E-waste problem must be addressed urgently

There is waste and then there is electronic waste or e-waste. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that by 2030 the amount of e-waste generated will be north of 80 million tonnes.

Currently, it stands at 62 million tonnes. That is the equivalent of 10 million elephants, a truly bewildering number by any measure. Even more bewildering is the undisputed fact that, per WHO, only 22.3 percent of the e-waste pile goes down as formally collected and documented. Put simply, the e-waste problem is disconcertingly bigger than we could ever think or imagine. 

In fact, its weight is on a scale once imagined only in dystopian fictions. And it weighs down pretty heavily, with all indications suggestive of the fact that slapdash end-of-life disposal of electrical equipment is affecting our health and that of future generations. Albeit silently.

In Uganda, the toxic components of e-waste get into the country's air, soils and waterways with such absurd ease. To be clear, we are talking about plastics and a vast array of heavy metals here. Both have the potential to emit pollutants that are dangerous to human health and the environment. So it should not sit easily with us that the International e-waste Day goes unnoticed each October.

The 40,000 tonnes of e-waste the country generates annually—at least by the Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) and National Guidance ministry's guesstimate cannot be taken lightly. 

The government deserves credit for putting in place laws to address the growing e-waste problem. These include: E-Waste Management Policy (2012); E-Waste Management Guidelines (2016); National Environment Act (2019); and Waste Management Regulations (2020). But while putting together the laws did not come with a lot of conceptual baggage, they have—for all intents and purposes remained the very embodiment of a paper tiger. It is a classic case of all form and no substance. 

The government can, we believe, achieve something truly impressive in form and substance if it showed a little more intent to address the problem of digital dumping. Old electronics from the global north effortlessly make their way into Uganda. The fine details of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, however, are unambiguous about the adverse effects of digital dumping.

The international treaty, which came into effect in 1992 and continues to count Uganda as a party, started red-flagging e-waste in 2006.The landfills dotting the country teem with evidence that it is terribly difficult to extend the lifespan of the old electronics we are accustomed to seeing in Uganda.

We understand that Uganda's status as a developing country means that the government will always find a seductive authenticity in trade-in programmes that dangle discounted rates for its population. It, however, makes little or no sense if the used electronics have little or no juice left to squeeze out of them. In such an eventuality, the electronics in question usually end up at a landfill in a jiffy.

State actors therefore have to aim for win-win situations when thrashing out agreements for trade-in programmes. Short of that, e-waste will continue to contribute the vast majority of toxins in our landfills. Electronics can only be recyclable, reusable and even rebootable when they have some juice left in them.