Disincentivising Africa's Digital Dystopia - Economic 'High Roads' to Navigate the E-Waste Debacle Luveshni Odayar - The Brenthurst ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DISCUSSION PAPER 2/2020
Disincentivising Africa’s
Digital Dystopia
Economic ‘High Roads’ to Navigate
the E-Waste Debacle
Luveshni Odayar
Strengthening Africa’s
economic performanceDisincentivising Africa’s
Digital Dystopia
Economic ‘High Roads’ to Navigate
the E-Waste Debacle
Contents
Executive Summary .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 3
Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4
Engineered Ecosystems: Africa’s Electronic Quagmires .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4
The Economics of E-Waste: Exporting Externalities and Toxic Trade-Offs .. .. .. .. .. .. . 5
Economic Exit Strategies: Utilising Market-Based Instruments to Disincentivise Africa’s
E-Waste Dumping .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 6
Concluding Remarks: Making Waste Work for Africa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8
Endnotes .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10
About the Author
Luveshni Odayar is the cur-
Published in January 2020 by
rent Machel-Mandel at The Brenthurst Foundation
Fellow
The Brenthurst Foundation. She is (Pty) Limited
an MSc Sustainable Development PO Box 61631, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa
and Economics Tel +27-(0)11 274-2096
Environmental
graduate from the Sustainability Fax +27-(0)11 274-2097
Institute at the University of www.thebrenthurstfoundation.org
St. Andrews. All rights reserved. The material in this publication may not be
reproduced, stored, or transmitted without the prior permission of the
publisher. Short extracts may be quoted, provided the source is fully
acknowledged.
Layout and design by
Sheaf Publishing, Benoni.Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia Executive Summary E-waste is, at present, the most prolific waste stream in the world, predicted to reach 120 million tonnes by 2050 – of this, a staggering 76% is unaccounted for. Whilst largely undocumented, the illicit shipping of e-waste from developed to developing nations is a widely publicised phenomenon. Despite being signatories of the Basel Convention, poor legislation governing e-waste handling in Nigeria and Ghana have resulted in these countries becoming Africa’s major digital dumpsites, with the ports of Lagos and Accra respectively receiving 60 000 and 150 000 tonnes of illicit e-waste annually. In the age of innovation, current trends in digital turnover and consumption point to a continuation along this trajectory. A deficit in formal sector employment opportunities in combination with growing population numbers similarly creates market demand for e-waste within these countries, with urban mining presenting itself as a financially lucrative source of revenue. This discussion paper argues that, while economics may be driving the current globalisation of e-waste, it too may provide insights into how Africa’s electronic epidemic may be overcome. The concurrent problems of mounting e-waste, rising resource scarcity and the price instability of various minerals and metals required for electronics production emphasise the need for a transition towards a circular economy. The implementation of market-based mechanisms like Pigouvian tax, PES (payment for ecosystem services), and the institution of land rights to financially incentivise responsible waste handling could additionally prove useful in expediting the shift by providing financial incentives for sound e-waste handling, while the formalisation and governance of the urban mining sector under the under principles of EPR (extended producer responsibility) could incentivise producers to invest in developing the infrastructural capacity for sound recycling in developed nations like Nigeria and Ghana, thereby generating formal sector employment opportunities and just transitions towards sustainability. B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 3
Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
Introduction Engineered Ecosystems:
Africa’s Electronic Quagmires
We find ourselves in the midst of the digital era,
where a combination of rapid technological inno- If one were to contemplate the end of the world –
vations and decreasing production costs have what would it look like? Our current technocratic
made the possession of electronic goods and digi- trajectory necessitates little toil of the imagina-
tal technologies increasingly accessible to the tion – one need only look to Accra’s Agbogbloshie,
masses. A case in point – globally, more people own the global poster child of the e-waste debacle, to
mobile phones than flushing toilets,1 and the num- catch a preview of what ultimately could culmi-
ber of devices connected to the internet at a given nate in the end of the Anthropocene – formerly
moment outnumbers that of humans populating pristine wetlands and swamps transformed into
the planet. As simple logic in a linear economy
2
electronic quagmires, clean water customised
would dictate, the rapid increase in the production into chemical cocktails, radioactive earth in which
and consumption of electronic goods is accompa- nothing natural can grow, and an altered atmos-
nied by rapid increases in incumbent electronic phere effectively converting the planet into the
waste (e-waste). largest-known gas chamber. This begs the question
E-waste (defined as obsolete or defunct electri- – in the age of innovation, are we innovating our
cal and electronic equipment [EEE]), is, at present, own demise? And where globalisation facilitates
the most prolific waste stream in the world – 3
globalised waste, will Africa be amongst the first
the total volume of e-waste is predicted to exceed to suffer?
