E-Waste and Sustainability

A few years ago, I hosted a dinner for some friends at home, in Nairobi. As we tried to sort out the music situation, one of them noticed the seriously old VCR sitting neatly among all the other slightly newer equipment under the TV. He burst out into incredulous laughter- he couldn't remember the last time he'd seen a VCR. To be honest, I'd never even thought of tossing it, even though it's completely out of use.
A couple of years after that, at grad school in Boston, we got a number of emails from seemingly helpful fellow students, looking to "donate" their 3- or 4 -year old laptops to "kids in Africa....If you're going to be anywhere on the continent, please let me know. It's in really good condition, but I just need to move onto something newer and lighter." There is nothing wrong with donating a used laptop to helpless kids on a "poor" continent...or is there?

These memories have got me thinking quite seriously about how we dispose of all our old equipment and gadgetry- especially as a larger percentage of the population move into US-like levels of consumption of new generation phones, and the broader population is subjected to increasingly cheap, short-life products.

The problem with e-waste is mainly the danger to human health and the environment, with a number of compounds found in e-waste found to contain cancer causing elements. (Thanks to ewaste guide for this comprehensive list). This problem is further compounded when this waste finds its way to the developing world, with most   (if not all countries) lacking the capacity to deal with it. It thus becomes a threat to human health and the environment, very much like outright dumping of toxic waste in the developing world. (See Trafigura Incident here.)

In mid September 2014, in Geneva Switzerland, the ninth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal will convene. The overarching objective of the Basel Convention is to protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. Coming into force in 1992, it has been slow to agree basic definitions on hazardous waste, and, as with all multilateral environmental agreements, has no power of enforcement. Hence the toxic waste dumped by the multinational firm, Trafigura, that caused the deaths of many in the Ivory Coast, as well as long term health problems, has never been physically cleared from the country. Neither have those who suffered terribly been properly addressed and compensated.

Among the issues to be discussed is international guidelines on e-waste. These have been contentious for a number of reasons, chief among them is that new and emerging economies, backed by some industry players, would like electronic products that have not yet come to the end of their lives to be deemed "non-waste"and thus be fit for export, with the exporting countries having no responsibility to the importing countries-- not even a notification that these products have a very limited shelf-life and that they will soon be waste products. It remains to be seen whether these guidelines will be adopted.

But on the local front, the issue of e-waste is already being discussed and implemented. In 2011, Safaricom partnered with the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) to launch a recycling  scheme in a bid to extend the life of its products. Several recycling spots were introduced all over the country, and the scheme has been pretty effective in collecting and refurbishing those phones that still had some life in them. In 2013, this partnership expanded, with the Communications Commission of Kenya working together to raise awareness on the dangers of poor disposal of e-waste (see press article here).

However, what happens to those products that are irreparable? Many times, these products end up in dumps, where young people scavenge for them and then melt them to try and regain the copper the products sometimes contain. The act of burning them releases toxic compounds that have been proven carcinogens, or are just outright poisonous like arsenic.  But even before the burning process, these "dead products" leak live deadly chemicals into the soil, compromising our food and water quality, and thus directly affecting our health and ability to reproduce healthy children.

In East Africa, Kenya leads in technology consumption,as seen in this chart.
 Looking at the slightly dated figures, Kenya (and, indeed the region) is not yet at dangerous levels. 



 But we don't need to get to these levels in order to do something.
"Something" could include:

• Conscious individuals NOT throwing away our old phones, DVD players, VCRs, and TVs until we know exactly where they go;
• Calling on the government to push for Basel Convention Regional Center for East Africa to be based in Kenya to encourage proper training on hazardous waste disposal, as well as the requisite tech transfer;
• Engaging the tech multinationals setting up shop on our soil to re-export end-of-life goods to the developed world, where there is the capacity to deal with these products sustainably;
• Encouraging other companies to establish recycling points for their products, if these products are still recyclable- like Safaricom has done.

Other suggestions are very welcome... so that we don't end up like this.

Creating Sustainability in Growing Consumerist Societies

I live in a generation and in a geographical location where I'm constantly thrown between wealth creation, consumerism and sustainability. My line of work is a perfect balance between a totally unsustainable jet-setting lifestyle, and the noble provision of information regarding ongoing sustainable development and environment negotiations around the world. The irony of the use of new technologies and media we employ to disseminate the information we gather from these on-site meetings never fails to escape me.
But the organization has heard good things about its work and the use of our reports in policy briefs which in turn influence decision-makers, so I sleep a little easier every night (even with the knowledge that my carbon footprint is huge- you can calculate your carbon footprint here, thanks to The Nature Conservancy).

