From WEEE to REEE. Yanzhu Zhang Daniella Mendoza Casper Wennekers Zuzana Cabejšková. June 2013, Delft

Transcription

1 From WEEE to REEE Yanzhu Zhang Daniella Mendoza Casper Wennekers Zuzana Cabejšková June 2013, Delft TU Delft and Leiden University MSc Programme Industrial Ecology Sustainable Innovation and Social Change Q4 2012/2013 i

2 ii

3 Summary This report is a backcasting study that builds on a previous analysis of the WEEE system in the Netherlands (Cabejskova et al., 2013). There we observed the current situation as well as past developments using Functions of Innovation Systems framework (FIS). We studied the reasons why only one third of the WEEE is treated under the compliance scheme. The main finding was that the Directive underestimates collection targets. WeCycle already collects over 5kg/person-year which is 1kg more than the law requires. Since the compliance scheme is not profitable, there is lack of both regulatory and economic drivers for an expansion. Based on our conclusions, we identified several recommendations for optimization of the system. In this report, we take a step further and look at the distant future: how should WEEE look like in 2050? What vision can it follow and how can it reach it? The methodology applied to look at these questions is backcasting. Firstly, we summarize problems of the WEEE systems as pointed out in previous report. We translate these into demands and build a strong vision for WEEE; the scope is broadened to include a whole societal transition and consumer behaviour. Secondly, we conduct a What-How-Who analysis to formulate changes required for the vision to come true. Drivers and barriers are also included. Thirdly, we set up a follow-up agenda with the help of a timeline and milestones. Lastly, conclusions and recommendations are drawn to highlight the results and lessons of the report. i

4 Table of Contents Introduction Problem description and research questions Worldwide problems Problems in Europe and the Netherlands Research questions Methodology Futures Studies approaches and methodology inventory Description of Backcasting Methodological framework of Backcasting Backcasting process Strategic problem orientation Setting demands System & regime analysis Stakeholder analysis Trend analysis Problem & (underlying) need analysis Generating future visions Detailed demands, criteria and targets Vision for WEEE in Elaboration of vision in Backcasting analysis WHAT-HOW -WHO analysis: technological, cultural-behavioural, organizational, and structural-institutional changes Identified new stakeholders Drivers and barriers analysis Elaboration, analysis and follow-up agenda Scenario elaboration Sustainability analysis Follow-up action agenda Transition pathway Conclusions Recommendations Reflections ii

5 References iii

6 Introduction Recycling systems of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) have been adopted in many countries around the world to address three main problems. The first problem (i) concerns the direct and indirect pollution caused by EEE waste or WEEE. EEE contains 1,000 different substances that generate direct pollution upon disposal. EEE introduces pollution indirectly in the form of greenhouse gas emissions during its life cycle. For example the manufacture of a desktop computer and monitor requires fossil fuels of mass 11 fold greater than the products themselves [ ] while other goods require 1-2 fold their mass in fossil fuel (Williams, 2004; as cited in the The Natural Edge Project, 2006). Second problem, (ii) WEEE is hazardous. Many substances it contain are toxic (i.e. lead, cadmium, mercury, plastics, etc.) and induce physiological and health impacts on humans and animals on certain concentration levels ((Brigden et al. 2005, p. 3; Earth Tones 2006; Environment Victoria 2005, pp. 8-9; Gaulon, Rozema & Klomp 2005; Meinhardt 2001., p. 30, Puckett et al. 2002, pp. 9-10; Worldwatch Institute 2005) as cited in; as cited in the The Natural Edge Project, 2006). There is a risk of released toxic substances to natural or industrial environments in all stages of endof life processes (Brigden et al. 2005, p. 3 as cited in The Natural Edge Project, 2006). Finally, (iii) WEEE is generated in great volumes. In the European Union the EEE production has an increasing rate of 16-28% every five years, which is the triple of the growing rate of average municipal waste (Universidad de Córdoba, 2013; Schmidt 2002 as cited in; as cited in the The Natural Edge Project, 2006). Volumes of WEEE are mainly due to planned obsolescence and the throw away ethics which are partly driven by corporate search for increased profits ((Greenpeace (n.d.); Puckett et al. (2002, p. 5)) ; as cited in the The Natural Edge Project, 2006). The topic of analysis in this report is the Dutch recycling system. In 1972 the Dutch government wrote the first report on environmental policy. This is considered to be the first report written that gave a complete overview of the Dutch environmental policy, including waste treatment. An increase in amount of waste was identified and the solution was mainly found in increasing landfill sites and incineration installations. The dutch environmental policy developed over the years and in 2000 the Dutch government, as probably the first in the world, implemented a national regulation (WEEE Management Decree) regarding the separate collection and recycling of electronic equipment. Nowadays, this regulation is replaced by a regulation based on the WEEE Directive (rijksoverheid, 2013). Currently the organization responsible for collecting and recycling WEEE in compliance with the WEEE Directive is called Wecycle. By 2012 Wecycle only managed to formally recycle 28.3% of the 26.5 kg of WEEE generated per capita. The other 71.7% exported, dumped, illegally recycled, etc. 1

7 Research has been done by different parties, including the United Nations University, Delft University of Technology, United Nations Envionmental Programme, etc to figure out the miss-functionings in the system and propose solutions to solve them. Throughout this report a fresh approach towards solving problems within the Dutch recycling system and making it sustainable will be presented. 2

8 1. Problem description and research questions 1.1. Worldwide problems WEEE generates direct and indirect pollution: EEE contains 1,000 different substances that generate direct pollution upon disposal. EEE introduces pollution indirectly in the form of greenhouse gas emissions during its life cycle. The manufacture of a desktop computer and monitor requires fossil fuels of mass 11 fold greater than the products themselves [ ] while other goods require 1-2 fold their mass in fossil fuel (Williams, 2004; as cited in the (The Natural Edge Project, 2006) WEEE is hazardous. Many substances it contain are toxic (i.e. lead, cadmium, mercury, plastics, etc.) and induce physiological and health impacts on humans and animals on certain concentration levels ((Brigden et al. 2005, p. 3; Earth Tones 2006; Environment Victoria 2005, pp. 8-9; Gaulon, Rozema & Klomp 2005; Meinhardt 2001., p. 30, Puckett et al. 2002, pp. 9-10; Worldwatch Institute 2005) as cited in ; as cited in the (The Natural Edge Project, 2006). There is a risk of released toxic substances to natural or industrial environments in all stages of end-of life processes (Brigden et al. 2005, p. 3 as cited in The Natural Edge Project, 2006) WEEE is generated in great volumes. Volumes of WEEE are mainly due to planned obsolescence and the throw away ethics which are partly driven by corporate search for increased profits ((Greenpeace (n.d.); Puckett et al. (2002, p. 5)) ; as cited in the (The Natural Edge Project, 2006)). E-waste is being exported, often illegally, to 3 rd world countries where it is burned, dumped or inappropriately treated. Old electronics are dismantled by hands and the toxic waste is dumped in streams and fields, which leads to diseases and toxic pollution of water and soil (Von Deim, 2011) Problems in Europe and the Netherlands In the Netherlands «Wecycle» is responsible organization for collecting and recycling E-waste. In overview of Wecycle stands that from 26,5 kg a citizen only 28.3% (7.5 kg a citizen) are formal recycled by contract. Other 71.7% is not reported, dumped, exported or inappropriately recycled. (Von Deim, 2011) Research questions What actions need to be taken to follow the most efficient pathway towards full implementation and diffusion of sustainable recycling system WEEE in the Netherlands? How can sustainable recycling be defined? What are the sustainability problems in the current situation? 3

9 What is the most efficient pathway towards a sustainable recycling? What are the resources are needed (physical, human and financial) to bridge the gap between the current situation and desired sustainable recycling practices? Who are the most important stakeholders to be involved? How can they contribute? 4

10 2. Methodology 2.1. Futures Studies approaches and methodology inventory Technological Transitions (TT) are defined as major technological transformations in the way societal functions are fulfilled. Technological transitions do not only involve technological changes, but also changes in elements such as user practices, regulation, industrial networks, infrastructure, and symbolic meaning (Geels, 2002) A transition normally refers to a system innovation which contains changes from different domains, such as economy, institution, technology, behaviour, culture, ecology and belief systems, that reinforce each other and lead to a radical systemic changes. To guide the technological transition in a desired direction, transition management is proposed to address complex patterns of interaction between different components in complex adaptive systems. It s summarized that a typical transition management cycle contains four components: 1) structure the problem in question, develop a long-term sustainability vision and establish and organize the transition arena; 2) develop future images, a transition agenda and derive the necessary transition paths, 3) establish and carry out transition experiments and mobilize the resulting transition networks; 4) monitor, evaluate and learn lessons from the transition experiments and, based on these, make adjustments in the vision, agenda, and coalitions. (Loorbach 2004). This study aims at providing policy makers and interested general public the future image of sustainable WEEE management and perhaps more importantly how the future vision could be attained. Achieving a sustainable e-waste recycling and management requires long-term visions, integrations and a system-oriented approach to addressing complex interwoven economic, environmental and social issues. To foresee the future development images, the so-called future studies should be carried out. Future studies in general have two major aims or functions: 1) to describe how the long-term future would be like, especially compared to current situation so that necessary adjustment could be made if the future falls out of the scope of desired state. 2) to explore development pathways that achieves the desired future state based on the assumption that futureoriented planning could determine development path. (Phdungslip, 2011) According to Aumnad (2011), there are many approaches existing for analysing future images and development paths, including scenario technique, forecasting, backcasting, Dlphi, modelling etc. Dreborg (1996) summarized these futures studies approaches in <Essence of Backcasting> and identified four different types of futures studies pertaining to sustainability which include, directional studies, shortterm studies, forecasting studies, and alternative solutions and visions. (Dreborg, 1996) Directional 5

11 studies investigate different economics and other measures in the short-term that will probably work in the right direction towards sustainability. Short-term studies take immediate official goals as a starting point and attempt to find means of achieving them. Due to the resulting short-time frame, therefore, these goals are usually just a small step towards sustainability. Forecasting studies usually apply to a long-term perspective but restricted presumptions of the possibilities of major change make this approach fail to reach sustainability. Finally, the development of images of future scenarios allows alternative solutions and visions to be explored by using backcasting. Scenarios and visioning are generally recognized two common types of methodologies used in futures studies. The above mentioned four futures studies adopt the scenarios and visioning approach to various extent. For example, sociotechnical scenarios address the way transition paths may unfold in a process of interaction between a range of actors and the rules they act upon thus is regarded as a reflexive tool for transition management. (Hofman et al. 2010) Most scenarios studies fall into the category of the current traditional dominant forecasting approach, especially in United States. However, Dreborg doubts the applicability of forecasting on the highly complex long-term persistent problems, such as sustainability problem. Sustainability problems are persistent problems in modern complex society at the society level which cannot be solved with simple, short-term solutions. (Derk 2010) These problems are unstructured problems and highly complex as they are rooted in different institutional domains, have interaction and dynamics in different levels, and involve various actors with different, or even conflicting perspective, values or different sustainability articulations. (Derk, 2010) Thus, these unstructured problem needs a normative approach of transition management to deal with. Backcasting is a method to develop normative scenarios and explore their feasibility and implications. It s an effective tool of the futures studies inventory and enables the possibility of connecting future desirable long term future scenarios to the present situation by means of a participatory process and with criteria for sustainability providing the systematic framework to change. (Quist 2007; Phdungslip 2011) Dreborg (1996) in his work <Essence of Backcasting> reported the philosophical distinction of the four futures studies: A. directional studies, B. short-term studies, C. forecasting studies, and D. alternative solutions and visions. Steen and Akerman also approved this functional difference of three approaches including [a] directional studies, [b] forecasting studies; [c] backcasting (figures 1 and 2); Both of them argued that backcasting is the most prominent approach towards a sustainable future state. In Dreborg s representation, the y-axis means how sustainable the system is and the shaded area represents different opinion about sustainable development. This is perhaps due to 6

