the implementation of weee directive: present status ...

1 downloads 0 Views 520KB Size Report
has led to the development of the QWERTY concept for calculating product attitude to be recycled on a real environmental basis instead of on a weight basis.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WEEE DIRECTIVE: PRESENT STATUS AND FUTURE OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SIMPLIFICATIONS Federico Magalinia, Jaco Huismanb, Thomas Marinellic a

Politecnico di Milano, Department of Economics Management & Industrial Engineering – Via Mangiagalli, 18 20133 Milano, Italy. Mail: [email protected] b Delft University of Technology, Design for Sustainability Research Group – Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands. Mail: [email protected] c Royal Philips Consumer Electronics, Environmental Competence Centre – P.O.Box 80002 5600 JB Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The paper points out the current status of the implementation of the WEEE Directive across the EU. It analyzes those aspects that are currently leading to differences and asymmetry across different stakeholders. The main differences in National approaches are addressed to provide a general overview across the EU. The main aspects that could lead to a better implementation of the WEEE Directive are discussed and an improvement roadmap is proposed for future developments and simplifications. It is based on the key question for setting up take-back systems for discarded electronic equipments: How to organize take-back and recycling in an eco-efficient way and how to align all stakeholder interests and positions in a practical way on the short, medium and long term?

1. INTRODUCTION It has been almost ten years since the initiation of the European Union (EU) regulation on electronic waste by the Commission and the Parliament and more than three years since the WEEE Directive was officially adopted. Since the start of the implementation process, all stakeholders involved in the electronics recycling chain have gained experience of the impact or potential impact of the Directive. For some EU Member States, the transposition of the Directive into National law, and the development of take-back schemes and recycling infrastructure were relatively easy, as already legislation and recycling infrastructure were present prior to the Directive. National transposition of WEEE Directive was due before 13th August 2004, but only 2 countries have met that deadline (Netherlands & Greece). During 2005 the majority of MS transposed the Directive but some large MS (like UK) are still missing. Sometimes the delay in transposition was not so relevant as in the MS some previous legislation was in place and infrastructures and system were yet active (f.i. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg) and delays were due to some refinement in the legislation. In other

cases however, some subsequent Decrees are still missing (f.i. France, Italy), causing huge problems in the implementation phase. In particular difficulties with implementation arose as a result of the complexity of actively involving all relevant stakeholders and agreeing on respective responsibilities. These difficulties have contributed to substantial delays in the transposition and implementation of the WEEE Directive. Without any doubt, the main concerns are the large differences resulting in implementation by the EU Member States individually. In some cases, even between regions in one country, large differences in implementation are found. Consequently a lacking overview of the practical implications of these differences is created. In particular for Producers and Recyclers operating on one EU market, the implementation process is becoming extremely complex and difficult to follow, let alone the obligations that need to be fulfilled. Legal basis of differences in transposition is the article 175 of the Treaty, and its “minimum requirement principle”. Differences in National transpositions sound anyway quite singular when looking carefully at the eighth “whereas” of the WEEE Directive (which is also part of the legal

basis): “The objective of improving the management of WEEE cannot be achieved effectively by Member States acting individually. In particular, different national applications of the producer responsibility principle may lead to substantial disparities in the financial burden on economic operators. Having different national policies on the management of WEEE hampers the effectiveness of recycling policies”. In the next paragraphs some of the key topics of concern of the transposition process will be addressed, providing insights leading to a roadmap for future development and simplification. 2. TRANSPOSITION & IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WEEE DIRECTIVE: KEY ISSUES The transposition delay has led to uncertainness among stakeholders involved in setting up national systems and sometimes infrastructures (f.i. France, Spain). Due to the delays, some MS have shifted the starting of take back obligation from 13th August 2005 (Directive deadline) to a later date (f.i. Denmark, Italy, Germany, UK). Table 1 summarizes the transposition status, referring to the percentage of European population covered by National official transposition of the WEEE Directive compared to the official timeline. Transposition Status Transposed Delayed but Complete

Population Covered 6% 53 %

Member State G, NL A, B, CZ, DK, FIN, D, HU, IR, L, POL, P, SLO, SK, S, SW I, F, EST CY, MAL, LAT, LIT, UK

Incomplete 26 % Draft Decrees, Missing 15 % Information Table 1 – Transposition by Directive timeline.

