Transboundary Toxic E-Waste Flow:
Environmental Injustice through Neo-ecological Imperialism
Somjita Laha
1. Introduction
The fundamental contradictions in the structure of capitalist production and consumption
have been manifested through recurrent crises. One of the crucial contradictions assuming the
proportions of a crisis is the progressive ecological degradation and environmental
destruction unleashed by the advance of capitalism (O'Connor, 1994, O'Connor, 1998).
Obsession with industrial growth and economic development has relegated the concern for
nature and environment to the margins of human priority. But the menace of pollution,
ozone-layer depletion, deforestation and biodiversity loss, global warming and climate
change have brought the question of environmental sustainability at the forefront. While
various checks and remedies are being designed and implemented internationally to contain
these irreparable environmental damages, the repercussions of enormous global waste
generation are seldom considered. The balance of ecosystems is severely threatened by
massive volume of waste production which is beyond the natural absorptive and recycling
capacity of the earth.
The natural environment serves as a perennial dump for this often toxic waste without any
suitable mechanism of waste prevention and detoxification. Mountains of waste result from a
consumerist culture which ensures a steady flow of profit necessary for the reproduction of
capitalism. A rising urban population with growing income and changing lifestyles is
typically characterised by wasteful attitudes. The system of capitalist accumulation is
facilitated by such a pattern of consumption which finally precipitates in a burgeoning waste
problem. This is in total contradiction to the need of the hour which is to minimise waste and
organise appropriate management and disposal methods (Soper, 2003). The latest challenge
to the issue of waste management is posed by toxic electronic and electrical waste or e-waste
which has become an environmental concern worldwide. In the industrialised world e-waste
constitutes the fastest growing waste stream (Mundada et al., 2004). According to
conservative estimates, the global production of e-waste is 20-25 million tonnes annually
with United States, Europe and Australasia being the largest contributors (Robinson, 2009).
Though the bulk of consumption of electronic and electrical equipments (EEE) occurs in the
developed nations, through scrap trade a substantial volume of e-waste is illegally shipped
from the OECD economies to specialised centres in Asia and Africa for recycling and
disposal (Levinson et al., 2008, Greenpeace, 2008). In these countries the informal sector 1
1
Informal sector is that part of the economy which is outside the regulatory realm of formal institutions.
Adopting from Portes (1989), it can refer to a status of labour (non-contractual, temporary, unprotected), to
particular conditions of work (defying minimum safety requirements, open to health hazards like fire & other
1
constitutes the major centres of manual e-waste processing (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008,
Williams, 2005). Human health and environment are severely compromised by the emissions
and contamination resulting from the rudimentary tools and techniques employed in such
backyard recycling activities (Manomaivibool, 2009). In this paper, the phenomenon of
transboundary movement of hazardous e-waste to developing countries is analysed to
understand the global politics of waste disposal which transfers the responsibility of e-waste
management on the informal economy. The informal labourers shoulder a disproportionate
burden of the environmental risks associated with e-waste processing. Here the question of
environmental injustice is raised which manifests itself as a form of neo-ecological
imperialism whereby capitalism exploits marginalised spaces and population to externalise
the costs of waste generation and management under globalization.
The structure of the paper is as follows. The next section introduces e-waste and its toxic
composition. The third section deliberates on the nature of the global system of waste
disposal which dumps undesirable toxic waste on developing nations. The following segment
discusses the transboundary movement of e-waste which continues unabated despite
international agreements and bans. The factors contributing to the e-waste flow are
considered in the subsequent part by analysing the social and economic driving forces behind
the scrap traffic. Thereafter, the environmental injustice suffered by the underpriviledged
communities engaged in waste treatment is elaborated in the sixth section. The violation of
environmental justice results in a form of neo-ecological imperialism which is exacerbated
under neoliberalism. The process is located in the broader context of globalization. The paper
concludes with a summary.
2. E-waste and its Composition
E-waste or waste from electronic and electrical equipments (WEEE) 2 results from a wide
range of products like IT (information technology) and telecommunications equipment (like
computers and mobile phones) as well as consumer equipments (household appliances like
television, refrigerator, washing-machine, air-conditioner etc). The actual scope of e-waste is
ambiguous since different countries and organizations adopt different working definitions for
categorising e-waste (Williams, 2005, Widmer et al., 2005, Maxianova, 2008).
There are thousands of different substances in the numerous EEE entering the market on a
regular basis. E-waste processing is a problematic issue due to the sheer size of waste
generation and its toxic constituents 3. WEEE is also full of valuable materials which are
reusable or recyclable with high resale value. Often the incentive to extract the expensive
elements leads to the adoption of essentially hazardous methods of extraction
(Manomaivibool, 2009). The resource potential of e-waste which is attained by proper
accidents) and to forms of management (unrecorded or undeclared transactions, tax evasion, fiscal frauds, quasilegal nature of work).
2
The term WEEE is popularised through the European Union’s WEEE legislation. In this paper, e-waste and
WEEE are used interchangeably.
3
Some scholars argue that the predicament of e-waste management lies in substandard processing methods than
in the intrinsic toxicity of the components despite scientific reports showing that there still remain inherently
hazardous materials in EEE.
2
treatment can be weighed against the pollution potential which is realised by unsafe end-oflife (EoL) management. Suitable treatment that can collect the valuable components without
compromising the environmental quality has not been developed yet (Robinson, 2009).
