Disposal of Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) (Environmental Agency. 2012) is certainly an aim and a mission that has been launched throughout the European Union, and especially in the UK. The aim of this paper is to highlight policies in regards of (WEEE) in the UK, and how effective waste management policies are considered by authorities, also, how appropriate is it's use according to current polices; in addition this paper will explore the following question: Could the UK be a leading example to developing countries towards electronic and electrical waste?
Waste Management in Europe is undoubtedly an extensive issue regarding environmental challenges in comparison with other areas of pollution control. Most European countries including the UK, seek to implement an extended range of mechanisms to address problems with waste disposal. The regulation of the waste chain seems to be the key feature towards mitigation and control of any source of generation of waste; from initial production to final disposal. (Stuart Bell.2008)
1-Technology and human consumption. Do we care about e-waste? WEEE is one of the fastest growing waste products around the world. In recent times, the developed world relies heavily on consumer electronics, which are cheap and easily replaceable. This culture of replacement, rather than repair is introducing a new type of waste into society which needs to be managed responsibly.http://www.altrigen.com/wp-content/themes/wpremix3/images/bespoke/weee_logo.gif
In 2007 the UK introduced European Union laws to deal with e-waste matter (WEEE) being produced by the UK, but unfortunately, even with the new e-waste law, e-waste is ignored because it does not produce a cost-benefit; therefore the UK needs to seek alternatives to turn it green. Disposal of e-waste is actually more expensive than disposal of other waste categories, which use landfill or by payment to local authorities-boroughs for uplift; In the UK, WEEE management is often undertaken by the most affordable method, which generally involves the use of low-cost shipping organisations, to move WEEE waste discretely to developing countries, where it will be dumped at great environmental cost.
2-Disposing e-waste an expensive alternative. WEEE an unwanted policy. Disposal of e-waste is an expensive reality; sadly in the UK, WEEE is an unpopular policy which comes along with concerns in regards to Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR); briefly, producers are individually responsible (financially or financially and physically) for their own products at the end of their lives. (IPR Working Group. 2012). The aim of this scheme is to create an economic/commercial incentive for producers to engage with the environment, (better adaptation in reuse, recycling and easier repairs before the end of life cycle), leading towards the reduction of Environmental Impacts at the end of life cycle.
IPR also refers to an alternative as Collective Producer Responsibility CPR; theoretically it should work within the same framework as IPR, but aiming for environmental mechanisms for products, to allow producers to meet responsibilities collectively.
Recycling under IPR and CPR
IPR and CPR both imply financial responsibility, though not necessarily physical. An individual or collective take-back system could operate under IPR or CPR financing mechanisms. In an IPR system, the costs borne by the producer should relate to the costs of dealing with that producers own products.
Producers: referred as UK companies disposing of Electronic waste
BOX 1. IPR and CPR and the physical process of product take-back. Source: (IPR Working Group. 2012 page 3)
Moreover, WEEE policies seem to be working on paper; however when the producers follow IPR and CPR issues will arise. Producers need to pay for their own recycling, which is neither cheap nor straight forward.
UK WEEE Evidence Cost
The cost of evidence is made up of a number of elements:
Haulage costs from DCFs to AATFs including the costs of containers.
AATF gate fees/value
The perceived market price for evidence
The difference between the charge made to producers for evidence and the actual costs in generating it is generally split between a number of participants:
The waste management companies that operate collection facilities
The PCSs
The Local Authorities
The AATFs
There appears to be little sign of a direct relationship between evidence costs and gate fees.
The graph below shows the change in the representative amount charged (or paid) by AATFs for WEEE received over a weighbridge. These are known as the gate fees/values.
Fig.1 - Average payments or charges made by AATFs for WEEE
The combination of gate fees/value and logistics costs are the net costs/values for those that collect the WEEE at DCFs.
Therefore the cost of evidence should show similar sized decreases in comparison to the increased value/decreased gate fees. Clearly, this has not occurred.
The graph below shows the cost comparison between these prices and the charges for evidence where 'nv' is the net value or cost of the material taking into account collection costs and gate fees/values.
Fig.3 - Showing the difference between the cost of generating evidence and the charge made for evidence for each WEEE category/group.
Glossary
PCS - Producer Compliance Scheme
DCF - Designated Collection Facility - UK infrastructure of free collection points for consumers, usually Local Authority Civic Amenity Sites.
