Nigeria: Public Health Implications of E-waste Dumping and Legal Efforts - Capstone Project Example

Nigeria: Public Health Implications of E-Waste Dumping and the International Law Effort by----------------------------------- Module no. ’s name Date Abstract Information and communication technology (ICT) has been evolving and growing faster than any area of knowledge and has been continuously leaving behind older technologies obsolete in no time. Along with this, every sphere of human activity is in one way or other being incorporated into the technology world and vice versa. Commodities and activities hitherto considered non-electronic are getting transformed into technology-linked categories. These changes have created a new kind of product range and along with that, a new kind of waste, namely, electronic waste. The cost involved in disposing of electronic waste prompts developed nations to use third world countries as their dumping yards of electronic waste and Nigeria has been a victim to this since 1980s. Recent studies have shown the gravity of health and environmental hazards created by this issue in Nigeria. The international and national legal infrastructures created to prevent the e-waste menace is made ineffective by a parallel illegal e-waste trafficking network. It is in this context that apart from governments and law mechanisms, public participatory groups need to take up the role of monitors. A new era of public intervention and awareness need to be developed in the developing world to prevent e-waste dumping in their back yards. Similarly, this awareness should be extended to the developed world community in the form of putting a self-disciplined control on indiscriminate consumerism and ‘use and throw’ attitudes. Index 1. The devil unmasked 2. The silent-killer waste 3. The economics of e-waste 4. Legal loopholes 5. Health hazards of e-waste dumping 6. Lesser laws, lesser mortals 7. Conclusion The devil unmasked The year was 1987. Unnoticed by the majority of the people in Koko, a suburb of Nigeria, a shipment arrived. The contents of this ship were stored for a while in a backyard. The drums were already damaged and soon started leaking (DiMento, 2003, p.112). Panic spread only when workers who were packing the 3800 tons of toxic waste for re-transporting them to Italy, suffered burns and paralysis. (Velte &Elsenpeter, 2008, p.24). When the authorities finally woke up to the seriousness of the issue, a 500 meter radius of land around the dump site was declared unsafe (Velte &Elsenpeter, 2008, p.24). Later it came to light that the drums contained toxic and radioactive electronic waste. They were simply labeled as substances relating to the building trade, and had been exported from Italy (Lamb & Friends of Earth, 1996, p.148). The government of Italy, after some face saving and evading attempts, agreed to take back the waste (Lamb & Friends of Earth, 1996, p.148). DiMento, Joseph F. C. (2003) The Global Environment and International Law, Texas: University of Texas Press, p.112. Velte, Anthony, Elsenpeter, Robert.C.(2008) Green IT: Reduce your Information System’s Environmental Impact while Adding to the Bottomline, McGraw-Hill Professional. Lamb, R., & Friends of Earth, (1996) Promising the Earth, Routledge. The issue of dumping of toxic electronic waste by developed countries in developing countries has become a burning issue since then. The reason behind and the purpose provoking this unethical action, can be understood from the CNN (cnn.com) report given below: There is increasing evidence that this new health and environment problem is arriving in shipping containers from western countries. Nigeria is one of the principal global destinations for e-waste –the catch-all term for discarded consumer electronics. Some of this may have been legitimately handed in to be recycled in an EU or US city, but lax enforcement, vague legislation, and a lack of political will has meant that it instead passes through a network of traders keen to profit from developing countries’ hunger for hi-tech and a burgeoning second hand market. The information and communication technology is a field where often technical advancements surpass real time implementation, the result being, an illogical reduction in the life cycle of electronic equipments like computers, mobile phones etc. Number of consumers, who have the buying capacity to replace their existing electronic equipments with new advanced ones, is on the rise. Consequently, electronic equipment ends up in the category of waste far before it looses its utility value. Ford, Matt (August 10 2009) sifting through the mounting problem of e-waste, Accessed from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/02/e-waste.recycling/index.html, viewed on December 17 2009. Developing countries that have less financial resources see an opportunity in this waste which can be reused by their citizens. The method of usage varies according to the condition of the equipment. The use of the equipment as such is comparatively harmless but often this does not happen. The lure of valuable metals used inside these equipments gave birth to the recycling and resource recovery industry in developing countries. Many electronic types of equipment contain, in very small quantities, “valuable metals such as aluminum, copper, nickel, platinum, silver and gold” (Miller et al, 2008, p.560). Recovering these metals as well as other usable parts from electronic equipment using the cheap labour available in developing countries thus became a high profit venture for the investor. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is the term used to describe electronic waste in general. Hilty (2005) has stated that many commodities hitherto considered as non-electrical and non-electronic are now being equipped with micro processors and computer chips so that the category of electrical and electronic equipments is fast expanding. Consumerism has added more fuel to the electronic waste catastrophe. The affinity of the consumers to new brands cultivated by multi-national companies using advertisements and other attractive offers has created a use and throw away attitude in the minds of the customers in relation to electronic equipments. Miller et al, 2008, Living in the environment: Principles, connections and solutions, Cengage Learning, p.560. Hilty, L. M. (2005) “Electronic Waste – an emerging risk?