Global ELT Management – A global state ofknowledge on collection rates, recovery
routes, and management methods

January 2018
Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery
routes, and management methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery
routes, and management methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Contents
Executive summary

2

Glossary of terms used

4

Introduction

6

Context and objectives of the ELT project ............................................... 6
Objectives of this study ........................................................................ 6
Methodological approach....................................................................... 7

State of Knowledge on targeted Regions/Countries

9

Methodology on data collection, consolidation and limitations .................... 9
Summary and cross-analysis of the ELT markets .................................... 13
Regulation or intervention of public authorities ....................................... 14
Summary for each region/country ......................................................... 22
Argentina

22

Australia

23

Brazil23

Canada

24

China

24

Europe (ETRMA scope)

25

India

25

Indonesia

26

Japan

26

Malaysia

27

Mexico27

Morocco28

New Zealand

28

Russia29

Saudi Arabia

29

South Africa

30South Korea

30

Thailand31

Ukraine31

United States

32

State of Knowledge on Recovery Routes

33

Summary and cross-analysis of Recovery Routes .................................... 33
Focus on some Recovery Routes ........................................................... 33
Analysis of Recovery Routes by country/region ....................................... 34

Conclusion of the SOK phase
0136

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Executive summary
Deloitte was commissioned by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in the context
of the Tire Industry Project to conduct this study and prepared the present report. This report has been
submitted and published by WBCSD.
The purpose of this State of Knowledge (SOK) phase is to get an overview of the current ELT management
systems for a selection of 51 countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe (countries coveredby ETRMA scope - European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers' Association)1, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia,
Mexico, Morroco, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine and USA
which cover 89% of vehicles in the world (Source: OICA, [Organisation Internationale des Constructeursd'Automobiles], 2015 data).
The results of the study presented in this report are based on information collected via literature review andinterviews with TIP members as well as a variety of different external stakeholders. The quantitative data on
ELT management presented in this study needs to be interpreted in relation with the methodologicalassumptions and limitations.
The main ways in which to recover ELTs have been grouped into the following categories: material recovery,
energy recovery, civil engineering and backfilling. The total amount of ELT recovered in the 19 countries andthe region of Europe (ETRMA scope) is estimated to be more than 17,000 kilotons per year, while the amountof ELT generated is estimated to be more than 25,000 kilotons. The countries and regions that recover thelargest quantities of ELTs are China, United States and Europe (ETRMA scope), while Canada has the highest
recovery rate (111%2), followed by India (98%) and South Korea (95%).
Different ELT management systems exist: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system or take-backobligation system, government responsibility financed through a tax, and free-market system. In practice,hybrid systems can be implemented and other variants of these systems also exist, such as the ProductStewardship Scheme in Canada. However, a minimum level of intervention from the government is usuallynecessary in order to properly develop the ELT recycling industry.
Energy recovery can be a particularly efficient way to deal with high volumes of ELTs and eliminate long-standing
stock piles, because it is generally technically straightforward to implement and can be deployed on a large
scale to achieve relatively quick pay-back for the initial investment. The use of ELT as an alternative fuel is also
encouraged to reduce CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, as a general trend, once a country has established a moremature approach to ELT management, material recovery is often supported through policy-making. Although
the production of rubber granulates and powder requires higher process costs as well as demanding efforts to

AUSTRIA; BELGIUM; DENMARK; FINLAND; FRANCE; GERMANY; GREECE; IRELAND; ITALY; LUXEMBOURG;NETHERLANDS; NORWAY; PORTUGAL; SPAIN; SWEDEN; SWITZERLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; BULGARIA; CROATIA;CYPRUS; CZECH REPUBLIC; ESTONIA; HUNGARY; LATVIA; LITHUANIA; MALTA; POLAND; ROMANIA; SERBIA; SLOVAKIA;SLOVENIA; TURKEY.
1

According to CATRA, all ELTs are recovered. Annual recovery rates exceed 100% when there is a delay in treatment fromone year to another. The rate in 2014 was below 100%, which explains a rate greater than 100% in 2015.
2

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates,
recovery routes, and management methods, January 2018. Published June
2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, andmanagement methods

create new partnerships with other secondary end-user industries, it also generates products with greater
added-value and has better environmental performance in terms of resource saving and emissions reduction.
Overall, 86% of the ELT recovered (in tons) by the countries/regions included in our study are concentrated in
two Recovery Route sub-categories: production of tire-derived material (TDM) with 33%, tire-derived fuel (TDF)with 31%, in addition to one specific Recovery Route: reclaim rubber (22%). It must be noted that ELT tirederived fuel (TDF) recovery by cement kilns (with 2,796 kilotons) accounts for 16% of the overall recovery.
Although the two Recovery Route sub-categories (TDF and TDM) are rather well spread at the global level andused as one of the main Recovery Routes in a large number of countries, the production of reclaim rubber ismainly developed in Asian countries: China, Japan and Thailand. It’s the main Recovery Route in China (34%of the total domestic recovery market) that represents about 20% of the total ELT recovered (including civilengineering and backfilling) for the selected scope.
The remaining 14% of the market is mainly shared between pyrolysis & gasification and civil engineering &backfilling. Pyrolysis is one of the most important Recovery Routes in the following countries: China, Thailand,
Indonesia and Mexico, while it remains very marginal in other countries. The market for civil engineering &backfilling is concentrated in certain countries and regions: Australia, USA, Brazil and a few countries in Europe.
In particular, it represents 35% of the domestic market in Australia and 8% of the domestic market in USA,
which makes cost structure and business profitability significantly vary from one Recovery Route to another andfrom one region / country to another for a specific Recovery Route. Transportation generally represents animportant cost factor that can constitute a barrier for recycling in some countries that have a free market
system. Therefore, in countries where an eco-fee is collected, a significant part of it is usually allocated to cover
the transportation fees.
In addition, business profitability depends on the price of the TDF or TDM. The competitiveness of the TDF or
TDM is directly affected by the prices of competing products and materials. By making certain ELT recycling
markets more competitive, a subsidized system can then encourage the development of these markets. Anotherkey function of a subsidized system is to provide a certain level of economic security and stability to allow for
initial business development, as the prices of alternative materials may significantly vary in the short andmedium terms under unstable economic contexts. However, the overall trend in the long term is to reduce theeco-fees as the ELT recycling business becomes more competitive, encouraging self-sufficiency.

