melissa shinn toxics campaign political advisor greenpeace international n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Melissa Shinn Toxics Campaign Political Advisor Greenpeace International PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Melissa Shinn Toxics Campaign Political Advisor Greenpeace International

Melissa Shinn Toxics Campaign Political Advisor Greenpeace International

190 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Melissa Shinn Toxics Campaign Political Advisor Greenpeace International

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Latin America - the new eco-dumping grounds for ´toxic tech´ or the next step in globalising industry standards and responsibility?Melissa Shinn` Melissa Shinn Toxics Campaign Political Advisor Greenpeace International

  2. Content • Toxic Tech and eco-dumping - the problem • What Greenpeace is doing globally • Preventing impacts - the role of IPR, the role of hazardous substance restrictions • What do we mean IPR • Greenpeace recommendations for a RAEE law in AR • IPR and RHS in Argentina... • Conclusions

  3. Eco-dumping = • Selling products with hazardous substances in LA and Argentina that 1) expose the public (in your house dust, in your office dust) 2) expose recyclers (formal and informal) 3) release into the environment (landfill spontaneous burning and leachates, smelting…)

  4. Brominated Flame retardants - PBDES, penta, octa, deca - bioaccumulate, biomagnify, interact - affect fetal development small mammals, learning in children - PBDEs -> brominated dioxins when burnt

  5. Backyard Recycling Emissions Health hazards Inefficiency © IIIEE/Lindhqvist

  6. Scientific evidence: • 2003: Evidence about the problem • 2005: Evidence about TOXICS in the fieldSampling by Greenpeace experts - UPDATED 2007 • 2003-7: Chinese institutes: field research in China(no field research in India although same situation??)--> multiple Scientific publications . Evidence about toxics in the AIR, in the SOIL, in the BLOOD, in the RIVER,... • Aug-2007: Hot spot for DIOXINS (Gullet, 2007) • Jan 2008 - The Evidence of Environmental and Health Impacts of Electronics Recycling in China: an Update “Contamination is widespread and, in some cases, severe. For example, levels of polychlorinated dioxins are among the highest found in ambient air worldwide, whilst, the concentration of one commonly used flame retardant, decabromodiphenyl ether (deca-BDE), in a worker’s blood was the highest ever reported.” Update, Jan 2008

  7. Argentina? • Acid bathing • Open cooking • Open burning

  8. What is Greenpeace doing?

  9. What else is Greenpeace doing • TESTING e-products for harmful substances e.g. Laptops, mobiles. EXPOSING the impacts of ecodumping in China, Asia and Africa. • Making sure companies TAKEBACK and DESIGN OUT hazardous substances GLOBALLY – eg checking voluntary takeback programmes, asking for commitments on PVC and all BFRs on products worldwide, reporting on greenest product • Ensuring that voluntary action becomes obligatory by LAW globally • Implementation of IPR in WEEE and RoHS in EU • (Asia, China and Latin America)

  10. Greenpeace Research & Reports

  11. Looking for the winner..

  12. Documenting global eco-dumping... Add image GP AFRICA report

  13. Ways to Prevent the impact of e-waste • As PRIORITY, avoid the generation of toxic e-waste in the first place • Ensure safe treatment of historical e-waste, ensure design for eas +safe recyclingof new e-waste (DfR) • Stop the export of e-waste OECD to non-OECD, even for recycling (Basel Ban amendment) • Introduce Producer Responsibility (IPR), Restrictions on Haz substances (RHS), targets and treatment standard LAWS in non-OECD countries

  14. Why Individual Producer Responsibibility ? • Once you are at the reuse /recycling stage its too late – can only do `damage control´ • Prevention emission hazardous substances and easy reuse, re-leasing, re-manufacture and recycling can only be done AT SOURCE – at DESIGN – by OEM • 2 ways 1 - minimum requirements – RHS, recycling targets 2 – economic advantages and feedback on consequences of treating each producers own products – to get to ZERO hazardous and MAX lifespans and material cycling (BEYOND minimum politically defined requirements)

