Models for E-Waste Management

Table of Contents
1 Introducti3
1.1 3
1.2 Sources of e-Waste in India .............................................................................................3
1.3 Current Practice ...............................................................................................................3
1.4 Objective: Implementation of an e-Waste Management System for India......................4
2 Necessary Building Blocks ......................................................................................................6
2.1 Legal Framework.............................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Extended Producer’s Responsibility (EPR) ......................................................................6
2.1.2 All stakeholder participation and coordination.................................................................7
2.2 Secure Financing: what needs to be financed? ................................................................8
2.3 Awareness and education:................................................................................................9
3 Individual and Collective Producer Responsibility: 2 Pillars of e-Waste Management..........9
3.1 Proposed Individual Producer Responsibility Model ......................................................9
3.2 Proposed Collective Producer Responsibility Model ....................................................12
3.3 Involving the Informal Sector........................................................................................15
4 Feedback from Stakeholders..................................................................................................16
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The electronics industry is the world’s largest and fastest growing industry and is
recognised as one of the engines of economic development in India. The last decade
has seen tremendous growth in the field of information technology all over the world,
especially in developing countries like India. This growth, combined with rapidly
increasing product obsolescence and consumer choices, has brought in a new kind of
waste – electronic waste or e-waste. This ever-increasing waste has very complex
characteristics and requires an equally complex set of efficient technology and
processes to deal with it.
Management of electronic waste is a much more formidable challenge in developing
countries on account of lack of proper infrastructure, poor legislation and awareness
among citizens. Also at stake are the livelihoods of a large number of urban poor
involved in processing and recycling of e-waste. India today generates a huge quantity
of electronic waste - rough estimate suggest 145,000 tonnes annually - which is
handled across many cities in India, mainly in the informal sector, exposing poor
workers to environment and occupational health risks.
1.2 Sources of e-Waste in India
The main generators of electrical and electronic waste in India are government
institutions and the public and private sector, accounting for almost 70 per cent of the
total waste. The contribution from individual households, currently relatively small, is
also likely to grow appreciably in future. Manufacturers of components and
assemblers are another important source of e-waste generation in the country.
However, it is extremely difficult to capture the exact quantity of waste generation by
this group.
The import of e-waste, which is illegal, is another major source and preliminary
estimates do point that the quantity being brought in is very significant. This takes
place both in a legal as well as quasi-legal way, since e-waste is either misclassified as
‘metal scrap’ or imported as second hand or ‘end-of-life’ goods, which soon become
waste.
1.3 Current Practice
E-waste processing in India is mostly managed by a very well networked informal
sector. Most of these operators are neither registered nor authorised and operate in a
clandestine manner. Research has shown that some steps of the recycling chain,
especially related to material recovery, are highly dangerous and risky.
These operations are well connected to the supply chain processes of sourcing the raw
material to finding markets for the recovered materials during post-recycling
operation. The actual processing is carried out in small clusters, behind closed doors,
often located on the periphery of the city. Some of the processes include open burning
of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) wires, acid bath, use of toxic chemicals such as
Mercury and Cyanide, heating of lead solders, etc. These processes are highly toxic
impacting both environment and human health.
Some of the immediate and long-term impacts of the current practices are as follows:
- Release of toxics into air, water and soil
- Health concerns to the workers involved directly in such operations;
- Low recovery of materials due to rudimentary processes (loss of resources);
- Loss of revenue to state as these recycling centres are not covered under any
regulation
