Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:32 am
Time: 11:32 am
Results for e-waste
3 results foundAuthor: Lundgren, Karin Title: The Global Impact of E-Waste: Addressing the Challenge Summary: Executive Summary Electrical and electronic waste (e-waste) is currently the largest growing waste stream. It is hazardous, complex and expensive to treat in an environmentally sound manner, and there is a general lack of legislation or enforcement surrounding it. Today, most e-waste is being discarded in the general waste stream. Of the e-waste in developed countries that is sent for recycling, 80 per cent ends up being shipped (often illegally) to developing countries such as China, India, Ghana and Nigeria for recycling. Within the informal economy of such countries, it is recycled for its many valuable materials by recyclers using rudimentary techniques. Such globalization of e-waste has adverse environmental and health implications. Furthermore, developing countries are shouldering a disproportionate burden of a global problem without having the technology to deal with it. In addition, developing countries themselves are increasingly generating significant quantities of e-waste. This paper explores the volumes, sources and flows of e-waste, the risks it poses to e-waste workers and the environment, occupational safety and health (OSH) issues, labour issues and regulatory frameworks, and links this growing global problem with the International Labour Organisation (ILO)'s current and future work. It is clear that the future of e-waste management depends not only on the effectiveness of local government authorities working with the operators of recycling services but also on community participation, together with national, regional and global initiatives. The solution to the e-waste problem is not simply the banning of transboundary movements of e-waste, as domestic generation accounts for a significant proportion of e-waste in all countries. Fundamental to a sustainable solution will be tackling the fact that current practices and the illegal trade provide economic stimulus. It is important to recognize local and regional contexts and the social implications of the issue; implementing a high-tech, capital-intensive recycling process will not be appropriate in every country or region. Effective regulation must be combined with incentives for recyclers in the informal sector not to engage in destructive processes. Cheap, safe and simple processing methods for introduction into the informal sector are currently lacking; hence, it is necessary to create a financial incentive for recyclers operating in the informal sector to deliver recovered parts to central collection sites rather than process them themselves. Multidisciplinary solutions are vital in addition to technical solutions, as is addressing the underlying social inequities inherent in the e-waste business. Recycling operations in the informal sector of the economy enable employment for hundreds of thousands of people in poverty. A possible entry point to address their negative impacts is to address occupational risks, targeting poverty as the root cause of hazardous work and, in the process, developing decent working conditions. More generally, solutions to the global e-waste problem involve awareness-raising among both consumers and e-waste recyclers in the informal economy, integration of the informal sector with the formal, creating green jobs, enforcing legislation and labour standards, and eliminating practices which are harmful to human health and the environment. It is also imperative to target electrical and electronics manufacturers by introducing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation and encouraging initial designs to be green, long lived, upgradeable and built for recycling. In considering solutions to the e-waste problem, this paper focuses on worker protection through appropriate legislation, formalization of the informal recycling sector and the opportunities represented by cooperative organization of e-waste workers. Details: Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, 2012. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: https://www.ilo.org/sector/Resources/publications/WCMS_196105/lang--en/index.htm Year: 2012 Country: International URL: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/publication/wcms_196105.pdf Shelf Number: 155482 Keywords: E-WasteElectrical WasteElectronic WasteEnvironmental CrimesGreen CriminologyOffences Against the EnvironmentPollution |
Author: Basel Action Network Title: The Summary: INTRODUCTION The BAN e-Trash Transparency Project In 2016, BAN published its groundbreaking reports entitled "Disconnect: Goodwill and Dell, Exporting the Public's E-Waste to Developing Countries," (May) and "Scam Recycling: e-Dumping on Asia by US Recyclers," (September). These reports followed several years of research, development and implementation of GPS/cell phone-based tracking technology. They involved placing 205 different GPS tracking devices inside of old printers, LCD, and CRT monitors, delivering them to US charities, retailers and recyclers and following them to their endpoints across the globe. Such research activities and subsequent publication of the results can be said to be a form of citizen enforcement because the trade of hazardous wastes, including most electronic waste, to developing countries from developed countries is illegal under international norms (Basel Convention) and under laws of most developed countries. Certainly, under the rules of the Basel Convention, it is illegal for developing countries to import hazardous e-wastes from the United States. 96% of the exports revealed by BAN 's 2016 study were deemed as likely illegal. The study as summarized in "Scam Recycling" witnessed 34% of the 205 deployments moving offshore with 31% of the total going to developing countries. Looking at those that were exported only 93% of the exports went to developing countries. 87% to Asia, 3% to Africa and 1% to the Middle East, and 1% to the Latin America/Caribbean region. 