A limited time offer!

urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

Producer Responsibility Scheme To Regulate Electronic Waste Environmental Sciences Essay

string(116) " paper At the terminal of April 2010, the Hong Kong authorities finished the audience on PRS for e-waste direction\."

To reexamine and analysis the execution of the manufacturer duty strategy in South Korea, Sweden and United States ( Maine ) , for doing recommendations for the future acceptance of manufacturer duty strategy in Hong Kong on e-waste direction.

Abstraction

Hong Kong is good known as the hub of the newest engineering and electronic merchandises. While many Hong Kong people are fascinated by the latest theoretical accounts of nomadic phones, computing machines and advanced engineerings, the direction of electrical and electronic waste ( e-waste ) in Hong Kong is under-developed and this may take to risky impacts on the environment.

We will write a custom essay sample on Producer Responsibility Scheme To Regulate Electronic Waste Environmental Sciences Essay

or any similar topic only for you

Order Now

Producer duty strategy ( PRS ) , besides known as drawn-out manufacturer duty ( EPR ) has been established for the direction of e-waste in assorted states for old ages. At the terminal of April, 2010, the Hong Kong authorities finished the audience on PRS for e-waste direction. A new legal model will be introduced to turn to the job of e-waste disposal in 2011. In this thesis, the current state of affairs of e-waste direction in Hong Kong will be reviewed. it is so followed by an analysis on the feasibleness of the 2010 PRS audience papers. To instil treatment, I will besides compare and contrast the e-waste PRS in Sweden, South Korea and United States ( Maine ) . Based on the international reappraisal, Hong Kong can larn from the strengths and failings of different strategies and do mentions for the hereafter patterns on e-waste direction.

Introduction

What is e-waste?

Internationally, there is no standard definition of WEEE/ E-waste. Different states use their ain definitions and readings of the term “ E-waste/WEEE ” . ( UNEP, 2007 ) . In this thesis, e-waste means electronic and electrical waste. E-waste is by and large defined as any cast-off, excess or broken electrical or electronic device which is dependent on electrical currents or electromagnetic Fieldss in order to work decently and equipment for the coevals, transportation and measuring of such current. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 ) . It includes different types of equipments such as family contraptions, IT and telecommunications equipment.

E-waste contains a batch of contaminations such as heavy metals e.g lead ( Pb ) , quicksilver ( Hg ) etc. and brominated fire retardents. Cathode Ray Tubes ( CRTs ) in proctors contain Pb may take to dirty. Lead will stamp down the encephalon development of kids. Toxic quicksilver may roll up in the fat of fish and through nutrient concatenation will be intake by homo. ( Greenpeace, 2010 ) Without proper disposal and direction, these chemicals would be released to the environment doing serious wellness jobs to human and damage the environment. Therefore, proper direction of e-waste is indispensable.

1.2 Definition of manufacturer duty strategy and extended manufacturer duty

Producer duty strategy is an environmental policy instruments for commanding disposal of merchandises when they at the terminal of life. ( Hester & A ; Harrison, 2009 ) It suggests that everyone should portion the duty on e-waste direction. Manufacturers and consumers need to be responsible for the merchandises from the design to the concluding disposal intervention. ( Environmental Protection Department, 2005 ) Furthermore, it mandates the return dorsum of e-waste to a proper intervention. PRS has been implemented for pull offing e-waste in many states including Japan, Switzerland for old ages. It showed positive consequence for handling of EOL e-waste. PRS has two types: corporate manufacturer duty and single manufacturer duty. In CPR, manufacturers are responsible for the cost based on market portion. They need to pay the cost proportionally. In IPR, each manufacturer is responsible for financing the operations referred to the waste from his ain merchandises. ( Hester & A ; Harrison, 2009 ) In other states, extended manufacturer duty ( EPR ) is a more popular term. EPR farther emphasizes on the manufacturer ‘s duty. In other words, “ Extended Producer Responsibility is the construct that makers and importers of merchandises bear a grade of duty for the environmental impacts of their merchandises throughout the merchandises ‘ life-cycles, including upstream impacts built-in in the choice of stuffs for the merchandises, impacts from makers ‘ production procedure itself, and downstream impacts from the usage and disposal of the merchandises. Manufacturers accept their duty when they design their merchandises to minimise the life-cycle environmental impacts and when they accept legal, physical or economic duty for the environmental impacts that can non be eliminated by design. ” ( Davis, 1994 )

There are two purposes for the PRS. First, it emphasizes the duty of manufacturer for the collection and recycling of the e-waste. Second, it encourages manufacturers to modify the design of merchandises. So, it could cut down the sum waste and risky effects. ( The Sierra Club, 2009 )

