Beverley Thorpe Bev@cleanproduction +1514 933 4596 cleanproduction

1. Beverley Thorpe Bev@cleanproduction.org +1514 933 4596 www.cleanproduction.org

2. “We should recycle, but it is not the first thing we should do, it is the last. Redesign first, then reduce, reuse and finally recycle, if there is no other alternative.” Bill McDonough, Co-author of Cradle to Cradle

3. What is eco-design? Products designed from a life cycle perspective: • Designed with non toxic materials (green chemistry) • Has low energy consumption (ideally renewable) • Designed for durability, re-use and ability to be upgradable (lower consumption) • Uses materials designed for easy disassembly and recycling (closed loop design) • Where applicable, designed with sustainable renewable materials and safe composting at end of life

4. Eco-design included in original intent of European EPR legislation “I am particularly pleased we could convince member states to strengthen the individual responsibility for waste from their products. This will be an important incentive for producers to take environmental consequences into account already when they stand around the design table.” European Environment Commissioner at launch of WEEE Directive

5. Does take-back catalyze eco-design? • Only if feedback loop from end of life materials management goes directly back to producer - the key decision maker on product design • Individual Producer Responsibility(IPR) achieves this; collective producer responsibility with a flat fee on products, irrespective of brand, does not. • “Collective responsibility,where all producers are jointly responsible for the recycling of all products, including the products sold in the future - does not provide an incentive to a producer to design products to be easier to recycle.” joint industry statement [ www.iprworks.org]

7. Other incentives for eco-design: Regulatory incentives necessary to promote eco-design and level the playing field: • restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS-2) • enforced recycling standards – no export • occupational health and safety standards

8. Consortium of companies and groups promoting IPR • www.iprworks.org • AB Electrolux • Braun • European Environmental Bureau • Greenpeace International • Hewlett Packard • Länsförsäkringar Insurance • Sony Europe • StenaTechnoworld AB • European Recycling Platform promoting IPR since 2002

9. Companies who support IPR • HP, Dell, Apple, Sony, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Lenovo, LG, Fujitsu-Siemens, Nokia, Acer, Electrolux, Braun, ….all have statements on their website supporting IPR. • Visit www.greenpeace.org – Guide to Greener Electronics (updated quarterly)

11. IPR can be achieved in collective systems • Collective systems are not the same as collective responsibility • Producers can achieve direct feedback loops in collective systems through • Brand sampling • Brand recognition as well as own brand take-back and recycling systems

13. Brand sorting in collective systems can be done ICT Milieu, N L • individual producers received a monthly invoice directly from the recycler based on the weight of the recycled products • Each brand was hand sorted, weighed on a scale and logged using a touch screen panel. • Any name which was not part of ICT Milieu would be registered as a "free rider" • The cost of manual sorting was a few cent/kg

14. Return Share in collective systems can be done (ME and WA) Return share = manufacturer’s percentage, by weight, of identified brands of electronic products returned for recycling. Maine and Washington States use return share to make computer and TV manufacturers individually responsible for collection and recycling • Maine: Municipalities collect WEEE and pass it to a consolidator • Every product is counted and weighed • producers finance recycling of returned brands: • Manufacturers can collect a representative pile of WEEE from consolidator and undertake recycling • OR, pay the consolidator to undertake recycling incl share of orphans • OR, have branded product separated + orphans – Orphans currently estimated at less than 2 per cent Orphans divided pro rata between those with over 1% return share

15. Return Share: Washington • Manufacturers may/must join Standard Plan to manage and finance recycling program OR may start an independent plan on own or with others (if combined return share above 5%) • Dept of Ecology determines the return share for each manufacturer. Info calculated by the Brand Data Management System developed by the National Center for Electronics Recycling • Orphan brands divided among all manufacturers according to their return share percentages. • Return share systems to be established in Connecticut and Oregon

16. Brand recognition can be done • Research in Nordic countries to separate and identify product and model specific info • Results: (www.iprworks.org) • Possibility to establish dismantling service based on actual products and their specific design and component structure • IPR based on product sorting is achievable at a cost; if more IPR, then more competition among recyclers would drive innovation and lower costs

17. RFID tags allow brand separation and will become more common

20. Evidence of design change • Research on impact of impending EPR legislation on manufacturers of electronics and autos in Japan and Sweden revealed distinct proactive design change Extended Producer Responsibility: An examination of its impact on innovation and greening products. – Chris van Rossem, Naoko Tojo and Thomas Lindhqvist. 2006 Commissioned by Greenpeace, FoE, EEB. Report also available at www.iprworks.org

22. IPR is evolving Kieren Mayers, Sony Entertainment

23. Thank you More information on EPR available at www.cleanproduction.org