E-WASTE CHALLENGESIN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:SOUTH AFRICA CASE STUDY

Alan Finlay

A S S O C I A T I O NFOR PROGRESSIVECOMMUNICATIONS

Alan Finlay is an ICT and media researcher based in Johannesburg. He runs the research consultancy Open Research.(www.openresearch.co.za)

APC ISSUE PAPERS

Abstract

1. South Africa: Summary of faultlines andaction points

2. Introduction

3. Methodology

4. Definitions

5. Basic concepts

6. Background statistics

7. Policy and legislative status

8. E-waste estimates

9. Recycling capacity

10. Recycling processes

11. Kinds of e-waste received by recyclers

12. Recycled material

13. The balance between import and export

This discussion paper, commissioned by the APC,aims to raise the profile of e-waste issues indeveloping countries so that the implicationsof information and communications technol-ogy (ICTs) for development initiatives can bebetter understood – particularly in the contextof the increasing flow of old technology fromdeveloped to developing countries.

South Africa is thought to be at the forefrontof waste management in Africa, and practitio-ners aim to develop an e-waste model in thecountry that can serve as a blueprint for an

14. Landfill

15. Storage and disposal of hazardous materials

16. Current e-waste activities in South Africa

17. To what extent is e-waste a problemin South Africa?

18. List of informants

19. References

20. Appendices

20.1. Signatories to Basel Conventionin BCRC region

20.2. Perspective of practitionerin the United Kingdom

20.3. e-Waste in Asia Pacific

20.4. e-Waste in India

approach to e-waste elsewhere on the conti-nent. While the overall waste managementstrategies in the country are highly regardedby experts, this document suggests that SouthAfrica faces a number of key challenges in deal-ing with e-waste and that its ‘e-waste readi-ness’ is mixed rather than certain.

Three APC members contributed to this docu-ment, and offered e-waste perspectives fromthe United Kingdom and the Asia-Pacific re-gion. Summaries of these contributions are in-cluded in the appendices.

CONTENTS

2 / ISSUE PAPERS

1. SOUTH AFRICA: SUMMARY OF FAULTLINES AND ACTION POINTS

Absence of legislation dealing specificallywith e-waste

Most e-waste in storage

Differences of opinion on extent of prob-lem of disposing e-waste on (non-hazardous) landfills

Some recycling operations result in storageof hazardous waste because of cost of dis-posal

Cost of disposal may upset financial modelof current recyclers

All major e-waste recyclers are based inGauteng

Some importing of e-waste. Potential forthis to escalate

Some exporting of ‘raw’ e-waste

Many ICT multinationals have shown littleinterest in e-waste in South Africa

Potential threat of small-scale electro-chemical processes being introduced

A lack of general awareness of e-wasteamongst public

This is true for most countries in Africa.Some disagreement about whether or notthis is necessary, or whether sectors can self-regulate.

Current recycling capacity could not absorbe-waste supply if this was released intowaste stream .

Some feel this is safe. However, othersdisagree in practice and policy.

Cost-effective disposal facilities currentlynot available.

The financial sustainability of some e-wasterecyclers has not yet been proven undercurrent conditions.

Unless more recycling operations areestablished, this may impact on the viabil-ity of recycling elsewhere in the country.

Particularly from African countries whichmay not have the technology for recycling.

Is South Africa ‘dumping’ in Asia? Consid-ered a lost opportunity for local economicempowerment.

Waste practitioners have battled to getthem on board.

Scenarios similar to those found in India orChina are feared.

e-What?

E-WASTE FAULTLINES

3 / ISSUE PAPERS

2. INTRODUCTIONA recent assessment conducted by the Pretoria-based Basel Convention Regional Centre(BCRC)1 suggested that, with the exception ofSouth Africa, electronic waste (e-waste) wasgiven little or no priority in the countries sur-veyed.2 Instead, the problems with waste man-agement were far more basic, and included alack of awareness of hazardous waste, and in-adequate legislation, controls and facilities todeal with waste.

While there have been improvements in wastelegislation in the region over the past few years(Ecroignard, 2005. Int), emphasizing the poten-

tial hazards of e-waste in many instances re-mains premature:

It’s difficult because in most countries inthe region basic waste removal is aproblem; basic decent landfill is aproblem. Very few countries havelandfills. Mostly they are dumps. So theproblem is much bigger. We would liketo go in and say ‘be careful of hazardouswaste’; but they first have to sort out theirwaste to begin with, before they can goto the levels of looking at different kindsof wastes, such as plastics or e-waste.(ibid.)

Within this context, South Africa poses a uniqueopportunity. Its level of economic developmentmeans that it is likely to be amongst the firstcountries in Africa to encounter e-waste as aserious concern. It therefore offers a learningopportunity, and the potential for developingbest practices that could be applicable else-where on the continent.

This discussion document presents a case over-view of the ‘e-waste readiness’ in South Africa.It is not intended to be comprehensive, but

Raising awareness in NGO sector

Representation of NGO sector in e-wasteWorking Group

Develop collection and recycling capacity

Lobby through consumer or othercampaigns for ICT vendors to take e-wasteseriously

The sector needs to better understand theimplications of e-waste, and where it cantake old technology for refurbishment orrecycling.

There is currently little representation of theNGO sector in the e-waste Working Group,resulting in a communication gap and apotential misalignment of e-waste initia-tives. In particular, the sector’s knowledgeabout the pros and cons of refurbished PCscould be invaluable.

There is potential for NGOs to develop col-lection capacity servicing homes, smallbusinesses, and the sector itself. There mayalso be potential for recycling capacity tobe developed, perhaps in partnership withthose with the technical know-how. Boththese may provide an opportunity for socio-economic development.

POTENTIAL ACTION POINTS FOR CIVIL SOCIETY

1 Although the centre is one of four in Africa, in thisdocument it is referred to throughout as the BCRC. TheBasel Convention includes Iran as one of its Africancentres – making five centres in Africa. However, Iranhas been excluded for the purposes of this document.

2 The BCRC overseas the implementation of theconvention in 22 countries in Africa. For a list, see theAppendix. 18 countries were analysed in the 2001assessment (Carl Bro, 2001).

4 / ISSUE PAPERS

rather to provide a litmus test of where thecountry is, and potential challenges it faces. Italso broadly suggests possible civil society in-terventions.

3. METHODOLOGYThis document has been developed through aliterature review, interviews with stakehold-ers,3 and two site visits: Universal RecyclingCompany in Johannesburg, and Enviroserv’sHolfontein hazardous waste disposal facility inSprings, Gauteng province. Informants are ref-erenced in the form (name, date. Int).

4. DEFINITIONSE-waste (electronic waste): The standard defi-nition of e-waste includes all end-of-life elec-tronic products, components and peripherals,such as computers, cell phones, fax machines,photocopiers, radios and TVs. In this documentit refers to all disposed electronic products,whether new or end-of-life, as well as decom-missioned electronic products held in storage.

Hazardous materials: E-waste contains a num-ber of hazardous or toxic substances in variousquantities, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, chro-mium and cadmium. In particular, Cathode RayTubes (CRTs) and nickel-cadmium batteries areposing problems for recyclers in South Africa:

CRTs: CRTs are found in monitors and TVs.They contain lead, phosphorous, cad-mium, barium and mercury. Can be com-pared to the more environmentallyfriendly Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)screens.

Nickel-cadmium batteries: These are re-chargeable batteries typically used forportable electronic devices. Found in somepersonal computers (PCs), particularlyolder ones.

Dump: For the purposes of this document, anunregistered landfill is described as a dump. Adump is an area allocated for the public to dis-pose of unwanted waste. In South Africa anumber of old landfills are unregistered. Al-though they are serviced by the city council orprivate companies, waste disposed at these sitesis often not closely monitored. Dumps are also

not prepared in the way that registered land-fills are. (van Rensburg, 2005. Int)

Registered landfill: Landfill that has been pre-pared (for instance, with protective layers toprevent leaching and the contamination of un-derground water). The water and soil is testedfrom time to time for contamination. (vanRensburg, 2005. Int)

Hazardous waste landfill: A specially preparedlandfill where hazardous waste can be disposedsafely. Access to the landfill is restricted. Meth-ods of disposal include encapsulation (buryingwaste in concrete). Hazardous waste landfillsare expensive to run, with a high onus on theoperator to ensure the hazardous materials arecontained (even after the landfill is closed). Asa result, in South Africa the public pays to havetheir hazardous waste disposed at the theselandfills.

Ferrous versus non-ferrous metals: Ferrousmetals contain iron. Non-ferrous metals do not.Examples of non-ferrous metals contained ine-waste include aluminium and copper.