12 different stakeholders interest and different sustainability articulations. However in Steen s representation, the shaded area represents where certain targets are reached. Backcasting approach, described by Dreborg and Steen, is explicitly normative and fulfils the mission of reaching specific targets. Especially when conventional approaches fail to lead a pathway towards fulfilling the targets, backcasting thus particularly deserves interest and attention as it helps us to understand how the future could look like and what s the radical breakthrough. Figure 1. A. directional studies, B. short-term studies, C. forecasting studies, and D. alternative solutions and visions (adopted from Dreborg, 1996) Figure 2. [a] directional studies, [b] forecasting studies; [c] backcasting (Steen and Akerman, cited in Phdungslip 2011) 7

13 The elaboration above has summarized the futures studies approaches and provide a streamlined comparison of different approaches. Backcasting stands out among others as it s explicitly normative and thus observed suitable for complex problems involving many aspects of society and sociotechnical changes. Especially for unstructured problems such as sustainability problems, backcasting is generally found to be able to generate breakthroughs and achieve the targets. While we have conclude theoretically that backcasting might be the most suitable approach in the WEEE recycling sustainability analysis, amongst direction studies, short-term studies and forecasting studies. However, there are still other methods might also be useful or give an insight of how the future WEEE recycling situation might look like. The following two methodology also deserves our attention before we select the most suitable method for our study: PEST-analysis (political, economic, social and technological factors) PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social and Technological analysis) describes a framework of macroenvironmental factors used in the environmental scanning component of strategic management. If we carry out the PEST-analysis, for the development of the future projections, we could follow an iterative process based on a PEST-analysis (political, economic, social and technological factors): Firstly, we shall analyse the demands, starting points of our system (landscape, regime and niche). Drivers and barriers of our niche should be defined in order to complete the system definition. After a wide-ranging research, we shall identify the major unsustainability in our current system. Furthermore, stakeholders from different domains (company, NGO, government, research groups) should be identified and analysed. Interest, values and stakes need to be identified from political, economic, social and technological perspectives. Consequently, we should formulate projections in short, descriptive and provoking propositions according to different stakeholders visions. In a final step, we will be supposed to test the projections for ambiguity, consistence and face validity and revised them against the background of our research purpose and defined an integrated vision which is derived from different stakeholders values. In the end, we should set our system sustainable vision and describe the future sociotechnical system from different domains. However, the PEST-analysis is considered as only fulfilling part of the function of the backcasting target. It would be helpful to our understanding of the stakeholders interest and opinion during stakeholder analysis, and also help us generating future action strategies from Political, Economic, Social and Technological domains indeed. But the PEST-analysis seems just an analytical process which lacks normative demands which drives a system change. 8

14 Environmental Impact Sociotechnical Scenarios Methods Sociotechnical scenarios are mostly exploratory, which means they start from the current situation and extrapolate it to the future (Figure 3). Sociotechnical scenarios address the way transition paths may unfold in a process of interaction between a range of actors and the rules they act upon (technical, regulatory, forms of provision, cost models, infrastructure requirements, ect.). This way sociotechnical scenarios can complement other scenario methods and be utilised as a reflexive tool for transition management. (Hofman et al. 2010) Exploratory Scenario Highly plausible in short time frame, but unsustainable Theoretically feasible, long term orientation Normative Scenario Figure 3. Environmental Impact and Sociotechnical Scenarios (Most scenarios approaches are forecasting approaches) Time The sociotechnical scenarios method is based upon a multi-level perspective and analyse and explain system innovations. Transitions occur through interactions between landscape developments at the macro-level, regimes at the meso-level, and niches at the micro-level. (Kemp 1994; Schot, Hoogma, and Elzen 1994; Rip and Kemp 1998; Kemp, Rip, and Schot 2001; Geels 2005) Interestingly, Klaus Hieonymi etc. (2013) in the book <E-waste Management: From Waste to Resource> has made an attempt to define some scenarios frames for e-waste recycling in the year This kind of scenarios frames are also considered as streamlined future-oriented study. In their book, the author argues that there are two decisive factors on future e-waste recycling scenarios, including The average level of raw-material prices; and the extent to which the legal regulation of e- 9

15 waste and of the environmental aspects of IT production will be elaborated in economically strong countries and internationally tuned (Hieonymi et al., 2013) Environmental Law Badly Environmental Law Well Elaborated and Inconsistent Elaborated and Targeted Average Raw Material Prices Scenario 1: Scenarios 2: High to Moderate Recycling without rules Recycling economy legally framed Average Raw Material Prices Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Moderate to Low Fading ecology in a bad Resource efficiency driven by economy law and economy Table 1: Four scenarios frames for E-waste recycling in 2030 (Hieonymi, 2013) The four scenarios identified (table 1) according two factors by Klaus Hieonymi indeed generated some alternative future pictures. However, we could see at least two disadvantages from their attempt of depicting a future of Their timeframe is too short, only consider future as far as Due to this short timeframe taken into account, their future scenarios has limitations. Radical changes are difficult to happen within such short time. Just as Dreborg s and Steen s figure (figure 2) shows, the short-time directional studies already knows where to go and the mid-term forecasting approaches might be insufficient to meet the targets. Their scenarios developed are based on only two factors which emphasis the economic influence. However, real life societal problems are complex unstructured problems which transcends many society domains. Thus a radical systemic socio-technical system change is needed to meet sustainability targets. The above four scenarios are insufficient to describe a system change. Based on the above description and elaboration, different futures study approaches are described and disadvantages of certain approaches are identified. Backcasting can be used more as an analytical tool in which vision making is the core aspect, trying to develop desirable futures, also realising follow up and spin off (Quist, 2007). Backcasting could avoid the two disadvantages identified in the above scenarios study by 1) BC aims at developing a long-term vision, not within short timeframe; 2) BC as a normative approach dealing with complex society problems, thus determines the follow-ups and spin-offs which leads to a radical socio-technical system change. Perhaps more importantly, unlike some scenarios studies which generates many different scenarios which are sometimes only suggesting possibility but not sustainability, backcasting only generate one clear vision by sustainability criteria, thus has a high focus on sustainability. The only-one-vision character also make it easier to communicate with policy makers. 10

16 2.2. Description of Backcasting Backcasting is one of the effective approaches used in transition management. Backcasting is a method to develop normative scenarios and explore their feasibility and implications. Important in the sustainability arena, it is as a tool with which to connect desirable long term future scenarios to the present situation by means of a participatory process. It s generally recognized that when talking about long-term development, the potential for men to influence the development towards a desired future is large. However, those options that could be imagined to change the system are sometimes based on current state-of-art and current trends which might break the trend in the future and become an obstacle to real change. However, backcasting as a normative approach by looking backwards, provides us new options that could broaden the scope of solutions and results in radical breakthroughs. Robinson (1982) first coined the term backcasting as a futures method to develop normative scenarios and explore their feasibility and implications and the methodology was first employed in analysing future energy options by Lovins in 1970s. (Dreborg 1996; Quist and Vergragt, 2006). According to Robinson, The major distinguishing characteristic of a backcasting analysis is a concern, not with what futures are likely to happen, but with how desirable futures can be attained. It is thus explicitly normative, involving working backwards from a particular desirable future endpoint to the present in order to determine the physical feasibility of that future and what policy measures would be required to reach that point (Robinson 1982) Based on Robinson s first definition of backcasting and following theoretical development, Dreborg (1996) identified the following issue characteristics that favor backcasting: when the problem to be studied is complex, affecting many sectors and levels of society; when there is a need for major change; when marginal changes within the prevailing order will not be sufficient; when dominant trends are part of the problem these trends are often the cornerstones of forecasts; when the problem to a great extent is a matter of externalities which the market cannot treat satisfactorily when the time horizon is long enough to allow considerable scope for deliberate choice. 11

17 Backcasting became important in the sustainability arena for obvious reasons and is often used as a tool to connect desirable long term future scenarios (50 years) to the present situation by means of a participatory process. After creating a vision of a desirable future, alternative solutions are set out, with the participation of important stakeholders. Those alternative solutions are explored, and bottlenecks identified. With the involvement of the stakeholders, an option is chosen and an action plan set up. The stakeholders then define their roles and commit to them. Backcasting is used in complex situations with many stakeholders where although there is a desired future vision, it is unclear how to reach it. It leads to research plans for implementation of the actions needed and participation is an essential feature. It can be characterised as a social learning process and the long term perspective makes it possible to let go of the present way of meeting certain specific social needs. Backcasting, developed originally in energy studies as an alternative to forecasting approach, was later widely used in various projects and studies. Around 1990s, sustainability science and studies emerge and backcasting has be extensively used as a normative approach of generating sustainable visions and pathways. The method has been applied to cases in The Netherlands, Canada and Sweden. For example, backcasting was applied in cases such as Novel Protein Foods and meat alternatives, Sustainable Household Nutrition, Göteborg 2050, Multiple Sustainable Land-use in rural areas etc. and some cases involve a participatory backcasting. In The Netherlands the back casting methodology was employed in the EUfunded Strategies toward the Sustainable Household (SusHouse) project and in the Dutch Sustainable Technology Program (STD) and other stakeholder dialogues such as COOL (Climate Options On the Long-term), the biomass dialogue and hydrogen dialogue, as well as sustainable industrial paint chains. (Quist et al., 2011) Today back casting is applied to various international projects such as land-use futures etc. Giddens even has put forward backcasting as a tool to determine alternatives towards future when dealing with Climate Change etc. (Quist 2011) While backcasting has been used in various local or international projects, these backcasting is organized in different procedures and methodologies. Literatures have reported different backcasting approaches, Quist (2007) summarized in his PhD thesis the comparison of different backcasting approaches, the following scrutinized the detailed methodologies used in different backcasting approaches adapted from J. Quist PhD thesis, 12

18 It should be noticed that Quist even distinguished backcasting approach and backcasting methodology in his work by saying backcasting approach should be used to describe in general and more abstract terms, whereas the term backcasting methodology should be applied in such concrete cases. (Quist, 2007) Besides, the concept of participatory back casting has emerged in recent theoretical development and is increasingly used. Participatory backcasting pays more attention to the active participation of stakeholders in the back casting process such as in Quist and Vergragt (2006) and Quist et al.(2011). Table 2 Comparison of different backcasting methodologies (Quist, 2007) For our underlying study, radical systemic changes to current systems of e-waste recycling from an open loop linear production and consumption system towards closed loop circular economy are necessary to achieve sustainable development in the Netherlands. These changes on a system level are referred to as systemic recycling scheme and management system transformations towards 13

19 sustainability. Such transformations require combinations of technological, cultural, societal, institutional, and organizational changes, while affecting many stakeholders when diffusing into society and involving complex processes of societal change on the long term. In our study of the WEEE case, we adopt the STD backcasting approach as described above. The methodology comprises seven steps, namely (1) Strategic problem orientation, (2) Develop sustainable future vision, (3) Set out alternative solutions, (4) Explore options and identify bottlenecks, (5) Select among options and set up action plans, (6) Set up co-operation agreements, (7) Implement research agenda. Due to the time limit of our study, we adopt analytical backcasting rather than participatory backcasting. However it s worthwhile to see participatory backcasting as a future follow-up study Methodological framework of Backcasting The methodology framework we use in our study is from Quist and Vergragt (2006) which includes five principal steps: 1) strategic problem orientation; 2) construction of sustainable future visions orscenarios; 3) back casting analysis; 4) elaboration, analysis and defining of follow up and action agenda; 5) Embedding of results and generation follow up and implementation, as shown in the figure 4. Figure 4. The methodological framework for participatory backcasting (Quist, 2007) The first step, Strategic Problem Orientation is about exploring the problem from a systemic viewpoint. The problem is defined and the main unsustainabilities, opportunities and possible 14

