ROHIT KUMAR

E-WASTE ASSIGMENT
1
BACKGROUND
The issue of E-Waste was first brought into legislative sphere with the introduction of a Private
Member Bill on The Electronic Waste (Handling and Disposal) Bill 2005 by Vijay J Darda, Member
of Parliament (MP) from Maharashtra. It was the first formal recognition of having no legislation on
E Waste in India despite the country being a hub of import of second hand computers and electronics
from developed countries since last decade which already had legislations like WEEE Code 2002
(Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) in European Union and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 1976.
Electronic Waste is a part of solid waste management which is the primary responsibility of
Municipalities under Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution and states have been empowered under
Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules (MSW) enacted since September 2000 by
Central Government. This means that Central government, though could provide states with a model
legislation, but the application and creation of institutions for application of such laws is the
responsibility of respective state governments which has further delegated this responsibility to
Municipal Corporations as a part of decentralised governance. But as Environment is a concurrent
subject, Central Government also has competence to legislate on E-Waste. The eventual segregation
of E-Waste from Solid Waste Management in general is a step in this direction as states have been
incompetent to deal with the E-Waste and Union Government has taken it upon itself to create
institutions for the same.
In December 2009, 186th Report of Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation scrutinised the
effectiveness of MSW Rules and reported that inadequate and ineffective legislation at state level
with technological and financial restraints with the Municipalities has resulted in the poor
implementation of MSW Rules. Hazardous Waste (Management, and Handling) Rules 2003 which
was formulated after amendments in 1989 Rules on Hazardous Waste categorised e waste and its
constituents under hazardous and non-hazardous waste. As the focus of the law was waste other
than e-waste, the process of disposal was kept very generic in nature and there was almost no
recycling of E-Waste. It was also in direct contravention with the Export-Import Policy. For
instance, despite implicit ban on the import of hazardous waste, E-Waste was imported on case to case
basis with the licenses provided for by Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) due to E-Waste
being categorised in Schedule II (material not hazardous unless above the concentration mentioned)
and List A of Schedule III (raw material permitted for recycling).
It was after Cobalt 60 tragedy in Delhi, popularly known as Mayapuri Radiological incident which
resulted in eight people being injured and one dying due to carrying of radiological metal from the
electronics scrap in the Mayapuri locality that a comprehensive legislation was formulated. The first
explicit mention of E-Waste in a government legislation was, thus, in Hazardous Waste (Management,
Handling and Transboundary Movement Rules) 2008 and Guidelines for Environmentally Sound
Management of E Waste 2008 which provided for the process of recycle, re-use and recovery
options under Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) which was the nodal agency of providing
licenses to the agency for disposal and recycling of hazardous waste.
The Guidelines emphasised the role of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and is in tune
with International Code on E Waste under Basel Convention. EPR means that the producer is
responsible for the entire life cycle of product especially post-consumer stage of take back, recycle
and final disposal of product. It obliges producers to set up e-waste collection centres either

ROHIT KUMAR
independently or jointly with state organisations. EPR also entrust the responsibility on producer to
2 a financing model to organise a system to meet the cost of this recycling.
create
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
This concept was the basis of E-Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2011 which applies to
every producer, consumer or bulk consumer, collection centre and dismantler became operational in
May 2012. Under this legislation, producers need to create awareness about the hazardous
components present in the product and provide consumers with the instruction for handling the
equipment after its use. They will need to give information booklets highlighting practices to prevent
E-waste from being dropped in garbage bins. It mandated manufacturers to collect electronic scrap
directly from consumers and route them to authorized recycling centres across the country. All the
required parties had to maintain records of E-wastes generated by them and make such records
available with State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) or the Pollution Control Committees.
The core of Extended Producer Responsibility is to create a sustainable system which provides an
incentivised framework to redesign their products by turning waste into raw material for industry
and next generation products.
