E-waste_management_MODULE-3.pptx_22_scheme

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
E-waste-A post Consumer waste, E-waste value chain, E-waste Collection Systems, Extended Producer Responsibilty (EPR), Collective Responsibilitiy, Producer Responsibile Organization (PRO).

1. Module-3 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): E-waste – A post Consumer Waste, E-waste value Chain, E-waste Collection Systems, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Collective Responsibility, Producer Responsible Organization (PRO)

2. E-waste – A post Consumer Waste The EPR has been propagated as a mainstream paradigm in waste management since beginning of the 2000s by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries It was applied for ‘packaging waste, electronic, and electrical equipment, batteries, bottles, paint cans, automobiles, waste oil, tyres and refrigerators. The OECD defined EPR in 2001, as an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle.

3. According to the OECD (2001: 18), ‘EPR aims at reaching two goals: Shifting the responsibility away from the municipality and general taxpayer towards the producer; Provide incentives to producers to incorporate environmental considerations in the design of their products

4. After 15 years, the OECD redefined EPR, based on the experience that EPR as an environment policy approach sought to shift the burden of managing certain EoL products from municipalities and taxpayers to producers, and ultimately to consumers. There is a need to redefine responsibilities; that is, the incentives provided to producers to redesign products and packaging, which would reduce the share of waste destined for final disposal, and thus increase recycling.

5. The usual way of introducing the Indian’s electronic waste (e-waste) sector is through three highlights: Extent of e-waste generation and India ranking fifth in 2017 (ranking third in 2020). The dominant presence of the informal sector across the value chain (collection, dismantling, recycling, and resale of the recovered materials) of e-waste, and rudimentary (simple/basic) methods for recycling which are creating challenges of environment and health hazards, and legal provisions that have created opportunities for scientific recycling and operationalising e-waste management in a formal manner. There is a long way to go, as most Indians are not aware of the facts and the dangers the hazards that e-waste can create.

6. Five stages of trade value chain five stages of trade value chain as follow, which is applicable to all types of e-waste even after a decade: In the first stage , big traders purchase bulk PC-waste through domestic auctions and from importers, and then re-sell the PC-waste to small traders . The second stage, small traders purchase PC-waste from big traders, store the waste, segregate it into working and non-working PCs and parts. The working PCs are sold to the secondary market and the non-working PCs are sold to dismantlers . In the third stage, dismantlers purchase non-working PCs from small traders through tender or from middlemen or household waste scrap collectors and dismantle them sell dismantled components to extractors. In the fourth stage, extractors purchase scrap components constituting specific raw materials and extract these materials but not in a pure form . In the final stage, smelters recover specific raw materials.

7. E-waste Collection Systems Although there are several sectors involved in E-waste collection there is no formalized country-wide collection system for E-waste. The main E-waste collectors identified as 1. Formal sector: usually target collection from the corporate sector through predetermined agreements. 2. Telecommunication service providers: have established WEEE collection points in their sales outlets. 3. E-vendors who offer take back services: consumers can get a discount when they purchase a new product if they return the used product such as televisions and refrigerators. 4. Informal sector collectors: usually go from door to-door and mainly collect household items. They are the most dominating E-waste collectors in the island and their network is distributed in urban, semi-urban, and rural areas of the country.

8. There is a significant link between informal sector and the formal sector E-waste collectors and handlers. Informal sector plays an active role through having wide collection network and door-to-door collection. Formal sector dominates handling bulk quantities and exportations . Even though there is a control for the formal sector under the Scheduled Waste Management License, the government has no sufficient control over the informal sector. As informal sector establishments have increased rapidly within the past few years and due to difficulties in accessing them policy makers and relevant regulatory bodies could not able to effectively interfere in streamlining this sector. An integration of all stakeholders such as Electronic item importers, consumers, E-waste collectors, and exporters is at a low level due to insufficient awareness and inadequate use of economic instruments in E-waste management.

9. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Five areas of e-waste management are addressed under the EPR, namely: Production, including improved product design; Distribution Consumption (by domestic and business consumers) and separate collection of e-waste with targets specified for recovery, reuse, and recycling of different classes of WEEE (creating take-back channel by the producer); E-waste handling – reuse, recycling, and recovery; E-waste treatment and disposal including specifications for exporting e-waste for treatment.

10. EPR implemented for e-waste management under the existing regulatory frameworks in different countries Most legislation and policies currently refer to the principle of EPR, which emerged in academic circles in the early 1990s. It is generally seen as a policy principle that requires manufacturers to accept responsibility for all stages in a product’s lifecycle, including EoL management.

11. There are three primary objectives of the EPR principle: Manufacturers shall be incentivised to improve the environmental design of their products and the environmental performance of supplying those products. Products should achieve a high utilisation rate. Materials should be preserved through effective and environmentally-sound collection, treatment, reuse, and recycling.

