EFFECTIVE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP MODELS: A LOOK AT THE OVERSEAS EVIDENCE

Dana Rachelle Peterson Senior Analyst, Ministry for the Environment [email protected] , +64-4-439-7790 Presented at WasteMINZ Annual Conference, Wellington, October 2014

Caveat This paper represents the findings and views of the author and should not be construed to represent the views or policies of the Ministry for the Environment or the Government of New Zealand

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of effective product stewardship schemes overseas to contribute to the assessment of cost-effective options for New Zealand. There are now over 400 regulated product stewardship or ‘extended producer responsibility’ (EPR) schemes worldwide, primarily in Europe, North America, Northeast Asia, and Australia, and most commonly covering e-waste, tyres, packaging, batteries, vehicles, and oil. The predominant form of EPR is regulated product take-back, followed by advance disposal fees, and deposit-refund. Comparing performance between product stewardship models and scheme types is not straightforward. Comparative data is often not available, especially concerning scheme costs. A review of the comparative case study literature suggests the following:  There is no ‘silver bullet’ - no one model that can be copied either between countries or product types, or single EPR model emerges as the best performing and the most cost- effective.  There are a range of design features that require attention to ensure functionality and performance – for example, clarity of purpose and performance measures; adequate resourcing and enforcement; and supplementary incentives for waste minimisation, eco- design, high quality recycling (both domestic and offshore), and stakeholder involvement.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 1 Purpose and Methodology This paper has been prepared to improve our understanding of overseas product stewardship models to inform the assessment of cost-effective options for New Zealand. It is based on a literature review undertaken by the author and participation in the 2014 OECD Global Forum on Extended Producer Responsibility in June 2014.

Context New Zealand’s approach to product stewardship has been voluntary to date. Since the advent of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA), 12 voluntary product stewardship schemes have been accredited by the Minister for the Environment. Government has recognised that while waste diversion from these schemes is a good start, there is an opportunity to foster greater progress in waste minimisation and resource efficiency through improved producer responsibility. A discussion document was released in May 2014 seeking views on which were the most important product waste streams for the Government to focus attention on, and whether we should move toward declaring ‘priority products’ under the WMA. The four proposed priorities were e-waste, tyres, agrichemicals and their containers and other farm plastics, and refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases. 1 At the time of writing this paper, the submissions and potential policy implications and options were being analysed. Next steps will be decided by the Minister for the Environment and Cabinet.

The OECD first published policy guidance on EPR well over a decade ago.2 In response to increasing interest worldwide in EPR as a tool to support evolution toward a sustainable ‘circular economy’, the OECD held a Global Forum on EPR in June 2014. Attending the Forum were 128 people from 29 countries around the world (Europe, Asia, North America, South America, and Africa). The OECD is using the material provided to and resulting from this Forum to contribute to their current work on updating their EPR policy guidance. 3

1 Ministry for the Environment 2014. 2 OECD 2001 3 Agenda and case studies on www.oecd.org/env/waste/gfenv-extendedproducerresponsibility-june2014.htm and presentations on www.slideshare.net/OECD_ENV

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 2 Terminology: ‘product stewardship’, ‘extended producer responsibility’, and ‘co-regulation’ Product stewardship is when responsibility for the environmental effects that products can cause in their life cycle is shared among producers and users involved with the product. Product stewardship scheme participants can include producers, brand owners, importers, retailers, and consumers.4 In its broadest definition, product stewardship includes both voluntary and regulated activities.