2.1. Key issues in the implementation process The main reasons that lead to differences across EU in the implementation process could be grouped in two main categories: ! Legislative requirements from national transpositions; ! Practical arrangements within the national management framework. Sometimes practical arrangements due to stakeholder negotiations differ from strict legislative requirements or options (f.i. Visible Fee permitted by legislation but in practice not used due to strong opposition of other stakeholders involved). Even different level of lobbing activity of stakeholders

involved in the transposition process in each MS contributed to the delay. 2.1.1. Legislative Requirements The general framework to compare National transpositions allows identifying the following main aspects. ! General definitions of “Producers/Distributors” and “Put on Market” that lead to different stakeholders obligations and negotiations (Especially between OEM and Importers /Distributors). The lack of a common EU definition and different National requirements causes different obligations of National Sales Organizations in each MS; f.i. in some MS Producers need to have a NSO or other legal entity within the country to be allowed to put on Market equipments, which could be seen as barrier to trade, especially for SME’s. ! Type of Compliance Scheme allowed to fulfill WEEE take-back obligations; in the Directive’s original idea Producers could both individually as well as collectively fulfill their obligations but not always this two options stand in each MS. Somewhere Collective Schemes are mandatory, at least for historical WEEE management; sometimes they require a minimum percentage of Market Share to be approved by a competent body. In other MS Clearing House models allow Producers to go for an individual fulfillment, but substantial efforts to coordinate and ensure efficiency are needed, for instance to avoid “cherry picking”. ! Need for financial guarantees; in some MS these are to be provided even for B2B equipment put on market, in contrast with the Directive legal statements. In addition there is in some MS the possibility not to pay further guarantees for equipments put on market when joining a Compliance Scheme. ! Use of Visible Fee, not allowed in some MS while in others it is mandatory or of choice by producers or Compliance Scheme. Further options are in place, according to practical arrangements. These lead to great asymmetry in the compliance costs across industry and neighbor MS and potential competition distortion. ! Definition of B2B versus B2C, sometimes unclear or even lacking across MS. Does it refer to put on market or to the actual EOL stream? The problem of the so-called “dual-use” products is not addressed at all or sometimes the split only refers to the category of products (F.i. in Hungary Products falling in category 8, 9 & 10 are B2B by definition).

2.1.2. Practical Arrangements Among some of the previous issues or related to other aspects of the operational management of the WEEE take-back obligations, the following practical issues are leading to great differences across stakeholders in different MS. ! The use of the Visible Fee differs sometimes from the strict legislative requirements. In some MS it becomes mandatory (where choice in the legislation); in other MS it’s strongly pushed back from Distributors or rejected by Competition Authorities and thus not applicable; in other MS it is used anyway along the Supply Chain (from Producer to Importers to Distributors and Retailers) but then not visible to the End Users and included in the final sales price. Other “extended application” of Visible Fee is that in certain cases it does not only cover for historical WEEE, but it is also used for the management of new WEEE. ! Negotiations beside strict legislative requirements on the role of Producers in financing separate collection activities is furthermore leading to higher impact across EU. Both Distributors and Municipalities are asking for money for those activities related to the separate collection from End Users; the first ones sometimes as percentage of the Visible Fee (up to 20%), the second ones as fixed amount or percentage of operative costs (in some MS high fees asked are up to 700 !/ton for these collection activities). ! Across EU even Public Authorities are asking for minimum recycling amounts to be treated within national or local region by Compliance Schemes, which is not supporting recycling market development across the EU and is also hampering achieving economies of scale. ! Finally, the definition of treatment categories, e.g. the clustering of different types of products, is leading to different impacts on financing activities (especially when different categories have a Visible Fee or not), logistics aspects and

