Improving e-waste policies:

The role of post-normal

indicatorsCédric

Gossart

Jaco

Huisman

What is e-waste?

Waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)

> 50 Mt every year in the world

Fastest growth rate among all types of wastes

E-wastes are hazardous waste

They cause ecological, health, and ethical problems

page 2

Life cycle of ICTs

page 3

page 4

page 5

page 6http://ewasteguide.info/images_galleries

page 7Credits: Cédric Gossart, StEP, http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/annual-report/Annual_Report_2010.pdf

page 8

E-waste policies

Europe: The WEEE directive

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee

http://www.step-initiative.org/

USA: A patchwork of heterogenous policies

http://www.electronicsrecycling.org

China: WEEE directive in place in 2011

http://www.bcrc.cn page 9

How (in)effective?

page 10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sweden

Switzerland

Denmark

Belgium

Germany

Ireland

Austria

Hungary

United Kingdom

Czech Republic

Greece

Portugal

Slovak Republic

France

Netherlands

Luxembourg*

Poland

Slovenia

SpainRomania

Lithuania

ItalyEstonia

Latvia

"Official Collection" as % of EEE Put on Market (in the same yr)

65% of POM 2016

45% of POM 2013

2009 EU Collection ranking 3.1 Mton = +/- 37% of all WEEE/ = 28% of EEE (3yr placed on market)

* Luxembourg to high PPP to be properly estimated, Finland, Malta, Cyprus unknown** Germany: unclear treatment amounts after collection

Carrots or sticks? « It depends… » (says the economist) Spin doctors’ piece of (expensive) advice:

page 12

The StEP carrot: the E-waste Solutions Index

(ESI)

page 13

Agregated index allowing us to evaluate and

compare the solutions put in place in any

country in the world to solve the e-waste

problem (=> incentives for governments to improve these

solutions –not much to be expected without strong policies).

Why « post-normal »? (1)

SPRU + Turnpenny & Jones paper (ref. below)

PNS: response to Kuhn’s « normal science » (NS)

NS: “research firmly based upon one or more

past scientific achievements, achievements that

some particular scientific community

acknowledges for a time as supplying the

foundation for its further practice”

page 14Turnpenny, J., M. Jones, et al. (2010), "Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses", Science, Technology & Human Values.

Ravetz (1971): need to “deindustrialize science” (in ref.

below)

Funtowitz & Ravetz (1991): new methods must be

developed « when facts are uncertain, values in dispute,

stakes high and decisions urgent » (in ref. below)

It is the case with e-waste: too many risks of lock-in

because too many routines and vested interests =>

Policy evaluations should be designed in such a way

that they maximise their impact on the policy

process.page 15

Why « post-normal »? (2)

Turnpenny, J., M. Jones, et al. (2010), "Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses", Science, Technology & Human Values.

Characteristics of a PN indicatorDesigned to have a strong impact on the policy

process (too many complex systems are built and not even used:

see presentation by Tom Bauler in this conference):

MAKE A (social & environmental) DIFFERENCE

Simple to understand and to use (« better evidence

does not necessarilly lead to better decision », in ref. below)

Uses knowledge embedded in extended peer

communities => participation of a broad range

of stakeholders => use of a variety of knowledge

sourcespage 16

Turnpenny, J., M. Jones, et al. (2010), "Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses", Science, Technology & Human Values.

page 17

StEPADDRESS

Criteria selection

Benchmark

Progress Indicator

Input Module

Output Module

Modelling Module

Int. Comparison

Structured Information

ADDRESSTraining

Amounts Progress Knowledge

StEP ADDRESS project

ESI construction

page 18

ESI - Country X

Year: 2009,

Status

Relevancy

Area

Relevanc

y to area

Score/

Total ESI - Country X - Continued

Year:

2009,

Status

Relevancy

Area

Relevancy

to area

Score/

Total

Collection 50.0% Legislation 20.0%

Kg POM 26.0 kg % of all WEEE categories covered 100% 10.0% 2.0%

Kg WA 18.60 kg -          not 0.0% 0.0%

Kg C&T 6.2 kg -          in draft 25.0% 0.0%

C&T WA -          enacted 100% 50.0% 10.0%

Category LHA 1.0 5.0 5.0% 0.5%Enforcement items

Category C&F 2.0 3.2 25.0% 7.8%POM amounts 50% 10.0% 1.0%

Category Small 1.0 4.0 15.0% 1.9%Treatment Annex II/ Haz. Materials 20% 10.0% 0.4%

Category IT 1.0 2.0 20.0% 5.0%Recycling % reported and checked 25% 10.0% 0.5%

Category Screens 1.0 4.0 20.0% 2.5%

WEEE imports/exports regular/

continuous checks 50% 10.0% 1.0%

Category Lamps 0.15 0.4 15.0% 3.0%Subtotal 100.0% 12.9%

Subtotal 6.15 18.57 100.0%20.7%Recycling infrastructure present 10.0%

Financing 15.0% State of the art recyclers, sufficient capacity 100% 50.0% 5.0%

Financing agreed and operational 100% 40.0% 6.0%Recycling standards developed 25% 10.0% 0.3%

Financing stimulating more collection 0% 40.0% 0.0%Recycling standards implemented 20% 10.0% 0.2%

Stakeholder cooperation running 50% 20.0% 1.5%Recycling standards audited 10% 10.0% 0.1%

Subtotal 100.0% 7.5%Mass balances tracked daily basis 5% 20.0% 0.1%

Consumer Education and Awareness 5.0% Subtotal 100.0% 5.7%

CSS doing mediacampaings 100% 40.0% 2.0%Total 49.8%

Level of consumer awareness/

willingness to hand in WEEE 35% 60.0% 1.1%

Subtotal 100.0% 3.1% page 19

ESI benchmarking in some European countries (Turkey will be there soon…)

page 20

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

2005 Example

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

2005 Example

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

2010 Example

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

2010 Example

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

2000 Example

Spain

France

UK

NL

B

L

GermanyPoland

DK

Austria

Italy

Greece

FinlandSweden

MaltaCyprus

Hungary

Slovakia

Czech Rep

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

CH

Ireland

Bulgaria

Romania

Serbia

MAAL

BH

CRSL

POR

2000 Example

page 21

A Turkish solution to e-waste : The e-mangal

Thank you for your attention.

page 22

 Cédric Gossart

Cedric.Gossart@telecom-em.eu

Associate Professor

Telecom Institute’s Business School

9, rue Charles Fourier - 91011, Evry Cedex

– France

Tél. : +33 (0)1 60 76 46 69 ; Fax : +33 (0)1

60 76 42 86http://etos.it-sudparis.eu/membres/CedricGossart/Home.htm