‘Extended producer responsibility’ (EPR) is a subset of product stewardship (Figure 1) and the most common form of regulated product stewardship implemented overseas. It is the term most often used in Europe, North America and Asia, although with some variations of definition.5 In Figure 1: EPR and product stewardship (Source: Cassel 2014) Japan and other parts of Asia ‘sound material-cycle society’, ‘circular economy’ or similar phrases are also used. Legislation in New Zealand and Australia provides powers to implement EPR-type regulations but refers to ‘product stewardship’ rather than EPR. The WMA emphasises the sharing of responsibility between sectors and covers both voluntary and regulated measures. Australia also uses the term ‘co-regulation’.6

EPR has been defined by the OECD as follows: “EPR is an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility, physical and/or financial, for a product is extended to the

4 Ministry for the Environment 2014 5 In the USA, EPR is used primarily to refer only to regulated take-back obligations: other regulated measures such as advance disposal fees or deposit-refund are not included Product Stewardship Institute 2014). While most sources use EPR to refer to regulated product stewardship, one recent international survey for the OECD used a broader definition, including both regulated and voluntary measures (Kaffine and O’Reilly 2013). 6 In Australia the term ‘co-regulation’ is used when government requires industry to take financial and physical responsibility for aspects of end-of-life product waste and sets achievement targets, but leaves industry to design the most cost-effective solutions. Co-regulation is the form of regulated product stewardship implemented in Australia in 2011 for e-waste.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 3 post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. There are two related features of EPR policy: (1) the shifting of responsibility (physically and/or economically; fully or partially) upstream to the producer and away from municipalities, and (2) to provide incentives to producers to incorporate environmental considerations in the design of their products”7

As a reflection of the New Zealand legislation this paper uses the term ‘regulated product stewardship’ generally, and EPR when referring to overseas EPR schemes.

Global incidence of EPR EPR was implemented first in Europe in the early 1980s for packaging. Implementation has since spread globally to a wide range of products in many countries (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Cumulative EPR policy adoption worldwide 1970 - 2013 (Source: Kaffine and O’Reilly 2013, cited in OECD and Japan Ministry for the Environment 2014). This is a total count of all separate EPR policies, for each product and each country, state, or province.

The European Union has promulgated a number of Directives which require member countries to achieve regulated waste diversion targets (for packaging, e-waste, batteries, and end-of-life vehicles) and EPR is required or encouraged for the majority of these Directives. Non-EU European countries such as Switzerland and Norway led well before the Directives were promulgated. Other countries that have led for many years in the implementation of EPR are Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada (most provinces), and the USA (many states). Regulated product stewardship also exists in many other countries, including Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iceland, Singapore, and South Africa.

7 OECD 2001.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 4 The most common product types covered by EPR are e-waste, tyres, packaging, batteries, vehicles, and oil, followed by medicines, paint, agrichemicals and their containers, products containing mercury (mercury thermostats, auto switches and fluorescent lamps), and graphic paper (Appendix 1a). Products that have been covered by EPR only in a few countries or states to date include photo-chemicals, ink cartridges, and disposable kitchenware (Belgium), furniture, textiles and mobile homes (France), refrigerants (Germany, Japan, Australia), medical sharps (Nova Scotia), mattresses (three USA states), carpet (California), waste containing asbestos (Croatia), and window panes (Netherlands).

A recent survey of 394 reported EPR schemes prepared for the OECD found that the predominant form of implemented EPR is regulated product take-back (73%), followed by advance disposal fees (16%), and deposit-refund (10%).8 The ‘other’ category (1%) includes ‘upstream combined tax/subsidy’ (UCTS).9

The economic incentives of the various forms of EPR are placed at different points of the product life cycle (1b). Take-back is at the post-consumer stage and producers are required to provide for collection and treatment of end-of-life products. Deposit-refund involves a transparent fee at point of purchase which is refunded to whoever brings in a product of that type to a collection centre. This is used primarily for beverage packaging (where it is also referred to as ‘container deposit legislation’ or CDL) and for lead-acid batteries. The ‘advance deposit fee’ (ADF) approach levies a fee on producers or transparently at point of purchase which is set to cover the end-of-life collection and processing costs for the product. Countries which use the ADF model for one or more product groups currently include Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada (Ontario, Nova Scotia), USA (California), and Australia (for refrigerants). The UCTS charges a tax before consumption and reallocates the funds to incentivise beneficial use of post-consumer materials.

