The Green e-Waste Channel: model for a reuse

Transcription

Mémoire de Master of Science en Environnement
Master Thesis, Master of Science in Environment
Spécialisation : Dynamiques locales de développement, politiques
territoriales et gestion des resources
Specialisation : Local dynamics of development, territorial politics and
resource management
The Green e-Waste Channel: model for a
reuse and recycling system of electronic
waste in South Africa
Bondolfi Anahide
Jury:
Prof. Suren Erkman (UNIL, IPTEH)
Prof. Ronald Jaubert (UNIL, IGUL)
Dr. Mathias Schluep (EMPA)
Soutenu le /Defended on
9.3.2007
Lausanne, Switzerland
Anahide Bondolfi, Master Thesis, University of Lausanne
Picture on the title page: pile of about 12 tons of e-waste waiting to be processed at the
dismantler Darkling Industrial Metal, Alexandra/Johannesburg, South Africa.
November 2006.
Source: author
-2-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I’d like to express my sincere gratitude to the eWASA team, Ray Lombard, Wayne
Wermij, Suzanne Dittke, Alan Finlay, for their useful inputs and for the time they found
to help me in spite of their busy schedules. Many thanks as well for their kindness to
show me around, accommodate me, make me discover wonderful places in South
Africa and the nice food…. Special thanks to Lene Ecroignard, besides the ever fast and
helpful answers to all my questions, for contributing to make me feel at home in
Pretoria.
I’d like to thank all the informants of this study, especially Frans Dekker for his time
and Leo Markson for being so open on difficult topics. Thanks also to the intern Jerome
Laffely for introducing me to the project during my first week and helping adapting
from the Swiss to the South African way of thinking. To my housemates in Pretoria as
well, especially to Craig and Bertie for helping me with my English and for listening to
my e-waste stories daily and Dona for joining when looking for people to fill up the
questionnaire.
I want to express my gratitude to many people in Switzerland as well, first to my
supervisor Mathias Schluep for his support, recommendations and valuable feedbacks,
and for having included me in this project, giving me the opportunity to discover South
Africa.
Thanks to my professors Suren Erkman and Ronald Jaubert, and to my tutor Yoann
Fayolle. Thanks to David Rochat for having brought interest to me on that topic. Thanks
a lot to Adithya Vasudevan for his help to correct my English in this thesis.
I am grateful to the KFPE for financing my internship in South Africa through the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
And last but not least, many thanks to my friends and family in Switzerland for
encouraging me in the long process of writing this thesis, especially my brother
Constantin for supporting me during difficult moments.
Un grand merci à tous!!!
Anahide Bondolfi, February 2007.
-3-
SUMMARY
Electronic waste, or e-waste for short, is a fast growing waste stream, not only in
developed countries but also in countries in transition such as South Africa. Although
South Africa recycles some of its e-waste, most of it is in storage, mostly because there
is no take-back system. Thus, the equipment looses value for second use. Furthermore,
some processors and refurbishers import broken equipment such as old computers
because there is not enough material easily available locally. This could be illegal
according to the Basel Convention, which regulates the transboundary movement of
hazardous wastes.
There are many unsound processes in the handling of e-waste because there is no proper
management system for e-waste. Many hazardous components are illegally dumped and
informal recycling occurs such as open burning of wires and dumping of monitors.
Health and environmental risks are associated with those activities.
This study proposes a model through a Green e-Waste Channel by defining the role of
possible stakeholders. The Channel is defined as the infrastructure and the processes
needed to reuse and recycle e-waste. The main stakeholders are refurbishers, collectors
and processors. Producers, the government and NGO’s can support the Green e-Waste
Channel through a management, legislative and facilitative process. The potential role
of each stakeholder is discussed.
The viability of the model of a Green e-Waste Channel in South Africa was assessed
through a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). The
analysis shows that the model reveals many opportunities with advantages for all
stakeholders: a) sufficient material can be provided to processors and refurbishers, b)
safe jobs can be created, c) a convenient solution can be provided for the consumers, d)
a solution for end-of-life equipment can be offered for the producers, and e) the channel
helps respecting national and international regulations. In addition the current situation
in South Africa is favourable for a successful introduction of a Green e-Waste Channel:
the e-waste situation is relatively clean, with limited import and informal recycling, and
there is a general move towards more sustainable waste management.
Keywords:
Green
e-Waste
Channel,
-4-
e-waste,
refurbishment,
recycling.
GLOSSARY
AIDS
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ARF
Advanced Recycling Fee
BAN
Basel Action Network
BAT
Best Available Technology
BCRC
Basel Convention Regional Centre
BEP
Best Practice
BFR
Brominated Flame Retardants
CPU
Central Processing Units
CRT
Cathode Ray Tube
CTMM
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
DEAT
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
$
American dollars
EC
European Community
EEE
Electronic and Electrical Equipment
EMPA
Eidgenössische Materalprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt - Swiss Federal
Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research
EOL
End-of-life
EPR
Extender Producer Responsibility
EU
European Union
eWASA
e-waste Association of South Africa
GDP ppp
Gross Domestic Product Gross based on purchasing-power-parity
HDI
Human Development Index
HIV
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IBM
International Business Machines
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
IT
Information Technology
ITA
Information Technology Association of South Africa
KFPE
Kommission für Forschungspartnerschaften mit EntwicklungsländerCommission for Research Partnerships with Developing countries
NEMA
National Environmental Management Act
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
-5-
NWMS
National Waste Management Strategy
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ORDEE
Ordinance on the Return, Taking-back and Disposal of Electrical and
Electronic Equipment
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PC
Personal Computer
PCB
Printed Circuit Boards
POP
Persistent Organic Pollutant
PRO
Producer Responsibility Organisation
Pty. Ltd.
Proprietary limited company
PWB
Printed Wiring Board
RoHS
Restrictions of Hazardous Substances
RSA
Republic of South Africa
SDC
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
Seco
Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs
SENS
Stiftung Entsorgung Schweiz – Foundation for disposal Switzerland
SWICO
Swiss Association for Information, Communication and Organisation
Technology
SWOT
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
U.S.A.
United States of America
WEEE
Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment
WSIS
World Summit on the Information Society
ZAR
South African rand
-6-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES _______________________________________________________ 9
LIST OF TABLES ____________________________________ Erreur ! Signet non défini.
LIST OF APPENDICES __________________________________________________ 10
1.
2.
3.
INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________________ 11
1.1
Global e-waste development_______________________________________________ 11
1.2
Global e-waste regulation _________________________________________________ 12
1.3
South African context ____________________________________________________ 15
1.4
South African e-waste context _____________________________________________ 17
1.5
Pilot projects for the “Green e-Waste Channel” _______________________________ 18
1.6
Objective of this study ___________________________________________________ 19
METHODS _________________________________________________________ 20
2.1
Stakeholders identification ________________________________________________ 20
2.2
Desktop study __________________________________________________________ 21
2.3
Meetings and workshops _________________________________________________ 21
2.4
Interviews and site visits__________________________________________________ 21
2.5
Questionnaire survey ____________________________________________________ 23
2.6
SWOT Analysis ________________________________________________________ 25
CURRENT SITUATION IN GAUTENG: ROLE PLAYERS________________ 26
3.1
Framework of the case study ______________________________________________ 26
3.2
Distributors ____________________________________________________________ 27
3.3
IT Rental Companies ____________________________________________________ 28
3.4
Corporate consumer _____________________________________________________ 28
3.5
Household consumer ____________________________________________________ 29
3.6
Refurbishers ___________________________________________________________ 33
3.7
Collectors _____________________________________________________________ 35
3.8
Collection points________________________________________________________ 36
3.8.1.
Drop-off sites ________________________________________________________ 37
3.8.2.
Buy-back centre ______________________________________________________ 38
3.8.3.
Scrap metal merchants _________________________________________________ 39
3.9
Processors _____________________________________________________________ 40
3.9.1.
Recyclers ___________________________________________________________ 41
3.9.2.
Informal recyclers ____________________________________________________ 45
3.9.3.
Refiners ____________________________________________________________ 46
3.10
Final disposers _________________________________________________________ 47
3.11
General for all role players ________________________________________________ 49
3.12
Generalisation for all South Africa __________________________________________ 50
-7-
4.
5.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES______________________ 51
4.1
Storage _______________________________________________________________ 53
4.2
Reuse ________________________________________________________________ 54
4.3
Standards of recycling ___________________________________________________ 55
4.4
Amount recycled________________________________________________________ 56
4.5
Informal processing _____________________________________________________ 57
4.6
Final disposing _________________________________________________________ 59
4.7
Import of waste computers ________________________________________________ 60
4.8
Export of pre-processed material ___________________________________________ 61
4.9
Public awareness________________________________________________________ 61
4.10
National and international legislation ________________________________________ 62
4.11
Common and global vision on e-waste_______________________________________ 63
LONG TERM AIMED SITUATION: THE GREEN E-WASTE CHANNEL __ 64
5.1
Definition _____________________________________________________________ 64
5.2
Stakeholders ___________________________________________________________ 65
5.2.1.
Refurbishers _________________________________________________________ 65
5.2.2.
Logistics providers____________________________________________________ 66
5.2.3.
Collection points _____________________________________________________ 69
5.2.4.
Processors __________________________________________________________ 73
5.2.5.
Final Disposers ______________________________________________________ 74
5.3
6.
7.
Framework of the Channel ________________________________________________ 75
5.3.1.
System Operator _____________________________________________________ 75
5.3.2.
Government _________________________________________________________ 77
5.3.3.
Academics and NGO’s ________________________________________________ 78
SWOT ANALYSIS OF the AIMED LONG TERM SITUATION ____________ 80
6.1
Strengths ______________________________________________________________ 80
6.2
Weaknesses____________________________________________________________ 82
6.3
Opportunities __________________________________________________________ 86
6.4
Threats _______________________________________________________________ 88
CONCLUSION______________________________________________________ 90
REFERENCES __________________________________________________________ 95
APPENDICES__________________________________________________________ 102
-8-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of the Provinces and major cities in South Africa ________________ 17
Figure 2. Picture of a basement full of old computers, University of Witwatersrand _ 29
Figure 3. Number of electric and electronic equipment in use, stored and discarded. _ 30
Figure 4. Ways people surveyed used to discard their equipment ________________ 31
Figure 5. Ways people surveyed used to discard their recyclables _______________ 32
Figure 6. Principal ways for collection of e-waste in Gauteng: current situation ___ 35
Figure 7. Picture of collectors bringing scrap at a buy-back centre _______________ 36
Figure 8. Picture of rest of phones and other equipment from Telkom SA Ltd ______ 45
Figure 9. Summary of the current e-waste recycling situation and problems related__ 51
Figure 10. Current and aimed long term destination of materials after pre-processing_ 61
Figure 11. Frequency of Pick-up service for e-waste wished by the persons surveyed 67
Figure 12. Ways for collection of e-waste in South Africa: aimed long term situation_69
Figure 13. The South African Green e-Waste Channel: aimed long term situation.___ 79
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Categorisation of the elements of the SWOT _________________________ 25
Table 2. Amount of e-waste processed in Gauteng____________________________ 42
Table 3. Summary of the problems of the current situation and objectives of the Green
e-Waste Channel.______________________________________________________ 52
Table 4. Number of jobs depending on the type of activity. _____________________ 55
Table 5. Comparison of informal e-waste recycling in Asia and in South Africa ____ 58
-9-
LIST OF APPENDICES
I.
Questionnaire on household consumer behaviour regarding e-waste ____103
II.
Questionnaire analysis _______________________________________ 107
III.
List of site visits ____________________________________________ 113
IV.
List of Workshops and meetings attended________________________ 114
V.
List of Informants___________________________________________ 115
VI.
Summary of the SWOT _______________________________________117
VII.
Selection of definitions of e-waste_______________________________120
VIII.
Categories of e-waste_________________________________________121
IX.
Why e-waste is considered hazardous____________________________ 122
X.
Legislation in South Africa____________________________________ 123
- 10 -
CHAPTER I
1. INTRODUCTION
The production of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is increasing rapidly,
followed by an escalating amount of electrical and electronic waste (e-waste). South
Africa, as most countries in transition and developing countries, doesn’t have a proper
system to handle its e-waste. The objective of this study is to propose an infrastructural
model for a future reuse and recycling system of e-waste in South Africa called “Green
e-Waste Channel”.
1.1
Global e-waste development
The importance of information and communication technology (ICT) to the world
economy has brought an increase in demand for electronic equipment. With the rapid
pace of technology advancement and the quick drop in product-costs to support
increasing demand, the production of EEE is one of the fastest growing fields in the
world. In just fifteen years, the number of personal computers worldwide increased
dramatically, from about 100 million machines in use in 1990 to close to a billion in
2005 (Computer Industry Almanac Inc., 2006). At the same time, accelerating
obsolescence in computing technology shortens the useful life of electronic equipment
with each successive generation (Macaulay et al., 2003). When those equipments
become obsolete and need to be replaced, they generate a large volume of waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), commonly called electronic waste or
e-waste for short.
According to Widmer et al. (2005b), there is so far no commonly accepted definition of
“e-waste”. The term used in this study refers to any appliance using an electric power
supply that has reached its end-of-life, according to the definition of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2001). This includes all kinds of
obsolete items such as computers, fridges, toys or lamps. A selection of definitions and
the different categories of e-waste can be found in appendix VII and VIII. The
end-of-life of a product in this document refers to “the time point when the product’s
- 11 -
functionality no longer satisfies the requirements of the original purchaser or the first
user” (He et al., 2006).
Compared to other waste streams, e-waste is accumulating rapidly (Sinha-Khetriwal et
al., 2006). According to The Economist (2005), e-waste accounts for almost 8% of the
European municipal solid waste. Disposal of WEEE is a growing concern due to rising
volumes and toxic content: more than 1000 substances can be found in electronic
discard, many of them being highly toxic including lead, mercury, arsenic and flame
retardants creating dioxins emissions if burned (Widmer et al., 2005b).
Heavy metal components are harmful to both human health and the environment. If ewaste is landfilled or incinerated together with household solid waste, “some heavy
metals will remain in the environment for a long time and will damage the soil,
groundwater, lakes, rivers, etc. The human body is seriously affected by
bioaccumulation as the toxins gradually build up inside the body” (Huang et al., 2006).
In the U.S.A., the origin of about 70% of heavy metals such as mercury or cadmium
found in landfill sites is e-waste (Puckett et al., 2002).
On the other hand, WEEE contains only 2.70% of pollutants and over 60% of valuable
metals (Widmer et al., 2005b) including steel (made for 98% of iron, iron being 20% of
the weight of a personal computer), aluminium (14%) and copper (7%) (EMPA, 2005).
It contains as well precious metals such as silver, gold and palladium, that make
recycling activities economically interesting. Parallel to the increase in production of
EEE, the increase of e-waste led to the boom of a new industry: WEEE recycling.
Recycling practices also pose a concern with respect to environmental damage and
worker health and safety (Atlee et al. 2006).
1.2
Global e-waste regulation
Due to the risks associated with unsound final disposing as well as recycling, several
countries recognised the need for legislation on the collection and disposal of e-waste.
Those countries, mostly European but including as well OECD countries outside of
Europe such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the State of California, implemented
different legislations (Sinha-Khetriwal et al., 2006). The main objectives and
regulations are the prevention of e-waste, the recycling and the reduction of the final
- 12 -
disposing. The European Community introduced the WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC (The
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2003b) in 2003. The
directive has not been transposed by each European Union (EU) member state into its
national legislation yet but it is in process.
While the WEEE directive is based on an end-of-pipe approach, another European
directive called RoHS for Restrictions of Hazardous Substances (The European
Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2003a) seeks to reduce the use of
several hazardous materials at the source, during the manufacturing of EEE: toxic
substances such as lead or mercury should be replaced by safer components and
shouldn’t be found in appliances entering the market from 1. July 2006. With less
hazardous substances in EEE and therefore in WEEE, the environmental impact of
recycling and disposal would be lower as well as the costs.
The majority of the countries that possess legislations have placed the responsibility to
implement it in the hands of manufacturers or importers (Sinha-Khetriwal et al., 2006),
which involves, besides legislation, a proper management system. Switzerland, thanks
an initiative of the IT industry, is pioneer in having a successful system for e-waste
recycling: established in the early 90s, this system is presently controlled by two
Producer Responsibility Organisations (PRO) - SWICO and SENS - depending on the
category of equipment 1. The PRO finances the non-profitable part of the recycling and
the logistics with an Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF).
The legislation, the Swiss Ordinance on the Return, Taking-back and Disposal of
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ORDEE), supports the PRO, saying that the
consumer has to return the end-of-life items, that producers and retailers must take-back
e-waste- in the case of the retailer even if the customer doesn’t buy any new equipment
- and that the producer is responsible to dispose of it properly (Federal Office for the
Environment, 1998). As the PRO offers a convenient solution for producers, the number
of free riders is minor (Sinha, 2004).
Most of developing and industrialising countries don’t have a legislation that deal
specifically with e-waste nor have a management system. Such a legislation would be
1
see www.sens.ch and www.swico.ch for each category.
- 13 -
highly effective in these countries, because lenient environmental regulations, lower
safety standards, high unemployment rate and cheap labour force, have lead to abundant
informal recycling, resulting in environmental and health issues. According to Williams
(2005), “Informal recycling of waste electronic goods (e-waste) in developing nations is
emerging as a new environmental challenge for the 21st century”. The challenge is
particularly essential in industrialising countries such as India and China, because the
high population and the rapid growth and access to new technologies generate large
volumes of e-waste.
To the local production of electronic discards can be added even larger volumes of
imported hazardous waste from developed countries, mainly through imports from
North America and Europe. Owing to the high cost of e-waste disposal in developed
countries, old products are shipped to developing countries as donations, most of them
being unsuitable for reuse (Puckett et al., 2002). For example the Basel Action Network
(BAN, 2005) reported that out of the estimated 400’000 units, mainly monitors and
Central Processing Units (CPU’s), arriving each month in Lagos Nigeria, about 75% is
“junk”: therefore a relevant amount of hazardous waste is dumped in developing
countries.
In response to numerous international scandals regarding other type of hazardous waste
export in the late 1980’s, the 1989 Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was initiated. This international
treaty, set-up under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP,
1989), aims to construct a framework for controlling the “transboundary” movements of
hazardous wastes. The convention entered into force in 1992 and has been ratified since
then by all signatory parties except the U.S.A., Afghanistan and Haiti 2. But despite this
international effort, developing countries, mostly India and China, still receive
electronic waste from overseas. In 1995, an amendment known as the Basel Ban
reinforced the Basel Convention by banning all forms of hazardous waste exports from
developed to developing countries. This amendment has not entered into force yet.
2
Source: www.basel.int/
- 14 -
1.3
South African context
To understand e-waste in the Republic of South Africa (RSA), the economical and
cultural context of the country must be explained. The information of this section is
largely inspired from Widmer et al., (2005a).
“ South Africa is a multicultural, middle income, developing country with
abundant resources and well developed financial, legal, communications,
energy and transport sectors.”
South Africa has eleven official languages and important influences from European and
Asian culture through numerous immigrants. Therefore, many South Africans consider
themselves as belonging to a “Rainbow Nation”.
The RSA is an upper-middle-income country, ranked 55th according to his Gross
Domestic Product based on purchasing-power-parity (GDP ppp) per capita for the year
2005 (International Monetary Fund, 2006). The country is placed on 111th position
according to his Human Development Index (HDI) for the year 2001 (UNDP, 2003).
The HDI takes into account the life expectancy, the knowledge through literacy rate and
education and a standard of living through GDP.
The relatively low HDI can be explained by enormous inequalities such as education
levels and quality of life. Those disparities, “ stemming in part from the shadowy legacy
of the previous dispensation’s Apartheid policies, which segregated people on the basis
of racial categories, discriminating against millions on the basis of their skin colour”,
have not disappeared since the institution of the democratic government in 1994,
although positive advances have since taken place.
South Africa also has a very high Gini index (UNDP, 2003) indicating disparity in
income distribution: quite a large proportion of South African households experience
absolute poverty or vulnerability to being poor (May, 1998), similar to low income
countries.
- 15 -
The short life expectancy in the RSA due to one of the most severe HIV/AIDS
epidemics in the world also contributes to the low HDI compared to the GDP 3. Besides
AIDS, other problems that South Africa faces are crime, corruption and one of the
highest unemployment rate in the world 4, that couldn’t be compensated through the
important economic activity and numerous resources available in the country.
The industrial sector contributes to about 30% to the GDP, while mining and energy
resources such as gold, diamond, copper, nickel, phosphates, coal and natural gas under
many others contribute to about 25% to the GDP. Thanks to those resources, South
Africa plays a strategic role in regional and global markets.
With high mining and industrial activity as well as the size of the country that requires
long distance transportation, the carbon dioxide emission per capita is very high for a
developing country (UNDP, 2003), but like in most developing countries,
environmental awareness is low.
There are nine provinces in the RSA (Figure 1). The province of Gauteng, meaning
“place of Gold” in Sesotho language 5, has two major cities, Pretoria, the political
capital, and Johannesburg, the economic centre of the country and major centre on the
African continent. Gauteng houses about 20% of the 44,4 millions inhabitants of South
Africa. The province has a very high density of population, with a level of urbanisation
of 97%, 58% for South Africa (UNDP, 2003).
3
In 2005, the HIV prevalence rate among pregnant women was 30.2%. source:
www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm
4
36% to 42% since the year 2000 using the broad definition. According to the narrow
definition, which applies a job-search test, 25-30% of adults who wanted work and actively
looked for it were unemployed. Source: www.gprg.org/themes/t2-inc-ineq-poor/unem/unempov.htm
5
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauteng . Indeed, the mining intensity is very high in
Gauteng (source: www.environment.gov.za/).
