Electronic Waste in Developing Countries

When will it ‘really’ stop?

Maastricht University

Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences

Maastricht, 15th of July 2011

Van Zutphen K.G

I569682

Honours Bachelor Thesis

1st Supervisor: Geert-Jan Dinant

1  

Table of contents

Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………. p.3

1. Introduction & Background…………………………………………………………………p.4

2. Methods……………………………………………………………………………………...p.7

3. Results……………………………………………………………………………………….p.8

3.1. Current issues resulting from Electronic waste…………………………………... p.8

3.1.1. E-waste as a Business issue……………………………………………...p.8.

3.1.2. E-waste as an Environmental and Health issue………………………….p.9.

3.2. Overview on policies and legislations fighting Electronic waste…………………p.12

3.2.1. The Basel Convention …………………………………………………. p.12

3.2.2. The Basel Ban …………………………………………………………..p.14

3.2.3. The WEEE Directive …………………………………………………...p.15

3.3. Gaps and incoherencies in these policies and legislations………………………...p.16

3.3.1. Weaknesses of the Basel Convention………………………………….. p.17

3.3.2. Weaknesses of the Basel Ban and the WEEE Directive………………...p.19

3.3.3. A focus on the United States and China ………………………………. p.20

4. Discussion………………………………………………………………………………….. p.22

2  

Abbreviations

ATM Automated Teller Machine

BAN Basel Action Network

CTR Cathode Ray Tubes

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

DVD Digital Versatile Disc

EC European Commission

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

ERP European Recycling Platform

ESM Environmentally Sound Management

EU European Union

IQ Intelligence Quotient

MS Member States

NEPSI National Electronics Product Stewardship

OECD Organization for Co-operation and Development

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PC Personal Computer

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

StEP Solving the e-waste problem

SVTC Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

TV Television

USA United States of America

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WEEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste

3  

I have exceeded the amount of words, because the topic is very technical, and in order to understand it in depth, a lot of explanation is needed beforehand. Furthermore, as the main objective of my thesis was to identify gaps and incoherencies among policies, it would not be appropriate if the policies were only described superficially. And finally, I have decided to include 2 main examples: the US and China. These examples take a lot of space, but I believe they are important to have an idea of ‘where the problem really lies’. These examples can be perceived as case studies, which make the reader only wiser, and make him understand more in depth not only where the problem lies, but how complex it can be.

1. Introduction & Background

Approximately 20 million computers are annually put on the market in the US, from which 12

million are disposed, leaving about 1 200 000 of computers that are recycled (Osibanjo &

Nnorom, 2007). The question arises as to where the 12 million computers end up? Computers,

cell phones, fax machines, televisions, telephones, white goods, are all part of a wider category

called ‘electrical and electronic equipment waste’ or ‘e-waste’ (WEEE). The EU Directive on

WEEE (Directive 2008/34/EC) defines WEEE as ‘electrical or electronic equipment which is

waste […] including all components, sub-assemblies and consumables, which are part of the

product at the time of discarding’ (Widmer, Oswald-Krapf, Sinha-Khetriwal, Schnellmann, &

Boni, 2005).

The rise in WEEE has been tremendous in the past few decades due to the rapid advances

in technology. The latter has led to an increase in obsolete products which are disposed of and

replaced by other new products, resulting in the exhaustion of waste disposal capacities

(Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2007). In the 1990s, developed countries tried to solve this problem by

exporting their waste to developing countries, where legislation regarding waste management

was almost non-existent, or rather not enforced. This export provided a double incentive:

industries would be able to circumvent their stringent laws (Knauf, 2010), and they would be

able to make profit by excluding the disposal waste costs from their production costs. Indeed,

glass to glass recycling of computers for instance is ten times more expensive in the US than in

China (Greenpeace International, 2009). Developing countries are the fastest growing consumers

of e-waste: For example, the information and telecommunications technology (ICT) sector has

exploded in Nigeria, whereby the teledensity (number of telephone lines per 100 lines, including

wired business and residential lines) increased from 0.39% in 1995 to 3.35% in 2003. This

increase can also be explained by the rise in demand for WEEE that occurred in developing

4  

countries when ‘scrap yards found they could extract valuable substances such as copper, iron,

silicon, nickel, and gold, during the recycling’ processes (Greenpeace International, 2009).

Nevertheless, WEEE has become a growing issue rather than only a source for profit for

both developed and developing countries. Among the WEEE exported to developing countries,

an estimated 25 to 75% of it (Widmer, et al., 2005) is unusable and cannot be integrated in new

manufactured goods, and thus ends up in landfills (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2007). These disposals

result in the pollution of the environment, not to mention the significant negative impact it has on

people’s health. WEEE contains a variety of toxic substances such as: arsenic, lead, cadmium,

mercury, selenium, and hexavalent chromium. Primary extracting methods which include the

burning of these toxins, can cause allergic reactions, brain damage and cancer (Widmer, et al.,

2005). Additionally, it is essentially the poor who are dealing with the trash, and who are forced

to do this for a living. This raises a question of morality in terms of to what extent are we

allowed to make people choose between ‘poverty and poison’: A Chinese man mentioned that

‘because the money is good’ is enough of a reason for him to choose bad health over quitting his

job (CBSNews, 2009). WEEE also presents a growing issue that will only worsen in the future if

not tackled immediately: China currently produces one million tons of WEEE each year, which

only adds up to the problem the country currently faces with regards to the management of end

of life products (Knauf, 2010). Furthermore, US Satellite data stated that each year, about 10

billion pounds of pollution aerosols reach North Americans from East Asia (Knauf, 2010).

Moreover, there is evidence that manufactured products in e-waste processing areas may contain

high levels of e-waste contaminants (B.H. Robinson, 2009).

The growing issue of e-waste has been recognized, and has led to numerous initiatives

with the intention to fight against it, such as the Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Basel Action Network

(BAN)1, the EU directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic equipment (WEEE Directive)

and many more. However, these legislations are not respected by e-waste exporters and e-waste

importers, and are circumvented through numerous ways. In fact, on the 31st of December 2005,

                                                            1  The  Basel  Action  Network  (BAN)  is  a  non‐profit  organization  founded  in  1997,  has  supported  the  Basel Convention in terms of practice and implementation of the Convention, by collecting and providing all sources of information  to  obstruct  illegal  trade,  but  also  to  raise  awareness  and  to  advocate  for  better  practices.  It  runs several campaigns which promote further ratification of the Basel Ban, and implement producer responsibility as much as possible. The BAN has no implementation authority, but it can nonetheless investigate criminal behaviors and non compliance to the Convention (Basel Action Network, 2008a). 