reporting requirements. For example in reality, TV’s (cat.4) and monitors (cat.3) will be treated together, although they are in different product categories according to the Annex 1B of the Directive. 3. THE COLLECTIVE APPROACH: COST MODELS Beside the transposition and implementation differences across EU, the collective approach is the most frequently used across industry, both in MS where Compliance Schemes were present due to previous legislation and in the other ones where they have been set up by Producers or National Organizations. Anyway, when comparing the Compliance Costs paid by Producers to Compliance Schemes in different MS for the same products, great differences are observed (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Compliance Costs across EU for CRT/LCD Monitors. Differences in Compliance Costs can relate to different levels of competition within a national market between treatment plants and logistic partners Cost differences are also caused by:

Cost Model

Description

Producers pay Compliance Costs to Compliance Scheme. CC No Visible Fee paid by Final Users. Producers pay Compliance Costs to Compliance Scheme for WEEE Management. CC&VF Final Users pay Visible Fee for financing Historical WEEE management and reimburse Producers. Producers pay Compliance Costs to Compliance Scheme for WEEE Management. RCC Visible Fee paid by Final Users cover both Historical and New WEEE management. Final Users pay a recycling fee when buying new equipment for ARF financing the current management of WEEE. Table 2 – Cost Models across EU ! ! ! ! !

WEEE Split Hist./New

Financial Responsibility

Directive Compliance

EPR

Producers

Fully

Fulfil

Fully

Fulfil

Not needed / None

Producers pay in advance but later fully reimbursed by Final Users.

Not Fully

Not possible

Not Needed / None

Final Users

Not Fully

Not Possible

Not Needed / None

Producers for New WEEE Needed

Raising funds as future guarantee; R&D costs; Information and educational costs; Remuneration of other actors in the chain; Overhead and other costs. Based on, the differences in the operative and financial structures, a general framework for analyzing Compliance Scheme is drawn categorising them into four different Cost Models. These Cost Models identify the relationship between stakeholders (Producers/Compliance Scheme/Final users) and the level of responsibility on the WEEE management. They are divided into: ! Compliance Cost (CC); ! Compliance Cost & Visible Fee (CC&VF); ! Reimbursed Compliance Cost (RCC); ! Advance Recycling Fee (ARF). The main characteristics of the four models are summarised in Table 2. Across the EU the Cost Models used the most are CC (in all those country where Visible Fee is not used or allowed) and RCC. The RCC is mainly used in those MS where Compliance Schemes manage both Historical and New WEEE and Visible Fee is allowed and used: Producers affiliated pay the Compliance Costs in order to finance the activities of the Scheme and then charge end users with the Visible Fee (equal to the compliance costs they pay); this means that, in the end, Producers do not bear the costs of managing WEEE (neither the New WEEE flows). RCC Model differs from CC&VF one

Final Users for Historical WEEE

because the Visible Fee is used both to cover Historical and New WEEE management costs, as it’s not possible to split the two different waste stream. Some general outcomes could be summarised on the different organizational and financial aspects of Compliance Scheme across EU: ! The level of responsibility of producers impact on the Compliance Costs (that doesn’t necessarily mean that the CC model leads to the best environmental and economical performances. For instance lower return rates would reduce costs but also environmental performance); ! Competition within the recycling market is not the only driver for lowering the Compliance Costs. It includes many aspects, in particular provisions and funds to secure future operations, , return rates and economy of scale,. Furthermore environmental performances need to be assured and cost minimisation should not be the only driver to be considered; ! Most MS have implemented or proposed to implement a system of collective responsibility for waste. This is attributed on the basis of a company’s market share rather than making each company responsible for their products when they are actually returned (no collection container per brand but per type of equipment). Producers should be able to choose for either a system of collective or individual producer responsibility. The EPR principle (referring to