E-waste state of affairs in Hong Kong

The volume of e-waste coevals has increased at a rate of 2 % yearly during 2005-2008. In 2008, about 71400 metric tons of e-waste was generated. Presently, approximately 80 % of e-waste are recycled and re-used in Hong Kong or other states. The staying 20 % of them are disposal. Landfill sites in Hong Kong are about making their maximal capacities. The 20 % of e-waste so is a resource that should be reused, recycled. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 )

In general, e-waste is collected by private second-hand traders. Majority of e-waste are exported to other developing states such as Mainland China and India for recycling or recycling ( Greenpeace, 2010 ) . However, many storage countries for e-waste are non regulated. It would do dirt taint from leaching of heavy metals and other toxic chemicals. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 )

Besides, an e-waste recycling programme was launched in September 2005 by Environmental Protection Department and St James ‘ Settlement. They accept the e-waste from the populace at designated aggregation points. The gathered e-waste is brought to the recycling Centre for mending or leveling. The repaired electronic contraptions are donated to the needy. Sometimes the repaired goods are sold in charitable bazar to counterbalance portion of the operating cost. ( Environmental Protection Department, 2010 ) However, this programme can non cover with e-waste job in Hong Kong. Therefore, a proper e-waste direction policy is needed.

Reappraisal on the audience paper

At the terminal of April 2010, the Hong Kong authorities finished the audience on PRS for e-waste direction. A new legal model will be introduced to turn to the job of e-waste disposal.

Harmonizing to the Product Eco-responsibility Ordinance ( Cap 603 ) , the proposed e-waste strategy would cover bulky electrical and electronic equipment including telecasting sets, rinsing machines, iceboxs and air-conditioners, and computing machines merchandises ( TWRAC ) , for illustration personal computing machine, pressmans and laptop. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 )

Figure 1-1 The proposed e-waste strategy in Hong Kong ( Adopted from Environmental Bureau, 2010 )

The proposed e-waste strategy is summarized in Figure 1. The major aim is to portion the duty for the aggregation, intervention and disposal cost of e-waste in a safely and sustainably manner. The duty is shared by assorted stakeholders:

Consumers would necessitate to lend the collection and handling costs of regulate e-waste when purchasing new regulated merchandises. They besides need to guarantee the regulated e-waste would be handled likely. They may set up the handling to a municipal aggregation installation, a second-hand trader or a charitable organisation.

Importers, distributers and retail merchants would necessitate to stick on the regulated merchandises with specific labels, including the costs of e-waste strategy and charging system

Retailers would take back the old electrical contraptions on a “ new for old ” footing without charges. They will besides dispose decently to the appointed WMC.

The appointed WEEE Management Contractor would supply aggregation and recycling service for e-waste.

Second-hand traders and recyclers would dispose the regulated e-waste that collected from consumers. They are regulated by the import and export control and licensing demand for recycling, hive awaying and leveling of e-waste.

Government would move as a proctor to reexamine the system, roll uping fees and jurisprudence enforcement. It would besides advance public credence and instruction and help the settling up of the manufacturer duty strategy on e-waste. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 )

Collection of fees would be taken by importers and distributers. They would pay the fees when the regulated merchandises were brought to Hong Kong for local sale. This cost could finally be recovered along the supply concatenation. Another option is retail merchants would roll up the fee from consumers when sale the relevant merchandises when a dealing is completed. The fees for little e-waste ( such as a little telecasting ) would about $ 100. For bulky e-waste would bear down around $ 200- $ 250. Fees for computing machine merchandises would be lower but no clear sum is listed in the audience paper. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 )

There are some extra steps proposed: A landfill disposal prohibition to e-waste will be introduced for forestalling utile stuffs ended up in landfills. Import and export control of e-waste would be under a permission system by authorities. A licensing demand is needed for the e-waste dismantlement, recycling and storage. ( Environment Bureau, 2010 )

In the undermentioned thesis, the PRS plans of South Korea, Sweden and United States ( Maine ) will be studied. By utilizing three standards, physical duty of assorted stakeholders ( Consumers, local governments, manufacturers and consolidators ) , cost allotment of assorted stakeholders ( Consumers, local governments, manufacturers ) and roll uping and recycling rate, remarks are made for the hereafter pattern on e-waste direction in Hong Kong.

