EWG ESM2 inf12 230514 UNITED NATIONS BC UNEP/CHW/CLI_EWG.2/INF/12 Distr.: General 22 May 2014 English only Expert Working Group on Environmentally Sound Management …

230514

UNITED NATIONS

BC

UNEP/CHW/CLI_EWG.2/INF/12

Distr.: General 22 May 2014

English only

Expert Working Group on Environmentally Sound Management Second meeting Jakarta, Indonesia, 29−31 May 2014 Item 3 (e) of the provisional agenda∗ Consideration and further development of work commenced during the intersessional period: compilation of information on private sector incentives

Compilation of information on private sector incentives

Note by the Secretariat 1. The terms of reference for the expert working group on the framework for the environmentally sound management (ESM) of hazardous wastes and other wastes contained in annex II to decision BC-11/1 requests the expert working group to, among other things, assess possible incentives to encourage the private sector to invest in ESM.

2. The annex to the present note contains a report from Project Group 5.1 of the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) on Strategies, actions and incentives to promote environmentally sound management. Attention is particularly drawn to section 3.2 of the document on incentives. This information has not been formally edited by the Secretariat and is presented as received.

∗ UNEP/CHW/CLI_EWG.2/1.


2

Annex

PARTNERSHIP FOR ACTION ON COMPUTING EQUIPMENT

PROJECT 5.1

STRATEGIES, ACTIONS AND INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT

“Jakarta Draft 3”, May 2014


3

Acknowledgements

The Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) Working Group would like to express

…


4

Project Group 5.1 Participants

Co-chairs:

1. Leila Devia, BCRC-Argentina 2. Ross Bartley, BIR

Participants:

1. Alberto Santos Capra, Argentina 2. Dana Lapesova, BCRC-Slovakia 3. David Seligson, ILO 4. Donovan McLaren, Kevoy Community Development Institute 5. Eric Harris, ISRI 6. Erica Logan, ITI 7. Gina Killikelly, Dell 8. Ibrahim Shafii, BRS-SSB 9. Isabelle Baudin, Switzerland 10. Jean Claude Salama, Madagascar 11. Jim Puckett, BAN 12. Jinhui Li, BCRC-ChinaJunya Kikuhara, Asian Network 13. Karen Pollard, USA 14. Lixia Zheng, BCRC, China 15. Marco Buletti, Switzerland 16. Mathias Schluep, EMPA 17. Matthias Kern, SBC 18. Michael VanderPol, Canada 19. Miguel Araujo, BCRC-CAM 20. Otmar Deubzer, UNU 21. Oladele Osibanjo, BCRC-Nigeria 22. Patricia Whiting, SIMS 23. Patrick Micheli, Consultant to SBC 24. Paul Hagen, ITI 25. Renee St.Denis, Sims Recycling Solutions 26. Ridwan Tamin, BCRC-SEA, Indonesia 27. Ruediger Kuehr, UNU 28. Sanaz Sabeti Mohammadi, BCRC-Tehran 29. Sarah Westervelt, BAN 30. Shiri Garakani, BCRC-Tehran 31. Shunichi Honda, Japan 32. Wen-Ling Chiu, IER 33. Willie Cade, PCRR 34. Yorg Aerts, OVAM, Belgium


5

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ........................................................................... 3

Project Group 5.1 Participants .......................................................... 4

CONTENTS ...................................................................................... 5

1. Executive Summary ...................................................................... 6

2. Introduction ................................................................................... 7

Tasks .................................................................................................. 7

Data Gathering .................................................................................. 8

3. Questionnaire Responses ............................................................... 9

3.1 Barriers ........................................................................................ 9

3.2. Incentives .................................................................................. 12

ANNEX A ....................................................................................... 18

ANNEX B ....................................................................................... 22

4. Recommendations ....................................................................... 25

APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 28

TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................................. 28

APPENDIX B .................................................................................. 38

References ....................................................................................... 38


6

1. Executive Summary Following Decision VI/32 of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to promote partnerships, Decision VIII/2 of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to target the environmentally sound management of e-waste, and the success of the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI), the PACE was initiated by Decision IX/9 of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

Within the PACE Working Group, a decision was made to address new PACE activities as reflected in the annex to the COP10 decision on PACE. That is to develop strategies on the environmentally sound management (ESM) of used and end-of-life computing equipment, to identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end-of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes, and assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management (ESM) of used and end-of-life computing equipment environmentally sound material recovery and recycling of computing equipment.

The 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in 2011 in Columbia, in its Decision on PACE, amongst other things, decided that the PACE Working Group should : (g) Develop strategies on ESM ; (i) Identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote ESM through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes; and (j) Assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring ESM.

To take on these selected tasks the PACE Working Group initiated PACE Project Group 5.1: on Strategies, Actions and Incentives to promote Environmentally Sound Management.

Those tasks were further refined and prioritized as the new Project Group agreed its Terms of Reference.

The Project Group 5.1 has had ___ Conference calls and 3 physical meetings to complete its work.

Conference call of 27 March 2012 Conference call of 23 April 2012 The First PG5.1 Physical meeting took place in San Salvador on 9-11th May 2012 The Second PG5.1 Physical meeting took place in South Africa on 9-11th May 2013 The Third PG5.1 Physical meeting took place in Indonesia on 27-29th June 2014 Conference call of 26th November 2012

Environmentally Sound Management may be ensured by different means or a combination of means carried out by governments and other stakeholders, for example by strict prescriptive legislation on what to do and how to do it, or by ensuring proper application of a generic Management System with a plan – do – check - act – model that will determine what to do and how to do it, or by tailor made sector specific Management Systems on what to do and how to do it. In the case of either type of Management System whether generic or tailor made these would normally require the support of less prescriptive framework legislation.


7

2. Introduction The objective of the Project Group is to develop strategies, identify incentives and actions that can be taken to promote environmentally sound management, to include:

(g) Develop strategies on the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment;

(i) Identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end-of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes;

(j) Assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment.

Tasks

The objectives of the Project Group were defined and detailed into a series of Tasks that were then prioritised by the Project Group in its Terms of Reference (Appendix 1).

Three high priority tasks were identified as:-

Task 1: Develop short and succinct requirements of a national and regional strategy for environmentally sound management of computer equipment waste and give guidance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in their policy formulation and implementation including consideration of incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative).

Task 3: Identifying options to overcome the barriers that prevent developing countries and countries with economies in transition from implementing collection and take-back schemes as well as other strategic activities including incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Identifying options to overcome barriers to producers from starting up voluntary schemes in certain countries which would help to determine what incentives/support could be provided; for example geographical challenges, ensuring level playing field to producers, economic viability, lack of consumer demand, no viable end-use markets, etc

Task 4: Identify and make publicly accessible information on existing certification schemes, possible use of Ad Interim Group report on ESM criteria recommendations as a start. Collect information on existing certification schemes, an assessment of the extent to which they are currently used, and the elements that appear common in the establishment of credible and reliable programs. Key items to be explored could include: - What are the key steps to get certified? - Gather links to information/databases of certifications and registrations regarding handling of used and end-of-life computing equipment under various schemes. - What are the key components or elements that are present in widely recognized guidelines and certification schemes? - Are the existing standards used to certify facility ESM practices compatible with PACE guidelines? - How are governments, NGOs and industry using facility certification mechanisms now? - How could certification schemes be used in the future to ensure ESM and also guide decisions on TBM approvals by governments?


8

One Task was identified at a lower priority as:-

Task 2: Identify current examples of strategies for ESM, both industry-led and Government, voluntary and mandatory.

Data Gathering On 11th July 2012 a questionnaire was circulated to the Project Group Participants. The Project Group decided at its Second PG5.1 Physical meeting in South Africa on 9-11th May 2013 to obtain the assistance of a consultant to assist in collating and reporting on the responses received. The questions and collated responses are collated in the next section of this report.


9

3. Questionnaire Responses

3.1 Barriers 2009: As results from the survey and interviews with organisations, within the “Study on the Costs and Benefits of EMAS to Registered Organisations”, the following barriers are mentioned: Barriers identified as important by the highest numbers of respondents included that the benefits were unclear or unjustified (23%) and the costs of implementation (20%). The next most highly-scored barrier was the lack of Member State financial incentives (17%). The following conclusions on barriers, are mentioned within the document: In terms of external barriers, numerous studies cite the costs associated with certification and registration as a key barrier to EMAS registration, of particular relevance to SMEs. Additional external barriers for which evidence was found include a lack of consumer awareness, poor feedback, and a lack of recognition by public institutions; Internal barriers identified by the literature include a lack of human resources, specific skills and capacities, and low motivation. 2012: PACE’s document “Strategies, actions and incentives to promote environmentally sound management” indicates that on 11th July 2012, a questionnaire was circulated to the Project Group Participants. The document includes the following answers received to the questions:

• Would representatives, in particular those from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, please identify barriers to implementing collection and take-back schemes?

