GEM 2024-18-03 Web Page Per Page Web

THE GLOBAL
E-WASTE
MONITOR
2024
Authors: Cornelis P. Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr, Tales Yamamoto, Rosie McDonald,
Elena D’Angelo, Shahana Althaf, Garam Bel, Otmar Deubzer, Elena Fernandez-Cubillo,
Vanessa Forti, Vanessa Gray, Sunil Herat, Shunichi Honda, Giulia Iattoni, Deepali S.
Khetriwal, Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia, Yuliya Lobuntsova, Innocent Nnorom,
Noémie Pralat, Michelle Wagner
Image: Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac

Copyright and Publication Information
Copyright and
Publication Information
Contact Information International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
For enquiries, please contact the corresponding author, Cornelis P. Baldé, at balde@unitar.org. is the nited ations specialized agency in the field of s. ts mandate is to develop
programmes in response to the challenges of climate change and the growing quantities of
Required Citation e-waste globally. It is involved in circular economy and climate change activities such as research,
Cornelis P. Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr, Tales Yamamoto, Rosie McDonald, Elena D’Angelo, Shahana capacity building and developing international standards. Its strategic plan for 2024-2027 sets
Althaf, Garam Bel, Otmar Deubzer, Elena Fernandez-Cubillo, Vanessa Forti, Vanessa Gray, Sunil a target . of significant improvement of s contribution to climate and environment
Herat, Shunichi Honda, Giulia Iattoni, Deepali S. Khetriwal, Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia, Yuliya action”, as measured by concrete indicators, including the global e-waste recycling rate, the
Lobuntsova, Innocent Nnorom, Noémie Pralat, Michelle Wagner (2024). International Telecom- number of countries with an e-waste legislation and the contribution of telecommunications/
munication Union (ITU) and United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). 2024. ICTs to global greenhouse gas emissions. For more information on ITU Telecommunication Deve-
Global E-waste Monitor 2024. Geneva/Bonn. lopment Sector environmental work, see https://www.itu.int/itu-d/sites/environment.
Pdf version: 978-92-61-38781-5 Fondation Carmignac

Epub version: 978-92-61-38791-4 The Fondation Carmignac was founded in 2000 by Edouard Carmignac, a French entrepreneur,
Mobile version: 978-92-61-38801-0 CEO and Chairman of asset management company Carmignac. Today, it is structured around
3 main pillars which developed one after the other: The Carmignac Collection, the Carmignac
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - Sustainable Cycles Photojournalism Award and the Villa Carmignac in Porquerolles.
(SCYCLE) Programme
Since January 2022, Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) has been a programme under the United Since 2009, the Carmignac Photojournalism Award has been funding the production of an
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Division for Planet. SCYCLE’s mission is investigative photo reportage on human rights violations and geo-strategic issues and allows
to promote sustainable societies. Its activities focus on the development of sustainable photographers to conduct long-term fieldwork. he th edition of the armignac hoto our-
production, consumption and disposal patterns for electrical and electronic equipment nalism Award is dedicated to Ghana and the ecological and human challenges associated with
(EEE), as well as for other ubiquitous goods. SCYCLE leads the global e-waste discussion and the transboundary ow of e-waste. he laureates - investigative ournalist and activist Anas
advances sustainable e-waste management strategies based on life-cycle thinking. SCYCLE’s Aremeyaw Anas and photojournalists Muntaka Chasant and Bénédicte Kurzen (NOOR) - spent
vision is to enable societies to reduce the environmental load of production, usage and disposal 9 months documenting an incredibly ambiguous and complex ecosystem in a transnational
of their day-to-day goods to sustainable levels through independent, comprehensive, and approach. Their photographs taken in Ghana and in parts of Europe are featured throughout
practical research that provides facts for more thorough policy development and decisi- this report. From European ports where Ghanaian exporters from the diaspora export their
on-making. ey for E is also the transition of research findings into appropriate trainings. merchandise, to the many informal scrapyards peppered around southern Ghana, and back to
www.unitar.org; www.scycle.info. repair shops where e-waste is recycled, Anas, Muntaka and Bénédicte dive deep into the rami-
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 2

Copyright and Publication Information
fications of e-waste trafficking and reveal the opacity of this globalized circle. hey highlight the Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance
embedded paradox of the e-waste economy, which is both a crucial opportunity for thousands with the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.int/
of people in Ghana and has a considerable human and environmental impact. amc/en/mediation/rules).
©2024 International Telecommunication Union and United Nations Institute for Third-party materials.
Training and Research If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables,
figures or images it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that
Disclaimers reuse and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from
Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non- infringement of any third party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Commercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo), unless otherwise indicated in the work. For any uses of this work General disclaimers.
that are not included in this licence, please seek permission from ITU. For any use or repro- The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply
duction of the photographs in the work, please seek permission from the Fondation Carmignac. the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ITU or UNITAR concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation
Within the scope and under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border
the work, with the exception of the photographs contained in the work, for non-commercial lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work,
there should be no suggestion that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they do not neces-
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) or Fondation Carmignac endorses any sarily re ect those of A or ondation armignac. he mention of specific companies
specific organization products or services. he unauthorized use of the A or ondation products or services does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ITU, UNITAR or
Carmignac names or logos is not permitted. If you adapt the work under this license, then you Fondation Carmignac in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors
must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create and omissions excepted; the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital
a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested letters.
citation: This translation was not created by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU),
the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) or Fondation Carmignac. Neither All reasonable precautions have been taken by ITU, UNITAR and Fondation Carmignac to
ITU, UNITAR nor Fondation Carmignac are responsible for the content or accuracy of this trans- verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being
lation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition. distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for
the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall ITU, UNITAR or
Fondation Carmignac be liable for damages arising from its use.

Table of Contents
Table of
Contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................5 Africa......................................................................................................................................... 62
Foreword..................................................................................................................................... 7 Americas.................................................................................................................................. 68
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 10 Asia..............................................................................................................................................76
Chapter 1: What is EEE and E-waste?............................................................................. 18 Europe....................................................................................................................................... 94
Chapter 2: Methodology.....................................................................................................22 Oceania................................................................................................................................... 100
Chapter 3: Key Global Statistics..................................................................................... 26 Global E-waste Statistics Partnership....................................................................... 104
Chapter 4: Transboundary Movements....................................................................... 38 About the Authors.............................................................................................................. 105
Chapter 5: Legislation......................................................................................................... 42 Annex 1: Methodology Details........................................................................................ 106
Chapter 6: Recovery of Valuable and Critical Metals............................................. 44 Annex 2: Datasets.................................................................................................................116
Chapter 7: Treatment Technology Innovations......................................................... 48 References..............................................................................................................................138
Chapter 8: Environmental Impact..................................................................................50
Chapter 9: Economic Assessment................................................................................. 52
Chapter 10: Improvement Outlook from 2022 to 2030......................................... 56

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 is funded, and prepared in part-

nership, by the UNITAR SCYCLE Programme, ITU and Fondation
Carmignac. The authors would like to thank the United Nations
Environment Programme for the additional financial contribution,
the cooperation with data collection and the overall support towards
the development of this Monitor.
Overall coordination was provided by Dr. Cornelis P. Baldé and Professor

Ruediger Kuehr of UNITAR and Vanessa Gray of ITU. The following
persons contributed to the report in varying capacities their affiliations
are included for identification purposes r. ornelis . ald A
Professor Ruediger Kuehr (UNITAR), Tales Yamamoto (UNITAR), Elena
D’Angelo (UNITAR), Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia (UNITAR), Dr. Otmar
Deubzer (UNITAR), Elena Fernandez-Cubillo (UNITAR), Vanessa Forti
(UNITAR), Giulia Iattoni (UNITAR), Vanessa Gray (ITU), Garam Bel (ITU), Dr.
Rosie McDonald (ITU), Noémie Pralat (ITU), Dr. Shahana Althaf (Aligned
ncentives rofessor unil erat riffith niversity r. hunichi onda
(UNEP), Dr. Deepali S. Khetriwal (international expert), Yuliya Lobuntsova
(CSD Center), Professor Innocent Nnorom (Abia State University),
Michelle Wagner (WEEE Forum). For more details, see About the Authors.
The authors would like to thank Professor Maria Holuszko (University

of British Columbia), Ekaterina Poleshchuk (UNEP), Dr. Ulrich Kral
(Environment Agency Austria), Professor Colin Fitzpatrick (University
of Limerick), Simon van Walle (Umicore), Kristine Sperlich (German
Environment Agency) and Professor Sutha Khaodhiar (Chulalongkorn
University) for reviewing the manuscript, Terry Collins for support in
the launch of the publication and media campaign and Dr. Ludgarde
Coppens (UNEP) and Takahiro Nakamura (UNEP) for their support in the
development of this Monitor.
Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac

Abbreviatons
Abbreviations
ABBREVIATION FULL NAME ABBREVIATION FULL NAME
Basel Convention Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of ICT Information and Communications Technology
Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
ITU International Telecommunication Union
Bamako Convention Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the
Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous LCD Liquid Crystal Display
Wastes within Africa
LED Light-Emitting Diode
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
EACO East African Communications Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment
POM Placed On Market
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
Rotterdam Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
EU European Union Convention Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
EU WEEE Directive Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
(recast) (Text with EEA relevance) StEP Initiative Solving the E-waste Problem Initiative
EU RoHS Directive Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council Stockholm Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous Convention
substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast) (Text with
EEA relevance) SCYCLE Sustainable Cycles Programme
EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council UNDP United Nations Development Programme
Directive of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text
with EEA relevance) UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
GEF Global Environment Facility UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
GESP Global E-waste Statistics Partnership UNITAR United Nations Institute for Training and Research
HFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbons UNU United Nations University
HS code Harmonized System Code WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Foreword
Foreword
he world is experiencing significant electronification including a Monitoring e-waste uantities and ows is essential for evaluating
digital transformation, with technologies profoundly changing the way developments over time, for setting and assessing targets, and for
we live, work, learn, socialize, and do business. Many people own and gauging the extent to which electronics can help reduce the impacts
use multiple electronic devices, and the increasing interconnectivity of of climate change and minimize resource scarcity. When used to
urban and remote areas has led to a rise in the number of devices and augment sound collection and recycling, appropriate data and laws
objects linked to the Internet. This growth has seen a concomitant surge can be extremely effective in accelerating environmental protection
in the amount of EEE and e-waste. At the same time, the global e-waste and the retention of valuable materials. However, without a compre-
collection and recycling rate is not keeping pace with this growth. The hensive and representative picture of the global e-waste challenge,
lobal E-waste Monitor finds that by the world generated the true extent of this waste stream, and the negative externalities it
billion kg of e-waste, or an average of 7.8 kg per capita. Only 22.3 per creates, will remain unknown. On the other hand, for industry and poli-
cent (13.8 billion kg) of the e-waste generated was documented as cymakers to truly exploit the positive circular economy potential of
properly collected and recycled. In 2010, the world generated 34 billion the electronics sector, reliable data must be freely available to inform
kg of e-waste, and that amount has increased annually by an average decision making.
of 2.3 billion kg per year. The documented formal collection and recy-
cling rate has gone up as well, growing from 8 billion kg in 2010 at an
average rate of 0.5 billion kg per year. The rise in e-waste generation is
therefore outpacing the rise in formal recycling by a factor of almost 5.
The Monitor highlights that growing amounts of EEE are being sold for
the first time in developing countries however much of the e uipment
is originally used in developed countries and shipped for further use
due to the subsequent relatively lower prices of devices.

