Artigoewaste thc120507finalizing

Sub-theme: 5.1 Technology Diffusion in developing countries

DOES ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FOSTER THE DIFFUSION OF COLLABORATIVE

INNOVATIONS? A STUDY ON ELECTRONICS WASTE REGULATIO N ON BRAZIL

Marília Tunes Mazon- - Center for Information Technology Renato Archer, Brazil

([email protected]). Economist and Bachelor in International Relations.

Adalberto Mantovani Martiniano de Azevedo- Center for Information Technology Renato Archer,

Brazil ([email protected]). Public Administrator, Master in Science and Technology

Policy and Doctor in Science and Technology Policy.

Newton Müller Pereira- Department of Science and Technology Policy, State University of

Campinas, Brazil ([email protected]). Professor at the Department of Science and

Technology Policy at State University of Campinas

Marco Antonio Silveira- Center for Information Technology Renato Archer, Brazil

([email protected]). Electronic Engineer, Master in Electrical Engineering, Doctor in

Management Systems.

Keywords: environmental regulation; collaborative innovation diffusion; electronics waste

management technologies

Introduction

The disposal of electronic waste (e-waste) is a growing problem faced by contemporary

societies. The spreading of electronics devices on almost all industrial and consumer goods,

combined to the rapid obsolescence of these products, has been the cause of this serious

problem intensification (Gregory et al, 2009). This kind of waste contains a variety of

toxic/hazardous substances, such as such as lead, mercury and cadmium. On the other hand,

e-waste contains valuable substances, including precious metals (gold, silver, palladium and

platinum)and industrial metals (copper, aluminium, nickel, tin, zinc, iron, and others) (Tsydenova

and Bengtsson, 2009).

It is reasonable to say that recycling e-waste is a requirement to protect the environment

(preventing pollution and saving precious and scarce minerals) and an opportunity to create

value. According to Manhart (2010) the price of metals widely used in electronics, such as

indium, antimony, tin, copper, silver, cobalt, and gold rose between 91% and 368% on the

period 2003-2007;1 the electronics industry consumption is an important factor on these

commodities prices rise, having consumed 79% of the 2006 total world´s mining output of

indium, 50% of all antimony, 33% of all tin, 30% of all copper and silver, 19% of all cobalt and

12% of all gold.

1 The problem with the raise on the profitability of e-waste recycling is that it stimulates informal activities which can cause harm to the environment and recyclers. This subject will be addressed in more detail in section 2.2.

Aiming to solve the e-waste problem and profit with the recycling of e-waste, developed

countries have adopted environmental regulations aiming to control e-waste disposal,

responsibilizing electronics producers for the end of life of their products. The more widely

known example of this kind of regulation is the European Community Directive EC 2002/96 on

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), established in 2006. Chien and Shih (2007)

interrelates WEEE Directives with the spread in the adoption of green supply chain

management practices by electronics producers, such as green manufacturing practices (green

design, recycling and reuse) and green purchasing practices (control lists of environmentally

hazardous substances, profiles for raw materials free of hazardous substances, assessment of

suppliers and auditing mechanisms).

The WEEE Directive prioritizes the prevention on the generation of e-waste followed by reuse,

recycling and other ways for recovering these wastes. The directive also recommends the

improvement on the environmental performance of all actors related to electronics products

lifecycle, by providing incentives to the recovery and economic valorization of wastes. WEEE

also prescribes duty of electronics producers to inform to society about components and

substances used in the electronics; to install and explore individual or collective e-waste

collection systems (including delivery points); to create systems for e-waste treatment using the

best practices to neutralize, valorize and recycle; to identify shared solutions together with other

e-waste generators.

More recently, developing countries are also taking actions aiming to create e-waste

regulations. In many cases, the adoption of some e-waste regulation requires the development

of indigenous technology or the adoption of imported technologies, from countries that

pioneered on the establishment of regulations.2 These include production technologies (such

as ecodesign), recycling technologies, reverse logistics management technologies and lyfe

cycle analysis methodologies. Nevertheless, most of developing countries do not control state

of the art technologies (specially in recycling).

In Brazil, the National Policy for Solid Wastes is in force since 2010, and includes in its

objectives to incentive the “adoption, development and improvement of environmental

technologies as a way to minimize environmental problems”. The Policy (detailed in section 3)

adresses the problem of e-waste, but like other developing countries, there still no state of the

art e-waste recycling plant operating in Brazil, and complex fractions of e-waste are sent

abroad.

The technological gap in recycling technology have to be filled if developing countries want to

comply in a autonomous manner with e-waste management and treatment standards posed by

international regulations, that affects the competitiviness of national electronics industries. In

order to do this, besides its regulatory functions, government agencies can use incentives 2 It makes sense to say that developing countries “import regulations”, when adopt environmental regulations pioneerly adopted in developed countries (this also happens in a regional scale inside countries). It makes sense too to say that after importing regulations, these countries need to import technologies to comply with the new standards.

aimed to promote eco-innovations in national innovation systems. Some authors (Lehmann,

Christensen and Johnson, 2010; Hermann, Riisgaard and Remmen, 2011) utilize the term

sustainable innovation systems, based on the relationships industry-government-academy

suggested by triple helix models, where government environmental regulation can put the triple

helix in motion, not only by regulatory approaches, but also by stimulating the development of

sustainable innovations. Despite the fact that the literature on sustainable innovation systems is

focused on developed countries, the authors mentioned considers that these models can be

useful for developing countries as well.

This paper aims to check the applicability of the sustainable innovation system concept on

developing countries, verifying if them are suitable for such an approach, by means of a

comparative and investigative study, exploring how environmental regulations related to

electronics e-waste mobilize heterogeneous networks (academy, private companies and

government) for the generation and diffusion of sustainable innovations (including managerial

ones) designed for compliance with these regulations.3 A more detailed study, based on

legislation analysis and a survey of government, academy and companies actions is presented

for the case of Brazil.

The paper is composed of four sections, besides this introduction. The first section will be a

revision of theoretical studies on sustainable regional innovation systems, highlighting the

importance of networks on developing regulatory schemes and technologies for compliance.

The second section describe the regulation of e-waste and the arrangements that institutions

create to comply with the regulation in developed and developing countries, explaining some of

the key concepts and technologies related to e-waste regulations and technologies. The

Brazilian case is addressed in section 3, a survey on private companies, government and

academic institutions actions on e-waste management in Brazil. Section 4 presents the

conclusions of the paper.

1. Sustainable Innovation Systems: does regulation foster them?

1.1. Sustainable Innovation Systems

In order to achieve sustainable development objectives, collaborative networks between

government, private companies and academic institutions have gained a strong momentum in

recent times (Hemmati et al, 2002).4 This collaboration has delivered the development of

standards and measurement tools for environmental regulations, as well as technological

solutions for institutions that need to comply with more strict environmental requirements.

