Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Asif Iqbal

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
The world produced a record 53.6 million tons of electronic waste in 2019, the weight of 350 big cruise ships, a UN report said on Thursday.

The report said the e-waste – discarded products with a battery or plug – surged 21% over the past five years, predicting that it will reach 74 million tons by 2030, almost a doubling of electronic waste in just 16 years.

E-waste, therefore, is the world's fastest-growing domestic waste stream fueled mainly by higher consumption rates of electric and electronic equipment, short life cycles, and few options for repair.

"E-waste is a health and environmental hazard, containing toxic additives or hazardous substances such as mercury, which damages the human brain and coordination system," said the report.

"An estimated 50 tonnes of mercury — used in monitors, PCBs [printed circuit boards], and fluorescent and energy-saving light sources — are contained in undocumented flows of e-waste annually."

The UN's Global E-waste Monitor 2020 was produced by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (GESP), that includes the UN University (UNU), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).

In the middle- and low-income countries, the e-waste management infrastructure is not fully developed, and in some cases, it is entirely absent.

"Hence, e-waste is managed mostly by the informal sector. In this case, e-waste is often handled under inferior conditions, causing severe health effects to workers and the children who often live, work and play near e-waste management activities," the report said.

‘Serious challenge’

Only 17.4% of 2019's e-waste was collected and recycled.

Gold, silver, copper, platinum, and other high-value, recoverable materials conservatively valued at $57 billion -- higher than the gross domestic product of most countries – were mostly dumped or burned rather than being collected for treatment and reuse.

The report said that Asia generated the highest volume of e-waste in 2019 — some 24.9 million tons, followed by the Americas (13.1 million tons) and Europe (12 million tons), while Africa and Oceania generated 2.9 million tons and 0.7 million tons respectively.

Antonis Mavropoulos, president of the International Solid Waste Association, said at an online news conference: "Governments, municipalities and the big companies involved in electronic equipment, and the waste management, have a very serious challenge.

"They have to find a way to issue the maximum quality of recycling with children's environmental protection, without affecting the livelihood of poor people attending to the informal sector. And I think this is a serious governance problem we have."

One of the key findings from the E-waste Monitor is that proper e-waste management can help mitigate global warming.

In 2019, an estimated 98 million tons of CO2-equivalents were released into the atmosphere from discarded fridges and air-conditioners, contributing roughly 0.3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Europe ranked first worldwide in terms of e-waste generation per capita with 16.2 kilograms (37.5 pounds) per capita. Oceania came second (16.1 kg), followed by the Americas (13.3 kg). Asia (5.6 kg) and Africa (2.5 kg) were much lower.


The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries was a pivotal time in history. Innovations were quickly progressing, allowing large machines to create goods faster than people ever could. However, the government did not introduce safety precautions at the same rate. As a result, injuries, health conditions and environmental pollutants became a significant issue. After almost 300 years, despite improved technology and safety measures, these issues remain a concern when it comes to e-waste in developing countries.

While the concern has significantly decreased in developed countries within the United Kingdom, Europe and North America, developing countries are facing the effects of a new revolution—the “electronics revolution.” And it is progressing quickly. For instance, cell phones were invented in 1973. Now, less than 50 years later, more than 75% of the world owns one.

One of the biggest challenges this revolution presents is how to dispose of these electronic products properly. Cell phones are only one part of the problem. Technological solutions for the disposal of electronics must keep up with the ever-evolving technology of manufacturing. To do so, we must follow electronics from cradle to grave, from “treasure to trash.”

What is E-Waste?
The “trash” in question here is called e-waste. E-waste refers to electronics such as computers, phones, radios, refrigerators, and other devices or appliances that have been discarded. Either these products reached the end of their functional life-cycle prior to disposal or they were simply discarded for newer models. Fortunately, some programs exist for donating, refurbishing, or recycling used items to safely dispose of or reuse materials.

However, companies do not always comply with measures for proper disposal, even if the technology is available to do so. Often, the EU, U.S., or other “developed” countries will export e-waste into developing countries like China, Taiwan, Mexico, Pakistan, etc. A 2015 report by the European Union Action to Fight Environmental Crime estimated that the EU produces eight to nine million tonnes of e-waste annually. In 2006 alone, the EU exported 1.9 million tonnes to other countries, and of that, 1.1 million tonnes were exported illegally.

In the US, the Basal Access Network deployed 200 geo trackers to locate e-waste items. It found that 32% of those items were exported, most of which likely done illegally. The trackers also discovered that e-waste recyclers exported an even higher amount at 39%. It has also been revealed that Goodwill, Inc., partnered with the computer company Dell, has exported hazardous e-waste, despite their claims of recycling such items.

