15 years of ICT for Development: a reflection

Last week Computer Aid International celebrated providing its 200,000th computer to organisations working in education and development in more than 100 countries.

Computer Aid’s Founder and previous CEO Tony Roberts reflects on changes in the field of information and communication technologies for Development (ICT4D) over the last fifteen years.

In 1997 when we founded Computer Aid International, silver-haired senior managers in the London headquarters of international development agencies were sceptical of our suggestions. They thought us fanciful in seeing a role for ICT on the ground in development (despite using computers themselves at work and at home). It certainly wasn’t the way development was done back then.

Undeterred, experience on the ground told us that the level of demand for ICTs from operational development worker was significant and fast-growing. Local field staff were eager to apply ICT to enhance service delivery and empower communities.

We made mistakes though; a technology-centred approach limited the value of some initiatives. Hype and enthusiasm often proceeds the application of sound development practice in the arena of technology and development. This is equally true whether you look at Computer Aid in those early days, the telecentre movement later on, MIT’s one-laptop-per-child initiative, the bubble of mobile apps for development or some of the current activity around Open Data and transparency.

In the cycle of innovation diffusion and adoption, hype precedes substance; technology-push precedes genuine demand-pull; and technology-centred precedes people-centred development.

In Computer Aid’s case we addressed these challenges by working in partnership with many of the best-known and most experienced development agencies, drawing on their operational experience. This ensured that each deployment of computers to end users occurred within an integrated development program that included capacity building and appropriate support.

In East Africa Computer Aid worked with AMREF to equip hospitals with computers so that nurses could use e-Learning to upgrade their skills, and we supplied rural hospitals with telemedicine kits so that isolated doctors could get life-saving advice and support from senior clinicians at the national referral hospitals. Hundreds of schools were equipped with IT labs via partners such as TodoChilenter and Computers for Schools Kenya who provide teacher training and long-term pedagogical and technical support. In partnership with universities and the UK Met Office we equipped local weather stations in Kenya, Zambia and Uganda and local staff trained to analyse local weather systems  alongside agricultural extension workers, and produce climate data for national and international use.

Over the years the logic of using information and communication technologies in development became compelling and most development agencies now embrace the use of ICTs to increase the efficiency and efficacy of people engaged in front-line development work.

The landscape of ICT4D couldn’t be more different now from 1997 when Computer Aid volunteers prepared the first PCs for shipment to ‘previously disadvantaged’ universities and hospitals in post-Apartheid South Africa.

Today some development agencies have full-time ICT4D managers; in others ICT4D has already been ‘mainstreamed’. The nature of ICT4D techniques and sectoral applications continues to diversify and the proliferation of devices and applications continues. ICT4D now has its own dedicated communities of practice, international conferences, and undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes.

Whereas in the 1990s the constraints were experienced as the access issues of internet availability and hardware affordability, today the focus of ICT4D is shifting toward accessibility and effective use. Whilst access issues remain problematic for millions, the situation is improving. The same cannot always be said for accessibility and effective use.

Little attention has been paid to accessibility. Disabled users are being excluded due to a failure to provide adaptive technologies. There is too little focus on whether ICT can be accessed at times and in locations that are convenient for women and girls, and too little investment is being made in producing local content to counter the domination of colonial languages on the internet and software production. There are notable exceptions.

Effective use must also become a key consideration in all ICT4D initiatives. Making ICTs ‘freely available to all’ is not the same thing as equipping people with the skills to effectively use ICTs to realise the developments that they value. 

Whenever we fail to build the capacity of disadvantaged and excluded communities to make effective use of ICTs in an ICT4D initiative we run the risk of actually widening the divides between advantaged and disadvantaged people. 

If we create mobile apps and simply make them ‘freely available’ on the internet or if we release government information as ‘Open Data’ without building the capacity of the ‘intended beneficiaries’ to use it, who do we expect to benefit?

It is the already privileged that are best placed to exploit the potential opportunities of Open Data or of new mobile apps. They are able to do so by virtue of their existing advantages in education, technical knowledge, wealth and social capital. So unless ICT4D initiatives integrate capacity building to enable effective use by disadvantaged communities they risk actually widening the digital divide and inequality.

The last fifteen years have taught us that success in applying ICT for Development is 10% about technology and 90% about people processes. Computer Aid addressed this reality by partnering with local civil society organisations and investing in some good old fashioned empowerment.

