Highlights The four key pieces of legislation in ...

3 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
National Waste Policy 2009; the Product Stewardship Act 2011; the Product ... (Supplementary Figure 2), being product and production time-dependent (Widmer ...
*Highlights (for review) Click here to view linked References

Highlights The four key pieces of legislation in Australia to manage WEEE are not effective. The scope of WEEE legislated for recovery and recycling needs to be increased in Australia. Auditing and compliance measures for WEEE management need to be enhanced in Australia. Stakeholders’ roles need to be defined clearly in legislation for WEEE management in Australia.

*Manuscript Click here to view linked References

Assessing effectiveness of WEEE management policy in Australia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Ashleigh Morris (a) and Graciela Metternicht (b)

Abstract Australia is one of the top ten consumers of electrical and electronic (EE) products in the world; yet legislation for the management of WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) is in its infancy and has received minimal review. This paper sets to assess the effectiveness of Australian legislation, policies and associated instruments, with a focus on the sub-national level of implementation. A mixed methodology was adopted to this end, including: literature review, case study, semi-structured interviews and a comparative analysis of WEEE management practices in Australia versus Japan and Switzerland; the latter to identify causative factors of international leading practice that could advance current policy in Australia. The findings indicate that Australia’s management of WEEE is not effective. The rate and types of WEEE generated in Australia far exceed the measures prescribed in legislation to address or even curb the problem. The five key issues were identified around stakeholder roles and responsibilities; scope of WEEE categories legislated for recovery and recycling; public engagement and accessibility to services; recycling and material recovery targets; and the auditing and compliance of material flows within the system. Our findings suggest that Australia has the capacity to address the five key priority areas within the current legal framework and achieve effective WEEE management in line with leading practice examples from Japan and Switzerland.

Key words Australia, Switzerland, Japan, WEEE, policy, management

Capsule This research enhances understanding of the effectiveness of Australia’s legislation for WEEE; it compares WEEE management in Australia to the leading practice of Japan and Switzerland and provides recommendations that could be adopted by the Australian government to inform future policy development for WEEE management. *corresponding email: [email protected] Author (a) and (b) Institute of Environmental Studies, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia, 2052. [email protected]

1. Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The demand and use of electronic equipment has proliferated in the new millennium, and accordingly, the volume of electronic products, such as, computers and televisions that are discarded as waste has increased exponentially (Premalatha, Tabassum-Abbasi and Abbasi 2014; Townsend 2011). Australia has been recognised as a significant consumer and generator of WEEE and is only in the infancy of managing this valuable and hazardous form of waste (Lehman 2011; Herat 2008). Currently, the Australian government has four key pieces of legislation to manage WEEE: the National Waste Policy 2009; the Product Stewardship Act 2011; the Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011 (the Regulations) and the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme 2011 (NTCRS) (Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2009). Whilst the introduction of legislation was successful in increasing the amount of WEEE recycled, major faults were identified resulting in an official review in 2014-15. The key issues identified included: the limited scope of WEEE categories legislated for recycling; the lack of clarity on stakeholders’ roles; the provision of reasonable access; the recycling and material recovery targets and the lack of auditing and compliance measures (Department of the Environment 2015). Separate to the government led review, an analysis of recent literature (Lehman 2011; Davis and Herat 2010) evidenced that minimal research has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of current legislation and policy instruments. Accordingly, this research set to evaluate the effectiveness of WEEE management legislation and associated instruments in Australia, including analysis at the sub-national level. Specific objectives included: (1) Identifying two countries with leading practice and policy for WEEE management, followed by an analysis and comparison against Australian WEEE management practices and policy, to identify causative factors of leading practice that could advance Australia’s current WEEE management; (2) Sub-national level analysis of WEEE management in Australia through collecting and aggregating current data on WEEE disposal in the State of New South Wales to determine the amount of WEEE received at metropolitan and regional councils; (3) Correlating the data with council WEEE management practices, and demographic and geographical factors to determine whether correlations exist between those factors and the amount of WEEE collected; (4) Surveying local government waste management employees of metropolitan and regional councils to identify their perspectives on current WEEE

management practices; and (5) data and information interpretation to provide policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

recommendations. For the purpose of this paper, WEEE is “any appliance using an electric power supply that has reached its end-of-life” (OECD 2001), and the ten categories described in the Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament on WEEE (EU 2002) are used in the analysis, since they are widely accepted as standard categories (Supplementary Table 1) (Widmer et al. 2005). Issues related to WEEE management, as well as approaches adopted by countries with effective practice and policy in WEEE management, and the current status of WEEE management in Australia are discussed hereafter. 2. Issues related to WEEE management Lack of current, up-to-date data on WEEE volume generation and composition is a significant barrier to research into this issue; recently published papers continue using data recorded over a decade ago. Ongondo, Williams and Cherret (2011) argue that this is due to the lack of standardised methods for estimating WEEE quantities, and scarce data on the volume of legally and illegally exported WEEE. Prior research has aimed to quantify WEEE in both developed and developing countries (Liu, Tanaka and Matsui 2006; Shinkuma and Nguyen Thi Minh 2009; Yoshida, Tasaki and Terazono 2009) using predictive approaches that frequently depend on sales data and WEEE product lifespans (Supplementary Table 2) (Balde et al. 2015; Townsend 2011). These predictions and research by Ongondo, Williams and Cherret (2011), Premalatha, TabassumAbbasi and Abbasi (2014), and Balde et al. (2015) acknowledge that developed nations like Australia are among the top producers of WEEE per capita (Supplementary Table 3). Nevertheless, estimations from Yu et al. (2010) and Hieronymi, Kahhat and Williams (2013) indicate that developing countries will take the lead in WEEE generation by 2016-2018. These estimations are supported by indicators from the World Bank (2013) that show how developing nations will asymptotically approach the western countries for mobile phone subscriptions (Supplementary Figure 1). Although WEEE contains a number of increasingly valuable materials, hazardous pollutants such as lead, arsenic and mercury, still comprise approximately three per cent (Supplementary Figure 2), being product and production time-dependent (Widmer et al. 2005). Effective recycling technologies that recover valuable materials such as gold and indium with minimal environmental impact from pollutants continue being expensive (UNEP

2009). Consequently, although illegal under the Basel Convention, developed countries 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

including Australia export WEEE to developing countries where recycling techniques include burning and acid dips that have little to no measures to protect human health and the environment (Kiddee, Naidu and Wong 2013; Robinson 2009). To reduce environmental and health risks associated with WEEE several countries have developed legislation restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in EE products; the European Directive 2002/95/EC is one of such policies (Sawhney et al. 2008). 2.1 Approaches to WEEE management The management of WEEE is multi-faceted and inherently complex, prompting extensive research to better address this issue at national and international levels (McCann and Wittmann 2015). A number of tools have been developed and applied to WEEE management including: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and Product Stewardship (PS) (Supplementary Table 4) (Kiddee, Naidu and Wong 2013; Ongondo, Williams and Cherret 2011). Of these tools, EPR has received the most reviews and implementation internationally. Countries with evidence of effective practice in WEEE management have implemented EPR policies, though the instruments and management approaches for EPR vary from country to country (Supplementary Table 5, 6 and 7). 2.2 Status of WEEE management in Australia In 2009, the federal government established the National Waste Policy 2009 to update and integrate existing policies and regulatory frameworks for waste management over the next ten years (EPHC 2009; Ongondo, Williams and Cherret 2011). In 2011, under the policy the federal government established EPR and PS based legislation for the management of WEEE (EPHC 2009). The Product Stewardship Act 2011 in conjunction with the Regulations and the National Television Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS) provide the framework to manage the life cycle of computers, televisions and their peripherals. The Regulations prescribe the operation of the NTCRS as the responsibility of the five approved co-regulatory arrangements (ACA). Importers and manufacturers of greater than 5000 legislated EE products or 15,000 peripherals are now required to subscribe to an ACA and fund the collection and recycling of a percentage of their products that are disposed of each year (Premalatha, Tabassum-Abbasi and Abbasi 2014).