03

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Glossary of terms used
Civil engineering and backfilling: Recovery Route
where ELTs are recovered through civil engineering
applications (water retention and infiltration basins,
supporting walls, etc.) and through landfilling of mining
activities (tires that are shredded and mixed in with othergeological materials to reclaim sites that have been
mined out for example).
End of Life Tire (ELT): A tire that can no longer serve
its original purpose on a vehicle. This excludes used tires
that are retreaded, reused, or exported in used cars.
End of Life Vehicle (ELV): A vehicle that can no longer
serve its original purpose.
Energy Recovery: Recovery Route category where ELTs
are recovered as tire-derived fuel (TDF). For the purposeof this study, it was considered that 75% of ELT used in
cement kilns are recovered as energy. For ELT that arerecovered through unknown Recovery Routes, a 50/50
split has been made between energy recovery andmaterial recovery.
Material Recovery: Recovery Route category where
ELTs are recovered as a new material. It can be used to
produce tire-derived material (TDM) for instance. For the
purpose of this study, it was considered that 25% of ELT
used in cement kilns are recovered as material. For ELT
that are recovered through unknown Recovery Routes, a50/50 split has been made between energy recovery andmaterial recovery.
Off–The-Road tires (OTR tires): Tires used on large
vehicles that are capable of driving on unpaved roads orrough terrain. Vehicles include tractors, forklifts, cranes,
bulldozers, earthmoving equipment, etc.
Recovery Route (RR): A way of recycling ELTs either
through material and/or energy recovery. In otherwords, the end market or destinations of ELTs whenrecycled. For the purpose of this study, retreaded,reused, landfilled or stock-piled tires are not considered
as recycled.
Regrooving: Consists of cutting a pattern into the tire's
base rubber.
Retreading: Also known as recapping or remoulding.
Process of renewal of used tires for reuse in the domestic
market or for export by replacing the worn-out rubber
belts/ treads with new ones.

04

State of knowledge (SOK): A review and analysis of
the current information available on a topic. In thiscontext the aim is to provide an overview of the ELT
management systems in place including the ELT
collection rates, recovery routes, and management
methods.
Tire-derived material (TDM): Recovery Route subcategory. TDM is a product made from the recycledmaterial of ELT.
Tire Industry Project (TIP) members: Bridgestone
Corporation, Continental AG, Cooper Tire & Rubber
Company, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., Kumho Tire Company Inc.,
Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin,
Pirelli & C.S.p.A., Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.,
Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd., and The Yokohama
Rubber Co., Ltd.
Tire-derived fuel (TDF): Recovery Route sub-category.
TDF is ELT used as an alternative fuel to produce energy
through combustion (Energy Recovery). TDF also refers
to the fuels produced by a specific treatment of ELT (suchas pyrolysis). Although the cement Recovery Route isconsidered both energy and material recovery, it isincluded in TDF for the purpose of the report.
TOTAL ELT Generated (from available sources):Amount of ELT generated (in tons) according to the mostreliable and comprehensive source available.
TOTAL Recovered (excluding civil engineering andbackfilling): Amount of ELT recovered (in tons),
through material and energy recovery. This does notinclude any tires that are recovered for civil engineeringand backfilling, abandoned, landfilled or stockpiled.
TOTAL Recovered (including civil engineering andbackfilling): Amount of ELT recovered (in tons),
through material, energy recovery and civil engineering& backfilling. This does not include any tires that areabandoned, landfilled or stockpiled.
Types of vehicles:- Passenger cars: road vehicles excluding motorcycles
with a capacity of below nine people in total (i.e. nineseats or less - inspired by the OICA definition).
- Commercial vehicles: light duty commercial vehicles,
coaches, buses, heavy duty vehicles such as trucks(inspired by the OICA definition). These will also
include the OTR vehicles.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods-

Motorcycles: Two and three-wheeled motorized
vehicles including mopeds, scooters and motorcycles.

Used Tire (UT): This broader definition includes ELTs as
well as retreadable tires, second-hand tires and tires
exported with used cars.
Vehicles in use: all registered vehicles on the roadduring a given period specific date (inspired by the OICA
International
OrganizationofMotor
VehicleManufacturers - definition).

05

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Introduction
Formed in 2005, the Tire Industry Project (TIP) serves as a global,
voluntary, CEO-led initiative, undertaken by 11 leading tire companies withan aim to anticipate, identify, analyze and address the potential humanhealth and environmental impacts associated with tire development, use
and management through end of life. TIP is a proactive organization that
operates under the umbrella of the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) and is designed to advance sustainability
throughout the industry. Together, TIP member companies work to
anticipate, identify, analyze and collaborate on sustainability challenges
facing the industry, improve understanding of and educate about thesechallenges, and develop potential solutions for a more sustainable future.

