Review of Product Stewardship Act 2011

Transcription

1 SUBMISSION Review of Product Stewardship Act 2011 Preliminary Input from MRI E-cycle Solutions (including MRI PSO) 8 August 201 Context The Federal Government has commenced a review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 which helps to reduce the environmental and health impacts of products. The Act currently supports the successful National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NCTRS) which has recycled approximately 184,500 tonnes of electronic waste since The review will provide an important opportunity to continue to update and improve the NTCRS. MRI E-cycle Solutions Position and Approach MRI E-cycle Solutions welcomes the statutory review, and wishes to share with the Department of the Environment and Energy (DOEE), its preliminary views on adjustments and key changes necessary to further improve the performance of the Act and the NTCRS. As a company which specialises in the life cycle management of electronic waste, batteries and PVs, we believe the Act holds significant potential to further enable and maximise substantial resource recovery outcomes. The Act is also the ideal instrument through which a Circular Economy can be facilitated and encouraged in Australia. MRI E-cycle Solutions is committed to helping ensure the success of the Act, as well as other sub-ordinate initiatives including the NTCRS and programs with voluntary accreditation e.g. MobileMuster. We believe it has, and will continue to deliver significant environmental, social and economic outcomes to Australia s towns and cities. The following points are submitted to DOEE as a summary of issues which we believe should help inform and frame the review process. MRI E-cycle Solutions believes that the review provides an unmatched opportunity to highlight a solution-oriented suite of adjustments directly focused on the aims and objectives of the Act. Preliminary Input 1. Waste arising calculations MRI E-cycle Solutions believes that the current targets of up to 80% in are not achievable. They fail to adequately account for the actual volume of computers and televisions being exported for reuse or people s hoarding behaviours in the waste arising calculations. The current waste arising calculations assume 10% of TVS, 12% of Computer parts and peripherals and Printers and 20% of Computers are either being exported for reuse, in storage or for some other reason are not available for recycling. However, feedback from members and the second-hand industry suggest that the percentage of IT products being exported reuse in IT would be more in the order of 30% to 40% and for TVs more like 20% to 30%.

2 As the electronics industry is highly dynamic, it is recommended that regular (i.e. annually or biannually) market analysis on reuse trends and consumer reuse and recycling behaviours is undertaken to determine more accurately the volume of waste arising and the Scheme targets. To have unrealistic targets that cannot be achieved due to the product not being available for recycling does not help the government, industry or the environment. An alternative option would be to allow for the weight of working product exported for reuse to be included in an Arrangement s Target. There would need to be clear guidelines or a standard on what is deemed eligible reuse (i.e. proof that product is working before export, which tariff codes the product needs to be exported under, where is it being exported to for reuse, what controls are in place to ensure product is reused and is there appropriate recycling infrastructure in the country to where the product has been sold). Encouraging reuse is an important way to minimise harm to humans and the environment. But like recycling it is critical that there is transparency on the downstream vendors and destination country and product is not being dumped offshore. As an element of the NTCRS that has significant commercial and economic implications, the priority should be on amendments that deliver accuracy, transparency and practical achievability. Continuing to adjust the targets and trajectories to achieve a more realistic outcome is a critically important part of the NTCRS and its future success. 2. Target calculations unnecessarily complex Target calculations are unnecessarily complex and difficult to explain to liable parties. The review needs to address this problem with the aim of simplifying how targets are derived while ensuring accuracy and transparency. Currently the Scheme and Arrangement Targets are calculated by the Department using the weight of technology imported into the country over the last 3 years and the expected quantity of waste arising from those imports using three different percentages. Whereas the liable parties (businesses importing the technology) are simply advised what their imports were the previous year and if they are liable or not. Many Liable parties assume their liable volume is simply the Scheme percentage target multiplied by their imports, which it isn t. It does not make sense to be calculating waste arising across three years, with market share for only one year. The preference would be to base all calculations on one year, especially given the Australian market is so mature. In other words, choose one-time period (i.e. 1 year rather than 3 years) for determining the Target and an individual member s liability to ensure that they are equal amounts of time to ensure that the product importers are being allocated a fair/logical percentage of the target. This will also mean each arrangement and liable party can easily calculate their target for each year as well as provide greater transparency to all stakeholders on the percentage of free-riders being covered. 3. Reasonable Access The under-representation of many local councils in the NTCRS, and the cost of servicing outer regional and remote areas, continues to cause significant challenges and barriers to deliver genuine reasonable access, keep e-waste out of landfill and provide appropriate collection services to outer regional and remote communities.

