Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)-based Electronic Waste Institutions in Nigeria: Lessons from the Global North

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nigerian Yearbook of International Law 2018/2019

Part of the book series: Nigerian Yearbook of International Law ((NYBIL,volume 2018/2019))

Abstract

Since the 1980s, the exportation of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), also referred to as waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEE) or e-waste from developed to developing countries was decried by the international community. Whilst the trade in WEEE appeared to be substantially controlled by the Basel Convention 1989, it became obvious that the generation and disposal of WEEE had become—not just a developing country problem, but also one which affects the global North (developed countries). Currently, electronic waste has become a global environmental problem, with innovative strategies being developed at global, regional and national levels. Various jurisdictions have adopted various management strategies towards tackling the generation, trade and disposal of this waste stream. One of such strategies is by placing responsibility of the end-of-life management of an electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) on the producer in developed countries, using the extended producer responsibility (EPR) principle. This paper examines the reality of using an EPR-based principle to drive implementation of e-waste institutions in Nigeria. It discusses the effectiveness of EPR-base e-waste institutions in Netherlands and Japan, and how the establishments of producer responsibility organisations (PROs) have compelled effective regulation of e-waste streams in those jurisdictions. This paper analyses existing waste legislation in Nigeria and potentials for the establishment of such PROs to drive adoption of e-waste institutions in Nigeria, and concludes with proposals for effective management of e-waste for future generations in Nigeria.

Parts of this paper are excerpts from my unpublished PhD Thesis ‘Towards the Sustainable Management of Electronic Waste: South Africa as a Model’ (2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Donald (1999), p. 425.

  2. 2.

    An estimated 50 million tonnes of e-waste is produced each year. The USA discards 30 million computers each year and 100 million phones are disposed of in Europe each year. SUNEP Backs Action for E-Waste Regulation in Africa’ http://www.africaninstitute.info/UNEP_EA; E-Waste Guidelines for Kenya. http://www.gesci.org/e-waste-guidelines-for-Kenya.html; Elisha (2010–2011), p. 199. PACE/WEF A New Circular Vision for Electronics – Time for a Global Reboot http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf.

  3. 3.

    At 50 Million Tons, E-Waste is the “Fastest-Growing Waste Stream” Word & Way, February 14, 2019, https://wordandway.org/2019/02/14/at-50-million-tons-e-waste-fastest-growing-waste-stream/.

  4. 4.

    PACE-WEF (n 2).

  5. 5.

    Probst and Beierle (1999), p. vii.

  6. 6.

    Probst and Beierle (1999).

  7. 7.

    Koko is a little port town located in the South-West of Bendel State (now Edo and Delta States), approximately 40 km from Benin City, the capital of Edo State. In 1988, an Italian ship carrying toxic wastes from Italy dumped over 6000 drums of toxic waste in Koko leading to the deaths and ill-health of various residents of Koko. Lipman (1999), p. 267; Ikhariale (1989), pp. 73–74.

  8. 8.

    Lee (2005), p. 297.

  9. 9.

    Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary 2ed (2005), p. 1459.

  10. 10.

    Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 4ed; Atsegbua et al. (2004), p. 101.

  11. 11.

    Asante-Duah (1993), p. 1.

  12. 12.

    Section 2 (4) (a) of the South African National Environmental Management Act, No. 62 of 2008. http://www.capegateway.gov.za/Text/2009/2/national_environmental_management_amendment_act_(62_of_2008)_9jan2009.pdf.

  13. 13.

    Noble (1992), p. 162.

  14. 14.

    Noble (1992). It should be noted that wastes are of different types and can be solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive and are often categorized according to their source. Waste Management http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/3430/Waste-Management.html; Bosman (2008), p. 700.

  15. 15.

    United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics, Sustainable Consumption & Production Branch (‘UNEP DTIE SCP Branch’) E-Waste Management. http://www.unep.fr/scp/waste/ewm/faq.htm.

  16. 16.

    PACE-WEF Document, p. 7.

  17. 17.

    UNEP Environmental Alert Bulletin, E-Waste, The Hidden Side of IT equipment’s Manufacturing and Use. http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_ewaste.en.pdf.

  18. 18.

    Rosenfeld and Feng (2011), p. 158.

  19. 19.