Technology: Used in this document loosely torefer to a wide range of electronic products.

5. BASIC CONCEPTS

5.1. General principle of goodwaste management

A hierarchy of best practices for waste minimi-zation is shown below:

Waste avoidance, reduce at source[Minimization]

Waste recycling, re-use[Minimization]

Waste treatment

Waste disposal

Source: Holfontein site vist, 2005

There is an upward ‘push’ in the hierarchy, withthe preference being that waste avoidance andrecycling or re-use are maximized (so thatdownstream waste can be minimized).4

3 See appendices for list of informants. Interviewswere conducted face-to-face, telephonically and by e-mail.

4 Similarly, the key principles governing hazardouswaste disposal are: polluter pays, duty of care,avoidance and minimization and best practicalenvironmental option (Holfontein site visit, 2005).

5 / ISSUE PAPERS

5.2. E-waste drivers

The level of e-waste found in the waste streamis dependent on a number of inter-related fac-tors.5 In South Africa, these include:

Historical and current economicconditions

Both past and current economic conditionsneed to be considered when estimating poten-tial e-waste levels. Historical economic condi-tions determine the level of potential e-waste(e.g. the level of old PCs or mobile phones incirculation). Current economic conditions im-pact on the readiness with which an owner willdispose of the old technology. If a country’scurrency is strong, imported technology will becheaper, and old technology will be morereadily replaced.

The life cycle or useful life oftechnology

While the life cycle of technology is generallytaken to be longer in Africa than in industrial-ized nations (people hold onto their technol-ogy for longer), the strengthening of the randmeans that this is changing. For some recyclers,cheaper technology is expected to impact dra-matically on the levels of e-waste, and a rapidescalation of e-waste volumes is predicted inthe near future (van Rensburg, 2005. Int).

The level of refurbishment of oldtechnology

Refurbishment can increase the useful life oftechnology, and delays the entry of old tech-nology into the waste stream.

The extent to which technology isstored, rather than disposed

The storage, rather than the disposal or re-useof old technology, is a crucial factor shapingthe e-waste landscape in South Africa. Reasonsfor storage include difficulties in writing assetsoff from registers, fears relating to data secu-rity, a lack of awareness of where to dispose

old technology, and psychological factors, suchas the belief that old technology has somevalue.

The balance between the importing of new orsecond-hand technology, and the export ofwaste products

The potential levels of e-waste in South Africaare affected by importing new and refurbishedor second-hand technology into the country.There are also indications that some e-waste isimported into South Africa from other Africancountries for recycling. (Lombard, 2004). SouthAfrica also exports a substantial amount of re-cycled electronic waste in a refined or raw form.Export destinations include Europe and Asia.

6. BACKGROUND STATISTICSRecent reports from the International Telecom-munication Union (ITU) suggests that Africa isthe world’s fastest growing market for cellphones. Mobile subscribers on the continentnow stand at 51.8-million, a staggering 1000%increase since 1998. Projected growth of thenumber of subscribers puts it anywhere be-tween 100- and 200-million by the year 2010.(ITU, 2004)

While research puts the number of TVs in Af-rica at 62-million and radios at 200-million,estimates on the number of PCs range from 1.5-to 7.5-million – or anything between 1 per 500people and 1 per 100 people (Jensen, 2003).

Evidence of higher-than-anticipated imports ofold technology into Africa is surfacing. Accord-ing to the Basel Action Network, as many as400-thousand secondhand PCs are importedthrough Lagos in Nigeria each month (Warwick,2005).

1.2 to 1.5-million computers enter the SouthAfrican market each year (Lombard, 2004). Cellphone users in the country are projected to be19-million by 2006 (www.cellular.co.za).

5 Most of these can be applied to other Africancountries. However, some countries may not, forinstance, export recycled e-waste or importrefurbished PCs.

6 / ISSUE PAPERS

7. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVESTATUS

7.1. International conventions

South Africa has effectively ratified6 the BaselConvention. The convention seeks to restrictthe movement of hazardous waste betweencountries and specifically from developed to

developing countries. It is also concerned withwaste minimization and the environmentallysound management of waste.

7.2. Legislation

There is no specific legislation that deals with e-waste in South Africa (Lombard, 2004). However,various legislation can be read to impact on e-waste. These are summarized in the table below:7

6 The official word is “accession”, which carries thesame legal weight as ratification. South Africa has alsoeffectively ratified the Rotterdam Convention, whichmonitors and controls the trade of certain hazardouschemicals (www.pic.int) and has ratified the StockholmConvention, which deals with persistent organicpollutants (POPS). However, unlike countries likeTanzania, Nigeria and Mauritius, South Africa has notyet ratified the Basel Convention’s Ban Amendment.The amendment prohibits any export of hazardouswaste from developed countries to developingcountries. (www.baselpretoria.org.za)

7 For a more detailed summary, please seeLombard, 2004.

Constitution

The National EnvironmentalManagement Act (Act 107of 1998) (NEMA)

The Municipal Services Act(Act 32 of 2000)

The Occupational Healthand Safety Act (Act 85 of1993)

The EnvironmentConservation Act (ECA)

Deals with basic environmental rights (including access toinformation). Sets out the allocation of powers fordifferent levels of government. While provinces set thestandards of environmental control within a nationalframework, local authorities are expected to administerthe legislation, supplementing it with by-laws wherenecessary.

Amongst other things, NEMA lays out principles for wastemanagement. These include avoidance or minimization,and the “remediation of pollution” (Lombard, 2004).Waste reduction, re-use, recycling and proper disposal, aswell as the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘cradle to grave’ principlesare emphasized.

Includes principles for effective local governance.

Deals with health and safety in the workplace.

Deals with the protection and controlled utilization of theenvironment. The ECA makes provision for anEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which is neededfor any waste disposal activities. An amendment delegatesthe administration of waste disposal to the Departmentof Environ-mental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Thepermitting of waste disposal sites is guided by a series ofdocuments dealing with minimum requirements.

LEGISLATION SUMMARY

7 / ISSUE PAPERS

According to Lombard, the legislative scenariohas not changed since 2004. However, due toawareness-raising activities, the DEAT now con-siders e-waste a priority waste stream. (Lombard,2005. Int).

8. E-WASTE ESTIMATESAbout 70% of the country’s e-waste is thoughtto be in storage – most of this held by the gov-ernment. This percentage represents about 10-20 thousand tons of e-waste, which is expectedto double in 10 years time to 30-40 thousand tons.(Lombard, 2005. Int)

The high level of storage in government depart-ments is attributed to difficulties in writing offtechnology from asset registers (ibid.). Otherreasons include a lack of public awareness of whatto do with old technology, and a general absenceof processes that facilitate its easy collection anddisposal. Psychological factors, such as the beliefthat old technology has a latent value, and issuessuch as fear of data theft also contribute to thestorage of disused technology.

9. RECYCLING CAPACITYThe current capacity of e-waste recyclers is notconsidered high enough to absorb the poten-tial e-waste quantities should decommissionedtechnology that is being stored be released intothe waste stream (ibid.).

There are only three main recyclers who accept

e-waste: Universal Recycling Company, DescoElectronic Recyclers, and African Sky. All ofthem are based in Gauteng.8 While Desco hasa branch in Cape Town (which processes about100 tons of e-waste a year), there are, accord-ing to Lombard, no other notable recyclingoperations that can accept e-waste anywhereelse in the country.9

Desco processes about 400 tons of PC boards,and 2000 tons of varied electronic waste peryear, including telecommunications equipment,PCs, and medical and radio equipment(Lombard, 2004). Universal Recycling processes1800 tons a year, representing only 2% of itsentire waste stream processed (Lombard, 2004;van Rensburg, 2005. Int).

At the same time, there is a high level of inter-dependence between the recyclers. The major-ity of Universal Recycling’s e-waste comes fromDesco (van Rensburg, 2005. Int). Reclam, whichis said to be the largest recycling organisationin South Africa, accepts e-waste itself, butpasses it on to Universal Recycling. Similarly,smaller operations, which say they accept e-waste, typically pass these on to one of thelarger recyclers (Lombard, 2004).

The White Paper onIntegrated Pollution andWaste Management

The Health Act

The Hazardous SubstancesAct

Deals with the allocation of environment and wastemanagement functions and powers. Has also includedthe development of the National Waste ManagementStrategy, which is a Danish-funded joint venturebetween the DEAT and the Department of WaterAffairs and Forestry. The emphasis is on “holistic wasteand pollution management” (Lombard, 2004).Recycling is one of the short-term priority areasidentified.