Foreword
Universal and meaningful connectivity are prerequisites of digital trans-

formation, which among other things, includes the development and
use of information and communication technology (ICT), applications
and services and the closing of the digital divide. However, there are
still 2.6 billion people worldwide without a connection to the Internet.
In recent years, the rapid digitalization of economy and society, a
significant shift to e-mobility and an evident transition to green and
renewable energy solutions, have led to concerns by policymakers
over the continued availability of rare-earth elements and critical raw
materials to feed these transitions. While the digital, transport and
energy sectors increasingly compete for similar raw materials of high
importance, global supply chains have become progressively more
sensitive to global pandemics and political tensions over resources.
E-waste is a special waste stream due to its varied nature which

includes a complex composition of materials and components, a
broad array of product types and a rapidly evolving product stream
which increasingly comprises miniaturised parts, embedded elec-
tronics in traditional equipment, clothing, and toys etc., and more
and more interoperable products having the ability to connect to
the Internet. At the same time, electrical and electronic equipment -
anything with a plug or a battery - holds enormous potential for the
transformation of societies, through photovoltaics, solar energy and
heat pumps, electric vehicles, smart houses, smart clothes and smart
cities intelligent logistics smart agriculture Artificial ntelligence and
the Internet of Things.
Natalia Catalina / Shutterstock.com

Foreword
ITU and UNITAR have joined forces in the Global E-waste Statistics
Partnership (GESP). The GESP collects data from countries in an
internationally standardized way and ensures that this information
is publicly available via its open-source global e-waste database
(www.globalewaste.org). Since 2017, the GESP has substantially
boosted national and regional capacities to produce e-waste statistics
in various countries. Ultimately, it supports national efforts to compile
e-waste statistics that are useful for national policy-making using an
internationally recognized, harmonized measurement framework. It is
our pleasure to present to you The Global E-waste Monitor 2024. The
fourth edition is an indispensable reference tool for policymakers and
industry, that shows us the world where we stand in terms of the global
e-waste challenge.
Mr. Nikhil Seth

United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, Executive Director,
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

Director, Telecommunication Development Bureau
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Rajan Zaveri

Executive Summary
62 billion kg of e-waste generated
Executive globally in 2022.
Summary 7.8 kg per capita.

22.3% of this e-waste
was documented as formally
he world is experiencing significant electro- In 2022, a record 62 billion kg of e-waste
collected and recycled in an
nification including a digital transformation was generated globally (equivalent to an environmentally sound manner.
with technologies profoundly changing the average of 7.8 kg per capita per year); 22.3
Since 2010, the growth of e-waste generation is
way we live, work, learn, socialize and do per cent of this e-waste mass was docu-
outpacing the formal collection and recycling
business. Many people own and use multiple mented as formally collected and recycled
electronic devices, and the increasing inter-
connectivity of urban and remote areas has
in an environmentally sound manner. by almost a
led to a rise in the number of devices and In 2010, the world generated 34 billion kg of factor of 5.
objects linked to the Internet. These include e-waste, an amount that has since increased
the usual computers and phones, but also annually by an average of 2.3 billion kg. The
Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024
a growing list of objects such as household documented formal collection and recycling
appliances, e-bikes and e-scooters, health rate has increased as well, growing from 8
monitors, environmental sensors, electronics billion kg in 2010 at an average rate of 0.5
embedded in furniture and clothes, more billion kg per year to 13.8 billion kg in 2022.
and more toys and tools, and energy-saving The rise in e-waste generation is therefore
equipment such as LEDs, photovoltaics and outpacing the rise in formal recycling by a
heat pumps. factor of almost 5 - driven by technological
progress, higher consumption, limited repair
This growth has seen a concomitant surge in options, short product lifecycles, growing
the amount of EEE and e-waste. When EEE electronification and inade uate e-waste
is disposed of, it generates a waste stream management infrastructure - and has thus
that contains both hazardous and valuable outstripped the rise in formal and environ-
materials, collectively known as e-waste, or mentally sound collection and recycling.
waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE). The Global E-waste Monitor has
been the foremost source of reporting on
this pressing issue since 2014, providing the
most up-to-date overview of global e-waste
data, statistics, and progress in policy and
regulation since 2014. It also provides a look
at what the future holds if things change or Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
stay the same.

Executive Summary
62 billion kg Composition of Global

of e-waste in 2022 have the following characteristics:
E-waste in 2022
31 billion kg of metals
13.8 billion kg 16 billion kg 18 billion kg 14 billion kg

of e-waste is documented as of e-waste is estimated to be of e-waste is estimated to be of e-waste is estimated to be
formally collected and recycled collected and recycled outside of handled in low- and disposed of as residual waste,
in an environmentally sound formal systems in high- and lower-middle-income countries the majority of which is
manner. upper-middle-income countries with no developed e-waste landfilled globally.
with developed e-waste management infrastructure,
management infrastructure. mostly by the informal sector.
The e-waste generated in 2022 contained applications were related to technologies for Most e-waste is managed outside 17 billion kg of plastics
31 billion kg of metals, 17 billion kg of cable recycling, with hardly any signs of an formal collection and recycling
plastics and 14 billion kg of other materials increase in the number of patents filed for schemes. As a result of non-com-
(minerals, glass, composite materials, etc.) technologies related to critical raw materials pliant e-waste management, 58
recovery. Although rare earth elements have thousand kg of mercury and 45
An estimated 19 billion kg of e-waste, mainly unique properties that are crucial for future million kg of plastics containing
from metals like iron which is present in technologies, including renewable energy brominated flame retardants are
high quantities and has high recycling rates generation and e-mobility, the world remains released into the environment
in almost all e-waste management routes, stunningly dependent on the production every year. This has a direct and
were turned into secondary resources. Plati- chains of a few countries. The recycling of severe impact on the environment
num-group metals and precious metals were such elements remains economically chal- and people’s health. 14 billion kg of other materials
among the most valuable metals but present lenging, even in the case of devices with
in much lower quantities; nonetheless, an a higher content. Consequently, recycling
estimated thousand kg were turned into activities are taking only around 1 per cent
secondary resources through formal and of the current demand for the recycling of
informal recycling practices. rare earth elements. The market price for
rare earth elements is still too low to support
The share of patent applications for e-waste larger-scale commercial recycling operations.
management rose from 148 per million in
2010 to 787 per million in 2022. Most of those

Executive Summary
Amount of E-waste Generated and Collected

Europe
17.6 Around one-third (20 billion kg) of the equipment, which include laptops, mobile
7.53 42.8% world’s e-waste takes the form of small phones, GPS devices and routers; only
equipment such as toys, microwave ovens, 22 per cent is documented as formally
Oceania
vacuum cleaners and e-cigarettes, yet recy- collected and recycled. Typically, collection
16.1
cling rates for this category of equipment and recycling rates are highest for heavier
6.66 41.4% remain very low, at only 12 per cent globally. and bulkier equipment categories, such as
2022
Americas Another 5 billion kg of e-waste are made large equipment, temperature exchange
14.1 up of small IT and telecommunication equipment, and screens and monitors.
4.2 30%
Asia
6.4
0.76 11.8%
Africa
2.5
0.018 0.7%
0 5 10 15 20
E-waste generation per capita in kg
E-waste generated per capita in kg E-waste documented to be collected and recycled per capita in kg
Annual average formal collection and recycling rate
Minor inconsistencies may have occurred due to rounding of values during the calculations.
Documented formal collection and recy- advances in e-waste management; moreover,

cling rates vary significantly across relatively few of them have enacted legis-
regions, with Europe boasting a rate of 42.8 lation or established clear e-waste collection
per cent. targets. In 2022, the regions that generated
the highest amount of e-waste per capita
Nevertheless, EU Member States have made were Europe (17.6 kg), Oceania (16.1 kg) and
little progress towards reaching their own the Americas (14.1 kg). Since these are the
legally binding collection targets. African regions with the most advanced collection
countries generate the lowest rates of and recycling infrastructure, they also have
e-waste but struggle to recycle it; their recy- the highest documented per capita collection
cling rates are below 1 per cent. Countries and recycling rates (7.53 kg per capita in
in Asia generate almost half of the world’s Europe, 6.66 kg per capita in Oceania and 4.2 Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac
e-waste (30 billion kg) but have made limited kg per capita in the Americas).

Executive Summary
The growth rate of countries implementing e-waste management containing provi- global e-waste collection and recycling rate ecological footprint from production, there
e-waste policy, legislation or regulation is sions promoting the environmental policy is likely exacerbated by the fact that only 46 is a momentum to promote the extended
decelerating, according to June 2023 data. principle of extended producer responsi- countries have collection rate targets and use of EEE products through their repair and
In all, 81 countries (42 per cent of all coun- bility (EPR). Countries having such a legal only 36 have recycling rate targets. refurbishment. However, clear limitations
tries worldwide) have adopted e-waste instrument tend to have a wide network of remain in terms of environmentally sound
policies, covering 72 per cent of the global collection points for the separate collection Overall, the level of awareness about e-waste recycling practices, owing to the low collection
population. of e-waste financing mechanisms to properly remains low and there are few appropriate rates and limited recycling infrastructure
manage e-waste, and better documentation disposal options. Moreover, the gap between in many parts of the world. To address this,
Between 2019 and 2023, the number of and e-waste management infrastructure. awareness and actual action and implemen- greater investment in infrastructure deve-
countries with such legislation increased However, the enforcement of e-waste policy, tation remains huge, as many high-income lopment, more promotion of repair and reuse,
slightly, from 78 to 81. Of those 81 coun- legislation and regulation remains a genuine countries have experienced. While there capacity building, and measures to stop
tries, 67 had a legal instrument governing challenge globally, and the stagnation of the are limited e-waste disposal options and an illegal shipments of e-waste are crucial.
81 countries
have adopted e-waste policy,
legislation or regulation.
67 countries
have legal provisions on EPR
for e-waste.
36 countries
have provisions on e-waste
recycling rate targets.
46 countries
have provisions on e-waste
collection rate targets.
Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac


