ROHIT KUMAR

1 E-WASTE ASSIGMENT

BACKGROUND

The issue of E-Waste was first brought into legislative sphere with the introduction of a Private

Member Bill on The Electronic Waste (Handling and Disposal) Bill 2005 by Vijay J Darda, Member

of Parliament (MP) from Maharashtra. It was the first formal recognition of having no legislation on E

Waste in India despite the country being a hub of import of second hand computers and electronics

from developed countries since last decade which already had legislations like WEEE Code 2002

(Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) in European Union and Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, 1976.

Electronic Waste is a part of solid waste management which is the primary responsibility of

Municipalities under Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution and states have been empowered under

Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules (MSW) enacted since September 2000 by

Central Government. This means that Central government, though could provide states with a model

legislation, but the application and creation of institutions for application of such laws is the

responsibility of respective state governments which has further delegated this responsibility to

Municipal Corporations as a part of decentralised governance. But as Environment is a concurrent

subject, Central Government also has competence to legislate on E-Waste. The eventual segregation

of E-Waste from Solid Waste Management in general is a step in this direction as states have been

incompetent to deal with the E-Waste and Union Government has taken it upon itself to create

institutions for the same.

In December 2009, 186th Report of Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation scrutinised the

effectiveness of MSW Rules and reported that inadequate and ineffective legislation at state level

with technological and financial restraints with the Municipalities has resulted in the poor

implementation of MSW Rules. Hazardous Waste (Management, and Handling) Rules 2003 which

was formulated after amendments in 1989 Rules on Hazardous Waste categorised e waste and its

constituents under ‘hazardous’ and ‘non-hazardous’ waste. As the focus of the law was waste other

than e-waste, the process of disposal was kept very generic in nature and there was almost no

recycling of E-Waste. It was also in direct contravention with the Export-Import Policy. For

instance, despite implicit ban on the import of hazardous waste, E-Waste was imported on case to

case basis with the licenses provided for by Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) due to E-

Waste being categorised in Schedule II (material not hazardous unless above the concentration

mentioned) and List A of Schedule III (raw material permitted for recycling).

It was after Cobalt 60 tragedy in Delhi, popularly known as Mayapuri Radiological incident which

resulted in eight people being injured and one dying due to carrying of radiological metal from the

electronics scrap in the Mayapuri locality that a comprehensive legislation was formulated. The first

explicit mention of E-Waste in a government legislation was, thus, in Hazardous Waste

(Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement Rules) 2008 and Guidelines for

Environmentally Sound Management of E Waste 2008 which provided for the process of

recycle, re-use and recovery options under Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) which was the

nodal agency of providing licenses to the agency for disposal and recycling of hazardous waste.

The Guidelines emphasised the role of ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ (EPR) and is in tune

with International Code on E Waste under Basel Convention. EPR means that the producer is

responsible for the entire life cycle of product especially post-consumer stage of take back, recycle

ROHIT KUMAR

2 and final disposal of product. It obliges producers to set up e-waste collection centres either

independently or jointly with state organisations. EPR also entrust the responsibility on producer to

create a financing model to organise a system to meet the cost of this recycling.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

This concept was the basis of E-Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2011 which applies to

every producer, consumer or bulk consumer, collection centre and dismantler became operational in

May 2012. Under this legislation, producers need to create awareness about the hazardous

components present in the product and provide consumers with the instruction for handling the

equipment after its use. They will need to give information booklets highlighting practices to prevent

E-waste from being dropped in garbage bins. It mandated manufacturers to collect electronic scrap

directly from consumers and route them to authorized recycling centres across the country. All the

required parties had to maintain records of E-wastes generated by them and make such records

available with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) or the Pollution Control Committees.

The core of Extended Producer Responsibility is to create a sustainable system which provides an

incentivised framework to redesign their products by turning ‘waste’ into ‘raw material’ for industry

and next generation products.

