The E-Waste Database

📍 India On 1 February 2025, India announced the removal of customs duties on waste and scraps for a dozen critical minerals – including copper, lead, tungsten, and zinc. There are also no longer customs on waste and scraps of lithium-ion batteries and cobalt powder. Last year, the Indian government had already gotten rid of the customs duties for 25 critical minerals that are not available domestically in India. The decision to get rid of the customs duties was made to help secure the availability of the minerals for manufacturing. In January 2025, India approved a $1.88 billion plan to further develop its critical minerals sector and secure additional raw materials. Next, the government plans to “launch a policy for recovery of critical minerals from tailings or by-products of mining”. 📍 China As of 4 February 2025, China imposed further export controls on critical raw materials – including bismuth, indium, molybdenum, tellurium, and tungsten. China is a major producer and exporter of raw materials. According to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, its decision to include further critical raw materials on its list of controlled export reflects China’s development and national security interests. On 3 December 2025, China had already banned the exports of antimony, gallium, and germanium to the U.S. 📍 U.S. & Canada The Trump administration’s tariffs are expected to push U.S. companies towards sourcing more domestic materials. While the aim is officially to reduce the reliance on China for critical minerals, tariffs placed on Canadian imports may undercut this. Canada is the biggest mineral importer to the U.S., accounting for $47 billion of the imports in 2023. Placing a 25% tariff on Canadian mineral imports is estimated to cost U.S. offtakers $11.75 billion. As the U.S. exported $30.7 billion in minerals to Canada in 2023, possible retaliatory tariffs from the Canadian side are estimated to cost Canadian firms importing critical minerals $7.6 billion. The tariffs could have grave consequences on supply chains, as minerals mined in the U.S. and Canada typically cross the border multiple times throughout their processing and manufacturing stages. 📍 EU & Latin America Through the EU-Chile Interim Trade Agreement (ITA) and EU–Mercosur Agreement (EMA), the EU aims to diversify its raw material imports and mitigate supply chain risks. The ITA is “the first EU trade agreement comprising a specific chapter on energy and raw materials”. It was signed in December 2023 and entered into force on 1 February 2025. With the ITA, the EU and Chile hope to boost their businesses’ competitiveness and support the development of their net-zero economies. As Mercosur countries are major mineral producers, the EU says one objective of the EMA is to ensure an “efficient, reliable and sustainable” mineral supply. The EMA was finalized in December 2024. Read more about the developments here: - https://www.mining.com/web/india-scraps-custom-duties-on-waste-and-scrap-of-dozen-critical-minerals/ - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-bans-exports-gallium-germanium-antimony-us-2024-12-03/ - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-expands-critical-mineral-export-controls-after-us-imposes-tariffs-2025-02-04/ - https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/what-are-five-new-critical-metal-exports-restricted-by-china-2025-02-04/ - https://www.metal.com/en/newscontent/103158882 - https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202502/04/WS67a1b91fa310a2ab06eaa0fd.html - https://www.mining.com/canadian-mining-optimistic-in-face-of-trump-tariff-threat/ - https://www.csis.org/analysis/canadian-tariffs-will-undermine-us-minerals-security - https://mmta.co.uk/trump-presidency-the-impact-on-critical-material-supply-chains/ - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2024)767163 - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_374 - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_6244 - https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement_en - https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement/factsheet-eu-mercosur-partnership-agreement-opening-opportunities-european-farmers_en

