1.0 Introduction
The rapid technology change witnessed in the 21st century has resulted in remarkable increase in electronic waste globally. According to Bandyopadhyay (2010), electronic and electronic products are being discarded at an alarming rate after the end of their use. E-waste is a term that is used to refer to waste electrical and electronic equipments (WEEE) that are not destined for re-use by the owner. Bandyopadhyay (2010) asserts that e-waste can be a source of secondary raw materials. For example, the valuable materials used in production of electronic and electronic products can be recovered for re-use. Examples of such materials include cooper, aluminium, iron, and silver amongst others However, most electronic products are not designed with the intention of recovering the valuable materials at the end of their life. It is estimated that only 15% of the total e-waste generated globally is fully recycled (Heacock et al. 2016). Considering the fact that electronic and electrical products are made of different materials, they can be as source of toxic hazard if they are not property discarded. This report reviews the facts, problems and solutions for e-waste.
2.0 Findings
2.1 Generation of e-waste
E-waste can be classified into different categories that include temperature waste equipments, screens and monitors, lamps, small equipments, large equipments, and small information technology and telecommunication equipments (Balde et al. 2015). Despite the presence of legislations that govern e-waste, enforcement of such legislations by respective governments has been limited (Balde et al. 2015). A study conducted in 2014 showed that 41.8 million metric tons of e-waste was generated globally. The volume of e-waste is expected to increase to 49.8 million metric tons by 2018. This represents an annual growth of approximately 4% and 5%. The graph below indicates the trend of e-waste generation globally from 2010 and the expected volume of e-waste by 2018.
|
Year |
E-waste generated (metric tons) |
|
2010 |
33.8 |
|
2011 |
35.8 |
|
2012 |
37.8 |
|
2013 |
39.8 |
|
2014 |
41.8 |
|
2015 |
43.8 |
|
2016 |
45.7 |
|
2017 |
47.8 |
|
2018 |
49.8 |
Table 1
Source: (Balde et al. 2015)
Generation of e-waste varies across different regions. Asia, Americas and Europe are the leading regions with reference to e-waste generation. In 2014, Asia generated 16.0 million metric tons of e-waste while Europe and the Americas generated 11.6 and 11.7 million metric tons of e-waste respectively (Balde et al. 2015). The graph below indicates a comparison of the volume of e-waste generated across different regions by the end of 2014.
|
Region |
Volume of E-waste (metric tons) |
|
Africa |
1.9 |
|
Americas |
11.7 |
|
Asia |
16 |
|
Europe |
11.6 |
|
Oceania |
0.6 |
Graph 2
Source: (Balde et al. 2015)
2.2 Factors causing e-waste to increase
It is estimated that the volume of e-waste increases by 40 million tonnes annualaly (E-Waste Fact Sheet 2015). One of the major factors causng an increase in the volume of e-waste entails increase in the rate of technological innovation and consumption of electronic and electrical equipments. Technological innovation has significantly reduced the lifespan of electronic products. For exampe, the average lifespan for personal computers declined from 6 years in 1997 to only 2 years in 2005. Conversely, the average lifespan for mobile phones is less than 2 years (Atasu & Wassenhove 2012). In 2004, 183 milion personal computers were sold globally. However, in 2009 and 2014, the volume of personal computers sold increased to 281 million and 384 million units respectively. This trend is expected to continue into the future, which means that e-waste will continue to be a major problem.
Increase in e-waste is further compounded by prevalence of ineffective e-waste management practices. One of the e-waste management practices applied across different regions includes the take-back system. Electrical and electoronic equipment producers have a responsibility to ensure that their products are optimally disposed at the end of their useful life. Thus, electrical and electronic producers have a duty to establish a under the take-back system (Johri 2008). Atasu and Wassenhove (2012) emphasise that producers of electrical and electronic waste can eitheir establish the take-back system individually or collectively. Apart from producers, the take-back system is also operationalised by designated organisations and government agencies (Johri 2008).
According to Bald et al. (2015), establishment of the take-back system is founded under the e-waste legislation. For example, the take-back system in the European Union is anchored on the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive [Directive 2003/108/EC] (Atasu & Wassenhove 2012). To be effective, the take back system should be a collective effort between retailers, the municipal counciles and pick-up services. Through this approach, the e-waste generated can be effectively managed. However, Balde et al. (2015) affirms that only a small proportion of e-waste is managed under the take-back system. For example, in 2015, only 6.5 million metric tons of e-waste was managed under the national take-back systems. Another study on e-waste involving 28 European Union countries revealed that 0.7 metric tons of e-waste ended in waste bins (Balde et al. 2015).