Despite this, there has not been any systematic inventorisation of e-waste generation carried out in

the country and as of date, only 151 producers have been authorised in 12 states of the country. As per

a recent reply by Prakash Javdekar, Minister of Environment and Forests in Lok Sabha, of the

estimated e-waste generation of 8 lakh tonne in 2012, only about 4 lakh tonne was processed through

the registered recycling centre and this does not include the historical and imported e waste available.

Unofficial statistics reveals that India generates e-waste at an average of 17 lakh tonne a year and it is

rising at a rate of 5% per year with 95% of the total e waste being directed to the informal sector. The

primary reasons for the failure of these rules besides implementing widely accepted EPR policy is the

exclusion of present informal sector which constitutes a majority of dismantling and processing the e-

waste.

Corrective Step to expand the scope: The new E-Waste Management and Handling Rules 2016 have

addressed this anomaly by expanding its scope to refurbishers, dealers and Producers

Responsibility Organizations (PRO). Refurbishers repair used electrical and electronics equipments

in the country as a majority of the electronics are reused by repairing them. Refurbishing generates a

huge quantity of e waste as a result of assemblage of parts and till now it has been escaping the

mainstreaming. The addition of components, spares, consumables and parts of EEE in Schedule I

have brought the elements of these off hand dealings into formal sector.

Process Simplification: The outsourcing of PROs work to dealers or other independent agencies (as

individual producers may lack the ability to set up a centre) and simplification of establishing PROs

by empowering CPCB to be the only organisation to set up recycling centres, in case of establishing

PROs in more than one states, has eased the hassle related to permissions for separate EPR

authorisation in different states. Registration now means authorisation as well unlike earlier system

of separate registration and then following the procedure of authorisation for dismantlers and

recyclers.

Inclusion of Consumer: The contention of consumer not having any incentive to return the used

product been resolved by the provision of Deposit Refund Scheme (DRS) where a producer charges

an additional amount as a deposit at the time of sale of EEE and returns it with interest after the

ROHIT KUMAR

3 instrument has been submitted. Implicit in this scheme is the assumption that e-waste has a selling

value due to its individual components.

Varied agencies: To further ease the burden on consumers, the establishment of E-Waste exchanges,

which can serve as independent market instrument for the sale and purchase of end of life EEE

between agencies and organisation will further channelize the function of e-waste collection and

recycling by providing professional assistance. Noida based Attero Recycling is an example of a

combination of a recycler and exchange which has institutionalised the mechanism of scrap collection

in the country.

Targeting Collection: The phase wise collection targeting of e-waste is an important step to

institutionalise the collection approach. Though unlike in the West where targets are set for recycling,

India has started with the targets for collections being 30% of the total quantity followed by 40% in

third and 70% by the end of seventh year. Additionally, the category wise average life and weight will

be tallied with the sales figures of producers to create a database for the EEE which will resolve

another important issue of lack of data of inventorisation with the government.

Clarity in Definitions: Manufacturers have been mandated to channelize the EEE during

manufacturing by maintaining records with SPCB, thus eliminating formalising another source of e-

waste. The definition of bulk Consumers is now expanded as any organisation having more than

twenty employees or having annual turnover of 1 crores resulting in clarity in who are obligated to

follow the rules related to bulk consumers unlike earlier legislation where smaller institutions might

not be a part of the law. Further the definition of Manufacturers and Producers has been cleared with

producers being selling EEE under their own brand or assemble EEE by other manufacturers and

manufacturers being entities under Factories Act and Companies Act who have facilities to

manufacture EEE.

State as a Stakeholder: The inclusion of Responsibility of State Governments to ensure welfare,

safety and health of workers involved in e-waste sector is an important aspect in the implementation

of these new rules. By earmarking certain allocation of land and other resources, assistance in skill

development for the sector and submission of annual report by Labour Department of respective state

governments, the new rules have resolved the issue of lack of government support, which was a major

industry concern. It is an essential step because as per a recent report by ASSOCHAM (Associated

Chambers of Commerce) on Electronic Waste Management, nearly 76% of e-waste workers suffer

from serious respiratory ailments. The provision of state specific EPR plan by individual producers

will provide for the required data to measure the compliance with the existing rules unlike before

where there was no concrete plan to compare the compliance to.

