138
sary that these particular countries make a bigger effort to further improve their
national policies on the waste management from category C.
Finally, category D, which corresponds to gas discharge lamps, represents the
higher average inefficiency levels (1.159). Moreover, we must note that two countries, Malta and Iceland, do not manage waste from this particular category. The
worst performing countries in this category are Croatia and Greece with inefficiency
levels higher than 40%, followed by Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Estonia
Hungary, and Latvia, with inefficiency levels ranging from 20% to 35%. Therefore,
in general, all these countries still have plenty amount of work to further improve
their management from this particular category of EEE.
7.5 Conclusions
Over the last decades, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) has
become a major matter of concern worldwide. This is due to its increasing rate of
production leading from the higher consumption of electronic and electrical equipment and their relatively shorter lifespan. Under these circumstances, many countries have developed specific regulations to address the challenge of managing this
environmental issues. In the European case, the framework for WEEE management
was enacted in the Directive 2012/19/EU. Its main objective is to contribute to (i)
the prevention of WEEE; (ii) its reduction by encouraging the reuse, recycling, or
recovery of WEEE; and (iii) the efficient use of resources by reusing valuable raw
materials from the obsolete equipment. According to this, it introduces targets for
the reuse and recycling and recovery of WEEE separately collected after proper
treatment, which European countries should include to their national policies.
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature on waste management of EEE by comparing the performance of different European countries according to the implementation of the targets set by the European Union Directive on
WEEE. We evaluate it from the perspective of productive efficiency. To the best of
our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to assess this dimension of European
eco-efficiency, although there are more works to be done in the near future.
It can be concluded that, in general, European countries have efficiently succeeded in the implementation of the WEEE Directive and management of the recycling and recovery of WEEE. However, regarding the performance of the different
countries and waste categories, there are large differences in their WEEE management. This means that there is room to increase the performance, as some countries’
WEEE management systems need improvements to meet the European Directives
requirements. We have to recognize that, in some countries, the WEEE management
system was adapted to the European legislative changes as much as possible, but its
impact is, so far, limited as the targets are not yet totally accomplished. Summing
up, bigger efforts made by public authorities and responsible operators are due in
the near future.
I. Narbón-Perpiñá and D. Prior
sary that these particular countries make a bigger effort to further improve their
national policies on the waste management from category C.
Finally, category D, which corresponds to gas discharge lamps, represents the
higher average inefficiency levels (1.159). Moreover, we must note that two countries, Malta and Iceland, do not manage waste from this particular category. The
worst performing countries in this category are Croatia and Greece with inefficiency
levels higher than 40%, followed by Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Estonia
Hungary, and Latvia, with inefficiency levels ranging from 20% to 35%. Therefore,
in general, all these countries still have plenty amount of work to further improve
their management from this particular category of EEE.
7.5 Conclusions
Over the last decades, waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) has
become a major matter of concern worldwide. This is due to its increasing rate of
production leading from the higher consumption of electronic and electrical equipment and their relatively shorter lifespan. Under these circumstances, many countries have developed specific regulations to address the challenge of managing this
environmental issues. In the European case, the framework for WEEE management
was enacted in the Directive 2012/19/EU. Its main objective is to contribute to (i)
the prevention of WEEE; (ii) its reduction by encouraging the reuse, recycling, or
recovery of WEEE; and (iii) the efficient use of resources by reusing valuable raw
materials from the obsolete equipment. According to this, it introduces targets for
the reuse and recycling and recovery of WEEE separately collected after proper
treatment, which European countries should include to their national policies.
The purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature on waste management of EEE by comparing the performance of different European countries according to the implementation of the targets set by the European Union Directive on
WEEE. We evaluate it from the perspective of productive efficiency. To the best of
our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to assess this dimension of European
eco-efficiency, although there are more works to be done in the near future.
It can be concluded that, in general, European countries have efficiently succeeded in the implementation of the WEEE Directive and management of the recycling and recovery of WEEE. However, regarding the performance of the different
countries and waste categories, there are large differences in their WEEE management. This means that there is room to increase the performance, as some countries’
WEEE management systems need improvements to meet the European Directives
requirements. We have to recognize that, in some countries, the WEEE management
system was adapted to the European legislative changes as much as possible, but its
impact is, so far, limited as the targets are not yet totally accomplished. Summing
up, bigger efforts made by public authorities and responsible operators are due in
the near future.
I. Narbón-Perpiñá and D. Prior