Showing papers on "Extended producer responsibility published in 2000"

Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems

Abstract: The focus of the environmental policy-making has shifted noticeably during the last decade. From having played a fairly insignificant role in the 1980s and earlier, product-related environmental problems have attracted an ever-increasing interest from policy-makers, especially in industrialised countries in North-Western Europe. Considerable attention has been devoted to the concept of extended producer responsibility (EPR) and today this concept is spread to most OECD countries and also outside this group of countries. This dissertation shows how the concept was developed, presents a model for various types of responsibilities and defines the EPR concept as a policy principle for environmental improvements of products and product systems. Experiences from existing EPR systems are studied and complemented with an analysis of proposed system implementations. The results are combined with a model for how an EPR system can be developed in order to give the incentives for change to the relevant actors. Conclusions concerning how the details of EPR systems should be organised are presented, as well as a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages with involving various actors in the policy development process and the role of these actors in the implementation of the system.

Can Downstream Waste Disposal Policies Encourage Upstream "Design for Environment"?

Abstract: "Design for environment" takes place when firms explicitly incorporate environmental issues in their product design and manufacturing decisions (Joseph Fiksel, 1996). To reduce waste associated with consumer products, for example, firms can reduce product weight, including the amount of packaging that comes with a product, and make products easier and less costly to recycle. The latter can be accomplished by changing the type of material used in a product, avoiding mixing of materials in a single product, coding and labeling when different materials are used, and designing for ease of disassembly (U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1992; Fiksel, 1996). An important debate centers around the question of whether design for environment (DfE) needs to be explicitly targeted using policy instruments focused "upstream" on producers or whether "downstream" instruments send sufficient signals back upstream. One important downstream instrument is a disposal fee (i.e., charging households a price per pound, per bag, or per can for their trash). Many observers feel that downstream instruments do not send appropriate signals back upstream.' Some economists and others have suggested, on the other hand, that disposal fees can, in theory, send signals upstream to producers (Karen Palmer and Walls, 1998). We find that disposal fees provide incentives for efficient DfE only when there is a fully functioning recycling market (i.e., only when recyclers pay households a price for each of their recyclable items and that price varies with the degree of product recyclability). In the real world, transactions costs of paying households for each individual item recycled would be prohibitively high. In a more realistic setting in which households may place some items in a recycling bin but are not paid for doing so, a disposal fee by itself will not yield a social optimum. It encourages households to place items in the bin, but all items allowed in the bin are of equal value to the household (i.e., there is no reason to prefer an easily recyclable aluminum can to a difficult-to-recycle plastic milk jug). This means that there is no signal to producers to make products more recyclable. If the government can set product taxes that vary with product recyclability, the social optimum can be restored, but this option is not practicable.2 We argue that the infeasibility of (i) paying households for recycling and (ii) taxing products according to their recyclability means that a first-best outcome is no longer attainable. Instead, we set up a constrained second-best optimum and solve for policy instruments that achieve this outcome. We find that a disposal * School of Economics and Finance, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. Walls is also a University Fellow with Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. The helpful comments of Karen Palmer, Don Fullerton. and Hilary Sigman are greatlv appreciated. 1 Manufacturer "take-back" requirements, such as Germany's well-known packaging take-back law, were developed, at least in part, as a way to encourage DfE. See (www.oecd.org/env/epr/index.htm) for updates from a series of OECD workshops held in 1997-1999 on the broader topic of "extended producer responsibility." In practice, individual German producers do not actually take back their own products at end-of-life. They have formed a consortium that arranges to collect members' waste from households (marked with a green dot) and recycle it. We do not address take-back mandates in this paper. 2 In Calcott and Walls (1999), we derive these taxes. Don Fullerton and Wenbo Wu (1998) show that a direct subsidy to recyclability (combined with other instruments) can yield a social optimum. This subsidy depends on production function parameters; thus if firms differ, the subsidy would vary across firms. More i-mportantly, observing and measuring recyclability to determine subsidy payments would be virtually impossible.