3 Other important mechanisms that can be used for compliance include Ecodesign/Design for Environment (Rose, 2000; Boks, 2006; Tingström e Karlsson, 2006) and new businesses models such as product-service systems (Umeda, Nonomura and Tomiyama, 2000; UNEP, 2002; Mont and Tuker, 2006; Borchardt, Sellitto e Pereira, 2010). Due to the lack of space, these subjects will not be addressed in this paper, that will focus on recycling technologies. 4 Hemmati et al (2002) report and briefly describe twenty cases of networks created in the 1990s aiming to achieve sustainability goals.

Some authors (Lehmann, Christensen and Johnson, 2010; Hermann, Riisgaard, Remmen,

2011) denominate these collaboration networks as Sustainable Innovation Systems, defined as

follows:

A Sustainable Innovation System is constituted by human, natural and social elements and relationships, which interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and socially, environmentally, economically and institutionally useful knowledge that contributes to sustainable production and consumption patterns. (Lehmann, Christensen and Johnson, 2010: 14)

These multi-stakeholder networks, considered by Lehmann (2008) a new form of governance, is

defined by Hemmati et al (2002) as a process:

The term multi-stakeholder processes describes processes which aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decision-finding (and possibly decision-making) on a particular issue. They are also based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders, involving equitable representation of three or more stakeholder groups and their views (Hemmati et al, 2002: 2).

Besides being normally of a local or regional nature, it is very common to multi-stakeholder

arrangements to be promoted by international organizations, requiring “[…] contractual

obligations and relations, as well as transfer of responsibility.” (Lehmann, Christensen and

Johnson, 2010)

In this new networked governance structure, either public and private sector organizations can

play a leadership role. Notwithstanding, academic institutions are very important in the creation

of new environmental regulations that require scientific and technological work in testing

laboratories and in the development of more complex and risky technologies.

According to Lehmann et al (2010), there are three kinds of partnerships in sustainable

innovation systems: a) collaborative projects; b) organizational learning systems; c) governance

networks.

Collaborative projects are those designed within a limited amount of time, and counting in a pre-

defined number of partnership members. Organizational learning systems are those with a

superior level of compromise, since the partnership members have larger opportunities for

implemeting changes in their organizations than in isolated collaborative projects. Governance

networks are related to more effective and immediate institutional changes that transform the

“rules of the game”. Nevertheless, governance changes cannot occur without trust between

partnership members and the hard work of a variety of actors, developing acceptable new rules

and, most important, playing accordingly to these rules. Also, frequently new governance

requires new technological solutions to fulfill the new governance structure objectives and

compromises.

To build sustainable innovation systems requires the introduction of and support for sustainable development at all levels (not only the level of the home region) as a responsibility and a political goal, and to support the establishment of new governance structures like public-private-academic partnerships with a sustainable agenda. (Lehmann, Christensen and Johnson, 2010: 15).

Charter and Clark (2007) consider indispensable to articulate connections between the

members of sustainable innovation systems, bridging together actors that contribute to more

effective knowledge transfer, innovative actions (including technological and market activities)

and knowledge about “real world” situations. Thus, it is recommended that the development of

eco-innovations be made together with efforts devoted to the creation of sustainable businesses

models that pushes forward new technologies and explores new markets.

The regulations on e-waste and arrangements for compliance described in the next item of this

paper suggest that it is desirable the participation of government, academic and private

institutions, as pointed out by the sustainable innovation systems model. The central point of the

description is to verify if interactions between these actors really occur. In order to do this, it is

necessary to understand in a more detailed manner who are the main actors, the

responsibilities put by regulation, and the differences between countries in technological and

institutional terms .

On the private sector case, regulations embraces manufacturers, importers, exporters, retailers

(brand new/second hand) and recycling factories. Indirectly related, other actors of importance

are distributors/vendors and services and logistic services.In the case of government, the

responsibility by the effectiveness of the regulation includes ministry institutions, certification

institutions an public facilities for collection and treatment of e-waste.

Academic institutions important for e-waste management schemes include universities and

research institutions that develop clean technologies, lyfe cycle analysis methods, ecodesign

techniques and technologies for desassembling, treating and recovering minerals from e-waste.

It is worth to remember that most of e-waste regulations foresees the development of clean

technologies as a necessary condition for e-waste management.

The regulation and management of e-waste can be considered one situation where universities

play crucial roles as “knowledge hubs”. It is important to point out that there are different types

of connections between academy and society: universities and research institutes provide

society with high skilled workers to companies; on the other side, companies provide problems

and practical knowledge for universities. In these processes, both types of institutions have

mediating roles on these interactions (Lehmann et al, 2005).

Next session will describe some e-waste policies and regulatory schemes in different countries,

investigating to what extent regulation puts in motion institutional articulations between

government, academy and private companies.

2. Regulations and technologies to solve the electr onics waste problem: from central

countries to the periphery

Yang and Percival (2009) point out a tendency towards the internationalization of environmental

regulations, by means of international environmental agreements and by the strengthening of

national environmental regulation all around the world.

Countries are transplanting law and regulatory policy innovations of others nations, even when they have very different legal and cultural traditions. Short of deliberate copying, many national regulatory initiatives also exhibit design and functional similarities that reveal a growing convergence around a few principal approaches to environmental regulation ( Yang and Percival, 2009: 616).

Environmental standards considered acceptable are always generated in developed countries,

them spreading to the rest of the world (Yang and Percival, 2009). Nevertheless, the

convergence and harmonization of environmental regulation happens in a world with profounds

economic and technological differences between countries. As regulation become common, the

technological gaps between developed and non developed nations increase the competitive

assimetries5 between these two worlds, specially acute in the case of global production and

commerce chains, such as electronics.

This convergence on environmental regulation combined to assimetric technology capabilities is

exactly the case of e-waste regulations and technologies. Although e-waste related regulations

are spreading in a variety of developing countries (see section 2.2.), the same can not be said

about e-waste recycling technologies. The gap in capabilities between developed nations and

developing ones is quite accentuated, specially on the recovering of some e-waste more

valuable metal fractions.

Manhart (2010) classifies technologies of e-waste recycling processing in three types: 1. Low-

tech, low yields, severe pollution type, that manually recovers easily accessible metals (steel,

aluminium copper, etc.) by collection, burning or smelting, disposing valuable and hazardous

metals on workers and the environment; 2. mid-tech, medium yields, extreme pollution type,

that allows the recovery of part (6% to 30%)6 of gold in e-waste by wet chemical leaching,

causing severe human and environmental contamination by chemicals; 3. high-tech, high yields,

low pollution type, installed in industrialized countries, combine mechanical and magnetic

pretreatment7 and metallurgic refining processes, with a minimum of manual labour, in

automatized smelters, electrolytic reactors and refining processes to recover metals ( copper,

gold, palladium, indium, antimony, tin, and silver) that can reach up to 95% of recovery. All

these high-tech systems are equipped with state of the art air pollution controls and wastewater

treatment, using the plastic that remains in the copper fraction as fuel for the process.