Stronger CPCB: In case the product does not adhere to Reduction of Hazardous Substance (RoHS)

during manufacturing stage, the product can be withdrawn or recalled from the market. RoHS

includes maximum permissible level of ten restricted elements including Leading, Mercury,

Cadmium, Dibutyl phthalate etc to be used in the products which has now been tuned to international

practices. Providing CPCB the powers for random sampling EEE to monitor and verify the

compliance with the set provisions has given powers to check whether companies comply with rules

or not unlike earlier rules where there was no such procedure.

ROHIT KUMAR

4 IMPLICATIONS FOR MOBILE INDUSTRY

India is emerging as a significant generator of E-waste in its own right. In India, the current estimate

projects 2.7 million tons of E-waste generation annually. The ICT sector accounts for 34 per cent of

this. But the overall contribution of mobile phones in E-Waste is very less comparative to other

elements of E-Waste. The e-waste received from different sources predominantly comprises of the

following EEEs as televisions and desktops 68%, servers 27%, mobile phone 1% and import from

developed countries 2% respectively.

As mobile phone industry is a part of EEE sector, it has to follow the rules of setting up of PROs,

collection centres at various places, provide the consumers with the information on how to deal with

post-consumption stage of mobiles and create awareness regarding the same.

As per IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, rationalisation of duty structures will result in the increase of

number of mobile phones made in India from present 5.4 crores to 11 crores this year. Mobile phone

industry is at a relative advantage when it comes to recycling of E-Waste as the historical waste i.e. e-

waste which is six year old before the implementation of this new rule is not a major issue because of

mobile sector boom in recent years only.

This advantage has not been harnessed properly by mobile phone industry as major 11 mobile

companies do not have a proper set up of EPR scheme as yet as per a Toxic Links Report. Nokia has

brought its success campaign from New York to Hyderabad in 2009 and since then expanded its

recycling operations by setting up 1300 collection points. It has also allowed mobiles of other brands

to be deposited for recycling. This type of strategy is required to address the deficit in EPR

implementation in the country as it will be impossible for every company to have a pan- India reach.

As per a TERI Survey, the growth of mobile phone sector in urban area is 31% higher than the

rural areas which means there is a need to have a very strong strategy in the urban region for

recycling so that historical waste does not become an issue in the future and start building

infrastructure in rural region to have a strong grasp on rural recycling market from the beginning. It is

easier to set a trend by creating awareness from the beginning instead of inducing such attitude

change at the later stages of consumption. Thus the rural market, which is bound to expand faster than

urban market, due to saturation of technology, in the future, is an important sector to introduce this

change.

Another strategic issue that mobile phone industry needs to take in consideration is the expansion of

replacement market. There is a huge replacement market in India and above all, the consumers are

now very receptive towards newer brands. The replacement market has grown from 118 mn handsets

for the 12-month period that ended December 31, 2010, constituting 62.77% of overall Indian mobile

handset market, to 359 mn handsets for the 12-month period that ended December 31, 2014

constituting 89.30% of the overall Indian mobile handset market. Though second hand phone

market being popular in rural areas has offset this huge impact of replacement of mobile phones,

the trend will not stay the same. The introduction of cheaper alternatives is making second hand

phone industry obsolete. Mobile Phone industry needs to strategise accordingly to address the E-

Waste originating from such changing trends.

Diversification of mobile handset companies is yet another concern as the grip of few known brands

in India market is loosening with the cheaper availability of Chinese brands of mobile phones. The

share of select few international brands has reduced 16% in one year while Chinese phones have

increased its share by 15%. Thus in such situation there is a need to focus on joint ventures for PROs

ROHIT KUMAR

5 instead of individual companies setting up their PROs as market share is changing rapidly and lower

sales could result in higher cost of recycling as recycling process is cross subsidised by the sales.