E-waste contains copious amounts of highly toxic ingredients like lead, cadmium, mercury,
arsenic, selenium and flame retardants which emit dioxins on burning. Majority of the ewaste volume is destined for landfills (Barba-Gutierrez et al., 2008). According to US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about 80-85% of e-waste was dumped in landfills
between 2003 and 2005 (Williams et al., 2008). Usually the gadgets take indefinite time to
degrade naturally in landfills and the leaching from landfills contaminates soil and
groundwater in the adjoining areas 4. If WEEE is incinerated, heavy metals come out in slag
and fly-ash. Incineration or open burning of EEE also releases in the atmosphere dioxin and
furan which are carcinogenic. As opposed to land-filling or open-burning, a preferred mode
of waste management is recycling. However, recycling of e-waste is often considered as a
postponement of the consequences of inadequate disposal through secondary products. Ewaste can also present a profitable enterprise through recycling. Precious metals like gold,
silver 5, palladium can be recovered from WEEE along with base metals like copper,
aluminium, iron etc (Hosoda, 2007). The amount of gold and silver extracted from used EEE
are considerable and ‘correspond to about 3% each of the world mine production for both
metals’ (Boeni et al., 2008).
3. Global Politics of E-waste Disposal
The politics of waste disposal shifts the burden of toxic e-waste management to the people in
underpriviledged and underdeveloped locations through illegal exports to developing nations.
The trajectory of e-waste passes through a network of formal and informal waste brokers,
auctioneers, dealers, and traders to finally reach the workers in the informal economy. A
disproportionate share of the environmental cost of WEEE management is borne by the poor
and marginalised sections in the informal sector who are involved in it in absence of other
gainful livelihood options. They adopt simple manual processes of dismantling and extraction
like ‘stripping of metals in open acid baths, removal of electronic components from printed
circuit boards by heating over a grill, recovering metals by burning cables and parts’ (Yu et
al., 2010) which cause extensive damage to the health and environment of the workers and
the resident population.
Domestic consumption of EEE has also increased in the developing world recently. Though
in industrialising countries like China and India per capita consumption lag far behind
developed nations, given the population figures, the WEEE emerging nationally in these
countries are fast increasing (Widmer et al., 2005). After United States, China is the second
largest generator of e-waste in the world, producing 2.3 million tonnes annually (UNEP,
2009). In Africa, the proportion of e-waste is fast increasing and posing serious challenges to
urban growth (Achankeng, 2003) and sustainability. It has been pointed out that unregulated
4
Forming only 1% of landfills, e-waste is responsible for (50 – 80) % of the heavy metals in leachate (Chiodo et
al., 2002 cited in Osibnajo & Nnorom, 2007).
5
Gold and silver are frequently recovered using acid baths (Williams, 2005).
3
e-waste trade adds to the escalating domestic production of WEEE in the developing world to
reach unmanageable proportions.
E-waste is exported to mainly countries in Asia and Africa to avoid expensive recycling and
disposal in the countries of use which have stringent environmental regulations (Yap, 2006).
The emerging economies of China and India receive huge proportion of the global e-scrap
(Widmer et al., 2005, Iles, 2004). Availability of cheap labour and absence of rigid
environmental and health regulations provide a congenial atmosphere for dumping e-waste in
Asia (Puckett and Smith, 2002). A distinguishing feature of a less developed country is the
existence of a large unemployed labour force prepared to undertake WEEE handling as a way
out of abject poverty. These people constitute the informal workers (often comprising of
impoverished migrants) who make their living under extremely precarious conditions without
any proper training or occupational health and safety measures. E-waste segregation and
disassembly are extremely tedious and labour-intensive processes with workers often
employing crude, primitive tools and techniques to extract the valuable components. These
backyard industries regularly use manual household labour, habitually women and children
taking apart small and intricate parts and components by bare hands. Some discarded
electronic equipments especially computers which are in reusable condition enter the
secondary markets in developing countries to provide low-priced options for people unable to
afford brand new products. E-waste reclamation in the developing nations also provides a
lucrative income generating activity, the economics of which bring in willing traders,
recyclers, scrap-dealers and refurbishers without adequate knowledge of the risks associated.
The enormous quantity of e-waste generation in a capitalist economy is hidden from the
regulatory authorities through overseas shipments. The trash industry functions as a
globalised system in which e-waste flows across countries to reach the informal sector for its
end-of-life (EoL) management. While the benefits from electronic and electrical production
and consumption accrue primarily to the formal sector, the informal economy handles the
resulting waste which is highly poisonous. By shirking the responsibility of appropriate and
expensive waste treatment, the formal sector channelizes the WEEE stream into the
unregulated and often invisible informal domain. The broader politics of waste production
and disposal moves the liability of e-waste treatment from the formal to the informal sector
where the bulk of WEEE recycling and disposal are concentrated. The transboundary
movement of e-waste is thus a ‘wider economic response to crisis’ (Meagher, 1995) of huge
increase in toxic e-waste production and its suitable management in recent times.
4. Regulating the Transboundary Movement of E-waste
The international material flow of e-waste is practically impossible to quantify with a large
part of this trade being hidden from the official radar. Both at the international and the
national level, there have been uncoordinated attempts to divert WEEE from unregulated
dumping in the landfills and to control the illegal scrap trade. Systems of accountability have
been envisioned to ensure that the producers and/or consumers bear the responsibility of ewaste management since they also derive the benefits from sales revenue or consumption.
