sou · H9B326 · 2022-01-01 00:00:00 — Consumption of small electronics is increasing, especially measured in number of products, in terms of weight consumption is relatively stable. At the same time, there is an increased accumulation of small electronics in the society. We use more products that are powered by a battery or a cord. In one household there is also often several computers, mobile phones, and TVs. This means that we do not generate waste to the same extent as we consume. The latest official statistics (for 2018) regarding the producer responsibility for EEE presents the statistics divided into ten dif- ferent categories, where all categories except two include both large and small equipment. This means that based on the official statistics, it is not possible to draw any definite conclusions about consump- tion of small electronics. However in 2019, the categories changed and there are now two specific categories for small electronics. The statistics for 2019 had not been published when this inquiry was published. Consumption of small electronics is dominated by products that fall into the categories of small household appliances and IT and telecommunication equipment (for example, laptops, printers, and mobile phones). There is a significant reuse of small electronics, partly between private individuals, but also through commercial and non-profit actors. There is also a significant stock of small electronics that are no longer in use in households. Mobile phones are exceptionally high. approximately 20–25 million phones, with an estimated half non- functioning. There is also a stock of small electronics not in use at businesses, but the amounts are more difficult to estimate. Collection of waste from small electronics is managed by the two approved WEEE collective schemes (El-kretsen and Recipo), the municipalities and retailers that sell electrical and electronic equip- ment. The most common way for households to dispose of their electrical and electronic waste is at municipal recycling centres. From 2019, the collection target for WEEE is that 65 percent of the EEEplaced on the market (as an average of the three previous years) should be collected. The collection rates based on the statistics from the extended producer responsibility for 2018 vary greatly between different cate- gories that contain small electronics, from over 150 percent to 15 percent. An average collection rate of 66 percent is reached for the categories of private household equipment that contain small electronics. Statistics on the collection of small WEEE from El- kretsen indicate that the collection of small WEEE is increasing both in weight and in number of units. Overall, it has not been possible to draw any definite conclusions about collection rates for small WEEE based on the statistics available. WEEE collected through the collective schemes is primarily recycled. year, a proportion of WEEE is disposed of in the wastebin, in the collection system for packaging waste, or sorted incorrectly at the recycling centre. This is a problem since some of this waste is incinerated instead of being recycled. There is no indication of littering being a problem when it comes to WEEE. Designing extended producer responsibility to meet the minimum requirements The Swedish regulation for extended producer responsibility for electrical and electronic equipment do not meet the minimum require- ments in the . The regulations need to be adapted to the new requirements. The inquiry assesses that certain amendments and additions to the Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic equipment are required to implement the minimum requirements of Article 8a of the . The inquiry proposes, among other things, requirements for WEEE collective schemes to make publicly available information about its ownership and membership, self-control mechanism to appraise the quality of certain information, and requirements of fee modulations. The consequences of the proposed requirements are primarily administrative costs. Several of the proposed requirements are already, to some extent, fulfilled by the collective schemes and will therefore not imply any increased costs. Problems concerning collection of small electronics The reason for an inquiry regarding a deposit refund system for small electronics is that the extended producer responsibility does not seem to achieve the desired results regarding the collection of waste from small EEE. We come to the same conclusion. In the directive of the inquiry states that the collection of small WEEE is low and decreasing and that there is a need for increased incentives. The inquiry has shown that this is only part of the problem. A central problem is that the official statistics is deficient when it comes to small EEE and waste from small EEE. It is not possible to get an accurate picture of the collection rates for waste from small EEE. Up until now the different product categories do not dif- ferentiate between small and large products. The long lifespans of the products and product development makes it difficult to compare the amount collected with the amount placed on the market. Although the collection rates for waste from small EEE in some cases are considered to be low, the mapping of the flow shows that it is only partly explained by the fact that waste from small EEE is thrown in the waste bin or sorted incorrectly. A contributing factor is instead that large quantities are in use in households and busi- nesses’ and that there is also a stock of products no longer in use, but for different reasons stored. The inquiry shows that a higher level of service in terms of collec- tion of waste, more information, as well as increased incentives, both financial and other incentives, are important when it comes to changing consumers behaviours and increasing collection rates. When it comes to non-functioning mobile