- Disproportionate sharing of profits between the actors of the recycling chain.
- “cherry-picking” scenario: only valuable waste is taken care of. Batteries for
example, are dumped and are slowly poisoning soil and underground water.
Though the existing e-waste recyclers are often blamed for the dramatic environmental
impact generated in this sector, it is often forgotten that they played a crucial role in
preventing Indian cities from suffocating under piles of waste. This sector, which
provides livelihood to thousands of people throughout India, would render any attempt
to organise a system in parallel a failure.
1.4 Objective: Implementation of an e-Waste Management
System for India
Due to the increasing volumes of e-waste generated and the glaring inadequacies in its
management there is, more than ever, a necessity to evolve a sustainable solution for
managing e-waste in India. The objective of this note is to evolve a consensus on the
road map for a regulated, environmentally respectable and socially acceptable
management of e-waste in the country. Such a system would provide:
A convenient collection and disposal system for large and small consumers to
return all their e-waste safely.
A mandatory system for concerned producers to care for their product beyond its
useful life.
A regulated system where all stakeholders have clearly defined roles and
responsibilities, adhering strictly to existing environmental and social legislation.
Moreover, the following challenges, related to the current situation, should be kept in
mind all along this note.
To achieve a broad consensus, where all relevant stakeholders are involved in the
design and realisation of the model.
 To create a debate both at national and regional level, in order to define a successful
model
To operate accepted and effective platforms where strategies are developed
which enable 'informed and smart' decision making.
To include the informal sector, currently playing a pivotal role in e-waste
management, in any new plan for e-waste management for India.
To organise a complementary formal system additional to the existing informal
seems).
To relax the burden and capacity limits of the municipal waste management
systems in tackling e-waste which is as world-wide experience show beyond their
capabilities.
To motivate producers to lead a safe recycling and disposal of their products
through an efficient and effective waste management.
To assign roles to all stakeholders and ensure they play them well and fair
The main objective of this concept note is to create a consensus amongst all the
stakeholders in arriving at an acceptable and feasible solution for all in India. The aim
is also to raise issues that stimulate the necessary debate to fine-tune the proposed
models, paving the way towards a regulated and organised e-waste management
system in India.
The various steps in providing a new direction to WEEE management system in India
are the following:
• Conceptualising and defining the necessary building blocks for a proper ewaste
management model in India.
• Creating a broad consensus amongst the various stakeholders of WEEE
management system about the viability of the proposed EPR models.
• Implementation of the EPR model.
• Legislation based on regular monitoring and evaluation of the model.
This concept note focuses on the first step, thereby, proposing the building blocks for
an e-waste management system for India. The optimal model for India would only
emerge after necessary deliberations and dialogue over the building blocks and a broad
consensus over the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. Moreover, we
also suggest that these building blocks would be essential for any suggested model be
it a Collective Responsibility or an Individual Responsibility Model. The Collective
Responsibility Model bestows the management responsibilities of the entire system to
a collective industry body referred to as the Producer Responsibility Organization. The
Individual Responsibility Model, on the other hand, suggests that individual producers
design the optimal management system for the e-waste generated by their products.
Since both models have certain disadvantages, in addition to their distinct advantages,
a combination of the two models might constitute the optimal model for India.
However, as mentioned above, the building blocks for both the models, discussed in
detail below, remain the same and are the focus of this concept note.
2 Necessary Building Blocks
2.1 Legal Framework
A regulatory framework besides being regulatory is also enabling if the proper
implementation body exists. In the case of e-waste a proper regulatory framework
would need to enable proper collection and recycling and to ‘set the rules’ therein.
Clear-cut responsibilities and requirements go a long way in ensuring that there is
adequate investment by responsible actors on the ground, and not providing that clarity
only continues the chaos.
Moreover, as stated above, the legal framework needs to ensure the health and safety
standards of the people involved in the operations, along with issues of emissions to
