Tackling e-waste

Murali Shanmugavelan In 2008, over 280 million8 mobile handsets were sold world-
Panos London wide in just the first quarter, which suggests a sale of a billion
www.panos.org.uk handsets in that year. With limited access to e‑waste data in de-
veloping countries like India and China, estimated figures are
Introduction linked to sales figures for consumer electronics. Greenpeace
estimates that four million PCs are discarded each year in
The 20th century was marked by the impact of information
China alone. In 2009, investigative reports9 by United Kingdom
and communications technology (ICT) on social and eco-
(UK) media houses from dumping sites in Ghana and Nigeria
nomic development. The digital revolution, started in the late
tracked electronic devices that belonged to the UK’s leading
1970s, led to explosive production and extensive use of elec-
public institutions including councils, the police department
tronic and electrical equipment – one reason that has made
and health services.
the information society affordable. However, this has also
meant that ICTs have become commodities, and have over E-waste and human health
time been designed to reach their end of life sooner. This
Modern electronics can contain up to 60 different elements.
is creating a massive amount of electronic waste (e‑waste)
These devices are manufactured from human-made and
globally, and has presented the challenge of dealing with
natural materials. Many are valuable, some are hazardous
toxic materials in ICTs that harm lives and the environment.
and some are both. The most complex mix of substances
E-waste, e-scrap or waste electrical and electronic
is usually present in the printed wiring boards. When tox-
equipment (WEEE) refers to discarded, outdated, obsolete or
ics are exposed, potential human impacts include – but are
broken electrical or electronic devices.1 Many environmen-
not limited to – lung cancer and damage to the heart, liver
tal groups claim that developed countries use developing
and spleen. Some could also lead to brain swelling and mus-
countries or emerging economies as “dumping grounds”2
cle weakness. Chromium VI and lead may also cause DNA
for e‑waste. These groups often state that growing consum-
damage. Substances like mercury can cause brain and liver
erism and fast improvements in technology are leading to an
damage if ingested or inhaled. The burning of e‑waste is very
increase in the amount of dangerous e‑waste being dumped
common in developing countries and it can leave high levels
on the world’s poorest nations.3
of lead present in soils and the water.
How much e-waste is generated?
Recycling as a way of avoiding resource depletion
E-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams today and
A 2009 report from the United Nations Environment Pro-
it is growing at three times the rate of municipal waste globally.4
gramme (UNEP), Recycling – From E‑waste to Resources,
As per current estimates, the ICT industry is expected to gener-
offers several considerations of the hidden environmental
ate 53 million tonnes of e‑waste by 2012.5 Only 13% of this
impact of electronic devices.
waste is reported to be recycled with or without adequate safety
Besides the impact on people’s lives, one important rea-
procedures. This, however, excludes illegal dumping. In the Eu-
son to encourage the proper recycling of technology is the
ropean Union alone, 9.3 million tonnes6 of electronic equipment
impact that the production of ICTs from scratch has on the
was put on the market in 2005. In the United States (US), about
environment and on crucial resources. Mining plays the most
18% of TVs and IT products (a total of 26 million TVs and 205.5
important role in the supply of metals for electrical and elec-
million IT products, including peripherals) and 10% of mobile
tronic equipment, since supply from recycling is very limited
phones (a total 140.3 million units) were recycled in 2007.7
and it cannot meet the industry’s demand. Vast lands are used
for extracting natural resources for ICTs, which also use up
other precious resources such as water and energy in produc-
1 Adapted from Wikipedia’s entry on e-waste: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste
tion, resulting in tonnes of CO2 emissions. For example, to
2 See Greenpeace’s mapping of e-waste: www.greenpeace.org/international/en/
campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem/where-does-e-waste-end-up produce one tonne of gold, palladium or platinum, CO2 emis-
3 Osborne, H. (2006) Rich nations accused of dumping e-waste on Africa, The sions of about 10,000 tonnes on average are generated.
Guardian, 27 November. www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/nov/27/news.waste
4 Sinha, S. (2010) Sustainable E-waste Management. www.toxicslink.org/art-
view.php?id=134
8 Geyer, R. and Doctori Blass, V. (2010) The economics of cell phone reuse and
5 Ibid. recycling, International Journal for Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 47
6 Husman, J. et al. (2008) Review of Directive 2002/96 on Waste Electrical and (5-8), p. 515-525.
Electronic Equipment (WEEE), UN University, Bonn. 9 www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dumped-in-africa-britain8217s-
7 www.computertakeback.com/Tools/Facts_and_Figures.pdf toxic-waste-1624869.html and www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10846395

