On May 19th, 2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change released a new draft of the e-waste management rules. The draft, although a renewed version of the rules stated in 2016, was made public for reviews and feedback. The webinar organized by Karo Sambhav, in association with GIZ India, commenced with a serious analysis of the need for the proposed draft on e-waste management rules 2022.
Mr Pranshu Singhal, the notable founder of Karo Sabhav, resumed the session by raising a few questions for the panellists present. To begin with, Pranshu explained how the e-waste management rules of 2016 highlighted the importance of following a strategic approach to channel e-waste in a sound way. The role of consumers and the responsibility of producers and dismantlers in waste management was well outlined by the prior set of rules. Besides, the E-waste management rules, 2016 also suggested the importance and the urgency of establishing collection centres for an authorized accrual and disposal of waste. In addition to the pros, Pranshu also highlighted the misses in the regulation. For example:
The role of the informal sector in the management of e-waste was neither proposed nor implemented.
The lack of an all-actors approach has certainly stood out as a miss. For instance, the role of producers was clearly restricted to buying EPR certificates online.
A major flaw was the lack of clarity on the awareness of the rules. For example, the proposed rules failed to suggest how and on what levels the awareness of the rules will imply.
Regardless of the flaws, the former e-waste management rules of 2016 have brought forth some significant changes. These include:
A welcoming jumping in the EPR targets from 70% to 80%
Environmental compensation has crawled into 74 new categories from a mere 21 categories
Numerous collection centres have been established in the corners of the country, at least according to the data revealed by the CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board).
Religious and rigorous recycling of e-waste has stepped up from a few thousand tonnes to over three lakh seventy thousand tonnes in a short span.
Awareness campaigns for recyclers and dismantlers have shown massive progress.
Irrespective of the positive shift in the waste management scenario, Pranshu questioned the need and the intention behind the modification of the rules and also expressed that the new proposed draft of e-waste management rules, 2022, was disruptive.
As an answer to the founder’s concerns, a panellist went on to explain the purpose of the new e-waste rules. To begin with, the panellist revealed that one of the primary intentions behind the proposed new e-waste rules was to reduce the overwhelming regulatory burden on the board or the CPCB. He also added that a few years ago, a special committee was created under the stewardship of the ex-cabinet secretary to figure out ways to vindicate the government policies and environmental laws that make it less taxing as far as the implementation of the EPR regulations is concerned.
The panellist also addressed that the new proposed rules also intend to monitor the role of a few specific actors in the value chain pretty closely. Wondering why? Well, specifically, actors such as producers and recyclers who are directly associated with the implementation of EPR e-waste and for the downstream and upstream of investments. Think about it – a producer is bestowed with the responsibility of collecting, channeling, dismantling, and arranging an authorized recycling infrastructure to tackle end-of-life electronic goods. This is unquestionably a downstream investment for the producer or the manufacturer. For recyclers, on the other hand, it will always stand out as an upstream investment. With the new e-waste draft rules focusing on monitoring the aforesaid actors closely, it also ensures that the rules are incumbent on the producers and recyclers, encouraging them to be innovative and sizeable upstream and downstream investments, as necessary.
However, he continued, the informal sector has always played a crucial role in the dismantling and disposal of e-waste. Also, the evidence clearly shows that the informal sector will continue to thrive in its waste management mechanisms. But, with investments pouring in, it will be easy to transition into a much more healthy and robust recycling system. With this, the panellist concluded his answers to the questions regarding the formulation of the new e-waste draft rules, 2022.
Mr Pranshu took over and addressed another panellist to share ideas if she truly thinks that only two players across the entire value chain have the capacity to steer the big changes and solve the present problem of clueless waste management. The panellist kicked off the conversation by citing an example of the European Union, who had also had to recast their e-waste management rules, an equivalent termed as the WEEE Directive. Accordingly, there was recategorization introduced from 10 to 6; there were different target-setting formulas implemented, the calculation of targets for recycling was revamped, and more. However, all the changes exercised were backed by very detailed research. This is what leads to evidence-based policymaking. Unfortunately, the changes in the e-waste management rules in India 2022 lack the evidence or the research that clearly spells out that the whys and whats of the change have not been relayed in the rules. Also, the laws do not explain how the changes will be implemented or the mechanisms will be followed. Secondly, the panellist also expressed that while doing audits, she clearly witnessed a lack of trust in the system. Of course, as per the rules, manufacturers, importers, and business owners are mandatorily required to acquire an EPR certificate. But, whether or not the certificate is backed by the amount of e-waste collected and dismantled, the credibility of the certificate is still unclear.
The panellist also commended that the direction of the new rules is certainly worth appreciation. Especially with the inclusion of technology and compensation that oblige the actors in the value chain to comply with the EPR rules, and if not, non-compliance shall lead to compensation. However, she also highlighted how policymakers should build transparency and trust in the system too.
Comments