Context and objectives of the ELT project
The tire industry recognizes that there are both
opportunities and challenges associated with tire
manufacturing and sustainable development. By taking
an early look at industry issues, TIP works to more fully
understand environmental and health challenges
pertinent to the tire industry and formulate an approachfor making the industry more sustainable.
TIP has an objective to advance ELT Management
globally by engaging stakeholders in a process ofidentifying, sharing and implementing best practices.
Objectives of this study
This study has been conducted with the support of
Deloitte to collect and summarize current information on
ELT management practices and data for a selection of 51
countries.
There is fairly good knowledge of ELT management andpractices in Europe and countries such as USA, Japan,
and South Korea where the existence of regulatory
authorities and a trade association allows the collection
and consolidation of rather comprehensive data that canbe easily accessed, although there is still a diversity ofmethods used to obtain the data, with different
vocabularies and different scopes covered (in terms oftypes of tires). Those countries and regions are also theones with relatively mature ELT management systems
and best practices to share.

06

On the other hand, much less information is publicly
available in other key countries such as China and India,
in spite of their tire markets’ impressive growth. The lackof data availability can be explained by the lack ofmaturity of the existing ELT management systems andthe absence of actors at the national level in charge ofcollecting and consolidating the data. However, theopportunities for the future of ELT management at the
global level are tremendous in these countries. Poor
knowledge of statistics and ELT practices can be an
impediment to improving the local and global ELT
management.
In addition, very heterogeneous practices can beobserved in terms of ELT management from one country
to another in terms of legislative framework, networkorganization and present and future markets for
Recovery Routes. A better knowledge of these practices
will allow for the identification of good practices andopportunities for future collaboration with local
stakeholders.
Therefore, the purpose of this SOK is to provide an
overview of the current ELT management systems for aselection of 51 countries:
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe(countries covered by ETRMA scope - European Tyre &Rubber Manufacturers' Association), India, Indonesia,
Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morroco, New Zealand, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand,

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Ukraine and USA which cover 89% of vehicles in theworld (source: OICA, 2015 data)3.

audit nor validate the data collected from different
sources.

The main criterion used for the selection is the numberof vehicles in use. We ensured that the selection includes
the countries with the most important car markets,
representative of different geographical zones. We also
verified that the selection includes the most important
countries and regions for other criteria such as GDP and
population.

The quality of quantitative data collected on ELT
management varies from one country to another:

Methodological approach
It’s important to note that retreading and reusing tires
before they are disposed of as ELT is the best way to
reduce the environmental impacts and promote circular
economy. In some countries, retreaded and reused tires
are included in the official recovery rates. However,quantifying the amount of these tires reinjected in themarket is not always possible and the reliability of thedata can be questionable because assumptions are often
used regarding the number of times a tire can beretreaded/reused. For this reason, the data presented inthis study focuses only on ELT.
The results of the study presented in this report are
based on information collected via: literature review andinterviews with TIP members and external stakeholders.
A stakeholder mapping has been performed with TIP
members in order to include key stakeholders in our datacollection and consultation process. More than 70
stakeholders have been interviewed from 13 different
categories shown on Figure 1. During the interview
process, stakeholders were asked to provide insight andquantitative information regarding ELT generation andrecovery in the different countries/regions of our scope.
The findings presented in this report are solely based on
the data sources presented above. The purpose of thestudy is to capture the best knowledge possible with themeans and timeline defined for the project. Efforts havebeen made in order to avoid introducing biased opinions
in the data collected through the interviewees, bypresenting the most factual information possible andbeing transparent about the sources of information. It’s
important to note that the intention of the study is not toVehicles in use data obtaind from (2015) data published by
OICA (International Organization of Motor Vegicle
Manufacturers).
3

07





Countries where there isn’t any formalorganization in charge of the ELT management at
the national level generally suffer from a lack ofreliable consolidated data. Inconsistent datafrom different sources can be observed in thesecases.
Even in countries where official data is publishedby a formal, well recognized organization, they
still need to be interpreted with caution. For
instance, ELTs generated by ELV are not always
included in the consolidated data (see details in
Table 1. Level of confidence on the data used bycountry/region).

Another limitation is related to the share of ELTs fromillegal import, treated by illegal operators or neverdeclared by legal operators, which can constitute quite asignificant volume, even in countries with a mature ELT
system. The share is not included in the official
consolidated data where the volume of total ELTs
generated is underestimated and the recovery rate canbe overestimated.
In addition, it’s not unusual to obtain a recovery rate
higher than 100%, due to methodological limitations,
uncertainties and the effects of stock piles (see Canada).
Therefore, the data presented in this study needs to beinterpreted carefully. For more information regarding thelimitations, assumptions and scopes of the data collected
and consolidated in the study and the assessment of thedata reliability, please refer to the chapter “State ofKnowledge on targeted Regions/Countries”.
We would like to thank all of those who kindly
participated in the study, through interviews or by othermeans, supporting the completion of this project.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Tire and Rubber Trade
Associations and other relevant
End users (customer
organisation or representative
associations,of the tire industry
automobile club, logistic
TIP members (tirecompanies)
industry)
Public authorities(regulators,
governments, etc.)

Tire distributors(garages, warehouse
shops, etc.)
Supplier association for
the tire industry

More than70
interviews

Companies/associations that use
the TDF/TDM (cement industry,
steel industry, civil engineering,
power plants, etc.)

