DESCARGADORES DE SOBRETENSIÓN

An ecosystem is an interconnected system made up of living and non-living constituents governed by the laws of nature. The e-waste industry resembles an ecosystem – the WEEEcosystem – as it is made up of interconnected and interdependent living – stakeholders involved – and non-living parts – resources, money, and infrastructure. There is a given set of governmental laws regulating the industry but also social laws which govern the WEEEcosystem. These laws, stakeholders, resources and infrastructure and their role within the complex network of SA’s WEEEcosystem, will be described in this chapter.

Firstly, the volumes and flows will be investigated to both define the extent of the problem and to plan for the future of its management. Thereafter the e-waste value chain will be discussed in terms of activities, technologies and role players involved. The legislative framework will then be outlined and finally, a glance into current and prospective e-waste management structures that will promote the establishment of a secondary resource economy for e-waste in SA.

5.1 _{E-waste Quantities & Flows}

Data quantifying the amount and main sources of e-waste generated and recycled is important for effective e-waste management systems through industry development and planning (Godfrey & Scott, 2010). This includes informing technological infrastructure design and feasibility, as well as identifying suitable product markets. However, there is a lack of reliable and consistent data available as the industry (Bob et al., 2017; Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, 2018). This is attributed to the infancy of the industry and therefore that of its information systems (Lydall, Nyanjowa & James, 2017).

5.1.1 E-waste Databases & Reporting in South Africa

The South African Waste Information System (SAWIS) is a national repository for waste information. SAWIS was implemented on a voluntary basis since 2006, due to the lack of mandatory waste information regulations at the time. Therefore, the national dataset is both incomplete and unverified as only a fraction of waste companies were reporting regularly (DEA, 2012).

89

The national waste information regulations were put forward in 2012 – six years after the implementation of SAWIS (NEMWA, Act No. 59 of 2008. Regulation, 2012). However, these regulations only came into effect in 2014. Therefore, waste information reporting was mandatory only for the last four years (Godfrey & Oelofse, 2017). Furthermore, compliance with or enforcement of these regulations remains an issue in producing accurate waste information for the country (DEA, 2012).

Existing provincial repositories for waste information include the Integrated Pollution and Waste Information System (IPWIS) for the Western Cape; and the Gauteng Waste Information System (GWIS). These repositories were developed before the SAWIS and were planned to be aligned with the SAWIS in 2009/10 (South African Waste Information Centre, 2016).

An Environmental Risk Officer from an institution of higher education (interview, 2017) explains that institutions in the Western Cape are required to report all hazardous and general waste generation volumes through IPWIS every month. The reporting of waste volumes is conducted both internally for the institutional records, as well as externally for municipal records.

The reporting of waste volumes on IPWIS initially only included medical and biological risk waste. In 2015, hazardous chemical wastes were also included in the reporting, and only in 2016 did general wastes need reporting. The Environmental Risk Officer (interview, 2017) further explains that the general waste data currently reported at the institution is not completely accurate even after two years of reporting. This implies that institutions may take a couple of years to properly establish a waste management information system. Furthermore, the accuracy of the data is compromised during the initial stages of its establishment.

Additionally, institutions are faced with internal pressures and often cannot keep up with increasing expectations regarding waste management legislation. An example of this is illustrated in the quote below.

“It’s just in the last year or so in Properties and Services [department at the institution], we’ve been running around with our heads chopped off. I mean, all of our portfolios have expanded somewhat and just running to a standstill quite often. And also,

90

government demands have been increasing, which is good. It’s a good thing, but it just makes your life a bit more difficult.”

- Environmental Risk Officer (interview, 2017)

Moreover, waste management is not given high priority in terms of resource allocation in institutions, leaving them understaffed and/or underfunded. This is one of the main barriers to good waste management practices in private industry (Godfrey, Scott & Trois, 2013). Private waste companies and municipalities experience these constraints specifically for data collection and reporting, according to Godfrey & Scott (2010).

Institutions are required to contract registered waste service providers for their waste management needs. Ideally, volumes reported by generators will tally up with volumes reported by registered waste contractors or handlers. This could potentially be successful with larger businesses or institutions. However, smaller businesses and household generators do not use the IPWIS system, and thus will not report their generated volumes. Furthermore, their waste will likely end up in municipal landfills or waste drop-off sites, which is currently not recorded in the IPWIS system.

The purpose of the waste information within institutions, other than mandatory reporting is primarily for anticipating collection logistics (Environmental Risk Officer, interview, 2017). However, there is little evidence of the conversion of this waste information, for e-waste specifically, into changes within the institution. This is due to the relatively low and erratic e-waste generation volumes, making any efforts futile. An additional purpose for waste information is to provide a chain of custody or traceability of e-waste. This is useful for legal audits, preventing the trade of stolen goods, and for reporting the origin of materials recycled in the chain. The latter is used in ‘closing the loop’ initiatives.

Waste information in terms of generation and recycling rates remains a useful tool in assessing the industry and planning its development. However, it can only be useful if the information is accurate and complete. The next section will discuss the generation and recycling trends for the e-waste industry in SA.

91

5.1.2 E-waste Generation & Recycling Rates

As mentioned previously, there is no accurate and complete waste information dataset in SA, however, there are some reported estimates of generation and recycling rates for e-waste. Reported volumes and growth rates of e-waste generated and recycled in SA use different estimation methods and data sources. Some of these estimated values are reported in Table 15. The most recent estimates by Koekhoven (2015) and Baldé et al. (2017) agree on the volume of e-waste generated in SA which was over 320 000 tons in 2016. However, it is unclear whether the methods used to determine these values were similar.

Koekhoven (2015), reports a volume estimation obtained from an interview with Keith Anderson, the chairperson of eWASA. Anderson suggests that only 12 % of e-waste was recycled in 2015, which amounts to approximately 40 000 tons. This low recycling rate is attributed to the majority of e-waste being inaccessible as it is either in storage or ending up in municipal landfills, according to Anderson (Koekhoven, 2015). Furthermore, poor collection infrastructure, a poorly integrated collection network, high cost of transport, and lack of consumer awareness, all contribute to the inaccessible e- waste volumes (Finlay, 2005; Widmer & Lombard, 2005; Finlay & Liechti, 2008; GreenCape, 2018).

The recycled volume estimated by Anderson in Koekhoven (2015) is more than double the amount estimated to be recycled in 2015 by the 27 firms that participated in the e- waste technology landscape study (Lydall, Nyanjowa & James, 2017). This may be true as the companies participating in the study only represented a fraction of the total e- waste recycling firms in SA. Furthermore, assuming Anderson’s claims are based on insights received from his 100+ members listed on eWASA’s website; his estimation may be more representative of the industry.

Four years earlier, the DEA reported a much lower e-waste generation volume of only 64 000 tons in 2011. Reasons for this low estimation may be due to the old, incomplete and unverified data sources used, dating back to 2005 (DEA, 2012). Furthermore, the many variables such as population growth, increased accessibility, decrease in product lifespans and rapid advancements in technologies, resulting in increased consumer demand, can all explain the lower generation value compared to more recent studies.

92 Table 15: Estimates of e-waste generated per annum from different sources

E-waste Generated &