E-Waste in Developing Countries
Electronics imported to developing countries can litter towns and villages and introduce serious health and environmental risks. For example, Guiyu, China receives a significant amount of e-waste and also contains some of the highest amounts of cancer-causing dioxins. Certain types of e-waste are made up of hazardous materials. Toxins such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic may leach into the land or atmosphere by way of dangerous processing techniques such as burning, crushing or acid baths.

The United States and other developed nations have made it illegal to dispose of electronics in landfills due to the risk of toxic chemicals and the disruption to human health and ecosystems. However, many developing countries do not have these laws or the ability to refuse many of these imports. To improve these conditions, the International E-Waste Management Network, run by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Taiwan EPA, held a workshop for 11 countries in 2018. Their goal was to assess possible markets for e-waste material, protect people and the environment and better interact with the industry and new technology.

How Individuals Can Help
While industries must make improvements to attain a more circular economy, there are also several actions that individuals can take to avoid contributing to dangerous disposal methods. One thing that individuals can do is buy previously owned electronics or appliances. Individuals can also help by holding onto their electronics longer, rather than disposing of products that still work. To ensure proper disposal of items, it is a good idea to research disposal sites, as well as municipal centers and nonprofits that offer recycling services, ahead of time.

During this technological revolution, recycling technology must keep up with manufacturing technology to ensure that adequate standards of health, safety and environmental responsibility are being met. Company transparency and compliance with the law can help prevent the export of e-waste and lessen the effects of e-waste in developing countries. To promote a circular economy, there is still a lot of work left to be done with e-waste—it’s more than just “treasure to trash.”

– Sydney Bazilian


India is determined to become a leading manufacturing hub of electronics. In 2019, the National Policy on Electronics (NPE 2019) stated its intent to focus on manufacturing for both domestic and global markets. The NPE 2019 moved from regressive tariff impositions on imports to providing incentives to manufacturers. It is in the same spirit that the government recently notified three schemes, worth approximately Rs 50,000 crore, in order to position India as a global hub for electronics manufacturing. Developed economies have a voracious appetite for electronics, and if India starts exporting one of the highest-selling traded items, it will give India a lot of muscle in global trade. However, with great power also comes great responsibility.

The Americas and Europe, on either side of the Atlantic, which account for just 23% of the global population, have had about 80% of all Covid-19 deaths so farIs Covid-19 merely a transatlantic epidemic? It’s a perpetual fact that all businesses, even the most successful ones, slack.Organizations need to reinvent, now: As technology improves, companies will be forced to adapt, change or die

An increase in electronics manufacturing is also going to lead to an increase in electronic waste. Electronic waste refers to electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part discarded as waste by the consumer or bulk consumer, as well as rejects from the manufacturing, refurbishment and repair processes. India is currently the third-largest e-waste generator in the world, after China and the US. According to Global E-waste Monitor 2020, India generated 3.2 million ton of e-waste in 2019, out of which only 30,000 ton was collected and recycled. It is further estimated that in 2020, India will likely produce 5.2 million tons of e-waste annually.

It is critical that India is perceived as an environmentally-responsible manufacturer. It would be detrimental for India to be treated like a backyard cheap labour factory that manufactures electronics but doesn’t clean up after itself.

The good news is that the government and the industry are both committed to responsible e-waste management. India is the only country in Southern Asia with e-waste legislation. In fact, India put laws in place to manage e-waste in 2011. The E-waste (Management) Rules, 2011, mandated only authorised dismantlers and recyclers to collect e-waste. The E-Waste (Management) Rules 2016 further brought manufacturers, dealers, refurbishers, and Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) under the ambit of the e-waste rules. The industry, too, has committed to eliminating waste. Manufacturers engage PROs to manage e-waste on their behalf.

The PROs have a network of collection agents and recyclers. However, formal recycling capacity remains under-utilised, as 95% of the waste is still handled by the informal sector.

In order to formalise e-waste management, the government and the industry need to collaborate and build a robust e-waste collection system.

Currently, the e-waste Rules do not distinguish between collection points and collection centres. Therefore, collection points where the e-waste is dropped off is subject to the same level of regulation as a collection centre. In order to foster a greater presence of drop-off points, the government will have to address the definitional lacunae in the legislation. This will allow for light-touch regulation for collection points versus the more rigorous regulatory requirements for collection centres.

It is important that the government penalises actors who don’t comply with the e-waste rules. However, like all crimes cannot be awarded the death penalty, the penalties on non-compliance must differ in accordance with the intent and gravity of default. Last year, the Central Pollution Control Board put a halt on imports of companies that were found in non-compliance. An adequate notice, followed by an opportunity for a fair hearing, must be afforded to all defaulters. These are the basic tenets of the principles of natural justice.