Thematic reports / 23
 Gold is used in computers to ensure rapid and accurate postal and telegrams policies. A recent study by UNEP analys-
transmission of digital information through the computer. Gold ing policy and legislation mechanisms to assess barriers for
meets these requirements better than any other metal. There- sustainable e‑waste in eleven countries (South Africa, Kenya,
fore the annual demand for gold in electrical and electronic Uganda, Morocco, Senegal, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil,
equipment is some 300 tonnes on average. This extraction India and China) showed that no country – with the exception
alone produces 5.1 million tonnes of CO2 (at the rate of 17,000 of China with a poor record of implementation – has dedicated
tonnes CO2 per tonne of gold). Other metals like copper, co- policy and legislative mechanisms to deal with e‑waste. As a
balt, tin, indium, silver, palladium, platinum and ruthenium result, the legal scope and definition to recognise e‑waste is in
used in electrical and electronic equipment account for an an- danger of morphing with hazardous waste. Such policy gener-
nual CO2 emission level of 23.4 million tonnes, almost 1/1000 alisation makes e‑waste recycling unaffordable and potentially
of the world’s CO2 emissions. These 23.4 million tonnes do undermines the market opportunities involved in it.
not include CO2 emissions from metals used in electrical and A dedicated policy and legislative mechanism should be
electronic equipment like steel, nickel or aluminium, nor other in place and offer clear guidelines and steps for collection,
CO2 emissions associated with the manufacturing or use of dismantling, pre-processing and end-processing for final
electrical and electronic equipment.10 metal recovery. This is important as emerging (and devel-
So what needs to happen? The challenge is to raise oping) economies will continue to generate more e‑waste
awareness among all actors – policy makers, producers, in the next twenty years. For example, the growth rate of
consumers and recyclers – in order to be aware of the en- mobile phone uptake in India continues to be over 80% and
vironmental impact and realise the innovation potential that UNEP estimates mobile waste will be multiplied by eighteen
could lead to sustainable consumption. until 2020. Lastly, policy support should exist to improve the
harmonisation of waste streams nationally and regionally,
Policy and regulatory mechanisms including integrating waste management approaches with
E-waste is very much a subject dealt with by individual states, other sectors.
even though the movement (or dumping) of e‑waste blurs All these point out that there is an immediate need to
state boundaries. In order to address the transborder issue, the create dialogue and spaces to develop policy and legislative
United Nations (UN) introduced the Basel Convention on the mechanisms through effective stakeholder engagement in-
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes volving government, industry and civil society organisations.
and their Disposal. So far 134 countries have recognised this
convention. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US are yet From voluntarism to accountability
to ratify it. Nevertheless, ratification of the Basel Convention has Producers of electronic devices transcend nation-state bor-
not necessarily led to policy or legislative responses. ders. This is especially the case with mobile phones and
In some countries where legislation has been developed, electronic gadgets for entertainment. In the past decade, ma-
the success has been mixed. For instance, despite all legislative jor players in electronic devices have come up with voluntary
efforts to establish sustainable e‑waste recycling in many devel- codes of practices towards sustainable use and recycling of
oped countries such as the UK – also party to 1994 European their products. A recent report from the GSM Association,
Community convention that bans the export of hazardous waste which informs its stakeholders about how the telecommu-
to anywhere outside the Organisation for Economic Co-opera- nications industry is working to address its environmental
tion and Development (OECD) – these laws often lack effective responsibilities for both new and used phones, is one useful
implementation or regulations. Good recycling calls for efficient example. Similarly, members of the Global e‑Sustainability
collection points, appropriate recycling technologies, and inte- Initiative (GeSI) came up with a SMART 2020 strategy to
grating streams of waste in a country or region with appropriate fight against climate change, which could enable emissions
recycling infrastructures in place. reductions of seven gigatonnes of C02 by 2020.
With regard to e-waste policy and regulatory mecha- In the absence of strong legislative practices, voluntary
nisms in developing countries, the situation is potentially actions appear to guide waste management – both at global
similar by analogy to how governments handled ICT policies and national levels. Where a policy mechanism exists, such as
in the early days of ICT policy making: treating it as part of in the European Union, the implementation is weaker. Despite
the common WEEE Directive, the 27-member-state European
Union has more than 100 collection systems and every system
10 United Nations Environment Programme (2009) Recycling – From E-waste to
Resources. www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/E-Waste_publication_screen_
FINALVERSION-sml.pdf

