection and treatment obligations individually or through a collective scheme. Regional authorities, Compliance NVMP system began work in 1999 and will continue to be the main compliance organisation.
The Netherlands
Jan 2005
ICT-Milieu runs a take-back scheme for IT, telecoms and office equipment
Stichting Lightrec is responsible for the collection of commercial and household lamps and luminaires
Spain
Feb 2005
14
and recycling all products they place on the market after 13 August 2005. For products placed on the market before that date, producers will be responsible for products in proportion to their market share. Register of producers provided for in Royal Decree 208/2005 As requested by producers there will be one national register rather than each Autonomous Region having its own. The registering authority is the National Register of Industrial Establishments, which according to Spanish officials, is expected to be up and running before August 13th. Takeback system: In most cases, the returning of goods will be at no cost to the products final owner. There are several manners in which to dispose of WEEE. The consumer may return the WEEE to a distributor from whom they are buying an equivalent or replacement product, or may drop them off at an authorised location. A distributor must receive the item and store it until it can be processed correctly, by means of scheduled collections by the items producer or their representative organisation. Local authorities, in municipalities with more than 5000 people, will also be responsible for collecting WEEE from households and storing it until it is collected for sorting and treatment by
in the region in which the company operates, must authorise the collective schemes. The applications for authorisation must include the territorial scope, the name and addresses of the organisation which will be managing the operation, the points of collection and the manager of each, the means of financing the project, and the procedures for providing information to public authorities. The authorisations will then be granted for a fiveyear period, on a renewable basis
The ECOLEC Foundation has been created as a collective management system set up by the business associations that represent the manufacturing sector and importers of large and small electrical appliances
Tragamovil, (Mobile Phones) (reprographics) and Ecoasimelec
Ecofimatica
have been set up by the sociacin Multisectorial de Empresas Espaolas de Electronica y Communicaciones
SIG Lamparas (Lamps and Lighting Equipment)
15
producers or their collective organisation. A municipality with less than 5000 people will adhere to the collection standards set by the respective autonomy. In cases where the above methods of disposal would prove to be a sanitary or security risk, the products final owner will be responsible for the correct processing of the WEEE. In most cases, the WEEE producer will bear the cost and responsibility of the collection, treatment, and final disposal of the Italy June 2005 Collection of WEEE from households: Tax-financed municipal collection centres to accept WEEE from retailers and consumers free of charge. 1:1 take back at retailers. Producers to finance from collection centres onwards. Central register: A National Register is to be set up close to the Ministry of Environment. Initially the draft foresaw the Chambers of Commerce responsible for Central Register, but industry lobbied for a single independent body. EEE importers must register with the Chamber of Commerce as producers. The chambers list is used to check the Central Registers producer Marking: A sub-decree might stipulate a transitional period without produceridentification until a EU-wide identification system is in place.
ECOTIC (Consumer Electronics)
ANIE, the Federation of the Electrical and Electronics Industry representing the industry in Confindustria, is preparing compliance consortia with its members, one consortium for each treatment category. Three have been established: Ecolamp, Ecolight and Ecodom (for large domestic appliances). Three others, for IT equipment, small appliances and air conditioners are under preparation. ANIE pointed out that the regulation as of now does not foresee an operative co-ordination body for the consortia. On 9 March 2005, ANIE published a compliance handbook for its members. EcoR'It was announced on 1 March 2005 as a consortium for the management for domestic and professional WEEE by Ecoqual'It, a voluntary consortium of Brother Office Equipment, Canon Italy, Epson Italy, Fujitsu Italy, Lanier Italy,
16
System: Requirements to be defined in separate decree.
Lexmark International, Nec Computers Italy, Nrg Italy, Oki Systems, Ricoh Italy, TallyGenicom, Toshiba Tec Italy, Toshiba Europe, Secondary Centre in Italy
Sweden
Aug 2005
Collection of WEEE from households: Local municipalities are responsible for the collection of Consumer WEEE that has not been returned to a producers collection system. Producers to organise collection from municipal sites. Producers and municipalities may reach agreements on the most appropriate methods for collection Registration: Registration is expected in early 2006. The registration body will be the EPA (Environment Protection Agency) Financial Guarantee. The Swedish legislation allows for a financial guarantee in case of individual compliance only. B2B: Producers to finance take back for products put on market post Aug 2005, and for historic waste if replacement is bought.
El - Kretsen is the service company taking responsibility for producers obligations
El-Retur is the name of the system jointly run by El-Kretsen and the local authorities for collection.
17
Historic waste: producers to share financial responsibility for historic waste in proportion to current market share. Belgium Flanders, Wallonia, Regions different 2004/2005 Bressells dates Household Collection: Local municipalities organise collection points. Producers are charged for using these sites. Retailers offer 1:1 take back. Register: Producers must inform Regional Authorities how they are complying by August 2005. Recupel manages a producer registration scheme. Visible Fee: Allowed until 2011 (2013 for large appliances) Historic WEEE: Financed according to current market share, or otherwise by financial guarantee B2B WEEE: Producers responsible for WEEE post 13 Aug 2005. Producers responsible for pre-Aug 13 2005 where replacement is purchased. Financial Guarantee: There is provision for financial guarantee for individual compliers. Joining a collective compliance scheme serves as a guarantee. Recupel - Industry managed RECUPEL has been the only recovery organisation for Brown and White Goods, ITC and small domestic appliances since 2001 and gardening tools and lighting equipment since 2004. Discussions between government and industry about whether Recupel should handle the remaining WEEE are on going. BEBAT - the battery recovery organisation, has taken back electric torches since July
18
Denmark
May 2005
Household WEEE: Producers will be responsible from Jan 2006. Local Government must ensure adequate coverage for free municipal collection points, and must agree collection arrangements with producers. Retailers accept WEEE on a 1:1 basis. Historic WEEE: Collective financing based on Market Share Financial Guarantee: Collective schemes with more than 30% market share in a category are exempted from guarantee. Individual compliers must provide B2B WEEE: Producers have a responsibility for B2B WEEE placed on market post-13 August 2005. Producers responsible for pre-13 Aug 2005 WEEE if replacement purchased, otherwise End User Responsibility Visible Fee: There are no plans for a visible fee Clearing House: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will manage the clearing house Register: The register will be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency a board is being recruited. Registration deadline was set for October 2005
EPA El Retur: EPA El Retur has been formed and will begin operations in April 2006 across all product categories, both household and B2B. It is expected that there may be other compliance organisations formed, but the number will be limited due to the high level of market share required
19
France
July 2005
Collection of WEEE from Households: If communes collect WEEE selectively, a Coordinating Organisation of producers will compensate them financially. For WEEE not collected by communes, producers to install a separate collection system. Retailers to take back WEEE at least free-of-charge on a 1:1 basis, may delegate to 3rd party. Costs allocated on the basis of current market share. Historical waste: Producer responsibility for historic and new WEEE proportionate to equipment placed on market in same year (current market share). Visible fee: Only allowed for historical household WEEE (categories yet to be determined). Will be mandatory for certain types of large WEEE appliances must be shown on invoice and passed down through supply chain. B2B Historical waste: Final holder responsible, unless otherwise agreed with producer. Central Register: Responsible body not defined, but Adme (Environmental Agency) likely. Producer registration mandatory. Previously planned Central Register for retailers dropped.
