Conservation agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_agriculture 

 

 Conservation agriculture (CA) can be defined by a statement given by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as "Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a farming system that can prevent losses of arable land while regenerating degraded lands.It promotes minimum soil disturbance (i.e. no-till farming), maintenance of a permanent soil cover, and diversification of plant species. It enhances biodiversity and natural biological processes above and below the ground surface, which contribute to increased water and nutrient use efficiency and to improved and sustained crop production."

Agriculture according to the New Standard Encyclopedia is "one of the most important sectors in the economies of most nations" (New Standard 1992). At the same time conservation is the use of resources in a manner that safely maintains a resource that can be used by humans. Conservation has become critical because the global population has increased over the years and more food needs to be produced every year (New Standard 1992). Sometimes referred to as "agricultural environmental management", conservation agriculture may be sanctioned and funded through conservation programs promulgated through agricultural legislation, such as the U.S. Farm Bill.

Key principles

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has determined that conservation agriculture (CA) has three key principles that producers (farmers) can proceed through in the process of CA. These three principles outline what conservationists and producers believe can be done to conserve what we use for a longer period of time.

The first key principle in CA is practicing minimum soil disturbance which is essential to maintaining minerals within the soil, stopping erosion, and preventing water loss from occurring within the soil. In the past agriculture has looked at soil tillage as a main process in the introduction of new crops to an area. It was believed that tilling the soil would increase fertility within the soil through mineralization that takes place in the soil. Also tilling of soil can cause severe erosion and crusting which leads to a decrease in soil fertility. Today tillage is seen as destroying organic matter that can be found within the soil cover. No-till farming has caught on as a process that can save soil organic levels for a longer period and still allow the soil to be productive for longer periods (FAO 2007). Additionally, the process of tilling can increase time and labor for producing that crop. Minimum soil disturbance also reduce destruction of soil micro and macro-organism habitats that is common in conventional ploughing practices.

When no-till practices are followed, the producer sees a reduction in production cost for a certain crop. Tillage of the ground requires more money in order to fuel tractors or to provide feed for the animals pulling the plough. The producer sees a reduction in labor because he or she does not have to be in the fields as long as a conventional farmer.

The second key principle in CA is much like the first in dealing with protecting the soil. The principle of managing the top soil to create a permanent organic soil cover can allow for growth of organisms within the soil structure. This growth will break down the mulch that is left on the soil surface. The breaking down of this mulch will produce a high organic matter level which will act as a fertilizer for the soil surface. If CA practices were used done for many years and enough organic matter was being built up at the surface, then a layer of mulch would start to form. This layer helps prevent soil erosion from taking place and ruining the soil's profile or layout. The presence of mulching also reduce the velocity of runoff and the impact of rain drops thus reducing soil erosion and runoff.

According to the article "The role of conservation agriculture and sustainable agriculture", the layer of mulch that is built up over time will become like a buffer zone between soil and mulch and this will help reduce wind and water erosion. With this comes the protection of the soil's surface when rain falls on the ground. Land that is not protected by a layer of mulch is left open to the elements (Hobbs et al. 2007). This type of ground cover also helps keep the temperature and moisture levels of the soil at a higher level rather than if it was tilled every year (FAO 2007).

The third principle is the practicing diverse crop rotations or crop interactions. According to an article published in the Physiological Transactions of the Royal Society called "The role of conservation agriculture and sustainable agriculture", crop rotation can be used best as a disease control against other preferred crops (Hobbs et al. 2007). This process will not allow pests such as insects and weeds to be set into a rotation with specific crops. Rotational crops will act as a natural insecticide and herbicide against specific crops. Not allowing insects or weeds to establish a pattern will help to eliminate problems with yield reduction and infestations within fields (FAO 2007). Crop rotation can also help build up soil infrastructure. Establishing crops in a rotation allows for an extensive buildup of rooting zones which will allow for better water infiltration (Hobbs et al. 2007).

Organic molecules in the soil break down into phosphates, nitrates and other beneficial elements which are thus better absorbed by plants. Plowing increases the amount of oxygen in the soil and increases the aerobic processes, hastening the breakdown of organic material. Thus more nutrients are available for the next crop but, at the same time, the soil is depleted more quickly of its nutrient reserves.

Examples

Conservation- or eco-agriculture involves multiple elements to protect wildlife.

In conservation agriculture there are many examples that can be looked towards as a way of farming and at the same time conserving. These practices are well known by most producers. The process of no-till is one that follows the first principle of CA, causing minimal mechanical soil disturbance. No-till also brings other benefits to the producer. According to the FAO, tillage is one of the most "energy consuming" processes that can be used: It requires a lot of labor, time, and fuel to till. Producers can save 30% to 40% of time and labor by practicing the no-till process. (FAO 3020)

Besides conserving the soil, there are other examples of how CA is used. According to an article in Science called "Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature" there are two more kinds of CA. The practice of wildlife-friendly farming and land sparing are ideas for producers who are looking to practice better conservation towards biodiversity (Green, et al. 2005).

Wildlife-friendly farming

Wildlife-friendly farming, also known as land sharing, allows for the conservation of biodiversity while also allowing for production of agricultural products. In this approach, land is set aside to preserve the wildlife while the rest is used to fulfill the farmers need of agricultural commodities. Farmers take this approach by leaving some aspects of the land the same (i.e., scattered trees and patches of initial vegetation) while harvesting a diverse grouping of crops around it. This, in turn, allows for animals such as bees to pollinate, and the natural predation of unwanted pests. By practicing such method the harvester can expect to see much lower yields, but also an increase in biodiversity given time. This decrease of yield then gives rise to the idea of land sparing, the maximization of yield in a homogenous landscape.

Land sparing

Land sparing is another way that producer and conservationist can be on the same page. Land sparing advocates for the land that is being used for agricultural purposes to continue to produce crops at increased yield. With an increase in yield on all land that is in use, other land can be set aside for conservation and production for biodiversity. Agricultural land stays in production but would have to increase its yield potential to keep up with demand. Land that is not being put into agriculture would be used for conserving biodiversity (Green, et al. 2005). In fact, data from the Food and Agriculture Organization shows that between 1961 and 2012, the amount of arable land needed to produce the same amount of food declined by 68 percent worldwide.

Benefits

In the field of CA there are many benefits that both the producer and conservationist can obtain.

On the side of the conservationist, CA can be seen as beneficial because there is an effort to conserve what people use every day. Since agriculture is one of the most destructive forces against biodiversity, CA can change the way humans produce food and energy. With conservation come environmental benefits of CA. These benefits include less erosion possibilities, better water conservation, improvement in air quality due to lower emissions being produced, and a chance for larger biodiversity in a given area.

