E-Waste management: policy alternatives

Abstract

Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment, colloquially called e-waste, is an emerging threat to our planet. The more we advance technologically the graver the problem of disposing e-waste becomes. It is a global problem however, the developing countries with insufficient regulation and monitoring are bearing the brunt of it. Compounding the situation further, developing countries have become a dumping ground for e-waste originating from the developed world. India itself produces almost 1 million ton of e-waste annually, discounting the disguised imports, which is set to grow to 1.72 million ton by 2020. In India most of the e-waste handling and management happens in the informal sector. The informal sector is beset with problems of child labor, women employment and use crude methods to extract metals form waste that puts the workers at health risk due to exposure to harmful gases. The policy makers have only recently recognized gravity of the situation and have implemented rules for managing e-waste in 2011. The e-waste (management and handling rules), 2011 came in force after a year in 2012, to give industry and other stake holders to set up structures in place to comply with the rules. The rules are based on the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility that holds the manufacturer/importer accountable to ensure a closed loop manufacturing without any externalities on the environment. In this paper, the author evaluated the mechanism employed by Switzerland to address this problem using EPR and ARF (advance recycle fee). The author also conducted a number of interviews with the aggregators and the consumers in Bangalore, India to understand the impact of the new policy on the twin goals of moving e-waste handling to organizations that are authorized by the pollution control boards to recycle the waste responsibly and hold the producer responsible for ensuring consumer awareness and thus closed loop recycling. The results of the depth interviews suggested that there is policy failure to address the issues in question and there needs to be a policy restructuring, using available technology, to ensure compliance. The author evaluated 3 key policy recommendations to achieve the twin objective of reducing health hazards and improve working conditions in the unorganized sector, and increasing consumer awareness under the EPR obligations. The analysis included assessment of the policy alternatives on the parameters of political acceptability, cost to the exchequer, social goals of equity and efficiency. The recommendations included, using technology and social psychology to increase consumer awareness, implementing ARF in India and ensuring stricter compliance through use of technology and slapping penalties.The option that seems arguably most relevant and impactful in the short term is improving customer awareness using psychological tools and technology. However, to improve the conditions of the workers in the unorganized sector there needs to be eventual transition to a healthier work environment by creating a competitive organized market and ensuring compliance with the rules. Implementing ARF is ruled out because of market complexities and consumer behavior in India. While stricter implementation of rules is also very important however for that capacity building is required at the ULB s and PCB s, which would incur cost and take some time.