In the year 2000, former UN Secretary General Koffi Annan proposed, and states agreed to, the millennium development goals (MDGs)- a set of 8 goals aimed at addressing the major challenges of the developing world to be achieved by 2015. Courtesy of the UN Millennium Development Goals website, these goals are:

Picture courtesy of Millennium Campaign Africa

Unfortunately, the world has failed to achieve most of the goals. This is due in part to the process that lead to the acceptance of the goals, and the potential unrealistic target dates given the rise in population and poor infrastructure in the most vulnerable countries and regions. But it is largely because these goals did not address the root causes of the problems, but merely treated the visible symptoms.

In the last 2 years or so, some conscious policy-influencers and decision-makers have been engaged in a process to create the new MDGs. These have been dubbed the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the process has been as rigorous as any that seeks to draw worldwide participation. The United Nations, that is leading this process, even asked for submissions and preferences through the MyWorld2015 survey (which some have found to be counter-intuitive to the cause of global sustainable development). Several other efforts over the last 2 years took place, in a bid to make this process as inclusive and participatory as possible. The entire process and the negotiations towards compromised, attainable goals have been conducted under the broad banner of the Post-2015 development agenda.

On 3 May 2014, the Open Working Group (comprising concerned member states of the UN and other stakeholders) tasked with working on the SDGs released the Zero Draft on the Proposed Sustainable Development  Goals. The draft includes a lengthy preamble containing states affirmations and reaffirmations on making the world a more equal place, as well as 17 distinct goals to be attained by 2030. These are:

1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

2. End hunger, achieve food security and adequate nutrition for all, and promote sustainable agriculture

3. Attain healthy life for all at all ages

4. Provide equitable and inclusive quality education and life-long learning opportunities for all

5. Attain gender equality, empower women and girls everywhere

6. Secure water and sanitation for all for a sustainable world

7. Ensure access to affordable, sustainable, and reliable modern energy services for all

8. Promote strong, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all

9. Promote sustainable industrialization

10. Reduce inequality within and among countries

11. Build inclusive, safe and sustainable cities and human settlements

12. Promote sustainable consumption and production patterns

13. Promote actions at all levels to address climate change

14. Attain conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, oceans and seas

15. Protect and restore terrestrial ecosystems and halt all biodiversity loss

16. Achieve peaceful and inclusive societies, rule of law, effective and capable institutions

17. Strengthen and enhance the means of implementation and global partnership for sustainable development

They strike me as being both noble and necessary. The Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform describes the goals as follows: "Sustainable Development Goals are ... action oriented, global in nature and universally applicable to all countries, while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities. They integrate economic, social and environmental aspects and recognize their interlinkages in achieving sustainable development in all its dimensions." This zero draft is the most recent of efforts to synthesise all the views  and priorities of UN member states. The fact that it is a zero draft reflects that fact that there is still more negotiation to be done.

It's a great effort, but perhaps what remains to be seen is whether these proposed goals: address the underlying concerns of systemic economic inequality; take into account the role, function, and knowledge of customary, indigenous and local communities; and smooth the road to a sustainably prosperous world for present and future societies. The last idea is one to be dwelt upon perhaps the most, as the promise of prosperity through the 20th century conjured up images of cars on wide paved roads, leisure trips via airplanes, big plates of rich food, big concrete houses and spacious offices in tall air-conditioned buildings, happy industries producing for local and international populations, and many other shiny things.

Much as it was a wrong initial vision, it is what people have come to accept and expect. It is the reason many young graduates will not consider blue-collar jobs. These are the measures of success for us, and for many in the developing world.

To erase that vision and replace it with bicycle rides to work, small vegetarian meals, do-it-yourself gardens, and containers converted into smart houses seems more like a rip-off than a reward for good behaviour.

What incentives can effectively elicit the desirable behaviour-change? Perhaps none. But what can be done, in order for 2030 to be a year of celebration and not of mourning (as 2015 will be) is to strive to change the education system right from the word go. Very much like the campaigns to recycle in the US were driven by school-going children, what must happen in the developing world is an effort to reprogram the minds of young children concerning what success looks like. If they believe that it is less about having "stuff" and more about experiences, then sustainability may be achieved in their lifetime. But education alone is not enough. Actions speak louder than words in text books: they have to see it in action. I only need one phone, but I have three. It is physically impossible for me to drive two cars at once, but I have them all the same.

What are you willing to give up to give the next generation a chance?