World Bank / infoDev International seminar on e-waste · Includes orphan waste Producers pay for transport, consolidator handling Municipality pays collection Manufacturers pay for

World Bank / infoDevInternational seminar on e-waste

International case studies

Initial presentation November 30, 2010

► Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (ratified in 1992)

► Governed by the United Nations Organization, 175 countries Parties

► Goal: Protect human health and the environment from negative effects caused by waste, in particular hazardous waste, and their transboundary shipments.

► Principles and implementation

► Regulation of exports, guidance on proper treatment and reduction and the source, reporting requirements

► Regional Centres for Training and Technology Transfer in several countries provide training and guidance on technical and technological issues as well as advice on enforcement aspects of the Convention.

► A key driver of hazardous waste management that has to be more equally and properly enforced to avoid obsolescence

► Transposition in national law varies significantly from one country to another

► Interagency consultation and regional cooperation can be strengthened

► The Basel Action Network’s eWaste Stewardship Initiative

► The BAN is an NGO based in the USA and active worldwide in fighting “toxic trade”

► The initiative encourages best practices in eWaste treatment through a certification program

► Involves every step of the value chain as it targets recyclers and the businesses who use their services

The Basel Convention

08/12/2010 1InfoDev - International seminar on eWaste - international benchmark

1

USA – A legislative patchwork

► No federal law a variety of state laws

► Recyclers and other stakeholders in the system have to deal with numerous sets of regulatoryrequirements and standards

► Consumers are not homogenously informed and have difficulty knowing their obligations

► Exchanges between states cannot be regulated


2

http://www.electronicstakeback.com/promote-good-laws/state-legislation/states-with-laws-june-2010/

USA – comparative analysis of three states

Maine Minnesota Oregon

Law (signed in 2004, effective in

2006) requires municipalities to

send waste computer and

television monitors to consolidation

centers that are fully-funded by

manufacturers

Law (May 2007, Aug 2007)

engages producers to register with

the state, pay a registration fee

and have to set up an e-waste

recycling program

Law (2007, 2009) states that

manufacturers must register to

participate in recycling programs

and provide collection sites for e-

waste

The manufacturer’s

responsibility starts at the

consolidation points

No recycling targets

Manufacturers encouraged to

create their own takeback program

(lower resgistration fee)

Producers are required to meet

specific recycling targets with

possibility of credits for exceeding

targets

Manufacturers may choose to

meet the requirements

independently or by joining the

“state contractor plan”

Minimum mandatory collection

goal

Return share based model (pay

according to volumes returned)

Includes orphan waste

Market share based model (pay

according to recycling targets set

on previous year market share)

Does not include orphan waste

Return Share with partial market

share (pay volumes returned using

a fee set according to market

share)

Includes orphan waste

Producers pay for transport,

consolidator handling

Municipality pays collection

Manufacturers pay for collection,

transportation, and recycling

Manufacturers in the state

contractor plan will pay a recycling

fee


2

Japan

Dis

ch

arg

e

Payment of fees for collection and recycling

Most of the Recycling fees are between 1,700JPY and 6,000JPY.

It depends on manufacturer and how it is collected and transported.

ex) air-conditioner 3,500JPY, television 2,700JPY, refrigerator 4,600PY,

washing machine 2,400JPY

Person discharging

Co

llectio

n a

nd

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

Obligation to collect

Retailers have a responsibility to collect appliances below.

a) Specified kinds of appliances sold by the retailer

b) Specified kinds of appliances collected when new appliances

are purchased

Obligation to transfer

Retailer

Designated collection siteM

un

icip

ality

Re

cyclin

g

Obligation to collect

Manufacturers and Importers have a responsibility to collect

specified appliances formerly manufactured or imported by them.

Designated corporation collect appliances in the following cases.

a) absence of a party responsible for collection and recycling

due to bankruptcy of manufacturer, etc.

b) Consignment by medium and small businesses

Obligation of recycling

Manufacturer, importerand designated corporation have a

responsibility to recycle more than recycling rate standards.

Manufacturer/ Importerand Designated corporation

Mu

nic

ipality

Manifest

(Home Appliance

Recycling ticket)

issue/ delivery

Monitoring of

implementation


3

Home Appliance Recycling LawEnacted 1998, fully enforceable 2001

Association for Electric Home

Appliances (AEHA) designated

legal entity

South Africa – Fact Sheet

► EXISTING LEGISLATION► Solid waste – both hazardous and non-hazardous – is regulated by several acts, especially:

► Consumer Protection Act, 2009

► National Environmental Management: Waste Act , 2009

► Environmental Conservation Act, 2008

► National Environment Management Act, 1998

► POLICY & ORGANIZATION► Environment legislation is still somewhat recent, especially regarding waste management. Forums are still being held by SA environmental

officials to explain the implementation of the Waste Act of 2009.

► Breakdown of the roles is not precisely defined between manufacturers, retailers, consumers and municipalities.