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 431-435, Accessed from: http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/51646,viewed on 06 December 2009. It was since 1980s that a new kind of exporters emerged in developed countries that began to send discarded hazardous waste to developing countries. (Pellow, p.103). Greenpeace (greenpeace.org) has recently analyzed and calculated that “e-waste is one of the fastest growing types of hazardous waste with up to 80 percent of e-waste from Europe failing to be disposed of safely.” Greenpeace study also showed that “Nigeria, like Ghana, Pakistan, India and China, is just one of many destinations that Europe, the United States, Japan, South Korea and other developed countries are using as toxic e-waste dumping grounds” (greenpeace.org). The electronic waste is being sent to poor countries under the justification that these can be effectively reused by either making them available to the less income groups at cheaper prices or reassembling them to make new inexpensive products. But a report, titled, "The Digital Dump: Exporting Reuse and Abuse to Africa,” prepared by the Basel Action Network, an environmental group based in Seattle, has found that “much of the used computer equipment sent from the United States to developing countries for use in homes, schools and businesses is often neither usable nor repairable, creating enormous environmental problems in some of the worlds poorest places” (nytimes.com). Pellow, D.N. (2007) Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice, MIT Press. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Laurie J. Flynn. October 24 2005, “Poor Nations Are Littered With Old PCs, Report Says” New York Times Late Edition C.5, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/technology/24junk.html Greenpeace also reveals a similar picture when its enquiries about electronic waste showed that “some [e-waste] will be repaired and reused, but many are beyond repair, meaning that they will eventually be dumped in places where no facilities exist for safe recycling” (greenpeace.org). This report also says that, “the unusable equipment is being donated or sold to developing nations by recycling businesses in the United States as a way to dodge the expense of having to recycle it properly” (nytimes.com). This study had, as its prime focus, considered the situation in Nigeria and found that this country presented one of the bleakest scenarios regarding e-waste. The report also warned that "too often, justifications of building bridges over the digital divide are used as excuses to obscure and ignore the fact that these bridges double as toxic waste pipelines" (nytimes.com). In 1988, there was another incident in Guinea-Bissau, a small African country, where an offer of US$ 600 million contract was given for disposing off a huge quantity of toxic waste (Clark et al., 1992, p.221). The contract equaled the country’s gross domestic product multiplied four times (Simon &Hagan, 1999, p.38). Clark et al., 1992, Waste location: Spatial aspects of waste management, hazards and disposal, Routledge. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Laurie J. Flynn. October 24 2005, “Poor Nations Are Littered With Old PCs, Report Says” New York Times Late Edition C.5, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/technology/24junk.html Simon, D.R., & Hagan, F.E., (1999) White Collar Deviance, Allyn&Bacon. The quantity of waste to be disposed was an enormous 15 million tons (Simon &Hagan, 1999, p.38). But, fortunately for the people of Guinea-Bissau, and owing to concerns raised in public sphere, the contract did not materialise (Clark et al., 1992, p.221). But many other African countries fell prey to the designs of waste exporters and even their governments gave consent to import toxic waste and apart from that e-waste entered these nations illegally also (Clark et al., 1992, p.221). In 1989, it was discovered that a British company had been given permit by government of Benin to import to that country five million tons of hazardous wastes per year in order to use it as landfill in different parts of Benin (Krueger, 1999, p.30). Clark et al., 1992, Waste location: Spatial aspects of waste management, hazards and disposal, Routledge. Krueger, J. (1999) The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes London: Earthscan Publications. Laurie J. Flynn. October 24 2005, “Poor Nations Are Littered With Old PCs, Report Says” New York Times Late Edition C.5, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/technology/24junk.html Simon, D.R., & Hagan, F.E., (1999) White Collar Deviance, Allyn&Bacon. The silent killer-waste What is there toxic in an ordinary looking old computer discarded by a person who could afford to replace it by a brand new one? NewYork Times gives a clear answer in one of its well-studied articles. It writes that “an average computer monitor can contain as much as eight pounds of lead, along with plastics laden with flame retardants and cadmium, all of which can be harmful to the environment and to humans” (nytimes.com). An article published in the website (nytimes.com) of the paper also adds, quoting a report that, “at Nigerian port of Lagos…. an estimated 500 containers of used electronic equipment enter the country each month, each one carrying about 800 computers, for a total of about 400,000 used computers a month”. One may wonder where all these scrap come from. The United States is the producer of half of the e-waste of the world but it recycles only 10 to 15 percent of it (Miller et al, 2008, p.560). The National Safety Council of United States of America had calculated that more than 63 million computers in the United States would become obsolete in 2005 alone (nytimes.com). Laurie J. Flynn. October 24 2005, “Poor Nations Are Littered With Old PCs, Report Says” New York Times Late Edition C.5, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/technology/24junk.html Miller et al, 2008, Living in the environment: Principles, connections and solutions, Cengage Learning, p.560. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had made it public in 1992 that 400 million metric tons of hazardous waste is generated in the world annually and 80 percent of this waste is from countries belonging to Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)” (Kuehr &Williams, 2003, p.74). When Greenpeace reported in February 2009 that “the poorest people, in many cases children, are put to work breaking apart TVs, mobile phones, game consoles and other electronic items that arrive in their towns,” (greenpeace.org) it came as a painful reminder that the danger exists in its most fearful form until today. The electronic waste has been reported to have polluted the rivers and water sources of the import nations (Morley, p.311). Kuehr &Williams, 2003 Computers and the environment: Understanding and Managing their Impacts, Springer. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Morley, D. (2008) Understanding Computers in a Changing Society, Cengage Learning. Westra and Lawson (2001, p.189) have investigated into this problem by focusing on Nigeria and they found that “non-nuclear industrial waste from North America to uranium mining waste from Colorado and chemical and industrial waste from Italy” are transported to Nigeria and dumped there. Greenpeace (greenpeace.org) issued a statement, addressed to the whole of Europe on 18th February 2009. It read : Following a three-year undercover investigation, we’ve shown once again that electronic waste - like your old TV set - still isnt being responsibly recycled like its supposed to be. Instead, e-waste is being disguised as second-hand goods and shipped off to Nigeria, where it is sold, scrapped or illegally dumped. Westra, L. and Lawson, B.E. (2001) Faces of environmental racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice, Rowman&Littlefield. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Greenpeace had conducted this undercover operation, with the help of Sky Television (greenpeace.org). It revealed that electronic companies were evading their “responsibility for recycling their products” (greenpeace.org). And this investigation clearly showed “an unfixable TV, fitted with a tracking device and brought to the UK’s Hampshire County Council for recycling, instead of being safely dismantled in the UK or Europe, like it should have been,” getting passed on by the “Council’s ‘recycling’ company, BJ Electronics, as second-hand goods” and being “shipped off to Nigeria to be sold or scrapped and dumped” (greenpeace.org). The economics of e-waste What provokes the industries of developing countries to dump their waste is more of the kind, an economic question. The simple and understandable explanation says that developing countries provide disposal facilities for just a fraction of the cost involved if it were done in developed countries” (Kuehr &Williams, 2003, p.74). Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Kuehr &Williams, 2003 Computers and the environment: Understanding and Managing their Impacts, Springer. A study by Griffiths (2004, p.181) states that the cost of incineration was US$10,000 for one ton of hazardous waste in the United Kingdom. Disposal costs for hazardous waste in developing countries in 1988 ranged from US$2.50 to US$50 per ton, compared with costs of US$100 to US$2,000 per ton in OECD countries. The lower disposal costs in developing countries generally stem from low or nonexistent environmental standards, less stringent laws, and an absence of public opposition due to a lack of information concerning the dangers involved. Given these considerations, the economic logic for exporting hazardous waste to developing countries is indisputable. Griffiths, R.J., (2004) Annual editions: Developing world04/05, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. It is not that the waste generators are unaware of the consequences. Earlier they used to use their e-waste as landfills. And they really got a taste of how bad the situation can grow. It is reported that “the "Valley of the Drums" in Kentucky, a seven-acre site which was dumped with thousands of drums containing hazardous waste had totally contaminated the water and soil of the surrounding areas (Kleber, 2001, p.174). After experiencing similar several incidents, the realization came and made the developed world think of alternatives which eventually cost many lives in the developing world. Nigeria is one of the developing countries where the e-waste duping is at its worst. An electronic article (Mathias, 2008) probing this issue points out that “a visit to the Nigerian IT markets, including Computer Village Ikeja, Alli Street, Victoria Island, among others by Vanguard Computers & E-Business….showed that these products are heaped in different part of market without adequate provision for recycling” The article (Mathias, 2008) also reveals that “dumping of refuse has become a way of life by many Nigerians even though there were existing laws prohibiting unnecessary dumping of refuse at undesignated places”. Mathias (2008-04-09)  Nigeria: E-waste remains a challenge to regulatory agencies, Ewasteguide.info, Accessed from: http://ewasteguide.info/e-waste-remains-a-ch Kleber, J.E., (2001) The Encyclopedia of Louisville, University Press of Kentucky. Studies (Mathias, 2008) show that used computers numbering millions reaches Nigerian Ports every month. Only 2 percent of the e-waste that arrives in Nigeria is reusable (Benebo, 2009). Benebo (2009) has also found that “about 5% [of e-waste that reaches Nigeria] can be put to use with minimum repairs, another 15-20% can have their components used for local repairs, while the rest are unusable and end up as junks”. An environmental group that had visited Lagos, “found that despite growing technology industries, the country lacked an infrastructure for electronics recycling” (nytimes.com). Scrap Computers, an electronic waste recycling company in Phoenix, owns eight warehouses across the United States to keep e-waste which they later ship to thirld world countries (nytimes.com). Graham Wollaston, who is the president of Scrap Computers has said that “there was a reuse for virtually every component of old electronic devices: old televisions are turned into fish tanks for Malaysia, and a silicon