However, such initiatives have been largely unsuccessful.
4
4.1 Basel Convention, the Ban and Regional and National Legislations
According to the UNEP, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements
of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal constitutes the ‘most comprehensive global
environmental agreement on hazardous and other wastes’ (UNEP, 2004). In the late 1980s, to
counter the expensive waste disposal options due to stricter environmental regulation, the
developed world resorted to sending hazardous waste to the developing countries (Yap,
2006). The Basel Convention was established in 1989 and enforced in 1992 to combat this
upsurge in the illegal transfer of noxious waste to less developed nations. E-waste was
recognised as hazardous under the Convention in 1998. The Convention requires all
exporting nations to obtain prior permission from the countries of import and even transit,
whether or not they are signatories to it (Asante-Duah et al., 1992). It currently has 172
parties who are obliged to guarantee that the WEEE exported be handled and managed in an
environmentally sound manner. In 1995, the Basel Ban Amendment was implemented to
prohibit illegal waste export from developed countries to developing countries (Puckett and
Smith, 2002). Presently with too few ratifications (only 28 countries), the Ban has not come
into force.
Ironically, one of the largest exporters of hazardous waste, the United States 6 has signed but
has not yet ratified the Convention 7. Even countries (like Canada, Japan, Australia, and South
Korea) who are parties to the Convention often flout it since it is not legally binding (Iles,
2004). Regularly junk materials (mainly computers) very close to their EoL are sent to
developing world in the name of charity since unless destined to be recycled or disposed,
EEE do not come under the Basel definition of hazardous waste. After the Basel Ban,
previously obsolete items are now coming in under the guise of usable product which are
exempted in the Ban (Shinkuma and Huong, 2008). Another severe limitation is that scrap
trade within Asia is not addressed by the Basel Ban (Iles, 2004). For all these reasons, the
Basel Convention and the Ban remains largely ineffective despite being the sole international
agreement of hazardous waste trade.
At the receiving end, several countries have also formulated specific policies to curb the entry
of toxic waste. In 1998, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) 8 decided in a summit in
Ethiopia to thereafter ban all waste trade deals with the global north. The decision has been
extended into an African Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste
and their Disposal which prohibits all types of waste shipments to the African continent
(Asante-Duah et al., 1992). In 2000 China and in 2001 Vietnam totally banned the import of
second hand EEE (Shinkuma and Huong, 2008). Despite strengthening the ban in 2002,
importation of e-waste still continue unabated in China due to weak implementation problems
(Williams et al., 2008). In 2004, Vietnam has also forbidden the import of E-waste scrap and
later prohibited its dismantling.
6
Estimates from the recycling industry show that out of the total e-waste collected for recycling in the US, 50%
to 80% are shipped off abroad (BAN/SVTC, 2002).
7
Apart from US, Afghanistan and Haiti have also signed but not ratified Basel Convention.
8
OAU was established in 1963 to promote the unity ad solidarity of independent African countries. It was
disbanded in 2002 and replaced by the African Union (AU).
5
4.2 EU Directives on E-waste
The scale of the European market for EEE is only second to the USA (Gay et al., 2006). The
EU countries consume a variety of such products and generate considerable quantities of
WEEE. In 2005, 8.3 million tonnes of e-waste was produced within Europe (Chem-Sec,
2010). The European Commission has taken pioneering steps to contain the menace of ewaste through ‘legislating take-backs or recycling systems and regulating the content of
toxics’ (Williams et al., 2008). The member states of the European Union are guided by the
following E-waste Directives which aim to uphold the principles of ‘reduce, reuse and
recycle’.
•
WEEE Directive: Requires mandatory recycling systems in place by August 2005 (C.
Hicks et al., 2005). WEEE has adopted regulations in five categories: (a) EEE product
design, (b) E-waste collection, (c) E-waste recovery, (d) E-waste treatment and treatment
financing and (e) EEE user awareness (Kahhat et al., 2008). Its objective is to internalise
the environmental cost in product prices by requiring producers to take back their
products at its EoL.
•
RoHS (Restriction on Hazardous Substances) Directive: Requires phasing out of 6
hazardous substances 9 in EEE and bans their usage in the ones put on the market after
July, 2006 to find suitable alternatives materials. The purpose of RoHS is to control the
hazardous substances in recycled items (Terazono et al., 2006)
Hence the EU Directives hold the producer accountable for environmental implications of the
whole life-cycle of the product and requires the producer to provide product information to
treatment facilities, ensure collection infrastructure and finance WEEE management costs.
The European countries without any prior e-waste policies have sought an extension for the
adoption of the Directives. Concerns about the transfer of previous regulations (in Austria,
Belgium, Denmark and Sweden) and negotiations with different stakeholders about division
of responsibilities (in France) have postponed the adoption of the Directives (Kahhat et al.,
2008).
Apart from WEEE and RoHS Directives, the European community has also transposed the
Basel Convention by the Waste Shipment Regulation and from 1998 has prohibited the
export of hazardous wastes to non-OECD countries (European-Commission, 2010). But to
escape the scrap trade watchdogs, waste is persistently exported in the guise of products. In
the EU, trade in products is not covered under the Waste Shipment Regulation and following
the definition of product 10 provided by General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC, EEE
‘for reuse without prior refurbishment’ is exempted from the Regulation (Maxianova, 2008).
