haley bowcock

walking the walk on e-waste?

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:43:58 -0400

After a drawn-out session that lasted into the night, the EU Environmental Council at last came to an agreement on what it thinks should be done to fix the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Directive. Despite some moves in the right direction, the agreement reached by the Council was disappointing in its lack of ambition.

E-waste contains many materials, some of which are highly valuable, toxic, or both. As the European Commissioner explained to ministers in the Council, the revision of the WEEE Directive is important not only from an environmental and health protection perspective, but also as “a test of how serious the EU is about resource efficiency.” It appears from the Council decision that the EU is not too serious at all.

During the session, the President (currently Hungary) explained, if the EU wants to take a “flagship role” in the efficient management of resources, then it needs to have the right legislative documents on waste management. Indeed, he explained that the EU needs to see e-waste “as a valuable resource rather than a burden”.

Yet this ambitious talk was unfortunately not reflected in the Council’s decision. For instance, consider the Council’s position on collection targets for e-waste. If the Council has its way, four years after the revised Directive comes into force, less than half of the electrical and electronic equipment put on the market will need to be collected as e-waste.

This will leave more than half of the e-waste in the EU unaccounted for - either lying wasted in storage, dumped domestically in landfill or on other countries where management requirements are less stringent. In these scenarios, precious resources are squandered, and given the toxic content of e-waste, communities and the environment suffer.

Also, the Council’s decision on recovery targets missed the opportunity to exploit the resource efficiency benefits of reuse. For instance, reuse of a functional computer is 20 times more energy efficient than recycling it. Indeed, the WEEE Directive recognises this, by stating that reuse should be favoured over recycling. (See Computer Aid International Special Report: Why reuse is better than recycling.)

The Council made the positive step of including the reuse of whole appliances in the recovery targets, as opposed to components only. But, by failing to give reuse a stand-alone target, combining it instead with an increased target for recycling, the Council may not encourage increased reuse in practice. This is because current infrastructure is geared toward recycling.

All is not lost, however; the Council will meet with the European Parliament later in the year, to negotiate an agreed position, before any revised laws are in place. As the European Environmental Bureau explains, given that the European Parliament’s position was much more ambitious than the Council’s, we can only hope that their position wins out in the end. Only then can the EU begin to be seen to be walking the walk on e-waste.

building skills for e-waste advocacy in the balkans

Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:59:29 -0500

This month I’ve been in Skopje, Macedonia, helping to run a training event with the national NGO leads of the Balkans E-Waste Management Advocacy Network (BEWMAN).

Over one week, we worked through some of the key issues and potential solutions to the e-waste problem, based on experiences from other NGOs working in the issue. Stephane Arditi of the European Environmental Bureau, and David Rochat of SOFIES, were guest presenters that also gave valuable contributions.

You can read more about the training event here. Some of the key messages highlighted in the training included:

E-waste is the most rapidly-growing of all the waste streams
Poor electronics design means that e-waste is toxic and more difficult to manage than many other wastes
Poor e-waste management can pollute the environment and damage the health of citizens across the region
E-waste contains many valuable materials and safely recovering these provides job and wealth creation opportunities for the region
Actions like making electronics producers responsible for their equipment over the full product life cycle, and encouraging consumers to reuse functional equipment and keep e-waste out of landfill can minimise the environmental and health impacts of electronics

The NGOs in the BEWMAN network will now be able to build on the knowledge gained in the training to develop their advocacy strategies for the coming year.

Check out the BEWMAN flikr stream of the event here.

Green ICT: putting producers in the hot seat

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 07:17:01 -0500

Working on e-waste issues 9 to 5 has the unfortunate effect of making me somewhat desensitied to numbers. But every now and again I come across a figure that makes me rediscover the scale of the challenge anew.

Take this one. Last year, some 50 million tons of e-waste generated worldwide, and only 13% was recycled. This is worrying, given that electronics contain toxic substances, like heavy metals that can harm human health and pollute the environment. What’s more, they also contain valuable and recoverable materials that are becoming increasingly scarce on the world market. The European Union is sufficiently concerned about the scarcity of rare earth metals - crucial to the manufacture of high tech products - to seek a strategy to secure their supply.

Globally, e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream. What strategies should we put in place to deal with this? Technological innovation in electronics has lead to products that are increasingly difficult to upgrade to extend product life or disassemble for recycling, and expensive marketing campaigns drive perceptions of obselescene - and thus replacement - of perfectly functional equipment.

Clearly, end-of-pipe solutions won’t work for e-waste, as they do nothing to reduce waste generation in the first place. Additionally, safely recycling e-waste comes at a cost. This financial and environmental burden has traditionally been externalised, increasingly to developing countries where labour is cheap though workers and communities suffer with their health and a destroyed environment.

