A guide to the circular economy of digital devices

This guide is divided into 12 modules, and illustrated through case studies. It describes the concepts, processes and some of the major challenges to circularity, summarises the key challenges and opportunities, including for policy advocacy.

A guide to the circular economy of digital devices

What is the evolution of our digitally connected world? Let’s hope the future does not follow the trends of the past: the mass production and consumption of digital devices; a world divided by digital “haves” and “have-nots”; the unthinking promotion of smart economies and a perspective of technology for technology’s sake. It is not a choice – it simply will not work for people and the planet.

This guide aims to show you how to understand, think and act collectively to clearly change direction towards a regenerative and redistributive economy respecting both human and ecological rights and limits. It is aimed at civil society organisations wanting to transform their day-to-day use of technology, social entrepreneurs who want to make a positive impact on the world and the environment we live in, or anyone else interested in connecting, whether online or offline, in a more sustainable way.

Digital devices beyond the limits

There are more personal digital devices in the world than people; however, the distribution of the benefits and costs of digital devices is terribly unequal. We live on a planet that follows natural cycles and we have been consuming resources beyond natural boundaries, beyond the regenerative capabilities of nature. Climate change, biodiversity loss, land erosion, pollution, and resource depletion are the direct results of human impacts on the planet. The digital device on which you are reading this guide impacts our planet at each step in its life cycle.

This guide focuses on the digital devices that we use and touch – desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones and tablets. We know that these personal devices depend on network devices such as routers, and big data centres crammed with racks of computer servers that deliver content and services. There is also an explosion of “smart” devices that create the “internet of things” (IoT). Billions of new IoT devices are produced every year. These electronic and connected “things” include similar electronic components to our personal digital devices, but contrary to these, they are limited to a specific purpose. While they definitely have energy and material impacts on the environment, this “other” category deserves another report.

We cannot hope to cut emissions to net-zero by 2050 without significant improvements in all processes along the life cycle of digital devices. These include product designs that seek maximal durability and repairability, manufacturing that incorporates recovered materials from e-waste instead of just mining for raw materials, and product repair and reuse. And even if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions targets are unlikely to be reached, we still need to act. In terms of practice, and practical steps, together we can do many things, and together we can change direction towards a more economically, socially and environmentally just world.

This guide is divided into 13 modules, and illustrated through case studies. It describes the concepts, processes and some of the major challenges to circularity, summarises the key challenges and opportunities, including for policy advocacy, and offers a glossary of terms to help you along.

Rip, mix, share and reuse to get straight to what you need

There are many ways to read this guide. You can even start at the beginning! Or if you are unfamiliar with the language used in this guide, you may want to read the list of basic concepts at the end of Module 3 first. If you are part of an activist organisation, check the case studies to see what resonates with your aims, and then read Module 4 on extractivism, Module 9 on environmental rights, and Module 10 on policies affecting processes along the life span of a digital device. If you are involved in policy making, you can get familiar with the circular economy framework in Module 3 and then look at the relevant policy discussion in Module 10. If you are part of a social enterprise that works with hardware devices and software, you can look at the opportunities to integrate data and software tools to facilitate environmental and social impact assessments in Module 11, on circular practices and tools. If you are a procurement official or interact with one in your city or region, check out the bits about procurement in Module 7 and how it relates to all other processes in the circular economy of digital devices.

This guide is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

 

 

 

Module 1: The environmental impact of a digital device

In 10 years’ time, digital devices will account for nearly a quarter of global emissions, with the main contributors being mining raw materials to make the devices, transport and production. 

Our devices consume natural resources

These days, some form of electrical or electronic device can be found in almost any household or business. From products such as cheap electronic toys or digital watches, to basic kitchen appliances, radios and TVs, to mobile phones, laptops or tablet computers. Many of these devices are connected to the internet and therefore interact and are interdependent with other devices.

The problem is that as more people get online, more people also have more devices per person. And this has a downstream impact: more mobiles, laptops and desktops mean more cloud providers, more servers, more broadband cables and mobile networks.

Over six billion new information and communications technology (ICT) goods are sold annually worldwide. There are forecasts of 1.5 billion smartphones being sold in 2021,[1] alongside 126 million desktop computers, 659 million laptops, and 513 million Wi-Fi routers. These numbers are expected to grow exponentially over the next five to 10 years with new “smart” technologies.[2]

This has made e-waste the largest waste stream in many countries, with most of it discarded in the general waste stream, leading to a loss of secondary resources valued at USD 57 billion in 2019[3] (more than the gross domestic product of many countries). At the same time, e-waste is often shipped illegally to developing countries.[4]

module1-fig1

Figure 1: Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e) footprint of the ICT industry by 2030: the challenge of combining growth with a radical reduction to half. Source: ITU-T L.1470

The contribution of this exponential connectivity to electricity use is also a major problem: it is anticipated that by 2030, ICTs could use as much as 51% of global electricity, and contribute up to 23% of the globally released greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[5]

While renewable energy can help reduce GHG emissions,[6] the production of digital devices remains the key contributor to global warming. This includes upstream activities such as mining for raw materials, transport and manufacturing, which account for most of the negative impact on emissions.[7]

Assessing the environmental impact of a device

A need for data

The impact assessment of materials, energy and related processes along the life cycle of devices improves if there is data that allows us to understand the social, environmental and economic impacts of digital devices. Often good data on e-waste does not exist, while collecting primary data from component manufacturers is time consuming and difficult (e.g. confidentiality problems occur).[8]

There are methods for assessing the environmental impacts associated with all stages of the life cycle of a digital device. A life-cycle assessment (LCA) study involves a thorough inventory of the energy, materials and emissions that are required and consumed in the manufacture or across the expected life span of a device, and is what we call a “cradle-to-grave” evaluation of all stages of the life of a digital product.[9]

It has been shown for smartphones that device production has about a 75 times higher environmental impact than a two-year-use life span,[10] as Figure 2 shows. But we also have to include the internet[11] – mobile access network, internet, server – as shown in Figure 3. Despite the variability of networks and servers in different contexts, after the impact of the production of the smartphone, data transfer has a major impact (locality, or having servers nearby, matters), followed by cloud data processing.

The environmental impact from manufacturing a device is very high compared to its use and final recycling. This tells us that using a device as long as possible is a better environmental choice than manufacturing more devices, especially those that will be discarded or replaced soon after use. 

mod1-fig2.png

Figure 2: The global warming potential for a mobile phone with two-year use life cycle. Source: A. Andrae, Life-Cycle Assessment of Consumer Electronics

 

mod1-fig3.png

Figure 3: GHG emissions across the life cycle of a smartphone (white) including contribution from a rack server (black), network (dots) and IP core network (diagonal). Source: Suckling 2015.

What does reusing a device mean?

The reuse of electronic devices such as desktops, laptops or mobile phones refers to extending the useful life of already manufactured devices after they have been discarded. Larger-scale reuse operations usually involve a company or organisation set up to do this work. These devices are usually collected by a second-hand agent or sent to a remanufacturer for processing, and are sold, rented or redistributed to another user.

In a computing device we can distinguish between the long-lasting parts, what can deteriorate (degrade or wear down, like batteries), what should be replaced (like a hard drive after a certain number of hours), and what is extensible (such as RAM or peripherals). The reuse process ends when, after a few years, the device or a component becomes unusable, even considering improvements from replacing components. It is at this point that a device should end up in recycling, a process that results in extracting useful raw materials from the recycled device.[12]

There are numerous reuse initiatives across the world, some involving digital devices, and some other products. This is all part of a growing culture of reuse. For example, Repair Café is a non-profit organisation that began as an idea in 2007 to build skills to repair digital devices. There are now 2,000 Repair Cafés in more than 24 countries. In 2017, over 300,000 digital devices were repaired.[13] Repair Café recognises that in many countries we throw away items with almost nothing wrong with them because we do not have the skills to repair them. Repair Cafés aim to involve people with repair skills to share their knowledge, enabling digital devices to have longer lives instead of being thrown away.

Responding quicker to a crisis by reusing old computers

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic there was a sudden demand for computers in Europe, especially for home schooling. The usual “let’s buy them” way didn’t work: the global supply chain could not manufacture and deliver so many new computers. At the same time, many discarded but usable devices were piling up, waiting to be refurbished and reused. By using these, reuse activists could respond to the new need and prepare and distribute computers in a matter of days, while new computers took about a year to arrive, too late for the confinement period.[14]
Club de Reparadores: Promoting a culture of repair

By Florencia Roveri, Nodo TAU

 

Club de Reparadores (Repairers Club) is an initiative launched in Argentina in November 2015 by the organisation Artículo 41,[15] with the intention of raising awareness of repair as a sustainable practice of responsible consumption. It was inspired by movements developed in other countries.

 

Club de Reparadores aims to promote the repair of objects (home appliances, toys, books, furniture, bikes, radios, TV sets, phones and computers, among others) to extend their useful life. It contributes to advocating a culture of repair, developing and sharing skills in repairing, and emphasising care and closeness as social values.

 

It has organised itinerant repair events called “clubs” in different neighbourhoods in Buenos Aires, as well as other cities such as Córdoba, Bariloche and Rosario, and supports the organisation of the events by mapping and collecting information of local repairers and other actors of the local economy. These are published on the online platform https://reparar.org.

 

The project is creative in messaging, which is shared widely. The events involve people of different ages – although mainly young people who work with electronics and information and communications technology (ICT) devices – and men and women in equal number.

 

So far, Club de Reparadores has held 64 events. These have received 2,976 products in need of repair, and involved 335 voluntary repairers and 3,471 assistants. A total of 1,934 products have been repaired in the process.

 

The project has had an impact in three ways: environmental, because extending the useful life of things reduces the production of new products, which in turn reduces the generation of waste and carbon emissions; economic, because the project promotes the work of the neighbourhood repairers who become key pieces in a circular economy model; and cultural, in that it challenges the consumer culture of disposable goods and programmed obsolescence, and values the traditional knowledge of repair, reinforcing collaboration and building social resilience.

 

Appendix 1: Metrics for materials, devices, energy

The environmental impact of a device can be grouped under the categories of “materials”, “devices” and “energy”.

Aspect

Description

Related metric

Units measured

Sources

Materials

Raw materials painfully extracted[16] from nature and the impacts on local ecosystems; secondary materials extracted from recycling; and mixed materials or e-waste dumped as polluting waste and fumes.

Abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP): Abiotic refers to natural resources (including energy resources) such as iron ore or crude oil which are regarded as non-living. It relates to the decrease of availability of the total reserve of potential resources.

Antimony equivalent (Sb-e) units

[17] [18]

Devices

Design, manufacturing, procurement, deployment, reuse of devices and parts, recycling.

Global warming potential at 100 years (GWP, GWP100): Ratio of the warming of the atmosphere caused by one greenhouse gas to that caused by a similar mass of carbon dioxide, calculated over a specific time frame of 100 years.

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units

[19] [20]

Energy

Generation, consumption,
self-generated energy, savings.

Cumulative energy demand (CED): The energy consumption from renewable and non-renewable resources.

Joule

[21]

 

References

[1] Statista. (2021). Number of smartphones sold to end users worldwide from 2007 to 2021 (in million units). https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphone-sales-to-end-users-since-2007

[2] Andrae, A., Navarro, L., & Vaija, S. (2021). Recommendation ITU-T L.1024: The potential impact of selling services instead of equipment on waste creation and the environment – Effects on global information and communication technology. International Telecommunication Union. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1024-202101-I/en  

[3] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). http://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GEM_2020_def_july1_low.pdf

[4] Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. (2010). Trends in Sustainable Development: Chemicals, mining, transport and waste management. https://sdgs.un.org/publications/trends-sustainable-development-chemicals-mining-transport-waste-management-2010-2011

[5] Andrae, A., & Edler, T. (2015). On Global Electricity Usage of Communication Technology: Trends to 2030. Challenges, 6(1), 117-157. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe6010117  

[6] Amponsah, N. Y., Troldborg, M., Kington, B., Aalders, I., & Hough, R. L. (2014). Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: A review of lifecycle considerations. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.087

[7] Andrae, A. S. G. (2016). Life-Cycle Assessment of Consumer Electronics: A review of methodological approaches. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 5(1), 51-60. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7353286  

[8] Proske, M., et al. (2020). Life cycle assessment of the Fairphone 3. Fraunhofer IZM. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairphone_3_LCA.pdf

[9] Weetman, C. (2017). A Circular Economy Handbook for Business and Supply Chains. Kogan Page. https://global-recycling.info/archives/1585

[10] Andrae, A. (2016). Op. cit. Life-Cycle Assessment of Consumer Electronics: A review of methodological approaches. In IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 5.1, pp. 51–60. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7353286

[11] Suckling, J., & Lee, J. (2015). Redefining scope: The true environmental impact of smartphones? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20, 1181-1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0909-4  

[12] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2018). Devices as a Commons: Limits to premature recycling. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computing within Limits (LIMITS ’18). ACM. https://computingwithinlimits.org/2018/papers/limits18-franquesa.pdf  

[13] Repair Café. (2018, 20 June). Repair Cafés save 300.000 products. https://www.repaircafe.org/en/repair-cafes-save-300-000-products

[14] Proctor, N. (2020, 2 September). The Right to Repair could help address a critical shortage in school computers. U.S. PIRG. https://uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/right-repair-could-help-address-critical-shortage-school-computers

[15] The name of the organisation (Article 41) is a reference to the article of the Argentine national constitution that promotes protection of the environment as a right and as a duty.

[16] “Ecological amputation” as the physical removal of ecosystems in open-pit mega-mining. See Gudynas, E. (2018). Extractivisms: Tendencies and consequences. In R. Munck & R. Delgado Wise (Eds.), Reframing Latin American Development. Routledge. http://gudynas.com/wp-content/uploads/GudynasExtractivismsTendenciesConsquences18.pdf

[17] ITU-T. (2016). L.Sup32: Supplement for eco-specifications and rating criteria for mobile phones eco-rating programmes. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.Sup32-201610-I

[18] van Oers, L., de Koning, A., Guinée, J. B., & Huppes, G. (2002). Abiotic resource depletion in LCA: Improving characterisation factors for abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the new Dutch LCA handbook. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute. http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/report_abiotic_depletion_web.pdf

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

[20] ITU-T. (2014). L.1410: Methodology for environmental life cycle assessments of information and communication technology goods, networks and services. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1410 

[21] Ibid.

Module 2: Meeting the needs of the future

A digital device can have positive or negative economic, social and environmental impacts at each stage in its life cycle, starting from the energy and natural resources used to make it, through to its usefulness, and ending when it becomes e-waste. Sustainability means minimising the negative impacts and maximising the positive impacts.

What is sustainable development?

Sustainable development is about meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[1] This means supporting economic development while simultaneously sustaining the natural resources and ecosystems on which the economy and society depend.

Development is not the same as “growth”, which has been equated with environmental degradation, and what is known as the “tragedy of the commons”.[2] The idea of sustainable development reflects the need for a balance between economy, people and nature. It was discussed in the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth[3] as early as 1972, and the UN report Our Common Future[4] in 1987. The sustainability of human development and progress is dependent on reconnecting to the biosphere and essential ecosystems.[5]

The 2005 World Summit[6] identified sustainable development goals with three pillars: economic development, social development and environmental protection. As Figure 4 shows, key adjectives describe their intersections – “bearable”, “equitable” and “viable” – and it is only when all three intersect that sustainability can be achieved.

mod2-fig1.png

Figure 4: Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three constituent parts. (Wikipedia: Sustainable_development)

The achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 depends on addressing all three pillars of sustainability. The SDGs were adopted in 2015 as “a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.”

The digital world is part of the problem and may be part of the solution.

A digital device has economic, social and environmental impacts at each stage in its life cycle, starting from energy and natural resource consumption and ending in e-waste. There are many negative impacts of digital devices. For example, many communities in the global South suffer from the negative effects of extractivism (or the mining and extraction of natural resources) or the dumping of e-waste. In contrast, information and communications technologies (ICTs) can enable efficiencies in social and economic life through digital solutions that can improve energy efficiency, inventory management, and a reduction in travel and transportation (e.g. telework and videoconferencing, substituting physical products like books with digital information). This capacity is referred to as “second order” or “enablement” effects.
The SDGs and the internet

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have numerous objectives linked to reduced inequality. ICTs and digitisation can contribute to the achievement of all the SDGs. In fact, even if the internet is less visible in the SDGs than it should be, there are goals with direct implications: 7: “Affordable and clean energy”, which requires ICTs to be used in things like solar and wind energy, and isolated micro-grids; 9: “Industry, innovation and infrastructure”, with networking and computing as key infrastructures; 11: “Sustainable cities and communities”, where ICTs can be used to help achieve them; 12: “Responsible consumption and production”, which relates to the circular economy of digital devices; and 13: “Climate action”, where ICTs can be used to support data sharing, campaigning and the coordination required for climate action.

 

What is a “safe and just space for people on the planet”?

 

mod2-fig2.png

Figure 5: Doughnut economics

The diagram in Figure 5 is a visual framework showing the viable space for sustainable development. Shaped like a doughnut (or lifebelt), it combines the concept of “planetary boundaries” with the complementary concept of “social boundaries”.[7] The centre hole of the model depicts the proportion of people that lack access to essential needs (such as health care, education, work, etc.), while the outer “crust” represents the ecological ceilings (planetary boundaries) that life depends on and which should not be exceeded. There is a region within the planetary and social boundaries that is considered viable for a regenerative and distributive economy.

We need to radically improve our relationship with nature, and that requires rethinking many decisions and reorganising many processes. The diagram shows that there is a need to address environmental, economic and societal needs for a sustainable future. We also have to ensure open ways to participate, considering locality. One key change we need to promote is circularity and the so-called “circular economy”.

 

References

[1] United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

[2] Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

[3] Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books. https://collections.dartmouth.edu/teitexts/meadows/diplomatic/meadows_ltg-diplomatic.html

[4] United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Op. cit.

[5] Folke, C., et al. (2011). Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio, 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y

[6] United Nations General Assembly. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome. Resolution A/60/1, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2005. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf

[7] Raworth, K. (2012). A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490

Module 3: Defining the circular economy of digital devices

We can define the circular economy of digital devices as extending the useful life of digital devices through improved manufacturing and reuse, maximising the positive social impacts of devices, and minimising the need for new devices and e-waste.

The “best use” for as long as possible

Circularity is about “designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems.” In the context of digital devices, circularity aims at achieving the best use of devices by maximising their lifetime. In doing so, it helps to decarbonise the environment. However, circularity can also help reduce social inequality by making digital devices available to people who do not have access to them, and creating jobs in the process of repairing or refurbishing a digital device. Even if we can afford to buy a brand new device, this does not mean our natural environment, society and economy can afford it.

From an investment perspective, the circular economy is defined in this way: “In a linear economic model, we operate at a deficit of natural capital, accumulating a debt we owe to future generations. The key objective of a circular economy is to eliminate such deficit.” An outcomes-based definition of the circular economy refers to it as an “economic model for addressing human needs and fairly distributing resources without undermining the functioning of the biosphere or crossing any planetary boundaries.”[1]

The three Rs: Reduce, reuse and recycle

Some circular processes are more “circular” – or better – than others. It all depends on the extent to which an attempt has made to reduce and reuse, and only then recycle, as proposed by the rule of the three Rs.

The aim of the rule is to maximise the practical benefits from products and minimise the generation of waste. The proper application of the three Rs can have several benefits. It can help prevent emissions of greenhouse gases, reduce pollutants, save energy, preserve resources, create jobs, and stimulate the development of green technology. This simple rule indicates an order of preference:

The three Rs are not themselves circular; it depends on the order of application and the decisions made. To be really circular, it is necessary to keep the added value in products for as long as possible and eliminate waste[3] or be dedicated to the mission of zero-waste movements. Essentially, the three principles of a circular economy can be stated as 1) design out waste and pollution, 2) keep products and materials in use, and 3) regenerate natural systems.

Useful diagrams illustrating the circular economy

Any circular economy activity has to take into account the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability to find a feasible zone that is viable for each pillar.

A practical and useful way to discuss, design and represent these three dimensions is the triple-layered business model canvas (BMC).[4] This gives an overview of how a business creates value by including a triple bottom-line approach to sustainability. Here, “business” can be understood as any organisation oriented to transform their surrounding community through social (redistributive) and environmental (regenerative) profit, not necessarily primarily focused on economic profit making (extractive).

mod3-fig1.png

Figure 6: The triple-layered business model canvas: Economic, environmental life cycle, and social stakeholder layers.

As the overall structure in Figure 6 shows, the triple-layered BMC has an economic layer (based on the original BMC), an environmental life cycle layer, and a social stakeholder layer. Each layer has three sections: creation of value (left), delivery of value (right), capture of value (bottom). Stakeholders, including business or social entrepreneurs, or governments institutions, can use this canvas to get a better high-level understanding of the relationships between the economic, environmental and social aspects of their business or organisational model.

It shows how these three aspects flow and balance, and gives an idea of an organisation’s feasibility and sustainability. Examples of activities that could fit here include a social enterprise for the collection and refurbishment of computer devices and mobile phones for reuse; an e-waste processing plant; or a team that helps vulnerable persons in the effective use of refurbished digital devices for their daily life.

There are numerous other representations of the circular economy that highlight its different aspects. One (see Figure 7) is a generic circular economy diagram from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

mod3-fig7.png

Figure 7: A generic circular economy diagram from the Ellen McArthur Foundation.

Figure 8 shows the processes of a generic circular economy from a public policy perspective that has been developed by a regional council in Canada. A basic stakeholder perspective is given in Figure 9, from the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a UK-based registered charity.

mod3-fig8.png  

Figure 8: The circular economy in general, with policy recommendations (Source: Recycling Council of Ontario)

mod3-fig9.png

Figure 9: An illustration of circular economy processes from WRAP.

 

The following diagrams show a circular model of digital devices. The first (Figure 10) is from the International Telecommunication Union’s Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)[5] and makes an important distinction for information and communications technology (ICT) goods between the end of life for a use cycle, which can end with recycling, going to a landfill, or returning to use through refurbishing/reuse, and the end of the last life cycle, when the product goes to recycling or a landfill. Figure 11 looks at an extended life span with different cycles of reuse around the use phase, involving either citizens directly, professional refurbishment locally, and manufacturing and remanufacturing globally, with recovery in factories, seeking minimal leak of e-waste to landfills and minimal input of raw materials.

mod3-fig10.png

Figure 10: The flows of the material life cycle of ICT goods. Source: ITU-T Supplement 28

mod3-fig11.png

Figure 11: The circular economy of digital devices. Source: Franquesa 2018

 

The Value Hill model: Processes in the circular economy of digital devices

A circular economy combines different processes in the life cycle of a digital device. These processes are interdependent and create new loops within the wider life cycle of a digital device.

mod3-fig12.png

Figure 12: The Value Hill (Source: The Sustainable Finance Lab, 2016)

The Value Hill model of the circular economy[6] provides an understanding of how to position these processes in terms of value (usefulness) in a circular context. As shown in Figure 12, value increases as the product is developed in the pre-use phase (left uphill slope). The flat top of the hill represents the in-use or use phase of a device when the product’s value is at its maximum. After one cycle of use, the product’s value decreases in the post-use phase (right downhill slope).

Circular choices in each of the processes of the three phases are interrelated. Choices in the uphill phase can contribute to and prolong the use phase, and facilitate a slow descent in the downhill phase. Reuse, refurbishment and maintenance of a device, facilitated by circular product design, can return devices back to use, or the flat top of the hill. Finally, the recovery of parts and materials is facilitated by good decisions in the circular design and manufacturing processes.

The circular economy tries to maintain devices as resources with the highest possible value for as long as possible. Inevitably, value can diminish, but regenerative processes can return them to a higher value through refurbishment, repair and maintenance to find and satisfy the needs of a new user, or to a lower value through recovery of components, recycling with recovery of any useful material, or minimising the impact of the unrecoverable fraction (e.g. separate, compact and treat toxic materials to prevent damage).

Circular cannot be anything

The concept of a circular economy can become too elastic. Its meaning can vary drastically depending on the interests of the person who defines it. For example, is it considered circular to burn waste for the generation of energy?

The language of the circular economy and circularity is sometimes abused to greenwash activities with no meaningful reduction of negative environmental social and economic impacts. Ideas like “green coal” or “green marketing”, which use “green logos”, can trivialise the radical difference between an “always resource” and a “soon waste” approach.

Circularity implies the regeneration of resources for multiple cycles, and not just a select few. At the moment, the circular economy looks like a downward economic spiral: e-waste is still produced and resources may not all be fully regenerated to their original use value;[7] products are not repurposed many times, and have a short number of reuse cycles; and the life span of products is limited by non-replaceable components and by the lack of modularity and upgradeability of a device.

This means that transparent impact assessments, the availability of data, and the regulation and certification of circularity are very important.

Some useful terms and definitions

Following the Value Hill model, we can group circular processes according to the three phases in the life span of digital devices: pre-use (or input), use and post-use (or output).

Pre-use phase

Design and manufacturing decisions determine the use of primary materials, painfully extracted from nature,[8] or the use of secondary materials, captured and recycled as a result of “urban mining”.

An urban mine refers to rare metals in discarded e-waste that can be recovered through mechanical and chemical treatments.

Artisanal mining is a largely manual mode of extraction, practiced by individuals, groups or communities.[9]

Industrial large-scale mining refers to a mechanised mode of production, carried out by large, often international, companies.[10] Sometimes these mining practices are referred to as extractive industries or “extractivism”.

Conflict minerals are minerals extracted in a zone where there is armed conflict and are often traded illicitly to finance the conflict. Some examples of conflict minerals are:

These are sometimes referred to as "the 3Ts and gold", 3TG, or even simply the "3Ts".

Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE)[11] includes a wide range of products with circuitry or electrical components with a power or battery supply. EEE is a major contributor to global warming, and to our waste crisis.

Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is a company that produces parts and equipment that may be marketed by another manufacturer. One example is Foxconn, a Taiwanese electronics company that manufactures parts and equipment for other companies such as Apple, Dell, Google, Huawei and Nintendo.

Electronics manufacturing services (EMS) is a term used for companies that design, manufacture, test, distribute, and provide return/repair services for electronic components and assemblies for OEMs.

The goal of keeping devices at the highest value for as long as possible goes against the concept of obsolescence, which occurs when a product is no longer maintained or degrades even though it may still be in good working order.

Technical obsolescence occurs when a new product or technology supersedes the old one (a “new generation” device).

Planned obsolescence is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so that it becomes obsolete (i.e. unfashionable, or no longer functional) after a certain period of time. This is done by manufacturers to generate long-term sales volumes by reducing the time between repeat purchases.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) in the field of waste management is a strategy to add all of the environmental costs associated with a product throughout the product life cycle to the market price of that product. EPR encourages manufacturers to design environmentally friendly products by holding producers responsible for the costs of managing their products at end of life.