Executive Summary
Overall Economic Impact of The economic value of the metals contained energy diverts e-waste from landfills creates
in the e-waste generated globally in 2022 local economic opportunities and enhances
E-waste Management in 2022 is estimated at USD 91 billion. supply chain security.
Valuable secondary raw materials are copper According to current economic assess-
(USD 19 billion), gold (USD 15 billion) and iron ments, e-waste management in its current
billion . hese metals can be effi- status has economic benefits (e.g. the
-37 Benefits
ciently reclaimed with high recycling rates recovery of metals) but also costs (e.g.
using current e-waste management tech- e-waste treatment and hidden externa-
Costs
nologies, implying that improved collection lized costs for society). The overall annual
billion
rates could substantially increase current economic monetary cost of e-waste
value recovery rates. management is estimated at USD 37 billion
worldwide.
Currently, e-waste management generates
USD
USD 28 billion worth of secondary raw The main costs consist of USD 78 billion in
materials out of the maximum of USD 91 externalized costs to the population and
billion. Most losses occur due to inci- the environment, stemming from lead and
neration, landfilling or substandard mercury emissions, plastic leakages and
treatment. The current secondary raw contributions to global warming, particularly
nnua e ono oneta a to material production avoids extraction of in cases where hazardous substances are
e aste anage ent g o a 900 billion kg of ore. not properly managed. Additional costs arise
from the treatment of e-waste and amount
This highlights the importance of a circular to USD 10 billion; the largest share is paid
Benefits Costs economy to create more secure and sustai- by producers in countries with EPR regula-
nable value chains. Moreover, urban mining tions. Environmentally sound treatment costs
23 billion USD 10 billion USD is essential to further reduce environ-
mental degradation. E-waste management
consist primarily of compliant e-waste recy-
cling to depollute and manage hazardous
of monetized value of associated to the cost
avoided greenhouse gas for treatment globally prevents 93 billion kg of CO2-equi- substances, and administrative cost. The
emissions. of e-waste. valent emissions in the form of refrigerants benefits are estimated to be billion
in temperature exchange equipment (41 of recovered metals that are brought back
billion kg) and through the lower green- into the circular economy and have a positive
28 billion USD 78 billion USD house gas emissions obtained by recycling
metals versus mining (52 billion kg). In
market value, and USD 23 billion representing
the monetized value of avoided greenhouse
worth of recovered metals in externalized costs to
brought back into the the population and the addition, urban mining constitutes a more gas emissions.
circular economy. environment. sustainable approach to resource use, as it
conserves natural resources, reduces the
environmental impact and land disturbance
compared to primary mining activities saves

Executive Summary
Global E-waste While the twin green and digital tran- shipments. One of the primary challenges
sition could be of tremendous benefit for in controlling the transboundary movement
Generated from
humanity, policy-makers must also ensure of e-waste is distinguishing between waste
Photovoltaic Panels that they reinforce each other and address and used EEE (which is not waste). Illegal
any adverse environmental impacts. shipments can take advantage of the fact
that international trade codes do not diffe-
Efforts to achieve universal connectivity rentiate between new and used equipment;
ith
in 8 years 2030 and shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy this opens the door to misclassification and
w production will ultimately generate more misdeclarations, and to the mixing of legal
s
Projected to grow by 4 time
e-waste. It must be borne in mind that used EEE and illegal e-waste items.
several of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), notably Goals 7 (affordable and
clean energy) and 13 (climate action), stress
the importance of sustainable and environ-
mentally responsible energy practices for a
5.1 billion kg
of e-waste is shipped
sustainable future. E-waste from photovoltaic across borders.
panels, for example, is expected to quadruple
2.4 from 0.6 billion kg in 2022 to 2.4 billion kg in
billion kg
of e-waste from
2030; its management is an important aspect
when it comes to the adoption of clean and
65%
3.3 billion kg
of e-waste is shipped through
renewable energy sources.
photovoltaic panels.
2022 uncontrolled and undocumented
and transboundary movements.
A total of 5.1 billion kg of e-waste were
shipped across borders in 2022. Of this, an
estimated 3.3 billion kg were shipped from
high-income to middle- and low-income
countries through uncontrolled and undo-
cumented transboundary movements,
0.6 accounting for 65 per cent of the total

transboundary movement of e-waste
billion kg globally.
of e-waste from Source: Adapted from Global Transboundary E-waste Flows Monitor 2022
photovoltaic panels. Most controlled transboundary ows take

place within and into Europe and East Asia.
owever many subregions face specific
hurdles; for example, countries in Africa, Latin
America and the Caribbean have concerns
about transboundary movements and illegal

Executive Summary
2030 Projections and are not properly managed. Additional costs arise from the treatment
Future Scenarios of e-waste and amount to USD 15 billion, primarily for compliant
e-waste recycling. he benefits are billion of metals recovered E-waste formally
from e-waste and USD 26 billion representing the monetized value of documented to be collected
avoided greenhouse gas emissions.
and recycled by 2030
82 billion kg
20%
E-waste management remains a cause for concern and requires
of e-waste immediate attention and action, as the amount of e-waste has
generated in grown 5 times faster than compliant collection and recycling since
2030. 2010. Despite this, there is room for optimism if action is undertaken
by all countries to set up e-waste management infrastructure and 2030 Business as Usual
38%
regulate the management of e-waste.
In a progressive scenario, the global collection and recycling rate

would increase to 38 per cent by 2030. The overall economic
assessment indicates this to be close to net zero. This could be 2030 Progressive
60%
realized if high-income countries with e-waste management infra-
structure and legislation attain collection rates of 85 per cent by 2030
(the target set in EU legislation on e-waste) and if other countries take
action to collect and manage e-waste at a rate of 10 per cent in an
environmentally sound manner. 2030 Aspirational
A total of 3 distinct scenarios have been developed which include
business as usual and progressive and aspirational scenarios. It is In an aspirational scenario, the global collection and recycling
projected that 82 billion kg of e-waste will be generated in 2030. rate would increase to 60 per cent by 2030. The overall economic
assessment indicates that the benefits would then be greater
In a business as usual scenario based on previous growth in docu- than the costs and amount to over USD 38 billion. The main reasons
mented formal collection and recycling, such rates will decline to are lower externalized costs for the population and the environment,
20 per cent in 2030. positive monetized contributions to global warming, and higher value
of recovered resources. In this scenario, all countries with e-waste
With documented formal collection and recycling rates at 22.3 per management infrastructure boost their collection rates to 85 per
cent in 2022, the world would not be able to meet the 30 per cent cent (the EU targets); upper-middle and high-income countries with
target for 2023 set by ITU. no formal e-waste management infrastructure start to divert e-waste
from landfills and low- and lower-middle-income countries improve
E-waste management is projected to lead to losses amounting to the working conditions of the informal sector with a view to collecting
USD 40 billion in 2030. The primary costs consist of USD 93 billion in and managing 40 per cent of their e-waste in an environmentally sound
externalized costs to the population and the environment, stemming manner, with further collaborative efforts between the low-income and
from lead and mercury emissions, plastic leakages and contributions high-income countries leading to increased treatment of imported
to global warming, particularly in cases where hazardous substances used EEE.

Executive Summary
Any substantial increase in the collection and recycling of e-waste

will require significant cooperation between the formal and
informal sectors, and major improvements to/formalization of the
work of the informal sector. This includes prioritizing source sepa-
ration of e-waste in high-income countries lacking specific e-waste
legislation and the establishment of effective collection schemes. The
separately collected e-waste is then transferred to environmentally
sound e-waste recyclers. National governments with existing recy-
cling systems should prioritize increasing collection rates through
targeted interventions and setting appropriate collection rates. At
the same time, ideally all imported EEE that is used should be used
and then collected in low- and middle-income countries. Substantial
investments in e-waste management capacity will drive demand for
recycled materials, resulting in higher prices for both informal recy-
clers and formal waste managers and leading to a further increase
in the e-waste collection and recycling rates. In addition, repair and
refurbishment should be supported, and smarter designs developed,
to extend the lifetime of EEE. The easiest solution for all e-waste issues
is still not to generate any e-waste in the first place.

Chapter 1. What is EEE and E-waste?
Chapter 1.
What is EEE and E-waste?
EEE refers to all products with circuitry or electrical components
and a power or battery supply.1
EEE encompasses a wide range of products used by households and

businesses. It comprises electrical appliances such as refrigerators,
stoves, washing machines and hairdryers, but also electronic devices
such as mobile phones, wireless headphones and tablets. Much of
the world is currently in the process of electronification and digital
transformation, with electronics and digital technologies profoundly
changing the way we live, work, learn, socialize and do business.
According to recent global data, for every 100 people there are 108
mobile phone subscriptions.2 The data used in this issue of the Global
E-waste Monitor shows that high-income countries have, on average,
items of EEE excluding lamps per capita. hat figure is much
lower in low-income countries, at only 4 items per capita.

Figure 1. Equipment Categories
EEE comprises a wide variety of products,

each with its unique material content, form of
disposal and recycling approaches, and each
causing unequal harm to the environment
and human health if not managed in an
environmentally sound manner. In this publi-
cation EEE is classified by function material
composition, average weight and end-of-life
attributes into 54 distinct product-centric
categories known as the UNU-KEYs.3 EEE 1. TEMPERATURE EXCHANGE 2. SCREENS AND MONITORS: 3. LAMPS:
becomes e-waste (or WEEE) once it has been EQUIPMENT:
discarded by its owner as waste without the This category typically includes This category typically includes
intent of reuse.4 More commonly referred to as televisions, monitors, laptops, note- uorescent high-intensity
cooling and freezing equipment, this books and tablets. discharge and LED lamps.
The full list of UNU-KEYs can be found in category comprises items such as
Annex 1. The 54 EEE product categories are refrigerators, freezers, air conditi-
further grouped into 6 general categories oners and heat pumps.
that broadly correspond to their waste
management characteristics (Figure 1).
This categorization is in line with both the

EU WEEE Directive and the internationally
endorsed framework for e-waste statistics
outlined in the E-waste Statistics Guidelines.5
4. LARGE EQUIPMENT: 5. SMALL EQUIPMENT: 6. SMALL IT AND TELECOMMUNI-

CATION EQUIPMENT:
This category typically includes This category typically includes
washing machines, clothes dryers, vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, This category typically includes
dishwashers, electric stoves, large toasters, electric kettles, electric mobile and other phones, personal
printers, copying equipment and shavers, electronic scales, calculators, computers, GPS devices, routers
photovoltaic panels. radios, video cameras, electrical and printers.
and electronic toys, small electrical
and electronic tools, small medical
devices, small monitoring and control
instruments, and e-cigarettes.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 ource Adapted from E-waste tatistics - uidelines on lassification eporting and ndicators 19
It is important to understand what is not