Demand management – a basis for waste policy: a critical review of the applicability of the waste hierarchy in terms of achieving sustainable waste management

Abstract: The need for sustainable practices to protect the environment from further degradation is increasingly placing pressure on policy makers, specifically in the area of waste management. Whilst traditional disposal routes still form the main UK waste management options, in recent years there has been a steady flow of legislation that focuses on reducing the environmental impact of waste. The waste management hierarchy is an attempt to order different options into a preferential scale and underpin the development of sustainable waste management strategies. Whilst the philosophy of the hierarchy is based on an integrated approach to waste management, the reality is a prescriptive approach that does little to alleviate the reliance on end of pipe solutions. Little regard is given to demand management and the development of efficient processes, which reduce energy and resource usage and have a direct impact on waste generated. This paper presents a critical review of the limitations of applying the waste hierarchy to sustainable policy development. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Is Extended Producer Responsibility Effective

Abstract: Although its costs and benefits are hotly debated, use of this policy tool is spreading rapidly.

Carpet take‐back: EPR American style

Abstract: Unlike most industrial sectors in the United States, the carpet industry has begun voluntarily to take responsibility for its products once their useful life is over. How do these voluntary efforts compare to the mandatory extended producer responsibility requirements now prevalent throughout Western Europe and Asia? © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The sections “Recycling by Fiber Producers” and “Recycling by Carpet Mills” © 2000 INFORM, Inc. Used with permission.

The Potential for Using Life Cycle Inventory Analysis in Local Authority Waste Management Decision Making

Abstract: A life cycle inventory model was applied to a range of waste management scenarios in the waste collection authorities of Gloucestershire. The life cycle model and the results of modelling different waste management options are described. Model results were submitted to waste managers in the six authorities and utilization of the information was analysed. Analysis suggests that a range of factors arising from both model implementation and the local policy context affects the form and extent of utilization. Increased levels of environmental knowledge and understanding will be required to make effective use of life cycle analysis in local authority decision making.

“Conditioned Air”: Evaluating an Environmentally Preferable Service

Abstract: As industry moves toward a world of extended producer responsibility (EPR) in which ownership of products becomes less common and product leasing and service provisioning become more pervasive, it is increasingly important to develop frameworks for assessing the environmental impacts of the service industry. In this paper, we use streamlined life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impacts of a residential air conditioning unit with a proposed “conditioned air” service. When the entire life cycle is considered, the assessments indicate that the service option is environmentally preferable. By making the producer ultimately responsible for product repair and “take-back,” the service option creates incentives for the producer to design air conditioning units and their packaging for recovery, remanufacture, and recycling. This in turn minimizes the need for new raw materials and component parts. EPR also helps to ensure responsible unit maintenance and repair, which reduces chemical and oil dissipa...

A Systems Engineering Approach to National Waste Management

Abstract: During recent decades, waste management has gradually shifted focus, from waste disposal to integrated waste management of potentially valuable resources and residues. The number and variety of waste streams to handle is large, as well as the diversity of treatment options available. This makes finding cost-effective and environmentally acceptable waste management solutions a complex task. Moreover, recovering resources from waste leads to interaction with sectors beyond waste management, such as the markets for material and energy, which increases the scope to analyse when looking for new waste management solutions. Systems engineering models for waste management can serve as tools to assist decision-makers in the planning of waste management. A systems engineering model for strategic planning of national waste management, NatWaste (National Waste), is presented in this thesis. NatWaste is a tool for finding synergistic waste management solutions and analysing the potential effect of different policy instruments and uncertainties in the system environment on a national level. Economic and environmental aspects are addressed. Decision-makers in strategic planning of national waste management are the potential target audience for the NatWaste model. A waste management study, performed in a real planning context in a Swedish region, provided important knowledge for developing NatWaste. Within the study, a decision basis that the region could use for waste management planning was also developed. The use of the NatWaste model is demonstrated in studies of current issues in Swedish national waste management. Technical options for waste management and the potential influence of waste management policy on the choice of these options were central in all applications. The economic and potential global warming implications of recovering energy from waste in Sweden were analysed and compared from two perspectives - the waste management and the district heating perspectives. The effect of including indirect environmental impacts on the choice of waste management solutions on a Swedish national level was demonstrated. The studies show that the economic and environmental viability of waste management solutions are not only issues from the point of view of waste management. Knowledge about the sectors that interact with waste management, such as district heating, power and material, and how they might develop can be crucial. This indicates that there is a potential for co-ordinating interacting sectors in both economic and environmental aspects. Systems engineering models for waste management, like the NatWaste model, are tools that can assist in planning of such strategies. However, information from these models needs to be complemented with that of tools addressing interacting sectors.