phones, tablets and laptops, there is a concern for the personal information that is stored on the device. It makes consumers hesitant to leave the waste to the collec- tive schemes. The fact that a large proportion of the products stored in house- holds and in businesses are still functioning is important to take into account when it comes to considering the need for measures. Small electronics are not consumables in the same way as, for example, bottles and cans. In many cases, consumers buy a new product before the old one becomes waste. The inquiry shows that consumers experience some resistance when it comes to leaving or selling products for reuse. On one hand, there is a lack of knowledge about the possibilities and benefits of reuse. On the other hand, reuse is also perceived as complicated, combined with, for example, worries about not getting paid. Leaving products that function, at the recycling centre is in many cases seen as the most convenient solution. This is, according to the inquiry, an unacceptable consequence of the current extended producer responsi- bility and collective schemes with a one-sided focus on recycling. Investigation and assessment of deposit systems In accordance with the directive, we have investigated and come up with two proposals for deposit refund systems. First, we have investigated a traditional deposit refund system that requires that products in some way to be identified. The other solution requires something that we call a deposit certificate. We have chosen to focus our proposals on mobile phones. In accordance with our directive to come up with a proposal for a deposit refund system, we present legislation drafts for both solutions. However, we have chosen not to advocate for either of them. In a traditional deposit refund system, a deposit is paid upon the purchase of a product and a refund is given when the product is re- turned for proper treatment when it becomes waste. Our assessment is that this would be very costly to implement. In order for the system to work, it requires that products with a deposit are possible to identify. An identification is required to ensure that a refund is only given for products for which a deposit has been paid. We have not been able to identify a solution for identifying products that is practically feasible at a reasonable cost. A traditional deposit refund system would have no effect on the products that are in stock, since no deposit was paid for these pro- ducts when they were purchased. When it comes to the effect on collection rates, there will be around a five-year delay due to the long lifespan of the products. In addition, with a traditional deposit refund system there will be large sums of paid deposits locked up in the system since it would be about five years between a deposit being paid and the refund of the deposit. This is assumed to require some form of account for deposits that the state would be in control of. to the difficulties associated with a traditional deposit refund system, we have also investigated another solution, called a deposit certificate. In a system with deposit certificates, the deposit is not tied to a specific product and therefore, does not require that pro- ducts can be identified. A deposit is paid upon purchase and the consumer receives a deposit certificate (preferable digital) with, for example, a unique identifiable code. The deposit certificate gives the right to a refund when a product, equivalent to the one bought, is dropped off with the collective schemes. This solution means that products that are already in stock can be dropped off for a refund of the deposit. The amount of money tied up in the system will be smaller since the deposits are expected to be refunded earlier. We believe that this solution could be practically possible to implement. Regardless of which deposit refund system is chosen, there is negative consequences and challenges that need to be considered. Both solutions place a large responsibility on producers and the collective schemes to develop and manage complex systems. It also leaves producers and collective schemes with considerable admini- stration and control over large flows of consumers money. A deposit refund system is also complicated to combine with reuse and distance trading. A high refund, perhaps as high as would be required to create the incentives needed, risks disrupting and competing with the market for reuse. The inquiry concludes that it would be wise, at least initially, to limit a deposit refund system to mobile phones. This is for several reasons. Mobile phones contain metals, that from a resource point of view are valuable to recycle. Mobile phones are also stored to a greater extent, compared to other EEE, and is a product with, in this context, a relatively short lifespan. to the difficulties we see when it comes to managing and ensuring a well-functioning system, it may also be wise to start with one product. This draws attention to one of the key disadvantages of a deposit system; the fact that it requires regulation and administration of each individual product or group of homogenous products. The limi- tation to one or a few products in a deposit refund system means that the effect on collection rates in general will be very low. The products that are in stock, either in use or stored, will eventually be collected, and recycled even without a deposit refund system. It will only take a longer time. A deposit refund system can shorten this delay to some extent, but for a deposit refund system to have a significant effect on the overall collection rates of waste from small EEE, the system needs to include several products. Further develop the extended producer responsibility, an alternative to a deposit refund system to the problems and challenges that have been identified with a deposit refund system, the inquiry has an alternative proposal that