In the first year of the NTCRS 41,000 tonnes of WEEE were recycled, representing a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

significant increase in the amount of WEEE recycled prior to the introduction of the legislation (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2014). Although successful in increasing the amount of WEEE recycled, major flaws were identified with the NTCRS resulting in an official review in 2014-15. Key issues identified through 85 submissions to the review included: the limited scope of WEEE categories legislated for recycling; the lack of clarity on stakeholders’ roles; the provision of reasonable access; the recycling and material recovery targets and the lack of auditing and compliance measures (Department of the Environment 2015). The sub-sections here after review the issues identified from the submissions. 2.2.1 Scope of categories Televisions and computers are acknowledged as the largest source of WEEE in Australia (Hyder consulting 2006) and whilst commendable the country is taking action, legislating two WEEE products for recycling is inadequate (Ongondo, Williams and Cherret 2011). The rate and scope of WEEE generated in Australia far exceeds the measures prescribed in legislation to address or even curb the problem. Widmer et al. (2005) postulate that a host of other products should have been included in the current legislation for it to be effective. During the NTCRS review, local government cited public confusion as a key issue. The majority of local governments in Australia provide collection services limited to legislated WEEE; however, the public dispose of all WEEE, given the lack of clarity on what can be recycled under the NTCRS. 2.2.2 Stakeholders roles The lack of clarity on the roles of stakeholders under the legislation has resulted in confusion and a belief that there is not “shared responsibility” (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2014). From the submissions the public and local government were identified as the most negatively impacted stakeholders. Prior research cites the public as a key stakeholder for effective management of WEEE (Khetriwal, Kraeuchi and Widmer 2007; McCann and Wittmann 2015), however, the federal government and five ACA have not successfully engaged or educated the public on WEEE, resulting in large proportions landfilled (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2014). Under the Regulations local government are listed to have a very minor role but this is profoundly inaccurate. Local governments in Australia are responsible for the collection and management of the majority of WEEE and are the first point of call for residents waste management queries (Davis and Herat 2010; The Economist Intelligence Unit

2014). From all but one of the ACA annual reports local governments were cited as the main 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

source of WEEE, cementing the fact that their role is central to the success of the NTCRS and should not be underestimated. 2.2.3 Provision of reasonable access The Regulations prescribe that the five ACA establish drop off locations for consumers based on the reasonable access provisions as listed in Supplementary Table 8 (EPHC 2009). The NTCRS review identified location or limited number of services as unreasonable, with particular reference to provisions for regional locations where consumers are expected to travel 100km to drop off points. In addition, services provided were shown to be inconsistent due to some of the ACA achieving their annual recycling targets early, thus no longer servicing or removing a collection site without notice. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2014) states stakeholders lose confidence and willingness to participate in the system each time a service designed to serve the needs of an ACA quota was removed. 2.2.4 Recycling and material recovery targets The annual NTCRS recycling targets are an estimate of the total television and computer waste entering the waste stream annually in Australia. The ACA recycling target is a share of the overall NTCRS target, and is dependent on the collective weight of the television or computer products imported or manufactured by its liable members (Department of the Environment 2015). The initial NTCRS WEEE recycling target of 30 per cent resulted in job losses, contractual disputes and the stockpiling and landfilling of WEEE as cited in the submissions for the review of the NTCRS (Department of the Environment 2015). To alleviate the issues, the federal government amended the recycling target (Hunt 2015), though this new target only accounts for less than ten per cent of all WEEE currently generated in Australia, evidencing that current legislation and policy instruments are inadequate to address the WEEE problem. The material recovery target of 90 per cent for WEEE in Australia is one of the highest in the world; however, without the necessary enforcement and compliance measures, the target serves little purpose (Lane, Gumley and Santos 2015). The majority of recyclers in Australia lack the capacity to recover 90 per cent of WEEE materials, resulting in the separated materials sent overseas for reprocessing or locally landfilled. Lane, Gumley and Santos (2015) postulate that better standards to regulate the reprocessing of WEEE by recyclers overseas are needed.

2.2.5 Compliance and auditing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Australia lacks auditing, compliance and reporting measures in all stages of the NTCRS, withdrawing stakeholders’ credibility and confidence in the system (Lane, Gumley and Santos 2015). The ACA reports to the regulator at a quarterly interval, and it provides an annual report published on the Department of the Environment website. Analysis undertaken as part of this research evidences the 2013-14 ACA annual reports were largely inconclusive providing little detail on the downstream outcomes at final disposition of WEEE material. The absence of this detail was also highlighted in the submissions as an issue of transparency with particular concern in regards to the illegal shipping of WEEE to developing countries (Lane, Gumley and Santos 2015). The recycling of hazardous WEEE components is expensive, and as a result a large proportion of WEEE continues to be illegally shipped overseas, threatening Australia’s commitment as a signatory of the Basel Convention. The forthcoming introduction of the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 5377:2013 (from the 1st of July 2016) will see recycling of television and computer products performed by recyclers and facilities certified to and in compliance with the standard. This is a welcomed improvement to the NTCRS; though as highlighted in section 2.2.4, the absence of standards for reprocessing WEEE in overseas facilities needs to be addressed.

3. Method This paper adopted a mixed-method approach; section 3.1-3.5.2 describes the methodological framework and approaches used to address the research questions. 3.1 Methodological Framework The methodological framework for the analysis of WEEE management in Australia comprised four phases (Figure 1), as described hereafter: The drivers-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) model (Kristensen 2004) was applied in phase one to provide an overview of the WEEE life cycle in Australia, and to enable the identification of criteria for the PESTLE analysis (phase two), so that a pertinent set of indicators for assessing the effectiveness of WEEE management in Australia could be identified. Effectiveness metrics were defined, and expert opinion solicited in phase three to ensure the selected indicators were comprehensive in scope. Phase four was integrative, with a combination of tools and techniques used to address the research questions and assess the effectiveness of WEEE management in Australia. Each phase is described in detail hereafter.