According to Manhart (2010), state of the art integrated smelters require investments above

US$ 1 billion, making evident the need for economies of scale in such units. According to the

authors, only a few plants of this kind exist in the world: Umicore (Belgium, a materials

technology company), Aurubis (Germany, a copper company), Boliden (Sweden and Finland, a

5 For a revision in the conceptions about the relationship between competitiveness and environmental regulation, see Jenkins (1998). 6 According to Manhart (2010) this low yeld does not viabilize formal businesses, and is “bound to informal conditions”. 7 The separation process, in large scale processes, requires cutting edge technologies. Santos e Souza (2010) relate a technology for separation that utilizes magnetic microelectronics sensors or high speed camerass to identify material separated with pressurized air.

mining company), Xstrata (Canada, another mining company), and Dowa (Japan, a Group with

mining and materials technologies companies).

The processing of e-waste relies on metallurgical and chemical processes, executed by large

scale facilities. As a process technology, it ususally requires a large scale of operations to be

economically viable. Thus, capacity in scaling up processes and basic engineering activities are

required. This capital and knowledge intensity of the recycling business is actually a barrier to

the growth of recycling systems in developing countries. As next sections will show, the

processing activities in these countries are, in the worst of the cases, back yard operations; in

the best cases, operations of dismantling and extraction of easily obtainable metals, such as

iron, aluminium and copper. Thus, it appears that the solution for developing countries is to

export non processable fractions to specialized and high yelds recovery units from abroad. In

this line of though, Manhart (2010) porpose an “international division of labor” for globally

solving the e-waste problem:

[…] a market-based management concept for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) known as the “best-of-two-worlds” approach. The concept is based on the idea that recyclers in developing countries and emerging economies can cooperate with technologically advanced refineries in industrialized countries to facilitate efficient recovery of valuable metals, such as gold and palladium, from e-waste.[…] the best-of-two-worlds concept could yield significant improvements in terms of management of hazardous substances, resource efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, income generation, and investments into social and environmental standards (Manhart, 2010: 13).

Bad news for the “best-of-two-worlds” approach advocates is that the viability of this e-waste

management business model is yet to be proved. Moreover, this approach fails to consider the

increase on technological dependence of developing countries, reproducing north-south

technological subordination relationships. Neither it considers that the environmental and

financial costs of exporting pre-processed e-waste could be prohibitive for developing nations,

making ineffective the local regulation and unviable the compliance with international regulation.

In this sense, the adoption (by indigenous development or international transfer) of smaller

scale technologies seems to be the fair solution to the global e-waste problem. In order to clarify

what kind of technology is feasible, prospective studies on technological solutions adopted by

developed countries (high tech and medium tech) are necessary to outline developing countries

strategies.

2.1. E-waste policies in developed countries

In face of market internationalization tendencies, the regulatory scheme of the European

Community have influenced, politically and economically, several other countries, cheafly big

electronic exporters. The next paragraphs briefly describe some policies adopted in developed

countries, as well as the institutional arrangements set up to compliance and some reflections

on both.

Magalini and Huisman (2007) point out some differences in national approaches for

implementation of the WEEE Directive in the European Union (EU). The creation of national

laws and the implementation of infrastructure for take-back and recycling systems were much

more easy in countries wth previous regulations and infrastructure (Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Netherlands, Sweden and others). Countries with no experience on this type of regulation and

no infrastructure (case of France, Italy, Cyprus and Malta) have had a greater difficulty on

implementing the WEEE directive. According to Tojo and Fischer (2011), EU countries with the

best performances on e-waste management had already well-established and effective e-waste

collection systems8 handled by municipalities, as well as legislation o e-waste.

These differences are attributed to assimetries on National States legislative requirements9 and

to the lack of agreement from stakeholders on the definition of responsibilities, reinforced by

lobbying activities by producers, retailers, municipalities, recyclers, consumers, among others.

For instance, in some countries it is acceptable to charge consumers a visible fee to cover costs

of e-waste management, but in many countries this is not allowed. The authors link the

difficulties in the management of e-waste to the variety of stakeholders involved, andt state that

the definition of financial responsibility is only one of the commitments involved. Thus, the

authors propose a scheme of responsibilities, based on a societal point of view (Chart 1):

Chart 1. Stakeholders and responsibilities on the e-waste operation chain

Stakeholder Responsibility Producers To inance operations and to design products tath reduce disassembly time. End Users Drive old products to collection, avoid putting small appliances in the

municipal solid wastes flow. Retailers Enable collection points, receive old equipment without requiring the

consumer to buy a new one. Municipalities Enable collection points, avoiding picking by third parties. National governments

Design compliance schemes to maximize collection and obtain scale economies. Provide framework addressing key responsibilities improves monitoring and control mechanisms.

Source: Adapted from Magalini and Huisman (2007)

In order to overcome political and technical difficulties related to WEEE implementation, since

2009 a private association of 41 European institutions of e-waste collection and recovery, called

WEEEForum, has been working on the development and diffusion of best practices for this

segment, including the creation of standards (WEEEForum, 2011). For instance, the

WEEELabex standardizes all e-waste operations chain:10 collection (take-back, handling,

sorting, storage, and set up for transport), logistics (handling, sorting, storage and transport)

and treatment (preparing for re-use, handling, sorting, storage and treatment of hazardous and

non hazardous fractions) (WEEEForum, 2011a; WEEEForum, 2011b; WEEEForum, 2011c).

The overall objective is to improve efficiency on all e-waste operations chains, reduce

environmental and human health damage, prevent illegal cross boundary transfers of e-waste,

8 For instance, the e-waste scheme in Netherlands, created in 1998, increased the e-waste collection from 2.26 kg per inhabitant in 1999 to 4.69 kg in 2002 (OECD, 2006). 9 According to Tojo and Fischer (2011), the WEEE Directive leaves a good degree of freedom for each member State to determine attributions such as responsibility of collection and financing, leading to diverse solutions combining producers, distributors and municipalities. 10 It is required for WEEEForum members to comply with these standards by 2013 (oldest members) and 2014 (more new members).

increase quantity and quality of e-waste recovered and promote fair competition between e-

waste operators.

According to Tojo and Fischer (2011), most of EU countries recycle in a high rate large

household appliances, consumer equipment and ICT equipment, with 11 countries with a

collection rate bigger than 30%. However, for products such as lighting equipment, toys,

monitoring and control instruments and tools, 14 countries achieve less than 10%. All countries

that achieved more than 50% collection rate (Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg) engaged

municipalities in e-waste management, and had previous regulations on e-waste.

The collection systems in developed countries are of two main types: collective systems, usually

directed by Third Part Organizations (TPOs) set up by industry; competitive clearing house

systems, directed by a central national coordination body that determines the collection

obligation of each producer. This second type of arrangement incentives more efficient systems

of collection, and stimulates more strongly the innovation developed by private companies. Also

it is common take-back systems, where retailers take old products when consumers buy new

products, being responsible by its final destination. Funding of the systems vary, and are mainly

a combination of consumers fees, subscribing contribution of member of the industry to TPOs

and contributions of electronics producers.

