567500

research-article2015

WMR0010.1177/0734242X14567500Waste Management & ResearchFriege et al.

Original Article

Optimising waste from electric and electronic equipment collection systems: A comparison of approaches in European countries

Waste Management & Research 2015, Vol. 33(3) 223­–231 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14567500 wmr.sagepub.com

Henning Friege1, Michael Oberdörfer2 and Marko Günther3

Abstract The first European waste from electric and electronic equipment directive obliged the Member States to collect 4 kg of used devices per inhabitant and year. The target of the amended directive focuses on the ratio between the amount of waste from electric and electronic equipment collected and the mass of electric and electronic devices put on the market in the three foregoing years. The minimum collection target is 45% starting in 2016, being increased to 65% in 2019 or alternatively 85% of waste from electric and electronic equipment generated. Being aware of the new target, the question arises how Member States with ‘best practice’ organise their collection systems and how they enforce the parties in this playing field. Therefore the waste from electric and electronic equipment schemes of Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and the Flemish region of Belgium were investigated focusing on the categories IT and telecommunications equipment, consumer equipment like audio systems and discharge lamps containing hazardous substances, e.g. mercury. The systems for waste from electric and electronic equipment collection in these countries vary considerably. Recycling yards turned out to be the backbone of waste from electric and electronic equipment collection in most countries studied. For discharge lamps, take-back by retailers seems to be more important. Sampling points like special containers in shopping centres, lidded waste bins and complementary return of used devices in all retail shops for electric equipment may serve as supplements. High transparency of collection and recycling efforts can encourage ambition among the concerned parties. Though the results from the study cannot be transferred in a simplistic manner, they serve as an indication for best practice methods for waste from electric and electronic equipment collection. Keywords Waste from electric and electronic equipment, collection, IT equipment, gas discharge lamps, e-scrap, recycling yard, kerbside collection, take-back system

Introduction Waste from electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) covers an enormous potential of non-renewable resources, especially nonferrous metals. On the other hand, many of the materials formerly used in electronic devices have been banned or severely restricted like PBDEs or cadmium. Cadmium has been successfully substituted in most applications. Other toxic metals like gallium or mercury are extremely important for some technologies and cannot be substituted at present. Informal collection in Europe (Lange et al., 2011) often leads to illegal export of WEEE to China, West Africa and India (see for example Li et al., 2013; Heart and Agamuthu, 2012), where unsafe recycling practices may cause enormous contaminations. This highlights the importance of separate collection of WEEE. The first WEEE directive (EC, 2002) urged the member states to collect 4 kg inh-1 y-1 of used electric and electronic equipment. Costs for recycling of the devices are borne by the producers or importers in proportion to

their actual share on the market. In the Member States, different systems have been established with respect to: •• the responsibility of the concerned parties (e.g. producers, distributors, communities); •• the type of collection systems; •• requirements for recycling facilities. 1N3

Nachhaltigkeitsberatung Dr. Friege & Partner, Scholtenbusch, Voerde, Germany 2Landesamt f. Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz, Düsseldorf, Germany 3INTECUS GmbH, Dresden, Germany Corresponding author: Henning Friege, N3 Nachhaltigkeitsberatung Dr. Friege & Partner , Scholtenbusch 11, D-46562 Voerde, Germany. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

224

Waste Management & Research 33(3)

Figure 1.  Collection of WEEE from private households (kg inh-1 y-1) in EU Member States for the years 2006, 2008 and 2010, the horizontal line indicating the 4 kg target (EEA, 2013). AT: Austria; BE: Belgium; BG: Bulgaria; CY: Cyprus; CZ: Czech Republic; DE: Germany; DK: Denmark; EE: Greece; EL: Estonia; ES: Spain; FI: Finland; FR: France; HU: Hungary; IE: Ireland; IT: Italy; LT: Lithuania; LU: Luxemburg; LV: Latvia; MT: Malta; NL: Netherlands; NO: Norway; PL: Poland; PT: Portugal; RO: Romania; SE: Sweden; SI: Slovenia; SK: Slovakia; UK: United Kingdom.

The amount of used electric and electronic devices collected separately differs widely in Europe (Figure 1). The amount of electric and electronic equipment sold correlates with the national per capita gross domestic product (GDP), as has been demonstrated by an empirical investigation (Huisman, 2010; Huisman et al., 2007). Therefore, the absolute collection target, i.e. 4 kg inh-1 y-1, is very low with respect to booming national economies and may be too high for new Member States in Eastern Europe. As a consequence, new goals were introduced (EC, 2012) based on the relation between the amount of WEEE separately collected and the amount of new appliances put on the market in the three foregoing years. The new objective will be 45% in 2016 and will be increased to 65% in 2019, or alternatively 85% of WEEE generated. Even with respect to the different economic situations in the Member States, the result presented in Figure 1 is not satisfying up to now. In a preceding publication, an overview was given about the problems connected to collection, dismantling and recycling of WEEE (see Friege, 2012, and literature cited therein). Poor collection rates are owing to disposal of small electric devices in the residual waste, storage of devices no longer in use in households (e.g. cell phones, TV and audio devices), losses owing to activities of waste pickers. It is very difficult to compare schemes for collection and recycling, because of different implementations of the WEEE directive in the Member States. Cahill et al. (2011) found an indication for higher collection rates in cases of municipal responsibility, but did not report details about the collection schemes. Results from business-to-business (B2B) studies do not enlighten the business-to-customer (B2C) sector owing to other relationships between the players involved. Many authors focus on specific collection problems, like WEEE dumped illegally outside of large housing areas (Bernstad et al., 2011), electric toys collected in schools and nurseries (Solé et al., 2012) and cell