2. Review of PRS plans in other states

2.1 South Korea

2.1.1 Background of the PRS

After fall ining the OECD in 1996, the environmental policy of South Korea authorities is influenced by the way of western states. In 2001, the authorities implemented EPR as an indispensable policy in the field of recycling. ( Murakami-Suzuki, 2008 ) On the other manus, consumers and environmental NGOs had criticized the improper disposal of e-waste by the three major companies. To salvage their trade name image, they had understanding with authorities to continue greater manufacturer duty. ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 ) In 2003, a Producer Recycling ( PR ) system was launched which emphasized the duty of makers in e-waste recycling. Until now, there are in entire 10 points: they are rinsing machines, TVs, air conditioners, iceboxs, Personal computers, sound, nomadic phones, pressmans, duplicators and facsimiles. ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 ) ( Murakami-Suzuki & A ; Chung 2008 )

2.1.2 System of e-waste direction

Figure 2-1 General e-waste flows in South Korea ( Adopted from Murakami-Suzuki & A ; Chung 2008 )

The PR system puts the speech pattern on manufacturers. Manufacturers need to roll up the e-waste from consumers on a ‘new-for-old ‘ footing. Each electrical contraption that is regulated in the system has certain mark recycling rate to accomplish yearly. Therefore, manufacturers used runs and other aggregation contractors to run into the recycling mark. ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 ) There are three ways for the manufacturers to carry through their duty. First, they can construct ain recycling works and execute the recycling occupation. The 2nd manner is to contract out the occupation to commercial recycling workss. The 3rd manner is to pay money to the Producer Responsibility Organization to assist them recycling the e-waste. If they fail to make the recycling marks, they need to pay the fee which is reciprocally relative to the compulsory recycling rates. ( Murakami-Suzuki & A ; Chung 2008 )

Local governments are responsible for patroling illegal dumping of e-waste. Illegal dumping declined greatly due to the monitoring of the citizens groups called “ ssu-parazzi ” ( ssu means rubbish in Korean and parazzi from the Italian word “ paparazzi ” which means newsman ) . ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 ) Local governments will pay pecuniary wagess to citizens for describing illegal dumping instances to the governments. Government besides needs to roll up the e-waste which is non based on replacement purchase from consumer. ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 )

Consumers have three ways for disposal of e-waste. First, they can give the e-waste to the 2nd manus traders. The second-hand traders will give back some bit value to the consumers. The second-hand traders will so reassign to the exporters and export out the e-waste. Second, they can pay to the municipalities which are local governments for roll uping the e-waste. The local governments will transport the e-waste to the exporters or recycling workss for the intervention of e-waste. Third, they do n’t necessitate to pay any fee when on a ‘new for old ‘ footing. The retail merchants or manufacturers will roll up the e-waste for free. They act as a co-operator with other stakeholders to take part in the strategy. Some of them may move as the “ ssu-parazzi ” to supervise the illegal dumping of e-waste.

2.1.3 Cost borne by different stakeholders

Manufacturers bear the entire cost for both aggregation and recycling. First, they can run their ain logistic squad and recycling workss. Second, they can pay fee to the commercial recycling companies. Third, they may pay the fee to the Producer Responsibility Organization ( PRO ) for roll uping and recycling the e-waste. Consumers do non necessitate to pay any disposal fee when buying a replacing regulated electric merchandise. So, an unseeable fee is added when consumer purchases electrical merchandises. They merely need to pay the aggregation cost when necessitating local governments to roll up the e-waste. They may necessitate to pay 2000-8000 won ( about HKD $ 14- $ 56 ) to the local governments for roll uping the e-waste. ( Gangnam-gu Office, 2004 ) Government needs to bear the fiscal cost for the collection of illegal dumped e-waste and pay the money wages for citizens. ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 )

2.1.4 Collecting and Recycling rate of e-waste

Figure 2-2 Collecting and Recycling rate of e-waste in South Korea in 2002 and 2004 ( Source from Park, 2006 )

After the execution of the PR system in 2003, the collection and recycling rate addition about 50 % in Television, icebox and rinsing machine. For air-conditioner and computing machine, a singular rise in the collection and recycling rate. The merchandise recycling has been continuously increased. About six million dozenss ( 550 million kilogram ) of e-waste in sum has been recycled during 2003-2007. The recycling rate is about 11 kg/capita/year in 2003-2007. ( Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea, 2010 )

2.2 Sweden

2.2.1 Background of the PRS

The PRS for e-waste was launched in Sweden on 1st July 2001. Simultaneously, a not-for-profit service supplier El Kretsen was set up. El Kretsen operates a national-wide aggregation and recycling system for e-waste. It runs the system in coaction with Swedish governments. The local Swedish governments manage and fund the aggregation points where the families could go forth the e-waste. El Kresten manages and financess the transit fee, the pre-treatment and recycling for e-waste. Eleven classs of e-waste are regulated by El Kretsen. They include merchandises for family contraptions, IT and other equipment. ( El-Kretsen, 2010 )