5  

the French vessel ‘Clemenceau’ left the shore of Toulon for India. According to the French

court, the ship was not liable to any infringements of the Basel Convention because it was a

‘warship’; although the vessel contained solid PCB (Polychlorinated biphenyl) contaminated

materials, as well as asbestos. This demonstrates how inconsistent and weak policies can be, and

how they can be circumvented for industries’ own interest. The BAN published a Basel Non-

Compliance Notification Report2 in which it proved that the French had violated numerous

articles of the Basel Convention although it had ratified the ‘Basel Ban Amendment forbidding

exports of hazardous wastes to developing countries’ (Basel Action Network, 2006). According

to the BAN, the Basel Ban ‘does not allow any triggering mechanism for civil society, and

likewise lacks any accountability or enforcement provision’ and that it thus cannot ensure

compliance (Basel Action Network, 2006). Interestingly enough, the same pattern can be

observed in developing countries where the laws are present but not enforced. The people who

manage recycling sites do not like their recycling sites to be filmed, and workers only agree to

speak to journalists under the name of ‘anonymous’; which in a way, reflects their fear of being

caught in this illegal market, and their dread of losing this source of income. WEEE export

clearly continues under such circumstances at the expense of people’s health.

The aim of this thesis will be to investigate to what extent the different policies fighting

WEEE are effective, and if not, how this can be improved. In other words, when will WEEE

‘really’ stop, and not merely circumvent legislations. The paper will first give an overview of the

current problem of WEEE from different perspectives, including the business perspective, the

environmental perspective, but will particularly focus on the detrimental health effects it causes.

This first part will be followed by a mapping of different ways that are put in place in order to

fight against these challenges, and will specifically refer to existing policies, legislations, actions

and initiatives at global level, and not at national level. Subsequently, gaps and incoherencies

shall be identified, and an analysis based on previous findings will be provided and shall try to

bring an answer as to why these gaps are present and how they can be explained. This shall be

followed by a set of recommendations for improvements in this field.

                                                            2  ‘Basel Non‐Compliance Notification Reports’ are one of the tools the BAN uses  in order to  limit  illegal traffic of hazardous  waste.  These  reports  were  purposely  produced  for  the  Basel  Convention,  in  order  to  sustain  the Convention  in the enforcement of  the provisions  it sets out. They cover detailed proof on violations against  the Basel  Convention  in  specific  countries,  and  pressure  national  laws  to  take  their  share  of  responsibility  and implement their laws and to ensure compliance (Basel Action Network, 2006).  

6  

2. Methods The gathered literature was mainly collected from the internet: The first part of the research

consisted of finding articles related to the origin of e-waste. These were mainly found through

databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar, and Google.com, using the keyword ‘electronic

waste’ and reading introductions of articles or specific articles on the history of e-waste.

Subsequently, the literature search focused more on the existing relation between e-waste and

health. Again, PubMed and Google Scholar were the main databases used in order to find the

relevant information, however, with different keywords: ‘e-waste’, ‘electronic waste’, and

‘health’. This led to a variety of articles reporting general notorious health outcomes, as well as

more specific health outcomes including the link between e-waste and PCB levels, or e-waste

and blood lead and cadmium levels. Furthermore, references from those articles were used in

order to find other adverse health consequences associated with e-waste contaminants. The

following journals lead to even more specific information: the Journal of Material Cycles and

Waste Management, the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives, and the Journal of Waste

Management.

Concerning the second part of the research, in relation to the different policies and legislations

combating e-waste, a thorough search throughout specific websites such as the Basel Action

Network, the Basel Convention website, and the Europa website, led to detailed descriptions of

the main policies on e-waste. This research shall only focus on policies and legislations at

international level and not at national level for reasons of completeness. These websites were

referenced in numerous articles, and listed in ‘Global challenges of e-waste’ of Widmer et al, but

also in ‘Toxic Trade: The Real Cost of Electronics Waste Exports from the United States’ of L.

Nakagawa. Both articles provided names of policies, legislations, initiatives and actions

combating the e-waste problem. The latter were then entered into Google search engine, which

led the researcher to their official websites and where detailed information could be collected for

the completion of the second part of the research. Several reports found on the Silicon Valley

Toxics Coalition (SVTC) official website such as the report on ‘Exporting Harm, the High-Tech

Trashing of Asia’, the ‘Digital Dump’ report and the Greenpeace report on ‘The recycling of

electronic waste in China & India’, led to the identification of gaps and incoherencies among the

policies. Additionally, the keywords ‘gaps’, ‘incoherence’, ‘violation’ ‘enforcement’, ‘Basel

Convention’, ‘WEEE’, and ‘RoHS’ were entered into Google.com and Google Scholar search

7  

box, which directed the researcher to the following articles: ‘Beyond the Ban- can the Basel

Convention adequately Safeguard the Interests of the World’s Poor in the International Trade of

Hazardous Waste?’ by A. Andrew, and ‘In my backyard: How Enabling hazardous waste trade to

developing nations can improve the Basel Convention’s ability to achieve environmental justice’

by L. Widawsky. Both reports were very useful to gain an overall overview of existing

incoherencies and gaps among the main policies aiming at combating WEEE.

3. Results

3.1. Current issues resulting from Electronic waste 3.1.1. E-waste as a Business issue

As mentioned in the introduction, electronic waste can lead to major environmental and health

issues. This part of the thesis shall elaborate on these two aspects, with a special focus on health.

However, in order to fully understand where these health and environmental consequences come

from, one must understand the critical issue of electronic waste, which relates to the complexity

of its nature: Indeed, above all, the e-waste problem has become a business issue, offering

opportunities for both industrialized and developing countries.

The fact that each PC contains 1g of gold, and that one e-waste ton can contain up to 0.2

tons of copper, which in turn can be sold at 500 Euros (Widmer, et al., 2005), already indicates

the profitable aspect of such a market, and thus the numerous and various audiences interested in

being part of this market, and making profit out of it. This market has become a source of income

for poor countries, and a profit generator for rich countries. Waste disposal facilities are

expensive, and 50 to 80% of American firms have good reasons to avoid recycling e-waste on

their own territory. Indeed, recycling ‘in an environmentally friendly way’ for 2.6 million tons of

e-waste each year (Knauf, 2010) would be 10 times more expensive then if they would have

shipped it abroad in order to be ‘recycled’, but at a lower cost. Labor is cheaper, as low as 1.50$

per worker/day in China (Nakagawa, 2006), stringent laws requiring high costs for waste

disposal are practically inexistent, or rather not enforced (see part 3), and the ships are welcomed

with ‘open arms’ (Knauf, 2010).