Ecological design or ecodesign is an approach to designing products with special consideration for the environmental impacts of the product during its whole life cycle.

Life-cycle assessment (LCA), also known as life-cycle analysis, is a methodology for assessing environmental impacts associated with all the stages of the life cycle of a commercial product, process or service. For instance, in the case of a manufactured product, environmental impacts are assessed from raw material extraction and processing (“cradle”), through the product's manufacture, distribution and use, to the recycling or final disposal of the materials composing it (“grave”). These assessments can extend to economic and social impacts.

Digital product passport refers to an online portal or database where anyone can access information on the sustainability of products. This initiative is under active development in the EU region and by the ITU-T globally, and is targeted at both industries and consumers.

Many processes in the life of a digital device involve human effort. Sometimes these activities are recognised as work subject to protection by laws and conventions, but some of this work is done informally, and prone to abuse. For instance, in contrast to the growing pressure for monitoring work conditions in manufacturing, many other activities in the circular economy are not even recognised as work: artisanal mining, informal repair, or the informal handling of e-waste.

Decent work is a term that sums up the aspirations of people in their working lives. It involves opportunities for work that are productive and deliver a fair income, security in the workplace, social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organise and participate in the decisions that affect their lives, and equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men.

Informal labour is labour that falls short of being a formal arrangement in law or in practice. It can be paid or unpaid and it is always unstructured and unregulated.

The procurement process for public and private organisations usually includes acquiring goods or services, or work from an external source, often via a tendering or competitive bidding process. Policies, choices and clauses in procurement are key to ensure compliance with environmental, labour, safety and quality standards.

Public procurement (also known as government procurement) in the context of digital devices is the volume purchase of these devices (computers, printers, servers, etc.) by governments and state-owned enterprises. Public procurement amounted to 12% of the global GDP in 2018. This means that large public procurement contracts have leverage power to ensure more transparency and better compliance from manufacturers and others in the supply chain.

Use phase

In the use phase, devices can be used and transferred for reuse until they are no longer useful for any purpose.

Use value refers to a rating of the usefulness of a product for a purpose. This can be compared to “exchange value”, which considers the price of a product on the market. Exchange value can sometimes be in competition with use value.[12] For example, if a new computer has a very low price, a person might consider buying the new computer rather than extending the use of an old computer.

No use value refers to the end of life of a device.

Electronic resource (e-resource): Electrical or electronic equipment (EEE), parts or components that can produce benefits from use for a purpose or by a person.[13]

Product life time refers to the length of time a product is used for the purpose that it was designed for (or primary function). (see “obsolescence”).

Reuse refers to the action or practice of using an item, whether for its original purpose (conventional reuse) or to fulfil a different function (creative reuse or repurposing). It should be distinguished from recycling, which is the breaking down of used items to make raw materials for the manufacture of new products.

Substitution effect refers to the fact that extending the usable life span of digital devices helps reduce the need for manufacturing more new devices. In addition, it creates opportunities to satisfy less demanding uses of digital devices at a much lower economic and environmental cost than purchasing new devices. This includes the fact that refurbishment is often done locally, while new production usually takes place in large factories far away.

Product life extension refers to extending the working life cycle of products and components by repairing, upgrading and reselling.

Refurbishing is a process used to return a product to a satisfactory working condition without making any important changes to the product.[14]

Remanufacturing refers to returning a used product or component to at least its original performance with a warranty that is equivalent or better than that of the newly manufactured product.[15] Remanufacturing involves the original manufacturer, its brand and certification, in contrast to refurbishment, which is done by a third party.

Servitisation is the process of creating value by adding services to products. This does not entail ownership of a material product, but instead involves a service-level agreement that usually includes maintenance (e.g. having access to a working computer for a period instead of owning a specific computer).

A pool of digital devices, as with other common-pool resources, is a (community) resource system that all stakeholders nurture with donations, maintenance, data and other contributions, since the pool generates useful computing services to their beneficiaries. The institutional design of collective governance is required to guide participants, with defined boundaries, monitoring, and collective decision-making processes to ensure correct operation in social, environmental and economic terms: ensuring prosperity while preventing tragedy of a device commons.

Locality refers to proximity. In socioeconomic terms, locality is about the effects of our social or economic interactions on others. Engagement with local actors is an act of support that brings additional benefits to the community (recirculation of value and money), in comparison to non-local interactions, which can have no clear positive effects on the surrounding community (local value and money is extracted). In environmental terms, among other things, locality reduces the impact of transport, and prevents the negative effects of concentration (e.g. dumping waste far away in less regulated countries or regions).

Reverse logistics refers to inspection and revaluation of a product’s current state, redistribution/reuse, and remanufacturing.

Post-use phase

This phase includes the discarding or collection of digital devices, their recycling, and the reuse of resulting materials.

Waste refers to unwanted or unusable products or materials discarded after use. A waste product may become a resource through an intervention that raises its value above zero.

Electronic waste (e-waste) refers to electrical and electronic equipment and components that have been discarded as waste without the intent for reuse.[16]

Scrap refers to recyclable materials left over from manufacturing and consumption. Unlike waste, scrap has monetary value, especially recovered metals.

New scrap refers to scrap generated from manufacturing processes. It has a known composition, normally high purity and origin, and can often be recycled within a processing facility and used again as a secondary resource.

Old scrap, or post-consumer scrap, refers to materials contained in products that have reached their end of life. It is often mixed with waste materials such as plastics or alloys, which means its recycling requires further detailed processing for proper recovery.

Recycling refers to the process of recovering scrap or converting waste materials into new materials and objects. The recyclability of a material depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its virgin or original state.

Upcycling (also known as creative reuse), is the process of transforming by-products, waste materials and useless or unwanted products into new materials or products, which may, for example, have practical, artistic or environmental value.

Downcycling is the recycling of waste where the recycled material is of lower quality and functionality than the original material.

Recycling use value is a rating of the value of a digital device based on raw material value considering the cost of recycling it.[17] This value can be positive or negative. If negative, recycling may not be feasible unless there is an economic contribution to compensate the cost of recycling.

 

A landfill site, also known as a tip, dump, rubbish dump, garbage dump or dumping ground, is a site for the disposal of waste materials. Landfills are a big problem for people and the environment. This is especially the case when it comes to e-waste, among other waste, that contains toxic materials and materials that do not easily corrode.

 

References

[1] Gladek, E. (2019, 15 August). The Seven Pillars of the Circular Economy. Metabolic. https://www.metabolic.nl/news/the-seven-pillars-of-the-circular-economy  

[2] For example, Decree 110/2015 in Spain, and other laws and regulations in many but not all countries. See: https://globalewaste.org/map

[3] European Commission. (2014). Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52014DC0398

[4] Joyce, A. (2015, 17 April). The triple layered business model canvas – a tool to design more sustainable business models. SustainableBusinessModel.org. https://sustainablebusinessmodel.org/2015/04/17/the-triple-layered-business-model-canvas-a-tool-to-design-more-sustainable-business-models

[5] ITU-T. (2016). Circular economy in information and communication technology: definition of approaches, concepts and metrics. Supplement 28 to ITU-T L-Series Recommendations. http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/13151

[6] Achterberg, E., Hinfelaar, J., & Bocken, N. (2016). Master Circular Business with the Value Hill. Circle Economy & Sustainable Finance Lab. https://www.circle-economy.com/resources/master-circular-business-with-the-value-hill 

[7] A reused device is better, more sustainable, than a new or remanufactured device, but the individual user may not agree. The maturity of technology, original design for durability, and good refurbishment make a difference.

[8] “Ecological amputation” as the physical removal of ecosystems in open-pit mega-mining. See Gudynas, E. (2018). Extractivisms: Tendencies and consequences. In R. Munck & R. Delgado Wise (Eds.), Reframing Latin American Development. Routledge. http://gudynas.com/wp-content/uploads/GudynasExtractivismsTendenciesConsquences18.pdf  

[9] Stoop, N., Verpoorten, M., & van der Windt, P. (2019). Artisanal or industrial conflict minerals? Evidence from Eastern Congo. World Development Journal, 122, 660-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.025

[10] Ibid.

[11] StEP Initiative. (2014). Solving the E-Waste Problem (StEP) White Paper: One Global Definition of E-waste. StEP Initiative/United Nations University. https://step-initiative.org/files/_documents/whitepapers/StEP_WP_One%20Global%20Definition%20of%20E-waste_20140603_amended.pdf

[12] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2018). Devices as a Commons: Limits to premature recycling. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computing within Limits (LIMITS ’18). ACM. https://computingwithinlimits.org/2018/papers/limits18-franquesa.pdf  

[13] Defined in contrast to unwanted or unusable EEE that is e-waste.

[14] ITU-T. (2019). Circular economy: Definitions and concepts for material efficiency for information and communication technology. Recommendation ITU-T L.1022. http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/13962

[15] Ardente, F., Peiró, L. T., Mathieux, F., & Polverini, D. (2018). Accounting for the environmental benefits of remanufactured products: Method and application. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1545-1558. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618319796

[16] Baldé, C. P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., & Stegmann, P. (2017). The Global E-waste Monitor – 2017. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/gen/D-GEN-E_WASTE.01-2017-PDF-E.pdf

[17] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2018). Op. cit.

Case study - eReuse: Building reuse circuits for social inclusion

Written by Leandro Navarro, Technical University of Catalonia (UPC) and Pangea

Project / Programme

eReuse

Region / Country

Spain

Website

https://www.ereuse.org

Circularity

Social and economic inclusion, refurbished computers, e-waste, innovation in servitised distribution model

Overview

Since 1995, the Technical University of Catalonia in Barcelona (Spain) has run a programme called Reutilitza (Reuse). Organised by the Centre for Development Cooperation, the programme has involved professors and students from several faculties preparing computers disposed of by the university for further use in social organisations. eReuse is a spin-off initiative that has scaled up beyond the university, supporting several social enterprises that collect and refurbish used computers and mobile phones donated by public and private organisations. These devices are delivered to vulnerable citizens, supported by sponsors that cover the refurbishing cost and assist users in their use for social inclusion.

About the project

Disposed digital devices (computers, tablets, mobiles) are a resource for local social inclusion and participation. Our vision is that public and private organisations act for the common good for a better, more inclusive and environmentally friendly internet, by donating their unwanted devices to social enterprises that repair and refurbish them. These can then be distributed to families that need devices to participate in education and socioeconomic activities using the internet. This second-hand market results in reusable devices at the minimal cost of refurbishment, and feeds a circular economy that improves local socioeconomic and environmental conditions.

The eReuse initiative started in 2013, reaching an important milestone in 2015 with the launch of a computer donation campaign. It has processed more than 10,000 computers[1] to date. In total, about 100 entities such as schools, public facilities and NGOs have benefited from the programme, with 47 different donors contributing devices. Over 1,200 devices are circulating as shared property, as part of our “servitised” business model.

eReuse circuits

We currently work with about 15 social organisations, and have local “eReuse circuits” in Barcelona and Madrid. Local circuits are forums to coordinate different stakeholders in localities that can exchange complementary resources and skills to balance supply and demand, share costs and help each other. Device donors, refurbishers, citizen support organisations and recyclers work together as part of a common-pool resource system of second-hand digital devices in extended use.[2]

Refurbished devices are prepared by the workers in social enterprises or reuse centres, and sometimes by individual volunteers or students doing service learning.

The beneficiaries of our activities are citizens interested in second-hand computers, citizens in municipal social support programmes, schools, public facilities, and families supported by neighbourhood social support organisations.

In a typical circuit, a donor organisation (a public or private organisation) donates decommissioned devices that are collected by a social enterprise that brings these computers in pallets to a refurbishment facility operated by another social enterprise, or a reuse centre. There the devices are put in a rack and – using the eReuse software tools – are inspected, data wiped, tested and installed with (usually) a Linux distribution, all in parallel (Figure 1 illustrates the process). Those that do not pass the test are put in a cage for recycling and recorded in our system as prepared for recycling. Those that pass the test are cleaned, checked in more detail and sometimes upgraded (battery, RAM, storage), labelled and stored for sale or donation (cost sponsored by a third party, although it is recommended that the final beneficiary contributes something as a commitment).

The processing cost in Barcelona is in the range of EUR 20-120 for each device.

Social support or public organisations, as well as some individuals, acquire these devices with the commitment to return them to the intermediary organisation after use for another refurbishment or final recycling.

The servitised business model

We have also developed a “servitised” business model where users pay for computing as a service. For instance, when we install computers in a school classroom, actors in the circuit ensure the performance level of the computers, maintaining, upgrading and replacing them in exchange for a monthly or yearly fee. This ensures they have the computing they need, but ownership of the device remains in the circuit.

The eReuse software records all these transfers and can generate a complete provenance log for each device about its lifespan, without revealing any personal details about the users. QR codes are placed on each device for traceability.

We have developed agreements with public and private donors of devices, social organisations working with end-users, and social enterprises in social inclusion programmes working on refurbishment and recycling. The recyclers we work with are specialised in e-waste, and can be either public, commercial or social enterprises. They can participate in supplementing the eReuse data by recording the devices they receive by scanning QR codes.

These agreements allow us to collect the data about devices (creating what we call a “chain of custody”), aggregate the data, and analyse the social usefulness (in computing hours enabled) and environmental impact (CO2e savings) of the devices. This generates datasets about the impacts and datasets about the durability of the devices we process.

eReuse also trains stakeholders in different aspects of device refurbishment and raises awareness on the environmental impact of information and communications technologies (ICTs).

casestudyimg.png

Figure 1: A refurbisher preparing desktop computers for reuse in the workshop of a social enterprise that forms part of eReuse.org.

Impact of the initiative

Project impact

The main overall impact and outcomes of the eReuse initiative are:

The level of funding is a limiting factor in expanding the process to other regions. It implies initial training, the development and certification of good practices, the coordination of the tasks and the management of stable demand and supply. The development and maintenance of software tools and services also need to take place.

Circuits work as long as there are the minimum stakeholders involved (donors, refurbishers and users) with a minimally stable demand and supply to ensure efficient processing (ideally at industrial scale). The process must be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Maintenance and support for final users helps to overcome the barriers related to the behaviour change.

Conclusion

eReuse has built a model of reuse circuits that works in different cities and regions in a country like Spain. The model appears to be effective in being economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. The coordination across complementary stakeholders helps ensure the complete set of capabilities and skills to bootstrap a local circular economy of digital devices. The software tools allow us to improve the efficiency (processing time) and quality of the refurbishment. Collected data allows us to calculate impacts and report these to donors and the public in general. Open datasets are useful to activists and governments to encourage manufacturers and device owners to act responsibly. This helps us to meet the challenge of developing a circular economy of digital devices that make ICTs part of the solution to sustainable development (less inequality, less environmental impact) and not part of the problem.

Further reading

Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). eReuse datasets, 2013-10-08 to 2019-06-03 with 8458 observations of desktop and laptop computers with up to 192 features each. http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/ereuse-dataset

Franquesa, D., Baig, R., & Navarro, L. (2017). Sustainability and participation in the digital commons. ACM Interactions, 24(3). http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/2017-interactions.pdf 

eReuse software: https://www.ereuse.org/software and https://github.com/eReuse

UPC Centre for Development Cooperation: https://www.upc.edu/ccd/en

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

 

References

[1] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). eReuse datasets, 2013-10-08 to 2019-06-03 with 8458 observations of desktop and laptop computers with up to 192 features each. http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/ereuse-dataset

[2] Franquesa, D., Baig, R., & Navarro, L. (2017). Sustainability and participation in the digital commons. ACM Interactions, 24(3). http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/2017-interactions.pdf

 

Appendix 2: The triple-layered business model canvas for eReuse

This a basic triple-layered business model canvas (BMC) for the eReuse federation of several social enterprises, donors and users of second-hand computers. The model is described in detail in a journal article[1] and introduced in a blog post.[2]

 

 

Designed for:

Designed by:

Date:

Version:

Economic BMC

eReuse.org circuits

 

Leandro@ereuse.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key partners

Key activities

Value propositions

Customer relationships

Customer segments

 

Network of agents and partners that make circuits work:

Regulators (permission),

manufacturers (deployment),

government (policy),

locations,

related initiatives,

libraries, schools (education) and universities (research),

funders,

sponsors

 

Data cleaning,

transport,

registration,

preparation,

allocation,

transfer

 

Products and services that give value:

Device usage,

preparation for reuse,

inventory management,

traceability,

certification,

reduction of digital divide

 

Agreements with volunteers, public admin, professionals,

institutional donors,

investors, incentives, disincentives, reputation, etc.

 

Groups of people or organisations to reach and serve:

Citizens and organisations,

manufacturers,

recyclers, repairers,

governments (as users or donors)

Key resources

Channels

 

Tech: Inventory, tools and services

Human: Organisations, participants

Financial: Contributions

Physical: Storage, warehouse

 

Word of mouth, web campaigns, mobile app, QR codes, meetings, partner organisations, social events, campaigns

Cost structure

Revenue streams

 

Initial investment: In facilities and development of software tools and services, operational expenses

Human resources: Preparation, coordination and support

 

Contributions received from each customer segment:

Fees from participants, donations (per device, per service)

 

 

 

Designed for:

Designed by:

Date:

Version:

Environmental life cycle BMC

eReuse.org circuits

 

Leandro@ereuse.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supplies and outsourcing

Production

Functional value

End of life

Use phase

 

Refurbishment tools

Storage space

Transport for devices

Supplies: batteries

Cleaning products

Label printer to tag devices

 

Repair and replacement of parts 0.5%

 

1 operational refurbished computer per person (user) for up to 5 years (device custody model)

1 operational refurbished computer per person (user) for a yearly fee (device servitisation model)

 

 

 

Device returned to an eReuse partner to be refurbished again or recycled if does not have enough performance for a new user

 

Energy from usage 10 %

Materials

Distribution

 

New battery 1%

Changes in second-hand components 0%

New HDD or SSD 10%

 

Transport (collection from donor) 5%

End user takes care of transport of own device 2%

Environmental impacts

Environmental benefits

 

7/10 carbon footprint from initial manufacturing cost of new devices

2/10 CO2e from usage (electricity)

1/10 CO2e from final recycling

~0/10 CO2e from refurbishment

 

CO2e footprint savings from refurbishment and reuse of device

CO2e footprint savings from final recycling

CO2e footprint accounting per device along complete life span

CO2e footprint savings for donor organisations as positive impact

 

 

 

Designed for:

Designed by:

Date:

Version:

Social stakeholder BMC

eReuse.org circuits

 

Leandro@ereuse.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local communities

Governance

Social value

Societal culture

End user

 

300,000-500,000 computers for school students (users)

Refurbishers in socioeconomic inclusion programmes (social enterprises)

Device donors (public and private organisations)

Recyclers (non-profit, for-profit)

 

Commons:

- Federation of social enterprises

- Device donors

 

Offers social inclusion (sustainable income, jobs) from device refurbishment

 

Improves digital inclusion of citizens

 

Help citizens participate in digital society without contributing to increased environmental impact

 

Feedback/measures of environmental impact savings

 

Culture of low environmental impact

Culture of solidarity among donors and receivers

Commitment to circularity

Culture of collaboration to manage volumes of devices

 

Citizens work/learn/interact remotely

Reduction of environmental impact (computer use)

Reduction of burden (servitisation: computer as a service)

 

Employees

Scale of outreach

 

- Employed by social enterprises

 

Social bonds between donors, receivers, refurbishers, recyclers

Education around circularity

 

Social impacts

Social benefits

 

Volunteers: Responsibility when devices fail

Professionals: Issues with scale and diversity of second-hand devices

Health and safety

Voluntary effort, overhead, contributions not directly accountable

 

Lower-cost computing

Transparency from social impact (jobs created, computing hours delivered to users)

Digital sovereignty

Sense of community

Social inclusion

[1] Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. Journal of cleaner production, 135, 1474-1486. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652616307442  

[2] Joyce, A. (2015, 17 April). The triple layered business model canvas – a tool to design more sustainable business models. SustainableBusinessModel.org. https://sustainablebusinessmodel.org/2015/04/17/the-triple-layered-business-model-canvas-a-tool-to-design-more-sustainable-business-models

Module 4: How producing digital devices impacts on natural resources and on people

In order to find and maintain “a safe and just space for people and planet”,1 we need to maximise the recapturing of materials through recycling and minimise mining or extraction.

The need to use fewer primary materials to make digital devices

A digital device is made up of natural resources that must be extracted from the earth (called primary or “linear” materials) or recaptured (secondary or “circular” materials). The mining and extraction of natural resources for digital devices is unsustainable, and in many cases, has led to massive violations of human rights, including the right to a healthy environment.2 Within a linear economy, natural resources that are extracted and used in digital devices do not have value beyond their use in that digital device. A key objective of circular economies is to significantly reduce the extraction of natural resources through repair and recycling, and increase the use of recaptured and recycled materials.

What are “urban mines”?

The term “urban mining” refers to the mechanical or chemical recovery of rare metals that can be found in e-waste.

Mining, conflict minerals and extractives

Mining and extraction are considered the first process in the life cycle of a digital device. A mobile phone is composed of about 70 chemical elements (see Figure 13).3 These include scarce minerals (called “rare earths”), a long list of alloys, plastics and many natural resources such as lots of water.4

As shown in the glossary of useful terms in Module 3, some of the minerals are what we call “conflict minerals”. These minerals are extracted in conflict zones and are often sold illicitly to perpetuate armed conflict. Conflict minerals include tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold. These are sometimes referred to as the “3T’s” or “the 3T’s and gold”.

In order to understand some of the worst impacts of mining and extraction of materials used in digital devices, it is important to define “extractivism”. Gudynas outlines three conditions that must be met for extractivism to be present:

Despite the popularisation of the term “extractive industries”, it is important to understand that extractivism does not constitute an industry, because the resources are exported as raw materials and do not undergo any process of assembly or manufacturing, to which the concept of “industry” refers.

Working conditions in mining and extraction have led to some of the worst violations of human and environmental rights. Precarious and inhuman working conditions, social problems and human rights violations are influenced, aggravated and masked by complex global supply chains for electronics. Case examples for this module, one from Mexico and the other from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), highlight some of the specific challenges, risks and threats experienced by local communities that are working to resist the worst effects of extractivism.

Artisanal and large-scale mining

The Raw Materials Information System (RMIS) developed for the European Union shows the impact of artisanal and small-scale mining. According to very rough estimates from the RMIS, artisanal and small-scale mining produces around 15% to 20% of global minerals, including 80% of all sapphires, 20% of all gold, and 20% of diamonds. It is also a major producer of raw materials strategic to electronics manufacturing, and accounts for 26% of global tantalum production and 25% of tin production.6

There is often a belief that artisanal and small-scale mining is more just and sustainable than large-scale mining. But recent research7 and the case examples included here illuminate the complex challenges and risks posed by both artisanal and large-scale mining. While artisanal and small-scale mining is generally understood to be intimately connected with the livelihoods of local communities around the world, these activities are often controlled and heavily taxed by local elites, with very few paths for recourse when rights are violated.

Large-scale mining tends to be more focused on relations with national and global actors, with very weak links to local communities and the local economy around sites of mining and extraction. These differences result in artisanal mining and large-scale mining having very different relationships to conflict and the violation of human and environmental rights.

Mobile devices often rely on minerals that may be extracted in conditions of armed conflict and widespread human rights violations. Although many global initiatives are working to increase transparency and accountability within supply chains for minerals,8 many of these initiatives do not question the logic and colonial history of extractivism in the global South.9 As a result, many devices continue to be produced using conflict minerals.10

What is being done?

More than 230 civil society organisations from around the world published a statement in September 2020 that called on the European Commission (EC) to re-evaluate its plans to obtain raw materials. The statement noted irregularities, lack of transparency mechanisms and a disregard for growing resistance by local communities. It called for the EC to implement policies that reduce consumption, promote recycling and contribute “a fair share of support to the nations of the global South to redress the continued extraction of wealth from the global South for Europe, which has taken place for centuries.”11

module4.png

Figure 13: Elements found in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) (Source: Global E-waste Monitor 2020)

The demand for cobalt, a key component in rechargeable batteries, is expected to soon surpass the available supply. More than 60% of all cobalt mining in the world is located in the DRC, and 90% of all cobalt miners in the country work in artisanal and small-scale mines, many of which have hazardous working conditions,12 child labour and limited access to legitimate, transparent markets. The Fair Cobalt Alliance was set up to support the management of artisanal and small-scale mining, work to end child labour, and increase household incomes by investing in off-site community programmes and capacity building.13

Supply chain traceability auditing, and concepts such as “reasonable inquiry” – which excludes the need for an internal audit – and “due diligence” are intended to support institutional responses to the violations of rights in artisanal and small-scale mining and should allow the reliable determination of source minerals that enables greater transparency and accountability. Third party monitoring and evaluation organisations perform this work across the electronics supply chain. These include Electronics Watch, the Global Electronics Council, TCO Certified, and the GoodElectronics network, which has more than 100 member organisations globally.

 

 

 

References

1 Raworth, K. (2012). A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490

2 The Right to a Healthy Environment Campaign. (2020, 10 September). The Time is Now! Global Call for the UN Human Rights Council to urgently recognise the Right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Global-Call-for-the-UN-to-Recognize-the-Right-to-a-Healthy-Environment-English.pdf

3 Deubzer, O., Herreras, L., Hajosi, E., Hilbert, I., Buchert, M., Wuisan, L., & Zonneveld, N. (2019). Baseline and gap/obstacle analysis of standards and regulations. CEWASTE. https://cewaste.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/CEWASTE_Deliverable-D1.1_191001_FINAL-Rev.200305.pdf

4 Making chips requires lots of water. For example, TSMC in Taiwan, the world’s largest dedicated independent (pure-play) semiconductor foundry, consumed more than 156 million litres a day in 2019. TSMC. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility Report.https://esg.tsmc.com/download/csr/2019-csr-report/english/pdf/e-6-greenManufacturing.pdf

5 Gudynas, E. (2013). Extracciones, extractivismos y extrahecciones. Un marco conceptual sobre la apropiación de recursos naturales. Observatorio del desarrollo, 18. http://ambiental.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GudynasApropiacionExtractivismoExtraheccionesOdeD2013.pdf

6 See also: Weldegiorgis, F., Lawson, L., & Verbrugge, H. (2018). Women in Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining: Challenges and opportunities for greater participation. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/igf-women-asm-challenges-opportunities-participation.pdf

7 Stoop, N., Verpoorten, M., & van der Windt, P. (2019). Artisanal or industrial conflict minerals? Evidence from Eastern Congo. World Development, 122, 660-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.025

8 OECD Development Centre. (2019). OECD and EITI Standards for Transparent Mineral Supply Chains. OECD Development Centre.https://eiti.org/document/oecd-eiti-standards-for-transparent-mineral-supply-chains

9 Gudynas, E. (2013). Op. cit.

10 Church, C., & Crawford, A. (2018). Green Conflict Minerals: The fuels of conflict in the transition to a low-carbon economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/green-conflict-minerals.pdf

11 Salva la Selva. (2020, 28 September). Dicen a la Comisión Europea que no podemos superar la crisis climática minando el planeta.https://www.salvalaselva.org/comunicados-prensa/9870/dicen-a-la-comision-europea-que-no-podemos-superar-la-crisis-climatica-minando-el-planeta

12 Amnesty International. (2016). “This is what we die for”: Human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo power the global trade in cobalt. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/

13 Fairphone. (2020, 24 August). Be part of the change: Join the Fair Cobalt Alliance. https://www.fairphone.com/en/2020/08/24/be-part-of-the-change-join-the-fair-cobalt-alliance

Case study - The fate of women artisanal miners in Katanga in the Democratic Republic of Congo

By Patience Luyeye

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) produces 60% of the world’s cobalt and more than one million tonnes of copper per year. Cobalt (also called “blood cobalt”) is essential to the manufacturing of electronic devices. Both copper and cobalt are mined in Katanga in the eastern DRC. Mining is an industry on which the majority of the population in the region is dependent. However, with this comes widespread human rights abuses, and it particularly affects the lives of women and children.

