Options
Research article

Ticking Time Bomb: Implications of the Covid-19 Lockdown on E-Waste Management in Developing Countries

Authors
  • Oluwadamilola A. Adejumo orcid logo (Lecturer, Department of Business Law, Faculty of Law, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria)
  • Olubisi F. Oluduro (Senior Lecturer, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria)

This is version 2 of this article, the published version can be found at: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444/ucloe.000023

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the course of events globally since the outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in late 2019 giving further credence to the long-standing belief that the world is indeed a global village. There have been different responses by countries to the raging pandemic including the imposition of lockdowns, quarantine and isolation. The imposition of lockdowns, whether full or partial, has not been without major consequences, which has led to information, communication and technological (ICT)-based measures to minimise the effect of the lockdown and as an alternative to physical interactions. The use of ICT devices to bridge the gaps created by the lockdown on schools, businesses and other sectors has led to the increased use of electronic devices. The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries has been around for a while and the increased use of electronic devices is likely to compound the challenge during and post COVID-19. Whilst the development of ICT-based options as viable alternatives to face-to-face interactions may not be a negative development, this article argues that the existing frameworks are inadequate to manage the resultant increase in e-waste in most developing countries and that there is need now more than ever before for developing countries to exercise caution in embracing these ICT-based options without putting in place measures to ensure that there is increased capacity to manage and dispose of the e-waste created.

Keywords: coronavirus, COVID-19 lockdown, developing countries, e-waste, e-waste management, non-physical interactions

Rights: © 2021 The Authors.

2081 Views

1Citations

Published on
04 Aug 2021
Peer Reviewed
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

 Open peer review from Anuj Mittal

Review

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EARTH.AGD1X3.v1.RNOIEL
License:
This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com .

Keywords: Pollution and health , waste management , developing countries , coronavirus , e-waste , pollution , Environmental policy and practice , COVID-19 lockdown , Environmental protection

Review text

The article describes about inadequacy of existing frameworks to manage e-waste in developing countries. However, no discussion has been included on why these frameworks are inadequate to address the management of e-waste. What are the challenges for the implementation of existing frameworks? This should be discussed in detail using examples for at least some countries. For example, challenges in Nigeria to implement e-waste management by NESREA.

Also, the article do not discuss about what type of other frameworks or different structures of frameworks should be developed for e-waste management in developing countries. Once the authors identify the challenges in the current frameworks (as mentioned in the above point), the authors could discuss about need of other frameworks in detail in a separate section (Research Implications).

I would recommend adding a summary table of the existing frameworks for e-waste management, which countr(ies) they have been implemented, results and/or shortcomings, and challenges, to summarize section 5.



Note:
This review refers to round 1 of peer review.

 Open peer review from Pedi Obani

Review

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EARTH.ACZPSQ.v1.RVZMYS
License:
This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com .

Keywords: Pollution and health , waste management , developing countries , coronavirus , e-waste , pollution , Environmental policy and practice , COVID-19 lockdown , Environmental protection

Review text

This is an interesting article which raises important points about the environmental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. I enjoyed reading it, and would like to encourage the authors to consider the comments below.

I have four key comments.

  1. The title and introductory framing of the article do not seem to really match what the article offers. The article appears to focus mainly on e-waste management in Nigeria. There is no case made in the article for generalizing the findings from Nigeria to other ‘developing countries’. Perhaps the authors could consider the simple solution of revising the title of the article, the introduction, and the section on legal and institutional framework for addressing the ewaste challenge.
  2. The description of the COVID-19 pandemic in Section 1 seems very general. It could either be cut if the authors are so inclined or the analysis could be strenghtened in line with the theme of the paper.
  3. The article seems based on the assumption of increased reliance on ICT and in relation to this, the greater risk of an e-waste mamagement problem. Is there any evidence of increased importation and/or use of ICT and generation of more electronic waste during the pandemic, particularly in developing countries? It is important to consider the available evidence (for instance, any reports on the significant widening of the digital divide between and within developing and deloped countries during the COVID-19 pandemic AND loss of livelihoods, etc) and nuance the arguments made in the article accordingly.
  4. The authors could consider addressing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the regulation of e-waste and the enforcement of relevant laws. This could complement the current Section V.

More specific comments:

p.8

Please explain the meaning of “HCW” where it is used for the first time, and clarify the use of “region”.

p.10

“Nigeria’s fast-growing second (hand?) computer”

“Also, burning of waste which has a well-documented association with the incidence of respiratory health symptoms among adults and children alike.” Comment: Incomplete sentence?

“Landfills are a standard method for disposing of wastes in the developed and developing worlds, however, improperly built landfills can cause environmental and human health problems.” Comment: Please check punctuation.

p.13

Please explain the meaning of “LDCs” where it is used for the first time.

p.18

“The desire for technological advancement and alternative ICT based options as a viable The desire for technological advancement and alternative options created to address the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown is changing settings in the developing world.”

Comment:

Please check the structure of the sentence(s).

p.19

“Stronger commitment should be made toward enforcement of existing laws and national regulations… Stricter measures at regulating the movement of e-waste substances from the UK, the USA and the EU member states should be put in place with developing states being able to prohibit or object to shipments of waste in order to implement the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency.”

Comment:

Who should be responsible for establishing the stronger commitment and putting in place the stricter regulations? Also, could the Conclusion of the paper does not seem to directly address some of the challenges identified in Section V, especially the socio-legal dimensions of (poor) e-waste management that were identified by the authors in Section V?



Note:
This review refers to round 1 of peer review.