Given that it is producers that make key design decisions and that it is producers that have profited through toxic, wasteful design, we need an approach that makes them include the real cost of technology in their goods, including those incurred when they become waste.

This very approach is taken by the European Union (EU), where electronics manufacturers have a legal duty to be responsible for their products over their entire life cycle, including at end-of-life. This extended producer responsibility (EPR) approach is designed to drive eco-design and to shift the costs of end-of-life management away from communities and onto producers, who will then internalise them into the product price.

Computer Aid International explores some of these issues as they relate to one contributor to the e-waste pile: ICT equipment. In the third in a series of Special Reports on ICT and the Environment, ‘Green ICT - what producers must do’, they recommend the implementation of the EPR principle globally:

Producers should be responsible for the end-of-life management of their goods in all countries they operate in, not just in rich developed countries, so that all nations can build the operational capacity to re-use IT equipment and to recycle e-waste.

Shift the cost of toxic, wasteful design away from communities and the environment to the producer.

Producers must be forced to include the real costs of their goods through wide-ranging EPR programmes that encourage eco-design.

If followed, these recommendations could get us to a place where we are generating slightly less staggering amount of e-waste, and recovering a hell of a lot more of it.

(Much needed) Improvements to Skopje zoo

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 08:10:52 -0500

(Much needed) Improvements to Skopje zoo:

Really great blog on Global Voices by one of my Macedonian collegues, Filip Stojanovski. I visited the - fortunately much-improved version of the - zoo with Filip and his family when last in Skopje, and was quite appalled by what he explained were previous conditions at the facility. Hopefully, more improvements to come…

The excellent ‘Self-Repair Manifesto’, developed by...

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:58:04 -0500

The excellent ‘Self-Repair Manifesto’, developed by iFixit, a free repair manual that is open to anyone to access and edit. Pass it on!

The Story of Electronics - a great animation jointly developed...

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 04:56:57 -0500

The Story of Electronics - a great animation jointly developed by the Story of Stuff Project and the Electronics Take-Back Coalition - was launched today. Good overview of some of the issues around electronics and e-waste, including of extended producer responsibility, and provides pointers for action.

if not now, when? e-waste slips down the EU agenda - again!

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:25:26 -0400

A decision on Kyoto emissions goals is not the only thing put on hold by EU Environment Ministers during last week’s meeting of the Council of the European Union. Progress on the update of the EU’s approach to e-waste management - the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive - took another step backwards by slipping off the Council’s agenda all together.

It has since been reported that any agreement will be put on hold until 2011. The Council will only come to a decision following agreement being reached by another of the European Union’s decision-making bodies - the European Parliament - which is unlikely to occur this year.

Of course, the hope is that what comes out of the WEEE Directive update is the best legislation possible. But successive delays in the process mean that it is hard to see how seriously the issue is being taken. The passage of the proposed changes through European Parliament has already been postponed not once, but twice.

Also, some of the more demanding proposals for changes to the WEEE Directive - including a substantial increase of collection targets - will take some time to implement on a Member State level. Thus, as each decision-making step is pushed back further and further, one could be legitimately concerned about how long it will take for any positive changes to the Directive filter through from policy to practice.

While the EU seems to be twiddling its thumbs, the e-waste problem is not going away. We’re on our way to generating 12 million tonnes of the stuff, and we’re only properly treating one-third of it. The next steps in the WEEE Directive rewrite are crucial, but we need a show of will on behalf of MEPs and Environment Ministers, so that they give e-waste the attention that it deserves.

They need to approve radical changes on a number of fronts to mitigate the environmental and health risk posed by e-waste, including new, higher targets, better policing and streamlined procedures. And they need this to happen NOW, not in 2011.

Balkans E-waste Management Advocacy Network

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:53:00 -0400

Balkans E-waste Management Advocacy Network:

The English version of the Balkans E-waste Management Advocacy Network website is up and running - versions in Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian to come!

coming to an agreement on e-waste

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:57:29 -0400

E-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the EU, and yet the current policy instrument used to address this, the waste electrical and electronic (WEEE) Directive, is failing. Only one-third of e-waste collected in the EU is treated according to the Directive requirements - the rest is completely unaccounted for, either landfilled, sent to sub-standard treatment facilities or illegally exported.

So what is to be done? Clearly, massive improvements to the system are necessary. However, repeated delays in some of the crucial legislative steps towards an updated version of the WEEE Directive could lead one to wonder just how seriously the EU is taking e-waste.

The European Parliament should have been considering this issue next week (see previous post), though decisions have been put on hold for yet another month - we may not see any changes come into affect until next year.

One of the other key decision-making bodies of the EU, the Council of the European Union, is expected to come to some sort of ‘political agreement’ this week on its position in relation to proposed changes to the Directive that would help fix some of the gaps in the current system.