► One of the essential elements of the Waste Act is that manufacturers and importers must define an Industrial Waste Management Plan

(IWMP) before selling products in South Africa (in principle, this is equivalent to an EPR). Role of retailers is not defined. This obligation is

not coercive.

► No specific financial legislation was taken to enforce a specific financial scheme.

► MARKET STRUCTURE► The e-waste flow is estimated between 100,000 and 400,000 tons per year.

► The informal sector does not focus on e-waste as dismantling e-waste to get to the valuable materials is generally too complicated. Cables

and CRT copper coils are the main exceptions.

► Producers and importers gathered in the e-Waste Association of South Africa (eWASA) to implement their IWMP. Its operational and

financial design is still ongoing.

► In Cape Town, 5 companies work on e-waste recycling or refurbishing. Those are small-scale companies and are rather new. A bigger

company, Desco, exists in Johannesburg and has been operating for 15 years.

► ACCESS TO FEEDSTOCK► Various initiatives exist regarding collection and treatment. The small Capetownian companies mostly get their waste from businesses.

Bigger businesses issue tenders and sell their e-waste.

► Cooperation with the informal sector also takes place, with a small retribution of scavengers that bring back e-waste.


4

South Africa – SWOT Analysis


4

Weaknesses

► The existing legislation is not precise enough on the

financial scheme and the breakdown of

responsibilities between companies and public

bodies, which hinders the development of a large-

scale e-waste management scheme. Furthermore,

the law is not coercive, which may not foster

speeding up the process.

► There is no large-scale solution for the treatment of

e-waste in South Africa. The law exists but collection

is not organized, which make it difficult for small

businesses to reach a financial balance and for the

bigger recycler to develop at a national level.

► Small recycling companies and bigger producers

could not find a compromise yet between the

financial stress of the first and the environmental

policy requirements of the latter.

► The development of the IWMP is deemed too slow

by some of the non-eWASA actors.

► There are not enough downstream industrial actors

to facilitate the management of all by-products.

Strengths

► The financial and operational support from Swiss

EMPA enabled launching and developing actions

regarding e-waste management in Cape Town. The

pilot was launched under the collaboration of small

recyclers and bigger producers.

► The existing legislation makes the definition of an

IWMP compulsory for producers and importers.

Those actually develop an IWMP through a non-profit

company e-WASA.

► The Consumer Protection Act forces retailers to

accept take-back from consumers buying a new

product.

► Scavengers are more and more kept out of the

landfills, which make it easier to develop recycling

businesses. They may then focus on collection.

► Awareness on the need to control second hand e-

products import is raising.

► There are High Hazardous Waste Landfills that

provide a solution for the management of some non-

recyclable elements.

► EPR is already actually enforced for plastic bags and

tires.

South Africa – Insights

► The legal framework is encouraging, even if some elements might need to be

further defined (finance and collection). eWASA (equivalent of a European eco-

organism) is considering an Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) – where advanced

means “in advance” – i.e. an equivalent of the French eco-tax, which may

constitute a sustainable source of funding.

► HP does not want a fund to be created but not used – if no solution exists

► EnviroSense considers that this ARF should be used also to develop capacity, i.e. to cover

CAPEX, not only OPEX.

► Second-hand e-products sent to SA (and to many other African countries)

constitute a serious issue as many of them are actually e-waste.

► The EPR has become systematic – with mandatory IWMPs – but this may lead to

a lack of consistency in governmental control and operation. It might be relevant

to define priority waste.

► Technological solutions are to be considered keeping in mind social issues.

“Screwdriver operations” might be relevant where unemployment is high and

qualification is low.

► All the governmental funding seem to go now to eWASA, which leaves nothing to

SMEs and NGOs.


4

India – Fact Sheet

► LEGISLATION► India’s E-Waste (Management & Handling) Rules 2010 were drafted in March 2010. A modified version taking into account stakeholder

comments was published online mid-October, and should be voted into law in the near future. The new law will be enforced starting January

1, 2012.

► The law is modeled after the EU WEEE Directive and incorporates the EPR principle (same scope of e-waste, although CFL are not

included).

► It nonetheless remains vague on collection and financing schemes for implementation.

► POLICY & ORGANIZATION► With the lack of e-waste legislation (although imminent), formal collection and treatment of e-waste is not widespread.

► However, a GTZ-ASEM project in Bangalore, which has been successful in formalizing informal actors and helping them work with

producers, is being used as a model for collection schemes throughout India,

► The collection scheme is currently being deployed in 4 other major Indian cities. Local governments are playing an active role in these

initiatives.

► MARKET STRUCTURE► MAIT, an industrial association in India, has estimated that 400,000 tons of e-waste is produced each year in the country.

► Collection and recycling in India is almost completely performed by the informal sector, with around 95% of total WEEE being captured by

the informal sector.