At the end of the day translating the potentials of ICTs into valued development outcomes is about building people’s agency and capabilities to appropriate the technology and to apply it effectively to their own valued ends. Achieving effective use of ICTs requires adopting an agency-focused capacity-building that recognises Paulo Freire’s dictum that the real challenge of any development initiative is to make sure that people who are the “objects” of development are also its subjects.

Tony Roberts can be found on twitter: @phat_controller. He also has a blog which you can find here.

Basel Convention Secretariat Publish Report Assessing state of e-waste in Africa

The secretariat of the Basel Convention last week published a report looking into the current state of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in Africa.  The report is titled ‘Where are WEee in Africa’.

The report highlights the importance of developing safe recycling capacity and recovery infrastructure in Africa.  As is well known, the impact of inappropriately-treated WEEE can be catastrophic for the health and the environment in communities that do not have adequate recycling facilities in place. Computer Aid fully supports such developments, as the threat of e-waste cannot be ignored.

The report also highlights the very real social and economic value of providing high quality refurbished and tested EEE to African countries.  Computer Aid exists to reduce poverty through practical ICT solutions, which is largely done through the provision of computers and laptops for use in education, agriculture and health across Africa and Latin America. There is a massive need for the use of ICT in many communities across the developing world. There is also the need for safe waste management facilities to be in place to deal with the ICT equipment once it reaches its end-of-life.

There’s still a lot of work to do

Whilst a number of African states are making progress in adopting WEEE legislation and seeking to boost waste management capacities, there is still a lot of work to be done.  Without solid investment, the economic incentive for informal recovery remains high, this means that engagement with WEEE in Africa must be tackled in a dynamic and comprehensive way.  To promote environmental protection, support must be given so that African countries are able to apply the best available techniques for e-waste recovery activities.

The Basel Convention’s report makes three main recommendations regarding e-waste in Africa:

1. tackling the illegal import of waste or near-end-of-use equipment from developed countries
2. promoting the collection and recycling of WEEE in-country
3. developing proactive policies and legislation supported by well-resourced enforcement.

What Computer Aid is doing to help

The report’s conclusions and recommendations are very much in line with Computer Aid’s ongoing environmental advocacy work. Computer Aid is currently putting together the fifth in a series of special reports relating to ICTs and the Environment, the next special report explores and develops recommendations for transferable Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

For more information on Computer Aid’s e-waste advocacy work and to read our special reports relating to ICTs and the environment click here. To download the Basel Convention report click here.

Guest blog from PC donor, Hornsby House School!

Hornsby House have just donated their unwanted ICT to Computer Aid and Alistair Gerry, Assistant Head and Head of ICT at the school, contributed the following to our blog.

“As Head of ICT at Hornsby House School, an independent co-educational prep school for 4-11 year olds in Wandsworth, London, I know how important ICT is to children in the UK. It’s essential for all the pupils at our school to gain a good understanding of ICT and to start learning the skills required in the wider world – and the children here use ICT for everything from researching projects to playing games, reading and art. Having seen the benefits that computer skills can bring to our pupils, we wanted to help ensure children in developing countries also get the chance to learn these skills as IT literacy is essential for children the world over.

 “As part of the school’s five-year plan for expanding our ICT facilities, we replaced and upgraded 36 computers and, instead of sending them to be recycled, we wanted to make sure that they could be used by children in developing countries who also need to learn these essential ICT skills but have far less access to computers than children in the UK.

“We decided to donate the 36 computers to ComputerAid so that they would have a new lease of life. These ex-Hornsby House computers were collected, data wiped and refurbished and are now on their way to a range of projects around the world, including Chilenter, an organisation in Chile, whose aim is to ensure that schools in the poorest and most isolated areas have access to ICT.

“We are very happy that these computers will contribute to the excellent work being done by ComputerAid and their partner organisations in developing countries and hope to be able to make further donations to ComputerAid in the future as we continue to replace our school computers every four years.”

Thanks to Hornsby House and all our other donors for your equipment this year, it’s very much appreciated!

Bringing IT into Education in Papua New Guinea

Our Trusts Partnerships Officer, Sion Jones, has recently returned from Papua New Guinea where he visited a number of projects to report on how IT was being used in schools. Having recently written up a project overview, we thought we’d share some of his insights on ICT use within the country and the schools he visited…

Recently I was able to visit a project that was started a year ago in the Western Highlands province of Papua New Guinea. Deploying 100 refurbished PCs to a primary and secondary school, the project faced a number of challenges in order to establish strong examples of the role IT can play in children’s education.

