E-Waste
Structure:-
- Introduction
- What is e-Waste
- Composition of e-waste
- E-waste in India
- Domestic
- International
- India as a major dumping backyard
- Impacts of e-waste
- E-waste management
Introduction:-
In the 20th Century, the information and communication revolution has brought enormous changes in the way we organize our lives, our economies, industries and institutions.
These spectacular developments in modern times have undoubtedly enhanced the quality of our lives. At the same time, these have led to manifold problems including the problem of massive amount of hazardous waste and other wastes generated from electric products. These hazardous and other wastes pose a great threat to the human health and environment. The issue of proper management of wastes, therefore, is critical to the protection of livelihood, health and environment.
What is e-waste?:-
E-waste or electronic waste,can broadly described as loosely discarded, surplus, obsolete, broken, electrical or electronic devices.
Composition of E-Waste:-
The composition of e-waste is diverse and falls under ‘hazardous’ and ‘non-hazardous’ categories. Broadly, it consists of ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
Iron and steel constitute about 50% of the waste,followed by plastics (21%), non-ferrous metals (13%) and other constituents.The presence of elements like lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, hexavalent chromium, and flame retardants beyond threshold quantities make e-waste hazardous in nature.
E-Waste in India:-
There are 10 States that contribute to 70 per cent of the total e-waste generated in the country, while 65 cities generate more than 60 per cent of the total e-waste in India. Among the 10 largest e-waste generating States, Maharashtra ranks first followed by Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Delhi, Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab.
Among the top ten cities generating e-waste, Mumbai ranks first followed by Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Pune, Surat and Nagpur.
Source of E-waste :-
1)Domestic-
- The main sources of electronic waste in India are the government, public and private (industrial) sectors, which account for almost 70 per cent of total waste generation. The contribution of individual households is relatively small at about 15 per cent; the rest being contributed by manufacturers.
- An Indian market Research Bureau (IMRB) survey of ‘E-waste generation at Source’ in 2009 found that out of the total e-waste volume in India, televisions and desktops including servers comprised 68 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. Imports and mobile phones comprised of 2 per cent and 1 per cent respectively.
2)International-
- E-waste of Developed and Developing Countries:-Though , almost all contemporary report point towards USA as the major source of e-waste, in upcoming future this is going to change. The reason are simple – the developing countries like India and China are fast catching up. As their economies grow, the purchasing power parity of people grows , thus affinity to luxury and electronic has only one way out – exponential increment.China’s recent data on e-waste is evident to this .On the contrary, for the developed countries with ageing population, the demand for goods will remain almost constant or will decline relatively, being saturated markets.
- Hence the major focus area should be the developing countries to tackle the e-waste.
3)India as a dumping backyard of developed countries :-
- A major reason for the rapid generation of e-waste and the resulting growth of the recycling market can be found in the high rate of obsolescence in the electronics market. Most electronic goods, especially in the West, have very short lifespan. Such goods are routinely replaced at least every two years, and then either simply discarded or exported to developing countries where there is still a demand for second-hand merchandise.
- Recycling facilities exist in developed countries and stringent measures have been taken by the Governments regarding disposal of e-waste. However, there are difficulties in implementing regulations and dealing with e-waste owing to increased activism by environmentalists and the high cost of recycling. Despite concerns on the issues of fraudulent traders and environmentally unsound practices, it has been easier and cheaper for these countries to ship e-wastes to the developing countries where access to and recycling of such discarded electronic goods make a good economic option. For both sides, it is profitable or a win-win situation. The only difference being that the rich country is dumping toxic waste on the poorer country.
- In India, the source of e-waste is not only domestic but also international.Not only India, but many countries in South and South-East Asia are used as dumping backyards for inferior products from developed countries.
- This can be further elaborated by giving an example of dismantling of ships, which involves the process by which end-of-life ships are converted into steel and other recyclable items, and the remainder is then disposed of. These operations are performed mainly in South Asia, with India, Bangladesh and Pakistan currently occupying 70-80 per cent of the market. The industry offers a valuable end-of-life solution to old ships although there are concerns about the environmental, health and safety standards employed, especially in South Asia, as the industry has historically gravitated towards low labour cost countries with weak regulations on occupational health,safety and the environment.
