22
Improving e-waste policies: The role of post-normal indicators Cédric Gossart Jaco Huisman
Improving e-waste policies:
The role of post-normal
indicatorsCédric
Gossart
Jaco
Huisman
What is e-waste?
Waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
> 50 Mt every year in the world
Fastest growth rate among all types of wastes
E-wastes are hazardous waste
They cause ecological, health, and ethical problems
page 2
Life cycle of ICTs
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6http://ewasteguide.info/images_galleries
page 7Credits: Cédric Gossart, StEP, http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/annual-report/Annual_Report_2010.pdf
page 8
E-waste policies
Europe: The WEEE directive
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee
http://www.step-initiative.org/
USA: A patchwork of heterogenous policies
http://www.electronicsrecycling.org
China: WEEE directive in place in 2011
http://www.bcrc.cn page 9
How (in)effective?
page 10
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sweden
Switzerland
Denmark
Belgium
Germany
Ireland
Austria
Hungary
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Greece
Portugal
Slovak Republic
France
Netherlands
Luxembourg*
Poland
Slovenia
SpainRomania
Lithuania
ItalyEstonia
Latvia
"Official Collection" as % of EEE Put on Market (in the same yr)
65% of POM 2016
45% of POM 2013
2009 EU Collection ranking 3.1 Mton = +/- 37% of all WEEE/ = 28% of EEE (3yr placed on market)
* Luxembourg to high PPP to be properly estimated, Finland, Malta, Cyprus unknown** Germany: unclear treatment amounts after collection
Carrots or sticks? « It depends… » (says the economist) Spin doctors’ piece of (expensive) advice:
page 12
The StEP carrot: the E-waste Solutions Index
(ESI)
page 13
Agregated index allowing us to evaluate and
compare the solutions put in place in any
country in the world to solve the e-waste
problem (=> incentives for governments to improve these
solutions –not much to be expected without strong policies).
Why « post-normal »? (1)
SPRU + Turnpenny & Jones paper (ref. below)
PNS: response to Kuhn’s « normal science » (NS)
NS: “research firmly based upon one or more
past scientific achievements, achievements that
some particular scientific community
acknowledges for a time as supplying the
foundation for its further practice”
page 14Turnpenny, J., M. Jones, et al. (2010), "Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses", Science, Technology & Human Values.
Ravetz (1971): need to “deindustrialize science” (in ref.
below)
Funtowitz & Ravetz (1991): new methods must be
developed « when facts are uncertain, values in dispute,
stakes high and decisions urgent » (in ref. below)
It is the case with e-waste: too many risks of lock-in
because too many routines and vested interests =>
Policy evaluations should be designed in such a way
that they maximise their impact on the policy
process.page 15
Why « post-normal »? (2)
Turnpenny, J., M. Jones, et al. (2010), "Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses", Science, Technology & Human Values.
Characteristics of a PN indicatorDesigned to have a strong impact on the policy
process (too many complex systems are built and not even used:
see presentation by Tom Bauler in this conference):
MAKE A (social & environmental) DIFFERENCE
Simple to understand and to use (« better evidence
does not necessarilly lead to better decision », in ref. below)
Uses knowledge embedded in extended peer
communities => participation of a broad range
of stakeholders => use of a variety of knowledge
sourcespage 16
Turnpenny, J., M. Jones, et al. (2010), "Where Now for Post-Normal Science? A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses", Science, Technology & Human Values.
page 17
StEPADDRESS
Criteria selection
Benchmark
Progress Indicator
Input Module
Output Module
Modelling Module
Int. Comparison
Structured Information
ADDRESSTraining
Amounts Progress Knowledge
StEP ADDRESS project
ESI construction
page 18
ESI - Country X
Year: 2009,
Status
Relevancy
Area
Relevanc
y to area
Score/
Total ESI - Country X - Continued
Year:
2009,
Status
Relevancy
Area
Relevancy
to area
Score/
Total
Collection 50.0% Legislation 20.0%
Kg POM 26.0 kg % of all WEEE categories covered 100% 10.0% 2.0%
Kg WA 18.60 kg - not 0.0% 0.0%
Kg C&T 6.2 kg - in draft 25.0% 0.0%
C&T WA - enacted 100% 50.0% 10.0%
Category LHA 1.0 5.0 5.0% 0.5%Enforcement items
Category C&F 2.0 3.2 25.0% 7.8%POM amounts 50% 10.0% 1.0%
Category Small 1.0 4.0 15.0% 1.9%Treatment Annex II/ Haz. Materials 20% 10.0% 0.4%
Category IT 1.0 2.0 20.0% 5.0%Recycling % reported and checked 25% 10.0% 0.5%
Category Screens 1.0 4.0 20.0% 2.5%
WEEE imports/exports regular/
continuous checks 50% 10.0% 1.0%
Category Lamps 0.15 0.4 15.0% 3.0%Subtotal 100.0% 12.9%
Subtotal 6.15 18.57 100.0%20.7%Recycling infrastructure present 10.0%
Financing 15.0% State of the art recyclers, sufficient capacity 100% 50.0% 5.0%
Financing agreed and operational 100% 40.0% 6.0%Recycling standards developed 25% 10.0% 0.3%
Financing stimulating more collection 0% 40.0% 0.0%Recycling standards implemented 20% 10.0% 0.2%
Stakeholder cooperation running 50% 20.0% 1.5%Recycling standards audited 10% 10.0% 0.1%
Subtotal 100.0% 7.5%Mass balances tracked daily basis 5% 20.0% 0.1%
Consumer Education and Awareness 5.0% Subtotal 100.0% 5.7%
CSS doing mediacampaings 100% 40.0% 2.0%Total 49.8%
Level of consumer awareness/
willingness to hand in WEEE 35% 60.0% 1.1%
Subtotal 100.0% 3.1% page 19
ESI benchmarking in some European countries (Turkey will be there soon…)
page 20
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
2005 Example
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
2005 Example
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
2010 Example
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
2010 Example
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
2000 Example
Spain
France
UK
NL
B
L
GermanyPoland
DK
Austria
Italy
Greece
FinlandSweden
MaltaCyprus
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
CH
Ireland
Bulgaria
Romania
Serbia
MAAL
BH
CRSL
POR
2000 Example
page 21
A Turkish solution to e-waste : The e-mangal
Thank you for your attention.
page 22
Cédric Gossart
Associate Professor
Telecom Institute’s Business School
9, rue Charles Fourier - 91011, Evry Cedex
– France
Tél. : +33 (0)1 60 76 46 69 ; Fax : +33 (0)1
60 76 42 86http://etos.it-sudparis.eu/membres/CedricGossart/Home.htm