Here’s a refresher on what they should agree to, as outlined in Computer Aid Special Report on the WEEE Directive recast:

Streamline administration and clarify the Directive’s scope to include all WEEE
Reduce waste generation in the first place through eco-design – use less toxics and improve recoverability, with producers individually responsible for collection and treatment of their own goods
Collect more equipment for processing – set a higher target of at least 85 percent of WEEE arising
Reuse more whole appliances – set distinct reuse targets and standards
Recover more materials through better recycling – set higher targets and standards
Increase policing and enforcement to end dumping and illegal trade in e-waste

Agree to these measures, and we will be well on the way to mitigating the environmental and health impacts of the 12 million tonnes of e-waste we’ll be generating a year by 2020.

getting e-waste on the agenda in macedonia

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:29:59 -0400

Cranes litter the skyline here in Skopje, giving at least the appearance of transformation (see Macedonia: Online Rebellion Against “Skopje 2014” Plan). But one transformation I and my colleages here would definitely like to see is one to the city’s - and the country’s - approach to e-waste management.

I’m in Skopje to meet colleagues of the Macedonian contingent of the Balkans E-Waste Management Advocacy Network (BEWMAN), which also includes Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria, and also to get an overview the e-waste situation in the country. Thursday was the kick-off meeting for the Macedonian Network – there will be similar for the other countries.

End-of-life electronics – or e-waste – represent a big challenge for governments worldwide; Macedonia is not exception.

Indeed, the challenges abound here: there is very little awareness about the threats to the environment and public health of this growing waste stream and there are little to no options for safe end-of-life management. In fact, there are no reliable data to indicate how much actual or pending e-waste is out there in Macedonian homes, businesses and public institutions.

So, what to do? We have learnt from experiences in the EU and elsewhere is that proper e-waste management needs at least the following:

The existence of a ‘recycling’ culture (or at the very least a public that is aware of the e-waste issue and is motivated to do something about it)
A legal framework provided by nation states that outlines responsibilities amongst the many stakeholders in the ‘e-waste chain’ – producers, retailers, municipalities and other governmental bodies, waste management companies and consumers
Producers that take financial responsibility for the collection and treatment of their own products when they become waste
Good collection networks that consumers can take their end-of-life electronics to with minimum effort
Strong enforcement mechanisms, so that e-waste doesn’t find its way to unsafe treatment routes

Setting up something similar in Macedonia will require a lot of awareness-raising, cooperation and knowledge-sharing amongst the many stakeholders involved in e-waste management. It will also require more information about the local situation, and about what experiences and best practices elsewhere (particularly the EU) can teach Macedonia on its journey to good e-waste management. This is what is so great about BEWMAN; it will bring a lot of this to the table.

The Macedonian network took a giant leap in this direction yesterday, when we were invited (with the help of NDI) to provide a policy briefing at a session of the Macedonia Assembly’s Commission of Transport, Communication and the Environment. The room was full – 15 MPs, a handful of representatives of the Ministry of the Environment, plus other people interested in the issue. It was very encouraging to have such a big turn-out.

We set out for attendees the issue of e-waste, and how it is being approached in the EU (through the Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment – the ‘WEEE Directive’). We also set out for them some key areas for considerations for Macedonia’s approach to e-waste management, and what BEWMAN will be doing to drive the issue forward.

While there remains a lot to do, I think that after yesterday, we can well and truly say that e-waste has been put higher up on the agenda in Macedonia. Watch this space…

a chance to be the greenest government ever? weee'll see...

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 05:15:59 -0400

Back in May, with his slippers only just tucked under the bed at Number 10 for the first time, David Cameron made the oft-repeated refrain that he wanted his coalition to be the UK’s “greenest government ever”. Indeed. Well, now there is a chance for his government to show exactly what green stuff it is made of.

Next month, the European Parliament will vote on amendments to the obscurely named but tremendously important Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive.

The WEEE Directive is basically a policy response to the fastest-growing waste stream in the European Union: e-waste. Predictions have it that e-waste generation in the EU will reach some 12 million tonnes per year by 2020. Since it contains both valuable and toxic materials, and we generate so much of the stuff, e-waste poses serious threats to health and the environment, and to our natural resource base, if not managed properly.

The WEEE Directive attempts to solve the e-waste problem by making producers pay for the collection and treatment of e-waste, with the assumption that this will make them design better products that use less toxics and generate less waste. It also sets targets for collection and recovery, to decrease waste going to landfill and ensure e-waste is treated safely within the EU.

However, the Directive is not working as it should. Only one-third of e-waste collected in the EU is treated according to the requirements of the Directive. The rest leaks out of the system, be it landfilled, or worse, sent for substandard treatment, including outside of the EU, including to developing countries. This, and other, shortcomings, are the focus of a redrafting process that the EU is currently (and slowly) subjecting the Directive to.

