Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this paper is twofold.

Earlier parts are listed in the 1949 P.A.I.S. annual.

In theory, individual producer responsibility (IPR) creates incentives for "design-for-recycling". Yet in practice, implementing IPR is challenging, particularly if applied to waste electric and electronic equipment. This article discusses different options for implementing IPR schemes and producers' under German WEEE legislation. In addition, practical aspects of a German "return share" brand sampling scheme are examined. Concerning "new" WEEE put on the market after 13 August 2006, producers in Germany can choose between two different methods of calculating take-back obligations. These can be determined on the basis of "return shares" or "market shares". While market shares are regularly monitored by a national clearing house, the "return share" option requires sampling and sorting of WEEE. Herein itis shown that the specifics of the German WEEE take-back scheme require high sample sizes and multi-step test procedures to ensure a statistically sound sampling approach. Since the market share allocation continues to apply for historic waste, producers lack incentives for choosing the costly brand sampling option. However, even return share allocation might not imply a decisive step towards IPR, as it merely represents an alternative calculation of market shares. Yet the fundamental characteristics of the German take-back system remain unchanged: the same anonymous mix of WEEE goes to the same treatment operations. In the future, radio frequency identification-based sorting options could foster IPR and incentives for changes in product design. ; Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. - This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.

Neera-the coconut inflorescence sap has been promoted as a potential value-added non-alcoholic beverage with abundant health benefits. The concerted effort of the stakeholder agencies could liberate the product from the policy regulations on its production under the excise act (known as 'Abkari act' in Kerala). Subsequently, the coconut producer federations (CPFs) in the State were granted licenses for 'neera' production and marketing. However, the majority of the CPFs discontinued the 'neera' enterprise, which they have initiated with greater enthusiasm. The present study is a modest attempt to trace the reasons for setbacks experienced in the 'neera' sector and also to provide a refined framework for revamping the sector. The details of licenses granted to the CPFs were sourced from the Department of Excise, Government of Kerala. The sample size of the study was 95 (13 CPFs who are still active and 82 CPFs who have discontinued). It was observed that the 'neera' value chain is in the evolving stage, and the withdrawal of the institutional support had detrimentally affected the confidence of the CPFs ventured into it. The availability of 'neera' technicians (tappers) and the high wage rates have evoked concerns on the profitability as well as the assurance of continuous supply of the product. The study categorically highlights the need for a restructured value chain of 'neera' with specific roles assigned to the stakeholders through the creation of functional linkages.

Anticipatory infrastructures assemble sensors that are ready to detect, networks primed to share data, scientists prepared to confirm events, and news organizations poised to tell stories. This article explains how public time is articulated through sensor-mediated communications by examining two anticipatory infrastructures. Each infrastructure uses similar earthquake data to detect, report on, and convene material publics around earthquakes in Southern California. They are integral to structuring rhythms, coordinating syncronizations, setting deadlines, and making events timely, meaningful, and actionable, yet their governance lives in no one place. Instead, they emerge from an assemblage of sensors, networks, devices, algorithms, people, data, organizations, professional practices, and normative theories of the public. By comparing two different anticipatory infrastructures, we show how imagined publics, forms of journalistic storytelling, representations of earthquake events, and system maintenance can convene different public temporalities. We identify four dynamics involved in making these variable temporalities in material publics: how human-machine relations organize time, how professional norms of timeliness collide, how publics are anticipated by infrastructures, and how sensor infrastructures are maintained or decay over time.