improving design) can also and preferably be applied within the benefits of a collective takeback system approach. This will be further explained in section 5. 4. ECO-EFFICIENCY LESSONS In the process of setting-up and implementing the WEEE Directive, so far little notice has been given to the question whether the current developments are indeed serving the environmental goals. This notion has led to the development of the QWERTY concept for calculating product attitude to be recycled on a real environmental basis instead of on a weight basis only [1, 2]. All important elements required for environmental validation and integral costs connected to this are included in the calculations. These are: collection and transport characteristics after discarding, the individual behaviour of products in dismantling and, or shredding and separation operations, modelling of the secondary material processing and disposal routes like emissions at landfill and incineration and an environmental validation method producing environmental scores. An example of evaluating a product with environmental weight instead of traditional weight based thinking is given in the next graph for a precious metal dominated cellular phone: 'Weight'

'Environmental weight'

Zinc Other

Plastics

Copper Copper

Glass

Figure 3 – Eco-Efficiency of various scenarios. The graph shows which options have the highest environmental effect per ! or $ invested. To go into detail on one of the options above: Currently, glass fractions from CRT containing appliances can be sent to different outlets like landfill, as replacement material of sand in the building industry, as replacement of Feldspar in the ceramic industry or as application as secondary material for new screen and cone glass. In the WEEE Directive [X], all of these applications (except the landfill) are counted as a “useful re-application” and therefore as “recycled”. Recyclers are likely to send their fractions to the cheapest or easiest outlet with the highest recovery rate. Figure 4 shows the environmental level of reapplication versus the recovery percentage of the glass replacement options under consideration [9, 10].

Gold

Palladium

Figure 2 – Weight versus environmental weight, cellular phone. The graph shows that from a weight based perspective, recycling of the plastics may be the first priority, whereas the environmental equivalent shows that avoiding loss of precious metal value is the most important aspect to focus on. As a second step of the eco-efficiency approach, calculations of environmental gain over costs ratios are made. Calculations are made for all those cases when an environmental improvement is realized and financial investments are needed to obtain this or in reverse. The methodology helps to determine how much absolute environmental improvement (mPts) is realized per amount of money invested (in !; ! 1,00 = $ 1,20 at 2006-02-20). In the next graph, all main options investigated in the QWERTY research are presented.

Figure 4 – The environmental level of re-application of CRT glass. The points in the graph represent the environmental level of re-application (vertical axis) versus the “recovery” percentage (this is not the WEEE definition but the amount of the material fraction actually re-applied in a “new product”). The initial value for primary CRT glass (original material value is set at 100%) cannot be reached due to transport, cleaning operations and energy needed for processing secondary glass. The graph shows that the lower levels of re-application result in higher WEEE recycling percentages, but in contradiction with

environmental performance! An important outcome from this graph is that all secondary options contribute equally to the WEEE recycling targets and that they are in reality not equally contributing to the environmental results. The conclusion on this issue is that lack of prescriptive “output” rules results in the effect that the environmental intent of the WEEE Directive is not served when is there is no economic driver to do so. The lessons drawn from the quantifications of environmental and economic performances are summarized in the Table 3. WEEE: All materials are equal All products are equal

All processing options are equal

QWERTY and example of a new priority setting: Some materials are more equal than other: avoid loss of precious metals for cellular phone recycling Some products are more equal than others: promote higher collection amounts or differentiate in collection targets Some processing options are more equal than others: promote highest environmental level of reapplication: more CRT glass recycling when CRT production market still allows this