Promotes healthy living and working conditions.Relevant to the potential health risk implications of e-waste.

Regulates the management of hazardous substancesand hazardous waste.

LEGISLATION SUMMARY

Source: Lombard, 2004.

8 Gauteng is one of nine provinces in South Africa.It is where Johannesburg is situated, and is theeconomic hub of the country. About 7-million of thecountry’s 42-million people live in the province.

9 Similarly, Enviroserv’s hazardous waste landfill atHolfontein ‘imports’ hazardous waste from otherprovinces.

8 / ISSUE PAPERS

10. RECYCLING PROCESSESThe recycling processes amongst the currentoperators are not uniform, and depend on pro-prietary knowledge or systems developed.10 Inthe case of Universal Recycling, the processes arehighly mechanized and can deal with ferrousand non-ferrous metals. Desco, which wasestablished in 1992, uses machinery it designedand built to process PC boards (Lombard, 2004).However, unlike Universal Recycling, Desco re-lies heavily on hand-sorting and dismantling –and even removes some parts for resale(Lombard, 2004. van Rensburg, 2005. Int). Ac-cording to Lombard, African Sky, based inBenoni, does some elementary dismantling ofe-waste received. Plastic and metal componentsare recycled locally, while electronic componentsare exported to Asia (www.e-strategy.co.za).

The processes at Universal Recycling – whichhas reportedly impressed international inspec-tion teams, including Swiss inspectors and Ger-man visitors from Hewlett Packard (HP) – hasnot been specifically modified for e-waste ex-traction.

Instead, it tests the stockpiled fraction which itcannot sell for toxicity every 4-6 months, be-fore it is sent to a registered landfill site. Ac-cording to van Rensburg, introducing electronicproducts into its recycling processes has not yetimpacted on the hazardous levels of the frac-tion: “So far it’s been fine for registered land-fill sites, because it’s so diluted.” (van Rensburg,2005. Int). Water and air (released from an airplant) is also regularly tested.

The recycling process at Universal Recycling in-cludes a sophisticated combination of conveyorbelts, shredding, pulverizing, rotary magnets,extractors, granulation, shears and balers. Itdoes not melt down any of its waste. (Site visit,Lombard, 2004)

We don’t do anything by hand. It goes througha shredder, then over a heavy-media plant.Through a water separation process light frac-tion, like plastic and glass floats, and the heavystuff sinks. It goes through various heavy-me-dia plants, then goes through an eddy current.Then we slowly separate the different metals.(van Rensburg. Int. 2005)

Universal Recycling deals with ‘dirty metals’, ormixed loads, because it is too time consumingto sort by hand. The water used at the plant isrecycled, which is not necessarily cheap: “It costsus millions of rands to recycle water. But in thelong term we’re recycling water we’d buy fromcouncil. We don’t release any water into thesystem.” (ibid.)

A key concern for Lombard – and one whichhe says has raised the level of attention thegovernment has given e-waste – is the poten-tial threat of backyard electrochemical pro-cesses being set up, similar to India and China.Electrochemical processes allow for preciousmetals to be easily extracted. However, if theprocess is unregulated, dangerous toxic chemi-cals which are casually disposed can become ahealth hazard.

Although electrochemical processes are cur-rently being used in South Africa, they are un-der highly regulated conditions. One recyclerhas, however, expressed an interest in using theprocess, posing the threat that the knowledgecan be easily passed on (Lombard, 2005. Int).

11. KINDS OF E-WASTERECEIVED BY RECYCLERSAlthough Universal Recycling makes no specificprovision for e-waste (it is simply included inits non-ferrous recycling processes), it says it cancope with any kinds of electronic equipment.The e-waste it does receive includes cell phones(which are only slowly getting into the e-wastestream), PCs, photocopies and telephonicequipment. It has also received the occasionalTV, but not in bulk. (van Rensburg, 2005. Int)This is similar to Desco, which receives amongstother things, PCs, telecommunications equip-ment, mainframes, and medical and radioequipment (Lombard, 2004).

Universal Recycling prefers the nickel-cadmiumbatteries to be removed from waste it receives,but this doesn’t always happen. Printer car-tridges are donated to charity for recycling (Sitevisit; van Rensburg, 2005. Int).

Some vendors, such as IBM, put out tenders forrecyclers to dispose of unwanted technology.According to Universal Recycling – which hasin the past been awarded an IBM contract –some of the technology it disposed of was new:“If there’s a tender from IBM or HP we’ll tenderfor it. A lot of people prefer us because we don’tdismantle or take parts off for resale. They don’t

10 During my site visit to Universal Recycling, it waspreferred that I didn’t take photographs.

9 / ISSUE PAPERS

want it to be resold. They want it scrapped. Wehad IBM’s contract for a while. Some of it wasnew, but they wanted it out. Some was still inboxes.” (van Rensburg, 2005. Int)

Universal Recycling pays about 43c/kg for amixed load of e-waste. (ibid.)

12. RECYCLED MATERIALUniversal Recycling makes its money by resell-ing the ‘cleaned’ material it recycles. This in-cludes aluminium, copper wire, zinc, ferrousmetals and PC boards, if the boards can be ex-tracted. It can only take the refining process toa certain level – after which the product is soldlocally, exported, stockpiled or sent to a regis-tered landfill.

The table below gives an indication of the per-centages of some of these products found ina PC:

Plastic 23%

Ferrous metals 32%(e.g. outer casing)

Glass 15%

Non-ferrous metals 18%(e.g. zinc, copper, lead,aluminium)

PC boards (includes Smallprecious metals like gold, amountspalladium, silverand platinum)

A certain volume of cleaned materials are sentto local refineries so that precious metals canbe extracted. Rand Refinery, the major refin-ery in Gauteng, says it processes “hundreds oftons” of material from e-waste recyclers eachyear. It says its main suppliers are Desco andUniversal Recycling (Lombard, 2004).

While there are fewer and fewer precious met-als in new technology products, Lombard says oldtechnology, such as XT computers, can containas much as 4 grams of gold – richer than therichest ore bodies by mass (Lombard, 2005. Int).

13. THE BALANCE BETWEENIMPORT AND EXPORTCurrent estimates suggest that a third of allPC hardware sold in South Africa is second-hand (Lombard, 2005. Int). However, it isunclear how much of this is imported.Computer Aid International, which exportsrefurbished PCs to Africa, suggests that thereis a ‘return-for-recycle’ model possible forinternational refurbishers:

Our research showed that for largevolume projects to ship computers torefurbishers in Africa it made sense tobuild in reverse logistics for disposal ofwaste, like a container to Belgium orGermany when necessary - particularly formonitors which contain particularlyhazardous waste. (Sinanan, 2005. Int)

There are also indications that some e-waste isimported into South Africa from other Africancountries for recycling (Lombard, 2005. Int).According to Universal Recycling, because ofthe low level of waste disposal technology orknow-how in many other African states, this islikely to increase in the future (van Rensburg,2005. Int).

Perhaps surprisingly, South Africa exports asubstantial amount of recycled e-waste in arefined or raw form, with Asia and Europe be-ing prime destinations. Universal Recycling saysas much of 80% of cleaned material is exported.Although its recycling process is relatively so-phisticated, it is not able to extract or separatesome materials. Shredded plastics that may stillinclude some metals, such as copper, are sentto China, where hand-sorting allows for a finerextraction of re-usable materials. PC boards,when they are extracted, are sent toRotterdam. (ibid.)

African Sky – an initiative which musicianJohnny Clegg is involved in - exports e-wasteto Citiraya in Singapore, after some elemen-tary recycling (Lombard, 2005 Int). Citiraya isconsidered one of the world’s biggest proces-sors of corporate e-waste, and deals with mul-tinationals such as Intel, Nokia and HP (www.e-strategy.co.za). However, some waste practitio-ners feel that the recycling process at AfricanSky is too elementary, and that much of thevalue to be had from the process is lost by ex-porting e-waste in a raw form.

Source: van Rensburg, 2005. Int

10 / ISSUE PAPERS

14. LANDFILLThere is some disagreement about the poten-tial health threat or negative environmentalimpact e-waste dumped on landfills mightpose. Although accurate figures have not beenmade widely available, one landfill in Gautengreports that 2.2 tons of e-waste are disposedat its site each month.11 (Lombard, 2004)

According to Lombard, unrefined e-wastedumped on landfills does not pose much of ahealth risk. He says registered landfills are rea-sonably protected to prevent leaching. At thesame time, informal salvaging from landfill sitesis either restricted or closely monitored.