20 solutions for a sustainable future are identified. Moreover, the relevant stakeholders are identified. In addition, their perception of the problem explored and how this relates to need and function fulfillment, how other stakeholders evaluate and judge the different problem formulation according to their own mindset, values and interests (Quist, 2011). Step 2 Develop future visions follows Strategic problem orientation. Future visions are generated in this step especially according to the demands set in step 1. The vision constructed should meet the sustainability criteria and be able to fulfil societal needs of future states. The future vision should also be a system-oriented statement of how the future socio-technical system should look like. Furthermore, the vision needs to be in a medium to longterm future. There needs to be enough time between the present and the vision so that major changes can be envisaged. Also, choosing a distant future enables actors to escape from the rules of institutional domains they are part of, and so, to lessen the power relationship between actors. In this step 3 backcasting analysis, a strategy is created to bridge the gaps between the present situation and the vision. By comparing the future vision to current situation, changes in various domains should be identified and elaborated. The changes that are needed are split in to short term (<10 years), medium term (10 25 years) and long term (>25 years). Further, the roles of the stakeholders are discussed and also the dynamics of the stakeholders. A what-how-who approach makes it clear what stakeholders are involved and what kind of role they should play. Elaboration of the designs and pathways is possible now that sketches of the future and the required changes to reach it are known. In addition, agenda and follow up activities are elaborated. Iterations of steps resulting out of feedback loops might occur in backcasting analysis especially multi-actors are involved and each actor s influence might determine other actor s react in various milestone steps. In step 4 future alternatives should be identified and clear follow-up agenda should be set to illustrate how the desirable sustainable future vision could be attained. In the final step 5, results and followup agenda should be embedded and systemic measures should be suggested to stimulate the followups. The framework distinguishes three types of demands: normative demands, process demands and knowledge demands. First, normative demands reflect the goal related requirements needed for the future vision (Quist et al. 2011). Put in other words, normative demands answer the question what should be achieved in the future vision. They are often made before the start of a back casting process or otherwise during the first step. The definition of sustainability that the actors of the 15

21 back casting experiments adopt is an example of normative a demand. Second, process demands are requirements regarding the involvement of stakeholders. For example, their level of influence in the formulation of the problems. Third, knowledge demands are requirements related to learning of the stakeholders. This can for example include the requirement for scientific knowledge to become accessible to the stakeholders. Goals are set during the first step of the experiment. They can be set on content variables and process variables. (Boon et al., 2012). 16

22 3. Backcasting process Throughout this report we will discover, through the backcasting methodology, what are the actions that need to be taken to follow the most efficient pathway towards full implementation and diffusion of sustainable recycling system WEEE in the Netherlands. Our interest is in the recycling system, for what this is defined as our system. Although in reality the recycling system is part of a broader system, that can be called the EEE life cycle. EEE life cycle system consists of five main processes: extraction, production, consumption, recycling and disposal (Figure 5). WEEE recycling is one of the processes and thus can be considered as a subsystem (Figure 5). Because the recycling system is interconnected with other parts of the EEE life cycle, some causes of problems or unsustainability s can be found outside the recycling system. For example, the way EEE equipment is built in the production process highly affects dismantling in the recycling process. Thus solutions and measures to make the dismantling process resides in the production process. Although our system of interest is still solely the recycling system, it is necessary for us to understand the whole EEE life cycle in order to locate when measures have to be taken outside the recycling system. Figure 5. Graphical representation of the idea of sub-systems and their interconnectedness (left) and the EEE life cycle system (right) 3.1. Strategic problem orientation Setting demands Normative demand The normative demand is to construct a sustainable recycling system that can solve current problems, that can fulfill stakeholders needs and that is in line with sustainability criteria. Further along the report, during Step 1: Strategic problem orientation an analysis of the current recycling system in the Netherlands (and its environment) is presented together with its problems and needs. This information, together with sustainability criteria (Idario citeria and from the normative framework formulated in the Federal Council 2002 Sustainable Development Strategy) will help 17

23 construct specific normative demands. The normative demands will be detailed in Step 2A Detail (normative) demands, criteria and targets. Process demand The process demand is to set up a realistic pathway towards a sustainable future of WEEE recycling in the Netherlands. The project will be guided upon sustainable global criteria but will also seek to learn from current problems and satisfy and fulfil the needs of stakeholders. A second (process) demand is to structure the report is such a manner that it can be useful and encouraging for interested parties to do a participatory backcasting project on the subject. Available information from all relevant stakeholders including experts, government, users and citizens, etc. will be used and considered to for a unified vision. Although this will be limited from what is found in published sources. Knowledge demands Knowledge will have to be developed along the way in order to reach the vision. Technology-wise, knowledge development is needed in the following areas: recycling difficult materials, design for recycling, innovative markets for secondary raw materials, among others. Social-wise, knowledge development is needed in: integrated recycling system design, systems management, and strategies for steering consumer behaviour, among others. This topic will be further amplified in the agenda, indicating who, when and by whom this knowledge needs to be developed or obtained System & regime analysis Function of the system The functions of the recycling system through a sustainable perspective can be listed as: (UNEP, 2009). Treat hazardous materials in a n environmentally sound waste manner Recover valuable material Reduce the use of resources i.e. energy, raw materials, water, etc. Create sustainable business Avoid social impact Governance overview Through the extended producer responsibility (EPR) the law states that producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of their EEE products. The basic concept is to promote environmental impact reduction at end of life by (1) making manufacturers internalize the end-of-life costs of their 18

24 products so as to incentivize the design of products that are more recyclable and have lower toxicity,1 and (2) to ensure there is sufficient and stable financing for running a collection and recycling system for post-use products (Mayers et al quoted in Gui, Atasu, Ergun, & Toktay, 2013). Almost all producers and importers of EEE in the Netherlands have united under principles of collective responsibility. Under EPR producers have established a non-profit organization which in return for membership fees - takes care of the collection, transportation and recycling of their e- waste. This organization is called WeCycle and represents a so-called compliance scheme, in which safe and environmentally sound handling of WEEE is guaranteed. WeCycle has more than 1600 members, 8500 collection points including municipalities and retail shops, and collects one third of all Dutch WEEE (European Commission, 2008). The law states that Member States shall ensure that producers or third parties acting on their behalf [ ] set up systems to provide for the treatment of WEEE using best available treatment, recovery and recycling techniques (European Commission, 2003). Thus, it is assumed that only WEEE either treated by Wecycle or officially reported is guaranteed to be treated in an environmentally and socially responsible way (EU, 2008). For this purpose the law imposes the establishment of a national register for monitoring purposes. Once WEEE ends in complementary flows it no longer falls under the producer responsibility and thus is not separately monitored. Complimentary flows can thus lead to environmentally harmful practices and cherry-picking (taking out valuable parts and leaving only the costly-to-recycle remainders). The total weight of all WEEE categories in 2010 collected under the compliance scheme was 125 ktons, but that is only around one third of WEEE generated in the country (Huisman et al., 2012). The remaining two thirds follows different pathways than the compliance schemes and are therefore called complimentary flows. Social overview Producers and importers put electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) on market (POM). Bought by households or businesses, used and subsequently disposed of, EEE becomes waste EEE (WEEE). At this point, the network becomes segmented going either through the compliance scheme or through the complementary flows. In the compliance scheme the collection methods are mainly, (i) through retailers or (ii) through municipality collection points. The WEEE is then transported from the retailers or collection points to one of the Regional Sorting Centres (RSC) where is sorted out and transported to the National Recyclers. 19

25 In the previous part, we mentioned that not all collectors (mainly retails) have contracts with WeCycle. These collectors i.e. retailers, some municipal collection points, door-to-door collection companies and individuals sell part or all of the WEEE collected to regional metal scrap- and e-waste processors. The complementary flows also consist of charities and refurbishers who collect used EEE and renovate it if possible, if not they pass it to the scrap processors. Sometimes regional processors also receive input from municipalities and second hand retailers or refurbishers. All B2B WEEE ends up in complementary flows. Once processed, the WEEE is either sent to the national recyclers or sold to recycling facilities in Belgium or Germany. In some cases, used EEE/WEEE is exported. A small fraction of WEEE is discarded to municipal waste. Figure 6. WEEE flows through the recycling process, where stakeholders (box) of the compliance scheme and the complementary flows participate (Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts & Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, 2011). P-10. Technical overview Recycling process 20

26 The recycling process, under controlled conditions, follows a three subsequent step process: (i) collection, (ii) dismantling & pre-processing, and (iii) end-processing. Collection The collection is a process that relies more on the social and societal factors than the technological factors. After the WEEE is being collected and transported to Regional Sorting Centres (RCS), it is separated in five categories, namely (1) cooling and freezing appliances, (2) big white goods, (3) TV s and monitors, (4) other white and brown goods, and (5) IT appliances (VROM, 2010 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). Dismantling and pre-processing In the second step, (manual) dismantling and pre-processing takes place. The objective is to remove, store or treat hazardous substances and to dismantle the WEEE into components, materials or parts that may be reusable, valuable or recyclable (SEPA, 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). There are four distinct steps: Manual dismantling and sorting: Manual dismantling allows for separation of homogeneous parts that may be reusable, recyclable or valuable (recovery) from hazardous substances or other special components (special treatment). This is done for the categories one, three, four and five. (VROM, 2010 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) De-pollution: Hazardous substances or other special components, mainly mercury containing components, batteries, CRT-glass and LCDs are removed (SEPA, 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). These are either treated in situ or sent to specialized further treatment such as treatment of batteries for recovery of cadmium, nickel, mercury and lead ((SEPA, 2011; UNEP, 2008) quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). When WEEE is sent to specialized facilities the technologies needed for treatment are specific, these processes are usually classified as end-processing. This is done for the categories one, three, four and five. (VROM, 2010 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) Size reduction: Mechanical shredding allows for further liberation of materials and size reduction of parts. This step is skipped in the case of some WEEE, such as small, complex electronic devices that can be processed as a whole ((UNEP, 2008; SEPA, 2011) quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). This is done for category one, two and for specific WEEE of the other three categories. (VROM, 2010 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) 21

27 Automated sorting: The shredded or crushed materials are sorted based on their physical characteristics, such as weight, size, shape, density, and electrical and magnetic characteristics. The output streams usually consist of a ferrous fraction, an aluminium fraction, a copper fraction, a plastic fractions (in some cases), and a waste fraction. (SEPA, 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). Final output streams are either components taken as a whole (recovery) or materials in more pure form, which are usually a ferrous fraction, a non-ferrous fraction and various plastic fractions (in some cases). (UNEP, 2009 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) End-processing Most part of the end-processing step does not occur in the Netherlands; hence it falls out of the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, a brief description will be provided to give an idea of the complete recycling process. During the end- processing step further upgrading and refining processes are employed for final material recovery. End-processing plants require an appropriate tonnage and feed mix with other non-e-waste materials, a high-tech flow sheet and infrastructure, a highly skilled workforce, as well as investments of several EUR 100 million (UNEP, 2009 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). Comments are given on de-polluting, metals treatment and plastics treatment below. De-polluting: When hazardous substances or other special components (mercury containing components, batteries, CRT-glass and LCDs) (SEPA, 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) are sent to specialized further treatment the technologies needed for treatment are usually classified as endprocessing. Metals (ferrous fraction and non-ferrous fraction): Upgrading and refining process refers to the last step, where the materials are purified. Metal fractions can be treated by the conventional metallurgical industry (in the Netherlands) were they represent a small part of the feedstock. On the other hand there are special metallurgical industries in the world (Boliden in Sweden, Umicore in Belgium, Noranda in Canada, Norddeutsche Affinerie AG in Germany) that handle solely WEEE (SEPA 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) 22