    A landfill is a natural or man-made depression on a large expanse of land with a soil foundation, and are usually equipped with a double liner and a leak detection system, at least two leachate collection and removal systems, storm-water run-off and run-off controls to withstand years of storms, and a cover to prevent wind dispersal. Rosenfeld and Feng (2011).

  20. 20.

    A dump is an area allocated for the public to dispose of unwanted waste. Wastes disposed of at these landfill sites are often not closely monitored. See Finlay A, E-Waste Challenges in Developing Countries: South Africa as a Case Study. http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/e-waste_EN.pdf.

  21. 21.

    Naude (2010), p. 138.

  22. 22.

    UNEP E-Waste Management. (n 15); Hoeveler (2009), p. 118.

  23. 23.

    Lin et al. (2001–2002), p. 532.

  24. 24.

    Rosenfeld and Feng (2011), p. 160. Hoeveler (2009), p. 124.

  25. 25.

    Mavropoulou (2015), p. 39.

  26. 26.

    UNEP Recycling- From E-Waste to Resources July 2009. http://www.unep.org/pdf/.../E-waste_publication_screen_finalversion-sml.pdf.

  27. 27.

    Kiddee et al. (2013), p. 1238.

  28. 28.

    Researchers have now linked dismantling of e-waste components by workers to resultant adverse effects on human health, such as inflammation and oxidative stress—precursors to cardiovascular disease, DNA damage and possibly cancer. E-waste pollution: Threat to human health. 31 May 2011. http://www.iop.org/news/11/may/page_51103.html.

  29. 29.

    Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Alder and Wilkinson (1999), p. 282.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    Osuagwu and Ikerionwu (2010), p. 143.

  35. 35.

    Ogunseitan (2013), p. e313.

  36. 36.

    History of the negotiations of the Basel Convention. http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/Overview/History/Overview/tabid/3405/Default.aspx.

  37. 37.

    Arts. 15 and 16 of the Basel Convention. The Conference of the Parties is the governing body of the Basel Convention and is composed of governments of countries that have accepted ratified or aced to it. The implementation of the Basel Convention is advanced through the decisions it takes at its meetings. It also promotes the harmonization of appropriate policies, strategies and measures for minimizing harm to human health and the environment by hazardous wastes and other wastes. It also adopts the programme of work and budget of the Convention for each biennium. The Secretariat of the Basel Convention is administered by UNEP and it is located in Geneva, Switzerland. Overview – Conference of the Parties (COP). http://www.basel.int/TheConvention/ConferenceoftheParties/OverviewandMandate/tabid/1316/Default.aspx. Text of the Basel Convention. http://www.env.go.jp/recycle/yugai/law/conv_e.pdf. Sands (2003), pp. 1–1074.

    694.

  38. 38.

    Article 1 (a) of the Basel Convention.

  39. 39.

    Article 1 (b) of the Convention.

  40. 40.

    Annex II covers wastes collected from households and residues arising from the incineration of household wastes.

  41. 41.

    Article 1 (2) of the Basel Convention.

  42. 42.

    Annex I lists the various wastes streams to be controlled; Annex II deals with categories of wastes requiring special consideration i.e. household wastes and residues arising from the incineration of household wastes); Annex III lists hazardous characteristics of waste; Annex IV lists disposal operations of waste; Annex VA specifies information to be provided on notification by state of export to state of import; Annex VB specifies particular information to be provided on the movement document and Annex VI deals with Arbitration in case of a dispute between Parties to the Convention.

  43. 43.

    Salehabadi (2013), p. 10.

  44. 44.

    As amended by Decision VI/35 adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its Sixth Meeting held from 9 to 13 December 2002. The amendments under Decision VI/35 entered into force on 20 November 2003. Basel Convention (n 36).

  45. 45.

    As amended by Decision VI/35 adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its Sixth Meeting held from 9 to 13 December 2002. The amendments under Decision VI/35 entered into force on 20 November 2003. Basel Convention (n 36).

  46. 46.

    Kreuger (2001), p. 45.

  47. 47.

    Basel Convention (n 36).

  48. 48.

    Re-use in this context can include repair, refurbishment or upgrading but not major assembly. In some countries, materials destined for direct re-use are not considered wastes. Basel Action Network Wireless Waste: Basel Convention’s Next Hazardous Waste Challenge. 1–9 http://www.ban.org/basel-convention-meetings./.