There are several organisations for professional equipment, for household equipment with several under preparation: ECO-Systmes is being set up by GIFAM, the association of large household appliance producers in co-operation with retailers associations to act as collective system for the nationwide collection of white and brown goods, incl. TVs. The project is led by a former Eco-Emballage manager and uses a logo similar to the Green Dot. SCRELEC: Despite having carried out a large scale pilot project, SCRELEC will not serve as compliance organisation and its members from the EEE sector have joined the GIFAM effort. Alliance Tics: an umbrella organisation of the telecommunications and IT sector considers setting up a collective system for its members. ERP - See Germany section
20
Financial Guarantee: Participation in system, blocked bank account, deposit guaranteed by a bank
Germany
March 2005
Collection of WEEE from Households: Municipalities to operate and finance collection points for free-of-charge takeback. Producers to provide containers for six collection categories (Large household, Cooling, ITC, CRTs, mercury lamps, small appliances and others). Municipalities may recover collected WEEE themselves. NO 1:1 take back at retailers. Producer responsibility: Proportional to share of EEE marketed in current year. For new WEEE an individual producer may request the Central Register to calculate fees based on his EEE in waste stream only if the producer provides evidence of his share. Clearing House: Responsibility of the Minister of Environment, but to be delegated to EAR, a foundation set up by trade associations ZVEI and Bitcom. Registration before 1 May 2005. Producers who sell directly to consumers in other
The EAR Foundation was founded on 12 February 2004 by 27 EEE manufacturers and 3 associations with the objective of accepting the sovereign responsibilities from the government that are needed to act as single clearing house. Since March 2005, producers can test register on EAR Internet platform. Active registration is scheduled for June 2005. The European Recycling Platform (ERP) the pan-European take back and compliance scheme initiated by Braun, Electrolux, HP and Sony announced the appointment of CCR and Geodis as general contractors in December 2004. In August 2004 Panasonic, Thomson and JVC agreed to establish recycling program for electronics and electrical equipment initially and later for other industry players, e.g. Philips. Sharp and Loewe, have formed, or are in the process of forming, alliances to achieve bargaining power vis-a-vis the recyclers and obtain economies of scale. The competition authority has made it clear that it will not allow collective systems above 25% share of a
21
Member States must also register. Financial Guarantee: Individual and collective systems must pay a financial guarantee. The clearing house is responsible for deciding whether guarantee must be paid. BSG is developing an insurance scheme to manage risk and costs for compliers. Register: EAR Foundation designated by Environment Agency to run register. Deadline November 24 2005.
collection Waste management companies, mostly SMEs, are also seeking alliances with each other to be able to offer nationwide take back of all collection categories. BVSE estimates 20 such groups will emerge nationwide.
Source: Renew Tees Valley Ltd., 2006
22
3.1.3 Waste export from Europe

In the EU Member States yearly 8.7 million tons of WEEE arise of which 2.1 million tons are collected and treated. The rest does not appear in statistics, and most of it goes to illegal exports. European Plastics Recyclers Association claims that the recycling levels for postconsumer plastics waste went down in 2004 and the export flows are continuing to damage their business. As a result of the relatively inexpensive transportation costs coupled with the higher value of metal. Containing WEEE-scrap, the export of WEEE from Europe is increasing considerably. In this context it is interesting to note the difference in the transportation costs: From Shanghai to Rotterdam the cost of transportation per container is about US $ 1600, but the return journey is only $ 350, this is caused by the need of containers back in Asia (Waste Management World, Jan-Feb 2008 p. 48.). There are numerous bi- and multilateral agreements on waste shipments regulations. The central regulation is the UN Basel Convention (not signed by the US) on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The EU Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) also bans the export of hazardous waste from EU to the developing countries. 2007 a new European Regulation has been introduced to control the export of non-hazardous recyclable and recoverable wastes. The key point however is the distinction between used equipment and waste in practice. There are only not legally binding EU-guidelines aiming to provide a common understanding on this issue (Mll und Abfall 9/2007 p. 440). Three levels of controls for exporters have been defined: Is the export prohibited or not? Should the export be notified to authorities and permitted? If the material included on the OECDs green list or not?
It is the responsibility of the exporter to check the conditions of receiving countries but it is not always clear how the exported goods are classified in the receiving country. There are WEEE categories for example CRT monitors, that dont have recycling or treatment plants in the EU, so all collected CRT monitors are exported either for reuse or dismantling. Many of the plants that currently still manufacture CRTs are in non-OECD countries. As the lead funnel glass is classified as hazardous because of its lead content, the Basel Convention on trans frontier shipment of waste essentially prohibits the export of hazardous waste to non- OECD countries for recovery. However, plate glass from which the coating has been removed is classified as non-hazardous, and so can be legally exported to non-OECD countries for recovery/recycling.
There has been much debate about whether or not materials that are produced from waste products for recycling should be classified as a product rather than as waste. For many
23
materials the EU does not yet have a consistent regulation fee. Used CFT-glass in Germany is classified as a product whereas in Austria it is considered as waste. This will become more of an issue when the only plants that can recycle funnel glass to produce new CRTs are located in countries which are not in the OECD, and when this way, less lead and thus lead mining would be needed in these countries. Unfortunately, recent studies of e-waste exports showed that all too often reuse is claimed for activities, which turn out to be nothing more than illegal dumping of hazardous wastes or recycling of materials while greatly endangering the health of local people as well as the environment. That is why reuse activities must follow clear environmental and social standards, making sure that people engaged in reuse are working under favourable conditions, the activities are environmentally sound and the reused products are of high quality and fulfill high standards of functionality as well as security. To tackle the problem with sham reuse, the criteria for exports, especially of WEEE or nonwaste used EEE should be clarified. Though all EU member states are partner to the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban Amendment, banning the export of hazardous wastes to developing countries for disposal and for recycling, recent investigations have proved that outdated, non-functioning and non-repairable equipment from these countries are showing up in Asia and Africa (RREUSE 2006a, p. 4). Although illegal waste exports from the EU to developing countries seem to be quite common, there are also legal loopholes for the export of used equipment, because there are no criteria for reusability. Thus, the provisions of the WEEE Directive for the control of exports have to be properly developed, making sure that not only recycling outside the EU has to follow EU standards, but also exports for reuse are only possible when reuse and adequate treatment of non-reusable parts are guaranteed (OECD 2005, p. 34). . Often, toxic related environmental impacts only occur during or as a result of treatment. Improper treatment, for instance due to illegal export, can be a cause of this. The differences in the amounts of WEEE items which are collected for treatment, particularly between the EU15 Member States, demonstrate that leakage is occurring on a large scale. Concerns exist around the opportunities available for WEEE to escape the proper management system either as illegal exports out of the EU to countries ill-equipped to manage WEEE in an environmentally sound manner, or as back-door sales to unlicensed operators again with the risk that WEEE is not managed in an environmentally sound way. Recent examples substantiating these concerns include reports about shipments of WEEE disguised as goods from the port of Hamburg (DEUTSCHE UMWELTHILFE 2007) and findings that 28% of businesses (collectors and exporters) were found to be exporting WEEE illegally from the Netherlands (VROM 2007). A study in the United Kingdom showed that about 10% of WEEE transports were shipped illegally to non-OECD countries. At present there is only a rather limited knowledge about these illegal shipments, also crossing the border-lines overland via trucks, to build solid conclusion on. However, there is common agreement that substantial leakage occurs for any WEEE items which have a value. 3.1.4 Types of e-waste
The graph below outlines the main types of e-waste found in the EU. Large household appliance constitutes the maximum to e-waste account for 27.2 % of the total e-waste generated in the EU. This is followed by IT and telecom excluding CRT (eight percent), CRT8.3%, and consumer electronics excluding CRTS 7.5%.
24
Fig.1: Breakdown of WEEE in 2005 in the EU
Source: UNU, 2007, 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Study No. 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4
The estimated amount of WEEE currently collected and treated as a percentage of the total amounts of WEEE for the EU27 in 2005 is outlined in the table below. The current amount of treated WEEE is estimated as being roughly between 25% for medium sized appliances to 40% for larger appliances (UNU, 2007).