What are the different roles that women and children find themselves in at the mines?

There are several kinds of roles that women and children have at the cobalt mines. There are the women who are the wives of diggers and scouts, some of whom are accompanied by their children; there are women entrepreneurs who negotiate and buy minerals for resale to mostly Chinese, Lebanese and Indians investors; and there are women who do artisanal mining – they are commonly called “purifiers”, because they spend whole days treating and washing kilos of raw materials in water, which they sell to mining companies who buy them at a very low price. Then we have the children who go down into the mines.

What sort of hazards do the women and children who do artisanal mining face?

They spend hours in the small rivers of the quarries washing the raw materials to sort the ore, a very trying job. They extract ore in an artisanal way. The processing of ore requires protection, because it exposes people to toxins which are harmful to your health. They are obviously exposed to various diseases and health problems, such as birth defects, tuberculosis and a dry cough, because they work without protective equipment.

For lack of means to meet their needs, most of the population of Katanga devote themselves to informal mining. But what is sad is that the children also take part in this mining activity after leaving school. Going down into the mines is a very dangerous job, since the ground can collapse at any time and they risk being trapped. The situation of women and children working in artisanal mines is becoming very worrying. In 2015, UNICEF had to organise conferences and workshops on the issue. Young people engage in prostitution in exchange for access to sites or to negotiate for a few minerals. The women are subjected to rape by the men present in the quarries of the mines, and there is marital sexual violence. Women are marginalised, suffering; it pushes many women to prostitute themselves.

What is the role of international mining companies in this?

Often, when investors are in quarries, it is after the scouts are gone. They wait for the scouts or diggers to discover the site, then they appropriate the quarry and chase the diggers away. The buyers take possession of the entire quarry. The diggers or the scouts are called this because all these foreign companies set up their extraction companies thanks to the scouts who detect the exact place where minerals can be found. After this, military escorts arrive to drive them away from the site and foreign companies set up their equipment for the extraction. Access to the sites therefore becomes controlled and prohibited to people who are not from the company. But despite this, there are still women and a large number of children who work at the mines.

Lately the copper content has fallen by more than 30%, which is why most of the quarries prized by international investors do not allow Congolese nationals to access mining sites – it got complicated. We ask ourselves: who ultimately benefits from these minerals?

What are some solutions to the problems described?

Following an accident in Katanga in 2019, Gécamines, the state-controlled mining company, together with the government set up a structure which will have to regulate the exploitation of cobalt by taking into account three conditions: the prohibition of child labour; the prohibition of work for pregnant or underage women; and the requirement to prepare the site on which the artisanal miners will work and to take care of their safety by giving them protective equipment.

But more needs to be done.

There are organisations defending women’s rights in general, but it would be wise for them to be able to defend women who work in mines more specifically. More action is also necessary when it comes to the issue of children working in mining quarries.

National and international organisations or associations need to raise awareness of the issue, especially of the gender-based violence that occurs. Women working at the mines need to be told that rape is against the law, and that they can become sick when they are exposed to toxins when processing the minerals in the river for long days without any adequate protection.

Advocacy is needed when it comes to the government. It has a lot of responsibility to take decisions and to uphold and enforce the laws with international mining companies. International mining companies also need to respect the laws of the country, especially as regards the rights of women and children (there are Congolese laws on child labour). The manufacturers of telephones and other electrical and electronic devices also have a share of responsibilities, because the raw materials for the manufacture of their products come from these mines.

We need to encourage women working in artisanal mines to come together in an association to help with the negotiation for their rights. Their power will be more important if they are in large numbers.

We will also have to think about the post-mining period: today the copper content is declining, and there will be a day when these mining sites will close. What will become of all these people who depend on this activity?

For more on the conditions for mining cobalt in the DRC, watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO3s24gSgHM

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see these related reports:

Big tech goes green(washing): Feminist lenses to unveil new tools in the master’s houses (thematic report): https://www.giswatch.org/node/6254

Latin America (regional report): https://www.giswatch.org/node/6247

 

 

Case study - “We are struggling to survive”: Resistance against mining in Acacoyagua, Chiapas

Written by jes ciacci, Sursiendo

“We are not moving from here until the machines are gone. We are not afraid; we have the courage to be here even if they tell us we are being sued.”

Member of the Frente Popular en Defensa del Soconusco 20 de Junio (FPDS) during the “José Luciano” roadblock set up to prevent access to the Casas Viejas mine in the municipality of Acacoyagua, in Chiapas, Mexico.

Extractivism and finite resources

Mining is often considered the “mother” of all modern industries. If minerals are so essential, why do we see so many resistance hotspots in the countries where they are mined?

Minerals are part of our everyday lives. Without them, life as we know it would be impossible. They are also found in the technologies we use. A cell phone, for example, contains more than 200 minerals, 80 chemical elements and over 300 alloys and varieties of plastic. Where do our devices come from? What do we know about their impacts?

We often hear news about the data extractivism that is inherent to the business model of the large digital platforms. But we know very little about the “other” extractivisms found throughout their chain of production. The assumption behind the production of these technologies, from their very design, is that the world has infinite resources, when in truth we live in a world of finite resources.

When we look at the economy of materials we find a linear system. Raw materials are harvested and extracted, transformed, transported, assembled, transported again, consumed, transported yet again and finally disposed of as waste. And in each of these stages the variable of “people” is not factored into the equations.

However, we live in a world of finite resources, of cycles and not linear systems, with people involved in every tiny aspect of these chains of production. Moreover, in these systems some people are heard more than others, while the web of public policies and economic diplomacy favours corporations over local populations.

A technological development model anchored in this extractivist conception entails strong negative impacts both on societies and on the environment.

Resistance against mining in El Soconusco, Chiapas

Mexico is one of the 17 megadiverse countries1 in the world and one of the leading in Latin America, home to a wide variety of native species. Among the reasons that explain the existence of such a variety of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms are the diversity of climates, the mix of biogeographic areas and a complex topography of mountain chains that includes the Sierra Madre de Chiapas, in southeast Mexico.

Our devices contain a large number of minerals that are extracted from that biodiversity for use in the production of casings, circuits, capacitors, screens and sensors. Some of those minerals are found in Chiapas, where nearly 20% of the territory is under mining concessions. As of September 2019, the Ministry of the Economy had 140 open-pit mines2 registered, with operating permits extending as late as 2060 and with a high consumption of water. “A small mine consumes around 250,000 litres per hour, while a large one consumes between one and three million litres in that same amount of time.”3

Concession documents deliberately omit information concerning impacts on natural diversity and human health. This was one of the reasons that led the people of the municipality of Acacoyagua4 to organise against mining activities. Some 17,000 inhabitants live in that municipality under the protection of La Encrucijada and El Triunfo biosphere reserves, in a region known as El Soconusco, which has 13 active mining concessions for gold, silver, lead, zinc, iron and titanium extraction.

The leading mineral mined in the area is titanium.5 It is most commonly transformed into titanium oxide for use as a whitening agent in cosmetics, toothpaste, paint and food products such as milk. Titanium is also found in surgical instruments, firearms and, of course, computers and other electronic devices.

On 20 June 2015, the local population, concerned over the impact they saw on their health and on the environment, formed the Frente Popular en Defensa del Soconusco (FPDS or the People’s Front for the Defence of Soconusco), a peaceful citizens’ movement. A little over a year later they set up two camps and, with just a rope, blocked any machinery from reaching the mines. Libertad Díaz Vera, who has been with the FPDS since its inception, recalls how as early as 2006, people in Acacoyagua started noticing the arrival of companies interested in mining.6 The first permits, however, date from 2012 and they were approved without any information or consultation processes that took into account the needs of the local population in terms of times and modalities.

By the year 2015 the first health impacts were evident, in particular skin conditions such as hives, white spots and dryness, but there was also a rise in the number of cancer patients. Juan Velázquez, a local doctor,7estimates that between 2005 and 2015, the death rate for cancer increased from 7% to 22%. “Cancer in general, but in particular liver cancer, became the leading cause of death in the area. We are struggling to survive,” because mining activities release toxic and radioactive particles, such as thorium and silicon.

The most evident change in the environment was the pollution of the waters of the Cacaluta, the region’s main river, which runs from the reserve to the coast of Chiapas, supplying water to the Acacoyagua region. “The municipality has a system of flowing water. What this means is that the river replenishes the groundwater and brings water to households. As there is no sewage system, everything that filters into the water goes directly into people’s mouths.”8

At the same time illnesses increased, the fish also started to die. The locals could no longer eat the mojarra fish, large river prawns, lobsters and sardines they had always fished. “People started talking then, wondering what was happening.” That was the beginning of the efforts to defend the territory, which have led not only to declaring the municipality free from mining activities, but also to questioning other forms of overharvesting the land, including existing agribusinesses in the area.

An article published in Mongabay magazine notes that “in the opinion of the Chiapas representative of the Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAT), Amado Ríos, the prospecting and mining permits granted to El Puntal were for extracting raw material to be processed elsewhere to obtain titanium, so that the Ministry assumes the Casas Viejas mine does not contaminate.”9 People are experiencing in their own bodies the effects of the rocks extracted from the mine.

Despite having grown strong as a social movement and having gained knowledge of mining activities throughout their organisational process, it is still difficult for them to track down the companies that invest in these activities. Neither the state nor the national government, at their various levels, accept responsibility for reporting, claiming it is up to the other. The result is that no data is available. There is no explanation either for the authorisation of mining projects in natural reserves. The article mentioned above indicates that according to the Mexican Competitiveness Institute, “the files of each concession can only be accessed by those who can prove a legal interest in them or else through the General Transparency and Access to Public Information Act.”10

What they do know is that concessions have changed owners more than once. This is very common in the mining industry, where activities usually start with prospecting and exploration projects in the hands of small or medium-sized national companies, which are later sold to larger investors, either national or transnational, once it is determined that there are enough metal resources to warrant mining. With very large mining projects, tracing the path of concessions is, thus, complicated. In many cases this is because when the large mining companies set up in any given country they do so through subsidiaries with very complex legal ties that make it difficult to establish their legal relationship with their parent company.

The localities of Escuintla and Acacoyagua were the first to organise against mining activities. After the FPDS was formed, they joined the Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA or Mexican Network of People Affected by Mining) and since then they have deployed different strategies to defend their territory. These strategies range from direct actions, such as the roadblocks mentioned above, to information processes, assembly statements and media and legal actions. Their actions quickly met with retaliations. But as one of the participants in the roadblock said, “We are defending our land so that our children can continue living here as happily as we have.”11

The communities lifted the roadblocks in 2018 but they maintain an active surveillance system, with individuals from the communities patrolling on their bicycles. If they spot a mining truck coming, they immediately alert the rest, who mobilise to block it.

This combination of strategies has in a certain way made it possible to stop the effects they were suffering. “People are happy now because they have seen a dramatic change. We have a photograph from 2019 that shows river prawns being served at a lunch they organised in the mountains to welcome a journalist. People are starting to see more life in the river.”12 As for the skin conditions, an improvement is already evident in both children and adults. However, the more serious liver and kidney diseases persist.

There are two dates that are key for the communities of the municipality, as they reaffirm their struggle. Every 20 June, which marks a new anniversary of the beginning of the process of organisation, they gather by the river for regional singing and dancing, poetry reading and announcements. It is a significant cultural moment that alludes to the organisational process. In December, a festival is held in honour of the resistance, where the communities gather together to feast to the beat of marimbas and there are raffles and a piñata. Last year on 15 September there was also an “anti-mining character” who marched in the national holiday parade, revealing that the resistance “is now part of the identity of these communities even at the institutional level.”13

Changing the model

Despite the negative impacts and the harmful effects on health and the environment, today’s economies continue to be based on extractivism. They put the rules of exchange value above the rules of use value. The price of nature is more important than the value we place on its care to preserve it for current and future generations.

The system of economic domination is underpinned by an ideology that is completely removed from the earth and its living beings, including people. The system of technological development upholds those premises, causing a negative impact on bodies and territories.

Tracing the path of these technologies clearly is an enormously complex task mainly due to the lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms in each of the nodes involved in their production. The solutions offered by technological corporations are associated with “green” capitalism, that is, a set of “responses” to the climate crisis that do not question current consumption patterns, but rather propose “clean” ways of continuing to consume eternally through energy produced by large hydroelectric dams, wind or solar farms, biofuels and geo-engineering. In a recent open letter,14 more than 230 civil society organisations from around the world called on the European Commission to reassess its raw material sourcing plans due to the many irregularities they present, their lack of transparency mechanisms and their failure to heed the growing resistance of local populations. “To display true leadership in climate matters,” the letter states, “the EC needs to establish and put in place policies for a low-energy, low-material transition in Europe, with a far greater focus on demand reduction, recycling, and contributing a fair share of support to Global South nations to redress the relentless centuries-long extraction of wealth from the South to Europe.”15

In Latin America, efforts to defend the region’s territories have been underway for decades, with diverse strategies aimed at caring for people’s lives and their environment. The struggles are waged at various levels, but, as the experience in Acacoyagua shows us, what has succeeded in stopping contamination has been a strong organisational process and non-violent direct actions.

In order to build future technologies that are sensitive to the call to protect life, it is necessary to reconnect with other local, nearby models of consumption that foster diversity and a connection with the people who produce, models that take into account the cycles of life (it takes nature millions of years to produce minerals and oil), and designs that respond to these premises.

These other forms of development that respect the needs of local communities will also enable us to think of ways of to relocate technologies and their production and circulation, promote open models of software and hardware development, reduce and diversify consumption, respond to issues that are localised, and give rise to proposals based on caring for people, communities and environments. That may perhaps be the technological development that will enable us to see a desired impact on the worlds we inhabit.

 

References

1 Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. (2020, 8 October). ¿Qué es la biodiversidad?https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/biodiversidad/que_es.html

2 Domínguez, A. (2019, 1 September). Los conflictos futuros de Chiapas por la defensa del territorio. Chiapas Paralelo. https://www.chiapasparalelo.com/noticias/chiapas/2019/09/los-conflictos-futuros-de-chiapas-por-la-defensa-del-territorio

3 Martínez García, M. A. (2015, 10 February). Minería pone en riesgo a áreas naturales protegidas: Gustavo Castro. Americas Program. https://www.americas.org/es/mineria-pone-en-riesgo-a-areas-naturales-protegidas-gustavo-castro

4 Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2020). Espacio y datos de México. https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/mapa/espacioydatos/default.aspx?ag=07001

5 Outlet Minero. (2016, 17 February). Titanio, usos y propiedades. https://outletminero.org/titanio

6 Interview with Libertad Díaz Vera, 24 September 2020.

7 Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el Modelo Extractivo Minero. (2016, 13 October). Habitantes del Soconusco, Chiapas, se organizan para detener la minería. https://movimientom4.org/2016/10/habitantes-del-soconusco-chiapas-se-organizan-para-detener-la-mineria

8 Interview with Libertad Díaz Vera, 24 September 2020.

9 Soberanes, R. (2017, 20 October). Comunidades se oponen a 21 proyectos mineros en la Sierra Madre de México. Revista Mongabay. https://es.mongabay.com/2017/10/no-la-mineria-la-lucha-conservar-la-sierra-madre-mexico

10 Ibid.

11 Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el Modelo Extractivo Minero. (2016, 13 October). Op. cit.

12 Interview with Libertad Díaz Vera, 24 September 2020.

13 Ibid.

14 Friends of the Earth Europe. (2020, 28 September). Open letter from NGOs, community platforms and academics on concerns over critical raw material plans of the European Commission. https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_use/2020/civil_society_open_letter_-_concerns_on_eu_critical_raw_material_plans.pdf

15 The Gaia Foundation. (2020, 28 September). We Can’t Mine Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis. https://gaiafoundation.org/ec-we-cant-mine-our-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis

Case study - The microfactory model: SMaRT innovation for urban waste mining

Written by Syed Kazi, Digital Empowerment Foundation

Project / Programme

Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT)

Region / Country

Australia

Website

http://www.smart.unsw.edu.au/

Circularity

Microfactory that can transform waste, including e-waste, into valuable products. Has potential to create employment and entrepreneurship in recycling, and to add value to the work of informal recyclers.

Overview

The increasing waste in our daily life is a problem that needs resolution. The recycling of co-mingled and contaminated glass, plastic, wood, marine waste and textiles is needed, both economically and environmentally. So far there has been little work done on dealing with mixed wastes before separation and pre-processing. The Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT), at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, focuses on tackling this issue. In facing the challenge, it has set up the world’s first e-waste microfactory.

About the project

The SMaRT programme was founded in 2008 at the University of New South Wales by ARC Laureate Fellow Scientia Professor Veena Sahajwalla. SMaRT works with industry, global research partners, not-for-profits and local, state and federal governments, on the development of innovative environmental solutions for the world’s biggest waste challenges. It focuses on developing novel and innovative technologies and products which reduce environmental impact and enhance community benefits. It is also working to create a platform to enable more engagement, greater immersion opportunities and broader impact for SMaRT centre research worldwide.

The centre has grown to more than 30 people who collaborate with researchers from the faculties of science, engineering and the built environment.

Developing the microfactory model

SMaRT has developed a microfactory model for turning waste into valuable products, and has created the world’s first microfactory for e-waste. It defines a microfactory as “one or a series of small machines and devices that uses patented technology to perform one or more functions in the reforming of waste products into new and usable resources.”[1] SMaRT’s microfactory is a modular model that can be replicated and set up anywhere where waste is stockpiled. It only needs 50 square metres of space to function.

The microfactory, which is located on the university’s campus, has been producing plastic filaments for 3D printing extracted from e-waste. A local spectacle-frame company is a potential first customer if it can show the filaments are robust. The SMaRT team is also prototyping a microfactory that will turn waste textiles, glass and even mattresses into flat construction panels that could be used for heat and sound insulation, and has already attracted commercial interest. SMaRT has also developed a new concept for the processing of complex waste called thermal micronising, which is expected to be transferable well beyond this study. Thermal micronising leverages the gases generated from the waste plastics in complex waste streams such as e-waste, to enable the formation of sub-micron particles for industrial applications, in this case value-added copper-tin (Cu-Sn) nanoparticles.

SMaRT is working with different stakeholders such as Vinyl Council Australia, the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Molycop, Resource Recovery Australia, the Australia New Zealand Recycling Platform and Mobile Muster, among many others. It involves the community by asking for the donation of waste, which it uses in making new products.

The limitation as this point is the small reach of the microfactory model. The reach has to be increased through more awareness raising.

Conclusion

E-waste management is becoming an increasingly important issue to tackle. The focus for now, especially in the global South, has been on increasing the digital reach, but more effort needs to be put into the e-waste that results from this increased access. SMaRT’s microfactory model is suitable for a country like India where more than one million poor people are involved in manual recycling operations. It can offer them a chance to become manufacturers, increasing their financial independence.

References and further reading

Centre for Sustainable Materials Research and Technology, University of New South Wales, Sydney. https://www.smart.unsw.edu.au

Mehta, A. (2019, 29 April). Australian university pioneers urban mining 'microfactories'. Reuters. https://www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/australian-university-pioneers-urban-mining-microfactories 

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265
Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266
Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267
Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232
India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234
Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

Footnotes

[1] Mehta, A. (2019, 29 April). Australian university pioneers urban mining 'microfactories'. Reuters. https://www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/australian-university-pioneers-urban-mining-microfactories

Module 5: The need for transparency in the design of digital devices

We have the power to demand more information about the digital devices offered on the market. Buying a device should give us the right to this information so that we can assess its circularity and our contribution to a sustainable world. 

Device design and durability

There are many decisions that go into designing a digital device. The design determines the materials that will be used, where they will be sourced (e.g. from which suppliers or specific manufacturers), how easily a device can be disassembled, the durability of its parts, and whether they can be easily replaced, repaired, reused or recycled.

The ability to upgrade a digital device with additional storage, RAM (or random access memory), and a new battery or camera can significantly extend its useful life, and make its computational power comparable to a new device.[1] But for a manufacturer driven by units of products sold, durability is an enemy of the future sales of new devices. Because of this, technology design may make decisions in favour of or against obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is a huge barrier to the circularity of digital devices.

The importance of public access to technical data

Access to technical data about devices is important. It can help organisations exchange and aggregate data records about models and devices to produce statistics about the durability of devices, among other qualities. This also helps to make recycling and e-waste management more accountable and verifiable.

Public data sheets that list various details such as the composition of a product, the methods used in its manufacturing, the sources of its parts, links to operation, maintenance, repair or recycling manuals, and their durability ratings, are crucial in assessing a product’s sustainability. These public data sheets usually apply to models, but they could be specialised according to regional variants, batches built in specific factories, or even to individual items with a unique serial number. A digital representation of this data, linked to other digital datasets, is referred as a “digital twin” or a “digital product passport”. It allows us to automatically find out product details, compare different products, and assess their level of circularity, and can facilitate the maintenance, repair, reuse and recycling of a device.

Transparency on the technical details of devices can come from the manufacturers themselves, differentiating them from competitors. Governments can also impose minimum requirements on the industry. Voluntary reporting and monitoring mechanisms can become an incentive to design and use more circular digital devices.

What is being done?

In order to promote circular design, ecodesign initiatives are defining minimum requirements or ratings[2] to promote the durability and repairability of digital devices. Ecodesign initiatives have also expanded their activism to procurement. Organisations that certify, evaluate and monitor digital devices and procurement processes are discussed in Module 7.

Fairphone, a social enterprise described in a case study for this module, shows probably the most publicly documented effort to develop smartphones that are designed and produced with minimal environmental impact. Fairphone was founded to develop a mobile device that does not contain conflict minerals, has fair labour conditions for the work force along the supply chain producing it, and helps people to use their phones longer.

 

Footnotes

[1] The modularity of the Fairphone 3 has allowed owners of this model to buy an upgrade kit to replace the camera modules so that they are on par with the 3+ model. See: https://www.fairphone.com/en/camera-upgrades-for-fairphone-3 

[2] International Telecommunication Union. (2020). ITU-T Recommendation L.1023: Assessment method for circular scoring. http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/14301

Case study - Fairphone: Building a mobile phone that is socially and environmentally responsible, and lasts longer

Written by Leandro Navarro, Pangea

Project / Programme

Fairphone

Region / Country

The Netherlands

Website

https://www.fairphone.com/en

Circularity

Sourcing materials responsibly, extending the life of mobile phones, servitised model of use

Overview

Fairphone is a social enterprise company that aims to develop smartphones that are designed and produced with minimal environmental impact. This means that they do not contain conflict minerals (which in smartphones are typically gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten), have fair labour conditions for the workforce along the supply chain producing them, and that people can use them for longer.

The second version of the company's device is one of the first modular smartphones available for purchase, designed to be easily repaired and upgraded.

About the project

Fairphone was founded in 2013 and is based in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The social enterprise company existed as a campaign for two and a half years before designing and producing any mobile phones.

It has now released three generations of products, Fairphone 1, 2 and 3, with the last being 3+, in September 2020. Fairphone 2 was the first smartphone to get a 10/10 score[1] for repairability from the online free repair manual iFixit: “The Fairphone 3 is fully modular, repairable and robust, with a lower environmental footprint than ever before.”

Fairphone has more than 70 employees from 20 countries, and has sold more than 100,000 phones.

Four areas of change

Fairphone wants to focus on four areas to create change: long-lasting design, fair materials, good working conditions and reuse/recycling.

These four areas represent key changes for circular information and communications technologies (ICTs). Design determines lifespan; for instance, modular designs may be less thin and light but are more durable, as parts can be replaced and upgraded by local businesses or even by end users. Fair materials means at least avoiding contributing to conflict and the exploitation of natural and human resources. It includes the use of secondary materials obtained from sorting reusable materials from e-waste to avoid more extraction of new minerals. Good working conditions in the manufacturing chain means we are not contributing to exploiting workers in factories. Reuse/recycling means that devices, once built, are used to the limit: they are reused until no use value is left for anyone, and then finally recycled in the best possible way. In the recycling process, as many resources as possible are reused and any waste and damage to nature and to the people involved in the recycling, whether formal or informal workers, is minimised.

In terms of funding, Fairphone has raised a total of USD 40.7 million in funding[2] over nine rounds from eight investors. ABN AMRO Fund and Dutch Good Growth Fund are the most recent investors.

Sourcing materials responsibly

Fairphone has a public map of first-tier assembly manufacturer and second-tier component suppliers. It reports that there are an average of 38 different materials in a smartphone, each with its own complex supply chain. Fairphone says it was the first smartphone company to incorporate Fairtrade gold[3] in its supply chain.

Fairphone is in the process of improving material sourcing: more responsible mining practices, plus increased use of recycled materials. It says an average of 32.75% of its eight focus materials were sustainably sourced as of the launch of the Fairphone 3.

According to Fairphone, the following can be said about the materials sourced for its phones:

Tin: From validated conflict-free mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Tungsten: From East Africa, supporting the local economy and providing artisanal and small-scale mining the opportunity to transition to more responsible, semi-industrial practices.

Gold: From Fairtrade-certified artisanal mines. These mines have improved working conditions and receive a premium for the gold they produce. Fairphone is working with partners in Uganda to improve the working conditions of artisanal mine sites directly, to prevent child labour and create a transparent and traceable supply chain.

Copper: Copper is easily recyclable, and Fairphone aims to get as much recycled copper as possible into its phones, actively gathering old phones to increase the supply of recycled copper.

Cobalt: It aims to secure a responsible cobalt supply, focused on improving the income and working conditions of artisanal miners.