12. The principle of EPR has been introduced in multiple countries and for a variety of waste streams. There is also a broad variety in the policy measures to implement EPR, the goals, and achievements. There is no one-size-fits-all approach of EPR, and its effectiveness will always depend on national circumstances, conditions, priorities, and waste streams. EPR implementation is a complex topic bringing many potential challenges; therefore, more ‘practical’ or ‘operational’ aspects to be considered for successful EPR implementation

13. Considerations for successful implementation of EPR Effective policy design on EPR will depend on national circumstances, conditions, and priorities. The key considerations include: ( i ) involvement of stakeholders in the development of EPR; (ii) clear allocation of responsibilities among all stakeholders; (iii) producer’s choice for IPR or CPR; (iv) transparency of EPR; (v) governmental support, monitoring, evaluation and control need to be accompanied by an effective and efficient legal framework; (vi) ambitious and clever policy targets are a necessity; (vii) compensation of reasonable costs for the use of municipal infrastructure is necessary.

14. Stakeholder involvement: I n the development of EPR, which creates a basis for the EPR policy and improves the acceptability and effectiveness. 2. Clear allocation of responsibilities among all stakeholders: It is an important requirement for a legislation, which would avoid conflicts of interest between different stakeholders involved. While producers have the primary responsibility, all other actors in the product chain (producers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers), as well as all the waste management actors (waste management collectors, recyclers) must be allocated specific responsibilities. This allocation should be made in view of the policy objectives

15. 3. Regarding role of PROs It is necessary for the government to consider that producers cannot gain an unfair advantage over their competitors or avoid their responsibilities by choosing one or the other of different mechanisms. If national legislation allows multiple PROs to compete for the same waste stream, it should be ensured that they operate effectively together and without jeopardising the achievement of policy targets. This point has emerged from five models – combination of systems and financing model – applied for design incentives under the WEEE Directive.

16. 4. Transparency of EPR, which is a primary requirement in its implementation, as EPR is strongly linked to a public service; in this manner, both, producers, and consumers can make informed choices. This should be ensured by using different ways to comply with the legislation, for example, reporting by producers or PROs, and regular audits by the government. 5.Governmental support, monitoring, evaluation, and control needs to be accompanied by an effective and efficient legal framework. Governments should enforce this legal framework to close loop holes and trace free riders. The legal framework required to include control mechanisms including monitoring, and actions with regard to producers, in case of not achieving goals and targets. Information related compliance by producers should be reviewed in terms of the value of the information in relation to product, its disposal, burden to provide such data and information; in case, a PRO is implementing on behalf a producer, an accreditation process for PRO is also required. The implementation of EPR should also be periodically evaluated by governments and, if necessary, targets be adjusted.

17. 6. Ambitious, and clever policy targets are a necessity: As a fundamental goal of EPR is to increase the collection and recycling of waste, clear targets on e-waste (generation, collection, recycling) should be specified. The targets could be qualitative and/or quantitative and could be set for a group of products or for individual product categories. 7. Compensation of reasonable costs: for the use of municipal infrastructure is necessary. The local and regional authorities should not have any obligation to hand over collected waste falling under EPR if their reasonable costs are not covered by producers.

18. Producer Responsible Organization (PRO) Under the EPR, a producer can implement EPR either on their own (termed as Individual Producer Responsibility – IPR) Or else by collaborating with their peers and working as a collective group (termed as Collective Producer Responsibility – CPR). Every producer should be able to choose to meet their responsibilities on an individual basis for example, appointing a PRO or setting up authorised collection centres or through a collective compliance mechanism, where producers may authorize common collection centres independently or by joining a consortium(group) as a member.

19. A PRO is envisaged (visualized) as an organisation that takes on the EPR mandate of a single producer/collective group of producers to fulfil the EoL waste related legal obligations on their behalf. In this conception (idea), a PROs plays a centre -stage role, in thorough implementation of the EPR on behalf of a producer, such as, meeting targets of collection, recovery, and recycling obligations, etc. PRO works with a range of stakeholders, and expected to create systems that bring transparency, and accountability in achieving goals defined/legal compliance for producers.

20. The scope of PRO functioning expands to Establishment of take-back channel Sorting Recycling target compliance Waste prevention Eco-design promotion Communication material Verification of data and its reporting to the producer as well as the government/national authorities.

21. PRO should guarantee that the collected e-waste is treated properly. For this, PROs need to have a solid financial basis. Governments must establish a strict authorisation process so that only reliable organisations with secure finances can receive a licence . Transparency is an important feature of PROs Some PROs have a public service mission, and operate in a not-for-profit or profit-not-for-distribution basis while others seek profit. PROs are expected to maximise environmental, economic, and social benefits along with their operational implementation.