will further develop the extended producer responsibility. The aim has been to find measures that will help solving the problems described above. The current extended producer responsibility does not meet the need for circular solutions for reuse of EEE. A decisive change that the inquiry wants to accomplish is to update the producer responsi- bility so that it goes from traditional collection and recycling to include promoting and taking opportunities for reuse of EEE. One of our proposals is therefore a requirement that collection of WEEE is done in such a way that preparation for reuse is possible for waste that can be prepared for reuse. It is important that reuse should continue to be take place on a free market. It is also our opinion that this market is developing rapidly and should be seen as a business of the future. We believe that measures are needed to increase consumers awareness of the op- portunities for and the value of reuse. Co-ordinated measures may be necessary to increase the quality of and consumers’ confidence in the reuse opportunities that exist. We therefore propose that producers should be required to promote good opportunities for consumers to reuse EEE. The goal is that functioning products that are no longer in use, should circulate to the next user as soon as possible. The inquiry also concludes that measures are needed to improve the collection of WEEE. When the approved collective schemes are due for a renewal of the approvement , the have an opportunity to make a new assessment of what is considered to be an easily accessible and user-friendly collection system (two of the requirements that needs to be fulfilled by the collective schemes). We propose that there should be a general requirement for producers to use financial incentives and other incentives, to an ap- propriate extent, in order to reduce the amount of WEEE being sorted incorrectly or stored, and thus contribute improving collec- tion rates. We also see a need for improved information regarding WEEE at a national level. We therefore want the collective schemes to be given a responsibility for providing information. In addition, measures need to be taken to make sure consumers feel secure about how WEEE containing personal information is collected and handled after collection. Even though the extended producer responsibility is, regulated by law, it is set up in a way that give producers possibilities to fulfil the requirements in the way they find effective. There are already today requirements for collective schemes to provide a collection system that is appropriate and nationwide. There is a responsibility not to counteract reuse. There are also obligations for retailers of EEEto accept waste from small EEE. It is the inquiry's assessment that these requirements have not had full impact on the practical imple- mentation. The monitoring and surveillance done by the and the municipalities has not been able to ensure enforcement. There is a risk that the proposed require- ments for re-use, preparation for re-use, the use of incentives and providing of information, etc. will not be sufficient implemented by the producers. However, it is the inquiry's assessment that the extended producer responsibility so far also has given very good results. The relatively open responsibility, together with the co- operation with the municipalities, has meant that Swedish producers have built up an efficient collection system that probably results in one of the highest collection rates in the world. The inquiry proposes that the government further develop the producer responsibility The inquiry proposes that the government implement the alternative solution that will result in a further development of the current extended producer responsibility for EEE. It is the inquiry's assess- ment that that proposal is more socio-economic efficient and more compatible with a circular economy than a deposit refund system. If the proposals included in a further development of the extended producer responsibility does not give the desired result in a near future, the government may consider developing and implementing a deposit return system with deposit certificates. A deposit refund system would mean practical difficulties and an extensive administration with limited effects on overall collection rates and limited environmental benefits. The inquiry's conclusion is also that the most important improve- ment is increased reuse. The inquiry has also shown that users emphasize other measures than a refund as important for them when it comes to collection of WEEE from small products The inquiry's assessment is therefore that additional measures other than a deposit refund system are required to help solve the problems identified. Our conclusion is that increased information, more secure collection and an increased focus on reuse and the preparation for reuse would lead to greater environmental benefits at a lower cost. At the same time as this inquiry, Commission is investigating the possibility of introducing take back schemes for WEEE from small products, for example deposit refund systems. Therefore, it may be a good decision to await the assessments made within the EU, in order not to risk introducing a relatively com- plicated system in . The ongoing work with developing a product passport may also influence the opportunity to introduce a deposit refund system in the future. EU has also started the work with developing sustainability principles for, among other things, EEE. These are intended to result in requirements for resource-efficient products in the Eco-design Directive. It is the inquiry's assessment that a deposit refund system would occupy a large part of both the producers 'and the authorities' resources. This could mean that the chance of developing re-use or influencing the EU's work on resource efficiency would be reduced. The inquiry proposes