25
Table 6: Estimated amount of WEEE currently collected and treated as a percentage of the total amounts of WEEE for the EU27, 2005
Source: UNU, 2007, 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Study No. 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4 No. Treatment category Current % collected of WEEE Arising 1A Large Household Appliances 16.3% 1B 1C 2,5A,8 3A 3B 3C 4A 4B 4C 5B 6 7 8 9 10 Cooling and freezing Large Household Appliances (smaller items) Small Household Appliances, Lighting equipment Luminaires and domestic Medical devices IT and Telecom excl. CRTs CRT monitors LCD monitors Consumer Electronics excl. CRTs CRT TVs Flat Panel TVs Lighting equipment Lamps Electrical and electronic tools Toys, leisure and sports equipment Medical devices Monitoring and control instruments Automatic dispensers 27.3% 40.0% 26.6% 27.8% 35.3% 40.5% 40.1% 29.9% 40.5% 27.9% 20.8% 24.3% 49.7% 65.2% 59.4%
3.1.5
Infrastructure for e-waste management including collection & logistics and reprocessing technologies
There are three main types of e-waste management systems in Europe, namely, Take-back systems (collective model), Clearinghouse-model and European Recycling Platform (ERP). The characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the three systems are outlined below (Savage et.al, 2006) Table 7: E-waste management systems in Europe (Savage et al., 2006)
Characteristics The collective system is a dominant national National collective system system which is responsible for collection, recycling and financing of all Countries (monopoly) Best practices for E-waste Management in Developed (or the vast majority) of WEEE within national boundaries. This is the general approach in the countries with established WEEE systems in Europe. Their legal status differ from country to country, but they are generally nongovernmental, not-for-profit companies which are set up and owned by one or more trade associations. They are organised into product categories in order to focus on achieving maximum efficiency in their recycling operations and to identify markets for recycled material and product reuse. Underlying principle is that the stakeholders in the electronics' chain of commerce should manage the end-of-life system, and that stakeholders' responsibilities should be proportionate to their ability to implement and affect the system*. Manufacturers play a key role as the primary managers of the recycling infrastructure through governance of the management entity. Consumers discard their end-of-life products at appropriate collection facilities. Retailers participate in the collection of products. Business end users' requirements are met. Logistic companies and recyclers compete to provide environmentally responsible collection and processing. Government provides leadership by helping assure that all stakeholders perform their duties and the rules are followed. All stakeholders share responsibility to educate and inform the public*. The clearing house model is again a national Competitive clearing house framework in which multiple partners (producers, recyclers, and waste system1. organisations) can provide services. The government ensures that there is a register of producers and defines the allocation mechanisms, and reporting and monitoring systems. The responsibilities of a central national coordination body are to determine the
Advantages National collective schemes viewed as providing the simplest and most effective route to collecting and recycling WEEE. Provide a predictable source of funds, pays for all returned products, adhere to principles of environmentally sound management, provide convenient collection opportunities, and do not place an extra financial burden on local governments*. Uses every means possible to minimise costs employing competitive contracting for services, working with existing businesses and organisations, stimulating product design improvements to lower recycling costs, encouraging an extensive collection network to improve economies of scale, etc*. Most suited for small countries where volumes cannot create a viable market for multiple systems. Additionally, collective systems as run in the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden are tried and tested and represent the only approach that has so far been shown to work in practice. Build a stronger recycling ethos and invest more in behavioural change amongst consumers.
Disadvantages High cost as compared to the clearing house model in terms of 26 enforcement as a lack of enforcement results in an uneven and unfair playing field in the marketplace, allowing free riders to continue to escape any responsibility*. Does not encourage cost reduction which on the other hand exists in an environment where competition is at play all the time and economics of the supply chain is a main driving factor.
Invariably exceeded the collection and recovery targets set for them by national governments. The idea of brand-specific systems is attractive because it sounds so simple by making producers responsible for the management of the waste of their own products., however for the electronics industry that consists of millions of companies placing millions of types of equipment on the market every year it makes the scheme more complicated*
Substantial cost savings potential.
Lacks experience and data to make a good analyses and comparisons with existing collective schemes***. For smaller markets, including those countries with existing schemes, the benefits of market mechanisms are not big enough to outweigh the greater simplicity of structure and financing of
27
Source: *WEE Forum, undated; **Lunnon, undated; *** Renew Tees Valley Ltd., 2006; **** Euroepean Recycling Platform, 2005; *****European Recycling Platform, undated; ******Savage et.al.,2006.
28
Please refer to Appendix 1 for examples of collective and clearing house models from Europe. 3.1.6 Financial management of e-waste (cost to recyclers and consumers)
Under the assumptions of actual recycling costs excluding start-up effects across the EU27,based on the average costs of five long running systems (since 2003) in the EU, estimation of the economic impact for take back and treatment of WEEE arising, ranges roughly from EUR 0.76 billion in 2005 for the current amount collected towards EUR 3.0 billion in 2020. The latter is for the maximum possible collection percentages, which are estimated at 75% for large, and 60% for smaller appliances. The technical costs shown below are for collection and recycling including revenues for secondary materials. The total costs include mainly guarantees, provisions and to a lesser extent overhead and administrative burden. Table 8: Overall Economic Impact across EU27 assuming FULL implementation Year Technical Costs [Million EUR] Current Collection% 2005 2006 2011 2020 764 783 889 1,125 Maximum collection% 1,692 1,735 1,970 2,492 Total Costs [Million EUR]
Current Collection% 935 959 1,089 1,377
Maximum collection% 2,045 2,097 2,381 3,012
Source: UNU, 2007, 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Study No. 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4 The main factors influencing these numbers are: The impact of additional costs on total take back costs represents a considerable percentage across different categories, The impact of long running optimisation of systems, play an important role on the cost side. For the long running systems across EU, the gap between minimum and maximum cost levels is much lower, and The percentage of WEEE collected and treated versus potential WEEE arising in EU27 plays a crucial role in respect of overall economic impact on stakeholders responsible for financing, The impacts of costs along the chain depend on category compositions and recycling technologies used. They are further influenced by future developments of new technologies. The technical cost breakdown in percentages is built-up very differently per category. For Category 1A, 10 Large Household Appliances, the main part is the transport costs. After these
29
transport steps, the revenues are almost equal to the further processing costs. For Category 1B, Cooling and Freezing appliances, the treatment costs (CFC removal) is obviously a major portion of the total. This is also the case for the CRT containing appliances. Relatively high costs are in absolute numbers for Lamps Cat. 5B. After transport and pre-treatment, for the small appliances there is no net revenue from the remaining fractions at 2005 price levels. These economic impacts of WEEE take back and treatment are influenced by: Prices for secondary materials. The sensitivity analysis showed that current 2007 market prices increase the revenues of the above categories by 50 100 EUR/ton compared to 2005. This means a net revenue after collection and transport for some categories. Developments and availability of markets for downstream fractions and high-level reapplication/valorisation of secondary raw materials, and Future developments of treatment technologies, as well as different treatment/dismantling requirements for particular product streams, which means that costs for CFC containing appliances are likely to decrease and flat panels are expected to cause a significant increase in total costs due to costly mercury removal steps.
3.2 Japan
3.2.1 E-waste policy and regulations in Japan The Japanese Home Appliance Recycling Law along with the Law for Promotion of Effective Utilisation of Resources (LPEUR) in 2001, which is broadly based and similar to what the EU proposes for the WEEE Directive represents the two pronged strategy adopted by the Japanese government to minimise e-waste generation and to maximise resource use applicable to the recycling of televisions and for computers (Bush, 2006). The Japanese Home Appliance Recycling Law was formulated in June 1998 and enacted in 2001 (METI, 2006). The law is the basis of EPR programme for four large home appliances (large TV sets, washing machines, air conditioners and refrigerators) and was a response to an increasing scarcity of disposal sites, the increase of EEE in the waste stream, and the inadequate capacity of existing treatment plants (mainly local governments), together with the growing use of EPR programmes abroad. The Law specifies that manufacturers have individual responsibility for their own products (ECOLAS/RPA, 2007).The law was later extended to cover electronic products such as personal computers and copiers on a voluntary basis (Savage, 2006). Unlike the WEEE Directive, the Home Appliance Recycling Law does not include collection targets it instead emphasizes recycling goals, for air conditioners it is 60%, for refrigerators 50%, televisions- 55% and washing machines- 50 % (Inform, 2003). Driven in part by a lack of landfill capacity combined with a densely populated urban environment, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), enacted legislation for the promotion of recycling and resource conservation. The Basic
30
Law for Establishing the Recycling-based Society, enacted in 2000, served as a framework guiding recycling efforts and promoting producer responsibility for various products and materials (Inform, 2003). In October 2003 a revision of the Law for Promotion of Effective Utilisation of Resources requires producers of PCs to take-back PCs from households and establish a take-back and recycling system for PCs. The allocation of responsibility in the case of PC producers is different, reflecting the difference between the four large appliances and the PCs (type of customers, distribution channels, existing infrastructure, etc.) (ECOLAS/RPA, 2007). Japan also implemented a Computer Recycling Law in 2003, like the Home Appliance Recycling Law, the Computer Recycling Law is financed by customer fees. There is no e waste take back law embracing all electrical products, but a law promoting their recycling and eco design is in place (Jeffries, 2006). 3.2.2 Waste export from Japan
The import and export of goods which have been designated as specified hazardous wastes by the Law for the Control of Export, Import and Others of Specified Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes (the Basel Law) or are designated as wastes by the Waste Management Law, in Japan, are subject to various statutory formalities (MOEJ, 2008). Table 9: Japans production and trade in waste (2007) Generation and Tran boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and other wastes in 2007 (as reported) Amount of hazardous wastes generated under Art. 1 (1) a Generation (annex 1:Y1-Y45)of BC Amount of hazardous wastes generated under Art.1 (1)b of BC Total amount of hazardous wastes generated Amount of other wastes generated (annex II: Y46-47) Export Import Amount of hazardous wastes exported Amount of other wastes exported Amount of hazardous wastes imported Amount of other wastes imported Quantities (in metric tons) Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 48,788 0 6,123 0
Source: Basel Convention, Country Fact Sheet Japan, http://www.basel.int/natreporting/cfs.html (8/7/8). Statistics on Japans imports and exports of specified hazardous wastes under the Basel Law reveals that exports primarily consist of lead acid batteries bound for developed countries for use in metal recovery, and that none of these wastes are exported to developing countries. Imports mainly consisting of metal-containing sludge and scrap electronic parts from Asian countries are used in metal recovery. However, statistics under the Waste Management Law reveals an increasing trend in Japans waste imports and exports of coal ash to South Korea for the
31
purpose of cement production. In the case of imports, only a few cases have been reported, primarily consisting of mercury-containing waste batteries and fluorescent lamps from Asian countries, destined to be treated and recycled (ibid). No statistics are available for the total amount of hazardous waste that is generated in Japan. According to the statistics available from the Basel Convention in 2007, a total of 48,788 metric tons of hazardous waste was exported from Japan. 3.2.3 Main types of e-waste
The main source of e-waste in Japan comes from home appliances, namely televisions, air conditioners, washing machines and refrigerators; computer monitors and cell phones. For cell phones, total number of subscribers was more than 90 million by March 2005. The average discard rate of cell phones is between 2-2.5 years. However better recycling facilities have led to a decline in the amount of e waste generated from discarding cell phones (METI, 2006).