Papua New Guinea (PNG) is roughly double the size of the UK, but has a population of only 7 million. Mountainous terrain and a lack of infrastructure means travelling between the main towns is largely done by air. The country is incredibly culturally diverse, with over 850 native languages – a fact that almost every Papua New Guinean is proud of and mentions at every opportunity. Around 80% of the population live in rural areas, with subsistence farming their primary activity. Social relationships are built through the ‘wantok’ system whereby individuals build strong social bonds based on family relationship, community ties or perhaps a common language, establishing an obligation to help your fellow ‘wantok’ when in need.

 

Abundant natural gas is becoming a key export, but investment in energy infrastructure is also driving up costs across the economy, making life for ordinary Papua New Guineans increasingly difficult. Prices are also high due to the lack of infrastructure, meaning transporting products and goods into or around the country is very expensive. Food, accommodation and transport costs are comparable to, if not more expensive, than the UK.

Whilst enjoying lifestyles enriched with unparalleled cultural diversity, a variety of fresh fruit and vegetables, strong family units and social relationships, many Papua New Guineans are income poor, with over half of the population living on less than US$2 (Purchasing Power Parity) a day. Families struggle to pay education fees, selling any surplus home-grown produce in the local market to generate income, with the government only contributing around a third of school budgets.

Security is also a concern when travelling and operating in PNG. Tribal violence occasionally flares up, car-jackings and other forms of crime are common. Despite this, the ‘wantok’ system provided a significant level of security, without which it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for me to travel around the country.

Looking at education, there is significant untapped potential amongst students who show a strong eagerness to learn, but often go to schools with poor infrastructure and a lack of resources. School budgets are limited by parents’ ability to contribute fees making donor support for significant improvements to facilities and resources necessary. Most schools don’t have any computers, and the cost of purchasing new machines locally is prohibitively high.

Working with Local Partners

In this project, we worked with the Melanesia Education Development Foundation (MEDF). Established in 2000, MEDF work to improve education in PNG by providing, among other things, a scholarship and sponsorship program to support students from low income families in primary, secondary and tertiary education as well as providing textbooks and library books, school uniforms, computers and other resources to schools. They also operate Peace Training Programs which work at a community level to address and overcome social issues and tribal tensions within PNG.

MEDF’s capacity to reach remote communities at an appropriate level is illustrative of their experience and expertise within the country. They draw heavily on voluntary support and good will, having established a network of associates and supporters in key positions of community influence across the country in order to facilitate the delivery and implementation of their numerous projects. This less formal network structure can present challenges but is also vital to being able to operate effectively within PNG.

Kudjip Primary School

The first school I visited was Kudjip Primary School, located in a rural area in the Western Highlands. Surrounded by a population of 40,000, many parents earn a modest income from the local tea plantation. Many of the students’ parents sold excess produce in the small market outside the school. The school had received 50 refurbished computers at the start of the year, but it had taken a few months to prepare the classroom and hire a teacher. There are now 2 IT teachers at the school, however there is a shortage in the country as a whole.

On completion of their studies, students receive a certificate in IT which only one other school in the region provides. With 900 students, the school also receives children from a number of feeder schools in surrounding communities who come to study grades 7 and 8.

The time I spent with the teachers was inspiring. Clearly dedicated to the education of their students, the teachers emphasised the value and significance of having the ability to introduce their children to IT, and the impact it will have on their lives in the future. Ms Tukne, a teacher of 19 years at Kudjip, spoke of how the school was living a dream, having hoped for so long they could have a computer lab for their children. She explained that seeing their students leaving the school with a certificate in IT was a massive achievement for their school. Such sentiments were echoed by other teachers and students.

Mt Hagen Secondary School

The second school I visited was Mt. Hagen Secondary School, located near the centre of the small town of Mt Hagen. 75% of the students families were local subsistence farmers and were unable to pay all of the students fees on time, and so the school worked with a challenging budget. With a student population of 1,370, the school was very happy to receive 50 refurbished PCs in addition to the existing computer lab which contained computers donated by AusAID in 1998. The new computers funded by BFSS meant the school would now be able to extend IT education to grades 9 and 10. The school currently had 2 IT teachers and were planning on hiring another shortly.