EEE. Batteries and other electricity storage
devices are not EEE, and most legislation
globally recognizes them as separate waste
streams, mainly because they require
different end-of-life treatment. When EEE is
What is not
designed for and installed in an automotive
apparatus, it is also not categorized as EEE
because it lacks functionality as a stand-
electrical and
electronic
alone device and can only work as part of
the automotive apparatus. Examples include
built-in audio and entertainment systems,
equipment?
or satellite navigation units installed in
VanderWolf Images / Adobe Stock cars, boats or airplanes. However, in coun-
tries where e-waste legislation is still in the
pipeline and electric vehicles are being rolled
out, there may be opportunities to reassess
the regulatory boundaries between batteries
and e-waste. Items that protect a country’s
security, such as arms, munitions and items
for military use only, are also not considered
EEE in legal terms and are exempt from asso-
ciated regulations. This usually has to do
with the act of maintaining national security.
Furthermore, emerging waste streams such
as space waste / debris containing EEE also
currently fall outside of current regulatory
frameworks. For example, the European
Space Agency is developing a plan to make
Pixel-Shot / Adobe Stock recycling in space a reality and intends to
become space debris-neutral by 2030.6

Although e-waste is relatively well defined

the distinction between waste and non-waste
remains a major concern, including for
What is economic and policy decisions. Not every-

thing that is technically reusable has a market
value, often because it is outdated. On the
electrical and other hand, not everything discarded by its

owner is unusable; some equipment remains
functional, while some non-functional
electronic
equipment can be repaired. The political
concern to distinguish between waste and
non-waste is crucial because specific inter-
equipment?
national regimes or national laws regulate
the transboundary shipment of products. In
cases where equipment can be repaired and
reused, transboundary movements should be
promoted to expand the lifespan of EEE and
reduce its environmental footprint. However,
declaring products as repairable and/or
reusable when they are not, or shipping
equipment someplace where no consumer
market exists, has led to an increase in the
amount of e-waste worldwide, especially
in regions lacking proper infrastructure for
appropriate repairs, upgrading and follow-up
recycling and treatment.

Chapter 2. Methodology
Chapter 2.
Methodology
Comprehensive monitoring and analysis Insight into the composition of e-waste,
of e-waste uantities and ows play a vital including specific components and materials
role in assessing the progress of e-waste leads to targeted resource recovery efforts.
management over time, establishing and Efficient extraction of valuable resources
evaluating e-waste management goals, and from discarded electronics facilitates circu-
implementing essential policy corrections larity of materials while reducing reliance
or adjustments. It is important to collect on mining activities and the environmental
accurate and up-to-date data about e-waste impact associated with extracting raw mate-
in order to develop effective policy and rials from the Earth’s crust. For example,
legal frameworks that enable policy-makers in 2023, the European Union introduced
to make informed decisions and formulate the Critical Raw Materials Act to safeguard
appropriate strategies. By understanding the the resources needed for technologies like
amounts, characteristics and pathways of renewable energy and battery power. The
e-waste, we can also establish a solid foun- Act calls on the Union to step up domestic
dation for effectively monitoring, controlling production and reduce its reliance on critical
and ultimately preventing illegal activities raw materials from non-EU/EFTA countries by
such as unauthorized shipments, improper 2030.7
disposal and inadequate treatment of
e-waste. This knowledge allows us to detect
and address instances of illegal dumping
and ensures that e-waste is managed in a
responsible, appropriate and environmentally
sound manner.

The SCYCLE Programme, working with the This internationally recognized metho-
Task Group on Measuring E-waste of the dology plays a crucial role in harmonizing
United Nations Partnership on Measuring ICT the measurement framework and indicators
for Development, has developed an inter- used for e-waste. t represents a significant
nationally standardized methodology for milestone towards the establishment of an
measuring e-waste. The initial version of the integrated and comparable global measu-
E-waste Statistics Guidelines, which focuses rement framework for e-waste. The principles
on classification reporting and indicators and concepts outlined in the Guidelines also
was published in 2015 by UNU-SCYCLE, serve as the foundation for the development
Eurostat, the OECD, ITU, UNCTAD, UNEP of the global, regional and national e-waste
(Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conven- monitor series. Notably, this methodology has
tions Secretariats) and the United Nations been integrated into Regulation EU/2017/699
Economic (and Social) Commissions for Asia as the common methodology for calculating
and the acific Western Asia and Africa the collection targets of the recast EU WEEE
following a global consultation process.8 The Directive.
Guidelines were subsequently updated in
2018 by the UNU SCYCLE Programme.9 This
updated edition was endorsed by the United
Nations Statistics Commission and is now
applied to monitor the s using specific
e-waste indicators under SDG 12, on sustai-
nable consumption and production practices
and the creation of inclusive and sustainable
societies.

Figure 2. E-waste Statistics Framework The measurement framework employed in

the E-waste Statistics Guidelines effectively
captures and assesses the fundamental
aspects of a country’s e-waste in relation to
the dynamics of EEE and e-waste ows and
stocks (Figure 2).
Production EEE placed Once e-waste is discarded by its owner

and trade on market
(e-waste generated), its management process
begins. This typically involves collection,
pre-treatment (mainly depollution,
dismantling, shredding, sorting, or cleaning and
repairing and final treatment preparation for
Life-time
reuse recycling or other recovery . he first
step - collection of e-waste - is crucial for its
further management, and therefore 4 main
e-waste management routes are considered,
to produce the e-waste statistics provided in
Use phase, E-waste this issue.
including items in generated
hibernation • Route 1:
Formal e-waste collection and recycling
- the preferred e-waste management
route (see Figure 6);
• Route 2:
Disposing of e-waste in residual waste -
a less-than-optimal solution
(see Figure 11);
• Route 3:
Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 E-waste collection and recycling outside
E-waste formally E-waste in E-waste collected E-waste collected formal systems with developed e-waste
collected waste bin outside of formal outside of formal
management (see Figure 12);
systems in countries systems in countries
with a developed with no developed • Route 4:
(e-)waste management (e-)waste management E-waste collection and recycling outside
infrastructure infrastructure
formal systems with no developed
e-waste management (see Figure 13).
ource Adapted from E-waste tatistics - uidelines on lassification eporting and ndicators

The SDGs monitoring framework has 3 Economic impact has been researched by and health damage caused by emissions of secondary resources. Non-viable recovery is
e-waste indicators: total e-waste generated analysing the broader cost and benefits of mercury, lead, plastics and greenhouse gases interpreted as the resources that are lost in
(unit: kg); e-waste formally collected and global e-waste management. he benefits stemming from e-waste that is part of mixed the e-waste management process as a result
managed (unit: kg); and e-waste collection are the value of metals recovered using viable residual waste where it is not specifically of inefficiencies and losses that occur during
ratei, which is calculated by dividing the technologies and the monetized long-term separated for proper management and is waste management.
amount of e-waste formally collected and value of avoided greenhouse gas emissions. collected outside formal systems.
managed (indicator 2) by the amount of The direct costs of treating e-waste (split into Environmental impact discusses the relation
e-waste generated (indicator 1) times 100 per environmentally sound (compliant) treatment Policy, legislation and regulation refers to climate change, the release of hazardous
cent (unit: per cent).10 costs, treatment of e-waste in residual waste, to the number of countries having specific materials (mercury, lead and brominated
treatment costs of e-waste mixed with metal e-waste policy, legislation or regulation. ame retardants and the avoided extraction
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 has 6 waste, and treatment costs in the informal of minerals from the Earth’s crust thanks to
building blocks in support of the 2030 Agenda sector) and the indirect externalized costs Resources in e-waste are calculated for the viable recovery of metals.
for Sustainable Development. The core block to society resulting from releases into the the total of metals in e-waste. This is disag-
is e-waste statistics which uantifies time environment, which lead to costs elsewhere gregated into currently viable recovery E-waste management technology has been
series of EEE placed on the market, e-waste in society and are not included in the direct and currently non-viable recovery of metal researched through patent applications on
generation, transboundary movements and pricing mechanisms. These indirect costs resources. iable recovery is defined as the e-waste recycling, and disaggregated as
e-waste management by country. E-waste are estimated based on the environmental resources that are currently recovered as denoted or expressed by several keywords.
statistics are instrumental for quantifying 3
indicators related to SDG 12, on sustainable
consumption and production practices and
the creation of inclusive and sustainable
societies, and to SGD 11, on sustainable cities
and communities. They are a prerequisite for
estimating the 5 other building blocks:
• “Resources in e-waste” (related to SDG 12);

• “Economic impact” (related to SDG 8, on
decent work and economic growth);
• “Environmental impact” (related to SDG 3,
on good health and well-being, SDG 13, on
climate action, and SDG 15, life on land);
• “Innovations for e-waste treatment”
(related to SDG 8);
• “Legislation” (related to SDG 17, on part-
nerships for the Goals).
For a more detailed explanation of the metho- UNITAR

dology, see Annex 1.
i
he three indicators are set out in targets . . and . . . he wording used in the s is slightly different but the definitions and datasets are the same as those used in the lobal
E-waste Monitor. To report on these indicators, the custodian agencies UNEP and the United Nations Statistics Division use the datasets and methodologies developed by the co-custodians
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 UNITAR-SCYCLE, the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership and the United Nations Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. The relevant data sources are set out in Annex 1. 25
Chapter 3. Key Global Statistics
Figure 3. Headline Figures (2010 - 2030)
40,075 km = 40,075,000 m 1.55 million trucks that carry 62 billion kg of

Earth’s Equator Earth’s Equator e-waste would wrap around the Earth's Equator
Chapter 3.
Key Global Statistics
In only 12 years, the amount of e-waste generated per year 62 billion kg 25 m
e-waste = truck length
worldwide almost doubled, to 62 billion kg in 2022. Driven by 1.55 million trucks
technological progress, increased consumption, limited repair
options, short lifecycles and inadequate e-waste management
infrastructure, the growth in the amount of e-waste is outpacing
growth in documented formal collection and recycling.
Globally, the amount of EEE placed on market (POM) grew from 62 billion
kg in 2010 to 96 billion kg in 2022. It is projected to increase to 120 billion 40 t truck average capacity
kg in 2030 (Figure 3). During the same period, the amount of e-waste
generated annually grew from 34 billion kg to a record 62 billion kg. It is
projected to increase to 82 billion kg by 2030. Although some advances 120 120 EEE placed on
have been made in the amount of e-waste being documented as formally market
collected and recycled, rising from 8 billion kg in 2010 to 14 billion kg in
100
2022, this achievement is overshadowed by the rapid growth in the amount 96
of e-waste overall.ii
80 82 E-waste
generation
The detailed datasets are presented in Annex 2. For further information,
please contact the corresponding author. E-waste in billion kg 60 62 62
40
34
20
8 13.8 E-waste documented as
formally collected and
0 recycled
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
ii
The authors have reconstructed previous time series using novel data from countries, including data from new countries and revisions of existing time series. Therefore, the collection rates
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 indicated in the previous E-waste Monitors are not directly comparable with the time series presented here. 26
Figure 5. Total E-waste Generated from Photovoltaic Panels
Small equipment, such as video cameras, toys, microwave ovens 2.4
and e-cigarettes (see Box 1), constitutes the largest category of
E-waste generation in billion kg