2.2.2 System of e-waste direction

Figure 2-3 General flow of e-waste in Sweden ( Future Energy Solutions, 2003 )

The strategy does non put any recycling marks. Manufacturers and distributers pay the fee to El Kresten, based on the current market portion, for pull offing the regulated e-waste in a corporate duty method. The cost will reexamine yearly. Families can return the e-waste to any of the 700 countrywide municipal aggregation sites. Commercial sectors can return the e-waste free of charge to the distributers or manufacturers based on “ new for old ” buying. Otherwise they can give to the commercial aggregation Centres which are financed by El Kretsen. When the commercial consumer does non buy a new merchandise, the e-waste is non covered by this PRS and it ‘s the last user ‘s duty. Municipal aggregation sites are run by municipalities and the concern aggregation sites are organized and financed by El Kretsen. Logistic and transport spouses will roll up the e-waste from both municipal and concern aggregation sites and conveyance to the intervention spouses. Treatment and recycling spouses dismantle and recycle the e-waste. El Kretsen would pay the money to logistics and intervention spouses by the weight of e-waste hauled and the existent intervention costs. ( Future Energy Solutions, 2003 )

2.2.3 Cost borne by different stakeholders

El Kretsen financess the concern aggregation sites, transit and recycling cost of e-waste. Household ‘s aggregation sites are run by local governments which are non based on manufacturer duty. Households wage revenue enhancements to back up the cost of runing the municipal aggregation sites. Manufacturers pay money to El Kretsen harmonizing to their corresponding market portion, i.e. , every provider ‘s proportion of entire gross revenues in the old twelvemonth. Any excess will be credited to the corresponding manufacturer ‘s history. ( Future Energy Solutions, 2003 )

The fee is considered several factors. Here is an illustration:

Table 2-1 Model for computation of fees by El Kretsen ( Future Energy Solutions, 2003 )

The fee is measured by four factors: weight, return rate, intervention cost and material value. When transit and intervention costs are high and the stuff value is low, the fee is higher. Alternatively, if the stuff value is high and the intervention cost is low, the fee is much lower. Normally, for bulky material, the fee is around a‚¬8- 26 ( about HKD $ 84 – $ 273 ) and for little contraption, it is about a‚¬0.025. ( Future Energy Solutions, 2003 )

2.2.4 Collecting and recycling rate of e-waste

Figure 2-4 Recycling rate of e-waste in 2004-2008 by El Kretsen ( El-Kretsen, 2010 )

The above figure showed the collection and recycling rate of e-waste from all the aggregation points by El Kretsen. The system in Sweden achieved the highest collection and recycling rate reported in Europe with a sum of 15.8kg/capita/year in 2006. ( Sander et el. , 2007 )

2.3 United States ( Maine )

2.3.1 Background of PRS

In 2004, an e-waste jurisprudence founded on EPR construct was adopted by the Maine legislative assembly. It was the first “ drawn-out manufacturer duty ” jurisprudence in United States. In January 18 2006, the family e-waste programme was launched to guarantee electrical contraptions were recycled at the terminal of life. Merely family generated covered electrical devices ( CED ) are considered in the Maine programme. CED referred to telecastings and computing machine proctors with screens larger than 4 in. ( 10.2 centimeter ) . ( Wagner, 2009 ) In 2009, the programme added desktop pressmans, game consoles and digital image frame as CED. ( Department of Environmental Protection, State of Maine, 2010 )

2.3.2 System of e-waste direction

Figure 2-5 General flow of e-waste in Maine ( Department of Environmental Protection, State of Maine, 2010 )

Local governments decide how to roll up the family e-waste. There are different ways to roll up the e-waste: agreement of pick-up service, set up for aggregation sites, or keep periodic one-day aggregation. Consolidators received the e-waste. They need to screen the regulated merchandises by trade name names and step the weight. Then, they send bills to the makers for the transit, managing and recycling fee. They will besides supply informations and study to Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP ) . After that they send the e-waste to recycler. Retailers must merely sell the regulated merchandises with makers that are in conformity with Maine ‘s E-waste Law. Maine DEP monitors the programme. It besides conducts instruction and enforces Torahs. ( Department of Environmental Protection, State of Maine, 2010 )