The institutions involved on e-waste management systems in developed countries are generally

formally stablished and supported in multi-institutional schemes that addresses the attribution of

responsibilities and funding mechanisms, including academic institutions that generate

technology. In these countries, formalized recycling institutions use advanced process

technologies that minimize environmental and occupational risks of this activity, maximizing

results. This situation is quite different in developing countries that are implementing e-waste

controls systems nowadays, as will be shown in section 2.2.

Next sub-sections wiil briefly show the e-waste management situation in some developed

countries with cases found on literature, describing regulations and institutional arrangements

set up for compliance.

2.1.1. Swiss

Three e-waste management systems exist since 1992: the Swiss Foundation for Waste

Management (SENS), the recycling section of the Swiss Association for Information,

Communication and Organization Technology (SWICO Recycling) and the Swiss Lighting

Recycling Foundation (SLRS). The Residues Management Foundation set up rules for

producers and importers. A Recycling Fee is charged on consumers (Franco, 2008; Wäger,

Hischier and Eugster, 2011).

2.1.2. Netherlands

The White and Brown Goods Decree, launched in 1998, created the extended producer

responsibility for electronics. Retailers take back used electronics in exchange for new ones,

producers take used products from retailers and provide transportation and recycling.

Municipalities command collection. Visible fees charged on consumers, who pay a take back

deposit when purchase new products; for computers equipment, costs are paid by

producers/importers that partially fund recycling companies (OECD, 2006; Rose, 2000).

2.1.3. Belgium

In 2001 the Third Part Organization (TPO)11 Recupel was organized by electronics

producers/importers, with support of municipalities in the organization of collection.

Producers/importers can choose either to joint Recupel (for which payment of administrative

fees is required) or set up individual e-waste management plans, submitted to government

approval. Fees are charged on consumers. Producers, importers and municipalities fund e-

waste storage (Franco, 2008; Gregory et al, 2009).

2.1.4. France

Retailers collect e-waste exchanged when new products are sold, send e-waste to municipal

disposal facilities or donate it to non-profit organizations. Four TPOs created by producers,

approved by government and coordinated by a joint subsidiary manage e-waste operations.

Recycling is made by suppliers selected by the TPOs. The system is funded by fees charged on

consumers and producers payments for subscription on TPOs (160 million Euros generated to

the organizations in 2007) (Gregory et al, 2009).

2.1.5. Germany

Introduction of new electronicss in the market requires register with the Federal Environment

Agency, that controls the system with a council of multi-sector representatives. Producers

provides containers for collection, organize transport, inform consumer and report data on e-

waste to authorities. Users of non-household e-waste are required to arrange solutions in

cooperation with producers. Producers fees are charged on producers for new electronics

register and fees are charged on non-household appliances consumers (Gregory et al, 2009)

2.1.6. Italy

Municipalities maintain permanent drop-off facilities, and retailers collect used electronics when

sell new ones. Fourteen TPOs and national associations of recyclers authorized by public

authorities are responsible by collection and recycling of e-waste. TPOs are responsible for

creating self-financing mechanisms (Gregory et al, 2009).

2.1.7. Ireland

Municipalities maintain facilities for discharge. Producers and retailers take old electronics when

sell new ones, and are responsible by collection in disposal points. The system is managed by a

TPO that reports to the Environmental Protection Agency, two associations address collection,

11 A third party organization (TPO), provides the management and administration of a recycling programme for its members (Gregory et al, 2009). Examples of third party organizations set up by producers to solve the e-waste problem are SWICO y S.EN.S (Swiss), Elretur (Norway), El-Kretsen (Sweden) and NVMP (Netherlands) (Ott, 2008).

treatment and recycling. Provision for inclusion of Environmental Management Cost charged on

consumers funds the scheme (Gregory et al, 2009)

2.1.8. Spain

Collection points and recycling facilities are managed by Ecolec Foundation, a TPO organized

by producers and importers of electronics (Franco, 2008).

2.1.9. Korea

Extended Producer Responsibility legislation was introduced in 2003,12 and made mandatory

take-back and recycling schemes set by the government. Producers pay a fee to join a

producers responsibility organization in charge of the management of the take back and

recycling system (OECD, 2006).

2.1.10 United States

States and municipalities play a key role in e-waste recycling initiatives. 23 States13 have their

own e-waste laws. The first regulations on e-waste were bans of CRTs (Cathode-Ray Tubes)

disposal on landfills, first in Minessota, in 2000. In 2003, California Electronics Waste Recycling

Act determined that by 2010 producers collect 90% of the equipment they sell, or pay an

alternative fee. Federal Laws on e-waste are a Decree on electronics recycling (2003) and the

Electronic Equipment Collection Law (2008). Producers submit a plan for waste management to

municipal authorities and have take-back obligations. Recycling fees from consumers fund

scheme (Kang and Schoenung, 2005; Gregory et al, 2009; Bernard, 2010)

2.1.11. Japan

In 1998, the Electrical Household Appliance Recycling Law14 made consumers responsible for

disposal of e-waste, government responsible for creating a system of collection and reverse

logistics and producers responsible for recycling and neutralizing toxic substances on products

(Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2009).

2.2. Electronics Waste Regulations in developing co untries

Firstly, as stated before, it is important to point out that the recycling technologies used in

developing countries are well behind the state of the art predominating in developed countries:

“WEEE recycling sector in developing countries is largely unregulated and WEEE is often processed to recover valuable materials in small workshops using rudimentary recycling methods […] where there is no real control over the materials processed, the processes used, or the emissions and discharges [...] The primary goal of such recycling operations is the recovery of valuable materials, and the goal is pursued with

12 Legislation caused an increase on recycling in Korea. In 2002, about 30,000 personal computers were collected and recycled in Korea; by 2003, this number rose to 250,000. Also, there have been some changes in products design, such as reduction on weight and material content on TVs and ron the number of circuits in hard disk drives (OECD, 2006). 13 The regulations of each State can be checked at http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/public/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=14. 14 The Electrical Household Appliance Recycling Law regulated four types of products: TV sets, refrigerators, washing machines, and air conditioners (Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2009).

little regard for the environment or human health. The common method to recover valuables and solder from PCBs is by heating PCBs until the connecting solder is melted […] undoubtedly exposes the worker to fumes of metals, particularly those in solder (often lead and tin), and other hazardous substances that can be potentially released during such treatment .”(Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2009: 30).

Besides environmental and workers damages, developing countries recycling systems of e-

waste are often economically inefficient. Rochat, Rodrigues and Gantenbein (2008) report that

in India low technology leaching processes recover only 20% of the gold from a printed wiring

board; modern integrated smelters and metals refineries in developed countries can recover at

least 95% of 17 precious metals.

According to Tsydenova and Bengtsson (2009) the recycling steps commonly used in

developing countries are: 1.disassembly (usually manual); 2.mechanical and metallurgical

processing to prepare materials; 3.refining/purification by means of chemical and metallurgical

processes, mainly pyrometallurgical.15 Occupational and environmental risks and hazards of

these processes, as well as its technical solutions, are shortly described in Chart 2.