the environment and waste emerging from such operations. Several laws already
tackle down these aspects, though there are no guidelines explaining how they apply to
e-waste. A first crucial step is to look at these existing laws and define clearly their
application to e-waste recycling. A specific legislation for e-waste can then be
formulated to “fill the gaps” not covered by existing law.
Further, it is essential not only to streamline the existing set-ups but also to attract
recyclers who make the recycling process safe and efficient. Government incentives
like land, financial subsidies, etc. can go a long way in ensuring a viable collection and
recycling system. Therefore any legislation must be in line with right incentives for the
involved stakeholders.
Therefore, the discussion on e-waste legislation needs to draw up the critical
components, which can make a significant difference in supporting the system. Many
check-lists exist in the literature for reviewing the range and scope of a legislation.
Especially, the following questions need to be looked at by all stakeholders:
• What is the goal of the legislation?
• What is the scope of the legislation?
• Who is responsible? (Allocating responsibilities)
• How is the system financed? (if additional finances are needed)
• Setting collection and recycling targets
• Monitoring and compliance
2.1.1 Extended Producer’s Responsibility (EPR)
The most important component of any legislative exercise for establishing a WEEE
management system should be a focus on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is defined as an environmental protection
strategy that makes the manufacturer of the product responsible for the entire life cycle
of the product and especially for take back, recycling and final disposal of the product
(Lindhqvist, 2000). Thus, the producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the
post consumer stage of a product’s life cycle (OECD, 2001).
The original motivation for EPR was twofold: first, to relieve municipalities of some
of the financial burden of waste management, especially when it comes to complex
wastes such as e-waste, and, second, to provide incentives to producers to reduce
resources, use more secondary materials, and undertake product design changes to
reduce waste (OECD, 2001).
The four principal goals of EPR, according to the OECD, are:
i. Source reduction (natural resource conservation/ materials conservation)
ii. Waste prevention
iii. Design of more environmentally compatible products
iv. Closure of material loops to promote sustainable development
All existing successful e-waste management models around the World are based on
the concept of EPR. However, there are as many ways of implementing EPR as there
are existing models. In Europe, the WEEE Forum (www.weee-forum.org), serves as a
network for all systems that are collective, non for profit and in operation.
The specificities of the Indian situation require developing a system that is acceptable
to all stakeholders and is viable and sustainable in the long-run. Inspiration and
support may be found in the functioning models, but the final solution will need to
adapt to the local specificities.
2.1.2 All stakeholder participation and coordination
In addition to EPR, the legislation should also provide adequate space to the concerns
as well as the incentives of the various stakeholders in the WEEE management chain.
These would include, amongst others, the producers, generators as well as the
recyclers. Further, the roles and responsibilities of the policymakers/ regulators should
also be clearly delineated. In this subsection, we provide the roles envisaged for the
different stakeholders in the WEEE management
One of the key challenges of the formal e-waste management system will be the
integration of the informal sector. The issue of livelihoods of existing informal sector
players need to be a key component in the new model. The best option may be to
channelise this sector in the collection and storage of waste from various sources,
which is then passed onto authorized distribution channels. A skill up-gradation plan
can also enable them to be part of the dismantling process.
Producers (importing, assembling or manufacturing electronic & electrical equipment)
An agreement amongst producers to organize the take back of e-waste only through
authorized collection points and its disposal only through authorized recyclers.
Producers ensure that the e-Waste management system is viable and may decide to
introduce transparent financing for unprofitable recycling processes schemes if
required.
The producers offer a solution at based on a menu of prices which vary depending
on the characteristics of the product.
The producers maintain annual records of the material management in a transparent
national register open to auditing and scrutiny by external agency.
Generators (returning end of useful life equipment)
To dispose off WEEE based on a menu of prices which vary depending on the
characteristics of the product.
Large consumers may have B2B arrangements with the e-Waste management
system