2.3.3 Cost borne by different stakeholders

Manufacturers bear about all the cost under the EPR programme. Before the programme started, there was no charge to the manufacturer. After the programme was launched, in 2006 and 2007, the sum charges are US $ 764000 ( about 6 million HKD $ and US $ 1938500 ( about 15 million HKD $ ) severally. The mean recycling charges were about US $ 9.53 ( HKD $ 74 ) per computing machine proctor and US $ 16.62 ( HKD $ 130 ) per telecasting. The manufacturers need to pay the cost harmonizing to the trade name and weight to the consolidators. Orphan CEDs is waste which can non place the makers or the makers are no longer in concern. Existing manufacturers need to pay a pro rata portion of the recycling orphan CEDs. ( Wagner, 2009 )

Figure 2-6 Maine population and family EOL fees charged in 2008 ( Wagner, 2009 )

Different metropoliss or towns in Maine have different EOL fee. Citizens can dispose free of charge or even necessitate to pay over USD $ 11 per point ( HKD $ 86 ) . However, over 50 % of families need to pay less than US $ 5 ( HKD $ 39 ) per point due to the displacement of cost to the manufacturers. ( Wagner, 2009 )

2.3.4 Collecting and Recycling rate of e-waste

Figure 2-7 Household CED points collected in Maine in 2005-2008 ( Source from Wagner, 2009 )

The figure of points collected and recycled after the EPR programme adopted addition by 108 % in the first twelvemonth, 170 % in the 2nd twelvemonth and 221 % in the 3rd twelvemonth. ( Wagner, 2009 ) The collection and recycling rate is about 1.8 kg/capita/year in 2008. ( Department of Environmental Protection, State of Maine, 2010 )

3 Comparison of the EPR systems in South Korea, Sweden and United States ( Maine )

Table 3-1 Comparison for the physical function of assorted stakeholders

South Korea

Sverige

Pine tree state

Consumers

Dispose the e-waste via three methods

Act as “ suu-parazzi ”

Take the e-waste to aggregation sites

Take the e-waste to the local governments via different methods

Local governments

Set mark recycling rate

Monetary wages to citizens who describing illegal dumping

Run the municipal aggregation sites

Set criterion for aggregation

Ensure fight among the consolidators

Manufacturers

Construct ain recycling workss

Pay money to the PRO for recycling and interventions

Contract out the occupations to commercial recycling companies

Collect commercial e-waste

Pay money to El Kretsen for managing the e-waste

Pay money to the consolidators for all the transit and intervention cost

Consolidators

Manufacturers

El Kresten

Approximately 10 companies

In South Korea, since the electrical contraption industry is oligopolistic and is dominated by three companies, viz. , Daewoo, LG and Samsung. Collection, transit and recycling are besides carried by the manufacturers. ( Lee & A ; Na, 2010 )

There is no aggregation sites are operated in the system of South Korea. Consumers have different methods to dispose the e-waste. Due to the bit value given by the second-hand traders, most of the consumers prefer this manner to dispose the e-waste. ( Murakami-Suzuki & A ; Chung 2008 )

Another alone system is the outgrowth of “ ssuparazzi ” in South Korea. Local governments will give money wagess to the citizen who reports illegal dumping of e-waste. This control method is thought to be responsible for a crisp diminution of illegal dumping.

For Sweden, the lone consolidator El Kretsen takes the most physical duty in the EPR system. It mandates the commercial aggregations sector, organizes and financess the transit and recycling spouses. Local governments run the municipal aggregation sites. Consumers merely need to reassign the e-waste to the aggregation points.

For Maine, local governments via different paths collect the e-waste from consumers. Consumer should follow the methods by local authorities and return the e-waste. Consolidators sort off the trade name and direct bills to manufacturers for the transit and intervention cost.

Table 3-2 Comparison for cost allotment of assorted stakeholders

South Korea

Sverige

Pine tree state

Consumers

Free on a “ new for old ” footing

Buy tickets when disposed with municipality

Taxs

EOL fees

Local governments

Receive tickets fee from consumers

Receive revenue enhancements from consumers

Collection cost of e-waste

Manufacturer

About the entire cost

About the sum cost which pay to El Kretsen

About the sum cost which wage to the consolidators

Consumers do non necessitate to pay any excess fee under the “ new for old ” rule when buying the regulated points in South Korea. They may necessitate to purchase a tickets when disposal of e-waste from local governments. In Sweden, the aggregation cost of domestic e-waste is received from the revenue enhancements of all citizens. In Maine, consumers normally merely necessitate to pay the EOL fees which are less than US $ 5 per points for Televisions or computing machine proctors.