Argentina observes a lack of involvement and acceptance by the regulated local and international producer sector of the principle of EPR; long distances between the points of collection and subsequent management: high transport costs; lack of facilities of refurbishment, recovery, recycling and final disposal in the region, and high costs of transport, management centres abroad; prioritize the recovery of materials with market value because they contain precious or rare metals presents in PCBs and disregard those who do not have (e.g.,. plastics containing POPs; CRTs; LCDs) Serbia rersponded that there were three barriers, first of all through legislation, and secondly by the unequal distribution of the so called ecological tax, which is going to the budget not to the collectors, and thirdly through a very complicated procedures of take back schemes which does not have any practical usage.

• Would representatives, in particular producers' representatives, give examples of barriers to starting up voluntary schemes?

In Canada, voluntary producer-driven schemes to collect certain types of electronics for ESM (e.g. under EPR programs) can be successful if the waste in question has enough inherent value to cover the costs of program administration and delivery. This is typically not the case with computing equipment, in which case an economically sustainable source of revenue is needed. The issue of free-riders is also an important concern from the perspective of producers of computing equipment. While some producers may voluntarily offer programs to manage their own branded products at end-of-life, they are less likely to accept end-of-life products from competing brands unless they are appropriately financially compensated.

• What incentives or support is needed to overcome barriers identified In Canada, EPR legislation can be used to make producers and first importers both physically and financially responsible for the collection and ESM of end-of-life products. In most cases the costs of program delivery are passed on to the product consumers. EPR laws also help to contend with the possibility of free-riders. In the absence of such a law that requires producers to finance programs, another means of acquiring sufficient resourcing to finance program delivery is


10

needed. The use of disposal fees should be avoided, given that this tends to result in dumping as a means of fee avoidance. PACE’s document list as barriers the following factors external to the company: market forces, consumer behavior, over regulation, incoherent or contradictory laws, duplicative laws, negative cost or administrative burden of schemes and list the following factors as within the means of companies: corporate culture, lack of top management commitment, financial costs, lack of access to knowledge and lack of training. 2013: The answers received to question 6 (Please identify barriers to implementing collection and take-back schemes) of the PACE’s questionnaire sent 8/7/2013 are: Argentina:

- The absence of regulation. - The refusal of the local industry and international corporate companies to implement locally the principle of responsibility and thus cover the costs associated with the sustainable management of WEEE after use. - The extension of the country in surface. - Lack of capacity and feasibility in the country of services to recover components and materials, especially metals

Senegal: - Lack of absence of domestic legislation to provide customs and environmental officials with the necessary powers to request the take back of illegally imported containers - Absence of financial mechanism - Absence of clear definition of the waste - Hazardous waste or not - Sample for controlling the containers - Non respect of procedures of Notifications and Movements of transboundary BC - Lack of coordination at national, regional and international levels - Responsibility of Producerteur is not clearly defined

Singapore: consumers' expectation of redidual values of the UEEE/WEEE; volume consolidation where at times it maybe too small or too few pieces; logistics arrangement where if without centralised consolidation, may be too costly to collect at different locations, diffent timing etc

Trinidad y Tobago: Major barriers to implementing collection and take-back schemes in Trinidad and Tobago include: - Lack of a proper assessment and understanding of the local situation as it pertains to e-waste generation and management. - Lack of a legal and regulatory framework to support the safe collection, management and disposal of e-waste. - Lack of OEMs physically present in the local market. Computing equipment and other electrical items are not manufactured in the country for the most part and distributors and end users are largely responsible for the importation of such equipment locally. - Lack of awareness on the issues and various costs associated with improper e-waste disposal/storage and the means through which such equipment can be properly managed and disposed. - Limited capacity and capability locally to safely collect and treat with these wastes.

The answers received to question 7 (Please give examples of barriers to starting up voluntary schemes) of the PACE’s questionnaire sent 8/7/2013 are: Argentina:

-The refusal of the local industry and international corporate companies to implement locally the principle of responsibility and thus cover the costs associated with the sustainable management of WEEE after use.


11

-Lack of capacity and feasibility in the country of services to recover components and materials, especially metals

Senegal: - Define the responsibility of the producer - Ban the illegal importation of WEEE - Produits contrefaits - Who is supporting the cost of recycling/Elimination - Lack of infrastructure of recycling/elimination plants standards - Absence of specific legislation on e-waste - Lack of human resources for the control of illegal traffic - Lack of coordination between the structures in charge of control

Singapore: free rider; public awareness; disposal traits unique to certain countries where consumers amy prefer selling their UEEE/WEEE to door-to-door collectors for small sum; program funding for longer term sustainability etc

Trinidad y Tobago: The main barriers to starting up voluntary schemes are: - Lack of awareness and/or willingness among distributors to establish such schemes. - Lack of awareness amongst the general public. - Limited capacity and capability locally to safely collect and treat with these wastes.

ANNEX A: complete answers to PACE’s questionnaire Some findings on questions posed by EPA: Identified barriers to implementing mandated and voluntary collection and take-back schemes. • Mandatory programs only:

• Need the necessary legislative mandates to implement mandatory collection or take-back schemes – this can be at the federal, state or local levels.

• Both Mandatory and Voluntary programs: • Governments must provide resources to manage these programs. • Sponsors must have confidence that the collector will send all of the collected used

electronics to a downstream vendor (refurbisher or recycler) that will manage the material in an environmentally sound manner.

• Collectors must have strong professional relationships with downstream vendors to ensure that they will manage the equipment in a sound manner.

• For collections from the public, collectors need a good location – a site with easy access and can protect the collected equipment from the elements. For collections from businesses or organization, collectors will need to provide reliable transportation to the refurbisher or recycling facility.

• Refurbishers and recyclers must have the proper infrastructure (e.g., facility, technology, and protective equipment) in place to ensure that the used electronics are refurbished or recycled in an environmentally sound manner.

• In the U.S. it is strongly encouraged and in some cases required that refurbishers and recyclers become certified to the available electronics recycling standards. Certification adds costs, time and in some cases process changes to conform to the standards.

• Investment in this industry can be a significant barrier and the cost of setting up a program can be significant.

• Recyclers need recovery systems and markets for materials collected (e.g., CRT glass, precious and other metals, plastics and other materials)

Examples of barriers to collecting electronics for reuse and recycling • Communication about reuse and recycling to consumers (businesses, consumers,

students) including: • Legal requirements • Importance and benefits of recycling and reuse of the electronics products

(e.g., resource recovery and proper management) • Ease of donating the equipment – such as where, when, how and what

electronics are accepted.


12

• Who should refurbish or recycle the equipment, are there specific recommendations or requirements (e.g., certified to standards)

• Perceived value of used equipment to the consumer that is donating the equipment. • Personal or business data stored on the equipment. • Cost to recycler to properly recycling components of the equipment (i.e., CRT). • Additional cost to consumers who are donating equipment to be recycled. • High transportation costs from rural areas to collection/ take-back programs.

Recyclers private sector perspective As for the private sector perspective, the identified barrier for recyclers is the lack of practical and harmonized regulation across countries or regions. In particular, they identify the following barriers in developing or smaller countries: lack of volume so as to maintain a viable recovery operation and lack of infrastructure to attract foreign investment in recycling facilities. Other elements that can be considered as barriers for the sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment are: lack of recognition as a special waste stream; absence of legal frameworks that protect sustainable, environmentally responsible and safe processes for the management of that special waste stream; lack of policies promoting reduce of hazardous substances in the design stage; lack of promotion for the creation of collecting, temporary storing, recycling and final disposal facilities; lack of incentives for the development of reverse logistics industries; absence of public information.

3.2. Incentives 2009: Annex H: Examples of Incentives and/or Relief Measures for Facilities that Project Groups May Consider for Inclusion in Technical Guidance and Pilot Projects from “Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) Criteria Recommendations, prepared by the Ad Interim Project Group on ESM Criteria for the Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) and approved by the PACE Working Group 9 March 2009, includes the following excerpt from the "OECD Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the OECD Recommendation C(2004)100 on Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of Waste": Recommendation 6: “Member countries should… consider incentives and/or relief measures for facilities that fulfil the core performance elements listed in Annex I to this Recommendation; Under this recommendation, governments are encouraged to reward facilities which have implemented the CPEs. The instruments could be incentives and/or relief measures leading to a benefit for the enterprise in terms of finance, regulation, good image, etc. (i.e. some reduction of the additional burden brought about by the implementation of the CPEs). There is a range of incentives that some governments are already using to encourage facilities to introduce environmental management systems, and that could be used in the OECD context for facilities implementing the CPEs:

• reducing the frequency of regulatory inspections or of monitoring requirements and facilitating emission controls which can be performed by the staff itself;

• reducing reporting requirements that are duplicating those of environmental management systems in place;

• expediting and consolidating environmental permits/licences and auditing and certifying facilities.