52 million tonnes by 2021, and to potentially reach
4
120 million tonnes by 2050.5 To make matters
worse, only 20% of generated e-waste is recycled. The rapid increase in the production
Of the remaining 80%, 4% forms part of household
and consumption of electronic goods
waste, while an overwhelming 76% is unaccounted
for (i.e. dumped, traded or recycled under sub- is accompanied by rapid increases
standard circumstances).6 Undocumented, whilst
legally obscure, does not equate to ‘off the radar’
in incumbent electronic waste
– the illicit export of e-waste from developed to
developing nations is a highly publicised prob- Nigeria and Ghana are recognised as Africa’s
lem. In Africa, for example, the port cities of Lagos major e-waste dumpsites.9 Despite being signa-
(Nigeria) and Accra (Ghana) are reported to receive tories of the Basel Convention (an international
60 000 and 150 000 tonnes of illicit e-waste imports treaty regulating the transboundary movement
respectively per annum , – the aforementioned
7 8
and disposal of hazardous waste), poor legislation
trends in this sector, therefore, are enough to fore- governing e-waste practices in these countries ren-
cast an electronic epidemic in Africa. Sustainability ders them vulnerable to exploitation by developed
activists have, for years, lobbied for the developed nations employing strict regulations within their
world to desist from electronic dumping in coun- own domestic confines.10
tries like Nigeria and Ghana. Yet in a world where In 2017, Nigeria produced 290 000 tonnes of
ever-evolving trends determine product life cycles e-waste, increasing by 170% against 2009 volumes.
and a proclivity for consumerism takes precedence Yet Nigeria receives most of its EEE from abroad.
over social and environmental consciousness, Every month, 500 containers, each carrying an
casting sole blame in such a manner necessitates approximated 500 000 used computers in addition
an unheard-of simplicity in an increasingly com- to other electrical equipment, leave Europe, the
plex globalised setting. Intellectual inquiry aimed United States and Asia, bound for the port of Lagos.11
at pioneering a sustainable path forward needs to Casting an already-dubious practice into further
navigate an economic bog typified by filthy shades disrepute, such imports often contain hidden or
of grey. falsely declared e-waste – for example, between
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 4Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
2015 and 2016, 69% of Nigeria’s incoming EEE consti- demand towards cheaper, second-hand devices.
tuted undeclared electronic equipment smuggled Coupled with the region’s low reparation costs,
in vehicles legally imported from Europe. Another
12
this demand has spawned a burgeoning re-use
study found that 25% of incoming EEE was dead market in poor developing nations across Africa,19
on arrival, and subsequently redirected straight to which in turn contributes to greater volumes of
dumps and dismantling sites.13 Similarly, Accra’s domestic e-waste owing to the shortened lifespan
Agbogbloshie, a slum and former wetland area, has of outdated devices. One needs also to consider the
been transformed into the world’s largest e-waste extent to which domestic consumption in Africa
dumpsite14 and the archetype of the techno- contributes to its digital dumps. A study investigat-
apocalyptic worst-case scenario. Exemplifying the ing the scope of West Africa’s impact on its e-waste
bitter end of the product value chain, it is hardly woes found that up to 85% of the e-waste in the
surprising that is has been dubbed a modern- region originated from within the countries them-
day Sodom. The vast volumes of e-waste entering selves.20 Given the fact that significant volumes
the country are often falsely declared as second- of e-waste imports are either wrongly classified
hand EEE – in 2016 alone, Ghana amassed 39 000 or undeclared, and that the often-defunct state
tonnes of e-waste. Each month, the port of Accra of working devices provides fleeting functional-
receives between 600 and 1 000 containers of EEE, ity, attributing this level of responsibility to West
only a fraction of which are functional. 15
In both Africa gravely distorts the nature of the dynamics
countries, electronic imports of no economic value at play.