  49. 49.

    Article 10 (2) (c), Basel Convention. Lipman (1999), p. 273.

  50. 50.

    Article 4 (2) (d), Basel Convention.

  51. 51.

    Article 2 (8), ibid.

  52. 52.

    Article 4 (1) (c).

  53. 53.

    Article 2. 15 and 2. 16.

  54. 54.

    Article 2.18.

  55. 55.

    UNEP/CHW.2/30, Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. 25 March 1994. Kiss and Shelton (2007), p. 213.

    Decision II/12, Para. No. 1, at in Report of the Second Meeting, ibid. Kiss and Shelton (2007), p. 230.

    Para. No. 2, ibid. Kiss and Shelton (2007).

  56. 56.

    Status of Ratifications – Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste. http://www.basel.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/BanAmendment/tabid/1344/Default.aspx.

  57. 57.

    BAN Just Two More Ratifications Needed to Ensure a COP14 Ban Amendment Celebration. March 28 2019. https://myemail.constantcontact.com/BAN-s-COP14-Action-Alert%2D%2D1%2D%2DRatify-and-Celebrate-the-Ban-Amendment-.html?soid=1114999858498&aid=byC9DL1rcJU.

  58. 58.

    The Bamako Convention has 29 ratifications and is yet to enter into force. Ratify, implement Bamako Convention, SRADev tells FG. The Punch, January 15, 2018. https://punchng.com/ratify-implement-bamako-convention-sradev-tells-fg/.

  59. 59.

    Lindhqvist and Lidgren (1990), fn 1, p. ii.

  60. 60.

    Balde et al. (2017), p. 49.

  61. 61.

    Lindhqvist Thesis (n 60), p. 8.

  62. 62.

    Lindhqvist Thesis, ibid, p. 9.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Balde et al. (2017), p. 49.

  68. 68.

    Coopman (2015), 27.

  69. 69.

    McCann and Wittmann (2019), p. 13.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Elisha (2010–2011), fn 116, p. 210.

  72. 72.

    Lewis (2005), p. 48.

  73. 73.

    Hoeveler (2009), p. 140.

  74. 74.

    Product Stewardship: Basic Information. US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/waste/partnerships/stewardship/basic.htm.

  75. 75.

    Sachs (2006), p. 90.

  76. 76.

    Hoeveler (2009), p. 140.

  77. 77.

    Ibid.

  78. 78.

    Elisha (2010–2011), p. 213.

  79. 79.

    Elisha (2010–2011). Kutz (2006), p. 323.

  80. 80.

    Sachs (2006), p. 96.

  81. 81.

    Sachs (2006).

  82. 82.

    Coopman (2015), p. 27.

  83. 83.

    Natural Resources Defense Council, Statement of the Natural Resources Defense Council before the New York City Council’s Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Regarding Intro. 643, The Electronic Equipment Recycling and Reuse Act of 2005, October 24, 2005. In: Elisha (2010–2011), p. 227.

  84. 84.

    Kutz (2006), pp. 324–325. Key Elements of EPR Plan, Clean Production Action. http://www.cleanproduction.org[Producer.Key.Examples.php.

  85. 85.

    About Producer Responsibility, Electronic Take back Coalition. http://www.electronicstakeback.com/promote-good-laws/about-producer-responsibility/. Elisha (2010–2011), p. 34.

  86. 86.

    Nahman (2010), p. 165.

  87. 87.

    Lifset et al. (2013). Mayers and Butler (2013).

  88. 88.

    Balde et al. (2017), p. 49.

  89. 89.

    Coopman (2015), pp. 27–28.

  90. 90.

    Hoeveler (2009), p. 124.

  91. 91.

    Nnorom and Osibanjo (2008), p. 847.

  92. 92.

    Widmer et al. (2005), p. 845.

  93. 93.

    Wilson (1996).

  94. 94.

    Walls M Extended Producer Responsibility and Product Design: Economic Theory and Selected Case Studies. March 2006, Discussion Paper. RFF DP 06-08, Resources for the Future, Washington. http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-06-08.pdf.

  95. 95.

    Sachs (2006), p. 80.

  96. 96.

    Lifset and Lindhqvist (2008), p. 1042.

  97. 97.

    Redclift (1993).

  98. 98.

    Elisha (2010–2011), fn 183 at p. 220.