phone take-back systems (Beigl et al., 2010), but do not provide detailed information for national systems. A systematic comparison of different national collection schemes is lacking.

Design of the study In this study, the ‘state of the art’ of WEEE collection shall be evaluated by comparing the implementation of the directive and the practice of European countries with relatively high collection rates. The following questions should be answered. •• Which collection channels for WEEE have been introduced? •• Which collection channels are working more or less successful as compared with Germany? •• How citizens are informed about bring-back and take-back obligations? •• What about re-use of electric appliances? From a former study about problems of WEEE collection, the relations between stakeholders turned out to be of crucial importance (Friege, 2012). Therefore, the interface between producers, municipalities, citizens, waste management companies and retailers was focused. Two collection groups (CGs) are of special interest for this study: •• IT and telecommunication equipment (WEEE directive, category 3), video and audio devices (WEEE directive, category 4) collected as CG3 in Germany with a high concentration of non-ferrous metals; •• gas discharge lamps (WEEE directive, category 5b) collected as CG4 in Germany because of the mercury content. The countries were chosen as follows: The amount of WEEE collected in Denmark and Sweden exceeds 15 kg inh-1 y-1. The same

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

225

Friege et al.

Table 1.  Electric and electronic equipment put on the market in 2010 and amount of WEEE separately collected in the same year (data taken from EEA, 2013). Put on market 2007–2009   Germany GDP/inh: 29,533 € All types of (W)EEE CG3 CG4 Belgium GDP/inh: 31,867 € All types of (W)EEE CG3 CG4 Denmark GDP/inh: 41,667 € All types of (W)EEE CG3 CG4 Sweden GDP/inh: 34,883 € All types of (W)EEE CG3 CG4

(kg inh-1 y-1)

(Mg)

1,718,400 572,667 99,234

282,910 101,433 30,866

174,217 50,100 6673

246,190 96,130 16,633

21 6.9 1.2

27 9.2 2.8

32 9.1 1.2

27 10 1.8

Switzerlanda GDP/inh: 45,600 € All types of (W)EEE CG3 CG4

Collected 2010 (Mg)

777,035 409,197 11,876

105,556 41,351 2713

82,931 41,507 702

161,444 69,565 4396

117,400 50,700 1130

Collection rate (kg inh-1 y-1)

(%)

9.5 5.0 0.1

    45% 72% 12%

9.7 3.8 0.3

    36% 42%  9%

15 7.5 0.1

    48% 83% 11%

17.3 7.4 0.5

    66% 72% 26%

15.1 6.5 0.1

         

aNo data available due to Swiss WEEE regulation. CG: collection group; GDP: gross domestic product; WEEE: Waste from electric and electronic equipment.

The regulations of these countries and reports of producer responsibility organisations (PROs) or agencies served as most important sources. In addition, experts from national scientific organisations and experts from some regional waste management companies were interviewed by phone using a common questionnaire.

the collection rate (EC, 2012). The collection rate should exceed 45% from 2015 onwards according to the revised WEEE directive. Switzerland does not report figures for electric appliances sold. The weight of all electric and electronic devices put on the market varies between 21 and 32 kg inh-1 y-1. The specific GDPs (mean values between 2007 and 2009) are also indicated in Table 1. It is easily seen that the specific GDPs correlate with the amount of electric and electronic devices put on the market. The comparability of some data for WEEE is not completely clear: The national WEEE statistics differ between B2C and B2B devices, but often the take-back points determine the assignment to one class. So, used B2B devices dropped at a municipal recycling yard may be added to consumer WEEE. Moreover, the definition of ‘recycling yard’ is not homogenous: In most countries, these are facilities operated by the cities. In the Swiss statistics, used appliances delivered to public recycling yards and to private scrap yards (‘collection points’) are recorded together.