are dumped or burned, releasing chemical toxins
and heavy metal pollutants that contaminate the
air, water and soil.16 An estimated 10 000 infor- The Economics of E-Waste:
mal labourers working in the informal e-waste Exporting Externalities and
recycling sector in each country are consequently Toxic Trade-Offs
directly exposed to hazardous chemicals, incurring
respiratory and dermatological problems, chronic It becomes apparent that globalisation has
headaches and lowered life expectancies , 17 18
– engendered a system that continues to crush
an electronic epidemic in the literal sense. It’s a the vulnerable poor. The narrative of the global
devil’s trade-off – wherein livelihoods are gained at north imposing its self-interest over that of the
dire personal cost. global south provides an age-old, if not hack-
neyed, surface-level explanation of events. Bearing
in mind the simple truth that money matters in a
Electronic imports of no economic global climate dominated by capitalism, it would
prove useful to unpack the economics underpin-
value are dumped or burned,
ning the current e-waste calamity.
releasing chemical toxins and A combination of growing demand for cheaper
products and cost-cutting measures in com-
heavy metal pollutants that petitive markets has yielded a blatant market
contaminate the air, water and soil externality – the failure to appropriately budget
for the mounting costs incumbent with proper
e-waste disposal. The cost of safe e-waste dis-
In conjunction with the illegal transboundary posal is substantial – while it costs around US$20
movements of e-waste, there currently exists a to safely dismantle and dispose of a single com-
significant demand for EEE in developing nations – puter in the United States, unsafe disposal of
individual EEE demands are on the rise across Africa the same item, via acid baths or open-air burn-
due to increases in disposable incomes; yet the ing, can be achieved for around US$2 in the
purchasing power parity in the region directs this developing world21. Overseas shipment costs less
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 5Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
than employing sound recycling domestically. Also contained within one tonne of cellphone
Furthermore, selling defunct products to ‘urban e-waste are 3kg of silver and 100kg of copper,
mining’ companies for [unsound] disassembling amongst smaller quantities of other recyclable
and recycling enables exporting agents to pre- metals.24 It has been disclosed that 14 metals
sent farcical commitments to pro-poor greening present in electronic products are currently in
endeavours through their supposed ‘outsourcing’ critical supply,25 presenting their extraction from
of e-waste recycling. With the sirenic allure of peak discarded devices as both a business opportunity
profit speaking to an innately human sense of and way of extending the finity of raw materials.
greed, the cost savings alone are enough to quash In addition to reducing the waste of recyclable
any ethical misgivings, prompting decisions to precious metals extracted from discarded elec-
export the negative externalities (attendant with tronics, it is also argued that the risks incurred
improper disposal) to poverty-stricken developing by the urban mining of e-waste are less than
countries. In short, economic agents in the devel- those suffered by traditional mining.26 Moreover,
oped world derive benefits from capitalising on it has also been demonstrated that the financial
rapid technological turnovers, yet do not bear the cost of recovering valuable metals from e-waste
full associated costs (i.e. social, environmental makes the urban mining sector more lucrative
and financial) attendant with product disposal. than virgin mining.27 Notwithstanding the costs
While electrical commodity consumption is a to social and environmental well-being, infor-
global process, the full spectrum of attendant mal urban mining, therefore, presents itself as
impacts is disproportionately distributed, with an attractive alternative to the traditional min-
the developing world hit hardest – in conjunction ing sector, and has led countries like Nigeria and
with saving a pretty penny, because exporting Ghana to pay abroad manufacturers for their
countries are not directly impacted by the social e-waste. It is a sordid rendition of a banal cli-
and ecological impacts of e-waste exportation, ché – ‘One man’s trash is another man’s [toxic]
they are not incentivised to internalise their treasure’.
waste-generating externalities. It becomes clear
that Africa’s current e-waste debacle is, simply
put, a symptom of market failure. Economic Exit Strategies:
Utilising Market-Based
Instruments to Disincentivise
Economic agents in the developed Africa’s E-Waste Dumping
world derive benefits from
In countries like Nigeria and Ghana, a deficit
capitalising on rapid technological in formal sector employment opportunities,
in conjunction with burgeoning urban popu-
turnovers, yet do not bear lation numbers, have resulted in e-waste
the full associated costs scavenging becoming a key livelihood strategy
despite its associated risks. It is, therefore, impor-
tant to simultaneously consider the challenges
Yet there are economic incentives driving emerging from contemporary e-waste flows,
the import of e-waste in developed nations too. as well as the opportunities it presents. Given the
This is because e-waste contains precious metals unrelenting prevalence of consumerist culture in
– for example, it is estimated that 1 tonne of cell- the digital age, the cost-cutting proclivities of eco-
phone circuitry contains more than 30 times nomic agents, and the need for revenue streams
more gold than is present in the same tonnage amongst informal workers in regions subject to
of mineral ore (at 150g per tonne compared to abject poverty, the African e-waste epidemic is set
5g per tonne) , and that up to 7% of the world’s
22
to continue, en route to the region’s digital demise.
