E-Waste, Extended Producer Responsibility, Product Stewardship

Our report aims to explore recent advances in EPR and to provide recommendations for the stakeholders involved in this market. After a brief introduction on the history of EPR in Europe, we
discuss pending issues in the current practice of EPR, with particular emphasis on the WEEE Directive and its Recast as they are the focus of recent discussions on implementation. Then, based on a series of interviews with a set of stakeholders, we analyze the perspectives and key concerns regarding EPR implementation.

The massive growth of consumer electronics has led to an ever-expanding surge of end-of-life (EOL) electronics that require recycling. E-Waste, also known as Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) consists of discarded products or appliances that consume power.  Global E-Waste production is on track to reach 120 million tonnes per year by 2050 if current trends continue.  Expressed in other terms, it means that by 2050, each person living on the earth will discard 12 kgs of E-Waste on a yearly basis. 
The Government of Jordan (GOJ) wants to implement policies to avoid the environmental hazards caused by the growth of this type of waste. This policy includes developing a training manual that explains how to handle E-Waste in an environmentally sound manner.
This manual describes in detail the procedures to be followed in recycling E-Waste. First of all, it describes the safety requirements to handle E-Waste, including the recommended type of protective equipment. It also explains the classification of clear workspaces necessary to reduce the risks of accidents.  Additionally, it lists the set of tools needed to carry out the operations. 
Thereafter, the guide classifies E-Waste recycling in three processes, depending on both environmental impact and economic efficiency.  These processes are
Manual operations by using a set of tools and special workbenches.
Automatic transformation of the waste in specialized large fixed installations.
A combination of proceedings that incorporate both worker manipulation and an automatic process.
For example, lamps contain hazardous and toxic substances.  The treatment of EOL lamps is done exclusively in unique processing lines that are fully automatic.  On the other hand, computer desktops are recycled by hand, because of the high-value content of the fractions that can be extracted.  Others, such as old refrigerators require a combination of both procedures. The proposals in this manual follow the standards for WEEE recycling processes developed by the WEEELABEX project adapted to the circumstances that exist in Jordan. 
In summary, the objective of this handbook is to assist in the dismantling process of such equipment in an environmental and safe way, with help of the Best Available Technologies (BAT), with high-quality standards.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are adopted not only to promote collection and recycling of waste products but also to close material loops and incentivise ecodesign. These outcomes are also part of creating a more circular economy. Evaluations of best practices can inform how to further optimise systems towards more ambitious collection, recycling and recovery of both hazardous and critical materials. Gas discharge lamps in particular are a key product category in this regard, considering both the presence of mercury and of rare earth materials in this waste stream. Nordic countries in particular are known for advanced collection and recycling systems and this article compares the EPR systems for gas discharge lamps. The EPR systems for lamps are evaluated using theory-based evaluation approaches to analyse both the performance of lamp EPR systems and challenges perceived by key stakeholders. The cases were constructed based on primary and secondary literature, statistical data, and interviews with stakeholders. The findings indicate that the collection and recycling performance is generally still high for gas discharge lamps in the Nordic countries, despite some differences in approach and structure of the EPR systems, but there remain opportunities for further improvement. In terms of EPR goals, there is evidence of improved waste management of these products as a result of the systems; however, there also remain significant challenges, particularly in terms of ecodesign incentives. The key factors for best practice are discussed, including aspects of the rule base, infrastructure, and operations. The particular characteristics of this waste category, including the rapidly changing technology, also pose challenges for EPR systems in the future.

A source of political conflicts, recurrent scandals and considerable geopolitical problems, electronic waste (e-waste) is a central challenge for contemporary societies. Drawing on Polanyian economic geography, this article provides a comparative reading of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme in China and France and shows that e-waste policy in China is not a replication of global north models, but rather a new hybrid outcome, where neoliberal tendencies are negotiated within the characteristics of a resilient state. In this way, it extends the variegated capitalism framework to the sphere of post-consumption.

Este documento ha encontrado motivación en las presiones internas y externas en el país por adoptar un sistema de manejo de residuos sólidos ecológico. Una revisión de las prácticas más actuales indica que el concepto de responsabilidad extendida del productor es fundamental. La pregunta de cómo adoptar tal concepto se aborda desde una lectura no literal del mismo y más comprensivo de la complejidad política y de las diversas experiencias de implementación. Se sostiene que el sistema colombiano de manejo de residuos sólidos está subsidiado por los consumidores finales, de manera opuesta a lo que se pretende con la responsabilidad extendida del productor. Urge cuantificar y estimar los niveles de responsabilidad de las externalidades de tipo ambiental para comprender sus efectos nocivos.