that the government introduce requirements in the Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and elec- tronic equipment regulating that: •The operator of a collective scheme for WEEE must ensure that the collection is done in such a way that preparation for reuse is possible for waste that can be prepared for reuse. •A producer must work for users of EEE to have good opportunities for reuse. The requirement applies to EEE that is suitable for reuse. •A producer must use financial incentives and other incentives to an extent that is appropriate, so that those who have WEEE can fulfil their obligation to sort and handle WEEE in accordance with the (2020:614). The incentives must be such that they do not counteract an efficient use of resources. •The operator of a collective scheme must take appropriate mea- sures to inform waste holders of private household WEEE regarding 1.the benefits of taking waste prevention measures, 2.the obligation to sort out WEEE and where sorted WEEE is collected, 3.the collective schemes responsibility for a safe collection and handling of the waste collected, and 4.what the opportunities for recycling WEEE are and what environmental benefits it provides. •A producer must ensure that users of EEE receive information about how equipment, with locally stored personal information, can be factory reset and how the locally stored personal information can be erased. In order to meet the minimum requirements of Article 8a of the , the inquiry proposes that the Government adapt certain amendments and additions to the Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic equipment. •When calculating the financial contribution paid by a producer to a WEEE collective compliance scheme the quantity of products placed on the market should be taken into consideration. The financial contribution should cover the costs necessary to pro- vide waste management services. •A producer placing EEE for users other than private households, on the market needs to have the necessary financial means to provide waste management services for WEEE. •Producers and collective compliance schemes should have an adequate self-control mechanism to appraise the quality of data collected and reported and compliance with certain requirements. •Producers and collective compliance schemes should make pub- licly available information regarding the attainment of the waste management targets referred to in the Ordinance on producer responsibility for electrical and electronic equipment. •When the financial contributions paid by a producer to a WEEE collective compliance schemes are calculated, the regulation by the regarding modulation of the financial contributions should be taken into consideration. The inquiry also proposes that the Government gives an assignment to the , together with Statistics , to review objectives, statistics, and reporting requirements within the producer responsibility. The inquiry's assessment is that a deposit refund system for small EEEshould not be introduced. According to the inquiry’s directive, we however submit a proposal for a deposit refund system with a deposit certificate. The proposal is that if a deposit refund system is to be introduced, mobile phones that are regarded as private house- hold equipment should be included in the deposit refund system. The proposal is that when purchasing a mobile phone and paying the deposit a deposit certificate is received, which, together with the submission of a mobile phone that is waste, gives the right to a refund of the deposit. The deposit is proposed to be . Furthermore, it is the inquiry's proposal that a deposit refund system should be designed so that the producers of mobile phones are the ones re- sponsible for mobile phones being subject to a deposit at point of sale. The deposit is refunded by the collective scheme. The system is initially financed by the producers of mobile phones. Since there is an export of used mobile phones from , the deposit pay- ments are expected to be larger than the refunds after a few years, and a surplus can arise. How large this surplus will be and when it will arise is difficult to say, but it should be possible to use it for partially financing the deposit system. The inquiry also submits a legislation draft for a traditional de- posit refund system, but no detailed proposals in text. An improvement of the extended producer responsibility is expected to contribute to an increase in reuse of EEE and preparation for reuse of WEEE. The fact that equipment is reused and, in this way, can replace or delay, the consumption of new products means great en- vironmental benefits, both in reduced emissions of greenhouse gases but also in the form of reduced environmental impact from mining and extraction of metals. If a part of all the products that are no longer in use but are stored by households, can be reused instead, it would save large resources. The proposed information measures are expected to contribute to increasing knowledge about what WEEE is and how it should be handled, so that the stock of non-functioning products in house- holds and the presence of WEEE in the waste bin and other waste streams can decrease. The information measures are also expected to address the lack of knowledge regarding the collection of WEEE that contains locally stored personal information so that mobile phones, tablets, and laptops can be reused to a greater extent and left safely for recycling. The government assignment to the is expected to lead to goals that in the long run can increase the quality of the recycling of WEEE and better control over the flows of EEE and WEEE. In comparison with a deposit refund system, an improvement of the extended producer responsibility is expected to have positive effects on both reuse and collection for all electrical and electronic equipment, not just the collection of a specific product.