gold is likely contained in e-waste devices.23 Understanding the economic factors driving
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 6Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
Africa’s digital dystopia, however, may provide personal gain, regardless of the long-term rami-
invaluable insights into ways in which econom- fications.28 Aligning with this phenomenon is
ics could be harnessed to thwart this trajectory by the concomitant market failure of free riding –
maximising the profitability of e-waste recycling because e-waste dumpsites are not subject to
and compelling agents to internalise their negative regulations, users accrue no additional costs or
externalities. The question then arises: in a world accountability when utilising this public resource.
where money matters, can we make money talk in Public resources refer to those which are non-
favour of sustainability? excludable (i.e. individuals cannot be barred from
consumption of that resource) and non-rivalrous
Pigouvian Payouts: Employing Game Theory (i.e. one individual’s consumption of the resource
Rationale to Incentivise Recycling does not restrict the consumption of others).
Drawing from economic game theory, in order E-waste dumping grounds, in fact, cannot truly be
to mitigate the generation of negative externali- deemed non-rivalrous owing to them being finite –
ties, one should strive to create solutions that are yet enduring societal failure to recognise the finity
Pareto-optimal (referring to an outcome in which of the resource, which results in it being exploited
further reallocation of resources benefits one party as non-excludable and non-rival, yields the exter-
at the expense of another). A transboundary policy nality of uncompensated social and environmental
of Pigouvian taxation, whereby economic activities costs.
generating socially or environmentally harmful
externalities are taxed according to the value of
the marginal losses sustained by the victims of the Electronic dumping grounds are
externalities, could be levied on e-waste export-
subject to the classic notion of
ers, thereby driving up the relative cost of shipping
noxious products abroad and making sound elec- the ‘tragedy of the commons’
tronic recycling the more financially lucrative
option. This tax would additionally increase pro-
duction costs and electronic commodity prices, Economists attribute this tragic market fail-
thereby lowering market demand amongst con- ure to the absence of well-defined property rights
sumers seeking to avoid the added cost stemming governing e-waste dumpsites. If the resource
from a pollution tax, creating further incentive for (in this case, land) were subject to clearly defined
e-waste reduction. This would effectively decrease property rights, it would be a much simpler pro-
the negative externality (i.e. environmental pollu- cess to broker agreements amongst landowners in
tion and incumbent health risks) associated with favour of long-term sustainability.29 For example,
the electronics market. landowners would be able to mandate payment,
to the value of costs incurred, for e-waste dis-
posal – in economic terms, the compensated
In a world where money matters, landowner would be incentivising the land users
to optimise the resource and internalise the nega-
can we make money talk in
tive externalities associated with digital dumping.
favour of sustainability? Forcing actors to internalise their individual costs
furthermore prevents the sharing of costs stem-
ming from public resource over-exploitation,
Tackling the Tragedy of the Commons whilst compelling agents to gain an understand-
Electronic dumping grounds are subject to the ing of the total costs associated with improper
classic notion of the ‘tragedy of the commons’, e-waste disposal.
a phenomenon central to sustainability describing
a situation in which individuals overexploit shared
finite resources in order to maximise short-term
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 7Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
The Potential for PES: Profiting off in eliciting regulatory response from non-point
Environmental Protection sources (e.g. multiple landowners).31 Economic
Assigning enforceable property rights to electronic incentive-based mechanisms like PES are, there-
dumpsites would have the additional benefit of fore, being increasingly proposed to safeguard
enabling landowners to participate in Payment for environmental capital whilst presenting landown-
Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes. PES initiatives ers with a financially lucrative alternative land-use
are a market-based instrument that offers land- option by facilitating a transition from an ecologi-
owners financial incentives for managing their cally erosive economy to one of stewardship.32
land in a way that ensures the continued provi- Furthermore, PES implementation, by engaging
sion of ecosystem services (a term referring to the previously non-participant actors in conservation
vital services humans derive from natural capital, efforts, inadvertently generates awareness about
such as water purification, carbon sequestration the value of natural capital whilst increasing com-
and flood prevention). The export of e-waste to pliance with global multilateral environmental
poor developing nations is problematic due to agreements.