On the side of the producer and/or farmer, CA can eventually do all that is done in conventional agriculture, and it can conserve better than conventional agriculture. CA according to Theodor Friedrich, who is a specialist in CA, believes "Farmers like it because it gives them a means of conserving, improving, and making more efficient use of their natural resources" (FAO 2006). Producers will find that the benefits of CA will come later rather than sooner. Since CA takes time to build up enough organic matter and have soils become their own fertilizer, the process does not start to work overnight. But if producers make it through the first few years of production, results will start to become more satisfactory.

CA is shown to have even higher yields and higher outputs than conventional agriculture once it has been established over long periods. Also, a producer has the benefit of knowing that the soil in which his crops are grown is a renewable resource. According to New Standard Encyclopedia, soils are a renewable resource, which means that whatever is taken out of the soil can be put back over time (New Standard 1992). As long as good soil upkeep is maintained, the soil will continue to renew itself. This could be very beneficial to a producer who is practicing CA and is looking to keep soils at a productive level for an extended time.

The farmer and/or producer can use this same land in another way when crops have been harvested. The introduction of grazing livestock to a field that once held crops can be beneficial for the producer and also the field itself. Livestock manure can be used as a natural fertilizer for a producer's field which will then be beneficial for the producer the next year when crops are planted once again. The practice of grazing livestock using CA helps the farmer who raises crops on that field and the farmer who raises the livestock that graze off that field. Livestock produce compost or manure which are a great help in generating soil fertility (Pawley W.H. 1963). The practices of CA and grazing livestock on a field for many years can allow for better yields in the following years as long as these practices continue to be followed.

The FAO believes that there are three major benefits from CA:

• Within fields that are controlled by CA the producer will see an increase in organic matter.
• Increase in water conservation due to the layer of organic matter and ground cover to help eliminate transportation and access runoff.
• Improvement of soil structure and rooting zone.

Future development

As in any other business, producers and conservationists are always looking towards the future. In this case CA is a very important process to be looked at for future generation. There are many organizations that have been created to help educate and inform producers and conservationists in the world of CA. These organizations can help to inform, conduct research, and buy land in order to preserve animals and plants (New Standard 1992).

Another way in which CA is looking to the future is through prevention. According to the European Journal of Agronomy producers are looking for ways to reduce leaching problems within their fields. These producers are using the same principles within CA, in that they are leaving cover over their fields in order to save fields from erosion and leaching of chemicals (Kirchmann & Thorvaldsson 2000). Processes and studies like this are allowing for a better understanding of how to conserve what we are using and finding ways to put back something that may have been lost before.

In the same journal article is presented another way in which producers and conservationists are looking towards the future. Circulation of plant nutrients can be a vital part for conserving the future. An example of this would be the use of animal manure. This process has been used for quite some time now, but the future is looking towards ways to handle and conserve nutrients within manure for a longer time. But besides animal waste, food and urban waste are also being looked towards as a way to use growth within CA (Kirchmann & Thorvaldsson 2000). Turning these products from waste to being used to grow crops and improve yields is something that would be beneficial for conservationists and producers.

Agri-environment schemes

In 1992, 'agri-environment schemes' became compulsory for all European Union Member States. In the following years the main purpose of these schemes changed slightly. Initially, they sought to protect threatened habitats, but gradually shifted their focus to the prevention of the loss of wildlife from agricultural landscapes. Most recently, the schemes are placing more emphasis on improving the services that the land can provide to humans (e.g. pollination). Overall, farmers involved in the scheme aim to practice environmentally friendlier farming techniques such as: reducing the use of pesticides, managing or altering their land to increase more wildlife friendly habitats (e.g. increasing areas of trees and bushes), reducing irrigation, conserving soil, and organic farming. As the changes in practices that ensure the protection of the environment are costly to farmers, the EU developed agri-environment schemes to financially compensate individual farmers for applying these changes and therefore increased the implementation of conservation agriculture. The schemes are voluntary for farmers. Once joined, they commit to a minimum of five years during which they have to adopt various sustainable farming techniques. According to the Euro-stat website, in 2009 the agricultural area enrolled in agri-environment schemes covered 38.5 million hectares (20.9% of agricultural land in the 27 member states of the EU at the time) (Agri-environmental indicator 2015). The European Commission spent a total of €3.23 billion on agri-environment schemes in 2012, significantly exceeding the cost of managing special sites of conservation (Natura 2000) that year, which came to a total of €39.6 million (Batáry et al. 2015).

There are two main types of agri-environment schemes which have shown different outcomes. Out-of-production schemes tend to be used in extensive farming practices (where the farming land is widespread and less intensive farming is practiced), and focus on improving or setting land aside that will not be used for the production of food, for example, the addition of wildflower strips. In-production schemes (used for a smaller scale, but more intensively farmed land) focus on the sustainable management of arable crops or grassland, for example reduction of pesticides, reduction of grassland mowing, and most commonly, organic farming. In a 2015 review of studies examining the effects of the two schemes, it was found that out-of-production schemes had a higher success rate at enhancing the number of thriving species around the land. The reason behind this is thought to be the scheme's focus on enhancing specific species by providing them with more unaltered habitats, which results in more food resources for the specific species. On the other hand, in-production schemes attempt to enhance the quality of the land in general, and are thus less species specific. Based on the findings, the reviewers suggest that schemes which more specifically target the declining groups of species, may be more effective. The findings and the targets will be implemented between 2015 and 2020, so that by 2025, the effectiveness of these schemes can be re-assessed and will have increased significantly (Batáry et al. 2015).

In this vein, in recent years 'results based pilot programs' have been introduced across the EU under Pillar Two of the Common Agriculture Policy. Results-based agri-environmental programs are defined by the European Commission as "schemes where farmers and land managers are paid for delivering an environmental result or outcome, e.g. number of breeding birds, or number of plant species in grasslands, with the flexibility to choose what management is required to achieve the desired result." Results-based payment programs are also commonly referred to as Pay for Performance or Payment for Ecosystem Services. These programs differ from traditional conservation programs by focusing on observed, verifiable outcomes as opposed to implementation of best practices. Pure results-based programs refer to programs that provide payments to farmers solely on the delivery of an environmental outcome. Hybrid results-based programs refer to programs that may have a management requirement component in addition to payments for observable environmental outcomes. Results based programs often increase farmer autonomy and participation, produce clear quantifiable results and effectively link payment to environmental conservation outcomes. Some NGOs have started to pilot similar programs in the US, for example Winrock International partnered with the Sand County Foundation to provide payment to farmers for reducing nutrient loads from their lands across the Midwest.