  99. 99.

    Gutowski et al. (2005).

  100. 100.

    The white goods sector is composed of all companies that manufacture domestic equipment and appliances from the following product lines of consumer goods like washing machines, cookers, refrigerators. It is differentiated from the brown goods sector which encompasses electronic consumer products as mobile phones, television, CD/DVD player, and personal computer etc. Trends and Developments in the White Goods Sector in Europe – A working paper of the EMF. http://www.emf-fem.org/content/download/.../Focus+no.+4+White+Goods.pdf. White Goods v Brown Goods. http://www.interioguru.com/article/home_appliances_ideas/3104-brown_vs_white.html.

  101. 101.

    It entered into force on 1st June 1998. Jan Jans Producer Responsibility in Dutch Waste Law. January 2004, Avosetta Group. http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~avosetta/netherlands.pdf.

  102. 102.

    Kristensen et al. (2011), p. 35.

  103. 103.

    Kristensen et al. (2011).

  104. 104.

    The Association of Suppliers of Domestic Equipment in the Netherlands (VLEHAN) was the representative body for the white goods sector. At the time of the Order, the Association’s members accounted for about 60% of all producers and distributors of white goods in the Netherlands. Similarly the Union of Manufacturers, Importer and Agents in the Electronics Area (FIAR) with members such as JVC, Phillips and Sony was the representative body for the brown goods sector. Bressers et al. (2002).

  105. 105.

    INSEAD Faculty & Research Working Paper (2010), p. 30.

  106. 106.

    Kristensen et al. (2011), p. 37.

  107. 107.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 30.

  108. 108.

    Dempsey and McIntyrre (2009), p. 213.

  109. 109.

    “Free-rider” is a general term used for businesses (in this context, producers that do not actively participate in a programme but nevertheless benefit from it and thus threaten the scheme’s successful development. Hoeveler (2009). MfE, Product Stewardship and Water Efficiency Labeling - New Tools to Reduce Waste (August 2006). http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/product-stewardship-waterlabelling-aug06/product-stewardship-labelling-aug06.pdf. Kristensen et al. (2011), p. 37.

  110. 110.

    The WEEE Management Decree repealed the Management of White and Brown Goods Decree from 1999, which up until the adoption of the WEEE Directive, had been the legal basis for the handling of WEEE in the Netherlands. Article 7 of the WEEE Management Decree of July 6, 2004. http://www.cfsd.org.uk/seeba/countries/netherlands/reports/200409_engelsevertaling_besluit_elektrapp%5B1%5D.pdf. Kristensen et al. (2011).

  111. 111.

    WEEE Management Decree 2004. http://www.epeat.org/weee-registration/Netherlands_WEEE-management-decree_200409_engelsevertaling_besluit_elektrapp.pdf. WEEE Management Regulations. http://www.epeat.org/weee-registration/Netherlands_WEEE-management-regulations_200409_engelsevertaling_regeling_elektrapp.pdf.

  112. 112.

    Section 1 and 7 of the Regulations.

  113. 113.

    Section 3 of the Regulations.

  114. 114.

    Kristensen et al. (2011), pp. 38–39.

  115. 115.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 79, p. 31.

  116. 116.

    Sachs (2006), p. 30.

  117. 117.

    These logistics included changing role of market shares or members. For example, a large PC manufacturer with a considerable market share in the past had seen a reduction in sales at the end of the 1990s. Given its historical presence in the market a large proportion of the total product returns at this time were from its own brand. Coupled with more recent reduced sales, this meant that this particular PC manufacturer had—in comparison with its competitors—much higher costs when proportioned to per unit placed on the market. In view of these circumstances, the manufacturer would threaten to leave the system unless the financing model was changed. INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 31.

  118. 118.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010).

  119. 119.

    This figure signifies the average WEEE collection rate per EU inhabitant in 2010. Netherlands had collected about 8 kg of WEEE by 2010. WEEE Forum Annual Report 2010. http://www.weee-forum.org/system/files/various/2010_annual_report_final.pdf. Kristensen et al. (2011).

  120. 120.

    Paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the WEEE Regulations provides that the scope provided for enforcement exists under both administrative and criminal law and infringement of the regulations is punishable under the Economic Offences Act. Text of the WEEE Regulations (n 110). Pak (2008), pp. 271–272; Elisha (2010–2011), p. 223.

