Optimising waste from electric and electronic equipment collection systems: a comparison of approaches in European countries.

The first European waste from electric and electronic equipment directive obliged the Member States to collect 4 kg of used devices per inhabitant and year. The target of the amended directive focuses on the ratio between the amount of waste from electric and electronic equipment collected and the mass of electric and electronic devices put on the market in the three foregoing years. The minimum collection target is 45% starting in 2016, being increased to 65% in 2019 or alternatively 85% of waste from electric and electronic equipment generated. Being aware of the new target, the question arises how Member States with 'best practice' organise their collection systems and how they enforce the parties in this playing field. Therefore the waste from electric and electronic equipment schemes of Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany and the Flemish region of Belgium were investigated focusing on the categories IT and telecommunications equipment, consumer equipment like audio systems and discharge lamps containing hazardous substances, e.g. mercury. The systems for waste from electric and electronic equipment collection in these countries vary considerably. Recycling yards turned out to be the backbone of waste from electric and electronic equipment collection in most countries studied. For discharge lamps, take-back by retailers seems to be more important. Sampling points like special containers in shopping centres, lidded waste bins and complementary return of used devices in all retail shops for electric equipment may serve as supplements. High transparency of collection and recycling efforts can encourage ambition among the concerned parties. Though the results from the study cannot be transferred in a simplistic manner, they serve as an indication for best practice methods for waste from electric and electronic equipment collection.

Implementing the 3Rs in neuroscience research: a reasoned approach.

The 3Rs--replacement, reduction, and refinement--are aimed at minimizing the welfare costs to animals used in research. Some neuroscientists fear that implementing the 3Rs will prohibit essential studies. Others view them as fundamental ethical principles that improve the quality of research. A regulatory system that integrates science and welfare is most likely to deliver public confidence.