Neodymium (rare earth elements): It has mapped the rare earth supply chain, looking at the risks and opportunities by region (such as environmental pollution and impact on local communities).

Lithium: It has researched and analysed lithium production and possibilities for responsible sourcing.

Plastic: Modules are made with 50% post-consumer recycled plastic. Packaging material is eco-friendly and easily recycled, printed with a soy-based ink.

Prolonging the use of mobile phones

Fairphone says prolonging the use phase of a device remains a strong measure to influence the overall environmental impact of mobile phones. Among the different impact categories analysed in a life cycle assessment of Fairphone 3,[4] each phone has a global warming potential (GWP) impact of 39.5 Kg CO2e.

The company aims to help people keep their phones for up to five years. However, its battery lasts for three years, before it needs to be replaced. Software updates are crucial in helping people use their phones for longer. The company offered software support (Android) for the Fairphone 2 for over four years.

The company has also developed a Fairphone-as-a service concept,[5] not dissimilar to regular leasing and renting models. Customers pay a monthly fee to use the phone for as long as they need it, but the ownership remains in the hands of Fairphone and eventually the phones are returned to the company. Fairphone’s co-founder Miquel Ballester says: “Maintaining ownership creates a further incentive for us to innovate in design. To make sure most of the resources are recoverable, a purpose that is not included in traditional lease constructions.”[6]

Conclusion

There are limitations to the project. The development of a competitive mobile phone is very complex and requires many human and financial resources, which are not always available. Fairphone's founder also acknowledged in 2017 that it was impossible to produce a 100% “fair” phone.

Nevertheless, the company has delivered three generations of increasingly fairer phones[7] with more than 100,000 users, sourcing more materials responsibly, improving working conditions, creating longer-lasting devices through innovative modular designs, and encouraging better reuse and recycling practices.

References and further reading:

Ballester, M. (2018, 8 January). From ownership to service: A new Fairphone pilot just for companies. Fairphone. https://www.fairphone.com/en/2018/01/08/from-ownership-to-service-new-fairphone-pilot-for-companies

Fairphone. (2018, 11 December). Fairphone surpasses investment target with €7 million from impact investors. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Investment-Round-Press-Release-1.pdf

Proske, M., Sánchez, D., Clemm, C., & Baur, S. (2020). Life cycle assessment of the Fairphone 3. Fraunhofer IZM. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairphone_3_LCA.pdf

Johnson, R. (2018, 26 July). (2018). Fairphone-as-a-service. Project Breakthrough. http://breakthrough.unglobalcompact.org/briefs/fairphone-as-a-service

Crunchbase: Fairphone financials overview. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/fairphone/company_financials

Mapping the journey of your Fairphone. https://www.fairphone.com/en/impact/source-map-transparency

Fairtrade Foundation: What is Fairtrade? https://www.fairtrade.org.uk/what-is-fairtrade

iFixit. https://www.ifixit.com 

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see these related reports:  

Big tech goes green(washing): Feminist lenses to unveil new tools in the master’s houses (thematic report): https://www.giswatch.org/node/6254

Latin America (regional report): https://www.giswatch.org/node/6247

 

Footnotes

[1] Kessler, D. (2020, 4 September). Fairphone 3+: What comes after a 10/10 score? iFixit. https://www.ifixit.com/News/43623/fairphone-3-plus

[2] Fairphone. (2018, 11 December). Fairphone surpasses investment target with €7 million from impact investors. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Investment-Round-Press-Release-1.pdf

[3] Fairphone. (2019, 10 September). Scaling up Fairtrade gold sourcing in our supply chain. https://www.fairphone.com/en/2019/09/10/fairtrade-gold-fairphone-3

[4] Proske, M., Sánchez, D., Clemm, C., & Baur, S. (2020). Life cycle assessment of the Fairphone 3. Fraunhofer IZM. https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fairphone_3_LCA.pdf

[5] Ballester, M. (2018, 8 January). From ownership to service: A new Fairphone pilot just for companies. Fairphone. https://www.fairphone.com/en/2018/01/08/from-ownership-to-service-new-fairphone-pilot-for-companies

[6] Johnson, R. (2018, 26 July). Fairphone-as-a-service. Project Breakthrough. http://breakthrough.unglobalcompact.org/briefs/fairphone-as-a-service

[7] Ibid.

Module 6: The need for workers’ rights in assembly and manufacturing

We need to demand respect for workers’ rights and compliance with minimal workplace and environmental safety regulations in factories that make our digital devices.

Dirty in the beginning, shiny at the end

The manufacturing of market brands is usually done by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Working with these companies drives down the cost of production through economies of scale. Electronic components and what we call “assemblies” that are put together by OEMs are produced by electronics manufacturing services (EMS) companies, which in turn have suppliers of printed circuit boards and other electronics components.

Working conditions in electronics factories can be extreme. Workers sometimes migrate to different countries to work in factories, and may be deprived of their labour rights and rights of association. Some are even confined in the factories, under near slavery conditions.[1] The release of new products by top brands creates huge production peaks that can make working conditions even more extreme. Products may look shiny in the end, but are quite dirty in the beginning. As World Economy, Ecology and Development – WEED e.V. has noted:

Over the past decades, the production process of PCs has been broken up into simple standardised steps and mainly relocated to low-income countries. In the Special Economic Zones of Asia and Mexico mostly female workers, who in many cases have migrated to the cities from the countryside, toil for very low wages.[2]

In many cases, a manufacturer’s compliance with minimal work and environmental safety regulations does not appear on the product label.

What is being done?

The GoodElectronics Network, an international association of over 150 non-governmental organisations and trade unions, is demanding that the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) “fundamental” conventions and additional ILO-based requirements for humane working conditions be implemented in the technology sector. Its demands include legal training for workers in the workplace, the abolition of informal working conditions, transparency throughout the supply chain, that brand-name companies take responsibility for their suppliers, and the complete avoidance of toxic substances in the manufacturing process.

Electronics Watch is an independent monitoring organisation that focuses on public procurement with public buyers in Europe, and on monitoring working conditions in Southeast Asia in collaboration with local labour organisations and individuals (see the case study for this module).

 

Footnotes

[1] Bormann, S., Krishnan, P., & Neuner, M. (2010). Migration in a Digital Age – Migrant Workers in the Malaysian Electronics Industry: Case Studies on Jabil Circuit and Flextronics. World Economy, Ecology and Development – WEED e.V. https://apmigration.ilo.org/resources/migration-in-a-digital-age-migrant-workers-in-the-malaysian-electronics-industry-case-studies-on-jabil-circuit-and-flextronics/at_download/file1

[2] Butollo, F., Kusch, J., & Laufer, T. (2009). Buy IT fair: Guideline for sustainable procurement of computers. World Economy, Ecology and Development – WEED e.V. https://goodelectronics.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2009/07/Buy-IT-Fair-Guideline-for-Sustainable-Procurement-of-Computers.pdf

Case study - Electronics Watch: Utilising public procurement power to make the largest settlement of migrant worker recruitment fees possible

Written by Peter Pawlicki, Electronics Watch

Project / Programme

Electronics Watch

Region / Country

Thailand and Europe

Website

https://electronicswatch.org/en

Circularity

Risk of forced labour reduced

 

Overview

Electronics Watch is an independent monitoring organisation providing public buyers with capabilities to monitor their supply chains and verify compliance with the social criteria they have set in contracts for information and communications technology (ICT) hardware.

The Electronics Watch model of worker-driven monitoring and industry engagement has proven successful time and again and has developed into an internationally accepted standard in public procurement.

In 2019, Electronics Watch, its affiliates and its local monitoring partner were able to support over 10,000 migrant workers in Thailand to receive reimbursements for illegal recruitment fees.

About the project

Public buyers such as universities, hospitals, counties, cities and other public institutions buy large volumes of electronic hardware such as desktop/laptop computers, servers, smartphones and printers. The underlying multi-year contracts with electronics brands enable leverage that public buyers can use to address workers’ rights and environmental concerns in their supply chains.

Electronics Watch is a network of monitoring partners and of more than 330 public buyers in Europe. Monitoring partners are civil society organisations, located near workers’ communities in production regions, who use the worker-driven methodology to monitor for labour rights risks and violations in factories. Based on their reports, Electronics Watch engages with the brand companies, manufacturers and the industry association Responsible Business Alliance (RBA) to work towards remedying the risks and violations that are found.

In the area of monitoring and supply chain transparency alone, in 2020 Electronics Watch:

Risk of forced labour in Thailand

In 2016, the Electronics Watch monitoring partner Migrant Worker Rights Network (MWRN) documented labour rights violations at Cal-Comp in Thailand. Subcontracted migrant workers from Myanmar at Cal-Comp’s two facilities in Thailand were at risk of forced labour through debt bondage and withheld documents. The debt bondage was linked to excessive recruitment fees.

At this time Cal-Comp was a supplier of printers, external hard disk drives and other computer peripherals to brand companies like HP, Seagate and Western Digital. A high share of Cal-Comp’s workforce in Thailand were migrant workers from Myanmar.

Electronics Watch and MWRN documented a number of labour rights violations, including:

Electronics Watch learned that labour agents sought to coerce workers at Cal-Comp to lie to social auditors about their recruitment fees and related expenses. These agents threatened workers that buyers would pull their orders if workers reported their full costs in upcoming audits and that workers would, consequently, face dramatically reduced overtime or even lose their jobs.

Industry engagement

The compliance report on all findings was shared with the main brand companies linked to the factories and Cal-Comp as well as the RBA. The RBA conducted independent social audits and developed corrective action plans, while MWRN and Electronics Watch monitored the impact through close communication with workers.

After more than three years of investigations, monitoring and engagement with brand companies, the manufacturer and the RBA, Electronics Watch and MWRN were able to achieve major improvements, including:

Conclusion

This case shows that the Electronics Watch model of worker-driven monitoring is essential to detect and address forced labour. MWRN’s rapport with workers, their everyday access to workers, and their ongoing careful recording of workers’ recruitment experiences were essential to understanding the full extent of the risks of forced labour and debt bondage that migrant workers face and to defining the full reimbursements and remediation they are owed.

Ongoing industry engagement by Electronics Watch, supported by affiliates’ communication with their suppliers, is central to remediating violations and improving working conditions.

Public procurement has strong leverage with its supply chains that it can utilise to support sustainable improvements for workers and affected communities. To be able to drive positive change, public buyers need to be able to rely on independent monitoring for verification.

 

References and further reading

Cal-Comp Compliance Report. https://electronicswatch.org/en/compliance-report-update-cal-comp-samut-sakorn-and-petchaburi-thailand-october-2018_2555998.pdf

Cal-Comp: A Lesson in the Importance of Worker-Driven Monitoring to End Forced Labour in Global Supply Chains. https://electronicswatch.org/cal-comp-a-lesson-in-the-importance-of-worker-driven-monitoring-to-end-forced-labour-in-global-supply-chains-february-2020_2569307.pdf

Remedy Proposal for Cal-Comp Workers. https://electronicswatch.org/en/remedy-proposal-for-cal-comp-thailand-workers-february-2019_2556087.pdf

Electronics Watch Annual Report 2020. https://electronicswatch.org/electronics-watch-annual-report-2020_2591374.pdf

 

Footnotes

[1] Electronics Watch. (2020, 28 February). Largest settlement of migrant worker recruitment fees in any one company - how did we get there? https://electronicswatch.org/en/largest-settlement-of-migrant-worker-recruitment-fees-in-any-one-company-how-did-we-get-there-_2569363

Module 7: Sustainable public procurement

The buying power of public institutions gives them great economic leverage to influence manufacturers on the devices they design and produce. This in turn has a knock-on effect on the devices sold by manufacturers to ordinary consumers.

The power of public procurement

Public procurement refers to the volume purchase by governments and state-owned enterprises of computing devices and related components such as printers, displays and network devices.

Public procurement typically includes not only the supply, but also deployment and installation services, as well as initial warranty. It may include maintenance during use in an organisation, as well as disposal at the end of use after several years, which may not be the end of life for the devices, and therefore an opportunity for either further use or final recycling.

As a result of large contract volumes, the buying power of major public customers results in public tenders having great economic weight. This gives them leverage to influence manufacturers on the devices they design and produce. This in turn has a global effect on the digital devices offered by a manufacturer to the everyday consumer.

Public procurement is sometimes done through what are called “purchasing consortiums”. Purchasing consortiums work with higher volumes of devices because they buy for several public institutions in an area. This can improve the quality, cost efficiency and effectiveness of procurement processes, and strengthen the verification of compliance with workers’ rights and environmental standards.

Sustainable procurement means that public institutions obtain only those goods and services that have been produced under humane working conditions and do not have any damaging effects on the environment. Public procurement contracts can include clauses to ensure compliance with environmental, labour, safety and quality standards in the supply chains of the ICT hardware they purchase.[1] Contracts can include due diligence requirements on extended producer responsibilities, including take-back and reuse, and supplementing the cost of proper e-waste recycling that maximises resource recovery and minimises disposal. Contracts could take into account whether the “fundamental” conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) are being met in the production process, or whether energy efficiency demands are met.

Sustainable and transparent public procurement can also empower non-profit organisations such as Electronics Watch to properly monitor and help enforce standards for sustainable manufacturing. This includes detecting problems that workers do not usually report on, remedying problems in a timely manner, and addressing systemic issues over time.

What is being done?

The Global Electronics Council (GEC) and TCO Certified are organisations that provide independent verification and certification that products and procurement processes meet comprehensive environmental and social criteria. They fall under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) category of a “voluntary, multiple-criteria-based third party programme that awards a licence which authorizes the use of environmental labels on products indicating overall environmental preferability of a product within a particular product category based on life cycle considerations.” Both issue ISO 14024 Type 1-compliant “ecolabels”.

The GEC, formerly known as the Green Electronics Council, is a non-profit dedicated to “creating a more just and sustainable world” with a focus on electronics. It supports the production of consensus-based environmental leadership standards, such as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) that assists in the purchase of "greener" PCs and displays, imaging equipment and televisions, and helps purchasers by developing procurement guides.

TCO Certified, initially created by the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees (TCO), focuses on certification as a guarantee that computer products purchased by employers maintain ecological standards as well as ergonomic standards to prevent long-term health issues for users. It started in 1992 with certification for computer displays, and is now a global sustainability certification for IT products.

The Electronics Watch model of worker-driven monitoring and industry engagement has developed into an internationally accepted standard in public procurement (see the case study for Module 6).

 

Footnotes

[1] Electronics Watch. (2020). Public Buyer Toolkit. https://electronicswatch.org/en/public-buyer-toolkit_2548345

Module 8: Extending the useful life of a device

If we consider that devices are valuable for their computing resources, then we should focus on the right to use a device, not on the right to ownership. Maximising circularity asks us to see devices as collective property that circulates among users until they are finally recycled.

Use and reuse

A digital device is bought for a specific purpose by an individual or an organisation. Over time, it may be no longer suitable for a task, because the task requires more computing capabilities, or because the performance of the device degrades as it wears out. Sometimes this is due to software: the system software is not maintained, and bugs and security problems make the device no longer reliable for normal use. Software updates supporting newer hardware can also have more features and consume more resources, making earlier models of devices obsolete (we call this “technical obsolescence”, or when this is done deliberately by manufacturers to drive up sales volumes, “planned obsolescence”). Sometimes hardware components have a short life span, like capacitors or batteries, and the supplier cannot provide spare parts to repair or replace these components. A mix of the two can happen too; for instance, when the driver software for a chip is no longer maintained by the manufacturer, and the software and its documentation are not public.[1] Because of these factors, we can say that the repairability and upgradeability of a device will set the limits of its durability.

What we call the “use phase” of a device refers to both the initial intended use of a device and its reuse for other purposes. The end of one use cycle, when a device is no longer fit for its initial purpose, may create an opportunity for internal reuse for another less-demanding purpose in the same organisation. We can say that the device still has some “use value” for the organisation. When a device does not meet any of the needs of the organisation, is too costly to be maintained or cannot be maintained or repaired by the supplier or a repairer, that marks the end of use of the device in that organisation.

However, the device can still be a resource for other users. Refurbishing the device can extend its useful life, and the device can be put to many new uses, such as in community centres, in clinics, in schools, and in homes.

Therefore, in terms of use we can distinguish between the first or any other cycle of use, the end of use in each cycle, and the end of the last use cycle, or the end of life of the device.

Acting responsibly at the end of use in each cycle

Once an owner or user of a device no longer needs the device, it has to be “data wiped” and restored to default “factory” settings. This is to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the user. After this, you have several options, including:

Which option you take might be driven by economic, environmental or social motivations. For example, you might want to obtain money from the sale of the device if there is a buyer, ensure minimal environmental impact by calling a reputable recycler, or help unconnected communities to get access to computers.

Depreciation

In organisations, digital devices are usually part of an inventory included in the organisation’s accounting systems. Devices depreciate over time: their accounting value decreases as they are used and wear out, and their cost to the organisation is spread across several periods (e.g. three to five years). However, depreciation in accountancy may be stimulated by tax benefits. It may happen too quickly, even if a device is still usable and even under a maintenance contract. If we depreciate our products we might be treating them as waste with no perceived market value, contrary to the reality in many cases. Even when a digital device has reached the end of use in your organisation, it still has value.

Computers can be used for 7.5 years

An eReuse field study collects and publishes open data about desktop and laptop devices beyond their first use.[2] Nearly all devices it works with are refurbished with reused components, except for new batteries and storage devices when they show signals of failure (called “smart” signals). The eReuse dataset shows durability per manufacturer in total use hours of between 46,000 (5.3 years) and a maximum of 65,000 hours (7.5 years). This is consistent with other studies.[3]

The right to use a device

We can start to look at digital devices from new perspectives. For example, regarding ownership, the user can be the owner or just a custodian of a device (through a commodate or loan for use like a book in a library, or through a servitised contract with a service provider). From a collective ownership perspective, devices with multiple use phases can be transferred for use, returned “in essence” (without deterioration) or returned “in kind” (consumed, deteriorated) for repair or recycling. From an environmental viewpoint we can see devices from a planetary or footprint perspective: which materials in the device are scarce or abundant? What energy is used in manufacturing the device? What greenhouse gas emissions are involved? What is the e-waste potential of a device? In terms of rights and responsibilities,[4] we are concerned about who has the right to use a device.

figure-01.png

Figure 14: The circular revenue models-ladder. Source: Circular revenue models: Practical implications for businesses, 2019.

If we consider that devices are valuable for their computing resources, then we should focus on the right to use a device, not on the right to ownership. Maximising circularity asks us to see devices as collective property, with devices circulating among users until they are finally recycled.

Projects that work towards circularity of digital devices also aim to reduce social inequality. Low-cost computing has become essential to overcome barriers of access to the internet. Reuse makes it possible to find and serve less-demanding users and use requirements where previous generation devices suffice. This was clearly seen in the COVID-19 crisis, where many school children benefited from second-hand computers for home schooling. These were decommissioned devices donated from public and private offices.

Social enterprises that collect, repair and sell these devices provide employment opportunities for individuals. There are also opportunities to create economically sustainable organisations that use circular business models such as pay-per-use, rental, lease or sell-and-buyback. Figure 14 defines and compares these circular business models. Sustainable social enterprises can be driven by both environmental and social objectives, with economic objectives (profit maximisation) only a secondary objective.[5]

Public datasets[6] shared for the eReuse project data commons by a team of users, refurbishers and recyclers involved in the project show that reuse can contribute to approximately a duplication of the life span of personal computers.

This is particularly relevant as an enabler for a servitised model, where, instead of owning devices, organisations pay an annual service fee for an operational computer with a specific performance level. In this model, faulty computers can be easily replaced when they no longer work properly. The device owner is the service provider, rather than the user.[7] The servitisation model makes sense if we consider that we own devices mainly for the purpose and benefits of computing. As noted above, if we want to maximise circularity, we can see devices as collective property (a commons) or at least as a collective responsibility, with devices circulating among users until final recycling.

The importance of traceability and verifiability

Breaking the barriers to circularity requires efficient data, tools and services to optimise each step in the lifetime of a device and ensure the traceability of devices managed as a commons resource system.[8] Gathering details as digital (linked) data about the different milestones of a device along the use life span, from acquisition (ideally tracing back to manufacturing), through multiple use phases, until recycling, allows to assess and even verify, instead of just guessing, the social, economic and environmental impacts of digital devices. These details can be the basis for organisational impact assessments, as well as the basis for public incentives and regulations to comply with sustainability goals. This data becomes even more important as governments try to implement commitments on climate change mitigation.

What is being done?

Right to repair campaigns: Right to repair campaigns want legislation to allow consumers to repair and modify their own consumer electronic devices. As it stands, the manufacturer of devices typically requires the consumer to only use their services or buy a new device.

The European and US campaigns want three things from policy makers:

Repair clubs, cafes, projects and parties: There are several citizen initiatives advocating for a culture of repair. Some of these have “repair parties”, where people gather and learn how to fix a range of products, from bicycles to electronics. Examples are the Restart Project, started in the UK, which has several local groups in Europe that organise Restart Parties (a different name for a “repair party”). There is a global network of Repair Cafés, and initiatives like the Club de Reparadores (“Repairers Club”) in Argentina, both mentioned in Module 1. Several case studies for this module describe how important repair is for less-developed countries, and how old devices can be put to practical use to help marginalised communities. These include Computadores para Educar in Colombia, Computer Aid International’s Solar Learning Lab initiative, and a discussion on the handset repair industry in Nigeria.

Computing as a service: The eReuse initiative, described in the case study for Module 1, works with social enterprises in Spain that collect and refurbish desktop and laptop devices donated by public and private organisations. More than 10,000 devices have been refurbished in the last five years. These computing devices are sold for a price that reflects the cost of refurbishment. A servitisation model is also used. Several recipient organisations, such as schools, prefer to pay a yearly fee for a number of computing units with an agreed performance level. They receive a few additional spare computer units to ensure quick replacement of any devices that are faulty. As a good practice in green procurement, public administrations are also beginning to contract services to equip and maintain public computer and internet access centres using second-hand devices.

Appendix 2: The environmental impact assessment of a reused desktop computer

Let’s look at one example[9] to find out how and why adopting circular models is a good idea. We can roughly estimate the life cycle environmental impacts of a desktop computer from available data,[10] with results illustrated in Table 1. It shows impacts on emissions, materials depletion, and energy demand over the phases of manufacture, use and end of life, with a recovery of impacts from recycling (negative values).

Table 1. Summary of approximate life cycle environmental impacts of a desktop without refurbishment.

Environmental impact category[11]

Manufacture

Use

End of life

Greenhouse gas emissions: global warming potential (GWP), kg CO2e

154

1025

-11

Natural resources: abiotic depletion potential (ADP), kg Sb-e

0.02

0.0002

-0.013

Cumulative energy demand (CED), MJoule

2288

23834

-125

In a “computing as a service” or “servitized” model, we can look at and compare environmental impacts per device and per hour. While Table 1 represents the impact of the first use cycle of a new computer, Table 2 represents the rough expected potential effect of reusing one device after refurbishment in comparison to the use of two new devices. Reuse roughly results in the duplication of use hours by a new user, usually with lighter computing requirements, but the same manufacturing and end-of-life impacts. There is an assumption in the comparison of a 20% improvement in power consumption for the case of a second new device, and the small impact of local refurbishment and local repair is not accounted. We show impacts in three main categories: greenhouse emissions (GWP), natural resources (ADP) and cumulative energy demand (CED).[12]

Table 2. Summary of idealised impacts from reuse, five-year baseline use (I15): One device with reuse for 2x lifespan (I110) compared to two devices without reuse (I210) for a period of 2x5 years.

Environmental impact

1 device

2 devices

Impact improvement

Category

1 use, 5 years
I15=M+U+E

Use+reuse:
10 years
I110=M+2U+E

5+5 years
I210=2(M+U+E)

1 to 2 uses
(I15-I110)/I15

2 to 1 devices
(I210-I110)/I110

GWP, kg CO2e (total)

1168

2193

2336

 

7%

ADP, kg Sb-e (total)

0.00718

0.00736

0.01436

 

95%

CED, MJ (total)

25997

49831

46794.6

 

-6%

GWP, g CO2e (per hour)

26.7

25.0

26.7

6%

7%

ADP, mg Sb-e (per hour)

0.2

0.1

0.2

49%

95%

CED, KJ
(per hour)

593.5

568.8

534.2

4%

-6%

The impact from “use” is highly dependent on electricity production (CO2 emissions), but the increasing use of green and local energy sources tends to reduce this contribution over time (in the two-devices scenario, Table 2 assumes a reduction to 80% of energy consumption for the second).

The servitisation model promotes the expansion of the operational life span of components and devices for as long as possible, which spreads the manufacturing and end-of-life impacts over a longer use period. The savings from reuse show how important it is to ensure the longest life span possible for a device. We can also see that direct reuse, with minor repair, is often more environmentally friendly than reuse of just some sub-parts or components, as we avoid the mining and manufacturing costs of the new parts.

Footnotes

[1] For more information on the barriers posed by chip manufacturers to Android software updates, see: Fairphone. (2020, 18 June). Building a breakthrough for Fairphone 2. https://www.fairphone.com/en/2020/06/18/fairphone-2-gets-android-9

[2] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). eReuse datasets, 2013-10-08 to 2019-06-03 with 8458 observations of desktop and laptop computers with up to 192 features each. https://dsg.ac.upc.edu/ereuse-dataset

[3] Ardente, F., Peiró, L. T., Mathieux, F., & Polverini, D. (2018). Accounting for the environmental benefits of remanufactured products: Method and application. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1545-1558. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618319796

[4] Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249-262. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146375

[5] Burkett, I. (2013, 15 May). Using the Business Model Canvas for Social Enterprise Design. CSIA. https://csialtd.com.au/2013/05/15/using-the-business-model-canvas-for-social-enterprise-design

[6] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). Op. cit.

[4] For an analysis of a mobile phone as a service, see: Johnson, R. (2018, 26 July). Fairphone-as-a-service. Project Breakthrough. https://breakthrough.unglobalcompact.org/briefs/fairphone-as-a-service

[8] Franquesa, D., Navarro, L., & Bustamante, X. (2016). A circular commons for digital devices: Tools and services in eReuse.org. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computing within Limits (LIMITS’16). ACM. http://dsg.ac.upc.edu/node/914

[9] Andrae, A., Navarro, L., & Vaija, S. (2021). The potential impact of selling services instead of equipment on waste creation and the environment: Effects on global information and communication technology. ITU-T Recommendation L.1024. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1024-202101-I/en

[10] See, for example: Ardente, F., Peiró, L. T., Mathieux, F., & Polverini, D. (2018). Op. cit., and Franquesa, D., Navarro, L., Fortelny, S., Roura, M., & Nadeu, J. (2019). Circular consumption and production of electronic devices: An approach to measuring durability, upgradeability, reusability, obsolescence and premature recycling. Paper presented at the 19th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Barcelona, 15-18 October. https://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro/pubs/294.pdf

[11] Devices: global warming potential (GWP) in greenhouse gas equivalent units (CO2e); materials: abiotic depletion potential (ADP) in antimony equivalent units (Sb-e); energy: cumulative energy demand (CED) in Joules.