• waiving certain environmental regulations, that are duplicating the provisions of environmental management systems: for example, in certain European countries where environmental reporting is mandatory through national law, EMAS-registered facilities are exempted from environmental reporting under national law;

• providing technical assistance and information;


13

• providing financial support (facilities having an environmental management systems may be wholly or partly exempted from registration/permit fees, part of their environmental management systems implementation costs is reimbursed, etc.);

• providing special recognition or award; • providing preferences through public procurement; • providing information about the value of such systems. • relief measures, such as the exemption from being subject to a regulation; • the development of environmental management systems, specifically designed for Small &

Medium Sized Enterprises. For example, the Eco-Action 21 in Japan includes its own auditing and certification procedures;

• relaxing verification and reporting procedures, by spacing out the due dates of inspections and reporting less frequently (for example, every three years instead of every year);

• exemption from certain national regulations which may duplicate the environmental management systems’ provisions;

• free provision of information, advice and expertise concerning environmental management systems and their benefits, related environmental regulations and subsidisation programmes;

• public recognition and advertising of such facilities through the publication of their environmental performance or special registers;

• financial incentives, such as assistance for investments, financial support for workers’ training on environmental matters, reimbursement of part of the auditing and certification costs (sometimes up to 75 % of the external consultant costs), and reduction of inspection fees and preference in public procurement;

Governments could also consider the introduction of technology-enabling incentives, such as research grants and other methods to develop new waste management options (e.g. elimination of hazardous waste streams or conversion of hazardous wastes to useful products). Empirical analyses of results of a survey conducted by the OECD in 2005[21] suggest that the two main public policy incentives that encourage a facility to introduce an EMS are the perceived reduction of the frequency of inspections, and the provision of public financial support. For small and medium-sized enterprises, the provision of information on the nature and benefits of an EMS by public authorities also seems to play a significant role. However, this is apparently not the case for larger firms. Fulfilment of the CPEs may result in additional costs and administrative burden for the facility, which may act as a deterrent to implementation. To encourage the implementation of the CPEs by SMEs, the inspection and/or auditing (and certification if pursued by a facility) embodied in the CPEs (again, see Section 8) could also be simplified for facilities which already implement provisions equivalent to those of the OECD CPEs. Governments, of course, are free to use any form of incentive they choose. however, caution is recommended, in order to avoid introducing measures which could have a counter-productive effect. For example, when firms are encouraged to implement the CPEs through relief measures (such as reduced frequency of inspections, audit reports or emission measurements), it is important that the “driver” for doing this be clearly perceived as an effort to reduce administrative costs, rather than to avoid regulatory oversight altogether.” On 2009/10/05 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Council published the document “Report by the environment policy committee on the implementation of the council recommendation on [C(2004)100, as amended by C(2007)97]. The Recommendation instructs the Environment Policy Committee (EPOC) to report to the Council, on the basis of the information received from Member countries, three years after the adoption, on the implementation of the Recommendation. The base information contained in the report was provided by twenty OECD countries in October 2007, using a common template. The Experience and Conclusions section notes: 5. This review found that OECD countries have made significant overall progress toward implementation of the OECD ESM Recommendation. All reporting countries have a legislative infrastructure and substantial enforcement arrangements in place for ESM. They have also adopted a wide range of policies and programmes that are


14

broadly relevant for ESM. Implementation of the CPEs is also well underway, especially in facilities that manage hazardous waste. Most countries now have in place various standards and guidelines for the management of specific waste streams, some of which are binding. Most countries also have liability and compensation mechanisms in place or under development (again, covering mainly hazardous wastes and their management). Some countries have also established incentives and/or relief measures for facilities that fulfil the CPEs. Most also have developed solid monitoring and information exchange programmes, as well as more general activities and programmes related to ESM implementation. Within the conclusions the document notes that 15 countries already have in place (or are in the process of implementing) incentives and/or relief measures for waste management facilities that fulfil the CPEs; Excerpts of the responses received on Incentive Programmes related to ESM from the Members countries are:

• A broad range of incentives are provided by State, Territorial and local governments, • Requirement to draw up an environmental register of acts that have to be complied with,

the annual updating of which provides a degree of legal certainty for the facilities involved. • “Smart taxes” are used to make landfilling more expensive than incineration, or to make

incineration more expensive than recycling. The idea is to steer the market toward those waste treatment options that have the lowest environmental impact.

• Several provinces have developed collection schemes for recyclables, such as electronic waste, used oil, scrap tyres, beverage containers, and paint

• Investment programmes and support of research and development are both offered for ESM facilities.

• Tax reduction system for recycling facilities, for devices relevant to industrial waste disposal (high-temperature incineration devices and smoke treatment devices) and for other pollution control devices, as well as for facilities to treat asbestos or PCB wastes.

• Environmentally Friendly Enterprise Certification Programme helps enterprises to enter into partnership with the government. Enterprises which are designated as being environmentally friendly are exempted from regular guidance, inspection, and reporting requirements. There is also tax relief for enterprises that collect post-consumer resources and second-hand goods.

• incentive programmes in place to promote elements of ESM, such as the Environment & Technology Programme, which aims to stimulate enterprises to invest in the development and application of innovative processes, products and services carrying benefits for the environment.

• Recycling Fund was established as a non-state special purpose fund, to pool financial means for providing information on waste recovery and new waste recovery technologies

• Incentive programmes for household/consumers e.g. deposit-refund system for beverage containers.

• Support and services direct to business, including free advice on increasing resource efficiency and developing markets for recycled products and materials.

As results from the survey and interviews with organisations, within the “Study on the Costs and Benefits of EMAS to Registered Organisations”, the following incentives are mentioned: The most commonly-available incentives were guidance documents, reduced regulatory enforcement (regulatory relief) and promotion of EMAS registered organisations. The incentives most commonly taken up were financial support, guidance documents and reduced regulatory enforcement. The incentives identified as most important by respondents were promotion of EMAS registered organisations (19%), reduced regulatory enforcement (19%) and financial support to register (19%). The following conclusions on incentives are mentioned within the document: Regarding the kinds of incentives available to promote EMAS uptake, Member States offer regulatory relief, green public procurement, funding support, technical support and information support. In particular, evidence has been found of the power of regulatory relief as successful incentive promoting EMAS registration. It will therefore be interesting to investigate which other incentives serve to alter the local context for EMAS implementation and affect the costs and benefits. In addition,


15

linkages between public awareness and benefits through competitive advantages with be scrutinised for any correlation. 2012: PACE’s document “Strategies, actions and incentives to promote environmentally sound management” indicates that on 11th July 2012, a questionnaire was circulated to the Project Group Participants. The document includes the following answer received to the question: Examples of incentive schemes that are: voluntary, financial, regulatory, or administrative: In Canada, collection of e-waste is administered under provincially mandated EPR programs. An inventory of these programs is available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=9FB94989-1. Regarding the development of strategies on the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment, the document lists the following incentives: Tax based measures, Tax breaks, Regional tax reductions for certified companies, Reduced charges, Subsidies, Grants and loans, Soft loans, Reduced insurance, Information support, Business support, Vouchers for services (e.g. for Audits), Labelling, Extended permitting, Reduced inspections, Reduced administrative obligations, Regulations, Targets, Landfill taxes, Market forces, Media recognition and Naming and shaming. Regarding the identification of actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end-of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes, the document provides de following ideas: Companies (economic operators) often need incentives to encourage adoption of certain actions or to change existing behavior; A top level commitment and leadership within companies is needed to bring about any change; A combination of incentives that are complimentary to each other would increase the take-up of desired activities and potentially increase the rate of change of behavior of companies; However a regulatory framework will be needed to support the structure of incentives where at the basic level a system of registration or permits or other means to authorize economic operators is required to protect the interests of compliant companies; It should be expected that financial institutions, investors and insurance providers may give preference to companies that comply with legal requirements and that may take advantage of incentive schemes. 2013: The answers received to question 4 (Please send examples of incentive schemes that are: voluntary, financial, regulatory, or administrative or briefly describe such policies below) of the PACE’s questionnaire sent 8/7/2013 are: Argentina:

In general, there are not national voluntary, financial, regulatory or administrative incentives. However, there are some examples: - Regionally: in the area of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) countries Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay are part of a project called Econormas MERCOSUR with a line of action aimed at sustainable production and consumption. In this area WEEE has been selected as a priority sector in Argentina, providing technical, financial and training assistance for the implementation of environmental management systems and best practices. - At national level: National Environmental Authority has provided financial assistance for investments to develop projects of recovery of WEEE for social reuse through donations and subsequent dismantling and elimination of the parts unrecoverable. - At local level: financial support for companies to pay salary workers in dismantling WEEE companies.

Senegal: Enforcement training activities to raise awareness of competent authorities and enforcement officers about the adverse impacts of illegal import of e-waste on human


16

health and the environment and to train authorities that are responsible for the monitoring and screening of the legal trade-of used equipment and, conversely, for detecting and preventing illegal traffic of e-waste. Support for workers’ training on environmental matters

Singapore: -http://app2.nea.gov.sg/grants-awards for some grants / funding for respective environmental initiatives. -There are also regular industry events to promote 3Rs & public education etc. co-organized by the government agencies, OEMs, institutions, associations & recyclers etc. -Industry is also kept well informed on all regulatory development, new grants or training programmes etc. by related agencies.

Trinidad y Tobago: There are currently no incentive schemes for the ESM of waste computing equipment in Trinidad and Tobago.