Results

Germany

The data for the appliances put on market in 2007–2009 (mean value) and the amount of used devices collected in 2010 in these countries are summed up in Table 1 using the new definition for

Collection of used electric and electronic devices was introduced in 2005 (ElektroG, 2005) according to the WEEE directive. In contrast to many other European countries, there are no PROs

is true for Switzerland, which does not belong to the European Union. With respect to the new objective, the amount of WEEE collected in Germany (2010) is near 45% (Sperlich et al., 2013). Belgium (~9 kg inh-1 y-1) was also included in the evaluation because of increasing collection results and special regulations in the Flemish region with ambitious objectives. The study covers two steps for each country. •• Evaluation of the implementation of the directive with special focus on the relationships between the stakeholders. •• Evaluation of the type and relevance of collection systems.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

226

Waste Management & Research 33(3)

with the exception of Lightcycle, a special organisation for gas discharge and light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. The national register for waste electric equipment (‘Stiftung ear’ – EAR) was founded by producers as their Clearing House for the purposes of the German law on WEEE (ElektroG, 2005). Entrusted with sovereign rights by the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), the EAR registers the producers of electrical and electronic equipment. The collection is due to the municipalities, which are also obliged to store the devices until delivery to WEEE treatment facilities. EAR coordinates the provision of containers and the pick-up of electrical and electronic waste equipment at the municipal transfer points for WEEE. Public local authorities inform the citizens about take-back opportunities. The ‘waste calendars’, which are usually published by German municipalities, include the dates for kerbside collection, the addresses of recycling yards and information about the separation of electronic waste. Owing to the decentralised collection system of WEEE, there are no nationwide awareness campaigns with the exception of Lightcycle campaigning for recycling of gas discharge lamps. The costs for collection and storage of WEEE have to be paid by the municipalities, whereas all other costs are due to the producers and importers. The cities and counties have the right to recycle or sell the WEEE collected, choosing one or more complete CGs for one or more years. The so-called ‘Optierung’ (ElektroG, 2005) had been introduced into German law to protect social initiatives being active in the dismantling, recycling or refurbishment of WEEE. The cities should have the opportunity to retain used devices to create work for disabled people or longterm unemployed. Driven by the increasing prices of metals, most German cities now sell collected electric and electronic appliances with the exception of freezers or bulbs on their own account thus decreasing the waste charges. This leads to problems for the producers, which have to pay for the residual WEEE fractions part of them, including hazardous materials to be disposed (Goldberg, 2014). Statistical data for refurbished and reused electric appliances of all types are highly varying from year to year. For 2010, re-use of 8872 Mg WEEE was reported. This is about 1% of all WEEE collected. The collection of CG3 yielded 409,000 Mg in 2010 (~5 kg inh1 y-1); this number covers 76.4% and 90.8% of the mass of category 3 and 4 (EAR, 2013), respectively, put on the market in the same year. The high amount of category 4 may be explained by the exchange of cathode ray tube (CRT) devices by light flat screens (LCD or plasma) and by the digital switchover (Ongondo et al., 2011). With respect to figures published by municipalities and EAR (Goldberg, 2014), the amount collected separately decreased in 2011 and 2012. Therefore, the encouraging collection rate from 2010 compared with the marketed amount of appliances in the three foregoing years 2007–2009 is distorted by the decreasing weight of television sets and personal computers (Sperlich et al., 2013). The collection of CG4 yielded about 12,000 Mg (≈12%). Statistics about the collection channels are not available either on the federal nor on the state level. In many large cities, kerbside collection of WEEE, especially of large

household devices, freezers and TV’s, seems to be the most important take-back system. But there are exceptions, like the city of Hamburg where recycling yards serve as drop-off points covering about 90% of WEEE collected (Winterberg, 2013). It is estimated that ~1700 recycling yards, accepting more or less all types of valuables from waste, are operated in Germany (VKU, 2013). The role of recycling yards is more important in Southern than in Northern Germany. A number of department stores for electric equipment and ‘do-it-yourself’ markets take back WEEE on a voluntary basis (for details see LANUV, 2014). Kerbside collection of WEEE is often disturbed by waste pickers. Valuable parts like copper tubes are cut off from freezers and refrigerators leading to emissions of chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Similar destructions may be observed with CRT’s (Friege et al., 2008; Werth-Kreienberg and Peters, 2013). Many devices are stolen and either sold to scrap dealers in Germany or illegally exported. Approximately 37% of all WEEE are collected by waste pickers (Lange, 2013). Some cities now introduce lidded containers that are safeguarded against access. In some regions, people belonging to the informal sector have been integrated in workshops for dismantling or refurbishment of post-use devices. In these cases (e.g. city of Wuppertal), the amount of collected WEEE is higher than in the neighbouring cities, because of the municipal interest in the occupation of unemployed people.

Denmark Collection of used electric devices was already established before 2005. Dansk Producentansvarssystem (DPA) keeps the register for new electric and electronic products and acts as a supervisor for other players (e.g. PROs, municipalities, recycling facilities) within the WEEE system (DPA, 2012). There are several PROs working on the Danish market, by far the largest one is Elretur. For CG4, a special organisation, Lyskildebranchens WEEE Foreningen (LWF), has been founded. Consumers pay for WEEE management when purchasing a new appliance. The Danish ordinance (WEEE order DK, 2010) obliges the municipalities to inform the citizens and to collect e-waste. The PROs have contracts with the municipalities regulating temporary storage facilities and information exchange. The reimbursement of municipalities is not explicitly regulated by law, but the costs for WEEE collection are partially refunded (DAKOFA, 2013). Retailers take back used devices on a voluntary basis. WEEE collected has to be delivered to the PROs. The producers and importers have to finance recycling, disposal and central storage areas where communities and retailers drop off post-use equipment. Elretur, LWF and other PROs inform the citizens about WEEE in general. The municipalities inform people about take-back points. About 90% of all devices are collected by the municipalities (DPA, 2012), which operate about 400 recycling yards. These facilities are the most important takeback points, especially in rural areas. In a number of cities, additional systems for small WEEE are established. With a