Private / household consumers return their end-of-life equipment to dedicated
collection points or through authorized pick-up services
Corporate users to maintain records of donations and ensure that the material joins
the e-Waste management system at its end-of-life.
Individual companies and public bodies are liable for their disposal practices
Recycler (doing any operations of the recycling chain, from collection to material
recovery)
Authorization of the recyclers involved in handling e-waste includes both
contractual arrangements with the PRO or individual producers for receiving the ewaste
To upgrade skills and technologies for best practice in all steps of the recycling.
To respect all national and international environmental legislation
To obtain all licenses from the SPCB where required
To maintain proper environmental and health standards;
To maintain and produce records for inspection and verification.
Recyclers are responsible also for the proper processing of their downstream
fraction mainly the critical ones (e.g. leaded glass, brominated plastics, etc.)
Regulators/policy makers
To frame appropriate guidelines/legislation to support the model
To monitor the processes regularly
To provide incentives to entrepreneurs to set up facilities
To regulate/control the number of facilities in a geographical area
To approve technologies
To form multi-stakeholder monitoring committee
To create awareness among generators of waste
2.2 Secure Financing: what needs to be financed?
All e-waste is not profitable, some e-waste is not branded, inherent value depends on
market prices, operational costs, components used in technology, legislation (e.g.
RoHS), which all vary.
Every step of the recycling chain, i.e. collection, transport, separation of fractions
(manual or automatic) and material recovery, induces a cost or a profit. Moreover,
creating awareness, controlling and running such a system also have a cost. Every
component of the system needs to have its financing secured.
Some parts of the system which are profitable may be used to finance the others.
What is clear, according to EPR is that the producers are responsible for ensuring this
financial security. The strategy adopted should be their choice, and is to be discussed
during the roundtable.
2.3 Awareness and education:
Awareness among all stakeholders is very critical for any change to be effective and
meet its desired objective. E-waste, being a very complex issue involving large
number of stakeholders, will need concerted and sustained effort in creating the right
kind of environment through education and awareness to make the change be
progressive and meaningful. The role of state and producers are paramount and critical
in this regard.
The Regulatory authorities will be required to take all initiatives and measures to
educate the community at large and all other stakeholders of responsibilities and roles
of each sector.
The Producers will also need to play their part in educating the consumers regarding
the e-waste management system, product constituents, handling precautions,
responsibility of the producers in changed situation. These can be done collectively or
individually through proper labelling in the products and other effective tools.
3 Individual and Collective Producer Responsibility: 2 Pillars of e-
Waste Management
A producer company may practice its EPR either individually or collectively. Though
these two implementation modes may seem contradictory, they are in fact
complementary and are the two pillars of EPR. In other words, when IPR is desired, a
collective solution is also necessary. The following paragraphs explain the
mechanisms of both individual and collective models.
3.1 Proposed Individual Producer Responsibility Model
The proposed IPR model for India is described in the following paragraphs.
Producer
According to (Manomaivibool and Lindhqvist, forthcoming), IPR is an ideal type of
EPR. Since a producer is responsible for his own products, we can assume that there
would be an incentive for design improvements (in a way that a producer takes the
end-of-life into account and balance it with other considerations).
Each producer is independently responsible for managing the e-waste generated by
their products. The producers announce take-back policies and have contractual
agreements with the collection agency which collects the waste from the generator at
least free-of-cost. The producers, through the collection agency, however pay a fixed
price for their products/ components to the generators, as in the collective
responsibility model.
The individual producer in this model has the option of having direct contracts with
the dismantler and/or the recyclers which allows them to get back the re-usable
components from their obsolete computers. The producers can also get the data from
the collector/dismantler/ recycler about the specific composition and characteristics of
the waste generated by its products in terms of:
• Which models are recycled the most?
• Which components within the computer are most difficult to dismantle/
recycle?