8 Kaffine and O’Reilly 2013 9 Kaffine & O’Reilly 2013, Australia Department of the Environment 2013, Walls 2006. There are two reported UCTS schemes, both for oil; the national scheme in Australia, and a scheme covering the western provinces in Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) Kaffine & O’Reilly 2013, Australia Department of the Environment 2013, Walls 2006.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 5 In addition to variation in EPR type and product covered, there are a myriad of other variables. These include degree of collaboration vs competition (examples in Appendix 1c), approaches to funding, target setting and reporting, monitoring and enforcement, degree of direct government and stakeholder involvement in operations, and other incentives in place.

Complementary economic instruments Overseas experience suggests that EPR is not able to effectively address all barriers to minimisation of harm from waste, and the optimal policy mix may include more than one form of intervention. The other most commonly used economic instruments in this field are disposal levies (for landfill and/or incineration), ‘pay as you throw’ (PAYT) waste collection charges, and landfill bans. In many of the jurisdictions which have successful EPR schemes, as measured by reduction in waste to landfill, one or more other economic instruments are also in place contributing to incentives.10

In order to directly influence eco-design of products and reduce costs to the environment and human health, the parallel of the landfill ban is a restriction on product content. For example, in the European countries this is in place for electronics in the form of Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) regulations.

Comparing cost-effectiveness A number of EPR case studies have been published, but most do not offer clear insights for design of cost-effective models. Comparisons between case studies have encountered difficulties in consistency of data type and calculation method across product types or countries and lack of accurate or comparable cost data. Evidence on benefits additional to diversion of waste from landfill (eg, eco-design of products, net job creation) is also sparse in the literature.

A comparison of the performance of EPR e-waste schemes in tonnage of collected post- consumer waste (kg per capita) shows a wide range (Appendix 3). A comparison of the 23 USA

10 Watkins et al 2012, Environment Canada 2014.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 6 state EPR programmes for e-waste conducted by the Product Stewardship Institute found that those with the highest collection rate had a centralized collection and recycling program and/or set strong convenience standards.11 However there is limited comparative information on cost-effectiveness or recycling quality for e-waste.

Prior to the enactment of Australia’s Product Stewardship Act 2011, the Australian government commissioned case studies on product stewardship schemes operating in Asia, North America, and Europe.12 One study offered some recommendations for Australia (Box 1).

Box 1: Key findings and recommendations for Australia from 11 European and North American case studies

 There is no one model that can be copied for products of concern, either between countries or product types.  Drivers overseas may be very different – eg, shortage of landfill space and widespread use of incineration as a solution in Europe and Asia, compliance with RoHS in Asia.  Measurement of performance may vary significantly, making comparisons difficult – eg, in Europe recycling rates measure tonnage delivered to reprocessors whereas in Australia it measures output from the reprocessor.1  Driving eco-design is unlikely from small markets –eg, Australia will be unable to drive

changes in global markets.

 To have better results and require shorter implementation times, it was recommended to: o Clearly articulate objectives of proposed programmes o Stakeholders need to see that proposed interventions are justified, fair and supportive of competition. Redistribution of market share and “picking winners” will be of concern. o Design fee structures with a robust process and facilitate regular reassessment. o Build on the strength of existing systems, infrastructure, and networks (eg, sharing resources between product types) o Effectively engage with stakeholders – use a collaborative approach, address concerns. Summarised from: MS2 and Perchards 2009

A comparison of the Japanese and Swedish EPR systems for e-waste concluded that while the Japanese requirement for the consumer to pay a substantial recycling fee at end of life could be considered to encourage reuse, it also encouraged illegal disposal. The Swedish system