Waste importers pay ‘shipping prices’ to the exporters, and manage to make good

margins for profit, as most of the waste they import is sold at a high price on their markets. One

can observe cooperation between junk exporters and importers, whereby the latter accept a

8  

certain amount of unusable junk in exchange of a specified quantity of high valued materials

(Schmidt, 2006). Economic benefits can be gained if valuable materials such as gold, silver and

copper are recovered from the e-junk (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2007). This recovering, ironically

called ‘recycling’ has led to the emergence and development of ‘recycling’ businesses in

developing countries, where all kind of extraction methods are used in order to extract the

valuable metals and sell them at a high price. According to BAN, in one of the Nigerian villages,

approximately half of the business in the village dedicated its activities to the restoration of

imported IT equipments (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2007). This trade has not ceased to grow, and has

become a highly profitable business in numerous countries. The city of Guiyu in China is one of

them: Indeed ‘the extensive WEEE processing industry in Guiyu has been valued at 72 million

dollars’. But the question is, at what cost?

Crucial to note, is that first of all, most of the ships are filled with unusable junk. About

25 to 75% of the waste is unrecyclable (Knauf, 2010). When it cannot be reused anymore, it

enters the WEEE stream and ends up in landfills, where toxic chemicals can easily leach into

water and soils, leading to a potential contamination of the grounds and of the population living

close to the landfill. Another option is to incinerate the junk, which results in the release of

highly ‘toxic fumes’ which can cause skin and respiratory illnesses (Davis, 2006). Second, when

WEEE is recyclable, workers involved in the process burn plastics, douse metals in acidic

substances in order to separate materials (Knauf, 2010), and use open flames in order to free

components (B. H. Robinson, 2009). All these primary extracting methods can have serious

adverse health consequences, as will be shown in the next section.

3.1.2. E-waste an Environmental and Health issue

Numerous articles have reported the detrimental health effects of e-waste on health. Recyclers

are constantly exposed to dangerous toxic chemicals through skin exposure, inhalation, and oral

intake (when it comes to the consumption of contaminated local food). The most common toxic

substances found in e-waste are: mercury, lead, cadmium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs).

Mercury is the most common toxic metal found in e-waste. It can be found in all kinds of

WEEE, including medical equipment, lamps, circuit boards, batteries and many more

(Nakagawa, 2006). Mercury leads to tubular dysfunction, and can damage the central and

peripheral nervous systems of people and fetuses (Pinto, 2008) as well as cell damage by

9  

obstructing enzymatic activity (Nakagawa, 2006). When it spreads into water, it transforms into

methylated mercury and can accumulate into living organisms such as fish. Lead affects the

central nervous system, peripheral nervous system and the hemopoietic system, leading to

organic affective syndrome, motor neuropathy, and anemia respectively (Pinto, 2008). It is

particularly harmful to children whose cognitive and physical state is still in development (Ryan,

et al., 2004). Additionally, lead can also have an impact on the genitourinary system, damaging

all parts of nephron, and it can also harm the female and male reproductive systems (Pinto,

2008). Even low lead concentrations in blood can negatively affect children IQ scores and

academic skills (Jusko, et al., 2008). With regards to cadmium, it can be defined as a ‘long-term

cumulative poison’, accumulating in the body and particularly in the kidneys. This metal can be

found in surface mount devices, infrared detectors, and chip detectors (Puckett, et al., 2002).

High levels of cadmium are associated with a higher risk of developing cancer. Concerning

PAHs, besides affecting the bladder, evidence has shown that they can induce skin and lung

cancer (Pinto, 2008). The most common effect of cadmium toxicity is renal damage. Exposure to

PCBs correlates with an increased risk of cancer of the liver, digestive tract, and cancer of the

skin. It is also associated with decreased reproductive efficiency, reduced growth rates,

neurological defects, retarded development, and damage to bone structure when exposed to it in

the long-term. Additionally, the immune system can be affected, making the person more

vulnerable to infections, chloracne, and pigmentation disturbances (International Programme on

Chemical Safety, 2003). Plastics are the most abundant component of e-waste, and their burning

can lead to the release of toxic substances in the environment, leaching in grounds, rivers, and

releasing in the air (Pedersen, 1996).

What is more, is that in addition to these already dangerous substances that e-waste

recyclers deal with, the recycling methods they use are even more hazardous, and amplify the

health threats. Indeed, recycling methods including ‘the stripping of metals in open-pit acid

baths, the removal of electronic components from printed circuit boards by heating over a grill,

chipping and melting plastics without proper ventilation, and recovering metals by burning

cables and parts’ (Leung, Cai, & Wong, 2006) all have serious consequences on one’s health.

These recycling methods are undertaken by children and their families who are often not aware

of the health impacts these activities imply. Toxic substances when burnt, can release into toxic

emissions causing brain damage, allergic reactions and cancer (Widmer, et al., 2005). Again,

10  

electronic components are mostly placed in plastic casings. When the plastic is burned,

carcinogenic dioxins and polyaromatic hydrocarbons are released (Schmidt, 2006). Furthermore,

toxic acid baths are used to separate and extract valuable materials such as copper, leaving

behind dangerous toxins and pollutants (Schmidt, 2006).

According to a study published in 2009 on chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage of people

living in e-waste processing sites, people living in those areas have a higher incidence of

chromosome aberrations, in particular in the formation of monomers and acentric fragments. The

pollutants produced during the recycling process are mutagenic and can induce cytogenetic

damage. These pollutants may remain undetected for a long period of time, are carcinogenic, can

be vertically transmissible, and can cause infertility, teratogenic effects, spontaneous abortions,

as well as obstructions to development and growth (Liu, et al., 2009).

Also worthwhile to mention, is that products that are manufactured in e-waste treating sites can

contain high levels of toxic chemicals. As earlier mentioned, methylated mercury accumulates in

living organisms, and most commonly big fish (Nakagawa, 2006), but also duck eggs, chicken

and pigs, which are either directly consumed or subsequently sold on the market and consumed

again by local people, or in some cases even exported to national and international markets (B.H.

Robinson, 2009). Evidence has supported this with the example of lead, whereby levels of lead

were found in jewelry which was manufactured in China: wipe tests proved that this lead could

be absorbed into human skin. Moreover, high levels of PCB were found in chicken eggs, and

crucian carp during a study conducted in the e-waste recycling site of Taizhou (region in Eastern

China): indeed all collected samples ‘exceeded the EU’s maximum permitted level in foods’ and

were ‘3 and 40 times higher than permitted by the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and National PCB Health Standard on Sea Food’ (Ling, Han, & Xu, 2008).

Furthermore, high levels of PCB were found in human milk (about 6.6 times higher than in

Sweden in 1997).

As regards to the environment, the leaching of toxic substances has led to the

contamination of rivers, such as the Liangjang River near Guiyu, where lead and cadmium levels

are above WHO Guidelines for safe drinking water (Nakagawa, 2006). Furthermore, unusable

junk is dumped in rivers and fields or openly burned (Leung, et al., 2006). People show no

consideration of protecting the environment due to lack of legislations and lack of interest, as

earning enough money to feed the family is the main preoccupation of the majority of people.

11  

3.2. Overview on policies and legislations fighting Electronic waste This part of the thesis shall give an overview of the main policies aiming at combating e-waste.