Chart 2. E-waste treatment processes: environmental and occupational risks and hazards

Process Risk/Hazards and Technological solutions Disassembly Accidental releases of substances,

residues in downstream processes: mercury in light sources components; short circuits handling batteries; waste of nickel-cadmium batteries;16 implosion of Chatode Ray Tubes (CRTs); inhalation of phosphor/barium oxide dusts/glass particles on dismantling CRTs ; mercury on Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs); mercury in printed circuit boards; hazardous dusts/fumes on plastics combustion.

Send mercury-containing components to mercury recover facilities or waste incinerator with gas cleaning systems. Avoid large inventories of batteries; use environmental sound facilities for pyrometallurgical recovery of nickel and cadmium in batteries; wet processes to remove phosphors on CRTs; use of glass fraction to produce new leaded glass or recovery lead; adaptation on plastics shredders designs, gas cleaning on plastic thermal treatments.

Mechanical Processing

Dusts on shredding/grinding processes with high concentrations of brominated/organophosphated compounds

New shredder/grinder designs, processes ventilation systems, personal protective clothing for workers, dust containing systems.

Metallurgical processes

Hydrometallurgical processes consumes water, generates waste water with acids and solvents and acid fumes; pyrometallurgical processes generate waste gaseous emissions.

Integrated metal smelters designed with off-gas treatment systems and waste water treatment systems.

Landfilling of e-waste

Leaching/evaporation of hazardous substances (heavy metals, brominated/organophosphated compounds) to the air, soil, groundwater and surface water.

Lining, leachate and gas collection systems.

Source: Adapted from Magalini and Huisman (2007)

15 The incineration of WEEE plastics for pre-treatment is no longer an option in EU, since WEEE Directive set quotas ranging from 50 to 75% for recycling and 70 to 80% for recovery, not achievable without including plastics (Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2009). 16 In some countries NiMH and Li-ion batteries are considered suitable for disposal in municipal waste, but nickel and cobalt can be recovered through metal-specific smelting. For Li-ion recovery, there are no feasible technologies available (Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2009).

Laissaoui and Rochat (2008) describe some environmentally hazardous practices such as

open-air burning of cables, printed circuit boards and other electric wires (aiming to recover

copper and aluminium). This produces dioxins and furans, organic pollutants with high

carcinogenic potential. Moreover, wet chemical processes for extracting gold, silver and

palladium with use of acids, mercury and/or cyanide salts, produce large amounts of chemical

effluents.

Generally, the developing countries have an informal and low-technology recycling sector (most

for recycling plastics and easily recoverable metals), and no specific e-waste legislation.

Nonetheless, these country have general environmental regulation that can be addressed for

the e-waste problem. It is worth to remember that many developing countries have problems

with e-waste that comes illegally from abroad.

Multilateral International Organizations play an important role in developing countries, especially

with the provision of methodologies of assessment/evaluation developed by research centers,

support for regulation establishment (with a strong participation of national government

institutions, national and multinational companies and Non Government Organizations).

However, technology transfer from developed to developing countries has not been found on

literature, and it is common to developing countries companies in the recycling business to

export components not easy to recycle, such as Printed Circuit Boards and lead rich-glass, to

be processed in facilities of developed countries.

Regardless the technical problems of their recycling infrastructure, developing countries started

taking actions aiming to solve local problems of e-waste generation, setting up studies to

develop national regulations that attribute responsibilities and establish funding mechanisms.

Next subsections will briefly describe some developing countries actions found on literature.

2.2.1. China

China National Development and Reform Commission issued in 2001 the “Ordinance on the

Management of Waste Household Electrical and Electronic Products Recycling and Disposal”,

base for the “Administrative Measures for the Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution

by Electronic Waste” in force since 2008. This legislation determines that

producers/importers/retailers establish a recovery system, record down the type, weight or

quantity of the e-waste and perform tests in laboratories authorized by Chinese Government.

China is a common destination (together with India and Pakistan) of electronic waste generated

in Asia, processed in workshops that use rudimentary technologies. Nonetheless, China has

several facilities for recycling under construction, and two in operation. There is a project by the

STeP17 initiative to introduce modern technology for sorting crushed e-waste materials (sort by

conductivity or density difference) (State Environmental Protection Administration, n.d.; Liu,

Tanaka e Mitsui, 2006; Wang, 2008; Tsydenova and Bengtsson, 2009). 17 The STeP (Solving the e-waste Problem) is an United Nations Organization initiative that aims to form a network of producers, governments and researcher to develop projects in the fields of policy and legislation, redesign, reuse, recycling and capacity building (Wang, 2008).

2.2.2. Uganda

Uganda has no specific regulation for e-waste. Since 2006 develops project to transfer PCs to

Small and Medium Enterprises in Uganda, support the establishment of a local e-waste

recovery facility, a partnership between United Nations Organization (ONU), Microsoft, Swiss

Institute of Material Sciences and Technology (EMPA) and Uganda Cleaner Production Centre

(Schluep et al, 2008).

2.2.3. Senegal

Senegal has no specific regulation for e-waste. Since 2008 develops Project of assessment of

the e-waste situation in Senegal, a partnership between the Global Digital Solidarity Fund

(GDSF), EMPA and the African Institute for Urban Management (Wone et al, 2008).

2.2.3. South Africa

South Africa has no specific regulation for e-waste. Since 2005 develops the Projects

“Knowledge partnerships in e-waste recycling” and “Green e-Waste Channel”, a partnership

between EMPA, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and South Africa Government, for

development of pilot e-waste management systems (Zumbuehl, 2006).

2.2.4. Morocco

Morocco has no specific regulation for e-waste. Since 2007 is partner in a project of

assessment of e-waste management situation in Kenya, Morocco and Senegal. Partners in the

project include Hewlett Packard, GDSF, EMPA, Moroccan Cleaner Production Center and

Morocco Ministry of Energy, Mines, Water and Environment (Laissaoui and Rochat, 2008).

2.2.5. Tanzania

Tanzania has no specific regulation for e-waste. Cleaner Production Centre of Tanzania in

collaboration with EMPA and Microsoft conducted an assessment of Tanzania´s e-waste

situation and proposed actions to mobilize stakeholders (Magashi and Schluep, 2011).

2.2.6. Peru

Peru has no specific regulation for e-waste. In 2007 started an assessment of e-waste situation

in the country, in partnership with the Institute for Sustainable Development Promotion, Swiss

National Economy Secretariat, EMPA, Peru National Council for Environment, Peru General

Direction for Environmental Health, Swiss Institute of Material Sciences and Technology

(Espinoza et al, 2008).

