]]
Publications
Nolan-ITU
Prepared in association with Centre for Design at RMIT and Product Ecology Pty Ltd
Department of the Environment and Heritage, January, 2004
Stakeholder workshop and survey responses
A survey was sent to the list of stakeholders including industry associations, manufacturers and distributors of electrical and electronic products, retailers, service contractors, waste contractors and recyclers, State Government agencies, Councils and others. Their numerical responses are listed below.
Respondents were asked to tick options they believed should be considered in a recovery and recycling program. Respondents were allowed to tick as many or few boxes as they liked.
| Type of collection | Option |
No. of positive responses
|
|---|---|---|
| Retail collection | Point of sale drop off, i.e. take-back or trade-in when buying a new product |
17
|
| Drop-off at retail warehouses (Bunnings, etc) - permanent or periodic |
10
|
|
| Collection of a used product on delivery of a new product (backloading) |
16
|
|
| Drop-off facilities | Transfer station or recycling depot - permanent collection sites |
13
|
| Drop-off at reprocessors' facilities - permanent collection sites |
10
|
|
| One-day e-waste collection events at Council depots |
8
|
|
| Drop-off facilities utilizing existing networks, eg Australia Post, transport companies |
5
|
|
| Rental and repair centres | Permanent bins for at-call collection by reprocessor / sub-contractor |
13
|
| Kerbside collection | Promotion of e-waste collection as part of existing Local Government hard rubbish collection services - without compaction |
6
|
| Separate e-waste collection - biannual or quarterly - through reprocessors or contractors |
10
|
|
| Collection through existing charity collection networks - i.e. charities sub-contracted to collect specified products |
4
|
|
| On-line Internet facility to enable people to report used product ready for collection, and once there is critical mass in one area, to be advised of next collection date |
6
|
Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for collection systems. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.
|
Essential
|
Desirable
|
Not relevant
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Meets policy goal of avoiding and reducing waste |
14
|
3
|
2
|
| Meets policy goals of reducing toxicity and safely managing hazardous substances |
17
|
2
|
0
|
| Meets policy goal of reducing litter and illegal dumping |
13
|
4
|
2
|
| Meets policy goal of increasing overall resource or materials efficiency |
13
|
6
|
0
|
| Meets policy goal of increasing use of renewable and recovered materials |
12
|
7
|
0
|
| Meets high occupational health, safety and environmental standards |
11
|
8
|
0
|
| Cost or value to the supply chain |
4
|
15
|
0
|
| Consumer convenience |
12
|
7
|
0
|
| Cost or value to the consumer |
8
|
11
|
0
|
| Capacity to collect high volumes |
6
|
11
|
2
|
| Capacity to operate effectively in rural and regional areas |
5
|
13
|
1
|
| Potential to expand to a wider range of products |
5
|
10
|
4
|
| Capacity to maintain product integrity for reuse (either complete or as components) |
7
|
9
|
3
|
| Supply chain acceptability (e.g. likelihood of retailers or other relevant group accepting responsibility for collection) |
10
|
8
|
1
|
| Compatibility with funding arrangements (i.e. can it be done with available funds) |
5
|
10
|
4
|
| Social equity (accessible to most people regardless of age, mobility, geographic location etc) |
6
|
13
|
0
|
Respondents were asked what options they believe should be considered in a recovery and recycling program. Respondents were allowed to tick as few or as many as they liked.
| Issue / material | Option |
No. responses
|
|---|---|---|
| Availability of infrastructure for reprocessing | Build up collection slowly in line with available processing facilities / capacity |
11
|
| Build up collection quickly and stockpile products while facilities being established to provide economies of scale |
8
|
|
| CRT | Complete disassembly and reprocessing of separate materials (e.g. front glass reprocessed separately for recovery as glass; leaded glass to smelter for lead recovery) |
11
|
| Partial disassembly and some mechanical separation (plastics and cabling removed first; funnel crushed for recovery of metals & mixed glass to smelter) - volume processing |
13
|
|
| CPU | Complete disassembly and reuse of separate components |
11
|
| Complete disassembly and reprocessing of separate materials |
13
|
|
| Crushing for recovery of metals only (10-15%); remainder to landfill |
5
|
|
| Plastics | Separation for reprocessing in Australia or overseas where markets exist; remainder to landfill |
16
|
| Waste to energy if and when facilities established in Australia |
10
|
Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for reprocessing options. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.