Their content, aim, and their power in terms of abidingness shall be explored. Of course there are

many other initiatives, but the following section shall only cover the most important policies, and

the ones that have a substantial impact on WEEE in developing countries. There will be a set of

subsections covering the Basel Convention, the Basel Ban, and the WEEE Directive.

3.2.1. The Basel Convention

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and

their Disposal entered into force on the 5th of May 1992, and has been signed by 167 countries

but ratified by 164 countries, excluding the United States of America (USA), Haiti, and

Afghanistan. Signing the Convention is the ‘first formal step prior to ratification declaring an

intention to become a Party to the Convention’ (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.-

a), and ratifying (also called ‘acceptance’ or ‘approval’) is the ‘consent of a State and/or regional

economic integration organization to become a Party and be bound by the Convention’ (United

Nations Environment Programme, n.d.-a). The Basel Convention was originally set up in order

to control the movement of e-waste dumping, and to prevent its harmful effects. It is a global

agreement ratified by the EU and other countries for ‘addressing the problems and challenges

posed by hazardous waste’ (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.-b). According to the

UNEP, hazardous waste includes toxic, poisonous, explosive, corrosive, flammable, ecotoxic,

and infectious waste. The Convention also provides technical and legal guidelines, as well as

statistical data for better implementation of the Convention. So far the Convention has developed

a framework for better control of hazardous waste disposal, and has also developed criteria for

‘the environmentally sound management’ (ESM)3 of hazardous waste. The key objectives of the

Convention are to ‘minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and

hazardousness’, ‘to dispose of them as close to the source of generation as possible’, and ‘to

reduce the movement of hazardous waste’ (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.-b).

Concerning the implementation procedure the Convention sets out, important to note is that

several articles within the Convention ‘oblige parties (national governments which have acceded

                                                            3 ESM is a tool aiming at protecting human health and the environment, which are the goals of the Convention. It includes  the  proper  control  of  ‘storage,  transport,  treatment,  reuse,  recycling,  recovery,  and  final  disposal’  of hazardous waste (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.‐b) of hazardous waste. 

12  

to the Convention) to take appropriate measures to implement and enforce its provisions,

including measures to prevent and punish conduct in contravention of the Convention’ (United

Nations Environment Programme, n.d.-b). Additionally, each Party (the States that are bound by

the Basel Convention) has to report information on movement and generation of hazardous

wastes. The Basel Convention defines ‘illegal traffic’ as a situation where the transboundary

movement of hazardous waste takes place ‘without notification pursuant to the provisions of the

Convention to all States concerned’, ‘without the consent of a State concerned’, ‘through consent

obtained by falsification, misrepresentation or fraud’, ‘when movement does not conform in a

material way with the documents’, or ‘when movements results in deliberate disposal of

hazardous wastes in contravention of the Convention and of general principles of international

law’. In case of illegal traffic, the country responsible for the violation of the convention shall

‘ensure that the waste is taken back, or, if impracticable, disposed of in accordance with the

provisions of the Convention’. Additionally, punishment is under national competence, and the

Convention suggests that each Party should have ‘appropriate national/domestic legislation to

prevent and punish illegal traffic’ (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.-c). There are

several important features in the Convention, which can be described as ‘implementation

mechanisms’. The first one is the Protocol on Liability, set up in 1999 in order to support

countries to deal with violations of the Convention. The protocol consists of strict rules and

punishments against exporting countries that might have caused any negative consequences such

as: damage or loss of property, life, income, but also injuries, and environment degradation

related costs. The protocol also blames other Parties who might have contributed to such

damages, or by ‘wrongful, intentional, reckless acts or omissions’ (Andrews, 2009).

The second instrument, is the Compliance Committee, which was established in 2003, in

order to ‘provide assistance to Parties to comply with their obligations under the Convention and

to facilitate, promote, monitor and aim to secure the implementation of and compliance with the

Convention’ (Andrews, 2009). The Committee is rather a soft instrument of enforcement, and

can be described as being a ‘non-confrontational, transparent, cost-effective and preventive in

nature, simple, flexible, non-binding and oriented in the direction of helping Parties to implement

the provisions’ instrument of the Basel Convention (Widawsky, 2008). The Parties are supposed

to submit non-compliance reports describing the faulty behaviors of other Parties, as well as their

13  

own. These submissions are then forwarded to the Secretariat, who in turn, comes up with

conclusions and recommendations during the next conference of Parties.

The third mechanism relates to the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure. The latter is a

procedure ‘which requires nations of import to receive full disclosure regarding potential waste

transports and send approval for such transports before a nation of export may permit the

exporter to commence with shipment’(Widawsky, 2008). In fact, the Convention does not allow

Parties to export their hazardous wastes without the consent of the country importing the waste.

The exporter is required to report on the characteristics of its waste, to which the importer

decides to give his consent or not. Based on this last decision, the transit shall proceed or be

cancelled (Widawsky, 2008).

Another provision under the Convention relates to the establishment of Basel

Convention’s Regional Training Centers for the Transfer of Technology (BCRCs). These centers

were developed with the objective to offer technological support and training to developing

countries in terms of infrastructure, facilities and practical issues to enable and ensure the ESM

of hazardous waste. These Training Centers are financed by the country of import and voluntary

donations from Parties (the Technical Trust Fund) (Widawsky, 2008).

3.2.2. The Basel Ban

The Basel Ban was introduced on the 22nd of September 1995, and was included in the

Convention as an amendment. This time, the new Ban provided a new and more specific

statement referring to a ban of ‘all forms of hazardous waste exports from the 29 wealthiest most

industrialized countries of the OECD, EU, and Liechtenstein to all non-OECD countries’ (Basel

Action Network, 2011). This full ban is legally binding and entails punishments in the form of

criminal penalties (Basel Action Network, 2011) but has not entered into force yet, due to a lack

of sufficient ratification. Indeed, a total of 62 (three-fourths of the Parties) ratifications is needed

in order for it to be implemented. The EU counts as one country instead of 27 countries, which

makes it harder to attain the required number of ratification, which would be more than 122

Parties (Basel Action Network, 2004) . Currently the Basel Ban has 28 ratifications (Basel

Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002).

14  

3.2.3. The WEEE Directive

The EU WEEE Directive is binding on the Member States (MS) regarding the targets of the

Directives; nevertheless, it is up to the MS to see how they wish to incorporate the directives into

their legal systems (according to EC Treaty article 1754). The WEEE Directive, (Directive

2002/96/EC) came into force in 2003, with the aim of reducing the amount of e-waste,

encouraging recycling, recovering, and the reuse of products in order to reduce waste disposal.

The MS had 18 months to translate the Directive into their national laws (European Association

of electrical and electronic waste take back systems, 2008). The Directive requires manufacturers

and importers from the EU ‘to take back their products from consumers and ensure that they are

disposed of using environmentally sound methods’ (Ongondo, Williams, & Cherrett, 2010).