One of the key resources available at Mt Hagen Secondary School is IT teacher, Mr Dave Ogles. An expatriate from the UK, Mr Ogles has been teaching in PNG for over 20 years and taught both mathematics and ICT at the school. His insights and honesty regarding the role of ICT in education in PNG were invaluable.

The school was conducting in-service training sessions for teachers, with most being very enthusiastic and moving towards using IT in a number of different subject lessons. Mathematics was a key subject where the school was already using IT in teaching and saw strong potential thanks to a wealth of online resources and the value of displaying graphs and other illustrations on screen. Similarly to observations recently made in Kenya, the presence of a projector was seen as vital in being able to communicate ideas and concepts effectively to the class, as well as helping the teacher to manage and control the students.

Mt Hagen Secondary School displayed significant commitment and innovation in expanding the use of IT in terms of both teaching computer skills and delivering other lessons. There is a lot of potential for the school to become a centre of excellence for such teaching, delivering improvements to education that would be at the forefront of IT use in Papua New Guinea.

Conclusion

The introduction of IT into education is in its very early stages in PNG and the project will act as an example to local schools, politicians and key stake-holders regarding the potential of using computers to teach. Mt Hagen Secondary School is particularly committed and well placed to establish itself as a centre of excellence for IT supported education. The school’s focus on training teachers as well as students, along with its objective of eventually teaching all classes using IT and digital whiteboards makes it an innovative role model for other schools and IT in education initiatives.

There is no doubt that IT can play a significant role in strengthening the provision of education in PNG, and this project is successfully playing a part in that process. Continued support to expand IT in education in PNG will release the potential of students to develop their IT skills and of teachers to innovate in the teaching of all subjects.

Thanks to British Airways for providing the flights to enable this trip to take place!

ICT and Environment – Waste Side Story, Skopje, Macedonia

I’ve just got back from two days in Skopje, where I attended and presented at the ICT and Environment – Waste Side Story conference. The conference was organised by the Balkan e-Waste Management Advocacy Network (BEWMAN). Computer Aid has been working alongside BEWMAN for the past 18 months to tackle the e-waste problem in the West Balkans, through improved policy and practice across the region. The network is funded by the European Union.

The conference was the final part of the two year funded project and it brought together experts in sustainable IT and e-waste from countries across the Balkans and Europe.

Lovely Autumn view of the Vardar River from outside the conference centre in Skopje

I found the conference very interesting, there were some very good and insightful presentations.

There was a presentation from the Danish media and research organisation, DanWatch, who launched their latest findings on the harmful effects of e-waste, and examined  the exploitation of child labour in Ghana. According to their research (which they took a year and half to complete), children shockingly constitute around 40 percent of the scrap workers working on the toxic e-waste dump sites in Ghana. DanWatch were looking at equipment leaving Denmark that goes to Africa, they found that a lot of the equipment currently being sent out of the country deemed for reuse, has only about half a year’s life left in it. Click here for the full presentation.

David Rochat, from the Swiss Environmental consultancy SOFIES gave a useful presentation on how to implement an efficient e-waste management system. He spoke about the many business opportunities that there are to deal with e-waste. David has experience of setting up e-waste management systems, both in Europe and in developing countries.

Federico Magalini from the UN’s StEP Initiative gave a presentation on the work they are doing in trying to find sustainable solutions to the e-waste problem. StEP is an initiative that the UN set up to facilitate environmentally, economically & socially sound approaches to reduce e-waste flows and handle them in a sustainable way. StEP works closely with NGO’s, OEMs and Recyclers.

At the conference I bought some lovely earrings made from e-waste

There were presentations on the Macedonian and the Bulgarian experiences of e-waste. Bulgaria is in the EU, however Macedonia is not, so they don’t have e-waste legislation in place like we do in the UK, as they don’t have the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) in place. Macedonia are currently implementing their own legislation similar to the WEEE legislation.

My presentation looked at solutions to dealing with the problem of e-waste.

All the presentations are available and can be downloaded here.