The answers received to question 8 (Incentives or support needed to overcome barriers identified in ( Q. 4, 6 and 7 )) of the PACE’s questionnaire sent 8/7/2013 are: Argentina:

-National and international funding for the installation of services recovery of WEEE and its components. -Knowledge and experience in systems management and successful business models.

Senegal: -Define the responsibility of the producer -Introduce an ecotaxe -Controlling the remittance of ecotaxe ans sales of EEE -Take back all material used by distributors: Principle “one for one” -Information / sensibilization / communication -Setting up an adequate financial mechanism, equitable and a rational simulation of the market

Singapore: More towards 6 & 7: educational at younger age on proper disposal/recycling/environmental impact etc; industry-led multi stakeholders programmes for assorted EEE brands; networking collectors to larger scale recycling facilities to ensure proper disposal of collected UEEE/WEEE etc

Trinidad y Tobago: Initially, more support is required in the areas of raising awareness of all key stakeholders on the issue of e-waste and importance of ESM, especially among generators and regulators. There is also a great need to fully assess the local situation to ascertain the various flows, quantities, and capabilities

ANNEX A: complete answers to PACE’s questionnaire Some findings on questions posed by EPA: Incentives or support needed to overcome barriers identified

• Need strong message from government bodies that environmentally sound electronics recycling programs are necessary and important.

• Need to provide outreach and educational campaigns that provides a consistent and clear message about reuse and recycling of electronics. This can be a shared responsibility between governmental bodies and stakeholders.

Current examples of strategies for ESM, both industry-led and Government, voluntary and mandatory

• In the U.S., we developed the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship to reduce the environmental impacts from a lifecycle perspective – from designing and purchasing electronics through recycling and disposing of the product. The strategy was developed for all of the federal government to follow and provides a framework that begins with the designing of greener electronics which will ultimately decrease the amount electronics that need to be managed. For the electronics that do will


17

ultimately need to be managed, the greener design helps to make the products easier to repair, reuse and recycle at the end of their useful life. Additionally, the electronics scrap contains less toxic material as well. The strategy also includes a lot of work around the management of electronics that are collected for reuse or recycling. The strategy includes a message from the federal government on how we expect the material to be managed and strongly encourages the use of recyclers that have certified to the available existing electronics recycling standards. For the federal government’s used electronics, all federal agencies will soon be required to use only recyclers that have been certified to one of the available electronics recycling standards. To find out more about the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship go to: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/taskforce/docs/strategy.pdf

Recyclers private sector perspective As for the private sector perspective, the identified incentives for recyclers are: Good governance in countries where they do business: Electronics Recycler Certification Programs. Other elements that might favor sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment are: the development of adequate regulatory infrastructures and enforcement by competent authorities; the establishment of harmonized, credible and reliable schemes/programs; the establishment of incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises and measures to help transition of informal activities to the formal sector where practicable. Some differences between identified international standards/schemes for responsible management of e-waste are shown in ANNEX B.


18

ANNEX A Compilation of answers received to the

2013 questionnaire addressed to BCRCs and members of PACE Project Groups from Submitting Parties

QUESTION Argentina Senegal Singapore Trinidad y Tobago

3.Please send examples of policies for ESM of computer equipment waste, or briefly describe such policies here below.

National policies are not established yet in the country

There is no specific regulation for EEE However, some instruments or political strategy could be used directly or indirectly for EEE, notably: -Code of Environment -National Action Plan of Environment -Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Bamako Conventions (Some countries which have signed and ratified these international Conventions can be transposed them at the national level) -National e-waste strategies have been drafted in Benin and Cote d’Ivoire

-Singapore acceded to the Basel Convention on 2 Jan 96 and had on 16 Mar 98 enacted ‘The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act and its Regulations” to strengthen the control on export, import and transit of hazardous wastes in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Basel Convention. -Our National Environment Agency (www.nea.gov.sg) had also started controlling the import/export of UEEE through its TRADENET system since March 2008. Under TRADENET control system, all declarations for import/export of UEEE will be routed to NEA for processing and clearance. Third-party surveyor certification is required for the import of UEEE. Prior informed consent is required for import/export of EEE that are not suitable for reuse and intended for recycling/recovery (please also refer to uploaded circular from relevant authorities). -import-and-export-of-e-wastes-and-used-electronic-equipment.pdf0.06mb

There are currently no policies for the ESM of waste computing equipment in Trinidad and Tobago.

4.Please send examples of incentive schemes* that are: voluntary, financial, regulatory, or administrative or briefly describe such policies below

In general, there are not national voluntary, financial, regulatory or administrative incentives. However, there are some expamples: - Regionally: in the area of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) countries Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay are part of a project called Econormas MERCOSUR with a line of action aimed at sustainable production and consumption. In this area WEEE has been selected as a priority sector in Argentina, providing technical, financial and training assitance for the implementation of environmental management systems and best practices. - At national level: National

Enforcement training activities to raise awareness of competent authorities and enforcement officers about the adverse impacts of illegal import of e-waste on human health and the environment and to train authorities that are responsible for the monitoring and screening of the legal trade-of used equipment and, conversely, for detecting and preventing illegal traffic of e-waste. Support for workers’training on environmental matters

-http://app2.nea.gov.sg/grants-awards for some grants / funding for respective environmental initiatives. -There are also regular industry events to promote 3Rs & public education etc co-organised by the government agencies, OEMs, institutions, associations & recyclers etc. -Industry is also kept well informed on all regulatory development, new grants or training programmes etc by related agencies.

There are currently no incentive schemes for the ESM of waste computing equipment in Trinidad and Tobago.


19

Environmental Authority has provided financial assistance for investments to develope projects of recovery of WEEE for social reuse through donations and subsequent dismantling and elimination of the parts unrecoverable. - At local level: financial support for companies to pay salary workers in dismantling WEEE companies.

5.Notes on the range of incentives that some governments are already using to encourage facilities to introduce environmental management systems

6.Please identify barriers to implementing collection and take-back schemes

-The absence of regulation. -The refusal of the local industry and international corporate companies to implement locally the principle of responsibility and thus cover the costs associated with the sustainable management of WEEE after use. -The extension of the country in surface. -Lack of capacity and feasibility in the country of services to recover components and materials, especially metals

Lack of absence of domestic legislation to provide customs and environmental officials with the necessary powers to request the take back of illegally imported containers -Absence of financial mechanism -Absence of clear definition of the waste -hazardous waste or not -sample for controlling the containers -Non respect of procedures of Notifications and Movements of transboundary BC -Lack of coordination at national, regional and international levels _Responsibility of Producerteur is not clearly defined

consumers' expectation of redidual values of the UEEE/WEEE; volume consolidation where at times it maybe too small or too few pieces; logistics arrangement where if without centralised consolidation, may be too costly to collect at different locations, diffent timing etc

Major barriers to implementing collection and take-back schemes in Trinidad and Tobago include: - Lack of a proper assessment and understanding of the local situation as it pertains to e-waste generation and management. - Lack of a legal and regulatory framework to support the safe collection, management and disposal of e-waste. - Lack of OEMs physically present in the local market. Computing equipment and other electrical items are not manufactured in the country for the most part and distributors and end users are largely responsible for the importation of such equipment locally. - Lack of awareness on the issues and various costs associated with improper e-waste disposal/storage and the means through which such equipment can be properly managed and disposed. - Limited capacity and capability locally to safely collect and treat with these wastes.

7.Please give examples of barriers to starting up voluntary

-The refusal of the local industry and international corporate companies to implement locally

-Define the responsibility of the producer -Ban the illegal importation of WEEE -Produits contrefaits

free rider; public awareness; disposal traits unique to certain countries where consumers amy prefer selling their UEEE/WEEE to door-to-door collectors for

The main barriers to starting up voluntary schemes are: - Lack of awareness and/or willingness among


20

schemes? the principle of responsibility and thus cover the costs associated with the sustainable management of WEEE after use. -Lack of capacity and feasibility in the country of services to recover components and materials, especially metals

-Who is supporting the cost of recycling/Elimination -Lack of infrastructure of recycling/elimination plants standards -Absence of specific legislation on e-waste -Lack of human resources for the control of illegal traffic -Lack of coordination between the structures in charge of control

small sum; program funding for longer term sustainability etc

distributors to establish such schemes. - Lack of awareness amongst the general public. - Limited capacity and capability locally to safely collect and treat with these wastes.

8.What incentives or support* is needed to overcome barriers identified in ( Q. 4, 6 and 7 )?

-National and international funding for the installation of services recovery of WEEE and its components. -Knowledge and experience in systems management and successful business models.

-Define the responsibility of the producer -Introduce an ecotaxe -Controlling the remittance of ecotaxe ans sales of EEE -Take back all material used by distributors: Principle “one for one” -Information / sensibilization / communication -Setting up an adequate financial mechanism, equitable and a rational simulation of the market

More towards 6 & 7: educational at younger age on proper disposal/recycling/environmental impact etc; industry-led multi stakeholders programmes for assorted EEE brands; networking collectors to larger scale recycling facilities to ensure proper disposal of collected UEEE/WEEE etc

Initially, more support is required in the areas of raising awareness of all key stakeholders on the issue of e-waste and importance of ESM, especially among generators and regulators. There is also a great need to fully assess the local situation to ascertain the various flows, quantities, and capabilities for

9.Please identify the existing certification scheme(s) / guideline(s)?