Despite this, there has not been any systematic inventorisation of e-waste generation carried out in
the country and as of date, only 151 producers have been authorised in 12 states of the country. As per
a recent reply by Prakash Javdekar, Minister of Environment and Forests in Lok Sabha, of the
estimated e-waste generation of 8 lakh tonne in 2012, only about 4 lakh tonne was processed through
the registered recycling centre and this does not include the historical and imported e waste available.
Unofficial statistics reveals that India generates e-waste at an average of 17 lakh tonne a year and it is
rising at a rate of 5% per year with 95% of the total e waste being directed to the informal sector. The
primary reasons for the failure of these rules besides implementing widely accepted EPR policy is the
exclusion of present informal sector which constitutes a majority of dismantling and processing the ewaste.
Corrective Step to expand the scope: The new E-Waste Management and Handling Rules 2016 have
addressed this anomaly by expanding its scope to refurbishers, dealers and Producers
Responsibility Organizations (PRO). Refurbishers repair used electrical and electronics equipments
in the country as a majority of the electronics are reused by repairing them. Refurbishing generates a
huge quantity of e waste as a result of assemblage of parts and till now it has been escaping the
mainstreaming. The addition of components, spares, consumables and parts of EEE in Schedule I
have brought the elements of these off hand dealings into formal sector.
Process Simplification: The outsourcing of PROs work to dealers or other independent agencies (as
individual producers may lack the ability to set up a centre) and simplification of establishing PROs
by empowering CPCB to be the only organisation to set up recycling centres, in case of establishing
PROs in more than one states, has eased the hassle related to permissions for separate EPR
authorisation in different states. Registration now means authorisation as well unlike earlier system
of separate registration and then following the procedure of authorisation for dismantlers and
recyclers.
Inclusion of Consumer: The contention of consumer not having any incentive to return the used
product been resolved by the provision of Deposit Refund Scheme (DRS) where a producer charges
an additional amount as a deposit at the time of sale of EEE and returns it with interest after the

ROHIT KUMAR
instrument has been submitted. Implicit in this scheme is the assumption that e-waste has a selling
3 due to its individual components.
value
Varied agencies: To further ease the burden on consumers, the establishment of E-Waste exchanges,
which can serve as independent market instrument for the sale and purchase of end of life EEE
between agencies and organisation will further channelize the function of e-waste collection and
recycling by providing professional assistance. Noida based Attero Recycling is an example of a
combination of a recycler and exchange which has institutionalised the mechanism of scrap collection
in the country.
Targeting Collection: The phase wise collection targeting of e-waste is an important step to
institutionalise the collection approach. Though unlike in the West where targets are set for recycling,
India has started with the targets for collections being 30% of the total quantity followed by 40% in
third and 70% by the end of seventh year. Additionally, the category wise average life and weight will
be tallied with the sales figures of producers to create a database for the EEE which will resolve
another important issue of lack of data of inventorisation with the government.
Clarity in Definitions: Manufacturers have been mandated to channelize the EEE during
manufacturing by maintaining records with SPCB, thus eliminating formalising another source of ewaste. The definition of bulk Consumers is now expanded as any organisation having more than
twenty employees or having annual turnover of 1 crores resulting in clarity in who are obligated to
follow the rules related to bulk consumers unlike earlier legislation where smaller institutions might
not be a part of the law. Further the definition of Manufacturers and Producers has been cleared with
producers being selling EEE under their own brand or assemble EEE by other manufacturers and
manufacturers being entities under Factories Act and Companies Act who have facilities to
manufacture EEE.
State as a Stakeholder: The inclusion of Responsibility of State Governments to ensure welfare,
safety and health of workers involved in e-waste sector is an important aspect in the implementation
of these new rules. By earmarking certain allocation of land and other resources, assistance in skill
development for the sector and submission of annual report by Labour Department of respective state
governments, the new rules have resolved the issue of lack of government support, which was a major
industry concern. It is an essential step because as per a recent report by ASSOCHAM (Associated
Chambers of Commerce) on Electronic Waste Management, nearly 76% of e-waste workers suffer
from serious respiratory ailments. The provision of state specific EPR plan by individual producers
will provide for the required data to measure the compliance with the existing rules unlike before
where there was no concrete plan to compare the compliance to.