NGOs and otherassociations
Car manufacturers
Academics, researchers,
environmental experts

Tire recycling associations
ELT treatment facilities(granulators)
Producer
Responsibility
organization

Figure 1. Stakeholder interviewed

08

State of Knowledge on targeted
Regions/Countries
The purpose of this State of Knowledge (SOK) is to get an overview of thecurrent ELT management systems for a selection of countries: Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe (countries covered by ETRMA
scope - European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers' Association), India,
Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morroco, New Zealand, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine and USA. This chapter
will summarize this SOK based on the twenty individual reports.
Methodology on data collection, consolidation andlimitations
As stated in the Introduction, the information presented
in this chapter has been collected through two main
approaches:
1. Literature review such as public studies, public
databases and statistics, academic studies,
existing and emerging regulations, etc.
2. Stakeholder consultation process based oninterviews. In some cases, mainly for language
barriers, the information was collected via
written feedback after an interview guide wassent to the interviewee.
In order to obtain the most reliable data possible, thedifferent sources of information (if applicable) have been
compared and the principal interviewees were requested
to validate key findings.
For the purpose of comparing the different countries’
performances in terms of ELT management, a set ofdefinitions and scopes have been defined. For thisreason, the data available in the different sources has
been adjusted when necessary in order to align thedefinitions and scopes with those used in this study. The
definitions (such as what is excluded/included in ELT) is
explained in the chapter “Glossary of terms used” of thisdocument. Nevertheless, the following elements must be
taken into account when analyzing the data included inthis study:- The following is NOT considered as ELT and will
therefore be excluded from data: retreadable tires,
second-hand tires and tires exported with used cars. Thischange in scope is the main reason why some of the

Recovery Routes communicated in the study may varyfrom the source data.

- When possible, the most recent source of data (mostly2015) has been used. However, it’s important to notethat not all of the countries have data corresponding to
the same year. No extrapolations have been made foralignment to a given base year.
- When available, the unit used to measure ELT
management indicators is metric tons. Conversions
between short tons (USA) to metric tons or from numberof units to tons have been made where necessary. Data
regarding ELT generation in Mexico and India are
available in number of tires and not in tons. An
estimation of 10kg/tire has been used for Mexico and an
average of 8kg/tire in the case of India.
- The ideal target scope for this study includes all typesof tires: passenger car, truck, and airplane, agricultural,
two and three-wheel as well as off-the-road (OTR) tires.
Nevertheless, the data presented hereafter is limited tothe scope of each source of data found. Passenger cars,
bus tires and truck tires are included in all of thecountry/region data (these are the most significant
quantities in terms of units of ELT generated). OTR tires(an important category because of the significant weight
per tire) and the other categories are not always includedin the source data. The completeness of data withregards to our target scope is evaluated in eachcountry/region report. Where possible, the missing ELT
categories are specified. See Table 1 for details.

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management
methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods- In order to help the reader assess the degree of
reliability of the data, a level of confidence on data isexpressed by a color code () depending on its
reliability. Please refer to Table 1 for more details. A crossanalysis of data consistency between different sources
has been performed to conclude the data reliability.
Regarding the quantity of ELT generated, the datacollected at the local level has been compared with thedata estimated based on the number of vehicles in use
published by OICA (2015 data). In case of significant
inconsistency and where the level of credibility is deemed
equal, the data which gives the lower recovery rate isused as a precaution to avoid overestimation.
- In order to further analyze the consolidated data, thedifferent Recovery Routes have been grouped within the4

Based on ETRMA, End-of-life Tire Report 2015.

10

following three categories: material recovery (excluding
civil engineering & backfilling), energy recovery and civilengineering & backfilling. Although for some Recovery
Routes, the split between material and energy recovery
is debatable, we have calculated the tons of ELTs
recovered based on the following assumptions:
•
•
•

•

Tons of ELTs used in cement kilns: 75% energy
recovery and 25% material recovery4;
Steel production (except when ELT is burnt as a
TDF): 100% material recovery;
Pyrolysis: 100% material recovery;
When recovered through an unknown Recovery
Route, or when data available regarding
exportation of shredded tires: 50% energy
recovery and 50% material recovery.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Table 1. Level of confidence on the data used by country/region

Country

11

Level of confidence in data

ELT categories missing or exluded fromsources

Australia

Data from recognized source with a robust consolidation
methodology

The source does not mention if the ELV tires
are included. Exported for reuse andretreading was exluded

CanadaData from recognized source with a robust consolidation
methodology

Data does not include OTR tires and exports(retreading was excluded)

EuropeData from recognized source with a robust consolidation
methodology

Data does not include the ELV tires

Japan

Data from recognized source with a robust consolidation
methodology

Data does not include imports of ELT.
Retreaded tires were exlcluded

South
Korea

Data from recognized source with a robust consolidation
methodology

No apparent gap

USA

Data from recognized source with a robust consolidation
methodology

Data does not include OTR, agriculture tires,
aircraft tires and bicycle tires

Argentina

Data from different well recognized sources based on
estimations, but remain consistent

Imported vehicles, OTR, agriculture tires,
aircraft tires and bicycle tires

BrazilData from different well recognized sources based on
estimations, but remain consistent

The source does not presice if the ELV tires
are included

China

Data from a recognized source based on estimations

Passenger cars, trucks and light vehicles
included (retreading excluded)

MexicoData from different well recognized sources based on
estimations, but remain consistent

Data does not take into account the illegal
importation of ELT

MoroccoData from a well recognized source based on estimations

No scope detailed in source

New
Zealand

Data from a well recognized source based on estimations
but consistent with other sources.

No apparent gap

RussiaData from different well recognized sources based on
estimations, but remain consistent

Data does not include the ELV tires

South
AfricaData from a well recognized source based on estimations

Data does not include OTR tires and exports

ThailandData from a well recognized source based on estimations

Imported vehicles, OTR, agriculture, aircraft
and bicycle tires. Export and import ofretreaded tires were excluded.

India

Data estimated by interviewees during the interview
process. This is considered the best available data.

No apparent gap

Indonesia

Data estimated by interviewees during the interview
process. This is considered the best available data.

