The WEEE-directive has no teeth. Is producer responsibility really effective? - By Prof. dr ir H.R. Krikke - Q2 2011
By prof. dr ir H.R. Krikke, Durabilit chair of closed loop supply chains, Open Universiteit Nederland
Legislators have confronted the Electrical and Electronic Equipment (EEE) industry with the responsibility for the disposition of products at the end of their useful life, named as "Extended Producer Responsibility" or EPR for short. The Directive 2002/96/EC (EU Parliament and Council, 2003) on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) forces all EU member states to adopt EPR legislation. Since then, many have questioned the effectiveness of the directive. Recently, a revised version (‘ recast’) of the WEEE-directive was accorded by the EU parliament. And now even more questions arise.
Most industry complaints are due to the fact that the directive distorts the level playing field. For example, the responsibility for the historic inventory is seen as unfair by industry, because at the time these products were developed and sold it was not known that in hindsight, industry is held fully responsible for recycling these very same products. Some of those are orphaned products (equipment whose producer has gone out of business) is funded by OEMs that still exist. Moreover, a lack of enforcement – in some countries more than others- creates ample room for free-riders. Formally financial penalties apply to non-WEEE compliant companies, but few cases are known where companies have been actually fined.
The second major category of complaints is related to (a lack of) efficiency and rebound effects of the system. The red tape makes cross border transport complicated, but domestic systems often lack economies of scale. Some countries operate collective, national recycling systems, where the fee paid depends on current market share of the product, not on past sales or (green) design characteristics thereby reducing the benefits of individual eco-design. Rules can be inconsistent as the WEEE Directive interferes with other Directives e.g. the automotive Directive (viz. car electronics) and the RohS Directive. Moreover, obligations exist for brand-owners to take back products, but other players in the field are not required to hand in their products and may look for other ways of disposal. In fact, many disposers give away their products to charity or sell it to the highest bidder. Needless to say that many of those are non-compliant.
Third, a more fundamental issue concerns the actual environmental effectiveness of the directive. Irrespective of the business aspects discussed above, the question remains whether or not producer responsibility as a policy instrument is principally the right choice. Amongst other things, the "WEEE directive" sets universal collection and recovery quotas that do not lead to (or even hinder) processing waste in an environmentally benign way. Quota are kilogram based and hence stimulate cherry-picking of heavy and cheap-to-recycle products; which in turn may lead to increased energy consumption and worse carbon footprints. An optimal eco-balance should be determined on a case-by-case level. The role of reuse in this is underestimated relative to material recycling.
Instead of solving these issues, the EU chooses foremost to set the collection and recovery targets to a higher level by 2016. The collection target in the recast WEEE-directive is set at 85 per cent of new sales (point of reference are the sales of two years before) and producers and retailers are responsible for funding the collection of WEEE. Recovery quota are less drastically changed; the new directive requires between 50 – 70 per cent of WEEE collected to actually be recycled (depending on the type of material). This will increase the financial burden on producers (conservative cost estimate is an increase of € 5,2 billion EU wide). On the positive side, a reduction of the number of WEEE categories and standardizing registration and reporting for producers will reduce some of their administrative burdens. Introducing a new separate 5 per cent reuse target is also good news. However, in order to make regulations really effective, the following additional measures apply.
First, get other supply chain actors involved in the system. This means that disposers (final customer) and collecting parties (retail, system integrators, whole sale, community collection) should be made responsible to hand over returned products to the producer system. Although illegal disposal is already forbidden, it is not mandatory to hand over discarded products to the producer. It is very unlikely that the new collection quota are met without such a ‘ disposer responsibility”. Speaking of quota, one might as well reconsider the quota system as a whole. I would prefer a system where eco-efficiency -that is environmental effectiveness in relation to cost incurred- is the key policy instrument. If we manage the system based on footprints and economics, better solutions will be found. Frankly, I don’t think this is very likely to happen. But at minimal the targets set should be critically reviewed; and trading - as well charity flows could be included. This in turn requires expansion of the monitoring system and a strong and consistent enforcement throughout the EU. Moreover, to enhance efficiency, one should allow for pan-European or even global systems so companies deal with one standard. Next to harmonization within the EU, we should realize that large parts of the world have adopted similar legislation (Korea, China and Japan for example). Last but not least, the right incentives should be given for eco-design. Several methods apply here, such as certification. Again there is a need for one standard.
The future lies in an eco-efficient (closed loop) supply chain, not in quota based recycling systems!
References
European Parliament and The Council (2003), Directive 2002/96/EC of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Official Journal of the European Union, 13.2.2003, L 37/24-38.
An investigation of the implications and effectiveness of Producer Responsibility for the Disposal of WEEE, Kieren Mayers, Ph.D. thesis, September 2001, Brunel University, UK
Enquete:
Zoeteman, B.C.J., Krikke, H.R., & Venselaar, J. (2010). Handling WEEE waste flows: On the effectiveness of producer responsibility in a globalizing world. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,47(5-8), 415-436