This loophole is regularly exploited by companies transporting WEEE from the European
countries. In 2005, 18 European seaports had more than 47% of illegal materials (including
WEEE) amidst waste destined offshore (Greenpeace, 2009).
9
The six hazardous substances are Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium, Polybrominated
Biphenyls (PBB) and Polybrominated Dipheynl Ethers (PBDE).
10
‘…. This definition shall not apply to second-hand products supplied as antiques or as products to be repaired
or reconditioned prior to being used, provided that the supplier clearly informs the person to whom he supplies
the product to that effect.’ (Directive 2001/95/EC of the European parliament cited in Maxianova, 2008)
6
4.3 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Based on the ‘Polluter-Pays’ principal, the concept of EPR strives to make the manufacturers
accountable for the environmental impact of their consumer products. The definition of EPR
according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD):
“An environmental policy approach in which producers’ responsibility for a product is
extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle including its final disposal”
(Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008, Widmer et al., 2005)
In the early 1990s, the term EPR was first coined by Thomas Lindhqvist. EPR takes into
consideration the entire life-cycle of the product to connect it to the design stage (Lee et al.,
2006). Through the implementation of EPR, the producers would have the incentive of using
more environmentally sound products or designs in the upstream manufacturing process since
the obligation for the EoL management of the equipment rests on them. There are various
approaches to EPR where a product take back can be either be regulatory or voluntary and
can be enabled through different administrative (recovery obligation, emission limits, landfill
bans), informative (environmental labelling and reports) and economic (product taxes,
advance recycling fees or ARFs, virgin material taxes) instruments (Nnorom and Osibanjo,
2008). In practice, mandatory programmes of EPR are expected to yield better results since
waste management is expensive and are thereby usually avoided. EPR should take care of the
overall volume of waste by preventing and reducing waste, incorporating environmentally
benign materials and designs in production, promoting use of reusable and recyclable
materials and minimizing natural resource extraction.
EPR is mandated in the European Union through the WEEE Directive and the RoHS
Directive. Japan 11 has mandated take-back programmes and upstream design conditions
(Puckett and Smith, 2002). Many developing countries have also reproduced forms of EPR in
their country to successfully guide an environment friendly management of e-waste. China,
South Korea and Taiwan through different national legislations have obligated manufactures,
distributors and retailers to undertake reuse, disassembly or disposal themselves or pay fees
to recycling management bodies.
Though EPR has received much attention in the international policy circle, it is not without
contention. Scholarship on WEEE management has evaluated the merits of EPR and has
suggested alternate schemes for implementation. But it has not been able to throw any light
on a fair share of responsibility among the diverse stakeholders involved in manufacturing.
If production determines responsibility then since Asia has emerged as an important
computer manufacturing region, it should shoulder its share of take-back (Iles, 2004). But in
reality often these Asian companies work as subcontractors to giant multinationals and only
tackle a small component of production for them. In such cases, division of responsibility
between the different subcontractors supplying a mother manufacturing company is too
complicated an issue. Greater the number of players in the business, more difficult it is to
11
Under the Home Appliances Recycling Law enforced in 2001 in Japan, manufacturers and retailers are
obliged to accept the discarded common household appliances from the consumers who are charged for it. The
Law for promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources mandates manufactures to accept personal computers
for recycling the cost of which can be added to the product price (Terazono et al., 2006).
7
ascertain responsibility (Terazono et al., 2006). In the developing nations, appropriate takeback options are not mandated and/or implemented and the bulk of WEEE ends up in the
informal sector.
5.
Explaining the transboundary movement of E-waste
Despite international, regional and national efforts to arrest the flow of e-waste between
countries, the scrap export not only continues but keeps growing steadily. The globalised
system of e-waste movement demands a more comprehensive understanding of the
motivations behind the transboundary e-waste trajectory. To discern the reasons behind this
persistent and increasing transnational traffic, the environmental degradation associated with
informal e-waste recycling is located in the broader social and historical politics of waste
management. The rationale behind this waste transfer from the formal sector of production
and consumption to the informal sector of recycling can be categorised into the following.
5.1
Economic factors
It is simple economic logic that guides the scrap trade to developing countries. In the US
normally the cost of formally recycling a home computer is 20 US $ while informal recycling
is only 4 US $ in India (Gattuso, 2005). Complicated EEE demands manual disassembly to
remove the valuable parts from the trash in a cost effective manner. Hence ready availability
of cheap labour is a prerequisite for the labour intensive dismantling and/or recycling of such
products (Iles, 2004). Also the numerous kinds of such gadgets flooding the market is a real
hurdle for the development of any standardised method of automated recycling (ibid). In the
developing economies due to lack of adequate employment opportunities and deeply
entrenched poverty, there is always a pool of unemployed workforce who are willing to work
at minimum wage or even lower.
The income generated from informal waste recycling and refurbishing contributes to the
emergence of huge informal scrap yards. The presence of a ready secondary market for
electronic and electrical items and high resale value of the precious metals recovered are two
main factors which create substantial demand for obsolete and/or reusable EEE in the
developing countries like those in Asia where traditionally waste is considered as a resource
(C. Hicks et al., 2005). EEE typically contains elements like gold, silver, platinum and copper
which have high resale value and thus earns lucrative returns (Sinha- Khetriwal et al., 2005).
