1 / 13

ByteBack and the national context for E-waste. April 2007

ByteBack and the national context for E-waste. April 2007. Agenda. What / Why is there a problem? ByteBack TM – why it was initiated. What we have learnt – Key Findings. Where to from here. Scope of the problem. Rapidly growing waste stream.

phoebe
Download Presentation

ByteBack and the national context for E-waste. April 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ByteBack and the national context for E-waste. April 2007

  2. Agenda • What / Why is there a problem? • ByteBackTM – why it was initiated. • What we have learnt – Key Findings. • Where to from here.

  3. Scope of the problem • Rapidly growing waste stream. • Lack of convenient options for responsible disposal. • Lack of willingness by manufacturers across the board to take responsibility. • Contains some level of harmful chemicals. • Resources lost when products are landfilled • Concerns that a high number of products were ‘White Boxes’ or ‘Orphaned’.

  4. Why was ByteBackTM initiated? • Seed an ongoing program in the absence of any industry initiatives. • Develop a product lifecycle partnership. • Obtain knowledge of the waste stream. • Provide measurable outcomes in terms of costs and operations (to inform industry). • Demonstrate leadership (in priority area) • Divert valuable resources away from landfill and homes.

  5. Findings to date

  6. Profile of the waste stream 42,500 units collected Or 370 tonnes

  7. Key Findings (1): • 66% of products are manufactured by well known brands. • 53% of products collected belong to AIIA members. • 9% are true ‘white box’ products. • 6% are ‘orphaned’ products. • Significant number of ‘minor brands’ (over 200 to date). (only 13 brands have 2% or more of the waste stream) • Reprocessing & logistics cost approx $25 per set up. • Need consumers to pay this. • Can’t be absorbed into profit margin. • 78% of collected equipment is aged 7-11 years (93% is 5 years or older)

  8. Key Findings (2): • High level of interest from the community • Respondents typically became aware thru: • contacting Councils, • local papers • word-of-mouth. • 56% of respondents not prepared to pay / 38% up to $5 per item. • 68% of users motivated to “do the right thing”. • 78% of respondents would have used hardwaste / bin for disposal.

  9. What we have learnt to date (2)

  10. Constituent Materials 97% of materials recycled (of 370 tonnes)

  11. Where to from here • Co-Regulatory Framework in development (by State & Federal Government) • Consultation phase on hold. • Study being taken into context of the problem. • Victorian Government has committed $2m to expand ByteBackTM. • Seeking industry commitment ($$). • 8 new sites over next 18 months.

  12. What can Interested Parties can do Write / contact: • Brand Owners • Retailers Seeking that they take responsibility for solving the problem.

More Related