Making the mobile companies share the towers is good but I think its too late now. And taxes on the companies means taxes on subscribers ultimately. Government do not want to go for a better way of doing it because all they want is another way of making money to maintain their heaven.

[COLOMBO, SinhalaNet 2008.08.06 06:43AM] Chairman of the Central Environmental Authority Udaya Gammanpila answering all criticism levelled against him and the Environment Ministry for slapping a two per cent levy on the monthly bills of mobile phone users, yesterday said that the Bill was “progressive” by all means because it deals explicitly with mobile phone users and not with non-user village folk.

He said the Central Environment Authority introduced the levy under the Environmental Conservation Tax Act 2008 in keeping with the Rio Protocol of the first Earth Summit held in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, which Sri Lanka was a signatory, on the polluter pays basis.

Gammanpila was speaking at a press conference held at the Central Environmental Authority in Battaramulla. The tax aims to make the users of mobile devices as well as the public more perceptive and sensitive about the environment, not to make money to sustain the Central Environment Authority, he said.

“The Central Environment Authority can very well look up to the Treasury for the funds and live on its allocations and it can do well without any funds being drawn from a two per cent mobile phone tax,”he added.

“The tax is a progressive because it will exclude non-handset holders who are village folk. Hence we believe that leftists like Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Wickremebahu Karunaratna will support our tax scheme imposed on mobile phone users.”

Explaining what they would do with the tax money , Gammanpila said, “we expect to set up a scheme for collecting , recycling and safe disposal of mobile phones with the use of funds collected through our Environmental Conservation Tax Bill”.

Mobile phones and their accessories contain poisonous substances including Cadmium, Rhodium, Palladium, Beryllium and Lead Solder which are among the ten most dangerous substances known to mankind.

He said, the neighbouring countries, India and Singapore have their own Recycling centres for the safe disposal of mobile phones which contain environmentally dangerous electronic substances. “Sri Lanka too needs a mobile phone Recycling and Management facility for the safe disposal of dangerous accessories in them.”

There is criticism level led He said with the environmental conservation tax of two percent being imposed on that avarice , the mobile phone user pays around Rs. 20, an amount which is less than what he or she has to pay for a pound of bread.

1. So far Dialog has collected 11,400 mobile phones. (We stand corrected. Our figure was few months old. Apologies)

2. Dialog exports this in bulk for recycling. It comes to about 1 metric ton. (So it is NOT released to the environment)

3. With their best efforts Dialog thinks the maximum number of phones that can collect is 100,000 per annum. ie. 10 metric tons.

4. If this target is achieved, a local recycling plant makes sense. The breakeven is 100 used mobiles a day. (or 3.6 metric tons per annum) Otherwise it is not worth the effort.

5. Mobiles are getting increasingly smaller. So the breakeven figure will increase in future.

In short this means, although our initial figure was outdated, our argument still stands.

We eagerly anticipate CEA Chairman Mr. Udaya Gammanpila to justify his claim that we need a mobile recycling plant operated by government to recycle the ‘large number of mobiles’ released to environment.

1. Exactly what is the method of collection, and is the ministry lawfully empowered to collect revenue in this manner? If not, can it be challenged?

2. Why tax mobile phones ONLY, when they do exactly the same functions as fixed phones but offer the value-added premium of mobility?

3. Isn’t it a bit too late in the day to insist that telecom operators share towers when most of them have put up their own?

4. Behaviour change is a complex science and art, and not something a government agency can legislate or regulate. Is the tax money collected going to be squandered on unimaginative propaganda campaign (probably awarded to Triad agency?) that will have no effect at all on consumer behaviour?

5. Dialog Telekom’s take-back initiative for discarded and unuseable mobile phones and batteries has the CEA as technical advisor. After a slow start, it is picking up and now over 10,000 units have been collected. So what’s the problem that this tax claims to address? Or is this another ruse to force people to part with their hard-earned money?