Extended producer responsibility for waste tyres in the EU: Lessons learnt from three case studies – Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands

Kim Winternitz, Mark Heggie, Jim Baird

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The article compares the performance of three Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems for tyres and discusses the respective policy context that leads to these results. It aims to give insight into the varied implementation of EPR policy through the presentation of case studies. The EPR systems for tyres in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are described and common success factors as well as weaknesses are examined. The systems mainly differ in respect of scope and targets for material and energy recovery. The presented case studies assign physical (through a take-back obligation) as well as financial (through an advanced disposal fee) responsibility to the producers. EPR for tyres has been found to reduce flytipping and illegal stockpiling of tyres; increase resource efficiency by increased recycling; and move waste tyre management up the waste hierarchy. It is found that best results for recycling are achieved, if the legislation sets quantitative targets and clearly defines waste status of tyres to maximise local reuse/retread. It is argued however, that recycling is favourable over reuse/retread in the case of waste tyres. The case studies show that an EPR system is no guarantee for waste treatment in the most environmentally sound way. An EPR system will only achieve its objectives if properly designed, implemented and enforced. If legislation allows, Producer Responsibility Organisations will find the cheapest, not the environmentally most favourable, solution for waste management.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)386-396
Number of pages11
JournalWaste Management
Volume89
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

tire
recycling
legislation
responsibility
waste treatment
waste management
resource

Keywords

  • extended producer responsibility
  • waste tyres
  • waste policy
  • Belgium
  • Italy
  • Netherlands

Cite this

@article{4de12e2086d6467e84c0bff45de8be49,
title = "Extended producer responsibility for waste tyres in the EU: Lessons learnt from three case studies – Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands",
abstract = "The article compares the performance of three Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems for tyres and discusses the respective policy context that leads to these results. It aims to give insight into the varied implementation of EPR policy through the presentation of case studies. The EPR systems for tyres in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are described and common success factors as well as weaknesses are examined. The systems mainly differ in respect of scope and targets for material and energy recovery. The presented case studies assign physical (through a take-back obligation) as well as financial (through an advanced disposal fee) responsibility to the producers. EPR for tyres has been found to reduce flytipping and illegal stockpiling of tyres; increase resource efficiency by increased recycling; and move waste tyre management up the waste hierarchy. It is found that best results for recycling are achieved, if the legislation sets quantitative targets and clearly defines waste status of tyres to maximise local reuse/retread. It is argued however, that recycling is favourable over reuse/retread in the case of waste tyres. The case studies show that an EPR system is no guarantee for waste treatment in the most environmentally sound way. An EPR system will only achieve its objectives if properly designed, implemented and enforced. If legislation allows, Producer Responsibility Organisations will find the cheapest, not the environmentally most favourable, solution for waste management.",
keywords = "extended producer responsibility, waste tyres, waste policy, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands",
author = "Kim Winternitz and Mark Heggie and Jim Baird",
note = "Acceptance from webpage Date info from webpage: Published 15/4/19, available online 17/4/19 AAM: 12m embargo",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.023",
language = "English",
volume = "89",
pages = "386--396",
journal = "Waste Management",
issn = "0956-053X",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

Extended producer responsibility for waste tyres in the EU: Lessons learnt from three case studies – Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. / Winternitz, Kim; Heggie, Mark; Baird, Jim.

In: Waste Management, Vol. 89, 15.04.2019, p. 386-396.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extended producer responsibility for waste tyres in the EU: Lessons learnt from three case studies – Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands

AU - Winternitz, Kim

AU - Heggie, Mark

AU - Baird, Jim

N1 - Acceptance from webpage Date info from webpage: Published 15/4/19, available online 17/4/19 AAM: 12m embargo

PY - 2019/4/15

Y1 - 2019/4/15

N2 - The article compares the performance of three Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems for tyres and discusses the respective policy context that leads to these results. It aims to give insight into the varied implementation of EPR policy through the presentation of case studies. The EPR systems for tyres in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are described and common success factors as well as weaknesses are examined. The systems mainly differ in respect of scope and targets for material and energy recovery. The presented case studies assign physical (through a take-back obligation) as well as financial (through an advanced disposal fee) responsibility to the producers. EPR for tyres has been found to reduce flytipping and illegal stockpiling of tyres; increase resource efficiency by increased recycling; and move waste tyre management up the waste hierarchy. It is found that best results for recycling are achieved, if the legislation sets quantitative targets and clearly defines waste status of tyres to maximise local reuse/retread. It is argued however, that recycling is favourable over reuse/retread in the case of waste tyres. The case studies show that an EPR system is no guarantee for waste treatment in the most environmentally sound way. An EPR system will only achieve its objectives if properly designed, implemented and enforced. If legislation allows, Producer Responsibility Organisations will find the cheapest, not the environmentally most favourable, solution for waste management.

AB - The article compares the performance of three Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems for tyres and discusses the respective policy context that leads to these results. It aims to give insight into the varied implementation of EPR policy through the presentation of case studies. The EPR systems for tyres in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are described and common success factors as well as weaknesses are examined. The systems mainly differ in respect of scope and targets for material and energy recovery. The presented case studies assign physical (through a take-back obligation) as well as financial (through an advanced disposal fee) responsibility to the producers. EPR for tyres has been found to reduce flytipping and illegal stockpiling of tyres; increase resource efficiency by increased recycling; and move waste tyre management up the waste hierarchy. It is found that best results for recycling are achieved, if the legislation sets quantitative targets and clearly defines waste status of tyres to maximise local reuse/retread. It is argued however, that recycling is favourable over reuse/retread in the case of waste tyres. The case studies show that an EPR system is no guarantee for waste treatment in the most environmentally sound way. An EPR system will only achieve its objectives if properly designed, implemented and enforced. If legislation allows, Producer Responsibility Organisations will find the cheapest, not the environmentally most favourable, solution for waste management.

KW - extended producer responsibility

KW - waste tyres

KW - waste policy

KW - Belgium

KW - Italy

KW - Netherlands

U2 - 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.023

DO - 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.023

M3 - Article

VL - 89

SP - 386

EP - 396

JO - Waste Management

JF - Waste Management

SN - 0956-053X

ER -