Stemming the flow of e-waste to landfills and extracting sustainable value

In terms of the legislation, waste from electrical and electronic equipment – widely termed e-waste – can no longer be sent to a landfill for disposal and needs to be recycled. Alastair Currie speaks to Keith Anderson, CEO of eWASA, about his body’s role as a Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO) in managing the process, which includes interacting with municipalities.

What are some of the key developments leading up to eWASA’s registration as a PRO?

KA In March 2021, the Minister of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) gazetted the new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) regulations, which came into effect on 5 November 2021, with wide-sweeping implications and obligations for not just manufacturers of electrical and electronic equipment – but also distributors, retailers and wholesalers – to take back and recycle all types of end-of-life products. There was a six-month window to enable industry to make preparations.

Prior to this, a great deal of public and private stakeholder engagement had taken place over a period of years in negotiating the finalisation of an Industry Waste Management Plan for ours and other sectors in accordance with a Section 28 Notice issued in terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (No. 59 of 2008). eWASA was subsequently appointed as a PRO to manage EPR responsibilities in our sector, which in our case encompasses electrical and electronic equipment, lighting, paper and packaging. Just to clarify, there are other PROs in these fields, each with their own action plan.

Then, in 2020, the Minister announced the withdrawal of Section 28 and replaced it with the Section 18 EPR regulations. This went out for public comment, which led to the establishment of a Ministerial Task Team to iron out issues raised, on which I served as one of the advisory members as an e-waste industry representative.

Our overall mandate as eWASA is to ensure that e-waste, which falls into the hazardous waste category, does not pose a risk to the environment. Plus, there are major commercial opportunities, and we support government’s objectives to create employment and grow SMMEs in the recycling sector.

What progress has been made on EPR implementation?

From a PRO perspective, we’ve scaled up our capacity to manage the process. This includes advising our members on the steps required across the full value chain, from producers to dismantlers, refurbishers and waste pickers.

A key portion of the latter focus is on the packaging sector, collecting plastics, but there are a smaller number also collecting e-waste. In terms of the regulations, the PRO and producers are required to negotiate with the waste pickers and establish a collection payment scale. We have engaged with the South African Waste Pickers Association and the Association of Recyclers, as the two main representative bodies in the country, and are close to finalising an agreement. Part of the requirement is that all waste pickers will need to be registered. That’s beneficial in terms of knowing the numbers, plus it’s part of formalising the sector.

Another positive development is that every registered recycler will be able to claim back from the PRO for products recycled. An example could be a recycled product originally produced by a leading electronics manufacturer registered with eWASA. The recycler will be required to submit a materials recovery sheet to claim a refund.

Has the e-waste industry complied?

Yes and no. We have some exceptional examples of good corporate citizenship, where producers manufacture their products with lifecycle reutilisation as the starting point, and with passionate support for the EPR mandate. Generally, though, the response from producers has been mixed.

For producers, there are added cost implications since they now need to register with eWASA, or another sector PRO, and pay EPR fees to have their end-of-life products collected and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. However, we still have a situation where a high percentage of producers are not on board in terms of the regulations. This ‘free rider’ situation is unacceptable, as it unfairly prejudices paying members, many of whom are global manufacturers that currently pay millions in EPR fees.

The world’s best legislation is meaningless if it’s not enforced. So, from eWASA’s perspective – as a pioneer in promoting e-waste – we believe there needs to be more proactive enforcement by the DFFF. From our discussions, the department has indicated that it is scaling up its compliance division, but to date – to the best of our knowledge – no one has been prosecuted for non-compliance.

Are

municipal landfills complying?

Before I answer that, let’s ask the question: “Are domestic households currently separating their hazardous waste at source?”

The answer in many cases is no. And even where responsible citizens do separate at source, how many municipalities are equipped to collect and treat hazardous waste in terms of engineered disposal sites?

Against this background, the DFFE’s recent release of the draft Household Hazardous Waste Management Strategy for public comment prepares the groundwork. It will also clarify the gaps between EPR obligations and municipal landfill responsibilities.

The regulations make it clear. Fines can go up to R5 million and/or a 15-year prison sentence.

How is the PRO funded?

By September 2021, all PROs had to submit their EPR fee methodology for review by the Minister of the DFFE, followed by a final vetting process by the Minister of Finance and the issuing of a concurrence letter. We received our letter in July 2022. That put us a bit on the backfoot, but we are now moving forward with good traction.

Our current PRO plan approved by the DFFE runs for five years. In terms of the agreement, a portion of the EPR fees can be used to sustain the PRO on a progressively declining scale. In year one, which was 2022, it was a maximum of 20%. This year, it’s 15%, and from year three onwards 12%. The upside is that this encourages prudent expenditure. The downside is that for smaller PROs, it may not be financially sustainable longer term.

From eWASA’s perspective, each producer provides us with a five-year forecast and we have excellent industry support. Some 70% of the funds paid by producers are ploughed back in payment to certified recyclers who treat e-waste responsibly.

As a PRO, we are required in accordance with the regulations to form relationships with municipalities. The feedback we often receive is that they have insufficient funding, expertise and capacity, so industry must manage the problem. That’s clearly not practical. As in regions like Europe, e-waste needs an organised and systematic framework, and the central facilitator is the public sector. We need distinct colour-coded bags and collection bins for each designated waste stream.

eWASA’s response is that we can assist municipalities with technical advice on establishing disposal sites, and we can put them in touch with our certified recyclers. Plus, there’s a very willing waste picker segment that can be mobilised.

As part of the eWASA Foundation, we plan to roll out a series of online and in-person training programmes aimed at stimulating SMME development. We also plan to reach out to schools to educate children about e-waste, as well as install collection bins at these facilities. A portion of the funds from the recycled waste will be donated back to the schools.

And in closing?

E-waste recycling is a highly lucrative industry globally, and there are niche players in South Africa who are showing the way. Foremost though, it’s an environmental imperative and we must ensure compliance with the legislation – whether from imports or locally produced goods – and prevent e-waste going to landfill. From a PRO standpoint, our producers are committed to the process, but we need everyone on board, including the municipalities, to make it work.