28 Plastics: The end-process is more complicated because plastics are very complex materials, consisting of numerous polymers and additives (SEPA 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). Figure 7. Technology Map of E-waste Recycling and Processing in the Netherlands In the compliance scheme collection is carried out mainly by retailers and municipality collection points. The WEEE is then transported from the retailers or collection points to one of the Regional Sorting Centres (RSC) where is sorted out. WEEE is the transported to the National Recyclers where it is dismantled and pre-processed. End-processing usually occurs outside the Netherlands. Recycling e-waste under un-controlled conditions The recycling process under un-controlled conditions is not structured as outlined in the previous paragraphs. The informal recycling, referred to as complementary flows, is usually driven by the recovery of valuable materials such as copper, steel, plastics, aluminium and maybe printer toner and PC-boards ((Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2011) quoted in (Cabejšková, Mendoza, Wennekers, & Zhang, 2013)). Thus, complementary flows do not pay attention to the recovery of unvaluable materials or polluting and toxic substances. In the complementary flows, collectors (i.e. some retailers, some municipal collection points, doorto-door collection companies and individuals) don t have a contract with Wecycle; they sell parts or all of the WEEE collected to regional metal scrap- and e-waste processors. Once processed, the WEEE 23

29 is either sent to the national recyclers or sold to recycling facilities in Belgium or Germany. In some cases, used EEE/WEEE is exported (Cabejšková et al., 2013). Huisman (et al, 2012 quoted in (Cabejšková et al., 2013)) identified a flow of 12 kton of the total Dutch WEEE flow going for illegal transport to developing countries. Economic overview Recycling process Collectors, processors, transporters, and the rest of the companies in charge of the end-of life treatment of EEE have operational costs. Each EEE category has its own end-of-life treatment costs and its own intrinsic value. Part or all of the costs can be recovered when secondary materials are sold (Figure 8). Thus some EEE products have a net positive value and some a net negative value. Wecycle pays end-of-life treatment companies for products that incur in a net cost but obtains reductions on invoices with a net positive value. Costs are then allocated to producers and manufacturers through fees: The WEEE Directive imposes obligations and responsibilities on producers without regard to the producer s location, nationality, the place of manufacturing of EEE or the means by which EEE is sold. (Rivlin). Figure 8. Breakdown of technical costs for 5 WEEE categories. Calculations are based on values for 2005 (UNU, 2007). P.11 24

30 In summary, economic impacts along the end-of-life treatment chain depend on (UNU, 2007): Material composition Prices and valorisation of secondary materials and raw materials Current recycling technologies and future developments of new technologies including technology on EEE products to enable recycling i.e. Design for recycling Development and availability of markets Environmental overview Each WEEE treatment category is associated with different environmental effects i.e. toxicity, ozone layer depletion, resource depletion, global warming, etc. All environmental effects may be accounted for in a single environmental indicator such as the Eco-Indicator 99. The next figure shows the global environmental impact per treatment category. Figure 9. Measurement of the contribution of each category to the environmental impacts under a single indicator, Eco- Indicator 99 weighted, per kg of WEEE total collected. The measurement is based on values of 2005 (UNU, 2007, p.7). 25

31 Stakeholder analysis The identified relevant stakeholders related to the recycling system are classified into government, research groups, public and companies. Figure 10 gives an overview of the stakeholders involved in WEEE recycling in the Netherlands. The parties highlighted in green conform either exclusively or majorly to the compliance scheme. The main connections between all relevant stakeholders are drawn in figure. However, there are four parties left aside on the top; The EU, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (MIE), TU Delft/UNU and Greenpeace. Those were not assigned any arrows as they have an influence on the whole system (and vice versa). Figure 10: Stakeholder Map of Dutch E-waste Management System (adopted and extended from Huisman et al., 2012 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). Government European Commission's Environment Directorate- General (DG) The body relevant to e-waste is the European Commission's Environment Directorate-General (DG) chaired by a commissioner (Janez Potočník at the time of writing). Duties: 26

32 -The DG s role is to initiate and define new environmental legislation and to ensure that agreed measures are put into practice in the EU Member States. (European Commission: Who s who, ). Two laws issued to improve the e-waste recycling are (i) the Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 04 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and (ii) the Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS). Objectives: -The EU s vision and demands regarding e-waste is that e-waste should have as little impact on the environment as possible. -The EU has a greater goal of moving to a resource-efficient economy (Dimas, 03/12/2008). Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (MIE) In the Netherlands the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (MIE) is the main party for WEEE end-of-life treatment. The MIE has basically the same demands as the EU. Duties: -MIE namely the Directorate-General for the Environment and International Affairs (DGMI) takes care of implementing the EU Directives into Dutch legislation. The Netherlands have introduced the EU directives by means of the REA (Regeling afgedankte Elektronische Apparaten). -The Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) is in charge for law enforcement i.e. national registry, monitoring, gathering information (Huijbregts, 2013). Objectives: -Balanced environmental goals with social and economic concerns (Gui et al., 2013). -Efficient implementation/working of the recycling system (EPR) in compliance with the law, with finite resources (Gui et al., 2013). -Create design incentives for reducing toxicity and enhance reuse, 27

33 reduce and recycle possibilities (Gui et al., 2013). -Promoting the local economy by stimulating local collection and recycling businesses (Municipalities) (Gui et al., 2013) -Promote WEEE recycling (municipality) (Gui et al., 2013). Concerns: -The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (2011) states that more focus is set on the recovery of rare earths out of WEEE and prevention of illegal export of WEEE to developing countries. -Recovery of rare earths out of WEEE Prevention of illegal export of WEEE to developing countries (Gui et al., 2013) -Recovery of rare earths out of WEEE Prevention of illegal export of WEEE to developing countries -Concerns regarding multiple recycling systems/plans (Gui et al., 2013): - Increased coordination efforts of multiple recycling plans i.e. Wecycle, independent plans Example of shared collection points among multiple recycling plans. This, however, calls for better separation and sampling techniques along with well-defined protocols for allocating recovered WEEE and the associated costs in order to monitor the compliance of multiple plans. Another issue is whether the collectors would be willing to participate in multiple plans and incur the risks of having no single entity assured to take all that is collected and of dealing with the added administration and paperwork (multiple contracts, additional billing, etc.). - Increased monitoring efforts -Concerns regarding design incentives: For example, it is not clear how one can prevent free riding on others design efforts under a collective system, especially under simple return/market share-based rules that do not consider potential recycling cost/value differentials between products. (Gui et al., 2013). -Environmental, social and economic impacts of WEEE recycling. 28

34 Options: -Design of a combined/centralized collection and recycling networks or a flexible and extensive recycling network (Gui et al., 2013). Municipal points collection Duties: -Municipalities are obliged by law to provide a WEEE collection point in their territory -After questioning a few municipality collection points (pieterbas.nl, 2013) in turned out that preventing of illegal dumping is the main goal of the municipality collection points. Their objective is to offer inhabitants the option of easily handing in multiple types of waste whenever they want. Objectives: -Be competent collectors: Any collection facility operated by local governments that is not sufficiently competitive (in terms of the price quoted to Wecycle or service quality) relative to other collectors will find it challenging to participate in the compliance scheme (Gui et al., 2013). Nederlandse Vereniging van afval- en reinigingsmanagement (NVRD) Nederlandse Vereniging van afval- en reinigingsmanagement (NVRD) NVRD is the Royal Dutch national waste management association. Duties: -Its function is to unite municipalities responsible for the waste management and the state-dominated waste management companies in the Netherlands (NVRD, n.d.). The NVRD serves as a platform for different kinds of private and public organisations Objectives: 29

35 -Their main goal is to create more interactivity between these parties, which results in a more efficient and sustainable waste treatment for a better public environment in the Netherlands (meerjarenstrategie ). Companies Wecycle In the Netherlands, the compliance scheme is coordinated by WeCycle. WeCycle acts as an executive organization on behalf of EEE producers and importers. It is a trademark of the Dutch Foundation Disposal Metalelectro Products (NVMP Foundation). In total, there are more than 1600 producers and importers clustered under WeCycle (About WeCycle, 2013). Duties -Their duty is to providing collection and recycling treatment to reach the qualitative and quantitative targets set by the WEEE DIRECTIVE (Gui et al., 2013). Nowadays Wecycle is still obligated to collect at least four kg of WEEE per capita in the Netherlands. However, Wecycle managed to collect already 8.4 kg per capita in 2012 (wecycle, 2013). This is mostly likely because of the coming upgrade of the WEEE directive, which obligates a collection of 80% of all WEEE in the Netherlands as from (European Union, 2012). It is assumed that Wecycle is preparing for that. -Carry out administrative and executive operations in behalf of manufacturers and importers (About WeCycle, 2013). -Motivate consumer participation (Gui et al., 2013) Objectives -Develop the lowest cost plan for end-of-life EEE treatment (Gui et al., 2013) Provide an economically fair recycling system. Provide fair and equitable expenses allocation to our members (Gui et al., 2013). Treat all stakeholders and service providers fairly and reasonably. (Gui et al., 2013) Concerns 30

36 The complimentary flows. Options Satisfy the compliance scheme vs. go beyond the compliance scheme in regard to the number of collection points and the amount of WEEE collected (Gui et al., 2013) Cost allocation (for producers) according to market share (by weight) or to return share (Gui et al., 2013) Routing WEEE either to smaller, less technology focused processors or to national state-of-the-art recycling facilities (Gui et al., 2013) Manufacturers Duties: -The legislation requires every manufacturer to register with Ecology and participate in the standard plan or an approved independent plan (Gui et al., 2013) -Cover the total operational and administrative costs of running the plan (Gui et al., 2013) -Manufacturers are also required to promote WEEE recycling and collaborate in educational campaigns (Gui et al., 2013). Objectives: -Reduce costs (Gui et al., 2013) Concerns: (Gui et al., 2013) -Increase of compliance costs One important concern is the determination of their share of the recycling program s total cost i.e. cost allocation based on market share or on return share. o o Historical and current sale rates Market share depends on: Accumulation rate of EEE 31

37 - Weight - Residual market value (for reuse) o Return share depends on: - Recycling capacity/technology - Price and value of recycled end-product -Increase of operational costs i.e. collection, transportation and endof life treatment -Concern of loss of economies of scale -Design incentives. Options: -Modify product characteristics. Srivastava [2008] for results of a survey conducted by Dell to determine which design improvements would facilitate recycling the most -Operate within the Wecycle vs. operate through an independent plan. Collectors Duties: -Achieve large collection volume -Follow the law: The WEEE Directive requires that any business that collects WEEE register with the department as a collector and comply with certain performance standards, such as collecting any WEEE for free for any covered entity, except certain circumstances; operating regular hours and staffing the collection point during these hours; having enclosed storage space; and not processing (dismantling) any WEEE for the purpose of recycling unless the collector is also registered as a processor. (Gui et al., 2013). Objectives: -Earn economic gains 32

38 Concerns: -Uncertainty and fluctuation in funding. For example Charities value stability in revenue rather than a larger revenue potential because of their nonprofit status and their reliance on (often fluctuating) donation volumes (Gui et al., 2013). -Potential decrease in payment from alterations in the system i.e. from a more flexible and extensive recycling network (Gui et al., 2013). -Increased number of labour i.e. coordination labour. For example if multiple recycling systems/plans come in place this can cause confusion for collectors in terms of separating and routing different product streams to different plans. (Gui et al., 2013) -Storage space is a concern for some collectors. Some retailers for example, have expensive retail locations, in such a case they are uncompetitive retailers (Gui et al., 2013). Recyclers and processors Processing and recycling companies are in general all private companies. There are some 150 regional e-waste and metal scrap processors (Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts & Wang, F., Baldé, C.P., Wielenga, 2011). There are 9 recycling companies who are for example Recydur, Sims Recycling Solutions, Jacomij electronics recycling, Coolrec and Hksmetals. These companies are part of the European Electronics Recyclers Association. Duties: -If recyclers and processors are under the compliance scheme their duty is to follow demands set by the WEEE DIRECTIVE. To follow minimum standards comprises, for example, legal, recordkeeping, transport, facility access, materials of concern ( ) environmental management system and so forth. (Gui et al., 2013). Objectives: 33