[12] See explanations of each provided for Table 1.

Module 9: The value and cost of e-waste

The piles of digital scrap we see in landfills are a symptom of unsustainable decisions made by manufacturers, consumers and government policy makers.

The post-use or “output” phase

After one or several use phases, a device is no longer usable for any purpose and we reach the end of life of the device. In this post-use phase, we refer to the device as e-waste, but it is not ready to be introduced into the waste stream. It can be “downcycled” into parts, its valuable materials separated and plastics shredded.

There are many different kinds of e-waste recycling initiatives across the world, with many actors in the recycling chain. These range from informal waste pickers, who collect digital scrap from households and landfills, to high-end smelting factories, often set up in the global North.

Different disposal processes also have different costs and impacts, and these have been well-documented elsewhere.[1] The proper treatment of e-waste can be expensive. For example, while digital devices can be dismantled relatively easily, more sophisticated recycling processes may require industrial-level recycling capacity. Toxic components such as batteries and screens also need to be treated properly at landfills, and there is not always a market for the flame-retardant plastics used in digital devices.

Not all countries have the recycling capacity to recycle e-waste properly, and the best and safest recycling option needs to be used given available resources. This requires a proper assessment of capacities, and proper consideration of the environmental and social impact of the recycling process.

In general, processing ends when its cost to the processor is greater than the value of extracted resources. Locality, or processing e-waste near the source, may reduce costs in some cases. Another way may be through the aggregation of larger volumes to take advantage of more sophisticated processes to efficiently extract certain valuable materials and reduce the disposed fraction.

Because recyclers – whether for-profit businesses or non-profit organisations – cannot work at a loss, the proper recycling of e-waste needs to be funded. This can be done either by the manufacturer (through an extended producer responsibility programme), the person or organisation disposing of the devices, or the buyer of a digital device at the point of purchase. This payment determines the quality and threshold of the recycling process.

While recycling e-waste can be expensive, it is important to remember that e-waste that is properly recycled can be a valuable resource to extract scarce and precious materials. In 2019, the loss of secondary resources from e-waste disposal was estimated to be valued at USD 57 billion.[2]

Proper e-waste recycling can create jobs, but not recycling e-waste properly has a social and environmental cost. There is the temptation to export e-waste to less-developed countries, declaring the waste as “usable second-hand devices”, as this can be cheaper than processing it locally. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal forbids export of e-waste, but countries without e-waste legislation become easy targets for e‑waste dumping. This means that many poor people across the world are negatively affected by the many hazardous materials[3] that e-waste can contain, and have to deal with a problem created by richer countries, without having the recycling capacity or know-how to do this.

Making poor people pay so we can be online

E-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. It is most often discarded with general waste, leading to pollution of groundwater and other natural systems, and creating serious health impacts for local communities. Yet the fate of 82.6% of the e-waste generated in 2019 was uncertain.[4] Countries in the global North continue to illegally export hazardous electronic waste[5] to countries in the global South despite treaties such as the Basel Convention. In middle- and low-income countries, informal workers, including children, sort and process e-waste for valuable minerals and resources, causing severe health effects, and polluting the air, water and land in their communities.

The impacts on people that live in or near e-waste landfills is terrifying

As highlighted by the World Health Organization: “Children live, work, and play in informal e-waste recycling sites. Adults and children can be exposed by inhaling toxic fumes and particulate matter, through skin contact with corrosive agents and chemicals, and by ingesting contaminated food and water. Children are also at risk from additional routes of exposure. Some hazardous chemicals can be passed from mothers to children during pregnancy and breast-feeding. Young children playing outside or in nature frequently put their hands, objects, and soil in their mouths, increasing the risk of exposure. Fetuses, infants, children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to damage from exposure to toxicants in e-waste because of their physiology, behaviour, and additional routes of exposure.”[6]

What is being done?

Most major cities nowadays have some sort of e-waste recycling project that has been set up. Some of these might be doing a better job than others. Recycling combined with social mobilisation is exemplified by initiatives such as “Recylatron” at the Autonomous University of Nayarit in Mexico,[7] which has developed participatory projects for e-waste collection and management, or the experimental e-waste processing plant at the National University of La Plata in Argentina.[8] Case studies for this module include Nodo TAU’s experience of setting up an e-waste plant in Argentina, Karo Sambhav in India, and an initiative to involve the youth in e-waste recycling in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Footnotes

[1] Ambrosi, V. M. (2018). Successful electronic waste management initiatives. International Telecommunication Union. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Documents/2018/Successful-electronic-waste-management-initiatives.pdf

[2] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). http://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GEM_2020_def_july1_low.pdf

[3] Such as lead, mercury, cadmium, etc. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive  

[4] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). Op. cit.

[5] Shanmugavelan, M. (2010). Tackling e-waste. In A Finlay (Ed.), Global Information Society Watch 2010: ICTs and environmental sustainability. APC & Hivos. https://www.giswatch.org/thematic-report/sustainability-e-waste/tackling-e-waste

[6] J. Pronczuk de Garbino, J. (Ed.) (2005). Children's health and the environment: A global perspective. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43162  

[7] Saldaña-Durán, C. E., & Messina-Fernández, S. R. (2020). E-waste recycling assessment at university campus: a strategy toward sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 2493-2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00683-4 and https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10668-020-00683-4.pdf

[8] Poll, S. (2019). E-waste pilot plant: Post implementation assessment report. International Telecommunication Union. https://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/CDS/PRJ/eBook/ImplementationReport/Implementation_Reviews_Argentina/docs/Implementation_Reviews_Argentina.pdf

Case study - Computer Aid’s Solar Learning Lab: Sustainable, scalable and adaptable to local needs

Written by Alejandro Espinosa, Computer Aid

Project / Programme

Solar Learning Lab

Region / Country

Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Colombia and Mexico

Website

https://www.computeraid.org

Circularity

Access to technology; solar energy; reused shipping containers; training for marginalised communities

Overview

The Solar Learning Lab (SLL) is a standard shipping container converted into a classroom, with 11 user stations operating off of a thin-client network (which is a low-consumption network with a server). It is powered by a connected solar power system. With the addition of outside space and laptops, one lab can offer access to up to 20 people at a time using a wireless internet connection. It offers a stand-alone, mobile technology-enabled space to underserved communities around the world who would otherwise not have access to information and communications technologies (ICTs) due to prohibitive local infrastructure and the economic challenges they face. We design each lab depending on the needs of the local community and their context. Partnering with Dell Technologies, we plan to install a minimum of 10 Solar Learning Labs each year until 2030.

About the project

While technology has continued to advance year after year, much of the world population still does not have direct access to some of the most basic forms of technology. The International Telecommunication Union estimated that at the end of 2019, 53.6% of the world population was using the internet. This is just one indicator, but it suggests that almost half of the world population is offline.

This is a concern, because a lack of digital access among certain parts of the population, particularly those in the developing world, is contributing to widening inequalities. Those without access do not have the opportunity to develop key skills which are required in the modern world. Therefore, digital access inequalities are preventing parts of populations (poor, remote, elderly, disabled and a range of others) from having the same opportunities.

Launch of the first solar lab

The first solar lab, or Zubabox as it was initially called, was established in the village of Matcha in Zambia in 2011. In 2014, we partner with Dell Technologies to replicate and scale this solution in Nigeria. Due to the success of the programme and the transformation witnessed in local communities, the programme received full sponsorship and support from Dell, and was expanded to Colombia and South Africa in 2015. Currently in South Africa we have 14 labs and in 2018 and 2019 we deployed labs in Kenya, Sierra Leone, Morocco and Mexico. Our goal is to reach 100 labs by 2030.

For our most recent SLL deployed in November 2020, we partnered with Zenzeleni Community Networks in the Eastern Cape in South Africa. One of the unique components of this deployment is that we aim to learn from the Zenzeleni experience in setting up and managing a community network. We aim to replicate their success in giving access to connectivity and communication tools to a rural community, thanks to small grant funding from APC. We will be able to carry out a documented learning process evaluating how the combination of a community network and a Solar Learning Lab can support each other to increase their positive impact and their sustainability.

This year we received a grant from Dell to deploy four more labs in 2021: one in Mexico, two in Egypt and one in Australia, the latter supporting Aboriginal communities living in remote locations.

Bringing together different partners

One of the most successful aspects of the SLL programme is the capability to attract and bring together different partners working to have a positive impact on a community through the introduction of technology and ICT training curriculums. We consider our model a successful example of a partnership between three key sectors: civil society, the private sector and the public sector. Besides Computer Aid being an international NGO, we always partner with local non-profits that own the lab and manage its day-to-day running. The participation of the private sector involves multiple corporate donors, with Dell being the main one. We have also received donations of software from Microsoft and connectivity support from telecom companies. The SLL has engaged volunteers from Dell that support the communities and have even made donations to local charities.

There are many examples where the public sector has also engaged with, supported and helped fund the programme. For example, the local government in Xalapa in Mexico funded all the infrastructure, and identified and prepared the site at a public school to run the programme. The government of the state of Mexico also supported the programme with spaces and site improvement at local schools for the deployment of the labs.

A tailored solution

In total we have delivered 32 solar labs since 2011. Some of those are double solar labs. These use two shipping containers facing each other, creating a centre deck area with additional computer capacity and increasing the seating area and number of computers. This allows us to use the second container for specialised training, such as in robotics in Mexico with our local partner Fundación Robotix.

The SLL programme establishes a unique space to enrich learning resources, build local institutional capacity, and provide access to 21st century skills for the local population.

Thanks to our partnership with local organisations, our intervention delivers solutions tailored to local needs and context. In our programme, technology is a tool for transformation and participation. This is not only because ICT skills are essential to succeeding in the modern world, but also because establishing a Solar Learning Lab is a force of transformation and inclusion in traditionally marginalised communities.

We have been closely monitoring the impact of our SLLs. Since 2014 to date, we have delivered 10,000 hours of digital access, per lab, per year, and reached over 17,000 disadvantaged students around the world.

Sustainability and scalability

Since the inception of the programme, we have expanded to more than 11 countries, proving the replicability of the programme. Reusing containers is also sustainable way of building and providing a secure space to store technology, as is the use of solar power. We have seen many other organisations setting up similar labs in contexts where there are high levels of crime and the equipment is at risk, or where there is no electrical power infrastructure.

One example of a successful sustainability strategy is the lab in Pujehun, Sierra Leone, which partnered with MOPO (MobilePower) and offered power banks to the community on a lending system. The need for power created a huge demand and the hub is now generating a steady income to keep operating with no extra investment.

In Cazucá, Colombia, the Tiempo de Juego foundation, a local NGO supporting children and young people living in marginalised areas through sports and educational after-school programmes, has successfully transformed the SLL into a training and production studio. It offers training in computer skills, video and photo editing, audio-visual creation and journalism, and – with additional specialised technology donated like 3D video cameras, Dell digital canvas and video editing PC and software – it has become a production studio running as a social enterprise that funds all the lab’s ongoing costs, including those of other programmes.

After the first year of each deployment we work alongside our local partners on a sustainability strategy. The SLL infrastructure and private sector support allow our local partners to benefit from the synergies and opportunities created by the programme beyond a traditional computer donation programme. Additionally, our marketing and media campaign in each country focuses on inviting more partners to fund similar programmes in other locations. This means the replicability of our programme depends on attracting new partners and additional funding.

Challenges

Depending on the location and context, the SLL can face high logistics and transport costs and might seem like an imposition to a local community compared to a locally built bricks and mortar structure. This is not a “fits all” solution and it has to adapt to the local context and the needs of the local population. We have learned that one of the best ways to achieve local ownership is by adapting design features to each specific community. With support from Squire and Partners, an architect studio in London, we design each lab considering its context and invite local artists to make each lab unique to their location. We have seen that the addition of art has made the space not only a computer room but a local hub resulting in many positive externalities that support the transformation of the community.

Limited space can be one of the challenges. However, the project is adaptable to local needs. For example, in Mexico we launched the new double design to offer a dedicated space for learning robotics in addition to the computer lab.

Conclusion

The SLL is an example of a programme that engages key stakeholders to bring technology and education to marginalised communities around the world, reducing digital access inequalities and promoting sustainable practices and use of renewable energy.

Our model strongly relies on donors and support from companies to be able to deliver the SLL infrastructure and the training programme. Reusing shipping containers and adding renewable energy are key parts of what makes our programme unique. We are able to deliver a secure and innovative space for learning in remote locations that can also be relocated if needed, something that cannot happen with bricks and mortar infrastructure. Another advantage is that the regulatory process is usually lengthier and more bureaucratic for building infrastructure like schools or classrooms than for deploying a container lab.

One of the key lessons learned from our programme, which can be useful for other organisations, is that providing an innovative all-in-one solution, rather than donating technology to already established institutions, not only attracts more partners and funders but also motivates the local community to participate more than traditional spaces like schools or community centres.

We acknowledge that this is not a solution for all locations and organisations working to bridge the digital divide. In some cases, traditional intervention methodologies like donating computers to schools can be more cost effective or can impact more beneficiaries due to the space limitations of the SLL. However, we strongly recommend creating innovative programmes that improve the impact beyond quantitative outcomes such as counting the number of computers installed or students impacted.

References

International Telecommunication Union statistics:

https://itu.foleon.com/itu/measuring-digital-development/internet-use

Solar Learning Labs: https://solarlearninglabs.org

Computer Aid: https://www.computeraid.org

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

 

 

 

 

Case study - Planta de Gestión de Residuos Informáticos: The long and challenging road in setting up an e-waste recycling plant in Argentina

Written by Florencia Roveri, Nodo TAU

Project / Programme

Planta de Gestión de Residuos Informáticos

Geography / Region / Country

Rosario, Argentina

Organisation / Agency Brief

https://tau.org.ar

Circularity

e-waste, repair and recycling, youth employment

Overview

Nodo TAU is a civil association founded in 1995 by a group of engineers working on promoting information and communications technologies (ICTs) in mainly grassroots social organisations in order to address the digital divide. From 2003 to 2008, we worked with organisations to develop a network of community telecentres.[1] For the telecentre equipment, we promoted the use of discarded and reconditioned computers, creating a “machine bank” from the used computer donations we received.

In 2008, Nodo TAU joined a project aimed at setting up an e-waste management plant (Planta de Gestión de Residuos Informáticos), which was a natural next step from the work we had been doing. The e-waste plant, which started to operate in 2019 after several institutional processes and intermediate experiences, addresses the need to reduce the environmental impact of e-waste, and provides work opportunities for unemployed youth.

About the project

Nodo TAU has worked with second-hand computers in projects since 2003, which depended on donations. These donations of used digital devices started slowly, coming from individuals and small companies. As time passed, the quantity of devices increased, becoming difficult to manage for the people working in Nodo TAU and in the house shared as an office with other organisations.

The problem became more evident when, in 2007, Nodo TAU received numerous donations of computers from a multinational agro-industrial corporation, which included modern notebooks that allowed the development of a mobile digital classroom (Aula Digital) for workshops in communities. The donation also included a large number of machines that could not be repaired. Facing the problem of the accumulation of e-waste, we started to deepen our knowledge of local recycling and to develop resources for addressing e-waste management.

Laying the foundations

In 2008, the Secretariat of Environment and Public Space, in the framework of a Zero Waste programme, invited Nodo TAU to join a project on the development of an e-waste recycling plant, together with the National Institute of Industrial Technologies (INTI) and Taller Ecologista, the main environmental organisation in Rosario, the city where we are based.

As a result of this process, in 2009 Nodo TAU developed a training pilot project, consisting of workshops on repairing computers with young people from low-income neighbourhoods. The municipal Secretariats of Social Economy and of Environment were in charge of the distribution of the collected devices. In 2012, the pilot project became an enterprise named “Reciclados Electrónicos”, promoted by the municipal government.

In 2016, with support from APC, Nodo TAU researched the local e-waste market, including the stakeholders involved and the presence of e-waste treatment facilities, developing a business model for the functioning of the plant. This process involved a collaboration with Barcelona-based APC member Pangea in implementing a tracing system developed by the eReuse.org initiative. In the meantime, the development of the plant was delayed due to internal conflicts in the municipal government, and later it was stopped.

Setting up the plant: Leveraging government programmes, and the importance of legislation

A milestone in the process was the work we did with the grassroots organisation Grupo Obispo Angelelli in 2019, on projects aimed at job inclusion for young people in the context of the provincial social programme Nueva Oportunidad (New Opportunity) in 2019.

In the same year, a provincial law was approved that regulated the management of e-waste, including extended responsibility, and which recognised informal repairers as a stakeholder. Nodo TAU decided to reinvigorate the project and found an adequate place that complied with all the formal requirements for the operations of the plant. In 2019 the Planta de Gestión de Residuos Informáticos finally began to operate. Although it was set up without the help of the municipal government, a key factor in its implementation and sustainability was the inclusion of the plant under the Nueva Oportunidad programme.

In 2020, devices started to arrive at the plant from a new source: netbooks from the national educational programme Conectar Igualdad, which distributed five million computers from 2010 to 2015 among students in public high schools. When the programme was discontinued, large numbers of computers were left unused and piled up in schools due to poor maintenance. When the COVID-19 pandemic forced schools to close and education turned to digital platforms, these computers became fundamental for students.

In September 2020, the provincial Ministry of Education signed an agreement with Nodo TAU for the repair and upgrading of the computers, working in coordination with the authorities of each school.

Learning from regional experiences

During 2019, Nodo TAU was invited by the International Labour Organization (ILO) to participate in a research project on e-waste and employment[2] in different countries in the region, starting with a pilot in Peru and Argentina. The project involved the reconstruction of the e-waste value chain, and involved the organisation of local roundtables with relevant actors. For the first time, a wide range of stakeholders met to discuss e-waste treatment in the region. This process strengthened the project and its visibility.

In 2020, the work with the ILO was followed by a period dedicated to further research on the management of e-waste from a circular economy perspective.[3] This research will be followed by capacity building in the field.

Challenges

Sustainability and stability are key challenges faced by the plant. The project depends on the public programmes and policies in which it participates. The provincial government programme provides scholarships for young people training and working at the plant, guaranteeing a stable income for them. During some seasons, the low volume of incoming devices affects the stability of the workforce.

The scale is also a challenge. This is related to the strength of the plant’s relationships with local companies, municipal governments and other public offices. The services offered to companies, schools and social organisations, from repairing to final disposal, are also relevant.

The implementation of the plant presented difficulties related to the condition of the building where the plant was located, and the process of certification and links with regulators. The lack of local actors for some processes in the proper treatment of e-waste also represents a difficulty.

Besides the state, manufacturers, repairers, large and small companies, and commercial chains, among others, should budget for e-waste management. However, the awareness of the responsibilities of each stakeholder about e-waste treatment remains a problem.

Conclusion

The e-waste plant, discussed above, has presented opportunities and challenges. As can be seen, it is a difficult project to develop and sustain, and the role of stakeholders, including supporting government frameworks, is crucial. There is also a debate about the social agenda of the plant and its sustainability, both essential to its performance. A fact highlighted by some specialists is that the activity is not profitable, and implies tasks that no one wants to do. For that reason, it should be considered a public service, not only an economic activity.

Nodo TAU is historically focused on the digital inclusion of local communities, and now works on the treatment of e-waste. This is related to its objective of inclusivity, which in this project is framed by the circular economy of ICT devices. These two frames – inclusivity and the circular economy – direct the focus of the work we do in two directions: the improvement of internal processes to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our recycling activities so that they are environmentally sustainable, and in providing refurbished devices to communities that need access to computers.

References and further reading

Roveri, F. (2018, 29 June). Un camino por el acceso de las comunidades. enREDando. https://www.enredando.org.ar/2018/06/29/un-camino-por-el-acceso-de-las-comunidades

Nueva Oportunidad. Provincial programme for the integral inclusion of young people. http://nuevaoportunidad.com.ar

Provincial law of WEEE management. https://www.santafe.gob.ar/boletinoficial/ver.php?seccion=2020/2020-01-28ley13.940-2020.html

Maffei, L., & Burucúa, A. (2020). Residuos de Aparatos Eléctricos y Electrónicos (RAEE) y empleo en la Argentina. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/buenosaires/publicaciones/WCMS_737650/lang--es/index.htm

Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la Nación. (2020). Gestión integral de RAEE. Los residuos de aparatos eléctricos y electrónicos, una fuente de trabajo decente para avanzar hacia la economía circular. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/manual_raee.pdf

 

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

Footnotes

[1] Roveri, F. (2018, 29 June). Un camino por el acceso de las comunidades. enREDando. https://www.enredando.org.ar/2018/06/29/un-camino-por-el-acceso-de-las-comunidades

[2] Maffei, L., & Burucúa, A. (2020). Residuos de Aparatos Eléctricos y Electrónicos (RAEE) y empleo en la Argentina. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/buenosaires/publicaciones/WCMS_737650/lang--es/index.htm

[3] Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la Nación. (2020). Gestión integral de RAEE. Los residuos de aparatos eléctricos y electrónicos, una fuente de trabajo decente para avanzar hacia la economía circular. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/manual_raee.pdf

Case study - Karo Sambhav (Make It Possible): Working with manufacturers to create an e-waste ecosystem in India

Written by Syed Kazi, Digital Empowerment Foundation

Project / Programme

Karo Sambhav (Make It Possible)

Region / Country

Gurugram, Haryana, India

Website

https://karosambhav.com/home

Circularity

Sustainable e-waste management ecosystem; e-waste value chain; producer responsibility; proper disposal; behaviour change.

Overview

Karo Sambhav is a producer responsibility organisation working since 2017. It focuses on collaborating with enterprises and enables them to close their material loops by designing and implementing extended producer responsibility (EPR) programmes for e-waste. Karo Sambhav’s India e-waste programme was launched in partnership with International Finance Corporation, which is part of the World Bank. The objective of the collaboration was to address critical gaps in the market and develop a locally relevant ecosystem for responsible collection and recycling of e-waste with the end goal of mobilising private sector investment in the e-waste industry. The India e-waste programme focuses on awareness raising, capacity building and knowledge exchange in the e-waste sector.

About the project

The Karo Sambhav programme started with a pilot project in May 2017 and is ongoing. It provides services to producers and manufacturers of electrical equipment in order to help them fulfil their EPR commitments under the E-waste (Management) Rules of 2016. It has also created channels which involve stakeholders across the value chain, including consumers, bulk consumers, waste pickers and aggregators. At the same time, it is working with retail and repair shops to help them build sustainable and legal ways of disposing of waste.

It has five programme areas: the Waste Picker Programme, the Waste Aggregator Programme, the Repair and Retail Shops Programme, the Bulk Consumer Programme, and the Karo Sambhav School Programme, which creates awareness on critical environmental issues, including on e-waste.

The key stakeholders engaged in the programme include 17 producers and manufacturing companies of electronic goods (like Apple, Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.). Karo Sambhav has helped them fulfil their collection targets. The other key stakeholders are schools, repair shops and e-waste workers such as waste pickers, who are engaged in an unorganised sector. The programme buys e-waste from informal e-waste collectors so that they can improve their livelihoods.

In August 2017, it launched its first awareness-raising initiative, and by March 2018 the programme had successfully completed EPR targets for its producer members.

A sustainable approach

The programme has proved to be sustainable in terms of bringing a circular approach to information and communications technologies (ICTs). It has also proved to be sustainable in terms of scalability and replicability. It has managed to create a country-wide presence in its programme, which is helping in achieving a circular economy. It is now providing its services across 29 states and three Union Territories of India.

In the first two years of the programme, Karo Sambhav successfully collected over 6,000 metric tonnes of e-waste and sent it for responsible recycling.

Positive results

All five programme areas of Karo Sambhav have yielded positive results. The Waste Picker Programme has enabled informal waste pickers to become formalised as a part of the take-back channel and it also provides financial incentives to collect e-waste. The Waste Aggregator Programme has helped e-waste aggregators in legitimising their business, as per the E-Waste (Management) Rules 2016. Karo Sambhav’s Repair and Retail Shops Programme works with these shops to help them become a part of the authorised producer take-back channelisation system and strengthen the e-waste ecosystem. The Bulk Consumer Programme offers fair prices for the acquisition of e-waste. Through financial incentives and capacity building, the programmes have helped to make e-waste workers sustainable.

Its School Programme was run in 40 cities across 29 states and two Union Territories. It covers every state of India, which is remarkable. Over 1,21,932 students, 2,312 teachers and 1,156 schools participated in the programme in 2017-2018. This programme is designed to deploy contemporary pedagogical practices in the classroom to develop the skills of real-world problem solving, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, communication and ICT competencies. The curriculum, consisting of a toolkit of activities, is intended for class five onwards. It focuses on creating awareness on critical environmental issues including e-waste and inspiring students to adopt environmentally friendly behaviours in their daily lives. The programme is designed to create an environmental movement in schools with teachers playing a leading role. The School Programme is an important behaviour change method. Schools were chosen to be part of the programme because of the potential that change in the critical thinking of students can bring long-term awareness and create a cohort of youth who carry an environmentally responsible approach as future leaders of society. Empowering students with the knowledge of e-waste management can bring a social change and students can influence their families with the same thinking.

Conclusion

Karo Sambhav faces several challenges, including that a number of stakeholders like producers and recyclers are not fully convinced of the role of a producer responsibility organisation.

Another important challenge is for Karo Sambhav to find a way to access e-waste from informal collectors on the ground at affordable prices in order to sell to recyclers and thus create a place for itself in the e-waste market. This is a balancing act, because it is also necessary not to pay the informal collectors associated with Karo Sambhav too little for their e-waste, forcing them to rethink their relationship with the programme and decide to sell directly to the recyclers themselves.

Nevertheless, Karo Sambhav does appear to be achieving its aim of creating a better ecosystem that is sustainable at all levels. In its short existence, the programme has worked with 1,214 schools, 1,007 repair shops, 520 bulk consumers, 1,528 waste aggregators and 2,274 waste pickers across the country, and aims to increase its presence.