2.2.7. Colombia

Colombia has no specific regulation for e-waste A partnership between EMPA, Colombian

Secretariat for economic Affairs, the Colombian Chamber for Informatics and

Telecommunications, the Ministry of Environment, The Andes University and NGOs is

addressing the e-waste management situation in Colombia (Ott, 2008)

3. Electronic Waste policies in Brazil

In the Brazilian case, the legislation on e-waste is based on the National Policy on Solid Waste,

launched in 2010. This policy addresses in a comprehensive way the problems related to the

management of all solid wastes, and is guided by the principle of shared responsibility. This

makes Brazilian policy quite different from the European Union policy, which follows the

principle of producer responsibility. Notwithstanding, both policies present very close objectives,

such as the hierarchy of priorities (first, non-generation of residues, followed by reduction,

reuse, recycling, treatment and final disposal environmentally correct). It is also common the

provision of incentives for research and development in the field of clean technologies.

Regarding technological development, the Brazilian National Policy on Solid Waste

foresees:1.the provision of funding from the National Fund for Environment and the National

Fund for Scientific and Technological Development; 2. technical and financial cooperation

between public and private sectors to develop new products, methods, processes and

management technologies for recycling, reusing and treating solid wastes.

The situation of e-waste Research and Development (R&D) on academic Institutions has been

outlined with data gathered with datamining techniques in R&D databases18 of Brazilian science

and technology institutions. The results show that R&D on the field of e-waste management and

technology in Brazil is a very incipient one. Even tough 141 research groups in fields such as

recycling, ecodesign and lyfe cycle analysis have been localized, most of them do not directly

adress the e-waste problem. Out of these 141 research groups, 44 maintain some relationship

with private and government companies, and develop actions chiefly in the sectors of

agribusiness and civil construction.

12 research projects funded by the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development

have been found, but none of them relates to e-waste management. The projects are focused in

ecodesign, life cycle analysis and packaging recycling, most on plastics packaging. The

partnerships with companies and government include two siderurgic companies, one chemical

company and one government food science research institute.

Among Brazil’s government initiatives, it is worth mentioning the so-called “sustainable public

purchases.” The program in force, called “Program for Sustainable Public Contracts”, promoted

in 2011 around US$ 12 million in sustainable public acquisitions, a small fraction (0,07%) of the

total amount of public purchases (Sciaretta and Rolli, 2012). The program has a catalog with

548 “green products” that can be acquired by the public sector. A proposal of a presidential

decree has been prepared for discussion on the Rio +20 Conference, prioritizing green products

in public purchases. The Decree prioritizes, in a first stage, office supplies (daily use items such

as hole punches, binders, staplers, writing utensils and paper). The second stage prioritizes the

acquisition of green electronics, with low energy consumption and free of toxic substances.

18 The databases surveyed were: 1. Research Groups on the Directory of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development; 2. Research projects funded by the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development.

On the regional level, for instance, in the State of Minas Gerais, the State Natural Environment

Foundation conducted a diagnostic study of e-waste generation (Rocha et al, 2009). The study,

developed in partnership with the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs and the Swiss

Institute of Material Sciences and Technology, aimed at providing information to the elaboration

of legislation and public policies. The authors concluded that the State of Minas Gerais need to

develop policies with effective participation of electric and electronic equipment producers,

importers, distributors, consumers, public cleaning systems, recyclable waste collectors,

collecting companies, private transport companies, reconditioning centers (that restore the

functions of old equipment),19 recyclable waste collectors, intermediary scrap metal collectors,

technical assistance agencies, and Municipal Halls.

The National Council for Environment stablished in 2011 a Resolution that makes mandatory to

retailers to collect used batteries and send it to batteries producers, that are in turn responsible

for its recycling or appropriate disposal (Folha Online, 2008). The Resolution also sets permitted

amounts of lead, cadmium and Mercury in batteries.

Some private companies in Brazil that make the collection and treatment of e-waste have been

surveyed by Silva, Oliveira e Martins (2007).20 The company GM&C Logistics, that provides

reverse logistics services such as traceability systems, disassembles used products, crushes

sorted material with specific equipment and send it to recycling partners authorized by

environmental government institutions (GM&C Logistics, 2012). The company receives

electronics equipment from producers (around 500 tons per year), sending complex

components to be processed abroad, in Umicore (Belgium) and Noranda (Canada) (Silva,

Oliveira e Martins, 2007).

The chemical company Suzaquim is another recycler that receives equipment from producers

and other private companies (Silva, Oliveira e Martins, 2007). The company receives 5 to 8 tons

of equipment per month, and separates materials and metal oxides from CRTs, crushing and

extracting metal of electronics boards by chemical processes, obtaining metals salts and metal

oxides sold to chemical and materials industries.

The Cingapure company Cimélia Recycling has a subsidiary in Brazil, responsible by the

collection and crushing of e-waste on the country, that is sent to a facilitie in Cingapure that can

extyract 16 different metals (Silva, Oliveira e Martins, 2007). The subsidiary in Brazil receives

e-waste from big electronics producers, receiving 150 to 200 tons per month.

The situation in Brazil shows that some initial measures have been taken by government on

regulation, but generated a weak response of private and academic actors. It can be said that a

coordinated action, with participation of government, academy and industry is required to

19

The Computers for Inclusion Project of Brazil’s Federal Government (Project CI), a national network for the reuse of informatics equipment, professional formation, and digital inclusion, is an initiative to stimulate this form of reuse (Rocha et al, 2009). 20 Some Brazilian companies as PLANAC11 are specialized in refurbishment processes for informatics equipment, that are sold as used equipment (Silva, Oliveira e Martins, 2007).

develop facilities able to recycle complex fractions of e-waste, nowadays processed in countries

from abroad, most develop ones. Such coordinated action could be implementend by a strong

technological program on e-waste recycling, with the launching of public calls for cooperative

government-industry-academy innovation projects, thus creating an adittional stimulus for the

joint development by industry and academy of technological solutions to comply with e-waste

regulations.

4. Conclusions

The regulation e-waste material is, worldwide, still in process. Differences on regulations can be

observed comparing countries with assimetric economic situation. Developed and developing

countries have different levels on technology development and legislation about e-wastes, but

international regulation affects the competitiveness of their electronics industry equally. The

great question, as put by Magalini and Huisman (2007), is “[…] how to organize take-back and

recycling in order to align all stakeholder interests and positions in a practical way?”

There are three main kinds of partnerships for the construction of sustainable innovation

systems: a) collaborative projects; b) organizational learning systems; c) governance networks.

In developed countries, the partnerships established for sustainable innovation systems

formation are mainly networks with descentralized controls (runned by industry´s third part

associations), that makes feasible immediate institutional changes.

In developing countries, there is an incipient effort aiming to the promotion of sustainable

innovation systems for e-waste management, mainly in cooperative projects that are recently

established and count on a reduced number of members that operate at a lower technological

level, with strong support of international organisms and research institutions. Notwithstanding,

most of the collaborattions identified in literature did not aimed at the transfer of advanced

recycling technologies, and were limited to the support in assessment studies and, in the case

of China, transfer of technologies for collection/sorting of e-waste. In this sense, the

cooperations localized in this paper serve only to maintain the subordinated technological

position of developing countries in the recycling chain, making viability of e-waste management

difficult on these developing nations. In order to identify recycling technologies with higher

technology content viable for adoption in developing countries, an prospective study on e-waste

recycling technologies is desirable.