Table 10: Number of discarded cell phones in Japan, 2000-2004 Amount collected (one thousand units) 2001 2002 2003 13,107 11,369 11,717
2000 2004 Cell phone 13,615 8,528 body Recharger 3,128 4,231 3,355 4,387 3,181 Battery 11,847 11,788 9,727 10,247 7,312 Modified from METI, 2006, Towards a 3R-Oriented, Sustainable Society: Legislation and Trends 2006 The total number of personal computers discarded between 2001-2004 (1000 units) increased from 4,030-7,470. For home appliances (including televisions, air conditioners, washing machines and refrigerators, the number increased from 21,482 to 22,870 between 2001-2005 (IGES, undated). 3.2.4 Infrastructure for e-waste management including collection & logistics and reprocessing technologies Retailers are the primary actors responsible for collecting the end-of-life products from household to regional aggregation stations. Upon the request of consumers, the retailers are responsible for accepting a) an old appliance when selling a similar new product (old-for-new), and b) an old appliance that they themselves have sold (ECOLAS/RPA, 2007). For those products not collected by the retailers, municipalities and designated legal entities, the government appointed the Association for Electric Home Appliances (AEHA) as a designated legal entity. With regard to collection, designated legal entities collect products from remote areas in response to the request of municipalities governing the area or of local residents themselves (ibid).
32
Producers have the obligation to establish the regional aggregations stations and transfer the discarded products to recycling plants. Producers also have the responsibility to recycle their products either themselves or delegate their responsibility to the third party. In the initial phase, they need to achieve differentiated recycling rate targets on weight basis, which are 60% for air conditioners, 55% for TV sets, and 50% for refrigerators and washing machines. The recycling rate must be achieved by reuse of components or material recycling. Only the recycled materials that have positive or zero monetary value can be included when calculating the recycling rate. Recycling of products whose producers cease to operate in the market (orphan products) is done by the designated legal entity. Producers also have to recycle the ozone depleting substances used as freezing agents in refrigerators (ibid). The total number of products collected in the first year of implementation was 8,538,000 (April 2001-March 2002) while the figure for the second year (April 2002-March 2003) was 10,147,000. The legislation does not set any collection target (Tojo, 2003 in ECLOS/RPA, 2007).
Fig 2: Japanese WEEE Take back Systems A Consumer/Retailer based System
Source: Savage et al., 2006 3.2.5 Financial management of e-waste (cost to recyclers and consumers)
33
For the recycling of home appliance, the consumers pay for the collection at the time of disposal (end-user-pays) (Donovan, 2003). The consumer also must buy a recycling ticket (available at post offices and retail stores), which they provide to the collection agent to demonstrate that the recycling fee (INFORM, 2003). The fee is announced by those who are physically responsible for collection. The majority of the fees per item set by the retailers have been between 500 and 2500 JPY (3.5-17.4 Euro), while in some cases, the set fee is more than 3100 JPY (21.6 Euro). This fee also covers the management of the regional aggregation stations (Takahashi, 2003, in Tojo, 2003). The cost associated with the physical responsibility of the producers (establishment of regional aggregation stations and transport of discarded products from the regional aggregation stations to recycling plants) is covered within the recycling fee (Tojo, 2003). In the case of PCs, to recycle the old computer, manufacturer has to be contacted. Then the consumer either takes the unwanted PC to the nearest post office, or arranges for the post office to pick it up. Japan Post then delivers it to the appropriate manufacturer's recycling centre (Donovan, 2003). For products, especially computers, manufactured by those not members of the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association, such as overseas-made PCs and those whose manufacturers have gone out of business, the association is expected to bear the cost of disposal (Donavan, 2003). In the case of collection and recycling of personal computers, the Revised Law for Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources, adopted in 2000, mandates a front-end financing system (INFORM, 2003).
4. Best practices on e-waste management

4.1 Europe 4.1.1. Siemens/Fujitsu, Germany The remarketing, reuse and recycling of Fujitsu Siemens Computers products have taken place at the companys Paderborn, Germany facility since 1988. At Paderborn, approximately 20 percent of Fujitsu Siemens Computers-branded equipment is reused and, currently, only two percent is disposed. The processes employed by Paderborn far exceed the requirements set out in the WEEE Directive. Although recycled plastic is not used in their products, the products recycled, such as plastic casing, can be used to create new, high-quality products. Position on Individual Producer Responsibility: Fujitsu Siemens Computers supports the principle of Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) and recognizes that increasing amounts of end-of-life products, if not properly disposed of, pose a significant threat to the environment. While Fujitsu Siemens Computers believes IPR can result in more environmentally compliant products and better accountability for equipment manufacturers, it also recognizes that IPR
34
poses significant challenges. Even the most dedicated producer cannot meet the needs and requirements of all stakeholders worldwide in a way that is viable financially, logistically and environmentally. However, Fujitsu Siemens Computers is dedicated to working with the industry at large in order to overcome these challenges. Fujitsu Siemens Computers has a track record of responsible recycling, remarketing and reuse of electrical and electronic equipment. The companys Environmental Guideline FSC03230 produces products that lend themselves well to repair, potential upgrading, reuse, disassembly and recycling. Fujitsu Siemens Computers works very close together with Fujitsu, a leading provider of customer-focused IT and communications solutions for the global marketplace. Fujitsu already offers an environmentally sound recycle service in some countries were no take-back requirement was imposed. 4.1.2 Sharp UK Since the 1990s, Sharp has launched a Super Green Strategy which aims at establishing an environmentally sustainable domestic and overseas manufacturing system. The initiatives look at every aspect of the manufacturing processes, from extracting natural resources to the end product and its disposal. All the stages from production to disposal are evaluated including (Sharp, 2008): The management and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions Minimisation of energy usage Minimisation of waste generated during manufacture Minimisation in the use of natural resources Management of chemical substances Reduction in the burden on the atmosphere/water/soil Maintenance of harmony with nature and with the community Promotion of environmental consciousness Recycling Disclosure and communication of the companies environmental performance externally through independently assessed annual environmental reports
These aspects are continually monitored, controlled and scored against stringent environmental performance objectives under the initiative. Factories have to achieve exceptionally high scores to gain the internal award of Super Green status. Fig.3: "Super Green Strategy" - Aiming to become an environmentally advanced company
35
Source, Sharp, 2008, Super Green Strategy, http://www.sharp.co.uk/page/supergreen 4.1.3 Social Enterprises for better and sustainable WEEE Recycling, Austria WEEE recycling has not only advantages for the environment but also social potential. In the model of the Social Market Economy" goods and services will be provided outside the market system. It may serve as a separate (third) economic sector between the state and the market. In Austria several social enterprises were established in this scheme with a focus on WEE treatment. The initiatives aim at treating several problems at once: 1) They are creating temporary job contracts for long term- unemployed or disabled persons and help to empower these persons in finding a permanent employment in the primary job market through personal support and career development. 2) The initiatives help the involved persons to avoid social exclusion and support them to develop creative potentials. 3) These social enterprises have certified WEEE treatment plants for used or broken Electric Equipments. This will be repaired or dismantled depending on the conditions and prepared for second-hand-articles or spare-parts or recycling products or recyclable parts.
