Editorial 1: Unpacking the new set of e-waste rules
Context:
- The burgeoning problem of managing e-waste is a cross cutting and persisting challenge in an era of rapid urbanisation, digitalisation and population growth. The first set of e-waste Rules was notified in 2011 and came into effect in 2012.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR):
- An important component of the Rules (2011) was the introduction of EPR. Under EPR compliance, ‘producers’ are responsible for the safe disposal of electronic and electric products once the consumer discards them.
- E-waste rules 2016, which were amended in 2018, were comprehensive and included provisions to promote ‘authorisation’ and ‘product stewardship’. Other categories of stakeholders such ‘Producer Responsibility Organisations’ (PRO) were also introduced in these rules.
E-Waste (Management) Rules 2022 :
- In November 2022, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEFCC) further notified a new set of e-waste rules, which will come into force from April 1, 2023. These rules address some of the critical issues but are silent on others. The first main chapter of the rules includes the provision of an EPR framework, the foremost requirement being the ‘Registration of Stakeholders’ (manufacturer, producer, refurbisher and recycler).
- The earlier rules placed importance on seeking authorisation by stakeholders, but a weak monitoring system and a lack of transparency resulted in inadequacy in compliance. For example, most of the ‘refurbishers’ or the ‘repair shops’ operating in Delhi are not authorised under the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) of India.
- Further, many formal recyclers undertake activities only up to the pre-processing or segregation stage, and thereafter channelise e-waste to the informal sector, which is a pure violation of law.
- A ‘digitalized systems approach’, introduced in the new rules (2022), may now address these challenges. Standardising the e-waste value chain through a common digital ‘portal’ may ensure transparency and is crucial to reduce the frequency of ‘paper trading’ or ‘false trail’, i.e., a practice of falsely revealing 100% collection on paper while collecting and/or weighing ‘scrap’ to meet targets.
Myopic with the informal sector left out
- Two important stages of ‘efficient’ e-waste recycling are
- component recovery: adequate and efficient recoveries of rare earth metals in order to reduce dependence on virgin resources
- residual disposal: safe disposal of the leftover ‘residual’ during e-waste recycling.
- The rules briefly touch upon the two aspects, but do not clearly state the requirement for ensuring the ‘recovery tangent’. Therefore, in order to ensure maximum efficiency, the activities of the recyclers must be recorded in the system and the authorities should periodically trace the quantity of e-waste that went for recycling vis-à-vis the ‘recovery’ towards the end.
- Further, the new notification does away with PRO and dismantlers and vests all the responsibility of recycling with authorised recyclers; they will have to collect a quantity of waste, recycle them and generate digital certificates through the portal.
- This move seems to be a bit myopic and can cause initial turbulence, where the informal channels may try and seek benefits from. PROs acted as an intermediary between producers and formal recyclers by bidding for contracts from producers and arranging for ‘certified and authorised’ recycling.
Role of informal sector:
- The informal sector, which plays a crucial role in e-waste handling, draws no recognition in the new rules which could be on account of its ‘illegality’. The informal sector is the ‘face’ of e-waste disposal in India as 95% of e-waste is channelised to the sector. Therefore, they also hold immense potential to improve the state of e-waste management.
- In the hierarchical process of e-waste collection, segregation and recycling in the informal sector, it is the last stage that poses a major concern where e-waste is handed over to the informal dismantlers/recyclers. The rest of the stages (collection of mixed waste, segregation of e-waste, clustered accumulation of e-waste according to their type) do not involve any hazardous practices and should in fact be strategically utilised for better collection of e-waste.
|
Conclusion:
- In order to ensure the efficient implementation of the law, stakeholders must have the right information and intent to safely dispose of e-waste. There is a need for simultaneous and consistent efforts towards increasing consumer awareness, strengthening reverse logistics, building capacity of stakeholders, improving existing infrastructure, enhancing product designing, rationalising input control, establishing a robust collection and recycling system on the ground.
Editorial 2: The New START treaty on pause
Context:
- On February 23, on the eve of the first anniversary of his country’s “special military operation” in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow was unilaterally suspending the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty with the U.S., stating that the West was trying to destroy Russia. Mr. Putin also said Moscow ought to stand ready to resume nuclear weapons tests if the U.S. does so, a move that would end a global ban on nuclear weapons tests in place since Cold War times.