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

227

Friege et al. pilot project covering 25,000 lidded bins placed inside residential complexes, the city of Copenhagen tries to collect more small- and medium-sized WEEE (Borregaard, 2013). The figures for CG3 may be taken from Table 1. In 2011 (DPA, 2012), the mass of TV screens and computers put on the market decreased, whereas the amount of separately collected devices exceeded the mass of new devices. This finding underlines the importance of replacing CRTs by lighter screens. As to CG4, the mass of separately collected lamps increased from 458 Mg in 2004 to 705 Mg in 2012 (DPA, 2012; LWF, 2013), but the collection rate remained nearly constant. It is not clear how the technical developments in this branch (replacement of classical bulbs, new bulbs and lamps with longer operating time) influence the result. DPA publishes all data for collection in all municipalities and also all data for recovery of WEEE, thus motivating the stakeholders to enhance their results. There are no figures on refurbishment or re-use reported to the European authorities.

Sweden Producer responsibility for WEEE was introduced in 2001. The implementation of the EU directive is similar to the Danish system. Electric and electronic appliances are registered by the Swedish environmental agency, Naturvårdsverket. In 2001, a non-profit organisation called El-Kretsen was founded, remaining the most important PRO in Sweden until today. El-Kretsen made contracts with all 290 municipalities that are responsible for the collection of WEEE; the reimbursement of the municipalities depends on the amount of collected material. El-Kretsen also pays the costs for transport and recycling of WEEE. A second PRO (EÅF) has been established by big retailers and mailorder companies to organise flows of WEEE owing to the take-back obligation of the retail business. El-Kretsen and EÅF share the financial burden for the WEEE flows. All WEEE streams are reported by the PROs to the Swedish environmental agency. As outlined for Denmark, PROs and municipalities are working for higher awareness of citizens towards collection and recycling of WEEE. Special campaigns (e.g. ‘Tack og hej’ – ‘thank you and good bye’) have been launched for CG4 because of relatively low collection rates. The amount of WEEE separately collected may be taken from Table 1. A total of 600 recycling yards serve as the backbone of the collection: ~140,000 Mg are dropped there each year. In the cities, these facilities are also open at the weekends (Hemström et al., 2012). About two-thirds of Swedish local authorities offer additional service for households. •• Kerbside collection (1.5 million inhabitants) (El-Kretsen, 2013b). •• Special waste bins for the door to door collection (0.6 million inhabitants). •• Vans (‘miljöbilen’) at about 1000 drop-off points. •• WEEE container in public areas.

There are about 1500 collection points for small WEEE, batteries and lamps in shopping centres; this means a 100% increase between 2009 and 2012. Moreover, about 50 recycling yards operated by private companies and scrap dealers are certified as drop-off points. A total of 93% of all used electric and electronic devices are operated by the El-Kretsen system. As to CG3, developments similar to Germany and Denmark could be observed (El-Kretsen, 2013a). Most used lamps and bulbs (El-Kretsen does not distinguish between gas discharge lamps and other lighting equipment) are brought back to the recycling yards, but the importance of take-back points in shopping malls is increasing (El-Kretsen 2013b). There is no information about re-used or refurbished electric appliances on the national level.

Belgium/Flanders Flanders has its own waste management law (VLAREMA, 2012). The Flemish regulations cover a collection target of 8.5 kg inh-1 y-1 and a compulsory take-back by retailers in the case of purchasing a new appliance. The municipalities are responsible for the collection of WEEE. They have to leave the collected appliances to the PRO. Useable appliances may be handed over to non-profit workshops for refurbishment. (For more details see (LANUV, 2014).) RECUPEL is the only PRO in Belgium, consisting of several organisations each being responsible for one WEEE category. RECUPEL raises money from the producers to finance transport and recycling of WEEE, as well as for the reimbursement of the communities. There are 547 recycling yards in Belgium, most of them (320) in Flanders. Used items may also be dropped at about 4000 retail shops and more than 20 second-hand stores (RECUPEL, 2013). Some scrap yards have a special licence for the acceptance of WEEE as well. Kerbside collection of WEEE is unusual. A network of second-hand stores and workshops has been established, which is supported by the Flemish Government. Refurbishment activities focus on white goods, small household appliances and brown goods. The figures for WEEE collection in Belgium may be taken from Table 1. As to the Flemish region, the specific collection rate (11.5 kg inh-1 y-1) was considerably higher than in the other parts of the country. In Table 2, the different drop-off points for the collection of CG3 are compared. It is clear that the recycling yards are most important, but a considerable amount of used items is going to a relatively small number of second-hand shops as compared with thousands of retailers taking back WEEE as well. In the Flemish area, the role of second-hand shops is even more important. The amount of re-used electric and electronic equipment in Belgium was nearly 5500 Mg in 2010 (~5% as compared with all WEEE separately collected); far higher than in the other countries investigated. In the case of gas discharge lamps, take-back by retailers seems to be more important compared with the municipal systems (Table 3). To enhance the collection rate of lamps and bulbs, RECUPEL campaigns for take-back.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