39 -Earn economic gains Concerns: -Competing for volume of WEEE. This depends on (Gui et al., 2013) - The prices for recycling they offer to Wecycle which in turn depends on the company size, age, stability, etc. - Under/over capacity of the system - Total amount of WEEE collected -Lack of certainty in volume can be a short- and long-term (Gui et al., 2013). Options: - Investing in/finding better and closer downstream processing technologies vs. not investing. (Gui et al., 2013). Refurbishers Duties: - Repairing, cleaning, and restoring a product to its original condition. (Gui et al., 2013). Objectives: -Earn economic gaining s Concerns: -The compliance scheme doesn t recognize refurbishes as part of the recycling system i.e. businesses cannot be certified as refurbishes under Wecycle). This means that: - They are not allowed to process (dismantle for component sales or recycling) consumer returns - They are not allowed to charge charging consumers to take 34

40 used electronics Options: The compliance scheme leaves them with two options either -They can register as a processor with the program, which may fall outside their expertise or -They to carry out (limited) refurbishing. -They can also re-orient their business toward waste streams that do not fall within the WEEE directive or; -Operate illegally Research bodies United Nations University (UNU) United Nations University is very active in the field of WEEE. It steered the foundation of the StEP initiative: Solving the E-waste Problem in Objectives: On step-initiative.org (2013), the initiative has five goals which represent their demands, namely: - StEP seeks to foster safe and eco- and energy-efficient re-use and recycling practices around the globe in a socially responsible manner (The Initiative: Our 5 Principles, 2013). -Optimize the life cycle of EEE by o Removing toxin substances o Enhancing re-use, such as labelling systems on parts o Enhancing the recyclability of materials in end-of-lifeelectronics -Increase utilization of resources and promote re-use of equipment -Exercising concern about the digital divide between developed and developing countries -Increase public, scientific and business knowledge TU Delft As far as research on the topic of Dutch e-waste is concerned, Jaco 35

41 Huisman from TU Delft is a topmost figure and expert on the matter. He works as an Associate Professor teaching on product recycling, environmental assessment and Eco design in the electronics industry at the Faculty of Design Engineering. He has been writing about e- waste since 1999 and has published over 50 articles since (although most of them were not under TU Delft). Jaco Huisman leads the UNU Institute for Sustainability and Peace Electronics Recycling Group and coordinates the TaskForce Capacity Building and Knowledge Management of the StEP Initiative (Dr.ir.J.Huisman, 2013). Objectives -As stated by TU Delft in its vision, the University wants to contribute to society with new scientific insides and technological breakthroughs (TUDelft.nl, 2013). Therefore, assumed is that TU Delft wants to see its technological development in the field of WEEE treatment implemented by society. Public Consumers Duties: -Pay the end-of-life treatment costs when these costs are passed to consumers. Objectives: -Fulfil material needs/desires Concerns: -Concern with the EEE prices which in turn affect their personal consumption rate or welfare. Options: -Consumption rate Disposers Duties: -Waste disposal 36

42 Concerns: -Effort invested in WEEE disposal -Remuneration Options: Consumers have the options to dispose of the WEEE either in a compliance scheme collection point, a complimentary collection point or as waste. NGO s Greenpeace is a non-profit non-governmental organization (NGO). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is a non-profit international governmental organization. Duties: -Monitor, guide and demand producers to address certain issues i.e. use recycled input instead of raw materials; use as less energy as possible during the production of EEE, as well as during its use phase (Greenpeace, 2012; Greenpeace.nl, 2013). -UNEP has the duty to coordinate United Nations environmental activities. Objectives: -One of the main goals of Greenpeace is to create a world free of hazardous substances (Greenpeace.nl, 2013). Concerns: -Products on the market free from hazardous substances, the extent to which companies consider durability, streamlining of devices, reusability and ease of repair, Take-back programmes and information to consumers for end-of-life products (Greenpeace, 2012). -UNEP is concerned with export of WEEE to developing countries. 37

43 Trend analysis Trends for the recycling system: EU and the Netherlands Equally to other regions, the amount of electric and electronic products sold has risen steadily. The electric and electronic equipment (EEE) in stock went up from 585 mil.items in 2000 to 763 mil.items in Furthermore, the residence times of products has declined, which means the consumption routine is speeding up. Residence time of EEE POM (put on market) in 2000 versus 2010 declined with around (Huisman et al.): 17% for Screens 12% for SHA (small household appliances) 10% for IT 10% for Lamps 7% for LHA (large household appliances) 4% for C&F (cooling and freezing equipment) 4% for PROFb (professional equipment) Huisman et.al point out in their study of Dutch WEEE flows, however, that even though the number of appliances bought and discarded has increased between , the total amount of WEE has not increased accordingly. Moreover, the study predicts that the growth rate of total WEEE will decline in the coming 5 years. The explanation lies in generally lower weights of products. Sometimes the trend is not as clear. In the case of TVs, moving from large CRT televisions to flat and light LCD ones has lowered the weight per item significantly. On the other hand, the size of the screens has mounted, so the overall result is neutral Problem & (underlying) need analysis Problems in the recycling system: the Netherlands The compliance scheme collects only one third of the total WEEE. The rest ends up in complementary flows which do not guarantee legal and proper treatment. (Cabejskova, 2013). The current WEEE Directive sets a uniform goal of 4kg of WEEE per inhabitant separately collected. This uniformity overlooks the stark contrasts between consumption and wealth levels of member states. While 4kgs per person might be a praiseworthy result in one of the poorer states, it is less than 25% of the WEEE discarded in the Netherlands. As a result, WeCycle is not having a hard time overachieving the target. In fact it lacks motivation to perform better (Cabejskova, 2013). The WEEE Directive sets recycling targets based on weight. This leads to avoidance of recycling complicated parts or of the more environmentally significant parts; instead, the largest and heaviest parts are recycled (Cabejskova, 2013). Governments maintain registers of EEE producers and importers and according to the Directive they also track all flows of WEEE. In practice only flows under the compliance 38

44 scheme are reported and monitored. Nor retailers, nor scrap processors and other parties dealing with WEEE beyond the compliance scheme have a duty to communicate their data to the register (Cabejskova, 2013). All the activities in the compliance scheme focus on safe disposal, safe recovery and safe recycling, but there is no clear emphasis on the actual recycling of the recovered materials. More focus on circular economy and resource protection through closing loops of the materials contained in WEEE is lacking (Cabejskova, 2013). Low number of municipal recycling points. For instance, in The Hague, there are only three recycling spots with 500,000 inhabitants (Cabejskova, 2013). The compliance scheme is a rather rigid setting which does not allow for many entrepreneurial activities and start-ups due to its monopolistic nature (Cabejsková, 2013). Secondary materials are not always compatible with virgin materials (Huisman,2007 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). Other related problems EEE devices consists a lot of precious metals and metals which are listed as critical raw materials what makes recycling of e-waste very important for (European) economy and environment as well. (Von Deim, 2011). The demand for plastic is constantly growing (Von Deim, 2011). The oil price is also increasing. The expectations of economist and Shell s CEO Sir Voser are that the demand and the price of oil will rise on long terms more than the inflation. Therefore plastic prices will also increase. (Von Deim, 2011). Consumers perceive a difference between the quality of virgin materials with that of recycled materials (Huisman, 2007 quoted in Cabejskova, 2013). EEE products (i.e. technology, materials, etc.) change at a fast, making it hard for the recycling technology to keep up. For example Cathod Ray Tubes (CRT) used in old monitors is replaced by newer display technologies such as liquid-crystal display (LCD), plasma display and OLED (SEPA, 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013). The WEEE Directive and its respective Dutch version place the burden of WEEE recycling on producers and importers of e-waste. They are required to recycle their products and must provide customers with a means to do so. In practice this means that costumers can dispose of their WEEE at one of 8500 collection points of WeCycle. At the same time, however, they are also free to send the WEEE to the complimentary flows, and once that happens, the producers are not responsible anymore. This lack of responsibility on the user level holds for retailers and businesses too, which is why almost no B2B WEEE contributes to the compliance scheme (Cabejskova, 2013). Lack of awareness of users on the mechanisms and pathways of collection, recycling or disposal (Cabejskova, 2013). In the Netherlands, waste management companies, can only (manually) separate 58.1% of mixed waste streams i.e. metal-plastic (Von Deim, 2011). It is not technically or economically feasible to recycle some materials either because they are complex materials, low quantities, etc. (SEPA, 2011 quoted in Cabejsková, 2013) Metals are easy to recycle and the end product has a quality comparable to virgin metals. Plastics, on the other hand, present environmental and cost efficient recovery difficulties due to the heterogeneity of the polymers present in small volumes of EEE units. Mixed metal and plastic streams are hard to separate and recyclers are usually unmotivated to recover the plastic parts for recycling (UNU, 2007). What is presented on the market of waste recycling is actually so called «down-cycling». It is still impossible for any existing company recycle waste into refine quality materials. Using 39

45 those recycled materials in production will demand mixing them with significant amount of raw components. (Von Deim, 2011). In the Netherlands, there is a low profit of recycling companies because range and quality of recovered materials is very poor it does not bring satisfying revenue. (Von Deim, 2011). In the Netherlands, non-recycled and non-separable parts i.e. plastics, wood, cardboard, liquids, etc. have to be burned or landfilled (Von Deim, 2011). In the European Union the EEE production has an increasing rate of 16-28% every five years, which is the triple of the growing rate of average municipal waste (Universidad de Córdoba, 2013; Schmidt 2002; quoted in the The Natural Edge Project, 2006). A lot of the WEEE is exported, often illegally, from mainly Europe, Japan, Israel to 3 rd world countries in Africa and Asia, such as Ghana, Lagos, Karachi, Dehli, Guiyu from Europe, Israel, Japan and US15 (Von Deim, 2011). The amount of landfills dramatically decreased since 1980 till 1% and now incinerating also is slowly recognized as an ineffective way of waste treatment. (Von Deim, 2011). In 2007, EU disposed of 6.5 million tonnes of by 2015, this figure could nearly double In the Netherlands, 50% of all plastic garbage is transported to Germany and incinerated to produce energy; this information was provided by Van Gansewinkel CEO, R. Sondag (quoted in Von Deim, 2011). As urbanization of the country continuous, amount of municipal solid waste grows faster than urban populations because of the increasing consumption and shortening product life spans (Von Deim, 2011) Generating future visions Detailed demands, criteria and targets The normative demand is to construct a sustainable recycling system that can solve current problems, that can fulfill short-term and long-term needs and that is in line with sustainability criteria. The overall aim consists in preserving, protecting and improving the environmental quality, human health, well-being and security while aiming towards economic prosperity. This should be achieved through governance and organization systems that work together and balance social, environmental and economic needs in short and long term periods. This is translated to a set of environmental, social, governance and economic demands. They are listed in table 2. Table 2. Normative demands of WEEE recycling. This table was constructed according to Idario criteria and from the normative framework formulated in the Federal Council 2002 Sustainable Development Strategy (DETEC, 2004; Swiss Federal Council, 2002). Environmental Increase the environmental performance of the recycling process Avoid landfill disposal and incineration of WEEE Ban all toxic materials from WEEE Reduction energy use 40

46 Increase the life span of WEEE Efficient resource use with consideration of Earths carrying capacity Social Public awareness and cooperation with end-of life treatment processes Promote culture together with the preservation and development of social values, such as responsibility, equality, solidarity, liberty, independence, individuality, etc. Social (Governance) Create an efficient regulatory framework that procures a balance between environmental, societal and economic demands. Procure fairness to stakeholders Monitor all WEEE flows Economic Create or maintain efficient infrastructure and services Create value added products Maintain or increase levels of income and employment Maintain or improve (qualitatively) the production capital based on human labour Improve economic competitiveness Market mechanisms should consider scarcity factors and external costs Accommodate all recycled end products in the production market (closing a loop) Maintain innovation Vision for WEEE in 2050 We took several assumptions into account when developing a vision: 1. In the coming future, up till 2050, the human population on earth will probably grow with 2-4 billion people, resulting in a maximum of almost 10 billion people in 2050 (Cohen, 2003). Within the Netherlands, the population growth will decline, resulting in a predicted population of 17.7 million people in 2050 (CBS, 2011). 2. According to Botsman (2010), future society will be based on services. For example, instead of buying a light bulb, one will buy the service light. In case of a technological problem, the lessor company will provide a solution. This also offers new opportunities in collecting EEE. 41