3.2 Phase 1: DPSIR framework factor identification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The DPSIR framework is an extension of the OECD pressure/state/response model and has been applied by the European Environment Agency to the organisation of systems of indicators and statistics in relation to policy aims (Kristensen 2004). Illustrated in Figure 2, the framework is a causal chain consisting of five elements (Drivers, Pressures, States, Impacts, and Responses) that facilitate a ‘systems analysis’ of the social, economic, political and environmental factors, their interaction and connectivity within an issue. The review of literature and interviews with experts enabled a life cycle of WEEE to be identified; the drivers, pressures, state, current responses, and impacts on human well-being and the environment. The connections between factors within the life cycle of WEEE were analysed in phase two. 3.3 Phase 2: PESTLE criteria categorisation A PESTLE analysis identifies Political (P), Economic (E), Social (S), Technological (T), Legal (L) and Environmental (E) factors of an issue (Zalengera et al. 2014). The PESTLE tool enabled analysing factors related to drivers, pressure, state, impact and responses of WEEE in Australia, and to identify and categorise suitable indicators that could assist in assessing the effectiveness of Australia’s management of WEEE (Table 1). Indicators were identified through peer reviewed and grey literature and interviews with experts. The indicators of Table 1 were also used as key search terms for policy and comparative analysis of WEEE management in Switzerland and Japan, countries identified as having effective WEEE policy and practices (see section 3.5.1). 3.4 Phase 3: Defining and characterising effectiveness The meaning of effectiveness varies from basic to detailed and measurable definitions. In the context of this research effectiveness is ‘a measure of how well the outputs of a program or service achieve the stated objectives of that program or service’ (Australian Government Productivity Commission 2013). Criteria to select indicators included information and data availability and access, appropriateness and measurability. Expert opinion was solicited to ensure that selected indicators provided a comprehensive measure of Australia’s management of WEEE. Experts were persons with over ten years’ experience of working directly in aspects of WEEE management in Australia, in the industry, Federal, State, and/or Local government sectors.

Consultation with selected experts (n=5) was conducted through electronic mail via a set of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

questions and feedback template, followed by face to face semi-structured interviews. 3.5 Phase 4: Approach to assess effectiveness of WEEE management A combination of tools and techniques were adopted to assess the effectiveness of Australia’s management of WEEE, as shown in Supplementary Table 9. 3.5.1 Policy and comparative analysis of WEEE management: Australia, Japan and Switzerland Initial literature review, summarised in Supplementary Tables 10 and 11 provided strong evidence for selecting Japan and Switzerland as benchmarking nations; both having leading practice of WEEE management, based on political, social, environmental and technological factors. In addition, the relatively new legislation for WEEE management in Japan and Australia made for strong comparisons. Although Canada is geographically and demographically similar to Australia, it was excluded as there was no consistency cited in the implementation of WEEE regulations across provinces. 3.5.2 Sub-national case study: NSW local governments A case study was undertaken to determine the perspectives and level of understating local government waste employees had on the management of WEEE in Australia, and thus triangulate information gathered through the literature review and policy and comparative analysis. Supplementary Table 12 summarises the main aspects of the case study. The survey generated qualitative and quantitative data sets. Thematic analysis was applied to open ended questions and word frequency queries applied to categorical questions using NVivo software through models and reference counting, and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to analyse the quantitative data. Group comparisons were included between metropolitan and regional councils in NSW. Local governments collect and manage the majority of Australia’s WEEE, enabling quantitative data collection on total tons received by the selected councils. This information was used to triangulate and complement aforementioned data sets, and to analyse the existence of correlations between the total tons received and demographic and geographical factors and management practices. The design of the data collection is described in Supplementary Table 12. Demographic data sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014) on population size and income for each of the selected councils was used to determine

correlations between the demographic and WEEE council data. Incomplete data sets were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

removed. A point score on a scale of 1-6 (1=least effort employed; 6=greatest effort employed) was assigned to each council based on the type and number services offered to residents for WEEE disposal in their respective local government areas. This served to identify correlations between council collection efforts and total tons of WEEE collected. All tests performed assessed whether there was a correlation between the regions classifications and their respective population sizes.

4. Results 4.1 Comparative analysis of WEEE management policy in Australia, Japan and Switzerland This section presents the results of the comparative analysis of Australia, Japan and Switzerland’s legislation objectives, policy instruments, legislated categories of WEEE, set targets for WEEE recovery and recycling and stakeholder roles. 4.1.1 Legislation objectives The literature review (section 2.2 Australia; Japan and Switzerland Supplementary Tables 10 and 11) showed that legislation in the three countries presented similar objectives. The key difference was in the countries ability to fulfill the objectives. Data and information collected evidence that Australia has not fulfilled the stated objectives of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and the National Televison and Computer Recycling Scheme 2011 as listed in Supplementary Table 13. The legislative objectives of Switzerland and Japan have been fulfilled through a multitude of factors; in particular from the development of supporting policies and instruments and the buy in of industry and the public. 4.1.2 Policy instruments: legislated WEEE categories, set targets and stakeholder roles Extended producer responsibility is the main policy instrument used for the management of WEEE in the selected countries. Japan and Switzerland employ regulatory, economic, informative and administrative policy instruments whilst Australia employs regulatory, institutional and administrative instruments (Table 2). The three countries apply a take back approach, but use different methods for financing the recovery and recycling of WEEE as listed in Tables 2 and 3. The scope of WEEE categories legislated to be recycled in each of the respective countries varies significantly. Switzerland has the largest scope with all ten categories of WEEE legislated for recovery and recycling whilst Australia and Japan legislate

categories three, four and one, and three and four respectively (Table 2). The generation of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

WEEE per-inhabitant is high for the selected countries, with Switzerland recording the highest figure of 26.3 kg as listed in Table 3. Australia and Japan both have recycling and material recovery targets whilst Switzerland does not. Key stakeholders for the management of WEEE are the same; however, their roles vary (Table 3). 4.2 Management approaches: a comparative analysis Analysis of literature (section 2.2 Australia, Japan and Switzerland Supplementary Tables 10 and 11) showed that the WEEE management systems in each of the respective countries are unique. Japan has the largest population of the selected countries and correspondingly the system (Supplementary Figure 3) accommodates a large number of retailers and designated take back sites for WEEE which equates to approximately one site per 1580 inhabitants. Australia, with the second largest population, provides a relatively small number of designated take back sites (Supplementary Figure 4) equating to approximately one site per 12,777 inhabitants. Switzerland has a population less than half the size of Australia’s but provides a large number of sites for consumers to return their WEEE with approximately one service provided per 444 inhabitants. The difference in the number of sites provided in the respective countries can be attributed to the geographical size of the countries, logistics and inhabitance. The systems of Japan and Switzerland require consumers to return and fund the recycling of WEEE and are supported by a large number of advanced recycling facilities (Supplementary Figure 3 and 5). The Australian system does not require consumers to fund the recycling of WEEE or dispose of it at designated locations and has less than half the number of recycling facilities of Switzerland (Supplementary Figure 4). 4.3 Compliance, reporting and auditing: comparative analysis Japan has developed measures for quality maintenance at the collection, transportation, and operations phase as shown in Figure 3. On receipt of WEEE at either the retailer or drop off location the consumer pays a recycling fee and a recycling ticket is generated which ensures traceability through the entire system. Transport is conducted via licensed contractors and on delivery the WEEE is sorted according to the type, size and manufacturer before being stored in specific containers and delivered with the recycling ticket to the manufactures and or recyclers. A breach of the obligations stipulated in the respective laws for WEEE results in corrective recommendations, corrective orders, or penalties. Monetary penalties range from a fine of 100,000 yen to 500,000 yen (Hotta, Santo and Tasaki 2014).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Unlike Japan, the NTCRS in Australia currently lacks auditing, compliance and reporting measures in all stages of the system (Figure 4). Reporting occurs at the first and last phase leaving gaps within the system. Manufactures and or importers that have over 5,000 EE products are required to report to the government and are then assigned to an ACA to fund the recycling of a proportion of the products. The ACA establishes a stipulated number of drop off locations under the legislation and engages in contracts with local governments to recover WEEE and meet their respective quotas. Approved co-regulatory arrangements may also engage independent recyclers to recycle the WEEE. If engaged by an ACA recyclers are required to report the quantity of WEEE recycled. This information then forms the annual report released by the ACA on behalf of the Department of the Environment. In contrast with Australia, the Swiss system is similar to Japan in regards to compliance, auditing and reporting measures in each stage (Figure 5). Manufacturers and/or importers are required to report on the number of EE products and then calculate the corresponding ARF. The technical audits also evaluate recyclers at the time of contract renewal.