e-waste in terms of mass, accounting for 20 billion kg in 2022, or 2
almost one-third of the world’s total e-waste.
The second largest category is large equipment, excluding photo- 1

voltaic panels (15 billion kg in 2022). After photovoltaic panels, the 0.6
smallest category is lamps (2 billion kg). Screens and monitors

currently represent 10 per cent of e-waste generated (5.9 billion kg).
0
Small IT and telecommunication equipment - such as mobile phones,
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GPS devices, routers, personal computers, printers and telephones - Year
totaled 5 billion kg in 2022 (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Total E-waste Generated by Type of EEE The green transition and the connecting
of off-grid communities will lead to a
quadrupling of waste from photovoltaic Box 1. Major E-waste Contributor: Vaping
Small Equipment panels from 0.6 billion kg in 2022 to 2.4
20.4 billion kg in 2030. aping or the use of avored e-cigarettes is also on the rise.
Large Equipment excluding Photovoltaic Panels The market, valued at over USD 22 billion in 2022, is expected
15.1 Photovoltaic panels (on- and off-grid) play to grow by 31 per cent annually until 2030.a It is estimated
Temperature Exchange Equipment a critical role in the green energy transition, that over 844 million vapes were sold in 2022. At an average
13.3 providing off-grid communities with elec- weight of 50 g, this amounts to more than 42 million kg of
Screens and Monitors
tricity. Categorized as “large equipment”, e-cigarettes (including the weight of the batteries), many of
they are shown separately as they deserve which are disposable and become instant waste. Vapes are
5.9
a separate mention. While the waste gene- e-waste as they contain not only plastic but also lithium-ion
Small IT and Telecommunication Equipment
rated (both on- and off-grid) remains low for batteries, a heating element and a circuit board. E-cigarettes
4.9
the time being, at 0.6 billion kg annually, it is produced in 2022 contained various metals, including roughly
Lamps
expected to grow fourfold, to 2.4 billion kg, by 130 thousand kg of lithium in the batteries, and it is obvious
1.9
2030, based on a lifespan of 22 years (Figure that recycling them will be critical to addressing the e-waste
Photovoltaic Panels
5). There is some concern about the signi- challenge.
0.6
ficant rise in the use of small-scale off-grid
0 6 12 18 24 solar products with relatively short lifespans
E-waste generation in billion kg (2022) (typically 3 to 4 years) in low- and middle- a
Grand View Research. 2023. E-cigarette and Vape Market Size
income countries, and such devices should and Share Report, 2030. Grand View Research Market Analysis
therefore be repaired rather than disposed of.11 Report, p. 139.

In 2022, the world produced 62 billion kg of mented as formally collected, for a global
e-waste (7.8 kg per capita), of which 13.8 formally documented collection and recy- TEMPERATURE
billion kg (1.7 kg per capita) were docu- cling rate of 22.3 per cent. EXCHANGE EQUIPMENT
13.3 billion kg
3.6 billion kg (27%)
TOTAL
62 billion kg
13.8 billion kg (22.3%)
SCREEN AND MONITORS
5.9 billion kg
1.5 billion kg (25%)
SMALL IT AND TELE-

SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
20.4 billion kg 4.6 billion kg
2.4 billion kg (12%) 1 billion kg (22%)
LAMPS
1.9 billion kg
0.1 billion kg (5%)
LARGE EQUIPMENTS (EXCLUDING

PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS) PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
15.1 billion kg 0.6 billion kg
5.1 billion kg (34%) 0.1 billion kg (17%)
Total e-waste generated. E-waste documented as formally collected and recycled.
Verena Radulovic

Figure 6. Route 1: Formal E-waste Collection and Recycling “Formal” collection activities are managed in are managed in an environmentally sound
- The Preferred E-waste Management Route line with national e-waste legislation in the 81 way (6 billion kg of metals in 2022). Any resi-
countries that have legal instruments in place. duals are either incinerated or disposed of
Designated organisations, producers and/or in controlled landfills in this led to the
the government are responsible for collecting loss, or non-viable recovery, of 1 billion kg of
e-waste via retailers, municipal collection metals during formal e-waste recycling). This
points or pick-up services (in 2022, 13.8 approach (see Figure 6) currently represents
Municipal collection billion kg of e-waste were collected). the most efficient and environmentally sound
points way to treat e-waste; the main challenge lies
Pick-up Once collected, the e-waste is sent to speci- in establishing effective collection systems
services alized treatment facilities where valuable and increasing collection rates, as to date
materials are recovered in an environmentally only 22.3 per cent of total global e-waste is
controlled manner and hazardous substances managed in this way.
Retailers
Specialized treatment facilities

13.8 • Preparation for reuse.
billion kg of e-waste • Dismantling of hazardous and valuable fractions to separate
is collected separately. treatment (depollution) and/or material recovery.
• The remainder is shredded, then separated, before going for
energy and material recovery.
1
billion kg of
metals
lost during formal
e-waste recycling. 6
billion kg of metals
brought back into the
economy through
recycling.

In 2022, Europe was the region that gene- In 2022, the regions that generated the highest
rated the most e-waste (17.6 kg per amount of e-waste per capita were Europe
capita) and had the highest documented (17.6 kg), followed by Oceania (16.1 kg) and the
collection and recycling rate (7.5 kg per Americas (14.1 kg). Since these are also the
capita), recycling 42.8 per cent of the regions with the most advanced collection,
e-waste generated. African countries had treatment and recycling infrastructure, they
the lowest rate, with less than 1 per cent had the highest per capita collection rates (7.5
of e-waste being documented as formally kg in Europe, 6.7 kg in Oceania and 4.2 kg in the
collected and recycled (Figure 7). Americas).
Figure 7. E-waste Generated and Documented as Formally Collected

and Recycled by Region
World
7.8
1.75 22.3%
Europe
17.6
7.53 42.8%
Oceania
16.1
Americas
4.2
6.66
30%
41.4%
14.1
2022 Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
Asia
6.4
0.76 11.8%
Africa
2.5
0.018 0.7%
0 5 10 15 20
E-waste generation per capita in kg
E-waste generated per capita in kg E-waste documented to be collected and recycled per capita in kg
Annual average formal collection and recycling rate
Minor inconsistencies may have occurred due to rounding of values during the calculations.

Figure 8. Linking E-waste and Income: E-waste Generation and Figure 9. E-waste Generated and Documented as Formally
Purchasing Power Parity Collected and Recycled by Region
30 100
25
80
20
Doucmented formal collection and recycling rate (2022)

60
E-waste generation per capita in kg (2022)
15
40
10
25%
average
Each dot is a Each dot is a
country in: 20 country in:
5 Africa Africa
Americas Americas
Asia Asia
Europe 0% Europe
average Oceania
0 Oceania 0
0 30k 60k 90k 120k
Countries with legislation Countries with no legislation
Purchasing power parity in USD per capita
Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024
egional comparisons reveal significant diffe- 2. E-waste legislation and regulation viours between citizens in a continent’s 3. Maturity of e-waste management systems
rences in e-waste management; these are Countries that regulate and enforce e-waste different regions and subregions. In several Countries with well-established and forma-
often linked to several factors. management with legally binding instruments low-income regions, the informal sector plays lized e-waste management systems tend to
setting collection and recycling targets, or an important role in e-waste management. have higher collection rates. However, it is
1. Income level and purchasing power with e-waste legislation or policies, have While the informal sector contribution can worth noting that informal e-waste collection,
There is a link between a region’s per capita an average documented formal collection be significant it is not generally re ected in while not always documented, can also
purchasing power and the amount of e-waste and recycling rate of 25 per cent. Coun- official data or monitored by governments. be efficient and contribute significantly to
it generates.iii Generally, higher-income regions tries that have no such legislation in place, Too often, informal recycling results in very overall collection efforts.
tend to generate more e-waste as they not even in draft form, have collection rates low resource-efficiency rates and thus does
consume more goods and have greater equal to 0 per cent (Figure 9). Comparisons not meet environmental or health and safety
access to EEE (Figure 8). also highlight differences in disposal beha- standards.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 iii

Purchasing power is the value of a currency expressed in terms of the number of goods or services that one unit of money can buy. 31
Items with a high unit weight, such as

Figure 10. Documented large equipment, temperature exchange
Formal E-waste Collection equipment, screens and monitors, feature
and Recycling Rates by the highest collection rates.
Category (2022)
Documented formal collection rates are
generally higher (34 per cent) for items with
a high unit weight, such as large equipment
(washing machines, dishwashers, large
Temperature printers, photocopiers, etc.), followed by
exchange Screens and temperature exchange equipment (refrige-
equipment monitors
rators, freezers, air conditioners, and heat
27% 25% pumps), which has a recycling rate of 27 Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac
per cent (Figure 10). One of the reasons why
products with a higher unit weight are more
Lamps often recycled may be that suppliers in some Smaller e-waste items must be returned Small IT and telecommunication devices,
5% parts of the world are obliged to pick up, for to the retailer or dropped off at special despite their size, have documented formal
Large equipment
example, discarded temperature exchange collection points; they can more easily end collection and recycling rates of 22 per cent,
excluding equipment, screens and monitors when they up either languishing in people’s cupboards which is higher than other types of small
photovoltaic panels sell/deliver new ones. Because of the weight for years or in normal household bins. While equipment or lamps. It could be that more
34% and size of such appliances, consumers are small equipment (toys, vacuum cleaners, countries have legislation on this category of
less likely to hoard or store them.12 microwave ovens, radios, etc.) are the largest e-waste than on lamps and small equipment,
Photovoltaic
category of e-waste in terms of mass, the and that such devices have valuable compo-
panels
Photovoltaic panels are also large, but typi- recycling rates for this category remain nents and that their collection is therefore
17% cally have lower documented collection and low, at only 12 per cent. Lamps are the least prioritized by compliant e-waste managers.
Small recycling rates (17 per cent) than other large recycled category of e-waste, with only 5 Their documented collection and recycling
equipment
equipment. This may be because steps have per cent collected for recycling, even though rates are nevertheless lower than for other
12% only recently been taken to collect them and they contain valuable resources such as rare equipment, possibly because small IT devices
their management is not yet as developed earth elements, metal and glass, along with contain personal data and consumers may
as for other types of equipment. In addition, hazardous resources like mercury. Incre- therefore be reluctant to give them back.
Small IT and
telecommunication photovoltaic panels can be a challenge to asing the recycling rate of lamps would bring
equipment Total recycle as the cost of proper recycling is additional benefits for the environment and
22% 22.3% high, they contain hazardous metals and the society.13 This highlights the importance of
technologies for their recycling are still being convenience in ensuring that consumers do
developed. their part in the take-back system.