- 16 -
Figure 1. Map of the Provinces and major cities in South Africa
Source: www.anc.org.za/lists/maplist.html
In the Gauteng Province, there are three metropolitan municipalities, Tshwane,
Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni. The first two are the more populated. However
Ekurhuleni is also important for this study because most of the e-waste recyclers are
based there.
1.4
South African e-waste context
Like in most developed countries, the use of electronic goods in South Africa increased
dramatically, followed by the generation of e-waste. There is currently no management
system of e-waste such as a PRO. At a national level, much legislation can be said to
have an impact on e-waste, but none specifically on e-waste (see appendix X). At the
international level, South Africa signed and ratified (1994) the Basel Convention 6.
6
Source: www.baselpretoria.org.za/
- 17 -
Some e-waste is presently recycled, but there is no organised take back system, each
role player having contact with their downstream and up stream clients without specific
e-waste regulation.
1.5
Pilot projects for the “Green e-Waste Channel”
Because there is currently no proper system for handling e-waste, the Swiss project
from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (seco) programme “Knowledge
Partnerships in e-waste recycling”, which is run by the Swiss Federal Institute for
Materials Science and Technology (EMPA), supports the establishment of the local so
called “Green e-Waste Channel”, an e-waste reuse and recycling system. The working
group on the project, a multi-stakeholder group composed of concerned South Africans
(independent researchers, IT business representative etc.) evolved into eWASA, the
e-Waste Association of South Africa (Ecroignard, 2006), currently in the process of
formalizing itself as a non-profit organization (eWASA, 2006).
With help of the municipalities, pilot projects for the Green e-Waste Channel have been
launched in October 2005 in the Western Cape Province and in October 2006 in
Gauteng. A working group was created in November 2006 in Durban/eThekwini in the
province of KwaZulu-Natal. The focus of the pilot projects is to create business links
between existing service providers.
The concept of the “green channel” refers to the green pathway at the airport: one has
nothing to declare. In terms of e-waste, it refers to a channel that the e-waste should go
through, right from the collection of the equipment which the customer wants to
discard, to the very last step in the process - raw material, through several intermediate
steps including the take-back, the recycling and different loops to extend the lifespan.
The name was invented during the project. EMPA also supports a project in China and
in India, where the Green e-Waste Channel is called “Clean e-waste Channel”.
Although pilot project of the Green e-Waste Channels have already been launched,
there is currently no common definition of it or clear objectives to be achieved.
- 18 -
1.6
Objective of this study
This study proposes a model for an e-waste reuse and recycling system in South Africa
called “Green e-Waste Channel”. The aim is to define the role of each stakeholder
within a Green e-Waste Channel in order to yield an infrastructural model for an ewaste recycling system that is environmentally sound and economically viable, while
also playing a social role. The feasibility of the proposed system is evaluated in the
following manner:
Chapter 3
Situation analysis: as e-waste is a recent topic, there is very little archival
data, therefore a case study seemed suitable to survey the current
situation. The case study is done in the Gauteng Province, with attempt
to generalize for all South Africa. The expectations of each stakeholder
are studied as well.
Chapter 4
Summary of the problems identified. The reasons they cause
environmental, economical and/or social nuisance are explained. The
general objectives of the Green e-Waste Channel that can minimize those
problems are set forth.
Chapter 5
General definition of the Green e-Waste Channel in South Africa and
description of the elements that could be included in the design of the
Channel using a stakeholder approach: the role of each stakeholder and
the responsibility are discussed, considering as much as possible their
expectations and the targets of the Channel.
Chapter 7
Critical analysis of the ultimate scenario of the Green e-Waste Channel
proposed with a SWOT analysis (internal strengths and weaknesses,
external opportunities and threats of the system)
Chapter 8
Conclusion on the Green e-Waste Channel in South Africa and role for
other countries in transition or developing countries. Recommendations
and propositions for further studies.
- 19 -
CHAPTER II
2. METHODS
The practical part of this research was carried out during three months, from September
to November 2006, based at the Basel Convention Regional Centre (BCRC) in Pretoria.
The practical part was completed by two months of analysis in Switzerland.
The results, presented in chapter 3, are an aggregation of information collected through
analysing the available literature, attending meetings and workshops, through site visits,
interviews as well as questionnaires.
For confidentiality purpose, the information
source is mentioned only when derived from literature or from one specific person
interviewed who doesn’t insist on confidentiality, but the complete list of people
interviewed can be found in appendix V. Some results of the questionnaire on consumer
behaviour concerning their opinion on possible future elements of the Green e-Waste
Channel are presented in chapter 5.
2.1
Stakeholders identification
To conduct a situation analysis, all the stakeholders involved in the handling of the
e-waste were identified looking at the different possible steps e-waste is passing through
from its end-of-life stage to the end of the recycling process, while following the
prescribed e-waste stream. Loops that extend the lifespan of the item through reuse
were taken into account as well.
Chapter 3 and 5 show the current situation and long-term aimed state through a
stakeholders approach. “Collection points” are not by definition stakeholders, but are to
be understood as people managing the collection points.
Role players not directly involved in the e-waste context but that could influence the
recycling process in the future such as the government or Non Governmental
Organisations (NGO’s) have been investigated as well.
- 20 -
2.2
Desktop study
The literature study helped inform about the case studies already done in Gauteng, to
learn about problems in other countries, and finally, to know what had to be assessed in
South Africa. Established e-waste collection and disposal systems in Europe, especially
in Switzerland, were analysed as reference cases in order to find positive and negative
aspects (useful for the SWOT analysis) of the proposed system. However these systems
are only partially useful for comparison, since the situation and the targets are different
in developed and in developing countries. Implemented models in countries in transition
or developing countries do not exist and thus couldn’t serve as reference cases neither.
2.3
Meetings and workshops
The different problems that surfaced at meetings and workshops helped to formulate the
requisite questions for future interviews. Meetings and workshops also favoured
contacts to various role players who were interviewed personally later on. Meetings and
workshops in other provinces - the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal - served as a
springboard for comparisons with the Gauteng Province and the rest of South Africa.
The list of workshops and meetings attended can be found in appendix IV.
2.4
Interviews and site visits
The research was mainly qualitative and involved mostly confidential interviews based
on a set of open questions. The first stakeholders approached were identified through
the eWASA-working group (names mentioned in the reports, persons met at the
workshops and meetings etc.). Persons interviewed later were found in the yellow
pages, as well through personal contacts from the role players which were interviewed
in the first place.
Interviews with e-waste collectors, refurbishers/repairers, processors, and final
disposers were undertaken to assess the following:
i. Their role, to understand the current situation
ii. Their down stream and up stream partners, to identify other role players
iii. The problems they personally encounter and they know of, (environmental,
- 21 -
social, economical…), to find out what could be improved
iv. Their expectation, to be taken into account in the design of the Green e-Waste
Channel
v. How they see their future role in the Green e-Waste Channel
Most of the interviews were carried out during site visits. Site visits served to better
understand the current situation and to assess the quality of the work, and shed light on
many unforeseen aspects of the process. Often, interviews were completed with
communication through e-mail or phone calls, especially when site visits were done
with a group, because some person interviewed didn’t wish to answer certain questions
in front of other people or just didn’t have the information at that point.
Some stakeholders were called to determine whether they were dealing with e-waste
and to decide if it was worthwhile to pay them a visit, but when it didn’t seem crucial
for this study to question them further or if they were not willing to show their facilities
or be interviewed, the only contact was through phone calls.
Between one and three representatives for each type of role player were interviewed,
except processors: As they are key elements, all the major agents handling e-waste who
could be reached have been interviewed.
On-site visits to other role players not directly involved in the Green e-Waste Channel
but who provided useful information include an IT rental company, an IT distributor as
well as informal discussions with independent researchers. The complete list of
informants and their associated functions can be found in appendix V, the list of site
visits in appendix III.
Limitation of the method includes:
•
A majority of participants who were willing to communicate information for this
study are contacts from eWASA, which means that they are often interested in
finding a common solution for e-waste issues and don’t necessarily represent the
real situation.
- 22 -
•
Informants who are aware that this study is supported by eWASA through the
EMPA project might either completely refrain from communicating, or not
express their real expectations because they have preconceived ideas of the
Green e-Waste Channel. They might also avoid mentioning various negative
aspects owing to their stake in the Green e-Waste Channel or be cautious when
mentioning illegal activities. But at the same time, it would have been very
difficult to contact certain persons without the help of eWASA.
•
The information assembled on small size or informal processors and collectors
as well as on illegal activities mostly comes from bigger recyclers who admit
what they’ve seen but didn’t wish to give contact details. Information on
informal and illegal activities mentioned in this study originates from more than
one source, but it is not certain that the person who confirmed the first-hand
information was independent from the original source. Because of the crime
situation in the country, it wasn’t possible to easily and safely investigate on the
field on informal or illegal processing, especially on precious metal recovery.
2.5
Questionnaire survey
Consumer behaviour regarding e-waste has not been studied before in South Africa.
Moreover, since consumers are the only stakeholders not already involved in the
process of establishing a Green e-Waste Channel (pilot project of the Swiss e-Waste
Knowledge Partnerships), they were given particular attention through a questionnaire.
Thus this questionnaire (appendix I) is the first attempt to collect information on that
topic.
The target group for private consumers is the middle and upper class (people that might
have end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment), possessing basic English literacy.
A random sample was taken in shopping centres in Pretoria and in offices at the Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Respondents were asked to answer for the
whole household. After completing the form, open discussions held with the
respondents helped ascertain the reasons behind their responses. Quantitative results
were obtained. The standard deviation was calculated.
- 23 -
This questionnaire is limited to the middle and upper class, the first owner of EEE, and
doesn’t give insight into what second users do. As people easily associate the recycling
with environmental purpose, they might tend to exaggerate their environmental
concerns thinking that this is what is expected from them.
The questionnaire for corporate consumer is very similar to the one for private
consumers. If the participation rate is sufficient, the objective is to conduct quantified
analysis, similarly to household consumer.
Other questionnaires were sent to different types of stakeholders involved in the e-waste
handling since they were too numerous to be interviewed all personally. In that case, the
questionnaire survey is an attempt to validate information coming from interviews and
literature review. All the known major processors handling e-waste have been
interviewed; hence, the questionnaire wasn’t necessary.
Except for private consumers, all the questionnaires were sent by e-mail and had to be
returned the same way. They were sent to:
•
Corporate consumers such as bank, schools, embassy, NGOs etc, all likely to
have offices with computers (sent to 40, chosen randomly on a data base)
•
Refurbishers (sent to 10, all the companies that could be found)
•
IT suppliers (sent to 120 companies through the Information Technology
Association of South Africa, ITA)
The risk associated with the use of email to collect data is that the answer rate to the
questionnaire might be low.
- 24 -
2.6
SWOT Analysis
The aim of any SWOT analysis is to identify the key internal and external factors that
might have an impact on achieving the objectives (Srivastava et al., 2005) (Table 1).
SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.
Table 1. Categorisation of the elements of the SWOT
Factors
+
-
Internal
STRENGHTH
WEAKNESSES
External
OPPORTUNITES
THREATS
Although originally used for businesses, it can also be employed for a project, an
organisation, a person, a product etc., here for the Green e-Waste Channel. The SWOT
categorises the factors and shows them in a list. The important factors will be
summarized through the conclusion. The list of factors is classified according to
different levels in the recycling system.
This method is subjective, especially regarding the importance for each factor, but it is
useful because it allows seeing where strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
lie within the Channel.
When implementing the system, the SWOT can help in a decision making process as
follows 7:
i. How can we Use each Strength? (Maintain, build and leverage)
ii. How can we Stop each Weakness? (Remedy or exit)
iii. How can we Exploit each Opportunity? (Prioritise and optimise),
iv. How can we Defend/Destroy against each Threat? (Counter)
This step will only be done partially through recommendations in the conclusion.
7
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT
- 25 -
CHAPTER III
3. CURRENT SITUATION IN GAUTENG: ROLE PLAYERS
Although it was difficult to contact role players not involved with eWASA, some of
them were approached, which helped understand arguments from role players not
wishing a holistic solution to e-waste issues.
3.1
Framework of the case study
E-waste contain a large number of different items and it would require more time than
was available for this study to trace each of them and to understand the problems linked
to them. The case study is focused on the communication and information technology
sector (ICT), in particular desktop personal computers (PC’s). Reasons to concentrate
on this type of appliances include:
•
The IT industry has given its available data on computer flows for previous
studies; computers are therefore easier to track.
•
As the IT industry is involved in the process of implementing an e–waste
management system, there are more willing to communicate information useful
for this study.
•
A certain amount is already being recycled, which allows studying the way it is
done to know what should or could be improved.
•
The reuse potential is large: the market for second-hand computers is less
limited than for other electronic goods (schools are more interested in PC’s than
in Televisions…).
•
There is currently more literature available on computer waste than on other
type of e-waste because of widespread use and the use by corporate consumers
(for instance compared to toys or household equipment such as toasters or
fridges).
- 26 -
The study of the current e-waste situation was done in the Gauteng province. In addition
to the fact that Gauteng is the economic and political centre of South Africa, the case
study was possible because studies on the e-waste flows and issues in that province
have been studied recently (Widmer et al, 2005a and Finlay, 2005). Furthermore, it is
one of the three provinces where a pilot Green e-Waste Channel was launched.
The problem identification is made for Gauteng, with attempt to generalize for all of
South Africa, including major differences with the situation in other provinces.
The ultimate vision of the Green e-Waste Channel, the definition and the SWOT
analysis are made for all South Africa, taking into account lessons learnt from previous
experiences in other provinces, especially the Western Cape, where the pilot Green eWaste Channel already has been in launched more than a year ago.
3.2
Distributors
Most of the major Information Technology (IT) manufacturers such as Dell, Sony, IBM
etc. are present in South Africa. They import their products and distribute them in the
RSA and some neighbouring countries but don’t manufacture locally. “Approximately
1.2 to 1.5 million computers enter the market every year in South Africa” (Widmer et
al., 2005a). Distributors such as Axiz produce some IT components with imported parts
but the production is not done on a big scale in South Africa. Distributors are the chief
suppliers to businesses and retailers, while retailers in turn reach the personal market.
Some distributors and manufactures play a role in e-waste recycling collecting IT
equipment from clients when supplying them with new ones and paying for sound final
disposal in hazardous landfill sites (Widmer et al., 2005a). Since the questionnaire sent
by email to manufacturers and distributors (120 companies) through the ITA was not
returned, nor for that matter the one sent to corporate consumers (one answer out of 40),
this study couldn’t provide more detailed information on that part of the system.
The survey on private consumer behaviour shows that 11% of the persons that discard
their old items bring them back to retailers: this solution exists but is not widely used by
private consumers.
- 27 -
3.3
IT Rental Companies
IT rental companies provide businesses with computers: they supply them with new
computers, taking care of their maintenance and discarding old items when swapping
for new ones.
The interviewed company Orange system provides about 50 companies with an average
of 15 computers each (Van der Walt, Int., 2006). When upgrading for new ones, if the
company doesn’t keep it for personal use, they are dumped at a garden site near
Pretoria. At the present time, the volumes are not important because the company has
been running for only about a year and hasn’t to date faced the problem of having to
discard of all the provided computers. They haven’t thought of a solution yet but don’t
even seem to consider it problematic to discard of the old equipment that way.
Bigger companies such as the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) that
provides government with computers have been approached but without any results
because of lack of time and the difficulty to find the persons able to provide information
on the end-of-life equipment.
3.4
Corporate consumer
Most of the IT equipment belong to corporate consumers, 60-65% of the IT equipment
being sold to the government at local, regional, provincial or national levels, 20-25% to
businesses such as banks, insurances etc. (Vermij, 2006. Int.): this means that only
10-20% goes to private households. It was estimated that “about 70% of the country’s
e-waste is thought to be in storage - most of this held by the government.”
(Finlay, 2005). The University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg for example had a
basement full of old computers by June 2006 (Figure 2).
- 28 -
Figure 2. Basement full of old computers at the University of
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Source: Ray Lombard, Swiss e-Waste Knowledge Partnerships
Programme.
Not enough corporate consumers answered the questionnaire in order to have quantified
information, but according to recyclers, data protection is important to them:
•
Universal Recycling Company says that companies give them computers
because they can guarantee that it will be destroyed (Finlay, 2005).
•
The recycling company Non Ferrous Shredders Ltd indicates on its web site:
“The materials are fully recycled and will not resurface into the market.” 8
3.5
Household consumer
The questionnaire to assess consumer behaviour regarding e-Waste was answered by 44
persons. Complete results can be found in appendix II. Most of the people encountered
were ready to fill in the form and some of them took time besides the questionnaire to
discuss the topic. It turned out that they had very little knowledge regarding e-waste
issues but seemed interested to learn more.
Out of a list of 13 electrical and electric equipments proposed 9, the respondents have on
average 19.9 items in use and 3.3 in storage. They have discarded 6.5 items in the past
8
source: www.nfshred.com/
9
See appendix II: washing machine, dryer, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, toaster, PC, cell
phone, telephone, fax Machine, printer, television, VCR/DVD/CD player, radio
- 29 -
(they have been asked to answer that question for the items discarded back to “as far as
they remember”). It has to be noticed though that the standard deviation is high,
showing that the number of items differs widely between respondents.
The items that have been discarded the most are cell phones followed by PC’s and
toasters (Figure 3). Cell phones and toasters are small appliances especially easy to
dispose in the normal garbage bin, as already noticed by Darby et al. (2005) in a study
on household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical
and electronic equipment.
Figure 3. Number of electrical and electronic equipment in use, in storage and discarded.
61% of the respondents store equipment at their house, the main reason for storage
being the potential future use they could make of it: they keep the old equipment as
spares in case the new ones break down. The second reason is the fact that they don’t
know what to do with their end-of-life equipment; they have no information on how to
get rid of it.
Although the majority of the respondents do store appliance at their house, it seems that
privates don’t store a huge amount of old equipment, on average 0.15 item per item in
use; most of the storage comes from corporate users.
- 30 -
86% of the respondents discarded e-waste in the past, most of them using more than one
way to do so. Ways to discard the items are presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Percentage of people surveyed that discarded their equipment
in one or more of the above ways 10.
The way mostly mentioned is the donation, equally distributed between three groups:
•
Domestic workers
•
Family and friends
•
Organisation, schools, charity
This shows that there is often a second user, and that this happen without passing
through middle-man or without any change of the equipment: this direct reuse is the
most common first disposition for personal computer (OECD, 2003)
As the target population is the middle to upper class, no study has been done on what
becomes to the e-waste after passing to the second user, especially domestic workers.
The second way of discarding is to throw it in the normal garbage bin, which will
afterwards be collected by the municipality or a contractor from the municipality and
end up at the general landfill site. Adding to those the respondents who dump their
10
As some respondents used more than one way to discard their equipment, the total is more
than 100%.
- 31 -
e-waste directly at the landfill, the number of items that go to the landfill sites is higher
than the number of donations.
Only 11% and 8% of the persons surveyed brought their appliance back to the retailer or
sold it to scrap yards.
Other ways mentioned include items stolen (and then certainly resold) or placed outside
the house on the kerbside, where they will most probably be taken and sold to scrap
metal dealers. Two persons having a secondary residence at a farm burn their
end-of-life equipment or make a hole in the garden to bury all the waste, including
e-waste.
Almost all the persons surveyed used a collection site before (89%), mostly the garden
site, followed by the landfill site, the buy-back centre being only seldom mentioned
(Figure 5).
Figure 5. Percentage of people surveyed that discarded recyclables such as
paper and glass in one or more of these above places.
About half of the persons that filled in the questionnaire gave reasons why they don’t
use the collection site, which is more than the 11% that said they never use the
collection sites: they use the site but not often 11. The main reasons mentioned were the
lack of time to separate their waste and to drive to the collection site, as well as the fact
that they never thought about it, the absence of knowledge on waste collection being of
11
Venter (2006, Int.) estimates that about 30% of the households in Johannesburg use collection
site regularly.
- 32 -
less importance. This leads to the conclusion that the main reason seems to be laziness,
consistent with the findings of Darby et al. (2005) on a study on consumer behaviour in
England.
To encourage reuse was of big importance for the consumers asked, even if the
consumer doesn’t necessarily receive money: they seemed ready to give their old
equipment for free to a collection system knowing that refurbishers/repairers might
make money out of it. The main reason is that they wish to have something useful done
with their computers. Indeed, as they paid a high price for the electronic device only a
couple of years before, they still see it as valuable and might let it go more easily if it
will be reused than simply destroyed.
The possibility to decide if the equipment will be destroyed (for data protection) or
reused doesn’t seem of too much importance for the households consumer asked. A
solution to protect the data even if the computer is reused would be to erase the data
with specific software. But if the consumer does care for data protection, 43% wouldn’t
trust the refurbisher using such a software for erasing data.
The expectations of consumers from a recycling system are:
•
The consumer doesn’t have to pay for the recycling
•
Guarantee of sound environmental and socially responsible process with
creation of a national consumer label
•
3.6
Have a system respectful for the environment and efficient
Refurbishers
With the rapid advances of technology, IT equipment becomes obsolete long before
losing its capacity. After being used by private consumers, old devices can be given or
sold directly to a next user. But when corporate consumers want to hand over a certain
quantity of equipment for reuse, it is more convenient to go through an intermediate.