There is not one yet Certifications : ISO 9001, 14001, OHSAS 18001, R2 etc

There are currently no existing certification scheme(s) for the ESM of computing equipment in Trinidad and Tobago. However, a largely health and safety-based certification scheme has been developed by an association of energy industries based in Trinidad and which is known as the Safe to Work certification scheme (STOW-TT). This scheme will only be relevant to the local waste brokers involved in the collection and trade of e-waste if they wish to be service providers to these companies.

10. What are the key steps to get certified

aligning to the audit requirements; top management's commitment to put in required resources, e.g. manpower, processes, technology, equipment etc

Service providers must assess their risks and with use of a specially developed guidance manual, they develop and implement systems to minimize their risks. Once this has been achieved, either internally or with the assistance of a consultant, the company can then apply to the certification body for assessment. A STOW assessor is appointed, evaluates all documentation and interviews employees during the assessment. Following this, certification is granted once the minimum scores have been achieved.


21

11. Please provide the link to the certification scheme website

www.iso.org; www.r2solutions.org

http://www.stowtt.info/

12. What are the key components or elements of the scheme(s) / guideline(s)?

highest international standards with best practices which are operationally, security, safety & environmentally accountable for facilities to reference to

STOW-TT Minimum HSE Requirements: Element 1 - HSE Management, Leadership and Accountability Element 2 – Legal Requirements and Document Control Element 3 – Risk and Change Management Element 4 – Planning, Goals and Targets3 Element 5 – HSE Competency and Training Element 6 – Security Element 7 – Health and Hygiene Element 8 – Environmental Management Element 9 – Incident Reporting and Investigation Element 10 – Crisis and Emergency Management Element 11 – Monitoring, Audit and Review

13. Is the scheme(s) / guideline(s) compatible with PACE guidelines?

Yes as PACE Guidelines are also international and developed by credible stakeholders with relevant expertise

This has not been assessed and will have to be evaluated before being able to respond to this question.

14. How are governments, NGOs and industry using facility certification mechanisms now?

The national government is devoting to develop a baseline for the services associated with the management of WEEE that allows companies to access the possibility of obtaining an international certification for its activities through ECONORMAS MERCOSUR Project

to ascertain if the facility is already accredited with required standards with environmentally sound best practices; or as part of requirements in their process for vendor consideration where facility must be certified to these international standards etc

Generally in Trinidad and Tobago, certification mechanisms are used in order to regulate the largely heavy gas-based industries located in Trinidad and their service providers within the context of health, safety and, to a lesser extent, the environment.


22

ANNEX B Identified international standards/schemes for responsible management of e-waste

Key elements of: Canadian Stewardship programs, WEEELABEX, R2, e-Stewards, AS NZ 5377

Canadian Stewardship programs

WEEELABEX R2 e-Stewards AS NZ 5377

STANDARD/S ELECTRONICS PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CANADA (EPSC) – Recycler Qualification Program for End-of-life Electronics Recycling-2010 ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS RECYCLING ASSOCIATION (EPRA) – Electronics Reuse and Refurbishing Program -2012

-Collection -Logistics -Treatment

THE RESPONSIBLE RECYCLING (“R2”) STANDARD for ELECTRONICS RECYCLERS-2013

e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment-2013

Collection, storage, transport and treatment of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment

INTENT Minimum requirements for use in the provincial electronics recycling Stewardship Program

• Recycler Qualification Program (RQP) for End of Life Electronics Processors and Recyclers

• Electronics Reuse & Refurbishing Program (ERRS)

-To protect the Environment using European standards -Based on the Precautionary Principle

Help prospective purchasers make informed decisions and have increased confidence that used and EOLE are managed in an environmentally responsible manner, protective of the health and safety of workers and the public, and all data on all media devices is secure until destroyed

To provide a verifiable system With specific performance requirements: -Protect Customer Data and privacy -Protect OH&S, & communities surrounding facilities -Prevent pollution, reduce environmental impacts, & efficient resources use -Fair labor practices - excluding forced and child labor, and prison operations -Restrictions on disposal of hazardous e-waste to final disposition -Conformity with international laws, treaties, and agreements -Application of the above throughout the Recycling

-Guidance and requirements -Safe and environmentally sound collection, storage, transport, and treatment of EOLE -Maximise reuse And recovery -Reduce or eliminate e-waste going to final disposal operations -Safeguard worker health -Minimise harm to the environment


23

ChainGOVERNANCE -Created by electronics

industry -Operated by the Electronic Products Recycling Association (EPRA)-non--‐profit -Implementation Guidance provided

-WEEE Forum (producers) -Provide basis for 39 EU WEEE producer compliance Schemes

• Web-based

Tool developed by The WEEE Forum to Report recycling & Recovery rates -Contractual Relationship for 2/3 of reported WEEE collection in EU

-R2:2013 developed by a multi-stakeholder group–R2 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) -Accredited certified EH&S Management System -Flexible rather than prescriptive approach

-Created by the Basel Action Network with Leaders in the Recycling industry -Sanctioned interpretations -Guidance -Oversight

Prepared by the Joint Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand Committee on e-waste

SCOPE -RQP-EOLE Processors & Recyclers -ERRS-Reuse/Refurbishing Organizations

-Europe -Covers all kinds of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

-Global -Electronics recyclers (includes brokers, refurbishers, collectors, resellers, etc) -Facility‐not corporate

-Global with some External limitations -Corporate not site specific -EE, property & Assets under Ownership or control -Applies to all workers, including contract, volunteer, & interns

CONFORMITY VEIFICATION

Assurance Process-not an accredited program -Application to EPRA & application Verification -Audit/submission of The Audit Report -Stewardship Program Approval

-Rules to decide Whether an undertaking’s processes deserve to be WEEELABEX approved -Trained auditors conducting audits using the same documents -Plan for this to become a certified EU/CENELEC Standard-2015

Accredited certified R2 system with applicants required to also be certified to an EH&S MS

Accredited certified EMS


24

Other elements of: Canadian Stewardship programs, WEEELABEX, R2, e-Stewards, AS NZ 5377

Canadian Stewardship

programs WEEELABEX R2 e-Stewards AS NZ 5377

Governance No Not currently IAF AA IAF AA IAF AA Baseline: legal requirements

Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Definitions of types of electronic equipment

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Definitions of materials of concern

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Written management plan for materials of concern

Partial Yes Partial Yes Partial

Environment, health & safety management systems

Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial

Social accountability

Yes No No Yes No Environment, health & safety controls (detail and level of prescriptiveness varies considerably)

Yes ! Yes ! Yes Yes ! Yes

Testing of equipment going to reuse

Yes ! Yes Partial Yes ! Yes

Data security Yes ! Yes Yes ! Yes ! Yes Site closure plan & financial surety

Yes Partial Yes Yes No Export / import controls

Yes ! Yes Yes Yes ! Yes Disallowance of incineration / waste-to-energy facilities

Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial

Tracking of electronic equipment to final disposition

Yes Yes Yes Yes ! Yes

Mass/material balance

Yes Yes No Yes Partial Downstream accountability

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: Arcadian Solutions (2013) Comparison of selected end-of-life electronics processing programs with the requirements in the IEEE 1680 series of Standards for end-of-life electronics processing, International Sustainable Development Foundation (2013)


25

4. Recommendations – Thought starter

4.1 Country-specific Recommendations

Task 1: Develop short and succinct requirements of a national and regional strategy for environmentally sound management of computer equipment waste and give guidance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in their policy formulation and implementation including consideration of incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Task 3: Identifying options to overcome the barriers that prevent developing countries and countries with economies in transition from implementing collection and take-back schemes as well as other strategic activities including incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Identifying options to overcome barriers to producers from starting up voluntary schemes in certain countries which would help to determine what incentives/support could be provided; for example geographical challenges, ensuring level playing field to producers, economic viability, lack of consumer demand, no viable end-use markets, etc Task 4: Identify and make publicly accessible information on existing certification schemes, possible use of Ad Interim Group report on ESM criteria recommendations as a start. Collect information on existing certification schemes, an assessment of the extent to which they are currently used, and the elements that appear common in the establishment of credible and reliable programs. Key items to be explored could include: - What are the key steps to get certified? - Gather links to information/databases of certifications and registrations regarding handling of used and end-of-life computing equipment under various schemes. - What are the key components or elements that are present in widely recognized guidelines and certification schemes? - Are the existing standards used to certify facility ESM practices compatible with PACE guidelines? - How are governments, NGOs and industry using facility certification mechanisms now? - How could certification schemes be used in the future to ensure ESM and also guide decisions on TBM approvals by governments? Task 2: Identify current examples of strategies for ESM, both industry-led and Government, voluntary and mandatory.