Anja ffrench, Director of Marketing and Communications, Computer Aid International

Computer Aid launches Best Practice Guide to IT Decommissioning

Computer Aid has been working with independent research company Vanson Bourne to establish current IT decommissioning practices in the UK’s largest companies and we found that:

• 39 per cent of UK’s largest companies do not data wipe all their unwanted PCs

• One-third have decommissioned computers containing data which are unaccounted for

• 1 in 5 senior IT decision makers in the UK are “not confident” that zero per cent of their company’s unwanted IT goes to landfill

• Only 14 per cent follow best practice IT disposal and send their working IT for reuse

These statistics are shocking, particularly when one thinks of the scale of this problem. Each of the 100 companies surveyed are among the largest in the UK with half of the respondents employed in organisations with over 1,000 staff and the other half with over 3,000. Moreover, each company decommissions just under 550 PCs each per year.

With so much IT unaccounted for, sent to landfill or still containing data – it is clear that significant improvements in IT decommissioning has to occur not only to meet basic regulatory and security requirements but also to minimize the damaging impacts e-waste can have on the environment. An estimated 75 per cent of e-waste generated in the EU, equivalent to eight million tonnes a year, is unaccounted for – either sent to landfill, substandard treatment facilities or illegally exported. The toxins in PCs (lead, mercury and arsenic to name just a few) can be damaging to health and the environment and we cannot allow companies in the UK to continue contributing to this damage.

To help IT managers improve their decommissioning procedures, Computer Aid have today launched a Best Practice Guide to IT Disposal – click here to download a free copy. We hope that this information will help companies meet current regulatory requirements around e-waste and improve the environmental and reputational impact of their IT disposal strategies.

Computer Aid launches an advocacy guide on e-waste

Computer Aid recently launched a guide on how to conduct e-waste advocacy at the UN’s Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, Kenya. The guide is intended for NGOs and civil society groups anywhere in the world to help them campaign for improvement to current systems in their countries and put an end to the harmful social and environmental impacts of electronics.

The problem

The statistics are scary, the United Nations Environment Programme estimates that globally we generate around 50 million tonnes of e-waste per year and, with current trends in electronics design and manufacture driving rapid replacement cycles, this only seems like it will continue to get worse.

Why is Computer Aid concerned?

Of particular concern to Computer Aid is the impact that e-waste has on communities and the environment in developing countries, where we predominantly work. Computer Aid exists to reduce poverty through practical ICT solutions and we work in some of the poorest and most marginalised communities in the world, providing ICT for use in educations, health and agriculture. However, as well as providing essential IT to these communities, we want there to be safe and environmentally friendly facilities for them to get their electronic waste recycled, once it has reached its end of life.

In Europe we have authorised recyclers we can go to, which we take for granted. We also have a law, the WEEE Directive which means that companies within the EU have a legal obligation to ensure their equipment is either reused or recycled. Many countries don’t have these laws and, highly disturbingly, our laws seems to have exacerbated the flow of Europe’s e-waste to countries such as Nigeria, Ghana and China, as it’s so much cheaper to recycle it there. However without proper e-waste laws, the equipment is often recycled in a manner that is extremely harmful to the health of the people working on and living near the recycling sites as well as to the environment.

We want to see systems in place in all countries in the world that ensure the safe and responsible management of e-waste – which is why we’ve published this guide.

Why do we need e-waste advocacy guide?

Computer Aid believes that campaigning and advocacy in this area can make a real difference to policy as well as to awareness among decision makers and the general public.

We, along with other civil society groups and NGO’s in the UK, have been campaigning on e-waste and green IT issues for several years and have seen these changes happen in the UK and in Europe. We’ve learnt a lot from our experiences and wanted to share this knowledge with other organisations who are looking to bring about change in e-waste management in their own countries. We hope that this toolkit will enable other civil society actors to push for changes in their countries and bring about the essential first steps in building the capacity to minimise the environmental, health and social impacts of electronics and e-waste.

The guide takes into account the whole lifecycle of electronics from their manufacture through to their end of life and their disposal. It was written by Computer Aid’s former Environmental Advocacy Officer, Haley Bowcock, in conjunction with our partners in the Balkans the Balkans E-Waste Management Advocacy Network (BEWMAN). The whole project was financed thanks to a grant from the European Union.

Click here to down load the guide

Anja ffrench

Director of Marketing and Communications at Computer Aid International

Why the European Parliament should hold firm on reuse

Significant changes around the reuse of WEEE could be on the cards as MEPs will be voting on the WEEE directive later in the year (see our blog explaining the EU legislative process).  The European Parliament’s (EP) draft report was recently published and the final version is due to be adopted by the EP’s Environment Committee by 4th October 2011.