the fact that these regions often lack adequate
infrastructure to facilitate proactive waste man- Circling Back to the Future: Pioneering a
agement – ensuant practices catalyse a virulent Circular Economy with Extended Producer
defilement of ever-dwindling natural capital and Responsibility
the critical ecosystem services this provides. In It is undeniable that the current ‘take, make and
developing nations, recycling operations typically dispose’33 model characterising today’s toxic
include the burning of non-biodegradable plastic trash trade negatively impacts environmen-
covers, or their submergence in acid, to enable the tal and societal health. According to the World
recovery of gold and other precious metals and Health Organisation34, this represents an histori-
minerals, as well as the burning of circuitry for the cal inflection point for both global business and
extraction of solder. Acid baths are subsequently
30
policymakers, where the prioritisation of demate-
dumped into surface water, tainting fresh-water rialisation and closed-loop systems (i.e. a system
ecosystems, whilst e-waste burning perniciously that deters overreliance on primary resources for
alters the atmospheric chemical composition. production), and innovating waste out of the pro-
duction cycle by mandating durable design and
sound recycling, presents a transitory (and there-
The export of e-waste to poor fore, pressing) opportunity to stave off worst case
scenarios – ultimately, this necessitates the sup-
developing nations is problematic
planting of the prevailing linear economic system
due to the fact that these with a regenerative circular economy.
Transitioning to a circular economy encom-
regions often lack adequate passes the following:35
infrastructure to facilitate
• Design: durability, reuse and recyclability
proactive waste management should influence the design of products.
• Buy-back Systems: the provision of buy-back
Command and control policies, involving the systems by producers incentivises consumers
establishment of legal norms together with legal to reduce their e-waste.
penalties for noncompliance, have traditionally • Recycling and Recapture: businesses and govern-
been enforced to deter economic processes driv- ments need to prioritise closed-loop production
ing environmental degradation. Such mechanisms, cycles in which old electronic components are
while effective in deterring the generation of incorporated into new products.
negative externalities from distinct point sources • Urban Mining: companies need to invest in
(e.g. industrial plants), are relatively ineffectual the sound extraction of metals from e-waste.
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 8Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
Developing nations need to develop unam- Concluding Remarks: Making
biguous and enforceable e-waste legislation Waste Work for Africa
aligning with global protocols of environmental
and societal health and safety. This presents Within the context of today’s globalised e-waste
an opportunity for economic growth in devel- sector, transitions towards a circular economic
oping nations through decent job creation in a model for electronics is predicted to yield sig-
formalised sector. nificant economic benefits – under this model,
• Reverse Supply Chain Logistics: a reverse supply consumer costs are projected to decline by 7%
chain model needs to ensure that recaptured by 2030 and 14% by 2040.37 Given the concurrent
materials do not deviate into the informal dilemmas of mounting e-waste streams, rising
sector. resource scarcity, and the price instability of vari-
ous metals and minerals required for electronics
Within the traditional linear economy, the prac- production, there is a growing economic appeal
tice of exporting e-waste (or shifting the costs of backing the transition. The concurrent implemen-
disposal) and the attendant externalities to devel- tation of market-based mechanisms like Pigouvian
oping nations has become central to maximising tax, PES, and the institution of land rights to finan-
producer profits. The policy principle of Extended cially incentivise responsible waste handling could
Producer Responsibility (EPR) presents a mecha- prove useful in expediting the shift. Furthermore
nism of incentivising producers to improve the urban mining is vastly more economically viable
environmental design of their products, as well as and less energy intensive than traditional min-
the environmental impact of supplying these prod- ing – if governed under the principles of EPR, the
ucts.36 EPR policies require producers to bear total sector presents a golden opportunity to reboot the
responsibility for all stages of the product lifecycle, globalised e-waste market by incentivising pro-
including end-of-life (EoL) management. Producers ducers to invest in developing the infrastructural
are mandated to either establish protocols for capacity for sound recycling, compliant with global
consumers to facilitate the disposal of EoL prod- environmental and societal health and safety reg-
ucts through normal waste streams or take back ulations, in developing nations like Nigeria and
their used products to effect proper disposal pro- Ghana, generating formal sector employment
cedures themselves. Placing the onus of disposal opportunities and just transitions to environmen-
on producers ensures that they factor its cost into tal sustainability. Africa’s hopes for sustainable
the product value, thereby internalising the cost of economic growth, with respect to the omnipres-
disposal. ent e-waste trade, need not yet be discarded in the
dumps.