4.1.1 Countries should review measures in place to implement obligations under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and to support applicable recommendations contained within the Basel Convention’s Guidance Document on the Preparation of Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes Subject to the Basel Convention (see Annex A). 4.1.2 OECD-member countries should review measures in place to support applicable recommendations contained within the OECD Council Recommendation C(2004)100 on the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste (see Annex B) and the OECD Technical Guidance for the Environmentally Sound Management of Specific Waste Streams: Used and Scrap Personal Computers (ENV/EPOC/WPWPR(2001)3/FINAL). 4.1.3 In the event that domestic Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are employed as part of a national approach to ESM, special consideration should be given to provide specifically tailored EMS systems for SMEs. Whatever EMS system will be selected, it is recommended that the government or large companies have a programme in place to provide support for SMEs in terms of information and know-how sharing.


26

4.1.4 Domestic policies and/or programmes implemented in accordance with Basel PACE technical guidance shall facilitate the ability to meet applicable international agreements and protocols and domestic legal requirements concerning the management of such wastes. 4.2 Facility-specific Recommendations

Task 1: Develop short and succinct requirements of a national and regional strategy for environmentally sound management of computer equipment waste and give guidance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in their policy formulation and implementation including consideration of incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Task 3: Identifying options to overcome the barriers that prevent developing countries and countries with economies in transition from implementing collection and take-back schemes as well as other strategic activities including incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Identifying options to overcome barriers to producers from starting up voluntary schemes in certain countries which would help to determine what incentives/support could be provided; for example geographical challenges, ensuring level playing field to producers, economic viability, lack of consumer demand, no viable end-use markets, etc Task 4: Identify and make publicly accessible information on existing certification schemes, possible use of Ad Interim Group report on ESM criteria recommendations as a start. Collect information on existing certification schemes, an assessment of the extent to which they are currently used, and the elements that appear common in the establishment of credible and reliable programs. Key items to be explored could include: - What are the key steps to get certified? - Gather links to information/databases of certifications and registrations regarding handling of used and end-of-life computing equipment under various schemes. - What are the key components or elements that are present in widely recognized guidelines and certification schemes? - Are the existing standards used to certify facility ESM practices compatible with PACE guidelines? - How are governments, NGOs and industry using facility certification mechanisms now? - How could certification schemes be used in the future to ensure ESM and also guide decisions on TBM approvals by governments? Task 2: Identify current examples of strategies for ESM, both industry-led and Government, voluntary and mandatory.

4.2.1 Facilities should ensure measures are in place to demonstrate conformity with the following ESM criteria: i. Top Management Commitment to a Systematic Approach: Demonstrate commitment of top management to integrate a systematic approach to achieve ESM in all aspects of facility operations, which often includes an environmental health and safety management system. ii. Risk Assessment: Identify actual and/or potential hazards and risks to public and worker health and safety, and the environment that are associated with activities, products and services. iii. Risk Prevention and Minimization: Eliminate where possible and in all cases strive to minimize actual and/or potential hazards and risks to public and worker health and safety, and the environment that are associated with activities, products and services. iv. Legal Requirements: Identify, access and strive to fulfil applicable legal requirements, including for example: legislation, statutes and regulations; decrees and directives; permits, licenses and certificates of approval, or other forms of authorization; orders issued by regulatory agencies; and/or judgments of courts or administrative tribunals. Facilities should


27

also take into consideration customary or indigenous law and treaties, conventions and protocols. v. Awareness, Competency and Training: Ensure employees have an appropriate level of awareness, competency and training with respect to the effective management of occupational risks. vi. Record-keeping and Performance Measurement: Maintain records, monitor, track and evaluate facility performance at achieving ESM. vii. Corrective Action: Take appropriate action to address significant actual and/or potential risks to public and worker health and safety, and the environment and correct identified deficiencies in achieving ESM. viii. Transparency and Verification: Provisions to support transparency and verification throughout each of the above building blocks, subject to appropriate protection for confidential business information, can help facilities to provide public assurances that operations and activities are compatible with ESM. Such provisions may include for example participating in third party audits and inspections. 4.2.2 Facilities should review measures in place to ensure coherence with the Basel Convention’s Practical Manuals for the implementation of environmentally sound management under the Framework for the Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous Wastes and Other Wastes. 4.2.3 Facilities should review measures in place to support applicable recommendations contained within PACE guidance documents and other applicable guidance under the Basel Convention. 4.2.4 Facilities located in OECD-member countries should also review measures in place to support applicable recommendations contained within the OECD Council Recommendation C(2004)100 on the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste (see Annex B) and OECD Technical Guidance for the Environmentally Sound Management of Specific Waste Streams: Used and Scrap Personal Computers (ENV/EPOC/WPWPR(2001)3/FINAL).


28

APPENDIX A Approved: October 16, 2013

Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE)

TERMS OF REFERENCE PACE Project Group 5.1: on Strategies, Actions and Incentives to promote Environmentally Sound Management.

Title: 1. PACE Project Group 5.1: on Strategies, Actions and Incentives to promote Environmentally Sound Management.

Background: 2. Following Decision VI/32 of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to promote partnerships, Decision VIII/2 of the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to target the environmentally sound management of e-waste, and the success of the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI), the PACE was initiated by Decision IX/9 of the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 2bis. As per decision BC-11/15 adopted by the eleventh Conference of the Parties of the Basel Convention, the mandate of the Partnership was extended until the end of 2015 to complete the work programme for 2014-2015 which inter alia includes the following tasks: (g) Continue to identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end-of-life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes; (h) Continue to assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment. 3. Within the PACE Working Group, a decision was made to address new PACE activities as reflected in the annex to the COP10 decision on PACE. It is to develop strategies on the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment, to identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end-of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes, and assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment environmentally sound material recovery and recycling of computing equipment.


29

Objectives:

4. The objective of the Project Group is to develop strategies, identify incentives and actions that can be taken to promote environmentally sound management, to include to:

(g) Develop strategies on the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment; (i) Identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end-of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes; (j) Assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment.

Membership and Operation:

5. Project Group participants have indicated that they possess expertise or significant interest in the field of environmentally sound refurbishment and repair of used and/or waste electronic equipment. 6. A current and official list of members will be maintained by the co-chairs, with contact information as provided by the members. (Annex 1) 7. Alternate participants may attend meetings in proxy for group members, provided that the group member has provided advance notice to the co-chairs regarding the identity and qualifications of such alternate participant, and an assurance that the alternate participant is adequately prepared to participate. Alternate participants should be aware of Rules of Procedure and obligations of confidentiality. 8. The Project Group will operate pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the PACE Working Group, applicable mutatis mutandis.

Non-Member Technical and Other Experts: 9. In accordance with paragraph 30 of the Terms of Reference of the PACE, the co-chairs of the Project Group may decide to invite non-member experts possessing specialized technical knowledge on an issue to be discussed at a meeting to participate in that meeting, or parts thereof. In addition, non-members wishing to participate as experts should send their interest, which should be endorsed by an existing PACE Working Group member, a brief written proposal (2 pages maximum) to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention who would consult the PACE Working Group for their views and a decision on the expert’s participation made through a written procedure by the Working Group. Non-member expert participants should be aware of Rules of Procedure and obligations of confidentiality.

Meetings of the Project Group: 10. The Project Group will meet by teleconference, as needed and anticipated to be conducted once per month, with interim communication through e-mail to prepare for and report developments. Dates and times of such meetings will be set by the Co-chairs in consultation with the members..

11. Physical meetings may be held if the Project Group determines that such meetings will be beneficial and feasible, at such times and venues as the Project Group shall determine, but normally in conjunction with physical meetings of the PACE Working Group. Such meetings will


30

be arranged taking account of other project group activities in order to maximise the use of contributors’ time and travel arrangements where practicable. 12. Meeting documents will be distributed to Project Group members in advance of each meeting, and a meeting summary report will be distributed following each meeting.

Duties and Responsibilities: 13. Members of the Project Group will participate actively through meetings, maintain current awareness of Project Group issues and developments, and share their expertise to further the objectives of the group. 14. Project Group Co-chairs will attend all meetings, prepare meeting agendas, lead discussions, prepare and file reports of group meetings and developments, and generally seek to facilitate and guide group members to achieve group objectives. 15. Meeting documents will be distributed to participants prior to the meeting date. A meeting summary report will also be distributed to participants of the project group following each meeting. Every effort will be made to ensure that meeting documents and summary reports are distributed to participants in a timely fashion.

16. Confidentiality will be maintained by all members in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Terms of Reference of the PACE Working Group. 17. Other duties and Responsibilities will be decided by consensus by the project group participants, members and technical experts as listed in Annex I. Annex I will be revised from time to time as new participants join the project group or as participants leave the project group.

Reporting Arrangements and Approvals: 18. Official reports and communications from the Project Group will be disseminated by the Project Group co-chairs, or by the Secretariat on behalf of the Project Group co-chairs. Communications by other members of the Project Group will not officially represent the group or the views of other members of the group.

19. Project Group meeting summary reports, following review and approval of the group in a subsequent meeting, will be distributed to the co-chairs of the PACE Working Group, and to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention.

20. All work products prepared by the Project Group will be submitted by co-chairs to the PACE Working Group for review and final approval.