Hence it provides a profitable business option and there is seldom a dearth of interested scrap
dealers, waste traders and big recyclers who find e-waste dumping rewarding.
5.2
Institutional factors
Nationally, there exist different institutional restrictions regarding e-waste management in the
advanced and developing countries with very strict environmental regulations in the former
against relatively lenient policies in the latter. Without appropriate institutional infrastructure,
the regulatory frameworks which are in place in the industrialising countries are not duly
enforced (Widmer et al., 2005). To hide the environmental and health hazards from the
concerned authorities, the main site of e-waste recycling or disposal is the informal sector
8
(where cheap labour is commonly available) in those countries where sustainable
management of e-waste is not practised. As the environmental regulations become more
stringent in the advanced nations, the volume of e-waste shipped off illegally increases.
Gattuso (2005) have argued that due to the imposition of a ban on desktops from municipal
landfills in the US, the scrap export has increased to countries where there is no such ban.
Thus the so-called ‘recyclers’ in the US in reality act as scrap brokers since actual e-waste
management proves to be an expensive operation when one is forced to abide by the
prevailing environmental standards.
5.3
Technological factors
The scrap trade is often rationalised in the name of transferring advanced knowledge to the
industrialising world. Many contend that this would bridge the digital gap by bringing in the
fruits of sophisticated technology which can be imitated and learned from. Through recycling
technologically superior products the industrialising countries would eventually adopt an
appropriately technocratic route to industrialisation and development. Further, working
second hand items which are discarded in the advanced economies would provide
inexpensive opportunities via secondary resale markets (Agarwal et al., 2003) to those who
would have otherwise been deprived from usage. Primarily computers which are deemed
obsolete due to rapid technological improvements in the global north can contribute to digital
learning for poorer communities worldwide. As donations and charity items, thousands of
computers are shipped off to schools in rural areas for imparting electronic education to
underprivileged children. Reuse is ideally an environmentally friendly concept, but the items
designated for reuse very soon reach their EoL (end of life) and their addition to waste is
merely postponed for a short period (Puckett and Smith, 2002). Also, second-hand items are
rarely tested for functionality and often completely junk devices find their way in developing
nations (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007) using the loopholes created by many governments who
criminalise scrap dumping but not the secondary goods.
5.4
Environmental factors
In 1991, the then Chief Economist of the World Bank, Larry Summers, in an internal memo,
justified the Bank’s motivation behind encouraging the migration of dirty industries to the
less developed countries (Vallette, 1999, Boyce et al., 2007). Widmer et al (2005) summarise
Summers’ logic for dumping toxic waste as the LDCs losing least productivity from
increased morbidity and mortality, having enough clean air and water to afford pollution
trading schemes and being unable to afford environmental protection which is a luxury of the
rich.
Even if one does not endorse this extreme line of thought, it is true that the concern for a
certain standard of environmental quality is believed to be for the affluent; the poor who are
worried about their daily bread cannot afford it. Ingelhart’s Post-materialist Thesis (1971,
1977) puts forward a similar idea. Based on the experience in industrialised nations, the thesis
postulates a shift from materialist to post-materialist values whereby the concern for a
9
standard environmental quality arises only when the basic economic needs have been met
(Martinez-Alier, 1995).
6. Environmental Injustice in E-waste streams and Neo-Ecological Imperialism
Notwithstanding the reasons, the fact remains that much of the developed nations’ WEEE
ends up in the developing economies of the world. There is a high persistence of informality
in the waste collection and recycling infrastructure in the industrialising nations (Boeni et al.,
2008). The informal workers directly face adverse effects on their health since e-waste
dismantling, sorting, and reclaiming exposes them to an extremely toxic and risky
environment. The uneven weight of environmental problems borne by the marginalised and
the disenfranchised engaged in informal WEEE management contravenes the principles of
global environmental justice (EJ).
The basic idea of EJ is to ensure equitable spatial distribution of environmental risks (in
conjunction with broader social justice issues) irrespective of race and colour, class,
nationality, ethnicity, gender or religion. Historically, some communities have often
shouldered an unequal burden due to societal power structures and prejudiced institutional
mechanisms. EJ calls for a balance in the share of environmental benefits and costs on
diverse sections of people over time and space whereby it has been highlighted that the poor,
the minorities, the socio-economically weak and the powerless have been traditionally
exposed to greater environmental ills and lesser benefits. The right to a clean and safe
environment has been enshrined in the Rio Earth Summit (UN Convention) in 1992 (Cutter,
1995). Disparate environmental outcome for underpriviledged groups is an infringement on
human rights by its violation of distributional justice and procedural justice. Distributional
justice questions the inequitable distribution of environmental burdens on differentiated
group of people focussing on the rights of low-income and minority communities (Bullard
1994). Procedural justice highlights the procedures that should be followed to guarantee
distributive justice (Floyd & Johnson, 2002) and uncovers the unfairness in decision-making
processes and policy formulation which typically exclude marginalised sections of the
society.