Finally, the e-waste ecosystem is a complex one with a multitude of actors responsible for the generation, treatment and recycling of e-waste. The current legislation mounts the entire burden of compliance on the producers. The producers are held liable for non-compliance of service centers and refurbishers too.

This is not only inequitable but also undermines the culture of compliance. It is important that consumers, both individual and bulk consumers, dealers, recyclers are made responsible for their e-waste disposal. This can be achieved by increasing awareness, imposing penalties on the defaulting stakeholder instead of shifting the entire burden on to the producers.

The best time to begin is now and the best process would be a robust and transparent consultation with industry to align India’s ambitions and ground realities with international best practices.


Solid Waste / Trends in Solid Waste Management
« on: January 24, 2021, 02:27:46 PM »
The world generates 2.01 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste annually, with at least 33 percent of that—extremely conservatively—not managed in an environmentally safe manner. Worldwide, waste generated per person per day averages 0.74 kilogram but ranges widely, from 0.11 to 4.54 kilograms. Though they only account for 16 percent of the world’s population, high-income countries generate about 34 percent, or 683 million tonnes, of the world’s waste.

When looking forward, global waste is expected to grow to 3.40 billion tonnes by 2050, more than double population growth over the same period. Overall, there is a positive correlation between waste generation and income level. Daily per capita waste generation in high-income countries is projected to increase by 19 percent by 2050, compared to low- and middle-income countries where it is expected to increase by approximately 40% or more. Waste generation initially decreases at the lowest income levels and then increases at a faster rate for incremental income changes at low income levels than at high income levels. The total quantity of waste generated in low-income countries is expected to increase by more than three times by 2050. The East Asia and Pacific region is generating most of the world’s waste, at 23 percent, and the Middle East and North Africa region is producing the least in absolute terms, at 6 percent. However, the fastest growing regions are Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa, where, by 2050, total waste generation is expected to more than triple, double, and double respectively. In these regions, more than half of waste is currently openly dumped, and the trajectories of waste growth will have vast implications for the environment, health, and prosperity, thus requiring urgent action.

Projected waste generation, by region (millions of tonnes/year)

Waste collection is a critical step in managing waste, yet rates vary largely by income levels, with upper-middle- and high-income countries providing nearly universal waste collection. Low-income countries collect about 48 percent of waste in cities, but this proportion drops drastically to 26 percent outside of urban areas. Across regions, Sub-Saharan Africa collects about 44 percent of waste while Europe and Central Asia and North America collect at least 90 percent of waste.

Waste collection rates, by income level (percent)

Waste composition differs across income levels, reflecting varied patterns of consumption. High-income countries generate relatively less food and green waste, at 32 percent of total waste, and generate more dry waste that could be recycled, including plastic, paper, cardboard, metal, and glass, which account for 51 percent of waste. Middle- and low-income countries generate 53 percent and 57 percent food and green waste, respectively, with the fraction of organic waste increasing as economic development levels decrease. In low-income countries, materials that could be recycled account for only 20 percent of the waste stream. Across regions, there is not much variety within waste streams beyond those aligned with income. All regions generate about 50 percent or more organic waste, on average, except for Europe and Central Asia and North America, which generate higher portions of dry waste.

Global waste composition (percent)

It is a frequent misconception that technology is the solution to the problem of unmanaged and increasing waste. Technology is not a panacea and is usually only one factor to consider when managing solid waste. Countries that advance from open dumping and other rudimentary waste management methods are more likely to succeed when they select locally appropriate solutions. Globally, most waste is currently dumped or disposed of in some form of a landfill. Some 37 percent of waste is disposed of in some form of a landfill, 8 percent of which is disposed of in sanitary landfills with landfill gas collection systems. Open dumping accounts for about 31 percent of waste, 19 percent is recovered through recycling and composting, and 11 percent is incinerated for final disposal. Adequate waste disposal or treatment, such as controlled landfills or more stringently operated facilities, is almost exclusively the domain of high- and upper-middle-income countries. Lower-income countries generally rely on open dumping; 93 percent of waste is dumped in low-income countries and only 2 percent in high-income countries. Three regions openly dump more than half of their waste—the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Upper-middle-income countries have the highest percentage of waste in landfills, at 54 percent. This rate decreases in high-income countries to 39 percent, with diversion of 36 percent of waste to recycling and composting and 22 percent to incineration. Incineration is used primarily in high-capacity, high-income, and land-constrained countries.

