2.4. SURVEY OF LITERATURE THAT RELATES TO THE MANAGEMENT OF E-WASTE
2.4.10. D IFFERENT METHODS USED IN THE M ANAGEMENT OF E -W ASTE
Considering both India and Switzerland, it can be seen that more than one solution exists for e-waste recycling systems. The best or optimal solution is de- pendant to a large extent on the “economic and cultural context within which the system” is expected to operate or operates. A number of factors that include la- bour costs, the formal economic structures including the configuration and func- tioning of t he informal sector, the e xisting framework for r egulations together with the p ossibilities a nd limits of enforcement of th e la w must be c onsidered when suggesting alternatives as solutions. The advantage of this would be that the current situation, in relation to environmental impacts, occupational hazards and economic revenue, could improve (Sinha-Khetriwala et al., 2005).
In Switzerland, consumers pa y a “recycling fee”. In contrast, in India the
“waste c ollectors pay a f ee” to consumers when c olleting their obs olete appli- ances. Traders who “aggregate” and “sort different kinds” of waste purchase the waste from the small collectors. The aggregated waste is then sold to larger recy- clers, w ho r ecover the materials in cluding m etals, w hich ha ve va lue fr om t he waste. The waste industry adds “value” and creates “jobs at every point” in the value c hain w hether i t is at t he collector le vel, th e tr ader level or th e recycler
39
level. Due to the volume of e-waste increasing, specialization has occurred amongst waste processors (collectors, traders & recyclers) in that some of the waste processors are focusing only on “e-waste”. The initial investment that is re- quired so that a collection can be started, or to dismantle, to sort, or to recover materials is low in the e-waste industry, this results in a small entrepreneurs join- ing the industry (Sinha-Khetriwala et al., 2005).
Nnorom and Osibanjo, (2008) discuss product take-back and product self- management as the two “issues in e-waste management”. “Product take-back” oc- curs with “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) where the producer has a re- sponsibility for the product from manufacture to disposal. As a result of this the producer is provided with incentives for redesigning products so that environ- mental impact is minimised. This would include the use of materials that are envi- ronmentally and the design of products in a manner in such that product can be more efficiently recycled or reused. The “principle of polluter pay” was one of the factors that were used in the development of EPR together with the acknowledg- ment of waste management and recycling. EPR requires that the people who use electronic equipment pay the true cost of the electronic equipment. The true cost takes into account the cost for recycling; it is also assumed that the cost of trans- port together with disposal cost is taken into account in the determination of the true cost of the product. The result of this is that the user of the “electronic equipment” will pay their “share of recycling” in the cost of the electronic equip- ment.
Product self-management is an alternative to EPR and the expectation is that it would make the management of end of life products “more efficient and less expensive”. One of the EPR requirements is that manufacturers are to pack- age fundamental information about the product disposal, both as a written label and as a tag with the product. The purpose of the tag on the “electronic equip- ment” would be to “link to websites”, the website will have information on how product can be dismantled. “Universal Product Code” (UPC) bar code or “Radiof- requency Identification” (RFID) tags are possibilities of tags that could be used. A potential recycling application would be the dismantling of computers or other electronic products (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008).
40
Deng, Wen, and Zhao, (2008) conducted a study on discarded refrigerators.
They state that for a short lifespan (a lifespan less than 8 years) of a refrigerator, the best option was to refurbish and resell the refrigerator. Whilst the best option for a long l ifespan ( a lifespan m ore t han 15 years) a refrigerator was “Pre- treatment” and complete di sassembly together wi th t he s hredding of t he main body of the refrigerator in an open environment or in areas that have strict control standards for greenhouse gases. To control greenhouse gases the shredding must be done in an airtight environment. It was also found that the main factors that af- fect the chosen option of discarding is influenced by the cost of purchasing and disassembling and the sale price of plastics, condensers and copper.
Although the refrigerator does not fall in the exact category being investi- gated, it was found that these different disposal methods could be applied to e- waste.
Sinha-Khetriwala et al., (2005) and Nnorom and Osibanjo, (2008) suggest government action is strongly recommended for an EPR program to be effective, government action will assist in gaining public confidence. Sinha-Khetriwala et al., (2005) and Nnorom and Osibanjo, (2008) further stated that elements of an ef- fective EPR program should include:
Technical standards that are promulgated, Incentives for participation;
Manufacturing and material processes to be continually re-evaluated, Information disseminated “to consumers and treatment facilities”,
Accountability for “end products” and performance must be maintained, and,
Effective evaluation and monitoring of the program.
Systematic commitment is required by the government for the maintenance and sustainable development of an EPR program. “Resource conservation and re- use, material recovery and energy efficiency” are aspects that are encompassed by sound environmental management of e-waste (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008).
41