4.4 WEEE collection in Australia: categories, management issues and participation The following section presents the results from the sub-national case study, according to categories of WEEE collected; main issues related to WEEE management; public participation and awareness and council participation and perception. Survey questions are listed in Supplementary Table 14. 4.4.1 Categories of WEEE collected Computers and televisions are the main categories of WEEE collected (Supplementary Figure 6a). Statistical data analysis shows that out of the 19 councils that participated in the case study, 13 collect only NTCRS WEEE (Supplementary Figure 6b). 4.4.2 Main issues related to WEEE management Thematic analysis evidenced ten main ‘problems’ and seven ‘solutions’ (Supplementary Figure 7). Funding was perceived as the main problem followed by “Scope of categories”, “Public confusion” and “Collection logistics”. With respect to funding, one council officer commented: “Why are Councils being expected to manage it; why aren’t the approved arrangements offering collection at the door and why should councils have to use their limited resources to fund multinational corporations end of life products”. Increasing the

scope of WEEE categories was the most cited solution followed by “Increase funding” and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

“Increase annual quotas” (Supplementary Figure 7). In regards to increase in the scope of categories, one council officer commented: “I suppose an all-encompassing program that would serve all WEEE and not just what the scheme currently outlines. It would also reduce public confusion”. 4.4.3 Participation in the NTCRS The thematic analysis identified that the most cited reasons for participation were “Cost effective” followed by “Service to our rate payers” (Supplementary Figure 8). In regards to the latter category, one council officer commented: “We can gain the benefit for our ratepayers so they don’t have to pay for electronic waste to be recycled”. Contractor difficulties was the most cited reason against participation in the NTCRS (Supplementary Figure 8), and one council officer commenting: “We did participate but the contractor that we engaged withdrew from the contracts”. Eleven out of the 19 councils involved in the case study participate in the NTCRS, three councils do not participate and five councils have established alternative arrangements to manage WEEE. Metropolitan councils tended to participate more than regional councils (Supplementary Figure 9a), although statistical analysis showed no significant differences (Pearson chi-square test =.900, df=2, p=.638). 4.4.4 Council perception: public awareness, increased incentives and scope of categories Twelve councils manifested that the introduction of the NTCRS increased public awareness on recycling options for WEEE (Supplementary Figure 9b), although differences appear not statistically significant (Pearson chi-square test=.838, df=3, p=.840). Fifteen council representatives felt that Australia should increase the number of categories of WEEE legislated to be recycled (Supplementary Figure 9c), and were in favour of increasing incentives for all stakeholders to foster more WEEE recovery (Figure 6d), although differences were not significant (Pearson chi-square test=3.685, df=3, p=.29). 4.4.5 Volume of WEEE collection: selected NSW councils Quantitative analysis show no significant difference between volumes of WEEE collected in metropolitan and regional councils (Figure 6a). Simple regression analysis was undertaken between large and medium metropolitan councils and: a) average weekly income per inhabitant (Figure 6b), b) population size (Figure 6c); and c) collection effort (Figure 6d). The results showed no correlation with income (r²=0.01) (Figure 6b); a weak correlation

between the total tons of WEEE collected and population size (r²=0.11) (6c); and a significant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

correlation between the total tons collected and the councils collection effort (Figure 6d) (r²= 0.43) (F=15.5, df=1,18, p < 0.001).

5. Discussion Australia’s management of WEEE is identified as not effective when contrasted against the definition of effectiveness in section 3.4 and using indicators presented in Table 1. Results highlight five key issues associated to ineffectiveness, namely: stakeholder roles, scope of WEEE categories legislated for recovery and recycling; public engagement and accessibility to services; recycling and material recovery targets and the auditing and compliance of material flows within the system. The following sections discuss these five issues and provide recommendations to improve WEEE management in Australia, based on the results of this research. The analysis shows that a number of factors are attributable to the differences of WEEE management in the three countries compared, and that the adoption of the leading practices of Japan and Switzerland in Australia are not guaranteed to work as a result of these differences. The intention of the comparative analysis was to identify the causative factors of leading practice in Japan and Switzerland. For example, public awareness and education on WEEE appears a causative factor of the large volumes of WEEE recycled in Japan and Switzerland. 5.1 Stakeholder roles Stakeholder identification and the establishment of their roles appear crucial to effective WEEE management. Key stakeholders to the management of WEEE in Australia and the selected countries are the same (Table 3); however, stark differences are apparent in their roles. The most significant differences appear to be in the roles of government, consumers and retailers. The role of government and retailers is discussed hereafter, whilst the role of consumers is discussed and contrasted in section 5.3 public engagement and access to WEEE services below. In Japan and Switzerland all levels of government have an active and consistent role in the management of WEEE (Table 3). In contrast, the federal government of Australia maintains the only consistent and active role whilst state and local governments have the role of managing WEEE outside of the NTCRS. Local governments in Australia also have the option

to voluntarily participate in the NTCRS through engaging in a contract with an ACA. Of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