References and further reading

Karo Sambhav. (2018). Impact Report 2017-18. https://karosambhav.com/impact-report

E-waste in India. https://karosambhav.com/e-waste-in-india

Ashoka Nordic. (2020, 29 September). Meet our new Ashoka Fellow Pranshu Singhal, Founder of Karo Sambhav. www.ashokanordic.org/post/meet-our-new-ashoka-fellow-pranshu-singhal-founder-of-karo-sambhav

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

 

Case study - Benelux Afro Center: Innovative relay stations involving young people in the proper recycling of e-waste in the DRC

Written by Patience Luyeye

Project / Programme

Benelux Afro Center

Region / Country

Democratic Republic of Congo

Website

http://www.bacmd.net/atelie-recyclage.html

 

Circularity

Proper management of the e-waste chain, youth skills development, innovation

Overview

Some studies have shown that 26,100 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment enter the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) each year, of which 16,050 tonnes become e-waste.[1] Much of this is dumped, posing series environmental and health risks. To help address this problem, the Benelux Afro Center (BAC), an NGO that has been importing crates of computers into the country for educational purposes, developed an e-waste management programme in 2016 to support its computers-for-schools project in the city of Kinshasa. The innovative programme, which emphasises the proper treatment of e-waste, has created employment for young people, and is also reported to have increased school enrolment.

About the project

Benelux Afro Center (BAC) is a WorldLoop partner working in Kinshasa and Lubumbashi. For its computers-for-schools programme, it receives containers of computers from the NGO Close the Gap, and redistributes these to schools in Kinshasa. A total of 10 schools were equipped with computer equipment over a three-year period, with classes receiving 10 to 15 computers. However, a challenge that BAC faced was that the end-of-life computers were stored in rooms at the schools, and not disposed of properly. In 2016, the King Baudouin Foundation, in an attempt to address this problem, was interested in creating an opportunity for young people to become involved in a new sector of development, and supported BAC in setting up an e-waste programme.

The project has several core activities, including raising awareness about e-waste in communities and among businesses; e-waste collection, sorting and recycling; and exporting sorted components to Belgium for recycling.

Setting up relay stations

The project involves setting up “relay stations” for collecting e-waste, and for awareness raising about the hazards of e-waste. The stations have been set up in Kisantu, Mbanza Ngungu, Matadi, Boma and Muanda, all located in Kongo Central, and are managed by young people who have been trained in e-waste management. The city of Boma was included because of the large amounts of e-waste that collects at the port. The training was also later extended to the city of Lubumbashi.

All e-waste collected at these various relay stations is brought to a dismantling workshop in Matadi, where it is sorted and recycled properly. The project had recycled 13,500 kilograms of e-waste by 2017, and by 2021 had recycled nearly 141 tonnes of e-waste. Each relay station provides work for 10 young people, mostly from disadvantaged backgrounds, while three people are permanently employed at the Matadi workshop. They are helped by about another 10 occasional day workers.

Innovation

A key innovation of the project is that the e-waste is not simply sorted and exported for recycling. For example, metal waste is processed by the students and made into beds, chairs and benches. Waste is also transformed into gardening tools, such as rakes and spades.

Multistakeholder support

The government, through the Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism, provides administrative support to the project, and allows exemptions with regard to the export of e-waste, as well as for the import of materials necessary for the execution of the project. Other actors such as NGOs bring their expertise in the field of waste processing or the use of machines or devices used in processing.

Under the leadership of the Belgian NGO Close The Gap and WorldLoop, partners of BAC, around 20 Belgian industrialists have assisted with the financing of the project, which has supplemented the funding of the King Baudouin Foundation.

Conclusion

The programme has had many positive outcomes. It has increased the collection and recycling of e-waste from individuals, local authorities, telecommunications distributors and operators, companies and state structures. In has expanded beyond Kinshasa, and included the export of sorted e-waste to Belgium for proper treatment. It has also encouraged the innovative recycling of e-waste such as the creation of furniture and gardening implements, which has increased the visibility and continuity of the project. The acquisition of a shredder also helped reduce the volume of plastic waste and allowed for the sale of hard plastics, supporting the sustainability of the project. Lastly, the initiative has introduced a course on Sustainable Management of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in the school curriculum. An increase in school enrolment was also reported in 2020 at one school running the programme (ITP Nzadi in Matadi in Kongo Central province), which was attributed to the programme being offered at the school. 

Further reading

For more on the geographic location of the recycling activities, see https://www.congovirtuel.com/page_province_kongo_central.php and https://www.caid.cd/graphics/province/4_Haut-Katanga.png

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

Footnotes

[1] WorldLoop. (2016, 15 February). ICT e-waste collection expands to Katanga. https://worldloop.org/news/ict-e-waste-collection-expands-to-katanga

Case study - GSM Repairers Association: Building capacity and creating opportunities for mobile repairers in Nigeria

Written by Y. Z. Ya'u, Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD)

Project / Programme

GSM Repairers Association

Region / Country

Nigeria

Website

None

Circularity

Extending the useful life of mobile phones; building capacity and economic opportunities; e-waste

Overview

Nigeria does not manufacture or assemble mobile phones, although it has four major companies undertaking the assembly of laptops and desktops.[1] As awareness about the economic uses of handsets has increased, affordability has decreased, especially following the downturn of the economy. One response to this has been the rise of the repair sector, and with that, a boom in the second-hand market for handsets. The repair movement can be seen as a seed for the circular economy in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in the country. This is a national phenomenon, but most notably seen in the state capitals where population densities are higher. As a result, several mobile repairers’ associations have been formed across the country, with one, the GSM Repairers Association, having a national footprint.

About the project

Nigeria launched its GSM networks in 2001 following the sale of licences within the framework of the deregulation of the telecommunication sector. While the number of networks has remained stabled at four, there has been rapid growth in the subscriber base. As of June 2020, there were over 190 million subscribers according to the telecommunication regulator, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).

These users of mobile phones are dependent on the importation of handsets, since the country does not manufacture them. As early as 2002, a number of artisans learned to repair handsets, and began organising as groups to both upgrade their skills and improve the conditions under which they worked.

As a result, several mobile handset repairers’ associations have been set up, such as the National Association of Mobile Phone Engineers and the Association of Handset Hard and Software Repairers. The GSM Repairers Association, which is represented nationally, has chapters set up in Lagos, Katsina, Kano, Abuja and Yobe, among other cities.

Catalysing experimentation and capacity building

The objective of the association is to provide a platform for the mobile phone repairers to advance their business interests, including creating opportunities for them to enhance their skills. Starting with just a few members in one location (Lagos), today the association has expanded nationally with over 80,000 members across all the states of the federation. They have local chapters in nearly all the 744 local governments of the country.

What is significant about their initiative is that the local associations serve as a laboratory for experimentation and capacity building. It has transformed the GSM repair activities from the work of artisans to that of highly trained and skilled technicians capable of working in a factory in an advanced technology environment. For example, it has allowed them to understand the key technical differences between the major mobile handsets, as well as helped many of them to transition from computer repairs to the repair of handsets, which has included a shift from mechanical repair to software diagnostics.

Experimentation has included the extracting of battery cells and using them to power household lighting and appliances like fans, creating booster batteries from unused cells, and adapting IC jacks to fit any phone.

Most GSM repair activities take place in designated government buildings that serve as workspaces, but there are also informal spaces that are used. Some repairers, especially women, work from home. Although there is gradual shift to factory settings compared to five years ago, this is not yet widespread.

The mobile phone repair market in Nigeria

The mobile phone repair market has emerged as a key sector of economic activity, technical skills transfer and business incubation. Although largely involving the informal sector, it is segmented along three levels.

At the top, there are a few formal business repairers engaged in the more technical aspects of repair. They form a separate association called the Mobile Handsets Repairers. They are mostly concentrated in Lagos and usually, in addition to repair, they also sell handsets. There is also a tentative entry by the big players. For example, Cellular Services Logistics (CSL), a subsidiary of the Phillips Project Centre, has set up a plant to repair and refurbish assorted mobile handsets in Lagos.

At the second level are those who work in state-designed repair centres and belong to the GSM Repairers Association through their local chapters. These are individuals, not formalised companies, who do repair work and sell second-hand handsets and accessories.

The third level consists of those not affiliated to any of the associations mentioned above and who undertake their repairs in premises outside government centres. These are mostly to be found outside the state capitals but also in several neighbourhoods within the major cities.

Levels of training in the sector

A variety of training is provided by many actors in the repair economy. First, there is an artisanal-based training in which a learner goes to a master to learn under an informal arrangement. A number of training organisations, including civil society organisations, also providing training. This is mostly funded by either politicians or the government under their youth employment programmes. For example, in 2018 and 2017, CITAD was contracted by the Kano State Government to train 1,000 and 500 youths, respectively, in mobile phone repairs, after which the state government handed them repair kits along with money to rent shops to set themselves up.

Vendor-oriented training is offered by many of the members of the Mobile Handsets Association.

Consistent with the government view of mobile handset repair as a way of promoting youth entrepreneurship, the National Directorate for Employment, which was established in 1987, added mobile repair training as one of its training offerings for youth, providing additional support under its Resettlement Loan Scheme.

Through the Federal Ministry of Education, it has also incorporated training into the educational curricula at secondary school level. All students theoretically have the opportunity to take this as an elective subject. However, in reality very few schools have the tools and equipment as well as the teachers and technicians to provide reasonable training to students, beyond just passing the exams.

On 13 September 2020, the National Information Technology Development Agency in partnership with the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board started training 1,000 youths in GSM repair online.

Mainstreaming mobile repairs

There are important outcomes resulting from the formation of the GSM Repairers Association. The first is that today, across the breadth of the country, there is virtually no community where repairs of mobile handsets cannot be found. They have helped to disperse skills and knowledge through their activities, meeting national needs for the repair of mobile handsets. The second is that, through its training activities, the association has led to the creation of several training programmes with a specialisation in hardware and software. The training programmes have led to well-developed programmes being offered by bigger companies and now by government ICT and job creation agencies. The initiative has also led to the mainstreaming of mobile repairs as one of the subjects being offered in secondary schools in the country. The initiative has also resulted in multinational companies offering a specialisation in spare parts supply-chain management for the repair of mobile phones. This in itself has opened up a new line of business activity.

Challenges

However, the association has also faced a number of challenges that need to be understood if the right lessons are to be appropriated to promote the circular economy. One negative outcome is that because of the skills that the initiative has generated, bigger companies have leveraged this and are setting up major repair subsidiaries. This will impact negatively in terms of the ability of the initiative to absorb a large pool of unemployed youth, since the bigger companies with more resources can source better equipment and tools and be more productive than the individual or cooperative repairers. This will also slow down the speed of the dispersal of skills in the society.

There is also a need to educate members of the GSM Repairers Association across the country about potential health hazards and safe disposal methods of e-waste, and to regulate how the members of the association operate. Because it arose independent of the government, there is hardly any regulatory framework to govern it, nor policy planning that can capitalise on the initiative and enhance the national move to a circular economy.

Finally, there are far fewer women working in the sector compared to men. Those that do mostly operate from home with limited access to clients and market share. The key challenge to the repair sector in Nigeria is the inclusion of women.

Conclusion

Despite several avenues for mobile repair training and support offered in Nigeria, the GSM Repairers Association plays a critical role. Nevertheless, as outlined above, there are important issues that need to be addressed. While the government needs to properly enforce its e-waste policy, it also needs to shift from seeing repairing as merely a job creation opportunity, to seeing it as an embryo for building the national capacity for a circular economy in the ICT sector. The government may also need to protect repairers against manufacturers who may want to slow down the growth of the repair and reuse movement through their product design. A civil society voice insisting on the right to repair has not yet developed in the country, but is crucial in this transition.

pic1.pngGSM repair trainees in a classroom.

pic2.pngFront view of a GSM repair estate/market in Kano.

pic3.pngMembers of the GSM Repairers Association undergoing training.

pic4.pngThe Kano State Government distributed GSM repair kits to trained youth in the Government House.

 

 

References and further reading

Zonux: https://zinoxtechnologies.com

Beta: https://www.beta-computers.com

Omatek: https://omatek.ng

Brian Integrated Systems: https://brianintegratedsystems.com

National Directorate of Employment Vocational Skills Development Programme: https://nde.gov.ng/programs/vocational-skills-development-programme-vsd

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

Footnotes

[1] These are Zinox (https://zinoxtechnologies.com), Beta (https://www.beta-computers.com), Omatek (https://omatek.ng) and Brian Integrated Systems (https://brianintegratedsystems.com).

Case study - Computadores para Educar: Ensuring circularity through managing e-waste properly in a computers-for-schools initiative

Written by Julián Casasbuenas, Colnodo

Project/Programme

Computadores para Educar (CPE)

Region/Country

Colombia

Contact Information

https://www.computadoresparaeducar.gov.co

Circularity

Use of refurbished computers and the proper management of e-waste in a computer-for-schools programme.

Overview

A key challenge in education is access to appropriate technology for disadvantaged schools. The limited economic capacity of educational institutions in Colombia means that it is difficult for them to acquire computers and software necessary for teaching and learning. This led the government to develop a programme that could fill this gap, and also contribute to the proper management of discarded electronic equipment. Computadores para Educar (CPE) began as a programme using computers donated by public entities and private companies for public schools, colleges and libraries across the country.

About the programme

CPE is a government-run public programme and entity in Colombia, approved in 1999 by the National Council for Economic and Social Policy (CONPES). It is framed by the National Agenda for Connectivity, which includes strategies to increase the widespread use of information and communications technologies (ICTs). It was launched in 2000.

The main entities involved in the programme are the National Learning Service (SENA), the Ministry of ICT, the Ministry of Education and the National Centre for the Use of Electronic Waste (CENARE). CPE was also supported by the Ministry of Industry of Canada, the country where the SchoolNet and Computers for Schools programmes were developed, which served as an example for the implementation of CPE in Colombia.

The main objectives of the programme include the following:

The programme was initially rolled out for a period of 10 years. After this it was decided to extend the programme for another 10 years. Over this 20-year period, the objectives and goals of the programme have been reassessed to adjust to new policies and technologies.

During its first 10 years, CPE refurbished disused computers donated by private companies and the public sector, and in turn donated the devices to educational entities and public libraries. SENA also received electronic components from computers that were used in its robotics classes. CPE recognises that this has important environmental benefits and also has social benefits for the workforce employed, especially technical operators.

Ensuring the proper disposal of e-waste

CENARE managed the e-waste generated by the programme (i.e. when refurbished computers donated to schools reached their end of life). The refurbished equipment remained in educational institutions for an average of five years of use. After this, CENARE recovered and recycled plastic waste, glass, precious metals, iron, copper and electronic circuits that could be used in other electronic devices. Potentially hazardous materials were separated to be treated or disposed of properly by certified companies. As of October 2020, the number of computers collected in the “Retoma” (“Take Back”) process amounted to 239,264 and was equivalent to 5,471 tonnes of manufactured equipment (disassembled to properly dispose of the parts).

A change in strategy

Later the programme strategy changed to using new equipment, due to the exemption of the value-added tax (VAT) on low-cost computer equipment in Colombia. This exemption meant that the costs of purchasing new computers were lower compared to the costs of refurbished used computers. The costs associated with securing replacement parts, in addition to the technical labour involved and the rental of warehouses in each city (Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, Barranquilla and Cúcuta) where this refurbishment was carried out, exceeded the average cost of a new device.

In March 2020, the CONPES policy document “Technologies for Learning”[1] extended the programme for five more years until 2025. The reasons highlighted included that there is still much to be done in the field of technology for education, and that the programme has generated important social benefits.

As of October 2020, CPE had made an investment of approximately USD 443.84 million and had delivered 2,436,718 terminals (computers and tablets) to institutions. The education system in Colombia has been the largest beneficiary of the programme, going from an average of 20 students per computer in 2010 to eight students per computer in 2019. A key beneficiary of the programme has been teachers who are trained to use computers. As of October 2020, 296,642 teachers from public entities had been trained.

CPE has also contributed to supporting e-waste companies who carry out the final disposal of waste.

Aligning with national strategies aimed at circularity

CPE fulfilled key aspects of the circularity of digital devices framework, particularly in its initial phase. Besides extending the useful life of computers, through the proper disposal of e-waste it lessened the upstream impact of new metal extraction, given that these metals can be recovered from the waste. This reduces the carbon footprint and contributes to an efficient circular economy process.

CPE has also supplied raw materials extracted from e-waste to industries in the United States and Taiwan and, to a lesser extent, to a refinery in Brazil. In this sense, it could be said that they are working in line with the National Circular Economy Strategy[2] announced by the government in 2019, without officially stating that they are part of it.

Conclusion

CPE has been and continues to be a benchmark in the mass delivery of computer equipment to educational institutions, bringing technology closer to educational communities, and involving teacher training in the process. The programme has created opportunities for Colombian children and young people, improving their quality of education, and contributed to environmental sustainability through the management of disused computer equipment.

Three CPE impact studies have been conducted over its 20 years of operation. The first was done by the University of Los Andes, another by the National Consulting Centre and the last by the National University of Colombia. Each one concludes, in different percentages, that the work carried out by CPE has had a positive impact on the students of the educational centers, especially in contributing to the improvement of the performance of the educational centres and contributing to a reduction in school dropouts. Thanks to the better results of the students in the national “Saber” standardised tests, there have been more opportunities for the students to enter working life and more students have felt motivated to enroll in higher education.

On the other hand, the environmental sustainability component deals with the challenge of e-waste, so that other companies can give recovered materials new use. This has been an experience that has not only produced great results due to the recovered materials (glass, ferrous metals, plastic, etc.), but also due to the positive impact on the educational community through leaving educational facilities free of waste.

Although CPE’s strategy does not yet refer to the National Circular Economy Strategy, it carries out activities that the circular economy promotes and has great potential to optimise its processes to meet the goals of this strategy in terms of the better management of the flow of industrial materials and products of mass consumption in line with social and environmental needs.

References and further reading

Computadores para Educar: https://www.computadoresparaeducar.gov.co and https://colombiatic.mintic.gov.co/679/w3-propertyvalue-36665.html

Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social. (2020). Tecnologías Para Aprender: política nacional para impulsar la innovación en las prácticas educativas a través de las tecnologías digitales. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/3988.pdf

Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2019). Plan Estratégico de Tecnologías de la Información 2019/2022. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1759/articles-362792_galeria_11.pdf

Gobierno de la Republica de Colombia. (2019). Estrategia nacional de economía circular. Cierre de ciclos de materiales, innovación tecnológica, colaboración y nuevos modelos de negocio. http://www.andi.com.co/Uploads/Estrategia%20Nacional%20de%20EconA%CC%83%C2%B3mia%20Circular-2019%20Final.pdf_637176135049017259.pdf

From Global Information Society Watch 2020, see related country reports for:

Argentina: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6265

Bangladesh: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6266

Costa Rica: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6267

Democratic Republic of Congo: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6232

India: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6234

Nigeria: https://www.giswatch.org/node/6237

Footnotes

[1] Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social. (2020). Tecnologías Para Aprender: política nacional para impulsar la innovación en las prácticas educativas a través de las tecnologías digitales. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/3988.pdf

[2] Gobierno de la Republica de Colombia. (2019). Estrategia nacional de economía circular. Cierre de ciclos de materiales, innovación tecnológica, colaboración y nuevos modelos de negocio. http://www.andi.com.co/Uploads/Estrategia%20Nacional%20de%20EconA%CC%83%C2%B3mia%20Circular-2019%20Final.pdf_637176135049017259.pdf

Module 10: An introduction to environmental rights as an advocacy framework

Environmental rights are “people-centric” in that they are related to the health and well-being of people and future generations.

The “circularity gap” is widening

The special relationship between us and the planet requires urgent and effective action. Working towards a circular economy of digital devices is an important part of the action that is needed from us. If you are reading this, you are an agent of change.

The main existential threats that humanity and the planet are facing are inequality (lack of income, lack of any critical resources, the so-called “poverty line”), pollution, and biodiversity loss (an excess environmental footprint, or what we call “overshooting”). The risks are social and ecological collapse. Opportunities lie in finding ways to mitigate and redress these threats, including through social and environmental good being embedded in what we do and in the laws we make to govern ourselves.

In a report to the World Bank more than a decade ago, Elinor Ostrom said:

Efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions are a classic collective action problem that is best addressed at multiple scales and levels. [...] Building a strong commitment to find ways of reducing individual emissions is an important element for coping with this problem.[1]

This is also about what we as individuals can do, the unequal circumstances and relationships among people, the role of money, property, power, education, policy and environmental justice, and the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, with a fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens.

Fast forward. Today there is bad news:

[In 2020], the global economy [was] only 8.6% circular – just two years ago it was 9.1%. The global circularity gap is widening. There are reasons for this negative trend, but the result remains the same: the news is not just bad, it is worse. The negative trend overall can be explained by three related, underlying trends: high rates of extraction; ongoing stock build-up; plus, low levels of end-of-use processing and cycling. These trends are embedded deep within the “take-make-waste” tradition of the linear economy – the problems are hardwired. As such, the outlook to close the circularity gap looks bleak under the dead hand of business as usual. We desperately need transformative and correctional solutions; change is a must.[2]

Environmental rights are about the planet and people

We need to redirect global society to a more sustainable future with equity and environmental sustainability as a priority. According to McAlpine et al., “Transformational change in societal values needs to occur at three levels by: (1) being responsible and ethical in our dealings with other people and our environment; (2) better integrating ourselves into our communities; and (3) reconnecting with and valuing nature.”[3] Values such as personal integrity, compassion, strong and interconnected communities, globally responsible citizens with global awareness, and mutual aid and cooperation, ultimately help to reduce the human ecological footprint on the planet.

Respecting people has several dimensions, and a rights-based approach focuses on human equity, ensuring good or desirable actions or outcomes and preventing those that are undesirable for everyone. These rights need to be enacted in a legal system or ensured through an equivalent mechanism, such as industry ethical codes of conduct. Environmental rights are “people-centric”: they are related to the health and well-being of people and future generations.

People-centric environmental rights can be viewed from three perspectives:

Environmental justice and human rights

We have to face global environmental inequality, which refers to "the expression of an environmental burden that would be borne primarily by disadvantaged and/or minority populations or by territories suffering from a certain poverty and exclusion of these inhabitants."[4] The environmental justice movement focuses on the “fair” distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, as it is evident that exposure to pollution and other environmental risks are unequally distributed by race, class and region, among others. When we translate these aims to humans, we talk about environmental rights defined in terms of human rights: “the right to a healthy environment and its preservation for future generations” (e.g. the Cartagena Declaration).[5]

Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Development Goals

Agenda 21 (with the “21” referring to the 21st century) was a result of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It talks about changing consumption patterns, the conservation and management of resources, and strengthening the role of “major groups” such as Indigenous communities, and outlines diverse means of implementing the actions. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development reaffirmed Agenda 21 and established the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Many of these goals include circular principles, specifically Goal 12 on “Responsible consumption and production”.

Environmental rights and the human rights framework

Both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights are important to environmental rights. Economic, social and cultural rights are generally concerned with encouraging governments to pursue policies which create conditions for individuals, or in some cases groups, to develop to their full potential. Civil and political rights are the rights that protect an individual’s freedom from infringement by governments, social organisations and private individuals. As environmental inequality is usually the result of conflicting interests, civil and political rights are important in securing the health and well-being of an affected population.

Aarhus Convention

The reference instrument for global environmental justice is the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, more commonly known as the Aarhus Convention, which entered into force in 2001. It promotes effective public engagement in environmental decision making, and defines procedures for its implementation by public authorities. The Aarhus Convention follows a rights-based approach: the public, both in the present and in future generations, have the right to know and to live in a healthy environment.

Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet

The Internet Governance Forum’s Internet Rights and Principles Coalition has developed a Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet that defines the right to development through the internet with two sub-clauses:

 

4a) Poverty reduction and human development: Information and communication technologies shall be designed, developed and implemented to contribute to sustainable human development and empowerment.

4b) Environmental sustainability: The Internet must be used in a sustainable way.

The Brazilian constitution

At the national level, there are many examples of clauses protecting the environment. One example is from the Brazilian constitution. Article 225 establishes the “right to an ecologically balanced environment” and states in paragraph 1 that in order to ensure the effectiveness of this right, it is incumbent upon the government to “control the production, sale and use of techniques, methods or substances which represent a risk to life, the quality of life and the environment,” and to “promote environment education in all school levels and public awareness of the need to preserve the environment,” among other measures. Meanwhile, paragraph 4 states:

 

The Brazilian Amazonian Forest, the Atlantic Forest, the Serra do Mar, the Pantanal Mato-Grossense and the coastal zone are part of the national patrimony, and they shall be used, as provided by law, under conditions which ensure the preservation of the environment, therein included the use of mineral resources.

The right to access to environmental information, public participation and justice

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, known as the Aarhus Convention, was adopted on 25 June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus and entered into force on 30 October 2001.

It establishes a number of rights of the public (individuals and their associations) with regard to the environment. The parties to the Convention are required to make the necessary provisions so that public authorities (at national, regional or local level) will contribute to these rights becoming effective.

The three pillars of the Convention are:

Like the Aarhus Convention in Europe, two decades later, the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, also known as the Escazú Agreement, was reached by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). This represents a commitment by the signatories to promote access to information, public participation and access to judicial remedy in their respective national policies related to the environment.

According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who wrote the Foreward to the agreement, “this treaty aims to combat inequality and discrimination and to guarantee the rights of every person to a healthy environment and to sustainable development.” He added, “In so doing, it devotes particular attention to persons and groups in vulnerable situations, and places equality at the core of sustainable development.”[6]

For her part, ECLAC Executive Secretary Alicia Bárcena stressed in the Preface: “The Regional Agreement is a ground-breaking legal instrument for environmental protection, but it is also a human rights treaty.”[7] She goes on to state:

It aims to ensure the right of all persons to have access to information in a timely and appropriate manner, to participate significantly in making the decisions that affect their lives and their environment, and to access justice when those rights have been infringed. The treaty recognizes the rights of all individuals, provides measures to facilitate their exercise and, most importantly, establishes mechanisms to render them effective.[8]

The text of the agreement emphasises that “environmental information” includes information related to “environmental risks, and any possible adverse impacts affecting or likely to affect the environment and health.”[9]

Environmental justice in the circular economy

In the context of the circular economy of digital devices, environmental justice affects different stakeholders directly in each of the circular processes.

The circular economy is a declaration of interdependence: my computer or phone is not just mine, it is ours, for two reasons: first, someone else could have used it before me, or could use it after me, and second, it depends on and affects nature.

According to the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet developed by the Internet Governance Forum’s Internet Rights and Principles Coalition, digital devices need to be designed, developed and used in a way that contributes to sustainable human development and empowerment (as per sub-clause 4a), and the internet must be used in a sustainable way (sub-clause 4b).

The Aarhus Convention offers procedures for access to environmental information, which with regard to digital devices means information about materials, design, usage, maintenance, repair, their parts, and ways to dismantle and recycle them. This can be extended to specifications, programming, firmware and software to allow maintenance and continued use. Especially when manufacturers decide to stop maintenance, this will allow third parties to do so.