Directives at the EU level are binding, and all MS are required to ‘separately collect household

WEEE at the annual rate of 4kg/capita’ (Ongondo, et al., 2010). However, a revision was

recently proposed by the European Commission (EC) to change the target and adjust it according

to the different economies of member states: ‘the new target is set at 65% of the average weight

of products placed on the market in the two preceding years’. Nevertheless, this target will only

become binding in 2016 to give enough time for all MS to adjust (Ongondo, et al., 2010). The

following figure gives an overview of how the EU WEEE Directive functions, with a special

focus on producers’ responsibility and explains the following: producers have the responsibility

to ensure the reuse, recycling, and recovery of their products, and domestic and business

consumers contribute to this responsibility by collecting their products and returning them

directly to the producers (for business consumers) or indirectly by giving them first to the

distributors (for domestic consumers). This propagated responsibility among producers is called

the ‘extended producer responsibility’ (EPR)5.

                                                            4 The EU WEEE Directive was based on article 175 of the EC Treaty, which allows ‘MS considerable freedom in their transposition  into national  legislation’. The article  ‘provides for a minimum harmonization measure’, which  leads to MS deciding to  implement more stringent measures’  (European Association of electrical and electronic waste take back systems, 2008).  5  The Organization  for  economic  co‐operation  and  development  (OECD)  defines  the  EPR  as  an  ‘environmental policy approach  in which a producer’s  responsibility  for a product  is extended  to  the post‐consumer  stage of a product’s life cycle’ (OECD, 2001). The EPR is characterized by the inclusion of treatment and disposal costs within the price of the new products. Again, MS can decide for themselves how to specifically implement the EPR. 

15  

EU WEEE Directive

Transposition into Member States Laws

Targets

Producers

Business consumers

Distributors

Domestic consumers

Recovery Recycling Reuse

Treatment

Safe disposal

Export for treatment outside EU

Figure 1: Simplified overview of the EU WEEE Directive (Ongondo, et al., 2010).

3.3. Gaps and incoherencies in these policies and legislations This section will try to identify the main gaps and incoherencies of several of the previously

described legislations and policies. Additionally, it will try to explain why one can observe such

gaps, and what the underlying reasons are. This section shall then be followed by a discussion

which will provide a set of recommendations which could improve the situation.

16  

3.3.1. Weaknesses of the Basel Convention

One of the main weaknesses of the Basel Convention is its failure to take into account the

pressure put on developing countries in terms of accepting e-waste. This pressure is caused by

the search for profit, the corruption among waste importing enterprises and recycling enterprises.

This is sustained by the famous Guinea Bissau case6. Another major weak point refers to a

definition problem, the ‘recycling loophole’: the Convention limits waste to ‘substances or

objects which are disposed of by the provisions of national law’, which, according to the BAN,

indirectly implies that as long as all dumping and burning of e-waste is referred to as ‘recycling’,

the waste will escape the conditions of the Convention. These issues were reflected in the

incident in Abidjan7, translating inefficiency in the following mechanisms: prior-informed

consent (PIC), the Basel Convention’s Regional Training Centers for the Transfer of Technology

(BCRCs), the Compliance Committee, the Liability Protocol, and the trust funds (Widawsky,

2008).

Enforcement is the main tool that does not appear in the Basel Convention and the

majority of legislations. The Convention acts as a guiding body leaving most of the

responsibilities to the Parties. The Convention encounters major implementation problems, and

neither the United Nations nor the International Court of Justice has the capacity to enforce it.

Lack of enforcement shows through ineffective compliance mechanisms such as the Compliance

Committee, and the Liability Protocol. The Compliance Committee ‘does not have a mandate to

enforce the Convention or to impose punitive measures against non-compliant Parties’

(Andrews, 2009). Most importantly, the Committee hasn’t had the opportunity to dissuade cases

of non-compliance because regular reporting is in decrease: Compared to 64% of Parties

reporting in 1993, only 27% reported in 2000. Additionally, since the 9th Conference of the

Parties in June 2008, ‘neither the Secretariat nor any Party to the Convention’ has ‘made a

submission of non-compliance to the Committee’ (Andrews, 2009). Evidence has shown that the

                                                            6 Guinea Bissau signed several contracts in the 1980’s to import European and American waste for a period of 5 years, in exchange of 600 million dollars (an amount which rounds up to the country’s annual gross national product) (Andrews, 2009). 7 The incident in Abidjan refers to the ‘Probo Koala’ case. On the 19th of August 2006, the ‘Probo Koala’ ship left the shores of Amsterdam in direction of the port of Abidjan. The ship contained 500 tons of toxic waste dumped into 16  different  sites  all  over  the  capital  city  (Andrews,  2009).  This  led  to  tremendous  health  tragedies  and environmental calamities: Indeed, aside from contaminating the city’s drinking water, food chain, and polluting the air, the waste caused grave health effects including ten deaths, over one hundred thousand medical consultations, 69 hospitalizations, and also 30 psychologists to help mentally traumatized people (Widawsky, 2008). 

17  

reasons behind this are due to a lack of capacity, personnel, inventory, training to collect data,

and of financial resources. Indeed, according to the Convention rules, all funding mechanisms

shall be provided upon a voluntary basis. Another potential reason would be that Parties prefer to

‘preserve their reputation’ and to ‘avoid the stigma associated with being a whistleblower’

(Widawsky, 2008).

The Basel Protocol on Liability and Compensation has still not entered into force nearly

10 years after its adoption. A number of 20 ratifications are needed in order for it to enter into

force and until now only nine Parties have ratified it (Andrews, 2009). Nevertheless, according

to an NGO representative, the protocol can be perceived as ‘a text with as many holes and

exclusions as Swiss cheese’ (Pruzin, 1999) with two main shortcomings: the first being the fact

that ‘generators of hazardous wastes are not liable for the wastes they create’ and second because

the liability of the exporting country comes to an end once the importing country is in possession

of the waste (Basel Action Network, n.d.). In other words, the protocol is useless in giving a

sense of responsibility to exporting countries in terms of ESM: once groundwater and soil is

contaminated and harm is done, there is no possibility to pass on liability to the one country in

infraction (Andrews, 2009). This situation provides very little incentive for developed countries

to invest in facilities at home (Basel Action Network, n.d.). This is one of the main reasons why

developing countries are reluctant to ratifying the Protocol. On the other hand, developed

nations, namely OECD countries, fail to support the Protocol for reasons of ‘excess of

punishment’. They are already subject to strict punishments under the OECD liability

conditions8, and argue that the latter is enough to comply with (Widawsky, 2008). And finally,

according to the Protocol, Parties which have made multilateral or bilateral agreements will not

be liable for infringement, which constitutes another loophole in favor or e-waste exporting

countries (Widawsky, 2008). This underlines the importance of the PIC method, which should

enable importing countries to assess how dangerous the waste is, and whether the country has the

capacity to dispose of it in an environmentally sound manner. This will in turn affect their

decisions to import the waste or not.                                                             

8 According to the OECD liability conditions, ‘ the generator and exporter could still be liable for damage and violations that occurred prior to importation, however, national laws would still be used regarding improper hazardous waste disposal within the country of import's borders’ (Andrews, 2009).