• How can their product be redesigned to make it easier to dismantle and
increase the fraction of components which can be reused?
One of the major advantages of having access to information above is the incentive it
provides to the individual producer to design for increasing re-use as well as the
product design. The economic rationale behind the incentive to redesign is the
following: Individual producers, by redesigning their products to facilitate dismantling
and increasing re-use of certain components can then transfer the benefits to the
consumers who get better prices when they sell off their old computers to the
designated collection agency.
Collection
The collection in this model is managed by not-for-profit collection agencies which
are regulated by the appropriate authorities like the DPCC and CPCB. The individual
producers have contracts with the collection agency and on behalf of the producer; the
collection agency implements the producer take back schemes. The collection agency
also collects from retailers as well other generators of e-waste through an extensive
network of collection centres. As in the model with collective producer responsibility,
there is scope for the involvement of the informal sector in the collection and storage
of e-waste.
Dismantling and recycling
The roles and responsibilities envisaged for the dismantler and recycler remains the
same in both the individual and producer responsibility models. However, in the
individual responsibility model, the collection agencies would supply the material to
the dismantlers and recyclers and not the collective producer body.
Financing
The financing of the Individual Producer Responsibility Model would depend,
amongst other things, on the inherent material value of the EEE. This would be the
most crucial element in determining whether another financial instrument, like an
Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF) to be levied at the point of sale, is necessary at all.
The price, inclusive of ARF, would therefore reflect the true price of the product
including the environmental cost of the product. For instance, products like computers
which have inherent material value that can cover the entire cost of recycling could
potentially be recycled by levying a nominal or even zero ARF (see the Toxics Link
paper for an example of Computers). However, products which do not have sufficient
material value at the end of useful life will need to be recycled by levying either a
visible or invisible ARF. Therefore under the individual responsibility model, there
would be a menu of ARF ranging from zero to positive amounts, depending on the
inherent material value of the end of life product. The exact amounts would depend on
the producers’ estimation of the recycling costs and the nature of contracting with the
recyclers. If Individual Responsibility is a component of a larger Collective
Responsibility Model, the proposed ARF might go down because the collective
organization would be able to take advantage of economies of scale.
Comments:
The suggested model, which is based on the concept of Individual Producer
Responsibility, has the following advantages:
• Market based mechanism: The model allows for the interplay of market forces
in determining the price of each category of e-waste generated. It also allows
individual producers to negotiate for the “appropriate” price or cost for each
category/ brand of waste.
• Eliminates free riders once legislation is introduced: The model also creates a
level playing field once appropriate legislation is introduced.
• Individual producer responsibility
• Innovation in production: As described above, the model can allow for
designing of efficient recycling as well as dismantling. Such benefits
can be passed on to the consumer.
• Efficient design of WEEE Management model by each producer: Each
producer has the option of negotiating contracts with other players in
the WEEE management system allowing for more flexibility and
appropriate mechanism to suit the needs of the producer.
Some of the constraints and bottlenecks of the proposed Individual Responsibility
Model are:
• Administrative expenses could be much higher as compared to the collective
system due to the presences of duplicated systems and high transaction costs
like administering contracts.
• Involvement of informal recyclers into the system would require careful
capacity building because certain processes which are an integral part of the
value chain of the informal sector are envisaged to be shifted to the formal
recycling unit, for instance, no involvement of informal sector in material
recovery.
• Uncertainty in provision of the end-of-life costs for complex products
• Its efficiency depends on the collection rate.
• Only e-waste A and C defined in 2.3 are covered in an IPR model and there
remains a need to address the problem of waste which doesn’t fit in any
individual system.
3.2 Proposed Collective Producer Responsibility Model
At the heart of this proposed collective e-waste model is the electrical and electronics
industry, which comprises of various players in the field. This group contains not only
