|
There's a Saying About People Who Live
in Glass Houses...
It's curious that for a group that claims to be the champion of responsible recycling, the Basel Action Network (BAN) devotes so much of its energy to thwarting the efforts of other organizations and individuals that are succeeding in finding comprehensive and sustainable solutions to the global problem of retired and end-of-life electronics.
R2 Solutions and BAN/e-Stewards share many of the same objectives, and the two standards have many common requirements. There are, however, some substantial differences where BAN and e-Stewards are quick to throw stones, when quite frankly, their own standard misses the mark - primarily regarding the promotion of reuse.
Reuse - the primary point of difference.
Reuse is by far the most environmentally friendly choice for electronic equipment that can be functional and that would be reused for a significant time - even BAN acknowledges this fact. But the BAN/e-Stewards approach places far greater emphasis on shredding and destroying potentially useful equipment. While they may claim this isn't so, some of the requirements in their standard make it so in practice. Their dogmatic opposition to refurbishment and reuse in developing countries is in complete opposition to what is agreed to be the better way...reuse before recycling.
Have some recyclers been involved in illegal exports and dumping of toxic material? Absolutely, and that must be stopped. But bans are not effective solutions, they never have been - think Prohibition; lots of enforcement effort that is always a step behind those intent on ignoring the ban. Even BAN has stated that in Europe, where the Basel Ban Amendment is law, far too much unworkable electronics equipment is shipped to developing countries.
BAN's efforts have failed to be effective because BAN has misidentified the problem, which is the plight of the poorest people in developing countries who will risk exposure to potential health hazards in order to meet their immediate need of providing for their families - which they do by salvaging from electronic dumping grounds. BAN is trying to solve the environmental and health aspects of the problem, but fails to address the underlying cause - poverty. The R2:2013 Standard encompasses a more comprehensive and holistic approach that addresses all aspects of the problem: environmental, health and economic.
The R2 Standard doesn't turn a blind eye to illegal shipping - far from it. A core R2 tenet is that illegal shipments must stop. R2 promotes a better, more sustainable solution by allowing responsible R2 Certified recyclers to work with developing countries, where legal, and provide training and tools for groups who are eager for the opportunity to learn and practice the same responsible recycling standards that exist in developed nations. We're already seeing the benefits of this approach. Retired electronics that are considered of lesser value in one country are being refurbished and finding a lengthy second life in another. And economic opportunity, along with access to affordable computers, phones and other devises are connecting people to the information age and helping to provide a means of escape from poverty.
BAN'S "War on Words" misses the bigger picture.
One of the first and most difficult questions confronting the original multi-stakeholder group that developed R2 was how to take the Basel Convention language about what materials can be hazardous and try to "translate" it into a standard that electronics recyclers could comprehend without hiring an international lawyer and "Basel-savvy" chemist.
The result was a list of types of equipment most likely to contain the sorts of materials and substances that most people would agree are hazardous under the Basel Convention. This was not an effort to ignore the Convention, as BAN well knows since they were one of the stakeholders involved in the discussion. On the contrary, it was an effort to bring the Convention to bear on the real-world, everyday lives of electronics recyclers.
The term "focus material" was a compromise. The challenge was that much of the equipment in question is not typically considered hazardous during its useful life, which raises questions about what makes it hazardous upon retirement. So the multi-stakeholder group settled on the term focus material. The Standard defines it as "materials in end-of-life electronic equipment that warrant greater care during recycling, refurbishing, materials recovery, energy recovery, incineration, and/or disposal due to their toxicity or other potential adverse worker health and safety, public health, or environmental effects that can arise if the materials are managed without appropriate safeguards." This is a long-winded way of saying the stuff may be hazardous ("toxic") or otherwise harmful if it is not managed properly after retirement. Though BAN expresses concern about the use of the term focus material, they do not identify any types of electronic equipment as hazardous other than those covered by the R2 term.
Other problematic points of difference.
One of the most egregious shortcomings related to any of the currently available electronics recycling certification is BAN's decision to include facilities who are not certified on their map of certified recyclers. Listing facilities who are only "under contract" with a certifying body is, in effect, a reincarnation of the old "pledge" program that fell into serious disrepute. A "contract" with a certifying body is like an appointment to get your car fixed. For many e-recyclers, it is an indication of a true desire to improve their practices and get certified. For others, it is an easy way to get listed on the e-Stewards website. This is an unacceptably misleading practice on the part of BAN and it should stop.
BAN's effort to demonize all points of difference does not advance the cause of responsible recycling. Reasonable people recognize that there can be multiple, equally effective methods to reach the same end. Some electronics recyclers who have implemented RIOS, ISO 9001 & 14001, and OHSAS 18001, find that RIOS has been more helpful as a management tool than the combination of the other standards because it takes an integrated, all-in-one approach. The bottom line is this: R2:2013 provides different management options that will accomplish the same goal -- transparent and verifiable health and safety standards and practices that protect workers and protect the environment.
R2 doesn't just preach continual improvement, it practices it. As an open standard, R2 welcomes input from all stakeholder parties - it helps make R2 a continually better standard. BAN, however, disingenuously raises "issues" which have minimal to no merit, while demonizing those who seek to point out deficits in their own standard. If BAN's mission was truly first and foremost to see responsible reuse and recycling standards practiced across the globe, it would work with other like minded parties, and celebrate their achievements to that end.
| 