24 / Global Information Society Watch

has another weak spot.11 A major problem here is inconsistency class”13 in the information society is hardly recognised.
amongst collection systems by producers that needs serious Mobile phones, the internet and computers are often seen
attention by implementing agencies. Collective efforts by produc- as privileges of the few and wealthy. The labour side of the
ers to receive, dismantle and recycle waste need policy support. information society hardly features in any policy debate. Civil
Producers also lack incentives (e.g. market opportunities for society organisations should raise awareness and build pub-
recycling systems and products) and therefore it is cheaper for lic pressure about the emergence of this information society
them to dump (often illegal) waste in developing countries. working class, so that it gets the attention of policy makers.
These initiatives are important good practices but corpo- Government and producers should create infrastructures
rate or individual voluntarism alone cannot provide solutions and sustainable safety systems for dismantlers, such as
to e‑waste. Policy and legislative mechanisms should actively managed recycling hubs in select towns. Examples like the
hold producers to account, especially in creating infrastruc- material recovery facility, a Hewlett-Packard pilot project in
tures and systems to collect e‑waste and ensure its proper Cape Town, should be explored for scaling up.
delivery to approved dismantling units. Because of the impact
on human health and the environment, e‑waste cannot be left Financing e-waste
to voluntarism. It should be treated as a national priority and The financing of e-waste management and allocation of
regarded as a key consumer awareness issue. economic responsibilities along the downstream chain has
proven to be challenging in countries with existing take-back
Raising awareness schemes and in countries discussing potential take-back sys-
Currently, the data on e‑waste are poor and insufficient, tem architectures. Many models exist in different countries.
limiting our understanding of the issues and therefore solu- From a general perspective, three main stakeholders
tions. Analysts often depend on estimations to map data at could bear responsibilities for managing e‑waste:
a national, regional and global level. Given the very limited
• The producers: This is based on the producer responsibil-
data available on amounts of e‑waste collected and treated
ity principle. This is possible by reducing sales margins,
through “official” e‑waste channels, it is clear that the re-
or increasing sales prices. The current producer respon-
cycling of significant proportions of e‑waste currently goes
sibility principle across Europe has not always been an
unreported in different parts of the world.
incentive to collect more, simply because stakeholders
Awareness is also important to sensitise the public on
responsible for financing have no economic benefits.
reusing and/or recycling electronic devices. A Nokia global
consumer survey showed that the majority of old mobile • Government: As e-waste is a societal problem and it
phones are lying in drawers at home and not being recy- has long-term environmental impact, the manage-
cled.12 At the same time, the GSM Association estimates that ment system could be effectively regulated by policy
more than 70% of a mobile phone can be recycled. mechanisms. Government also can use civil society or-
Media reports are often on illegal dumping and its ganisations and media as watchdogs and management
potential dangers with very little space for what needs to systems could be judiciously financed by tax.
happen to manage e‑waste. For instance, there is very little • The consumers: This is an extension of the “polluter
information on the need for an e‑waste management system pays” principle.
and its impact on poor labourers.
Conclusion
The working class in the information society
This overview of managing e-waste within the global and na-
Emphasis on accountability would also mean formalising tional context is very broad and I have only touched on key
labour forces in developing countries that deal with e‑waste. issues that need immediate consideration. The most urgent
International media reports, activists and civil society intervention is to raise awareness among all actors, and to
organisations have produced evidence that the poor, infor- create a dedicated policy and legislative mechanism through
mal sector in developing countries is often responsible for stakeholder engagement. Recognition of the working class in
processing toxic e‑waste. the information society in policy mechanisms is a crucial step
While the “digital divide” has dominated policy de- to formalise dismantlers who deal with e‑waste. n
bates and scholarly analysis, the emergence of a “working

13 For more information, see Qiu, L. J. (2009) Working-Class Network Society:

11 www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10846395 Communication Technology and the Information Have-Less in Urban China,
12 pressbulletinboard.nokia.com/2008/07 MIT Press, Cambridge (USA).

Thematic reports / 25