  15. What do we mean PRECISELY by IPR • Individual – own brand = OEM • Producer – OEM or entity that places product for first time on EU market (if that’s a retailer with Asian or own brand products then they are also included) • Responsibility – Financial (NOT necessarily physical). You can have FULL Individual Financial Producer Responsibility within a system that is shared by a COLLECTIVE group of producers ie responsibility can be delegated to a WEEE management system but the producer should pay (collection, treatment, education)

  16. The potential impacts of IPR.. • Japan • SONY replaced plastic housings with magnesium alloy (more recyclable) for TV cabinets + PCs, in others reusing its own recycled plastics (BRAVIA) • matsushita, Sharp,mitsubishi, Ricoh, and Hitachi - more standardized types and grades of plastics for their products. • Global • HP reduced use of different polymer types from 100s to only 5

  17. The advantages of IPR • Full, precise and more transparent internalisation of environmental (and social) externalities  if it costs more change the design! • Information = Innovation • Transparency • Spotlight effect –more easily exposing free-riders, products that are badly designed and difficult to reuse/ recycle • Ensuring that the money producers are obliged to pay is well spent on lots of public education and awareness, efficient collection and high quality treatment

  18. Restrictions of hazardous substances (RHS) • EU RoHS is becoming a global standard • but doesn’t ban all dangerous – eg PVC, Be, all Brominated Flame Retardants . • Is possible – companies such as Nokia, SE and Apple (ipod) have done it already WITH BFRS AND PVC

  19. Greenpeace Argentina preliminary recommendations for a RAEE law 10 points – in particular:   1- Establecer la eliminación de ciertas sustancias peligrosas … asegurar que los peores productos no sean puestos en el mercado. 2-  Establecer la Responsabilidad Individual del Productor para residuos futuros y asegurar que todos los costos para residuos electrónicos sean internalizados 3 - Establecer objetivos de recolección reutilización y reciclado ambiciosos con claras metas en el tiempo. As well as … general objective of prevention (Design for Environment), support reuse, ban disposal, clear definitions and treatment standards, enforcement, clear roles for actors

  20. IPR in Argentina • Report from University of Lund : Exended Producer Responsibility in the Latin American context (Sept 2008) • CPR for historical WEEE, IPR for future WEEE best- the earlier the better while historical WEEE still a relatively small amount – BUT growing fast! • Producer voluntary actions are not enough – are exception • IPR needs a functioning market economy – which exists – illegalities do exist (in particular grey markets and imports) but they have to be addressed anyway, a clever design of finnacing of no-name products (desktop PCs) may be needed • Formal recycling sector still has to be established, legislation can help this (set standards), • Creating a new tradition of source separation of WEEE wlil require efficient information campaigns and high convenience • reinforcing capacity of enforcement of illegal imports and providing extra resources for DfE for SMES also important • CONCL: IPR possible and desirable if cleverly adapted

  21. RHS in Argentina • Manufacturers (%ages of global market share)are already producing ROHs compliance so can easily provide for AR market • RoHs law in China and EU permits export haz substances to Argentina • Some product sectors are dominated by national brands eg PCs but most of their component suppliersare same as supplying Int brands – INTEL etc (latest news on INTEL going BEYOND ROHS)

  22. Conclusions • MOST IMPORTANT – when get to recycling stage ITS toolate to protect workers and the ENV.... Go to the source... • only individual responsibility and access to own products information will give incentive for OEMs to a) engage deeply – care what happens at EOL – its about COSTS! b) change design • The impacts are URGENT – cant wait several generations for recycling standards to become effective in EU, China, India, Africa, LA -is exposing us in offices and homes • IPR, reuse/recycling targets and RHS driving Design for Reuse and Recycling are the ways to go to the source, but they need to be global (need laws in LA)

  23. Conclusions • IPR and RHS possible in Argentina • IF create good enforcement tools (certification and labelling) and smart financing for no-name products (simple fee?) • IPR and RHS desirable in Argentina • Polluter pays (internalisation environmental costs),, transparency (less corruption), prevention impacts • LA region - Argentina can lead the way on good WEEE management (the next step in global PR) and prevention toxics (avoid being the next eco-dumping ground) • To do this the law needs IPR, RHSs & targets

  24. Gracias! For more info FAQ -