EFFECTIVNESS OF NEW LEGISLATION

It is a welcome step to streamline the E-Waste legislation to international conventions to a

considerable extent as has been seen in the expansion of its scope, clarity in definitions and

introducing new stakeholders in the process. Very importantly, the problem of data has been resolved

to a considerable extent albeit it is based on to what extent producers report the EPR plan and the

power of CPCB and SPCBs to conduct random checks, seeing they have less manpower and

inadequate resources to have pan country operations, but it is nonetheless a step in right direction.

As it is already clear from the background note in the beginning that this new legislation was

supposedly the actual form of E-Waste Legislation as proposed in Rajya Sabha Report and elaborated

in the guidelines for E-Waste Handling 2008, but it took another 5 years to reach that basic legislation

required to resolve the mounting E-Waste crisis.

Despite all of this, there are considerable issues with this new piece of legislation. It is still not as

comprehensive a document as it is required to be.

Integration of unorganised sector: As per the study by the Department of Information Technology,

there are more than 3,000 scrap dealers across the country. Unless these scrap dealers are given a

chance to participate in an authorized recycling system, they will only fight harder to stay in business.

Moreover the dismantlers which remove the important parts out of these electronics as documented in

various reported of Seelampur, Mayapuri and other such scrap hubs, do not have required skills to

scientifically dismantle the electronics. The efforts of widen the scope of legislation is a step forward

but it also existed earlier as well. But still the number of recyclers was relatively less. It is not easy to

formalise 95% of sector in one go. So the state has to come forward to provide skills and resources to

the people who will be unemployed as a part of this process. The legislation is silent on the process to

address the integration of unorganised sector to formal recycling process. This aspects need further

elaboration.

Trans-boundary movement of E-Waste: The rules are oblivious to the fact that electronic waste is

imported into the country. A study by the Centre for Science and Environment estimates that close to

50,000 metric tonnes of electronic scrap is imported into the country every year. But the rules have no

provisions to control imports. Though the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste is banned

under the Basel Convention, dealers have found ways to get consignments of electronic scrap into the

country as they are not properly classified. It is evident from past studies that, most electronic scrap

which comes into the country is classified as plastic scrap or mixed waste. This is a serious issue

which needs urgent attention since India is a signatory of Basel Convention and is required to enforce

strict checking measures to stop entry of illegal E-waste from other countries.

Increase Awareness: A Yes Bank Survey in coordination with TERI done in 2014 reveal that 16% of

the total respondents were unaware of the department in their companies which handles E-Waste

compliance with 37% not aware of any E Waste rules. Further confusion on whether it is Quality

Assurance Department, Chief Sustainability Officer, Legal Branch or Chief Technology Officer is the

right authority to handle E-Waste. It is evident from the fact that if bigger organisation, which are

major producers of E-Waste in the country are not very much aware about the legislation and its

implications, the information trickling down to the bottom tier of informal sector would not be enough

to bring in the change envisaged in the legislation. There is a need to mention the signing authority in

ROHIT KUMAR

6 organisations with an increased expenditure on creating awareness among informal sector to introduce

them to the benefits of legislation.

Cost of Recycling: Exporting e-waste is more lucrative for the exporter country than recycling or

disposing it within the country. For instance, waste traders in Europe or USA have to pay US $20 to

recycle a computer safely in their countries while they can sell it at half the cost to the informal

traders in developing countries. That is why India became an importer of second hand EEE products

In case of India, the similar situation applies. But as it cannot export the products anywhere else, it has

to do with the low cost of informal sector. The cost of disposing EEE in informal sector is much less

than the cost incurred for recycling in the formal sector. With cheaper electronics being a major focus,

the cost of recycling is an issue. The inclusion of state governments in providing resources is a good

step but delays in providing land or resources as has been seen in the past with various projects, could

result in people moving back to informal sector because it pays and is a cheaper alternative. A viable

financing model supported by state need to be included for a better compliance from industry.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------