E-waste management: What Malaysia can learn from Finland

 

From Mohamed El-Fatatry

As a Finnish citizen and a member of the electronic waste recycling industry in Malaysia, I feel compelled to respond to Michael Soh’s letter titled “Hypocritical to label Malaysia a dumping ground for e-waste” (March 5, 2025).

While I appreciate Mr Soh’s interest in highlighting success stories from other countries that are net importers of e-waste, several claims in his letter require factual correction, particularly when comparing Malaysia’s e-waste management system with that of my country, Finland.

But before we start, let’s get some facts straight:

• Finland is not a huge net importer of e-waste as the author claims.
• The mentioned company, Boliden Rönnskär is not even in Finland.

The Finnish recycling infrastructure and green technology development were meant to address local e-waste first, and only after they reached high levels of productivity almost 15 years ago did large scale imports start.

Imagine if we solve the domestic collection problem and harness more than 300,000 tonnes of domestic e-waste in Malaysia. That would be 1.5 times more than the total amount of e-waste Germany imported in 2022.

Believe it or not, such infrastructure already exists in Malaysia but it needs to be scaled up rapidly. Lack of awareness and market fragmentation are slowing us down.

European recovery facilities pay a lot less for, and even slap penalties on e-waste that does not contain a high concentration of valuable metals.

This means they cherry-pick e-waste, taking only that which has a high concentration of valuable metals and low in plastic and resin. They can therefore offer high prices for such material.

This means that pre-processing needs to happen at “filter” countries where all the low-value and polluting materials are filtered out first, before the containers of high-grade materials is economically viable to be processed in Europe.

Malaysia should not fall into this trap of becoming one of those “filter” countries. It is a question of national sovereignty and the government’s decision should be respected.

My company would easily gain millions of dollars per year if Malaysia allows the import of e-waste. However, I do not believe that creating shareholder value should come at the expense of clean water and soil for future generations.

Economic growth should not come at the expense of permanent damage to irreplaceable things.

Collection infrastructure and accessibility

Finland’s collection system demonstrates how effective e-waste management should function. Finnish residents benefit from an extensive network of collection points with at least one such point per municipality.

There is no charge for leaving e-waste at these collection points, which are accessible across the country, making it is an effortless process.

Finnish retailers also have a legal obligation to accept e-waste when consumers purchase new equipment, with larger stores required to accept small e-waste items without any purchase.

But more importantly, citizens are happy to put in the effort to recycle their e-waste material and do not expect any rewards for it.

In Malaysia, the situation differs dramatically. Facilities and infrastructure designated by the government for waste disposal primarily serve industry-generated waste, not household e-waste.

Malaysian households rely largely on informal channels such as general waste collection, charities, door-to-door collectors, and individual waste-for-recycling buyers.

This lack of formal infrastructure results in significant amounts of e-waste being improperly disposed of or handled by the informal sector, which mostly processes them without regard for human health and pollution concerns.

Given that these practices have been in place over many decades, Malaysian consumers now expect someone else to do the heavy lifting. Worse than that, they also expect to get cash compensation for their recyclables.

This means that ready access to imported e-waste will most certainly cause licensed recovery facilities to neglect the local e-waste problem.

Even if the imported e-waste is processed in “green facilities”, the nation will be swamped with domestic household e-waste which will certainly pollute the environment for generations to come.

Finland already achieved 88% domestic e-waste collection rate in 2010, whereas Malaysia is barely at one third of that level 15 years later.

Even if it makes sense for Finland to import the e-waste, we still have a lot more homework to do in terms of domestic e-waste collection and recycling in Malaysia, before we shock the system with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of imported e-waste.

Producer responsibility and funding mechanisms

The Finnish system operates on a comprehensive producer responsibility principle.

Manufacturers or importers of electrical equipment in Finland bear full responsibility for the cost and logistics of their products’ end-of-life management.