However, this seems to contradict the attentiona hazardous waste site like Holfontein gives tonickel-cadmium batteries – if it receives them,they must be in a properly sealed drum, andare encapsulated (buried in concrete) (Site visit,2005). Similarly, van Rensburg points out thatsimply crushing CRT tubes is a potentialproblem, and that municipal dumps could beparticularly vulnerable: “Most people don’tknow what they dump. They don’t check whatyou’ve got on the back of your truck. They putit in a hole, and drive over it with a big com-pactor. That is more dangerous than anything”(van Rensburg, 2005. Int)

All stockpiled fraction that is sent to landfills(such as plastic or glass, but excluding nickel-cadmium batteries, which are simply stockpiled)is regularly tested for toxicity levels at Univer-sal Recycling. Although toxic substances suchas arsenic and mercury are contained in e-waste, no special provision is made for these.“We were a bit worried about the end prod-uct – if we were contaminating our waste [byaccepting e-waste]. Then we started testing. Sofar the toxicity has been at acceptable levels.”CRT tubes are also crushed in the recycling pro-cess, but there has been no evidence of adversetoxicity. (van Rensburg, 2005. Int)

15. STORAGE AND DISPOSALOF HAZARDOUS MATERIALSNickel-cadmium batteries, CRTs and plasticsused in electronic products all pose major chal-lenges for recyclers in South Africa – potentially

highlighting a major gap in the country’s cur-rent capacity to handle e-waste.

Although Universal Recycling prefers thatnickel-cadmium batteries are removed from e-waste it receives, this does not always happen:

We don’t pull out the nickel-cadmiumbattery. It goes through the shredder.We’ve got big drums of those batteries,so we do in the end separate them. Wehold the drums. We’re hoping thatsomeone will recycle them one day. Wedon’t know how to recycle them. If wecan’t find anything else they will haveto go to Holfontein. (ibid.)

A key challenge it faces is that it may only dis-pose of the batteries at a hazardous waste site,which will cost it money.

Of equal concern is what happens to the bat-teries that are removed from e-waste it re-ceives: “When they are removed, we don’tknow where they go” (van Rensburg, 2005. Int).This concern is supported by the Holfontein sitevisit, which says it “does not receive a lot” ofe-waste (Site visit, 2005).

In 2004 Desco had 25 tons of CRTs stockpiled(Lombard, 2004). The problem is further exac-erbated by the fact that although refurbish-ment can extend the useful life of a PC, moni-tors are not easily refurbished, and are one ofthe most likely components to simply beswapped out (Open Research, 2004). This, to-gether with the relatively low cost of new moni-tors, means that with refurbishment, a moni-tor to PC ratio of roughly 2:1 is likely to enterthe e-waste stream.

Flame-retardant plastics from electronic goodsare also a challenge. Universal Recycling says itcan find no local market to accept stockpiledfraction. Some of the plastic fraction is usedfor lunging rings for horses. The rest is sent tolandfills.12 (van Rensburg, 2005. Int)

11 This can be compared to the 16-tons of medicalwaste produced in the entire province each month byone of the country’s main testing laboratories (Lancet,2005. informal discussion).

12 This can be compared to Computer AidInternational’s experience in the United Kingdom,where the re-use of recycled materials appears to behigher: “We recycle everything we get. Our recyclersmay landfill small amounts of plastics or glass but thisis rare and only when there is no re-use for thematerial. One of the challenges is finding a use foreverything - a lot of plastics ends up in road building -still technically landfill if you’re worried aboutchemicals leaching into the environment.” (Sinanan,2005. Int)

11 / ISSUE PAPERS

According to van Rensburg, if the cost of dis-posal means that it becomes financially unsus-tainable to continue receiving e-waste, it willno longer accept electronic products for recy-cling. The same applies if the toxicity levels risein stockpiled fraction destined for landfill: “Ifsomething slips through, then we have to lookat a whole different model. It’s not viable ifwe have to dump our waste in Holfontein land-fill.”13 (van Rensburg. 2005. Int).

16. CURRENT E-WASTEACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AFRICA

16.1. Projects and initiatives

The BCRC is tasked with influencing role-play-ers across 22 countries in Africa (including busi-nesses, NGOs, governments and industry bod-ies).14 It is one of four set up in Africa. Otherscentres have been established in Eqypt andSenegal. A co-ordinating centre has been setup in Nigeria. (www.baselpretoria.org.za)

The role of these centres is to “promote capac-ity building in Hazardous waste managementthrough mainly training and technology trans-fer activities.” (ibid.)

An African Institute for Environmentally SoundManagement of Hazardous and Other Wastesis currently being set up. This is the result of ajoint agreement between 13 African countries,including South Africa.15 The institute, whichwill be a separate legal entity, will then hostthe BCRC. (ibid.) According to Ecroignard, BCRCis currently looking for funds to implement ane-waste programme so that the issue of e-wastecan be highlighted regionally. (Ecroignard,2005. Int)

In South Africa, an e-waste Working Group,which consists of multi-stakeholder players, hasalso been set up. Waste experts, hazardouswaste recyclers, the government (DEAT andDepartment of Trade and Industry), IT distribu-tors as well as the BCRC are all represented inthe Working Group. However, Ecroignard saysthe Working Group has had difficulty operat-ing effectively because of a shortage of funds.Despite this, its activities – and those of its par-ticipants – have raised the profile of e-wastesignificantly. (Lombard, 2005. Int).

South Africa also has an Environmental En-forcement Unit (or ‘Green Scorpions’) which isengaged in regulating and monitoring wastesites. It has closed down sites in the past, andits activities include training magistrates aboutenvironmental issues and legislation.(Ecroignard, 2005. Int)

For the NGO sector, the issue of e-waste is rela-tively new. Most NGOs active in the area of ICTshave discussed the issue, but in the main littleis known about the actual status and implica-tions of e-waste on the ground in South Africaand the rest of Africa.

By implication, NGOs that have been refurbish-ing PCs for educational or other developmen-tal purposes have been taking part in the recy-cling continuum. Some grassroots recyclingprojects, such as the Gauteng Zero Waste Com-munities Forum, do not currently have the ca-pacity to give serious attention to e-waste.(O’Hagan, 2005. Int)

16.2. Legislation or self-regulation?

According to Ecroignard, the core aim of theBCRC is to develop legislation that is based onthe Swiss recycling model. This is seen to bepractical, straightforward, and easy to follow,and closest to what the Basel Conventionwants. The task of the Working Group is tosuggest legislation that is “workable” and “nottoo difficult to follow”.16 (Ecroignard, 2005. Int)

Switzerland (as well as other OECD countries),has developed a recycling system that consistsof a “high rate of recycling in an environmen-tally sound manner” (EMPA & seco, 2004).These recycling processes, which are certifiedand monitored, are financed by an AdvancedRecycling Fee (ARF) on new electronic products.

13 Again, the economic model is different in theUnited Kingdom: “We rarely pay cash to get rid ofwaste but it does take up a lot of our time. We makemoney back on monitors and from Metallo Chimiquefor metals reclaimed.” (Sinanan, 2005. Int)

14 The countries are Botswana, Ethiopia, Gambia,Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique,Namibia, Nigeria, Seychelles, South Africa, Rwanda,Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, Eritrea, Sierra Leone,Liberia, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe(www.baselpretoria.org.za).

15 Others are Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria,Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania, Gambia, Namibia,Botswana, Uganda and Zambia.

16 She suggests that in contrast, legislation in, forexample, California, is complicated.

12 / ISSUE PAPERS

Consumers return end-of-life products to re-tail outlets or collection points, which are thendelivered to the recyclers. (EMPA & seco, 2004)

The BCRC says that while an ARF in South Af-rica could be useful, one of the main challengesis developing capacity for the collection anddelivery of e-waste to recyclers, with ‘ease ofuse’ being the emphasis. “A fee would help,but because recycling is viable for recyclers atthe moment, it might not be necessary. Settingup a system where it’s easy to take-back oldtechnology is more important. Big recyclers areunwilling to go out and pick up only two ma-chines”. (Ecroignard, 2005. Int)

The BCRC’s current emphasis is South Africa,where it hopes to show that the e-waste chal-lenge can be dealt with in a practical way. Thiswill then be used as a model for other Africancountries.

For some, legislation is not necessarily seen asthe best way forward. What is preferred is anindustry solution to an industry problem, withself-regulation being the key. The refurbish-ment of PCs for development purposes is oneof the potential industry solutions being em-phasized.