Local governments in three topographic points receive money from consumers for aggregation cost. In Sweden, the local governments merely cover with the domestic e-waste.

In the three topographic points reviews, manufacturers bear about the full cost in the PRS. In South Korea, manufacturers need to build the ain works for intervention of e-waste. It is an single duty system. Otherwise, they may contract out the occupation to commercial recycling workss or pay fees to the PRO. In Sweden and Maine, the manufacturers pay to consolidators based on market portions. In add-on, in Maine, the manufacturers portion the cost for handling the orphan e-waste by pro rata.

Table 3-3 Comparison of roll uping and recycling rate

South Korea

Sverige

Pine tree state

Roll uping and Recycling rate ( kg/capita/year )

11.0

15.8

1.8

In this tabular array, Sweden achieved the highest collection and recycling rate among three topographic points. It may due to a big classs of e-waste included in the Swedish system. South Korea besides got a comparatively high rate. It may due to the consequence of mark recycling in the system. The collection and recycling rate is really low when comparing to two other topographic points. First, the Maine plan merely covered domestic TVs and computing machine proctors. Second, the end-of-life fee besides contributed to it because some consumers may donate to charitable organisations instead than pay the EOL fees. ( Wagner, 2009 )

Table 3-4 Comparison of undertaking methods for illegal dumping

South Korea

Sverige

Pine tree state

Undertaking methods

Monetary wages

None

None

In South Korea, the pecuniary wages has attracted some citizen groups and organisations supervising the illegal dumping. In Sweden, there is no inducement for families to dispose the e-waste illicitly. It is because the use of municipal aggregation points is free of charge. Furthermore, the aggregation points are normally closer than topographic points which are suited for illegal dumping. ( Sasaki, 2004 ) For commercial sectors, there are some companies dumped the e-waste in municipal aggregation points. It is because El Kretsen can non separate the e-waste is come from families or concern sectors. ( Sasaki, 2004 ) . In Maine, due to the EOL fees, some e-waste possibly illicitly dumped. However, there is no information related to demo the figure of instances. ( Wagner, 2009 )

Table 3-5 Comparison of strengths and failings of the PRS systems

Strengths

Failings

South Korea

High recycling rate

Monetary wages for describing illegal dumping

Merely focal point on mark recycling rate, non the environmental-friendly intervention

Sverige

High recycling rate

One not-for-profit consolidator – El Kretsen

Excessively many classs of e-waste

Taxs from citizens

Municipal aggregation point can non separate e-waste from house servants or commercial sectors

United States ( Maine )

Low cost for intervention

Have step to cover with the orphan e-waste

Low recycling rate

Merely focal point on domestic e-waste

Cumbersome for consolidators to screening the e-waste

Orphan e-waste payment by manufacturers

Illegal dumping due to EOL fee

Korean ‘s pecuniary wages for describing illegal dumping is alone among three states. It greatly decreases the sum of illegal dumping of e-waste. Another alone characteristic is target recycling rate. The mark rate must be reached by the manufacturers. Otherwise, a levy is imposed. Therefore it maintains a high and stable collection and recycling rate. However this system merely focuses on the elevation of the recycling rate but non the intervention quality. Producer merely want to carry through the mark rate. There is no inducement for manufacturer to handle the e-waste decently.

In Sweden, the recycling rate is highest among three reviewed topographic points. It may due to a assortment of e-waste is included in the system. Furthermore, there is no bear downing for disposing e-waste in municipal aggregation point. It may besides increase the inducement of domestic consumers to dispose the e-waste decently. Furthermore, El Kretsen covered about 90 % of e-waste. A large not-for-profit company integrates all the e-waste could hold better organisation of aggregation and transit for e-waste.

However, the Swedish strategy has eleven classs of regulated e-waste. Many industries and companies are kicking about the complexness of the merchandise classification. ( Future Energy Solutions, 2003 ) On the other manus, the running cost for municipal aggregation sites come from the revenue enhancements from citizens. It is unjust to the citizens who do non utilize the service in the PRS system. In add-on, the municipal aggregation points receive e-waste free of charge. Some concern companies may dump the e-waste into the aggregation point illicitly.

In United States ( Maine ) , the monetary value of consolidator services to manufacturer is administrated by the DEP yearly. The consolidators need to subject the lowest cost agenda to the manufacturers and local governments. Therefore, manufacturers can take the best offered monetary value for the services of consolidators. Furthermore, this is the lone PRS which have step to cover with orphan e-waste among three reviewed topographic points. It divides the intervention cost to manufacturers by pro rata.