In developed countries, the mastering of state of the art technologies, mainly in the field of

mettalurgy and chemistry of large scale processes done by mining companies, assures the

interchange between academic institutions the industry to find solutions for compliance. On the

other side, developing countries carry out a lot of non coordinated and isolated efforts.

In Brazil, e-waste regulation is in its infancy, and so are the technological and management

infrastructure, as shown in section 3. The companies of e-waste recycling carry on activities of

lower technological content, and rely on facilities from abroad to carry on more complex

recycling activities. It can be concluded that innovation programs (including, for instance, public

calls for industry-academy cooperative projects) is necessary to foster innovation on the

Brazilian system of e-waste management and recycling.

5. References

BERARD, C. Electronics Legislation. Presentation, FEC Partner Call, 2010. Available:

https://www.federalelectronicschallenge.net/resources/docs/electronics_legislation2.ppt Access:

April 24, 2012

BOKS, C. The soft side of EcoDesign. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.14, pp. 1346-1356,

2006.

BORCHARDT, M.; SELLITTO, M.; PEREIRA, G. Sistema Produto-Serviço: referencial teórico e

direções para futuras pesquisas. Revista Produção Online, v. 10, n° 4, dez.2010.

CHIEN, M. and SHIH, L. Relationship between management practice and organisation

performance under European Union directives such as RoHS: A case-study of the electrical and

electronic industry in Taiwan. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology v. 1(3),

October 2007, p. 37-48.

ESPINOZA et al. Diagnóstico del Manejo de los Residuos Electrónicos en el Perú . 2008.

Available:

<http://www.residuoselectronicos.net/archivos/lineas_base/LINEA_BASE_PERU_ESPINOZA_Y

_OTROS.pdf> Accessed: 29/04/2012

FOLHA ONLINE. Em dois anos, comércio terá que receber pilhas e baterias usadas. Folha

online, 06/11/2008. Available:

<http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ambiente/ult10007u465020.shtml> Accessed: 06/05/2012

FRANCO, R.G.F.. Protocolo de Referência para Gestão de Resíduos de Equipamentos

Elétricos e Eletrônicos Domésticos para o Município de Belo Horizonte. Dissertação (Mestrado

em Saneamento, Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos).Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,

Belo Horizonte, 2008. 162p.

FREEMAN, C. The greening of technology and models of innovation. Technological. Forecast

and Social Change, v. 53, 1996, p. 27-39

GM&C LOGISTICS. Trituração de Lixo Eletrônico. Available:

<http://www.gmclog.com.br/trituracao_lixo_eletronico> Accessed May 6, 2012.

GREGORY, J. et al. E-waste Take-Back System Design and Policy Approaches. Solving the E-

Waste Problem (StEP) White Paper, January 2009. Available at: http://www.step-

initiative.org/pdf/white-papers/StEP_TF1_WPTakeBackSystems.pdf Accessed February 10,

2012.

HAGELÜKEN, C. Recycling of Electronic Scrap at Umicore´s Integrated Metals Smelter and

Refinery. World of Mettalurgu, v. 59, n.3, 2006, p. 152-161

HEMMATI, M. et al. Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond

Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan Publications, 2002.

HERMANN, R.; RIISGAARD, H; REMMEN, A. Triple helix interactions for eco-innovation in the

developing world; Insights from the Panama Canal watershed. Triple Helix 9 Scientific Comitee,

2011

JENKINS, R. Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness: A review of

Literature and Some European Evidence. United Nations University/Intech Discussion Paper

Series, January 1998. Available: <http://www.intech.unu.edu/publications/discussion-

papers/9801.pdf> Accessed: 04/05/2012

KANG, H. and SCHOENUNG, J.M. Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S. infrastructure

and technology options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, n. 45, 2005, p.368–400

KEMP, R. Environmental policy and technical change: a comparison of the technological impact

of policy instruments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1997.

KEMP, R.; ARUNDEL, A. Survey Indicators for Environmental Innovation. Paper series 8, IDEA,

1998.

KEMP, R. e SOETE, L. Inside the ‘green box’: on the economics of technological change and

the environment. In: FREEMAN, C. & SOETE, L. (eds). New explorations in the economics of

technological change. Londres:Pinter Publishers, 1990. p. 245-257

LAISSAOUI, S.E. and ROCHAT, D. Technical report on the assessment of e-waste

management in Morocco. Moroccan Cleaner Production Center, 2008 Available:

http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=salah%20eddine%20laissaoui%20moroccan%20cle

aner%20production%20center&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fww

w.empa.ch%2Fplugin%2Ftemplate%2Fempa%2F*%2F80257%2F---

%2Fl%3D1&ei=HhWdT_7FK4ne9ATLvoDkDg&usg=AFQjCNFvSsUDZpMx1Egh1xbJzu9qgqm4

TQ Acessed: 29/04/2012

LEHMANN, M., CHRISTENSEN, P. and JOHNSON, B.. Partnerships and sustainable regional

innovation systems: special roles for universities? In Facilitating sustainable innovation through

collaboration, eds. Joseph Sarkis, James J. Cordeiro and Diego Vázquez Brust. Dordrecht:

Springer, 2010.

LIU, X. TANAKA, M. and MITSUI, Y. Electrical and electronic waste management in China:

progress and the barriers to overcome. Waste Management and Research, n.24, 2006, p. 92-

101.

MAGALINI, F. HUISMAN, J. Management of WEEE & Cost Models across the EU: Could the

EPR principle lead US to a better Environmental Policy? Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE

International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, 7-10 May 2007, p. 143 – 148

MAGASHI, A. and SCHLUEP, M. e-Waste Assessment Tanzania. Final Report. Available:

<http://ewasteguide.info/files/Magashi_2011_CPCT-Empa.pdf> Accessed: 07/05/2012

MANHART, A. International Cooperation for Metal Recycling FromWaste Electrical and

Electronic Equipment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, v.15, n.1, 2010, p. 13-30.

MONT, O. TUKKER, A. Product Service Systems: reviewing achievements and refining the

research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. v.14, n.17, 2006, pp. 1451-1454.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). EPR

Policies and Product Design: Economic Theory and Selected Case Studies. Working Group on

Waste Prevention and Recycling, 2006. 40 p. Available:

<http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocument/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/epoc/wg

wpr(2005)9/final> Accessed: 27/04/2012

OTT, D. Gestión de residuos electrónicos en Colombia: Diagnóstico de Computadores y

Teléfonos Celulares. Centro Nacional de Producción mas Limpa/EMPA, 2008. Available:

<http://ewasteguide.info/Ott_2008_Empa-CNPMLTA> Accessed in: 06/05/2012

POLÍTICA NACIONAL DE RESÍDUOS SÓLIDOS. Lei 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010.

Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm.

Accessed January 13, 2012.