the manufacturers but also the importers and assemblers of the EEE (Electrical and
Electronic Equipments). The model recommends a very important role for the
manufacturers/producers of electronic goods and proposes that they come together as
consortium and establish an organisation, which takes the responsibility of the end-oflife
disposal of products being manufactured or assembled by them. This organisation,
which can be established with support from all producers, can be designated as
‘Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO)’ and will largely be responsible for
environmentally sound management of e-waste
There are several factors that make a PRO deem crucial in an EPR programme:
• Small producers might not have enough capacity & power in negotiating the
contracts to carry on their responsibility alone
• Economy of scale in the operation
• Managing orphan and historical products
• Assuming monitoring and enforcement role to
o Reduce transaction costs e.g. by certifying treatment facilities
o Identifying free riders.
The producers will also enjoy a major advantage of their sales and service network to
utilise this channel to collect the waste back at the end of life of such products.
A proposed implementation of a PRO in India is described in the following paragraphs
Structure of PRO: It is suggested that the PRO operates as a non-profit organisation
built on the ethos of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and be an active
participant in this process. The top management of this PRO should have
representation from various sectors making it a truly multi-stakeholder organisation.
The cost of establishing this organisation needs to be supported by the individual
companies. The details on the contribution made by individual companies can be
worked out through detailed deliberation. A part of revenue can also be generated
through the sale of the e-waste being sold to the recycler/dismantler.
The PRO should operate with full operational transparency.
Function of PRO: The Producer Responsibility Organisation will take on overall
responsibility of the complete recycling process of e-waste with different levels of
engagements in various processes. The PRO will take on direct responsibility of
collection and storage of all WEEE generated across the country and then pass this on
to the dismantler/recycler for a price. He can outsource these operations (tying up with
existing informal sector) but will still be responsible for ensuring proper collection and
storage. Also the individual producers can run their own take back systems but have to
tie up with the PRO for final disposal and recycling.
Some of the goods being classified as WEEE have an intrinsic material value and this
value is an important key to the financial planning of this model. It is a globally
accepted fact that lot of e-waste has a material value assigned and all recyclers, big or
small, procure electronic wastes at a price and then make profits by selling the
recovered materials.
This model suggests and recommends that a part of this material value be passed on to
the generators of the waste. Part of this value (revenue) be utilised for logistical
support of collection and storage of waste. This mechanism also provides incentive to
the generators to be active participants and streamline the storage and collection
system to an authorised agency. The PRO will pay the generators for the material
collected and provide free collection system. The dynamic fee system for different
end-of-life products will be fixed by the PRO and will be open to review at periodic
intervals. This will give an option to vary the prices according to the prevailing market
values of the materials extracted.
The revenue generated by PRO through sale of this waste to the recyclers will be
utilised for financing the take back process from the consumers (cost paid for the
WEEE) as well as the collection and storage of the waste. In case of products with no
material value and a recycling cost attached, the producer will need to take
responsibility (through PRO) as part of the EPR initiative.
Function of recyclers: The collected material will be sold to an authorised (individual
or consortium) dismantler and recycler, who is an important component in this e-waste
management system. The dismantling and recycling infrastructure will be responsible
for establishing environmentally sound technologies to manage WEEE.
The revenue generated through sales of the materials recovered will support the
administrative, plant and machinery and other overheads. The critical factor deciding
the breakeven period will be both an assured material supply as well as the scale of
operation. The experiences across many countries suggest that the scale of operation
for recycling such waste is growing and such ventures are considered viable and
profitable.
The collection mechanism of the proposed model
1. PRO take-back: The PRO will provide free collection for the waste and the
generators will be paid for the material according the product type (fixed by PRO). A