The collection and recycling rate is lowest among three reviewed topographic points in Maine. It is because the system merely focuses on domestic e-waste. Furthermore, the regulated e-waste merely included TVs and computing machine proctors. A big sum of e-waste The Maine ‘s progrmamme is cumbrous because every e-waste needs to screen by trade name. The consolidators besides need to enter the weight of e-waste. Furthermore, approximately 10 consolidators are responsible for screening the e-waste and direct bills to the manufacturers. Therefore, this system is time-consuming and increases the administrative costs for both consolidators and manufacturers. The manufacturers besides criticize for bearing the duty for the orphan e-waste. ( Wagner, 2009 ) Orphan e-waste means the e-waste trade name name can non be identified. They need to bear excess cost for the intervention of orphan e-waste by pro rata. Due to stop of life charge, consumers need to pay money to the local authorities when they dispose the e-waste. They may illicitly dump the e-waste. However, there is no statistic found in my research.

4 Remarks for the PRS in Hong Kong

After the analysis of the PRS systems in South Korea, Sweden and United States ( Maine ) , it indicates that different stakeholders bear different proportion of physical and fiscal duty. Furthermore, a good Praseodymium should hold high collection and recycling rate.

Since few electrical or electronic merchandises are produced locally in Hong Kong, manufacturers ‘ duties are in fact importers, distributers and retail merchants ‘ duty. For makers, it will be individually considered in the undermentioned subdivision.

4.1 Physical Duty

Consumer should co-operate in the PRS. They should dispose the e-waste to the aggregation sites or return back to the retail merchants or distributers. They could besides supply remark for the PRS to the authorities to implement a better system for e-waste direction. Incentive for consumers to take the e-waste back to the retail merchants or the aggregation sites is the of import measure. Collection sites should be easy accessible. Therefore, authorities and retail merchants or distributers should put up the broad spread aggregation sites in the 18 territories. They should supply a convenient manner to the consumers for disposal of e-waste.

In Hong Kong, it is hard to put up ain recycling workss by manufacturers like the PR system in South Korea. Retailers and distributers should continue more duty. From the experience of South Korea and Sweden, labeling of the regulated merchandises should be done by the retail merchants or distributers. Therefore, consumers are able to cognize the cost of the PRS for the intervention and recycling of e-waste.

Hong Kong has Numberss of retail merchants and distributers ; they may form or fall in a consolidator like El Kretsen in Sweden. With a cardinal consolidator, an enhanced organisation of aggregation and transit could be achieved. The retail merchants and distributers can pay the fee straight to the WEEE direction contractors

Quality of intervention for e-waste is of import. The recyclers should handle and recycle the e-waste suitably. Environmental Protection Department can direct officers to look into the intervention procedure in the recycling works on a regular basis. Recyclers should follow the demands purely which are set up by authorities. Otherwise, authorities would ticket the recyclers.

Monetary wages in South Korea has successfully decreased the figure of illegal dumping. Hong Kong authorities can larn from the experience of South Korea to put up some wages for describing illegal dumping.

4.2 Financial Responsibility

There are two ways of bear downing methods from the experience of three topographic points. In Maine, the consumers need to pay the end-of-life fee when they dispose the e-waste. In Hong Kong, there is a building waste disposal bear downing strategy similar to Maine. However, it leads to big sum of illegal dumping in the New Territories. If the e-waste charging follows the same method, it likely leads to big sum of illegal dumping.

In South Korea and Sweden, the fee is already included in the monetary value of the electrical contraptions. Therefore, it will enforce the fee to the importers and distributers, which is non welcome by them. In Hong Kong, after the audience paper released, the importers and distributers have unsatisfied to this option. However, in this option, Consumers do non necessitate to pay any fees when disposing the e-waste. This will diminish the inducement for consumer to dispose the e-waste illicitly. The two options have their ain pros and cons. Further treatment is needed.

For the orphan e-waste, there is no step shown in the audience paper in Hong Kong. In the reviewed topographic points, merely Maine ‘s plan has steps to cover with it. First, retail merchants should merely sale electrical merchandises of manufacturers that are participated in the plan. It can diminish the figure of orphan e-waste coevals. Second, the intervention cost is divided by manufacturers by pro rata. It can ease the fiscal load from authorities to the manufacturers. Hong Kong can put up similar pattern to cover with the job of orphan e-waste.