Figure 11: Route 2: Disposing of E-waste in Residual Waste It is estimated that 14 billion kg of e-waste Some high-income countries use methods
- A Less-Than-Optimal Solution were improperly disposed of worldwide in such as magnet separation, or recycle the
2022 in normal waste bins, alongside other bottom ash from municipal solid waste inci-
household waste, mostly in high- and upper- neration to extract metals. According to
middle-income countries. Typically, smaller the Global E-waste Monitor datasets and
items of e-waste, such as lamps, small IT modelling, an estimated 80 million kg of metals
devices and small equipment, are disposed are recovered in this way. The vast majority
of together with the residual waste (Figure of metals (7 billion kg) are nevertheless lost
es dua
11). They are therefore treated as regular and not recovered during incineration or at
aste ns mixed household waste, while larger items landfills. Merely disposing of e-waste is not a
are collected as bulky waste and potentially suitable method of e-waste treatment, owing
14 incinerated or dumped in landfills with no

material recycling, depending on the coun-
to the potentially negative environmental
impact and high resource losses, and is hence
on kg o e aste
try’s waste management infrastructure. forbidden in most e-waste legislation.
improperly disposed of in
residual waste bins.
Incinerator
7 on kg
andfi on kg viable recovery
loss (non-viable of metals. e ng
recovery) of Some high income
metals. countries may use
methods like magnetic
separation or recycling
the bottom ash from
municipal solid waste
incineration to extract
metals.

Figure 12. Route 3: E-waste Collection and Recycling Outside Formal An estimated 16 billion kg of e-waste were traded through various channels (Figure 12).
Systems with Developed E-waste Management collected outside formal systems in 2022 It may be destined for metal or plastic recy-
in countries with a developed (e-)waste cling, but hazardous substances are likely not
management infrastructure. properly depolluted. It may also be exported
Individual
as uncontrolled e-waste or used EEE to
waste An estimated 16 billion kg of e-waste are other low- and lower-middle-income coun-
dealers Waste managed worldwide by individual waste tries with inadequate e-waste management
companies dealers or companies performing collection infrastructure. Unfortunately, this route is of
activities outside formal schemes, mostly limited efficiency and leads to resource loss
in high-income and upper-middle-income and environmental harm.
countries. The e-waste is collected and
16
billion kg of e-waste
is managed by individual
800 Uncontrolled export
to other low- and
million kg
waste dealers or companies lower-middle-income
uncontrolled
outside of formal systems. countries.
export.
2 6
billion kg
billion kg
viable recovery
loss (non-viable
of metals.
recovery) of metals.
Metal recycling
in which hazardous
Plastic recycling substances are likely not
in which hazardous depolluted properly.
substances are likely not
depolluted properly.

Figure 13. Route 4: E-waste Collection and Recycling Outside Formal In many low- and middle-income coun- This “backyard recycling” lacks proper
Systems with No Developed E-waste Management tries a significant number of self-employed treatment standards, leading to harmful
individuals are involved in informal e-waste emissions of acids, dioxins, furan, etc. This
collection and recycling. They collect used route is the least preferred it is not efficient
EEE or e-waste from households, businesses leads to significant resource loss and high
Self-employed
and public institutions door-to-door and sell environmental pollution, and poses health
individuals it for repair, refurbishment or dismantling risks for workers and the local community.
Manual dismantling (Figure 13). Dismantlers manually break down In some cases, valuable fractions are sold
• Without protection and only the equipment into marketable components to e-waste recyclers in high-income coun-
18 cherry picking of valuable

components.
and materials. Recyclers use burning, leaching
and melting techniques to convert e-waste
tries and hence only the valuable fraction is
treated in environmentally sound conditions.
billion kg into secondary raw materials. The amount of viable recovered metals is
of e-waste estimated to be 7 billion kg of the 18 billion kg
managed by self-employed of e-waste managed.
individuals involved in
informal e-waste collection
and recycling.
2
billion kg
loss of (non-viable
recovery) of Formal facilities
ED
OLL
metals.
T R
RE • Handed over by the
ON AL CO informal collector.
UNCISPOS • Recovery of components.
D
VE
RY
Acid leaching and
7
Disposal of e-waste billion kg
burning of cables viable recovery of
Uncontrolled disposal
of hazardous and or and plastics metals.
worthless fraction. For precious
metal recovery.

Figure 14. Number of Countries with E-waste Legislation, Policy or

Regulation
193
160
120
ITU target (50% of countries, 97)
80
81
78
Number of countries
67
61
40
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Worldwide, 81 countries (or 42 per cent) have adopted such instruments since 2019,
currently have an e-waste policy, legis- meaning that 112 countries remain without any
lation or regulation. This falls short of the form of legal instrument for the management
ITU target of 50 per cent (97 countries) by of e-waste. In 2018, the highest policy-making
2023. body of the ITU, the Plenipotentiary Confe-
rence, set a global non-binding target for
As of June 2023, 81 of the 193 countries 2023, to increase the number of countries
analysed had either a policy, legislation or with an e-waste legislation to 50 per cent.
regulation pertaining to e-waste (Figure 14). That target had not been met as of June
The fact that 72 per cent of the world’s popu- 2023, as only 42 per cent of countries (81)
lation was therefore covered can be attributed were covered by a national e-waste policy,
mostly to the populous countries of India and legislation or regulation.
China, both of which have e-waste legislation.
While the number of countries adopting legal
instruments to regulate e-waste has grown Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac
steadily since 2014, only 3 new countries

Of the 81 countries covered by a national had a documented formal collection and are not a panacea. The rates are also higher
e-waste policy, legislation or regu- recycling rate of 35 per cent. While these in countries with long-standing and well-es-
lation, most (67) also applied EPR. figures show what items to include in legis- tablished e-waste management systems and
In countries where legislation included lation to improve collection rates, they also hence a good level of e-waste management
collection targets, the average collection show that collection and recycling targets infrastructure).
rate was much higher at 35 per cent
compared to 22.3 per cent worldwide.
In the 81 countries with instruments in place, Figure 15. Status of E-waste Legislation and Specific Provisions for
one of the most frequently applied principles all Countries
is EPR, which underpinned their respective
national e-waste management system (Figure
15). EPR aims to ensure that a producer - which
Countries with provisions on environmental,
in the many cases where there is no registered health and safety standards
manufacturer in a country also refers to the 62
importer or distributor - is responsible for a
product up to and including the post-con-
Countries covered by an e-waste
sumer stage of its lifecycle. 67 of the 81 policy, legislation or regulation
countries had legislation on EPR, 62 had legis-
81
lation that referred to national or international
environmental, health and safety standards,
46 had enshrined national e-waste collection Countries with an e-waste legal
instrument containing EPR provisions
2023
targets in their regulations and 36 had done
67
so for e-waste recycling targets at the national
level. It is essential to legislate such targets in
order to monitor progress and stimulate the Countries with an e-waste legal
instrument containing collection targets
collection and recycling of e-waste.
46
Countries with such legislation had an average

documented formal e-waste collection and Countries with an e-waste legal
instrument containing recycling targets
recycling rate of 25 per cent, compared to
0 per cent for countries that had no such 36
legislation. The collection and recycling rate

in countries applying the EPR principle was 27 0 25 50 75 100
per cent, compared to 10 per cent for coun- Number of countries
tries that had legislation but did not apply the
EPR principle. Countries that had enshrined
collection targets in their e-waste legislation

Chapter 4. Transboundary Movement
Chapter 4.
Transboundary Movements
Around 5.1 billion kg of used EEE/e-waste
Figure 16. Global E-waste Flows (2019) are shipped from one country to another
annually. Of that total, 3.3 billion kg (65
per cent) are uncontrolled transboundary
movements of used EEE/e-waste from
high- to middle- and low-income countries.
The uncontrolled shipments may be made
Northern Europe
up of 33 to 70 per cent e-waste declared
Western
Northern America Europe Eastern as used EEE goods. Most controlled trans-
Europe Eastern
Central Asia boundary movements occur within and to
Southern Asia
Europe Europe and East Asia (Figure 16).
Southern
Northern Africa
!
Asia
Carribean Western
Asia Transboundary movements of hazardous and
Central America
Micronesia
other wastes, including e-waste, pose signi-
Western Africa ficant global challenges they have an adverse
impact on the environment and human health
Middle Eastern
Africa Africa when not managed properly in countries
Southeast Melanesia
Asia lacking adequate infrastructure and capacity
South America for managing e-waste in an environmentally
Polynesia
sound manner. In some cases, transboundary
Southern Africa
movements of e-waste or its components
Australia and
New Zealand are necessary to recover high-value mate-
rials (the transportation of waste printed
circuit boards to specialized recycling faci-
lities or of e-waste from regions where no
Uncontrolled Movement of hazardous e-waste with prior Printed circuit Flow within
e-waste management systems exist). Hence
e-waste used-EEE informed consent under Basel Convention board waste the region the importance of putting in place rules and
UN Clear Map procedures to distinguish between illegal and
legal transboundary movements.
Adapted from C.P. Baldé, E. D’Angelo, V. Luda O. Deubzer, and R. Kuehr (2022), Global Transboundary E-waste Flows Monitor - 2022, United Nations Institute for Training
and Research (UNITAR), Bonn, Germany. Available at: https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Global-TBM_webversion_june_2_pages.pdf.