|
Essential
|
Desirable
|
Not relevant
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Meets policy goal of avoiding and reducing waste |
14
|
5
|
0
|
| Meets policy goals of reducing toxicity and safely managing hazardous substances |
15
|
4
|
0
|
| Meets policy goal of reducing litter and illegal dumping |
12
|
5
|
2
|
| Meets policy goal of increasing overall resource or materials efficiency |
14
|
5
|
0
|
| Meets policy goal of increasing use of renewable and recovered materials |
10
|
9
|
0
|
| Relevance of reprocessing technology to current waste streams |
10
|
7
|
2
|
| Adaptability of reprocessing technologies to future waste streams (i.e. greater design for environment, design for disassembly; LCD/flat screens etc) |
9
|
10
|
0
|
| Community acceptability of reprocessing technologies (perceptions of health, safety, environmental impacts) |
9
|
10
|
0
|
| Environmental impacts, e.g. energy consumption (precautionary principle) |
8
|
11
|
0
|
| Capacity to process large quantities, including orphan products, now and in the future |
9
|
10
|
0
|
| Security /robustness of markets for end products over time |
6
|
13
|
0
|
| Quality and value of end-products |
11
|
8
|
0
|
| Markets available in Australia (proximity principle / global equity) |
8
|
9
|
2
|
| Technical feasibility |
13
|
5
|
1
|
| Costs of reprocessing (economic feasibility) |
14
|
5
|
0
|
Respondents were asked what they believed should be considered in a recovery program. Respondents were allowed to tick as few or as many as they liked.
| Issue | Option |
Tick the box √
|
|---|---|---|
| Where fee is charged | Fee included in purchase price (charged at wholesale level and passed on to consumer) |
18
|
| Fee charged at point of disposal and paid by final user (recycling / landfill) |
4
|
|
| Visibility of fee | Fee transparent to consumer, e.g. listed separately on sales receipt |
19
|
| Fee invisible to consumer, i.e. incorporated into the total purchase price |
2
|
|
| Level of fee | Single-level fee per product category (e.g. one fee for all TVs regardless of type / size / age) |
10
|
| Multi-level fee based on weight |
2
|
|
| Multi-level fee based on product or component category (e.g. TV/ computer monitor / CPU / printer etc) reflecting resale value or cost of reprocessing |
11
|
|
| When fee is applied | At first purchase only |
17
|
| At every sale, including sale of second hand goods |
3
|
|
| Level of fee | Start low and build up as capacity to reprocess and funding needs increase |
5
|
| Start at level required to fund total program, recognising that there are large up-front costs in R&D and infrastructure that need to be met |
14
|
Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criterion should have for funding criteria. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.
|
Essential
|
Desirable
|
Not relevant
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial neutrality / no competitive disadvantage to industry participants |
15
|
3
|
1
|
| Capacity to change behaviour through transparency to consumers |
12
|
6
|
1
|
| Simplicity of administration |
13
|
6
|
0
|
| Transparency and accountability |
16
|
3
|
0
|
| Simplicity for consumers |
17
|
2
|
0
|
| Ability to meet total net costs of the program |
13
|
6
|
0
|
| Consistency of fee over time |
5
|
11
|
3
|
| Potential to support policy goals |
7
|
12
|
0
|
Respondents were asked to select the options that they believed should be considered in a recovery program. Respondents were allowed to tick as few or as many as they liked.
