Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Management of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Experiences from Sweden and Europe Thomas Lindhqvist IIIEE – Lund University JORNADA INTERNACIONAL.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Management of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Experiences from Sweden and Europe Thomas Lindhqvist IIIEE – Lund University JORNADA INTERNACIONAL."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 Why WEEE (e-waste)? Toxic substances - Hg, Cd, Pb, Cr VI, brominated flame retardants Valuable materials - Au, Ag, Cu, etc. Increasing consumption Avoid dumping in developing countries

3 E-waste in India

4

5

6

7

8

9 What do we want? Legislation creating incentives for: high collection rates good recycling design improvements (products that are less toxic and easier to recycle)

10 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

11 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

12 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

13 WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC Scope: –Large & small household appliances –ICT –Consumer equipment, –Lighting equipment –Tools –Toys –Medical devices –Monitoring and control equipment –Automatic dispensers

14 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 re- use & recycling (50-75%) Collection : 4 kg/person/year Marking on new products Information on reuse/recycling/treatment to treatment facilities

15 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)

16 Historic and new products “Historic sins” Only new products can have a new design law historic new

17 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?

18 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

19 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

20 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 2

21 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! It’s always more profitable for Nokia not to invest when there is a collective system! Then we have 4 companies dividing € 6 million / 4 = € 1.5 million for each company.

22 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)

23 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

24 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.

25 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.”

26 Sweden

27 Hungary

28 Hungary

29 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)

30 Extended Producer Responsibility a leading research area at IIIEE


Download ppt "Management of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Experiences from Sweden and Europe Thomas Lindhqvist IIIEE – Lund University JORNADA INTERNACIONAL."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google