47 3. Greenpeace states that growing population along with growing income, consumption patterns have been rapidly increasing, including the demand for electrical and electronic equipment. If such demand is to continue, the carrying capacity of Earth is questionable. 4. According to Moore s law, EEE is getting smaller and more complex (Rogers, 2009). We combined these assumptions with the knowledge of the current WEEE system and the normative demands for a brainstorming session. While seeking the perfect vision, we realized that focusing on the recycling system in isolation is not sufficient to achieve true sustainability. Besides technical issues, many problems of WEEE can be traced down to consumption patterns (assumption 3), which are not necessarily specific to WEEE. To partially address the broadness, we decided to formulate a vision with two distinctive goals (see Figure X for visualization): 1. Recycling system that combines high tech techniques with wide social participation that achieves 100% recycling in all types of WEEE-containing materials and minimizes environmental pollution while avoiding any social harm. 2. A slow metabolism of EEE, which means that consumption rates decrease, product last longer and use less materials and energy throughout their life cycle. Economies are based on beyond-gdp indicators; ecosystem services and resource scarcities are projected in product prices. Having introduced this vision, we will now look at what changes need to happen to reach the vision. These changes occur in four domains (Figure 11) and are described in chapter

48 Figure 11. A methodology overview of the relations among vision, goal, domain changes Elaboration of vision in 2050 Production and distribution of WEEE EEE products either produced or imported to the Netherlands are 100% recyclable. The innovation of EEE products has shifted from designing more complex and small to designing products that can be easily disassembled and recycled. Designers are now educated regarding choices of materials and implications of their choices on material recycling. Products containing toxic materials are no longer in the market. The amount of critical materials has been constant since Increased life span of EEE is now (2050) at least double as it was in Additionally, EEE producers have adopted important dematerialization measures. For example companies (i) provide repairmen services for longer lasting products, (ii) more innovation in software than in hardware, (iii) products are multifunctional. 43

49 Reuse The strategic guidelines of sustainability include reduce, reuse and recycle. The three-r waste management strategy fits well with WEEE management. Dematerialization and extending the lifespan are strategies of reducing the resource consumption from the production side. Nevertheless, more attention should be paid on mitigating or exacerbating consumption-related environmental impact and hazard. Radical changes are needed in the culture and consumptionbehavioural patterns of the society. Reuse is one of the strategic principals of sustainable consumption. As regards to electronic and electrical equipment, reuse could be identified in two aspects: reusing the second-hand equipment; or reusing valuable components for subsequent production. First, to facilitate sustainable consumption in the Netherlands, second-hand EEE should be collected in a certain type of retailors or second-hand goods shops so that the bottom-of-pyramid inhabitants could also benefit from buying cheap second-hand EEE while improving their living quality. In this sense, the recycling and reusing of second-hand EEE creates a societal benign solution to deliver wealth from rich to poor thus facilitates social inclusion of the poor. Besides, more jobs could be created in the second-hand EEE industry (refurbishing). The wealth and harmony of the Dutch society thus would be enhanced during this wealth transfer practice. Moreover, reuse of the second hand EEE equipment also increases the lifespan of the EEE and this in turn reduces the demands for further production. Secondly, critical metals and valuable materials such as plastics should be recovered from WEEE and reused in subsequent production. This requires changes from material recovery technology, close-loop industry managerial skills, circular economy strategies, institutional support and acceptance of recycled materials in production. Recycling WEEE sent to the collection point is received by a collecting machine that buys the WEEE from the customer. It is and automatic transaction that returns money to the customer based on calculations on material content. The WEEE is directly transported from the collection points to the recycling centres. No pre-sorting is needed before or on the plant. The recycling plants are equipped to treat all types of WEEE and deliver high quality end products. The entire process is highly automated. Human labour is minimal. From the plastic part of the WEEE input, 90% is transformed into materials of refined quality. 10% is used to provide energy for the process i.e. through pyrolysis of plastics. The second hand plastics are be sorted out by type and by grade, with high rigidity properties. There are many markets for second hand materials. The quality of second hand metals is equal to raw materials, but they are preferred by companies due to reduced costs and social responsibility. The quality of secondary raw plastics is comparable to that of virgin raw plastics. There are two types of 44

50 markets for secondary plastics (i) homogeneous recycled plastics which are substitutes to raw plastics and (ii) heterogeneous recycled plastics which are used for bulk purposes such as construction of houses, furniture. Construction of houses with second hand plastics is cheap and thus used for people with low resources. Critical materials are recycled in 100%. The recycling process is optimized to reduce environmental impacts, maximize the material recovery and minimize costs. In summary recycling plants now recycle all types of materials, deliver high quality products and reduce environmental impacts. The recycling process is CO2 passive, does not pollute air or water (i.e. with ashes and gases), has no left overs, uses its own energy. From a sustainable consumption point of view, it s noted that raising the awareness about recycling practises is vital and has a strong societal impact. Taking cell phone for example, Damanhuri carried out a consumer-recycling behaviour and attitudes study in 2007 and find that the cell phone owned per households worldwide is five in average, however, these households recycle only few cell phones. Most consumers said they even didn t know that cell phone could be recycled or they were unclear of a proper recycling procedure. (Damanhuri, 2012). UNEP reported the different streams of cell phones owned by household in developed markets and developing markets as shown in the following figure. Both situations showed that cell phone recycling is currently not under proper implementation. Thus in our 2050 vision, awareness of citizens and education is indeed strengthened; consumers know the right way and right place to recycle their cell phone as well as other WEEE. In the case that the equipment cannot be easily transported by consumers themselves, the equipment is picked up either by retailers when a new one is bought or by the recycling company. In the latter case the transport costs are subtracted from WEEE purchasing amount. 45

51 Figure 12. what people do with their previous cell phone in developing markets, developed markets and our 2050 vision Moreover, The recycling system is economically sustainable. Recycling end-materials are sold at prices similar to their virgin equivalent. The total revenues cover all the costs and leave and a profit attractive for businessmen. The responsibility is divided by many stakeholders (not only producers), who work together to ensure that the system keeps working. Consumption and lifestyle Due to increased life span products stay in use for a longer time. In general, the metabolism of EEE has slowed down; people consume, replace and dispose at a slower rate. This is driven by bottom up consciousness as well as top down measures; consciousness originates from education and evidence of increased environmental harm related to EEE, top down measures make sure that all environmental and social costs are projected in prices. The combination of these stimuli results in a shift of consumer s perception of the necessity of consumption (the illusion of more stuff bringing more happiness and satisfaction is outdated) and it brings a shift in one s perception of individual responsibility (consumers recognise their own impact and do not mostly rely on the government or business to solve global issues). People acknowledge their life standard as sufficient when their basic needs are met, when they can afford to live in good health, when they are satisfied with their community, have access to justice and other human rights. They enjoy a level of advanced comfort that matches the 21 st century, but does not intrude on the society as a whole and so enables truly sustainable continuation of the human race and planet Earth. Institutional setting Consumption patterns are (in)directly steered and influenced by top down measures through changes in the institutional setting. That is set up in such a way that sustainable practices are not only rewarded, but are the only possible way of doing business and practicing politics/state administration. The triple bottom line is seen very seriously and is taken for granted in decisionmaking processes; Nature, ecosystem services and the living environment play a vital role in legislation and are considered an equal part of everyday life just as social satisfaction and economic prosperity. Economies move from pure GDP to multi-aspect indicators which allow for weighting and prioritizing of human and environmental wellbeing against mere economic growth. Such a setting completely transforms production and consumption systems as well as governmental administrations. 46

52 3.3. Backcasting analysis WHAT-HOW -WHO analysis: technological, cultural-behavioural, organizational, and structural-institutional changes In order to reach the vision set for 2050, changes in different areas are needed. The areas are classified as follows; Technological, cultural-behavioural, organizational and structural- institutional changes. The changes are coded and these codes are used to reference in the agenda. The agenda provides an overview of when which change needs to take place. The following codes are used: T: Technological C: Cultural-behavioural O: Organizational S: Structural-Institutional Technical changes T1 Technology development at the production phase How: Designers and manufacturers of EEE have to develop the technology enhance their products towards an increased (i) lifespan, (ii) dematerialization and (iii) increased recycling potential. Some examples of these are (i) working with of more durable materials, (ii) multi-functional EEE and (iii) design for disassembly. Who: Producers and manufacturers of EEE, Research bodies: TU Delft and UNU T2 Development of recycling capacity/technology that renders cheaper/higher valueadded recycling products. How: Development of technology to recycle non-recyclable materials and provide endproducts with commercially valuable properties. For example, non-recyclable plastics have been incinerated for high efficiency energy recovery. It is now being developed an innovative technology for recycling of plastics into lumber through a process that results in the production of high performance plastic beams reinforced by fibreglass pultruded rods. The final product has higher quality and performances and can be used as a substitute for concrete, wood and metals (Passaro, 2008). Technology can increase the profit of recycling and thus make an attractive solution, which at the same time avoids incineration and landfilling of these materials. Who: Research bodies, recycling companies, ministry of environment. T3 Develop technology to increase the environmental performance of the recycling process How: Technology to increase environmental performance of the recycling process is being developed i.e. closed loop of water, avoid emissions, use sustainable energy and increase material recovery. An example of a Recycling plant that includes this technology is the 3R Recycling Technology. Furthermore wide implementation of these technological changes in already established or new recycling plants is needed. 47

53 Who: Research bodies, recycling companies, ministry of environment. T4 Automated recycling system How: Development of technology that efficiently recycles and recovers EEE materials. In the collection phase for example this traduces itself into a machine that receives, evaluates and classifies WEEE and gives remuneration to the user. Technology developed for mobile phones has started already. For example Method And Apparatus For Recycling Electronic Devices (US (A1) is presented in EPO Patent. This apparatus demonstrates an innovative way which could be used to facilitate the electronic waste recycling and its management system. In an embodiment where mobile phones are recycled, the invention is used by a mobile phone owner to submit his/her mobile phone for recycling via a recycling kiosk and receive compensation in some manner. The compensation might be dispersed via cash, voucher, credit or debit card, or other magnetic or electronic transaction methods. Who: Research bodies, collection companies, ministry of environment. Cultural - behavioural change C1 C2 Sustainability articulations should be indicated and elaborated in designer s and engineer s handbooks How: Educate the designers on the choice of materials and the implications of their choices on material recycling. Strategies such as design for recycling and dematerialization should be articulated in the principles of designing and sustainable production. Workshops and seminars should facilitate creating a sustainability-oriented culture among producers and designers. Who: UNU, TU Delft, Scholarship associations like the United Nations and European Union, Designers, Engineers, Manufacturers. Create legitimacy on sustainable consumption How: Key organizations should educate and inform society on how to do limited (only when necessary), responsible and informed choices on consumption. NGOs, social transition advocates, producers of EEE and media should foster the lifestyle transition into sustainable consumption behaviour in everyday life. Provide lectures on primary and secondary schools so people learn the global issues we are facing at the moment at a young age and that WEEE is contributing to those issues. Furthermore, people should be learned how to extend the lifetime of EEE and not to buy new equipment whenever they want to. Who: Ministry of environment (e.g. awareness campaigns), Producers and manufacturers, Educational institutions, Media, EU, NGO s, Consumer, Wecycle, School C3 Create a send-it-back-for-recycling consumption culture How: Key organizations should educate and inform society that they are key stakeholders of the recycling process. Provide the consumers with the moral 48