Computers need to be checked, and then might need to be repaired or upgraded, which
is called refurbishment, after which they can be re-sold or donated. If complete
refurbishment is not economically profitable, some components can still be reused, for
instance one personal computer (PC) can be made out of two (OECD, 2003).
- 33 -
Estimates suggest that a third of all PC hardware sold in South Africa is second-hand
(Finlay, 2005). This is a rather positive result, showing that the used computer industry
exists and works, but there are still too many computers in storage or being recycled
directly without having a second user. De Bruyn (2006, Int.) from Intelligent
Computing put in doubt the estimation that 70% of the e-waste is in storage: most of the
institutions he contacted already had a solution for their old equipment - sold to
recyclers or other refurbishers - but he couldn’t find much material to refurbish. This
would mean that there is less storage and more recycling than thought. To collect more
computers, he wants to put stickers at the collection point to advertise for his company.
Markson (2006, Int.) estimates that about 70% of what he currently receives at his
dismantling facility could be refurbished, but it is not done because of the time required
to sort and sell it. Another reason why some old PC’s are recycled or landfilled but not
reused is data protection as wished by corporate consumers.
Refurbishers know of many privates or corporate consumers that would be interested to
buy second-hand computers such as students and other private consumers with limited
resources, schools, NGO’s and customers in other countries in Southern Africa among
others (De Bruyn, Int., 2006).
As refurbishers see that they could have clients to sell second-hand computers, they
want to find a way to have access to material to resell. It is often easier for them to find
equipment abroad than in South Africa. It is difficult to estimate how much import is
taking place, but many businesses do import from Europe or the U.S.A, or are looking
for opportunities to do it in the future: the problem might become bigger than it is
presently.
A big refurbishment company such as Intelligent Computing, handling about 20 tons of
computers per month, generates a lot of waste. According to De Bruyn (Int., 2006),
about 50% of what they receive is waste. They have difficulty to find an economically
viable solution for the waste, some of it being taken to the hazardous landfilled site, but
other part being stockpiled as the about 100 monitors seen at the facility.
- 34 -
The expectations that refurbishers expressed are obvious: they want to receive more
material to refurbish, if possible of quality and for free.
3.7
Collectors
E-waste is currently collected through many different ways (Figure 6).
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Figure 6. Principal ways for collection of e-waste in Gauteng: current situation (2006)
There is no official logistic provider specialized in e-waste collection - the two major
role players acting as collectors are the consumers that bring back the old equipment
and the processors, refurbishers and hazardous landfill site company that fetch it from
consumers: they collect mainly from corporate consumers because they can receive
enough quantity in order to compensate for the cost of transportation. There is currently
no global logistic vision, some processors having to fetch scrap from clients far from
one another and from their facilities.
The municipality does some collection from privates when discarded electronics are
thrown in the general garbage. After collecting, they bring it to general landfill sites.
However, this collection is not specific to e-waste and most of the time it is not removed
- 35 -
on purpose: the municipality prefers not to have e-waste at the general landfills but
can’t afford to take the time to separate it nor to pay for the privately owned hazardous
landfill site.
The only stakeholders to organize the collection as major activity are street collectors
who belong to the informal sector because they are not regulated. For this reason, their
precise activity and their number are not documented. The information presented here
comes from the role players that buy from them. At the buy-back centre visited and at
Universal Recycling Company, many collectors can be seen with scrap metal and now
and then with some e-waste. They use various means of transportation, pulling or
pushing different sort of trolleys themselves or with horses (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Collectors bringing scrap at a buy-back centre. Soweto (June 2006).
Source: Mathias Schluep, Swiss e-Waste Knowledge Partnerships Programme.
The collectors receive for free or buy for cheap from users or landfill sites different
waste products such as paper, glass, and scrap metal and recently as well e-waste. They
sell it at buy-back centres, scrap metal merchants, refurbishers or processors. As some
components have a high resale value and others don’t have value at all, only a part will
be sold and recycled or reused. The rest seems to disappear, most probably ending in a
general landfill site or is dumped illegally. Another concern associated with street
collectors is that they can resell stolen material, acting as intermediates and thus hiding
the origin of the material.
3.8
Collection points
Gauteng offers many types of collection points for different kinds of waste, principally
drop-off sites, buy-back centres, scrap metal merchants and landfill sites. Landfill sites
- 36 -
are used for final disposing but some sorting is done on the site by informal collectors
or at buy-back centre next to the landfill sites. The function of final disposing of the
landfill site will be discussed later on.
3.8.1.
Drop-off sites
The municipal drop-off sites, also called garden sites/refuses if they handle essentially
green waste, currently receive waste such as glass, paper and plastic. Waste is separated
on the site by subcontractors of waste recycling companies
12
, also called
“entrepreneurs” or “reclaimers” and resold to those waste recycling companies. The
employees from the site are there only to monitor the sites and handle the garden refuse.
The drop-off sites are managed by the municipalities or, as in Johannesburg, by
Pikitiup13, a waste management company having a contract with the city to handle its
municipal waste.
In Johannesburg, some garden sites have been receiving e-waste unofficially for a
couple of years, which is then informally sold by the employees of the site or
subcontractors to processors. As e-waste represents a potential high income source for
the person present on the site and doesn’t officially belong to anyone, there is a mafia
effect between the employees of the site, the subcontractors and sometimes even other
not authorized workers (or “scavengers”): they all want to have control on this material
received for free and easily sold for a good price. According to Markson (2006, Int.),
the employees from Pikitup use the company’s truck to sell material, changing from
their normal route to stop at scrap metal dealers or processors without the Pikitup’s
supervisors really knowing about it.
To tackle this situation, 25 official collection points for e-waste were launched in
October 2006 at garden refuses together with help of the Green e-Waste Channel
Gauteng core group. Two middle tier processors collect the e-waste from the sites,
including Darkling Industrial Metal that had been doing it for many years. The
containers currently used belong to the Rose Foundation, which collects used oil: this is
not an adequate solution because the e-waste is mixed with oil. As they have windows,
it is easy to steal from it. But at the site visited, the container was not used because there
12
such as MONDI for the paper
13
see www.pikitup.co.za
- 37 -
was nobody responsible for it and some employees from Pikitup, subcontractors or
scavengers were putting some e-scrap aside to sell it. The e-waste can’t therefore be
stored and the processors have to collect it very regularly, often small amounts on a
daily basis, which makes the price of the collection very high. If they don’t collect it
directly, it might be sold to someone else.
Nothing similar has been done at the moment neither in Tshwane nor in Ekurhuleni, but
the Municipalities are slowly getting involved as well. In other provinces, the
municipality of the City of Cape Town is implicated: there are two collection points in
Cape Town, the municipal drop-off site in Wynberg and the community project at
Footprint Environmental Centre (Dittke et al., 2006). In the first three months since the
launch, 4 tons of e-waste have been collected in Wynberg. The proportion of monitors
collected increased since the launch of the collection point: Newson (Int., 2006)
suspects that material has been stolen, mostly CPU’s, monitors being left over because
of the lesser value.
The expectations of the municipalities that manage the sites are along the line of waste
minimization. Landfills are closing and they don’t want to reopen new ones. They don’t
want to make money out of the e-waste, but they don’t want to spend because of
e-waste either. If the consumer brings back the e-waste and it is then collected by a
refurbisher or a processor, they avoid the landfilling costs, and especially the transport
that can make up to 75% of the cost (Lombard, 2006, Int.). They also want as side effect
that the consumers get to know the site to have new customers, as they are the same as
for other waste.
3.8.2.
Buy-back centre
Unlike public drop-off sites, buy-back centres are often privately owned, although
sometimes publicly financed. They buy the material that is brought back. The users of
the site are consumers and informal collectors that sell material there. The collection of
paper, glass and scrap metal generates income at buy-back centres.
The contact person at the drop-off site visited said that they don’t receive electronic
discards but some e-scrap such as Printed Circuit Boards (PCB’s, or PWB’s for Printed
Wiring Boards) or copper yoke from monitors has been seen on the site. Apparently,
- 38 -
they don’t identify it as different from other scrap metal or don’t receive enough
quantity to handle it separately.
There are also buy-back centres next to landfill sites: the one visited had about 220
workers (Dekker, Int., 2006), not belonging to the official staff of the landfill. They
collect different kind of waste on the landfill, sort it and sell it. Very little e-waste has
been seen.
3.8.3.
Scrap metal merchants
The scrap metal dealers are businesses that buy all kind of metals that they sort,
accumulate and resell to bigger scrap metal merchants or processors. 18 scrap metal
merchant out of the 200 plus found in the yellow pages for the Gauteng Province were
called in to find out if they accept e-waste and under which conditions. 14 answered the
questions but none were keen on being visited, arguing that their clients that sell them
material wouldn’t appreciate being queried on the origin of the material. The list of the
scrap metal dealers interviewed is not referenced because they didn’t wish to have their
name mentioned.
No scrap metal merchant asked buys e-waste as a whole, but more than half of them
accept PCB’s. The one that agreed to say who they sell the PWB’s to gave the name of
known big recyclers, Desco and Universal Recycling. When asked about what is done
with the rest of the equipment, they didn’t reply or simply guessed that it is dumped.
All the scrap metal merchants interviewed buy copper from electric wires. Only two of
them agreed to give the name of the refinery they sell it to. More than half of them buy
the copper only if the plastic around has been removed. They explained that the plastic
has been removed by burning most of the time and they still accept it, although open
burning of cables is illegal and has associated environmental and health concerns
because of the dioxin and furan produced. Even the ones that buy cables with plastic
around burn the cables themselves to recycle the copper. Those who don’t do it
themselves explained, that the main reason was the fact that they are situated in town
and couldn’t do it discretely, but they explain to their supplier how they should burn it
themselves.
- 39 -
Only one scrap metal dealer said that another method sometimes used is the stripping of
cables with a knife if the cable is thick enough. This technique is unlikely to cause any
environmental or health impacts but is not viable, especially for small cable because of
the time required for the striping.
Although burned cable has a lesser market value 14, this practice is widely used and
encouraged by scrap metal dealers who are buying it. Contrarily to other role players,
scrap metal merchants weren’t open to discussion on e-waste issues. The insight on
their activities showed a certain tendency not to respect the legislation, as for example
regarding origin of the material they buy. To avoid the resell of stolen goods, they
should perform an identity check when buying material from their clients and have a
certificate showing the origin of the material for big quantity, what they don’t seem to
do systematically: only two scrap metal dealer said that there where firm on that point.
One scrap metal firm called Envirometal had closed because his activity wasn’t
profitable anymore, owing to competition from firms sourcing copper from burned
cables and the high cost of stripping cables, especially compared to costs in China.
3.9
Processors
Processors are all the stakeholders doing a step in the recycling process. Recycling in
the broad sense includes all processes which close the material flow loops and bring it
back into circulation (Sinha, 2004), for instance reprocessing material into new
products. Here, the process will be studied from the original appliance until its
transformation into the clean raw material. Most of the transformation into new
products takes place outside of the country and involves industries not specific to
electric and electronic equipment.
Processing in South Africa includes sorting and dismantling, which is done manually
or/and mechanically, different methods of separating such as shredding, pulverisation or
granulation. Those are the steps commonly called “recycling” although it is just a part
of it.
14
By treating the cables with a granulator rather than burning them, the value increase more
than 5 times (Dittke, 2004).
- 40 -
It has been difficult to have all the desired information from processors. They were
seldom willing to give names from their partners, with answers to questions such as
what is done with the plastic for instance: “there is apparently somebody that takes it…”
which makes it hard to follow the e-waste route. They realise that some of their
processes are not environmentally friendly or don’t respect the legislation and don’t
wish to draw attention on it.
The big companies have a website, but a lot of information is missing or incomplete.
However, the general impression is that processors were much more open for
discussions than scrap metal dealers and seem to be more environmentally and ethically
concerned.
The expectation of the processor it to receive more e-waste, especially the valuable, for
instance more CPU’s than monitors.
3.9.1.
Recyclers
In Europe, because of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), the recycling process is
regulated by producers, processors being mostly limited to the activity of recycling. As
EPR has not been implemented yet in South Africa and the recycling is not really
regulated, processors play a larger role, for instance taking care of a portion of the
logistics as well.
Because of the preponderance of storage and some dumping, not enough e-waste is
recycled, between 10% and 30% depending on the source:
•
“Only a fraction of the estimated retired electronic goods find their way to the
recyclers (10% of more than 50 000 tonnes/annum)”
•
15
“Mr Dudley Bradford of Desco Electronic Recyclers estimates that around 30%
is recycled (Cape Town e-waste workshop, 25 February 2004)” (Widmer et al.,
2005a).
Table 2 shows the amount of e-waste that currently goes through processors in Gauteng.
15
Source: www.iwmsa.co.za/nrf_information.htm
- 41 -
Table 2. Amount of e-waste processed in Gauteng
Name of recycling company
Tonnage of e-waste
recycled per year
Universal Recycling Company
2000
Desco Electronic Recyclers
Mixed e-waste
2500
Printed Circuit Boards
400
African Sky
1000
Non Ferrous Shredders cc
2000 16
Darkling Industrial Metal
200
Source: interviews and Widmer et al. (2005a) for the Printed Circuit
Boards from Desco.
It is difficult to estimate how much e-waste is recycled in South Africa: adding the
numbers of the above table will result in a overestimation because of the high level of
interdependence between the recyclers, for instance the majority of Universal’s e-waste
coming from Desco (Finlay, 2005). Furthermore, some e-waste recycled by Universal
Recycling Company comes from Mozambique and Zambia (Van Rensburg, Int.,
2006) 17.
On the other hand, although most of the big recyclers are known and mentioned, they
are probably many small processors who dismantle material and sell the metal to scrap
metal dealers which will then go to refineries without going through e-waste recyclers.
Darkling Industrial Metal is the only middle size dismantler that was visited, but the
likelihood of similar facilities is high.
16
17
Estimation from Lombard (Int., 2006). 1000 more are processed in Port Elisabeth.
Desco imported PCBs in the past from other Southern African countries such as
Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Namibia (Int., 2006). Southern African countries have very
limited recycling facilities.
- 42 -
Processors in South Africa could recycle more: African sky would like to pre-process
3000 tonnes per month in the future (Werth, Int., 2006). According to their website 18,
Non Ferrous Shredders has a capacity of eight tonnes per hour, which makes about
18 000 tonnes per annum, six times more than currently process in the country. A new
recycling company, African Ressource (AamR) wants to open a new plant to process
2000 tonnes of PWB’s per year, not dumping the rest (Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng,
2006c).
As African Sky and Non Ferrous Shredders currently don’t receive enough e-waste to
process, they are looking for imported material. Universal Recycling Company
advertises on the Highway N1 near Midrand, the heart of the business activities in
Johannesburg, with the first point on the board being that they collect and recycle
electronic scrap.
Recycling facilities in South Africa are described as sophisticated (Widmer et al., 2005).
This concerns the big recyclers that seem to process the material with modern
technologies and in an environmentally sound way. It should be assessed more deeply
and with technical competence, especially because some questions were not answered
and processors sometimes showed only what they wanted to be seen.
The major concern of processors is that not everything can be recycled, mostly because
the cost would make the process non-viable. The principal problem is the recycling of
monitors, owing to the presence of Cathode Ray Tube (CRTs) screens.
“Due to their lead content, existing glass recyclers cannot include CRT
screens in their process and an environmental sound and financial feasible
recycling process is not available in South Africa so far” (Zumbuehl, 2006).
18
www.nfshred.com/
- 43 -
CRT’s are currently dumped (by informal recyclers), landfilled (Universal
19
),
stockpiled (Desco 20) or exported oversees (Non Ferrous Shredders and African Sky).
Another problem is the plastic, which makes 23% of the weight of desktop personal
computer (EMPA, 2005). Because it contains Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR’s),
the usual plastic recyclers can’t include it in their process, e-waste recyclers having
therefore difficulties to find a buyer. The plastic is currently dumped, landfilled or
exported to China. The Chinese company that exports the plastic from Desco and other
processors couldn’t give information on what is done with it oversees (Lee, Int., 2006 ).
Non Ferrous Shredders use the plastic in fences for game parks (Smit, Int., 2006) and it
was discussed to incorporate it in furniture such as chairs (Green e-Waste Channel
Gauteng, 2006c).
Because of this difficulty associated with recycling some components, recyclers tend to
accept the rather valuable parts and encourage the collectors to dismantle themselves
and get rid of those unwanted components. There is a particularly high illegal dumping
from some opportunist recyclers that buy scrap on a tender basis. The companies that
want to get rid of their equipment sell it through auction houses, looking for the
recyclers offering the highest price but no guarantee of sound processing: the best offer
doesn’t always come from the most responsible recycler. During a site visit, piles of
waste abandoned were seen, some of them hazardous such as batteries: only the
valuable part had been processed (Figure 8). As the “recycler” has spent much money
to obtain the material, only the profitable part of the recycling occurs because there is
no money left to pay for proper final disposing or export for recycling oversees.
19
As all the e-waste is pulverised, the fraction landfilled contains part of the monitors, the rest
being recycled.
20
According to Widmer et al. (2005a), at the time of their study, Desco had 25 tonnes of CRTs
stored.
- 44 -
Figure 8. Rest of phones and other equipment from Telkom SA Ltd.
Pretoria North (October 2006).
Source: Frans Dekker.
Some big recycling companies have a rather clean process, but they encourage illegal
dumping and informal recycling upstream buying scrap from informal collector and
dismantlers. On the other hand, the recycler African Sky doesn’t follow this “cherry
picking” attitude:
“As a one-stop recycling service provider, we purchase the complete
electronic product. Contrary to other recycling providers. Which only
purchase or accept the relevant electronic components for recycling and
extraction of precious metals, the bulk of e-waste left is dumped or burned.
Also, our customers need not dismantle the electronic products we
purchase.” 21
3.9.2.
Informal recyclers
Informal recycling has been studied in Asia (Puckett et al., 2002) and some of the
activities taking place there also happen in South Africa, principally the burning of
computer wires and breaking of CRT screens. Open burning of plastics or old
electronics has also been mentioned (Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng, 2006a). This is
21
Source: www.ewaste.co.za
- 45 -
part of a general problem of open burning, with for instance tyres burning being of
concern.
Although no site visit has been done to confirm it, many informants said that some
recyclers set up electrochemical processes on their backyards. Similar activities have
been noticed in the Western Cape: “small acid bath setups seem to be common in most
scrap yards” (Dittke, 2004). This process is extremely lucrative because it allows to
extract precious metals rather easily: a computer of old technology can contain up to for
gram of gold (Hilty, 2005).
As long as it is done under highly regulated conditions, as is doing for example Precious
Metal Recovery System, it doesn’t cause to much of environmental and health hazard.
But some people might be envious of the fast money and start their own back yard
recovery. If the process is not done under controlled conditions, toxic chemicals might
be disposed of inappropriately and cause risks for the environment and the health
(Lombard, Int., 2006).
3.9.3.
Refiners
After being sorted, the various metals contained in electronic scrap have to be refined.
The steel is partly processed locally, but most of the other metals pre-processed from
big recycling companies are exported, to Europe or Asia, because the price offered is
more advantageous oversees 22. According to Van Rensburg (cited in Finlay, 2005), “as
much of 80% of cleaned material is exported”. Companies such as the Reclamation
Group collect the copper, sort it in different grades and ship it oversees but don’t refine
it themselves.
Widmer et al., (2005a) mentioned that Rand Refinery processed hundreds of tonnes of
recovered material per annum. When contacted for this study, Griffiths et al. (2006, Int.)
said that they don’t accept e-waste anymore because they would produce dioxin when
extracting the gold mixed with plastic from the PWB and they are certified
ISO 14001 23. Therefore they currently only deal with mining gold.
22
There are different metal in the fraction obtained after pre-processing. The price offered can
differ according to the numbers of metal that will be extracted from those fractions.
23
International Organization for Standardization: Environmental Management Standards.
- 46 -
No refinery processing precious metal from e-waste on a big scale could be found.
According to Schluep (Int., 2006), there is a market for about five precious metal
refineries in the world. However, some precious metal recovered through “backyard”
activities is most probably sold and processed locally. It seems as well that people steal
gold from mines and smuggle it saying that it comes from e-waste, which would
indicate that some refineries do buy gold from e-scrap.
Similar to recycling companies, refineries are relatively clean, most of them certified
ISO 14001 (Widmer et al., 2005a), but they don’t necessarily choose clean upstream
clients, such as a refiner that admitted openly that he is aware that the copper he buys is
stolen or cleaned through open burning but doesn’t care as long as it is not done at his
facility.
3.10 Final disposers
The part that cannot be recycled has to be disposed of. The two solutions for final
disposing are landfilling and incineration with or without energy recovery. Since no
incineration takes place in South Africa owing to pressure from NGO’s that fear
uncontrolled incineration, the final disposing is landfill. As seen before, not all parts are
recycled locally. When the invaluable part is not exported to be processed oversees nor
stockpiled waiting for a solution, it is landfilled or dumped. This section tries to
estimates how much is landfilled, and in which type of landfill sites, general or
hazardous.
Pikitup, representing the Municipality of Gauteng for the waste management, couldn’t
provide numbers on amount of e-waste at the landfill sites, but said that equipment such
as cell phones, toasters etc., definitely find their way to landfills (Venter, Int., 2006).
When starting to raise questions on the topic for this study, they didn’t seem aware that
e-waste is hazardous.
The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, which currently operates five waste disposal
sites, reported that “on average 2.2 tonnes of e-Waste per month are disposed at the
Weltervreden Landfill site in Brakpan. No e-Waste was recorded from any of the other
landfill sites” (Widmer et al., 2005).
