Transcript ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING IN
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Michael Lufkin
Marten Law Group PLLC
Environmental law is what we do. TM
1191 Second Avenue
Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
www.martenlaw.com
Why Are European Efforts at EWR
Relevant to Washington State



EU Legislation relies on similar take-back and producer
responsibility principles as new Washington law.
EU experience in establishing collective take back
systems could assist in development of “standard plan” in
Washington.
Opportunity to learn from EU member states’
implementation efforts.
Opportunity to identify areas where harmonization is
possible.
European Union Legislation on Electronic
Waste



EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) adopted in January 2003.
EC Directive on the Restriction of Certain Hazardous
Substances of Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(RoHS) adopted in January 2003.
EU does not impose requirements on companies or
consumers but rather require member states to
implement directives through national legislation.
Key Characteristics of the WEEE Directive






Objective is to reduce WEEE disposal to landfills
Provides for free producer take back scheme for
consumers of electronic products
Aims to improve product design in order to prevent
WEEE and improve recyclability
Achieve specified targets for recovery of different classes
of WEEE
Provide for establishment of collection facilities and
systems of WEEE from private households
Provide for establishment of financing system for
recovery and treatment of WEEE
Categories of Products Covered By WEEE
Directive










Large household appliances
Small household appliances
IT and Telecommunications equipment (e.g. computers and
cell phones)
Consumer equipment (e.g. radios, TVs)
Lighting equipment
Electrical and electronic tools
Toys (e.g. video games)
Medical devices
Monitoring & control instruments (e.g. smoke detectors)
Automatic dispensers (e.g. drink machines)
Targets for Reuse/Recycling



Directive establishes targets for recovery and
recycling of products from each category of
covered products.
Rates must be met by December 31, 2006.
(Imposed on member states)
IT and Telecommunications


75% Recovery rate
50% Recycling rate
Producer Responsibility


WEEE Directive based on principal that
producers finance take-back of own products at
end-of-life.
Two options:

Individual take-back plans


Producers set up individual take back plan for products in
each country.
Collective take-back plans

Organization takes on the legal obligation for producer or
group of producers.
Collective Take-Back Plans




Typically not-for-profit organizations established by
groups of companies or trade associations.
Organize and coordinate the collection and recycling
responsibilities of members throughout a country.
Take care of the practical implementation of the take
back obligation.
Costs of membership typically based on market share.
Collective Take-Back Systems

Advantages:




Economies of scale often make collective take back systems
more cost effective.
Producers and importers often lack the expertise necessary to
run waste collection systems.
Avoids the need to set up 25 (the current number of EU
member states) separate individual take back plans
Disadvantages:


Removes incentive for individual producers to alter product
design to make it more eco-friendly or recyclable. (no recovery
of benefits under collective system.)
Most national schemes discourage individual plans and encourage
producers to join national collective scheme.
Directive Requires Separate Collection
of WEEE




Directive requires that member states have producer
financed separate collection systems in place by August
2005.
Must allow consumers the ability to return WEEE free of
charge.
Directive does not mandate how and where collection
systems are set up.
Target rate of 4 kg per person/per year by December
2008.
Treatment




Must apply best available treatment technology
for recovered products.
Directive identifies specific types of treatment
technologies/methodologies to be used.
Treatment can be done outside of EU but
exporter must prove that EU equivalent
treatment took place to receive credit towards
target.
Washington could utilize similar approach to
address concern about exports.
Financing of Take-Back Obligation



Producers responsible. Producers are defined as the
brand name on the product or the importer of the
product.
For products placed on market after August 2005, each
producer is responsible for providing a financial
guarantee for management of waste. (e.g. recycling
insurance, bank guarantee, bond). May not impose fees
For products placed in market before August 2005
(historical waste), financing is to be shared by all
producers in proportion to market share. May impose
fees.
Labeling and Product Information


All new products placed on market after August
2005 must bear label identifying producer.
Producers must also provide consumers
information on:



Location of collection points
Requirement to dispose of waste separately
Health and environmental impacts of e-waste.
Implementation: General Issues

Delay in adopting national legislation



Deadline to implement WEEE Directive was August
2005.
Most countries missed the deadline, including
Germany, France, and the UK.
Countries that did make deadline typically had
established WEEE recycling culture in place
Implementation: General Issues

Free Riders and orphans:



Currently measure about 10-20% of product in market
Create equity problems for complying producers who
must pick up cost of recycling orphan product.
Lack of enforcement by member states seen as
contributing to free rider problem. Many countries
have no enforcement program.
Implementation: General Issues

National Scheme Divergence


Different national laws implementing directive have caused
complexity for industry.
Example: National collective system v. competitive clearinghouse
system

National Collective System:




Responsible for collection, recycling and financing across country
Single market player (monopoly)
Typically utilized by smaller countries (Belgium, Netherlands), and those
that had existing WEEE systems
Clearinghouse system



Government creates framework that encourages multiple parties
Promotes competition
Typically utilized by larger countries with no history of WEEE
National Collective System v.
Competitive Clearinghouse

Competitive Clearinghouse:




Have been slower to develop and implement.
Can cause confusion for consumer with multiple collection
providers.
More cost effective. HP study found recycling costs lower in
countries with competitive recycling providers.
National Collective:



Easier to implement
Better economy of scale for smaller countries
Provides clarity for consumers
Attorney:
Michael Lufkin
Address:
1191 Second Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Main:
(206) 292-2600
Direct:
(206) 292-2619
Facsimile:
(206) 292-2601
E-mail:
[email protected]
Web:
www.martenlaw.com
MLG News:
www.martenlaw.com/news