36
Fig 4: WEEE Treatment Path
WEEE Entry Reception, control, data-entry Selection of running and repairable appliances Cleaning, Refurbishment, sale on flee-market Spare-parts-commercialisation
Collection of running/recyclable components
Collection of toxic substances, dismantling in recyclable fractions In Austria approximately 60 enterprises operating in this manner founded an association RePANET (Reparaturneztwerk http://www.repanet.at) for the cooperation in creation of repair jobs, setup of a common hazardous waste collection system and implementation of a delivery service. There is also a European network of social enterprises with activities in Reuse and Recycling (r r e u s e Reuse and Recycling European Union Social Enterprises http://rreuse.org). They are lobbying on a common base in the EU for social and ecological concern, developing and coordination social enterprises and projects. A main issue of the European network is the promotion of sustainable consumption. Social economy enterprises distinguish themselves through some criteria which describe their mode of economic operation and not their legal or organisational form: These are business undertakings under private law with the aim of realising social and/or community-related goals They originate in the form of self-governance and self-support of civilians Their commercial operations are secondary to social and community-related purposes The commercial operation arises from a common, cooperative base.
The corporate culture of social economy is based on civil corporate involvement combined with business initiative. Successful social economy enterprises follow specific financing mix of private economic returns in the market, returns from public funds for meeting public tasks and through the investment of work time or money from third parties. For some years the state has focused on cooperation with the private sector in connection with non-profit economic tasks with the aim of financial recovery. The term public private partnership describes various models of such cooperative ventures. The idea of public social private partnership is new, together with social economic enterprises as equal partners in such collaborations. So can emerge new financial models that are building upon equal opportunity cooperation of the public authorities together with social economy and profit-oriented enterprises.
37
4.1.4 Research pilot for re-use of CFT-Monitors, Austria Through the boom of LCD-flat screens in the European offices a huge number of old CFT Monitors get dispensable although most of them are still fully functional and not at the end of their life-cycle. There is a considerable demand of these monitors in developing countries. In the past, the export of old monitors was very doubtful, 90% of the exported used monitors turned out to be e-scrap. Instead of functional old monitors the developing countries received hazardous waste for disposal. To improve the process and introduce standards for the exported monitors the Austrian institute KERP (Kompetenzzentrum Elektronik&Umwelt www.kerp.at ) initiated a project cooperation. The aim was to create a standard procedure for registering and evaluating old monitors for reuse before shipping them to developing countries. The pilot was run with the participation of municipal waste collection centers in the region of Lower Austria. The functional monitors and the broken ones were separated already at the entry to the collection centers. The functional monitors were collected in adequate skeleton transport boxes in order to protect them from transport damages. Afterwards the monitors were tested in three steps. The first step was a subjective sight check on obvious damages. The second step was accomplished by a method developed by the University of Warsaw (Poland) for testing the electrical security, protective resistance and isolation of the appliances and also their functionality. In case of satisfactory security standards and unexceeded tolerance limits the monitors could be packed and shipped to Africa. The pilot project reached a positive economic balance due to the generated returns. Next year the procedure will be to spread all over Austria. The prototype of the checking device has to be optimized and could be distributed with a license among the social economic enterprises. In this way it is possible to ensure, that the monitors delivered to developing countries fulfill the standards of functionality and security. 4.1.5 Standards in the Recycling of freezing appliances Freezing appliances are very environmentally relevant in the impact assessment of WEEE due to the presence of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In Austria 91% of the CFC from old cooling and freezing appliances are recovered, while in Germany it is only 40%. The Austrian experiences show that fridge-recycling can be efficient and in terms of climate protection. Old fridges belong to the products, whose treatment requires specialists processing facilities. The Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation, which came into force in January 2002, requires all ozone depleting substances to be recovered from refrigeration equipment. In fridges and freezers both the coolant and insulating foam can contain Ozone depleting substances. There are several techniques for recycling fridges including various stages: 1. Puncture coolant circuit to drain/remove the liquid coolant, 2. Manual removal of compressor and coolant circuit and removal of trays, switches, plugs and cables etc.
38
3. Shredding of refrigerator in a sealed container with nitrogen injected to prevent possible explosions and compress the CFCs. (The shredding is often through use of a horizontal accelerating tool), 4. Removal and containment of the nitrogen dust after shredding has been completed, 5. Separation of shredded products e.g. metals (through using magnetic and eddy, foam and plastics through sieving, 6. Recovered Ozone depleting substances (including foam) are incinerated at high temperatures to destroy the chlorine and prevent further environmental damage. Other destruction methods use chemical or catalytic processes. Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs) were introduced as a substitute to CFC and Hydro chlorofluorocarbons and are currently still used. Although HFCs do not contribute to the damage to the ozone layer, they are global warming gases with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) above 15, and therefore require proper treatment in order to meet the requirements of Annex II the WEEE Directive. In the Austrian system, recyclers are obliged to check the appliances in terms of monitoring the input material-streams and also the output i.e. the CFC amount. The National Decree about waste treatment sets the CFC-amounts of recovery specified for types of appliances. As an evidence of the compliance Austrian recyclers have to let their plant be checked every year and in addition they have to prepare a monitoring report about input, recovery and output of CFC amounts. The export of Austrian fridges for the aim of recycling is prohibited if the recycling site in the target country is not in accordance with the Austrian Decree about the obligations of waste treatment. Due to these regulations there is no export since the law has come into force.
4.1.6 EU wide standards on CFCs At the European level there are common standards concerning CFC-recycling since the beginning of 2008. The household appliance manufacturing industry (CECED)*, electronic waste collection and recovery organisations (WEEE Forum) and specialist electronics recyclers (EERA)1 have agreed on a voluntary standard with respect to the collection, transport, storage and treatment of end-of-life household cooling and freezing appliances containing CFC, HCFC and HFC2. It follows the first jointly adopted standard concerning treatment of appliances containing hydrocarbons (HC) such as butane, propane and pentane which has been adopted 2007. The title of the 13-page document: Requirements for the collection, storage, handling, and treatment of household cooling and freezing appliances.
The standard complements Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and Regulation 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. It specifies requirements related to the transport, storage and treatment of appliances containing CFC, HCFC and HFC and also provides specifications for the recovery and destruction of those
39
substances. Regular performance verification tests carried out by independent auditors are included. The aim was to develop a dynamic system of best available technologies (BAT) for WEEE recycling. The EU Member States and the European Commission are invited to accept these standards as guidelines. The new standard is free of charge and available for use by all actors involved in collection, transport, storage and treatment of equipment containing the substances. The signatories of the standards are confident that for all appliances with toxic components (such as CRT monitors with lead, LCD screens with mercury or lamps with mercury) similar standards can be developed soon. * Signatories of the standard are CECED, EERA and the WEEE Forum CECED represents the household appliance manufacturing industry in Europe. Its member companies employ over 200,000 people, are mainly based in Europe, and have a turnover of about 40 billion. If upstream and downstream business is taken together, the sector employs over 500,000 people. Direct Members are Arelik, BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerte GmbH, Candy Group, DeLonghi, Electrolux Holdings, Fagor Group, Gorenje, Liebherr, Indesit Company, Merloni Termosanitari, Miele, Philips, Saeco, SEB and Whirlpool Europe. CECEDs member associations cover the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. EERA, the European Electronics Recyclers Association, is a non-profit organisation that promotes the interest of recycling companies who are treating waste electrical and electronic equipment in Europe. EERA aims for the harmonisation of national and international regulations for WEEE recycling in order to obtain a free market for demand and supply of services. EERA calls for environmentally sound operating practices for WEEE recycling activities and members are signatories to the rules of conduct to safeguard protection of human health and the environment. The WEEE Forum is the European association of non-profit, sector-owned WEEE take-back systems. Its 42 producer responsibility organisations are operational in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
40
4.2 Japan 4.2.1 The case of Matsushita Electric (Lytle, 2003) Matsushita Electric, best known for its Panasonic brand, set up an advanced recycling plant in the Western Japanese town of Yashiro for the recycling of 4 main home appliances, i.e. refridgerator, washing machine, television and air conditioners. The Matsushita Eco-Technology Center, (Metec), came into being after the Japanese Government passed tough recycling measures that came into effect in 2001. The company had the recycling plant ready by the time the legislation came into being. A local consultation group was set up for Matsushita to demonstrate that its closed-loop water system would not pollute the environment or that delivery trucks would not keep residents awake at night. The local consultation group still meets roughly quarterly in order to discuss the current situation. In the first year of operation, the plant handled over half a million TVs, air-conditioners, washing machines and refrigerator and is currently running at 10% to 15% above the rate required by law. The key to the success of the recycling plant is the division of waste into different waste streams. Each unit is taken apart, either by hand as in the case of the TVs, or by brute force as with the washing machines. The parts are then separated out. Glass in television sets is carefully dissected with Matsushita's own breed of cutter to keep the toxic leaded glass in the rear portion away from the safer glass in the screen. The result in two kinds of glass that end up in new TVs. Separating the different parts of a washing machine requires a complex arrangement of magnets and wind blowers to produce cleanly divided waste. Different colours of polypropylene plastic tend to end up together in a muddy-coloured mix, which the company uses in 'nonaesthetic' components that remain out of sight in new machines. All washing machines contain a balancing component filled with salt water to keep them on an even keel while spinning. This, too, is recovered to prevent it from leaking and causing steel to rust before it can be removed. Similarly meticulous techniques are employed on fridges and air-conditioners. Metec researchers are constantly developing new ways to maximise from the raw materials that arrives at the plant every day. 4.2.2 Mitsubishi Electric-Recycling Household appliances plastic, (Mitsubishi Electric, undated). Mitsubishi Electric has developed an original mixed-plastic separation and recovery technology for its household appliance products (i.e. recycling of materials from old appliances into new appliances). Unlike the past, where it was difficult to recycle plastic from scrapped appliances, the new technology makes it possible to automatically extract relatively pure propylene from recovered mixed-plastic material and recycle it into new appliances. Since the introduction of the new technology, Mitsubishi Electric's recycling facilities have achieved a 73% average rate of recovery and recycling in 2003 for four types of appliances in Japan.