- 47 -
In the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (CTMM), when customers call the
municipality to find out about the landfill, they are told that the landfill doesn’t accept
electronic discards and that they should dispose of it at the hazardous landfill site. There
is almost no e-waste at the general landfill site (Dekker, Int., 2006). It has to be noticed
though that there is almost no e-waste compared to other waste, but 1 or 2 tonnes per
month can be found. As there are seven landfill sites in the CTMM, it might total
around 100 tonne per year just in Tshwane (less than one forth of the population of
Gauteng) assuming that all landfill sites have the same amount of e-waste.
The study on consumer behaviour regarding e-waste, done in Pretoria, Tshwane, shows
that a lot of e-waste discarded by consumers go to the general landfill sites. The fact
that, according to the landfill manager, there is almost no e-waste at the landfill site can
be explained through lack of information about that precise waste stream, but as well
because scavengers at the site recover it. Some household consumers who filled in the
form said that, when bringing waste at the landfill, scavengers used to run to the truck to
help unloading and take most of the interesting material, especially outside of the
official hours when there are not under control. The same has been seen at a garden site
visited. Thus, the material going to the landfill site doesn’t necessarily stay there, the
valuable parts are taken to be resold to processors through salvaging activities.
In the Western Cape Province, scavengers have been seen taking monitors by the cable,
smashing it on the ground on the landfill to extract the copper (Newson, Int., 2006).
This might as well happen in Gauteng. The glass is then completely broken and
therefore all over the place. It is then hard to identify it as e-waste.
E-waste might be dumped also outside official landfill sites, as seen previously with the
scrap from Telkom SA Ltd abandoned on the site. In the CTMM, of the 2.2 million m3
of solid waste disposed annually in landfill sites, it is estimated that approximately
180 000 m3 of waste is illegally dumped within the CTMM area, which makes about
12% of the landfilled waste (City of Tswhane, 2004). There are currently no data
available specifically on e-waste 24.
24
Personal communication with Bradley Sauls, Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism, Customer Service Representative
- 48 -
The amount of PCB recycled by Desco raises questions on the extent of illegal
dumping. Desco processes about 400 tonnes of PCB per annum (see table 2). The
weight of a PC board is about 200 g. With a PC containing two to five of them, the
average weight of PWB per computer should be under 1kg. Thus, 400 tonnes of PCB’s
mean that at least 400 000 computers have been dismantled. With an average weight of
27 kg per PC (EMPA, 2005), more than 10 000 tonnes of computer have been
dismantled, which make more than 2000 tonnes of plastic and 400 000 monitors. Desco
purchases PWB’s from scrap metal dealers that buy it from street collectors/stripper.
After dismantling and selling the PWB’s, some collectors might sell the rest to other
recyclers, but because of the long distance to recyclers and the few interest for monitors,
a lot might be dumped.
Besides general landfill sites, there are hazardous landfill sites for toxic waste. The
Holfontein hazardous landfill site is the only hazardous landfill site in Gauteng. They
receive as well hazardous waste from other provinces. According to Havinga
(Int., 2006), of the 35,000 – 40,000 tons of Hazardous waste they receive a month, the
e-waste makes up a relatively insignificant portion of the total, less than 1%. He
couldn’t give more precise numbers because e-waste is not recorded separately as a
specific waste stream.
Like drop-off sites, the general landfill sites are managed by the municipality or by
contractors, who have expectations to reduce final disposing. Beside the environmental
aspect, landfilling is very expensive.
3.11 General for all role players
Except for scrap metal dealers, most of the stakeholders met seemed concerned by
environmental and social issues. They are aware that they lack information, showed
interest and asked questions such as why a certain process is dangerous for the health of
the workers, what should be done with that specific hazardous waste etc. They clearly
hope that the Green e-Waste Channel will provide them with information regarding
those issues. Informal recyclers are also very keen to learn about how to handle e-waste
(Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng, 2006a).
- 49 -
The need for more knowledge on sound e-waste management was noticed from big
recycling companies and municipalities as well as from smaller refurbishers and
processors, although the needs are not similar. Bigger companies have a fairly good
knowledge on hazardous waste management but are looking for partners providing them
with the necessary service, such as a recycler looking for an economically viable
solution for plastic. Smaller bodies on the other hand, have a need to be informed on
Best Practices and their reasons, for example why monitors shouldn’t be dumped. Their
knowledge comes from practical experiences, as for example a dismantler realising that
monitors don’t have much economical value because the glass industry doesn’t want to
buy it but not knowing the reason, namely that it contains lead. E-waste is a new waste
stream, and some of the processes that are currently environmental unfriendly are so
mostly because of lack of understanding.
A common expectation from all role players above is to make money out of the
handling of end-of-life devices. The only exception is for the managers of drop-off sites
and general landfill sites, paid by the municipalities (although most of the workers there
have a second income through selling waste).
3.12 Generalisation for all South Africa
The current situation can differ between provinces, the major differences being the
advance stage of the recycling system and the scale in which the recycling is being
done. All major recyclers are based in Gauteng (Finlay, 2005), with some smaller
processors or branches from big recyclers based in Gauteng along the cost between
Durban and Cape Town.
In rural provinces, the recycling might be very low, with more storage and more
unsound final disposing such as waste buried in a hole at the farm or burnt because of
lack of adequate municipal support. Transport challenges might be of bigger importance
in less densely populated regions. There are only few hazardous landfill sites in RSA,
remote from most rural area. More than half of the landfills in South Africa are not
permitted, mostly in rural area, and therefore not so well protected against leaching.
- 50 -
CHAPTER IV
4. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES
This chapter summarizes the problems identified in Chapter 3 (Figure 9) and the
corresponding objectives proposed, that could be achieved through the Green e-Waste
Channel (Table 3). The objectives of the Green e-Waste Channel are set in order to
answer the three main aspects of the sustainable development, be environmentally
friendly (“green”), economically sustainable and socially responsible, which also
includes creating jobs, extremely needed in South Africa.
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Figure 9. Schematic overview of the current e-waste recycling situation in South Africa.
Source: adapted from EMPA (2006).
- 51 -
Table 3.
Summary of the problems of the current situation and corresponding proposed
objectives for a future Green e-Waste Channel.
Problems
1.
Proposed Objectives
Too long storage
Have a take-back system to collect the
e-waste
2.
Not enough reuse
3.
Sub-optimal
Encourage reuse
environmental
and Improve the environmental standards, the
social quality of recycling
working conditions, the safety standards
etc.
4.
5.
Not enough recycling
More recycling
•
Insufficient amount
Also recycle the invaluable parts (mainly
•
Cherry picking
the plastic and the monitors)
Informal activities, including:
Train,
•
Open burning of wires
•
Breaking monitors
•
Dissolving of metals with
inform
and
formalize
the
processors
acids from Printed Wiring
Boards
6.
Unsound final disposing
•
Illegal
dumping
No dumping, less landfilling, at least use
from hazardous landfill sites
opportunist “recyclers”
•
General
landfills
used
instead of hazardous landfill
sites
7.
Import of broken computers and Collect, reuse and recycle the local
e-scrap
by
refurbishers
and e-waste before importing!
processors
8.
Export of pre-processed material
More local processing
9.
Lack of public awareness and Awareness raising
information
10.
Difficulty to respect national and Respect/implement regulations
international laws
11.
No global and common vision on Take the good parts of the current system
e-waste. No proper system to and help improve, formalize, strengthen
handle it
and monitor it, as well as reduce the
unwanted processes.
- 52 -
4.1
Storage
The total recycling efficiency is determined by the weakest step in the chain. If the
recycling itself is efficient but most of the equipment stays in storage, the recycling
efficiency is clearly limited by the storage.
The average lifetime of a computer is decreasing, which means that there are more and
more computers that are replaced. The old computers can’t be stored forever because of
lack of space but there is as well a loss of their functional and material value. The
potential value for second use decreases with the time of storage, as the equipment
becomes increasingly obsolete. In the United States for example the first owner uses his
PC for on average time span of three years (Widmer et al., 2005a), after which most of
the equipment could still be reused instead of being directly recycled.
As a private consumer, it can be convenient to store the computer for some time, or
dispose it of in the municipal solid waste collection system. But when we speak of
many hundreds or even thousands of computers, the need for an adequate solution
seems obvious. In the city of Cape Town, a proposal for an e-waste policy is being
made. The awareness about the e-waste problem grew mainly because the government
itself realised it didn’t know how to deal with its own end-of-life equipment 25.
Because of storage that makes the material non available, processors and refurbishers
have to advertise in order to receive equipment. They sometimes even import material
from oversees. The equipment in South Africa is partly kept by consumers for future
use, but one of the main reasons is that there is no proper take-back system. The lack of
an appropriate take-back and collection system causes the loss of control on recycling
activities, allowing informal recycling and illegal dumping. When processors or
refurbishers have to collect material, it is time consuming for them and they don’t
necessarily have the adequate means of transport for the amount that has to be
transported, causing financial loss on an inefficient system.
As seen in South Africa, recycling is mainly limited by lack of sufficient collection, the
market being currently corned by present recyclers. The Green e-Waste Channel should
therefore provide a collection system.
25
“By way of example, the IS&T [Information System and Technology] directorate manages
over 10,000 desktop computer systems” (City of Cape Town, 2006).
- 53 -
4.2
Reuse
From an environmental perspective, it is important to encourage the practice of reuse
before that of recycling, because reuse allows more material and energy savings. In the
waste management hierarchy, the 3 R’s principle says to first Reduce, second Reuse and
third Recycle.
Encouraging more reuse has many advantages for the environment. The manufacturing
of one desktop computer requires 240 kilograms of fossil fuels, 22 kilograms of
chemicals and at least 1,500 litres of water (Williams, 2003). According to Williams et
al. (2003), the energy savings potential of reselling or upgrading a computer is some
five to twenty times greater than recycling it:
“The origin of this dramatic difference between reuse and recycling lies in
the fact that much of the energy investment in the life cycle of a computer is
in producing its complex form rather than its physical substance. Thus, the
environmental payback of recycling materials is poor compared to many
goods. This strongly suggests that management strategies for waste
electronics should emphasize extension of lifespan”.
With reuse, less raw material is used, which economizes resources on earth. The
pollution arising from raw material extracting, the manufacturing and the
recycling/disposal is reduced (BAN, 2005).
Encouraging reuse also has social advantages. Refurbishment activities present low
risks for workers: “A personal computer can, for the most part, be disassembled and
reassembled using hand tools, e.g., a screwdriver, and there are no special
environmental concerns with such repair and refurbishment” (OECD, 2003).
In 2002, there were 7.26 personal computers per 100 inhabitants 26 in South Africa,
which confirms the fact that many households still don’t have computers. The final
declaration of the first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) included,
among others, the obligation of its participants to close the “digital gap”
27
and to
26
source: www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/index.html (International Telecommunication Union).
27
The “digital gap” separates the information rich from the information poor, those with regular,
effective access to digital technologies and those without. (WSIS, 2003).
- 54 -
promote people’s access to new communication technologies (WSIS, 2003).
Refurbishment offers disadvantaged people cheap computers, thus helping reduce the
digital gap.
The reuse also has social advantages, creating a lot of jobs through refurbishment
activities (Table 4).
Table 4. Number of jobs depending on the type of activity.
Process
Refurbishment
Dismantling
Partly manual recycling
Mechanical recycling only
Workers/ton/month
1.65
0.30
0.26
0.04
Ton for 1 worker
0.61
3.33
3.86
26.04
Estimated from the number of workers handling the e-waste and the tonnes of e-waste
processed per month. One facility has been assessed per process.
Source: interviews
Since only one company per type of processor could give the required information, the
above table only indicates that there are more people needed to process the items at the
refurbisher than at dismantler/manual recyclers, and that the number required for
mechanical processing is very low. This shows that the work creation potential follows
the e-waste stream that one should encourage: reuse the function first and only then
recycle.
4.3
Standards of recycling
Big recycling companies have rather clean processes, with modern facilities, but many
elements can still be improved, for instance regarding safety standards and work
conditions. Another point is that the consequences of the recycling of some components
are not always considered in the long term.
To put the plastic from e-waste into products such as chairs has negative environmental
and health consequences. As Brominated Flame Retardant (BFR’s) contained in the
plastics is a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP), it might have similar effects as
hormones, acting as an endocrinal disruptor. During its lifespan, the plastic looses some
material: “Instead of staying put, they [BFR’s] have been found to migrate into the
surrounding air and are soluble in water.” (Environment Victoria 2005). If inhaled
- 55 -
through dust in the ambient air, they can raise health issues: “Exposure may cause
increased risk of cancer, endocrine disruption and/or neurodevelopmental problems.”
When going further down the process, from refurbishment to refining through
dismantling, the environmental and health risks increase (OECD, 2003): thus, higher
standards must be set and controls need to be stronger for the last steps of processing.
4.4
Amount recycled
The quantity of e-waste recycled is low and some components such as the plastic and
the monitors are seldom recycled.
A life cycle assessment of Hischier et al. (2005) on e-waste recycling concluded that,
although it is not possible to recycle e-waste without causing any environmental
impacts, “ a take-back and recycling system for WEEE as established in Switzerland
has clear environmental advantages, compared with the respective baseline scenario
assuming a complete incineration of all WEEE “.
It is assumed that recycling carried out in South Africa is better for the environment
than disposal and extracting new resources, but the environmental benefit has to be
controlled in detail depending on the process and the product. It is important to set
recycling goals on environmental factors rather than on amount, because of the different
environmental weight of each component. With collection targets solely based on
weight, the objective might be achieved rapidly through heavy items such as fridges, but
some products have more value in terms of toxic components (Huisman, 2005).
Furthermore, each recycling option has different environmental effects. According to
Atlee et al. (2006):
“Because of the complexity of the waste stream and diversity of
processing options, the most environmentally friendly strategy for
dealing with EOL [end-of-life] electronics is not always readily apparent
and may differ by product, location, and markets.”
To set quantitative targets is beyond the scope of this study, but when done,
environmental criteria such as toxicity and energy use have to be considered.
Besides the environmental impact, recycling has economic and social advantages,
creating jobs:
- 56 -
“Recycling is estimated to create nearly five times as many jobs as
landfilling. The jobs created by recycling businesses draw from the full
spectrum of the labor market, ranging from low-skilled to highly-skilled
positions. Materials sorters, dispatchers, truck drivers, brokers, sales
representatives, process engineers, and chemists are just some of the
people needed in the recycling industry.” (United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 1997).
28
Therefore, when reuse is not possible because the equipment is too old or unwanted
because of data protection, end-of-life equipment should be recycled.
4.5
Informal processing
Most of the informal collectors and processors do “cherry picking”, selling the valuable
parts and dumping the rest. In order to separate the valuable parts from the less
valuable, collectors have to dismantle the discarded electronics: basic manual
dismantling mainly involves opening the computer casing with a screwdriver. This
activity in itself doesn’t pose many environmental and health issues except the risk of
cuttings, but it opens the door to further dismantling such as the breaking of the whole
monitor to extract the copper yoke, with a high risk to inhale lead from the glass and
dissemination of the laid containing glass in inadequate places.
At this stage,
dismantling becomes “informal recycling”, which is of concern because as these
collectors are informal and work independently, it is complex to control and monitor
them. Hence, it is considered that any dismantling should be done professionally and
under control.
Table 5 shows potential environmental and health risks with informal activities
observed in Asia and which of those recycling processes are carried out in South Africa,
the potential risks being similar.
28
By way of example, “Collect-a-Can” (joint venture between Mittal Steel South Africa and
Nampak, beverage can producer) estimates that their initiative has provided a enormous number
of jobs: “Approximately 37 000 collectors sell cans to Collect-a-Can, about 82% of whom
would otherwise be unemployed.” Source: www.collectacan.co.za
- 57 -
Table 5. Comparison of informal e-waste recycling in Asia and in South Africa
Computer/
e-waste
component
Cathode ray tube
(CRTs)
Chips and other
gold plated
components
Plastics from
computer and
peripherals, e.g.
printers,
keyboards…
Computer wires
Miscellaneous
computer parts
encased in rubber
or plastic, e.g.
steel rollers
Secondary steel
or copper and
precious metal
smelting
Process witnessed
in Guiyu, China
Potential occupational
hazard
Breaking, removal of -Silicosis
copper yoke and
-Cuts from CRT glass in
dumping
case of implosion
-Inhalation or contact with
phosphor containing
cadmium or other metals
Chemical stripping
-Acid contact with eyes,
using nitirc acid and skin may result in
hydrochloric acid
permanent injury
along riverbanks
-Inhalation of mists and
fumes of acids, chlorine
and sulphur dioxide gases
can cause respiratory
irritation to severe effects
including pulmonary
oedema, circulatory failure
and death
Shredding and low
Probable hydrocarbon,
temperature melting brominated dioxin, and
to be reutilized in
heavy metal exposures
poor grade plastics
Open burning to
recover copper
Open burning to
recover steel and
other metals
Furnace recovers
steel or copper from
waste including
organics
Brominated and
chlorinated dioxin,
polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH)
(carcinogenic) exposure to
workers living in the
burning works area29
Hydrocarbon including
PAHs and potential dioxin
exposure
Exposure to dioxins and
heavy metals
Potential
environmental
hazard
Lead, barium and
other heavy
metals leaching
into groundwater,
release of toxic
phosphor
-Hydrocarbons,
heavy metals,
brominated
substances, etc.
discharged
directly into river
banks
-Acidifies the
river destroying
fish and flora
Similar
process in
South
Africa
Medium
scale
Small
scale (can
be of less
hazard
because
doesn’t
necessarily
go to
rivers)
Emissions of
brominated
dioxins and
heavy metals and
hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbon
ashes including
PAH’s
discharged to air,
water and soil
Small
scale
Hydrocarbon
ashes including
PAH’s
discharged to air,
water and soil
Emissions of
dioxin and heavy
metals
Small
scale
Large
scale
Small
scale
Source: Puckett et al., 2002 for Asia. South African part, based on interviews from processors
and open researchers and personal observations.
29
It has to be noticed though that no serious health effects have been found in a study from
Steiner (2004) concerning cable burning in India.
- 58 -
Investigations from Widmer et al. (2005a) have shown that “very little informal e-waste
recycling occurs”. The present study demonstrates that more informal recycling might
be taking place, partly because it might have been underestimated in the previous study,
but as well because it is increasing: the amount of discarded electronics is rising and
much attention is given to the topic, which has as positive but also negative effects:
realizing the financial potential, some people start back yard processing.
4.6
Final disposing
Since e-waste is considered hazardous waste, it has to be disposed in an authorized
hazardous landfill site. It has to be noticed though that according to Finlay (2005), there
are differences in opinion concerning the extent of the problem of disposing e-waste on
general landfills (non hazardous). This point has also been noted by Williams (2005):
“Surprisingly, there is a significant lack of risk assessments addressing leaching of
heavy metals from electronics from landfills, despite the fact that this concern has been
a major driver of legislative activity around the world to curb the use of landfills as an
end-of-life option.”
Even if e-waste doesn’t cause environmental hazards in authorized landfill sites that
may be well protected against leaching and strictly controlled, the risk is higher in more
than half of the general landfill sites in use in South Africa that are not permitted
(Lombard, 2006, Int.):
“Dumping of computers in landfills represents what has been called a ‘toxic
time bomb‘. Even landfills constructed to the highest of standards are not
completely impermeable and a certain amount of chemical and metal
leaching occurs over time; for older or less well-maintained sites, the
potential for leakage is even greater.” (Environment Victoria, 2005).
According to the precautionary principle and the fact that e-waste is considered as
hazardous waste in any case, the fractions not recycled should be landfilled in a
hazardous landfill site. This solution is not sustainable, because of the exponentially
increasing amount of e-waste and the cost of hazardous landfill sites: it should be
considered as the ultimate option after reuse and recycling.
- 59 -
4.7
Import of waste computers
The refurbisher FreeCom Group (Pty) Ltd in the Western Cape imports rather new
computers from Europe (Dittke, Int., 2006 and questionnaire), which is positive because
otherwise they would be recycled without being reused. According to the Basel
Convention, the import of a working computer is permitted (the computers must be
tested, certificated and labelled), but if they are broken, they are considered as waste
and therefore fall into the jurisdiction of the Basel Convention 30.
When refurbishers import non-working computers, only part of the equipment or some
components can be reused, generating a lot of waste that will stay in the country. When
the e-waste is imported to be recycled, waste is generated as well, because it’s not
possible to recycle 100%.
According to Puckett et al., (2002), the two fundamental reasons for banning the
economically motivated trade in hazardous waste are:
i. “Downstream Impacts: Hazardous waste trade is fundamentally unjust
and environmentally damaging since it victimizes the poor, burdening
them with toxic exposure and environmental degradation. (…)”
ii. “Upstream Impacts: Hazardous waste trade allows waste generators to
externalize their costs, creating a major disincentive to finding true
solutions upstream for the problems they create. (…)”
South Africa is often referred to as “a world in one country” because of the fusion of
many cultures as well as the presence of many income classes: it has rich as well as
poor people, and therefore people who want to get rid of brand new computers as well
as people who can’t afford new ones and would make good use of old but working
computers. South Africa should then try to take advantage of what the country has and
needs; there is a lot of material in the country that should be handled before importing.
30
As the U.S.A. have not ratified the convention, imports from them are illegal regarding the
Convention only from the recipient country’s point of view (South Africa), but not from the
exporting country.
