The Toxic Tech

WEEE concerns us. Sorry this is not a typographic error, but could turn out
to be one of the most dangerous mistakes if we as a nation fail to address the
same immediately. Well, we are talking about "waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE)," or e-waste in short, as defined by the
Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of European
Union, the whistle for which was blown in India by the NGO Toxics Link in 2003.

Interestingly, while the EU was signing the WEEE Directives in Brussels on 27
January 2003, India was just waking up to "e-waste" as a new word.
Since there were no estimates of actual amount of e-waste in India, there was no
methodology for baseline estimates and therefore no intervention by regulatory
agencies!

Fast forward to 4 June 2005-a day before the World Environment Day-and
delegates from Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) led its Special
Secretary Meena Gupta, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) led by Chairman Dr
V Rajagopalan, NGOs and recycling units were deliberating on how to handle the
problem at a seminar on e-waste management organized by the Ministry in
collaboration with GTZ-ASEM.

Achievement Ahoy?

The seminar ended with the decision to set up a Task Force-see box for the
six recommendations-that would chalk out a time bound action plan.
Interestingly, however, until 14:30 hrs, the time when discussion on the
possible solutions was slotted, the speakers continued to drive home the point
that amazing work was being done by various NGOs through their studies, the
Bangalore pilot project under CPCB and Max Mueller Bhawan. The delegates were
also informed that a pilot implementation project in Bangalore, the first formal
sector recycling unit in India has been set up and would be in operation by in
the next two months-all this with the help of a German agency for technical
cooperation and a Swiss laboratory for material testing and research.

Besides, one of the seniormost CPCB officials also informed that the MoEF was
preparing a draft manual on assessing e-waste.

Are We On Track?

According to experts, the classification of e-waste as hazardous in Indian
legislation is unclear. While its status, according to Toxics Link analysis,
depends upon the extent of presence of hazardous constituents in it, the country
does not have specific laws or guidelines for e-waste handling. Then, we have
the DGFT or Exim Policy 2002-07 that bans import of second hand PCs, laptops,
photocopiers and air conditioners.

Interestingly, however, the biggest sources of PC scraps in India are
imports. Several reports suggests that more than 70% of electronic waste
collected in the recycling units of Delhi was actually exported or dumped by
developed countries such as the USA. In India, this waste is subjected to
primitive and highly polluting recycling operations that contaminate air, water
and impacts the health of workers.

Strangely enough, officials from CPCB, Customs and the Port Authorities, deny
dumping of e-waste in India by developed countries. An NGO also brought to light
the fact that about 30 metric tonne (MT) of e-waste, consisting monitors and
printers, was imported and landed at Ahmedabad port in a month during 2003. Its
claims were substantiated in December 2004 when the British Environment Agency
(BEA) indicated that there are several companies exporting e-waste from the UK
to India, Pakistan, and China.

Lack of law?

While it's true that India does not have a clearly defined framework or
specific law like the EU's WEEE Directive for handling of e-waste in the
country, the country has also not been strictly following the Bassel Convention-an
international treaty under the auspices of the United Nations Environment
Programme-of which it is a signatory. The severity of the problem can be also
be judged by the lack of awareness or collusion of the respective bodies and
ministries-a case in point are the two recent developments at the western
Indian Coast of Alang, Gujarat.

In the first case, India allowed the 51-year old Danish ferry ship to get
beached on April 23, 2005 for dismantling by Jupiter Ship Management at Alang.
All this despite the formal letter by Denmark's minister for environment
Connie Hedegaard's (No J-3034-0036 dated April 15, 2005) to the Indian
minister of Environment & Forest A Raja, requesting to "deny the ship
to be dismantled in India and refer the ship to be returned to Denmark in order
to be stripped of hazardous waste."

According to the Bassel Non-Compliance Report #1 prepared and released by the
Bassel Action Network on April 29, 2005, diplomacy alone should have ensured
that Raja complied with the Danish request, though Hedegaard's request as
exporting state, under the Bassel Convention, made it legally incumbent on India
to do so. Strangely enough, the Indian Ministry chose to ignore the same.

In the second case, and the most recent one, but for the Supreme Court's
intervention, the French warship (aircraft carrier) Clemenceau would have
reached Alang without being stripped of the asbestos on board and other toxic
material. The nod from the pollution control board authorities came on May 17,
2005 after a monitoring committee appointed by the Supreme Court inspected the
facilities at a plot owned by ship-breaker Mukesh Patel.

It may be recalled that following alarm raised by Greenpeace and others the
Centre had in February directed Customs, pollution control boards and Gujarat
Maritime Board not to allow the old warship to be broken without prior
permission. Greenpeace alarm had also ensured that the ship was turned away by
Greece, Turkey and Spain before Patel bid for it. According to reports, while
the ship had been removed by experts appointed by the French Government,
environmentalists quoting workers who had built the ship said it contained more
toxic material like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and tributylin (TBT).

While in both the cases e-waste was not an issue, the incidents clearly
highlight the lack of awareness and willingness to follow best practices for
environment safety and protection of human life from toxic waste.

The way forward

One of the simplest ways of reducing e-waste, experts suggest, is to
increase the life span of electronics and IT products by reusing the products in
parts or fully. While India is pushing forward to increasing PC penetration in
the country and the IT minister is talking about low cost PCs, a good idea would
be to create a channel whereby corporates can donate their two-to-three-year PCs
to schools and other institutions. However, there is a need to create a
foolproof system that ensures that these boxes reach the right places and do not
land up with the scavengers extracting precious metal. Besides, companies can
also look at the refurbished market, drawing inspiration from Maruti's
TrueValue experience of creating a successful second-hand product sales channel,
complete with finance schemes.

It's also important that instead of creating innumerous task forces aimed
at reinventing the wheel, the MoEF and enforcement agencies recognize the root
cause of the problem and make sure that the Bassel Convention and DGFT
guidelines are followed, to begin with. While this would enable the country to
drastically reduce the pressure of e-waste, proper implementation of Hazardous
Waste (Management and Handling) Amended Rules, 2003 along with Factories Act,
will help in making sure that the recycling units handle e-waste as per the
stringent requirements for industrial operations.

While studies reveal that most of the e-waste recycling happens in the
informal sector, it's strange that many of these so called
"informal" sector players operate from industrial areas, one such area
being Mandoli in the East Delhi district. It goes without saying that such
facilities are run in collusion with the local authorities.

The writing on the wall is clear and the lessons are there for us to learn
from several examples at home-the Euro Norms for vehicles, the CNG experience
in Delhi and the nationwide VAT roll out. Besides, we do not need to reinvent
the whole wheel. Instead, we have the exhaustive WEEE Directive that deals with
the issue threadbare, right from defining what constitutes as waste electrical
and electronic equipment to reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal
that can be adapted based on India's socio-legal environment.

The directive clearly says: "member states shall encourage the design
and production of electrical and electronic equipment which takes into account
and facilitates dismantling and recovery, in particular the reuse and recycling
of WEEE, their components and materials." Similarly, Article 5 of the draft
on Separate Collection provides guidance on a proper system for "take-back
scheme." The Directive also addresses issues like treatment of e-waste,
recovery for reuse, financing for recycling, information for users, besides
technical requirement of sites for storage and treatment.

The philosophy is simple: environment is an asset that cannot be recreated
and hence environmental damages should, as a priority, be rectified at the
source and the cost of which should be borne by the polluter.

Shubhendu Parth