► Few formal e-waste recyclers exist, although this is changing. Most recyclers are pre-processors (dismantling and segregation of waste to

be recycled).

► As of today, only 1 integrated waste management facility (involved in the recuperation of precious metals), Attero Recyling, exists in India.

► Groups of informal recyclers like E-WarDD in Bangalore are now emerging and progressively contributing to the organization of the sector.

► The formalization of the informal sector remains a key issue in ensuring proper e-waste management once the national legislation comes

into force.

► ACCESS TO FEEDSTOCK► The formalization and organization of the informal sector is a crucial element in ensuring constant e-waste flows for collection and

treatment.

► One formal treatment actor with 5 facilities in India (Earth Sense) has stated that the viability of their business depends on this

transformation of the informal sector. Low collection rates have already been an issue for formal actors.


5

India – SWOT Analysis


5

Weaknesses

► The drafted legislation does not outline collection and

treatment schemes, nor does it provide incentives

(financial) for the involvement of the informal sector.

► Past environmental legislation has been poorly

enforced, and if reproduced for e-waste legislation,

the movement for proper e-waste management will

be threatened.

► There are very few formal e-waste treatment centers.

Technology and facilities already exist, but more

need to be developed to handle the potentially large

volumes of collected waste.

► Insufficient awareness-raising measures to date have

e-waste stakeholders and notably consumers in the

dark about the importance of the issue.

► Licensing guidelines for treatment facilities are not

yet streamlined by the Central Pollution Control

Board.

Strengths

► A considerably open dialogue among relevant

stakeholders (NGOs, government agencies,

producers, recyclers, collectors) and is helping the

government to move quickly to define India’s e-waste

strategy.

► Some voluntary take-back initiatives are already

underway (Nokia, for example).

► Awareness-raising campaigns in the community often

accompany formal recycling activities, although not

always on a large scale.

► National e-waste legislation can act as a potentially

strong driver for proper e-waste management.

► A successful initiative to integrate the informal sector

in Bangalore is serving as a model to be reproduced

in other Indian cities.

► Awareness-raising by public and private actors could

serve to increase consumer knowledge about e-

waste and increase collection rates.

India – Insights

► One of the most pressing issues for e-waste management success is the

integration of the informal sector. In India, members of the extensive informal

network have taken steps towards organizing their activities by creating

“informal actor associations” (ex. e-WaRDD). The presence of such associations

seems to have facilitated the relationship between formal and informal actors.

► A neutral agency (GTZ-ASEM) supporting the government’s priorities as well as

the informal sector has eased once hostile reactions on the part of various

actors.

► Stakeholders, although optimistic about the development of the e-waste

management market, fear that unenforced legislation will act as a major

hindrance.

► Financial incentives for informal collectors and individual consumers returning

their e-waste emerged as a recurring theme during stakeholder interviews. This

is a topic that has yet to be undertaken by the government, but is key to

participation.


5

India – WEEE Recycle


5

Costa Rica – Fact Sheet pending case study

► Sustainable Strategy to Minimize and Manage Electronic Component Wastes in

Costa Rica

► Result of a bilateral cooperation with Holland : partnership between the Central American

Association for Economics, Health and Environment ACEPESA and the Dutch association

WASTE Advisers on urban environment and development

► 1st Latin Americana and Caribbean country to approve a comprehensive

Producer Responsibility regulation for electronic products:

► Reglamento para la Gestión Integral de Residuos Electrónicos / Regulation for the

comprehensive Management of Electronic Waste

► May 2010

► Key principles:

► EPR,

► Registry for waste movements,

► Monitoring and verification obligations, thanks to :

► A National System for the comprehensive management of electronic waste, SINAGIRE

► An Executive Committee, CEGIRE (Comite Ejecutivo para la Gestion Integral de los

Residuos Electronicos), to oversee the operational implementation of SINAGIRE


6

Romania – in the early stages

► UE member since 2007

► Average salary per month: 350€

► Decreasing population

► But a fast-growing number of e-waste

► European WEEE transposed and applied since 2005

► 6 Eco-organisms have been created so far (including EcoTIC)

► Strong legislative framework aligned on EU requirements

► Involvement of all the stakeholders

► EPR and “Extended Distributor Responsibility”

► Regular education campaigns organized by eco-organisms and NGOs

► Significant local recycling utilities

► Significant obstacles lay ahead

► Population ill informed on how and why they should recycle

► Poor collection infrastructures and absence of market for recycled products

► Absence of regulation on informal sector (not taken into account in policy)

► Frequent changes of central and local government hinder long term solutions


7

Contact

Richard ABDELNOUR Ernst & Young / Climate Change and Sustainable Development Tel.: +33 1 46 93 72 51Fax.: +33 1 58 47 10 57Email: [email protected]/fr/sustainability


Documents

World Bank / infoDev International seminar on e-waste · Includes orphan waste Producers pay for transport, consolidator handling Municipality pays collection Manufacturers pay for