11 Product Stewardship Institute 2014 p. 19. 12 Chong et al 2009, MS2 and Perchards 2009.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 7 achieved a higher collection rate due to free and convenient collection, whereas the Japanese system obtained greater recycling rates for collected materials due to mandatory targets.13 A subsequent comparison of the Japanese and European Union model concluded that neither system was obviously better than the other in terms of performance and costs. Recommendations from this study were that:  to increase collection rates, Japan needed to move from payment at point of disposal to an advance payment, and Europe needed to improve incentives for users and recyclers  Japan needed to reduce costs without reducing quality of recycling, whereas Europe needed to restore the former quality which had been lost in the drive to cut costs, and  Both Japan and Europe need to set up a common fund to enable cooperative oversight of problems with cross-border recycling. 14

The European Commission has recently sponsored a comprehensive review of EPR systems in place among the European Union member countries.15 The study found a severe lack of comparable information on economic and technical performance. For the detailed case studies as data allowed, costs were compared against performance data. In some product groups clear front-runners in cost-effective performance emerged (eg, the Belgian packaging schemes evidence both the highest recovery and lowest producer fees in cost per inhabitant -Appendix 1d). The key findings and guidance principles identified by this study relevant to comparative performance and cost-effectiveness of EPR system types are summarized in Box 2.

The top performers from this analysis have been combined in Appendix 2 to show some of the attributes of those schemes. For e-waste, cost and collection data limitations did not allow the same type of comparison, so the highest performing case study was selected (Sweden). This analysis suggests that all exemplar schemes have performance targets (by virtue of European

13 Sasaki 2004. 14 Yoshida and Yoshida 2010. 15 Monier 2014. The study included a broad scan of the 175 existing EPR programmes in member countries, 36 very detailed case studies, and consultation with a wide range of nearly 100 key stakeholders.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 8 Union Directives) and clear monitoring and enforcement provisions, and most involve a non- profit product stewardship organization (PRO) and fees that cover 100% of costs.

Box 2: Guidance from 36 European EPR case studies

Key findings  No single EPR model emerges as the best performing and the most cost-effective.  The best performing schemes are not, in most cases, the most expensive.  There is no evidence that a centralised organisation or competition among PROs is better.

 In terms of competition, the most important aspects to ensure are: o a level playing field within a legal framework ensuring fair competition o efficient enforcement and control by the public authorities.

Design principles for effective programmes 1. Clarify intent of regulations 2. Clarify roles of sectors 3. Ensure system covers full net costs 4. Producer fees should be differentiated by end-of-life costs of their products 5. Competition framework needs equal rules and adequate surveillance and enforcement 6. Ensure transparency of performance and cost data 7. Harmonise definitions and reporting between schemes and countries 8. Monitoring and enforcement framework must be adequately resourced and involve both government and producers Summarised from: Monier et al 2014

Conclusions Regulated product stewardship has achieved significant waste diversion overseas, and is still evolving. New Zealand has the opportunity to benefit from experiences of others. Based on the information reviewed for this paper, the following preliminary conclusions have been drawn. 1. There is no ‘silver bullet’ o No one model that can be copied either between countries or product types o No single EPR model emerges as the best performing and the most cost-effective 2. To ensure functionality and performance, attention is required to crucial elements o Clarity of purpose and performance measures o Adequate resourcing and enforcement o Supplementary incentives for waste minimisation, eco-design, high quality recycling (both domestic and offshore), and stakeholder involvement.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 9 References Agrawala S. 2014. Extended Producer Responsibility: Overview, Recent Trends and Forum Objectives, presentation to the OECD Global Forum on EPR, 17-19 June 2014, Tokyo, www.slideshare.net/OECD_ENV Australian Department of the Environment. 2013. Third independent review of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000 – Final report, prepared by Aither for the Department of the Environment, Australian Government, September 2013. www.environment.gov.au/resource/third-independent-review-product-stewardship-oil-act- 2000 Bohr P. 2007. The Economics of Electronics Recycling: New Approaches to Extended Producer Responsibility, Doctoral Thesis, Technischen Universität, Berlin www.weee- forum.org/sites/default/files/documents/2007_economics20of20electronics20recycling_philip p20bohr1.pdf Cassel S. 2014. Extended Producer Responsibility Insights from the United States, presentation at the OECD Global Forum on EPR, Tokyo Japan, 17-19 June 2014, www.slideshare.net/OECD_ENV Chong J, Mason L, Pillora S, and Giurco D. 2009. Briefing Paper - Product Stewardship Schemes in Asia: China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by the Institute for Sustainable Futures www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/86ada0a0-8c0a-4ad0-b925- 67b81a27463b/files/product-stewardship-asia.doc Chung S-W and Murakami-Suzuki R. 2008. A Comparative Study of E-Waste Recycling Systems in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from the EPR Perspective: Implications for Developing Countries [published in Michikazu, Kojima ed. 2008.Promoting 3Rs in developing Countries: Lesson from the Japanese Experience, Chiba, IDE-JETRO] www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Spot/pdf/30/007.pdf Environment Canada. 2014. Promoting Sustainable Materials Management Through Extended Producer Responsibility: Canadian Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Case Study, Prepared for the OECD Global Forum on Environment: Promoting Sustainable Materials Management Through Extended Producer Responsibility 17-19 June 2014, Tokyo, Japan,

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 10 www.oecd.org/environment/waste/Canadian%20WEEE%20EPR%20Case%20Study%20- %2012June2014.FINAL.pdf Heo H and Jung M-H. 2014. Case Study for OECD project on extended producer responsibility – Republic of Korea, Resource Recirculation Bureau, Korea http://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/OECD_EPR_case_study_Korea_revised_140522.pdf Hickle GT. 2013. Comparative Analysis of Extended Producer Responsibility Policy in the United States and Canada, Journal of Industrial Ecology 17(2):249-261 Kaffine D and O’Reilly P. 2013. What Have We Learned About Extended Producer Responsibility in the Past Decade? A Survey of the Recent EPR Economic Literature, document prepared for the OECD Working Party on Resource Productivity and Waste, 12-14 November 2013, Paris, ENV/EPOC/WPRPW(2013)7/REV1 Khetriwal DS, Kraeuchi P and Widmer R. 2007. Producer responsibility for e-waste management: Key issues for consideration – Learning from the Swiss experience, Journal of Environmental Management, xx(2007):1-13. Lee S-C and Na S-I. 2010. E-Waste Recycling Systems and Sound Circulative Economies in East Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Systems in Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan, Sustainability 2010(2):1632-1644, doi: 10.390/su2061632 Menikpura, SNM, Santo A and Hotta Y. 2014. Assessing the climate co-benefits from Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) recycling in Japan, Journal of Cleaner Production 74: 183–190, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652614002613 Ministry for the Environment. 2014. Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. MS2 and Perchards. 2009. Final Report – Product Stewardship in North America and Europe, prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts on behalf of the Waste Policy Taskforce, Monier V, Hestin M, Cave J, Laureysens I, Watkins E, Reisinger H and Porsch L. 2014. Development of Guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Final Report, Prepared by Bio Intelligence Service for European Commission – DG Environment, Contract No 07.0307/2012/63260/ETU/C2 , http://epr.eu-smr.eu/home

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 11 Nash J and Bosso C. 2013. Extended producer Responsibility in the United States: Full Speed Ahead?, Journal of Industrial Ecology 17(2):175-185. OECD. 2001. Extended producer Responsibility: A guidance manual for Governments, OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/9789264189867-en OECD and Japan Ministry of the Environment. 2014. The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges. Issues paper for the Global Forum on Environment: Promoting Sustainable Materials Management through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), 17-19 June 2014, Tokyo, Japan, www.oecd.org/env/waste/gfenv- extendedproducerresponsibility-june2014.htm Product Stewardship Institute. 2014. Electronics EPR: A Case Study of State Programs in the United States, draft as at 3 June 2014, www.oecd.org/environment/waste/United%20States%20(PSI%20-%20Cassel).pdf Sasaki K. 2004. Examining the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management Systems in Japan and Sweden, Master’s Thesis, Lund University Masters Programme in Environmental Science, Lund, Sweden www.lumes.lu.se/database/alumni/03.04/theses/sasaki_kohei.pdf Sponar M. 2014. Extended Producer Responsibility – EU Guidance, presentation to the OECD Global Forum on EPR, 17-19 June 2014, Tokyo, www.slideshare.net/OECD_ENV Urvinnslusjodur . n.d. The Icelandic Recycling Fund, www.urvinnslusjodur.is/english Walls, MA. 2006. Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Design: Economic Theory and Selected Case Studies, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 06-08, http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-06-08-REV.pdf Watkins E et al. 2012. Use of Economic Instruments and Waste Management Performances, Final Report 10 April 2012, Contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112, European Commission (DG ENV), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/final_repor_10042012.pdf Yoshida F and Yoshida H. 2010. Japan, the European Union, and Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Recycling: Key Lessons Learned, Environmental Engineering Science, 27(1): 21-28, http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/50812/1/yoshida_ees27-1.pdf Yoshida F. and Yoshida H. 2012. WEEE Management in Japan, published in WEEE handbook, Woodhead Publishing 2012 www.econ.hokudai.ac.jp/~yoshida/doc/WEEE%20Handbook.pdf

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 12 Appendix 1: Characterisation of EPR programme coverage and models (a) Regulated product stewardship – estimated scheme count by jurisdiction and product type

NE Asia Europe Canada USA (Japan, (country (province (state Korea, Australia Other count) count) count) Taiwan, Product group China) totals percent E-waste / WEEE 30 9 25 4 1 4 73 17% Tyres 20 11 31 2 4 68 16% Packaging 27 12 11 2 2 4 58 14% Batteries 28 4 18 2 3 55 13% End -of-life vehicles (ELV) 27 3 30 7% Oil 10 8 2 1 1 22 5% Medicines 10 6 2 1 1 20 5% Mercury auto switches 1 15 16 4%

Graphic paper 11 3 14 3% Paint 5 8 13 3% Mercury thermostats 1 11 12 3% Agricultural chemicals/ 2% 2 1 1 1 3 8 packaging Agricultural film 8 8 2% Other 6 5 11 2 1 3 28 6% total 179 63 125 19 5 23 425 100% Sources: Monier et al 2014; Kaffine and O’Reilly 2013, Kerr 2014, Cassel 2014, Nash and Bosso 2013, Chong et al 2009, Product Stewardship Institute 2014, Lee 2012, USEPA and EPAT 2012, Urvinnslusjodur (no date).

(b) Points of influence of EPR policy instruments in the product life cycle

Source: Agrawala 2014 slide 6. ADF = advance disposal fee, UCTS = upstream combined tax/ subsidy

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 13 (c) Variations of collective and competitive behavior in EPR schemes

Degree of individual producer responsibility

Collective and collaborative Independent and Switzerland Norway collaborative Belgium Sweden Japan Netherlands France Korea Taiwan Collective and competitive Independent and competitive Germany Australia Voluntary initiatives Austria (no regulated schemes

Spain reported)

Degree of competition of Degree Adapted from: Bohr 2007, Figure 18. The alignment is not necessarily regulated: In some countries individual company responsibility is an option, but most producers have chosen a collective approach (eg, Belgium, Australia).

(d) Cost effectiveness of seven European packaging EPR case studies

Size of graphed circle indicates volumes collected per capita. Source: Monier at al 2014; Sponar 2014, slide 8.