Data does not include the ELV tires

Malaysia

Data based on estimations and inconsistent with othersources. This is considered the best available data.

No scope detailed in source

Saudi
ArabiaData estimated by interviewees during the interview
process. This is considered the best available data.

No scope detailed in source

Ukraine

Data based on estimations and inconsistent with othersources. This is considered the best available data.

No scope detailed in source

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Countries ordered firstly by color coded level of confidence in data and then alphabetically within each of the three levels

12Summary and cross-analysis of the ELT markets
There are many different ways to recover ELT that canbe grouped into the following three categories:

Material recovery
Energy Recovery
Civil engineering and backfilling: tires canalso be used in 1) civil engineering as water
retention basins, tire derived aggregates for road
construction, etc., and 2) as backfilling (landrehabilitation or backfilling in mining sites). Thisdistinct category is made because it is debatable
whether these two ELT end-sources should beconsidered as a means to recycle tires (especiallywhen referring to backfilling in mining sites).

According to the data collected during this study, thetotal amount of ELTs recovered in the 19 countries andthe European (ETRMA scope) region amounts toapproximately 17,158 kilotons per year and 17,712
kilotons per year if we consider civil engineering andbackfilling as a Recovery Route. The overall amount of
ELT generated in these countries is estimated to be
25,676 kilotons.
The countries that recover the most ELTs in volumes are
China, India, United States and Europe as illustrated in
Figure 2.

However, the number of ELTs recovered per year in agiven country needs to be put into perspective with theamount of ELTs generated. The recovery rate (Total tonsof ELT recovered / Total tons of ELT generated) seems tobe the best indicator to analyze the performance of the
ELT market in a given region.
For this study, two different recovery rates are calculated
depending on whether “civil engineering and backfilling”
is considered as a Recovery Route. In the recovery rate
where it is not considered as such, the amount would beconsidered as non-recovered or equivalent to landfill
disposal. The distinction is made since considering thesetwo ELT end-markets as a means of material recovery is
debatable (especially when referring to backfilling in
mining sites).
As can be seen in Figure 3, in Australia, where nearly 126
kilotons of ELTs are backfilled in mining sites each year,
the recovery rate drops from 65% to 31% when taking
the most conservative approach.
According to the collected information, Canada has thehighest recovery rate (111% in 2015) since according to
CATRA (the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling
Agencies), all ELT are recovered. Annual recovery rates
exceed 100% when there is a delay in treatment. The
rate in 2014 was below 100%.
India has the second highest recovery rate (98% in2015) with around 60% of the recovery done on informal
secondary markets such as artisanal products, use on
fishing boats, roofs-tops or swings. According to ATMA
(Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association), ELT areseen as a valuable material in India. In the future, in thecontext of a growing middle class, this Recovery Ratemight decline.
South Korea’s recovery rate was 95% in 2015 with 157
kilotons of energy recovery and 94 kilotons of material
recovery. Europe’s recovery rate (ETRMA scope) was
91% in 20155 with 1,670 kilotons in material recovery,
1 097 kilotons in energy recovery and 122 kilotons in civilengineering, public works and backfilling.

Figure 2. Total ELT recovered in the scope and distribution bycountry/region.

Unlike ETRMA statistics for overall recovery rates, this study
focuses on End of Life Tires rather than Used Tires.
Consequently quantities processed through retread, reuse and5

ELT recycling markets worldwide are mainly driven by theregulatory context in each country. Government
regulations are enacted to address environmental issues
related to illegal dumping or importation of ELT as wellas historical stock piles leading to public health andsanitary issues (e.g. fire hazards, breeding ground forexport are not included in the scope for this study, effectively
reducing the recovery rate.

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management
methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

mosquitoes and vermin, and the current issue of the Zika
virus etc.).

In some countries, the role of the government is limited
to the organization of the ELT stakeholders, or can be
moreinterventionist
regardingfinancialandtechnological development of the sector. Globally
speaking, the development of ELT recycling markets isstill quite recent. Although some Recovery Routes are
more profitable than others and examples of successstories exist in some regions (i.e. in the state ofCalifornia), taken as a whole, the ELT market has been
struggling to be profitable and self-sufficient. Financial
support with a formalized ELT management system isvery often an important factor to increase thecompetitiveness of the industry and achieve highrecovery rates.
Different ELT management systems exist at the national
level. Within the scope of our study, three main systems
have been identified:
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system ortake-back obligation system: In this system theresponsibility for collecting and ensuring treatment of
ELT is imposed on the actors that put new tires onto themarket (tire manufacturers and importers) through an
eco-fee. This is a very common configuration in European
countries, and is also used by Brazil, South Africa andSouth Korea and recently by Russia as well as Ukraine(where the implementation are still ongoing).
The system usually involves these actors setting up a
non-profit organization (or Producer Responsibility
Organization) that manages the collection and recoveryof the end of life product. The extra cost is generally
passed onto the consumers, with an environmental fee(eco-fee) added to the product price.
Government responsibility financed through a tax:
In this system, the responsibility lies with the state andcollection and recovery are financed by a tax on
production which is passed on to the consumer. The few
countries that run such a system include, Denmark,Slovakia and Croatia (in the Europe ETRMA region).

Figure 3. Recovery rates by country/region

Regulation or intervention of public authorities
A minimum level of intervention from the government isvery often necessary in order to properly develop the ELT
recycling industry.

14

Free market system: In this system, the state orfederal legislation may set action plans (qualitative
objectives) or obligations to have an ELT Management
Plan (e.g. Mexico), however responsibility (eco-tax or
eco-fee) is not imposed upon particular actors. The
countries with this system are Argentina, China, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Saudi
Arabia, Thailand and the United States.
A comparative table of the different ELT management
systems/schemes is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparative table of ELT management systems/schemes

01Free market
systemResponsible actor(s)GovernanceFunding

Under a free market system,
the legislator enacts
objectives to be met,
however there are no
responsible parties
directly designed.

