Wasted opportunity

Pro-recycling groups say the EU missed a great opportunity this week to cut down on the bloc's rapidly growing mountain of electronic waste.

Environment ministers from across the bloc decided that by 2016, member states should be annually required to collect 45 percent of the average weight of electric goods in their national markets (less for some eastern countries).

They were meeting to review the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive, proposed by the bloc's executive in 2008.

Although their suggestions mark an improvement on the current situation, which obliges countries to recover four kilos of e-waste per capita, it has been viewed by environmental campaigners as a watered down version of proposals put forward by the European Parliament last month.

The parliamentarians said that by 2016, EU countries should be obliged to process 85 percent of their e-waste

Although the environment ministers' proposed targets rise to 65 percent by 2020, environmental and reuse campaigners, say the approach is too soft and too slow if the EU is effectively to tackle its fastest growing source of waste.

Stalling tactics

Stephane Arditi, policy officer for the European Environmental Bureau (EBB), the bloc's largest coalition of grassroots environmental organizations, told Deutsche Welle he was pleased to see the bloc's ministers finally state their position on the overdue WEEE revamp.

He also welcomed the idea of shifting from a per capita, to a percentage based waste collection system, but on many other points, he said he found their stance to be lacking.

"They have clearly delayed the collection target," he said, adding that such a move would not help the situation. "The main problem is the fact that we don't have a proper collection system or an economic system to incentivize proper collection and treatment of e-waste."

He said it was disappointing that the group had ignored the Parliament's suggestions to offer incentives to manufacturers for such things as better designs and increased recyclability.

"We had an innovative policy proposal but it has been spoilt," he said.

"Instead of asking how to make it workable, they refuse any kind of innovation. They lack courage."

Reuse refuse

Innovation such as reuse doesn't get a mention in the ministers' proposal.

But Anja Ffrench of Computer Aid, a UK charity which overhauls computers and donates them to schools, hospitals and NGOs in developing countries, says it is ultimately the only logical way forward - not least because e-waste is predicted to grow to 12 million tons annually by 2020.

"There is a lot of ignorance, and many people think that by recycling they are doing their bit," Ffrench said, adding that given the massive amounts of energy it takes to actually manufacture a computer, extending their lease of life by a further three to five years makes sense.

"We would like to see reuse targets set at 75 percent," Ffrench told Deutsche Welle, highlighting the fact that two-thirds of all computers sent for recovery, are still functional. "If there were targets to prioritize reuse over recycling, it would ensure that companies looked into it."

Learning from neighbors

Arditi agrees that in confusing recycling with reuse, EU governments are missing an opportunity to show how innovative the bloc could be.

He says that approach encourages less consumer-driven EU countries to follow the lead of those with a knee-jerk reaction to appliance disposal and replacement.

Arditi said western Europeans could learn something from their eastern neighbors, who he said derived longer life spans on average from their products. "We could learn from them, but we don't, instead we say 'let's stick to the over-consumption model and create as much waste as we can.'"

He says the ambition should instead be to properly collect and treat whatever e-waste is generated, and to make manufacturers, retailers and consumers responsible for ensuring that defunct electronics are not illegally shipped abroad, dumped in landfill sites or taken to sub-standard treatment facilities.

"Legislation should challenge our current way and make us try to change, Arditi said, "but legislation that prevents us from changing misses the point."

Reporter: Tamsin Walker
Editor: Nathan Witkop