The EP’s draft report is very welcome as it calls for the establishment of reuse targets. Although the current WEEE Directive does recognise the superior environmental benefits of reuse over recycling, as it contains language that prioritises reuse, there are no specific targets which means that, unfortunately, recycling often becomes the practical reality. The EP has proposed that the new directive would contain separate reuse and recycling targets, and, although some of their suggested reuse targets are far too small (at just 5%), it constitutes an important first step to prioritising reuse over recycling.

We strongly believe there should be targets for reuse, for a number of reasons. The WEEE legislation is based on the waste hierarchy which encourages the prevention of waste, followed by the reuse and refurbishment of goods, then value recovery through recycling and energy recovery being the final option. Mandating reuse targets would help ensure that reuse actually occurred and that disposal of e-waste reflected the priorities in the waste hierarchy.

In the ICT domain, there are many good reasons to prioritise reuse over recycling and we’ve included a few of them below:

First, ICTs are often replaced long before the end of their productive lives. Our recent research conducted by Vanson Bourne found that typically, UK companies replace their base units every 3.7 years. Considering that the average lifespan of a PC is closer to 10 years, these PCs are not even half way through their life when discarded. In addition the energy intensity used in the production of computers rather than in their use phase (80 and 20 percent, respectively) means that any activity that extends their life-such as reuse, is by far the most environmentally superior option.

Finally, reusing PCs can be of huge social benefit to the millions of people who cannot currently afford access to new computers – for example, at Computer Aid we have seen time and again the difference which refurbished PCs can have in developing countries – for some examples see here.

These are just a few of the reasons but for more information on why reuse is better than recycling please take a look at our special report on the subject.

The reuse target is clearly a good thing, however it is far from certain that it will be adopted. Although the EP support a reuse target, both the EP and the Council (made up of the EU member states) have to agree to changes in the WEEE Directive for changes to be made. Because of this, we really hope that the EP will hold firm on the need to have separate reuse targets in the revised WEEE Directive and we would urge the EU member states to consider altering their position on this extremely important issue.

IT’s not a pretty picture: Computer Aid reveals new research on IT disposal in the UK

Computer Aid has today launched the first of its two part series of research into how large UK companies dispose of their IT. The research was made possible through the generous support of Vanson Bourne who donated their time and resources to help us better understand the trends in PC disposal and also raise awareness of the issues around current disposal practices.

Vanson Bourne’s team of researchers surveyed 100 senior IT decision makers in companies with over 1,000 employees across the UK and the results were very concerning. The full overview can be found here but key findings include:

• 1 in 5 senior IT decision makers in the UK are “not confident” that zero per cent of their company’s unwanted IT goes to landfill
• Only 14 % follow best practice IT disposal and send their working IT for reuse
• But 83% of those who don’t reuse would like to do so if possible
• 542 PCs disposed of per large company per year

Dumping e-waste in landfill is illegal as well as incredibly damaging for human health and the environment, so it’s very worrying that 20 per cent of our largest companies cannot be sure their own PCs don’t get sent to landfill. You can see the impact of the illegal trade of electronic waste in the Environment Investigation Agencies special report titled System Failure, the UK’s harmful trade in electronic Waste.

It’s also disappointing that so few companies are following best practice IT disposal and reusing all their working equipment and recycling the rest. This is especially the case given that average PC replacement in large corporates is between 3 and 4 years – which is under half a PCs typical working life. With so many people in need of ICT across the world, it is unjustifiable that working PCs are being needlessly disposed of as waste.

On the other hand it is reassuring to note that 83% of IT decision makers who don’t reuse would like to do so if possible, but this raises the question – why don’t they? Data security, cost and existing leasing agreements are the main reasons, however there are numerous organisations that provide excellent data disposal and free decommissioning services (of which Computer Aid is one!) and companies must look beyond existing processes to improve their entire IT decommissioning procedure.

Given that IT decision makers know that reuse is the most environmentally friendly method of disposal and the vast majority want to reuse their PCs if possible, then why aren’t they reconsidering their IT disposal practices?

We want this research to act as a call to action to companies to reassess their IT disposal practices. Rather than damaging the environment through dumping in landfill or, to a lesser extent, opting for recycling rather than reuse, companies have an opportunity to improve their impact on the environment. Furthermore, if companies send their PCs for reuse to where their equipment is most needed, then they can also play a huge role in poverty reduction initiatives across the world.