Computer Aid International has released a special report about the WEEE Directive (WEEE Ver. 2.0 - what Europe must do), reviewing its performance and making recommendations for reform. Key amongst these are demands to set higher targets for collection and recovery - particularly reuse - and for better policing and enforcement to end dumping of e-waste.

The UK Government should support these proposals come the 19th October vote if it wants me to believe it is at all green, let alone the greenest government ever.

on yer bike - how to re-Cycle

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 05:32:19 -0400

on yer bike - how to re-Cycle:

Includes interactive map, showing places up and down the UK where non-profit and voluntary groups which will take your old bike off your hands and find it a loving new home.

ayran - yes!

Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:45:00 -0400

ayran - yes!:

A new level of delicious-ness.

recycled e-wires go runway

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:07:35 -0400

recycled e-wires go runway:

Novel take on the e-waste problem: recycled electronics wire + old curtain = quite a funky little dress.

(Though, of course, we’ll need about a billion of these to make a dent in e-waste volumes…)

e-waste: a few tips for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:48:22 -0400

Recently, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed its international priorities at a meeting of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an organisation that acts to mitigate the impacts on the environment of cross-border commerce. One of the priority areas will be ‘Cleaning up e-waste’, where:

EPA recognizes this urgent concern and will work with international partners to address the issues of E-waste. In the near-term, EPA will focus on ways to improve the design, production, handling, reuse, recycling, exporting and disposal of electronics.

Hmm - laudible ambitions; though a serious policy challenge for a nation where only 15 to 20 percent of e-waste is collected for reuse and recycling, and with a patchwork of e-waste regulation and recycling efforts that is often confusing and uncoordinated. It is also unclear how effective these efforts have been.

All this is complicated by the fact that the US has not ratified the Basel Convention that governs trade in toxic waste, nor the associated Ban Amendment that prohibits developed nations from exporting hazardous waste into developing nations (read ‘dumping’). And the US has done its fair share of this.

So here’s a couple of things for the EPA to consider in its efforts to address the e-waste issue:

The US needs to unify its various state-led approaches into a single federally-regulated system that compels producers to finance the establishment of take-back and recovery systems. These systems should incorporate and prioritise the reuse of functional appliances, only sending those pieces for recycling that are actually at the end of their life. Reuse needs a key role in e-waste management becase it is often the environmentally-superior option
The US needs to ratify the Basel Convention, with the associated Ban Amendment. This has already been highlighted by the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, and would go a long way to help end the illegal dumping of US e-waste in developing nations
Once a ban on e-waste exports is in place, the EPA needs to be provided with adequate resources to enforce it, to prevent e-wastes leaking across borders to countries least able to manage them in a way that is safe for human and environmental health

Implement these three steps and the EPA’s job will be that much easier, and the US’ e-waste problem on its way to being solved.

trash | track

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:07:06 -0400

trash | track:

Amazing MIT project to visualise the journey of, well, rubbish:

TrashTrack uses hundreds of small, smart, location aware tags: a first step towards the deployment of smart-dust - networks of tiny locatable and addressable microeletromechanical systems.These tags are attached to different types of trash so that these items can be followed through the city’s waste management system, revealing the final journey of our everyday objects in a series of real time visualizations.

magazine - now with with added e-waste...

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:03:00 -0400

magazine - now with with added e-waste...:

Hmm - not exactly design for (end-of-)life, this one. A magazine with a video insert advertising a large US crop science firm (that I will not directly name in this blog - they seem to be getting enough advertising, already!).

I’d be interested to know what consumers and municipalities are supposed to do to thoughtfully dispose of this one.

I only pray that this (dis)invention doesn’t catch on…

Pitchfork: Best New Music

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:50:21 -0400

Pitchfork: Best New Music:

Generally, spot on.

Video

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:11:13 -0400

more reasons why a ban on e-waste exports is not wrong...

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:05:32 -0400

more reasons why a ban on e-waste exports is not wrong...:

In a previous post, I presented my opposition to Prof Eric William’s assertion that a ban on e-waste export is wrong. Debate on the subject continues: Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network (BAN), has picked apart Prof William’s three reasons why a ban on e-waste eports is wrong. His piece is well worth a read. Here’s a sample:

…until we can replace toxic ingredients with benign substitutes, and devise incentives to minimize over-consumption, we need to keep the risks and costs of manufacturing toxic products as far upstream as possible. Allowing people to “solve” their problems by seeking cheap and dirty dumping grounds means there is little incentive to solve the toxic design problem. As long as externalization is condoned under the lie of economic development, the true solutions found in green design will not likely be realized.