Project Tasks: 21. Project Tasks are set out in Annex 2.

Project Start and Deliverables:

22. The PACE Project Group 5.1 started with the first teleconference call on 27th March 2012. Noting that any input to COP XII would need to be prepared by end- February 2015, the final delivery of findings, conclusions and recommendations from Project Group 5.1 to the PACE Working Group is scheduled not later than the end of 2014.


31

Project Costs: 23. The Project Group does not anticipate the need for substantial financial resources, relying instead upon in-kind contributions of participants, including the provision of teleconference facilities, and the support and services of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, all of which are gratefully acknowledged,. However, the Project Group’s work will rely on the facilitation of the consultancy support available to the PACE more generally and funded through the PACE budget provided to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention.

24. Thus financial contributions to PACE and to the Basel Convention that support the work of the PACE, and the work of the Project Group, are gratefully acknowledged.

25. Costs of physical meeting arrangements, if any, including sponsored travel of Project Group members from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, will be funded in accordance with the terms of the PACE budget managed by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention.

Project Timelines: 26. Project Timelines are identified in Annex 3.


32

Annex 1: Project Group Co-chairs and Participants Co-chairs:

35. Leila Devia, BCRC-Argentina 36. Ross Bartley, BIR

Participants:

37. Alberto Santos Capra, Argentina 38. Dana Lapesova, BCRC-Slovakia 39. David Seligson, ILO 40. Donovan McLaren, Kevoy Community Development Institute 41. Eric Harris, ISRI 42. Erica Logan, ITI 43. Gina Killikelly, Dell 44. Ibrahim Shafii, BRS-SSB 45. Isabelle Baudin, Switzerland 46. Jean Claude Salama, Madagascar 47. Jim Puckett, BAN 48. Jinhui Li, BCRC-ChinaJunya Kikuhara, Asian Network 49. Karen Pollard, USA 50. Lixia Zheng, BCRC, China 51. Marco Buletti, Switzerland 52. Mathias Schluep, EMPA 53. Matthias Kern, SBC 54. Michael VanderPol, Canada 55. Miguel Araujo, BCRC-CAM 56. Otmar Deubzer, UNU 57. Oladele Osibanjo, BCRC-Nigeria 58. Patricia Whiting, SIMS 59. Patrick Micheli, Consultant to SBC 60. Paul Hagen, ITI 61. Renee St.Denis, Sims Recycling Solutions 62. Ridwan Tamin, BCRC-SEA, Indonesia 63. Ruediger Kuehr, UNU 64. Sanaz Sabeti Mohammadi, BCRC-Tehran 65. Sarah Westervelt, BAN 66. Shiri Garakani, BCRC-Tehran 67. Shunichi Honda, Japan 68. Wen-Ling Chiu, IER 69. Willie Cade, PCRR 70. Yorg Aerts, OVAM, Belgium


33

Annex 2: Tasks and Priorities

Tasks and Priorities were revised at the 6th physical PACE meeting in South Africa on September 23‐25, 2013. Annex 2 may be revised as agreed by the Project Group.

(g) Develop strategies on the environmentally sound management of used and end‐of‐life computing equipment

Tasks Priority Task 1: Develop short and succinct requirements of a national and regional strategy for environmentally sound management of computer equipment waste and give guidance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in their policy formulation and implementation including consideration of incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative).

High

Task 2: Identify current examples of strategies for ESM, both industry‐led and Government, voluntary and mandatory.

Low

(i) Identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end‐of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes

Tasks Priority Task 3: Identifying options to overcome the barriers that prevent developing countries and countries with economies in transition from implementing collection and take‐back schemes as well as other strategic activities including incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Identifying options to overcome barriers to producers from starting up voluntary schemes in certain countries which would help to determine what incentives/support could be provided; for example geographical challenges, ensuring level playing field to producers, economic viability, lack of consumer demand, no viable end‐use markets, etc

High

(j) Assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management of used and end‐of‐life computing equipment

In carrying out this activity the Project Group will collaborate with the Basel Convention’s ”Technical Expert Group (TEG) on ESM” on the certification issues to prevent duplication of effort and ensure the outcomes are aligned, and with the Secretariat of the "Solving the E‐Waste Problem" (StEP) Initiative, hosted by the United Nations University, on their development of “Standards for Collection, Storage, Transport and Treatment of E‐waste: Principles, Requirements and Conformity Assessment” (StEP's Green Paper). Tasks Priority Task 4: Identify and make publicly accessible information on existing certification schemes, possible use of Ad Interim Group report on ESM criteria recommendations as a start. Collect information on existing certification schemes, an assessment of the extent to which they are currently used, and the elements that appear common in the establishment of credible and reliable programs. Key items to be explored could include: - What are the key steps to get certified? - Gather links to information/databases of certifications and registrations regarding

handling of used and end‐of‐life computing equipment under various schemes. - What are the key components or elements that are present in widely recognized

guidelines and certification schemes? - Are the existing standards used to certify facility ESM practices compatible with PACE

guidelines?

High


34

- How are governments, NGOs and industry using facility certification mechanisms now? - How could certification schemes be used in the future to ensure ESM and also guide

decisions on TBM approvals by governments?


35

Annex 3 Project Timetable - Project Group 5.1

Years 2013 2014 2015

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12(g) Develop strategies on the environmentally sound management of used and end‐of‐life computing equipment

Task 1: Develop short and succinct requirements of a national and regional strategy for environmentally sound management of computer equipment waste and give guidance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition in their policy formulation and implementation including consideration of incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). 1.1 National Strategies

1.1.1 Collect information

1.1.2 Draft requirements

1.2 Regional Strategies


1.2.2 Draft requirements

Task 2: [LOW PRIORITY]Identify current examples of strategies for ESM, both industry‐led and Government, voluntary and mandatory.2.1 Collect information

2.2 Draft report


36

Years 2013 2014 2015

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12(i) Identify actions and incentives that can be taken to promote environmentally sound reuse, refurbishment, repair, recycling and material recovery of used and end‐of life computing equipment through the implementation of the Partnership guidelines and existing certification schemes

Task 3: Identifying options to overcome the barriers that prevent developing countries and countries with economies in transition from implementing collection and take‐back schemes as well as other strategic activities including incentive schemes (for example: voluntary, financial, regulatory, and administrative). Identifying options to overcome barriers to producers from starting up voluntary schemes in certain countries which would help to determine what incentives/support could be provided; for example geographical challenges, ensuring level playing field to producers, economic viability, lack of consumer demand, no viable end‐use markets, etc

3.1 Countries


3.1.2 Identify options

3.1.3 Draft report

3.2 Producers


3.2.2 Identify options

3.2.3 Draft report


37

Years 2013 2014 2015

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

(j) Assess the possibility of using facility certification as a tool for assuring the environmentally sound management of used and end‐of‐life computing equipment In carrying out this activity the Project Group will collaborate with the Basel Convention’s ”Technical Expert Group (TEG) on ESM” on the certification issues to prevent duplication of effort and ensure the outcomes are aligned, and with the Secretariat of the "Solving the E‐Waste Problem" (StEP) Initiative, hosted by the United Nations University, on their development of “Standards for Collection, Storage, Transport and Treatment of E‐waste: Principles, Requirements and Conformity Assessment” (StEP's Green Paper).

Task 4: Identify and make publicly accessible information on existing certification schemes, possible use of Ad Interim Group report on ESM criteria recommendations as a start. Collect information on existing certification schemes, an assessment of the extent to which they are currently used, and the elements that appear common in the establishment of credible and reliable programs. Key items to be explored could include:

‐ What are the key steps to get certified? ‐ Gather links to information/databases of certifications and registrations regarding handling of used and end‐of‐life

computing equipment under various schemes. ‐ What are the key components or elements that are present in widely recognized guidelines and certification schemes? ‐ Are the existing standards used to certify facility ESM practices compatible with PACE guidelines? ‐ How are governments, NGOs and industry using facility certification mechanisms now? ‐ How could certification schemes be used in the future to ensure ESM and also guide decisions on TBM approvals by

governments?

4.1 Gather links

4.2 Make assessment

4.3 Draft report

Task 5: Delivery of findings, conclusions and recommendations to the PACE Working Group

5.1


38

APPENDIX B References Standard / Guideline / Document* Type of

Guidance Document

1. UNITED NATIONS (UN)

1.

Guideline on the Refurbishment of Used Mobile Phones (Revised and Approved Draft). Basel Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative Project 1.1. (March 25, 2009).

Refurbishing http://www.basel.int/industry/mppiwp/guid-info/guidrefurb.pdf

2.

Guideline on the Collection of Used Mobile Phones (Approved Draft). Basel Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative Project 2.1. (March 25, 2009).

Collection http://www.basel.int/industry/mppiwp/guid-info/guidcoll.pdf

3.

Guideline on Material Recovery and Recycling of End-of-Life Mobile Phones (Approved Draft). Basel Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative Project 3.1. (March 25, 2009).

Recycling http://www.basel.int/industry/mppiwp/guid-info/guidmaterial.pdf

4.