councils that contributed to the survey the results show that the majority choose to participate (Supplementary Figure 9a). The thematic analysis evidenced cost effectiveness and service for the rate payers as the main reasons for adherence to the scheme (Supplementary Figure 8). Participating councils voiced concern on the lack of “shared responsibility” among all stakeholders and that the role of local government within the NTCRS was not clear (Table 3). The absence of clear, consistent and active roles for both state and local government are recognised as key shortcomings in the management of WEEE in Australia. The strength of the Swiss system appears to be that the roles of all key stakeholders are clearly communicated and outlined in the ORDEE; further reinforcing that Australia needs to address this issue if it is to achieve the objectives of the legislation. The role outlined for local and state government in Australia does not reflect the power that these levels of government have to ensure WEEE is managed effectively. Local governments appear somehow relegated, though they manage the largest volumes of WEEE of any stakeholder, and have the closest and most influential relationship with the public. This is evidenced in the comparison between metropolitan and regional councils (section 4.4.5) where collection efforts of regional councils resulted in comparable amounts of WEEE collected to metropolitan councils despite demographic differences and limited access to NTCRS services (Figure 6d). In Japan, municipal government plays a crucial role in achieving effective WEEE management. As a result, there are a number of collaborations between Japan’s federal and municipal government to educate and engage the public (e.g. 3Rs promotion month). The inability of the Australian federal government to directly regulate local government is acknowledged in the current legislation; however, that should not preclude local governments to become key stakeholders for more effective management of WEEE within and outside of the NTCRS. The importance of local government to the success of the NTCRS is evidenced by all but one of the ACA annual reports identifying local government as the main source of WEEE collection. Besides being central to the success of the NTCRS, local government is vital for Australia to manage WEEE effectively, and achieve the objectives of the National Waste Policy 2009 and subsequent legislation (section 4.4.5). However, this research shows that local governments receive minimal material or financial support. Results of the thematic analysis identified lack of funding as one of the key issues faced by local government in the management of WEEE (Supplementary Figure 7). Similarly, an increase in funding was the

solution most cited by survey participants (Supplementary Figure 7). The need for more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

incentives to better manage WEEE was another key finding described in section 4.4.4. Retailers in Japan and Switzerland are central to the effective management of WEEE. Consumers purchase EE products and return WEEE to retailers and pay for the transportation and recycling of WEEE. The accessibility of retailers and their established logistic systems are integral to the operational success of WEEE management in the countries. Under current legislation, Australian retailers have no obligations to take back, fund or transport WEEE for recycling. However, retailers can choose to be a drop off location for the ACA under the NTCRS. Due to Australia’s low population density per square km the utilization of retailers as drop off points for consumers WEEE and the use of their established logistic systems to transport the collected WEEE would improve the effectiveness of WEEE management. 5.2 Scope of WEEE categories Australia legislates for the recovery and recycling of only two categories of WEEE: computers, televisions and their peripherals (Table 2). This is in stark contrast to the number of categories and WEEE items legislated in Switzerland (10) and Japan (3), suggesting there is large scope for improvement (section 4.1.2). The benefits of increasing the scope of WEEE are well documented; however, there are important factors that require consideration prior to expansion in Australia such as financial constraints, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, collection sites and methods and recycling facility capabilities (Ongondo, Williams and Cherret 2011; Widmer et al. 2005). Switzerland increased its scope gradually from two items in 1991 to all ten categories of WEEE, in the process gaining social, environmental and economic benefits that have resulted in the system achieving one of the highest WEEE recovery and recycling rates in the world. Whilst the Japanese system is not as comprehensive, the numbers of EE products legislated for recovery and recycling are increasing as reflected by the development of the Small Electrical and Electronic Equipment Recycling Act 2013. The scope of the NTCRS has been consistently cited as one of the main problems and potential solutions for WEEE management in Australia. The results from the thematic analysis identified scope of categories as the second most cited issue for local governments and an increase in the scope of categories as the main solution (Supplementary Figure 7). The results were strongly correlated to public confusion and awareness. Council officers expressed that there is insufficient public awareness on WEEE items that can and cannot be

recycled under the NTCRS. Public confusion appears exacerbated by the different WEEE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

management approaches taken by local and state governments across Australia. 5.3 Public engagement and access to WEEE services Prior research (section 2.2 and Supplementary Tables 10 and 11) and results show that public engagement and access to services are one of the key factors for the effective management of WEEE. Significant differences exist between the respective countries level of public engagement and provision of access to WEEE services as shown in section 4.2. Australian regulations require each approved arrangement to provide ‘reasonable access’ to collection services. The measure is stated to provide 98% of the population with access to a collection service; however, what is stipulated as reasonable access under the Regulations has not been based on what a consumer would consider reasonable as identified in the submissions discussed in section 2.2. The provision of one service per 100 km for inner regional towns appears to be inadequate. In the submissions for the review of the NTCRS the limited number of services and collection sites in regional and remote locations was identified as a concern for many stakeholders (section 2.2). The results of statistical analysis show that there is a weak correlation between population size and the total tons of WEEE collected supporting that services to regional and remote areas need to be increased (Figure 6c). Although the Regulations do not appear to provide reasonable access for consumers in regional and remote areas, there have been minimal complaints from consumers due to the lack of legal requirements to dispose of WEEE at existing collection sites. Japan and Switzerland legally require consumers to pay and return their WEEE items to be recycled which actively engages them within the system. To ensure the system is effective in collecting WEEE both countries designed their programs around provision of services to consumers that are accessible, convenient and reliable; for instance, disposal locations where consumers travel regularly such as transport hubs and shopping precincts. Whilst providing a large number of collection sites for accessibility and convenience, it is important to emphasise the need for public engagement and education on WEEE (section 4.2). Both Japan and Switzerland have engaged and educated their citizens on WEEE and the importance of its correct disposal. For example, Japan has developed the concept of eco-towns, which brings stakeholders together to educate and inspire communities to be as environmentally friendly as possible (Economist Intelligence Unit 2014).

The Federal Australian government and ACA, charged with the management of WEEE, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

appear to have failed in successfully engaging or educating the public on this topic (section and subsections of 2.2). The survey of NSW local governments (section 4.4.4) identified that the introduction of the NTCRS increased the level of public awareness for WEEE recycling options (Supplementary Figure 9b). However, the thematic analysis evidenced that public confusion remains one of the key issues despite increased levels of awareness. One local government waste management employee stated that “public awareness had increased due to the local governments efforts of public engagement and education and not that of any other level of government or organisation”. This statement is further supported in the results of the statistical analysis that shows the collection effort employed by councils is strongly correlated to the total tons of WEEE collected (Figure 6d). In summary, the reliability of WEEE management systems and provisions such as the number and location of collection sites are essential factors for the successful engagement and participation of consumers to effectively manage WEEE. The reliability and access to services in Australia has shown to be inconsistent. This partly appears to be due to the ACA achieving the annual recycling target early and no longer servicing or removing a collection site without notice (Table 2). 5.4 Recycling and material recovery targets Australia and Japan have recycling and material recovery targets whilst Switzerland does not. The annual recycling target for WEEE in Australia has received significant debate. A number of stakeholders identified job losses, WEEE stockpiling and the termination of contracts and services as the key issues associated with the target (section and subsections of 2.2). As a result the Australian government amended the recycling target in June 2015 increasing the trajectory for industry-funded recycling to 50 per cent for the 2015-16 financial year, with a view of reaching 80 per cent in 2026-27. The management of the remaining 50 per cent of available WEEE continues to be the responsibility of state, territory and local governments further highlighting the key role of local governments in WEEE management. It is expected the amended target will increase the annual tonnage of WEEE recycled to 53,000 tonnes under the NTCRS. Whilst the decision of the Australian government to increase the recycling target is commendable, the reality is that it addresses less than 10 per cent of all WEEE generated in the country, and over the stated time frame will not even slightly curb the exponential growth

in the generation of WEEE. Japan’s recycling target of 140,000 tons addresses approximately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