Many thanks to Vanson Bourne for their support of this research.

WEEE Directive recast – explaining the EU legislative process

Big changes to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive are essential if we are to mitigate the environmental and health risks posed by e-waste. With the EU expecting to generate around 12 million tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment per year by 2020, we are hoping that a bold approach in addressing the looming e-waste crisis will be taken. Currently only one third of e-waste collected in the EU is being treated according to the requirements of legislation. The rest goes to landfill (13%) and potentially to sub-standard treatment inside or outside the EU (54%). Illegal trade to non-EU countries is still widespread.

However, while the issue itself is clear enough, making a change to a European Directive is far from being a clear or simple procedure. There are numerous stages and procedures to get amendments pushed through. We’ve outlined below the process so far, including the latest developments (which happened just a few days ago) and the next steps to (we hope!) simplify matters.

The revision process was initiated by the Commission in 2008 but it’s actually the Council and the European Parliament (‘EP’) who must adopt the revised directive. It may help to explain what each institution does before jumping into the nitty gritty of the legislative process itself.

The Commission simply acts here like a UK government department: proposing changes but not actually adopting the law on its own (sometimes the Commission adopt directives and other EU legislation on its own but it can only do so if authorised by the Council and the EP).

The Council is composed of representatives of all 27 Member States. Unlike the Commission which is composed of civil servants employed by the European Union, the Council is staffed on a day-to-day basis by diplomats from the 27 member states, each representing the interests of, and taking instructions from, their own government. Periodically, the Council meets at ministerial level to take the trickiest or toughest decisions on legislation but most of the detailed negotiations are left to the diplomats.

The EP works in the following way: it has several committees dealing with different areas of policy. When the EP is sent a proposal from the Commission (for a new law or to recast an existing one),  the relevant committee will write a report to MEPs advising them which parts of the proposals they should adopt and which they should not. Broadly the Committee reflects the strength of different parties in the EP. So the report usually reflects the majority view. Once the report is finalised, the MEPs will then formally vote to accept or reject it.

Adopting a new WEEE directive involves something called the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (you may have seen it referred to as the ‘Co-decision Procedure’ prior to the latest EU treaty: the Lisbon Treaty). This involves 2 stages (which in legal jargon are called ‘readings’). In each reading both the EP and the Council have to agree for the Directive to be passed.

We have already been through its ‘first reading’ – initially in the EP in February 2011 and subsequently in the Council in March 2011. Both considered the Commission’s initial proposal issued in 2008, so it has been a slow process! The Commission is obliged to give its view on both the EP and Council positions which it has done, most recently commenting on the Council’s position on 16th August 2011.

As the EP and the Council disagreed with each other, the directive couldn’t be adopted at first reading. The next and final stage (known as a ‘second reading’) again involves both institutions. The EP now has 3 months to consider the Council‘s text (from the 16 August).

The relevant EP committee is due to adopt a report on the 4^th October 2011, recommending a text that all MEPs will vote on (a fixed date for the vote has not yet been set). A draft of this report is already available at this link: http://bit.ly/nUVRGi and due to be discussed on 8th September 2011 with a view to being adopted by 4th October 2011. As mentioned, the report is merely a recommendation to MEPs. MEPs have three options: accept the Council’s position (in which case the measure is adopted), reject it outright (in which case the process is over) or, as usually happens, they may amend the Council’s text.

If the EP makes changes to the Council’s text, the EP text goes back to the Council. In the event that the Council does not accept the text, a Conciliation Committee will be established. This committee will be composed of an equal number of representatives of the Council and the EP chaired by the Commission to try to agree a compromise. Any compromise has to be put to each institution which will either pass or reject the compromise.

So that’s how the EU legislative procedure applies to the recast of the WEEE Directive…. in a nutshell! We hope it assists those interesting in following the process understand to how the WEEE Directive is being recast.

Computer Aid put together a special report on the WEEE recast last year, setting out what changes need to be made to allay the environmental and health risks posed by e-waste.  You can find the report at this link: http://www.computeraid.org/uploads/Special-Report-2.pdf

For more information on Computer Aid’s work relating to ICT’s and the Environment click here

Anja ffrench, Director of Marketing and Communications

Sam Abboud, Environmental Advocacy Assistant