However, a key challenge in South Africa isgetting the ICT industry on board and involvedin the current processes (“tentative links” aredescribed as being forged (ibid.)). Both Axiz, adistributor of computers and peripherals, andMustek, a supplier of IT products, are said tobe enthusiastic. HP, which is already recyclingthrough its i-Community refurbishment projectin Mokopane, Limpopo province, is also inter-ested. However, according to the WorkingGroup, many other ICT vendors are showing adistinct disinterest.

Cell phone companies in particular are prov-ing problematic. A key irony is that many ofthe multi-national vendors operating in SouthAfrica have already implemented take-backsystems in Europe. Similarly, the UN and BaselConvention are attempting to develop a Mo-bile Phone Partnership, which deals with theenvironmentally sound management of usedand end-of-life phones. According toEcroignard, some mobile phone multination-als, who are represented locally, are involvedin the initiative. “They’re not bringing whatthey do over there here. In our experience, theyare reluctant. There’s concern across the boardthat they need to comply with EU legislation,but not in South Africa.” (ibid.)

HP, which has participated in the WorkingGroup through its i-Community programme,produces some e-waste at its refurbishmentprogramme in Mokopane. While only about200 PCs have been refurbished through theprogramme, scrap metal is given to local scrapmetal dealers, and it has spoken to Desco abouttaking its discarded CPU boards. However, itcurrently doesn’t have sufficient volume ofthese stockpiled. Monitors are posing a prob-lem. Although there are operations overseaswhich can recycle them, it’s currently not finan-cially viable for HP to export what it has. (Rose,2005. Int)

It is expected that HP’s international e-wastepractices – which are described as seeking an‘holistic’ solution to e-waste – will be imple-mented locally, regardless of legislation. How-ever, no ARF surcharge is currently envisagedlocally. As Rose points out, take-back systemsare already effectively in place for its major cli-ents in government and big business. Old ma-chines are swapped out for new. However,these clients trade in PC volumes of anywherebetween 4000 - 30 000 PCs. The fate of tech-nology purchased by small businesses, NGOs orthe public is less certain.

It is, nevertheless, a good sign that distributorslike Axiz – one of HP’s two local distributors – isalready engaged with the e-waste WorkingGroup. The Department of Trade and Industryis also currently considering ways of developingincentives to encourage the participation ofbusiness (Visage, 2005. e-mail correspondence).

17. TO WHAT EXTENTIS E-WASTE A PROBLEMIN SOUTH AFRICA?“On a scale of 1-10 we’re at a three. We’re get-ting somewhere, but slowly”. (Ecroignard,2005. Int)

The extent to which e-waste is seen as a prob-lem in South Africa, depends to some measureon who you talk to.

E-waste is receiving a relatively high priorityin South Africa at the moment, and there arereported to be good management and moni-toring systems in place that govern wastestreams. A recent visit by a Swiss monitoringteam concluded that the key area ofintervention in the country was to “supportand expand existing business initiatives to

13 / ISSUE PAPERS

accept e-waste and improve the re-sue loop” -South Africa was described as having“sophisticated e-waste recycling facilities”.(EMPA & seco, 2004)

Some waste practitioners, such as Lombard, seee-waste as an opportunity – a chance to sig-nificantly scale up local refurbishment processes(using technology discarded locally), and a wayof developing a small, yet effective recyclingindustry. Both offer the opportunity for socio-economic development, and skills transferal.

However, refurbishment is only likely to resultin part of the solution. Studies have suggested17

that it’s not simply the case that any old PC isworthy of refurbishment or is a good technol-ogy solution for development. As one NGO putit, “They’re not going to be able to do muchwith my old PCs. 43c/kg [for electronic bulkoffered by the likes of Universal Recycling]doesn’t make it seem worth the petrol to de-liver old technology to recyclers.” Similarly, thebig recyclers don’t see it worth their while tocollect from individuals or small organisations.

While recyclers like African Sky and Desco dobother to collect e-waste en masse from gov-ernment and large corporations, there is clearlya need for more awareness to be raisedamongst the public, and micro-collection pro-cesses to be established. However, for agrassroots project like the Gauteng Zero WasteCommunities Forum, it is difficult enoughstreamlining the collection of ‘traditional’waste like cans, paper and bottles. The econom-ics of e-waste collection at a micro level arealso, at this stage, unclear.

The financial viability of the recycling industryis sometimes tenuous. Exporting waste meansthat it is vulnerable to the vagaries of the rand,which can have a knock-on effect for collec-tion projects. At the same time, competitivestrategies by big recycling companies - that, forinstance, are designed to manipulate the priceof recycled goods - have in the past had a nega-tive impact on smaller recyclers (Lombard, 2005.Int). As Universal Recycling points out, the vi-ability of continuing to accept e-waste is un-proven if, in the end, it needs to dispose of itsstockpiled nickel-cadmium batteries at a haz-ardous waste site or the toxicity in its landfilledfraction rises.

There are differences of opinion of the extentto which dumping e-waste at registered land-

fills is a problem. Waste scientists such asLombard feel these sites are sufficiently pro-tected to prevent leaching into undergroundwater. By implication, Holfontein, which encap-sulates nickel-cadmium batteries, disagrees.The BCRC also finds this problematic.

According to HP, international practices in deal-ing with e-waste are likely to trickle down toregional outfits. One of the key motivators isbrand protection: “If a whole lot of HP PCs endup on a dump, we don’t want to be seen to beresponsible.” (Rose, 2005. Int). At the sametime, HP seems sincere about looking for anholistic solution to the problem, and is alreadyrecycling by-products of its refurbishment pro-cess in Limpopo. However, in the absence oflegislation, the key motivator for ICT vendorsto follow suit is not predictable. As Rose sug-gests, some will, some won’t.

While the high level of storage of end-of-lifetechnology distorts the current picture, mostagree that e-waste will become a major chal-lenge in a few years time. The capacity of cur-rent e-waste recyclers to handle a major inflowof e-waste is questionable.

Both the disposal of nickel-cadmium batteriesand CRTs are currently a problem. There isequally a potential threat of unregistered orbackyard electrochemical processes developing.

In many other countries in Africa, the chal-lenges are described as more basic. Althoughthere has been an improvement in waste leg-islation over the past few years, e-waste hasnot received significant attention. However,the BCRC says it has received some enquiresfrom countries such as Botswana and theCentral African Republic. At the same time,many African countries are signatories for tothe Basel Convention, by implication makinge-waste one of their policy priorities. Giventhe funding, the BCRC is also looking to raisethe profile of e-waste in the region.

17 See, for instance, Open Research, 2004.

14 / ISSUE PAPERS

18. LIST OF INFORMANTSEcroignard, Lene

BCRC, Information & Marketing Co-ordinator. Member of e-waste WorkingGroup.

O’Hagan, ThandiGauteng Zero Waste CommunitiesForum

Lombard, RayWaste scientist. Member of e-wasteWorking Group.

Rose, HaywardHP i-Community

Sinanan, SoniaComputer Aid International, OperationsDirector

Visagie, MarbaDepartment of Trade and Industry. Alsomember of e-waste Working Group.

Van Rensburg, DebbieUniversal Recycling, EnvironmentalManager

19. REFERENCESCarl Bro Management (2001) Regional

needs analysis. Synthesis andrecommendations. Basel ConventionRegional Centre, Pretoria.

EMPA & seco (2004) KnowledgePartnership in E-Waste Recycling.Pamphlet, December, 2004. EMPA (SwissFederal Laboratories for MaterialsTesting and Research) / Seco (Swiss StateSecretariat for Economic Affairs), Bern.

Furter, L. (2004) e-Waste has dawned.RéSource, May 2004. Publisher andplace unknown.

International Telecommunication Union(2004) Africa: The World’s FastestGrowing Mobile Market. Press release,April 26, 2004. www.itu.int

Jensen, M. (2003) Chapter 6: ICT in Africa:A Status Report. World EconomicForum’s Global Information TechnologyReport 2002-2003. World EconomicForum, Geneva.

Lombard, R. (2004) e-Waste Assessmentin South Africa. Case study of theGauteng Province. Draft report.

Mackay, T. (2004) Where do PCs go to die?PCFormat, August 2004. Publisher andplace unknown.

Open Research (2004) Paying the Price?A Total Cost of Ownership comparisonbetween new and refurbished PCs inthe small business, NGO and school inAfrica. CATIA (Catalysing Access to ICTsin Africa), Johannesburg.

UNEP & Basel Convention (2005) BaselConvention “Mobile Phone PartnershipInitiative”. Guidance Document.Environmentally sound management ofused and end-of-life mobile phones.Second draft.