Information on raw materials, which includes the many negative effects they can entail, especially for marginalised and Indigenous communities, deserves special attention and requires environmental responsibility from device manufacturers to monitor and report on the social and environmental implications of their supply chain. Manufacturers also need to provide information on their extended producer responsibility, regarding the “reverse supply chain” when devices are no longer used and have to be recycled and materials recovered. Access to this information is central to the idea behind “product information sheets”, also called “digital product passports”,[10] and the production of verifiable and public data about devices and their life span. The eReuse case study in Module 1 shows how open datasets[11] help citizens and organisations contribute to decision making, and can assist purchasing decisions based on actual durability, repairability and recyclability statistics.

The Aarhus Convention also offers procedures for public participation in decision making. Citizens should be informed and allowed to participate during the decision-making and legislative processes for laws and recommendations related to key circular processes. These include ecodesign, which relates to durability and repairability, green public procurement, taxation of repair and reuse, rules for depreciation of material assets, recycling and e-waste processing, as well as consumer rights and labour rights in the electronics industry.

Finally, the Aarhus convention offers procedures for access to justice, for citizens and NGOs, when a party violates or fails to adhere to environmental law and the Convention's principles of access to environmental information or public participation.

Universal access to digital devices translates into people-centric rights such as the right to repair,[12] the right to know,[13] the right to transfer (sell or donate for reuse), and the right to have a user device to be able to participate in society or education through digital means. Of course, these rights come with responsibilities: environmental to minimise manufacturing and e-waste, and socioeconomic to ensure our usage facilitates universal access to devices for everyone.

Nature as a global commons

Nature is a limited critical resource system that impacts and belongs to all of us. Another way of putting it is that it is a “global commons”. This means we collectively need to manage and limit it as a global commons to preserve it as a critical resource for life as we know it. Thinking of nature as a global commons also means we can think of natural resources as global public goods or services.

Public goods are intended to be enjoyed by all people. Public goods are “non-rival”, which means use by one person should not prevent use by another, but this is only an ideal. Because we are already living beyond the environmental limits, some uses may rival with others. Therefore, to make sure everyone has the right to nature and its benefits as global public goods or services, nature has to be managed and governed as a global commons, with rules and limits to prevent its misuse, and to maximise its benefits and services within environmental limits.

This would enable litigants and NGOs to challenge environmentally destructive or unsustainable development on public interest grounds. It would give environmental concerns greater weight in competition with other rights.

 

Picture1.png

Figure 15 The framework of environmental rights: Individual, collective and planet-centric

Figure 15 illustrates the complete framework of environmental rights. These define and regulate the relationship between people and the planet using different instruments, and are driven by a set of principles aimed at preventing us from living beyond social and planetary limits.

APC’s environmental justice priorities

APC has identified four cross-cutting priorities when it comes to environmental justice:

Footnotes

[1] Ostrom, E. (2009). A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5095. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1494833

[2] Circular Economy. (2020). The Circularity Gap Report 2020. https://www.circularity-gap.world/2020

[3] McAlpine, C. A., Seabrook, L. M., Ryan, J. G., Feeney, B. J., Ripple, W. J., Ehrlich, A. H., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2015). Transformational change: creating a safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 20(1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269773

[4] Gobert, J. (2019, 2 July). Environmental inequalities. Encyclopedia of the Environment. https://www.encyclopedie-environnement.org/en/society/environmental-inequalities

[5] Friends of the Earth International. (2003, 24 September). The Cartagena Declaration. https://www.foei.org/news/the-cartagena-declaration  

[6] Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2018). Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/43583/1/S1800428_en.pdf

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] European Commission. (2021, 11 May). EU countries commit to leading the green digital transformation. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/eu-countries-commit-leading-green-digital-transformation

[11] Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). eReuse datasets, 2013-10-08 to 2019-06-03 with 8458 observations of desktop and laptop computers with up to 192 features each. https://dsg.ac.upc.edu/ereuse-dataset

[12] See also: https://www.repair.org

[13] For example, the right to know details about devices, such as durability, before purchasing, as well as access to manuals for maintenance, materials and data sheets for dismantling and recycling, etc.

Module 11: Challenges and ways forward for policy action – awareness, mining, design, manufacturing and procurement

Formal and informal mining are in desperate need of regulation, while the design and manufacturing of devices need to ensure that materials are sourced and used in such a way that environmental, labour and people’s rights are protected. Public procurement can leverage economic power to force change for the better in the tech industry.

Goals, responsibilities and procedures

The high-level policy action analyses in this module and in Module 12 have been developed from the perspective of “sustainability” and “circularity”. An in-depth evaluation of existing, required or recommended policy and regulation mechanisms is unfeasible. Policies and regulations depend on local conditions and challenges that may not be the same in all countries or regions. Global sustainability objectives need to be translated and adapted to local ways, creating local incentives and local benefits to ensure effective collective action towards minimising environmental and social impacts.[1] The suggestions for policy action have to be checked and carefully transposed to local conditions, as some effects cannot be predicted.

In general, policy, legislation and regulation tend to have the following elements that need to be clearly defined:

We will discuss the different challenges and ways forward for policy action in these terms.

Public awareness

Goal and targets

The transition from a linear to a circular economy can help ensure that humanity achieves common social aims while staying within ecological limits, in line with the targets set out in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and illustrated by the “doughnut diagram” of “the safe and just space for humanity”[2] described in Module 2.

Responsibilities

Public institutions, at the local and global level, have a responsibility to raise individual and collective awareness about this transition, ensuring that it happens at the right pace, helping citizens and organisations determine their commitments – and supporting efforts to implement them – and informing them about their achievements as a result of the collective action.

Procedures

Public education programmes can help citizens realise the environmental and social benefits of circular models, the unfeasibility of the “take-make-waste” linear model, and the rights and opportunities for citizens when it comes to circular business models. Programmes can use community communication strategies and the language of young people to help citizens become part of the solution (e.g. the work of the social cooperative INSIEME in Vicenza, Italy).[3]

Transparency and accountability on the part of governments and regulatory agencies about the environmental impact of digital devices are necessary. Public agencies need to respond to the rights of citizens to know about the environmental impact and social responsibility involved in end-of-use devices. This includes information around what buyers do with their devices and what manufacturers and recyclers do with the devices they collect for recycling. There is a need for proper reporting on the extent to which integrated waste management systems have been established. Publicly accessible data about devices is key to understand, report on and control or audit the circularity of digital devices.

Researching the circular economy and creating public datasets about the durability, repairability, reusability and recyclability of digital devices can help speed up adoption and optimisation of the benefits of circular practices and models. There is a need for open data on accountability and for audits of the durability and environmental impacts of devices, and to establish mechanisms such as the EU’s “product passports”.[4] Open data about the real durability of devices will help consumers make informed decisions and encourage them to buy more durable devices.[5]

Public awareness can lead to a push for new regulations that require manufacturers to include product details such as those shown in Figure 16.

Picture1.png

Figure 16: An example of an information label for an LED lightbulb, with expected durability and consumption information. Similar labels, applied to digital devices, can help consumers make choices with circularity in mind.

Mining and raw material acquisition

Goal and targets

Under a circular model, the acquisition of raw materials requires us to minimise the amount and impact of primary raw materials extracted from the Earth, and maximise the use of a fraction of secondary materials, as resources recovered from the recycling of previous devices. As it stands now, mining is too far away from being a “clean” economy, both with respect to people and the planet.

One of the key policy challenges is that informal mining is often “illegal”, has devastating negative consequences on people, local communities and their territories, is embroiled in armed conflicts, and results in human rights abuses and the degradation of nature. The informal recycling of e-waste can result in mafia-like controls of informal recyclers, human rights abuses and the exposure of recyclers to toxic substances present in e-waste.

An end to bad industry and informal mining and recycling practices implies external regulation and self-regulation.

Responsibilities

Governments have the responsibility to monitor and restrict the way in which mining companies conduct their operations and where they mine, including the impact that their activities might have on local communities. The proper treatment of mining waste that frequently pollutes natural resources is a critical part of this regulation. International mining companies need to be forced to adhere to laws with respect to the human rights violations that may occur in their operations.

Governments also have a responsibility to enact laws that prohibit unregulated and inhumane mining activities, and to attend to the socioeconomic needs of communities that might benefit from illegal mining. Human rights abuses, including gender-based violence and the violation of children’s rights, that occur in artisanal mining need immediate attention and eradication.

Governments and businesses have a responsibility to incorporate informal e-waste recycling into the recycling value chain, in a safe and responsible way.

Procedures

Only detailed transparency, accountability and audits with public scrutiny and strong pressure on all actors in the circular economy can help to limit and eradicate poor mining and recycling practices.

Regarding mining companies, we need to find ways to demonstrate to them the need to adapt their development plans to the concept of a circular economy, seeing it as an opportunity to minimise costs and also to increase their competitiveness. While artisanal mining is largely a subsistence activity and results in miserable living and working conditions with no viable alternatives, large mining companies can, in theory, be held more accountable. They have access to experts and indicators and the technical (and other) capacities with which to institute change. It is likely that the only way to achieve effective change is through pressure from markets (downstream demand from investors or manufacturers and indirectly from consumers who demand that certified materials are used in digital products) and from governments (through policy and regulation, although institutional corruption, which is rife in the mining sector, works against this).

Mitigating emissions is not the same as compensating emissions. Public policies should promote mitigation (improving processes) to compensate for the additional cost of business-as-usual that allows petty payments to be made so that a company can continue polluting.

The increase of secondary materials helps circularity. These materials come as scrap from industrial processes or are extracted from end-of-life devices through urban mining. Encouraging this may include mandatory quotas that stipulate a required fraction of recycled materials to be included in new products, imposed by governments on the designers and manufacturers of new products; taxes on material consumption; and traceability and responsibility regarding sources of materials used in production (both in terms of the impact on the environment and on workers).

Informal e-waste recycling needs to be better understood through research and incorporated into the e-waste recycling chain in a responsible and environmentally sound way. This may require education and training and other forms of capacity and infrastructural development, including the provision of protective clothing and the development of safe work spaces.

Design

Goal and targets

Circularity demands durable devices. This requires designing digital devices for a longer life span and better reparability and reusability.

Responsibilities

Governments are responsible for regulating the design of devices bought and sold in their markets. Brands and manufacturers have the corporate responsibility of preventing the negative impact of manufactured devices by means of the consideration of circularity in design, with energy efficiency, repairability, durability, upgradability, reusability and dismantling in mind.

Procedures

Many countries have introduced laws to regulate and facilitate not only the dismantling and recycling of electronics (or the processing of e-waste), but also, more recently, to support the repair and reuse of digital devices. France, for instance, has introduced a repairability index for electronics that allows buyers to make informed purchase decisions.[6]

Design guidelines that focus on circular economy principles (see, for example, European Commission communications COM033-2017,[7] COM614-2015[8] and COM773-2016)[9] can be categorised in Circular Design Guidelines Groups:[10]

  1. Extending life span: This group includes design guidelines related to promoting the life span and durability of products by adapting their design and studying the possibility of upgrading new versions, or via timeless designs by ensuring the product can be used for as long as possible.
  2. Disassembling: This includes design guidelines related to the product's structure and access to its components by distinguishing between:
  1. Product reuse: This group includes design guidelines that enable the product’s complete reuse by facilitating maintenance or cleaning tasks, and the reuse of its components.
  2. Components reuse: This includes design guidelines with recommendations for facilitating the reuse of the product's components or parts by using standardised components, minimising parts, etc.
  3. Material recycling: This includes design guidelines that facilitate the identification, separation and recycling of materials.

The UN’s International Telecommunication Union has a standardisation sector (ITU‑T) that has developed a recommendation for an assessment method for circular scoring[11] inspired by these guidelines. This enables the calculation of the circularity score of an information and communications technology (ICT) product. Several manufacturers and governments have agreed to the recommendation.

Right to Repair is a public campaign in Europe (and other regions) which insists on the right to maintain and to make changes to devices. This concept includes good design (to perform, to last, to be repaired, related to the idea of ecodesign); helping consumers to make an informed choice (e.g. manufacturers indicating the degree of repairability with a scoring system, and including an energy label and information on obsolescence and durability); and fair access to repair (e.g. repair instructions and fair access to spare parts). The Repair Association in the United States, repair.org, pursues similar goals to the Right to Repair campaign in Europe, repair.eu.

Good circular policy from brand owners entails offering maintenance and spare parts for as long as a product may be used, or making a product’s hardware and software design information freely available to the public. This includes freely available public information on chips and printed circuit board (PCB) layouts, access to mechanical drawings, schematics and bills of materials, and information about the software that drives the hardware. This would help the community of users willing to extend a product’s use. It would allow for analysis, feedback and the contribution of improvements to the design from the technical community and also facilitate maintenance, repair and upgrades.

Manufacturing

Goal and targets

Manufacturing involves component and part suppliers, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), assembly and distribution. There are multiple companies involved in the process of manufacturing: from manufacturing discrete components, chips, PCBs, or other parts like batteries and displays to the assembly of devices, as well as packaging and transport across the supply chain for distributors and retail sale.

Responsibilities

Governments have a responsibility to regulate the manufacturing industry in order to ensure decent work conditions, the absence of hazardous substances in manufacturing, the minimal consumption of water, electricity and other resources in the manufacturing process, and that there is no environmental pollution in the manufacturing process. Manufacturers have a responsibility to properly respond to these regulations, and to monitor the supply chain for compliance with quality standards, including labour and environmental standards.

Manufacturers also have the responsibility to provide spare parts for longer periods to maximise the durability of their devices, and to allow for software maintenance including security fixes after their own active maintenance period ends. Brands have a responsibility to ensure the recycling and recovery of resources after a device is no longer in use.

Procedures

Commercial brands are sensitive to market forces and their public perception, so lobbying and advocacy for supply chain responsibility can result in indirect demands on technology manufacturing companies. This affects many processes, ranging from the acquisition of raw materials, to manufacturing, packaging and transport, as well as appropriate recycling and reuse of materials.

Amplifying downstream demand for product information and producer responsibility should be promoted through strengthening the expertise of actors within the reuse and recycling ecosystem. This has been done in Finland, among other places.[12]

Information about the chemical and material composition of products is key to protect the health of everyone working with devices. A tax on chemicals used to hold producers financially accountable would establish a clear pathway to finance the control and regulation of toxic chemicals and waste. This is advocated for by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN).[13]

The importation of devices is a responsibility of customs agencies who can include circularity criteria for imports and introduce taxes to incentivise circularity or compensate for the negative effects of digital devices in their country of destination. Examples of regulatory measures and requirements across borders are compliance with environmental and labour standards, extended producer responsibility, approval for specific types of devices only, mandatory impact assessments, and mandatory traceability of devices.

Global and regional ratings for recyclability, durability and repairability and standardised methods of assessment can be helpful in establishing these regulations. Preventing the export of new or used digital devices to countries without minimal e-waste regulations is worth considering.

Acquisition and procurement

Goal and targets

The acquisition of devices is key for the whole supply chain. The related decisions must be made not only in terms of performance and cost limits, but also with an awareness of the social, economic and environmental effects and limits in the supply chain. If we buy a digital device, we implicitly approve of and support the decisions of the supply chain.

Responsibilities

Acquisition entails decisions where choice gives buyers the opportunity to demand information and compliance with labour and environmental quality requirements and promote good behaviours in the supply chain.

Procedures

Procurement should be guided by the principle of balancing the “right thing” with the “right way”. The right thing is to get the best value for money when purchasing a digital device, while the right way is to do this without a negative impact on communities, workers or the environment.

Responsible public procurement includes ensuring the right of access to devices discarded by a public administration, which were purchased with public money. These devices cannot be recycled prematurely or given away to manufacturers to prevent reuse. This can be implemented in the form of clauses in public procurement contracts and automatic disposal agreements to non-profit reuse circuits upon end of use. An initiative working in this direction is the European Commission’s recommendations on public procurement for a circular economy.[14] The Barcelona City Council is a good example of an institution that has collaborated with reuse circuits. The contribution of the council is not only in the donation of unused computers, but also through promoting demand by using sustainable public procurement.[15] Should countries or regions want to develop socially responsible public procurement processes, a first step is to try to set up “buying clubs”, more formally known as procurement consortia.[16]

Setting up procurement consortia can help by aggregating purchasing power to place demands on suppliers so that labour and environmental rights are respected in manufacturing processes.

The demands from public procurement and procurement consortiums have a knock-on benefit for the everyday consumer, because changes in manufacturing processes will apply to retail products, too.

There may be a need for new criteria to be developed for auditing processes in procurement practices to ensure that public procurement complies with a set of environmental and human rights standards in product purchasing decisions.

Responsible public procurement can be combined with sustainable investment practices by public investors (e.g. pension funds) to strengthen their leverage when engaging with the manufacturing industry.

Public taxes should incentivise the circular economy. Tax incentives for options such as rental, rent-to-own or rental purchase, leasing and pay-per-use instead of purchase should be explored.

Taxation can also have negative environmental consequences. Some examples are given below.

Value-added tax (VAT) favours purchase: While in a linear economy, the full product value is paid upon sale, in circular models, revenue will be obtained over a longer period of time. According to a study on policy measures needed to promote circular revenue models:

Under the current tax regime […] producers operating rent-purchase relationships with customers still need to pay VAT on all projected revenues obtained during the rental period, as rent-purchase is seen as a deferred supply of a good.[17]

VAT favours new products: VAT may be paid more than once for second-hand or recycled products if they are taxed in the same way as new products in every transaction involving the product. As the same study points out:

To stimulate use of second-hand, refurbished, remanufactured or recycled products, VAT could be excluded or significantly decreased for product (parts) that have already been sold once. To make this work, information on product properties, among which the ratio of new versus reused components and materials, is essential in order to achieve this, e.g. by using material passports.[18]

Servitisation, as discussed in Module 8, shows that in some cases, procurement can be implemented as a service contract for a number of computing units with certain capabilities instead of entailing “ownership” of the devices themselves. This is one way to avoid the negative environmental impacts of VAT tax regimes that favour the purchasing of new products.

 

Footnotes

[1] Ostrom, E. (2009). A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. The World Bank. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1494833; see also Finlay, A. (Ed.) (2010). Global Information Society Watch 2010: ICTs and environmental sustainability. APC & Hivos. https://giswatch.org/en/2010 and Finlay, A. (Ed.) (2010). Global Information Society Watch 2020: Technology, the environment and a sustainable world: Responses from the global South. APC & Sida. https://giswatch.org/2020-technology-environment-and-sustainable-world-responses-global-south

[2] Raworth, K. (2012). A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490

[3] Interreg Europe Subtract. (2020). Good Practices. Newsletter #2. European Union. https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1595484272.pdf

[4] European Commission. (2013, 8 July). European resource efficiency platform pushes for 'product passports’. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/policies-matters/eu/20130708_european-resource-efficiency-platform-pushes-for-product-passports_en

[5] Roura Salietti, M., Flores Morcillo , J., Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). Reusing computer devices: The social impact and reduced environmental impact of a circular approach. In A. Finlay (Ed.), Global Information Society Watch 2020: Technology, the environment and a sustainable world: Responses from the global South. APC & Sida. https://www.giswatch.org/node/6270

[6] Wilts, C. H., Bahn-Walkowiak, B., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2018). Waste prevention in Europe: Policies, status and trends in reuse in 2017. European Environment Agency. https://doi.org/10.2800/15583

[7] Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission). (2017). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of the Circular Action Plan. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a3115190-ed26-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1

[8] European Commission. (2015). Closing the Loop: An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614

[9] European Commission. (2016). Communication from the Commission – Ecodesign Working Plan 2016-2019. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/20375

[10] Bovea, M. D., & Pérez-Belis, V. (2018). Identifying design guidelines to meet the circular economy principles: A case study on electric and electronic equipment. Journal of Environmental Management, 228, 483-494. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479718308855  

[11] ITU-T. (2020). Recommendation L.1023: Assessment method for circular scoring. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1023-202009-I/en

[12] Wilts, C. H., Bahn-Walkowiak, B., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2018). Op. cit.

[13] Center for International Environmental Law and International Pollutants Elimination Network. (2020). Financing the Sound Management of Chemicals Beyond 2020: Options for a Coordinated Tax. https://ipen.org/site/international-coordinated-fee-basic-chemicals

[14] European Commission. (2017). Public procurement for a circular economy: Good practice and guidance. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/circular_procurement_en.htm 

[15] Roura Salietti, M., Flores Morcillo , J., Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). Op. cit.

[16] Electronics Watch. (2020). Public Procurement in Times of Crisis and Beyond: Resilience through Sustainability. https://electronicswatch.org/public-procurement-in-times-of-crisis-and-beyond-resilience-through-sustainability_2579299.pdf

[17] Copper8, Kennedy van der Laan, & KPMG. (2019). Circular Revenue Models: Required Policy Changes for the Transition to a Circular Economy. https://www.copper8.com/en/circulaire-verdienmodellen-barrieres

[18] Ibid.

Module 12: Challenges and ways forward for policy action – use, reuse and e-waste

Government policies are necessary to ensure that digital devices are used for as long as possible and then properly recycled and also to facilitate these processes. All stakeholders, from governments to manufacturers to users of digital devices, have a responsibility to the environment and to vulnerable people.

Usage and extended life span

As discussed in Module 8, the life span of a digital device can be divided into the first-use and reuse phases. 

First-use phase

Goal and targets

The goals in a circular economy are to use a device for as long as is practically possible, to be able to easily repair a device so as to extend its first use, and for the user to be able to dispose of the device in a responsible way at the end of the first-use phase.

Responsibilities

The responsibility for the better and longer use of a device, and its proper disposal, lies with the user of the device. Governments can support better use through regulations and incentives, through tax reform, and by building the capacity of downstream operators in the reuse circuit. Companies can support the better use of a device through transitioning to circular accounting practices, tracking devices in an inventory, and maintaining them properly.

Procedures

There are several considerations in the first-use phase. One is that single-owner use is socially and environmentally costly.

Equipment sharing has the potential for higher use rates, as witnessed in Finland.[1] Meanwhile, non-profit servitisation computing providers allow environmental responsibility to be shifted from end-users to the service supplier (as owner), while creating a demand for more durable and modular devices to facilitate repairability and upgradeability.[2]

However, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 16, which came into effect on 1 January 2019, inhibit leasing. These standards dictate that, in addition to lessors, lessees are now also obliged to report on leased products with a value higher than USD 5,000. This will negatively impact debt, leverage and solvency ratios.[3] IFRS standards are required in more than 140 jurisdictions and used in many parts of the world,[4] which is an obstacle to circularity.

Circular revenue models (CRMs) carry risk from a traditional financial perspective, which needs to be mitigated. According to a study on policy measures needed to promote CRMs:

The changed financial nature of CRMs makes them more risky from a traditional financial risk assessment point of view. CRMs are characterised by recurring periodic revenue streams and therefore longer payback periods. They also represent a value shift from assets to contracts. […] It is difficult for investors to attribute values to the opportunities regarding circular business models – such as longer product lifetime and higher residual values. Inversely, the risks ascribed to operating with CRMs – such as balance sheet extension, and uncertain income streams in case of B2C [business-to-consumer] models – are dominant.[5]

Government budgeting also makes circular models more difficult to implement. As the same study notes, the structure of governmental budgets sometimes makes it difficult to operate with CRMs (investment vs. operational budgets). This results in governments choosing purchase instead of engaging in more CRMs, when they could be setting an example and playing a major role in the transition towards a circular economy.[6]

Depreciation of digital devices in accounting limits the circular economy. To correct this, this tax revisions might be necessary:

Businesses are stimulated to depreciate products quickly and down to €0, as this increases the tax benefits that they can obtain. This rapid depreciation lowers the perceived market value of used products, which is a barrier to the development of a circular economy for which used product value is a necessary precondition. Furthermore, depreciation standards also limit the maximum length of rental, lease or pay-per-use periods.[7]

With respect to proper disposal, public and private organisations should publish audited environmental impact reports. Without audits, all claims are just marketing. In Europe, the European Commission non-financial reporting directive[8] requires large public interest entities with over 500 employees (listed companies, banks and insurance companies) to disclose certain non-financial information. There are guidelines on reporting climate-related information to promote more sustainable activities. These reports should translate into tax penalties or benefits.

Reuse

Goal and targets

The reuse sector is key for extending the life span of digital devices, working towards social inclusion, and expanding access to devices for a wider range of the population. As discussed in Module 8, once a device has reached the end of the first-use phase, it can be refurbished to extend its usefulness for different purposes. Working parts can also be scavenged from no longer usable devices for reuse in other devices, and parts can be recycled to recover secondary materials.

Responsibilities

Social enterprises can develop sustainable operations to implement circular consumption models that generate good quality jobs for social inclusion. Governments can create incentives for the reuse sector. Businesses can support reuse initiatives through corporate social responsibility and other programmes.

Procedures

There are several policy considerations in relation to reuse. For example, current tax structures impact on repair and resale and may be inherited procedures and policies from linear models. In particular, there is a need to reconsider the tax structures impacting on labour and resources. In the EU, 51% of tax revenues come from labour taxes, while only 6% come from resource taxes. As the abovementioned study on policy measures to promote CRMs explains:

A shift of taxes from labour to resources will stimulate the adoption of circular business models as maintenance, repair and refurbishing activities are labour-intensive and resource-extensive. [...] Rather than taxing labour, a carbon tax can be initiated which will tax the use of natural resources and pollution.[9]

In addition, fiscal or tax incentives should be considered for activities with a reported impact for the common good (socio-environmental), such as the donation of devices (similar to tax deductions for charitable organisations) and for activities that help to extend device life spans (such as incentives for repair and reuse by individuals and organisations). These incentives should reward adding value instead of throwing devices away, or device use-and-share models that benefit society and the environment, instead of ownership.[10]

The European Right to Repair campaign, repair.eu, advocates for zero tax – including value-added tax (VAT) – for repair and refurbishment, as the social and environmental benefits exceed the amount of tax paid.

Another point to consider is that several social enterprises working on the collection, refurbishment, maintenance and recycling of devices are necessary. One single person (especially a volunteer) or a single organisation (such as a social enterprise) cannot serve all the needs for refurbished devices. We need several diverse organisations to attend to supply, especially for the industrial-volume management of devices from organisational donors that act as umbrella organisations for a group of social enterprises. The Flanders region in Belgium, which already had circular economy activities in 1993, has more than 120 reuse centres managed by 31 social enterprises. These have the strong support of the regional government and local authorities.[11]

In addition, long-term agreements for the guaranteed supply of devices for reuse are essential for the sustainability of the activity, and this requires hard work on institutional relations with governmental activities and programmes and companies to collect devices.[12]

In Spain, the eReuse community has developed public agreements for donation, wherein the City of Barcelona agrees to donate all their unused (end-of-use, inactive) devices to a federation of social refurbishment organisations (referred to as the Pangea circuit). The devices offered by the city council are distributed across the participant organisations according to capacity and demand, after triage for reuse or recycling. The devices refurbished for reuse must go to vulnerable users, usually supported by a social organisation.[13] All devices should be recycled at the end of their life span.