228

Waste Management & Research 33(3)

Table 2.  Take-back of CG3 [Mg] in Belgium (2011); data from (RECUPEL, 2012). Retailers Chartered (e.g. scrap yards) Municipal collection, recycling yards Second-hand shops Sum

5658 2628 33,287 3118 44,691

Table 3.  Take-back of CG4 [Mg] in Belgium and Flanders (2011); data from (OVAM, 2013; RECUPEL, 2012).

Retailers Chartered, e.g. scrap yards Municipal collection, recycling yards Second-hand shops Sum

Belgium

Flanders

753 5 533 8 1299

528 5 419 7 959

Switzerland Though Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, the regulations for WEEE are similar (VREG, 2005). At the end of the 1990s, three PROs were founded by the important producers and importers of electric and electronic devices (S.E.N.S., SwicoRecycling, SLRS) each being responsible for the collection of certain fractions. In contrary to the EU, there are no obligations for the registration of electric and electronic appliances, and also no objectives like recycling rates. The costs for the WEEE management are paid by the consumers when purchasing new electric or electronic devices (‘vRG’: advanced recycling fee, managed by the PROs). These fees are used for all WEEE activities. All post-use appliances collected have to be delivered to the organisations of the producers. Consumers are obliged to bring back their used devices to public or private recycling yards. Retailers have to take-back used devices even if the client does not purchase a new one. All necessary information about managing WEEE by consumers is offered on the Internet, including a map with drop-off points situated in the neighbourhood. There are about 500 recycling yards where WEEE can be dropped off, with the exception of CG4 which is only accepted if the storage facility is suited also for dangerous waste. In some cities, there are additional offers, like semi-mobile collection points including a streetcar (‘E-Tram’, city of Zurich) for small hazardous waste and WEEE from households. Kerbside collection of WEEE is unusual. Swiss authorities do not support refurbishment of used devices. Figures for Switzerland may be taken from Table 1. As there is no information about the amount put on the market, the development of the collection rate is not clear. With respect to SWICO et al. (2013), the amount of WEEE comparable with CG3 increased from less than 30,000 Mg in 2003 to more than 60,000 Mg in 2012. Also in Switzerland, more than 50% of these items are dropped off at the recycling yards, retailers ranking behind. In 2012, 1161 Mg of lamps with hazardous components

and 2241 Mg of other lamps and bulbs were collected. SLRS launched nation-wide campaigns to improve the collection of lamps, including funny TV spots for the motivation of consumers (SLRS, 2013).

Discussion For sake of comparison, the most important figures for the implementation of the directive are summarised in Table 4. The German implementation differs from the other systems studied by several characteristics. •• In Germany, there is no collective organisation (PRO) with the exception of gas discharge lamps, LEDs and energy-saving lamps. •• Expenditures of the municipalities are not refunded by the producers and importers. •• On the other hand, German municipalities are generally allowed to recycle or sell WEEE. The German system (clearing house for registration and organisation of collection from take-back points, no producer responsibility organisations with the exception of gas discharge lamps representing a very small part of the WEEE market) is partially owing to objections of the Commission in the case of the packaging ordinance against large collective producer systems in the German market. Despite these objections by the Commission, only one (Belgium, Switzerland) or few (Denmark, Sweden) PROs have been established in the other countries studied here. Without collective organisation of the producers, the promotion of WEEE collection systems is more or less left to the cities. This impedes nation-wide campaigns across TV and web. The refunding mechanisms between the partners in the respective countries are different, partially based on contracts between the PROs and the municipalities. As to Germany, the costs for the municipal WEEE collection are integrated in the waste charges. The amount of WEEE collected has normally increased, with few exceptions, since the installation of national systems. The mass of WEEE collected and the collection rates are somewhat higher in those countries that started before 2005 (Cahill et al., 2011). As the total amount of WEEE partially depends on the economic situation of the consumers, the comparability of collection rates is better than that of the mass weight. In Table 5, some details about the collection channels are summarised. Unfortunately, statistical data are often incomplete. The high importance of municipal collection systems is in line with an investigation of the implementation of the directive in a number of European countries (Cahill et al., 2011). Kerbside collection of white goods, freezers and other used electric appliances is executed in many large German cities, the relationship between the different collection channels not being clear owing to lack of statistical data. From the evaluation of data from some large German cities (LANUV, 2014) it may be concluded that municipal collection (kerbside collection plus recycling yards) exceeds takeback by retailers by far. In all other countries investigated, recycling yards turned out to be the most important drop-off option. As may be taken from Figure 2, there is a weak relation between the total