Efficiency Efficiency thinking is highly thinking relevant irrelevant Table 3 – Lessons from eco-efficiency research. The main contribution of the QWERTY/EE concept is that environmental priorities regarding individual materials, products and recycling processes can be quantified from an environmental point of view. Also the relation between various environmental improvement strategies and the costs connected to that is quantified. Based on analysis of many technical, design and organizational aspects of take-back and recycling, plus the organization analysis of chapter 3, certain lessons can be drawn for the future development and simplification of the WEEE Directive. In order to meet some of the targets and aims of the upcoming revision process, and support stakeholders discussion and policy development for the short, medium and long term a roadmap is finally presented in the next chapter 5. ROADMAP FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT & SIMPLIFICATIONS Before drawing a roadmap a general consideration on the present WEEE Directive should be done: time has changed since the Directive was conceived and both

main strategies (Like the EPR/IPR principle, DfR,…) and the instruments proposed (Weight target, Manual Selective Dismantling,…) to achieve overall aims should be updated or better tailored on present scenarios. Large parts of the EU WEEE Directive are written in a time (around ’96) where the thinking was dominated by looking at ways to: “do good for the environment”. This was captured with the EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) principle as a starter and at the time primarily focusing on control over toxic substances. The envisaged way of getting control over toxic substances was smart Design for Recycling (DfR) and manual disassembly of hazardous components in the recycling phase itself. As a result the WEEE (and RoHS) Directive(s) prime environmental strategies are: ! Weight based recycling targets; ! A origin oriented categorization of products (Annex I); ! Manual dismantling rules for recyclers (Annex II). However, 10 years later, both academic research and practical problems implementing the Directive show that a renewed vision on electronic waste policies should serve multiple environmental goals: ! Control over toxics; ! Recovery of valuable materials; ! Energy preservation. This is surrounded by a significant developments in shredding and separation (dismantling brings not enough environmental benefits for the costs involved), a more practical categorization of material streams with similar content in (precious) metal-, glass and plastic dominated products instead of a division by “origin” and realizing that for some categories a structural deficit (negative recycling costs) occurs than cannot be phased out by smart design. Two boundary conditions have limited the room for effectively applying DfR, e.g. the environmental life-cycle principle as well as functionality demands. Proper Eco-Design aims a limiting the environmental impacts over the total life-cycle and keeps the functionality demand intact. For instance LCD monitors use less energy in the use phase compared to CRT screens, which prevails from an environmental point of view over the risks in recycling of the mercury containing backlights (let alone the “functionality demand” of having flat panels like in laptops). This doesn’t mean that there is room for improvement. For LCD panels momentarily no good recycling solutions exist, both dismantling (too risky) and shredding and separation (uncontrolled Hg emissions) are no option. What could be done with design is to improve the “removeability” of the backlights and decrease of the

disassembly times. Despite the fact that in practice the need for DfR is limited, in specific cases (Hg backlighting, batteries, products with an intrinsic need for dismantling) the disassembly could be improved. With this observation, which is confirmed by recyclers, DfR turns into “DtARA”: Design to Avoid Recycling Accidents. When weight based recycling targets and DfR are not the sole solution, an alternative approach is converted into a roadmap for the short, medium and long term based on the outcomes of the ecoefficiency and organizational analyses. 5.1. Short Term: realize take-back system as soon as possible. Especially for EU member states without a take-back system one should try to build up collection and recycling infrastructure as soon as possible. For those member states having take-back system in place the use of Visible Fee or direct Compliance Costs from new appliances put on the market increases the development pace as money becomes available upfront. Furthermore, achieving economies of scale is the number one element for cost efficient take-back systems. Relatively high costs occur when product streams collected or recycled are too small. As a consequence, recyclers might better process multiple product streams from the 10 WEEE categories within the same process at the same time. 5.2. Medium Term: Less treatment rules, more focus on monitoring. Many of the current WEEE Annex II treatment rules have an adverse effect on the environment due to technical progress and a too strict focus only on toxics? The QWERTY/EE concept has been used by the TAC (Techncial Adaptation Committee) to provide guidance document on the removal entries giving more room to recyclers to achieve good overall environmental performance for new or other treatment solutions [11]. The discussion on an appropriate monitoring framework is still going on and it is expected that for instance take-back system (organizations) will come up with their own standards. Monitoring of treatment performance should not be a bureaucratic burden as such but should be applied for a more active steering of material fractions to the “right end-processing” or destination. Furthermore, when recyclers can prove their performance lower on a weight basis but better environmentally, they should be given room to divert from the prescribed recycling and recovery percentages.