4.3 Collecting and recycling rate

Different topographic points have different classs of e-waste included in the PRS. The proposed PRS in Hong Kong has similar regulated points to that in South Korea. After the execution of PRS in Hong Kong, the collection and recycling rate should accomplish a similar rate which is 11.0 kg/capita/year. Swedish plan achieve the highest rate which is 15.8 kg/capita/year and Maine ‘s plan merely reached 1.8 kg/capita/year. These two values should be the favourable rate and lower limit rate that Hong Kong PRS should make severally.

5 Decision

After reexamining the PRS in South Korea, Sweden and United States ( Maine ) , different states adopt the PRS with alone features. The Hong Kong authorities can larn from the strengths and failings of different strategies and do mentions for the hereafter patterns on e-waste direction. The authorities should happen a balanced point of duty among assorted stakeholders for e-waste direction

Lists of Mention

Davis Gary. ( 1994 ) . Extended Producer Responsibility: A New Principle for a New Generation of Pollution Prevention.

Department of Environmental Protection, State of Maine. ( 2010 ) . Report on Maine ‘s Household E-waste Recycling Program.

El-Kretsen. ( 2010 ) . Sweden – universe leader in WEEE aggregation and intervention. Retrieved January 1, 2011, from El Kretsen hypertext transfer protocol: //www.el-kretsen.sesitespecificelkretsenfilespdfelelretur_foldern_engelsk.pdf

Environment Bureau. ( 2010 ) . Safe and Sustainable: A New Producer Repsonsibility Scheme for Waste Electrical & A ; Electronic Equipment.

Environmental Protection Department. ( 2005 ) . A Policy Model for the Mangament of Municial Solid Waste ( 2005-2014 ) . Retrieved January 1, 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.epd.gov.hk/epd/msw/htm_en/ch03/main.htm

Environmental Protection Department. ( 2010 ) . Waste Reduction. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from Recovery of waste elctrical and electronic equipment: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.wastereduction.gov.hk/en/workplace/weee_intro.htm

Future Energy Solutions. ( June 2003 ) . Study into European WEEE Schemes.

Gangnam-gu Office. ( 2004 ) . One stop big volume waste intervention system. Retrieved January 1, 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //waste.gangnam.go.kr/

Greenpeace. ( 2010 ) . Contamination of e-waste. Retrieved November 27, 2010 from Greenpeace: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.greenpeace.org/china/ch/campaigns/e-waste/pollution

Il-Ho Park. ( November 2006 ) . Policy Direction on E-Waste Recycling in Korea.

Lee Soo-cheol, & A ; Na Sung-in. ( 4th June 2010 ) . E-waste Recycling Systems and Sound Circulative Economies in East Asia: A Compararive Analysis of Systems in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan. Sustainability, page 1632-1644.

Lindhqvist T. ( 2000 ) . Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems.

Ming Pao. ( 28th December 2010 ) . Electronic Products levy consultaion.

Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea. ( 2010 ) . Extended Producer Responsibility. Retrieved January 1, 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //eng.me.go.kr/content.do? method=moveContent & A ; menuCode=pol_rec_pol_rec_sys_responsibility

Rie Murakami-Suzuki and Sung-Woo Chung. ( 2008 ) . A Comparative Study of E-waste Recycling Systems in Japan, South Kore nad Taiwan from the EPR Perspective: Deductions for Developing States.

Soo-cheol Lee and Sung-in Na. ( 4th June 2010 ) . E-waste Recycling Systems and Sound Circulative Economies in East Asia: A Compararive Analysis of Systems in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan.

Ronald E. Hester and Roy M. Harrison. ( 2009 ) . Electronic waste direction. Royal Society of Chemistry.

Knut Sander, Stephanie Schilling, Naoko Tojo, Chris new wave Rossem, Jan Vernon, & A ; Carolyn George. ( 2007 ) . The Producer Responsibility Principle of. Sweden.

Kohei Sasaki. ( December 2004 ) . Examing the Waste from the Electrical and Electronic Equipment Mangement Systems in Japan and Sweden.

The Sierra Club. ( May 2009 ) . Producer Responsibility Recycling. Retrieved January 1, 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/producerresponsibility/index.asp

UNEP. ( 2007 ) . E-Waste Vol. 1: Inventory Assessment Manual.

Travis P. Wagner. ( 19th July 2009 ) . Shared duty for pull offing electronic waste: A instance survey of Maine, USA. Waste Management.

How to cite Producer Responsibility Scheme To Regulate Electronic Waste Environmental Sciences Essay, Essay examples

Choose cite format:
Producer Responsibility Scheme To Regulate Electronic Waste Environmental Sciences Essay. (2018, Sep 14). Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://phdessay.com/producer-responsibility-scheme-to-regulate-electronic-waste-environmental-sciences-essay/.