proper reporting system has to be established for this to ensure transparency.
2. Dealer take-back: The dealers selling such products will have to take back the old
products and the generators will get a discount on new purchase of electrical and
electronic goods (the end-of-life cost can be fixed according to product type). These
products will be then transferred back to the PRO with proper reporting.
3. By existing informal network: One of the biggest challenges to this model is from
the existing informal sector and the operators will need to address this. The best option
may be to channelise this sector in the collection and storage of waste from various
sources, which is then passed onto authorized distribution channels. The informal
sector will tie up with the PRO to ensure accountability.
3.3 Involving the Informal Sector
The most important stakeholders of the current e-waste management system in India
are informal units which collect, segregate, dismantle and recycle the waste. Any new
proposal for redesigning the current system needs to redesign the incentives of this
sector to join the new mechanism and not continue to compete with the new system.
Due to the flexibility in pricing and the nature of their operations, the competition
between the new system and the existing informal system would be loaded against the
new management system.
The entire rationale, however, for providing suggestions for redesigning the existing
system are the poor working conditions of the informal recyclers as well as the
environmental degradation due to the rudimentary practices of recycling followed.
Therefore, it is proposed that the informal sector should be involved in the following
manner in the e-waste management system
The informal sector should continue to be involved in the collection,
segregation and dismantling of e-waste. Only material recovery should
discontinue in the informal sector because of its deleterious health and
environmental impacts.
Efforts should be made to capacitate the informal sector to form associations
which can then be formalized. These formalized associations could then source
material to formal recyclers.
The possibility of incorporating the informal sector workers in the new formal
recycling plants should also be explored with the entrepreneurs willing to set
up new plants.
4 Feedback from Stakeholders
The concept note above has raised some issues which need to be discussed with
various stakeholders. In the format below, we formulate some of the key issues which
need to be debated before the ideal model for India is finalized.
Question Options Tools/
examples
Strength Weakness
1. What is the goal
of e-waste
legislation?
prevent e-waste
entering household
waste ?
reduce hazardous
processing of ewaste
?
promote reuse ?
promote recycling ?
waste prevention
and better product
design ?
the use / phase out
of toxic materials
and processes ?
2. What is the
scope of the
legislation?
define which
products are
considered e-waste
? how to define
them ? Categories ?
historical / orphan
goods ?
leave out what is
covered with other
regulations?
treat business and
houselhold
separately (B2B,
B2C)?
why a dedicated /
separate legislation?
why a management
system?
what parts of the
system need to be
regulated
(manufacturing,
trade & sale, use,
re-use, collection /
take-back, logistics,
transport,
recycling&recovery,
disposal, exports,
imports.
3. Who is a
producer?
The brand owner?
The manufacturer?
The importer?
The distributor?
All of the above?
4. How should
responsibility be
allocated?
(assuming
producer
responsibility)
Individually?
Collectively?
Not at all?
5. Who should be
responsible for
collection?
Producer?
Retailer?
Municipality?
Recycler?
Consumer?
6. Who is
responsible for
system
organisation and
operation?
Producer?
Retailer?
Government?
Recycler?
11. What legal
form should a PRO
take?
Not for Profit
organization
Limited liability
company.
Foundation.
Other.
12. Who should be
represented in a
PRO?
Only
manufacturers?
Also government?
Also retailers?
13. Who should
have the
informational
responsibility?
PROs?
Manufacturers?
Government?
NGO?
Retailers?
7. Who is
responsible for
control and audit
of…
… the entire
system?
... the
environmental
aspects?
… the financial
aspects?
8. Who is
responsible for the
setting of the
standards?
9. how is the
system financed?
is financing
explicitly regulated?
are historical and
orphan products
mentioned?
are the following
financing structures
adapted (fee model,
ARF, visible fee,
recycling fund,
others..)?
10. What are the
current laws for
waste
management/
treatment/
environmental
legislation?
11. Setting
collection and
recycling targets.
should there be
any?
how could they be
measured and
calculated?
12. monitoring and
compliance
are collection /
recycling targets
set?
are standards (BAT
for recycling, etc)
set for:
- quality control
- quantity control
- financial control
- system
improvement
- registration &
licensing
- enforcement /
penalties
is system control
regulated (who is
the competent
authority)?
is information flow
guaranteed and
unbiaised?
Definition of e-waste :