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

229

Friege et al. Table 4.  Comparison of the framework being important for WEEE collection. Registration of appliances

PROs

Financing of collection

Germany

EAR on behalf of the Only lightcycle for CG4 Federal Env. Agency   No PROs for other CGs Denmark DPA on behalf of PROs: Elretur, RENE, the Danish Env. ERP with the exception Authority of CG4 (LWF) Sweden Naturvårdsverket PROs: El-Kretsen, EAR (Env. Agency) Belgium/ OVAM (Flemish PRO: RECUPEL Flanders environmental agency) Switzerland No register SENS, Swico, SLRS each being responsible for specific CGs

Financing Municipal Control of results of recycling recycling activities

Municipalities Producer/ importers Municipalities (partial refunding) Producers/ importers Producers/ importers

Producer/ importers

Producers/ importers

Producer/ importers

Producer/ importers Producer/ importers

Complete CGs can Federal Env. be recycled/sold Agency   None (historical Miljostyrelsen exceptions) (Umweltbehörde) None

Naturvårdsverket

Only delivery to OVAM re-use workshops allowed No municipal Experts reporting activities to the Swiss Env. Agency (BAFU)

DPA: Dansk Producentansvarssystem; EAR: ‘Stiftung ear’; PRO: producer responsibility organisation.

Table 5.  Importance of various WEEE collection channels. Obligatory take-back of WEEE by retailers

Relevance of collection channels Kerbside collection

Recycling yards

Retailers

Secondhand shops

Others

Germany

No, only voluntarily

Unimportant

Unimportant

No, only voluntarily

1700 recycling yards 94.4%

Unimportant

Denmark

3.8%

?

1.7%

Sweden

No, but engagement of the retailers Yes, in case of new product purchased Yes, independent of purchasing a new product

Mostly executed in large cities Only in densely populated areas Only in densely populated areas Generally unusual Generally unusual



Belgium (Flanders) Switzerland



Most important (>90%?) 60% (54.2%)

24% (27.0%)

10% (12.2%)

  6% (6.5%)

58%

17%

Unusual

25%

WEEE: waste from electric and electronic equipment.

from the Netherlands (Witteveen + Bos, 2010), where recycling yards serve as prominent take-back points (82% of all WEEE returned) followed by retailers (17%). For appliances belonging to CG3, the order of precedence seems to comply with WEEE in general, whereas the importance of retailers is equal or greater as compared with recycling yards in the case of CG4. In the Netherlands, a similar result has been found for CG3; as to CG4, take-back by retailers covered 448 out of 1792 Mg (i.e. 25% of all lamps) (Witteveen + Bos, 2010). Figure 2.  Relation between the amount of separately collected WEEE and the density of recycling yards in the countries investigated. WEEE: waste from electric and electronic equipment.

amount of WEEE separately collected and the number of people sharing one recycling yard, the correlation coefficient is R2 = 0.69. As may be taken from the results presented, retailers prove to be the next important collection channel. This is in line with former results

Conclusion Extended producer responsibility (EPR) has been introduced (Lifset and Lindqvist, 2008; OECD 2001) to install a link between products and waste. EPR regulations often do not achieve the desired results or cause side effects (Friege, 2012; Huisman, 2010; Khetriwal et al., 2008; Massarutto, 2014; Rotter et al., 2011; Scheijgrond, 2011). Our results underpin that EPR is a raw tool that has to be forged carefully to obtain satisfying results.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

230

Waste Management & Research 33(3)

The relationships between stakeholders are extremely important to make EPR schemes really work. Coordination between PROs, retail chains and municipalities is necessary. Take-back channels and information thereon, by producers or PROs, should be adjusted with the municipalities being in close contact with the citizens. The acceptance and popularity of recycling yards for all types of WEEE should be used to optimise this drop-off channel: •• by extending the opening hours; •• by informing the public about the location of take-back and collection points (newspaper, web, etc.); •• by installing more recycling centres, e.g. one per 50,000 inhabitants or less. Besides that, it is necessary to develop collection methods that cannot be disturbed by waste pickers, e.g. door-to-door collection, lidded waste bins and take-back machines in shopping malls. From the results presented here, retailers have a complementary role for taking back post-use appliances. As to gas discharge lamps, they may even act as the prominent drop-off points. Direct take-back systems of producers could gain of importance for certain products; today, they are more or less restricted to B2B solutions. Collection rates should be published in detail (e.g. on the municipal level according to take-back channels) to enhance the motivation for the stakeholders involved and to simplify optimisation of rates and costs. This also allows public competition between municipalities in waste management with respect to the recycling systems offered to their citizens. This might help to increase collection rates. Systematic support of re-use activities by the authorities could become more important to reduce waste from WEEE, thus complementing collection activities in general. Examples found in Europe, like the Flemish initiative, should be carefully investigated to learn about an optimal legal and economic framework. The implementation of the modified WEEE directive bears the chance to allocate the tasks of the stakeholders better than before, using the experiences collected since 2005. Though the experiences of various countries presented here cannot be transferred in a simplistic manner owing to different cultural and historical developments influencing waste management, they may be used as an indication for best practice in Europe.