- 60 -
4.8
Export of pre-processed material
South Africa is not a producing country, but imports most of its EEE. At a certain step,
it is therefore normal that the material obtained by the recycling goes to producer
countries, but this should be done as late in the chain as possible and only for the
materials not needed in South Africa. This problem is not specific to e-waste. South
Africa is one of the richest mining countries in the world but there is no local smelting
and almost no manufactures, except for gold (Newson, Int., 2006).
In the optimal situation, material would be exported only if there is no market in South
Africa, in order to encourage local economy, to create jobs and to minimize the
environmental impact of transport (Figure 10).
______________________________________________________________________
Figure 10. Current and aimed long term destination of materials after pre-processing of e-waste.
4.9
Public awareness
Many consumers encountered never thought of what happens to their end-of-life
equipment. The lack of knowledge on e-waste issues can explain the fact that the
answer rate to the questionnaire for corporate consumer behaviour was very low: the
- 61 -
person receiving the questionnaire doesn’t necessarily have information on what the
company does with end-of-life computers nor does he/she know who to ask.
As discussed above, e-waste is hazardous and shouldn’t be dumped in a general landfill
site. Private users don’t see the problem with putting it in a normal garbage bin,
apparently more because of lack of consciousness. Consumers need a common
understanding of what happens when the electric and electronic devise becomes waste.
NGO’s have shown interest to encourage awareness rising, but at present, not much has
been done. Even if users were conscious that they shouldn’t dispose of their end-of-life
equipment in the municipal waste, there is currently no environmentally friendly and
convenient solution. They could look to recyclers to recoup their equipment, but they
would have to drive long distances themselves, as it is not viable for most of the
processors to fetch little amounts of discarded equipment. As South Africa imports a lot
of electrical and electronic equipment from Europe, EEE are labelled saying that they
shouldn’t be thrown in a normal dustbin 31: users only know what they shouldn’t do, not
what they should!
4.10 National and international legislation
Although South Africa doesn’t have a specific national legislation on e-waste, many can
be read to impact on e-waste (see appendix X). Some govern health and safety at the
workplace, others the waste management such as the Polokwane Declaration
(Government of South Africa, 2001) that aims to “Reduce waste generation and
disposal by 50% and 25% respectively by 2012 and develop a plan for ZERO WASTE
by 2022.”
This legislation is currently not fully respected. The Green e-Waste Channel would help
develop better working conditions, encourage more refurbishment and reuse and avoid
landfilling. All these aspects help approach the targets of much of the national
legislation.
31
The proper marking is required by the WEEE Directive (article 21) (The European Parliament
and the Council of the European Union, 2003b).
- 62 -
Regarding international legislation, transboundary movements of e-waste have to be
regulated according to the requirements of the Basel Convention, which is difficult to
achieve presently because there is a lack of information on the current handling. One of
the aims of the Green e-Waste Channel would be to possess the necessary knowledge
permitting the respect of international agreements.
4.11 Common and global vision on e-waste
Although reuse and recycling is currently happening, this situation analysis shows
clearly that there are still many problems. There is no proper system to handle the
situation, each stakeholder taking care of his/her own interests without a holistic vision.
The Green e-Waste Channel aims to connect all the stakeholders playing a role in the
recycling and reuse of e-waste, similarly to Huisman’s findings (2005): “Basically, one
has to realize that recycling of electronic products requires multi-stakeholder
cooperation to actually meet the societal goals of electronics recycling”
The Green e-Waste Channel doesn’t intend to create a new system but to take the good
parts of the current one and help improve, formalize, strengthen and monitor it, as well
as reduce the unwanted processes.
- 63 -
CHAPTER V
5. LONG TERM AIMED
E-WASTE CHANNEL
SITUATION:
THE
GREEN
This chapter won’t show the process South Africa is now going through in order to
implement an e-waste management system, but instead shows a desired end state, how
the situation could be in the long term, based on the gathered knowledge from the case
study and problem identification. The proposal is that the desired long-term situation be
achieved through a Green e-Waste Channel.
The Channel can start with only a small amount of e-waste going through it as a pilot
project, but in the medium or long term, the objective is to have the majority of South
Africa’s e-waste going through it. The goal is not to have a clean Green e-Waste
Channel but only on a small scale and with all the unsound processes still happening
outside the Channel.
5.1
Definition
The “Green e-Waste Channel” is a concept that represents the infrastructure and the
processes e-waste should go through from the discarding of the end-of-life equipment
from private households and corporate consumers to the clean raw material to be reprocessed or to the final disposing. The infrastructure and the processes, including the
take-back, the refurbishment or recycling and the final disposing of e-waste should be
environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically sustainable, which
includes: minimizing landfilling, encouraging, firstly, more reuse and secondly more
sound recycling and maximizing the value adding along the chain, principally with the
creation of risk free job opportunities.
In the optimal situation, to ensure that nothing goes out of the system uncontrolled, once
the consumer decides to have his/her e-waste handled by the Green e-Waste Channel,
only authorized stakeholders of the Channel should handle it. When material goes out of
- 64 -
the Channel, the different participants should try to choose a partner who respects, as
much as possible, the ideals of the Channel: “recyclers are responsible also for the
proper processing of their downstream fraction mainly those critical items as mentioned
in the Annex of the EU WEEE directives” (Rochat, 2006).
5.2
Stakeholders
The role players that could be included in the Green e-Waste Channel are the
stakeholders handling the discarded equipment: collectors and collection points,
refurbishers, processors and final disposers. The consumers are not part of the Channel,
because although they play a role bringing back their e-waste, it is not their main
activity and they can’t be regulated.
The stakeholders handling the e-waste are almost the same as in the current system, but
some of them might play a more or less important role. The only stakeholder identified
as waste managers in chapter 3 not included here are scrap metal dealers: as they accept
only PCB’s, the rest being dumped and they didn’t seem willing to communicate and
participate, I suggest that they shouldn’t be included in the available collection points.
One collection point not discussed in chapter 3 but proposed here are retailers.
5.2.1.
Refurbishers
There are two ways the refurbishers could receive equipment: directly from the
consumers or through collection points. If they receive it directly from users, the flow is
not part of the Green e-Waste Channel, the Channel being in that case only used to
communicate information on where to find refurbishers.
64% of the private consumers questioned said that they would go to the refurbishers to
sell their computers if they wanted to dispose of still valuable devices, but as only 2% of
the surveyed people currently know where to find a refurbisher, information has to be
made available.
Big refurbishers should receive as much equipment as possible from collection points.
They are therefore partners of the Channel. Since some goods would be older and not
entirely suitable for resell or reuse, they would generate a lot of waste. For this reason, a
- 65 -
possible solution would be to require of refurbishers the same standards as processors
regarding hazardous waste handling. As they receive material from official collection
points for free or for low prices, they could have a contract stipulating that, in exchange,
they must give a free repaired computer part to a disadvantaged person through
organisations 32.
The situation is different for small businesses that repair a customer’s computer,
generating only little waste: there is no need to control their activities from a waste
management perspective. Their names could be listed to inform customers and therefore
encourage reuse, but as long as they don’t receive material from a collection point, there
is no need to further regulate their activities.
When selling second-hand computers, refurbishers should inform their customers on the
Green e-Waste Channel, so that they bring it back to partners from the Channel at the
end-of-life of the equipment. If refurbishers sell second-hand computers to other
southern African countries, it is important to make sure that they don’t send non
working computers there, as Europe or the U.S.A. do with Nigeria for example.
To guarantee that the reuse won’t compromise the confidentiality of the former owner,
refurbishers should systematically use a software to erase the data on computers. Many
corporate consumers already discard their devices through refurbishers, but it could be
done on a bigger scale if they were informed that software which erase data can be
trusted. If the users still don’t trust it, the data could be destroyed by only destroying the
hardware, which would make the reuse of other parts possible. To reduce the cost of
buying new software for the refurbished computer, open source software should be
installed (Widmer et al., 2005a).
5.2.2.
Logistics providers
In the present system, there are three role players in the collection of e-waste: the
consumers, the processors or refurbishers, and the transporters (informal collectors,
municipalities or private transporters).
32
This is currently done by Intelligent Computing: they fix the computers they receive from
some corporate consumers that will hand it for charity and keep one quarter as payment.
- 66 -
Discarded electronics needs to be brought from the consumers to a collection point, and
then from the collection point to the refurbisher or processor. It can also go directly
from the consumer to the refurbisher or processor for big amounts (collected by the
processor/refurbisher) or if the consumer wants to have a certificate of destruction at the
processor.
For the transport of discarded electronics from the user to the collection points,
consumers should take back the equipment they want to discard, assuming that
convenient collection points are provided. The role of private consumers in the
transportation of e-waste is currently almost nonexistent but it should be encouraged as
much as possible because it doesn’t cost money to the system, the cost being paid by the
consumer according to the principle of the “polluter pays”.
The study on the easiest and most convenient way to drop-off the waste showed clearly
that the consumer would prefer a pick-up service at his/her house. To complement the
take-back by the user, the municipality or another authorized private collector could
collect the discarded equipment from the users to the collection sites.
When asked how often the consumer would like a pick-up service, the average was
every four and a half months. Looking at the dispersion of the results, a convenient
solution for most of the people wouldn’t be every four and a half months, but either
very often, such as every month, or every year (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Frequency of Pick-up service for e-waste wished by the
persons surveyed.
- 67 -
39% of the respondents are ready to pay for a pick-up service, on average 59 ZAR
(6.30 Euro)
33
for small items ranging from phones to computers, and 144 ZAR
(15.30 Euro) for bigger equipment such as a fridge. Although less than half of the
people asked would be ready to pay for the service, those who would spend money on it
are willing to pay a fair amount.
The municipality or another authorized private collector could also play a role
transporting the e-waste from the collection point to the refurbisher or recyclers. If
processors and refurbishers were to pay for a professional logistic provider from the
collection point, the system would be more efficient and thus more money could be
spent on the recycling of unprofitable e-waste components. More money could also be
given to the reclaimers on the collection site. According to Huisman (2005),
competition between logistics partners can add value. The transport from one processor
to another, for example from one pre-processed material from a recycler to the refinery,
could continue to be carried out by the processors.
The Green e-Waste Channel provides collection points, especially useful for private
users, but in order to have big volumes of e-waste going through the Channel, it’s
primordial to have the corporate consumer involved. The collection from corporate
consumers shouldn’t be a problem, as most of the old computers are already grouped
and as the internal communication system from this large consumer base could be used
to inform how the computer should be properly collected. Corporate consumers should
have their goods brought directly to refurbishers or possibly processors. Business to
business solutions must be encouraged, in order to minimize the amounts stored at
collection points. The government, as one of the biggest corporate consumers, should
lead by example, having most of its discarded equipment taken to refurbishers.
Regarding the role of the informal collector, if they do collect a significant amount of
e-waste, then they should be regulated. Contrary to reclaimers for glass or paper, there
is too much risk associated with electronics dismantling and dumping to let e-waste
reclaimers collect material uncontrolled. Information and control could be carried out
33
ZAR = South African rand. Exchange rate: 1 Euro = 9.4 ZAR (16 February 2007).
- 68 -
through the buy-back centres and the processors buying scrap from them: they shouldn’t
buy material if it has been dismantled before.
A summary of the principal ways for collection of e-waste is shown in Figure 12.
______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Figure 12. Principal ways for collection of e-waste in South Africa: aimed long term situation.
5.2.3.
Collection points
Collection points are key elements of a recycling system, as Huisman (2005)
emphasized: “Research shows a clear link between number of collection points and
kg’s collected. Especially in the start-up phase of take back, the availability of
collection points is crucial.”
The study of the easiest and most convenient way to drop-off the waste showed clearly
that after the pick-up service at his/her house, the consumer would secondly go to a
collection point and as third solution use the retailer to bring back their equipment.
If privates were informed about the closest collection point, and if the only collection
possibility would be to take back the items to the collection point in question, 88% of
the people questioned would do it, although they didn’t choose it as the most convenient
- 69 -
solution. The reasons not to use the collection site were the distance to drive for people
living far from town, the lack of time and the effort involved. The people who said they
would use the collection site were motivated by environmental concerns and the wish to
have their equipment properly disposed of as well as the convenience.
At collection points, refurbishers or processors would collect the material. Processors
and refurbishers could have a tender to receive material from a certain number of
collection points close to their facilities. Ideally, the refurbishers should have priority;
the processors should recycle only the material not suitable for reuse.
A solution that could be investigated for users that don’t trust the software to erase the
data used by refurbishers is to provide two containers on the collection site, one
guaranteeing destruction (recycling) and the other allowing refurbishment. When
suggested to the people concerned, this solution seemed complicated to execute, at least
in the short term.
The collection points provide a place to communicate on the Green e-Waste Channel:
information sheets on the containers could explain to the consumer that it will be
disposed of safely and why it is important. A list of the collection points and of the type
of equipment collected could be written on the back of the Water and Light account
received from the municipality.
Although collection points might not be really useful on a big scale for PC’s because
they are mainly owned by corporate consumers, they might be used for other types of
e-waste owned by household consumers such as toasters, phones etc. To have
appropriate collection site is important in order to change consumer behaviour regarding
the discarding of e-waste.
Drop-off sites
At the garden site, the place must look clean and be safe, if the private consumer has to
use the site. The use of a drop-off site is convenient for the consumer, because they can
get rid of other waste such as paper or glass at the same time.
As old equipments still have a potential high value, the drop-off site must provide safe
storage. It can’t be put in open containers in places such as schools like it is done for
- 70 -
glass or paper. Therefore, containers must be lockable, in order to ensure that no e-scrap
gets stolen and to have the material covered from the rain. The space available is not a
problem for the collection point, but containers are expensive to buy. IT businesses
could sponsor containers branded with their company logo 34.
The big challenge for the drop-off sites is to know who works for who, to have the
manager of the site monitoring the workers and to have only one person responsible for
the e-waste. It is the responsibility of the municipality (or Pikitup) to ensure that the
personnel on the site are authorized to work and that scavengers leave.
The responsible person for e-waste would receive the money from processors and
refurbishers and redistribute it to the workers that help with the sorting and storage of
electronic discards. This should allow:
•
To have the material sold only to official partners of the Channel.
•
The buyer to pay to accounts and not in cash on the spot, which is safer,
especially when big amounts are involved.
•
To have records of volumes: there must be a weight bridge at the collection
point to weigh the e-waste going to the processors 35.
Retailers / traders
In the current system, retailers don’t play an important role in the e-waste take-back
system, but they could serve as a collection point for discarded electronics, similarly to
the system in developed countries such as Switzerland. This solution has been
investigated because it seems convenient for consumers, as they can bring back their old
equipment when purchasing a new one. However, the consumers surveyed didn’t
choose the take-back at the retailer as the most easy and convenient solution for a future
tack back system. When asked for the reasons of this choice, it surfaced that people
don’t see it as inconvenient but thought rather that it would be too complicated to put
into practice: they were wondering how they would give reasons to the retailers for
them to accept to take back the end-of-life equipment. If retailers do participate, it might
34
Negotiations are being carried out in Cape Town (Dittke, 2006)
35
It would be weighed again when it arrives at the processor. This double check is necessary for
a possible financial mechanism for the system, so that they don’t cheat with it.
- 71 -
be convenient for the users, especially for lower class users not having a vehicle:
retailers are more centrally located than drop-off sites and buy-back centres.
In the Green e-Waste Channel, the retailers should take back equipment that the user
wants to discard, irrespective of the age or brand, as long as the equipment is of the
same type as the ones sold. Consumers could get a discount on the new equipment when
they bring the old one back as is currently done by some distributors, but the consumer
should have the possibility of bringing back the equipment without the obligation of
purchasing a new one
36
. They should bring as much equipment as possible to
refurbishers. Thus, destruction through recycling couldn’t be guaranteed at the retailer.
When selling new items, they should inform their customers about the needs and the
way to take back the equipment at the end-of-life.
Buy-back centres
In the future, they will probably receive more discarded electronics and could be used as
official collection points. The entrepreneurs on the site need to be trained, especially
because they might also dismantle some components there to sell different metal
fractions. Since their activities are in between collection and dismantling, they could be
considered as dismantling facilities and respect the same standards.
Consumers are already used to discarding their waste at landfill sites, but the use of
buy-back centres next to landfills as collection points for e-waste should be avoided:
although this solution is probably convenient for the users, it risks being tempting and
easy for entrepreneurs to dump the invaluable scrap.
Value adding centres
More side activities to add value to the waste should be encouraged. Some end-of-life
equipment could be brought by the consumer to “waste-to-art” centres and then given to
different entrepreneurs wishing to do side activities. “Waste-to-art”, done at Footprint
Environmental Centre in Cape Town, is defined by Laffely (2006) as: “the production
36
Similarly to the Swiss ordinance on the Return, Taking-back and Disposal of Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (ORDEE).
- 72 -
of arts and craft items made from recyclables and other materials that have been
discarded.”
Waste-to-art can be lucrative for the crafter, as the raw material - e-waste - is received
for free or nearly, and products such as jewellery can be made out of it. Other products
such as clocks can be elaborated with an addition of new components. Waste-to-art
products could be sold in a second-hand shop together with refurbished PC’s.
Such centres can have a display showing the components of a computer and what can be
done with it, explaining the value and hazard of it: they could be considered as a place
to carry out awareness raising, to give information on the Channel, for visits by schools
etc. They could be used as an ecotourism route, as they plan to do at Footprint in Cape
Town.
If such centres receive high quantities of e-waste, they should redirect them to an
official collection point. Those sites are not used for the efficiency of the collecting, but
more for social and communication aspects. If they do handle a lot of electronic discard
and generate waste, they should apply the same standards as dismantlers (like the
buy-back centre).
5.2.4.
Processors
Unsound processing should be reduced first by trying to teach informal and small
processors about Best Practices. If they are not willing to participate, their activities
should be diminished by discouraging the big processing companies to buy from
undesirable sources.
The first priority is to ensure that the e-waste that goes through the Channel is processed
in a sound way, but then the aim is also to guarantee that the participants handling the
WEEE don’t receive discarded equipment from other unwanted sources, such as, for
example, is the case with processors illegally importing e-scrap from the U.S.A. or
Europe.
- 73 -
The points to improve in order to satisfy the targets of a Green e-Waste Channel would
be to:
•
Increase the amount that can be handled - have bigger facilities, with more space for
storage.
•
Provide information on the precise amount of e-waste processed, on the origin of the
e-waste and on the destination of waste residues, according that the system
guarantees the protection of the data.
•
More communication between processors, as for example a waste exchange data
base. Some recycling processes are currently not viable because the amount of waste
is not sufficient.
•
Respect current legislation, have the required licenses. This also applies for
subcontractors of a business.
•
Avoid importing if there is material available locally.
•
Export only if there is no market in South Africa. If they do send the end product to
other countries, at least get information on how it will be treated there and choose
responsible recyclers.
•
Recycle all the components or pay another recycler abroad for the correct recycling.
•
Get informed on the origin of the material to buy and not accept:
-
Sorted components such as PWB’s if they don’t know if the rest of the
equipment has been processed in a sound way
5.2.5.
-
Burned copper
-
Stolen material 37
Final Disposers
In the aimed long-term situation, almost no material should be landfilled. However, in
the mid-term, before an integral recycling system is place, some e-waste components
that shouldn’t be mixed with other recyclable parts such as batteries, capacitors or
condensers could be landfilled. Unless studies can show that there are no risks of using
general landfill sites, they should be disposed of in hazardous landfill sites.
37
According to Markson (2006, Int.), it is easy to recognize if a cable comes from a computer
wire or has been stolen from a telecommunication company, each company using cables with a
certain shape, thickness and a different number of wires.
- 74 -
5.3
Setting framework conditions for the Channel
As the role players are dependent on one another, they should be coordinated with
certain rules. This can be done by introducing other entities who are not part of the
infrastructure or businesses of the Channel but that play or could play crucial roles such
as managing, regulating or informing.
Three ways to improve the current system to meet the targets of the Green e-Waste
Channel are proposed and described here:
i. A managing process - from a system operator like a PRO
ii. A legal enforcement - from the government
iii. A facilitative process - from eWASA or other NGO’s
5.3.1.
System Operator
The Green e-Waste Channel can provide the infrastructure for a proactive e-waste
management initiative from the industry as part of Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR). As in other European countries, the system could be managed by an independent
auditing and control mechanism - the PRO or “system operator” - to ensure sound
management. Producers, through the ITA, have shown interest in constituting a PRO
and playing the role of “system operator”, managing the Green e-Waste Channel. There
are numerous reasons for producers to be interested in finding a sound solution for
e-waste.
In Europe, in the last 15 years, the social, environmental and ethical aspects have gained
more and more impact on business activities, and corporate social responsibility is now
often considered as a strategic business tool. Before, the end of pipe approach towards
environmental problems dominated, but nowadays, the emphasis is changing towards
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), shifting the management of the problem
upstream: the producer is responsible for the environmental impact of the product
during the whole life cycle, from cradle to grave (Darby et al., 2005). This change is
currently taking place in South Africa as well. The extension of product responsibility
to manufacturers of other countries is a highly probable trend. Similarly, according to
Park (2006), “ ‘WEEE’ and ‘RoHS’ are no longer an isolated ‘European phenomenon’
but are becoming part of a much larger and irreversible trend”. Producers therefore
- 75 -
want to proactively prepare for regulation. Failure to prepare now would result in costly
and hasty decisions when new requirements come into effect. (Vermij, 2006, Int).
Other motives to be involved in the e-waste issues include providing a “Green Image”
to the customers, saving money of the disposal in hazardous landfill sites as they
currently do and complying with the requirements of their ISO 14001 (Vermij, 2006,
Int).