Usually no dedicatedorganization, ELT issues arecovered by more generalwaste-related regulation andgovernance system.

No regulated eco-fee
collected for ELT
management; free market

02
Tax system

The State is responsible
overall for the organization of
ELT management andremunerates the operators in
the recovery chain.

- Minimum State intervention- Less Producer involvement- Market forces being the main driver for ELT
management, i.e. the most mature and costeffective Recovery Routes representing the biggest
share of the market;

However, the existence of anindustry association in
charge of promoting
responsible ELT management
is common practice

Under a tax system, theState is responsible for ELT
recovery.

Key features- Cooperation of companies on a voluntary basis
to promote best practices- More difficult for more environmentallyfriendly Recovery Routes to develop, if noteconomically interesting at the beginning

ELT management financed
through a tax levied ontire manufacturers andimporters and paid to theState, and subsequently
passed on to consumers.

- The State guarantees a level playing field by
enforcing the same product standards on all tire
producers;- Taxes may have the effect of favoring moreenvironmentally-friendly Recovery Routes (e.g.

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods, January 2018. Published June
2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

material recovery over energy recovery) andprohibiting landfill.

03
Extended
Producer
Responsibility(EPR) system

The producer of tires(manufacturer orimporter) is held
responsible by law toorganize the ELT
management, with targetedvolumes defined based on
the quantities of tires put
onto market

Producers can either set up
their individual
management system orgather to set up a Producer
Responsibility Organization(the latter representing the
majority of cases).

The Organization is in chargeof managing the collection andrecovery of a volume of ELT
defined by regulation.

ELT management financed
through an eco-fee on
manufactured and imported
tires, paid by Producers,
usually passed on to
consumers- Cost optimization enabled by the creation of
Producer Responsibility Organizations- Better data traceability through reporting
obligations- Better transparency on how the eco-fee is used

The amount of the eco-fee
depends on the cost related
to ELT management andthe secondary markets. It
usually decreases overtime, as the ELT
management gets more
and more mature andeconomically efficient.

- Producer Responsibility Organization having
the flexibility to determine the most costeffective solutions to recover ELT or to favor themost sustainable options- Lack of competition in some countries for the
ELT market with the creation of Producer
Responsibility Organizations

In practice, hybrid systems can be implemented. For instance, the United States operates generally under a free market system, however some States
can spontaneously influence markets with grants, taxes and subsidies.
In addition, other variants of these systems also exist. For example, in Canada, a Product Stewardship Scheme has been implemented. Under thisscheme, an eco-fee is paid by the Producers (passed on to consumers), however they are not directly in charge of the ELT management. A governancestructure with a stakeholder advisory board constituted of various stakeholders representing the tire industry and municipal interests, environmental
interests, professional engineers, etc. They are in charge of allocating the funds to support the development of the most promising Recovery Routes. A
strong focus has been put on material recovery options.
The free market system presented above refers to countries where a legal structure has been defined for ELT management. In countries with weakregulation or non-existing regulation related to ELT management, the recycling market may still be freely developed with an important proportion of
informal sectors on a small scale when ELT represents a source of value, leading to illegal operations with sanitation, environment, fire and safety risks.

16

Whenever an EPR system or Product Stewardshipprogram exists, there is usually an organization at
national/state/province level in charge of the ELT
coordination. Similar organizations exist in a free market
system when legal regulation requires coordination
between actors (such as the Mexican Management Plans
for example). Usually, these organizations are created by
the tire manufacturers.
The eco-fees or taxes, paid by manufacturers or
consumers, are therefore used by the dedicatedorganization to finance the following activities:















Collection, transportation,
shredding/granulation, gate fee for granulators;
Development grants and loans, R&D andpartnerships to develop new markets forrecycling;
Subventions to encourage certain Recovery
Routes that would not be profitable otherwise;
The construction of treatment plants that in turnare sold on at a low price in order to increase
recycling capacity and decrease the initialinvestment costs for recyclers (e.g. South
Africa);Public awareness raising;
Stockpile abatement (e.g. New Jersey, New York,
USA) and illegal dump site cleanup (e.g. in the
USA);
ELT
programmanagement(licensing,enforcement, inspections), administration of ELT
collection (e.g. in the USA);
Tire fire cleanup (e.g. in Arizona, USA);
Mosquito control (e.g. in Florida, USA);Air pollution control (e.g. in California, USA).

Of course, how the fees are used can vary from one
system to another. In free markets, there is a greater
focus on raising public awareness in order to respect thecompetitiveness of the market. In more interventionist
systems, regulations will favor some Recovery Routes
over others (for example, material recovery over energy
recovery for Russia, the EU, Canada, South Korea, andCalifornia in the USA).
There can be issues related to competitiveness whendifferent systems are set up in broader regions. For
instance, French granulators benefit from the financial
support with the eco-fee paid by tire manufacturers(collection fee, gate fee), while the ELTs are managed
under a free market principle in Germany.
In case of a free market, energy recovery can be a very
efficient way to deal with high volumes of ELT since it
helps to get rid of long-standing stockpiles easily andrequires relatively low investment. This is because whole,cutorshredded tires can be directly used as an alternative fuel.
Figure 4. Lansink’s Waste Hierarchy Ladder