🌱 What is the case about? The case is being brought by Tanzanian human rights claimants at the High Court in London. It was filed by the law firm Leigh Day “on behalf of the families of two artisanal miners who were killed by security forces in 2019”. The miners were killed “while prospecting for gold” at a mine in Tanzania. At the time of their deaths, they were both 23 years old. 🌱 What human rights abuses are alleged? The claimants allege that there have been human rights abuses at the North Mara Gold Mine in Tanzania. They say the mine in question has been “associated with a widely reported pattern of systematic human rights abuses over many years”. They also say that serious human rights abuses occurred at the time of the miners’ deaths and that these abuses continue to today. The mine is “majority-owned by [the] Canadian multinational Barrick Gold Corporation” and since 2013, the mined gold “is refined by MMTC-PAMP, a Swiss-Indian refiner”. 🌱 What is the role of social certifications? The case has been brought against the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), who have accredited MMTC-PAMP since 2014. As a consequence, the claimants allege that LBMA has wrongly certified gold from the mine “as free from serious human rights abuses”. They also hold that LBMA and the mine should have taken action “to put a stop to the human rights abuses”. They argue that “had LBMA enforced its own responsible sourcing programme properly”, the two miners would still be alive. Barrick Gold and LBMA both deny these allegations. 🌱 What certification is the case about? LBMA supervises the London bullion market for gold. This is the world’s largest over-the-counter wholesale gold trading market. Each week, approximately US$230 billion in gold is traded on this market. All gold bars traded here have to be “produced by a refiner who is accredited by the LBMA as being compliant with their Responsible Sourcing Programme”. This program “was established to ensure that [the] gold [...] is untainted by serious human rights abuses”. 🌱 Why is this significant? While the use of ESG certifications and supply chain due diligence credentials by companies has become more widespread over the past few years, these often lack public oversight. This is now “the first time in the UK that human rights claimants [are suing] an industry certification body for an alleged breach of a duty of care owed to them”. In line with this, the case openly questions corporate claims about “responsible” and “ethical” mineral sourcing. It puts a direct spotlight on “industry certification schemes which claim to maintain environmental and human rights standards”. In a hearing held on 20 January 2025, the judge scheduled a four-week trial for the case. It is now scheduled to start at the High Court on the first available date after 29 June 2026. Read more about the case here: - https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2025-news/trial-of-the-london-bullion-market-association-to-go-ahead-at-the-high-court-next-year-following-alleged-human-rights-abuses-at-african-gold-mine/ - https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/trial-of-london-gold-body - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anneke-van-woudenberg-6977aa12a_a-ground-breaking-legal-case-in-the-uk-is-activity-7290017660245823488-hwQR/

🌱 Why is improving waste management around energy infrastructure important? To reach its climate targets, the EU aims to “conver[t] its electricity supply system from fossil fuels to mostly low- and net-zero-energy sources”. This transition unsurprisingly involves “a substantial overhaul of infrastructure” and the “decommissioning [of] materials from fossil-fuel-based electricity production”. To explore the waste created through this process and find ways to shift to a more circular economy, the European Commission (EC) published a report titled “Circular economy strategies for the EU's renewable electricity supply” on 10 January 2025. The report provides policy recommendations on how the waste from decommissioned photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines, as well as decommissioned fossil fuel power plants, could be better managed. 🌱 What improvements could be made in relation to wind? According to the EC report, improving the waste management of wind blades is essential. In line with this, the report suggests “[c]onsidering an extended producer responsibility scheme for turbines”. It also proposes to improve the “data collection for installation and decommissioning of wind turbines” to allow better foresight into the waste volumes. To this end, it recommends “[c]reating common waste codes”, as well as “[t]racking the fate of materials after decommissioning to support reuse and repurposing business models”. 🌱 What improvements could be made in relation to solar? The EC report sets out that “[i]mproving [the] recyclability of PV modules and inverters through design regulation” is key to improving the waste management of solar energy technologies. According to the EC report, other ways to improve the recycling of PV include setting “recycling targets focused on [the] economic value of materials” and creating “[m]easures to better understand and promote PV reuse including certification requirements, safety measures, and warranty”. 🌱 What improvements could be made in relation to fossil fuel power plants? According to the EC report, the waste management of decommissioned fossil fuel power plants could be improved through more thorough planning in the pre-demolition phase and by providing more “[g]uidance and knowledge sharing on repurposing and reuse of materials”. The report also sets out that “better EU-wide future planning” could be achieved by closely “[s]urveying locations and materials” throughout the EU. Read more about the EU’s waste management of energy technologies here:  https://op.europa.eu/s/z1w