UNESCO (2003). First internationalmeeting of specialists on “NewSynergies for Recycling InformationTechnology Equipment”. Final Report,14-15 March 2003. Paris, UNESCO Head-quarters

Warwick (2005) Dumping in the digitaldivide www.telecomtv.com [Accessed,November, 2005]

www.e-strategy.co.za (2004) SouthAfrica’s first ISO-compliant e-wastecompany launched. Author unknown.November, 2004. www.e-strategy.co.za[Accessed September, 2005]

Websites

Basel Convention Regional Centre – Pretoria.www.baselpretoria.org.za

Desco Electronic Recyclers. www.desco.co.za

Wikipedia. [For useful summarized definitionsof the Basel Convention and the Ban Amend-ment, amongst others] http://en.wikipedia.org

Icando. www.icando.co.za

15 / ISSUE PAPERS

20. APPENDICES

20.1. Signatories to Basel Convention in BCRC region

20.2. Perspective of practitionerin the United Kingdom

By Sonia Sinanan,Computer Aid International

Computer Aid International (CAI) is a regis-tered charity in the United Kingdom (UK)whose mission is to solicit donations of thehighest quality computer equipment fromdonors in the UK for the productive reuse innon-profit organisations in developingcountries.

BASEL CONVENTION

Convention Ban amendment Protocol on liability

Botswana Accession Acceptance Accession

Eritrea

Ethiopia Accession Ratification Accession

Ghana Accession

The Gambia Accession Ratification

Kenya Accession

Lesotho Accession

Liberia Accession

Malawi Accession

Mauritius Accession Ratification

Mozambique Accession

Namibia Accession

Nigeria Ratification Ratification

Seychelles Accession

Sierra Leone Accession

South Africa Accession

Swaziland

Rwanda Accession

Tanzania Accession Ratification

Uganda Accession

Zambia Accession

Zimbabwe

.Source: www.baselpretoria.org.za

In order to achieve our mission, CAI have es-tablished an operation in the UK for dona-tions of computers and related equipment tobe collected, processed and shipped. It hasbeen essential for CAI to put in place thelogistics necessary to ensure that we are abledeal effectively with everything that isdonated to us.

To encourage organisations and companiesto donate equipment, we have developed aservice which enables donors to give us alltheir equipment safe in the knowledge thatthey are complying with current legislationregarding e-waste.

16 / ISSUE PAPERS

The current framework for legislation on thedisposal of e-waste in the UK is the EuropeanUnion (EU) Waste Electronic and Electrical Equip-ment (WEEE) Directive. The (WEEE) Directive wasagreed on in February, 2003, along with therelated Directive on Restrictions of the use ofcertain Hazardous Substances in electrical andelectronic equipment (RoHS). It is due to becomelaw at the end of the summer of 2005.

WEEE aims to minimise the impacts of electri-cal and electronic equipment on the environ-ment during its lifespan, and when it is dis-carded. It encourages and sets criteria for thecollection, treatment, recycling and recovery ofwaste electrical and electronic equipment.

WEEE makes producers responsible for financ-ing most of these activities, which means thatthe producer (or manufacturer) must ensurethat it has in place suitable logistics to recycleequipment at the end of its life. It is expectedthat this financing will come from a levy ongoods at the point of sale to cover the costs ofeventual disposal (i.e. consumers will pay forthis disposal). It is also expected that retailerswill manage the take-back of old equipmentat the point of purchase of new equipment.

Private householders are to be able to return oldtechnology without charge. This process is to bemanaged by local authorities in the UK who, inprinciple, should already have in place local drop-off facilities for e-waste for consumers.

Businesses and organisations must demon-strate how they have disposed of equipmentthat they have deemed waste by showingvolumes and waste transfer notes for all theirWEEE. The emphasis is currently on showingthat equipment has been properly disposed ofrather than re-used; but designatingequipment for re-use means that it is notclassified as waste and organisations canreduce their waste output by reselling, orgiving equipment away for re-use.

CAI is committed to re-using as much of theequipment donated to us as we can. We re-furbish this equipment and prepare it for ship-ping to our beneficiaries in developingcountries. We also cannibalise equipment thatwe are not going to use to harvest spare partsfor our shipments.

What we are left with is equipment that wecannot re-use. This is e-waste generated by CAIin the course of our work and we must complywith the WEEE directive in our disposal of thiswaste.

We have a number of routes for this equipment.Waste base units, printers and peripherals arecollected by a licensed waste managementcompany which is also licensed to carry hazardouswaste (e.g. monitors) on the road. This waste istransported to a sorting depot (in the UK) andthe equipment is manually taken apart toseparate its component parts and raw materials.There is a market for many of the raw materials,particularly in volume, such as iron, aluminium,copper, gold and silver. Where possible, but notexclusively, material is separated without the useof chemicals or incineration.

For larger amounts of waste, pallets are trans-ported to an incinerator in Belgium. This is runby Metallo Chimique (www.metallo.com) andhere waste is incinerated in a state-of- the-artfurnace. This produces optimum levels of re-turned raw materials and creates zero waste –materials are shredded and incinerated. Any-thing not recovered is used or destroyed in theprocess. For example, reclaimed glass is usedas ballast for the furnace.

Monitors are sent to an organisation in Ger-many which repairs them, where possible, forre-sale. Monitors that do not work are sepa-rated into their components. The glass and plas-tics, as well as printed circuit boards and othercomponents are recycled. They reclaim cathoderay tubes for re-use. This activity is currentlysubsidised by the German government and itis the only plant of its kind in the EU.

We also have recycling routes for paper andcardboard used by the organisation and wher-ever possible we re-use before throwing away.We are assisted in this by our refuse collectorwhich also undertakes to recycle as much wasteas possible before land filling. Our local author-ity who makes recycling bins and collectionsavailable at no cost.

20.3. e-Waste in Asia Pacific

By Mylene Soto, WomensHub

20.3.1. Overview: the e-waste‘horror story’

The Basel Action Network noted three reasonswhy e-waste is increasingly flooding Asiancountries: very cheap labour cost (in China,$1.50 per day); lax environmental and occupa-tional hazard regulations; and, since the UnitedStates (US) is not a signatory to any interna-tional law banning the export of e-waste, it

17 / ISSUE PAPERS

can always opt to dump its e-waste elsewhereat minimal cost. 18

E-waste is routinely exported by developedcountries to developing ones, often in viola-tion of the international law. Inspections of 18European seaports in 2005 found as much as47% of waste destined for export, including e-waste, was illegal. In the United Kingdomalone, at least 23 000 metric tons of undeclaredor ‘grey’ market electronic waste was illegallyshipped in 2003 to the Far East, India, Africaand China. In the US, it is estimated that 50-80% of the waste collected for recycling is be-ing exported in this way.19

The e-waste trade is also fueled by the econom-ics of solid waste disposal. In the US, it ischeaper to ship waste abroad than throw it inlandfills. Waste is separated before it is shippedand transferred through a difficult-to-traceseries of buyers, sellers and brokers. Ultimately,it arrives in impoverished cities in China, Paki-stan and India, where cheap labour means ev-ery last screw can be salvaged and sold back tomanufacturers.20

Famous global brand names in electronics havebeen found dismantled and stockpiled in thelarge-scale junkyards in Guiyu and Taizhou inChina. This e-waste is from: Sony, Nokia,Samsung, Sony Ericsson and LG, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, Dell, Motorola, Apple, IBM,Toshiba, Panasonic and Acer.21

Most of the e-waste exports end up in thehighly toxic electronics junkyards in China. Sig-nificant quantities of highly-pollutant elec-tronic waste like cell phone chargers, laptopcomputers, air-conditioners, printers, camerasand other electronic refuse are entering Chinaillegally from Japan and South Korea.22

Hong Kong has become a dumping ground forelectronic waste from the US, Europe and Ja-pan and soil tests have uncovered excessive leadlevels. Nearly 100 large, open fields in the city’sNew Territories are covered in a sea of old com-puters, televisions, printers and printed circuitboards. The semi-rural New Territories, near theborder with mainland China, have become areceiving and sorting station for the waste be-fore disassembled parts are sent across theborder for recycling.23

The Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park(HSIP) in Taiwan is host to multinational IThigh tech production infrastructure. However,it lacked adequate waste management facili-ties. In July 2000, one of its waste handlers,the Shengli Chemical Company, was caughtdumping toxic waste into the Kaoping River.This severely polluted the Kaoping and leftthe people of Hsinchu without water for twodays. 24

Thousands of Chinese workers have been dis-mantling electronic trash with chisels and cut-ting torches since the 1980s, and the presenceof Canadian waste in Chinese dump sites hasbeen documented since 2001.25

However, other countries in the region areequally affected by the toxic dumping. For in-stance, there is a growing e-waste trade prob-lem in India. 25 000 workers are employed atscrap yards in Delhi alone, where 10-20 000 tonsof e-waste is handled each year, 25% of thisbeing computers. Other e-waste scrap yardshave been found in Meerut, Ferozabad,Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai.26

In 2003, the Basel Action Network accused NewZealand of exporting lead-acid batteries to asmelter in the Philippines. Since it knowinglyviolates the Basel Convention, there is high

18 The Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon ValleyToxics Coalition (SVTC). February 25, 2002. ExportingHarm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. See Annex Afor a complete listing.