Reasons to want to take into consideration environmental aspects, according to
Dummett (2006), are government legislation or the threat of legislation, protecting or
enhancing reputation or brand, pressure from consumers and cost savings, which seem
to be similar to those explained here.
The PRO should manage at least the logistics and the processing part of the Channel,
but they could also regulate the big refurbishers generating a lot of waste, bypassing
small refurbishers and other value adding parts such as waste-to-art. Each of these
stakeholders must have contract with the e-waste system operator, the system operator
having to choose the participants. This allows them to receive e-waste of the Channel
and ensure the sound handling of it.
The contract with participants should be different for each stakeholder, according their
roles and depending on if they are for-profit or non-profit participants in the Channel.
When starting the implementation of the system, the PRO will probably work with the
“cleaner ” stakeholders because it’s a more convenient way to start, but the final goal is
to improve the standards of other stakeholders so that they can join the Channel.
Social and environmental minimum requirements for the different processes should be
applied, such as emission limits, safety standards, work conditions etc. When setting the
standards, according to Huisman (2005), it is important to: “Create room for system
optimization by the recycling field itself. This can be done by explicitly stating that
deviation from rules and standards is allowed when the recyclers can demonstrate
equal or better environmental performance for new or alternative processing option”.
Since the cost of complete recycling of electronic equipment is higher than the value
that can be recovered (Atlee et al., 2006), sound management should include a financing
mechanism. This permits to internalize the cost and is in accordance with the principle
of the “polluter pays”, emphasized in The National Environmental Management Act
(Government of South Africa, 1998). There are many possible financial mechanisms
- 76 -
payable by the consumer, including the Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF), which should
be considered in this case because, as the consumer pays when buying the device,
he/she doesn’t have the impression he/she is paying directly for the take-back system.
The PRO has to be nonprofitable 38.
The PRO offers a convenient collective solution for the producer. The participation to
the PRO is voluntary, but should satisfy the producer, making individual solutions less
appealing (so that there is no need for an individual solution). The PRO would first
manage the IT equipment, but manufacturers of other types of appliances could join
later on.
5.3.2.
Government
The government can play an important role at a national level in making legislation on
e-waste, addressing the roles of producers, consumers and maybe also retailers.
Similarly to the Swiss ORDEE, a South African legislation on e-waste could:
•
Establish the legal policy framework for EPR, the basis of the PRO, which would
encourage the creation of a PRO and therefore allow better management (OECD,
2001).
•
Make the take-back of end-of-life equipment mandatory for consumers, which
would positively influence the collection rate of consumers.
•
Require that retailers collect end-of-life equipment without the need for the
consumer to purchase a new one and independent of the age and the brand of the
equipment, which offers one a more convenient collection point for the consumers.
Besides the national level, local authorities as corporate consumers might encourage
e-procurement, for example by saying that they will only buy from producers having a
policy for end-of-life computers (such as the global recycling policy from Dell 39) or
38
The recycling can be profitable, as long as the recyclers make money out of the profitable part
of recycling, not out of the ARF: to insure it, the PRO “may decide to introduce transparent
financing for unprofitable recycling processes schemes if required.” (Rochat, 2006)
39
Available under www.dell.com/producerresponsibility. Other elements that could be taken
into account to evaluate the performance of the company can be found in Environment Victoria
(2005).
- 77 -
encouraging its own offices to use computers from responsible manufacturer/ producers,
discouraging auction systems.
5.3.3.
Academics and NGO’s
Academics
They have a role to play in research. Currently, the university is not connected to the
pilot projects; therefore more links should be encouraged.
Huisman et al., (2005) explain the role of academia in a recycling system: “provide
proof for overall objective and framework, before setting rules”. This is what this thesis,
written in an academic context, tries to do; to set precise rules would be the role of the
body managing the system.
NGO’s
NGO’s could provide different services, such as:
•
Help for educational centres or independent entrepreneur based activities like
waste-to-art
•
Awareness raising and communication
•
Pressure for ecodesign and benchmark European standards for manufacturers.
•
Establishing contact between refurbishers and disadvantaged people for secondhand computers donation
eWASA could play the role of a consulting body. A consulting body could deliver
support to:
•
Make sure that the participants of the Channel know and understand the
objectives of the Channel.
•
Define the standards for the participating stakeholders.
• Give information to the participants of the Channel on Best Practices (BEP’s)
and Best Available Technologies (BAT’s)
40
. This could be done through a
website.
•
40
Insure knowledge transfer on a national and international basis.
The website www.e-waste.org.za informs on e-waste issues, Best Practices and best available
partners, but it has to be completed and partners of the Green e-Waste Channel have to be
informed of the existence of this website.
- 78 -
•
Business links between stakeholders of the Channel or of the framework of the
Channel such as information for the government to help establishing legislation.
•
Help finding more local markets for pre-processed products.
They can play a more important role than just that of a consulting body for the part of
the Channel not ruled by the system operator, such as encouraging educational centres
or entrepreneur based waste-to-art activities, but those activities should later become
independent: eWASA should help starting, providing information, linking businesses,
but not be further involved in the long term (maybe keep a structure providing
information through consultants if needed).
Figure 13 presents a summary of the role players of the Green e-Waste Channel and
their connections. It shows as well the stakeholders of the framework of the Channel
and on which role player of the Channel they can have an impact.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Figure 13. The South African Green e-Waste Channel: aimed long term situation.
Source: adapted from EMPA (2006)
- 79 -
CHAPTER VI
6. SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE AIMED LONG TERM
SITUATION
This chapter is an attempt to assess the model of the Green e-Waste Channel, presenting
a list of elements that can have a positive or negative impact on the success of the Green
e-Waste Channel as presented in Chapter 5. The elements classified as internal factors
(strength and weaknesses) come from stakeholders of the Channel or are intrinsic, while
the elements classified as external factors (opportunities and threats) come from the
framework of the Channel, from the general context, from other countries or from
technological advances. Each element is classified as positive or negative regarding its
effect on the desired end-state. The targets presented in the Table 3 in chapter 4 are used
as wished end-state.
To see if there are more strength, weaknesses, opportunities or threats at a certain level
of the Channel, four levels were chosen for each of the four factors:
i. The whole Green e-Waste Channel: all the strength, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats having an impact on more than one level
ii. The collection system
iii. The reuse
iv. The sound processing
The elements of the SWOT analysis are summarized in appendix VI.
6.1
Strengths
Whole Green e-Waste Channel
•
Processors and refurbishers already exist and are willing to expand.
•
The Green e-Waste Channel has international support from the EMPA and national
support from eWASA. Among others, they bring knowledge and help coordinate the
participants. The people involved are highly motivated.
- 80 -
•
There are local pilot projects, in order to locate problems and improve the Green
e-Waste Channel before establishing a national one.
•
The labour force is cheaper than in developed countries. Thus, a financial
mechanism wouldn’t’ need to finance as much as in developed countries.
•
The Green e-Waste Channel is weakly government regulated, since this could slow
and complicate the process, thus causing inefficiency 41.
•
The type of e-waste considered as of greater interest to recyclers is not the same as
for refurbishers: newer equipment will be more suitable for reuse while older
equipment will have a higher precious metal content.
Collection System
•
The municipalities might participate, offering space at drop-off sites or organising
pick-up services, because the Green e-Waste Channel goes along their expectations
of waste minimization.
•
The collection system is cheap because the consumers bring back their end-of-life
appliances: the take-back system respects the expectations of the consumers.
•
It is in the corporate consumer’s interest to participate: it provides a “Green Image”
to corporate consumers using the Green e-Waste Channel to discard their
equipment 42.
Reuse
•
The expectations of the refurbishers are mostly taken into account, they get more
appliances and possibly newer: if the consumers are informed about refurbishers,
they might want to sell relatively new computers to refurbishers.
•
The consumer will see positively that some of the material refurbished is given for
charity.
41
According to Lombard (Int., 2006), the tax on plastic bags, paid through the government to
finance the recycling, has not been distributed to the recyclers.
42
The stakeholders of the Green e-Waste Channel could have a logo representing the Channel.
A slightly different logo, for example in another colour, could be used by partners of the
Channel such as corporate consumers ensuring that they use the facilities of the Green e-Waste
Channel to discard their old equipment, which shows that they are environmentally concerned.
- 81 -
Sound processing
•
The expectations of the processors are mostly taken into account.
•
The Green e-Waste Channel is particularly attractive for new processors: recyclers
that are willing to open a new plant need material “to feed the machine”, they might
see the Channel as a way to ensure that they will receive enough e-waste. They
might have higher environmental and social standards, because they have to apply
for permits and comply with the current legislation.
•
The high metal and precious metal content of e-waste makes it an extremely
attractive business for processors.
•
The dismantling process can provide jobs opportunities for people with disabilities,
because of the low skills required (Vermij, 2006, Int.).
•
Informal processing is reduced: if the official processors don’t buy from people
extracting metal through open burning or acid baths, these unwanted processes
should diminish.
•
The extension of the lifespan through more reuse allows time to put a recycling
system in place.
6.2
Weaknesses
•
Double edge sword with awareness raising: the people approached, to whom one
explains the advantages of the Channel and the potential value of e-waste, only pay
attention to the fact that they can increase revenues and benefit from business
growth. However they don’t necessarily want to improve their standards by
avoiding certain processes.
•
Processors and refurbishers seem to have economic priorities, with environmental
and social aspects coming after.
•
Some stakeholders might negatively perceive the fact that the idea of the Green
e-Waste Channel comes from the Swiss e-Waste Knowledge Partnerships
Programme project, although the project aims to support South African stakeholders
find a convenient solution and doesn’t impose a Swiss vision.
•
The role of eWASA is not clear for all: as eWASA is linked with the Swiss e-Waste
Knowledge Partnerships Programme, some stakeholders might have a negative
perception of eWASA, as already noticed by Vermij (2006, Int.).
- 82 -
•
Although a lot of jobs can be created, it has to be noted that most of the jobs don’t
require specific skills.
•
The labour force is cheaper than in developed countries, but the quality of work and
the efficiency might be lower.
•
The cost of control in order to track the e-waste and ensure that nothing escapes
might be high.
•
There is a risk of encouraging businesses to discard more equipment: if too many
processors start recycling and realise that it is lucrative, processors may pay
companies to deliver computers and thus encourage them to change their equipment
more often than needed.
•
The Green e-Waste Channel might give the impression that the consumers can
consume more EEE because there is a sound system to recycle it. There is the risk
that people believe that because there is a clean Channel, the recycling doesn’t have
negative environmental effects, which is not possible.
•
This system encourages the big processing companies, complying with the
standards. Hence, the smaller one’s may be excluded.
•
It is complicated to approach informal collectors and processors to train them
because they may feel threatened. Furthermore, because of poverty, HIV/AIDS and
alcohol, they are primarily concerned with fast money ignoring health and other
long-term issues.
•
As noticed during the interviews, refurbishers and processors might have a bad
opinion of producers and don’t necessarily want to be part of a common system.
This confirms the finding of Lindhqvist (2000) that the links between producers and
consumers as well as between producers and the government are much stronger than
between waste managers and producers.
Collection system
•
There is a risk of loosing public confidence if the Green e-Waste Channel starts too
early without proper implementation: consumer or environmental associations might
discover some unsound processes deriving from the Channel and therefore
discourage the consumers to use the Channel. According to Suter (2003), once a
single failure has been perceived, it is almost impossible to undo the damage.
• The processors and refurbishers that just observe what happens to see if the project
is interesting before getting involved might think that it is not profitable since the
- 83 -
take-back will not quickly accumulate fast quantities of e-waste. The reason for this
is that the consumers will have to get used to using the collection sites. An
awareness raising campaign also requires time. After a first peak period, the
collection might be slow.
•
It is difficult to have all the electronic discard stored in one container and have all
the derived payments made to a single responsible person: there is a mafia effect
between all the people selling e-scrap at collection sites since they want to sell to the
best offer, not to the official partners. They want to be paid in cash daily, which is
not safe for the person buying the material.
•
If the equipment is refurbished and then sold to a consumer who doesn’t bring it
back into the Channel at the end of its lifespan, the guarantee for consumers that it
will be disposed of appropriately is lost.
Reuse
•
The consumers don’t always trust the software to erase data on a computer and the
recyclers and the IT industry tend to argue that destroying the device is the only way
to guarantee data protection: although it is true that erasing data or reformatting the
hard disk does not eliminate the data (BAN, 2005), erasing data with an appropriate
software is quite safe, the time required to recover the data after erasing being very
high.
•
In the pilot Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng, the material collected is entirely
distributed to recyclers: maybe because the processors are bigger companies
compared to the used computer industry or because less attention has been put on
finding refurbishers, less refurbishers come to meetings, thus recycling is
encouraged as opposed to reuse.
•
The computers are sometimes sold or just given to schools or associations but
without guarantee or after-sale service, which is not always profitable for the clients
because of the difficulty to repair and find the right spare parts.
•
It is complicated to have the newer equipment received at the collection point going
to refurbishers: how can one concretely check if the material is suitable for reuse on
the site? If everything goes first to the refurbishers with only the rest being brought
to recyclers, it wouldn’t satisfy processors: the market would be too saturated and
processors wouldn’t receive enough.
- 84 -
•
The refurbishment is less interesting for other types of end-of-life appliances than IT
equipment - lower price, smaller market, lower need to be repaired by a
professional, a longer life span - except maybe for mobile phones.
Sound processing
•
It is difficult to control the e-waste flows, which is necessary for a financial
mechanism: the processors are highly interconnected, some of them doing only a
small step in the processing.
•
It is dependent on the processor’s willingness to participate and to communicate.
The precious metal industry is particularly closed. Processors fear competition.
•
The workers might use the know-how they have received at processing facilities to
carry out uncontrolled activities on their back yards, especially acid baths in order to
recover precious metals because of their potentially high value.
•
It is difficult to set standards and rules just for e-waste, because e-waste is
considered by some recyclers as part of metal recycling but not as a specific stream.
For problems such as copper burning or components that are stolen, it is part of
problem that doesn’t concern only e-waste.
•
There is a risk of only identifying already “clean stakeholders” but without helping
other stakeholders to improve their standards.
•
It is difficult to convince processors not to buy material from unwanted sources and
therefore stop informal activities.
•
Already well established recyclers don’t necessarily see the need to be part of a
system: they already have their clients - some of them being scrap metal dealers
having uncertain material sources - and might see a body regulating e-waste
recycling as a threat. At Desco, they said that they don’t use chemicals and put it on
their website as well 43, but it seems that they do use chemical extraction methods.
They might not want to be part of the Green e-Waste Channel if it involves strict
regulations.
•
It is difficult to trust the participating stakeholders: as the processors know that they
might receive material to recycle if they are part of the Green e-Waste Channel, they
have the temptation not to be honest about their processes.
43
www.desco.co.za/
- 85 -
•
The processors that could invest in a new plant need an estimation of how much
e-waste they could receive to know the size of the plant they should build, especially
because the investment is enormous, but this is hard to estimate with current
knowledge.
•
The expectation of a recycler to receive more valuable part can’t be respected if all
the waste has to be recycled. Furthermore, monitors, keyboards and mice have
shorter lifespan than CPU’s; therefore the parts with lesser value are more likely to
join the waste stream.
•
The number of permits and registrations that processors need to go through
44
and
the time required to obtain them (sometimes about a year for a one year permit)
makes it complicated for a processor to respect legislation.
•
As the market might be saturated, it is not possible to give e-waste to all processors.
It is difficult to choose who would receive the e-waste if many processors wanted to
build a plant: the processors not chosen might work against the Green e-Waste
Channel.
6.3
Opportunities
•
It is a good time to start implementing the Green e-Waste Channel: problems such
as import or informal activities are still small compared to other countries such as
India or China. It is easier to tackle the problem at the beginning than to stop
something already established for a long time.
•
There is a positive recycling context, with legislation and waste management
systems for other wastes.
•
There is a positive environmental context, the Channel being part of a move towards
more sustainable waste management. “E-waste is receiving a relatively high priority
in South Africa at the moment” (Finlay, 2005).
•
People from other regions in South Africa are interested in the Green e-Waste
Channel. The local pilot project might extend to other Provinces.
44
Storage of gold, Registration of second-hand goods, Hazardous substance transport license
etc.
- 86 -
•
The producer’s expectations are answered, the ITA is fully committed (Green eWaste Channel Gauteng, 2006b).
•
The products could have a more sustainable design (ecodesign), be easier to repair
or be more easily recycled if producers applied the same standards as in Europe.
•
Legislation specific on e-waste seems possible in the future; eWASA already made
a position statement for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
(DEAT) (eWASA, 2006). “E-Waste is now considered as a priority waste stream
by DEAT as part of the NWMS [National Waste Management Strategy].” (SinhaKhetriwal et al., 2006)
•
Efforts of the government at a local level can have positive effects. E-waste might
be included in the green city plan of the city of Tshwane, work is being done for
internal policy in Cape Town (Dittke, Int., 2006).
Collection system
•
Since the collection points for discarded electronics could be the same as for other
wastes such as glass, paper or compost, a communication and marketing campaign
could be done for different waste together.
•
The participation of retailers in the take-back could be encouraged if the producers
are onboard.
Reuse
•
The market for second-hand computers is huge since people can’t afford to buy new
ones, especially now that the dollar has risen (De Bruyn, Int., 2006).
•
The used computer industry can create a new market because they provide cheap
computers for disadvantaged people. They in turn will then be used to owning a
computer and might be new customers for the ICT industry if their income
eventually increases.
Sound processing
•
The Swiss recycling company Immark Ag is investigating new technologies
(Schluep, Int., 2006) and is looking for partners. They could help building a new
recycling plant in South Africa.
•
The export of precious metal could diminish: precious metal refineries and mining
companies are interested in building new facilities for e-waste processing, realising
- 87 -
that it can be profitable; the concentration of precious metal such as gold is much
higher in e-waste than in naturally occurring mineral ore (EMPA, 2005).
•
Many recyclers are interested in building a new plant or increasing the size of their
current one.
•
The precious metal content in computers decreased this last decade, but it might
increase again with RoHS (Lombard, Int., 2006), making it more attractive for
processors.
6.4
Threats
•
Some big companies might not want to cooperate because they negatively perceive
investigation and awareness raising campaigns showing the bad methods they
currently use to discard their e-waste: the crew from a television show on e-waste
was taken to the site where Telkom SA Ltd dumped equipment can be seen, which
is not good for the image of the company.
•
The Green e-Waste Channel is extremely dependent on a body ruling, coordinating
the system and organising a financial mechanism for the nonviable part of the
process. If the ITA doesn’t take the lead, eWASA alone can’t and doesn’t want to
manage the system. None of the 120 questionnaires sent to ITA members have been
answered. Besides the lack of time, it can be a decision not to communicate on that
topic.
•
There is a risk that each stakeholder will try to have it’s own system: companies
such as Universal Recycling and Intelligent Computing came to meetings but are
not involved so far in the Green e-Waste Channel. They still however advertise the
collecting of material.
•
More items are having electrical and electrical components incorporate into them,
which were not present before such as toys, pens or badges. Sometimes, EEE is just
a very small part of a larger overall product, as in a talking teddy bear. Because of
their small size, complexity and diversity, they are not easy to dismantle and
recycling is less viable than with larger items. Reuse opportunities are low because
of low market demand and high price of repair. (Darby et al., 2005).
- 88 -
Collection system
•
The collection system is highly dependent on the consumer involvement, but
household consumers are not used to separating their waste and might want to keep
their end-of-life equipment because of psychological factors.
Reuse
• According to Vermij (Int., 2006), producers, and therefore the system operator,
might have many reasons not to encourage reuse: reasons include the fact that the
image of the product can potentially be damaged by the second-hand seller and that
products are designed to fail after a period of time in order to allow the sale of a new
item: the longer the equipment is in circulation, the longer the new sale is delayed.
The refurbishment company Intelligent Computing (De Bruyn, Int., 2006) also
expressed strong doubts about the willingness of producers to encourage reuse.
• Refurbishment facilities might give a negative image linked with theft.
Sound processing
•
It is difficult to control import because there are hoaxes in Europe and in the U.S.A.
According to the Basel Action Network (2005), the risk of import is higher now that
the WEEE directive has been instilled, because landfilling is no longer permitted in
Europe. In Nigeria, most of the imported e-waste arrives through the harbours in
Lagos. As the harbour of Durban is the most active in Southern Africa45, waste
might enter easily that way (Lombard, Int., 2006).
•
It is difficult not to export certain materials: competition is high with countries such
as China, where environmental and health standards are lower and the work force is
cheaper, sometimes about 1.5$ a day (Puckett et al., 2002).
•
There is a risk of having more informal chemicals extracted out of precious metals if
bigger volumes are collected or if the precious metals content rises with the RoHS
directive (BAN, 2005).
•
Small e-waste is easy to throw away in the normal garbage bin (Darby et al., 2005).
•
Some processors have a simplified vision of recycling, thinking that as long
something is recycled, it is positive: they don’t take into account the potential
environmental and health hazards, such as the idea of using plastics with
Brominated Flame Retardant in chairs.
45
source: www.ports.co.za/durban-harbour.php
- 89 -
CHAPTER VII
7. CONCLUSION
Assessment of the proposed Green e-Waste Channel compared to the objectives set
for the Channel
i. The Channel is environmentally sound, preventing emissions of hazardous
substances to the environment and reducing the amount of improper final disposing
of hazardous substances.
ii. The Channel is economically sustainable, but only through a financial mechanism
organised by the system operator. The logistics and the sound processing can’t be
economically sustainable only though the stakeholders of the Channel.
iii. The Channel fulfils a social role, for example creating safe jobs and protecting the
health of its workers. It also allows educational centres and side activities such as
waste-to-art, but as the system operator wouldn’t regulate those activities, there is a
need for other organisations to encourage it.