Stronger CPCB: In case the product does not adhere to Reduction of Hazardous Substance (RoHS)
during manufacturing stage, the product can be withdrawn or recalled from the market. RoHS
includes maximum permissible level of ten restricted elements including Leading, Mercury,
Cadmium, Dibutyl phthalate etc to be used in the products which has now been tuned to international
practices. Providing CPCB the powers for random sampling EEE to monitor and verify the
compliance with the set provisions has given powers to check whether companies comply with rules
or not unlike earlier rules where there was no such procedure.

ROHIT KUMAR
IMPLICATIONS FOR MOBILE INDUSTRY
4
India is emerging as a significant generator of E-waste in its own right. In India, the current estimate
projects 2.7 million tons of E-waste generation annually. The ICT sector accounts for 34 per cent of
this. But the overall contribution of mobile phones in E-Waste is very less comparative to other
elements of E-Waste. The e-waste received from different sources predominantly comprises of the
following EEEs as televisions and desktops 68%, servers 27%, mobile phone 1% and import from
developed countries 2% respectively.
As mobile phone industry is a part of EEE sector, it has to follow the rules of setting up of PROs,
collection centres at various places, provide the consumers with the information on how to deal with
post-consumption stage of mobiles and create awareness regarding the same.
As per IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, rationalisation of duty structures will result in the increase of
number of mobile phones made in India from present 5.4 crores to 11 crores this year. Mobile phone
industry is at a relative advantage when it comes to recycling of E-Waste as the historical waste i.e. ewaste which is six year old before the implementation of this new rule is not a major issue because of
mobile sector boom in recent years only.
This advantage has not been harnessed properly by mobile phone industry as major 11 mobile
companies do not have a proper set up of EPR scheme as yet as per a Toxic Links Report. Nokia has
brought its success campaign from New York to Hyderabad in 2009 and since then expanded its
recycling operations by setting up 1300 collection points. It has also allowed mobiles of other brands
to be deposited for recycling. This type of strategy is required to address the deficit in EPR
implementation in the country as it will be impossible for every company to have a pan- India reach.
As per a TERI Survey, the growth of mobile phone sector in urban area is 31% higher than the
rural areas which means there is a need to have a very strong strategy in the urban region for
recycling so that historical waste does not become an issue in the future and start building
infrastructure in rural region to have a strong grasp on rural recycling market from the beginning. It is
easier to set a trend by creating awareness from the beginning instead of inducing such attitude
change at the later stages of consumption. Thus the rural market, which is bound to expand faster than
urban market, due to saturation of technology, in the future, is an important sector to introduce this
change.
Another strategic issue that mobile phone industry needs to take in consideration is the expansion of
replacement market. There is a huge replacement market in India and above all, the consumers are
now very receptive towards newer brands. The replacement market has grown from 118 mn handsets
for the 12-month period that ended December 31, 2010, constituting 62.77% of overall Indian mobile
handset market, to 359 mn handsets for the 12-month period that ended December 31, 2014
constituting 89.30% of the overall Indian mobile handset market. Though second hand phone
market being popular in rural areas has offset this huge impact of replacement of mobile phones,
the trend will not stay the same. The introduction of cheaper alternatives is making second hand
phone industry obsolete. Mobile Phone industry needs to strategise accordingly to address the EWaste originating from such changing trends.
