Recycling is good. Reuse is even better - but is this always the case? WEEE management is now in a dangerous grey area where purportedly ‘reusable’ items are exported to developing countries, not for reuse but for materials reclamation, often in ways harmful to workers’ health and the environment. What safeguards are needed?
By Jeff Cooper
The reuse and recycling of waste is growing on an international scale. For many years there has been a legitimate trade in ferrous and non-ferrous metals, paper and several other items. This trade has allowed suitable wastes to be reprocessed overseas for the benefit of the global economy and also the environment. Twenty years ago the Basel Convention was adopted to recognize the fact that many hazardous wastes were being sent to countries that were incapable of handling them. This was to ensure that no hazardous wastes were sent to countries outside of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) for disposal or recovery.
Now in many developed economies, individuals and businesses are increasingly discarding goods before they are worn out. The range of goods is expanding, including cars and an increasing amount of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), where their potential for further use in the household or through the extended family is no longer fully exploited. Thus in Sweden, for instance, for every television that is sold another TV is discarded at a WEEE collection centre.
In businesses the trend is even more pronounced, with IT equipment being replaced every two years and many electrical items regularly replaced through leasing arrangements. Some of these items migrate to the household sector, but more become available for potential reuse outside the country of origin.
WEEE: the risks in reuse
A considerable amount of WEEE is now being exported - not as waste but as reusable equipment - and this has emerged as a point of concern on a global scale. There are several reasons for this trend, including the legitimate reason for not consigning any waste to waste disposal when there is potential for extending its life-cycle through reuse. However, under the guise of exporting reusable EEE, many shipments of EEE are actually obtained from waste management streams and are not necessarily checked for their working condition.
 EEE or WEEE? It is hard to trace whether ‘reusable’ items in transit will actually be reused overseas |
Several NGOs such as BAN (the Basel Action Network) have shown that subsequently this equipment is very crudely recycled, mainly for its metal content, in Third World countries. Therefore, this WEEE is of value even if not working, but valuable materials are reclaimed in ways that are often harmful to the health of the workers and damaging the environment. These NGOs are actively trying to raise awareness of this issue in a wider illegal waste trade context - see box on this page.
The main exporter of WEEE and potentially reusable EEE for processing overseas is the US. It is also the ‘main’ country that has not signed the Basel Convention. With its free market emphasis for all aspects of WEEE management and the environmental controls in many US states, it is not surprising that the US looks overseas for cost-effective options for dealing with WEEE.
The policy context
The temptation to export to cut costs - rather than process WEEE appropriately in a treatment facility - is becoming greater as more countries introduce producer responsibility and other controls over WEEE (such as landfill bans). This also applies to other waste streams, such as packaging and end-of-life vehicles, where trade in recyclable wastes can only grow in response to higher recycling targets.
There are no statistics as to the scale of the problem because such shipments of reusable equipment are outside the control of the Basel Convention. Even under the minimal controls for green-list wastes, the measurement of exports of WEEE is limited.
In recognition of this issue in the EU, a project was established in 2004 to check that potentially reusable EEE was genuinely reusable. Through IMPEL (the European Union network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law), checks were made at several ports to see whether reusable EEE was indeed likely to be reused. While the number of checks were restricted due to lack of resources, it was possible to examine some of the shipments which were classified as second-hand equipment.
Within this venture, in 2005 six member countries of IMPEL (Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK) undertook a concerted operation to try to clamp down on the possible illegal export of WEEE.
And in May 2006, the Recycling and Waste Minimisation working group from the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) released a report on the Dutch experience in this field. This was based on research undertaken in the IMPEL project and sought to show the scale of the problem.
Illegal exports from the Netherlands
A large number of containers come through Rotterdam, the Netherlands for trans-shipment from other countries. Rotterdam handles about 18 million containers each year, of which about 85,000 will be inspected by customs officials.
VROM (the Netherlands’ Environment Ministry) has joined with five other countries in checking containers for suspicious shipments based on intelligence of previous problematic shipments and other information. Under IMPEL, 85 containers were checked. Of these, 69 containers labelled as reusable EEE were impounded because they actually contained WEEE - non-reusable EEE - amounting to 1000 tonnes. Two-thirds of the containers were from the Netherlands while the other third were from Germany and the UK.
 Inspectors checking a suspect container. all photos: environment agency |
The route by which the WEEE, mainly TVs, came from the Netherlands into the containers starts with retailers taking items back under the Netherlands’ WEEE recycling scheme. However, instead of passing them to the scheme, the retailers sell them often for as little as €2 per item to brokers who collect the goods and pack them into containers for export, mainly to African and Asian countries.