In the international waste regime, environmental injustice is inflicted at a different spatial
scale onto the disadvantaged populations in the less developed nations by transnational
dumping of noxious e-waste. Iles (2004) contends that WEEE characteristically reaches areas
where ‘pre-existing institutional and political conditions intersect with social and economic
developments to create vulnerable populations’. The labourers engaged in the EoL treatment
of e-waste are extremely vulnerable without any protection or rights. They suffer
disproportionate environmental health costs by working in contaminated, polluted
surroundings and employing unsafe methods and techniques. The resultant distributional
injustice is revealed in their compulsion to clean up other (more affluent) people’s waste. The
distributional discrimination in e-waste is not only limited to a north-south phenomenon, it
can also be prevalent within the geographical confines of a nation. For instance, in California,
prison workers are exploited by the recycling companies (in alliance with the state) without
benefits and wages as low as 26 cents an hour (Puckett and Smith, 2002). Following the
10
dependency framework one can look at this as the creation of core and periphery like
situations within the same society where the disadvantaged bears the brunt of disparate health
and ecological impact (Adeola, 2000). Also, these communities are never offered the
opportunity of participating in crucial decision-making which have direct bearing for their
quality of life and livelihood. Hence procedural justice is ignored by the formulation of
policies which favour the powerful elite at the expense of vulnerable groups. Neither in
international agreements or national legislations is the opinion of the people who are actually
involved in dangerous e-waste processing sought or regarded. They are systematically
excluded from democratic participation by being relegated to the margins of important
environmental policies and decisions (ibid).
The international WEEE dumping is a manifestation of the capitalist nexus between
consumerism, waste and recycling which culminates in such environmental injustice taking
the shape of waste imperialism. The idea of ecological imperialism was originally articulated
by Alfred Crosby where he analyzed the phase of European colonization in terms of the
destruction of the indigenous environments and its biological resources (Foster and Clark,
2004). In the current era, underdeveloped locations are exploited by the externalization of the
hazards associated with waste piling and recycling resulting in the contemporary form of
ecological imperialism(Foster and Clark, 2004). Capitalist accumulation is aided by the
profits from expanding electronic production and consumption. But the ensuing waste is not
treated in an environmentally responsible manner by the manufacturers and the users due to
the heavy expenditures involved. Rather WEEE is transported to spaces where the population
engages in unsafe recycling and disposal in dearth of adequate livelihood options. The
consequent damage on the health, economy and environment of the residing communities is
irreversible (Network, 1989). Thus at the cost of the immediate environmental quality in the
richer parts of the world, neo-ecological imperialism turns the underdeveloped regions into
garbage dumps by the transnational movement of poisonous e-waste. The exploitation of
marginalised locations and vulnerable populations is further aggravated under globalization.
Globalization has connected remote corners of the world in a system of dependency,
cooperation and exploitation. Over the last couple of decades, uneven world development has
increased the inequality between the rich and the poor across and within countries. The
current practice of toxic WEEE dumping intensifies the gap between a group of people who
enjoys the benefits of technological advancement under globalization and another who are on
the wrong side of it. The boom in information and communication industry and a globally
competitive market have encouraged the use of EEE by the growing population in the urban
and peri-urban areas. Fast progress in information technology has led to the development of
products with very short lifespans. The average life-span of a computer has reduced from 6
years in 1997 to less than 2 years in 2005 (Oteng-Ababio, 2010). The continuous process of
obsolescence of EEE persuades people with increasing purchasing power to indulge in the
latest innovations in the field. As new commodities are introduced with growing frequency,
the older ones get discarded rapidly. This pattern of consumerism is reminiscent of Thorstein
Veblen’s conspicuous consumption (The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1899) where to display
social status and wealth, individuals indulge in extravagant spending on goods and services.
There is econometric proof to support Veblen’s thesis in the contemporary era (Bagwell and
11
Bernheim, 1996). The market for electrical and electronic goods and other luxury items
largely thrive on the prestige and status people associate with the ownership (preferably
exclusive) of these products. Such a consumption oriented society can only be maintained by
continuous appropriation of nature. Consequently, there is escalating natural resource
extraction and depletion putting severe pressure on environmental sustainability under
information capitalism.
On the other hand, capitalism in its current neoliberal avatar has upheld market
environmentalism in a bid to portray a sustainable front. Ecological services are being
calculated in capitalist cost estimation and traded in the market to ensure efficient allocation
of environmental resources. But the commodification of nature and environment can not alter
the basic unsustainable and unjust character of capitalist production and consumption which
is evident in the generation of enormous quantities of toxic waste. Global environmental
inequality and injustice are aggravated through the toxic colonialism manifested in the
international transfer of this noxious waste (Pellow, 2007). The injustice is further deepened
by the neoliberal regime of privatization and deregulation which has systematically pushed a
group of people into exploitative and hazardous livelihood like e-waste processing. These
workers are usually in the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder and essentially
restricted in livelihood choices. Withdrawal of state support and subsidies from agriculture,
cutback in government spending on health and education, reduction in public sector jobs have
gradually resulted in a larger trend towards temporary, insecure, flexible and informal forms
of employment without worker protection and rights (Standing, 2008, Beneria, 2001, Gallin,
2001).