Guideline on the Awareness Raising-Design Considerations (Revised and Approved Draft). Basel Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative Project 4.1. (March 25, 2009).

Awareness Raising

http://www.basel.int/industry/mppiwp/guid-info/guiddesign.pdf

5.

Guideline for the Transboundary Movement of Collected Mobile Phones (Approved Final Draft). Basel Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative Project 2.1. (March 25, 2009).

Transboundary Movement

http://www.basel.int/industry/mppiwp/guid-info/guidTBM.pdf

6.

Guidance document on the environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life mobile phones. Basel Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (Sep 15, 2008)

Refurbishing & Recycling (summary & consolidation of MPPI guidelines)

http://www.basel.int/industry/mppi/MPPI%20Guidance%20Document.pdf


39

7.

Guidance Document on the Preparation of Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of Wastes Subject to the Basel Convention.

General Basel guidance

http://www.basel.int/meetings/sbc/workdoc/framewk.doc

8.

Draft technical guidelines on the environmentally sound recycling/reclamation of metals and metal compounds (R4). Basel Convention.

Recycling (Metals)

http://www.basel.int/meetings/cop/cop7/docs/08a3e.pdf

9.

One Global Understanding of Re-Use - Common Definitions. Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP). (March 5, 2009).

Reuse http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/white-papers/StEP_TF3_WPCommonDefinitions.pdf

10.

E-waste Take-back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP). (January 28, 2009).

Take-back http://www.step-initiative.org/pdf/white-papers/StEP_TF1_WPTakeBackSystems.pdf

11.

Social and Environmental Responsibility in Metals Supply to the Electronic Industry. Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI). (June 20, 2008).

Recycling http://www.gesi.org/files/20080620_ghgm_ser_metalstoelectronics.pdf

12.

The Entrepreneur's Guide to Computer Recycling. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Recycling http://www.ticethic.com/guide

2. ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) 13.

Council Recommendation C(2004)100 on the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste (9 Jun 2004)

End-of-life (General ESM) http://webdomino1.oecd.org/horizontal/oecdacts.nsf/linkto/C(2004)100

14.

Guidance Manual for the Implementation of the Council Recommendation C(2004)100 on the Environmentally Sound Management of Waste. (2007).

End-of-life (General ESM) http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/31/39559085.pdf

15.

Technical Guidance for the Environmentally Sound Management of Specific Waste Streams: Used and Scrap Personal Computers (18 Feb 2003).

Recycling http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT000009E2/$FILE/JT00139462.PDF

3. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES / COUNTRIES WITH ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION 3.A INDIA


40

16.

Guidelines for Environmentally Sound Management of E-waste. India Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Ministry of Environment & Forests (March 12, 2008).

Recycling (Chapter 5) Reuse (Chapter 5)

http://www.cpcb.nic.in/e_Waste.php

3.B KENYA 17.

E-waste Management in Kenya. Hewlett Packard, DSF, Empa. (July 2008).

Assessment http://ewasteguide.info/system/files/Waema_2008_KICTANet.pdf http://ewasteguide.info/Waema_2008_KICTANet

3.C MOROCCO 18.

Technical report on the assessment of e-waste management in Morocco. Hewlett Packard, DSF, Empa. (August 2008).

Assessment http://ewasteguide.info/system/files/Laissaoui_2008_CMPP.pdf http://ewasteguide.info/Laissaoui_2008_CMPP

3.D SOUTH AFRICA 19.

E-waste Assessment South Africa. Hewlett Packard, DSF, Empa. (November 2008).

Assessment http://ewasteguide.info/system/files/Finlay_2008_eWASA.pdf http://ewasteguide.info/Finlay_2008_eWASA

3.E UGANDA

20.

E-waste assessment in Uganda: A situational analysis of e-waste management and generation with special emphasis on personal computers. UNIDO, Microsoft. (2008).

Assessment http://ewasteguide.info/system/files/Finlay_2008_eWASA.pdf http://ewasteguide.info/Wasswa_2008_UCPC-Empa

4. NORTH AMERICA 4.A CANADA 1.

Implementation Guide for Information Technology Equipment Disassembly and Sorting Centres. Centre québécois de développement.

Refurbishing http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/mms-smm/busi-indu/rad-rad/pdf/cfe-imp-eng.pdf

2.

Waste Diversion Ontario’s Draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Diversion Standard (Oct 2007)

Recycling (ANNEX 9) Refurbishing (ANNEX 10)

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/WDA/electronics/finalWEEProgramPlan-appendices.pdf

3.

Recycler Vendor Qualification Standard. Electronic Product Stewardship Canada (Mar 2006)

Recycling http://www.epsc.ca/pdfs/March2006_RVQP_standard.pdf


41

4.

Recycling Vendor Qualification Guidance Document. Electronic Product Stewardship Canada (Mar 2006)

Recycling http://www.epsc.ca/pdfs/March2006_RVQP_GD.pdf

5.

Recycling Vendor Qualification Process. Electronic Product Stewardship Canada (Mar 2006)

Recycling http://www.epsc.ca/pdfs/March_2006_FINAL_Recycler_Qualification_Proce_ss.pdf

4.B USA

6.

Plug-In To eCycling: Guidelines for Materials Management. USEPA (May 2004)

Recycling http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/plugin/pdf/guide.pdf

7.

Responsible Recycling “R2” Practices for use in Accredited Certification Programs for Electronics Recyclers (October 30, 2008).

Recycling http://www.decideagree.com/R2%20Document.pdf

8.

Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS), Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI)

Recycling http://www.firstenvironment.com/html/environmental_management_syste7.html

9.

Closing the Loop Electronics Design to Enhance Reuse/Recycling Value. Green Electronics Council (January 2009).

Design for Reuse/Recycling http://www.greenelectronicscouncil.org/documents/0000/0007/Design_for_End_of_Life_Final_Report_090208.pdf

0.

Best Management Practices for Electronic Waste. California Integrated Waste Management Board (April 2004).

End-of-life http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/electronics/63004005.pdf

1.

Dell’s Recovery and Waste Disposition Channels Environmental Guidelines (December 2005)

Recycling http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/environ/Disposal_Guidelines.pdf

2.

Hewlett-Packard Standard 007-2 Vendor Requirements for Hardware Recycling (October 13, 2008)

Recycling http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/recycle/finalrecstds.pdf

Basel Action Network (BAN) Electronics Recycler's Pledge of True Stewardship

Recycling http://www.ban.org/Pledge/electronics_recycler_pledge.pdf


42

3.

4.

e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment

Reuse/Recycling http://www.e-stewards.org/documents/e-StewardStandard_ExcerptedVersion.pdf (free version without ISO14001 language)

5. EUROPE 5.

Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Consolidated version.

Recycling (various Articles) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002L0096:20080321:EN:PDF

6.

Tools for Environmentally Sound Management, Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) (EN 2006 / ES 2008 / FR 2009)

End-of-life (General ESM) http://www.bir.org/pdf/GuideESM.pdf (English) http://www.bir.org/pdf/GuideESM_FR.pdf (French) http://www.bir.org/pdf/GuideESM_ES.pdf (Spanish)

6. OTHER 7.

ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems - Requirements with Guidance for Use (second edition 2004-11-15).

Environmental Management Systems

International Organization for Standardization http://www.iso.org

8.

ISO 14004 Environmental Management Systems - General Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Support Techniques (second edition 2004-11-15).

Environmental Management Systems

International Organization for Standardization http://www.iso.org

9.

Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems – Specification (BSI - OHSAS 18001: 1999)

Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems


43

REFERENCES UN-EP Basel Convention framework for the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes UN-EP Basel Convention PACE Guidelines OECD, “Report by the environment policy committee on the implementation of the council recommendation on environmentally sound management of waste [C(2004)100, as amended by C(2007)97] (2009) Partnership for action on computing equipment. Project 5.1., “Strategies, actions and incentives to promote environmentally sound management – Draft 1 (2012) Arcadian Solutions, “Understanding the Certification Process for End-of-Life Electronics” (2013) Arcadian Solutions, “Comparison of selected end-of-life electronics processing programs with the requirements in the IEEE 1680 series of Standards for end-of-life electronics processing” (2013) Milieu Ltd and RPA Ltd, “Study on the Cost and Benefits of registration with the Environmental Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) to Registered Organisations” (2009) WEEELABEX Layman’s Report (2013) Canadian stewardship standards

• Recycler Qualification Program (RQP) for End of Life Electronics Processors and Recyclers (2010)

• Electronics Reuse & Refurbishing Program (ERRS) (2012) WEEELABEX Standards: Collection (2011), Logistics (2011), Treatment 2013) Responsible Recycling (R2) Practices for Use in Accredited Certification Programs for Electronics Recyclers (2013) DR AS/NZ 5377 ‐ Draft for Public Comment Australian/New Zealand Standard for collection, storage, transport and treatment of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment (2012-05-13)

____________________

Documents

EWG ESM2 inf12 230514 UNITED NATIONS BC UNEP/CHW/CLI_EWG.2/INF/12 Distr.: General 22 May 2014 English only Expert Working Group on Environmentally Sound Management …