54 responsibility that WEEE is appropriately disposed in a collection point. The money they receive in return for collected WEEE is an additional motivation. In this way, 100% recycling of e-waste could be achieved. Who: Ministry of environment, ministry of education, Municipality, Patent Office, Patent developer, consumers. Institutional and changes I1 Efficient monitoring and transparent reporting on EEE and WEEE How: All flows of POM as well as discarded product are monitored and reported to a national register which is accessible online. The publishing and managing of the data is done by the CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). Furthermore, annual reports on results, progress and shortcomings are published and available to the public. The reporting is compatible with international registers and standardized on an EU-wide level. Enforcement of such rules including sanctioning of noncompliance is crucial for success. The controlling of containers in harbours is needs to be expanded so more containers can be checked. This should result in a reduction of illegal shipments of WEEE to developing countries. Who: producers and importers, collectors and processors of WEEE, Ministry of Environment, Environmental Inspectorate, EU, CBS. I2 Legislation adopts environmental weight How: recycling targets and criteria are based on actual content of harmful substances instead of mere weights. Our vision describes a complete recycling requirement, yet still it is beneficial to point to environmental weights for reporting purposes. Furthermore, steering product classification based on environmental weight would motivate customers to make informed decisions. Who: Ministry of environment, ministry of economic affairs, producers, academia I3 Legislation supports circular economy How: Legislation regards discarded products as sources of secondary materials instead of waste. This will consequently support a wide range of applications of recycled materials and help to reduce resource depletion, as well as pollution from extraction/mining. Who: Ministry of environment, ministry of economic affairs. I4 Value estimation method is developed and applied How: a national organization should organize a value estimation method that is applied 49

55 nationwide. This way every collection machine, pick up service and other collection points maintain the same value estimation method. This will make sure no migration of WEEE to the best paying collection point will occur. Who: Wecycle, research institutes, ministry of environment, ministry of economic affairs. I5 Legislation favours waste prevention, product reuse and utilization of recycled materials. How: A product-service setting will favour repairing of used products and so avoid their terminal disposal. Refurbishing is encouraged and presents a legitimate part of the WEEE management system. The law introduces benefits for waste prevention through product reuse. Economic measures (such as tax on raw materials) also stimulate seeking of secondary resources instead of mining/manufacturing from raw materials. Who: producers, refurbishers, Ministry of environment, Consumers, Research bodies. I6 Environmental accounting to project external costs into product prices How: The metabolism of EEE is slowed down in order to preserve materials and energy. Firstly, macroeconomics works with environmental accounting to project all external costs into product prices. That means that consumables become more expensive which in turn reduces the pace of their consumption. Secondly, design for obsolescence is a long forgotten business strategy; products are manufactured with longer life spans. This is supported by longer warranty demands imposed by the institutional setting. Who: Ministry of Economic affairs, Ministry of Environment, Research bodies, wide public. I7 Wealth and progress is no longer measured solely by means of GDP How: A whole shift in the structuring of society and economy is shifted from quantities to quality. In other words, level of development is not judged on how much products and services are sold. Instead, institutions and companies work towards satisfaction of citizens and look at whether consumables contribute to wellbeing of all. EEE primarily serve a meaningful function rather than being bought for their intrinsic value or for the expected joy of possessing them. The latter requires limitations of advertising, since it is advertising that manufactures demand and creates the illusion of happiness from shopping and materialism. Who: wide public, NGOs, Research bodies, Dutch government and local leaders (Municipalities) 50

56 I8 Sustainability is an integral part of education, policy making and business models to ensure wide understanding and acceptance of issues of WEEE and other hazardous products How: Syllabuses are steered towards trans disciplinary approaches and sustainability is a notion present in all stages and fields of education. The same applies to policy making, where all laws and plans are not only assessed according to the triple bottom line, but are already developed with it in mind. This will be allowed by employee retraining and a wide societal discussion. EEE cannot be seen as a specific agenda for certain departments, since digitalization will be omnipresent and thus calls for attention in the whole institutional and societal spectrum. To ensure businesses adopt the attitude of sustainability integration, they are monitored and rewarded/taxed based on their sustainability performance next to economic performance. Who: Stakeholders of all four categories (Government, companies, research bodies and public). Organizational- Structural changes O1 Cooperation between the government, businesses from the whole EEE value chain and the public on recycling optimization and innovation is common. How: Hybrid private-public entities are established, where representatives of producers, distributors, collectors and recyclers on the one hand, and state clerks or policy makers on the other hand all discuss issues of (W)EEE and propose solutions. The presence of academia as well as public in the form of NGOs or local actors ensures compatibility of the solutions with user demands. By setting up weekly/monthly meetings between parties they will be able to interact and exchange problems and ideas found in all areas to create a more recyclable world. Not only are solutions discussed, but research and innovation to achieve them is strongly supported by governmental funding. Who: Research bodies, manufacturers, recycling companies, and municipality. O2 O3 Organize conferences on new recycling techniques as well as new types of products that are more recyclable. How: Yearly based conferences where people in the field of recycling and recyclingorientated manufacturing exchange knowledge and elaborate on new ideas. It serves as a incubating platform for the recycling world. Who: Research bodies, manufacturers, recycling companies. Producers structural changes towards dematerialization 51

57 How: Producers place less emphasis on production while placing more emphasis on services and software innovation. Shift from fast pace innovation in hardware to fast pace innovation in software. Products are designed to have a longer life span and thus maintenance and repair services become priorities to producers. Producers and importers organize a competitive repair service in order to extend the life time of EEE. This way the EEE metabolism will slow down a little. Who: Manufacturers, importers, Wecycle O4 Easy Collection points How: Wecycle should organize a partnership with e.g. supermarkets or train stations to install the mentioned collection machines and provide people easy access to hand in their WEEE. Furthermore, a debate with consumers should be organized to find out what the best spots for these machines are. Who: Wecycle, NS, supermarket companies, consumers. O5 Sharing of EEE How: By sharing EEE in a community, less EEE has to be bought on an individual level. This results in slowing down the metabolism of EEE. E.g. Municipalities can create sharing platforms. Who: Consumers, municipalities, communities, Dutch government O6 Pick- up service How: Wecycle should organize a pick-up service for WEEE for people who are not able to bring it to the collection points. The transportation fee can be subtracted from the fee gained for the WEEE. Who: Wecycle, consumers O7 Independent multi-stakeholder compliance scheme How: A shift from extended producers responsibility to a multi-stakeholder responsibility. Multi-stakeholder groups according to product type or product category will replace the collective producer s responsibility organization system. This system will allow a change from a centralized administration to a more decentralized administration. Profit will serve as a driver for searching for better cost-effective recycling technologies, and increased amounts of collection and recycling. Multi-stakeholders groups will be more confident in investing in technology because they are able to control the process. Nevertheless the collection point will be centrally managed for the convenience of the consumers. The automatized collection system will help with the administration of multiple independent compliance schemes (UNU, 2007). Who: Manufacturers and importers, collectors, recyclers, Dutch government, Wecycle, EU Identified new stakeholders The vision developed in this report consists of two goals. The stakeholders for the first goal and most in relation to the second goal have been identified in part one of the backcasting process and classified in government, companies, research bodies and public. However, during the development 52

58 of the changes needed to realize the vision, several new stakeholders have been found and some stakeholders have been broken down in sub stakeholders. Furthermore, for the most important stakeholders the actions they will have to execute to realize the vision are described. Media To start with, the media is found to play an important role in the awareness raising process among society. This stakeholder can distribute knowledge through several routes, showing the importance of recycling and, moreover, the importance of environmental awareness. Companies We have also found that within the mentioned key stakeholders, multiple departments have different functions in realizing the vision. First, within companies, designers and engineers play specific roles. Designers need to be aware of and take the environmental impact into account of the designed product, whereas engineers need to be aware of and take the environmental impact into account of the production processes within the companies. The Dutch Government Furthermore, the Dutch government is found to have multiple ministries that are of great importance in order to realize the vision. First, the ministry of environment and infrastructure plays a huge role in the current recycling system, by monitoring the compliance scheme and the targets set by the WEEE directive. A new stakeholder, namely the CBS, has been identified for the processing and publishing of this data. Second, we think that the ministry of economic affairs could stimulate a circular economy, by facilitating a fiscal system with taxes on primary metals and/or subsidies on secondary metals. This way, the use of secondary metals in the production of EEE becomes more attractive. Thirdly, the ministry of education, culture and science can play a significant role in creating environmental awareness within society. This can be done by including sustainability in educational programs and starting campaigns on environmental awareness. Furthermore, the ministry could subsidies research in circular economies. International organizations International organizations like the World Resource Organization, World Wildlife Fund and the ENFEEE have an important role in developing, stimulating and evaluating an internationally accepted value system for WEEE. This system has to be global; otherwise it could influence the competitive 53

59 position of the Netherlands in the world market. This way, it prevents shipment of WEEE when other countries would evaluate WEEE higher. Behavioral transition advocates Since one of the greatest issues of the second goal includes awareness raising within society, behavioral transition advocates have been identified. These key stakeholders drive, facilitate and advocate the transition towards a slowdown of the EEE metabolism. So far, three categories have been identified: Respected intellectuals Respected intellectuals are defined as people with a renowned reputation in the academic world. We assume that whenever they argue in favour of a transition towards our vision, this will support legitimacy and acceptance of the vision. This will make the transition towards the vision more likely. Lifestyle role models Lifestyle role models are defined as people who serve as an example within society. Their behaviour, appearance and mind-set are most likely imitated by a part of society. Therefore, this group can serve as an advocate promoting a transition towards the vision. Nongovernmental organizations NGO s are organizations working independently of governments and are playing a vital role in constructing national- as well as international policy. Furthermore, NGO s have a responsible role within society. We assume that NGO s could also play a driving force towards the realization of our vision by influencing governments and by making society aware of sustainability issues. Other important stakeholders have already been described in the stakeholder analysis of part 3.3. The specific actions of each stakeholder and the place in time are elaborated in the follow-up agenda, presented in part Drivers and barriers analysis Table X. Drivers and barriers for attaining the two goals envisioned for Goal 1: Recycling Drivers of goal 1 1. Consensus on harm of pollution from WEEE and political agenda 54

60 There is scientific, political and societal agreement on the fact that human activities, such as production and disposal of EEE, have had a negative influence on the state of the environment. The consensus is also about the fact that steps need to be taken to mitigate the consequences and also prevent pollution. Even if implementation of concrete and efficient measures has been doubtful so far, it is a good starting position to have reached this elementary consensus 2. Scarcity of primary resources recovery of valuables Humanity is facing potential global scarcities of raw non-renewable resources, mainly rare earths and metals. Technological innovations and geological screenings might counteract that, so it is not possible to conduct a clear prediction. Yet in the EU there is tendency to become independent of other countries in terms of materials. Mattia Pellegrini, the European Commission s head of unit for metals, minerals and raw materials, recently suggested that increasing and improving WEEE recycling will be a preferred option of reducing the dependency on import of critical materials (letsrecycle.com, 2013). When it comes to plastics, increasing petroleum prices have been a financial trigger for recycling (University of Cambridge, 2005) 3. Technology development improves recycling performance and decreases recycling costs (patent) The European Commission (2006) states the costs of recycling are expected to gradually decrease in the future thanks to technological innovations. However, the EC warns that major expenses in WEEE are handling, transport and sorting; less dynamic process optimization is expected there. Yet with our wide vision of 2050 we do foresee profitability of the whole system in this distant future. 4. Recycled products are of better quality (less degradation/downcycling) and thus of increased value Costs are not the only issue of the current system: downcycling limits possibilities of material reuse and leads often to open loop rather than closed loop systems. (Van Nunen et al, 2011). Developments will be able to tackle this; a recent example is a new patent on recycling of plastics that delivers high quality output. (Passaro, 2008). 5. Extended producer responsibility favours cost-effective end-of-life solutions There are four main ways of avoiding landfill. In figure 12 they are expressed as reuse, repair, remanufacture, recycle. Producers currently exercise mainly recycling, even though it is the most demanding option from a thermodynamic point of view; a lot of energy needs to be added to recreate the original material order. Moreover, recycling is technologically advanced which increases costs. King et al. (2006) therefore expect the other options (remanufacture, repair, reuse) to become more abundant; they require less energy and only employ low to medium skilled labour. We see product service systems as the optimal structure for such changes since it simplifies collection and separation. 55