- So far, India has been the destination of the hazardous and industrial wastes like mercury, electronic and plastic wastes from the United States; asbestos from Canada; defective steel and tin plates from the E.U., Australia and the U.S.; toxic waste oil from the United Arab Emirates,Iran and Kuwait; zinc ash, residues and skimmings, lead
waste and scrap, used batteries and waste and scrap of metals such as cadmium, chromium, cobalt, antimony, hafnium and thallium from Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Norway.These wastes contain toxic components which are damaging to the public health and environment
Impacts of E-waste :-
- There is no doubt that it has been linked to the growing incidence of several lethal or severely debilitating health conditions, including cancer, neurological and respiratory disorders, and birth defects.This impact is found to be worse in developing countries like India where people engaged in recycling e-waste are mostly in the unorganized sector, living in close proximity to dumps or landfills of untreated e-waste and working without any protection or safeguards.
- Such harmful substances leach into the surrounding soil, water and air during waste treatment or when they are dumped in landfills or left to lie around near it.Sooner or later they would adversely affect human health and ecology.
- However, since e-waste also contains significant concentration of substances that are hazardous to human health and the environment, even a small amount of e-waste entering the residual waste will introduce relatively high amount of heavy metals and halogenated substances.
- E-waste typically contains complex combinations of materials and components down to microscopic levels. The wastes are broken down in not just for recycling but for the recoverable materials such as plastic, aluminium, copper and gold.
- It was found that a river water sample from the Lianjiang river near a Chinese “recycling village” had lead levels that were 2400 times higher than the World Health Organization Drinking Water Guidelines thereby involving a serious health hazard.
E-Waste management :-
- The principles of e-waste management are as any – REDUCE,REUSE,RECYCLE ,strictly in that order, which means reduce is the primary goal. To reduce , excessive consumerism has to be addressed.Those who can afford have been negligent in their use of e-products.Just because one can buy, that should not be translated to that one should buy. For a country like India, e-products are looked upon as social status symbol- which is rather odd and misconceived .It is not the illiterate rural folk , but broadly the educated , urban mass , who has long been ignorant of the repercussion of their obsessive consumerism of e-products.This needs awareness. Luxury and necessity can not be defined broadly and varies from person to person, hence awareness campaign can be brought in to inculcate self-restraint .
- The next is reuse. Though reuse is a viable concept for all other kinds of waste management, it not viable for e-products. The reasons , as explained above ,are the limited life of e-products.Also , degraded or inferior product poses more threat from reuse.
- Recycle , is a holistic concept, but it needs a elaborate plan to tackle the menace of e-waste. The plan starts with the waste segregation at source, but to our dismay we have not been able to implement it. Hence no wonder, if one finds a discarded computer along with the stale curry . To enhance the recycling capabilities , it is necessary to segregate the waste at source and to do that a comprehensive municipal solid waste management and work out is need of the hour(e.g.- Different dustbins for different waste)
- While we can deal with the above mentioned concepts for domestic waste, to reduce the imported e-waste needs legislation.Waste processing is looked upon as industry and developing and under developed nations are used as landfills. This has to stop. It might look as a good economic option ( e.g.- India leads in ship breaking industry) ,but these are neither industrious nor economic in the long run . The serious public health and irreversible environmental damage , makes no sense to promote or to be proud of this kind of industry.In fact multiple conventions has came in to being in this regard .
- The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is the most comprehensive global environmental agreement on hazardous and other wastes. It was signed by 173 countries on 22 March 1989 and entered into force on 5 May 1992. It was basically created to prevent the economically motivated dumping of hazardous wastes from richer to poorer countries, which had resulted from a tightening of environmental regulations and a steep rise in the cost of hazardous waste disposal in industrialized countries.However the compliance of this convention is questioned many a time.
- The Bamako Convention, on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes was adopted by the twelve nations of the Organization of African Unity at Bamako, Mali in January, 1991, and came into force in March, 1999.The need to sign the Bamako Convention arose from the failure of the Basel Convention to prohibit trade of hazardous waste to the less developed countries, and from the realization that many developed nations were exporting toxic wastes to Africa.
- It is evident from the two examples that international conventions (Basel ) might not be as effective hence regional (Bamako) conventions are necessary. Moreover, if India develops it’s resistance through stringent law and punitive measures , it would act as the necessary deterrence against India as a dumping ground.In this regard the “e-waste (Management and Handling) Amendment Rules, 2015” is a welcome step.
- While law and awareness can go along a way to safeguard public health from the vagaries of e-waste, it would be imprudent not to consider the technological or scientific aspects.For e.g. – there exists alternative to lead , however just because lead makes more economic sense , hence it is used disproportionately in the industries and to tackle this, not only law but also alternative yet cost -effective solutions are necessary , and for this to work, science has to come to the rescue of environment .
- If the citizens are made aware , the scientists are made aware , the policy makers are made aware , the agents of economics are made aware and work together ,then we can achieve best e-waste management practices that inflict zero damage to the environment and public health.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.

Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.