 

18  

Under the PIC procedure, exporting countries have the duty to ensure that the waste is disposed

of in an environmentally sound manner. The big loophole in such a situation is that not a single

enforcing body verifies whether the importing country has the facilities for ESM. Indeed, the

majority of developing countries seek to make profit of such trade, and find little incentive to

admit their lack of recycling capacity. Also, developing countries sometimes give consent upon

the belief that they possess adequate facilities for proper disposal (Widawsky, 2008). Developed

countries have an incentive in misrepresenting the nature of their wastes, and to influence the

importers’ decision (Andrews, 2009).

Regarding the Trust Funds, they have been absurdly low: By the beginning of 2006, the

Trust Funds for the entire Convention covered an amount of 771 419 dollars, whereas they were

also supposed to include an additional 6 938 177 dollars from all ratifying countries. Although

pledged to the Fund, this amount has never been paid by the Parties. In August 2006, the Trust

Funds had a total of 3 211 447 dollars for that same year and the years to come. Again, another 1

117 417 that had been promised by the Parties has never been disbursed. Furthermore, the

Technical Trust Fund consisted of a poor 411 424 dollars. This amount clearly falls short to

finance the disasters following waste exports: Indeed the incident in Ivory Coast already cost a

total amount of 68.3 million dollars (Widawsky, 2008). Another issue related to lack of funding,

refers to the BCRCs. Their funding is based on voluntary donations from Parties, which does not

guarantee regular funding for this facility. Without resources, BCRCs are unable to ‘equip

developing nations with the ability to establish environmentally sound waste facilities’

(Widawsky, 2008). Moreover, even though four BCRCs have already been established in the

African region, none of them have proven to be effective in dealing with the harm caused by the

Probo Koala ship. Additionally, the Convention calls for all Parties to deliver financial support to

the country in question, if it does not have enough means to deal with it on its own. With

reference to the Probo Koala case, Japan was the only country to provide financial aid to Abidjan

(Widawsky, 2008).

3.3.2. Weaknesses of the Basel Ban and the WEEE directive

Regarding the Basel Ban amendment, a number of 34 ratifications are needed for enforcement.

However, in the meantime, all Parties are expected to work towards it, and abide by it before it

actually enters into force. Whether this is done, is another question. The EU has ratified the

Basel Ban, unlike other developed countries such as Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New

19  

Zealand, and the US (Basel Action Network, 2008b), but also developing countries namely: the

Philippines, India, Brazil and Malaysia. After Sri Lanka, China has become the second Asian

country to have ratified the ban. The Basel Ban, if and when ratified, would be the first legal

instrument to have a true impact on the future of e-waste, by efficiently prohibiting ‘all exports

of hazardous wastes from MS of the OECD, the EU, and Liechtenstein to all other countries’

(Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002). One important reason why

ratifications are hard to obtain is because the ban enters in conflict with the Convention, which

‘recognizes the sovereignty of nations to decide whether to allow imports of hazardous waste’

and relies on the PIC procedure. This would restrict the possibility for countries to circumvent

the Convention.

According to David Hackett, the WEEE Directive has encountered numerous issues: EU

Member States have been very slow at adopting the respective legislations and regulations of the

Directive. This can partly be explained by the fact that the Directive doesn’t have any binding

authority on hazardous waste exporters as it leaves it up to each MS to define their own

regulations. This has resulted in a lack of commitment from the MS due to practical matters

(Hackett, 1989). A variety of reasons have led the EC to plan a revision of the WEEE directive

and to set out new targets, establish inspection bodies, and induce further harmonization. Among

these reasons is the fact that 33% of all WEEE, is treated according to the Directive conditions’.

From what is left, 13% ends up in landfills, and 54% is illegally shipped to non-EU countries

(European Commission, 2009). Additionally, in 2007 the EC reported that 3 Member States had

not properly transposed the provisions of the WEEE directive into their national laws, and that 6

others didn’t do so for the RoHS Directive. Indeed, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have not

included all necessary requirements, and their collection and treatment methods have failed to

cover waste exports although all EU MS were supposed to transpose the WEEE Directive into

national policy by the 13th of August 2004, and to establish recycling and take-back systems by

the 13th of August 2005. With regards to the RoHS Directive, Denmark, Malta, Lithuania,

Belgium, Sweden and Finland have failed to properly translate the Directive into their national

laws (IHS, 2007).

3.3.3. A focus on the United States and China

The United States (US) is the only developed country which has not ratified the Basel

Convention yet and is thus not considered as a Party. According to the Convention, it is illegal

20  

for all Parties to import waste from countries that are not Parties. In other words, it is illegal for

Parties to import e-waste from the US (Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition,

2002). The fact that the US has only signed the Convention, suggests that it has the intention to

ratify it. However, this intention is poorly expressed in the way the country deals with hazardous

substances, and its reluctance to not ratify either the Convention or the Ban. The following

statement of Bob Tonetti of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Office of Solid Waste

says it all: ‘I feel strongly about preserving the export markets for electronics because otherwise

we would not be collecting electronics in the US. Do you think we’re going to build new

smelters in the US? No, I don’t think so’ (Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics

Coalition, 2002). This precisely reflects on the particular problem the US faces in terms of

environmental justice9. There seems to be quite some inconsistencies within the practices of the

two main operating bodies in the field of environmental wastes: the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) and the EPA. The main malfunctions of those bodies are found in their

ability to easily pretend that a material is not hazardous because it is meant to be recycled, and

also in their ability to put all hazardous materials in an ‘exemption’ labeled box. It is easy indeed

for waste traders to claim a recycling destination for their waste. Once this is proclaimed, it

becomes difficult for the EPA to check whether this decision is actually true or whether the

waste is simply going to be sent abroad, most likely to a developing country. Additionally, most

the RCRA’s work until now has been dedicated to exempting e-wastes from export regulations,

and has been out of sync with the EPA’s Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TLCP) test:

In fact, according to the RCRA, circuit boards, cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are all considered to be

hazardous waste as they exceed the level of lead in the EPA’s TLCP test. Nevertheless, the

majority of e-waste exempts from this regulation, due to the following RCRA exemptions for

hazardous electronic waste: household exemptions, conditionally exempt small quantity

generators (producers that produce less than 7-8 computers per month), and some large volume

generators which leave scrap metal behind, including precious metal, computer monitors, and

plastics. These elements are all ‘not handled as hazardous waste if they are going for recycling,

even though they have failed the EPA’s test for lead toxicity’ (Basel Action Network & Silicon

                                                            9 The United States Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) defines environmental  justice as  ‘the  fair  treatment and meaningful of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation,  and  enforcement  of  environmental  laws,  regulations  and  policies’  (Environmental  Protection Agency, 2011). 