PREMIER FARNELL. Differences between EU and China RoHS. Available:

<http://www.newark.com/images/en_UK/rohs/pdf/ChinaRoHSdifferences_PDF5.pdf>. 2005.

Accessed: 25/04/2012

ROCHA, et al. Diagnosis of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Generation in the State of

Minas Gerais. 2009. Available:

<http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=diagnosis%20of%20waste%20electric%20and%2

0electronic%20equipment%20generation%20in%20the%20state%20of%20minas%20gerais&s

ource=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fe-

wasteguide.info%2Ffiles%2FRocha_2009_en.pdf&ei=-

zqdT6eNA4Gk9ASQr5mpDw&usg=AFQjCNGBXOLdUct3kPQ8qlE0CwsKw12EAA> Accessed:

29/04/2012

ROCHAT, D. RODRIGUES, w. GANTENBEIN, A. India: Including the existing informal sector in

a clean e-waste channel. Proceedings of the 19th Waste Management Conference of The

IWMSA, Durban, 2008. Available:

http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=india%3A%20including%20the%20existing%20infor

mal%20sector%20in%20a%20clean%20e-

waste%20channel&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fe-

wasteguide.info%2Ffiles%2FRochat_2008_WasteCon.pdf&ei=U1WhT4ypJ4L-

9QSGj6mLCA&usg=AFQjCNGeuUUuFLPFzGHGZX7RbBLnDHMw1w Accessed: 02/05/2012

ROSE, C.M. Design for environment: a method for formulating product end-of-life strategies.

Dissertation (Doctorate in Philosophy). Department of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford

University, Stanford, 2000. 175 p.

SANTOS, F.H.S. and SOUZA, C.E.G. Resíduos de origem eletrônica. Série Tecnologia

Ambiental, Centro de Tecnologia Mineral, Rio de Janeiro, 2010. Available:

<http://www.cetem.gov.br/publicacao/series_sta/sta-57.pdf> Accessed:

04/05/2012SCIARETTA, T. e ROLLI, C. Decreto regulará “compra verde” do governo. Folha de

S.Paulo, 09/04/2012.

SCHLUEP, M. et al. e-Waste generation and management in Uganda. Proceedings of the 19th

Waste Management Conference of The IWMSA, Durban, 2008. Available:

http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=e-

waste%20generation%20and%20management%20in%20uganda&source=web&cd=1&ved=0C

DAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fe-

wasteguide.info%2Ffiles%2FSchluep_2008_WasteCon.pdf&ei=HtKaT9TcB4b88gTw1qyPDw&u

sg=AFQjCNFiKmfgeJE_dcWMkD4VA-KSxeYHwg Accessed: 27/04/2012

SILVA, B.D.; OLIVEIRA, F.C.;, MARTINS, D.L., Resíduos Eletroeletrônicos no Brasil, Santo

André, 2007. Available: <lixoeletronico.org/system/files/lixoeletronico_02.pdf> Access:

03/05/2012

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADMINISTRATION. Administrative Measures for the

Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Electronic Waste. State Environmental

Protection Administration of Chine, n.d. Available: faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/chn75002E.doc

Access: 03/05/2012

TOJO, N. and FISCHER, C. Europe as a Recycling Society: European Recycling Policies in

relation to the actual recycling achieved. ETC/SCP working paper 2/2011, European Topic

Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, March 2011. 25 P. Available:

http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/wp/ETCSCP%202per2011 Accessed: 02/05/2012TSYDENOVA, O.

and BENGTSSON, M. Environmental and Human Health Risks Associated with the End-of-Life

Treatment of Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,

Integrated Waste Management and Resource Efficiency Project, 2009. 49 p. Available:

<http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/2519/attach/environmental_&_human_h

ealth_risks_of_weee_treatment.pdf> Accessed: 19/04/2012

UMEDA, Y. NONOMURA, A.; TOMIYAMA, T. Study on life-cycle design for the post mass

production paradigm. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing,

2000, v. 14, nº2, pp.149–161.UMICORE DO BRAZIL. Mnual de reciclagem do lixo eletrônico.

Página de internet. Disponível:

<http://www.umicore.com.br/quemSomos/manualUmicore/>Access: 02/05/2012

UNEP. Product Service Systems and Sustainability: Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions.

UNEP, Paris, 2002. UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY. 2008 Review of Directive 2002/96 on

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Final Report. Available:

<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_rep_unu.pdf> Accessed: February 10,

2012.

WÄGER, P.A., HISCHIER, R. and EUGSTER, M. Environmental impacts of the Swiss collection

and recovery systems for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE): A follow-up.

Science of the Total Environment, n. 409, 2011, p. 1746–1756

WANG, F. Economic conditions for developing large scale WEEE recycling infrastructure based

on manual dismantling in China - The learning experience from the setup of a pilot plant.

Diploma Thesis for Master Programme of Industrial Ecology. TU Delft/Leiden University, 2008.

Available: <http://ewasteguide.info/files/Wang_2008.pdf> Accessed: 06/05/2012

WEEForum (2011). WEEELABEX: European standards for sustainable WEEE management.

WEEEForum, Brussels, 2011. Available: <http://www.weee-

forum.org/sites/default/files/press_release_weeelabex_standards_2011_05_02.pdf> Accessed:

19/04/2012

WEEEForum (2011a). WEEELABEX normative document on Collection. Normative Document,

2011. Available: <http://www.weee-

forum.org/sites/default/files/weeelabex_v9.0_standard_on_collection.pdf> Accessed:

19/04/2012

WEEEForum (2011b). WEEELABEX normative document on Logistics. Normative Document,

2011. Available: <http://www.weee-

forum.org/sites/default/files/weeelabex_v9.0_standard_on_logistics.pdf >Accessed: 19/04/2012

WEEEForum (2011c). WEEELABEX normative document on Treatment. Normative Document,

2011. Available: <http://www.weee-

forum.org/sites/default/files/documents/weeelabex_v9.0_standard_on_treatment.pdf>

Accessed: 19/04/2012

WONE, S.S. et al.Senegal: e-waste Country Assessment (2008). Proceedings of the 19th

Waste Management Conference of The IWMSA, Durban, 2008. Available:

http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=senegal%3A%20e-

waste%20country%20assessment%20(2008)&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http

%3A%2F%2Fe-

wasteguide.info%2Ffiles%2FSY_2008_WasteCon.pdf&ei=QdWaT82dDZCg8gSj5NyRDw&usg=

AFQjCNHHUcpDrq4Kaw9jH6QhtlRjiHgm8A Accessed: 27/04/2012

YANG, T. and PERCIVAL, R.V. The Emergence of Global Environmental Law, Ecology Law

Quartely, v.36, 2009, p. 615 -664.

ZUMBUEHL, D. Mass flow assessment (mfa) and assessment of recycling strategies for

cathode ray tubes (CRTS) for the Cape metropolitan area (CMA), South Africa. Diploma Thesis,

Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, 2006. Available:

<www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/59243/---/l=2> Accessed: 06/05/2012.