comparative study of e-waste management schemeewit.site/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/panate... · a...

Comparative Study of E-waste

Management Scheme

Panate MANOMAIVIBOOL

Mae Fah Luang University

THAILAND

1

BACKGROUND

A review as part of a law drafting process in Thailand

A subordinate law under the (draft) Act on Fiscal

Measures for the Environment

The (draft) Act on the Management of WEEE and

Other End-of-life Products

For more information about Thai WEEE, please

contact the Pollution Control Department

2

Example Schemes (in 2011)

3

Canada (1: Ontario);

USA (5: California,

Maine, Minnesota,

Oregon, Washington)

Japan (2); South Korea

(2); Taiwan (1)

EU (1+3: Germany,

Sweden, UK);

Switzerland (1)

Drafting lawPassed law

An update in 2014:

- 59 countries passed an e-waste law

- 27 states and 9 provinces in N

America passed the law- 18 countries were drafting

WEEE LAWS COVERED IN ASIA

Japan (JP)

Specified Home Appliances Recycling Act (1998)

Act for Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources (1991, 2001)

South Korea (KR)

Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (1992, 2002,2008)

Act for Resource Recycling of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles (2007)

Taiwan (TW)

Waste Disposal Act (1974,1987, 1997,2004) and subordinate regulations and official announcements 4

WEEE LAWS COVERED IN EUROPE

European Union (EU)

WEEE and RoHS Directives (2003)

Germany (DE)

Act Governing the Sale, Return and Environmentally Sound Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (2005)

Sweden (SE)

Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Electrical and Electronic Products (2000, 2005)

United Kingdom (UK)

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (2006)

Switzerland (CH)

Ordinance on the Return, the Take Back and the Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (1998, 2005)

5

WEEE LAWS COVERED IN NORTH

AMERICA

Canada

Ontario: Waste Diversion Act (2002)

United State of America

California: Electronic Waste Recycling Act

(SB20&SB50, 2003)

Maine: §1610. Electronic waste, Title 38 (2004)

Minnesota: Electronic Recycling Act (2007)

Oregon: House Bill 2626 (2007)

Washington: Chapter 70.95N RCW Electronic product

recycling (2006)6

RESULTS

An article-by-article comparison of 16 laws divided

into 10 topics:

1. Purposes

2. Definitions

3. Scope

4. Product design & marking

5. Waste collection

1. Waste treatment

2. Financial mechanisms

3. Authorization & reporting

4. Special bodies

5. Offences and penalties

7

AN EXAMPLE OF RESULTS

8

4 KEY QUESTIONS FOR LAW MAKING

1. Why is the WEEE law needed?

2. What does it cover?

3. How should WEEE be handled?

a) How should WEEE be collected?

b) How should WEEE be treated?

4. Who is going to pay for the cost?

9

WHY IS THE LAW NEEDED?

Ultimate goals (5/16)

Protection of the environment

Healthy development of the national economy

Intermediate goals

To divert WEEE from general waste (12/16)

To promote resource recovery (12/16)

To encourage eco-design (8/16)

To reduce health and environmental damages (7/16)

10

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

WEEE laws are based on the Polluter-Pays Principle

(PPP) or Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

They are embedded in a general framework of circular

economy developed in the 1990s:

3Rs – Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle;

Waste management hierarchy; and,

Eco-/Closed/Sound material cycle.

Other commonly targeted waste streams: packaging,

newsprint, paint, used oil, tire, battery, vehicle, carpet,

C&D waste.

Recycling Rebeccawww.chelmsford.gov.uk/recycling

11

WHAT DOES IT COVER?

Open scope

Example: the EU, Switzerland, S Korea (de jure, after 2007)

Exemptions

Part of other waste streams (e.g. end-of-life vehicles)

Stationary, industrial machines

Equipment designed for military or special purposes

Closed scope

Home appliances + computers: Japan, S Korea (de facto),

Taiwan

Video displays + other electronics: Canada, US12

HOW SHOULD WEEE BE COLLECTED?

End users

Civic duty to return (JP, KR, TW, DE, CH)

Right to free take back (KR, EU, US-OR, US-WA)

Take-back providers & information to consumers

Retailer: one-to-one or same-type basis, exemptions

Local government: minimum coverage requirements

Producer: compulsory or voluntary (incentive?)

Target

EU: 4 kg per person 65% of past sales or 85% of

WEEE araising

KR: Collection quota for individual producers

13

HOW SHOULD WEEE BE COLLECTED?

14

RetailerEnd user Producer

Municipality

Instruments: target, quota, subsidy, coverage

requirement, information, etc.

Return Transfer

Reuse

Reuse

TransferReturn

HOW SHOULD WEEE BE COLLECTED?

15

RetailerEnd user Producer

Municipality

Civic duty, right to

free take-back Basis (same type, one-

to-one), reuse

Responsibility

(physical/financial),

reuse

Set up collection

system

Instruments: target, quota, subsidy, coverage

requirement, information, etc.

Return Transfer

Reuse

Reuse

TransferReturn

COLLECTION: JAPAN (HOME APPLIANCES)

16

Retailer

(same type)End user Producer

Municipality

Duty

Pay

Remote areas

COLLECTION: GERMANY (before recast)

17

RetailerEnd user Producer

Municipality

Duty

FreeQuota

Notice reuse

Voluntary

Target: 4 kg per inhabitant

COLLECTION: SOUTH KOREA (2007 ACT)

18

Retailer

(one to one)End user Producer

Duty

Free

Report reuse

Quota

COLLECTION: TAIWAN (HOME APPLIANCES)

21

End user

Designated

collector

Authorized

recycler

Subsidy

Retailer

(one to one)

COLLECTION: CALIFORNIA

22

End user Producer

Designated

collector

Voluntary

Authorized

recycler

Subsidy Subsidy

Subsidy

COLLECTION: OREGON &

WASHINGTON

23

End user ProducerFree

Quota,

Coverage

requirement

HOW SHOULD WEEE BE TREATED?

Reuse – negative requirement (e.g. storage or

transport not compromise reuse)

Recycling – weight-based, intermediate recycling

targets

Treatment – licensing + minimum depollution and

facility standards

Disposal – ban on landfill or incinerate untreated

equipment

Export – allowed for intermediate products, or for

better treatment or recycling of waste24

WHO IS GOING TO PAY THE COST?

1. Producers responsible for the end-of-life cost

Example: Japan (computers), S Korea, EU, Switzerland,

Ontario, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington

Market or return share, PAYG or future guarantee

2. Buyers of new products pay advance recycling fees

Example: Taiwan, California

ARF mandated by law, PAYG

3. End users pay recycling fees at the point of disposal

Example: Japan (home appliances)

High fee to cover a full unit cost 25

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The review identified key issues and necessary

components of WEEE laws.

It should be complemented by a meta-(theory-

based) evaluation to check:

The fit between the stated objectives and the prescribed

instruments.

The fit between the intervention theory and the

implementation theory.

The fit between the intervention and implementation

theory (including assumptions) and the reality

26

Thank you for your attention!

Dr. Panate Manomaivibool

Institute for the Study of Natural Resources and

Environmental Management

Mae Fah Luang University

Email: panate.man@mfu.ac.th