21  

Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002). As mentioned in the introduction, it is not only the developed

countries which circumvent legislation in order to make profit. Developing countries find an

incentive in importing e-waste for the benefit of earning an income, and violate their own laws as

well. The example of China will be used in order to illustrate the unveiling of such violations.

The import of solid waste as unusable raw materials, is prohibited in China, and strongly

regulated when the wastes are usable as raw materials. This is regulated by the law on Prevention

and control of Solid Waste Pollution to the Environment. If this is not respected, ‘the competent

department concerned under the State Council, shall be ordered to transport back and return the

solid wastes and may be imposed a fine exceeding 100 000 Yuan and not exceeding 1 000 000

Yuan concurrently by the Customs. Anyone who evades Customs supervision and control and

constitutes a crime of smuggling shall be investigated for criminal responsibility according to the

law’ (Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002). Furthermore, the

categories of wastes that are not approved for import by the State Environmental Protection

Administration include: computers, monitors, CRTs, TVs, refrigerators, and other electronic and

electrical devices. Nevertheless, this law is poorly enforced due to a lack of will from local

officials and a lack of infrastructure from the government. Furthermore, this seems even more

out of line given the fact that China ratified the Basel Amendment ten years ago. Instead this

should demonstrate China’s will and determination to already work towards this goal at a

national level (Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002).

4. Discussion The management of WEEE is a very broad and multidisciplinary issue involving a variety of

different sectors. Because the financial aspect of e-waste has taken over the minds of the people

it has become difficult to underline and raise the awareness on one’s home and one’s health.

Unfortunately, it is precisely these crucial areas one should focus on, and that are not emphasized

enough. The e-waste trade has become a source of income for developing countries and a profit

generator for developed countries, with an aspect of injustice particularly attributed to poor

countries. Indeed, in poor countries, poverty has become part of the decision making process of

whether or not to give enough attention to one’s health or sacrifice it for the sake of having an

income. This is unacceptable and morally wrong. This fundamental aspect does not fall within

the scope of the Basel Convention, and should be the driving force behind all e-waste policies.

22  

BAN and SVTC clearly support this by stating that ‘of all countries it is the rich and developed

that should have their own disposal facilities at home, minimize generation of hazardous waste,

and minimize transboundary movement of hazardous waste-all requirements of the Convention’

(Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002). However, most workers are

unaware of the impact of the treatment of e-waste on their health. There is a definite need to raise

awareness of the population, but also for their children (children using primary extracting

methods, and for unborn babies who are affected by their mothers’ exposure). This essential

point has been lacking in all political discussions. Furthermore, it seems out of place, that

developed countries, who invest large amounts of money in cancer research for instance, and

who are the most aware of the health risks of chemical hazards in WEEE, take advantage of poor

countries naivety.

Apart from being a multidimensional issue, e-waste is also a growing issue: The rise in

recycling businesses in Guiyu and in a number of Nigerian villages, demonstrates the lack of

knowledge on the problem and the lack of incentive to do something about it. Through the Basel

Convention, WEEE exports are not legal when the waste is not disposed of in an

environmentally sound manner, or when the PIC procedure is breached. However, as the third

part of the research has shown, the problem not only lies in the lack of commitment of the Parties

but also in the loopholes within the Convention, its financial mechanisms, and enforcement tools.

Also, the lack of coherence and harmonization of the WEEE Directive, mark the failure of

implementation, enforcement, and liability of the policies. Nevertheless, the idea behind the

policies is a good one, and it is unfortunate that nothing is being done in terms of counteracting

the loopholes, and that instead, pressure is being put upon Parties to ratify the Basel Ban, which

in turn, chases off countries even more, in particular the US. Despite all these barriers, there has

been reason to hope for a better future, especially at EU level. In 2010, the EC took legal action

against 8 MS who failed to properly transpose the WEEE Directive and the RoHS Directive into

national law. In the worst cases the case may be brought before the European Court of Justice,

which can then impose financial penalty on the country concerned according to Article 228 of

the EC Treaty (European Commission, 2007).

Other ways to improve the e-waste situation include actions at a higher level. However,

as mentioned earlier, numerous gaps and incoherencies can be found in already existing policies

and legislations. Rather than aiming for a ratification of the Basel Ban, which seems difficult to

23  

achieve, the focus should shift to improving existing policies. For instance, implementing an

effective Compliance Committee would solve a great deal: The Committee currently

underutilizes its resources. Instead of relying on the useless PIC procedure, the underutilized

financial resources could be used to invest in the inspection role prior to all waste trades, and to

ensure that trades are only allowed when considered to be absolutely safe. Most importantly, this

would put a hold on importation into developing countries that lack ESM facilities but would

also force developing countries to develop their own ESM facilities. It would create greater

cooperation between developing and industrialized countries to develop ESM practices, knowing

that industrialized countries would be more willing to provide knowledge and build capacity, but

also to start engaging in waste trading with poor countries. Moreover, NGOs and individuals

should have the right to initiate proceedings against Parties, and not only the Parties themselves,

so that the Committee receives more non-compliance reports. Furthermore, the Liability

Protocol, (although it hasn’t entered into force yet) would dispose of enough financial resources

to increase the Technical Funds and to strengthen the BCRCs (in lack of resources). The Protocol

would impose monetary sanctions upon countries violating the Convention, and this money

could be invested in the BCRCs in developing countries. Furthermore, Trust Funds are financed

on a voluntary basis by the Parties. Why would industrialized countries invest in developing

countries ESM facilities if they too do not have ESM facilities? The Trust Funds could also be

reinforced by donations from public and private suppliers and not only the Parties. Some

improvements have been made among the EU directives on e-waste: proposals for greater

coherence among different EU legislation have been put forward, such as better coordination

between the WEEE Directive, the Marketing of Products package, and the RoHS Directive10; but

                                                            

10 The  Restriction  of  the  use  of  certain Hazardous  Substances  in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment Directive 

(RoHS Directive), also known as Directive 2002/95/EC, entered  into  force on  the 1st of  July 2006, and  ‘bans  the 

placing  on  the  EU  market  of  new  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  containing  more  than  agreed  levels’ 

(European Brominated Flame Retardants  Industry Panel, 2008) of 6 hazardous substances found  in electrical and 

electronic  products,  namely:  lead,  mercury,  cadmium,  haxavalent  chromium,  polybrominated  biphenyls,  and 

polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers.  The  Directive  applies  to  products  within  10  categories:  large  household 

appliances, small household appliances, computing and communication equipment, consumer electronics, power 

tools, lighting, toys and sports equipment, and automatic dispensers (RoHSGuide, 2005).

