Rule enshrines producer responsibility as central to the management of E-Wastes
Greenpeace today welcomed the notification of the E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rule, 2011 on Extended Producer Responsibility principle by the Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) 1. The notification of the rule makes environmentally sound management and disposal of electronic wastes mandatory.
Greenpeace has been at the forefront on this issue, campaigning for a binding law to make producers financially liable for the management of e-wastes 2.
Commenting on the notification, Abhishek Pratap, Senior Campaigner, Greenpeace India said “this is not just a victory for the environment but business, as it creates a level-playing field.” The rule ensures a transition from the current out-of-sight out-of-mind approach to proper recycling of e-wastes and in the process accelerating the commercial introduction of green electronic products in the market.”
The rule clearly places responsibility on the producers for the entire lifecycle of the product, from design to disposal. Apart from Extended Producer Responsibility principle, the rule is a significant step towards international standards of Restriction of Hazardous substances in electronics3
“By notifying this rule the Government of India has taken a proactive and bold step in the right direction. The main challenge ahead lies in its implementation. In future, we look forward to seeing the rule move towards individual producer responsibility and the banning of more hazardous chemicals.” added Pratap.
Pointing out certain gaps in the rule, Pratap said, “The rule fails to provide safeguards to ensure the ban of import and export of electronic wastes. There is also scope for further improvement by making every producer financially liable for the e-wastes generated by their products, based on its toxicity. To accelerate the introduction of greener products, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and all form of Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR) should be included as banned substances 4.”
“When we started working on this issue, we were told that the demands we were making were impossible. Five years later, it’s a case of this change being inevitable,” Pratap added.
Greenpeace today welcomed the notification of the E-Waste (Management and Handling) Rule, 2011 on Extended Producer Responsibility principle by the Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) 1. The notification of the rule makes environmentally sound management and disposal of electronic wastes mandatory.
Greenpeace has been at the forefront on this issue, campaigning for a binding law to make producers financially liable for the management of e-wastes 2.
Commenting on the notification, Abhishek Pratap, Senior Campaigner, Greenpeace India said “this is not just a victory for the environment but business, as it creates a level-playing field.” The rule ensures a transition from the current out-of-sight out-of-mind approach to proper recycling of e-wastes and in the process accelerating the commercial introduction of green electronic products in the market.”
The rule clearly places responsibility on the producers for the entire lifecycle of the product, from design to disposal. Apart from Extended Producer Responsibility principle, the rule is a significant step towards international standards of Restriction of Hazardous substances in electronics3
“By notifying this rule the Government of India has taken a proactive and bold step in the right direction. The main challenge ahead lies in its implementation. In future, we look forward to seeing the rule move towards individual producer responsibility and the banning of more hazardous chemicals.” added Pratap.
Pointing out certain gaps in the rule, Pratap said, “The rule fails to provide safeguards to ensure the ban of import and export of electronic wastes. There is also scope for further improvement by making every producer financially liable for the e-wastes generated by their products, based on its toxicity. To accelerate the introduction of greener products, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and all form of Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR) should be included as banned substances 4.”
“When we started working on this issue, we were told that the demands we were making were impossible. Five years later, it’s a case of this change being inevitable,” Pratap added.