Data is critical in the reuse value chain. Reuse without traceability for accountability that promotes final recycling becomes an environmental problem, as recycling cannot be enforced. This requires policies to avoid “environmental impact laundering” or “CO2 laundering”. There are software tools to collect data and identifiers of devices; to keep a device inventory across different users, such as records of usage and key milestones during the life span of a device (registration, repair, data wipe, transfer to a new user, upgrade, final recycling);[14] and to generate overall impact reports. The Pangea eReuse circuit commits to reporting traceability information back to the City of Barcelona, which records information such as extended usage hours and final recycling. This allows for the resulting social and environmental impact from a donation to be estimated.

Data also helps us to measure the social benefit of a reuse centre as an activity. According to a 2018 study by Samenwerkingsverband Sociale Tewerkstelling,[15] the reintegration of one unemployed person through a reuse centre or a social enterprise generated EUR 12,000 in net return to the government and society.

Funding research and experimentation to prolong the life span of digital devices and enable their reuse, as is the case in Finland,[16] is another recommended procedure.

As a measure to help economic sustainability, social enterprises that achieve certified social and environmental benefits should be able to benefit from environmental impact bonds[17] and social impact bonds set up for public investment.

E-waste

Goal and targets

The ultimate goal should be that a device that is no longer useful to anyone can be dismantled and recycled with minimal negative impact on the environment. Extracting useful parts and the maximum amount of useful secondary raw materials, as circular resources for the repair or manufacture of other devices, is the aim of the circular economy.

Responsibilities

Governments are responsible for regulating the recycling of e-waste, including the recovery of parts and materials and restricting e-waste dumping.

Manufacturers have a producer’s responsibility for the proper recycling of their devices that are sold, used and disposed of in markets.  

Users who own their devices, including organisations, companies and institutions, have the responsibility to deliver these devices to recycling centres or initiatives that can recycle them in the proper way.

Procedures

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal provides a global regulation of hazardous waste shipments to countries, which also applies to e-waste. However, the definition of waste is not always clear. As a result of different socioeconomic needs, e-waste in one country can be an e-resource in another, with the possibility of discarded digital devices being repaired or reused. The negative side of this ambiguity in definition results in e-waste being exported to countries that cannot handle it, with devastating social and environmental consequences. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020 states:

The distinction of whether something is waste or not, and therefore intended for reuse, is a longstanding discussion under the Basel Convention. […] A final consensus has still not been reached concerning the definition of waste.[18]

“Bilokos”

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, there is no policy for the recycling of computer or telephone equipment, which is done informally. For many years, informal traders have imported second-hand goods from Europe for resale in Africa. Commonly called “bilokos” (or “below cost”), imported second-hand computers typically have manufacturing defect,s but after some repair they are sold at low prices to allow those have limited budgets to purchase a device. Even large stores selling new electronic products have maintenance departments that repair defective computers that are then sold.

E-waste policies, legislation and regulations protect formal and informal workers, the public and the environment. However, not every region and country has policies for recycling digital devices in place. According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2020, as of October 2019, 71% of the world’s population was covered by a national e-waste policy, legislation or regulation. Less than half of all countries in the world were covered by a policy, legislation or regulation at that time.[19]

Picture3.png

Figure 12: Countries coloured green had national environmental protection laws specifically designed for e-waste in 2019. (Source https://globalewaste.org/map)

Moreover, waste legislation often inhibits the reuse of e-waste because, formally, only certain authorised actors can return something that was declared e-waste as a useful e-resource. In the European Union, for example:

The current Waste Framework Directive (WFD) definition of waste dictates that a substance owner’s behaviour determines whether a resource is seen as waste instead of the substance’s properties. Under this legislation too many substances are classified as waste, and innovative repurposing is not taken into account. When a substance has been classified as waste, one is prohibited to trade, mediate, transfer or receive it without registration or permit.[20]

Recommendations are therefore necessary to strengthen policies on e-waste management.

All this points to the need to advocate with the government to set up an e-waste management system (legislation, regulation, monitoring) to regulate the recycling of digital devices and the handling of those that cannot be recycled according to established standards. If devices are recycled prematurely, manufacturers and recyclers should pay the social, environmental and economic costs (future opportunity cost) of having to manufacture new devices. If devices are recycled badly (for example, due to insufficient investment), this results in the non-recovery of many materials that cost more to extract through mining than the value of the raw materials obtained.

According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2020,[21] e-waste legislation or regulation must include:

Some other mechanisms and issues to consider are:

In addition to advocating for an effective e-waste management plan, civil society has a specific role to play in:

 

Policy action template checklists

 

Mining and extraction

Design and manufacturing 

Procurement

Use, repair, reuse

Recycling and management of e-waste

Import/export, taxation

Local community

Converting informal workers to formal workers through cooperatives or social enterprises

Local labour unions in manufacturing factories

Local buying clubs, procurement consortia

Diverse communities, repair networks 

Cooperatives or social enterprises

Not applicable

Environmental activists and NGOs

Independent monitoring of mines, public campaigns

Public campaigns for ecodesign and circular design, independent monitoring of repairability and durability

Promote socially and environmentally responsible practices and accountability

Promote socially and environmentally responsible practices and accountability

Promote socially and environmentally responsible practices and accountability

Promote socially and environmentally responsible practices and accountability

Regulators

Auditability, certification

Auditability

Auditability

Auditability

Extended producer responsibility

Auditability

Policy makers

Regulation, monitoring, incentives, penalties

Type approval

Promotion of responsible public procurement and procurement consortia

No taxes on repaired devices

National e-waste policies 

Circular economy policies that incorporate taxation

Public institutions

Awareness of and sensitivity to risks, responsibilities

Awareness of and sensitivity to risks, responsibilities

Responsible public procurement

Incorporated into public procurement, responsible maintenance, responsible disposal (maximise reuse over recycling)

Responsibility for environmental and social impacts, accountability

Preference for local suppliers

Brands and manufacturers 

Corporate responsibility for supply chain

Design for repairability, interoperability

Transparency for individual and volume buyers

Documentation, accountability, spare parts

Documentation, extended producer responsibility

Compliance with national and international standards, transparency

 

 

 

 

Mining and extraction

Design

Manufacture

Procurement

Use, repair, reuse

Recycling and management of electronic waste

Education and awareness

 

 

Manuals

 

Public education

 

Economic instruments

Carbon tax

 

Material consumption tax, carbon tax

Carbon tax

Carbon tax, differentiated VAT rate for reuse and repair

Waste disposal tariff,

landfill tax

Information-based

Open data reporting

Certification of secondary (recycled) materials input

Labelling on % raw materials input, recyclability, repairability, durability, chemical and material composition

 

 

 

Requirements and regulation

Transparency around sources, labour and environmental conditions

Durability, repairability, recyclability (ecodesign)

Extended producer responsibility, transparency around sources, labour and environmental conditions

Sharing economy

 

EOL-RR[27]

final disposal quota, waste shipments

Public provision

Public research and development

Public research and development

Public research and development

Green public procurement, public research and development

Public research and development, depreciation rules, public education

Public research and development, separated collection

Private provision

Open data, auditing

Open-data, auditing

Open-data, auditing, service manuals

Circular leasing

Open data, auditing

Open data, auditing

Citizens/CSOs

Monitoring

Monitoring

Monitoring

Monitoring

Monitoring

Monitoring

 

Appendix 3. Related existing policy recommendations

There are several global frameworks for policy on digital devices worth mentioning, which include the following examples.

In response to the e-waste challenge, ITU-T Resolution 200 was revised at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference in Dubai, 2018, which established the Connect 2030 Agenda. This agenda is a global initiative headed by the ITU. It sets out the shared vision, goals and targets for global telecommunication and information and communication technology (ICT) development that member states have committed to achieve by 2030.

Among other targets, the Connect 2030 Agenda has called for such goals as “By 2023, increase the global e-waste recycling rate to 30%” (Target 3.2) and “By 2023, raise the percentage of countries with an e-waste legislation to 50%” (Target 3.3).

The Connect 2030 Agenda is linked to the ITU Strategic Plan for 2020 to 2023, ensuring that technology serves humanity and the planet by means of bold goals: growth, inclusiveness, sustainability, innovation and partnerships.

In January 2020, the ITU also issued ITU-T Recommendation L.1470: GHG emissions trajectories for the ICT sector compatible with the UNFCCC Paris Agreement. This recommendation, developed in collaboration with GeSI, GSMA and the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), provides ICT companies with trajectories relating to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the targets outlined in the Paris Agreement. Additional specificities on the trajectories are set out in a document that accompanies the recommendation, Guidance for ICT companies setting science-based targets.

The term "net zero" is increasingly used to describe a more comprehensive commitment to decarbonisation and climate action, moving beyond carbon neutrality and often including a science-based target on emissions reduction, as opposed to relying solely on offsetting.

As discussed in this module, the UN’s Basel Convention aims at suppressing the trade in hazardous waste, including e-waste. In terms of waste, the Convention is useful to develop national policies. Its objectives on e-waste are to:

Finally, a report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The Macroeconomics of the Circular Economy Transition,[28] provides domestic policy recommendations for countries seeking to make this transition, including:

Picture2.png

Summary of policy coverage in selected studies. Source: OECD (https://doi.org/10.1787/af983f9a-en)

 

Footnotes

[1] Wilts, C. H., Bahn-Walkowiak, B., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2018). Waste prevention in Europe: Policies, status and trends in reuse in 2017. European Environment Agency. https://doi.org/10.2800/15583  

[2] ITU-T. (2021). Recommendation L. 1024: The potential impact of selling services instead of equipment on waste creation and the environment – Effects on global information and communication technology. ITU. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1024-202101-I/en; for an example of a servitisation model, see the eReuse case study in this guide.

[3] Copper8, Kennedy van der Laan, & KPMG. (2019). Circular Revenue Models: Required Policy Changes for the Transition to a Circular Economy. https://www.copper8.com/en/circulaire-verdienmodellen-barrieres

[4] Including South Korea, Brazil, the European Union, India, Hong Kong, Australia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Russia, Chile, Philippines, Kenya, South Africa, Singapore and Turkey.

[5] Copper8, Kennedy van der Laan, & KPMG. (2019). Op. cit.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] European Commission. (2017). Commission guidelines on non-financial reporting. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/non-financial-reporting-guidelines_en

[9] Copper8, Kennedy van der Laan, & KPMG. (2019). Op. cit.

[10] Roura Salietti, M., Flores Morcillo , J., Franquesa, D., & Navarro, L. (2020). Reusing computer devices: The social impact and reduced environmental impact of a circular approach. In A. Finlay (Ed.), Global Information Society Watch 2020: Technology, the environment and a sustainable world: Responses from the global South. APC & Sida. https://www.giswatch.org/node/6270  

[11] European Commission. (2019, 18 November). Leading the way in closing the loop: Circular Flanders. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-eco-innovation/policies-matters/leading-way-closing-loop-circular-flanders_en

[12] For a more in-depth exploration of this issue, see the Nodo TAU case study in this guide.

[13] Roura, M., Franquesa, D., Navarro, L., & Meseguer, R. (2021). Circular digital devices: lessons about the social and planetary boundaries. In LIMITS ’21: Workshop on Computing within Limits. https://computingwithinlimits.org/2021/papers/limits21-roura.pdf

[14] Franquesa, D., Navarro, L., López, D., Bustamante, X., & Lamora, S. (2015). Breaking barriers on reuse of digital devices ensuring final recycling. In Proceedings of EnviroInfo and ICT for Sustainability 2015. Atlantis Press. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-env-15.2015.32   

[15] Samenwerkingsverband Sociale Tewerkstelling. (2018). Sociale tewerkstelling met de reguliere economie.. https://docplayer.nl/19740199-Sociale-tewerkstelling-in-synergie-met-de-reguliere-economie.html

[16] Wilts, C. H., Bahn-Walkowiak, B., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2018). Op. cit.

[17] Thompson, A. (2020, 2 July). Environmental Impact Bonds: Where are they now? UNC Environmental Finance Center. https://efc.web.unc.edu/2020/07/02/environmental-impact-bonds-where-are-they-now

[18] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). http://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GEM_2020_def_july1_low.pdf  

[19] Ibid.

[20] Copper8, Kennedy van der Laan, & KPMG. (2019). Op. cit.

[21] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). Op. cit.

[22] RREUSE. (2016, 28 April). Spain first country to set target to stop reusable goods ending up in landfill. https://www.rreuse.org/spain-first-country-to-set-target-to-stop-reusable-goods-ending-up-in-landfill

[23] Fernández Protomastro, G. (2013). Minería Urbana y la Gestión de los RAEE. Ediciones Isalud. https://sigraee.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/libro-raee-completo.pdf

[24] RREUSE. (2016, 28 April). Op. cit.

[25] Wilts, C. H., Bahn-Walkowiak, B., & Hoogeveen, Y. (2018). Op. cit.

[26] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). Op. cit.

[27] EOL-RR is the end-of-life recycling rate, or the share of a material in waste flows that is actually recycled (from an output perspective).

[28] McCarthy, A., Dellink, R., & Bibas, R. (2018). The Macroeconomics of the Circular Economy Transition: A Critical Review of Modelling Approaches. OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/af983f9a-en

Case study - Transitioning to the circular economy in the South Asia region: A phased policy approach for Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan

By Syed Sultan Kazi and Tarun Pratap, Digital Empowerment Foundation 

Introduction

The South Asian region, comprising eight nations, has for decades faced a burgeoning problem of e-waste, the result of large population sizes, the ever-growing problem of rampant digital consumerism and the dumping of unusable electronics. India is one of the top three global generators of e-waste. However, as in other countries in the global South, the bulk of its e-waste goes unprocessed, and the recycling that is done is mostly by the informal sector.

While the region currently lacks policy drive to push for a circular economy, a few nascent trends – especially from India – could trigger the urgency needed in transitioning from a linear economic model for the digital device sector. 

The burgeoning problem of e-waste in the region

Mobile usage data patterns are indicative of increasing digital device consumption in the region, and the unmanageable accumulation of e-waste and its related harmful effects on people and the environment. In January 2021, Bangladesh had 165.8 million mobile connections, which reflected an increase of 1.1% in a period of 12 months. Internet penetration was at 28.8% of population.[1] Sri Lanka had 30.41 million mobile connections in January 2021, which increased at the rate of 2.1% in the previous year. Internet penetration was at 50.8% of the population.[2] Pakistan had 173.2 million mobile connections, increasing at 4.2% over the previous year, with internet penetration at 27.5%.[3] India had 1.10 billion mobile connections, increasing 2.1% from the previous year. Internet penetration stood at 45%.[4] 

Meanwhile, Bangladesh produced 0.40 million tonnes of e-waste in 2018.[5] It is estimated that the e-waste generated in the country could go up to 4.62 million tonnes by 2035.[6] In 2019, 3,230 kilotonnes of e-waste were generated in India, while 433 kilotonnes were generated in Pakistan in the same year.[7] Sri Lanka generated 138 kilotonnes of e-waste in 2019.[8]

The processing of e-waste in the region is largely reliant on informal sector activities for collection, dismantling and recycling. This is related to several social and economic factors. For one, many consumers in developing countries are unfamiliar with the concept of returning end-of-life digital devices and paying for their disposal. Second, many developing countries receive both legal and illegal imports of large quantities of e-waste brought in as second-hand devices. Third, there are often low levels of funding and investment in e-waste recycling systems at the local level, which results in deficient infrastructure for e-waste management and recycling. And fourth, the lax implementation of e-waste regulations in countries has enabled the informal economy to expand in the recovery and trade of valuable secondary raw materials extracted from e-waste.[9]

A study by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India and KPMG called Electronic Waste Management in India found that computer equipment accounts for almost 70% of e-waste, followed by telecommunication equipment such as phones (12%), electrical equipment (8%) and medical equipment (7%), with household e-waste accounting for the remainder.[10] Because e-waste collection, transportation, processing and recycling are dominated by the informal sector, all the materials and value that could be potentially recovered in a formal system are not. The informality of the sector also leaves serious issues regarding the leakages of toxins into the environment and the safety and health of workers unattended.[11]

A lack of country-level e-waste policies

India

Though there is increased understanding and recognition of the need for proper e-waste management, presently India is the only country in the region with e-waste legislation, although other countries are considering legislation. In India, laws to manage e-waste have been in place since 2011 and mandate that only authorised dismantlers and recyclers collect e-waste. A target-based extended producer responsibility and liability clause with financial penalties has started showing positive results on formalising waste collection in the country.[12] There are 312 authorised recyclers in India with the capacity for treating approximately 800 kilotonnes of waste annually.[13]

Bangladesh

There are currently no regulations specifically dealing with e-waste in Bangladesh. However, the government has given top priority to the preparation of the “Electrical and Electronic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules”, first drafted in 2011. In addition, it has drafted a National 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) Strategy incorporating some aspects of e-waste management. Furthermore, two Rules, the Hazardous Waste Management Rule (under preparation) and the draft Solid Waste Management Rule (prepared and in the consultation stage) could also accommodate the issues related to e-waste.[14]

Pakistan

Pakistan has no policy for managing e-waste. The Ministry of Environment oversees the environmental protection and movement of chemicals and waste. The informal recycling sector is very active, and a number of workers, including children, earn their living by dismantling the electronic scrap and extracting valuable metals.[15]

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka also does not have policies focusing specifically on e-waste. However, the Central Environmental Authority is the main institution responsible for e-waste management under an order of 2008.[16]

From e-waste management to a circular economy

In South Asia, India is the only country to take formal steps towards a circular economy in e-waste management, a recent effort in mid-2021. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology drafted a policy paper in May 2021, called “Circular Economy in Electronics and Electrical Sector”,[17] inviting public comments from stakeholders until June 2021.

The draft paper highlights the following key objectives related to the circular economy of e-waste in India:

The draft policy’s emphasis on the circular approach is beneficial at many levels. The movement towards a circular and resource-efficient model compared to the traditional linear model of production, use and disposal has the potential for business savings for businesses willing to leverage the economic benefits of circularity.  

Reduced extraction of raw materials because of circularity also has the potential to reduce the pressure on scarce resources, which has social benefits such as limiting the displacement of communities due to mining and the avoidance of conflict minerals.  

The draft paper highlights that the focus of circularity needs to be across the life cycle of a digital device, from raw material acquisition, to product design, component manufacturing, product assembly, acquisition and use, e-waste collection systems, dismantling, recycling and the recovery of secondary materials. This makes it different from other e-waste management policies, which only tend to focus on the disposal, reuse and recycling of digital devices.

Accelerating the roadmap towards circularity of digital devices in the region

The linear and circular economic approaches are not antithetical or extremes in national economic planning and action. A judicious application of circular approaches in economies in the region could create a blended and sustainable economic model. Blending the linear with circular elements in the information and communication (ICT) device sectors could create an alternative economic growth paradigm and a phased approach to complete circularity in the economy, without an immediate shock to the economic system with unintended negative results.  

Table 1 outlines, broadly, the potential benefits of moving from a linear to a circular economy for digital devices in South Asia.

Table 1. Potential benefits of moving from a linear to a circular economy for digital devices in South Asia

Policy approach

Benefits

Status

Linear approach in digital devices and to social and market development

New vendors, new markets, new sources of revenue, tax generation, industrial push, growth in economy, jobs and employment

Mainstream process in South Asia and currently in priority

Circular approach in digital devices and to social and market development

New vendors in circularity, new and broader markets, new tax and revenue systems and potentials, broad-based contribution to economy, upliftment of society including through digital inclusion and employment, environmental benefits, preservation of scarce rare earth elements

Not a mainstream approach in policy decision making and implementation, exists in a different avatar in the market for second-hand digital devices.

Transitioning to a circular economy for digital devices in the region

There are several key needs to make the transition to a circular economy effective in the region:

Formalisation of the informal sector

The formalisation of the informal sector is key to policy change in the region. In 2019, 140 million smartphones were sold in India and around 40 million to 50 million of them were second-hand phones. In terms of sheer size, India and China are the biggest second-hand phone markets. However, both the United States and Europe have bigger refurbishment markets, as they have laws and systems in place.[19]

The formalisation of the informal sector would require a number of stages. It needs to start with identifying the major clusters of activity within the informal sector. Once the clusters are identified, the next stage would be to federate the disparate members within the cluster and also to identify the various processes within these groups. Specific awareness programmes should also be developed. Hands-on training and upskilling and the development of process efficiencies are important steps towards the formalisation process.[20]

The integration of the informal sector into the formal economy would require building trust and relationships as well as identifying and strengthening the linkages between the two sectors for holistic management. Further, the cost structure of the informal sector would change radically with the introduction of certain processes which were not a part of their value chain. This would require the support of the government in terms of the provision of financial aid, including easing access to credit, the provision of financial incentives such as subsidies, and the introduction of insurance schemes.[21]

Conclusion

The circular economy of digital devices can be instrumental in decoupling digital economic growth from natural resource constraints and increasing societal needs. This would require planning new financing models and policy approaches that can accelerate collaboration to scale up the digital circular economy in key sectors in the region and across global value chains.

Decision making at the highest political executive levels is what determines policies, programmes, implementation and impacts. These decisions are influenced by market revenues, including tax revenue and export-import earnings. These are intricately linked to national and local economic strengths and employment numbers, and they drive industrialisation. Therefore, policy change has multiple impacts on the status quo and the current course of economic development.

The other factor determining policy change is vested political interests and lobbying. This creates red tape and priorities in policy development, in the garb of working in the “national interest”. However, aggressively pursuing a linear and vendor-driven approach to economic development does not easily address wider digital inclusion challenges. Instead, the move to a circular economy in the digital device market would better achieve broad-based social, environmental and economic inclusion objectives in the region.

Through greater collaboration, multinationals, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), entrepreneurs, academia, trade unions, civil society and associations could create a circular economy for digital devices in South Asia – the world’s most populous region – where the waste is designed out, the environmental impact is reduced, and decent work is created for millions.

Footnotes

[1] Kemp, S. (2021, 11 February). Digital 2021: Bangladesh. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-bangladesh

[2] Kemp, S. (2021, 12 February). Digital 2021: Sri Lanka. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-sri-lanka

[3] Kemp, S. (2021, 11 February). Digital 2021: Pakistan. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-pakistan

[4] Kemp, S. (2021, 11 February). Digital 2021: Sri Lanka. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-india

[5] Centre for Environmental and Resource Management (CERM) & Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET). (2018). Assessment of Generation of E-Waste, Its Impacts on Environment and Resource Recovery Potential in Bangladesh. https://doe.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/doe.portal.gov.bd/page/1f58f60a_51d9_46c0_9fa1_79b7b565db05/2020-10-01-13-02-e522e1499ac288d119a6f7ae16c7f7d0.pdf

[6] Ibid.

[7] Forti, V., Baldé, C. P., Kuehr, R., & Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). http://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/GEM_2020_def_dec_2020-1.pdf

[8] https://globalewaste.org/statistics/country/sri-lanka/2019

[9] International Labour Organization. (2014). Tackling informality in e-waste management: The potential of cooperative enterprises. https://www.ilo.org/sector/Resources/publications/WCMS_315228/lang--en/index.htm

[10] Bandela, D. R. (2018, 13 October). E-Waste Day: 82% of India's e-waste is personal devices. Down to Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/waste/e-waste-day-82-of-india-s-e-waste-is-personal-devices-61880

[11] Ramanujam, V., & Nepoleon, D. (2020). E-waste issues and challenges in India: A study on management perspective. Mukt Shabd Journal, 9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340933732_E-WASTE_ISSUES_AND_CHALLENGES_IN_INDIA_A_STUDY_ON_MANAGEMENT_PERCEPTIVE

[12] Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology. (2021) Circular Economy in Electronics and Electrical Sector. Government of India.  https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Circular_Economy_EEE-MeitY-May2021-ver7.pdf

[13] Pandey, K. (2020, 3 July). E-waste to increase 38% by 2030: Report. Down To Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/waste/e-waste-to-increase-38-by-2030-report-72114

[14] Pariatamby, A., & Victor, D. (2013). Policy trends of e-waste management in Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 15, 411-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0136-7 

[15] Ibid.

[16] Auditor General’s Department. (2017). Electronic Waste Management in Sri Lanka.  http://www.auditorgeneral.gov.lk/web/images/audit-reports/upload/2016/performance_2016/e_waste/Electronic-Waste-Management-in-Sri--Lanka----Performance-and-Environmental-Aiudit-Report_1-E.pdf

[17] Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology. (2021). Op. cit. 

[18] Singh, S. G. (2020, 14 October). International E-Waste Day: Why India needs to step up its act on recycling. Down to the Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/waste/international-e-waste-day-why-india-needs-to-step-up-its-act-on-recycling-73786

[19] Ahaskar, A. (2020, 9 March). China, India biggest second-hand phone markets, says Cashify COO. Mint. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/china-india-biggest-second-hand-phone-markets-says-cashify-coo-11583741070674.html

[20] Chaturvedi, A., Arora, R., & Ahmed, S. (2010). Mainstreaming the Informal Sector in E-Waste Management. Urban, Industrial and Hospital Waste Management Ahmedabad. https://www.nswai.org/docs/Mainstreaming%20the%20Informal%20Sector%20in%20E-Waste%20Management.pdf

[21] Ibid.

Acknowledgements

This guide to the circular economy of digital devices was developed by a working group of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) network, led by Leandro Navarro (UPC and Pangea), Syed Kazi (Digital Empowerment Foundation) and Shawna Finnegan (APC). Publication of the guide was coordinated by Maja Romano and Flavia Fascendini. The guide was edited by Alan Finlay and proofread by Lori Nordstrom. All visuals were designed by Cathy Chen.

Modules and case studies were developed by Leandro Navarro, Mireia Roura and David Franquesa (UPC and Pangea), Syed Kazi (Digital Empowerment Foundation), Jes Ciacci (Sursiendo), Florencia Roveri (Nodo TAU), Peter Pawlicki (Electronics Watch), Alejandro Espinosa (Computer Aid), Patience Luyeye (APC individual member), Rozi Bakó (Strawberrynet), Julián Casasbuenas and Plácido Silva (Colnodo), and YZ Yau (Centre for Information Technology and Development).

The guide was translated into French by Morgane Boëdec, Karine Ducloyer and Florie Dumas-Kemp, and into Spanish by Clio Bugel, María Laura Mazza and Florencia Roveri.

A guide to the circular economy of digital devices was produced through APC's Technology, environmental justice and sustainability initiative, funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Ford Foundation.

ISBN: 978-92-95113-44-2
APC-202110-APC-R-EN-DIGITAL-334