41
In 1999, Mitsubishi Electric completed the industry's first appliance recycling plant. From the beginning, efforts were made to recycle plastics, and to this end, the original pulverizing technology was capable of creating rough plastic that could be recycled in certain products for which downgraded plastic was sufficient. Downgraded plastic, which is a mixture of more than one type of plastic, was not suitable for home appliances, however, and the next aim was to obtain a more refined recycled plastic that could be used in home appliance production. The technology developed to achieve that goal extracts propylene, which is commonly used in appliances, from the plastic mixture. It does so automatically and to a high degree of purity, resulting in material that meets the standards for application in home appliances. The companys next focus is on developing technology to automatically extract relatively pure polystyrene and ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene), with the aim of eventually achieving 100% recycling of plastic material. 4.2.3 Nationwide Deployment of Home Appliance Recycling Plants Prominent Japanese manufacturers have established two groups, referred to as Group A and Group B for recycling the different household appliances. As of May 2003, Group A consisted of 16 companies, while Group B consisted of 14 companies (Tojo, 2003 in ECLOS/RPA, 2007). Some of the companies included under Group A are Electrolux, GE, Matsushita and Toshiba. Group B comprises of Daewoo, Sony, Sanyo Hitachi and Sharp (Savage, 2006). Within these groups, the manufacturers are implementing the law by cooperatively building and operating recycling plants and depots (Ueno, undated). Other companies and importers contract Group A or B or corporate bodies designated by the law for disposal of used home appliances. Groups A and B each have announced about 190 depots in Japan that operate in close cooperation with the recycling plants (Tojo, 2003) in ECLOS/RPA, 2007. Producers that put limited number of products on the Japanese market may delegate their tasks to designated legal entities. Currently, 29 producers belong to the last category (ibid.)
5. Lessons learnt on e-waste management from developed countries

The EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment goes back to the year 1996, when the required framework for transposition of the Directive was rather simple and one thought the practical details could be left over to the member states. At that time the focus was set on the control over toxic substances by means of smart Design for Recycling and manual disassembly of hazardous components in the recycling phase itself. The prime environmental strategies of the WEEE Directive are: Weight-based recycling targets A general collection-target of 4 kg per inhabitant for household waste stream
42
An origin-oriented categorization of appliances Selective treatment Rules for recyclers.
However, more than ten years later, experiences show that electronic waste policies should serve multiple and broader societal goals. Developments in shredding and separation technologies have led to the realisation that dismantling as such does not bring the desired toxic control, as it depends much more on the destination of disassembled components, and there are relatively high costs involved. The recovery of valuable materials and energy preservation has also become much more important. A study of the WEEE Directive accomplished by the United Nations University (UNU) 2007 sums up how times, thinking and approach to WEEE have changed and how does it concern the review and update of the directive.
Table 11: Changes in WEEE Thinking and Approach
Source: UNU, 2007, 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Study No. 07010401/2006/442493/ETU/G4
With the expansion of the EU to 27 Member States the amount of EEE put on the market arose to 10.3 tons per year, with the differences in the collection systems are getting obvious. The WEEE collection target of 4 kg per inhabitant can easily be reached in the old member states, which put up to 24 kg new EEE per inhabitant on the market. This target remains challenging for the new member states, which are hardly putting 6 kg new EEE per inhabitant on the market. Beyond this, the returns of appliances lighter than 1 kg are close to zero, even in the old member states. There are very large differences in performance by different member states per
43
sub-category. Certain factors like availability of collection points, geographical location, culture, waste collection procedure and financing mechanisms influence higher collection. However there is not enough data to confirm significant correlations between these potential factors. From the environmental point of view, WEEE is a very heterogeneous waste stream. The environmental findings of the UNU-Report are that it is beneficial to collect more WEEE and to treat it with higher quality. It might be better to differentiate in environmental targets per treatment category. An Administrative Burden Survey was conducted under the UNU study (2007). It highlighted a number of areas where the burdens experienced by stakeholders could be reduced. The main issues pointed out referred to the achievement of a level playing field for all different stakeholders involved in the end-of-life chain by realising: Consistency in legislative requirements across Member States Consistency in registering and reporting activities across Member States Increase stakeholder awareness of specific responsibilities. It was found that large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were unaware of their current legal obligations.
The question What is the social result of the WEEE implementation and could it be reached better through other means cannot be satisfactorily answered even at this stage. This is because a majority of EU Member States, the national transposition of the WEEE Directive only took place after 13 August 2004 and in some countries it was still incomplete in June 2007. The consumers role in guiding policies in the WEEE Directive to success needs to be further analysed since the consumer has to return his e-waste and will also pay, no matter how the financing is arranged in the end. Increasing consumer awareness is thus a necessity for an ecoefficient WEEE implementation with maximised environmental results (collect more) and increased costs efficiency (treat better). The WEEE Directives have a scope for improvement for five areas namely: Scope, collection targets, reuse, recycling, and recovery targets and treatment requirements. Following recommendations of the UNU-report can be stressed: Rearranging the current product-oriented scope towards a treatment category-oriented scope. This way of target setting can be made for collection amounts (on percentage basis, not in kilograms, to account also for large differences between member states). Increasing EU-wide harmonisation. Creating more consistency in legislative requirements and definitions as well as in registering and reporting activities. Removing the difference between B2B and B2C appliances.
44
Targets for reuse should be researched outside of the WEEE Directive to avoid rebound effects of higher energy consumption compared to new appliances or more use of energy-intensive material in new product designs. Increasing stakeholder awareness of specific responsibilities especially in SMEs. Reducing illegal waste shipments Separating the basic legal framework from operational standards (to be developed).