glass shortage has created huge demand for old monitors, which are turned into new ones” (nytimes.com). Mathias (2008-04-09)  Nigeria: E-waste remains a challenge to regulatory agencies, Ewasteguide.info, Accessed from: http://ewasteguide.info/e-waste-remains-a-ch Benebo, N.S., (24 June 2009) Status of e-waste Control in Nigeria, Presentation at the workshop on e-waste in West Africa, Accra, Ghana. Laurie J. Flynn. October 24 2005, “Poor Nations Are Littered With Old PCs, Report Says” New York Times Late Edition C.5, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/technology/24junk.html Miller et al, 2008, Living in the environment: Principles, connections and solutions, Cengage Learning, p.560. Hester and Harrison (2009, p.80) have observed that the shipments of electronic waste dumped in open dump yards in Lagos allow the production of toxic leachate which contaminates the local water supplies and soil.Leachate is a compound mixture of harmful metals and materials. “Highly erodible soils and high rainfall” are the characteristics of Nigerian climate and geography (Mba, 2004, p.4). In such a situation, landfills using e-waste can pollute the whole of water sources of this nation which is what is happening also. It has been observed that transportation of hazardous waste is “more about dumping waste than feeding ….recycling operations (Pellow, 2007, p.201). Hester, R.E., and Harrison, R.M. (2009) Electronic Waste Management, Royal Society of Chemistry. Mba, H.C. (2004) Management of Environmental Problems and Hazards in Nigeria, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Pellow, D.N. (2007) Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice, MIT Press. Legal loopholes Research on this topic show that “the problem in many places, including the United States, is that there is no umbrella federal official, legal process in place for the disposal of electronics” (Velte & Elsenpeter, 2008, p.7). International debates on hazardous waste and their transportation to developing countries ended up as a negotiation in 1989 which came to be known as Basel Convention. The convention became internationally binding in 1992. (Kruger, 1999, p.38). The nations bound by Basel Convention, in 1994, held a second conference and banned export of hazardous wastes from OECD countries to non-OECD countries for final disposal (Krueger, 1999, p.16). In 1998, the ban was extended to recycling and recovery also (Krueger, 1999, p.16). Velte, Anthony, Elsenpeter, Robert.C.(2008) Green IT: Reduce your Information System’s Environmental Impact while Adding to the Bottomline, McGraw-Hill Professional. Krueger, J. (1999) The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes London: Earthscan Publications. The major rules of the convention can be summed up as described below: The Basal Convention …allowed bi-lateral waste trade agreements between parties and non-parties under article 11. Such transactions are provided permitted the relevant waste trade agreements ensure that the waste is disposed of in a manner that is at least as environmentally sound as the provisions of the Basal Convention…..The exporting state must inform and receive the consent of the importing state before shipping the wastes (Clapp, 2001, p.58). Clapp, J. (2001) Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous waste from Rich to Poor Countries, United States: Cornell University Press. Widawsky (n.d) takes a detailed look into the Basel Convention in the paragraph given below: [Basel Convention] advances the tool of prior informed consent (PIC), which obligates each exporting Party to inform states of import of intended waste movements and receive written consent for each transfer from the state of import, in order to keep trans-boundary movements to a minimum. A State of import has a "sovereign right" to refuse importation of any hazardous or other waste for any reason. Each State of export has an obligation to prohibit generators or exporters from commencing movements of wastes unless the State of export has received written consent and confirmation of a contract between the exporter and the disposer certifying environmentally sound management techniques from the State of import. Each State of export also has a duty to prohibit exportation, find an alternate facility, or re-import wastes if there is reason to believe the wastes will not be handled in an "environmentally sound manner" in the intended State of import. Widawsky, L. (n.d) In My Backyard: How Enabling Hazardous Waste Trade to Developing Nations Can Improve the Basel Convention’s Ability to Achieve Environmental Justice, Issue 38:2, Accessed from: http://www.elawreview.org/elaw/382/in_my_backyard_how_enabling_ha.html#_edn18 viewed on 10 December 2009. In Basel Convention, as a protective measure, developing countries are assured differential treatment by which they can absolutely refuse to accept the electronic waste being imported (Rajamani, 2006). According to Basel convention, the exporting state has an obligation to notify the transitory and importing states about the “shipment… details of [its] composition, packaging and transport” (Chayes and Chayes, 1995,168) Basel treaty has also been criticised as “a compromise treaty that is long on rhetoric and short on substance and effectiveness” (Obstler, 1991). “Liability and non-compliance provisions included in the negotiated drafts have not been incorporated in the final version” is another criticism raised by many (Louka, 2006, p.430). Rajamani, L. (2006) Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law 1, Oxford University Press. Chayes, Abraham & Chayes, Antonia (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, London: Harvard University Press. Obstler, P., (1991)  Toward a Working Solution to Global Pollution: Importing CERCLA to Regulate the Export of Hazardous Waste, 16 Yale J. Intl L. 73, 94. Louka, E.