In this paper we analyse the Italian collective system for the management of household Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and its evolution over time, following the European Directives on WEEE, which include the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). The analysis focuses on the technical and economic performance of WEEE compliance organisations (consortia), as they are the key players in the Italian EPR regime. Economic results have not usually been provided in previous studies, due to the lack of available data. This study overcomes this problem by accessing the financial statements for the years 2009–2014 of all consortia. The main conclusions of the study are: The Italian EPR system barely exceeded the technical target of the first WEEE Directive (4 kg per capita). Improvements are necessary to achieve the target set for 2019 by the Recast Directive. The economic performance of the Italian EPR regime improved significantly over time. The fees charged per tonne of WEEE collected decreased by almost 43% from 652 Euro per tonne in 2009 to 374 Euro per tonne in 2014, while the fees per tonne put on the market (POM) were 134 Euro in 2009 and 104 Euro in 2014. The results prove the theory which states that, competing consortia use the learning effects to reduce the contribution fees for producers rather than to increase the quantity collected. Municipalities remain the most important actor in WEEE collection operations. Consortia compensate municipalities with a reimbursement that ranges between 28 and 38 Euros per tonne collected. These repayments cover only partially their costs. Additional studies should investigate their role.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a policy strategy was first proposed by Thomas Lindhqvist in 1988 and formally introduced by the Swedish Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in 1990. Lindhqvist defines EPR as " An environmental protection strategy to reach an environmental objective of a decreased total impact from a product, by making the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire lifecycle of the product and especially for the take back, recycling and final disposal of the product. " The OECD defines EPR as " An environmental policy approach in which a producer's responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product's life cycle. " On producer responsibility WEEE Directive states EPR as " The establishment, by this Directive, of producer responsibility is one of the means of encouraging the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into full account and facilitate their repair, possible upgrading, reuse, disassembly, and recycling " and " 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 product. " Goals of EPR

This paper investigates the role of collective organizations created by producers to comply with the WEEE Directive. There are limited case studies on these producer responsibility organizations (PROs) despite the crucial role that they play in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. An important aspect in order to evaluate the efficiency of these compliance schemes is the analysis of their internal costs including transaction costs. First of all, this research provides an understanding of the Italian WEEE system for households WEEE. Then, it focuses on one compliance organization and how it deals with physical, informative and financial responsibility that are different aspects of the EPR principle. We provide evidence on the costs incurred by the compliance organizations. We briefly describe the transaction costs involved in operating a collective PRO in comparison to individual scheme. We investigate the issue with the " ERP ITALIA S.R.L. " case study. This is one of the producer responsibility organisations (PROs) operating in Italy and the only pan-European compliance scheme. This will allow future comparative studies with the other branches of ERP across Europe.

Environmental and economic evidence is increasingly supporting the need for better analytical tools for evaluating the recovery of consumer products. In response, we present a novel mathematical model for determining what we call the Optimal Recovery Plan (ORP) for any given product. The ORP is based on an evaluation and optimization of the economics of remanufacturing consumer products versus demanufacturing in the context of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation, a driving force behind the adoption remanufacturing initiatives by firms. We provide an illustrative application of the model and then discuss its implications for scholars and practitioners concerned with sustainable business development.

The PC revolution continues to produce faster and smarter machines at a stunning pace. Almost forgotten in the rush are the millions of nearly new, but suddenly outdated, computers that are abandoned every year. Can product stewardship offer life-after-end-of-life for this growing mountain of “attic-ware,” while averting a costly—and potentially toxic—waste disposal crisis? © 2001 by Cate Gable, Axioun Books. Used with permission.

Design for Recycling (DFR) is defined as a process in product design with recycling in mind. With the emergence of new technology, shorter lifespan of consumer's electronic products, increase in population, limited spaces, rising cost of landfill sites, designing a product without thinking of how it can be recycled later on, will create a catastrophe to the environment. Among the latest trend in product life cycle and design technology is to incorporate DFR in product design and development process. This paper is written in order to put into perspective of how industry in Malaysia should look into the necessity of adopting DFR technology into its product design processes. Besides the industry, this paper also will look at how the academia, especially the university, can play a role incorporating DFR into their curriculum to better support the industry in the future. Implementing DFR is important because it can provide a turnkey solutions to a sustainable and environmental friendly product design and manufacturing processes. Relooking at implementing DFR will enable the activity to be more profitable and able to minimize the negative impacts of products end of life to the environment. DFR also provide features like providing analysis to profitability to the entire manufacturing supply chain, increase in the recycling revenue and reusing valuable resources from the recycled products for future remanufacturing processes. In short DFR has the potential to bring about every sector in design and manufacturing to the next paradigm shift in modern design and manufacturing in Malaysia.

One of the fundamental principles of sound waste management policy and the oldest adage of the conservation and environmental movements is the phrase “reduce, reuse, recycle” (also known as the 3Rs). The basic idea is that we can lower our personal household or family’s ecological footprint by reducing the need to buy new products. We can do this by initially purchasing, whenever possible, durable products like well-manufactured quality cars, appliances and even shoes.
Our ancestors knew that well built products, whether wood stoves or hay wagons, lasted much longer, especially when maintained with care. In addition, we need to ask the hard questions before we purchase new goods – “do we really need this new gadget? Can the purchase wait? Can we buy it used on Kijiji?” A corollary is that we should reuse manufactured products and carefully crafted goods as well as packages such as drink containers whenever possible.
It seems, though, that for four decades we have directed the bulk of our attention to the third method, “recycle,” at the expense of the other two Rs because it doesn’t threaten our model of a consumption-driven economy. We argue herein that recycling is a useful, if limited, tool on the road to making our society more environmentally sound, but it is not as strong as the other two methods, “reduce” and “reuse.”

Recent developments in Ontario give us a good opportunity to reflect on the truth of this observation. Stewardship Ontario, the quasi-governmental recycling agency for the province of Ontario, has recently come under fire for imposing a new pricing plan that some believe could make it much harder for waste haulers to handle and process hazardous wastes.

The new fee structure is highly controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the inability for the public to determine the logic behind it. A report by AECOM Canada Ltd. could not determine how Stewardship Ontario came to its decision to impose its new pricing approach.