Problems

As much as conservation agriculture can benefit the world, there are some problems that come with it. There are many reasons why conservation agriculture cannot always be a win-win situation. Examples of these disadvantages include high initial costs of specialized planting equipment, and a new dynamic farming system that requires new management skills and a learning process by the farmer. Long term experience with conservation farming all over the world has shown that this system does not present more or less but different problems to a farmer, all of them possible to resolve.

There are not enough people who can financially turn from conventional farming to conservation. The process of CA takes time; when a producer first becomes a conservationist, the results can be a financial loss to them (in most cases, the investment and policy generally exist). CA is based upon establishing an organic layer and producing its own fertilizer and this may take time. It can be many years before a producer will start to see better yields than he/she has had previously. Another financial undertaking is purchasing of new equipment. When starting to use CA, a producer may have to buy new planters or drills in order to produce effectively. These financial tasks are ones that may impact whether or not a producer decides to switch to CA or not.

Interactions with livestock and competition for crop residues - In developing countries, livestock is often an integral part of the farming system, so it needs to be considered when introducing CA. The application of CA requires a critical level of crop residues remaining on the surface, while traditionally most of these residues are used for feeding livestock. It is a common practice to allow livestock to graze in the harvested crop fields or to slash the crop residue and store it for fodder.

With the struggle to adapt comes the struggle to make CA grow across the globe. CA has not spread as quickly as most conservationists would like. The reason for this is because there is not enough pressure for producers in places such as North America to change their way of living to a more conservationist outlook. But in the tropics there is more pressure to change to conservation areas because of the limited resources that are available. Places like Europe have also started to catch onto the ideas and principles of CA, but still nothing much is being done to change due to there being a minimal amount of pressure for people to change their ways of living (FAO 2006).

With CA comes the idea of producing enough food. With cutting back in fertilizer, not tilling the ground, and other processes comes the responsibility to feed the world. According to the Population Reference Bureau, there were around 6.08 billion people on Earth in the year 2000. By 2050 there will be an estimated 9.1 billion people. With this increase comes the responsibility for producers to increase food supply using the same or less land than we use today. Problems arise in the fact that if CA farms do not produce as much as conventional farms, this leaves the world with less food for more people.

March of the Living

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_the_Living 

 

March of the Living

Native name	Marsz Żywych (Polish), מצעד החיים (Hebrew)
Date	March or April annually
Location	Auschwitz-Birkenau, Poland
Type	March
Theme	The Holocaust
Cause	Holocaust remembrance and education
Participants	Students, Holocaust survivors, dignitaries
Website	https://motl.org/about

Young people marching between Auschwitz and Birkenau, 2008

March of the Living, Auschwitz, 2005

March of the Living, between Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau, 2005

Canadian students raise the Israeli flag near the Mausoleum at Majdanek (MOTL 1990)

The March of the Living (Hebrew: מצעד החיים, Mits'ad HaKhayim; Polish: Marsz Żywych) is an annual educational program which brings students from around the world to Poland, where they explore the remnants of the Holocaust. On Holocaust Memorial Day observed in the Jewish calendar (Yom HaShoah), thousands of participants march silently from Auschwitz to Birkenau, the largest Nazi concentration camp complex built during World War II.

History

The program was established in 1988 and takes place annually for two weeks around April and May, immediately following Passover. Marchers have come from over 50 countries, as diverse as United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, Estonia, Panama, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Hungary, and Turkey.

The Israeli founders of the March of the Living were politician Avraham Hirschson educator Dr. Shmuel Rosenman, and attorney Baruch Adler. They were assisted in the early years by Jewish communal leaders and philanthropists from the United States (Alvin Schiff, Gene Greenzweig, Dr. David Machlis, and Joseph Wilf, the first North American Chair of the March of the Living), and Canada (Walter Hess, Shlomo Shimon, Rabbi Irwin Witty, and Eli Rubenstein).

Commemoration of World War II death marches

The climax of the program is the March, which is designed to contrast with the death marches which occurred towards the end of World War II. When Nazi Germany withdrew its soldiers from forced-labour camps, inmates – most already starving and stricken by oppressive work – were forced to march hundreds of miles further west, while those who lagged behind or fell were shot or left to freeze to death in the winter climate. The March of the Living, in contrast to the death marches, serves to illustrate the continued existence of the Jewish people despite Nazi attempts at their obliteration.

After spending a week in Poland visiting other sites of Nazi Germany's persecution, such as Majdanek, Treblinka, and the Warsaw Ghetto, and former sites of Jewish life and culture, various Synagogues, many of the participants in the March also travel on to Israel where they observe Yom HaZikaron and celebrate Israel's Independence Day.

Educational value

The March of the Living is mainly aimed at Jewish high school students and its goals are both universal (fighting indifference, racism and injustice) and particular (opposing anti-semitism, and strengthening their sense of Jewish identity).

A key element of the program is the participation of Holocaust survivors who share the memories of their war-time experiences with the students, while they are still well enough to participate in this challenging two-week trip of the young.

Though the vast majority of participants in the March of the Living are Jewish high school students from different countries including Israel, there are many non-Jewish groups in attendance, along with adult groups such as the Polish Friends of Israel, Japan's Bridges for Peace and others. One of the largest groups are students from Polish schools, with over 1,000 attending annually in recent years.

Exhibit

In mid January 2014 a new exhibit on the March of the Living opened at the United Nations, which housed the exhibit until the end of March 2014. Titled "When you Listen to a Witness, You Become a Witness", the exhibit includes photographs, documents and writings devoted to the 25-year history of the March of the Living. The exhibit tells the stories of the aging survivors and their young students who, hand in hand, embark on a life-changing journey and return profoundly transformed. It also contains archival photos of deportation and mass murder from the Holocaust period.

An interactive component of the exhibition allows visitors to fill out their own pledge of tolerance and compassion which may be taken on the March of the Living and planted alongside thousands of other plaques of tolerance and compassion on the very grounds of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The title of the exhibit is taken from the words of Judy Weissenberg Cohen in a speech given to students on the 1997 March of the Living describing the last time she saw her mother during the selection of Hungarian Jewry in Auschwitz-Birkenau in the spring of 1944.

I never had a chance to say goodbye to my mother. We didn't know we had to say goodbye... I am an old woman today and I never made peace with the fact I never had that last hug and kiss. They say "when you listen to a witness, you become a witness too." I am only asking you to work for a world... where nobody will ever have to live memories like mine ever again. Please work for Tikkun Olam [translation: heal the world].

— Judy Weissenberg Cohen, "The Last Time I Saw my Mother"

When You Listen to a Witness - poster for UN exhibit, 2014

Seventy Years - poster for UN exhibit

On March 10, 2014, a group of students from New York's Pine Bush High School – part of a district where there have been press reports alleging widespread anti-Semitism – visited the UN Exhibit. They were addressed by Holocaust survivors Judy Weissenberg Cohen and Fanya Heller, as well as by Rick Carrier, a World War II Liberator.

