|
WEEE |
Batteries |
Packaging |
|
|
|
|
| Jurisdictions |
72 [26] |
43 [12] |
47 [15] |
|
|
|
|
| Systems |
230 |
148 |
365 |
|
| Rollover text for explanation |
|
 | Restricted to subscribers. Please log in or subscribe |
| Restricted to subscribers. Please log in or subscribe |
| Restricted to subscribers. Please log in or subscribe |
Sign up here to periodically receive information about free content and changes to this site
|
|
|
|
| |
FEATURED NEWS |
|
|
LATEST NEWS |
|
|
 |
The paper provides brief analyses of the status quo and policy options (without evaluation) for 10 areas identified as critical for reaching the goal:
-
Increase Recycling Infrastructure
-
Organics
-
Increase Commercial Recycling
-
Establish Extended Producer Responsibility
-
Reform Beverage Container Program
-
Increase Procurement/Demand
-
Other Materials [incudes e-waste]
-
Governance/Funding
-
Source Reduction
-
The Other [non-recycled] 25%
As regards the part of e-waste that lacks sufficient material value to cover processing costs the paper identifies the following options:
-
using the innate value of the current overall e-waste stream to support comprehensive diversion;
-
adding new device categories to the existing [TV/monitor] payment system; or
-
implementing an EPR model either for all e-waste or as a hybrid with the current [TV/monitor] payment system.
For non-beverage container packaging waste the paper proposes an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system in two variations:
-
select a small set of “problematic” products/materials (e.g., non-CRV beverage containers) and establish a statewide pilot program that is operated for several years, before requiring additional packaging EPR programs; or
-
conduct a pilot that is comprehensive in terms of products/materials, but is limited to a small geographic area (e.g., coastal areas concerned with marine litter).
The paper proposes various measures to reform California’s Beverage Container Program.
California’s waste reduction efforts in the past have been measured in terms of the amount of waste diverted from landfills: The waste diversion goal for 2010 had been 50% while the actual diversion rate achieved was 65%. CalRecycle translates this into a recycling rate equivalent of 49% in 2010.
At this early stage CalRecycle’ is asking stakeholders for thoughts and ideas that may have been missed here.
|
Inputs to the report came from an online questionnaire which targeted government representatives, business organisations and NGOs, to find out how policies and initiatives have brought about change, and what impact they have had. “More than 280” users registered, and “more than 100” questionnaires were returned.
The survey is remaining online so that UNEP can build a database as a “living document” that could support a ten-year Framework of Programmes and contribute to the preparations for Rio+20.
The Commission has previously admitted that companies are way ahead of governments in implementing sustainability measures, so when policymakers consult this database it would be good if they could find market-driven initiatives by responsible companies.
|
Find a description and an interview with with one-man guerrilla filmmaker David Fedele on environmental conservation website Mongabay.
|
The updated guidance follows the conclusion of the consultation process following European Court of Justice Judgement C-558/07 which clarified the concept of monomer substances in a way that potentially impacts the registration obligations of the previous Guidance.
ECHA has also recently published Updated Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment for nanomaterials and Updated Guidance on applying CLP (Classification, Labelling and packaging) Criteria.
ECHA REACH guidance home page and news page
|
Product Stewardship is the act of minimising health, safety, environmental and social impacts, and maximising economic benefits of a product and its packaging throughout all lifecycle stages. The producer of the product has the greatest ability to minimise adverse impacts, but other stakeholders, such as suppliers, retailers, and consumers, also play a role. Stewardship can be either voluntary or required by law.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a mandatory type of product stewardship that includes, at a minimum, the requirement that the producer's responsibility for their product extends to post-consumer management of that product and its packaging. There are two related features of EPR policy: (1) shifting financial and management responsibility, with government oversight, upstream to the producer and away from the public sector; and (2) providing incentives to producers to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of their products and packaging.
The three organisations explain that “a movement to shift responsibility for spent [end-of-life] products and packaging from taxpayers to the producers who design, make and sell them is growing both among leading corporations and state and local governments in the United States. Dozens of new industry programs and state laws to reduce the life cycle impacts of products and packaging have been initiated or adopted in the last decade. The terms ‘product stewardship’ and ‘extended producer responsibility’ have been used in various ways to describe these activities.”
To allow for healthy public discussion, the Product Stewardship Institute, the Product Policy Institute and the California Product Stewardship Council spent over a year harmonising concepts and soliciting input from stakeholders from business, government, and public interest organisations across North America. The resulting definitions are consistent with international definitions, but also reflect the progress that has been made in the past decade since the product stewardship movement took off in the US. The definitions have so far been endorsed by 47 businesses, stewardship organisations, government agencies, and non-profit organisations and are posted on the websites listed below.
The new definitions replace previous definitions used in the United States over the past decade.
Links and contacts:
Product Stewardship Institute, Scott Cassel, scott@productstewardship.us
Product Policy Institute, Bill Sheehan, bill@productpolicy.org
California Product Stewardship Council, Heidi Sanborn, Heidi@CalPSC.org
|
The European Commission’s original agreement with the US EPA, which expired in December 2011, was based on the principle of mutual recognition: a product recognised as energy efficient by either party qualified for the ENERGY STAR label in both the US and the EU. A Council Decision in July 2011 authorised the Commission to negotiate a new agreement and this was concluded in November 2011.
After the ENERGY STAR’s self-certification system was found to have a high potential for fraud (see news item), the US EPA required all products applying for the label to be tested by third-party certified laboratories from February 2011. The European Commission did not want to adopt this requirement, as it feared that 60% of participants would drop out of the programme (see news item).
Thus the proposed new US – EU agreement provides for two separate registration systems. ‘For products placed solely on the EU market, the Management Entity allows Program Participants to self-certify the qualified products. For products placed on the US market the Management Entity requires the Program Participants to meet the third party certification requirements laid out in the revised U.S. Partner Commitments.’
According to the draft Regulation, the end of the mutual recognition principle is not expected to have a negative impact on manufacturers participating in the EU programme as they are focused primarily on the EU market.
It could be assumed that the Commission would still unilaterally recognise products that passed the US EPA’s ‘harsher’ certification. However, this is not the case. The only significant change in the proposed amendment of Regulation 106/2008/EC (which implements the US - EU agreement in the EU) removes the provision that ‘office equipment products for which use of the Common Logo has been granted by the US EPA shall be deemed to comply with this Regulation’.
The EPA and EU will, however, continue to cooperate on the development of product specifications.
Links: Websites of US or EU Energy Star Programmes. Commission website on energy efficiency.
|
|
 |
|