Diversification of mobile handset companies is yet another concern as the grip of few known brands
in India market is loosening with the cheaper availability of Chinese brands of mobile phones. The
share of select few international brands has reduced 16% in one year while Chinese phones have
increased its share by 15%. Thus in such situation there is a need to focus on joint ventures for PROs

ROHIT KUMAR
instead of individual companies setting up their PROs as market share is changing rapidly and lower
5 could result in higher cost of recycling as recycling process is cross subsidised by the sales.
sales
EFFECTIVNESS OF NEW LEGISLATION
It is a welcome step to streamline the E-Waste legislation to international conventions to a
considerable extent as has been seen in the expansion of its scope, clarity in definitions and
introducing new stakeholders in the process. Very importantly, the problem of data has been resolved
to a considerable extent albeit it is based on to what extent producers report the EPR plan and the
power of CPCB and SPCBs to conduct random checks, seeing they have less manpower and
inadequate resources to have pan country operations, but it is nonetheless a step in right direction.
As it is already clear from the background note in the beginning that this new legislation was
supposedly the actual form of E-Waste Legislation as proposed in Rajya Sabha Report and elaborated
in the guidelines for E-Waste Handling 2008, but it took another 5 years to reach that basic legislation
required to resolve the mounting E-Waste crisis.
Despite all of this, there are considerable issues with this new piece of legislation. It is still not as
comprehensive a document as it is required to be.
Integration of unorganised sector: As per the study by the Department of Information Technology,
there are more than 3,000 scrap dealers across the country. Unless these scrap dealers are given a
chance to participate in an authorized recycling system, they will only fight harder to stay in business.
Moreover the dismantlers which remove the important parts out of these electronics as documented in
various reported of Seelampur, Mayapuri and other such scrap hubs, do not have required skills to
scientifically dismantle the electronics. The efforts of widen the scope of legislation is a step forward
but it also existed earlier as well. But still the number of recyclers was relatively less. It is not easy to
formalise 95% of sector in one go. So the state has to come forward to provide skills and resources to
the people who will be unemployed as a part of this process. The legislation is silent on the process to
address the integration of unorganised sector to formal recycling process. This aspects need further
elaboration.
Trans-boundary movement of E-Waste: The rules are oblivious to the fact that electronic waste is
imported into the country. A study by the Centre for Science and Environment estimates that close to
50,000 metric tonnes of electronic scrap is imported into the country every year. But the rules have no
provisions to control imports. Though the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste is banned
under the Basel Convention, dealers have found ways to get consignments of electronic scrap into the
country as they are not properly classified. It is evident from past studies that, most electronic scrap
which comes into the country is classified as plastic scrap or mixed waste. This is a serious issue
which needs urgent attention since India is a signatory of Basel Convention and is required to enforce
strict checking measures to stop entry of illegal E-waste from other countries.
Increase Awareness: A Yes Bank Survey in coordination with TERI done in 2014 reveal that 16% of
the total respondents were unaware of the department in their companies which handles E-Waste
compliance with 37% not aware of any E Waste rules. Further confusion on whether it is Quality
Assurance Department, Chief Sustainability Officer, Legal Branch or Chief Technology Officer is the
right authority to handle E-Waste. It is evident from the fact that if bigger organisation, which are
major producers of E-Waste in the country are not very much aware about the legislation and its
implications, the information trickling down to the bottom tier of informal sector would not be enough
to bring in the change envisaged in the legislation. There is a need to mention the signing authority in

ROHIT KUMAR
organisations with an increased expenditure on creating awareness among informal sector to introduce
6 to the benefits of legislation.
them
Cost of Recycling: Exporting e-waste is more lucrative for the exporter country than recycling or
disposing it within the country. For instance, waste traders in Europe or USA have to pay US $20 to
recycle a computer safely in their countries while they can sell it at half the cost to the informal
traders in developing countries. That is why India became an importer of second hand EEE products
In case of India, the similar situation applies. But as it cannot export the products anywhere else, it
has to do with the low cost of informal sector. The cost of disposing EEE in informal sector is much
less than the cost incurred for recycling in the formal sector. With cheaper electronics being a major
focus, the cost of recycling is an issue. The inclusion of state governments in providing resources is a
good step but delays in providing land or resources as has been seen in the past with various projects,
could result in people moving back to informal sector because it pays and is a cheaper alternative. A
viable financing model supported by state need to be included for a better compliance from industry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------