20 per cent of all WEEE generated, which corresponds to roughly one kilogram recycled per person annually. Interestingly, Switzerland with no legislated recycling target recovers and recycles 16kg of WEEE per person annually, achieving a material recovery rate of 75 per cent. The material recovery target of 90 per cent for WEEE in Australia is one of the highest in the world, exceeding both the stipulated and achieved targets of Japan and Switzerland. However, without the necessary enforcement and compliance measures, the target is meaningless. 5.5 Compliance and auditing measures Compliance and auditing measures are pivotal to ensuring the legislation established for the management of WEEE is effective (Widmer et al. 2005). Japan and Switzerland have multiple levels of independent controls that check and address free riding and pilferage in addition to ensuring that recyclers maintain high quality and environmental standards (Figure 3 and Figure 5). Compliance and auditing measures of the Australian system appear inadequate, withdrawing credibility and confidence in the system from the industry and public in general (Figure 4). The introduction of the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 5377:2013 is promising. This Standard covers the collection, storage, transport and treatment of WEEE. However, without an auditing system in place, the introduction of this standard will not guarantee that recyclers are meeting the standard and providing a safe working environment. The ACA annual reports 2013-14 state that auditing and compliance measures have been undertaken; though without the regulator or an independent body verifying these statements they remain just that, statements. Japan verifies all auditing and compliance measures in each stage of the system, providing a number of benefits and most importantly facilitating the Government to monitor the material and financial flows and identify where improvements can be made. One key area of improvement identified by the Japanese government is monitoring and reducing the volumes of WEEE shipped illegally to developing countries. As a signatory of the Basel Convention, the identification and action taken to address this issue is critical for Japan. The limited compliance and auditing measures in conjunction with the exorbitant recycling costs in Australia have resulted in tons of WEEE illegally shipped to developing countries (section and subsections of 2.2). Hazardous materials are some of the most attractive items to be illegally shipped as processing facilities are limited and the costs of recycling in Australia are considerably higher than overseas. Due

to gaps in the material flows of WEEE in the Australian system it is difficult to address this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

issue and as a result meet the responsibilities as a signatory under the Basel Convention. The Swiss WEEE compliance and auditing measures allow the PROs to generate annual reports with a depth of transparency that is not seen or achievable in Australia’s current system. The lack of transparency in the Australian system has undermined public, industry and local and state government confidence and trust (section and subsections of 2.2).

6. Conclusions Although the challenges faced in the management of WEEE tend to be country-specific, valuable lessons can be learned from analysing and comparing management approaches amongst countries (Ongondo, Williams and Cherret 2011). This research has discussed shortcomings in Australia’s current implementation of legislation related to WEEE.

It identified pathways to expand the scope of WEEE legislated for

recovery and recycling within the current legal framework. The product coverage could be expanded in regards to both small and large devices, as well as the categories of products that are covered. Expanding the scope of the NTCRS can provide social benefits such as public awareness and engagement; economic benefits such as industry stability and job creation and environmental benefits such as a reduction in CO2 emissions, water, energy and landfill use. However, consideration is required prior to expansion in Australia on financial constraints, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, collection sites and methods and recycling facility capabilities. Analysis of results suggests that increased effectiveness in WEEE management in Australia requires: re-assessing the roles of stakeholders for the management of WEEE; identify the strengths and weaknesses of the stakeholders and provide material or financial support to address them and collaborate with local and state government to engage and educate the public on WEEE. Consumers and retailers are key stakeholders for the effective management of WEEE and their engagement and participation will be paramount in the coming years as this waste source continues to grow exponentially. Based on the comparative analysis (section and subsections of 4.1) and the case study of NSW, it appears that to increase the level of public engagement and participation in WEEE management, the legislation needs to be amended to

be more consumer-focused. Key issues to be amended are educating and engaging the public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

on the importance of disposing of WEEE correctly and the provision of reasonable access to disposal points; the latter could be addressed by utilizing retailers and their established logistic systems. The Australian legislated recycling target and associated time frame appears inadequate to address and even curb the exponential growth of WEEE. Australia needs to re-assess the target and time frame in a holistic manner with considerations made for social, economic, political and environmental factors and their interaction and connectivity within an issue. For example, increasing the scope of WEEE, utilizing existing transport logistics of industry and engaging and educating the public with the support of local goverment would serve to better address the increasing generation of WEEE as seen in Japan and Switzerland. The recovery rate of 95% in Australia is ambitious and currently fraught with issues as there is no definitive way to ensure that it is being met due to lack of auditing and compliance measures. Lastly, the analysis of the Swiss and Japanese systems evidences that benefits from proper compliance and auditing measures in WEEE management systems outweigh the associated costs. For the Australian system to achieve the objectives stated in the legislation and build and maintain public, industry and local and state government confidence, measures of compliance, auditing and reporting need to be established in each stage of the system. Through these measures the government will be able to better monitor the material flows in the system, identifying where improvements can be made and will be able to report transparently whilst meeting the requirements as a signatory of the Basel Convention.

Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to Jaine Morris, Marcin Skladaniec, Nicole Masters, Bryce Kelly, Alex Baumber and Veena Sahajwalla for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Thank you to the New South Wales Councils that supported and participated in the research and to the professionals in the waste sector that provided their time and input into the research. Lastly, the authors are grateful to the critical comments of two anonymous reviewers, which have significantly improved the quality of the paper.

7. References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014, Data by Region, Australian Government Canberra, accessed 23 of August 2015, < http://stat.abs.gov.au/itt/r.jsp?databyregion>.

Australian Government Department of the Environment, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992 (Cwlth), viewed 08 April 2015, .

Australian Government Department of the Environment, National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme 2011, viewed 08 April 2015,.

Australian Government Department of the Environment, National Waste Policy 2009 (Cwlth), viewed 08 April 2015, < http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/publications>.

Australian Government Department of the Environment, Product Stewardship Act 2011(Cwlth), viewed 08 April 2015, < http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/publications>.

Australian Government Department of the Environment, Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011, viewed 08 April 2015,< http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-wastepolicy/publications>.

Australian Government Productivity Commission 2013, on efficiency and effectiveness: some definitions, Staff Research Note, Canberra.

Balde, CP, Kuehr, R, Blumenthal, K, Fondeur Gill, S, Kern, M, Micheli, P, Magpantay, E, and Huisman, J 2015, ‘ E-waste statistics: Guidelines on classifications, reporting and indicators’, United Nations University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany.

Binkley, A 2009, ‘Designing Efficient Waste Systems: A Comparative Assessment of Extended Producer Responsibility Policy Instruments’, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.

Davis, G, and Herat, S 2008, ‘Electronic waste: The local government perspective in Queensland, Australia’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1031-1039.