Acknowledgements The results presented here are part of a study commissioned by the Northrhine Westfalian State Agency for Nature Conservation, Environmental Affairs, and Consumers Protection (LANUV, 2014). We are indebted to many colleagues from Denmark, Sweden, Flanders and Switzerland for useful information and fruitful discussions.

Declaration of conflicting interests The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References Beigl P, Schneider F and Salhofer St (2010) Vergleich von Sammelsystemen für Mobiltelefone [Comparison of collecting systems for mobile phones]. Müll und Abfall 42: 501–507. Bernstad A, la Cour J and Aspegren H (2011) Property-close source separation of hazardous waste and waste electrical and electronic equipment – A Swedish case study. Waste Management 31: 536–543. Borregaard J (2013) Experiences from collection trails in Copenhagen. In: VKU/ ISWA Beacon Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany, 17–18 November 2013. Available at: http://iswabeacon.obladen.de/presentations.html (accessed 18 January 2015). Cahill R, Grimes SM and Wilson DC (2011) Extended producer responsibility for packaging waste and WEEE – a comparison of implementation and the role of local authorities across Europe. Waste Management & Research 29: 455–479. DAKOFA (2013) Jette Bjerre Hansen, personal communication, September 2, 2013. DPA (2012) DPA-System: WEEE and BAT statistics Denmark 2011, Copenhagen. Available at: https://www.dpa-system.dk/en/WEEE/ ProducerResponsibility/Statistik-2011 (accessed 5 August 2013). EAR (2013) Available at: https://www.stiftung-ear.de/service_und_aktuelles/ kennzahlen/jahres_statistik_meldung (accessed 15 September 2013). EC (2002) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Official Journal L 37: 24. EC (2012) Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electrical Equipment (WEEE). Official Journal L 197: 38–170. EEA (2013) Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment/assessment-1 (accessed 14 August 2013). ElektroG (2005) Elektro- und Elektronikgerätegesetz vom 16. März 2005 (BGBl. I S. 762) Available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/elektrog/BJNR076200005.html (accessed 17 March 2011). El-Kretsen (2013a) Ny statistik från El-Kretsen för elektronikåtervinningen i Sverige 2012 [New results from El-Kretsen for recycling of WEEE]. Available at: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressroom/el-kretsen/ pressrelease/view/ny-statistik-fraan-el-kretsen-foer-elektronikaatervinningen-i-sverige-2012–838045 (accessed 14 August 2013). El-Kretsen (2013b) Verksamheten 2012 [Report 2012]. Available at: http://www.el-kretsen.se/sitespecific/elkretsen/files/arsrapport/arsrapport_2012.pdf (accessed 15 August 2013). Friege H (2012) Material recovery from used electric and electronic equipment – alternative options for resource conservation. Waste Management & Research 30: S3–16. Friege H, Schmidt O and Hinken G (2008): Sammlung und Gewinnung von Wertstoffen aus Abfällen, Chancen und Hindernisse [Collection and recovery of valuables from waste]. In: Pinnekamp J (ed.) Abfall-RecyclingAltlasten, 10/1–10/19, Aachen: Institut für Siedlungswasserwirtschaft der TH Aachen, 2008. Goldberg A (2014) Umsetzung der WEEE-Novelle – neue Herausforderungen und Chancen für die nationalen Register in Europa [Implementation of the new WEEE directive – challenges and chances for the national registers in Europe]. Available at: http://www.vereev.de/uploads/media/03_ alexander-goldberg_umsetzung-der-weee-novelle.pdf (accessed 10 May 2014). Hemström K, Stenmarck Å, Sörme L and Carlsson A (2012) Kartläggning av flöden och upp lagrade mängder av elektriska och elektroniska produkter i Sverige 2010 [Mapping of flows and storage of electric and electronic products in Sweden 2010] Naturvårdsverket (ed.). Available at: http:// www.smed.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SMED-Rapport-2012-1024. pdf (accessed 18 January 2015). Herat S and Agamuthu P (2012) E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Review of issues, challenges and solutions in Asian countries. Waste Management & Research 30: 1113–1129.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