Despite the effectiveness of the take back system in managing e-waste, the benefits of the system have not been fully realised. The application of the take-back e-waste management system varies significantly across different regions. For example, in the European Union, only 40% of e-waste is treated using this method while only 12% of e-waste is treated under the system in Canada and the United States(Bald et al. 2015). The graph below indicates a comparison of application of take-back system in managing e-waste across different countries.
|
Country |
Proportion of e-waste treated under the take-back system |
|
European Union |
40% |
|
China & Japan |
30% |
|
United States & Canada |
12% |
|
Australia |
1% |
Graph 3
Source: (Balde et al. 2015)
Ineffective e-waste management practices have contributed to increase in the volume of e-waste. For example, graph 2 shows that Africa and Oceania regions are characterised by an increase in the volume of e-waste generated despite the fact that they are not major producers of electronic and electrical equipments. This occurrence has arisen from lack of effective legislations governing e-waste management. Seeberger et al. (2016) assert that 23% of e-waste generated in the developed economies is subsequently exported into less developed economies for recycling by the informal sectors due to lack of effective regulatory mechanisms to curb against such practices. For example, despite enactment of the International Basel Convention Treaty, which restricts cross-border movement of e-waste, a significant proportion of hazardous e-waste is illegally exported into the less developed economies (Miller & Spoolman 2011).
3.0 Approaches to decrease e-waste problem
E-waste poses a considerable environmental and health risk, which highlights the need to ensure that the e-waste problem is decreased or eliminated. There are different approaches that can be adopted in achieving this end as examined herein.
3.1 Life Cycle Assessment
This approach focuses on ensuring that environmentally friendly electrical and electronic products are designed and developed. Thus, the LCA approache emphasises on the value of taking into account the economic and environmental dimensions in designing and developing electronic and electrical products (Kiddee, Naidu & Wong 2013). By applying the LCA method, designers are able to effectively determine the potential environmental impact of their products hence ensuring that the negative impacts are allivieated in the product development phase. One of the notable methods applied under the LCA method entail inclusion of the recycling or reuse and take-back systems (Kiddee, Naidu & Wong 2013).
3.2 Material Flow Analysis
This approach focuses on analysing the route taken by e-waste from from user to the disposal or recycling site. The MFA method focuse on evaluating whether effective e-waste management approaches are applied in the course of e-waste flow. This method is applicable in managing the ecological impact of e-waste (Shah & Batool 2015).
3.3 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
This approach entails an environmemtnal policy that is based on the take-back system. Under the system, producers of electronic and electrical products are pressurized to take-back their products at the end of their use (Shah & Batool 2015). However, this method is largely applicable in the developed economies compared to the developing and the less developed economies. Moreover, the effectiveness of this method in reducing the e-waste problem is influenced by the support provided by the government and non-governmental agencies.
4.0 Conclusion and recommendations
The report indicates that e-waste is a major problem that is currently being experienced by the developed and developing economies. The rate of e-waste generation has increased significaantly over the years. Amongst the core factors that have stimulated increase in the volume of e-waste include increase in the rate of technological developemnt and consumption of electronic and electrical products. Moreover,the laws and policies formulated to curb increase in e-waste hav not been effective. Thus, e-waste continues to pose significant environmental, economic, and social challenges.
To deal with the problem of e-waste, it is iimperative for the following aspects to be taken into consideration.
- A collaborative approaach between electrical and electronic product manufacturers, government, and non-governmental agencies should be adopted in developing and implementing policies aimed at reducing or eliminating e-waste.
- Governments should progressively assess the extent to which e-waste management policies and laws are adhered to.
- Producers of electronic wastes should consider designing and developing eco-friendly electronic and electrical products.
Reference List
Atasu, A & Wassenhove, L 2011, ‘An operations perspective on product take-back legislation for e-waste; theory, practice and research needs’, Production and Operations Management, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 407-422.
Balde, C, Wang, F, Kuehr, R & Huisman, J 2015, Global e-waste monitor 2014. [Online]. Available at:< https://i.unu.edu/media/unu.edu/news/52624/UNU-1stGlobal-E-Waste-Monitor-2014-small.pdf>
(Accessed November 30, 2016).
Bandyopadhyay, A 2010, ‘Electronics waste management; Indian practices and guidelines’, International Journal of Energy and Environment, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 793-804.
Heacock, M, Kelly, C, Asante, A, Birnbaum, L, Bergman, A & Carpenter, D 2016, ‘E-waste and harm to vulnerable populations; a growing global problem’, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 124, no. 5.
E-waste Fact Sheet: E-waste 2015. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cleanup.org.au/files/clean_up_australia_e-waste_factsheet.pdf (Accessed November 30, 2016).
Johri, R 2008, E-waste; implications, regulations and management in India and currernt global best practices, Energy & Resources Institute, New Delhi.
Kiddee, P, Naidu, R & Wong, M 2013, ‘Electronic waste management approaches; an overview ‘, Waste Management, vol. 33, pp. 1237-1250.
Miller, T & Spoolman, S 2011, Living in the environment; principles, connections and solutions, Cengage, New York.
Shah, M & Batool, R 2015, ‘An overview of electronic waste management, practices and impending challenges’, International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 125, no. 2.
Seeberger, J, Grandhi, R, Kim, S, Mase, W, Reponen, T, Ho, S & Chen, A 2016, ‘E-waste management in the United States and public health implications’, Journal of Environmental Health, vol. 79, no. 3.