Global treatment and disposal of waste (percent)

Based on the volume of waste generated, its composition, and how it is managed, it is estimated that 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent greenhouse gas emissions were generated from solid waste treatment and disposal in 2016, or 5 percent of global emissions. This is driven primarily by disposing of waste in open dumps and landfills without landfill gas collection systems. Food waste accounts for nearly 50% of emissions. Solid waste–related emissions are anticipated to increase to 2.38 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year by 2050 if no improvements are made in the sector.

In most countries, solid waste management operations are typically a local responsibility, and nearly 70 percent of countries have established institutions with responsibility for policy development and regulatory oversight in the waste sector. About two-thirds of countries have created targeted legislation and regulations for solid waste management, though enforcement varies drastically. Direct central government involvement in waste service provision, other than regulatory oversight or fiscal transfers, is uncommon, with about 70 percent of waste services being overseen directly by local public entities. At least half of services, from primary waste collection through treatment and disposal, are operated by public entities and about one-third involve a public-private partnership. However, successful partnerships with the private sector for financing and operations tend to succeed only under certain conditions with appropriate incentive structures and enforcement mechanisms, and therefore they are not always the ideal solution.

Financing solid waste management systems is a significant challenge, even more so for ongoing operational costs than for capital investments, and operational costs need to be taken into account upfront. In high-income countries, operating costs for integrated waste management, including col-lection, transport, treatment, and disposal, generally exceed $100 per tonne. Lower-income countries spend less on waste operations in absolute terms, with costs of about $35 per tonne and sometimes higher, but these countries experience much more difficulty in recovering costs. Waste management is labor intensive and costs of transportation alone are in the range of $20–$50 per tonne. Cost recovery for waste services differs drastically across income levels. User fees range from an average of $35 per year in low-income countries to $170 per year in high-income countries, with full or nearly full cost recovery being largely limited to high-income countries. User fee models may be fixed or variable based on the type of user being billed. Typically, local governments cover about 50 percent of investment costs for waste systems, and the remainder comes mainly from national government subsidies and the private sector.


Digital financial services have expanded opportunities for millions of women across the globe. More than 240 million more women now have an account with a financial institution or mobile money service, compared to 2014.1 Through this increased engagement in the formal economy, women’s resilience to financial, economic and health shocks is improving. However, there remains much work to do to achieve gender equality in financial services. Approximately one billion women do not have formal financial services, due to persistent barriers in access to identification documents, mobile phones, digital skills, financial capability, as well as inappropriate products and more.

This report is co-authored by the Better Than Cash Alliance, Women’s World Banking and the World Bank Group, for the G20 Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI), under the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s G20 Presidency. This paper was written by a team: Ruth GoodwinGroen, Better Than Cash Alliance - United Nations Capital Development Fund; Leora Klapper, Development Research Group - World Bank; Margaret Miller, Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation Global Practice - World Bank; and Andy Woolnough, Women’s World Banking; additional team members included Nandini Harihareswara, Better Than Cash Alliance - United Nations Capital Development Fund. The report benefitted from a World Bank peer review process with inputs from Mahesh Uttamchandani, Caren Grown, Colin Xu, Mehnaz Safavian, Yasmin Klaudia Bin Humam and Julia Constanze Braunmiller. The report was written with financial
support from the Better Than Cash Alliance - United Nations Capital Development Fund, the World Bank Group and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The team would like to especially thank the G20 GPFI Saudi Presidency team, led by Haitham Alghulaiga and comprised of Alia Kabbani, Hamad Aljaad, Hamad Alrushaid, Sundos Altwaijri, Saud Albarrak and Hettaf Alqattan, for their leadership and guidance.
Additionally, the team extends its gratitude to G20 member countries and implementing organizations for their input and contributions, as well as to the Arab Monetary Fund and Islamic Development Bank.

Find the full report:

In 2020 the priority for the Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion (GPFI), under the Saudi G20 Presidency, is to leverage new technologies to boost financial access for youth, women, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This is a stock-take report that focuses on digital financial services and products for SMEs. Building on the work done under previous G20 Presidencies and GPFI partners,d the report provides an overview of innovative approaches and digital financial products/services that have been developed in G20 and non-G20 countries to address the SME financing gap, highlighting the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. It also highlights policy, regulatory, and supervisory considerations and approaches aimed at facilitating and promoting SME digitalization of financing and concludes with policy options to increase SME access to and use of digital financial services. This report is targeted to mid-level and senior national and state officials;  central bank officials; payment service providers (PSPs); financial service providers, and business associations that aim to support increasing access to responsible finance to SMEs.

