Transcript Document

Management of Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
Experiences from Sweden and Europe
Thomas Lindhqvist
IIIEE – Lund University
JORNADA INTERNACIONAL
SOBRE GESTIÓN AMBIENTAL DE RESIDUOS
27 agosto 2010
San Luis, Argentina
Why WEEE (e-waste)?
• Toxic substances
- Hg, Cd, Pb, CrVI,
brominated flame retardants
• Valuable materials
- Au, Ag, Cu, etc.
• Increasing consumption
• Avoid dumping in
developing countries
E-waste in India
E-waste in India
E-waste in India
E-waste in India
E-waste in India
E-waste in India
What do we want?
Legislation creating incentives for:
• high collection rates
• good recycling
• design improvements
(products that are less toxic
and easier to recycle)
Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR)
• Engage producers to give incentives
for change
• Use knowledge of producers to
develop new more efficient systems
• Producers pay for collection and
recycling and not taxpayers
Two WEEE-Related EPR
Directives in the European Union
•
2003 Directive on Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment
(WEEE Directive) 2002/96/EC
•
2003 Directive on the Restriction of the use
of Hazardous Substances in EEE
(RoHS Directive) 2002/95/EC
WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC
Stated Objectives:
• Waste prevention – improved design
• Improved recovery – reuse & recycling and
energy recovery
• Avoid the disposal of WEEE
• Improved environmental performance of
industries involved – focus on treatment
operators
EU WEEE Directive (2003)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Separate collection, free of charge, from private
households.
Retailers responsible on old-for-new basis
Systems for treatment/recovery (producers)
Targets for component, material and substance reuse & recycling (50-75%)
Collection : 4 kg/person/year
Marking on new products
Information on reuse/recycling/treatment to
treatment facilities
EU RoHS Directive (2003)
Prohibition of
- lead (Pb),
- mercury (Hg),
- cadmium (Cd),
- hexavalent chromium (Cr),
- PBB and PBDEs (flame retardents)
in Electrical and Electronic Equipment
by 1 July 2006 (with exemptions)
Historic and new products
• “Historic sins”
• Only new products can have a new design
new
historic
law
Collective and Individual
Producer Responsibility
What is the rationale for IPR (Individual
Producer Responsibility)?
• What does it mean if all
responsibilities are shared?
• What does it mean to have a
collective system?
Everyone’s responsibility is no
one’s responsibility
• Nokia invests € 1 million in a component without
mercury – recycling becomes € 2 million cheaper
for those products
• Should Nokia invest?
• Nokia has ¼ of the market
1
2
Everyone’s responsibility is no
one’s responsibility
• Nokia invests € 1 million
• ¼ market share – Nokia is the only one investing
and collective recycling system
• Nokia gains only € 2 million divided by 4 = € 0.5
million
• Should Nokia invest in such a case?
1
½
½
½
½
Everyone’s responsibility is no
one’s responsibility
• Nokia invests € 1 million, but has to share the
gain with the 3 companies and only gets € 0.5
million
• What if all 4 companies invest € 1 million each
and we will gain 4 * € 2 million = € 8 million?
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
Everyone’s responsibility is no
one’s responsibility
• What if all other companies decide to invest?
Should Nokia still invest?
• Now if Nokia doesn’t invest!
• Then we have 4 companies dividing € 6 million / 4
= € 1.5 million for each company.
• It’s always more profitable for Nokia not to invest
when there is a collective system!
0
1
1.5 1.5
1
1
1.5 1.5
Everyone’s responsibility is no
one’s responsibility
• The solution is to create individual
incentives = If a company invests –
then that company gets the profit
• That is, if Nokia invests € 1 million –
then Nokia should gain € 2 million
and not have to share it with others
not investing
Individual Producer
Responsibility (IPR)
EPR legislation among factors
promoting design change
EEE manufacturers in Japan
1
EEE manufacturers in Sweden
2
Car manufacturers in Japan
1
Car manufacturers in Sweden
1
WEEE Directive
Individual Producer Responsibility
Recital (20) -….. In order to give maximum
effect to the concept of producer responsibility,
each producer should be responsible for
financing the management of the waste from his
own products. The producer should be able to
choose to fulfil this obligation either individually
or by joining a collective scheme.
Individual Producer Responsibility
for ‘new WEEE’
Article 8(2): “For products put on the market
later than 13 August 2005, each producer
shall be responsible for financing the
operations referred to in paragraph 1
relating to the waste from his own products.
The producer can choose to fulfil this obligation
either individually or by joining a collective
scheme.”
Sweden
Hungary
Hungary
Results of RoHS and WEEE
• Good collection results
(almost 20 kg/inhabitant/year in Sweden)
• New recycling capacities
• Not expensive for most products
• Design improvements
- Elimination of toxics (more than RoHS)
- Design for recycling
• Problems with implementing individual
responsibility
• Problems with export (dumping)
Extended Producer Responsibility a
leading research area at IIIEE
www.iiiee.lu.se