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 9Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
Endnotes
1 United Nations, 2013. 19 Williams, Y.J. et al., ‘Forecasting Global
2 World Economic Forum, ‘A New Circular Generation of Obsolete Personal
Vision for Electronics: Time for a Global Computers’, Environmental Science and
Reboot’, 2019. Technology, 2010.
3 United Nations University, ‘E-waste Rises 20 United Nations University and the
8% by Weight in 2 Years as Income Rises’, International Telecommunication Union,
2017. ‘The Global E-waste Monitor 2017:
4 Baldé et al., ‘Global E-waste Monitor’, 2017. Quantities, Flows and Resources’, 2017.
5 Keshav et al., ‘Future E-waste Scenarios’, 21 Soopramanien, R and Usta, P., ‘E-waste:
2019. a bigger problem than you think’,
6 Baldé et al., ‘Global E-waste Monitor’, 2017. 21 October 2015.
7 ‘United Nations Environment Programme, 22 Reuters, ‘Urban Miners look for precious
‘Nigeria turns the tide on electronic waste’, metals in cell phones’, 27 April 2008.
19 June 2019. 23 World Economic Forum, ‘A New Circular
8 Basel Convention, ‘Ghana e-Waste Country Vision for Electronics: Time for a Global
Assessment’, 2011. Reboot’, 2019.
9 Orisakwe et al., ‘Public Health Burden of 24 Reuters, ‘Urban Miners look for precious
E-waste in Africa’, Journal of Health and metals in cell phones’, 27 April 2008.
Pollution, 2019. 25 European Commission, ‘The European
10 Wang et al., ‘Take responsibility for Critical Raw Materials Review’, 2014.
electronic-waste disposal’, 2016. 26 Soopramanien, R and Usta, P., ‘E-waste:
11 TRT World, ‘Nigeria has become an a bigger problem than you think’,
e-waste dumpsite for Europe, US and Asia’, 21 October 2015.
15 February 2019. 27 Zeng et al., ‘Urban Mining of E-Waste is
12 Baldé et al., ‘Global E-waste Monitor’, 2017. Becoming More Cost-Effective Than Virgin
13 United Nations Environment Programme, Mining’, Environment, Science and Technology,
‘Nigeria turns the tide on electronic waste’, 2018.
19 June 2019. 28 See Higgins, K.L., ‘The Global Commons
14 The Guardian, ‘Agbogbloshie: the world’s and the Uncommon Globe: Systems
largest waste dump – in pictures’, Insights and Conclusions’, Economic Growth
27 February 2014. and Sustainability, 2015.
15 The Ecologist, ‘E-waste in Ghana: where 29 Tisdell, C.A., ‘Economics of Environmental
death is the price of living another day’, Conservation’ (2nd ed.), 2005.
7 August 2014. 30 Shamin, A. et al., ‘E-waste Trading Impact
16 United Nations Environment Programme, on Public Health and Ecosystem Services
‘Nigeria turns the tide on electronic waste’, in Developing Countries’, International
19 June 2019. Journal of Waste Resources, 2015.
17 United Nations Environment Programme, 31 International Union for Conservation of
‘Nigeria turns the tide on electronic waste’, Nature, ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services:
19 June 2019. Legal and Institutional Frameworks’, 2009.
18 CityLab, ‘The Toxic Effects of Electronic 32 Matzdorf, B., Sattler, C. and Engel, S.,
Waste in Accra, Ghana’, 29 May 2019. ‘Institutional frameworks for governance
structures of PES schemes’, Forest Policy and
Economics, 2013.
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 10Disincentivising Africa’s Digital Dystopia
33 United Nations Environment Programme, 36 Shamim, A. et al., ‘E-Waste Trading Impact
‘E-waste Challenge’, E-learning webpage, on Public Health and Ecosystem Services
2019. in Developing Countries’, International
34 World Health Organisation, ‘A New Journal of Waste Resources, 2015.
Circular Vision for Electronics: Time for a 37 Morlet, A. et al., ‘The Circular Economy
Global Report”, 2019. Opportunity for Urban and Industrial
35 World Health Organisation, ‘A New Innovation in China’, Ellen MacArthur
Circular Vision for Electronics: Time for a Foundation, 2018.
Global Report’, 2019.
B R E N T H U R S T D I S C U S S I O N PA P E R 2 / 2 0 2 0 11You can also read