  121. 121.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 32.

  122. 122.

    Kristensen et al. (2011), p. 38.

  123. 123.

    Kutz (2006), p. 322.

  124. 124.

    McKenna (2007), pp. 116, 122.

  125. 125.

    INFORM Strategies for a better environment, Electric Appliance Recycling in Japan. http://www.informinc.org/fact_JapanEPR.pdf.

  126. 126.

    Revised Law for the Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources, April 2001 (promulgated June 2000, as an amendment to the Resource Recycling Promotion Law, enacted in 1991). Hoeveler (2009), p. 156.

  127. 127.

    Pak (2008), pp. 271–272. Elisha (2010–2011), p. 224.

  128. 128.

    Tojo (2004), p. 17. INSEAD Working Paper (2010).

  129. 129.

    As at 2011, SHAR Law was being reviewed by the national authorities and there was strong indication that two additional product groups—clothes dryers and LCD Display and Plasma-display TV sets would be included in the scope of the law. INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 17.

  130. 130.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 18. See also Elisha (2010–2011), p. 224.

  131. 131.

    Elisha (2010–2011).

  132. 132.

    Lin et al. (2001–2002), pp. 541–542.

  133. 133.

    Pak (2008), pp. 196, 272.

  134. 134.

    Japanese consumers pay two fees when they discard e-waste at collection centers: a collection fee which covers the cost of collection, and a recycling fee based on the cost of recycling that particular item. See INSEAD Working Paper (2010). INFORM Appliance (n 125); Elisha (2010–2011), p. 224.

  135. 135.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 20.

  136. 136.

    The recycling ticket has five copies of which the consumer retains the original. The retailer keeps another copy and the remaining 3 copies accompany the product to the regional aggregation points. One copy is filed at the regional aggregation center and the other 2 are transported with the product to the recycling plant. The recycling plant retains the 4th copy which is then sent back to retailer to complete the cycle. On each copy of the ticket, product details—model number and manufacturer name—and name of the retailer that collected the waste product are recorded. INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 20.

  137. 137.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010).

  138. 138.

    Hoeveler (2009), p. 156.

  139. 139.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 20.

  140. 140.

    DTI (2005), p. 49. INSEAD Working Paper (2010).

  141. 141.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 21.

  142. 142.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010).

  143. 143.

    INFORM Appliance (n 125), p. 1.

  144. 144.

    Tojo (2004), pp. ix, 68.

  145. 145.

    Pak (2008), p. 273; Tojo (2004), p. 171.

  146. 146.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 1.

  147. 147.

    Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry No 62 of 2001 and Ordinance of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry No 77 of 2001.

  148. 148.

    Copy machines are also regulated under the disposal guidelines. Kutz (2006), p. 322. INFORM. APPLIANCE (n 125). Elisha (2010–2011), p. 224.

  149. 149.

    Pak (2008), p. 272. Hoeveler (2009), p. 158.

  150. 150.

    Pak (2008). Hoeveler (2009).

  151. 151.

    DTI Paper (2005), p. 21.

  152. 152.

    INFORM APPLIANCE (note 125), p. 2.

  153. 153.

    Hoeveler (2009), p. 158.

  154. 154.

    Hoeveler (2009). INSEAD Working Paper (2010), p. 24.

  155. 155.

    INSEAD Working Paper (2010).

  156. 156.

    Aoki-Suzuki (2013), p. 174.

  157. 157.

    ibid.

  158. 158.

    It should be noted however that the Dutch EPR-based legislation has been criticized as not being wholly encompassing in the management of e-waste because of the absence of an EU Clearing House which can facilitate compliance of producers to pay a financial guarantee according to the market share of their products. Kristensen et al. (2011), p. 2.

  159. 159.

    This is exemplified by virtue of the Harmful Waste (Special Criminal Provisions) Decree of 1989, of which a bill for amendment was only passed in 2012, since the adoption of the legislation in 1989.

  160. 160.

    Sections 7 (1), 11 (1) and 11(4), ibid.

  161. 161.

    Ibid.

  162. 162.

    Section 16 of the Regulations.

  163. 163.

    Section 14 of the Regulations.

  164. 164.

    See definition in section 15 above.

  165. 165.

    Section 32.

  166. 166.