When these items were checked by the enforcement authorities, 50%-90% of TVs in each container load were not working. In addition, because the TVs were just piled into the containers with no protection, a further proportion would likely to have been damaged in transit.
With the 69 containers of WEEE, the Dutch authorities imposed an immediate fine of €450 per tonne (€450,000 in total) to the Dutch Exchequer. Very few of those found exporting this waste would wish to fight the case through the courts, where higher fines could be levied and there would also be the legal costs. In contrast, in the UK where several other similar containers were stopped in 2005, possible cases against exporters in October 2006 were still being assessed.
 Even where electronic goods are in fact to be reused, improper packing will render a portion unusable |
Tracking down who is responsible for the shipment of these wastes is becoming increasingly difficult. A smokescreen of brokers, shipping agents and other intermediaries is now becoming standard practice among those who ship ‘household effects’ and ‘second-hand items’, most often to countries whose own customs controls are likely to be easily corruptible.
Tackling the illegal WEEE trade
Under the recent changes to the Basel Convention and subsequent changes to European and EU Member States’ legislation, green list wastes will need to be reported to environmental regulators. However, this does not tackle the problem of items of WEEE that are being exported as ‘reusable’.
ISWA therefore suggests that in order to alleviate these problems, the following measures should be introduced:
- enhancing the provisions of the Basel Convention to include additional provisions that explicitly recognize any second-hand goods where their origin was from a waste stream or generated from waste management facilities
- increasing the checks made by enforcement authorities in the developed economies on exports of all those loads of second-hand goods and green list wastes known to be most problematic for handling in the less developed countries
- ensuring appropriate enforcement against those found to be contravening the requirements of the Basel Convention and other international and national controls.
 The increasingly global nature of WEEE management calls for stricter safeguards against illegal recycling |
For WEEE, this would mean that the exporters would need to sort the WEEE and test all items to ensure that they were functional and that any non-functional items were repaired before export. A further measure would be to ensure all items were suitably packaged to a standard to prevent any damage during transit. Otherwise these items should be presumed to be WEEE and not items of EEE for reuse.
In the longer term, recognizing that there are advantages to extending the use of those items that may be redundant in the developed world but are still capable of further use overseas, ISWA advocates:
- the establishment of treatment and processing facilities in the developing economies
- allocation of funding from the developed countries to the developing economies to ensure adequate networks of collection, treatment and processing facilities
- provision for the return of all exported items to the country of origin where no or inadequate provision for treatment and processing is made.
In order to prevent environmental pollution and damage to people’s health and safety, there should be greater control over the international movement of goods purporting to be functional ‘second-hand’ items and other wastes that would not be acceptable for reprocessing in recycling facilities in the developed countries. The environmental advantages of reuse and recycling of these goods and materials must be allowed in appropriate circumstances, but those advantages must not be impaired by a failure to control inappropriate movements.
Jeff Cooper chairs the Scientific and Technical Committee at the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) and is Policy Manager of the Environment Agency, UK.
e-mail: jeff.cooper@environment-agency.gov.uk
Illegal waste trade under the spotlight
The harmful effects of illegal waste transport are receiving increasing media coverage currently. In August 2006, the Ivory Coast fell victim to one of the most serious waste trade scandals in history. As a result of what appeared to be an illegal transfer of petrochemical waste from Europe, 10 people died and many thousands were hospitalized.
This story will loom large in the thoughts of the delegates to the 8th Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, to take place from 27 November to 1 December in Nairobi, Kenya - the first time that the meeting is held in Africa. The special theme of this meeting - e-waste - has been a hot topic on the minds of Africans ever since the Basel Action Network released the film and report The Digital Dump, highlighting e-waste dumping from Europe and North America in the West African port of Lagos, Nigeria.
In addition, a new decision on shipbreaking is expected to be made at the meeting. There, the Basel Convention will reiterate its continued competence (efforts to apply as law) over the issue of ships as waste unless and until the International Maritime Organization‘s new Convention puts at least an ‘equivalent level of control’ into force. Finally, the question of the date of entry into force of the Basel Ban Amendment (adopted in 1995) may prove to be controversial. The amendment has now achieved the ‘magic’ 62 ratifications, but ambiguity in the text of the Convention has the Parties wondering which 62 are required - whether they will be the 62 drawn from the Parties present in 1995, or from all of the more than 160 Parties today.
- by Jim Puckett, Basel Action Network