AATF - Approved Authorised Treatment Facility
AE - Approved Exporter
LA - Local Authority
LDA - Large Domestic Appliances
BOX 2. Evidence Cost UK (WEEE) HP Report. Source: 360 Environmental (2012) page 1-5
The information in BOX 2 is a close estimate of the cost impact on producers of the UK market share mechanism; the scheme (UK market share) was expecting that (PCS)s would look after the interest of the participants by taking physical control over the collection of WEEE and driving costs.(Environment 360. 2012 page 2). However, by requiring all evidence to be purchased and by enabling PCSs to take on more WEEE than they needed for their own obligations, has created a disproportionate value in regards to collection and recycling vs. charge to producers, certainly, the Government facilitated the potential for profiteering. E-waste profiteering generated costs in the region of £50 million per year to UK firms. Smolaks M. (In press 2012)
3-WEEE Directive; UK Regulations and Profiteering. Due to the high values charged for recycling and collection to producers; profiteering appears to be a good business for government, but producers are not happy due to the excessive profits on WEEE charges; producers alleged that the recycling system is so "opaque" that companies removing WEEE, can continue to charge high prices for complying with the European Union's WEEE Directive, Smolaks (2012 in HP report 2012 page 1).
Moreover, another apparent problem is the pay principle regarding the product (raw materials); In the UK the producers are charged over £50 million for WEEE disposal. Regulations fail to consider the value of raw material that can be reclaimed from tech trash, Smolaks (2012 in HP report page 1).
Yet, when producers want to cooperate with WEEE directive policies, e-waste profiteering costs in the UK is certainly NOT helping this ongoing problem, the rules of e-waste do not reflect the real value of waste materials in the cost of recycling, thus the policy is inconsistent and producers will try to find other ways to dispose the electric and electronic materials.
4-Expensive waste management procedures; let's recycle it somewhere else. E-waste Smuggling. Undercover investigations were directed by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), publishing a report - System Failure: The UK's harmful trade in electronic waste, (EIA 2011 page 1-2) focusing on the lucrative international black market for e-waste. In addition the report stated that the trade involves people from every level of the waste product chain, (from sole traders, right up to local councils and even central government institutions).
Technically, it's legal in the UK to export electronic equipment such as TVs, Computers; as long they are tested and working. This policy seems to be the perfect way to disguise disposal of e-waste "legally"; according to the EIA report, authorities are not accurately checking all equipment; based on their investigation, they placed a GPS transmitter inside a faulty television. The EIA was able to conclude that illegal e-waste exports were passing through a number of hands from being dropped off by members of the public to arriving in developing countries.
EU WEEE directive policies need to be implemented more thoroughly in the UK to allow for more accurate disposal, however, e-waste smuggling is still a growing problem in the UK. These large e-waste shipments need to be tackled.
Flows of EEE and e-waste between Europe and West Africa.
In Ghana in 2009, investigators found that around 70% of all EEE imports were used EEE; 30% of second-hand imports were estimated to be non-functioning (therefore e-waste), producing about 40,000 tonnes of e-waste in 2010
Field investigations in Benin and Côte d'Ivoire have shown that about half of the imported used EEE is actually non-functional and non-repairable, thus defined as import of e-waste
An analysis of 176 containers of two categories of used electrical and electronic equipment imported into Nigeria, conducted from March to July 2010, revealed that more than 75% of all containers came from Europe, approximately 15% from Asia, 5% from African ports (mainly Morocco) and 5% from North America. A similar distribution could be observed in Ghana, where 85% of used EEE imports originated in Europe, 4% in Asia, 8% in North America, and 3% from other destinations
The UK is the dominant exporting country to Africa for both new and used EEE, followed by France and Germany. Nigeria is the most dominant African importing country for new and used EEE, followed by Ghana
Box 3. Flows of Electric Electronic Equipment (EEE) between Europe and West Africa. Source: Waste Management World 2012
The fact that e-waste is transported to west Africa because it is cheaper and there is apparently less bureaucracy involving import controls, is not the only matter; countries like Ghana and Nigeria are blinkered if they consider that importing e-waste will help the economy of the country in any way. However, they are NOT considering the hazards and risks involving the e-waste that reaches their countries, or for the equipment that reach the country legally (second-hand) that will break eventually; certainly, this e-waste will be dumped without any environmental treatment.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWdZVGCbEo7lslS45ffoH__x6rz-ZxG2tX04PJBWj_j-J6UzMO
Fig 1. E-waste dump. Ghana's capital Accra. Source: Google images.
Undoubtedly, Health and Safety policies are missing in these countries in regards to e-waste treatment, indeed its a challenge, but it seems to be that green practices are low down in the list of priorities for these governments; on the other hand, e-waste is bringing an opportunity to create an income to people with little resources, but at what cost?
How is e-waste treated in the developing countries?
According to NGO sources (Basel Action Network, 2002; Greenpeace, 2008), in developing countries,
dismantling operations are often carried out with no or very little personal protection equipment or
pollution control measures. Open air burning of materials to recover metals, ash particulates laden with heavy metals and other toxic substances are usually emitted, resulting in increased human exposure, and contamination of food, soil and surface water. Materials of no use are then just dumped in an uncontrolled way, which may lead to further release of pollutants and damage to the environment.
