The Basel Convention and e-waste: translation of scientific uncertainty to protective policy.

Comment The Basel Convention and e-waste: translation of scientiﬁ c uncertainty to protective policy Every year, about 45 million metric tonnes of defunct electronic products are discarded worldwide. In many countries, this electronic waste is regarded as hazardous because of its composition of toxic metals and organic chemicals. 1 However, the report by Kristen Grant and colleagues 2 in The Lancet Global Health shows major gaps and uncertainties in the understanding of the risks associated with exposure, vulnerability, and causal linkage of e-waste to disease burden. Data from Grant and colleagues’ meta-analysis of results from published epidemiological investigations of human exposure to electronic waste suggest an association with diseases aﬀ ecting the reproductive, respiratory, neurodevelopmental, genomic, and hor- monal systems, but the authors are rightly cautious in not concluding a causal relation between speciﬁ c electronic waste toxicants and these diseases. The sys- tem atic review is not exhaustive, partly because of the stringent criteria used to include or exclude publications on this topic, and because of the intrinsic biases asso- ciated with searches of archival journal databases. Moreover, all the epidemiological studies judged worthy of inclusion in the meta-analysis focused on one region in China that is notorious for electronic waste processing. Further, there is a paucity of information on sub-popu- lations that are especially vulnerable to exposure and disease outcomes. These restrictions call for broader geographical and methodological scopes of research on the health eﬀ ects of electronic waste to begin ﬁ lling the major gaps, as noted by Grant and colleagues. Scientiﬁ c uncertainties have sometimes fuelled vigorous debates and disagreements within countries, regions, and the international community about whether restrictive policies are warranted to encourage product designers, manufacturers, retailers, and con- sumers of electronic products towards risk-reduction strategies to minimise exposure and prevent disease. 3,4 The disharmony between policies and procedures to regulate and manage e-waste can be linked to the diﬀ erences in weights assigned to uncertainties in risk analysis among decision makers. 5 The UN Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and www.thelancet.com/lancetgh Vol 1 December 2013 their Disposal represents global leadership to address the problem of e-waste. The ﬁ rst world forum on e-waste was convened in 2006, at the 8th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, leading to the Nairobi Declaration on creating inno- vative solutions for the environmentally sound manage- ment of electronic wastes. The signatories, noting the rapid expansion in the transboundary move ment of electronic waste worldwide and the risk to human health, especially in countries without the capacity for safe management of such wastes, declared the urgent need to promote public awareness of the risks, technology development, and information exchange on best management practices, and stronger enforcement of provisions under the Basel Convention, the main global instrument for stopping illegal traﬃ cking in electronic waste and for guiding the safe management of such wastes. 6 However, questions have emerged about whether the Convention is the appropriate framework to deal with multifaceted dimensions that include em- ploy ment, technology transfer, communications, economic development, environmental protection, and eﬀ ects on human health. In response to these ques tions, in December 2012, the Basel Convention secretariat produced a draft of technical guidelines on transboundary movements of e-waste that focused on the distinction between waste and non-waste (eg, used electronic products targeted for the recovery or refurbishing of spare parts). 7 The guidelines acknowledge the diﬃ culties faced by government authorities to assess and diﬀ erentiate bonaﬁ de used electronic equipment shipped for repair, refurbishment, resale, or humanitarian-aid reuse from defunct electronic waste destined for environmental disposal and unsafe scrap mining. For example, the new guidelines would need documentation of invoice and contract regarding the sale or transfer of fully functional used electronic equipment, and evidence of assessment and testing of equipment destined for repair or refurbishment along with proof of appro- priate protection against damage during transportation, includ ing protective packaging during loading and Published Online October 30, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S2214-109X(13)70110-4 See Articles page e350 Copyright © Ogunseitan. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY e313