In November 2015, the Exhibit was mounted at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum.

The UN Exhibit became the basis of a book published in the fall of 2015, titled, Witness: Passing the Torch of Holocaust Memory to New Generations. The book has a unique interactive feature where the survivors, World War II liberators, and Righteous Among the Nations featured in the book, include an invisible link embedded on their image. When their image is accessed with a smart phone or other device, the reader is taken to an excerpt of their video testimony on USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education (created by Steven Spielberg) or March of the Living Digital Archive Project websites. Translations in several other languages are already in the works.

President of Poland Andrzej Duda with Aharon Tamir, Deputy Chairman, March of the Living

In recent years the March of the Living (MOTL) has attempted to broaden its focus from only concentrating on the Holocaust, and include other program content in the Poland portion of the trip. These elements include: celebrating Jewish life before the war, establishing dialogue with Polish students, meeting with Polish Righteous among the Nations, and connecting with the contemporary Polish Jewish community.

In April 2017, in a speech to the March of the Living program at Auschwitz for Holocaust Remembrance Day, Elisha Wiesel said that the United States and European countries had not learned the lessons of the Holocaust, because many in those countries had turned away Syrian refugees fleeing chemical warfare. Wiesel added: "Will you stand by when African-Americans have reason to be terrified of a routine traffic stop, when Christians are slaughtered in Egypt because they are labelled infidels, when girls in Chad, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are threatened, raped, or shot for pursuing an education, when homosexuality in Iran is a crime that carries the death penalty?"

Supplementary programs

The March of Remembrance and Hope (MRH) is a program designed for university/college students of all religions and backgrounds. This program, founded in 2001, takes place in May, and in recent years, has included a 2-day trip to Germany, before the 5 day Poland portion of the trip. The purpose of the March of Remembrance and Hope is to teach students of various religious and ethnic backgrounds about the dangers of intolerance through the study of the Holocaust and other World War II genocides, and to promote better relations among people of diverse cultures. Holocaust survivors also participate in the March of Remembrance and Hope program. Since its inception, students of a wide variety of religions and ethnicities have taken part.

Cultural impact

Canadian teens meet with their Polish counterparts in Warsaw on the March of the Living (2 photos)

In 2009 two different documentaries featured March of the Living participants or students on similar experiences during their time on the trip. The documentary Defamation, by filmmaker Yoav Shamir, includes a group of Israeli students during their time at Poland sites, including the stop at Auschwitz. Director Jessica Sanders made a documentary titled March of the Living, which focuses entirely on the program and participants.

Late 2015 saw the release of Blind Love, a documentary film about blind Israelis traveling to Poland with the help of their guide dogs on the March of the Living to learn about the Holocaust. The film premiered during Holocaust Education Week in Toronto, with the co-sponsorship of the Toronto Jewish Film Festival. It was also broadcast on the CBC's Canadian speciality channel Documentary in late 2015 and then again in 2017 on Holocaust Remembrance Day, as well as in Israel on its main station Channel 10 (Israel) on the same day.

2020 cancellation

For the first time since its inception in 1988, the March of the Living program to Poland and Israel was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting thousands of prospective participants – including students, survivors, educators and dignitaries from around the world.

In response, the March of the Living created 3 initiatives.

March of the Living Virtual Plaque Project

President of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, 2020 Virtual March of the Living

USC Shoah Foundation Founder Steven Spielberg, 2020 Virtual March of the Living

The March of the Living Virtual Plaque Project continued the March of the Living tradition of placing messages of peace, hope and remembrance, on wooden plaques on the train tracks of Auschwitz-Birkenau on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

March of the Living offered a digital option of submitting virtual plaques with personal messages, which would be featured on the March of the Living website in the days leading to Holocaust Remembrance Day and beyond. The first plaque was submitted by Israeli President, Reuven Rivlin, followed by other well-known figures including Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Mayim Bialik. On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, a number of plaques were projected onto the guard tower and gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The current number of completed plaques is approaching 18,000.

In place of the actual March of the Living walk and ceremony in Auschwitz-Birkenau on Holocaust Remembrance Day, a March of the Living Virtual Ceremony was held on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The program featured Israeli President Rivlin, USC Shoah Foundation Founder Steven Spielberg, survivor testimony, speeches from student Alumni and Holocaust educators, and performances from past March of the Living singers and musicians. A student led virtual candle lighting ceremony mirroring the torch lighting ceremony that would conclude the ceremony on Auschwitz-Birkenau was also held. The virtual ceremony was sponsored by The Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience at Rutgers University, with the participation of the USC Shoah Foundation, whose 360 Degree survivor testimony interviews – utilizing the testimony of March of the Living survivor testimony in situ - was highlighted during the ceremony.

The ceremony was broadcast live on Facebook, on Jewish Broadcasting Service Television as well as on Reuters Europe.ceremony

“This year, for the first time in 32 years, we are not able to march in Auschwitz-Birkenau, but that will not stop us. We will continue to educate the next generation with the values we have been teaching for three decades.”Dr. Shmuel Rosenman, March of the Living Chairman, “

“We were bitterly disappointed to have to postpone this year’s March of the Living. However, we remain utterly determined to ensure that the unparalleled tragedy of the Holocaust remains at the forefront of the world’s conscience. Given the distressing recent rise in global antisemitism and today’s need for greater compassion and tolerance, the lessons of the Holocaust are more relevant than ever,” March of the Living president, Phyllis Greenberg Heideman.

Reuven Rivlin, President of Israel, who was the honoured with filling out the initial plaque, stated: “75 years after the Holocaust the terrible tragedy of our people as antisemitism raises its ugly head once again across the world the nations of the world must stand together. Together in the struggle against racism. Together in the struggle against antisemitism and extremism. Together for the protection of democratic values and human dignity. This is the mission of our time. This is our challenge..”

Virtual Yom Ha'atzmaut with March of the Living Song Leaders

Electronic waste recycling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste_recycling

 

Computer monitors are typically packed into low stacks on wooden pallets for recycling and then shrink-wrapped.

Electronic waste recycling, electronics recycling or e-waste recycling is the disassembly and separation of components and raw materials of waste electronics; when referring to specific types of e-waste, the terms like computer recycling or mobile phone recycling may be used. Like other waste streams, re-use, donation and repair are common sustainable ways to dispose of IT waste.