Electronic waste, popularly known as ‘e-waste’ can be defined as electronic

equipments / products connects with power plug, batteries which have become
obsolete due to:
advancement in technology
changes in fashion, style and status
nearing the end of their useful life.

Classification of e-waste :

E-waste encompasses ever growing range of obsolete electronic devices such as

computers, servers, main frames, monitors, TVs & display devices,
telecommunication devices such as cellular phones & pagers, calculators, audio and
video devices, printers, scanners, copiers and fax machines besides refrigerators,
air conditioners, washing machines, and microwave ovens, e-waste also covers
recording devices such as DVDs, CDs, floppies, tapes, printing cartridges, military
electronic waste, automobile catalytic converters, electronic components such as
chips, processors, mother boards, printed circuit boards, industrial electronics such
as sensors, alarms, sirens, security devices, automobile electronic devices.

Indian Scenario :

There is an estimate that the total obsolete computers originating from government
offices, business houses, industries and household is of the order of 2 million nos.
Manufactures and assemblers in a single calendar year, estimated to produce
around 1200 tons of electronic scrap. It should be noted that obsolence rate of
personal computers (PC) is one in every two years. The consumers finds it
convenient to buy a new computer rather than upgrade the old one due to the
changing configuration, technology and the attractive offers of the manufacturers.
Due to the lack of governmental legislations on e-waste, standards for disposal,
proper mechanism for handling these toxic hi-tech products, mostly end up in
landfills or partly recycled in a unhygienic conditions and partly thrown into waste
streams. Computer waste is generated from the individual households; the
government, public and private sectors; computer retailers; manufacturers; foreign
embassies; secondary markets of old PCs. Of these, the biggest source of PC scrap
are foreign countries that export huge computer waste in the form of reusable
components.

Electronic waste or e-waste is one of the rapidly growing environmental problems of

the world. In India, the electronic waste management assumes greater significance
not only due to the generation of our own waste but also dumping ofe-waste
particularly computer waste from the developed countries.
With extensively using computers and electronic equipments and people dumping
old electronic goods for new ones, the amount ofE-Waste generated has been
steadily increasing. At present Bangalore alone generates about 8000 tonnes of
computer waste annually and in the absence of proper disposal, they find their way
to scrap dealers.

E-Parisaraa, an eco-friendly recycling unit on the outskirts of Bangalore which is

located in Dobaspet industrial area, about 45 Km north of Bangalore, makes full use
ofE-Waste. The plant which is India’s first scientific e-waste recycling unit will
reduce pollution, landfill waste and recover valuable metals, plastics & glass from
waste in an eco-friendly manner. E-Parisaraa has developed a circuit to extend the
life of tube lights. The circuit helps to extend the life of fluorescent tubes by more
than 2000 hours. If the circuits are used, tube lights can work on lower voltages.
The initiative is to aim at reducing the accumulation of used and discarded
electronic and electrical equipments.

India as a developing country needs simpler, low cost technology keeping in view of
maximum resource recovery in an environmental friendly methodologies. E-
Parisaraa, deals with practical aspect ofe-waste processing as mentioned below by
hand. Phosphor affects the display resolution and luminance of the images that is
seen in the monitor.

E-Parisaraa’s Director Mr. P. Parthasarathy, an IIT Madras graduate, and a former

consultant for a similar e-waste recycling unit in Singapore, has developed an eco-
friendly methodology for reusing, recycling and recovery of metals, glass & plastics
with non-incineration methods . The hazardous materials are segregated separately
and send for secure land fill for ex.: phosphor coating, LED’s, mercury etc.

We have the technology to recycle most of the e-waste and only less than one per
cent of this will be regarded as waste, which can go into secure landfill planned in
the vicinity by the HAWA project.

Electronic waste (or e-waste) encompasses the ever-growing range of obsolete electronic devices
such as computers, servers, cell phones, printers, scanners and fax machines. With newer
technologies replacing older devices at a rapid speed, piling up of e-waste has assumed mind-
boggling proportions. The mere size of the rising e-waste pile is startling. Something which
needs to be attended to immediately in the form of a solution worked around reuse-and-recycle
of the e-waste. While there are several steps that need to be taken towards this goal, a key step is
the setting up of e-waste management plants. It is a sort of a green solution to a potential
environmental hazard that e-waste can be.
As for implementing various steps that will help in managing e-waste it may be noted that the
age and value of an organization’s IT assets combined with its own disposal preferences will
determine the range of disposal options