(2006) International Environmental law: Fairness, Effectiveness and World Order, Cambridge University Press. Kempel (1999, p.434) has remarked in a study that though Basel Convention was a milestone in international environmental negotiations, the objectives were highly weakened when the final declaration came. Wirth (1998, p.237-38) has stressed that “the prior-informed-consent” of “ transit and importing states” is the “heart of the Basel Convention.” But illegal trafficking of e-waste has already sabotaged this basic tenet of the convention. European Union and Japan have been the keenest implementers of health and environment standards in handling e-waste. According to the convention, the consent agreement between the exporting and importing states need not be submitted to the Convention Secretariat and the Secretariat has no power to monitor the parties or impose sanctions (Clapp, 2001, p.57). This lack of accountability is another weak point in this directive. Kempel, W., (1999) The Negotiations on the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal: A National Delegation Perspective, International Negotiation, Volume 4, Number 3, p. 413-434(22) Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Wirth, D.A. (2008) Trade Implications of the Basel Convention Amendment banning North-South Trade in Hazardous Waste vol.3 United States: Blackwell Publishing Limited. Xu, Y. and Usher, B. (2006) Groundwater pollution in Africa, UNEP/Earthprint. Clapp, J. (2001) Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous waste from Rich to Poor Countries, United States: Cornell University Press. European Union “requires its manufacturers to take back electronic products at the end of their useful lives for repair, remanufacture or recycling and e-waste is banned from landfills and incinerators” (Miller and Spoolman, p.296). It has also been observed that “much of Europe and the whole of Japan have policies in place that govern not only what can go inside computer, but also how these devices should be handled when they reached their end of life” (Velte & Elsenpeter, 2008, p.7). Greenpeace also has commented the legislation by European Union which says that “it is illegal to export broken electronic goods under EU legislation” (greenpeace.org). But there is another argument that extended producer responsibility rule existing in European Union is putting immense pressure on electronic equipment production companies to take back the electronic waste and this increases the chances of e-waste dumping in the developed nations (Young, 2000) Miller and Spoolman (2008) Sustaining the Earth, Cengage Learning. Mba, H.C. (2004) Management of Environmental Problems and Hazards in Nigeria, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Velte, Anthony, Elsenpeter, Robert.C.(2008) Green IT: Reduce your Information System’s Environmental Impact while Adding to the Bottomline, McGraw-Hill Professional. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Young, G., et al., (2000) “A Long Way from Basel Clarity: Implications of the Basel Convention for the Consumer Electronics Sector” 9 Eur. Environ. Law Rev. 71. Nnorom and Osibanjo (2008) have listed the issues existing in this field in other countries. They are, “absence of legislation dealing specifically with e-waste, inadequate infrastructure for waste management [and the] absence of any framework for end-of-life product take-back or implementation of extended producer responsibility.” (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008). Clapp (2001, p.21) has also rightly suggested that because of the economic incentives involved in transporting hazardous waste, “regulations put in place to curtail this business are rendered ineffective.” Health hazards of e-waste dumping The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has warned that “e-waste accounts to 40 percent of the lead and 75 percent of the heavy metals found in landfills” (iowadnr.gov). The revelation also warns of dangerous leakage by saying that, “the acidic conditions in a landfill provide an environment in which lead and other heavy metals may leak out” (iowadnr.gov). The immediate result in case, “the landfill’s liner fails’ is that “the ground water supply may become contaminated” (iowadnr.gov). Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O., “Overview of Electronic Waste (E-waste) Management Practices and Legislations, and their Applications in Developing Countries” (2008) 52 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 843. Clapp, J. (2001) Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous waste from Rich to Poor Countries, United States: Cornell University Press. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, E-Waste: Environmental and Health Hazards, Accessed from http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/hazards.html, viewed on December 9 2009. Greenpeace has found that the people of the developing world who handle this electronic waste do that “with no safety measures, they are exposed to highly toxic chemicals, including mercury, which damages the brain; lead, which can damage reproductive systems; and cadmium, which causes kidney damage” (greenpeace.org). Grossman (2006, p.257) has stated that “ much of the [e-waste that arrives in Nigeria] ends up burnt and smashed.” While analyzing the toxic components of electronic waste individually, we can see that “lead [which is a major component] accumulates in the environment and has high acute and chronic toxic effects on plants, animals and microorganisms” (iowadnr.gov). Lead can also “cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, blood system and kidneys in humans” (iowadnr.gov). Lead “effects on the endocrine system” and has “serious negative effects on childrens brain development” (iowadnr.gov). Lead is present in soldering of printed circuit boards and in glass panels in computer monitors (iowadnr.gov). Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Iowa Department of Natural Resources, E-Waste: Environmental and Health Hazards, Accessed from http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/hazards.html, viewed on December 9 2009. Another major pollutant and health hazard present in electronic equipments is cadmium. Cadmium and cadmium compounds are found to concentrate in the kidneys in human body and cause severe damage (iowadnr.gov).The major sources among e-waste of cadmium are SMD chip resistors, infrared detectors and semiconductors (iowadnr.gov). The next toxic substance found in e-waste is mercury. Mercury accumulates in plant, animal and human bodies and gets circulated through the food chain (iowadnr.gov). Mercury can cause brain damage and is easily found in “thermostats, position censors, relays and switches, discharge lamps, batteries and printed wiring boards” (iowadnr.gov). Another component, hexavalent chromium can cause allergic reactions if present even in small traces (iowadnr.gov). The Polyvinyl Chloride plastics found in e-waste (particularly in computer housings) when burned produce highly toxic dioxins and furans which will pollute the air and cause respiratory problems in humans (iowadnr.gov). Printed circuit boards, connectors, cables, plastic covers of TV sets etc. used in a computer or television set contain brominated flame retardants which can affect human nervous system and also cause cancer (iowadnr.gov). Iowa Department of Natural Resources, E-Waste: Environmental and Health Hazards, Accessed from http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/hazards.html, viewed on December 9 2009. The finding that “environmentally induced cancer range from 60% to 90% of all cancer cases” can be put together with this information and it will lead us to a clear picture of the damage this issue is causing to human health (Dawson and Mercer, 1986, p.71). Premier Farnell, a UK based distributor, has cautioned that “it is commonplace to heat e-waste over open fires and strip cables and PCBs (printed-circuit boards) in acid baths to extract valuable metals, such as gold, silver, copper, and aluminum” (edn.com). The company has also warned that “such actions can release toxins directly into the atmosphere, significantly impacting both the health of the recyclers and the local environment” (edn.com). The company’s group head of corporate social responsibility and environmental affairs, Caroline Walker has also been quoted by edn.com, as saying, “up to 50 million tons of e-waste is discarded every year, with around 70% reaching Africa, China, and India…(and) of this (waste), as much as 90% ends up with recyclers that observe no environmental or health standards.” Dawson, G.W. and Mercer, B.W. (1986) Hazardous Waste Management, Wiley-Interscience. Deffree, Suzanne. January 2009. "Premier Farnell targets unregulated e-waste recycling in developing countries" EDN. Supply Chain, pp. 58, 01 August, 2009 http://www.edn.com/article/CA6625452.html. Xu and Usher (2006) have made a very important finding regarding the impact of e-waste on the people of Nigeria. They (Xu and Usher, 2006, p.44) found that “a high percentage of the population [in Nigeria] is at risk of ingesting increased doses of nitrate through drinking water. They (Xu and Usher, 2006, p.44) have also described indiscriminate waste dumping as one of the major reasons for this dangerous situation. Lesser laws, lesser mortals Nigeria is a Party to the Basel Convention (Benebo, 2009). The country also hosts the Regional Coordinating and Training Centre for Basel Convention in Africa (Benebo, 2009). But lack of adequate financial resources is ailing this regional centre as well as many similar regional centers in different countries (Widawsky, n.d) Xu, Y. and Usher, B. (2006) Groundwater pollution in Africa, UNEP/Earthprint. Benebo, N.S., (24 June 2009) Status of e-waste Control in Nigeria, Presentation at the workshop on e-waste in West Africa, Accra, Ghana. Widawsky, L. (n.d) In My Backyard: How Enabling Hazardous Waste Trade to Developing Nations Can Improve the Basel Convention’s Ability to Achieve Environmental Justice, Issue 38:2, Accessed from: http://www.elawreview.org/elaw/382/in_my_backyard_how_enabling_ha.html#_edn18 viewed on 10 December 2009. This country has instituted a multi-stakeholder Consultative Committee on e-waste to prepare a national policy (Benebo, 2009). There are existing national guidelines in the country on e-waste management (Benebo, 2009). The Nigerian government has also formulated a national action plan in this regard (Benebo, 2009). Benebo has provided information on the most recent developments that happened in Nigeria in this field. Nigeria formed the National environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) in July 2007 to ensure that environmental laws and directives are properly monitored and implemented (Benebo, 2009). The issue of e-waste also comes under the purview of this agency. But the problem is that Nigeria lacks the basic infrastructure to recycle e-waste in an effective and environment and human friendly way (Benebo, 2009). Business Day (businessonline.com) has reported that “Nigeria is lagging behind as regards implementing international environmental treaties as it lacks the needed national regulatory framework to implement them.” Benebo, N.S., (24 June 2009) Status of e-waste Control in Nigeria, Presentation at the workshop on e-waste in West Africa, Accra, Ghana. Uzor Jr., Ben, (2nd July 2009) FG silent on e-waste as Nigeria becomes thriving dump yard, Accessed from: http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3536:cbn-approves-first-credit-bureau-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18 In most state capitals and urban centres in Nigeria, industrial estates are established alongside residential areas thereby enhancing the risk factor (Compendium of environmental laws of African countries, p.234). Conclusion The Basel Ban on export of e-waste to developing nations by developed nations has not been ratified by the required three-fourths of the nations which signed the convention (basel.int). Compendium of environmental laws of African countries, Accessed from: http://books.google.com/books?id=qJdNXXw-f5kC&pg=PA234&dq=nigeria+dumping+laws&lr=&cd=14#v=onepage&q=nigeria%20dumping%20laws&f=false p.234. Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Ratifications of the Basel Convention Ban Amendment, Accessed from: http://www.basel.int/ratif/ban-alpha.htm, viewed on 09 December 2009. Widawsky (n.d) has described the hassles before the implementation of Basel Convention as given below: The Conventions main barriers to achieving environmental justice are: 1) insufficient funding of the Basel Trust Funds, especially the Technical Trust Fund established specifically to aid developing nations with technology transfers, 2) the failure of the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure to verify environmentally sound management (ESM) facilities, 3) inefficacy of the Basel Convention regional centers (BCRCs) to transfer training or technologies to developing nations, and 4) the Parties lack of support for the Conventions Compliance Committee or Protocol on Liability. Onyerikam (2007) has showed in her research that compliance with the Basal convention is very low throughout the world. Even in 2006, reports came out from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, about the death of 10 people caused by illegal dumping of toxic waste (Pittman, 2006). Greenpeace (greenpeace.org) has suggested that ”companies can stop this illegal toxic trade now by making sure their goods are free from hazardous components” Widawsky, L. (n.d) In My Backyard: How Enabling Hazardous Waste Trade to Developing Nations Can Improve the Basel Convention’s Ability to Achieve Environmental Justice, Issue 38:2, Accessed from: http://www.elawreview.org/elaw/382/in_my_backyard_how_enabling_ha.html#_edn18 viewed on 10 December 2009. Onyerikam, I., (2007) “Achieving Compliance with the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes,” [online]: Social Science Research Network Accessed from: , viewed on 08 December 2009. The Greenpeace statement says: We need them (the companies) to take full responsibility for the safe recycling of their products and put an end to the growing e-waste dumps that poison people and the environment across the developing world. We need companies to introduce voluntary take-back schemes and remove hazardous substances from their products so they can be recycled safely and easily (greenpeace.org). It is estimated that about 300 to 400 million tones of e-waste is generated a year in the world (Roch, n.d). Roch (n.d) has also stated that “illegal traffic still poses a serious threat to the environment and human health”. Environmental and social scientists ( Kummer, 1998) believe that an effective system to combat the illegal trafficking of e-waste is yet to be evolved. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Roch, P.(n.d) The Basal Convention: Ten years on, Accessed from: http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/104/roch.html, viewed on 10 December, 2009. Kummer, K., (1998) “The Basel Convention: Ten years on” RECIEL 7/3. About half of the e-waste that comes to Nigeria is from European Union and the other half is from United States (Benebo, 2009). So the solution to the problem lies in putting pressure on these nations to enact strict laws in this regard. Public education and awareness campaignes on e-waste is a must in Nigeria, according to Benebo (2009) who has studied this issue in detail. Benebo (2009) also reiterates the need for developing trained technicians in environmentally sound recycling technologies. Attempts initiated by developing countries to regulate hazardous waste industry need to be supported by International funding agencies as well (Emeseh, 2003). Kempell (1999, p.413-420) has stressed the need for involving non-governmental organizations in the process of monitoring the movement of e-waste, particularly to the African continent. Organizations like Greenpeace have already proved the significance of such interventions. From local to international levels, NGOs can play a very proactive alert role in resolving the issue of e-waste dumping and associated activities. Benebo, N.S., (24 June 2009) Status of e-waste Control in Nigeria, Presentation at the workshop on e-waste in West Africa, Accra, Ghana. Emeseh, E. (2003) “Challenges to Enforcement of Criminal Liability for Environmental Damage in Developing Countries: with Particular Reference to the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster 1 OGEL. Accessed from: http://www.ogel.org/article.asp?key=772, viewed on December 08 2009. Kempel, W., (1999) The Negotiations on the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal: A National Delegation Perspective, International Negotiation, Volume 4, Number 3, p. 413-434(22) Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Lloyd (2008) has studied the role of transnational knowledge networks in global governance and suggested that this role be aptly recognized and supported. Oresanya (2002) has observed that the anti-pollution rules in the whole of Africa need to be made foolproof and strong. Oresanya (2002) has also put forward the suggestion that the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) enforced by Europian Union has to be copied and implemented in African countries. A total ban on e-waste trafficking is the only long-term solution for the e-waste menace faced by developing countries. A timely review and strengthening of Basel convention is long due. The funding for totally wiping out e-waste dump yards must at least partly be met by the waste generating people and companies. An alert international community is the pre-condition for all this to become a reality. Lloyd, J. (2008) “Toxic Trade: International Knowledge Networks & the Development of the Basel Convention” 3 International Public Policy Review. Oresanya, Adefemi (2002) Electronic Waste Management System in Africa, Ibadan: Onibonoje Publishers. Bibliography  Benebo, N.S., (24 June 2009) Status of e-waste Control in Nigeria, Presentation at the workshop on e-waste in West Africa, Accra, Ghana. Clapp, J. (2001) Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous waste from Rich to Poor Countries, United States: Cornell University Press. Chayes, Abraham & Chayes, Antonia (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, London: Harvard University Press. Clark et al., 1992, Waste location: Spatial aspects of waste management, hazards and disposal, Routledge. Coffee, Peter. (January 16, 2005) Cleaning up Toxic IT equipment [online] Available from: E-week, Vol. 23. Dawson, G.W. and Mercer, B.W. (1986) Hazardous Waste Management, Wiley-Interscience. Deffree, Suzanne. January 2009. "Premier Farnell targets unregulated e-waste recycling in developing countries" EDN. Supply Chain, pp. 58, 01 August, 2009 http://www.edn.com/article/CA6625452.html. DiMento, Joseph F. C. (2003) The Global Environment and International Law, Texas: University of Texas Press, p.112. Emeseh, E. (2003) “Challenges to Enforcement of Criminal Liability for Environmental Damage in Developing Countries: with Particular Reference to the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster 1 OGEL. Accessed from: http://www.ogel.org/article.asp?key=772, viewed on December 08 2009.   “E-Waste: Environmental and Health Hazards” 2004. www.iowadrn.gov. http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/hazards.html. Accessed: 27 January 2009.  Ford, Matt (August 10 2009) sifting through the mounting problem of e-waste, Accessed from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/02/e-waste.recycling/index.html, viewed on December 17 2009. Greenpeace (2009) Undercover operation exposes illegal dumping of e-waste in Nigeria, [online] Available from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-nigeria180209 [Accessed 01 November 2009] Grossman, E. (2006) High-tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, Island Press. Griffiths, R.J., (2004) Annual editions: Developing world04/05, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin Hester, R.E., and Harrison, R.M. (2009) Electronic Waste Management, Royal Society of Chemistry. Hilty, L. M. (2005) “Electronic Waste – an emerging risk?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25, 431-435, Accessed from: http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/51646,viewed on 06 December 2009. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, E-Waste: Environmental and Health Hazards, Accessed from http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/recycling/hazards.html, viewed on December 9 2009. Kempel, W., (1999) The Negotiations on the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal: A National Delegation Perspective, International Negotiation, Volume 4, Number 3, p. 413-434(22) Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Kleber, J.E., (2001) The Encyclopedia of Louisville, University Press of Kentucky. Krueger, J. (1999) The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes London: Earthscan Publications. Kummer, K., (1998) “The Basel Convention: Ten years on” RECIEL 7/3. Lamb, R., & Friends of Earth, (1996) Promising the Earth, Routledge. Laurie J. Flynn. October 24 2005, “Poor Nations Are Littered With Old PCs, Report Says” New York Times Late Edition C.5, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/24/technology/24junk.html  Lloyd, J. (2008) “Toxic Trade: International Knowledge Networks & the Development of the Basel Convention” 3 International Public Policy Review. Louka, E.(2006) International Environmental law: Fairness, Effectiveness and World Order, Cambridge University Press. Mathias (2008-04-09)  Nigeria: E-waste remains a challenge to regulatory agencies, Ewasteguide.info, Accessed from: http://ewasteguide.info/e-waste-remains-a-ch Miller et al, 2008, Living in the environment: Principles, connections and solutions, Cengage Learning, p.560. Miller and Spoolman (2008) Sustaining the Earth, Cengage Learning. Mba, H.C. (2004) Management of Environmental Problems and Hazards in Nigeria, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Morley, D. (2008) Understanding Computers in a Changing Society, Cengage Learning. Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O., “Overview of Electronic Waste (E-waste) Management Practices and Legislations, and their Applications in Developing Countries” (2008) 52 Resources, Conservation & Recycling 843. Obstler, P., (1991)  Toward a Working Solution to Global Pollution: Importing CERCLA to Regulate the Export of Hazardous Waste, 16 Yale J. Intl L. 73, 94. Onibokun, Adepoju G. 2000. Managing the Monster: Urban Waste and Governance in. Ontario, Canada: IDRC Books, Ch. 1. , http://www.utoronto.ca/waste-econ/res-lib-M.htm Onyerikam, I., (2007) “Achieving Compliance with the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes,” [online]: Social Science Research Network Accessed from: , viewed on 08 December 2009. Oresanya, Adefemi (2002) Electronic Waste Management System in Africa, Ibadan: Onibonoje Publishers. Pellow, D.N. (2007) Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice, MIT Press. Pitman, Todd (Oct.19 2006)  Hazardous Waste Flows to Poor Nations, Seattle Times, Accessed from: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003311777_ivorywaste18.html, viewed on 06 December 2009. Rajamani, L. (2006) Differential Treatment in International Environmental Law 1, Oxford University Press. Roch, P.(n.d) The Basal Convention: Ten years on, Accessed from: http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/104/roch.html, viewed on 10 December, 2009. Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Ratifications of the Basel Convention Ban Amendment, Accessed from: http://www.basel.int/ratif/ban-alpha.htm, viewed on 09 December 2009. Simon, D.R., & Hagan, F.E., (1999) White Collar Deviance, Allyn&Bacon. Uzor Jr., Ben, (2nd July 2009) FG silent on e-waste as Nigeria becomes thriving dump yard, Accessed from: http://www.businessdayonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3536:cbn-approves-first-credit-bureau-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=18 Velte, Anthony, Elsenpeter, Robert.C.(2008) Green IT: Reduce your Information System’s Environmental Impact while Adding to the Bottomline, McGraw-Hill Professional. Webster-Main, Andrew (2002) “Keeping Africa out of the Global Backyard: A Comparative Study of the Basel & Bamako Conventions”E.L.P.J. 26/65. Westra, L. and Lawson, B.E. (2001) Faces of environmental racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice, Rowman&Littlefield. Widawsky, L. (n.d) In My Backyard: How Enabling Hazardous Waste Trade to Developing Nations Can Improve the Basel Convention’s Ability to Achieve Environmental Justice, Issue 38:2, Accessed from: http://www.elawreview.org/elaw/382/in_my_backyard_how_enabling_ha.html#_edn18 viewed on 10 December 2009. Wirth, D.A. (2008) Trade Implications of the Basel Convention Amendment banning North-South Trade in Hazardous Waste vol.3 United States: Blackwell Publishing Limited. Xu, Y. and Usher, B. (2006) Groundwater pollution in Africa, UNEP/Earthprint. Young, G., et al., (2000) “A Long Way from Basel Clarity: Implications of the Basel Convention for the Consumer Electronics Sector” 9 Eur. Environ. Law Rev. 71. Read More