A series of bilateral nuclear/ arms treaties:
- About half a decade before the end of the Cold War, the then leaders of the U.S. and the erstwhile Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, declared in a historic statement: “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
- While both Moscow and Washington were aggressive in their one-upmanship of expanding nuclear arsenals in the initial decades of the Cold War, they have engaged in bilateral talks since, and signed multiple treaties to shrink and keep checks on each other’s nuclear arsenals.
- The first formal dialogue, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) of 1969 aimed to limit strategic weaponry of both countries.
- The Anti-Ballistic Missile defence systems Treaty, which provided the shooting down of incoming missiles, was signed in 1972 but the George W. Bush administration unilaterally pulled out of the pact in 2002.
- Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), signed in 1991, expired in late 2009.
- Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty), was signed in 2002.
- The New START treaty, which replaced the 2002 pact, was signed in 2010 by former U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and came into force in 2011.
A new start to an old problem:
- The New START treaty was the last remaining nuclear weapons control agreement between the two powers who together hold 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal.
- It was extended for 5 years when current U.S. President Joe Biden took office in 2021. Under the Treaty, America and Russia cannot deploy more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads and more than 700 long-range missiles and bombers. It also limits each country to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and delivery vehicles.
- It allows each side to carry out up to 18 short-notice (32 hours) on-site inspections of strategic nuclear weapons sites annually to ensure the other has not crossed the limits of the treaty.
- Under the agreement, Russia and the U.S. exchange data twice a year on the ballistic missiles under the treaty’s purview, on bombers, test sites, nuclear bases and so on. The treaty also mandates the two parties to send notifications within five days if they change or updates something in their stockpile, like moving missiles to a new base or deploying a new warhead to the system.
- According to The Washington Post, after first coming into effect, the pact gave Washington and Moscow 7 years to reduce their stockpiles, including nuclear warheads that are launched using long-range missiles, submarines, and bombers. In 2018, both nations met the arms limits prescribed by the pact.
- Inspections under the treaty, however, have stalled in the past 3 years; they were first put on hold in 2020 owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Moscow and Washington were due to discuss the restarting of inspections in 2022 end, but this was postponed by Mr. Putin. There has been no development in this regard since.
Why Russia pulled out of New START:
- Mr. Putin said in February 2023 that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the U.S. wanted to “inflict ‘strategic defeat’ on Russia and “try to get to our nuclear facilities at the same time.”
- Mr. Putin argued that while the U.S. had pushed for the resumption of inspections of Russian nuclear facilities under the treaty, NATO allies were helping Ukraine mount drone attacks on Russian air bases hosting nuclear-capable strategic bombers.
- He also put another condition on the table before any return could be made to negotiations. He said the nuclear weapons of Britain and France were part of NATO’s nuclear capability but weren’t included in the U.S.-Russian pact.
- The Russian President also accused the U.S. of rejecting some Russian requests for visits to specific U.S. facilities. Meanwhile, in its New START annual implementation report 2023, the U.S. State Department stated that Moscow was not complying with the pact as it had not let Washington carry out on-site inspections.
Triggering an arms race
- Notably, since Mr. Putin has not withdrawn from the treaty and just ‘suspended’ it, which is a term not defined in the official pact, analysts are saying the move would not immediately trigger and arms race between the two powers, and could be a part of Russia’s political messaging amid the West’s massive assistance to Ukraine amid the year-long conflict.
- Evidently, the Russian administration also announced that it does not plan to breach the limits on warheads prescribed in New START. The Russian Foreign Ministry also said that it would continue notifying Washington of planned test launches of inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
- Observers say the move not only disturbs the fragile calculus of nuclear arms controls between the two largest nuclear powers but could also give an opportunity to other nuclear-armed countries, especially China and others like Pakistan, Iran, Israel, and India among others, to increase their arsenals.
Conclusion:
- In this context, India has to carry a balancing act between two nuclear powered superpowers while ensuring it does not get sucked into an arms race with its own nuclear powered neighbors.