I. THE E-WASTE DILEMMA
In the past few decades, the world has made rapid strides in technology. While it is undeniable that phones and computers amongst a wide array of other technological advancements have become indispensable to our daily lives, the issue that is often neglected is that of their disposal. What happens to these electronic products when they reach the end of their life-cycle? The United Nations defines e-waste as any abandoned product as a battery that contains toxic components like mercury, which can adversely impact human and environmental health. Burning, acid baths or dumping in landfills can result in harmful chemicals such as lead and arsenic seeping into the soil and water that can cause neurologic damage and muscle degeneration. The 1988 Koko incident in Nigeria and the 2006 Trafigura incident in Cote d’Ivoire are just some of the instances that give testimony to the havoc wreaked by indiscriminate dumping of toxic waste.
According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2020, the world economy created 53.6 Mt of e-waste in 2019, with only 9.3 Mt (17%) being recovered and properly disposed of. The EU’s 27 member countries generate an estimated 8.7 million tonnes of e-waste per year, of which only 2.1 million tonnes are collected and treated, accounting for only 25% of the total. The remaining 75% is a ‘hidden flow’ and there is no reliable data on what happens to this waste - whether it is stored, incinerated, or exported. In order to track the global flow of e-waste, the Basel Action Network placed 200 geo-trackers in old printers, computers and TVs that were then sent to recycling centers across the US. This experiment revealed that most of the e-waste was exported from the US to African and Asian countries. It is pertinent to understand why developed countries choose to export their e-waste to developing countries despite possessing formal recycling systems and advanced recycling technologies. The answer lies in the cost of recycling. Developed countries ship their e-waste to developing countries where it is ‘recycled’ through informal systems in the absence of stringent labor regulations and sound waste management policies, thereby making it considerably cheaper. Thus, transnational shipping occurs as a result of complex and costly environmental and social standards for e-waste recycling in developed countries. With the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome, waste collection and treatment are shrinking in most developed economies due to tougher environmental and labor regulations, yet such materials are ending up as illegal consignments in Asia and Africa, effectively distancing developed countries from the e-waste issue at the cost of people living in developing countries. More recently, seeking the path of least legal resistance, the developed world has chosen Southeast Asia as its new dumping ground where only 17 percent of the population lives in areas with some form of e-waste legislation.
II. LEGAL REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE DUMPING OF E-WASTE
In order to combat indiscriminate dumping of e-waste, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal was adopted in March, 1989. This Convention prescribes that each state-party must be self-sufficient in managing its own waste and prohibits developed countries from transporting their e-waste to developing countries. Despite this prohibition, developed countries continue to use Asian and African countries as a dumping ground for their e-waste by exploiting loopholes in the Basel Convention. The Basel Convention permits developed countries to export their e-waste if the electronic goods can be reused or refurbished. However, developed countries falsely label non-functional goods that have already reached the end of their life cycle as goods that can be reused and ship them to developing countries under such pretenses to avoid costs associated with legitimate recycling. Further, there exists no provision in this Convention imposing explicit liability on state-parties for non-compliance. With the lack of a proper enforcement mechanism and major waste generators such as the US having not ratified this treaty, the Basel Convention has done little to addressed the problem of trans-boundary shipping of e-waste, the recipient countries are only just beginning to awaken to the problem of e-waste dumping within their territories and its fateful consequences on human health and environment.
Until recently, e-waste’s typical journey went something like this: shipped to China, where it was deconstructed and recycled before being transferred to firms in Shenzhen and re-purposed for sale in Huaqiangbei, the world’s largest electronics market. China accepted 70 percent of the world’s e-waste, but a decision at the beginning of 2018 to block imports of many forms of waste—including electronics—has upended such long-entrenched practices. Additionally, the African Union member-states adopted the Bamako Convention and the Pacific Island nations adopted the Waigani Convention to prohibit the import of nuclear and other hazardous waste including e-waste into their territories. Although these Conventions have been ineffective in addressing the problem of e-waste dumping at its very root, it has brought this issue to the forefront of the developing world after years of neglect and oversight and highlighted the urgency required to avoid a global waste crisis.
III. MANAGING E-WASTE: THE WAY AHEAD
E-waste comprises valuable materials as well as harmful chemicals; therefore efficient material recovery and safe recycling of e-waste are critical for economic value as well as environmental and human health. The failure to recycle has also led to scarcity of rare-earth minerals that are essential to the manufacture of electronic equipment. For instance, indium – a core component of indium tin oxide – the material that enables phone screens to respond to touch is likely to deplete in the next ten years. Less than 1% of this dwindling resource is recycled globally.
Proponents of ethical disposal, such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and Greenpeace, advocate the theory of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR is a policy approach wherein product manufacturers undertake physical and financial responsibility and lend management support to recycle goods when they reach the end-of-life cycle. EPR has two advantages. First, including the cost of waste management in the product price encourages manufacturers to optimize the environmental design of their devices and extend their expiration date. Rather than building a PC or TV that will only last four years, the maker would be incentivized to create a PC that would last twice as long. Second, it compels manufacturers to clean up their products by removing dangerous components, replacing toxic elements with alternative options, or making design adjustments.
EPR is implemented through take-back programs wherein customers can deposit their used electronics with the manufacturing companies who shall be responsible to collect and recycle them. Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Dell have initiated take-back programs and claim to work with third-party recyclers for effective disposal of e-waste. On paper, Dell’s take-back program, Dell Reconnect, indicated that Dell had banned the export of non-functional electronics to developing countries and partnered with Goodwill Industries to collect old computers for free to be recycled or refurbished. However, in practice, it was discovered that the computers collected were eventually exported to Asian countries. This goes to show that even enterprises that project themselves as green and environmentally responsible resort to dumping their e-waste, thereby choosing profit over sustainability. In addition to the creation of a proper enforcement mechanism, it is imperative to build capacity in developing countries.
Constructing contained burn units and water filters, providing workers with adequate training and personal protective equipment and regular monitoring of toxin levels are some of the resources towards which developed countries must contribute in order to build capacity in developing countries. Further, developing countries must take advantage of the existing network of informal recyclers rather than setting up new systems as recycling of e-waste serves as a means of livelihood for several people and disrupting the existing system will only lead to further marginalization. Instead, developing countries can utilize these ‘informal’ recyclers and bring their cumulative e-waste into the formal sector. For this purpose, civil society institutions must be strengthened so as to enable local organizations to act as a link between recyclers and consumers and influence the allocation and use of resources more effectively.
Recycling of e-waste is only one part of the solution. In order to curb the growing mountains of e-waste and create a more circular economy, it is essential to modify consumer behavior. According to the World Economic Forum, an e-waste circular economy would ensure that electronic products are designed for reuse and safe recycling, while keeping electronic components at their highest value at all times. The exponential advancement of technology has led to rapid obsolescence of electronics due to which consumers are constantly purchasing, upgrading and replacing their electronic products. Most goods either reach the end of their usable product cycle prior to disposal or are simply discarded in favor of newer models. This “throw-away” culture has resulted in e-waste being generated at an unsustainable rate. In light of this, more emphasis must be laid on “for-hire” systems wherein consumers can rent previously owned electronic goods and appliances rather than buying them. The e-waste crisis can only be averted if we, as consumers, actively participate in the creation of a more circular economy through reusing, refurbishing and recycling our electronic goods.
This blog has been authored by Ankita Amarnath Kamath and Niranjan Jose, final year students at National Law University, Odisha