Nevertheless, as a general trend, once a country has
established a more mature approach to ELT
management, material recovery is often supported
through policy-making. This evolution is in line with thewaste hierarchy “ladder” (see Figure 4) and Circular
Economy principles. This option is considered preferable
in terms of environmental impact assessment andresource efficiency.
Although material recovery might require more initialinvestments, R&D efforts or partnerships with actors
from new industries, it also generates products withhigher added-values.
The ideal long-term vision for the ELT industry would be
to find new or existing markets for ELT recycling that
could help prioritize high-value products in order togenerate enough revenue for the industry to be selfsufficient.
Some countries have very low awareness of theenvironmental and public health risks related to ELTs,
including the public authorities themselves. An importantvolume of tires is therefore simply dumped on the side of
the road or abandoned in fields. There is also a
considerable but unquantifiable amount of ELTs burnt orcommercialized in black markets. This results insquandering of resources and a catastrophic impact onenvironment and public health through mosquito
transmitted-diseases, fire hazards, or lack of pollution
abatement system, etc. In these countries, thegovernment has a crucial role to play. A push from public
policy makers is needed in order to educate the generalpublic and public officers and set up a system to deal with
ELTs properly. Likewise, it is key to enforce sanctions ofillegal activities and provide adequate investment for the
resources needed to carry out inspections and enforce
regulations.

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management
methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Developing countries often lack high technology recycling
factories, expertise, technical know-how and facilities tohandle ELTs. These countries could use the support from
more experienced actors in developed countries in orderto leapfrog to a successful ELT market.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the tons of ELTs generated
by country/region and the way that these ELT have been
recovered according to the three main categories:
material recovery, energy recovery and civil engineering& backfilling.

18

6

6 order to align definitions and units. Please refer to the limitations of this chapter.
This information
has beenmodifiedsome countries
Figure5. ELT Generation
and recovery
byfor
country/region(map)in

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods, January 2018. Published June
2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

China

RussiaCanada0.4

Europe0.7

UkraineUnited States

0.2

3.2

10.3
3.5

MoroccoSaudi
Arabia0.1

Mexico

0.3

Japan
South
Korea

0.9

0.3

India

0.3

Thailand

2.8

0.5

Malaysia
0.3

Indonesia
0.6

Brazil0.5

Coverage by region: vehicles in use (inthousand units), 2015 - Source: OICA

Regions

Total
Vehicles inuse

Argentina

Vehicles in
use forcountries
covered Coverage

EuropeNAFTA (Canada,
Mexico, US)
Central & Latin
America
Asia/ Oceania/
Middle East

387,519

380,17898%

324,763324,763100%

88,96256,48063%

436,222368,91985%

Africa44,803

13,17029%World1,282,270

1,143,510

89%

20

Australia

TOTAL

South Africa

0.4

0.2

0.1

2%

ELT categories
Civil Engineering and backfilling
Energy recovery
Material Recovery

20%

31%

25.6

Other (not recovered - landfilled,
stockpiled or unknown)

Units: Million tons (metric)

47%

New Zealand
0.04

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Figure 6. ELT Generation and recovery by country/region (graph) 6

21

Summary for each region/country
A brief summary of the current state and local context surrounding ELT management in each country/region is given
below. The countries are listed in alphabetical order.

Argentina

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management
methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Australia

Brazil23

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

CanadaChina

24

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Europe (ETRMA scope)

India

25

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Indonesia

Japan

26

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Malaysia

Mexico27

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

MoroccoNew Zealand28

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

RussiaSaudi Arabia

29

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

South Africa

South Korea

30

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

ThailandUkraine31

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

United States

32

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

State of Knowledge on Recovery
RoutesThe purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of the State ofKnowledge (SOK) on the main Recovery Routes that exist worldwide for
ELT which have been divided into six different categories according to theend markets: Tire Derived Fuels (TDF), including ELT used in cement kilns,
pulp and paper mills, and ELT burnt as fuel for energy generation, pyrolysis& gasification, civil engineering & backfilling, steel production, reclaim
rubber, Tire Derived Materials (TDM), such as ELT in the form of granulate
and powder used for the production of new tires, playground mulch, sports
surfaces, molded objects, shoes, etc.
Summary and cross-analysis of Recovery Routes
A brief summary of the current state of knowledge is
given below.
Overall, 86% of the ELT recovered (in tons) by thecountries/regions included in our study are concentrated
in three main categories of Recovery Routes: productionof TDM with 33%, TDF (31%), and reclaim rubber (22%).
It must be noted that cement recovery (with 2,796
kilotons) accounts for 16% of the overall recovery (or51% of TDF). Although the two first categories (TDF andTDM) are rather well spread at the global level and used
as one of the main Recovery Routes in a large number ofcountries, the production of reclaim rubber is mainly
developed in Asian countries: especially China, and inother countries such as India, Japan and Thailand. it’s
the main Recovery Route in China (34% of the total
domestic recovery market) that represents about 88% of
the total reclaimed rubber in the scope of the study and
20% of the total ELT recovered (including civilengineering and backfilling).
The remaining 14% of the ELT recovered (in tons) by thecountries/regions included in our study is mainly shared
between pyrolysis & gasification and civil engineering &backfilling. Pyrolysis is one of the most important
Recovery Routes in the following countries: China,
Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand, while it remains very
marginal in other countries. The market for civilengineering & backfilling is concentrated in certain
countries and regions: Australia, Brazil, the USA and a
few countries in Europe. In particular, it represents 35%of the domestic market in Australia and 8% of the33

domestic market in USA, which makes up an importantvolume at the global level.
Currently, the use of ELT in steelworks represents lessthan 1% of the overall market for the studied scope. It
remains a marginal Recovery Route for all countries
reviewed.
Focus on some Recovery Routes
Cement recovery is very successful because of: 1) thecapability of cement plants to integrate importantvolumes of tires in the process either whole, cut or
shredded; 2) the fact that the cement companies often
have a grid of production sites distributed aroundcountries (which reduces the cost of transportation) and3) the fact that it is an economically viable market witha sufficient degree of technological development.
Therefore, cement plant operators can switch fromtraditional fuels to TDF depending on: 1) availability ofsupply and feasibility of logistics, 2) public authorization,3) amount of investment required.
Regarding material recovery, overall, the main products
and applications are granulates used for artificial turf
infill, playgrounds, and athletics tracks.
Some of the other material Recovery Routes such as
rubber modified asphalt (e.g. Brazil, ) and molded rubber
products (e.g.Brazil, Canada, India, USA) are becoming
increasingly significant; however, the development andimportance of these applications varies across the globe.
China is mainly using rubber powder for asphalt
applications, and the government has introduced a 50%
VAT reimbursement on the collection of ELT and on