Since its inception in the early 1990s, more and more devices are recycled worldwide due to increased awareness and investment. Electronic recycling occurs primarily in order to recover valuable rare earth metals and precious metals, which are in short supply, as well as plastics and metals. These are resold or used in new devices after purification, in effect creating a circular economy. Such processes involve specialised facilities and premises, but within the home or ordinary workplace, sound components of damaged or obsolete computers can often be reused, reducing replacement costs.

Recycling is considered environmentally friendly because it prevents hazardous waste, including heavy metals and carcinogens, from entering the atmosphere, landfill or waterways. While electronics consist a small fraction of total waste generated, they are far more dangerous. There is stringent legislation designed to enforce and encourage the sustainable disposal of appliances, the most notable being the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive of the European Union and the United States National Computer Recycling Act. In 2009, 38% of computers and a quarter of total electronic waste was recycled in the United States, 5% and 3% up from 3 years prior respectively.

Reasons for recycling

Obsolete computers and old electronics are valuable sources for secondary raw materials if recycled; otherwise, these devices are a source of toxins and carcinogens. Rapid technology change, low initial cost, and planned obsolescence have resulted in a fast-growing surplus of computers and other electronic components around the globe. Technical solutions are available, but in most cases a legal framework, collection system, logistics, and other services need to be implemented before applying a technical solution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, estimates 30 to 40 million surplus PCs, classified as "hazardous household waste", would be ready for end-of-life management in the next few years. The U.S. National Safety Council estimates that 75% of all personal computers ever sold are now surplus electronics.

In 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that more than 63 million computers in the U.S. were traded in for replacements or discarded. Today, 15% of electronic devices and equipment are recycled in the United States. Most electronic waste is sent to landfills or incinerated, which releases materials such as lead, mercury, or cadmium into the soil, groundwater, and atmosphere, thus having a negative impact on the environment.

Many materials used in computer hardware can be recovered by recycling for use in future production. Reuse of tin, silicon, iron, aluminium, and a variety of plastics that are present in bulk in computers or other electronics can reduce the costs of constructing new systems. Components frequently contain copper, gold, tantalum, silver, platinum, palladium, and lead as well as other valuable materials suitable for reclamation.

Computer components contain many toxic substances, like dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), cadmium, chromium, radioactive isotopes and mercury. A typical computer monitor may contain more than 6% lead by weight, much of which is in the lead glass of the cathode ray tube (CRT). A typical 15 inch (38 cm) computer monitor may contain 1.5 pounds (1 kg) of lead but other monitors have been estimated to have up to 8 pounds (4 kg) of lead. Circuit boards contain considerable quantities of lead-tin solders that are more likely to leach into groundwater or create air pollution due to incineration. In US landfills, about 40% of the lead content levels are from e-waste. The processing (e.g. incineration and acid treatments) required to reclaim these precious substances may release, generate, or synthesize toxic byproducts.

Export of waste to countries with lower environmental standards is a major concern. The Basel Convention includes hazardous wastes such as, but not limited to, CRT screens as an item that may not be exported transcontinentally without prior consent of both the country exporting and receiving the waste. Companies may find it cost-effective in the short term to sell outdated computers to less developed countries with lax regulations. It is commonly believed that a majority of surplus laptops are routed to developing nations. The high value of working and reusable laptops, computers, and components (e.g. RAM) can help pay the cost of transportation for many worthless commodities. Laws governing the exportation of waste electronics are put in place to govern recycling companies in developed countries which ship waste to Third World countries. However, concerns about the impact of e-recycling on human health, the health of recycling workers and environmental degradation remain. For example, due to the lack of strict regulations in developing countries, sometimes workers smash old products, propelling toxins on to the ground, contaminating the soil and putting those who do not wear shoes in danger. Other procedures include burning away wire insulation and acid baths to resell circuit boards. These methods pose environmental and health hazards, as toxins are released into the air and acid bath residue can enter the water supply.

Regulations

An abandoned Taxan monitor.

Europe

In Switzerland, the first electronic waste recycling system was implemented in 1991, beginning with collection of old refrigerators; over the years, all other electric and electronic devices were gradually added to the system. The established producer responsibility organization is SWICO, mainly handling information, communication, and organization technology. The European Union implemented a similar system in February 2003, under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive, 2002/96/EC).

Pan-European adoption of the Legislation was slow on take-up, with Italy and the United Kingdom being the final member states to pass it into law. The success of the WEEE directive has varied significantly from state to state, with collection rates varying between 13 kilograms per capita per annum to as little as 1 kg per capita per annum. Computers & electronic wastes collected from households within Europe are treated under the WEEE directive via Producer Compliance Schemes (whereby manufacturers of Electronics pay into a scheme that funds its recovery from household waste recycling centres (HWRCs)) and nominated Waste Treatment Facilities (known as Obligated WEEE).

However, recycling of ex corporate Computer Hardware and associated electronic equipment falls outside the Producer Compliance Scheme (Known as non-obligated). In the UK, Waste or obsolete corporate related computer hardware is treated via third party Authorized Treatment Facilities, who normally impose a charge for its collection and treatment.

Since mid 2020 the classification of WEEE changed with regards to POPs (persistent organic pollutants). In the UK WEEE containing POPs is now classified as a hazardous waste, these includes - Printed Circuit Boards, Cable from WEEE and Categories 1,2,3,6,7 (Cat 4 and 5 unless evidence provided to the contrary).

United States

Federal

The United States Congress considers a number of electronic waste bills, like the National Computer Recycling Act introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA). The main federal law governing solid waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It covers only CRTs, though state regulations may differ. There are also separate laws concerning battery disposal. On March 25, 2009, the House Science and Technology Committee approved funding for research on reducing electronic waste and mitigating environmental impact, regarded by sponsor Ralph Hall (R-TX) as the first federal bill to directly address electronic waste.

State

Many states have introduced legislation concerning recycling and reuse of computers or computer parts or other electronics. Most American computer recycling legislations address it from within the larger electronic waste issue.

In 2001, Arkansas enacted the Arkansas Computer and Electronic Solid Waste Management Act, which requires that state agencies manage and sell surplus computer equipment, establishes a computer and electronics recycling fund, and authorizes the Department of Environmental Quality to regulate and/or ban the disposal of computer and electronic equipment in Arkansas landfills.

The recently passed Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act distributes grants to universities, government labs and private industries for research in developing projects in line with e-waste recycling and refurbishment.

Asia

In Japan, sellers and manufacturers of certain electronics (such as televisions and air conditioners) are required to recycle them.^[19] This is covered by at least two legislations: the Law for the Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources (LPUR); and, the Law for the Recycling of Specified Kinds of Home Appliances (LRHA). The former, which was passed in 2001, encouraged manufacturers to voluntarily help recycle goods while the LRHA, which was adopted in 2009, required more recycling efforts by both consumers and manufacturers of home appliances. However, no legislation exists to cover the recycling of computer or cellphone-related wastes.