SMEs are a major driver of job creation and economic activity in most developing and developed economies. Although precise numbers are hard to establish due to the fragmented nature of the global data and varying definitions of SMEs, formal and informal SMEs account for between 60 percent to 70 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries.2 They represent more than 90 percent of all businesses and provide more than 50 percent of employment worldwide.

However, lack of access to finance is a critical barrier to growth for SMEs globally. Among the reasons are higher cost to serve SMEs; information asymmetries, or the absence of traditional data used by banks to assess creditworthiness; lack of collateral; and onerous documentation requirements.

Find the full report:

Financial inclusion supports inclusive development. It is a key enabler for many of the Sustainable Development Goals and it is also at the heart of the G20 agenda. Notwithstanding the progress made to date in advancing financial inclusion, almost half of the world’s young adults (aged 15-24) are financially excluded. This report examines which young people are more likely to be financially excluded, the factors contributing to financial inclusion, the opportunities and risks brought about by digitalization in relation to youth financial inclusion, and country approaches to advance youth digital financial inclusion.

Digitalization and access to digital financial services may offer ways to overcome some of the challenges that impede youth from accessing and using financial services, such as physical infrastructure barriers or high costs, by offering convenient, faster, secure and
timely transactions and adapting to specific needs through customization. Digital financial services, when provided in a responsible way within a robust infrastructure, may contribute to increased resilience of the financial sector and of individuals in times of crisis. Within
the current environment, as governments around the world respond to the health, social and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the opportunities provided by digital means for individuals and businesses to continue accessing and using financial products and services, are important and relevant.

Children and young people have access to personal digital devices earlier and earlier in life, in some countries as young as seven or younger. They are commonly referred to as “digital natives”. This brings new prospects for existing financial institutions, such as banks, credit unions, or microfinance institutions as well as new Fintech companies to develop digital products and services for youth, alongside traditional financial products and services. The report considers opportunities for bringing youth into the formal financial sector in an
the appropriate and age-sensitive way through digital innovation and technology taking into account broader contextual factors affecting financial inclusion, since digitalization is not experienced in isolation.

At the same time, it is equally important to acknowledge the potential risks of technological innovations, especially when considering their impact on young people. The report, therefore, recognizes that access to digital financial services must be supported by digital and financial education and provided in an appropriate financial consumer protection framework, in the context of broader child protection policies.

Find the full report:

Discussion / Re: Article on Waste Management Techniques
« on: January 24, 2021, 02:16:01 PM »
Thanks for Sharing!

Case Studies / Waste bricks | Bricks From Waste | Valsad | Valsad
« on: January 20, 2021, 06:41:22 PM »
See how this man got from a minor chewing gum, a new solution to the huge problem like recycling of India's industrial waste. Watch how a humble chewing gum led this man to find a solution for India's monumental industrial waste problem.#OMGIndia

Case Studies / Waste Warriors: This startup turns waste into public good
« on: January 20, 2021, 06:39:53 PM »
Paras Saluja, inspired by plastic waste innovations across the globe, decided to upcycle discarded plastic chairs, buckets, toys etc. into heavy-duty tiles which can last upto 50 years. But why does the market of upcycled plastic products faces a dearth of buyers? Watch the video to find out more.

There is a TON OF PLASTIC!! And this is the biggest reason for its recycling.
Plastic Recycling is the process of recycling materials into useful products.Largely all the plastics used in the world are non-biodegradable in nature, hence recycling becomes the only solution globally to reduce the waste and curb pollution reluting from it. We can optimize the lifespan of plastics by recycling it into a new product to be used again and again and so on.
Nearly all types of plastics can be recycled, however the extent depends upon their chemical component, economic and logistic factors. For the process of recycling, Plastics are basically categorised into bio-degradable and non-biodegradable plastics and then another important aspect is their marking.As an aid to recycling, the BPF recommends marking of all plastics with an appropriate identification code.


Start a plastic recycling business New Business Ideas | Pet Bottle Scrap Business:

Case Studies / Flex from discarded plastic bottles. #Flex
« on: January 20, 2021, 06:36:53 PM »
Flex from discarded plastic bottles. #Flex #Bangladesh:

Entrepreneur Habibur Rahman Jewel won the world market with an abandoned plastic:

Case Studies / Recycling E-Waste- Azizu Recycling & E-waste Company Ltd.
« on: January 20, 2021, 06:34:53 PM »
Azizu Recycling and E-Waste really makes being environmentally responsible and recycling easy. We're a new company & I'm sure we will be contacting Azizu Recycling and E-Waste company for all of our electronic disposal needs in the future.

Watch the Video:

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]