Getting green

Travel is a great educator. Only by venturing beyond the familiar is it possible to learn and appreciate alternative perspectives. Only last week was I able to fully appreciate the US horror at the terror attack on the World Trade Centre five years ago.

Two days in Rochester in the north of New York state, followed by a visit to Manhattan, was all it took to realise why the US was so hard hit by the 11 September attacks in 2001.

Rochester, with its lush and manicured lawns, elegant houses, leafy streets, comforting police visibility and obvious lack of walls, electric fencing, burglar bars, security gates and razor wire, contributes to creating a sense of safety, security and tranquillity that`s unknown in other parts of the world.

The vast construction site at Ground Zero was a grim reminder of the television images of the hijacked aircraft smashing into the twin towers. Suddenly, the full and shocking contrast between these images of destruction and death with the still fresh peacefulness of Rochester became apparent.

On an entirely different scale, a similar realisation occurred in the Xerox research laboratory complex in Webster, near Rochester, as a company representative outlined Xerox`s long-standing and comprehensive environmental, health and safety policy.

European and US concern for the impact of waste from computers and other electronic or electrical appliances suddenly made sense in that unfamiliarly ordered environment.

Is SA`s relative lack of concern for such matters a direct result of the social and political environment?

Perhaps not entirely, but there is definitely a link. Worrying about soil and groundwater contamination is probably a more natural thing to do for people who are not at risk of being hijacked in their driveways, as happened to a colleague last week.

While European and US-based companies like Xerox are actively involved in reducing their use of hazardous substances, optimising their use of energy and materials like paper, reducing emissions, and recycling waste, South African IT manufacturers appear to be doing relatively little.

A report on an assessment of e-waste in SA carried out two years ago says an increase in the access to electronic goods since 1994 has resulted in a rapid increase of e-waste. However, the report noted at the time that e-waste was a relatively new concept in SA. There is certainly no demand from the local market as there is overseas.

South African consumers do not share the same environmental concerns as their overseas counterparts. A relative lack of awareness and concern means there is less reason for manufacturers of goods for the South African market to be concerned about hazardous substances or safe recycling.

The founding of the South African e-Waste Association (eWASA) with the backing of the Swiss government in 2005 indicates some progress, but according to the e-waste guide published by eWASA, there is still no legislation regarding the handling or recycling of e-waste in SA.

There are few organised take back systems and little informal e-waste recycling due to strict precious metal regulations. The only initiatives that came to light after digging about on the Internet, were those set up by the Swiss government through eWASA.

Worrying about soil and groundwater contamination is probably a more natural thing to do for people who are not at risk of being hijacked in their driveways, as happened to a colleague last week.

Warwick Ashford

The Swiss Material Science & Technology Institute has set up similar programmes in China and India to increase recycling and the reuse of old technology as well as minimise the e-waste that ends up in landfills.

While the social and political environment has definitely played a role in SA lagging behind countries in the northern hemisphere, the lack of any firm legislation or directives is another important factor.

Concern about the harmful effects of hazardous materials in e-waste has led to the European Union adopting directives on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and the restriction of hazardous substances (ROHS) and some US states implementing e-waste legislation in the absence of federal legislation.

Although there is a higher market demand for environmentally friendly products in Europe and the US, directives like WEEE and ROHS and laws adopted by states like California have undoubtedly spurred action by manufacturers of electronic goods.

Perhaps it is time for SA to get real about the threats e-waste poses to the environment as well as the future impact the lack of any clear legislation could have on future trade with European and US companies.

Already, South African electronics manufacturers and exporters have to be compliant with the ROHS directive. It is only a matter of time before they will have to comply with standards adopted by other trading partners.

Xerox says its environmental policy is driven by a commitment to doing the right thing and being a responsible corporate citizen, but there is still a practical reason for any company to adopt such a policy.

In the absence of government legislation on the safe handling of e-waste, local business should follow the example of companies like Xerox in formulating an environment-friendly policy, if only to mitigate the risk of legal liability.

Xerox manager for environment, health and safety market support, Anne Stocum, says it is not a good idea for companies to wait until they are compelled by law to take action. Not only are they exposing themselves to legal liability in the mean time, but it would be impossible to make manufacturing and disposal processes environment friendly overnight.

Stocum says it makes sense for manufacturers to be out in front by anticipating local, national and international regulations to avoid having to re-engineer processes unexpectedly in future.

According to Stocum, the whole electronics industry is moving towards ROHS compliance at the very least. In the light of this trend, South African companies would be well advised to take action before it is too late.