Makers of electronic goods and telecom gear oppose draft recycling rules

Meity officials support the view of associations representing manufacturers

Companies manufacturing electronic goods and telecom gear are facing rough weather from the draft guidelines of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on setting the minimum price for recycling and processing various categories of electrical and electronic waste.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) has opposed the guidelines, set by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
 

Under the guidelines, producers can buy extended producer responsibility (EPR) credit certificates from recyclers to comply with their obligation of meeting their e-waste targets annually.
 

Meity conveyed its stance on Monday in a meeting, which had representatives from the CPCB and the environment ministry as well as stakeholder associations.
 

Meity officials supported the view of associations representing mobile phones, consumer electronics, and telecom equipment that a floor price was not required. They, however, endorsed the proposal to have a maximum price.
 

Companies have alleged the guidelines ignore fair-market principles. Most of them have mid- and long-term commercial agreements with recyclers on prices, which are one-third to one-fourth of the minimum price set by the government.

This, they say, will increase their financial burden but bring a bonanza for recyclers.

For instance, the draft guidelines have fixed the price of recycling end metals at Rs 80 per kg while recycling prices in this category range from Rs 6 to Rs 25 per kg.
 

Under the scheme for electrical and electronic wastage, there are nearly 120 products that will be affected. They include mobile phones, telecom equipment, television, laptops, washing machines, and audio systems.
 

Electronic and telecom equipment makers have complained that despite disagreement even as late as August 8, expressed in a steering committee meeting of the ministries, the decision of regulating the prices of EPR credits was released.
 

Another complaint of the companies is that the pricing data of the CPCB was taken from recyclers. The data of companies relating to prices, which were much lower, were not considered. So taking the average recycling cost cannot be a transparent mechanism. Recyclers operate at distinct operational efficiencies, which vary in accordance with capacity, technology and the recovery of end material.
 

Also with optimal operational efficiency the processing cost of recovered material (at 40-50 per cent purity) cannot be equivalent or more than the price of virgin primary metals (with over 99.99 per cent purity).
 

Electronic companies have raised the issue of bias in favour of recyclers. They have said only they have to pay compensation for violating guidelines, not recyclers.
 

Telecom gear makers have questioned the initial e-waste obligation, which is 60 per cent of the electrical and electronic waste put on the market in the first two years and is applied retrospectively.
 

They say the target is stiff and have suggested EPR targets of 10 per cent for two-three years to begin with, which may be reviewed based on industry feedback. 

Not in sync
 

Electronic players say they have long-term contracts with recyclers where their price is far lower than the minimum price fixed by the Central Pollution Control Board for recycling and processing e-waste
 

Pricing is based on recycler and producer data, whichever is lower is not considered
 

Discussions with stakeholders is limited and their views were not taken into consideration
 

Bias in favour of recyclers, there was no penalisation if they break rules
 

Stiff e-waste targets not possible to achieve