It is required in South Korea and Taiwan that sellers and manufacturers of electronics be responsible for recycling 75% of their used products. In South Korea, some local governments have introduced recycling initiatives such as the case of Seoul, which launched its specialized e-waste recycling program. This includes the SR Center recycling facility, which takes apart and salvages materials from a fifth of the 10-ton e-waste that the city generates each year.

According to a report by UNEP titled, "Recycling – from E-Waste to Resources," the amount of e-waste being produced – including mobile phones and computers – could rise by as much as 500 percent over the next decade in some countries, such as India.

See also: Electronic waste by country

 

Electronic waste is often exported to developing countries.

 

4.5-volt, D, C, AA, AAA, AAAA, A23, 9-volt, CR2032 and LR44 cells are all recyclable in most countries.

One theory is that increased regulation of electronic waste and concern over the environmental harm in mature economies creates an economic disincentive to remove residues prior to export. Critics of trade in used electronics maintain that it is too easy for brokers calling themselves recyclers to export unscreened electronic waste to developing countries, such as China, India and parts of Africa, thus avoiding the expense of removing items like bad cathode ray tubes (the processing of which is expensive and difficult). The developing countries are becoming big dump yards of e-waste. Proponents of international trade point to the success of fair trade programs in other industries, where cooperation has led creation of sustainable jobs, and can bring affordable technology in countries where repair and reuse rates are higher.

Organizations like A2Z Group have stepped in to own up the responsibility to collect and recycle e-waste at various locations in India.

South Africa

Thanks to the National Environmental Management Act 1998 and National Environmental Management Waste Act 2008, any person in any position causing harm to the environment and failing to comply with the Waste Act could be fined R10 Million or put into jail or receive both penalties for their transgressions.

Recycling methods

Computers being collected for recycling at a pickup event in Olympia, Washington, United States.

Consumer recycling

Consumer recycling options consists of (see below) sale, donating computers directly to organizations in need, sending devices directly back to their original manufacturers, or getting components to a convenient recycler or refurbisher.

Scrapping recycling

In the recycling process, TVs, monitors, mobile phones and computers are typically tested for reuse and repaired. If broken, they may be disassembled for parts still having high value if labour is cheap enough. Other e-waste is shredded to roughly 100 mm pieces and manually checked to separate out toxic batteries and capacitors which contain poisonous metals. The remaining pieces are further shredded to ~10 mm and passed under a magnet to remove ferrous metals. An eddy current ejects non-ferrous metals, which are sorted by density either by a centrifuge or vibrating plates. Precious metals can be dissolved in acid, sorted, and smelted into ingots. The remaining glass and plastic fractions are separated by density and sold to re-processors. TVs and monitors must be manually disassembled to remove either toxic lead in CRTs or the mercury in flat screens.

Corporations face risks both for incompletely destroyed data and for improperly disposed computers. In the UK, some recycling companies use a specialized WEEE-registered contractor to dispose IT equipment and electrical appliances, who disposes it safely and legally. In America, companies are liable for compliance with regulations even if the recycling process is outsourced under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Companies can mitigate these risks by requiring waivers of liability, audit trails, certificates of data destruction, signed confidentiality agreements, and random audits of information security. The National Association of Information Destruction is an international trade association for data destruction providers.

Sale

Online auctions are an alternative for consumers willing to resell for cash less fees, in a complicated, self-managed, competitive environment where paid listings might not sell. Online classified ads can be similarly risky due to forgery scams and uncertainty.

Take back

When researching computer companies before a computer purchase, consumers can find out if they offer recycling services. Most major computer manufacturers offer some form of recycling. At the user's request they may mail in their old computers, or arrange for pickup from the manufacturer.

Hewlett-Packard also offers free recycling, but only one of its "national" recycling programs is available nationally, rather than in one or two specific states. Hewlett-Packard also offers to pick up any computer product of any brand for a fee, and to offer a coupon against the purchase of future computers or components; it was the largest computer recycler in America in 2003, and it has recycled over 750,000,000 pounds (340,000,000 kg) of electronic waste globally since 1995. It encourages the shared approach of collection points for consumers and recyclers to meet.

Exchange

Manufacturers often offer a free replacement service when purchasing a new PC. For example, Dell Computers and Apple Inc. may take back old products when one buys a new one. Both refurbish and resell their own computers with a one-year warranty.

Many companies purchase and recycle all brands of working and broken laptops and notebook computers from individuals and corporations. Building a market for recycling of desktop computers has proven more difficult than exchange programs for laptops, smartphones and other smaller electronics. A basic business model is to provide a seller an instant online quote based on laptop characteristics, then to send a shipping label and prepaid box to the seller, to erase, reformat, and process the laptop, and to pay rapidly by cheque. A majority of these companies are also generalized electronic waste recyclers as well; organizations that recycle computers exclusively include Cash For Laptops, a laptop refurbisher in Nevada that claims to be the first to buy laptops online, in 2001.

Donations/nonprofits

With the constant rising costs due to inflation, many families or schools do not have the sufficient funds available for computers to be utilized along with education standards. Families also impacted by disaster suffer as well due to the financial impact of the situation they have incurred. Many nonprofit organizations, such as InterConnection.org, can be found locally as well as around the web and give detailed descriptions as to what methods are used for dissemination and detailed instructions on how to donate. The impact can be seen locally and globally, affecting thousands of those in need. In Canada non profit organizations engaged in computer recycling, such as The Electronic Recycling Association Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Computers for Schools Canada wide, are very active in collecting and refurbishing computers and laptops to help the non profit and charitable sectors and schools.

Junkyard Computing

The term junkyard computing is a colloquial expression for using old or inferior hardware to fulfill computational tasks while handling reliability and availability on software level. It utilizes abstraction of computational resources via software, allowing hardware replacement at very low effort. Ease of replacement is hereby a corner point since hardware failures are expected at any time due to the condition of the underlying infrastructure. This paradigm became more widely used with the introduction of cluster orchestration software like Kubernetes or Apache Mesos, since large monolithic applications require reliability and availability on machine level whereas this kind of software is fault tolerant by design. Those orchestration tools also introduced fairly fast set-up processes allowing to use junkyard computing economically and even making this pattern applicable in the first place. Further use cases were introduced when continuous delivery was getting more widely accepted. Infrastructure to execute tests and static code analysis was needed which requires as much performance as possible while being extremely cost effective. From an economical and technological perspective, junkyard computing is only practicable for a small number of users or companies. It already requires a decent number of physical machines to compensate for hardware failures while maintaining the required reliability and availability. This implies a direct need for a matching underling infrastructure to house all the computers and servers. Scaling this paradigm is also quite limited due to the increasing importance of factors like power efficiency and maintenance efforts, making this kind of computing perfect for mid-sized applications.