5.3. Long Term: Better balance in legislation, setting the framework in advance. Regarding waste policy strategies used/ available the following is concluded: ! Weight based targets seem to be a good and easy to understand target. However, both toxicity and highly valuable materials (due to environmental effects of mining new) are to be taken into account as well. Furthermore, the exact definition of recycling percentages is controversial as the split in technical operations is rather black or white: whether an operation is accounted for is not displaying the true environmental performance (F.i. CRT glass recycling vs. salt mine could both be recycling operations, but environmentally completely different.). ! Differentiate in collection targets. Some products have more value/ toxic components. ! Treatment rules should only be applied when labour conditions are at stake or direct toxic effects or emissions are to be prevented (F.i. Removal CFC from fridges, mercury from backlights in flat panels) ! Room for system optimization by the recycling field itself: more room for giving proof helps to avoid the need for frequently updating waste treatment rules to the latest developments. ! Give incentives for Design to Avoid Recycling Accidents. 6. REFERENCES [1] J. Huisman, The QWERTY/EE concept, Quantifying recyclability and eco-efficiency for endof-life treatment of consumer electronic products, Ph.D. thesis, ISBN 90-5155-017-0, Delft University of Technology, May 2003, Delft, The Netherlands. [2] J. Huisman, C.B. Boks, A.L.N. Stevels, Quotes for Environmentally Weighted Recyclability (QWERTY), The concept of describing product recyclability in terms of environmental value, accepted for the International Journal of Production Research, Special Issue on Product Recovery, 41 (16): pp 3649-3665. [3] J. Huisman, A.L.N. Stevels, I. Stobbe, “Ecoefficiency considerations on the end-of-life of consumer electronic products”, accepted for the IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, Vol.27, No.1, pp.9-25, ISSN 1521334X, January 2004. [4] J. Huisman, A.L.N. Stevels, Existing and Future Avenues for Eco- Efficient E-scrap Recycling,

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronics and Environment, New Orleans, May, 2005. [5] Commission of the European Communities, Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels, February 13, 2003. [6] M. Goedkoop, R. Spriensma, The Eco Indicator '99, a damage-oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Final Report, National Reuse of Waste Research Program. Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. [7] J. Huisman, A.L.N. Stevels, Balancing Design Strategies and End-of- Life Processing, Proceedings of the 2003 Ecodesign Conference, Tokyo, December 2003. [8] J. Huisman, QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on cellular phone treatment in Sweden. The eco-efficiency of the direct smelter route versus mandatory disassembly of Printed Circuit Boards, written for El-Kretsen, Stockholm, Sweden, April 2004.

[9] J. Huisman, QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on treatment of CRT containing appliances at Metallo – Chimique NV, The eco- efficiency of treating CRT glass fractions versus stripped appliances in a secondary copper – tin – lead smelter, report written for Metallo – Chimique NV, Beerse, Belgium, October 2004. [10] J. Huisman, QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency check on actual treatment of stripped monitors at Metallo – Chimique NV, Eco-efficiency check on plant measurement of treating stripped monitors in a secondary copper – tin – lead smelter, October 31, 2005. [11] Guidance document of the TAC for WEEE and RoHS on interpretation of the Annex II of the WEEE Directive. [12] Huisman, J., QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on treatment of CRT containing appliances at Metallo – Chimique NV, The eco- efficiency of treating CRT glass fractions versus stripped appliances in a secondary copper – tin – lead smelter, Eindhoven, December 2004. [13] Magalini, F., Huisman, J., Compliance Key Factors of the EU WEEE Directive, How far is one from a full implementation. Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco, May 2006.