    Section 3 (a) i and ii, of Schedule IX.

  167. 167.

    Ibid at Schedule IX.

  168. 168.

    E-Waste concerns re-echoes at clean environment forum. http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/08/e-waste-concerns-re-echoes-at-clean-environment-forum/.

  169. 169.

    S. I. No. 23 in Government Gazette Notice No. 137, 25th May 2011.

  170. 170.

    Regulation 3 (1).

  171. 171.

    Regulation 69.

  172. 172.

    Regulation 69.

  173. 173.

    Reg. 36 (2) (a)–(e).

  174. 174.

    Such export cannot be carried out without a valid transboundary and movement permit issued from the Federal Ministry of Environment. Such a permit also relates to the specific export transaction and shall not be valid for any subsequent export transaction. See Regulation 41 (1) and (2).

  175. 175.

    Reg. 8 (1).

  176. 176.

    Reg. 8(2).

  177. 177.

    Reg. 34 (2) and (3).

  178. 178.

    Reg. 61 (1) (a) and (c) and Reg. 67 (1) and (2).

  179. 179.

    Reg. 11 (1). Also, importers/distributors for all EEE equipment traded or donated to individuals, educational institutions, religious organizations, communities or body corporate by whatever means, shall comply with sub-regulation (1). See Reg. 11 (2).

  180. 180.

    Reg. 11 (3).

  181. 181.

    Reg. 11 (4) (a)–(c).

  182. 182.

    Consumers are also to return end of life EEE to collection points and centres. Regulation 11 (4) (a)–(c).

  183. 183.

    Lifset and Lindhqvist (2008). Avasu and Subramanian (2012), p. 1042.

  184. 184.

    Recital 12 of the EU Directive 2002.

  185. 185.

    Reg. 61 (3) (n) and 67(2).

    Reg. 5 (3); Schedule IV sets out a Guide Template for Emergency Procedures in EEE Facility.

    Reg. 61 (2) and (3) (j) and (k).

    Reg. 69.

  186. 186.

    These e-waste recycling companies are E-Terra Technologies Limited and Hinckley E-waste Recycling, located in Lagos Nigeria. As at the time of publication of this paper, the author was yet to conduct a site observation of these facilities to enable an inclusion of the findings in this paper.

  187. 187.

    Balde (2017), p. 68.

  188. 188.

    Ibid.

  189. 189.

    For example, Zinox Technologies Limited.

References

Journal Articles

  • Avasu A, Subramanian R (2012) Extended producer responsibility for E-waste: individual or collective producer responsibility? Prod Oper Manag Soc 21(6):1042–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coopman P (2015) Extended producer responsibility: getting it right. March–April Waste Management World 27–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald JW (1999) The Bamako Convention as a solution to the problem of hazardous waste exports to less developed countries. Colum J Environ Law 17:419–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Elisha HH (2010–2011) Addressing the E-waste crisis: the need for comprehensive federal E-waste legislation within the United States. Chap Law Rev 14:195–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutowski T et al (2005) Environmentally benign manufacturing: observations from Japan, Europe and the United States. J Clean Prod 13:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeveler JA (2009) International approaches to dealing with electronic waste. N Z J Environ Law 13:117–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiddee P et al (2013) Electronic waste management approaches: an overview. Waste Manag 33:1237–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutz J (2006) You’ve got waste: the exponentially escalating problem of hazardous e-waste. Vill Environ Law J 17:307–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis H (2005) Defining product stewardship and sustainability in the Australian packaging industry. Environ Sci Policy 8(1):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lifset R, Lindhqvist T (2008) Producer responsibility at a turning point? J Ind Ecol 12:144–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lifset R, Atasu A, Tojo N (2013) Extended producer responsibility – national, international and practical perspectives. J Ind Ecol 17(2):162–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CK, Yan L, Davis AN (2001–2002) Globalization, extended producer responsibility and the problem of discarded computers in China: an exploratory proposal for environmental protection. Geo Int Environ Law Rev 14:525–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman Z (1999) Transboundary movement of hazardous waste: environmental justice issues for developing countries. Acta Juridica:266–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayers K, Butler S (2013) Producer responsibility organisations development and operations – a case study. J Ind Ecol 17(2):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann D, Wittmann A E-waste prevention, take-back system design and policy approach step Green Paper, 13 February 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna A (2007) Computer waste: a forgotten and hidden side to the global information society. Environ Law Rev 9:116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahman A (2010) Extended producer responsibility for packaging waste in South Africa: current approaches and lessons learned. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(3):155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nnorom IC, Osibanjo O (2008) Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:843–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunseitan OA (2013) The Basel Convention and e-waste: translation of scientific uncertainty to protective policy. Lancet Global Health 1(6):e313–e314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osuagwu OE, Ikerionwu E (2010) E-cycling E-waste: the way forward for Nigeria IT and electro mechanical industry. Int J Acad Res 2(1):142–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Pak P (2008) Note: Haste makes E-waste: a comparative analysis of how the United States should approach the growing E-waste threat. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 16:241–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs N (2006) Planning the funeral at the birth: extended producer responsibility in the European Union and the United States. Harv Environ Law Rev 30:51–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Tojo N (2004) Extended producer responsibility as a driver for design change – Utopia or reality. IIIEE Doctoral Thesis, Lund; IIIEE, Lund University