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 14 Appendix 2: Compared attributes for eight exemplar (cost-effective) European EPR schemes Summarised from: Monier et al 2014 Note: all schemes have recycling and recovery targets, as required by European Union Directives

Cost Collec PRO* Competition ? Penalty Exemplar per Type of PRO* Reporting PRO* status & Coverage Who tion cost Waste for free- case study capita/ responsibility transparency board members rules monitors? rate coverage PROs* operators riding year Authorisation & Belgium Organisational PROs required to Data to national Territory audits by Packaging (partial) and be non-profit, no No Yes – public 85% € 7.9 100% commission, coverage Fines Interregional (house- Financial requirement on tenders (reimburse annual reports homogeneous Packaging hold) ownership. municipalities) Committee 100% Regional 67% Financial Non-profit, Territory Yes – 15 Belgium (reimburse Public annual authorities – 4.1 € 0.17 (contract with producers and coverage No licensed Fines Oil municipaliti report each year 1/3 kg/cap municipalities) professional users homogeneous operators es) audited Market data to Must provide 49% For Fines = 2x Coordination Austria Organisational government via 3 non-profit, 100 collection Yes – 0.207 € 0.24 Full transporters normal unit – 6% of Batteries (partial) PRO (digital 1 for-profit points, cover 4 PROs kg/cap only fees budget system) whole country Market, 47% Partial – Largest PRO non- Fines & Denmark Organisational collection collection, & Yes – PRO for Min 0.286 € 0.05 profit, others no Info not available No prison Batteries (partial) and treatment data 4 PROs Environment kg/cap trend sentences monitoring to government Digital registration and Nether- 42% 100% for Non-profit 1 collection For Organisational data reporting, No Info not lands 0.204 € 0.32 portable & run by point per 750 transporters Info not available (partial) plus annual available Batteries kg/cap batteries producers inhabitants only reports to government Market, Consultative Non-profit. 36% collection, & 1 collection Fines & Commission. France Organistional Decision-making Yes – 0.268 € 0.17 Full treatment data point per 2,000 Yes criminal 15-20 producers Batteries (partial) by Consultative 2 PROs kg/cap to National inhabitants sanctions audited each Commission. Register year 45% PRO fines Finland Self- 0.01/c € 0.08 Financial To PRO Info not available Info not available No Yes – up to Industry group Vehicles financing ap € 500,000 84% Organisational 100% net Data to Sweden Info not (partial) – collect transport & No specific Yes – 2 Yes – public Swedish EPA, 17.5 government via Info not available Fines e-waste available from municipal treatment requirements PROs tenders regular audits kg/cap PRO sites costs * PRO = Product Stewardship Organisation : a body that gives effect to EPR obligations for multiple producers

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 15 Appendix 3 - Comparative e-waste schemes performance data (kg per capita)

Romania 1.2 Australia 1.78 New York 1.8 Latvia 1.9 California 2.6 Lithuania 2.7 WEEE/ e-waste per capita collection rates for South Korea 2.8 European Member States and others Washington 2.9

Minnesota 2.9 Sources: Eurostat cited in Monier et al 2014 (blue Poland 2.9 bars) to which has been added data for other Wisconsin 3.1 countries (green bars) from a range of other sources: Oregon 3.1 Khetriwal et al 2007, OECD 2014, Heo and Jung 2014, Cyprus 3.1 Yoshida and Yoshida 2012, Product Stewardship Spain 3.4 Institute 2014, Menikpura et al 2014, USEPA and Vermont 3.5 EPAT 2012. Slovakia 4 Hungary 4.1 All data in blue bars is for 2010. The latest data Greece 4.1 available for the other countries in green bars varies: Slovenia 4.2 Japan (2009), Ontario, British Columbia, USA states Estonia 4.2 and Korea (2012), Australia (2012-13), and Portugal 4.4 Switzerland (2004). British Columbia 4.8 Czech Rep 5 Japan 5.1 Ontario 5.6 Bulgaria 6 France 6.7 United Kingdom 7.7 Netherlands 7.7 Austria 8.8 Luxembourg 9.5 Germany 9.5 Finland 9.5 Italy 9.6 Belgium 9.7 Switzerland 9.8 Ireland 9.9 Denmark 14.9 Sweden 17.2 0 10 20 WEEE collection rate: kg per capita per year

Peterson 2014 - Effective product stewardship models: a look at the overseas experience 16