Viability of the proposed Green e-Waste Channel
Although there are fewer strengths than weaknesses, the strengths are important and
none of the weaknesses represent a real obstacle if handled properly. An essential
strength of the Green e-Waste Channel is that it offers advantages for all role players
directly or indirectly involved in the Channel. Material is provided to processors and
refurbishers and safe jobs are created. The system is convenient for the consumers. It
offers a solution for end-of-life equipment for the producers. The Channel helps
respecting national and international regulations, which is positive for the government.
Even though the reasons to want a system are not the same for all role players consumers and NGO’s are likely to have environmental and social interests while
processors will see rather the economical motivation - the goal of more recycling
remains the same.
- 90 -
Another positive aspect is the general context: much attention is presently given to
environmental issues, the recycling context is good and the e-waste situation is
relatively clean. Thus the country has the chance to start the management of e-waste
under relatively simple circumstances. There is no need to deal with too many currently
existing unsound handlings of the e-waste or with too many foreign stakeholders.
Many opportunities and threats come from elements of the framework of the Green
e-Waste Channel, showing clearly that the Channel itself can’t be viable without at least
a proper management process, and, if possible, a legislative and a facilitative process.
As the involvement of the ITA as system operator and a future legislation is likely to
take place, and as there are motivated actors such as the eWASA team to help realize it,
the Green e-Waste Channel has many chances to receive strong support. Seeing that
some recycling already occurred without this support, the recycling will most probably
increase. However, the target of the Polokwane declaration to have zero waste by 2022
seems illusionary for e-waste, especially in a country where energy recovery is not
allowed. E-waste at landfill sites will certainly be reduced but not disappear. Regarding
the take-back system, if an appropriate awareness campaign is done to encourage
consumers’ participation, a lot of stored e-waste should be collected.
Although this study shows that the Green e-Waste Channel in its entirety will most
likely be successful, the quantity of appliances that will be reused risks being low,
unless role players such as eWASA and other organisations strongly support the
refurbishment. Indeed, the expectations from different stakeholders on that point are
contradictory: the IT industry sees the second hand sellers as competition, while
eWASA or environmental NGO’s consider it as an essential element. The role of the IT
industry, through the PRO, would be to manage the Green e-Waste Channel and to
ensure that it follows the objectives. Currently the IT industry doesn’t see refurbishment
as a priority to be encouraged through a Green e-Waste Channel. This strategy is similar
to developed countries, where refurbishment is seen as a separate market and is not
encouraged by the take-back systems. However due to a very different market
behaviour and a higher demand for low cost IT equipment in developing countries, the
inclusion of refurbishment in a Green e-Waste Channel should be considered.
- 91 -
Environmental and social impacts.
The Green e-Waste Channel can have positive effects on waste management in general:
for instance, the consumers would get to know the collection points and get used to
separating wastes. It would have a positive impact for awareness rising on
environmental issues. However, it is important to communicate that recycling is better
than dumping, but that the pollution doesn’t disappear even with sound recycling: the
responsible consumer should first reduce his/her production of waste, for example
buying computers that can be easily upgraded to avoid having to purchase entirely new
systems.
The Green e-Waste Channel as proposed might have a social negative impact for
informal processors and small size processors, excluding them if they are not willing to
be trained and improve the quality of their processes. To protect the environment from
the impact of informal activities is not necessarily more import than allowing informal
processors to earn a living. If we create jobs in the Channel through big recycling
facilities for instance, it doesn’t automatically justify taking jobs away from the
informal collectors and processors. The challenge of the Green e-Waste Channel is to
really integrate the small processors, as well as help support recycling companies to
grow. This challenge of having to join big recyclers with modern facilities and small
street waste collectors is common in South Africa, “a world in one country”.
Consequences for other countries in transition or developing countries
If South Africa succeeds in implementing a recycling system for e-waste, with the help
of the Green e-Waste Channel, the country would be a pioneer in the continent and one
of the first within transitioning and developing countries. The model of the Green
e-Waste Channel could be adapted to other developing countries, by taking into account
the different context and needs.
South Africa could play a role for neighbouring countries in processing their e-waste.
The other southern African countries are less developed and don’t produce as much
e-waste. They don’t have many processors with facilities as modern as in South Africa.
However, neighbouring countries could have more refurbishment, because it doesn’t
require big and sophisticated facilities as for processing.
- 92 -
It is not possible to have big scale processors everywhere, especially for refining; the
cost of investing in new facilities and the amount necessary to be viable is particularly
high. As South Africa has infrastructure for transport and trading, an important
economic position in the African continent, and is strategically situated between Asia
and South America, the country could have a plant to compete with the world market.
This would be very profitable for South Africa, but it has to be regulated and the system
must ensure that the refinery provides a sound solution for all parts of the equipment. It
shouldn’t encourage neighbouring countries to dismantle their end-of-life equipment
and send the PWB’s for precious metal recovery to South Africa, as the invaluable and
hazardous components would be dumped in Southern African countries. The South
African Green e-Waste Channel should help other developing countries, not take
advantage of them.
Recommendations
The target of having a better quality of recycling and having control on the system are
difficult to achieve together while having as much e-waste as possible processed
through the Channel. It must be decided if it is more important to have a big amount
processed quickly while accepting that some parts go uncontrolled and that quality
won’t be perfect or less processed, but with the guarantee of sound processing. Starting
the collection system now despite the processors not being completely ready would
have positive impact on the processors’ involvement: the processors might all wait to
see what is going to happen before being on board, but once there is material collected,
processors should be able to react rapidly.
Although it doesn’t make sense to wait for perfect processing to start the collection of
e-waste, it is important to be careful at the beginning: once connections have been made
and e-waste has been handed to a company, it is complicated to stop, which should be
done if the processor doesn’t want to improve his standards. One has to realize that no
business is completely “clean”: the most important element to take into account when
assessing role players at this stage is to see if they are ready to communicate, show the
problems they encounter, and if they want to improve. At the start, a contract for
participants could stipulate whether they agree with the objectives of the Channel and
will do their best to improve their processes to comply with the aim of the Channel,
precise standards coming later.
- 93 -
Some stakeholders were not favourable to the Channel because they think it seeks to
impose a new system and don’t see the need for one because they already have partners.
Other don’t trust this project because they don’t always understand the role of eWASA
and the Swiss team or what the industry wants from them. Some processors don’t want
to give up their data fearing that it might go to competitors. There is an urgent need to
communicate the aim of the Green e-Waste Channel, the role and interests of each role
player. It should be explained for instance that the system operator, although initiated
for the industry, is independent and wouldn’t use the data to serve industry purposes.
Elements that could be further investigated
•
Set precise standards, especially for processors; have a summary of Best Available
Technologies, Best Practices and legal requirements.
•
The economic viability of each step of the process, including logistics, could be
studied to know exactly where a financial help is needed and how profitable e-waste
recycling could be. Business and finance is the focus of the EMPA project in South
Africa.
•
A Material Flow Analysis should be carried out on the current e-waste flows in
Gauteng or even at a national level. Among others, an estimation of the future flows
- which would involve knowing how much is really stored - could be very useful for
processors willing to expand or build a new plant to know the capacity they should
have.
•
A potential solution for plastics could be the indirect energy recovery through
cement plants such as Holcim Pty: the feasibility should be studied.
•
Other IT rental companies should be identified and approached, to understand their
current roles and see how much of the discarding of IT equipment from corporate
consumers goes trough them. They could maybe be included in the design of the
Green e-Waste Channel.
•
An assessment of the informal activities – collectors, dismantlers and metal
recovers - would be important, to understand how big this sector is and what is done
exactly: what becomes of each e-waste component after dismantling, under which
conditions are back yard acid baths performed (how are the chemicals for the metal
extraction discarded after use etc.). This is an essential step before teaching them
Best Practices.
- 94 -
8. REFERENCES
ATLEE J., KIRCHAIN R. (2006). Operational Sustainability Metrics Assessing Metric
Effectiveness in the Context of Electronics-Recycling Systems. Environmental Science
and Technology. 40. 4506-4513.
BAN (2005). The digital dump : Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Retrieved from
http://www.ban.org/ [Last assessed: December 2006].
City of Cape Town (2006). Internal Policy recommendation on e-waste. Draft Report.
[Unpublished].
City of Tshwane (2004). State of the Environment Report for the City of Tshwane
2001-2002. Retrieved from: www.tshwane.gov.za [Last assessed: December 2006].
Computer Industry Almanac Inc. (2006). Retrieved from: www.c-i-a.com. [Last
assessed: February 2007].
DARBY L., OBARA L. (2005). Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards
the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling. 44. 17-35.
DITTKE S. (2004). Draft Report of the Cape Town Audit Meetings (October 4th – 5th
2004). "Knowledge Partnerships in e-Waste Recycling". [Unpublished].
DITTKE S. et al. (2006). From national policy planning to local green e-Waste channel.
Action-responsible e-Waste management in South Africa. In proceedings of the waste
Conference 2006, 5-8 September. Cape Town, South Africa.
DITTKE S. (2006). Interim Progress Report, 01.01-31.10.2006. South African Project
“Knowledge Partnerships in e-Waste Recycling”. [Unpublished].
DUMMET K. (2006). Drivers for corporate environmental responsability (CER).
Environment, Development and Sustainability. 8. 375–389.
- 95 -
ECROIGNARD L. (2006). Southern countries harmonise e-waste plans. RéSource.
Vol. 8. (November 2006). N°4. 23-24.
EMPA (2005). Swiss e-Waste Guide, a knowledge base for the sustainable recycling of
e-waste. Swiss Knowledge Partnerships in e-Waste Recycling. Retrieved from:
www.ewaste.ch. [Last accessed: February 2007].
EMPA (2006). Draft presentation for a workshop in Costa Rica. Pensar un Modelo de
Negocio Social de Reciclaje para LAC. [Unpublished].
Environment Victoria (2005). Environmental Report Card on Computers. Computer
Waste in Australia and The Case for Producer Responsibility. Retrieved from:
www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=6&submenu=532&item=894
[Last
assessed:
February 2007].
eWASA (2006). Position paper on e-waste management in South Africa on behalf of
the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). [Unpublished].
Federal Office for the Environment (1998). Ordinance on the Return, Taking-back and
Disposal
of
Electrical
and
Electronic
Equipment.
Retrieved
from:
www.admin.ch/ch/f/rs/c814_620.html. [Last assessed: December 2006].
FINLAY, A. (2005). E-Waste challenges in developing countries: South Africa case
study, APC “Issue papers”. Serie 2005, November. 1-22.
Government of South Africa (1998). The National Environmental Management Act
(Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA). Retrieved from:
www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/legislation/1998/act98-107.html?rebookmark=1
[Last assessed: February 2007].
Government of South Africa (2001). The Polokwane Declaration on Waste
Management. Retrieved from:
www.environment.gov.za/ProjProg/WasteMgmt/Polokwane_declare.htm.
- 96 -
Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng (2006). First Core Group Meeting. Minutes. June 19th.
[Unpublished].
Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng (2006). Core Group Meeting. Minutes. September
12th. [Unpublished].
Green e-Waste Channel Gauteng (2006). Metro workshop. Minutes. November 24th.
[Unpublished].
HE W. et al. (2006). WEEE recovery strategies and the WEEE treatment status in
China. Journal of Hazardous Materials. B136. 502–512.
HILTY L.M. (2005). Editorial. Electronic waste—an emerging risk? Environmental
Impact Assessment Review. 25. 431 – 435.
HISCHIER R., WÄGER P., GAUGLHOFER J. (2005) Does WEEE recycling make
sense from an environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of the Swiss takeback and recycling systems for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 25. 525 – 539.
HUANG P., ZHANG X., DENG X. (2006). Survey and analysis of public
environmental awareness and performance in Ningbo, China: a case study on household
electrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Cleaner Production. XX. 1-9.
HUISSMAN J., MARINELLI T., MAGALINI F. (2005) Where did WEEE go wrong in
Europe?
Practical
and
academic
lessons
for
the
US.
Retrieved
from:
http://forum.europa.eu.int [Last assessed: February 2007].
International Monetary Fund (2006). World Economic Outlook Database, for the year
2005. Retrieved from: www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/index.aspx [Last
- 97 -
LAFFELY J. (2006). Blueprint, Footprint Environmental Centre. Swiss e-Waste
Knowledge Partnerships Programme. [Unpublished].
LINDHQVIST, T. (2000). Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production.
The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics. Lund University,
Sweden.
MACAULEY M., PALMER K., SHIH J.-S., (2003). Dealing with electronic waste:
modelling the costs and environmental benefits of computer monitor disposal. Journal
of Environmental Management. 68. 13–22.
MAY J. (1998). Poverty and Inequality in South Africa. Summary Report. Retrieved
from www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/reports/poverty.html?rebookmark=1.
OECD (2001). Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for
Governments. Paris, France. OECD.
OECD (2003). Technical guidance for the environmentally sound management of
specific waste streams: used and scrap personal computers. Retrieved from:
www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/linkto/ENV-EPOC-WGWPR(2001)3-FINAL
PARK D. (2006). Myth, misunderstanding, miscommunication and mistakes – fact and
in-depth analysis of product- related environmental regulations on electrical and
electronic equipment in China, Japan and Korea. ENHESA-EPC (Environmental Policy
Centre). Brussels, Belgium. Working paper Series.
PUCKETT J., et al. (2002). Exporting harm: the High-Tech Trashing of Asia. Seattle.
The Basel Action Network, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
ROCHAT D. (2006). E-Waste Management Event in Electronics City, 20th September.
India. [Unpublished].
- 98 -
SINHA D. (2004). The management of electronic waste: a comparative study on India
and Switzerland. Master Thesis. University of St.Gallen, Switzerland. In cooperation
with EMPA. [Unpublished].
SINHA-KHETRIWAL D. et al. (2006). Legislating e-waste management: progress
from various countries. Environmental Law Network International, Elni Review. 1+2/
06.
SRIVASTAVA P.K. et al. (2005). Stakeholder-based SWOT analysis for successful
municipal solid waste management in Lucknow, India. Waste Management. 25. 531537.
STEINER S. (2004). Risk Assessment of E-waste burning in Delhi, India. Diploma
Thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Switzerland. In
colaboration with EMPA. [Unpublished].
StEP (2005). Solving the e-waste problem: a synthetic approach (StEP), Draft Project
Document. Retrieved from : http://work.step-initiative.org. [Last assessed: February
2007].
SUTER P. (2003). A new guiding paradigm for waste disposal. Energy. 28. 1335–1343.
The Economist (2005). Recycling old computers. January 27. 56.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003). EU Directive
2002/95/EC of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous
substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS). Official Journal of the
European Union. L 37. 19 - 23.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003). EU Directive
2002/96/EC of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).
Official Journal of the European Union. L 37. 24-39.
- 99 -
UNDP (2003). Human Development Reports. Human Development Indicators.
Retrieved from: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/cty_f_BRA.html [Last
UNEP (1989). Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of
hazardous
wastes
and
their
disposal.
United
Nations
Environment
Programme/Secretariat of the Basel Convention. Retrieved from: www.basel.int/ [Last
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997).
Jobs Through Recycling
Program. Retrieved from : www.epa.gov/jtr/ [Last assessed: February 2007].
WIDMER R., LOMBARD R., (2005): e-Waste assessment in South Africa – a case
study of the Gauteng province. Swiss Knowledge Partnerships in e-Waste Recycling,
Swiss States Secretary of Economic Affairs (seco) and Swiss Institute of Material
Sciences and Technology (EMPA). St.Gallen, Switzerland.
WIDMER, R. et al. (2005). Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review. 25. 436-458.
WILLIAMS, E. (2003). Environmental Impacts in the Production of Personal
Computers. IN KUHR, R. & WILLIAMS, E. (Eds.) Computers and the Environment:
Understanding and Managing their Impacts. Dordrecht, Nederlands. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
WILLIAMS E., SASAKI Y. (2003). Energy analysis of end-of-life options for
computers: Resell, upgrade, recycle. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. San Francisco, U.S.A.
WILLIAMS, E. (2005). International activities on E-waste and guidelines for future
work. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Material Cycles and Waste
Management in Asia, National Institute of Environmental Sciences. Tsukuba, Japan.
- 100 -
WISI (2003). Declaration of Principles: Building the Information Society: a global
challenge in the new Millennium. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from:
www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/586.htm. [Last assessed: February 2007].
ZUMBUEHL D. (2006). Mass Flow Assessment (MFA) and assessment of recycling
strategies for cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for the Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA), South
Africa. Master Thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich,
Switzerland. In collaboration with EMPA. [Unpublished].
Internet resources
[all last assessed February 2007]
www.basel.int/
Secretariat of the Basel Convention, UNEP
www.itu.int/
International Telecommunication Union
wikipedia.org
The free Encyclopedia
www.dell.com/producerresponsibility
Dell Global Recycling Policy
www.sens.ch
Stiftung Entsorgung Schweiz
www.swico.ch
Swiss association for Information,
Communication and Organisational
Technology
www.baselpretoria.org.za
Basel Convention Regional Centre Pretoria)
www.environment.gov.za
Department Environmental Affairs
and Tourism, RSA
www.iwmsa.co.za/
The Institute of Waste Management of
Southern Africa
www.ports.co.za/durban-harbour.php
Port of Durban
www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm
AVERT, international HIV and AIDS charity
www.gprg.org/
Global Poverty Research Group
www.anc.org.za/
African National Congress)
www.e-waste.org.za
Electronic Waste Guide, South Africa
www.desco.co.za/
Desco Electronic Recycler
www.ewaste.co.za
African Sky Electronic Recycler
www.nfshred.com
Non Ferrous Shredders Recycling Company
www.pikitup.co.za/
Pikitup, Waste Management Company
www.collectacan.co.za
Collect-a-Can (Pty) Ltd)
- 101 -
9.
APPENDICES
- 102 -
Appendix I: Questionnaire on consumer behaviour regarding
electronic waste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Anahide Bondolfi, Master Thesis Student at the University of Lausanne/Switzerland, intern at the United
Nation Environmental Programme’s (UNEP) Basel Convention Regional Centre in Pretoria
1. Storage and discarding of the equipment
Type
Number of items
you have at your
house
Number
stored
(that you don’t
use anymore)
Since when is
it stored
Number of items
that you have
discarded
Washing
machine
Dryer
Refrigerator
Vacuum
Cleaner
Toaster
PC
Cell phone
Telephone
Fax Machine
Printer
Television
VCR/DVD/
CD player
Radio
1.2 If you have some equipment stored, why do you keep it?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
- 103 -
1.3 If you have discarded some equipment, how did you discard it? (many answers
possible)
In the normal garbage bin?
Given back at the retailer/ shop when buying a new one?
Donation (to whom?)?.....................................
Other? How? …………………….
2. In order to encourage more reuse and recycling, e-waste must first be
collected.
2.1 Have you taken recyclables to a collection point before (paper, glass, plastic, cans,
garden waste etc.) ? (many answers possible)
garden refuse/site
buy back centre
landfill site
other ………..
2.2 If you have never used a collection point, why? (many answers possible)
You don’t know where there are
You don’t want to take the time to separate your waste
You don’t want to take the time to go there
You never thought about it
Other …………..
2.3 What would be an easy and convenient way for you to drop-off (return) the e-waste?
Arrange in order of convenience the collection possibilities below (write number
from 1 to 3 on the line, 1 being most convenient, 3 least)
.......
Take back at a public collection point
.......
Take back at the retailer / shop
.......
Pick up service at your house
2.4 How often would you need a Pick-up service ?
Every month
2 months
3 months
6 months
- 104 -
once a year
2.5 Private Pick-up based on phone call: would you pay to have your equipment
fetched ?
yes
No
2.6 If yes, how much (in Rand/ ZAR) would you pay for:
Small items from phones to computers? …………...
A fridge?
.................
2.7 If you were informed about the closest collection point and the only collection
possibility would be to take back your items to a collection point, would you do it?
yes
No
Why? ………………………..
3. What is important for you for a recycling system:
3.1 The consumer doesn’t have to pay for the recycling
Not important
Important
Very important
3.2 The system guarantees that the e-waste will be disposed of appropriately (sound
environmental and socially responsible process), with creation of a national consumer
label guaranteeing safe processing and disposal
Not important
Important
Very important
3.3 The electronic waste would first go to a collection point, then to recyclers. For
computers, it could go to refurbishers for repair/upgrade and then be sold to be re-used.
How important is it for you to encourage the reuse, even if you don’t get money out of
it?
Not important
Important
Very important
3.4 For computers and cell phones, opportunity to decide if the equipment will be
destroyed (data protection) or reused/refurbished
Not important
Important
Very important
3.5. Do you have other expectations from a recycling system?
.............................................................................................................................................
……………………………………………………………………………………………
- 105 -
4. Re-use of computers
4.1 If data protection is important for you, would you trust the refurbisher if the system
guarantees that the refurbisher uses a software to erase the data before selling/donating
the computer?
yes
No
4.2 Once the e-waste is given to the take back system, no money will be given to the
consumer. If your computer still has value, would you be ready/interested to go to the
refurbisher to sell the computers?
yes
No
4.3 Do you know refurbishers where you could take it?
yes
No
If yes, where?
............................................................................................................
