Response (draft)
Re: RCBC Computer Reuse Organization Standard
Free Geek's membership met recently to discuss the proposed standard. We are very encouraged by the spirit of the document as it represents a significant step forward from current, unregulated practices. We agree that there is a need for certifying reuse organizations and resellers in BC, and that a strict standard to which these organizations can be held will go a long way toward eliminating unethical or illegal practices. However, our membership has a number of serious concerns, which will be described in detail later in this document along with proposed resolutions. Our most serious concerns are as follows:
1. We cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. At this time it is far from certain that the program will follow the best possible environmental practices. We must reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible.
2. We feel the residual lifespan criteria is needlessly restrictive and would prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, greatly reducing the amount of reusable product.
3. We are uncomfortable being required to support BC's EPR program. As a community organization with responsibility to public trust, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been properly defined and which we have not audited. Moreover, we would require the independence to critically assess the program.
The remainder of this document comprises a detailed listing of all of our concerns, proposed resolutions, and commentary from the Basel Action Network.
A. Pledge of Stewardship
We will address each item individually.
1. We would like a clear distinction made between incineration and smelting.
2. We cannot commit to directing unusable electronics to the provincially mandated e-waste stewardship program. At this time it is far from certain that the program will follow the best possible environmental practices. We must reserve the right to seek better alternatives where possible, with no prejudice to the organization running the program. Instead of a mandated recycler, we prefer articulated standards like those provided by the Basel Action Network (e.g. no prison labour, not shipping to non-OECD countries).
3. We agree with this point.
4. We agree, with one minor edit. "reload the operating system" should become "reload an operating system", to allow for the operating system loaded being different from the one previously resident on the disk prior to wiping.
5. We agree.
6. We are reluctant to a forced agreement with ESBC as this is an industry group rather than a government or public body. We would agree to provide the public with all details; in fact we do so already due to our commitment to transparency. We note that if transparency is mandated as part of the pledge, this item becomes unnecessary.
7. We agree to the spirit of the item. However, we are concerned that the cost of such insurance may be prohibitive to smaller organizations and must withhold final comment until we have researched the matter.
8. We feel this point is overly simplistic since "product" requires clarification. How does it relate to the components of a computer, which may be disassembled and reassembled? Also, we would like clarification that we are not required to collect personal information about the persons donating the product.
9. We are uncomfortable being required to support BC's EPR program. As a community organization with responsibility to public trust, we cannot commit to supporting a program which has not yet been properly defined and which we have not audited. We want to be free to criticize the program if need be, and to be an organization that the public can trust to be unbiased. "Cooperation with program stakeholders" is particularly problematic and requires clarification.
10. We agree.
B. Residual Lifespan Criteria
We believe this criteria should only be applicable to shipping charitable equipment overseas. However, we must note that Free Geek does not consider sending workable items to less developed countries to be appropriate, since is recycling infrastructure in these countries is usually not properly equipped to process the hazardous materials inside electronics.
For all other cases, including domestic reuse, we find the proposed minimum requirements to be overly simplistic and not well applicable to the practical issues inherent in computer technology reuse, for the following reasons:
1. Computers are treated as a whole, with no provision for dismantling machines and reusing or replacing parts (or repurposing old parts for other purposes, like using old printer components for robotics projects or artistic endeavors).
2. There is no provision for free or open-source software as an alternative to propriety operating systems. Open source software can prolong the lifetime of older hardware and enables lower-cost refurbished system since there is need to purchase new software licenses.
3. Under the proposed criteria, low-cost solutions, like Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP) computer labs, could not exist. These solutions usually comprise one powerful server and many lower-end systems, many of which could fall well below the proposed standard. Our experiences have shown that the proposed standard would divert a large amount of working, reusable hardware to recycling.
Our membership is generally is agreement that, with the possible exception of overseas shipping, a residual lifespan criteria is needlessly restrictive and would prohibit innovative reuse and repurpose models, greatly reducing the amount of reusable product.
C. Implementation Plan We would like a definition of "person-to-person exchanges".
D. Commentary from Basel Action Network
The following is BAN's statement:
begin cut----------
Basel Action Network maintains that:
Advanced recycling fees are not a good
financing mechanism in that they do not involve the manufacturers in the end-of-life management of their products, and thereby do nothing to drive redesign for the environment and human health. If manufacturers have to pay for end-of-life costs (e.g. via incorporating these costs into the price of a new product), then they have a direct economic incentive to redesign their products to be less toxic, more upgradeable, more easily recycled, and perhaps longer lived. Ultimately, toxic waste issues must be addressed upstream in the manufacturing phase of a product’s lifecycle.
Reuse of electronics is environmentally
preferable to destruction, but only if tested working and labeled equipment with a long life is allowed into the reuse market, and particularly the developing countries. Both the EU and Australia have developed detailed criteria for determining when a used electronic is a product acceptable for exporting for reuse, or is a waste, based on interpretation of the international treaty (Basel Convention) that governs the trade in toxic wastes. (www.basel.int) Our criteria for tested working equipment would allow for older equipment that runs on open source software to be allowed into the reuse market, if it is tested and fully functional, and has a reasonable life expectancy.
Refurbishment/repair of equipment generated
in developed countries such as Canada or the US must occur in the developed world prior to export to developing countries, if those repairs will result in the replacement or removal of a hazardous part (such as circuit boards, CRTs, fluorescent lamps, batteries, etc.) In order to determine what types of repairs are needed, testing must be accomplished.
Smelters play an important role in
reclaiming metals from materials. Because smelting always creates toxins, it is important to only use smelters that use the best technology to minimize the creation of dioxins and furans, and to capture toxic air emissions. Circuit boards and other metal-bearing e-scrap generated in developed countries should only be smelted in developed countries. We support the use of smelters in countries such as Canada, US, Belgium and Sweden, rather than using smelters in the developing countries. We do not support sending this entire e-waste stream directly to smelters, where much of the materials are not reclaimed, but rather are burned (which is a form of disposal, including waste-to-energy processes.) End-of-life electronics should be manually or mechanically separated and subsequent materials sent for material separation and reuse (e.g. plastics back into plastics usage, etc.) rather than burned or used as BTUs in a thermal process, even in waste-to-energy facilities. Thermal processing of plastics impregnated with brominated flame retardants can create brominated dioxins and furans at certain temperatures.
end cut----------
_______________________________________________