This operation is funded through recycling fees included in product sales prices, creating a sustainable financing mechanism.

Malaysia’s producer responsibility framework for e-waste remains underdeveloped. The current system places minimal financial or logistical responsibility on producers, resulting in inadequate infrastructure and public awareness campaigns.

Mr Soh’s claims overlooked this critical difference between the two countries’ approaches.

Collection rates and processing

Finland has not only implemented but exceeded the European Union’s collection requirements in a relatively short time.

The total rate of electrical and electronic waste recovery in Finland is over 88%, far above the global average.

Finnish e-waste is processed primarily within Finland at regulated treatment facilities, minimising environmental impact through proper handling.

Global data shows stark disparities in e-waste handling, with Europe achieving a 42.8% collection and recycling rate, while regions with less developed systems struggle with rates below 10%.

Malaysia falls into this latter category, with insufficient formal collection infrastructure for household e-waste, leading to lower recovery rates and more informal processing.

Legislative framework and implementation

Finland has implemented a comprehensive e-waste management system based on three primary laws: the Waste Act 646/2011, the Government Decree on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 519/2014, and the EU Directive 2012/19/EU.

This robust legal framework specifically addresses e-waste collection, treatment, and recovery.

In contrast, Malaysia regulates e-waste under the Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations 2005, categorising it as scheduled waste under code SW 110.

Unlike Finland, Malaysia still lacks specific regulations dedicated to e-waste management. While guidelines exist for classification, they do not constitute enforceable legislation with clear targets and requirements.

Before opening the flood gates to international e-waste, we need to ensure that Malaysia’s legislative framework is comprehensive and up-to-date.

Conclusion

Acknowledging Malaysia as a recipient of improper e-waste shipments is not hypocritical but necessary for addressing this global environmental challenge.

Rather than denying existing problems, we should focus on implementing proven solutions, such as Finland’s comprehensive producer responsibility system, accessible collection infrastructure, and strong regulatory framework.

Let’s focus on our domestic problem first, and only after we reach high e-waste collection and recycling levels domestically, can we consider helping other countries deal with their e-waste.

Malaysia has made progress in drafting regulations for household e-waste, but significant gaps remain between our current system and best practices exemplified by Finland.

By acknowledging these differences and learning from successful models, Malaysia can better protect its environment and citizens from the hazards of improper e-waste management.

Meanwhile restricting the flow of international e-waste until the domestic problems are solved is the only reasonable path forward.

Expecting e-waste imports to be a magic wand that can solve all domestic problems is a fairy tale. - FMT

Mohamed El-Fatatry is an FMT reader as well as founder and managing hero at Khazanah-backed Electronic Recycling Through Heroes (ERTH).

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

Kop heist, but it’s not over yet

 

Robbery? How about larceny on a grand scale?

Liverpool’s 1-0 Champions League win over Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) defied logic, and distorted reality.

Ex-Kop star-turned-pundit Jamie Carragher called it: “One of the biggest robberies you’ll ever see in football.”

Manager Arnie Slot admitted: “Had we got a draw, we still would have been lucky,” while PSG’s Luis Enrique claimed: “We were far superior to Liverpool.”

They were superior in every department except the one that matters most.

Harvey Elliott’s priceless late goal and the Anfield factor probably make the Reds favourites to go through in next week’s return leg of the last 16 tie.

But Kopites shouldn’t bank on it.

Yes, it has the makings of one of Liverpool’s great European nights. The Kop will be in full voice and Slot’s men cannot play as badly again.

But once the French champions have calmed down and watched what happened, they won’t be going there quaking in their boots.

Indeed, analysis will only reinforce the view that they were overwhelmingly the better side in the first leg.

They will also feel cheated by a couple of decisions that were pivotal.

All that said, they did miss a golden opportunity to not just beat Liverpool, but to make a statement that they are serious contenders for the crown.