231

Friege et al. Huisman J (2010) WEEE recast: from 4 kg to 65%: the compliance consequences. United Nations University, Bonn. Available at: http://www.endseurope.com/docs/100309a.pdf (accessed 18 January 2015). Huisman J, Kuehr R, Magalini F, et al. (2007) 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on WEEE, United Nations University, Bonn. Available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf (accessed 30 April 2010). Khetriwal DS, Kuehr R and Huisman J (2008): One WEEE, many species. Lessons from the European experience. In: ISWA Annual Congress, Singapore, CD-ROM, GBR150320081136. Copenhagen: International Solid Waste Association. Lange U (2013) Significance of the informal sector. In: VKU/ISWA Beacon Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany, 17–18 November 2013. Available at: http://iswabeacon.obladen.de/presentations.html (accessed 18 January 2015). Lange U, den Boer J, Obersteiner G, et al. (2011) Waste picking in Deutschland: Status quo der informellen Sammlungen in der Abfallwirtschaft [Waste picking in Germany: status of informal waste collection]. Müll und Abfall 43: 56–60. LANUV (2014) Untersuchung zur Optimierung der Sammlung elektronischer Kleingeräte [Investigation of the collection of used electronic appliances]. LANUV-Fachbericht 52, Recklinghausen. Available at: http:// www.lanuv.nrw.de/veroeffentlichungen/fachberichte/fabe52/fabe52.pdf (accessed 17 July 2014). Li J, Lopez BN, Liu L, et al. (2013) Regional or global WEEE recycling. Where to go? Waste Management 33: 923–934. Lifset R and Lindhqvist T (2008) Producer responsibility at a turning point? Journal of Industrial Ecology 12: 144–147. LWF (2013) Available at: http://www.lwf.nu/351/fakta-og-faq (accessed 15 August 2013). Massarutto A (2014) The long and winding road to resource efficiency – An interdisciplinary perspective on extended producer responsibility. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 85: 11–21. OECD (2001) Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264189867-en. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/extended-producer-responsibility_9789264189867-en (accessed 18 January 2015). Ongondo FO, Williams ID and Keynes S (2011) Estimating the impact of the “digital switchover” on disposal of WEEE at household waste recycling centres in England. Waste Management 31: 743–753. OVAM (2013) Maya Schmid, personal communication, 29 August 2013. RECUPEL (2012) RECUPEL Jaarsverslag 2011 [RECUPEL annual report 2011]. Available at http://www.recupel.be/~/jaarverslagen-recupel.html (accessed 17 January 2015). RECUPEL (2013) RECUPEL Jahresbericht 2012 (Kurzfassung) [RECUPEL annual report (short version)]. Available at: http://jahresberichte2012. recupel.be/home-de (accessed 25 July 2013).

Rotter V S, Chancerel P and Schill W (2011) Practicability of individual producer responsibility under the WEEE directive: experiences in Germany. Waste Management & Research 29: 932–944. Scheijgrond J (2011) Extending producer responsibility up and down the supply chain, challenges and limitation. Waste Management & Research 29: 911–918. Solé M, Watson J, Puig R and Fullana-i-Palmer P (2012) Proposal of a new model to improve the collection of small WEEE: a pilot project for the recovery and recycling of toys. Waste Management & Research 30: 1208–1212. Sperlich K, Hörig D, Schnepel C (2013) Elektroschrottaufkommen und -zusammensetzung in Deutschland und Europa [Amount and characterization of e-scrap in Germany and Europe]. Presentation at Hamburg TREND, 5./6.2.2013. Available at: http://hamburgtrend. info/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Vortraege_2013/TREND-Hamburg_ EAGAufkommenZusammensetzung_KristineSperlich_2013-02-05_ Internetversion.pdf (accessed 17 January 2015) . SWICO, SENS, SLRS (2013) Fachbericht 2013 [Report 2013]. SLRS (2013) Jahresbericht 2012 [Annual report 2012]. Available at: http://www.slrs.ch/index-de.php?frameset=10 (accessed 29 September 2013). VKU (2013) Dr. Achim Schröter, personal communication, September 18, 2013. VREG (2005) Verordnung über die Rückgabe, die Rücknahme und die Entsorgung elektrischer und elektronischer Geräte [Ordinance for WEEE]. Available at: http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19980114/index.html (accessed 6 August 2013). VLAREMA (2012) Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering tot vaststelling van het Vlaams reglement betreffende het duurzaam beheer van materiaalkringlopen en afvalstoffen [Ordinance for sustainable management of material cycles and waste], 17 February 2012, consolidated version. WEEE order DK (2010) Statutory order on placing on the market of electrical and electronic equipment and management of waste electrical and electronic equipment, Nr. 362, 6 April 2010, English translation. Werth-Kreienberg C and Peters W (2013) Environmental damages caused by commodities theft. What we can change. In: VKU/ISWA Beacon Conference, Düsseldorf, Germany, 17–18 November 2013. Available at: http://iswabeacon.obladen.de/presentations.html (accessed 18 January 2015) Winterberg S (2013) Erfassungssysteme für E-Schrott in der Praxis [Experience with collection systems for WEEE]. Müll und Abfall 45: 584–587. Witteveen + Bos (2010) Complementaire e-waste stromen in Nederland versie 2.0 [Complementary WEEE streams in the Netherlands, 2nd version]. Available at: http://www.wecycle.nl/uploads/pdf/onderzoek/2010/2008-07%20complementaire%20stromen%20rapport%20v.2%20W+B.pdf (accessed 18 June 2011).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 18, 2015

Optimising waste from electric and electronic equipment collection systems: a comparison of approaches in European countries.

The first European waste from electric and electronic equipment directive obliged the Member States to collect 4 kg of used devices per inhabitant and...
606KB Sizes 0 Downloads 5 Views