Monitoring transboundary movements of between one-third of the weight (as quan-

e-waste is challenging, since the movements tified in the person-in-the-port pro ect
Box 2. The Basel Convention Prior Informed Consent Procedure and are frequently conducted illegally and the in Nigeria)16 and 77 per cent (the percentage
the Amendment on E-waste (2022) e-waste being moved declared as used EEE. of items identified as e-waste based on the
Additionally, there are no global registries or criteria stipulated in the Basel Convention
The Basel Convention, which was adopted in 1989 and has been in force since 1992, reporting obligations for used EEE,14 and no technical guidelines, including improper
is a multilateral environmental agreement that re ects and guides global government international regime dealing with shipments packaging absence of functionality certifi-
efforts to control transboundary movements of hazardous waste, which includes of used equipment. Furthermore, national cates, essential parts missing, damaged or
e-waste. It has been signed to date by 187 countries. Under the Basel Convention, reporting on hazardous waste under the outdated technologies, in a similar 2021/2022
transboundary movements of hazardous and other wastes must follow a Prior Informed Basel Convention is not mandatory. In 2022, person-in-the-port project conducted in the
Consent procedure whereby the competent authority in the exporting State needs to 91 out of 187 countries (less than 50 per United Republic of Tanzania).17
notify the competent authorities of the importing State (and any transit State). National cent) submitted a report, and discrepancies
reporting, which is carried out voluntarily by Parties to the Convention, currently stands and inaccuracies in reporting data are very
at less than 50 per cent of signatories. Moreover, the Prior Informed Consent procedure common. Moreover, e-waste movements
remains administratively burdensome.a often involve illegal activities; those involved
are therefore reluctant to provide information
he fifteenth meeting of the onference of the arties to the asel onvention held and the movements are extremely difficult to
in June 2022, adopted amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX of the Convention aimed track.
at increasing the control of transboundary movements of e-waste and making all
electronic and electrical waste, including non-hazardous waste, subject to the Prior The Global Transboundary E-waste Flows
Informed Consent procedure. The main objective of the e-waste amendment, jointly Monitor represents a major effort to improve
proposed by the Governments of Switzerland and Ghana, is to improve international the global statistics on licit and illicit e-waste
monitoring and recoding of e-waste shipments, with a view to maximizing resource movements. In 2019, 5.1 billion kg of e-waste
recovery and minimizing the negative effects of environmentally unsound e-waste were moved across countries, with 3.3 billion
management in recipient countries. However, private sector and other entities raised kg (65 per cent) considered uncontrolled,
concerns regarding the system and stressed the need for reforms to avoid slowing down meaning its treatment is unknown and likely
cross-border movements of products, particularly those containing non-hazardous not managed in an environmentally sound
components of potential significance in terms of promoting the implementation of a manner.15
circular economy.b
One of the primary challenges in these
uncontrolled transboundary shipments is
a
PREVENT Waste Alliance and StEP. 2022. Practical Experiences with the Basel Convention: distinguishing between e-waste and used
Challenges, Good Practice and Ways to Improve Transboundary Movements of E-Waste in EEE. Illicit shipments falsely declare used
Low and Middle Income countries. Bonn, Germany. EEE instead of e-waste, exploiting the fact
that used EEE is not covered by the Basel
b
Basel Convention Secretariat. 2023. Basel Convention E-waste Amendments. Geneva, Convention or any other international regime
Switzerland. and therefore more easily avoids controls. Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac
The illicitly shipped items can make up

The remaining 1.86 billion kg (35 per cent of total transboundary move-
ments) are shipped in the form of controlled movements, most of them
falling under the Basel Convention Prior Informed Consent procedure
(see Box 2).iv However, only a small fraction of illegally traded e-waste
exported from the European Union, estimated at 2 to 17 million kg, has
been seized by port authorities, suggesting that the actual numbers
are likely much higher. his also re ects the fact that port authorities
are potentially limited by their means and training to properly detect
illegally traded e-waste.
From a regional perspective, Europe, East Asia and North America have
the capacity to effectively manage hazardous e-waste, making these
regions the primary global importers. At the same time, these same
regions are also the main exporters of e-waste, with Africa, South-east
Asia, and Central and South America being the main recipient regions.
Unfortunately, these recipient regions often have low recycling rates
and a high presence of informal workers in the domestic sector.
Similar patterns are observed in all other regions. Eastern Europe, which
receives e-waste primarily from Western Europe, and South-east Asia,
which receives e-waste mainly from East Asia and North America, are
experiencing increasing ows of e-waste mirroring intercontinental
trade patterns. Overall, transboundary movements occur both inter-
continentally and within continents: the higher the e-waste material
value per mass, the further it can be transported.v
iv
For additional information on the methodology used to calculate the different e-waste transboundary movements, see Baldé et al., 2022, note 16, pp. 20-25.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 v
For further information on quantities imported and exported at regional level, see Baldé et al., 2022, note 16, pp. 30-33. 40
Moreover, trade codes (see Box 3) still do substantial shipments of e-waste, mainly become redundant. Ultimately, the lifecycle as to dissuade them from stocking and distri-
not differentiate between new and used EEE, from Western Europe (34.8 million kg), North of counterfeit devices is short, which is likely buting any EEE without a type-approval and/
making it even easier to avoid scrutiny. Mixing America (29 million kg), Northern Europe (11.6 to result in the product becoming e-waste or acceptance certificate. hese recipient
legal and illegal items is one of the main million kg) and South-east Asia (9.9 million quicker. In many low- and lower-middle- countries are often situated in South-east
strategies used by criminal parties illegally kg). Despite this, Asia faces constraints with income countries, distributors and outlets Asia (from East Asia) and in Africa (from
shipping e-waste. Misclassification misde- regard to its processing capacities for critical should be subject to periodic inspections, so Europe).
claration and fraud are among the most components. North America also has some
prevalent strategies used to mix the items for level of intraregional e-waste ows .
illegal transboundary movements of waste in million kg).
general, and e-waste in particular. Box 3. The World Customs Organization Harmonized System
The driving force behind such transboundary
Conducting further pilot projects to inves- movements is most often commercial, as In 2022, countries started using the new Harmonized System (HS) code adminis-
tigate the actual composition of used EEE the demand for cheaper second-hand used tered by the World ustoms rganization specifically for e-waste . As of
received in exporting and importing coun- EEE is high in the recipient countries. For June 2023, data available from the United Nations Comtrade databasea indicated that
tries could lead to significant enhancements example, large quantities of ICT equipment approximately 1 per cent of e-waste generated is moved across borders. The results
in the global monitoring of e-waste ship- and accessories are being imported into of the analysis are mainly in uenced by the fact that not all countries are yet reporting
ments. Such initiatives would facilitate a low- and lower-middle-income countries as under this new code. urrently the highest trade ows are intraregional particularly
more accurate assessment of the volume substandard and counterfeit devices. Type within Western Europe (100 million kg) and Northern Europe (80 million kg). These
of e-waste entering low-income countries, approval, conformity and interoperability movements primarily involve the proper treatment of e-waste in the recycling faci-
which is often mixed with other types of procedures carried out by telecommuni- lities of the respective regions. For this purpose, these shipments are assumed not
waste and not properly declared. cation regulators aim to address these issues to contravene the Basel Convention and the EU’s Regulation (EC) No. 1013/2006 on
for new models by verifying that imported shipments of waste.
As anticipated, East Asia, which is a major ICT equipment conforms to functional stan-
producer of EEE and has the capacity to dards (e.g. power levels and frequencies), in
recycle and process e-waste, receives order to ensure that the EEE does not simply a
The analysis uses the following 6-digit HS codes: 854991 waste and scrap, n.e.c. in heading
no. 8549; 854999 waste and scrap, n.e.c. in item no. 8549.91; 854921 electrical and
electronic waste and scrap, of a kind used principally for the recovery of precious metal,
containing primary cells and batteries, electric accumulators, mercury switches, glass
from cathode ray tubes or other activated glass, or electrical; 854929 waste and scrap,
of a kind used principally for the recovery of precious metals, n.e.c. in item no. 8549.21;
854931 electrical and electronic waste and scrap, electrical and electronic assemblies and
printed circuit boards, other than those used principally for the recovery of precious metal,
containing primary cells and batteries, electronic accumulators, mercury-switch; 854939
waste and scrap; electrical and electronic assemblies and printed circuit boards, other than
those used principally for the recovery of precious metal, n.e.c. in item no. 8549.31.

Chapter 5. Legislation
legislation and/or regulation pertaining to while in the European Union, the European Interestingly, most policies, legislation and
Chapter 5. e-waste. Ultimately, however, the quality of Commission has published a proposal for regulations focus on collection and recycling;
e-waste legislation and its enforcement is a directive on common right-to-repair hardly any include targets for recovering
Legislation as important as the number of countries rules.20 The aim is to prioritize repair over critical raw materials, including rare earth
covered by legal instruments. A substantial replacement and to give consumers the right elements. As a result, the focus is on the easier
number of existing legal instruments and to have faulty products repaired by manufac- process of recovering materials occurring in
Efficient and effective regulation of tools do not set targets for the collection and turers. In the European Union, plans are being large quantities (steel, plastics, iron, copper,
e-waste is essential to curb the ever-in- recycling of e-waste or may not cover all 6 made, under the Ecodesign for Sustainable gold, silver, etc.), to the detriment of critical
creasing undocumented flows of this types of EEE. While targets can help elevate Products Regulation (Directive 2009/125/EC), raw materials such as hafnium, indium, lithium
waste stream, to protect the environment, waste management ambitions higher up the for an obligatory digital product passport and rhodium, and the recycling rate for rare
society and human health, but also to waste management hierarchy from disposal that would enhance transparency and earth elements contained in e-waste is only
secure future supply chains by recovering to recycling, the preferred options (see Figure unlock circularity aspects by sharing product around 1 per cent (see Recovery of Valuable
the resources contained in e-waste. 17) leading to waste prevention, such as repair information across the entire value chain, and Critical Metals).
and reuse targets, are currently not set out in including data about raw material extraction,
specific e-waste policy legislation and regu- production and recycling.21
lation. This hinders the transition to a circular
economy, instead focusing on keeping the
consumption / waste generation / collection Figure 17. The Waste Hierarchy and Considerations for E-waste Targets
/ recycling model intact. With respect to the
methodology for measuring waste prevention,
targets based on e-waste generated in the The targets based on e-waste generated
denominator, instead of targets based on Prevention indirectly capture waste prevention and
EEE POM in the denominator, are preferred18, are preferable in target setting.
preferred
Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac as they re ect the amount of e-waste in
a country and allow it to engage in better pecific targets on reuse and
forward-looking planning and management. Reuse repair often do not exist.
egulation encourages a level playing field
that enables the environmentally sound For many years, the overall perception of Most targets are weight-based and
management of e-waste through responsible policy-makers has been that they cannot do not re ect recycling targets for
Recycling critical raw materials, which may
collection, transportation, sorting, depollution, in uence the design of EEE with a view to
dismantling, pre-treatment, management extending its lifetime; the environmental require additional funding.
of problematic (i.e. hazardous) fractions footprint of the production phase remains

and export of materials and components to enormous. There is nevertheless mounting Recovery
advanced treatment facilities. evidence of new policy developments in
several parts of the world that encourage
Moving up the waste hierarchy towards
As stated earlier (see Key Global Statistics the right to repair. For example, in the United
Disposal recycling and minimizing environmental risks
from 2010 to 2022), as of June 2023, 81 States of America19 many states have begun
is the focus of most e-waste legislation.
of 193 countries analysed had a policy, working on specific legislative proposals

