A crack in the facade? Situating Singapore in global flows of electronic waste

Abstract

Singapore is alleged to be a key node in global flows of e-waste prohibited under the Basel Convention. We combine a close reading of the Convention and related documents with findings from nonparticipant observation of and interviews with Singapore-based traders of discarded electronics. The case offers both important conceptual and empirical findings for future studies of territory in market-making activity. Conceptually, our research suggests that it may be analytically useful in such studies to conceptualize territory without presupposing that it is generated as a result of separate domains or logics such as 'the political' or 'the economic'. Empirically, we find that the regulatory framework of the Convention, combined with the action of traders based in Singapore, generates a territorialization of the city-state such that it operates as a crack in the regulatory edifice of the Convention, even as Singapore lawfully fulfils its obligations to it. Moreover, allegations premised on the role of Singapore as a facilitator of global e-waste dumping misrepresent its crucial role as a conduit of electronic equipment for the significant reuse markets elsewhere in Southeast Asia and beyond. The case indicates that the allegations against Singapore hinge on the city-state being territorialized as a 'developing country'.

The environmental costs of the global digital economy in Asia and the urgent need for better policy

“…So-called 'technology hubs' such as Mediapolis, Fusionopolis and Biopolis also have e-waste bins placed visibly at the front entrance (Figure 2). However, as Lepawsky and Connolly (2016) point out, Singapore can be used as a test case to highlight many of the flaws in the Basel Convention, which is the key international binding treaty to currently regulate e-waste. Because of its location, it is automatically categorised the same way as a developing country that is vulnerable to the import as hazardous waste rather than more appropriately being treated as a major producer and large exporter of e-waste.…”

“…Because of its location, it is automatically categorised the same way as a developing country that is vulnerable to the import as hazardous waste rather than more appropriately being treated as a major producer and large exporter of e-waste. Furthermore, they note that the Convention permits bi-and multilateral trade agreements (and Singapore has many) to supersede the Convention on the condition that they meet or exceed the Convention's requirements of environmentally sound management of hazardous waste, which is left as a vague and unclear category that therefore cannot be regulated (Lepawsky and Connolly 2016).…”

“…They could introduce policies to ensure data centres are forced to reduce carbon emissions and they can be more involved in decisions about the locations of data centres and their design. They can also monitor and heavily penalise illegal e-waste activities and be proactive by providing tax breaks or rebates to both citizens and for companies that effectively process old equipment or use renewable energy sources while policing and regulating the flourishing informal and illegal trade of ICTs in ways that maximise reuse, but also discourage over-consumption (Lepawsky and Connolly, 2016). First however, the government must provide transparency so that citizens and businesses are aware of how much e-waste is being accumulated and can find out where this e-waste is being sent.…”

Material Implications of Rural Electrification—A Methodological Framework to Assess In-Use Stocks of Off-Grid Solar Products and EEE in Rural Households in Bangladesh

“…Furthermore, the shipbreaking industry and illegal imports add significant amounts of e-waste. Most of the e-waste in Bangladesh is sourced from abroad for re-use, repair, and material recovery [76,77]. Yet, there is only a rudimentary legal framework and inventory for e-waste management in Bangladesh [35,78,79].…”