History

Although consumer electronics such as the radio have been popular since the 1920s, recycling was almost unheard of until the early 1990s. At the end of the 1970s, the accelerating pace of domestic consumer electronics drastically shortened the lifespan of electronics such as TVs, VCRs and audio. New innovations appeared more quickly, making older equipment considered obsolete. Increased complexity and sophistication of manufacture made local repair more difficult. The retail market shifted gradually, but substantially, from a few high-value items that were cherished for years and repaired when necessary, to short-lived items that were rapidly replaced owing to wear or simply fashion, and discarded rather than repaired. This was particularly evident in computing, highlighted by Moore's Law. In 1988 two severe incidents highlighted the approaching e-waste crisis. The cargo barge Khian Sea, was loaded with more than 14,000 tons of toxic ash from Pennsylvania which had been refused acceptance in New Jersey and the Caribbean. After sailing for 16 months, all the waste was dumped as "topsoil fertiliser" in Haiti and in the Bay of Bengal by November 1988. In June 1988, a large illegal toxic waste dump which had been created by an Italian company was discovered. This led to the formation of the Basel Convention to stem the flow of poisonous substances from developed countries in 1989.

In 1991, the first electronic waste recycling system was implemented in Switzerland, beginning with collection of old refrigerators but gradually expanding to cover all devices. The organisation SWICO handles the programme, and is a partnership between IT retailers.

The first publication to report the recycling of computers and electronic waste was published on the front page of the New York Times on April 14, 1993 by columnist Steve Lohr. It detailed the work of Advanced Recovery Inc., a small recycler, in trying to safely dismantle computers, even if most waste was landfilled. Several other companies emerged in the early 1990s, chiefly in Europe, where national 'take back' laws compelled retailers to use them.

After these schemes were set up, many countries did not have the capacity to deal with the sheer quantity of e-waste they generated or its hazardous nature. They began to export the problem to developing countries without enforced environmental legislation. This is cheaper: the cost of recycling of computer monitors in the US is ten times more than in China. Demand in Asia for electronic waste began to grow when scrap yards found they could extract valuable substances such as copper, iron, silicon, nickel and gold, during the recycling process.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) became European Law in February 2003 and covers all aspects of recycling all types of appliance. This was followed by Electronic Waste Recycling Act, enshrined in Californian law in January 2005

The 2000s saw a large increase in both the sale of electronic devices and their growth as a waste stream: in 2002 e-waste grew faster than any other type of waste in the EU. This caused investment in modern, automated facilities to cope with the influx of redundant appliances.

E-cycling

E-cycling or "E-waste" is an initiative by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which refers to donations, reuse, shredding and general collection of used electronics. Generically, the term refers to the process of collecting, brokering, disassembling, repairing and recycling the components or metals contained in used or discarded electronic equipment, otherwise known as electronic waste (e-waste). "E-cyclable" items include, but are not limited to: televisions, computers, microwave ovens, vacuum cleaners, telephones and cellular phones, stereos, and VCRs and DVDs just about anything that has a cord, light or takes some kind of battery.

Investment in e-cycling facilities has been increasing recently due to technology's rapid rate of obsolescence, concern over improper methods, and opportunities for manufacturers to influence the secondary market (used and reused products). Higher metal prices can result in more recycling taking place. The controversy around methods stems from a lack of agreement over preferred outcomes.

World markets with lower disposable incomes, consider 75% repair and reuse to be valuable enough to justify 25% disposal. Debate and certification standards may be leading to better definitions, though civil law contracts, governing the expected process are still vital to any contracted process, as poorly defined as "e-cycling".

Pros of e-cycling

The e-waste disposal occurring after processing for reuse, repair of equipment, and recovery of metals may be unethical or illegal when e-scrap of many kinds is transported overseas to developing countries for such processing. It is transported as if to be repaired and/or recycled, but after processing the less valuable e-scrap becomes e-waste/pollution there. Another point of view is that the net environmental cost must be compared to and include the mining, refining and extraction with its waste and pollution cost of new products manufactured to replace secondary products which are routinely destroyed in wealthier nations, and which cannot economically be repaired in older or obsolete products.

As an example of negative impacts of e-waste, pollution of groundwater has become so serious in areas surrounding China's landfills that water must be shipped in from 18 miles (29 km) away. However, mining of new metals can have even broader impacts on groundwater. Either thorough e-cycling processing, domestic processing or overseas repair, can help the environment by avoiding pollution. Such e-cycling can theoretically be a sustainable alternative to disposing of e-waste in landfills. In addition, e-cycling allows for the reclamation of potential conflict minerals, like gold and wolframite, which requires less of those to be mined and lessens the potential money flow to militias and other exploitative actors in third-world that profit from mining them.

Supporters of one form of "required e-cycling" legislation argue that e-cycling saves taxpayers money, as the financial responsibility would be shifted from the taxpayer to the manufacturers. Advocates of more simple legislation (such as landfill bans for e-waste) argue that involving manufacturers does not reduce the cost to consumers, if reuse value is lost, and the resulting costs are then passed on to consumers in new products, particularly affecting markets which can hardly afford new products. It is theorized that manufacturers who take part in e-cycling would be motivated to use fewer materials in the production process, create longer lasting products, and implement safer, more efficient recycling systems. This theory is sharply disputed and has never been demonstrated.

Criticisms of e-cycling

The critics of e-cycling are just as vocal as its advocates. According to the Reason Foundation, e-cycling only raises the product and waste management costs of e-waste for consumers and limits innovation on the part of high-tech companies. They also believe that e-cycling facilities could unintentionally cause great harm to the environment. Critics claim that e-waste doesn't occupy a significant portion of total waste.

Another opposition to e-cycling is that many problems are posed in disassembly: the process is costly and dangerous because of the heavy metals of which the electronic products are composed, and as little as 1–5% of the original cost of materials can be retrieved. A final problem that people find is that identity fraud is all too common in regards to the disposal of electronic products. As the programs are legislated, creating winners and losers among e-cyclers with different locations and processes, it may be difficult to distinguish between criticism of e-cycling as a practice, and criticism of the specific legislated means proposed to enhance it.

The fate of e-waste

Workers recovering metals from e-waste in Agbogbloshie, a e-waste recovery site in Ghana. Exported e-waste is frequently processed in situations that are unhealthy for the workers, where they are exposed to toxics.