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer R et al (2005) Global perspectives on e-waste. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25:436–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DC (1996) Stick or Carrot? The use of policy measures to move waste management up the hierarchy. Waste Manag Res 14:385–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

Books

  • Alder J, Wilkinson D (1999) Environmental law and ethics. Palgrave MacMillan, United Kingdom, pp 1–410

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asante-Duah K (1993) Hazardous waste risk assessment. CRC Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Atsegbua L, Akpotaire V, Dimowo F (2004) Environmental law in Nigeria: theory and practice. Ababa Press Ltd, Lagos

    Google Scholar 

  • Balde CP, Forti V, Gray V, Kuehr R, Stegmann P (2017) The Global E-waste Monitor – quantities, flows and resources. United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Vienna, pp 1–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosman C (2008) Integrated waste management. In: Strydom HA, King N (eds) Environmental management in South Africa. Juta & Company Ltd, South Africa, pp 1–1142

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss A, Shelton D (2007) Guide to international environmental law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 1–303

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee M (2005) EU environmental law – challenges, change and decision making. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Naude A (2010) Conceptualising waste management, 1st edn. Source Corporation, Cape Town

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble G (ed) (1992) Hazardous waste in South Africa. In: Kidd M (2008) Environmental law. Juta & Company Limited, South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst KN, Beierle TC (1999) The evolution of hazardous waste programs: lessons from eight countries resources for the future. Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld PE, Feng LGH (2011) Risks of hazardous waste. Elsevier Inc, UK, pp 1–454

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (2003) Principles of international environmental law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 1–1074

    Book  Google Scholar 

Chapters in Books

  • Aoki-Suzuki C (2013) Controlling trade in electronic waste. In: Hieronymi K, Kahhat R, Willliams E (eds) E-waste management: from waste to resource. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressers HT et al (2002) The disposal of white and brown goods. In: De Clercq M (ed) Negotiated environmental agreements in Europe: critical factors for success. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey M, McIntyrre K (2009) The role of collective versus individual producer responsibility in e-waste management: key learning from around the world. In: Hester RE, Harrison RM (eds) Electronic waste management. RSC Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikhariale M (1989) The Koko Incident, the environment and the law. In: Shyllon F (ed) The law and the environment in Nigeria, pp 73–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuger J (2001) The Basel Convention and the international trade in hazardous wastes. In: Stokke OS, Thommessen OB (eds) Yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development. Earthscan Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Redclift M (1993) Environmental economics, policy consensus and political empowerment. In: Turner RK (ed) Sustainable environmental economics and management – principles and practice. Belhaven Press, London

    Google Scholar 

Online Publications

News Articles

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS), Lagos, Nigeria

    Irekpitan Okukpon

Authors
  1. Irekpitan Okukpon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Chile Eboe-Osuji

  2. School of Law, Faculty of Management and Law, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK

    Engobo Emeseh

  3. Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Olabisi D. Akinkugbe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Okukpon, I. (2021). Implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)-based Electronic Waste Institutions in Nigeria: Lessons from the Global North. In: Eboe-Osuji, C., Emeseh, E., Akinkugbe, O.D. (eds) Nigerian Yearbook of International Law 2018/2019. Nigerian Yearbook of International Law , vol 2018/2019. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69594-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69594-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69593-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69594-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation