Managing India’s WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) through EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility)

By Rusha Das, FPM II, PSG IIMA

Electronic waste or e-waste is defined as any electrical and electronic equipment or its parts that have been discarded by the owner of the product as waste without any intention of reuse (Step Initiative, 2014). The composition of e-waste contains both hazardous and non-hazardous material that can cause serious health and environmental issues. The e-waste economy consists of both organized and unorganized players responsible for handling, dismantling and recycling activities. While the formal sector accounts for a small percentage of the total e-waste market, in most developing countries it is still the informal sector that has the dominant share. Various provisions including the Basel Convention, EU WEEE Directive have been adopted by national legislation to address this global issue of e-waste.

The “Extended Producer Responsibility” is a popular framework adopted around the world in e-waste management. Conceived during the early nineties the framework provides incentives to the producers to design products that are easy to reuse and recycle, with a lesser amount of hazardous material discarded at the EOI (end of life)(Lifset, 1993; Lindqvuist and Lifset, 2003). The framework was first implemented in Germany in 1992, through its legislation on packaging waste. The framework was further adopted in other EU member states. The model soon was implemented for other waste streams such as batteries, household appliances, chemicals, paper and tires in other European nations (EU and Bio Intelligence, 2012). Similar laws have been adopted in other countries such as US, Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea etc. (Chung and Suzuki, 2008; Khetriwal et al., 2005; Khahat et al., 2008). Another important aspect of the EPR is to provide correct incentives to the producers for incorporating design changes in the product for environmental considerations.

India adopted the EPR framework in 2011 to regulate e-waste under the E-Waste Management Handling Rules, 2011. The new rules of 2016, had assigned phase wise collection targets for producers of e-waste. Recent amendments of 2017 have further relaxed the collection targets for both existing and new producers and raise the question on the legitimacy of the regulatory institutions. The rule is applicable to all producers, bulk consumers, collection centers, recyclers and dismantlers of e-waste except for micro-enterprises, lead-acid batteries, and radioactive wastes. The categories of e-waste were 1) IT and telecommunication Equipment; 2) Consumer Electricals and Electronics- TV, AC, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, Fluorescent and mercury-containing lamps.

The producers can implement the EPR framework either through take-back systems or set up collection centers or both and channelize e-waste to registered recyclers and dismantlers approved by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The producers need to have agreements with registered recyclers and dismantlers either individually or collectively or through Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs). Waste generated for final treatment, disposal and storage will fall under the ambit of hazardous waste rules (management, handling, and trans-boundary movement) of 2008.

It has been over six years since the introduction of the rules. It is, however, unknown whether the recent amendments have resulted in any changes in the e-waste scenario. Attempts in the recent past include a research article published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology by Professor Ram Mohan Turaga of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and Professor Kalyan Bhaskar of XLRI-Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur. Using an exploratory study methodology they found that though the number of registered recyclers had gone up from 23-150, only 15% of the e-waste was channelized through the formal sector. Second, awareness regarding e-waste rules was found to be low among bulk consumers (around 70%). Third, the lack of manpower at the state regulatory office (State Pollution Control Board) was a major concern. Most producers in their sample did not comply with the authorization requirements of the state despite being aware of the e-waste rules and also explicitly stating the rules on their website. It was also clear that consumer would choose between authorized collection centers /recyclers and informal scrap dealers based on economic concern.

The above study does raise some important policy concerns such as the introduction of an appropriate incentive system that would encourage consumers to go through the formal route, introduction of phase wise collection targets and integration of the informal sector. Though the new rules of 2016 have incorporated a deposit refund system as an incentive mechanism and have set up collection targets but have failed to integrate the informal sector. Most of the countries with successfully EPR implementation in the area of e-waste management are mostly run by the government. For example in Switzerland, the EPR is run by two independent PROs the SWICO and SENS that have a nationwide acceptance and have over 500 collection centers and thousands of retailers for taking back. Thus they enjoy economies of scale and offer customer friendly services. Further, multiple control points have been set up to check for free-riding pilferage and quality of e-waste. Japan has separate legislation namely the LPUR and the LRHA (that adopts the EPR framework) and has a visible fee imposed on consumers upon disposal.

Unless the government takes a step forward in setting up collection centers, adopts measures for skill development of the informal sector, sets up control points to check for operation on the ground and the producers stop looking at recyclers as the extended arm for collection EPR in e-waste will still remain a challenge.

Article:

Bhaskar, K., Turaga, R., M., R. (2017). Indian E-Waste Rules and Their Impact on E-Waste Practices: A Case Study, Journal of Industrial Ecology.