7% moved to the developed countries of Mexico and Canada. Most of the exports ended up in Hong Kong's rural northern area called New Territories. BAN's investigators visited GPS locations where the trackers ended up and found hundreds of e-waste junkyards in New Territories where the hazardous equipment is unfortunately smashed by hand, exposing workers to dangerous mercury laden dust, vapors and hazardous toners. Much of the e-waste was simply dumped in fields and wastelands. Of the 152 trackers delivered directly to recyclers and not to charities, 40% were exported significantly higher than the 15% rate for the 53 trackers delivered to charities or retailers. In the course of the entire pathways (chains) of the 205 tracker movements, the trackers passed through the hands of 168 different identifiable US recyclers. Of these companies, over 45% were part of a movement that went offshore (export chain). That study revealed also that R2 certified recyclers had a higher-than-average export rate. Uncertified recyclers had a lower-than-average export rate, and e-Stewards Certified Recyclers had the lowest average export rate of all three categories. With respect to the Certifications held by the "last holder" (apparent exporter), R2 exceeded e-Stewards 9-1. Finally, the report reveals the false claims and "green washing" of many of the companies that claim that they never would allow the public's waste electronics to be exported. The complete reports and media generated from them, including the PBS Newshour video segment that followed BAN to Hong Kong, can be found on our website's Trash Transparency Project pages. These reports include in detail, a full disclosure of the study findings including lists of all companies involved, the environmental harm caused, methodology, conclusions, and recommendations. BAN's work tracking e-waste in the United States and around the world with GPS trackers continues. BAN's ethical recycling certification program known as e-Stewards now uses trackers routinely to verify performance of the trade requirements in the standard (e.g. no export of hazardous e-waste to developing countries). At the same time, BAN continues to deploy trackers across North America to reveal for consumers and lawmakers alike, the illegal and/or unethical trade practices of some recyclers. It is our intention to continue to report on these trackers. The most recent deployment involved 60 trackers deployed in Texas, Georgia, and Florida in the US. 31 of these were R2 Certified (52%), 4 were both e-Stewards and R2 (6.66%), 1 was eStewards only (1.67 percent), and 24 were uncertified (40%). On September 6 of 2017, the first update of new tracker findings since our September 15, 2016 report was published. In that report we revealed 16 more chains of export (15 LCD monitors and one printer) involving 7 target recycling companies. 5 of these were in California, one in Ohio and one in Texas. An additional two companies (Skill Office Machines and VKL Exports) were also identified. Details: Seattle, Washington: Basel Action Network, 2017. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: http://wiki.ban.org/images/1/13/TheScamRecyclingContinuesUpdate_1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: International URL: https://www.ban.org/trash-transparency Shelf Number: 155487 Keywords: E-Waste Electronic Waste Environmental Crime Green CriminologyHazardous Waste Illegal Dumping Illegal Waste Offences Against the Environment Pollution Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment WEEE |
Author: Palmer, Hayley Title: Illegal Export of e-Waste from Australia: A Story Told by GPS Trackers Summary: In September and October of 2017 BAN deployed 35 pieces of non-functional electronic waste equipment including CRT monitors, LCD monitors and printers with GPS trackers imbedded within them across Australia. All of the equipment qualified under the Basel Convention as hazardous waste. 14 units of equipment were deployed in the Brisbane area, 13 in the Sydney area, 3 in Adelaide, and 5 in Perth. Out of these 35 trackers 2 were exported (5.71%), 1 moved to a seaport and was likely exported (2.86%), 11 moved to a Recycler (31.4%), 4 moved to a landfill (11.4%), 7 never moved, (20%), 6 had no signal after delivery (17.1%) and 2 moved to an unknown location (5.71%). 2 are still reporting regularly and the rest have gone quiet, meaning they could be bulldozed into a landfill, buried deep in a warehouse, or shredded or disassembled by a recycler. Exports from OfficeWorks -- Three of the devices appear to have been exported, with two definitely going to Hong Kong's New Territories area. Both of these were LCDs monitors from the Brisbane area and one of these was later re-exported to an e-waste processing facility in Thailand. The two exported LCDs were deployed at different OfficeWorks stores in the Brisbane area. Officeworks' "Bring I.T Back" as a "Drop Zone" location is an official Australian Government public drop-off location that the public is encouraged to use for their electronic recycling. Officeworks, according to their website, considers itself to be a very sustainable company. The third device, another LCD left at Endeavor Foundation Industries, another government approved e-waste dropoff location, last signaled at a container dock at the port of Brisbane and was likely exported- though it has yet to signal again. Site Visits BAN traveled to the two locations in Asia where the two exported LCDs ended up. Both of these, without showing any other stopping points after their respective OfficeWorks deliveries, were joined in one intermodal container and shipped to the Ping Che area of New Territories, Hong Kong. Ping Che is an infamous area of Hong Kong for e-waste trafficking where most commonly undocumented laborers are involved in the crude and harmful breakdown of the equipment, often exposing them to dangerous toner dust, and, in the case of LCDs -- the toxic metal mercury. However, when we visited the location a few months after the arrival of the LCDs, there was no trace of e-waste in the facility - apparently, it had been cleaned out and one of the tracked devices stopped signaling. The other one, however, we visited its second location in Thailand. In Thailand that LCD monitor arrived at a location that was involved in crude smelting of circuit boards, creating deadly dioxins and furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Illegal Exportation There can be little doubt that these exports were illegal due to the fact that all three countries concerned, Australia, China (including Hong Kong), and Thailand are all parties to the Basel Convention. Due to the presence of mercury in the backlights of these LCD monitors and the lead in the circuit boards of the monitors, and because the equipment was rendered non-functional, the equipment was clearly a hazardous waste under the definitions of the Basel Convention. As such, all exports would require that they be notified prior to export by the government of Australia and consented to by the initially receiving government of Hong Kong. Thailand, in recent weeks, has made it abundantly clear that they are not happy receiving e-waste imported illegally en masse to primitive processing facilities that have been springing up all over their territory following China's own importation ban (see Current Trends in the e-Waste Trade). Details: Seattle, Washington: Basel Action Network, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2019 at: http://wiki.ban.org/images/7/7c/Australian_e-Waste_Report_-_2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.ban.org/trash-transparency Shelf Number: 155489 Keywords: AustraliaE-Waste Electronic Waste Environmental Crime Green CriminologyHazardous Waste Illegal Dumping Illegal Waste Offences Against the Environment Pollution Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment WEEE |