BOX 4. E-waste treated in Developing Countries Source: European Environmental Agency (2009) page 14
Children sift through e-waste in Ghana
Fig2. Children Sift through e-waste in Ghana. Source: prlog.org
Health and environmental impacts of e-waste dumping
The crude methods used to process e-waste in
developing countries has dire consequences for those
involved and the surrounding environment.
Research at two scrap yards in Ghana where e-waste is incinerated and broken down found lead and other metals in quantities 100 times greater than in normal soil samples.
In Guiyu, a major e-waste processing town in south-eastern China, the state media estimated almost nine out of out 10 residents suffered from problems with their skin, nervous, respiratory or digestive systems.
Harmful chemicals found in e-waste include:
• Arsenic, used in integrated circuit boards and can be a serious threat to health;
• Beryllium, used in computer motherboards. Its dust is toxic to humans, causing respiratory problems;
• Cadmium, formerly used in cathode ray tubes. Its oxides are highly toxic to plants, fish and humans;
• Lead, used in printed circuit boards, and lead oxide is used in cathode ray tubes. It is toxic to humans and can affect the development of the brain and central nervous system in children;
• Mercury, used in flat-screen displays. It can leach into water supplies and become methyl mercury, a toxic substance that accumulates in the food chain;
• Phthalates, also known as plasticisers. Affects reproductive health;
• Selenium, used in printed circuit boards. Exposure to high amounts can lead to neurological problems.
BOX 5. Health and Environmental Impacts of E-Waste Dumping Source: (EIA. 2012. Page 2)
5-Taking advantage of poor Environmental Policies in developing countries (West Africa). Certainly the UK is acting "lawfully" in regard of electronic exports, however, as the EIA stated, many illegal exports are carried out under the appearance of "second hand goods", in addition the business involving the supply of second hand goods, indeed is part of a legitimate business for these countries.(EIA. 2012 page 12)
Apparently, the "second hand goods" business is viewed as a relatively economic opportunity for an increasingly well-educated, semi-professional labour force, in Accra (Ghana) and Lagos (Nigeria), this business provides income to more than 30.000 people.(Waste Management World . 2012* page 2)
The matter is the uncontrollable shipment of "second hand goods" that reached these countries. Certainly if the amounts of goods is rising it seems that WEEE policies are falling in situ (UK); why is the UK government not focusing in improved and appropriate practices of WEEE recycling, reducing the cost of recycling for producers and creating a scheme to regulate value of raw material, therefore WEEE targets will be achievable. In addition, this scheme (regulation of raw materials) will enhance the creation of a balance between the producer and the environment.
Interestingly, some parties in the UK are making efforts to change the economics of repair, so users will have equipment repaired instead of throwing it away. Comtek, which operates IT centres, attempted to get the last government to scrap VAT on computer repairs. Peter JUDGE (in press 2011), however, at present VAT is still applicable to computer repairs. Perhaps the government should reconsider this as a green-option to reduce shipment of "second hand goods" to developing countries.
Certainly, environmental practices of WEEE directive are tough; in regards to the UK, if the policies don't acknowledge the reality between cost materials and recycling, undoubtedly nothing will be done until business users and consumers actually pay for the full environmental impact of what they buy, indeed with that extra income from the environmental Impact, UK government would be able to launch an alternative to reduce costs for producers and create a directive with regards to waste management (e-waste) locally. Furthermore, the amount of "second hand goods" will decrease, thus, e-waste will be less in these countries. However, all the above are rarely the case at the moment.
Conclusions
Certainly the UK dislikes WEEE Directive polices (recycling costs). Should developing countries enhance WEEE rules in their policies? Knowing the fact that developed countries such as the UK are failing the system; can the UK address the failure? Incorporating improved alternatives towards Environmental Health for WEEE polices. Ghana and Nigeria seem to be the end of the life cycle for most "second hand goods".
According to the HP report, the collection crisis can be addressed by giving producers direct control over collection and treatment, in addition, at present there is NO information on actual indicators showing the real value of collection, recycling and treatment. This lack of information ends as a failure of the market. Also obligation of the scheme or the amount of WEEE that producers are collecting is unknown; thus, they can manipulate the data and therefore increase costs in recycling and treatment.
WEEE management in Africa requires pro-active measures in control towards imports, collection and recycling. Indeed, environmental policies need to be enforced in the countries that are affected. In addition, a sustainable solution for e-waste management is to incorporate an extended producer responsibility and recognise the differences between legal and illegal trade in second hand goods (electronics).
E-waste in EU countries and certainly in the UK is a growing market, alongside the growing market of hazardous and problematic waste treatment.
In regards to smuggling of shipments, this certainly is an ongoing problem; knowing the fact that e-waste treatment in West Africa is much less environmentally friendly than it would have been in the country of origin. The UK knows that West Africa has very low standards regarding e-waste treatment; worryingly, it's still an Issue that need to be address by UK authorities.
Perhaps, waste shipment to developing countries is primarily because treatment prices are lower, and unfortunately, e-
waste environmental policies in these receiver countries either do not apply or do not exist.