7. Conclusion
Instead of assuming the responsibility of environmentally safe waste management facilities,
the capitalist system deals with the problem through global toxic waste trade. The scrap
traffic shifts the weight and repercussions of e-waste processing onto the informal sector as
toxic rubbish is often illegally dumped (Network, 1989) at a huge social and environmental
cost to the informal waste-worker. Considering the entire life cycle of EEE, a stark contrast
can be observed in the level of technological sophistication in the production process of
advanced EEE (including IT) vis-à-vis the rudimentary methods deployed in the EoL
management infrastructure of the same products. This exposes a crucial disparity in the
investment for Research and Development (R&D) undertaken at the upstream and the
downstream of the product. Rather than investing in proper waste treatment and suitable
recycling infrastructure which are environmentally benign (Puckett and Smith, 2002), the
WEEE is routed to places where it is handled, segregated and managed at very low cost by
the impoverished labourers. These workers can be located in the global south or
industrialising economies or even in deprived areas of an advanced country. There is no
denying the role of capitalist formal sector in the production of huge quantities of e-waste but
the burden of management is shifted on the informal sector in this neo-ecological
imperialism.
12
The environmentally detrimental side of capitalist production and its socio-economic
organization is exposed in the colossal creation of waste. The unprecedented volume of toxic
waste generation remains largely concealed from the regulatory institutions through
transporting the waste. The international landscape of e-waste spans national borders through
illegal shipments. Without understanding the global dimension of the e-waste trajectory and
the role of the formal sector as the primary source of waste production, any regulation
directed at the informal sector or the trash export would inevitably fail. This is apparent when
increasing regulations in a country (example of United States mentioned before)
inadvertently leads to more illegal transfer of e-waste to regions with less stringent
regulations. Recycling units in the developed countries have to abide by the strict
environmental regulations and hence involve huge capital investment. The failure of
regulations to control the transnational WEEE flow is not an accident. Regulations are
deliberately circumvented by the capitalist electronics industry and the burden of expensive
recycling activities is relocated to the informal economy.
The narrative of the WEEE originates in the formal sector of electronics manufacturing and
consumption and travels along quasi-legal channels in a globally aggregated system
contributing to the concentration of e-waste processing in the informal sphere. The process of
transboundary movement of WEEE systematically shifts the responsibility of harmful ewaste management onto vulnerable groups and communities who are consequently subjected
to outright environmental injustice. Historically the system of capitalist accumulation has
progressed through the exploitation of labour power and the destruction of the ecosystem.
The inhabitants of the underdeveloped locations deprived from healthy employment
opportunities under neoliberal policy reforms, bear the brunt of hazardous disposal and
recycling in a regime of systemic exploitation. They have to endure the unequal distributive
impact of environmental pollution by being forced into unsafe waste processing. The failure
of regulations to stop the transboundary movement of e-waste and guarantee environmentally
sound management deepens the inequality in the contemporary form of ecological
imperialism.
REFERENCES
ACHANKENG, E. Year. Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste
management in Africa. In: African Studies Association of Australassis and the
pacific, 2003.
ADEOLA, F. O. 2000. Cross-National Environmental Justice and Human Rights: A Review
of Evidence in the Developing World. American Behavioural Scientist 43, 686-706.
ASANTE-DUAH, D. F., SACCOMANNO, F. F. & SHORTREED, J. H. 1992. The
Hazardous Waste Trade: Can it be Controlled? Environmental Science and
Technology, 26, 1684-1693.
BAGWELL, L. S. & BERNHEIM, B. D. 1996. Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous
Consumption The American Economic Review, 86, 349-373.
BARBA-GUTIERREZ, Y., ADENSO-DıAZ, B. & HOPP, M. 2008. An Analysis of some
Environmental Consequences of European Electrical and Electronic Waste
Regulation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 481–495.
13
BENERIA, L. 2001. Shifting the Risk: New Employment Patterns, Informalization, and
Women's Work. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 15, 27-53.
BOENI, H., SILVA, U. & OTT, D. 2008. E-Waste Recycling in Latin America: Overview,
Challenges and Potential. EMPA.
BOYCE, J. K., NARAIN, S. & STANTON, E. A. (eds.) 2007. Recaliming Nature:
Environmental Justice and Eclogical Restoration, New York: Anthem Press.
C. HICKS, R. DIETMARA & EUGSTER, M. 2005. The Recycling and Disposal of
Electrical and Electronic Waste in China: Legislative and Market Responses.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 459– 471.
CHEM-SEC. 2010. Toxic Chemicals, Electronic products and e-waste – Some figures
[Online]. Göteborg, Sweden: The International Chemical Secretariat. Available:
http://chemsec.org/images/stories/publications/Downloads/090604_Toxic_Chemicals
_electronic_products_and_e-waste__Some_figures.pdf [Accessed November 9 2010].
CUTTER, S. L. 1995. Race, Class and Environmental Justice. Progress in HUman
Geography, 19, 111-122.
EUROPEAN-COMMISSION.
2010.
Waste
Shipments
[Online].
Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/background.htm
[Accessed
November 9 2010].
FOSTER, J. B. & CLARK, B. 2004. Ecological Imperialism: The Curse of Capitalism. In:
PANITCH, L. & LEYS, C. (eds.) The New Imperialism: Socialist Register 2004. The
Merlin Press.
GALLIN, D. 2001. Propositions on Trade Unions and Informal Employment in Times of
Globalisation. Antipode, 33, 531-549.
GATTUSO, D. J. 2005. A Lose-lose-lose Proposition. Washington DC: Competitive
Enterprise Insititute.