19 Greenpeace. May 2005. op cit

20 Aleks Krotoski. February 24, 2005. Made inTaiwan. Buried in China. Technology Reviewhttp://ban.org/ban_news/050224_taiwan_china.html

21 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up/e-waste-hall-of-shame. Accessed: 30 August 2005.

22 Chen Liang. 29 April 2004. Taizhou Chosen asElectronic Waste Dump. China Dailyhttp://www.ban.org/ban_news/040429_taizhou_chosen.html

23 Planet Ark. May 31, 2005. Tiny Hong Kong FallingFoul of Electronic Waste – Greenpeace.http://ban.org/ban_news/050531_tiny_hong_kong.html

24 California Global Corporate AccountabilityProject. May 2002. Dodging Dilemmas? Environmentaland Social Accountability in the Global Operations ofCalifornia-Based High Tech Companies.http://www.ban.org/Library/dodging_dilemmas.pdf

25 Geoffrey York. June 20, 2005. Canada’s E-trashPlagues China. The Globe and Mailhttp://www.ban.org/ban_news/050620_canada_ewaste.html

26 Ibid

18 / ISSUE PAPERS

probability that New Zealand is shipping cir-cuit boards and CRTs to the Philippines as well.27

Asian countries also discard an estimated 12-million tons each year.28 In Hong Kong for ex-ample, it is estimated that 10-20% of discardedcomputers go to landfill.29

Thailand generated a lot of outdated mobilephone equipment and batteries because Thaiconsumers frequently replaced their mobilephones. It is still not known where the junk cellphones and batteries are dumped. There arepotential risks if these are improperly disposed.30

20.3.2. Guiyu case overview

Guiyu is the most studied showcase of e-wastetrade in China. Since 1995, it has been trans-formed from a poor, rural, rice-growing com-munity to a booming e-waste processing cen-ter. While rice is still grown in the fields, virtu-ally all of the available building space has givenway to many hundreds of small and often spe-cialized e-waste recycling shelters and yards.Chinese press accounts say the total employedin the e-waste sector in Guiyu is 100 000; but itwould be a very difficult number to estimate,due to a fluctuating migrant workforce.31

The workers retrieve from the e-waste pilewhatever they can resell: copper, steel, plastic,aluminum, gold, printer toner, solder (lead/tin-based), circuit boards and reusable processorsand chips. They earn as little as $5 (US) a dayfor their dangerous work of dismantling theelectronic waste in unregulated conditions,without any safety equipment, such as masksor goggles.32

Below are some of the processes employed bythe workers to extract whatever they can fromthe e-waste.33

1. Toner Sweeping

Residual toner, such as black, cyan, magentaand yellow from colour copiers and printers, iscollected; but its final use is uncertain. Work-ers without any protective respiratory equip-ment or special clothing of any kind open car-tridges with screw drivers and then use paintbrushes and their bare hands to wipe the tonerinto a bucket. Constant clouds of toner thatbillowed around the workers was routinely in-haled. In the course of the day, the worker’sskin and clothing was blackened.

2. CRT Cracking and Dumping

Copper-laden yokes from the end of the tubeof CRTs are broken off to be sold to copper re-covery operations. Then the CRTs are crackedand discarded in the river. Lead-laden monitorglass, which qualifies as a hazardous waste inthe Basel Convention and fails US EPA’s leachatetests (TCLP), was regularly dumped on openland or pushed into the rivers.

3. Open Burning

It is extremely likely that due to the presence ofPVC or brominated flame retardants in wireinsulation, the emissions and ashes from suchburning will contain high levels of both bromi-nated and chlorinated dioxins and furans - twoof the most deadly persistent organic pollutants(POPs). It is also highly likely that cancer-causingpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are alsopresent in the emissions and ash.

Workers place the circuit boards on shallowwok-like grills that are heated underneath bya can filled with ignited coal. In the wok-grill isa pool of molten lead-tin solder. The circuitboards are placed in the pooled molten solderand heated until the chips are removable. Theseare then plucked out with pliers and placedquickly in buckets.

4. Circuit Board Recycling

The most environmentally destructive recyclingoverall involves the recovery of the various com-ponents and materials found on electronic cir-cuit boards. Hundreds of women and girls per-form this task every day. The de-soldering pro-cess starts when the solder is collected by slap-ping the boards hard against something suchas a rock - where the solder collects and is latermelted off and sold. While there are sometimes

27 Anita Matthews. 4 April 2003. How E-junk Poses aGlobal Hazard. New Zealand Herald http://ban.org/ban_news/e-junk-nz.html

28 Greenpeace. May 2005. op cit

29 Ibid

30 Kultida Samabuddhi. 3 June 2003. Call for TighterElectronic Waste Controls. The Bangkok Posthttp://ban.org/ban_news/thai_call_tighter.html

31 The Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon ValleyToxics Coalition (SVTC). February 25, 2002 op cit

32 Geoffrey York. June 20, 2005. op cit.

33 The Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon ValleyToxics Coalition (SVTC). February 25, 2002. op cit

19 / ISSUE PAPERS

fans placed to blow the toxic lead-tin solderfumes away, the exposure on a daily basis islikely to be very damaging to the laborers’health. The removed chips are then separatedbetween those with re-sale value and those tobe sent to the acid chemical strippers for goldrecovery. Often the pins on chips will bestraightened and later dipped in fresh solderto make them look new for use in the com-puter refabrication business, said to be promi-nent in Guangzhou.

After the de-soldering process, the stripped cir-cuit boards might go to another less skilled la-borer who then removes small capacitors andother less valuable components for separationwith wire clippers. After most of the board ispicked over, it goes to large scale burning oracid recovery operations outside of town (situ-ated along the river) where the last remainingmetals are recovered. Whole riverbanks wereseen full of charred circuit boards reduced toblackened fiber-glass. This final burning pro-cess is bound to emit substantial quantities ofharmful heavy metals, dioxins, beryllium andPAH’s. Some of the severely contaminated ar-eas sampled are adjacent to areas where cir-cuit boards were burned.

5. Acid Stripping of Chips

Much of the work to remove chips from circuitboards is done for the ultimate purpose of re-moving precious metals. This is most often doneby a very primitive acid bath process using thechemical aqua regia (a mixture of 25% purenitric acid and 75% pure hydrochloric acid.) Thismixture and process was invariably set up onthe banks of the river. Huge clouds of steamyacid gases were emitted. Routine dumping ofaqua regia process sludges blackened the riverbanks with the resinous material from com-puter chips. The men worked at this processday and night protected only by rubber bootsand gloves. They had nothing to protect themfrom inhaling and enduring the acrid and of-ten toxic fumes. The aqua regia process isknown to emit toxic chlorine and sulphur-di-oxide gases.

6. Materials Dumped

A substantial amount of imported e-waste andprocess residues are not recycled but simplydumped in open fields, along riverbanks,ponds, wetlands, and in rivers.

7. Plastic Chipping and Melting

The plastic parts of e-waste, and in particularthe housings of computers, monitors, and plas-tic keyboard parts, etc. were all sent to one ofthe Guiyu villages that were processing plas-tics. The melting of the computer plastics isdone in rooms with little ventilation and withno respiratory protection.

Studies of sediment samples taken above a rivershowed lead 212 times higher than what wouldbe treated as hazardous waste had been dredgedfrom the Rhine River in the Netherlands. Likewiseother heavy metals found in circuit boards andin CRTs were found in very high quantities.Barium was found at levels almost 10 times higherthan an EPA threshold for environmental risk insoil. Tin was found at levels 152 times the EPAthreshold. Chromium in one sample was at levels1 338 times the EPA threshold level. Copper inanother sample (which in fact appeared to be adumped residue from some recycling processfound on the banks of a river) was an astounding13.6% of the total.34

An investigative team took one water sample,one sediment sample, three soil samples in onearea along the Lianjiang River, where circuitboards had been treated with acid and fire, andthen were dumped charred along the banks.The test results revealed alarming levels ofheavy metals that correspond very directly withmetals most commonly found in computers.The single water sample taken by a reporter in2000, adjacent to a location where circuitboards had been processed and burned in thepast, revealed lead levels that were 2400 timeshigher than World Health Organization (WHO)Drinking Water Guidelines.35

Already Guiyu has become so polluted that wellwater is undrinkable and water has to betrucked in for the entire population, the re-port said.36

20.3.3. Surveillance and fact-findingon a suspected e-waste disposalplant

On September 2, 2005, together with five othervolunteers for an environment organization, Itravelled to an idyllic village, in the province

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 John Vidal. 21 September 2004.op cit.