Davis, G, and Herat, S, 2010, ‘Opportunities and constraints for developing a sustainable e-waste management

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

system at local government level in Australia’, Waste Management and Research, vol. 28, pp. 705-713.

Department of the Environment 2015, Fact Sheet-National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme-Product Weights and Recycling Targets, Canberra, viewed 08 of September 2015, < https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/publications/factsheet-nationaltelevision-and-computer-recycling-scheme-recycling-targets>.

Department of the Environment 2015, Operational Review of the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme, Australia Government Canberra, accessed 10 of June 2015,< http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy/television-and-computer-recyclingscheme/review>.

Economist Intelligence Unit 2014, ‘Global e-waste systems Insights for Australia from other developed countries’, A report for Australia and New Zealand Recycling Platform by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Environment Protection and Heritage Council 2009, National Waste Overview, Department of the Environment, Australian Government.

European parliament and council 2002, EU Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment— joint declaration of the European parliament, the council and the commission relating to article 9, Official Journal L037:0024-39, (13/02/2003), .

Federal office for the Environment, Ordinance on the Return, Taking Back and Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Equipment 1998, viewed 22 April 2015,.

Hieronymi, K, Kahhat, R, and Williams, E (eds) 2012, E-Waste Management Handbook, Routledge, Florence, KY, USA, e-book accessed 06 of March 2015, .

Hunt, G (Minister for the Environment) 2015, Overhaul of e-waste scheme will protect jobs and deliver 32,000 tonne recycling boost, Media Release, Parliament House, 10 June 2015, viewed 12 June 2015 < http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/ID/3320/Overhaul-of-e-waste-scheme-willprotect-jobs-and-deliver-32000-tonne-recycling-boost.aspx>.

Hyder Consulting. (2006). Waste and Recycling in Australia. Australian Government, Department of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Environment and Heritage.

Khetriwal, DS, Kraeuchi, P, and Widmer, R 2009, ‘Producer responsibility for e-waste management: key issues for consideration – learning from the Swiss experience’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, pp. 153-165.

Kiddee, P, Naidu, R, and Wong, MH 2013, ‘Electronic waste management approaches: An overview’, Waste Management, vol. 33, no.5, pp. 1237–1250.

Kristensen, P 2004 ‘The DPSIR framework’, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark.

Lane, R., Gumley, W., Santos, D. (2015) Mapping, Characterising and Evaluating Collection

Systems and

Organisations, Monash University, Australia.

Lehmann, S 2011, ‘Resource Recovery and Materials Flow in the City: Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption as Paradigms in Urban Development’, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 28-38.

Liu, X, Tanaka, M, and Matsui, Y 2006, ‘Generation amount prediction and material flow analysis of electronic waste: a case study in Beijing, China’, Waste Management & Research, vol. 24, pp. 434-445.

McCann, D and Wittmann, A 2015, ‘Solving the E-Waste Problem: (StEP) Green Paper E-waste Prevention, Take-back System Design and Policy Approaches, StEP.

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Promotion of Effective Utilisation of Resources Act 2001, viewed 23 April 2015, .

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Home Appliances Recycling Law 2001, viewed 23 April 2015, .

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Promotion of Effective Utilisation of Resources Act 2001, viewed 23 April 2015, .

Ministry of the Environment, Promotion of Recycling of Small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Act (2013) , viewed 19 July 2015, < https://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/jeq/issue/vol02/topics.html>.

Nnorom, IC, and Osibanjo, O 2008, ‘Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries’, Resources, conservation and recycling, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 843-858.

Ongondo, FO, Williams, ID and Cherrett, TJ 2011, ‘How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes’, Waste management, vol. 31, no.4, pp. 714-730.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2015, ‘List of OECD Member countries Ratification of the Convention on the OECD’, accessed 15 April 2015, .

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2001, ‘Extended producer responsibility: a guidance manual for governments’, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Premalatha, M, Tabassum-Abbasi, Abbasi, T, and Abbasi, SA 2014, ‘The Generation, Impact, and Management of E-Waste: State of the Art’, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 44, no.14, pp. 1577-1678.

Robinson, BH 2009, ‘E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts’, Science of the total environment, vol. 408, no. 2, pp. 183-191.

Sasaki, K. 2004, ‘Examining the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management Systems in Japan and Sweden’, Lund University Master’s Programme in Environmental Science. Lund, Sweden.

Sawhney, P, Henzler, M, Melnitzky, S, and Lung, A 2008, ‘Best practices for E-waste Management in Developed Countries,’ Adelphi Research, Berlin.

Shinkuma, T, and Nguyen Thi Minh, H 2009, ‘The flow of e-waste material in the Asian region and a reconsideration of international trade policies on e-waste’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 29, pp. 25-31.

Sinha-Khetriwal, D, Kraeuchi, P, and Schwaninger, M, ‘A comparison of electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in India’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 25, pp. 492 – 50.

Sthiannopkao, S, and Wong, MH 2013, ‘Handling e-waste in developed and developing countries: Initiatives, practices, and consequences’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 463, pp. 1147-1153.

Streicher-Porte, M 2006, ‘SWICO/S.EN.S, the Swiss WEEE recycling systems and best practices from other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

European systems’, IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, May 8–11. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. Scottsdale, AZ, USA, IEEE, pp. 281–287.

Townsend, TG 2011, ‘Environmental issues and management strategies for waste electronic and electrical equipment’, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 587-610.

United Nations Environment Program 2009, ‘Recycling—from e-waste to resources’, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations University.

United States Government Accountability Office 2005, Electronic waste: strengthening the role of the federal government in encouraging recycling and reuse, Washington DC.

Wager, PA, Hischier, R, and Eugster, M 2011, ‘Environmental impacts of the Swiss ¨ collection and recovery systems for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A follow-up’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 409, pp. 1746-1756.

Widmer, R, Oswald-Krapf, H, Sinha-Khetriwal, D, Schnellmann, M, and Böni, H 2005, ‘Global perspectives on e-waste’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 436-458.

World Bank, 2013, Mobile cellular subscriptions (per 100 people), Development Indicators, World Bank, viewed online April 22, 2015, < http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CEL.SETS.P2/countries/XLOE?display=graph>.

Yoshida, A, Tasaki, T and Terazono, A 2009, ‘Material flow analysis of used personal computers in Japan’, Waste Management, vol. 29, pp. 1602-1614.

Yu, J, Williams, E, Ju, M, and Yang, Y 2010, ‘Forecasting global generation of obsolete personal computers, Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 44, pp. 3232-3237.

Zalengera, C, Blanchard, R, Eames, P, Juma, A, Chitawo, M and Gondwe, K 2014, ‘Overview of the Malawi energy situation and A PESTLE analysis for sustainable development of renewable energy’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 38, pp. 335-347.