A hefty criticism often lobbed at reuse based recyclers is that people think that they are recycling their electronic waste, when in reality it is actually being exported to developing countries like China, India, and Nigeria. For instance, at free recycling drives, "recyclers" may not be staying true to their word, but selling e-waste overseas or to parts brokers. Studies indicate that 50–80% of the 300,000 to 400,000 tons (270,000 to 360,000 tonnes) of e-waste is being sent overseas, and that approximately 2 million tons (1.8 million tonnes) per year go to U.S. landfills.

Although not possible in all circumstances, the best way to e-cycle is to upcycle e-waste. On the other hand, the electronic products in question are generally manufactured, and repaired under warranty, in the same nations, which anti-reuse recyclers depict as primitive. Reuse-based e-recyclers believe that fair-trade incentives for export markets will lead to better results than domestic shredding. There has been a continued debate between export-friendly e-cycling and increased regulation of that practice.

In the European Union, debate regarding the export of e-waste has resulted in a significant amendment to the WEEE directive (January 2012) with a view to significantly diminishing the export of WEEE (untreated e-waste). During debate in Strasburg, MEPs stated that "53 million tonnes of WEEE were generated in 2009 but only 18% collected for recycling" with the remainder being exported or sent to landfill. The Amendment, voted through by a unanimous 95% of representatives, removed the re-use (repair and refurbishmet) aspect of the directive and placed more emphasis upon recycling and recovery of precious metals and base metals. The changes went further by placing the burden upon registered exporters to prove that used equipment leaving Europe was "fit for purpose".

Policy issues and current efforts

Currently, pieces of government legislation and a number of grassroots efforts have contributed to the growth of e-cycling processes which emphasize decreased exports over increased reuse rates. The Electronic Waste Recycling Act was passed in California in 2003. It requires that consumers pay an extra fee for certain types of electronics, and the collected money be then redistributed to recycling companies that are qualified to properly recycle these products. It is the only state that legislates against e-waste through this kind of consumer fee; the other states' efforts focus on producer responsibility laws or waste disposal bans. No study has shown that per capita recovery is greater in one type of legislated program (e.g. California) versus ordinary waste disposal bans (e.g. Massachusetts), though recovery has greatly increased in states which use either method.

As of September, 2006, Dell developed the nation's first completely free recycling program, furthering the responsibilities that manufacturers are taking for e-cycling. Manufacturers and retailers such as Best Buy, Sony, and Samsung have also set up recycling programs. This program does not accept televisions, which are the most expensive used electronic item, and are unpopular in markets which must deal with televisions when the more valuable computers have been cherry picked.

Another step being taken is the recyclers’ pledge of true stewardship, sponsored by the Computer TakeBack Campaign. It has been signed by numerous recyclers promising to recycle responsibly. Grassroots efforts have also played a big part in this issue, as they and other community organizations are being formed to help responsibly recycle e-waste. Other grassroots campaigns are Basel, the Computer TakeBack Campaign (co-coordinated by the Grassroots Recycling Network), and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. No study has shown any difference in recycling methods under the Pledge, and no data is available to demonstrate difference in management between "Pledge" and non-Pledge companies, though it is assumed that the risk of making false claims will prevent Pledge companies from wrongly describing their processes.

Many people believe that the U.S. should follow the European Union model in regards to its management of e-waste, such as the Extended Producer Responsibility, which was started in Sweden in 1990. In this program, a directive forces manufacturers to take responsibility for e-cycling; it also demands manufacturers' mandatory take-back and places bans on exporting e-waste to developing countries. British Columbia has more than 20 EPR programs under the Recycling Regulation legislation, which stops e-waste from being put into landfills and recycles them instead. There are more than 80 programs in Canada as of 2013.

Another longer-term solution is for computers to be composed of less dangerous products and many people disagree. No data has been provided to show that people who agree with the European model have based their agreement on measured outcomes or experience-based scientific method.

Data security

Electronic waste dump at Agbogbloshie, Ghana. Organized criminals commonly search the drives for information to use in local scams.

E-waste presents a potential security threat to individuals and exporting countries. Hard drives that are not properly erased before the computer is disposed of can be reopened, exposing sensitive information. Credit card numbers, private financial data, account information and records of online transactions can be accessed by most willing individuals. Organized criminals in Ghana commonly search the drives for information to use in local scams.

Government contracts have been discovered on hard drives found in Agbogbloshie, Ghana. Multimillion-dollar agreements from United States security institutions such as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security have all resurfaced in Agbogbloshie.

Reasons to destroy and recycle securely

There are ways to ensure that not only hardware is destroyed but also the private data on the hard drive. Having customer data stolen, lost, or misplaced contributes to the ever-growing number of people who are affected by identity theft, which can cause corporations to lose more than just money. The image of a company that holds secure data, such as banks, law firms, pharmaceuticals, and credit corporations is also at risk. If a company's public image is hurt, it could cause consumers to not use their services and could cost millions in business losses and positive public relation campaigns. The cost of data breaches "varies widely, ranging from $90 to $50,000 (under HIPAA's new HITECH amendment, that came about through the American Recovery and Revitalization act of 2009), as per customer record, depending on whether the breach is “low-profile” or “high-profile” and the company is in a non-regulated or highly regulated area, such as banking or medical institutions.”

There is also a major backlash from the consumer if there is a data breach in a company that is supposed to be trusted to protect their private information. If an organization has any consumer info on file, they must by law (Red Flags Clarification act of 2010) have written information protection policies and procedures in place, that serve to combat, mitigate, and detect vulnerable areas that could result in identity theft. The United States Department of Defense has published a standard to which recyclers and individuals may meet in order to satisfy HIPAA requirements.

Secure recycling

Countries have developed standards, aimed at businesses and with the purpose of ensuring the security of Data contained in 'confidential' computer media [NIST 800-88: US standard for Data Remanence][HMG CESG IS5, Baseline & Enhanced, UK Government Protocol for Data Destruction]. National Association for Information Destruction (NAID) "is the international trade association for companies providing information destruction services. Suppliers of products, equipment and services to destruction companies are also eligible for membership. NAID's mission is to promote the information destruction industry and the standards and ethics of its member companies." There are companies that follow the guidelines from NAID and also meet all Federal EPA and local DEP regulations.

The typical process for computer recycling aims to securely destroy hard drives while still recycling the byproduct. A typical process for effective computer recycling:

1. Receive hardware for destruction in locked and securely transported vehicles.
2. Shred hard drives.
3. Separate all aluminum from the waste metals with an electromagnet.
4. Collect and securely deliver the shredded remains to an aluminum recycling plant.
5. Mold the remaining hard drive parts into aluminum ingots.

The Asset Disposal and Information Security Alliance (ADISA) publishes an ADISA IT Asset Disposal Security Standard that covers all phases of the e-waste disposal process from collection to transportation, storage and sanitization's at the disposal facility. It also conducts periodic audits of disposal vendors.