24  

also common standards, namely common definitions of hazardous waste and accepted levels of

waste. All in all, the answer to the e-waste issue does not lie in exporting it to poor countries who

can’t deal with it, but rather at putting a halt to the problem right at its source. Policies and

legislations can only do so much when positively affecting the people whose health and lives are

at stake. Good action can not only focus on recycling methods, as recycled waste will eventually

turn out into pollution at a later stage. A paradigm shift towards environmental justice is needed

whereby people need to change their consumption levels, and adopt a modest standard of living,

governed by a higher sustainably of products, requiring the products to be cleaner, safer, up-

gradable, long-lived, and recyclable.

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

25  

References

Andrews, A. (2009). Beyond the Ban–can the Basel Convention adequately Safeguard the Interests of the World’s Poor in the International Trade of Hazardous Waste? LEAD: Law, Environment & Development Journal, 5(2).

Basel Action Network (2004). Entry into force of the Basel Ban Amendment. Retrieved from http://www.ban.org/Library/Entry.pdf

Basel Action Network (2006). Basel Non-Compliance Notification Report Retrieved 16th of March, 2011, from http://www.ban.org/notifications/BNN2006_1.pdf

Basel Action Network (2008a). About us: Background and history Retrieved 11th of April, 2011, from http://e-stewards.org/about/

Basel Action Network (2008b). Why laws aren't enough Retrieved 23rd of April, 2011, from http://e-stewards.org/the-e-waste-crisis/why-arent-current-laws-enough/

Basel Action Network (2011). What is the Basel Ban? Retrieved April 10th, 2011, from http://www.ban.org/about_basel_ban/what_is_basel_ban.html

Basel Action Network (n.d.). Saving the Basel Liability Protocol Retrieved 13th of May, 2011, from http://www.ban.org/subsidiary/liability10.html

Basel Action Network, & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (2002). Exporting harm: the high-tech trashing of Asia. San Jose, California.

CBSNews (2009). Following the trail of toxic e-waste Retrieved 12th of March, 2011, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtml

Davis, C. (2006). Ask Earth Trends: Why is electronic waste a problem? Retrieved 30th of March, 2011, from http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/130

Environmental Protection Agency (2011, 4/05/2011). Environmental Justice. Retrieved 13th of May, 2011, from http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/

European Association of electrical and electronic waste take back systems (2008). WEEE Forum guidance document on compliance with Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Brussels.

European Brominated Flame Retardants Industry Panel (2008). What is the RoHS Directive? Retrieved 10th of May, 2011, from http://www.ebfrip.org/main-nav/european-regulatory-centre/rohs-directive-restriction-of-the-use-of-certain-hazardous-substances-in-electrical-and-electronic-equipment/what-is-the-rohs-directive

European Commission (2007). Waste: Commission starts legal action against eight Member States over electronic waste and hazardous substances Retrieved 12th of May, 2011, from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1513&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

European Commission (2009). The European Commission has announced revised proposals around the scope of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive.

Greenpeace International (2009). Where does e-waste end up? Retrieved March 17th, 2011, from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/the-e-waste-problem/where-does-e-waste-end-up/

Hackett, D. P. (1989). Assessment of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. Am. UJ Int'l L. & Pol'y, 5, 291.

IHS (2007). EC starts Legal Action for RoHS/WEEE Violations. Retrieved from http://www.ihs.com/news/eu-en-rohs-wees--10-07.htm

26  

International Programme on Chemical Safety (2003). Polychlorinated biphenyls: Human health aspects Geneva.

Jusko, T. A., Henderson Jr, C. R., Lanphear, B. P., Cory-Slechta, D. A., Parsons, P. J., & Canfield, R. L. (2008). Blood lead concentrations< 10 g/dL and child intelligence at 6 years of age. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(2), 243.

Knauf, M. (2010). Electronic waste. Retrieved March 23rd, 2011, from http://angelingo.usc.edu/index.php/science/electronic-waste/

Leung, A., Cai, Z. W., & Wong, M. H. (2006). Environmental contamination from electronic waste recycling at Guiyu, southeast China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 8(1), 21-33.

Ling, B., Han, G., & Xu, Y. (2008). PCB levels in humans in an area of PCB transformer recycling. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1140(1), 135-142.

Liu, Q., Cao, J., Li, K. Q., Miao, X. H., Li, G., Fan, F. Y., et al. (2009). Chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage in human populations exposed to the processing of electronics waste. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 16(3), 329-338.

Nakagawa, L. (2006). Toxic Trade: The Real Cost of Electronics Waste Exports from the United States. Retrieved from http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=5&fid=66

OECD (2001). Extended Producer Responsibility: a guidance manual for governments. Paris: OECD.

Ongondo, F., Williams, I., & Cherrett, T. (2010). How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management.

Osibanjo, O., & Nnorom, I. C. (2007). The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries. Waste Manag Res, 25(6), 489-501.

Pedersen, S. W. (1996). Electronics industry environmental roadmap. Pinto, V. N. (2008). E-waste hazard: The impending challenge. Indian Journal of Occupational

and Environmental Medicine, 12(2), 65. Pruzin, D. (1999). Hazardous Waste Agreement on Liability Protocol Reached at Basel

Conference of Parties [Press release]. Retrieved from www.ban.org/ban_news/hazardous3.html

Puckett, J., Byster, L., Westervelt, S., Gutierrez, R., Davis, S., Hussain, A., et al. (2002). Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.

Robinson, B. H. (2009). E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Sci Total Environ, 408(2), 183-191.

Robinson, B. H. (2009). E-waste: An assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 408(2), 183-191.

RoHSGuide (2005). RoHS Compliance FAQ Retrieved 10th of May, 2011, from http://www.rohsguide.com/rohs-faq.htm

Ryan, J. A., Scheckel, K. G., Berti, W. R., Brown, S. L., Casteel, S. W., Chaney, R. L., et al. (2004). Reducing children's risk from lead in soil. Environ Sci Technol, 38(1), 18A-24A.

Schmidt, C. W. (2006). Unfair trade e-waste in Africa. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(4), A232.

United Nations Environment Programme (n.d.-a). Definition of key terms Retrieved 7th of April, 2011, from http://www.basel.int/ratif/definitions.html

27  

28  

United Nations Environment Programme (n.d.-b). Description of the Convention Retrieved 7th of April, 2011, from http://www.basel.int/convention/basics.html

United Nations Environment Programme (n.d.-c). Legal matters Retrieved 10th of April, 2011, from http://www.basel.int/legalmatters/illegtraffic/index.html

Widawsky, L. (2008). In my backyard: How Enabling hazardous waste trade to developing nations can improve the Basel Convention's ability to achieve environmental justice. Envtl. L., 38, 577.

Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Boni, H. (2005). Global perspectives on e-waste. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(5), 436-458.

 

 

 

.