61 Figure 12: Life cycle of products. 1 = reuse, 2 = repair, 3= remanufacture, 4 = recycle. (King et al, 2006). 6. Movements towards human safety and good health Similarly to the first driver, there is shared focus on safety in work environments. This extends to beyond company and country levels through solidarity with developing countries; citizens of developed wants are not satisfied with dumping their waste to poorer groups who are then exposed to hazards and risks. This consciousness helps to limit illegal export if articulated through NGOs and politicians. 7. Legislation in place There is a solid law (WEEE Directive) in force, it is being improved and updated. Its new version will come in a few years. There is room for optimization, but having it up and running already allows for easier and faster steps towards a 100% recycling system by Customer demand for responsible business practices Consumers have called more and more for sustainable products and thus pushed producers to reflect on their practises and wider social responsibility. This trend is expected to continue and grow as education and awareness about environmental issues spreads. Barriers to goal 1 1. High costs of recycling everything Currently there exist economic limitations of recycling. In most cases, a huge part of a product can be recycled, but the recycling the remainder is technically so challenging, that the cost/benefit is not considered to be in favour of the recycling. Sometimes it could be more harmful for the environment to recycle everything than disposing of it differently. 2. Coordination efforts / communication requirements In order to achieve a highly effective recycling system, close cooperation and information exchange between various stakeholders (mainly producers and recyclers) is necessary. This poses a challenge since all stakeholders have their own routines and exhibit resistance to fundamental change 3. Management and coordination challenges with collection and separation No achieve the target of 100% of recycling, all WEEE has to be collected and separated from other waste streams. This will be a puzzling task since it requires either wide user 56

62 participation (disposing in the right channels) or technical logistics (separating WEEE from other waste). 4. Trade-offs between product performance in high-tech application and level of recycled materials Speaking of metals, the recycled products are of high value and quality since the chemical bonds in metals are not affected by melting. The case is different for plastics, however, which form around 20% of the weight of WEEE (Crowe et al, 2002). The embodied energy and price of recycled plastics is lower than that of virgin materials which implies a lower quality; demand of manufacturers for high product performance then can t be met (University of Cambridge, 2005). The current consequence is that the lower the metal content which might seem as an environmental benefit the lower the possibilities of profitable recycling. Goal 2: Slowing the metabolism and degrowth Drivers of goal 2 1. Growing awareness of issues related to over-consumption Environmental harm, global warming, materials scarcity: these and other issues have been more and more explicitly linked to behavioural patterns of consumers. Ideas of voluntary austerity or arbitrary tightening s of ones belt are not widely accepted, but are a pronounced part of the global as well as Dutch discussion on a prosperous future. It is a fragile and controversial topic, since it is still quite fresh and often perceived as antidevelopment. But as EST (cited in Hinton and Redclift, 2009) puts it: We are certainly not advocating a return to rationing or indeed enforced personal daily allowances. However if we could adopt just a few of the practices used during the war, such as recycling bath water for watering plants, then it would go a long way towards saving energy and reducing our carbon footprint... We can now see an age of thrift being the new thrust and frugality the new frontier. Income can be seen as a prerequisite for consumption. Several research surveys have been conducted in order to examine the relationship of income with life satisfaction and have found only slight or no correlation (Otsuka et al., 2013). Discussions about degrowth, dematerialization and degrowth are often rejected by fear of antidevelopment, but the existence of Otsuka s and similar studies explicitly helps to avoid such rejections. The concept of product service systems plays a supportive role in acknowledging the legitimacy if the viewpoint of function, rather than possession. As a result, consumption will shift from quantity to quality; better functions are sought instead of more items for the same function. 2. Social inequity After the banking crisis of 2008, several bottom-up initiatives have emerged to call for more equity and economic control in face of climate change: G20 protests in London in 2009, 15-M movement in Spain in 2011, or Occupy Wall Street since All these 57

63 protests criticize the current societal order and call for radical changes; part of them articulated as degrowth (Degrowth, 2013). Such ideas are discussed in communities but they are also being institutionalized; Research&Degrowth (R&D) exists as a scientific body with 15 members and an informal network in 40 countries (Degrowth, 2013). Furthermore, the First International Conference on Economic Degrowth, Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity was organized in Paris in 2008 and continues to take place every other year. 3. Limitations by material scarcity but also other resources like fuels, water and land Numerous studies have been published about the future scarcities of non-renewable resources as well as fresh water and fertile soil, which are being depleted at a faster pace than recovery rates. So far they have not struck our society (especially the developed countries) strong enough to provoke counter-measures, but when they do, action will be needed towards austerity and better management. Nevertheless, prevention has been stressed and called for since scientists warn about reaching an irreversible state after an uncertain tipping point (Barnosky et al.,2013). These warnings act as a driver for rethinking our economies, policies and behaviours. 4. More scientific knowledge about ecosystem services and valuation etc. Valuation of ecosystem services is a highly dynamic and promising field that strives for projecting the natural environment into costs and accounting. The European Commissions has been working in this field since 2007 via The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative. There are many more and also older initiatives however: World Bank Environmental Economics and Indicators (EEI), Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (since 1979), The New Economics Foundation (since 1986) etc. The World Bank (online) describes ecosystem evaluation as an essential element in incorporating the benefits of costs of environmental effects into the analysis of alternatives. In this way, the wider array of benefits and costs associated with a project can be considered in deciding which alternative produces the largest net benefit to society. We see the penetration of this field into the political agenda (e.g. through the carbon trading system) as a sign of its growing importance and future relevance. Barriers to goal 2 1. Requires a huge societal change In our vision, the notion of success and prosperity undergoes a substantial shift from its contemporary form. Especially current elites will not want to give up their achievements and wealth. Since they are the ones with money and power, they will probably act against the vision. That is on an individual/company level, but it can be translated into a national one; Countries which have been more progressive and referred to as role models will have to sacrifice their privileges (slow down economically) but at the same time allow less developed nations to grow. This logic of levelling the South and the North has wide support in the South. In the North, however, the support is more on paper than in practice because historically the North has always profited from exploiting cheap 58

64 materials and less educated and affluent labour from the South; this is known as the Dependency Theory (Damerow, 2010). To also discuss the issue on a more individual level, it must be noted that market data show the lack of consumer consciousness and concern for ecological consequences when contemplating upgrades of durable goods (Guiltinan, 2008). FIyer (1999, cited in Guiltinan, 2008) even argues that a sustainability paradigm relying on green consumer choices is inadequate. It presumes that encouraging green consumption will lead to dominance of products that spare human quality of life, yet, as Flyer says, there is poor evidence that consumers exercise their market votes in a way that will achieve this outcome. 2. Digitalization, trends consumer consumption As depicted in figure 13, it is obvious that digitalization is a very strong trend in society. Not only are more consumer electronics put on market, but other industries are becoming digitalized and electric; transportation, healthcare, education, control systems and other areas apply high-tech IT and electronic solutions. This trend is strongly unfavourable for the overall stabilization or even reduction of WEEE amounts. Figure 13: ICT Development (International Telecommunication Union, 2012) 3. Planned obsolescence and innovation race The competitive pressure for and customer expectations of prevalent upgrades for durable products work as an impediment to manufacturing long lasting goods (Guiltinan, 2008). Producers actually do the opposite; Wiens (2012) warns that some producers even go as far as abusing service manuals of products for planned obsolescence through claiming copyright to them and limiting their spread within repairing communities 4. Common pool resource issues governance, distribution, ownership In our second goal we have outlined possibilities for a future economy which accounts for ecosystem services, resource depletion and environmental pollution. Yet these topics often encompass the whole Earth and require international cooperation and global consensus. Some very difficult and complex questions then arise: How should resources 59

65 be allocated? For how long do we require certain reserves to last? Who is going to determine prices of pollution? These are all relevant questions which would have to be resolved to achieve successful global governance. We have already experienced, however, that global commitments have not lived up to their expectations (e.g.kyoto Protocol). Ostrom (1994) even argues that efficient use of resources can only be achieved through localized approaches. Besides other reasons, this is explained by cultural differences in value perception, power imbalances between stakeholders and varying desires. The Netherlands could of course choose to pioneer the field. Nevertheless, consumption and trade have become so international, that it is hardly imaginable for the country to adopt a progressive new economic/societal order in isolation from the global community. To conclude, the management, coordination and governance of nature is so complicated that we see it as a major barrier to our second goal. 5. Technical accounting standards, price databases, statistics If national accounts were to include all datasets of new variables, it would cause a lot of restructuring and reorganizing of databases and economic tools. This would increase demand for server capacity and data sharing. Furthermore, all accounting standards and financial calculations would have to be enlarged and revisited. This is not an impossible achievement, but we note is as a technical barrier since it does require time for rigid institutions and administrations to evolve Elaboration, analysis and follow-up agenda Scenario elaboration Innovation and pilot phase 2016 Sustainability becomes an integral part of school syllabuses 2019 milestone new WEEE Directive (goal 1) 2020 establishment of environmental accounting institute (goal 2) 2023 Breakthrough recycling of plastics (goal 1) 2025 Legislation sees all waste as secondary resources (goal 1 and 2) Awareness phase and technological implementation 2025 NGOs advocating for other than GDP wealth measures become powerful (goal 2) 2025 Fully automated collection and sorting devices are spread in the country (goal 1) 2030 Department of Environmental accounting born in the Ministry of Economics (goal 2) 2035 Severe oil scarcity causes raise in energy prices and raw materials (goal 1 and 2) 2040 Technology achieves 90% recycling rates (goal 1) Societal transition phase and technological stabilization 60

66 2040 Environmental prices are introduced to markets (goal 2) 2045 Taxes are imposed on primary materials and new products (goal 1 and 2) 2050 Recycling achieves 100% (goal 1) During the process of backcasting, we have come to realize that our first goal (recycling 100% of WEEE) is achievable by 2050, whereas our second goal (slowing down of the EEE metabolism) requires an actual societal transition and is not likely to happen in the given timeframe. That is why the scenario and figure 14 already presents a time lag of goal 2 behind goal 1. Figure 14: Timeframe for reaching the vision Note: during our brainstorming sessions, we imagined that goal 2 can either happen through incremental steps and changes, or through a sudden revolution. Even though we have focused on the former pathway, the latter would not be surprising. Taking the Holling cycle as inspiration, we see that the current economic landscape and consumer behaviour is deeply embedded in society and acts as a highly rigid system; the connectedness rises as powerful stakeholders that benefit from the GDP setting as well as lack of environmental accounting secure their positions. Holling (2001) states, however, that every growth phase carriers seeds of decline. In our case, these seeds can be translated into drivers of goal 2 (such as wealth inequity, concerns for environmental damage, etc. see section ). These seeds are surpressed and ignored by the mainstream until ultimate conservation (K) is reached (figure 15). Then a system breakdown (=revolution) follows and 61

67 society/institutions are restructured and reorganized in a truly innovative way, such as our goal 2 proposes. It is not possible to reliably predict a revolution, so we left this option out ot the review despite its validity. Figure 15: Adaptive Cycle of systems (Holling,2001) Sustainability analysis The table below shows the result of a sustainability assessment applied on our vision. The analysis was performed according to Idario citeria and from the normative framework formulated in the Federal Council 2002 Sustainable Development Strategy (DETEC, 2004; Swiss Federal Council, 2002). Environment Climate Emissions Landscape & natural heritage Water Materials + Recycling prevents CO2 emissions of WEEE in the waste disposal phase. +Decrease in toxic emissions due to avoided incineration in waste disposal. + Decrease waste disposal to landfill. + Increase in the environmental performance of the recycling process by closing the loops and recycling water. -Increase in the overall water use when recycling all of WEEE. +Less virgin material extraction due to efficient resource social-economic metabolism slow down and increased recycling rate. -Probable increase in the overall amount of virgin material extraction due to population increase. 62