| Issue | Option |
No. Responses
|
|---|---|---|
| Management of program | Managed by a government agency or department |
3
|
| Managed by an industry association |
8
|
|
| Managed by new organisation established for this purpose (e.g. 'E-Waste Australia') |
17
|
|
| Management Board / advisory group | Shareholders only, with ability to involve other observers on Board |
10
|
| Broad stakeholder involvement, including supply chain, government, NGOs |
10
|
|
| Management of collected funds | Funds kept separate for discreet product categories |
4
|
| Funds used for all products involved in program (not kept separate) |
14
|
|
| Application of funds to which products | All products entering the waste stream now, including orphan products, to solve current waste problems |
15
|
| Products entering the waste stream in the future (e.g. advance disposal fee / voucher for a specific product purchased today, to cover costs of recovery later) |
10
|
|
| Application of funds for specific purposes | Grants for R&D / market development |
12
|
| Grants for collection infrastructure (e.g. bins, trucks) |
9
|
|
| Grants for reprocessing infrastructure (buildings, equipment etc) |
12
|
|
| Grants for community information and education programs on e-waste |
13
|
|
| Subsidy for collection and reprocessing based on clear guidelines, e.g. linked to value/cost of different components, levels reassessed quarterly |
1
|
Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for management options. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.
|
Essential
|
Desirable
|
Not relevant
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Transparency and accountability |
18
|
1
|
0
|
| Capacity to get industry engaged |
18
|
1
|
0
|
| Capacity to build and maintain public & consumer confidence |
17
|
2
|
0
|
| Ability to meet core system objectives |
16
|
3
|
0
|
| Potential for multi-stakeholder involvement |
7
|
12
|
0
|
| Capacity to run a national program |
10
|
9
|
0
|
| Capacity to expand to other industry sectors / products over time |
7
|
9
|
3
|
| Costs of administration |
10
|
7
|
2
|
Respondents were asked to select the options that they believe should be considered in a recovery program. Respondents were asked to select as many or as few as they liked.
| Type of instrument | Option |
No. responses
|
|---|---|---|
| Landfill bans | Landfill ban on whole products, e.g. TVs, computers |
16
|
| Landfill bans on CRTs computer monitors, TVs with CRTs) |
13
|
|
| Targets | Recovery / recycling targets |
16
|
| Infrastructure targets |
5
|
|
| Product design regulations | Elimination of hazardous substances in line with European Union Directive |
12
|
| Requirements for design for environment / design for disassembly and recycling / materials identification labelling |
18
|
|
| Extended Producer Responsibility | Industry-wide voluntary environmental agreement (EEP sector) recognised by governments |
11
|
| Sectoral voluntary environmental agreements (e.g. one for TVs, one for computers etc) recognised by governments |
3
|
|
| Voluntary industry agreement(s) with back-up legislation to catch free-loaders (e.g. National Environment Protection Measure or NEPM) |
12
|
|
| Waste regulations | National uniformity in hazardous waste classification of E-waste |
19
|
| Education | Link to government waste / recycling education programs |
16
|
| Market development assistance | Grants for R&D, eg plastics and leaded glass recycling |
14
|
| Support for electronic tracking / management system for products - coordination of collection |
9
|
Respondents were asked questions about the weighting each criteria should have for policy criteria. Respondents were asked to select one answer for each question.
|
Essential
|
Desirable
|
Not relevant
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity to demonstrate measurable performance against targets or milestones |
14
|
5
|
0
|
| Capacity to drive sustainable change / provide incentives for action by supply chain and community |
11
|
8
|
0
|
| Capacity to support competition in the recovery / reprocessing market & avoid market distortions |
11
|
7
|
1
|
| Ease of administration |
13
|
6
|
0
|
| Capacity to achieve end-goals (political, social, environmental) |
14
|
5
|
0
|
| Ability to provide security of supply |
9
|
8
|
2
|
| Ability to support phased implementation to avoid stockpiles or other problems |
7
|
12
|
0
|
| Consistency with international regulations |
7
|
12
|
0
|
| Ability to get support and participation by whole supply chain |
10
|
9
|
0
|
| Ability to drive innovation for efficient and cost-effective outcomes |
10
|
9
|
0
|