20 / ISSUE PAPERS

of Laguna, 60 kilometers south of Manila. Ourobjective was to confirm a lead that e-waste isbeing incinerated in a Korean-owned wastedisposal company there.

Near the plant, we divided ourselves into twoteams made up with three people each. Our teamwas to enter the compound and the other teamto check on the periphery of the compound.

We said that we were employees of a mediaand survey company, and were conducting in-terviews to get the opinions of the residentson the then ongoing move to lodge an im-peachment case against the Philippine presi-dent for election fraud.

Armed with fake media outfit company IDs,clipboards, survey sheets, pens, cameras, andalibis, our team was able to enter the gates ofthe plant which does not bear the companysignage. Since it was almost lunch time, theemployees were already relaxing and gettingready to go out to lunch. Two of us adminis-tered the interviews, while the others took pic-tures on the pretext that we have to show ouroffice where we held the survey. We were ableto interview the plant manager, machine op-erator, assistant supervisor and administrativeassistant in the compound. The interview ques-tions focused on the impeachment issue inter-spersed with queries about plant operationsand the work that they do there.

We learned from the employees that they burnindustrial waste such as paint, garments, andfurniture from the Export Processing Zone Au-thority (an industrial park). Honda is one oftheir clients. The plant operations are irregu-lar with no definite volume of waste processed.Sometimes they operate for 24-hours and attimes there are no operations.

Twice a week the plant comes to a standstill(like the day we were there) for maintenanceand cleaning of the machines. The ash fromthe machine is mixed with the sand in the sandfiltration area and recycled as substandard ce-ment. Hundreds of drums are stocked in thecompound containing materials that are yet tobe burned. When asked, the manager and su-pervisor denied burning TVs and computersthere. But the administrative assistant said thatthey, indeed, buy and process computer waste.Burning of e-waste in a thermal processingplant is analogous to incineration.

That afternoon, we moved our ‘survey’ to theadjacent residential area which is about 100meters from the perimeter fence of the waste

processing plant. The residents told us thatwaste such as paint, swatches of cloth and dis-mantled TVs are burned by the plant. Whenthe plant is burning its waste, a thick, cloud offoul-smelling (like poison) smoke is releasedthrough the chimney at 10-minute intervals.

The plant had now been in operation for threeyears. On its first year, the residents alreadycomplained about the plant’s foul smell andblack smoke. They approached the head of thevillage officers. In response to the complaint,the waste disposal plant management removedthe company sign, built a higher fence, strippedtheir container vans of labels and names. Thedaytime operations stopped, only to be shiftedto the evenings.

Now in its third year of operations, the resi-dents are still complaining about the smell andsmoke. Chronic respiratory illnesses such ascoughs and colds among their children are com-mon. They said they cannot go back to the vil-lage officials to complain because he is closelyconnected, and friends with waste disposalplant management.

20.4. e-Waste in India

By Frederick Noronha, Bytes 4 All

At present in India there is no e-waste policy.E-waste is considered as a hazardous waste andis mentioned in hazardous waste legislation.

There are also no statistics available on e-wastein India. The Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB), a federal government organisation, istrying to document the data, and the processis on-going through a rapid assessment study.Some data on the national capital of Delhi andthe South Indian city of Chennai (formerlyMadras) was compiled by Toxics Link in theirreports ‘Scrapping the Hi-Tech Myth’ and ‘Timeis Running Out’. These can be accessed at thisnon-governmental organisation’s websitewww.toxicslink.org.

Campaigners feel that India, which projects it-self as a rising IT superpower, could push forbetter disposal techniques of e-waste, restric-tion of hazardous substances in the manufac-turing of electronics and the transboundarymovement of e-waste and Extended ProducerResponsibility (EPR) guidelines for big IT com-panies and the like.

But campaigners point out that rather thangoing in for a new institutional arrangement

21 / ISSUE PAPERS

37 Source: http://www.indiadaily.com/breaking_news/43042.asp

38 The report, Recycling of Electronic Wastes inChina & India: Workplace & EnvironmentalContamination, is available online at http://www.e-takeback.org/press_open/export_waste.htm. Itsupplements a 2002 study of conditions in recyclingworkshops titled Exporting Harm, which also wasbased on Greenpeace field work. It is at “http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf”http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf.

for e-waste, what is needed is the proper imple-mentation of the existing hazardous wasterules. The main challenges is seen to be theneed to stop the illegal import of e-waste intoIndia and the proper recycling of (locally gen-erated) e-waste within India.

Civil society organisations, such as Toxic Link,believe their chance of making ‘some’ dent isto push Indian government agencies “to actfast on the problem through more data andmedia reports”.

Problems linked to e-waste in India surfacedafter India’s economic liberalisation began in1990. Infrastructure reform and e-governancelead to the application of information technol-ogy in a bigger way.

India’s supreme court issued a 1997 directivewhich bans import of hazardous waste intoIndia, reflecting the Basel Ban. But affluentnations find it easier and cheaper to export e-waste to countries like India. “Primary investi-gations” undertaken for the Basel Action Net-work showed local and imported computerwaste had given birth to a “thriving market ofcomputer waste products and processing unitsfor material recovery in different parts of In-dia”. Groups like Toxic Links argue that thetrade in e-waste is “camouflaged and is a thriv-ing business in India, conducted under the pre-text of obtaining ‘reusable’ equipment or ‘do-nations’ from developed nations.”

In mid-August 2005, global campaign groupGreenpeace warned that a lack of rules weremaking Indian (and China) dumping groundsfor highly toxic e-waste. Numerous recyclingunits handling this were releasing toxic chemi-cals into the workplace and, in many cases, intothe environment. Both these countries weregetting a ”lot of electronic waste from theEuropean Union and the US”, Greenpeace said.

Ramapati Kumar from Greenpeace stressed theneed for an Extended Producer Responsibility(EPR) policy to make producers liable for elec-tronic equipment, such as computers and mo-bile phones, until their life span is over. He saidwhile recycling electronic equipment costsabout $2 in India, it takes about $20 in Europe.

In a report entitled Toxic Tech: Recycling Elec-tronic Wastes in China and India, Greenpeacesaid “both wastes and hazardous chemicalsused in the processing are handled with littleregard for the health and safety of theworkforce or surrounding communities andwith no regard for the environment”.

The report is based on the scientific analysis ofwaste waters, ashes, indoor dust, groundwa-ter, soils and sediments from e-waste recyclingyards in India and China. Seventy samples werecollected during March 2005 from sites in thesuburbs of New Delhi and Guang Dong prov-ince in China.

“Samples from and around recycling units atSalempur, Zafarabad, Shastri Park, Mayapuri,Buradi, Kantinagar and Brijgang establish thatheavy metals, including lead, tin, antimony,cadmium, mercury, acids and organic contami-nants are released in the environment,” Kumarwas quoted as saying.37

Sponsors of the report, including the San Jose-based Computer Take-Back Campaign, said theresearch also found evidence that the UnitedStates and other industrialized nations are con-tinuing to export hazardous e-waste to devel-oping countries for recycling and disposal.Emerging news indicated that in the Delhi sub-urbs of Mayapuri and Buradi, battery-disman-tling workshops yielded dust samples that con-tained 40 000 times more cadmium than typi-cal floor samples.38

22 / ISSUE PAPERS

APC is an international network of civil society organisationsfounded in 1990 dedicated to empowering and support-ing people working for peace, human rights, developmentand protection of the environment, through the strategicuse of information and communication technology (ICTs).

We work to build a world in which all people have easy,equal and affordable access to the creative potential of ICTsto improve their lives and create more democratic and egali-tarian societies.

ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESSIVE COMMUNICATIONS

Internet and ICTs for Social Justice and Development

www.apc.org info@apc.org

E-WASTE CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:SOUTH AFRICA CASE STUDY

APC “Issue Papers” Series 2005November 2005E-waste challenges in developing countries:South Africa case study: APC-200511-CIPP-I-EN-PDF-0007

Creative Commons Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5

Gra

ph

ic d

esig

n: M

ON

OC

RO

MO