Besides collection targets, the definition of the scope will also influence the setting of recycling and recovery targets as well as treatment requirements per treatment category. These three items are discussed in more detail per treatment category: Large Household Appliances: For simplification reasons it is worth considering leaving these appliances out of the Directive, as they will be treated anyway due to their intrinsic value. There is also no need for recycling targets for this category, Cooling and Freezing Appliances are very environmentally relevant in the impact assessment due to the presence of CFCs. Removal of CFC is the most relevant environmental priority. They should be collected as much as possible and prevented from undergoing the same treatment as other large household appliances, at least for the older CFC containing appliances in the stream. For this category, proper removal of CFC should be prioritised over high recycling percentages, Small Household Appliances: Small household appliances (SHHA) have a higher chance of leakage to domestic waste disposal. In the collection results from different Member States and systems, there are large differences in performance were found. This indicates room for improvement in collection. The weight based recycling targets are the most difficult to achieve. The environmental outcomes demonstrate that increasing plastics recycling for sorted plastics does contribute to higher environmental performance. However, for smaller products and mixed plastics, the plastic recycling scenario is less eco-efficient. The analysis showed that the most positive option is to develop Best available techniques / Industry standards for what represents best practice for dealing with SHHA as multiple environmental concerns have to be balanced at the same time, CRTs and Flat Display Panel: Over time, CRT amounts collected will go down to zero. Due to the lead content and concerns connected to illegal waste shipments, the collection should be maximised. A specific collection target should be made dynamic over time as these appliances are replaced by flat panel displays and therefore the total weight put on market will go down. For CRT recycling, environmental evidence demonstrates that the different types of recycling have very different environmental levels of re-application. A more specific focus on CRT-to-CRT glass recycling is environmentally beneficial (as long as possible in the secondary materials market). An important finding is that the lowest environmental preferences are also being accounted for as useful re-applications and thus as recycling operations (in the past), which can become environmentally counterproductive. For FDPs, the numbers placed on the market are rapidly increasing, however they hardly return as waste at the moment. For LCD screens, the main environmental concern is control over the
45
mercury content. Due to the absence of proper recycling solutions, the high risk of mercury emissions from these panels point to a strict target setting for mercury removal without causing Health and Safety risk and proper control over treatment as the technical costs per piece or per ton will likely be very high. Recycling targets are of secondary priority. Lamps: Similar to LCD screens, collection and recycling is very relevant in order to prevent mercury emissions. The costs of collection are high and gas discharge lamps are classified as hazardous waste. Due to the high total amount of mercury present and place on the market, collection targets should be relatively high. Again, recovery of the mercury is to be prioritised over high recycling targets. Besides, the more differentiated target setting displayed above, there are other conditions for success following from the discussed options that promote a higher level of simplification and realisation of implementing the WEEE Directive in practice beyond changing the legal text as such. Currently, the extended producer responsibility principle (EPR) can work counterproductively as the most relevant environmental improvement potential is connected to higher collection amounts and improved quality of treatment, which in any case are more expensive. Therefore with WEEE being a societal problem, it demands a societal solution where all stakeholders contribute in line with their positive influence on the solutions side. This leads to the conclusion that: Either producers should remain primarily financially responsible and should be given the necessary means including better access to WEEE, combined with a more dynamic and higher collection target based on quantities put on market in the past, OR Another stakeholder, the Member States themselves, or Compliance Schemes as a more independent and separate entity (with producers as part of the board together with other stakeholders) can be made primarily responsible. This way, both an incentive for collecting more and treating better can be maintained together with competition between Schemes that can form a lasting incentive to improve cost-efficiency. In any case, by clearly addressing the responsibilities of other stakeholders as well, the collection and treatment results can be improved. For environmental reasons, EPR with respect to Design for Recycling should be removed from the Directive and placed in (i) RoHS for removability guidance for exempted components with severe environmental or toxic properties and (ii) other ecodesign incentives can be made part of EuP for overall balancing. This would avoid design activities with contradictive environmental effects in different life-cycle stages for instance due to higher energy consumption in the use phase or higher resource consumption due to more environmentally burdening primary raw materials.
46
6. Conclusion
While the circumstances, types and management practices of e-waste generation are different in the developing countries, e-waste regulations and management in Europe and Japan provide a good example of dealing with the growing e-waste problems. Europe and Japan though having similar regulations, have different approaches to e-waste management, with one emphasising environmental legislations and the other, technological advancement. Past experiences in the developed countries related to electronic waste policies reveals that legislation should serve multiple and broader societal goals. It should also clearly define the roles, responsibilities and definitions of waste included under the ambit of the legislation in order to minimise administrative burden and confusion. Crucial and useful in the implementations is the separation of basic legal framework from operational standards. Dealing with e-waste management is a long term process involving cooperation between different stakeholders and technological advancements for better handing of e-waste and e waste minimisation by better designing of future electronic products. Even in developed countries such as the EU and Japan which have had long experience in e-waste management, there is vast potential for future improvements in e-waste collection and handling. However existing good practices from developed countries provide valuable lessons and insights for developing countries to deal with e waste and its management both in terms of good practices that can be adopted and considered in formulating or reviewing existing e-waste legislation in the country.
47
Appendix 1: Product categories and examples of products covered by WEEE and RoHS as outlined in the Council Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Annexes 1A and 1B.
Product categories Large appliances
Products
household Refrigerators and freezers, Electric stoves, Microwaves, Washing machines and dryers, Air conditioners
Small household appliances Information technology and telecommunications equipment Consumer equipment
Vacuum cleaners, Irons, Toasters, Coffee Machines, Clocks Personal computers, Laptop computers, Phones, Cellular phones, Calculators
Televisions, Radios, Video cameras, Audio amplifiers, Musical instruments Lighting equipment Luminaries for fluorescent lamps, Straight fluorescent lamps, Compact fluorescent lamps, Low pressure sodium lamps, High intensity discharge lamps Electrical and electronic Drills; Saws; Sewing machines; Equipment for turning, milling, tools sanding, grinding, sawing, cutting, shearing, drilling, making holes, punching, folding, bending or similar processing of wood, metal and other materials; Tools for riveting, nailing or screwing or removing rivets, nails, screws, or similar uses. Toys, leisure, and sports Electric trains and car racing sets; Video games; Computers for equipment biking, diving, running, rowing, etc; Sports equipment with electric or electronic components; Coin slot machines Automatic dispensers Automatic dispensers for hot drinks, hot or cold bottles or cans, solid products, money, and all other kinds of products
Source: Selin and VanDeveer, 2006
48
Appendix 2: Examples of Clearing House and Collective models in Europe
1. Clearing House Model, Germany The Elektro-Altgerte Register (EAR) Foundation is the National Clearing House and received governmental responsibilities from the Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt) as the Competent Authority upon authority decision on July 6, 2005. The EC Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive was implemented in Germany as the ElektroG Act. All producers of electrical and electronic equipment in Germany were required to register with the Elektro-Altgerte Register (EAR) by 24 November 2005. Producers who are not registered with the EAR are prohibited from putting EEE on the market in Germany. In February, the federal authorities revealed 4,225 producers had registered (ENVIRON UK Ltd, 2006-2007). There are fundamental differences in WEEE collection and recycling for business products (known as business-to-business or B2B) as opposed to recycling of household products (known as business-to-consumer or B2C). Producers of B2C products are required to finance collection and recycling of household WEEE deposited at local collection facilities (e.g. civic amenity centres and high street retailers). In Germany and in most other Member States, the quantity of WEEE that each B2C producer is required to collect and recycle from these local collection facilities is calculated based on their market share of new product sales. In practical terms, B2C producers do not have any option but to join a compliance scheme in each Member State. The compliance scheme will organize collections of WEEE from civic amenity sites on behalf of all its member companies (ibid.). For producers of B2B products, the situation is quite different. In Germany as in most other Member States, business WEEE cannot be deposited at civic amenity sites or other collection facilities for household WEEE. Instead, arrangements have to be made by the B2B producer for WEEE collection from the business end-users premises by a licensed waste carrier and taken to a licensed WEEE recycler (ibid.). The advantages and disadvantages of the German model are that the industry takes over a high degree of individual responsibility. No monopolistic structure (like the green dot system in Germany for packaging). System allows and promulgates competition between share holders this is a prerequisite for good quality and low costs. Comparison with costs in other EU-MS with monopolistic systems reveals much higher costs there. The German System is relatively complicated; Monitoring und controls are ambitious. Big efforts are necessary in terms of administration Sanctions against free riders are possible (and intended). Industrial data have to be protected; no information to competing companies is allowed (Schnurer, 2007).
49
Unofficial translation Source: http://www.umweltdaten.de/abfallwirtschaft/elektrog/zusammenwirken-akteure.pdf (German Version) 2. Collective Model, The Netherlands The Dutch Association for the Disposal of Metal and Electrical Products (the NVMP Foundation for short www.nvmp.nl ) has been commissioned to implement the system and is the main compliance organisation. It is a non-profit organisation with the legal form of a foundation. The Association was established on the initiative of the FME-CWM Association. Producers and importers have jointly set up the system to collect and recycle discarded equipment efficiently and in a way that is safe for the environment. More than 1,400 (2008) producers and importers have since affiliated themselves to the Association.
The NVMP Foundation is not just an implementation organisation that supervises efficient collection and environmentally-friendly recycling it is also responsible for managing the financial resources that are deployed to fund the system. Those resources are obtained from the disposal levies charged to purchasers when new equipment is sold.
The NVMP Foundation is also responsible for providing information about the disposal system, the disposal levy, monitoring and reporting to the Ministry for Housing, Regional Development and the Environment (VROM), and communication with producers, importers, retailers, collection and transfer centres, government bodies and consumers. NVMP takes up the collective responsibility on behalf of the associated producers.