List of Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Table 1: PESTLE categorised variables and associated indicators to measure the effectiveness of Australia’s management of WEEE. Factor Political

Issue Legislation targets Council participation Council Satisfaction WEEE categories Service Access Definition of Roles Legislative definitions

Economic

Funding Employment Compliance

Social

Social enterprises Health and Safety Public awareness Public participation

Compliance and auditing Public awareness of WEEE recycling services Public participation in WEEE recycling

Technolo gical

Recovery and recycling Product life span

WEEE recovery and recycling in Australia WEEE life spans

Legal

WEEE export Basel Convention Enforcement Laws Reporting requirements WEEE landfilled Hazardous material management

Illegal/legal export Export of WEEE Compliance and auditing of existing legislation Recovery/recycling/landfilling Landfilling amount Management of CRT Glass Tubes, Mercury, Toner, Batteries

Environm ental

Variable Recycling and material recovery targets Council participation in NTCRS Council satisfaction with WEEE management WEEE categories legislated for recycling Access to WEEE services Stakeholder roles and responsibilities in NTCRS Definition of recovery and recycling Funding required for WEEE management Jobs/businesses Cost of compliance

Indicator Reaching/not reaching set targets Number of councils participating Number of councils satisfied with WEEE management Australia Number of WEEE categories legislated for recycling Number of service points for WEEE Number of councils that understand their role in NTCRS -

Funding allocation for WEEE management Job creation/job losses- businesses close/open Enforced compliance and auditing measures Level of awareness of public as perceived by NSW councils Tonnages of WEEE recycled in regions and engagement in services Amount of WEEE recovered and recycled in Australia Increase/decrease in WEEE life spans Amount of WEEE exported Adherence to Basel Convention Level/ evidence of enforcement / compliance Track material flows or not Amount of WEEE landfilled in Australia Amount of Hazardous material landfilled/recovered in Australia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Table 2: Comparative analysis of Australia, Japan and Switzerland’s policy instruments and management approaches; legislated WEEE categories, and set targets Legislation

Policy focus Instrument

Australia National Waste policy 2009 Product Stewardship Act 2011 Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011 National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme 2011 PS Regulatory, Institutional and Administrative

Japan Home Recycling Law 2001 Promotion of Effective Utilisation of Resources 2000 Small Electrical and Electronic Equipment Recycling Act 2013

Switzerland Ordinance on the Return, the Taking Back and the Disposal of Electrical and Electronic Appliances 1998

EPR Regulatory, Economic, Informative and Administrative Take back, recycling fee, transportation fee and product redesign Categories 1,3,4

EPR Regulatory, Economic, Informative and Administrative Take back, disposal ban of WEEE to landfill, advanced recycling fee Categories 1-10

50 per cent 2015-16 financial year reaching 80 per cent in 2026-27 90 per cent based on weight of material

No set target

No set target

50-70 per cent based on weight of material

No set target

20.0

16.6

26.3

Management approaches

Take back and disposal ban of WEEE to landfill in some states

Legislated WEEE Recycling Targets (%)

Categories 3, 4

Material Recycling Targets Total tons WEEE (kg/inh)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Table 3: Roles of stakeholders for the management of WEEE in Australia, Japan and Switzerland Stakeholders

Australia

Japan

Switzerland

Government

Ensures liable parties participate in the scheme and that scheme outcomes are met by ACA; Regulate WEEE recyclers work health and safety performance; Retain responsibility for WEEE outside scheme targets Import and manufacture TV and computer products over a threshold; required to join and fund an ACA, for imports above threshold Five ACA’s responsible for achieving scheme outcomes on behalf of all liable parties; Provision of reasonable access to collection services; Meeting annual recycling and material recovery targets; Organise and deliver scheme services, and notify the public of collections Households and small businesses have access to free scheme collection services; Outside of scheme service fees may be incurred

Municipalities can transfer designated WEEE to producers’ aggregation collection points by paying the pre-treatment fee; Citizens can then pay for treatment; Collect illegally dumped WEEE; Municipalities can treat designated WEEE No role listed

The federal government plays the role of an overseer, framing the basic guidelines and legislation Cantonal authorities play a part in the overall control and monitoring in their capacity as the licensing authority for recyclers Importers carry the economic and physical responsibilities of their products

Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and local government are responsible for the administration of the laws

The PROs have the role of managing the day-to-day operations of the system, including setting the recycling fees, as well as licensing and auditing recyclers

Consumers cooperate with WEEE collection to retailers; Consumers have to agree paying the pretreatment fee, “recycling fee” for large WEEE items only; Business consumers can bring WEEE to retailers with a pre-treatment fee or treat WEEE as industrial waste at their own expense Take back designated WEEE from consumers; Obliged to transfer accepted WEEE to the producers ‘aggregation collection points; Retailers decide on charging consumers for transportation cost Recycling by producer-designated contractors; Meet recycling and recovery standards set in legislation

Are responsible, and obligated by law, to return discarded appliances to retailers or designated collection points; Consumers can purchases a similar product as a replacement; Pay the recycling fee on new product purchases

Importers

Administrators

Consumers

Retailers

Option to take back consumer products

Recyclers

Enter into contracts with ACA to recycle collected TV and computer products; Sell recovered materials to domestic and international markets

Producers

Required to join and fund ACA for imports above 5000 items

Producers can charge consumers a pre-treatment fee; Producers are obliged to take back their products at collection points; Producers have to achieve the recycling target set under the legislation

Partial responsibility for WEEE; obligated to take back products they sell or are sold by other retailers; State amount for advanced recycling fee (ARF) in the customer invoice Must adhere to minimum standards on emissions and take adequate safety measures concerning employee health; Need authorisation to operate a recycling facility from the cantonal government, as well as a license from the PROs Physical as well as the financial responsibility of an environmentally sound disposal of end-of-life electronics

List of Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Figure 1: Methodological framework

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Drivers Decreased life span of electronic products Population and affluence growth Technological innovation Consumption and production patterns Economic demand, market and trade Pollution of the environment Risk to human health Loss of non-renewable resources

Impacts Human well being Material needs Health and saftey Societal demand for better disposal of products Environmental Mining, landfill, pollution Resource scarcity Un-sustainable practices-loss of non-renewable resources

Responses National legislation (Waste policy 2009, Product Stewardship Act 2011, Product Stewardship Regulations 2011, National Television & Computer Recycling Scheme 2011). Decrease in recycling and recovery costs for WEEE (competitive market) Increase in collection of scheme and non-scheme waste

Pressures Environmental (national & international) Land use Resource extraction Waste production Soil, air, water pollution Stakeholders Mining Social enterprises Metal and Recycling Industry Science and Education Finance and Trade Transport and Logistics Australian Federal, State and Local Government & International Governments

States Air Quality (national & international) Water Quality (national & international) Human Health (production-recovery) Eco-system health (mining-product end of life)

Figure 2: DPSIR of WEEE life cycle and management in Australia

Consumer WEEE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Retailer

Collection site

Licensed contractor

Recycling ticket generated

Recycling ticket generated

Second hand shop

Illegal dumping

Business transport WEEE unloaded from transport and sorted into size, type and manufacturer

Submit material flow / output reports to Government

Manufacturers / Recyclers

Recycled Exported

Manifest of recycled WEEE complied and kept for three years Landfilled

Internal audit process

Figure 3: Flowchart of the system for WEEE auditing, compliance and reporting in Japan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Manufacturer / Importer Report to ACA if EE exceeds