3 The benefit of competition in driving innovation and cost effectiveness between arrangements in outer regional and remote areas is questionable. Industry s funds are not being used efficiently and these communities are not getting the service levels they require. Rather you are getting token efforts that are not stopping e-waste going to landfill or serving the community. More specifically, four different co-regulatory arrangements servicing the same remote and regional areas cause confusion, increases running costs and is less environmentally sound (4 trucks driving to one area to pick up ¼ of product). While placing targets by state or region or setting minimum collection volumes for each town may help this, they are very blunt controls that do not meet each region s needs or ensure e-waste is kept out of landfill. Rather a more cooperative / sharing approach between arrangements should be facilitated either by each state government or local council to ensure outer regional and remote residents are receiving adequate services and e-waste is kept out of landfill. One option could be a single, permanent service is provided, per town that is jointly funded by the co-regulatory arrangements. Responsibility for each town could be shared between the arrangements or managed by a local council and outsourced to a local supplier (not an arrangement). If one arrangement took care of each town, the marketing would be much be clearer and more effort could be put into promoting the service to the residents. The simplistic market driven model of each co-regulatory arrangement paying councils and/ or partnering with retailers does not work as efficiently and equitably as originally envisaged in outer regional and remote areas. Scheme adjustments are required which foster enthusiastic partnerships between councils, communities and arrangements, rather than reluctant collaboration, often underpinned by onerous legal agreements. 4. AS/NZ5377 The introduction of AS/NZ 5377 has been a welcome and essential addition to the NTCRS, however its effective application by some organisations and providers has been lacking and less than rigorous. There is an urgent need to ensure closer monitoring of the standard s application including a more rigorous audit process. Based on our operational experience across numerous sites, operators and downstream providers, it would appear there is a lack of adequate awareness and technical understanding of the standard and its intent. A well-publicised audit regime would directly contribute to capacity building and more consistent application, with a focus on downstream mass load balance. More specifically: The capability of auditors is highly variable and there needs to be more training to provide consistency Auditors can often focus on systems and ticking boxes and not the key risk areas of downstream processing There should be an inclusion in the AS/NZS 5377 for re-selling product to provide an appropriate standard and ensure only reputable sellers are permitted to move e-waste. This would also assist in reuse reporting and target setting. The R2, E-Steward and WEEELABEX include resale standards as a starting point. To ensure all auditors are trained appropriately and to ensure consistency, each AS/NZ5377 auditor should be JAS-ANZ accredited and should undertake regular training on e-waste processing. This includes developing

4 competencies in the management of hazardous materials and dangerous goods handling, as well as understanding offshore processing with a focus on downstream mass load balance. It should be made clear in the regulations that AS/NZ 5377 certification does not imply that the recycler is achieving the required 90% recovery rate. 5. Product Scope Expansion There is considerable confusion about what type of e-waste is accepted or not accepted through Scheme. There are still many potentially harmful materials in electronic products that are ending up in landfill. MRI E-cycle Solutions proposes the immediate inclusion of television peripherals and accessories i.e. set-top boxes, DVD, CD and Blue-ray players and all other devices that are designed to extend the function and performance of televisions; audio visual/stereo equipment (speakers, CD players, amplifiers, video/digital and still cameras); routers and modems and other wireless telecommunications devices, excluding mobile phones and their accessories. Other equipment such as self-check-out equipment/scanners, gambling equipment and UPS should also be covered by the NTCRS There should be clearer guidelines on the reporting of electronic consumables like printer cartridges and batteries that are collected through the scheme, so these efforts are being recognised. The inclusion of handheld batteries less than 5kg in the NTCRS may not be the best way to encourage battery recycling and prevent free riding given the nature of the battery industry. MRI E-cycle Solutions does support the introduction of free rider regulation to drive battery recycling. But does not necessarily see the current NTCRS regulation as the most appropriate mechanism. More broadly, MRI E-cycle Solutions believes that the scope of electrical and electronic products covered by the Product Stewardship Act and its sub-ordinate regulations and schemes should follow the same categories addressed by the EU WEEE Directive. 6. Custom Tariff Codes There is at least one code that either the conversion weight needs to be reviewed or another product description is required. Custom tariff code Computers or Printers; The conversion weight is kg, the product imported by a liable party, called a Raspberry Pia weighs around 0.5kg. The company imported around 86,162 units in giving a weight of 921,826.4kg. more than 10 times actual weight. There doesn t seem to be a code that adequately describes the product in the list although code does come close, except that it requires the product to have a keyboard and a display. 7. Banning E-waste from Landfill Prohibiting the disposal of all electrical and electronic products (including batteries) from landfills in Australia is a vital step towards maximising e-waste related resource recovery and more safely managing hazardous and toxic substances. MRI E-cycle Solutions supports the banning of e-waste from all landfills in Australia. Such a ban will also directly contribute to further channelling e-waste into properly managed schemes and programs such as the NTCRS, MobileMuster, Cartridges 4 Planet Ark and FluoroCycle.

5 While landfill bans are a State government response, there is a need to acknowledge and integrate their role in how Australia more effectively manages e-waste in Australia. 8. Raising community awareness and education on the NTCRS Community awareness of the NTCRS is very low. There has been no widespread consistent promotion of the service to the community. Rather it has been a series of disjointed promotions of local services by each arrangement and listing of collection sites on arrangement websites and Planet Ark s recyclingnearyou.com.au website. The regulation provides little guidance on how and by whom the Scheme should be promoted, nor does it foster collaboration and investment of resources into a clear and consistent message by all stakeholders in promoting the Scheme. MRI E-cycle Solutions recommends a centrally coordinated approach to raising community awareness and educating the community about the Scheme using uniform messaging. This ideally would involve co-regulatory arrangements working collaboratively and sharing the costs with the Federal Government to achieve an agreed level of community awareness over time Further detailed submissions from MRI E-cycle Solutions will be provided in response to the ongoing review process. More information Will LeMessurier Managing Director MRI E-cycle Solutions M wlemessurier@ Rose Read Chief Executive Officer, MRI PSO MRI E-Cycle Solutions M rread@