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

retreaded tires and powdered rubber products matching
technical and quality criteria – such as the use of certain
raw materials or ISO accreditations (ISO 9000 for quality
and ISO 14001 for environment) – a financial incentive
to improve the environmental footprint of ELT recycling(CTRA, 2016).
One of the main difficulties in the promotion of new
Recovery Routes is convincing companies to use newmaterials other than those they are familiar with. The
rubber modified asphalt appears to be an appealing
option with interesting mechanical and physicalproperties. There is however a certain level of reluctancefrom more traditional actors in the road industry in somecountries to adopt the technical process required. The
principal obstacle is deemed to be the relatively higher
short-term cost and a lack of attention to the long-term
benefits of durability in particular. Life cycle analysis
should be conducted to analyze the full long-term costsof the different options.

Figure 7. Distribution of all energy recovery by country/region

For instance, in Australia, many tenders in theconstruction industry specify products rather thanoutcomes, which is an additional impediment toexpanding ELT in civil applications. Therefore, efforts are
required to find the right partners and support them inchange management.
Another difficulty is guaranteeing the quality of the TDM.
The lack of standardization in terms of quality
requirements can be an additional challenge to entering
new markets and convincing new actors. For instance,
the lack of product homogeneity and standardization forreclaim rubber is one of the reasons why this option is
not well developed at the global level.
Steel and fiber can be generated as standalone byproducts during the ELT granulation or other preparation
phases. The recycling of these by-products is not always
properly handled today, while there is an important
potential to be explored to get more profit from these byproducts, especially for steel that can be sold for a highprice.
Analysis of Recovery Routes by country/region
The distribution of all energy, material and civilengineering & backfilling by country/region is shown in
Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectfully.
Please note that the following Recovery Routes are
considered as material recovery in the followings figures:
pyrolysis and gasification, Steel production, reclaim
rubber, granulate and powder (TDM).

34

Figure 8. Distribution of all material recovery by country/region

ELT management | A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management methods

Figure 9. Distribution of all Recovery through civil engineering andbackfilling by country/region

Out of the countries studied, the most significant
quantities of ELT processed through material recovery indescending order are China (5,480 kilotons), India(2,095 kilotons), Europe (1,670 kilotons) and the USA(1,215 kilotons) (Figure 8).
For energy recovery the largest quantities are processedin the USA (1,616 kilotons), Europe (1,097 kilotons),
India (600 kilotons), Japan (579 kilotons), Indonesia(345 kilotons).
On a global scale, the market for civil engineering &backfilling is concentrated in few countries and regions:
USA (297 kilotons), Australia (129 kilotons), and Europe(122 kilotons).

35

Conclusion of the SOK phase
As expected, the performance of ELT management seems to be directly related to the existence/absence
and the level of maturity of a formal management system, especially those where one or several actor(s) arededicated to ELT management (generally associations created by government or tire manufacturers). The older thesystem (EPR or other) that was implemented, the better the performance is (in terms of collection rate, recycling
rate, etc.).
With over 25,676 kilotons (metric) of ELT generated in the 51 countries in the studied scope, approximately
17,158 kilotons of ELT are recovered (excluding civil engineering and backfilling). This would mean that
67% of ELTs are recovered (69% including civil engineering and backfilling). Generally speaking, themarket is still young with a high-potential for development, especially in countries such as Argentina, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Ukraine where recovery rates remain relatively low.
The study confirms the important role of governmental support for ELT management, for example, in the provisionof legal frameworks for the development of ELT markets.
According to the information collected during this study for the 51 countries (19 countries around the world and the
32 countries of ETRMA scope), 86% of the ELT generated are recovered in three categories of Recovery
Route: production of tire-derived materials (TDM) with 33%, tire-derived fuel (TDF) with 31%, andreclaim rubber (22%). It must be noted that cement recovery (with 2,796 kilotons) accounts for 16% of the overall
recovery. Although the two first categories (TDM and TDF) are rather well spread at the global level and used as oneof the main Recovery Routes in a large number of countries, the production of reclaim rubber is mainly developed in
Asian countries such as China and Thailand. It’s the main Recovery Route in China (34% of the total domestic
recovery market) that represents about 20% of the total ELT recovered (including civil engineering and backfilling)
for the selected scope.
The remaining 14% of the market is mainly shared between pyrolysis & gasification and civil engineering& backfilling. Pyrolysis is one of the most important Recovery Routes in the following countries: China, Indonesia,
Mexico and Thailand, while it remains very marginal in other countries. The market for civil engineering & backfillingis concentrated in certain countries and regions: Australia, Brazil, the USA and a few countries in Europe. In particular,
it represents 35% of the domestic market in Australia and 8% of the domestic market in USA.

U LIMITED ASSOCIATION.

Global ELT Management – A global state of knowledge on collection rates, recovery routes, and management
methods, January 2018. Published June 2018.