Coming into the game, they had won 19 of their last 20 matches, having found a rich vein of form as Liverpool lost some of theirs.

It’s not a wobble by the EPL leaders who did what great sides do – found a way to win on an off night.

They may still become a great side, but they looked anything but in the early hours of Thursday morning, Malaysia time.

Apart from the scoreline, this was a thrashing – no two ways about it.

PSG were sensational as they were when they came from behind to beat Manchester City in the previous round.

What was missing were goals but they have also scored 11 times in their last three away games in this tournament.

And even with all the advantages Anfield brings, you fear that PSG were so superior they may have Liverpool’s number.

The quicksilver attackers ran the Reds ragged and it was only Alisson, in the game of his life, who prevented a cricket score.

The bare bones of what happened underpin the home side’s dominance: Shots: 27-2. Shots on target: 14-1. Possession: 70%-30%. Corners: 14-2.

These are devastating margins. And besides, they might have had a penalty and a goal that was disallowed for the flimsiest of offsides.

And with another referee, on another night, Ibrahima Konate could have been sent off.

Down by a man (and possibly two goals) midway through the first half, the tie could have been over.

Now it’s in the balance as is Liverpool’s season to some extent.

Even defeat is not going to derail their march to the EPL title but may just give Newcastle a glimmer of hope for the Carabao Cup.

A season that recently looked like one for the ages might yet end up with a single trophy.

A 20th league title in front of fans – the 19th was during Covid – isn’t going to be an anti-climax, but Kopites might have to rein in their greater expectations.

And the club hierarchy could be given quite a bit of food for thought for next season.

Maybe, just maybe, Liverpool are not as good as they looked a few weeks ago.

An extra body in January might have helped.

That’s what PSG did, bringing in Khvicha Kvaratskhelia for £50m from Napoli.

Known as “Kvaradona” by the locals after the immortal Maradona, he’s a player Liverpool looked at as a possible successor to Mo Salah.

And he showed why he’s in this kind of company.

In contrast, the Egyptian King was a mere commoner, feeding on scraps.

Ousmane Dembele showed why he was also considered and ultimately rejected.

Throughout his career, the Frenchman has driven managers to distraction with mesmeric dribbling followed by wayward finishing. In Paris, he produced both in abundance.

For Liverpool, only Allison shone, and a few notables fell short of the required standard.

The Brazilian keeper made nine saves, a few of them quite stupendous, which only added to PSG’s sense of injustice at the outcome.

It also makes you wonder about Liverpool’s goalkeeping situation.

With Caoimhin Kelleher as a reliable back-up and Giorgi Mamardashvili, who was outstanding for Georgia at the Euros, arriving in the summer, they have a surfeit of riches.

Kelleher looks like the one to make way.

But in front, at least on this evidence, they may need a few more additions.

How it will affect the three out-of-contract stars is anyone’s guess.

Probably “not much” in truth as Trent Alexander-Arnold seems headed for Real Madrid while Virgil van Dijk has always been expected to stay.

Mo Salah, who craves a shot at the Ballon d’Or, knows he has as much chance of winning it at Liverpool as anywhere else.

So he, too, may stay one more year.

But a new left-back is needed as well as perhaps a No 6 after all as Ryan Gravenberch may not be seen as the long-term answer.

Pulled on the night and weary from too many games, the Dutchman has not looked as good in the role in recent weeks.

Martin Zubimendi, the Real Sociedad star who changed his mind about joining, may now be going to Arsenal.

And a striker is also needed. PSG boss Luis Enrique spoke of “three fighter jets” before the game but all were grounded.

Instead, the much-maligned Darwin Nunez came on, caused confusion and provided an assist for the winner with a nicely weighted pass.

Elliott side-footed it without much power and it wasn’t going right in the corner, but a weak hand from Gianluigi Donnarumma couldn’t stop it.

It was the first save he had to make: football can be a cruel beast as Liverpool should be aware next week. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.