50
Organisation NVMP submits a joint Waste Management Plan to the Ministry, which explains about the collection, transport and recycling; financing and monitoring and reporting. Ever since its creation, NVMP has collaborated intensively with manufacturers organisations. Now product foundations and NVMP have moved towards a transparent collection system based on a clear separation between policy and monitoring on the one hand and execution and reporting on the other hand. Every producer/importer can join the NVMP without a contribution (visible fee). Those who are not part of the NVMP have to draft and submit their own plan to the Ministry. The main producers will always join (90%). Main Tasks of the NVMP: Arranging contracts with logistics firms and recycling companies, after performing a tendering process. Monitoring the efficiency of the logistic service providers and of recycling companies (including their cost structure). Promoting of the recycling activities at the national level. Accountability to producers and importers. Monitoring whether the requirements of the Dutch decree on take back of the producers and importers are being met (for example if the required percentage of recycling is being realized). Ensuring that the financing of WEEE is secured by collecting the visible fee revenues from producers/importers. Establishing a yearly report for stakeholders on activities. (Reports for members, clients, for the public and for the government as a basis for national reporting).
Producers and importers can join one of the following sub-foundations:

White Goods Foundation (320 producers) Brown Goods Foundation Foundation for the Removal of Central Ventilators Foundation for the Disposal of Electrical Tools Foundation for the Recycling of Metal and Electrical Products (B2B) Netherlands LightRec Foundation
The membership agreement between a participating company and these Foundations governs the legal relationship between them. Advantages of the collective organisation in the Netherlands: Least amount of costs (the more kgs, the less the costs per kg) and complications (no own organisation needed) for industry: Focus can stay on manufacturing / selling Uniformity & clarity:
51
Creation of consumer awareness (>90%!!) One communication partner for Government Guarantee of taking all white and brown goods from everywhere
The added value of a collective system, as opposed to individual participants, lies particularly in the availability of global coverage for the various companies in the recycling chain. By comparing a number of suppliers and monitoring the services they provide, it can be ensured that a system operates effectively, with the optimum quality and with shared responsibility.
The collection rates of the system are according to expectations, the recycling rates achieved are higher than anticipated and the costs are much lower than budgeted. The good performance is chiefly due to its professional management, its economy of scale and the leverage towards recyclers. The results compare favourably with the take-back and recycling system for IT goods which is based on individual responsibility. The system can be developed further by applying Quotes for Environmentally Weighted Recyclability, ecoefficiency concepts and introducing rewards for good ecodesign while keeping the economy of scale. Critics generally concern the cost-efficiency of the collective systems due to their market power. It is also often mentioned that, collective implementation does not include a mechanism that provides producers with incentives to strive for design-change.
52
Appendix 3: Competent bodies for information and data on e-waste and e-waste managementEurope: 1) WEEE-forum (platform to exchange information on e-waste management in Europe). http://www.weee-forum.org/ 2) EERA (European Electronics Recyclers Association). http://www.eera-recyclers.com/ 3) StEP (Solving the E-Waste Problem) is an initiative dealing with export questions. http://www.step-initiative.org/ Japan: 1) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan. http://www.meti.go.jp/ 2) Japan Electronics www.jeita.or.jp/ and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA)
3The Japan Electrical Manufacturers Association (JEMA), http://www.jema-net.or.jp/
53
References Basel Convention, Country Fact Sheet Japan, http://www.basel.int/natreporting/cfs.html (8/7/8). Bush, S., 2006, Japan's waste policy puts UK to shame, http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2006/01/18/37373/japans-waste-policy-puts-uk-toshame.htm (09/05/08) Donovan, R, 2003, Landfill Gold, Kansai Time OutDecember http://www.japanfile.com/environment/features/electronic_waste.shtml (18/07/08) 2003
DTI Global Watch Mission, 2005, Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): innovating novel recovery and recycling technologies in Japan, September 2005. http://www.prc.surrey.ac.uk/sumeepnet/detail.aspx?table=news&id=17 (13/05/08) ECOLAS/RPA, 2007, "Study for the simplification for RoHS/WEEE", Draft Final Report (WEEE Component), http://www.jrc.es/publications/pub.cfm?id=1408 (21/04/08) European Recycling Platform, 2005, Strategy, Business Model and Implementation Progress www.electronicsrecycling.org/NCER/UserDocuments/erp_presentation.pdf (02/05/08) European Recycling Platform, undated, The European Recycling Platform, http://www.erprecycling.org/298.0.html (07/05/08) ENVIRON UK Ltd, 2006-2007, B2B WEEE, www.b2bweee.com/requirements/de (05/05/08) WEEE requirements in Germany,
Fijutsu, undated, Product Recycling Efforts in Europe, http://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/environment/activity/recycle-eu.html (18/07/08).
GeProNet, 2008, Business Processes and Network Management in Closed-Loop Supply Chains to enable Product Cycles GeProNet, http://www.produktrecycling.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=3 9 (18/07/08). ICSCG, 2003, Waste Electric & Electronic Equipment (WEEE), May 2003, ICSG/IC/10 www.icsg.org/News/Infocirculars/ICSGInfoCircularWEEEDirective.pdf (02/05/08) Inform, 2003, Electric Appliance Recycling in Japan, www.informinc.org/fact_JapanEPR.pdf (09/05/08) Jefferies, M., 2006, E-Wasted.Toys and gadgets become toxic junk, thanks to the circuitbored, World Watch Magazine ,Volume 19 Number 4, July/August, 2006, World Watch www.collectivegood.com/WorldWatch.pdf (29/04/08) Lunnon, A., undated, The WEEE and ROHS Directives, www.afdec.org.uk/PPT/WEEE%20RoHS%20presentation%20AFDEC.ppt (29/04/08) DTI,
Lytle, J.M, 2003, Japanese plant takes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3075717.stm (07/05/08)
on
e-waste,
54
Mitsubishi Electric, undated, Recycling Household appliances http://www.mitsubishi.com/mpac/e/monitor/back/0504/green.html#d (22/07/08)
plastic,
Ministry of Environment Japan, 2008, Chapter 4, Prospects for establishing a SMC Society in East Asia, and Japans cooperation, http://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/2008/02_chpt4.pdf (22/07/08)
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), 2006, Towards a 3R- oriented, sustainable society: Legislation and Trends ==&; meti; Government of Japan. http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/recycle/main/data/pamphlet/pdf/handbook2006_eng.pdf (21/04/08) Renew Tees Valley Lt., 2006 Energy and Environment Fair 2006, WEEE Workshop Outcomes, www.resnetnortheast.org/downloads/WEEE_in_Europe.doc (02/05/08) Savage, M. et al. (eds.), 2006, Implementation of the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in the EU 25, Technical Report Series, Ref: EUR 22231 EN. http://www.jrc.es/publications/pub.cfm?id=1408 (21/04/08) Schnurer, H.2007, Implementing the Integrated Waste Management System. Implementation of EU Regulations on WEEE and RoHS in Germany. www.env.cz/.../$FILE/Implemetation%20of%20EU%20%20Regulations%20on%20WEEE%20and%20RoHS%20in%20Germany.pdf (05/05/08) Selin, H., S Van Deveer, 2006, Raising global standard. Hazardous substances and e-waste management in European Union, Environment. December 2006, Volume 48, Number 10, pages 617. http://www.heldref.org/env.php (29/04/08) SEWPF, 2004, Implementing the WEEE Directive in the UK: Developing a Method of WEEE Allocation Strategic Electronic Waste Policy Forum, SWEPF Allocation Paper, Version 2.1, www.berr.gov.uk/files/file29964.pdf (29/04/08) Sharp, 2008, Super Green Initiative, http://www.sharp.co.uk/page/supergreen (21/07/08) Sharp, Undated, Recycling Used sharp.com.cn/corporate/eco/csr_report/2003pdf/report_05.pdf (13/05/08) Products.
The Japan Electrical Manufacturers Association (JEMA), 2007, Annual Report, Electrical Industries in Japan 2007, Recent Trends in the Electrical Industries, http://www.jemanet.or.jp/English/07eij2002.html (09/05/08) Ueno, K, undated, Current Status of Home Appliance Recycling in Japan, ECP Newsletter No.18, http://www.jemai.or.jp/english/dfe/pdf/18_4.pdf (22/07/08). United Nations University, 2007, 2008 Review of directive 2002/96 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEE), UNU. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf (20/04/08)
55
WEEE Forum, undated, About collective take-back systems, http://www.weeeforum.org/index.php?section=collective&page=collective_about&weeeforum=9f1bc115faf882 2f2806f79e40d25401 (02/04/08)

Best Practices For E-Waste Management in Developed Countries

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Best Practices For E-Waste Management in Developed Countries

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Best practices for E-waste Management in Developed Countries