………………………………………………………………………
- 106 -
Appendix II: Results of the questionnaire on household consumer
behaviour regarding electronic waste
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sample size: n=44
Participation rate: except when stipulated, all participants answered all questions
Target population: middle to upper class, adult
Date: November 2006
Place: Pretoria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Storage and discarding of the equipment
Washing
Dryer
Refrigerator
machine
mean SD mean SD mean SD
Number in use
1.07 0.45 0.82 0.61 1.84 1.43
Number stored
0.16 0.44 0.14 0.69 0.14 0.69
Number discarded 0.39 1.04 0.20 1.76 0.36 1.07
Stored since
1999 8
2000 5 2005
1
Vacuum
cleaner
mean SD
1.27 0.99
0.18 0.60
0.56 1.44
2005 1
Toaster
mean
1.14
0.14
0.69
2003
SD
0.55
0.38
1.49
2
PC
mean
2.23
0.50
0.77
2001
SD
2.87
3.39
1.86
7
Cell phone
mean
2.82
0.68
1.33
2004
SD
1.72
0.60
5.16
2
Fax
VCR/DVD/CD
Printer
Television
Radio
Machine
player
mean SD mean SD mean SD mean SD
mean
SD mean SD
Number in use
1.32 1.52 0.34 0.74 1.18 1.15 2.32 1.47
2.05
1.22 1.98 1.39
Number stored
0.20 0.64 0.07 1.73 0.27 1.04 0.23 0.54
0.39
0.57 0.16 0.64
Number discarded 0.34 1.35 0.09 1.41 0.45 1.49 0.51 1.28
0.25
0.74 0.58 5.07
Stored since
2004
2
2000
0
2001
7
2000
7
2003
3
2004
2
Telephone
Number of items in use
Number of items stored
Number of items discarded
- 107 -
Mean
19.9
3.3
6.5
SD
11.2
4.3
11.1
1.2 If you have some equipment stored, why do you keep it?
39% don’t store equipment. Each of the participants who do store equipment gave one
reason:
For future use
Don’t know what to do with it
Other reasons to store
Percentage
59%
26%
15%
For future use
• Spare for later (3)
• May use in the future (2)
• For backup
• In case other need to be repaired
• Will maybe fix it one day, didn’t claim for insurance
• Can still work if fixed
• To use when I move out to my own place
• Spare parts or later use
• May be able to fix in the future to use
• Keep in case I need it again
• Hope family can make use of it
• Emergency cell phone
• Attempting to fix them
Don’t know what to do with it
• Never got time to take it in
• Nothing else to do with it
• Feels to irresponsible to discard it (no information on recycling)
• Effort to dispose of
• No resell value
• Don’t know where to discard
• Haven’t had anyone suitable to give it to
Other
•
•
•
•
Sentimental value
Have space for it
Obsessive compulsive syndrome
It all belongs to my parent
- 108 -
1.3 If you have discarded some equipment, how did you discard it?
86% of the people surveyed have discarded e-waste in the past. Many persons used 2 or
3 ways to discard their equipment.
Donation to:
•
•
•
Domestic workers, maid, gardner (7)
Family, friends, kids, students (7)
Poor people, organization such has schools, charity (7)
Other:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Placed outside next to the garbage bin (2)
Stolen (2)
At work, has a facility to discard it
Advertise to give away
Burn it at the farm
Uncle that fires stuff, so he can use the parts that are not damaged
2.5 Have you taken recyclables to a collection point before (paper, glass, plastic,
cans, garden waste etc.) ?
89% of the people surveyed have discarded recyclables in the past. Many persons
brought their recyclables to 2 different places.
Other: Directly to “recyclers”, SAPI and MONDI
- 109 -
2.6 If you have never used a collection point, why?
52% of the people surveyed answered this question. Each of them gave one reason.
Reason
Don’t know where there are
Don’t want to take the time to separate your waste
Don’t want to take the time to go there
Never thought about it
Other
Percentage
9%
26%
26%
26%
13%
Other:
•
•
•
No collection point where I stay (but also said don’t know where they are)
Long distance
Not a high priority for me
2.7 What would be an easy and convenient way for you to drop-off (return) the
e-waste?
1 being the most easy and convenient way, 2 the second most and 3 the least. When
only the most convenient was indicated, a value of 2.5 was assigned to the two others.
2.8 How often would you need a Pick-up service ?
Months
Mean
4.6
- 110 -
SD
4.3
2.5 Private Pick-up based on phone call: would you pay to have your equipment
fetched?
Yes
No
Percentage
39%
61%
2.6 If yes, how much (in Rand/ ZAR) would you pay for:
Item
Small item such as phone or computer
Fridge
Price in Rand/ZAR
59
144
SD
47
108
2.7 If you were informed about the closest collection point and the only collection
possibility would be to take back your items to a collection point, would you do it?
Yes
No
Percentage
88%
12%
Why yes (15 answers):
• Environmentally friendly, properly disposed (5)
• Convenience (4)
• Recycle (2)
• Because its cheaper
• To get rid of it
• It s good for the community, but maybe I wouldn’t do it sometimes
• Would be nice, but some items too big or inconvenient to move yourself
Why no (3 answers):
• Live on a farm very far from town
• Time too little
• Effort
- 111 -
3. What is important for you for a recycling system
Not
Very
Important
important
important
3.1 The consumer doesn’t have to pay for the
recycling
3.2 Guarantee of sound environmental and socially
responsible process with creation of a national
consumer label
3.3 Encourage Reuse
3.4 Possibility to decide if the equipment will be
destroyed (data protection) or reused/ refurbished
19%
48%
33%
12%
16%
47%
37%
42%
47%
32%
45%
23%
3.5. Do you have other expectations from a recycling system?
32% of the persons surveyed answered this question, as followed:
• No, as long as I get service and the environment is protected
• Must be convenient and effective
• Convenient, low cost
• Environmental purpose
• Should just stay as say as it is at this moment
• Do it a.s.a.p.
• Job creation, safe
• Practical, user friendly
• Should be financially self sufficient, as recycling could be an easier way
to obtain raw material compared to mining
• It has to be efficient and effective without causing damage to the
environment
• More drop off, collection points, to make process easier
• Government involvement (environmental department)
• More reuse
• Must be done as environmentally friendly as possible, computers have
toxic materials, even recycled
4. Re-use of computers
Question
4.1 Trust the refurbisher using a software for data protection
4.2 Would go to the refurbisher to sell the computer
4.3 Know refurbishers
- 112 -
Yes
57%
66%
2%
No
43%
34%
98%
Appendix III: List of site visits
Type
Distributor
Name of Company
IT business
AXIZ
Place 46
Date
Midrand
13.10.06
Dobonsville
14.09.06
Collection site
Buy back centre
Molefi Recycling
Soweto
Drop-off site
Green House Project
Johannesburg
12.09.06
Drop-off site and waste-
Footprint Environmental
Cape Town,
4.09.06
to-art centre
Centre
Western Cape
5.09.06
Garden refuse
Municipality of Tshwane
Pretoria
11.09.06
Johannesburg
24.11.06
Collection
Private collector
Collection by Darkling
Industrial Metal at Pikitup
garden sites
Refurbisher
Medium size refurbisher
Intelligent computing, shop
Pretoria
28.09.06.
Big size refurbisher
Intelligent computing,
Silverton,
29.09.06
central warehouse
Tshwane
Processor
Medium size dismantler
Darkling Industrial Metal
Alexandra,
11.10.06
Johannesburg
1.12.06
Big size recycler
Desco Electronic Recyclers
Ekurhuleni
13.09.06
Big size recycler
Universal Recycling
Johannesburg
11.10.06
Company
Final disposing
Illegal dumping site
Contractors from Telkom
Pretoria North
30.10.06
General landfill site
Municipality of Tshwane
Hatenley,
2.10.06
Tshwane
46
All the places are in the Gauteng Province in South Africa except if stipulated.
- 113 -
Appendix IV: List of workshops and meetings attended
Organised by
eWASA
Purpose
Place
Draft of an e-waste blueprint
Greyton, Western
Date
8.09.06
Cape
Green e-Waste
Core Group Meeting
Channel Gauteng
City of Tshwane
12.09.06
Municipal Offices,
Centurion
Pickitup
Role of Pickitup in the e-waste
Pickitup office,
12.09.06
collection
Johannesburg
Information
Discussion of the possible role
ITA office, Midrand,
13.09.06
Technology
of the ITA
Meeting with the dismantler
Pickitup office,
20.09.06
collecting the e-waste at the
Johannesburg
Association
(ITA)
Pickitup
Pickitup sites
Pickitup
Launch of the e-waste
Ballyclaire Garden
20.09.06
collection
Site, Johannesburg
Green e-Waste
First core group meeting and
Hillcrest, Durban,
Channel Kwa
launch
Kwa Zulu Natal
Gold Mining company
Gauteng
11.06
Pickitup office,
24.11.06
22.11.06
Zulu Natal
Consultants
investigating the potential of
e-waste
Green e-Waste
Metro workshop
Channel Gauteng
Johannesburg
- 114 -
Appendix V: List of informants
Type
Name
Vermij, Wayne
Dismantler
Recycler
Recycler
Recycler
Recycler
Recycler
Company
IT distributor
Axiz
Function
Operation
Manager
Computer provider (IT rental company)
Van der Walt, Jan Orange System
Director
Collector
Venter, Christa
Pickitup
Strategic
Planning
Director
Refurbisher
De Bruyn, Frans
Intelligent
Director
Computing
Processor
Markson, Leo
Darkling
Director
Industrial Metal
Van Rensburg,
Universal
Environmental
Debbie
Recycling
Manager
Company
Smit, Andre
Sindawonye Pty. Consultant
Ltd. (Branch of
Non Ferrous
Shredders)
Werth, Allan
African Sky
Chief
Executive
Officer (CEO)
Airga, Costa
Desco Electronic Executive
Recyclers
Director
Newson, Gerry
Recycling IT
Director
Plastic
exporter
Refiner
Lee, Alex
Utong Trading
Director
Abramson, Cecil
Precious metal
Recovery System
Refiner
Ackerman,
Rieker; Griffiths,
Martin
Rand Refinery
Consultant escrap recovery
pilot plant
Smelter
manager;
Information
manager
Landfill
Dekker Frans
Hazardous
Landfill
Havinga Matthew
Final disposing
City of Tshwane
landfill Sites
Manager
EnviroServ Waste Regional
Management Pty. Operations
Ltd.
Manager
- 115 -
Place
Midrand
Pretoria
Johannesburg
Silverton,
Pretoria
Alexandra,
Johannesburg
Newclare
Industria,
Johannesburg
Port Elisabeth,
Eastern Cape
Benoni,
Ekurhuleni
Ekurhuleni
Cape Town,
Western Cape
Boksburg,
Johannesburg
Germiston,
Johannesburg
Germiston,
Ekurhuleni
Pretoria
Johannesburg
Type
Name
Company
Function
Consultant, member of eWASA
Dittke, Suzanne
EnviroSense CC
Waste
Management
Specialist
Cape Town,
Western
Cape
Ecroignard, Lene
BCRC
Pretoria
Finlay, Alan
Open Research
Lombard, Ray
Lombard &
Associates
Information &
Marketing
Coordinator
Media & ICT
research
Consultant and
waste scientist
Schluep, Mathias
EMPA
Project Manager
- 116 -
Place
Johannesburg
Link Hills,
Kwa Zulu
Natal
St-Gallen,
Switzerland
Appendix VI: Summary of the SWOT analysis
Strengths
•
•
Processors and refurbishers want to expand
International support from the EMPA and national support from eWASA, motivation
•
•
•
Local pilot projects
Cheap labour force
Weakly government regulated
•
Type of e-waste considered of greater interest to recyclers is not the same as for refurbishers
Weaknesses
•
•
Double edged sword regarding awareness raising
Processors and refurbishers seem to have economic priorities
•
•
•
Negative perception that the idea of the Channel comes from the Swiss project
Unclear role of eWASA
Most jobs created don’t require specific skills
•
•
Quality of work and efficiency might be low
High cost of control
•
•
Risk of encouraging corporate consumers to discard their equipment more often than needed
Gives the wrong impression that users can consume more electric and electronic equipment
because there is a sound recycling system
•
Risk of encouraging big companies, excluding smaller ones
•
•
Difficulty to approach informal collectors and processors
Bad opinion from processors and refurbishers of producers
Opportunities
•
•
Easier to tackle the problem at the beginning
Positive recycling context
•
•
Positive environmental context
People from other regions in South Africa are interested
•
•
•
Producer’s expectations are answered, the ITA is fully committed
Possible ecodesign for products, being therefore easier to repair or recycle
E-waste specific legislation seems possible in the future
•
Efforts of the government at a local level
Threats
•
•
Low cooperation from corporate users, because of investigation on their methods to discard
e-waste
Extremely dependent on a body ruling the system and organising a financial mechanism
Risk that each stakeholder will try to have it’s own system
•
Difficulty to recycle small e-waste or devices with small electrical components
•
- 117 -
Collection system
Strengths
• The municipalities might participate
•
Cheap because the consumers bring back their end-of-life appliances
•
Corporate consumer’s interest to participate because of “Green Image” provided
Weaknesses
• Risk of loosing public confidence if the Channel starts too early without proper implementation
• Loss of interest from processors because of low collection rate
•
Mafia effect between all the people selling e-scrap at collection sites
•
Loss of guarantee for consumers of sound handling of the equipment with reuse
Opportunities
• Communication and marketing campaigns could be bundled for different wastes
•
Participation of retailers in the take-back adding one more convenient collection point
Threats
• Highly dependent on consumer involvement
Reuse
Strengths
• Expectations of refurbishers mostly taken into account
•
Consumers positively perceive the fact that some of the material refurbished is given to charity
Weaknesses
• Low trust concerning software to erase data
•
Less refurbishers than processors involved in the pilot projects
•
Computers handed to schools or associations but without guarantee or after-sale service
•
Difficulty to have the equipment from collection points primarily going to refurbishers
•
Reuse less interesting for other types of end-of-life appliances than IT equipment
Opportunities
• Huge market for second hand computers
•
Refurbishment can create a new market, providing cheap computers for disadvantaged people
Threats
• Negative image of refurbishment facilities, linked with theft
•
Producers, and therefore the system operator, have many reasons not to encourage reuse
- 118 -
Sound processing
Strengths
• Expectations of processors mostly taken into account
•
Channel particularly attractive for new processors
•
E-waste recycling is an attractive business for processors
•
Dismantling offers jobs opportunities for people with disabilities
•
Informal processing is reduced
•
Extension of the lifespan allows time to put a recycling system in place
Weaknesses
• Difficulty to control the flows, which is necessary for a financial mechanism
•
Dependence on the processor’s willingness to participate and to communicate
•
Risk that workers will use the know-how of processors to set up uncontrolled back yards
activities
•
Difficulty to set standards and rules just for e-waste
•
Risk of only identifying already “clean stakeholders”
•
Difficulty to stop informal activities
•
Already well established recyclers don’t necessarily see the need to be part of a system
•
Difficulty to trust the participating stakeholders when they give information on their
processes
•
Need for an estimation on amount of e-waste for processors willing to invest in new plant
•
Not possible to respect recyclers’ expectations to receive more valuable parts
•
Complicated to respect current legislation
•
Processors not chosen to be a part of the Channel might work against it
Opportunities
• Swiss recycling company Immark Ag is looking for new partners
•
Export of precious metal could diminish through new South African refineries
•
Many recyclers are interested in building a new plant or increasing the size of the current one
•
Precious metal content in computers might increase with RoHS
Threats
• Difficulty to control import because there are hoaxes in Europe and in the U.S.A.
•
Difficulty not to export certain materials because of competition with other countries
•
Risk of more informal chemical extraction of precious metals if bigger volumes are collected
•
Small e-waste is easy to throw away in the normal garbage bin
•
Simplified vision of recycling from processors who think that all types of recycling are sound
- 119 -
Appendix VII: Selection of definitions of e-waste
Reference
Definition
EU WEEE Directive
“Electrical or electronic equipment which is waste (…) including
(The European
all components, sub-assemblies and consumables, which are part
Parliament and the
of the product at the time of discarding”. Directive 2002/96/EC
Council of the European of the European Parliament and of the Council (January 2003),
Union, 2003b)
defines ten categories (see appendix X).
BAN (Puckett et al.,
"E-waste encompasses a broad and growing range of electronic
2002)
devices ranging from large household devices such as
refrigerators, air conditioners, cell phones, personal stereos, and
consumer electronics to computers which have been discarded by
their users."
OECD (2001)
Any appliance using an electric power supply that has reached its
end-of-life
SINHA (2004)
"An electrically powered appliance that no longer satisfies the
current owner for its original purpose."
StEP (2005)
E-waste refers to "…the reverse supply chain which collects
products no longer desired by a given consumer and
refurbishes for other consumers, recycles, or otherwise
processes wastes."
Source: Widmer et al. (2005b)
- 120 -
Appendix VIII: Categories of e-waste
N°
1.
Name of category
Large household appliances
2.
Small household appliances
3.
IT and telecommunications equipment
4.
Consumer equipment
5.
Lighting equipment
6.
Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary
7.
industrial
Toys,
leisure
tools)
and sports equipment
8.
Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted and infected products)
9.
Monitoring and control instruments
10.
Automatic dispensers
Source: The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003b)
- 121 -
Appendix IX: Why e-waste is considered hazardous
Material
Plastics
including
Polyvinyl
chloride
(PVC)
Lead
% of
Total (by
weight)
23%
6%
Barium
0.03%
Beryllium
0.02%
Cadmium
0.01%
Hexavalent
Chromium
0.006%
Selenium
0.002%
Main
Applications in
Computer
Production
Cabling,
computer
housings
Environmental/Health Impacts
Various cancers; endocrine system disruption
PVC emits highly toxic dioxins and furans when
manufactured and also if materials containing it are
burnt
Soldering of
printed circuit
boards and other
components;
glass panels in
CRT monitors
Significant amounts of lead ions are dissolved from
broken lead containing glass, such as the cone glass
of cathode ray tubes, when mixed with acid waters
which commonly occur in landfills.
Accumulates in environment and has high acute and
toxic effects on plants, animals, and microorganisms
Damage to nervous system, blood system, and
kidneys; serious effects on child brain development.
Vacuum tubes in Short-term exposure to barium can lead to brain
CRT monitors
swelling, muscle weakness, damage to the heart,
liver and spleen. Long-term effects of chronic
exposure not yet known.
Used for thermal Recently identified as human carcinogen. Exposure
conductivity
can cause lung cancer and skin diseases.
SMD chip
When plastics containing cadmium are landfilled,
resistors,
can leach into groundwater.
infrared
Acute and chronic toxic compound which
detectors,
accumulates in human body, esp. in kidneys. Can
semiconductors, be absorbed either through respiration or ingested
older models of through food.
CRTs; also used
as plastic
stabilizer
Mostly phased
Highly toxic material which can pass easily through
out, but still
cell membranes; causes strong allergic reactions
some limited use (e.g. asthmatic bronchitis) even in small
as corrosion
concentrations. May also cause DNA damage.
protector and
Contaminated wastes can leach from landfills and
decorative or
also fly ash if chromium-containing wastes are
hardener for
incinerated.
steel housings
Used in
Exposure to high concentrations of selenium
rectifiers and
compounds cause selenosis, the symptoms of which
printed wiring
are hair loss, nail brittleness, and neurological
boards
abnormalities.
Source: Environment Victoria (2005)
- 122 -
Appendix X: Legislation in South Africa with impact on e-waste
management
Law or Regulation
Constitution
The National Environmental
Management
Act (Act 107 of 1998)
(NEMA)
The Municipal Services
Act (Act 32 of 2000)
The Occupational
Health and Safety Act (Act
85 of 1993)
The Environment
Conservation Act
(ECA)
The White Paper on
Integrated Pollution and
Waste Management
The Health Act
The Hazardous Substances
Act
Major Content
Deals with basic environmental rights (including
access to information). Sets out the allocation of
powers for different
levels of government. While provinces set the
standards of environmental control within a national
framework,
local authorities are expected to administer the
legislation, supplementing it with by-laws where
necessary.
Amongst other things, NEMA lays out principles for
waste management. These include avoidance or
minimization, and the “remediation of pollution”
,Waste reduction, re-use, recycling and proper
disposal, as well as the ‘polluter
pays’ and “cradle to grave” principles are emphasized.
Includes principles for effective local governance.
Deals with health and safety in the workplace.
Deals with the protection and controlled utilization of
the environment. The ECA makes provision for an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which is
needed for any waste disposal activities. An
amendment delegates the administration of waste
disposal to the Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism (DEAT). The permitting of waste
disposal sites is guided by a series of documents
dealing with minimum requirements.
Deals with the allocation of environment and waste
management functions and powers. Has also included
the
development of the National Waste Management
Strategy, which is a Danish-funded joint venture
between the DEAT and the Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry. The emphasis is on “holistic
waste and pollution management”. Recycling is one of
the short-term priority areas identified.
Promotes healthy living and working conditions.
Relevant to the potential health risk implications of ewaste.
Regulates the management of hazardous substances
and hazardous waste.
Source: Sinha-Khetrival et al. (2006) and Widmer et al. (2005a)
- 123 -

The Green e-Waste Channel: model for a reuse

Transcription

Similar documents

Recycling Bloopers

Introducing Envirosealed Windows from Vytex the industry`s most

AVI Recycling Services - Amador Valley Industries

e-waste assessment in south africa

Leaflet Catalyst Recycling

What can go in my bin?

Let`s Talk Trash