Current Status of Extended Producer Responsibility Legislation and Effects on Product Design

Abstract: Increased environmental awareness is contributing to new government regulatory measures that address disposal of consumer products. Governments are implementing a concept called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) which places the responsibility of disposal on the producer. Financially, and/or physically, the producer is legally required to recover the product from the consumer and dispose of it in an environmentally-responsible manner. The most direct form of EPR implementation is take-back legislation. This paper surveys the current state of take-back legislation for packaging, automobiles, and electronic products. The most activity is in Western Europe followed by Asia. One of EPR’s main objectives is not only to mitigate harmful environmental impacts at products’ end of life, but to do so by influencing the product design process. The take-back regulation link to the design process is shown through legislation wording and demonstrated in industry examples.

Assuming Responsibility for Packaging and Packaging Waste

Abstract: In the last four decades, consumer convenience - emphasising throw-away packaging and disposable products - has become as much a tool of marketing as quality and price. The quantity of packaging in the waste stream, its visibility and the overall reduction in capacity to effectively manage such wastes has resulted in the development of policies for packaging stewardship or extended producer responsibility (EPR) in many countries. This paper reviews the set-up, operations and results of two early entrants on the stewardship scene: The Duales System Deutschland in Germany and the Manitoba Product Stewardship Program in Canada. The variable stewardship that has resulted, due to differing obligations on producers and consumers, is highlighted and policy direction suggested. INTRODUCTION A small child is given a tiny bag of potato chips, she grabs at the puffy little plastic foil bag, tussles with it and finally resorts to tearing it open with her teeth. Air escapes, the package flattens and she is left with 8 or ten chips and salty crumbs. Even such a small child quickly consumes the snack; she licks her fingers and wonders what to do with the package. Whose responsibility is the package? The little girl's? Her parents'? The municipality that operates the landfill where it will almost surely be taken? What about the company that designed the product and chose a package that maximised its marketing appeal and in turn its profitability? Should it not bear some responsibility for the cost of disposal? What about the company's choice to market such a small amount of food in what is probably more an advertising wrapper than a container? In the last four decades, consumer convenience - emphasising throw-away packaging and disposable products - has become as much a tool of marketing as quality and price (Fenton, 1993). The quantity of packaging in the waste stream, its visibility and the overall reduction in capacity to effectively manage such wastes has resulted in action directed at reducing the impact of packaging and packaging waste on resources and the environment. Over the past seven years such action has included the development of programs and policies for packaging stewardship, product stewardship or extended producer responsibility (EPR) in many countries. While there are a variety of definitions of packaging stewardship, product stewardship and EPR, all include the establishment of responsibility. As an element of the Canadian National Packaging Protocol, the National Task Force on Packaging (NTFP) indicates that packaging stewardship is the "principle by which industries assume responsibility for the environmental impacts caused by the packaging that they introduce to the marketplace..." (NTFP,1994). Ryan (1993) notes that the "manufacturer should be responsible... meaning that industries, not municipal governments, must be the ones to keep it [waste] out of dumps and incinerators". Under the Canadian Industries Packaging Stewardship Initiative proposed in Ontario, the draft regulations called for "all who are responsible for introducing packaging to the market place" to "take action to divert packaging from disposal through reuse and recycling" (Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1994). As Sinclair and Fenton (1997) indicate, packaging stewardship initiatives specifically permit industry to assume responsibility for ensuring: that the packaging they introduce to the market place has a minimal impact on the environment; that their packaging recognizes the hierarchy of source reduction, reuse and recycling, in support of general resource conservation; that their packaging recognizes and incorporates full-cost pricing. Full-cost pricing will internalise waste management costs and correctly signal consumers and producers of packaged goods on the position of a particular package in the waste management hierarchy and on the level of impact the package has on the environment. …