GAY, R., LEE, H. M., LU, W. F. & SONG, B. 2006. The Framework of Information Sharing
in End-of-Life for Sustainable Product Development. International Conference on
Industrial Informatics.
GREENPEACE.
2008.
Illegal
E-waste
Exposed
[Online].
Available:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/illegal-e-wasteexposed140708/ [Accessed 22 July 2010].
GREENPEACE. 2009. Where does E-waste end up? [Online]. Available:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-wasteproblem/where-does-e-waste-end-up/ [Accessed 22 July 2010].
HOSODA, E. 2007. International aspects of recycling of electrical and electronic equipment:
Material Circulation in the East Asian region. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 9, 140-150.
ILES, A. 2004. Mapping Environmantal Justice in Technology Flows: Computer Waste
Impacts in Asia. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 76-107.
KAHHAT, R., KIMA, J., XUA, M., ALLENBYA, B., WILLIAMS, E. & ZHANGA, P.
2008. Exploring E-waste Management Systems in the United States. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 52, 955–964.
LEVINSON, T., FOLMAN, C. & LIETZMANN, J. 2008. E-waste legislation in the
European Union and the Basel Convention. In: JOHRI, R. (ed.) E-waste:
implications, regulations, and management in India and current global best practices.
New Delhi, India: The Energy and Resource Institute.
MANOMAIVIBOOL, P. 2009. Extended producer responsibility in a non-OECD context:
The management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 53, 136-144.
14
MARTINEZ-ALIER, J. 1995. The Environment as a Luxury Good or "too Poor to be
Green"? Ecological Economics, 13, 1-10.
MAXIANOVA, K. 2008. Shipments of Electronic Waste: Providing the Right Incentives
through Regulation and Enforcement. Review of European Community and
International Environmental Law, 17, 270-278.
MEAGHER, K. 1995. Crisis, Informalization and the Urban Informal Sector in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Development and Change, 26, 259–284.
MUNDADA, M. N., KUMAR, S. & SHEKDAR, A. V. 2004. E-waste: a new challenge for
waste management in India. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 61, 265–
279.
NETWORK, T. W. 1989. Toxic Waste Dumping in the Third World: Third World Network.
Race and Class, 30, 47-56.
NNOROM, I. C. & OSIBANJO, O. 2007. The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste)
management in developing countries. Waste Management & Research, 25, 489–501.
NNOROM, I. C. & OSIBANJO, O. 2008. Overview of electronic waste (e-waste)
management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing
countries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52, 843–858.
O'CONNOR, J. 1994. Is Sustainable Capitalism Possible? In: CONNOR, M. (ed.) Is
Capitalism Sustainable? Poliical Economy and the Politics of Ecology. New York:
The Guilford Press.
O'CONNOR, J. 1998. Natural Causes :Essays in Ecological Marxism, New York, Guildford
Press.
OTENG-ABABIO, M. 2010. E-waste: An Emerging Challenge to Solid Waste Managemnt in
Ghana. International Development Planning Review, 32, 191-206.
PUCKETT, J. & SMITH, T. 2002. Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. The
Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC).
ROBINSON, B. H. 2009. E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental
impacts. Science of Total Environment, 408, 183-191.
SHINKUMA, T. & HUONG, N. T. M. 2008. The flow of E-waste material in the Asian
region and a reconsideration of international trade policies on E-waste. Environmental
Impact Assessment review.
SINHA- KHETRIWAL, D., KRAUECHI, P. & SCHWANING, M. 2005. A comparison of
electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in India. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 25, 492-504.
SOPER, K. 2003. Waste Matters. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 14, 129-134.
STANDING, G. 2008. Economic Insecurity and Global Casualisation: Threat or Promise?
Social Indicators Research, 88, 15-30.
TERAZONO, A., MURAKAMI, S., ABE, N., INANC, B., MORIGUCHI, Y. & JAIN, A.
2006. Current status and research on E-waste issues in Asia. Journal of Material
Cycles and waste Management, 8, 1-12.
UNEP. 2004. Basel Convention [Online]. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Available: www.basel.int/ [Accessed March 25 2010].
UNEP 2009. Recycling- From E-waste to Resources. Berlin: United Nations Environment
Programme & United Nations University.
VALLETTE, J. 1999. Larry Summers' War Against the Earth [Online]. Available:
http://www.counterpunch.org/summers.html [Accessed 2 April 2010].
WIDMER, R., KRAPF, H., BONI, H., SINHA-KETRIWAL, D. & SCHNELLMAN, M.
2005. Global Perspectives on E-Waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25,
436– 458.
15
WILLIAMS, E. Year. International Activities on E-Waste and Guidelines for Future Work.
In: Third Workshop on Material and Waste Mangement in Asia, National Institute of
Environmental Sceiences: Tsukuba, Japan, 2005.
WILLIAMS, E., KAHHAT, R., ALLENBY, B., XU, M. & JUNBEUM, K. 2008.
Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of Global Reuse and Recycling of
Personal Computers. Environmental Science and Technology, 42, 6446-6454.
YAP, L. 2006. The basel Convention and Golbal Environment (Non) Goveneance:
Transformismo and the Case of Electronic Wastes. Undercurrent, 3.
YU, J., WILLIAMS, E., JU, M. & SHAOA, C. 2010. Managing e-waste in China: Policies,
pilot projects and alternative approaches. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54,
991-999.
16