Chapter 5. Legislation
Policy measures on the supply of critical raw trademark, or has EEE designed or manu- countries in all regions of the world. However, Online retailing and marketplaces present
materials are being considered in various factured and markets it under their name or governments simply lack the institutional another enforcement challenge, where cross-
parts of the world, with the ultimate aim of trademark within the country; is established capacity to implement and enforce legis- border sales are affecting the way traditional
strengthening the supply of such materials. in the country and places imported new or lation. This means that even if targets are national regulations function, whereby
The measures also aim to bolster economic used EEE on the market for sale or personal enshrined in the legislation, compliance may consumers have more access to overseas
resilience by reducing dependency, incre- use; or is not established in the country and not be enforced, and even if the legislation sellers but these sellers fail to comply with
asing preparedness and promoting supply is registered with a locally, legally approved provides for a financial mechanism the funds EPR requirements in the countries where
chain sustainability and circularity, however, authorized representative and sells EEE by may not be collected or may be used inef- their products are sold.
the broader transposition of this worldwide, means of distance communication in the ficiently. urthermore even if the legislation
in national e-waste policy, legislation and country.23 clearly and succinctly defines EEE producers In essence, e-waste legislation should at a
regulation, and the fruits of its implemen- efforts by governments to track - and in many minimum comprise clear provisions on stake-
tation, remain to be ascertained. The majority of countries with e-waste cases to register - these producers may be holder definitions roles and responsibilities
legislation also apply EPR, and expecta- woefully understaffed and under-resourced. product scope, enforcement measures and
The challenge facing policy-makers is the tions are high that this combination will lead Hence the need for different approaches to penalties for non-compliance the financing
constantly growing diversity of EEE being to a well-financed e-waste management financing target setting and enforcement. mechanism and, if it includes EPR, the orga-
made available to consumers, in the form, system. This will only work, however, if each nizational mechanism(s) for EEE producers,
for example, of e-cigarettes, e-vehicles and producer’s share of e-waste is appropri- overnments may find it very challenging to along with clear terminology on who covers
invisible EEE (smart clothes with a heating ately monitored, documented, collected and track producers placing EEE on the market the cost of e-waste management.24
function, smart furniture with a massage administered - data availability and acces- in a given urisdiction given the varied defi-
function, etc.). These latest technological sibility remain major weaknesses in most nitions of “producer” and the opportunities
developments lead to the use of products countries. In addition, a pool of funding does for free riding. Information about producers is
of variable composition, requiring different not automatically lead to a well-functioning, first captured at customs and at the point of
end-of-life treatments and posing special state-of-the-art e-waste management registration with the government. To improve
and possibly new requirements in terms of system. Funds may be misappropriated, used the success rate of tracking and enforcement
appropriate collection techniques. Moreover, corruptly or set aside for the administrative of e-waste legislation, it is important to know
the complex composition of EEE also makes costs of managing funds and operations, who the producers are and where to find
it necessary to align e-waste-specific re ui- discouraging producers from investing them easily. Businesses that place EEE on
rements with other less specific legislation more. In essence, the development of an the market are required by law to register
that is nevertheless of relevance for appro- appropriate and well-functioning e-waste with the authorities for other purposes, i.e.,
priate e-waste treatment, supporting the management system requires substantial and to be authorized to do business, to operate
shift towards a circular economy. longer-term financial investment. he provi- licensed premises, to pay tax, to register EEE
sions dictating, for example, what exactly products for health and safety, for environ-
According to an OECD report, about 400 has to be financed and what producers are mental efficiency purposes etc. f the
EPR systems exist for various waste streams responsible for, must be clear and strict. relevant registration processes were stream-
worldwide.22 According to the StEP Initiative, Otherwise, only the minimum will be done. lined into one service that grouped similar
a producer is any natural or legal person who requirements, the authorities would be better
is established in the country and manufac- When it comes to e-waste legislation, steps equipped to track and prevent free riding
tures EEE under their own brand name or are being taken in the right direction by much more efficiently.

UNITAR
Chapter 6. Recovery of Valuable and Critical Metals
Figure 18. Recovered and Non-Recovered Metals in E-waste with

Chapter 6. Current E-waste Management Practices
Recovery of Valuable and TOTAL METALS IN E-WASTE
Critical Metals
Fe 24 billion kg
Al 4 billion kg
Cu 2 billion kg
Ni 0.52 billion kg
In 2022, all e-waste worldwide contained Smaller quantities of other highly valuable
Other 0.46 billion kg
31 billion kg of metals, of which an esti- precious metals (1.6 million kg), such as gold
mated 19 billion kg were viably recovered (Au), palladium (Pd) and silver (Ag), were also Recovered metals
and brought back into circulation. The present, along with toxic substances such as 60%
metal most successful recovered was iron, lead (Pb, 70 million kg) and the critical metal
which is known for its high recycling rates. cobalt o million kg .
Other metals, such as zinc and lead, had
much lower viable recovery rates. Precious In 2022, all e-waste worldwide contained
metals were present in much lower quan- a total of 31 billion kg of metals, of which an
OTHER METALS IN E-WASTE
tities but estimated to have a viable estimated 19 billion kg were viably recovered Zn 280 million kg
recovery of 300 thousand kg. by current e-waste management routes. This Pb 70 million kg
means that 12 billion kg of metals were lost, Sn 44 million kg
The composition of e-waste varies by type of either in the compliant recycling process, or Co 34 million kg
equipment, but it consists primarily of metals because they ended up in non-compliant Sb 28 million kg
(Figure 18) and plastics. The amount of metals management schemes or dumpsites with Other 2 million kg
in the datasets is estimated to be 31 billion typically lower efficiencies. hose losses were Recovered metals
kg, and the amount of plastics in e-waste is therefore non-viable for recovery. 4%
estimated to be 17 billion kg. The remaining 14
billion kg comprise other components, such
as some alloys, composite materials, glass
and concrete, or could not yet be properly
uantified in the datasets. Among the metals PRECIOUS METALS IN E-WASTE
iron/steel (Fe, approximately 24 billion kg) is Ag 1,200 thousand kg
Au 270 thousand kg
the most used, followed by aluminum (Al, 3.9
Pd 120 thousand kg
billion kg) and copper (Cu, 2.1 billion kg).
Os 12 thousand kg
Pt, Ir, Rh and Ru 9 thousand kg
In the small equipment category, 1 billion
Recovered metals
kg of copper were found in cables and
20%
printed circuit boards, while temperature
exchange equipment contained 500 million
kg of copper from compressors and cables. Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024

Precious metals such as silver, gold and In 2022, all e-waste worldwide contained
palladium, but also copper, iron/steel and Figure 19. Platinum-Group Critical Raw Mate- approximately 4 billion kg of metals clas-
aluminum, can be recycled at very high rates rials that have Potentially High Recovery Rates if sified as critical raw materials, most often
in smelters, which also recycle other metals, Processed at the Right Final Treatment Facilities aluminum (Al, 3.9 billion kg), cobalt (Co, 34
such as lead, nickel, tin and zinc, albeit at (in thousand kg, 2022) million kg) and antimony (Sb, 28 million kg).
lower recycling rates. Achieving high recy-
cling rates requires separate pre-treatment Figure 19 shows that other critical raw mate-
of e-waste and minimizing metal losses to rials of higher material value were present
generate fractions suitable for recycling in in much smaller quantities. These included
smelters25, which is not the case in current platinum-group metals such as palladium
e-waste management globally. (Pd), bismuth (Bi), osmium (Os), rhodium
(Rh), platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir) and ruthenium
(Ru), and accounted for approximately 140
Pd thousand kg, of which approximately 121

thousand kg were palladium.
121
Critical raw materials play a vital economic
role but are also highly vulnerable to supply
disruptions, as they are typically sourced
from a few countries. Critical raw materials
Ir are in growing global demand, driven by the
0.6 Pt shift towards decarbonizing economies.26
2.6 They are used extensively in various appli-
Os Rh cations, including in EEE, and are therefore

prevalent in e-waste. Approximately 44 per
5.1
12 cent of the aluminium in e-waste is found in
small equipment. Other critical raw materials
Ru may be present in smaller quantities; they
0.4 offer indispensable functionalities that are
Bi difficult to substitute.
47 Platinum-group metals, especially palladium,

are primarily used in printed circuit boards.
When they are processed in copper route
smelters, palladium recycling rates can reach
95 per cent or higher.27

With the exception of lithium (Li) and

germanium (Ge), several critical raw
materials, primarily rare earth elements, Figure 20. Critical Raw Materials in Global E-waste as per European Union Definitions,
are difficult to recycle from e-waste. In with No or Low Recovery Rates (in thousand kg, 2022)
2022, approximately 12 million kg of these
elements were present in the e-waste
generated globally, with neodymium (Nd)
accounting for 7.2 million kg (commonly
used in magnets) and yttrium (Y)
accounting for 1.8 million kg (Figure 20).
Nd
7,248
Y
1,814
Eu
Ho 277
422 Re
Pr 357
429 Li
Ce 6.1
Dy La 361
Sm
32 Sc
501 395 Tb Gd Er 2.2
133 97 37 Ge
5.3


Rare earth elements have unique properties

that are crucial for future technologies,
including renewable energy generation and
e-mobility. Reducing dependency on a few
countries for production chains has become
a significant political concern. are earth
elements are often used in small quan-
tities and low concentrations in various EEE
components. They remain economically chal-
lenging to recycle, even from components
with a higher content, and recycling therefore
currently accounts for only around 1 per cent
or less of demand.vi The market prices for rare
earth elements are still too low to support
larger-scale commercial recycling operations,
although neodymium magnets have some
potential for industrial-scale recycling from
e-waste. However, the current high cost of
separating such magnets from e-waste and
their subsequent treatment have hindered
their widespread adoption and made recycling
economically unattractive.28 Concentrations of
germanium are too low in e-waste. According
to the CEWASTE project29, germanium is
currently not recycled from e-waste; for
lithium, recycling is technically feasible but not
economically viable in the current economic
framework conditions. Lithium battery
recycling technology and capacity are nevert-
heless growing worldwide.30
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 vi

The source refers to Europe, but the authors interpret this to mean that the value applies to the rest of the world as well. 47
Chapter 7. Treatment Technology Innovations
Chapter 7.
Treatment Technology
Innovations
The share of patent applications for e-waste recycling grew from
148 per million in 2010 to 787 per million in 2022. The figures were
calculated as the number of patent applications filed under the
Customs Procedure Code (CPC) for e-waste recycling divided by
the total number of patent applications. The increase was driven
by cable recycling, and there are no signs yet of increases in the
number of patents filed specifically for critical raw materials
recovery.
Technological developments play an essential role in improving

recycling rates and the overall efficiency of e-waste management
particularly when it comes to the recycling of critical raw materials.
The data on patent applications are a valuable indication of inventi-
veness where e-waste patents re ect the capacity of innovators to
foresee new technological and economic opportunities in e-waste
management.

Chapter 7. Treatment Technology Innovations
Figure 21. Patent Applications for E-waste Recycling Technologies as a Share of Total
Applications (top) and by Type of Equipment (bottom)
800
787 Patent
applications
per million
600
Share of patent application (per million)

he main findings reveal that between
and 2019, there was a modest increase in
the share of patent applications related to 400
e-waste recycling, from 148 per million to 220

per million (Figure 21). After 2019, however,
that share accelerated rapidly, to 787 appli- 200
cations per million in 2022. Keyword searches
indicate that this rapid growth was driven by
patents related to cable processing techno-
logies. In contrast, the share of applications 0
relating to technologies for the recycling 2010 2015 2020 2025

of other components or products, such as Year
printed circuit boards, solar panels or lamps,
which may contain large concentrations of
critical raw materials, remained relatively
Share of keywords in recycling of e-waste (Y02W30/82)
stable. There are therefore no signs as yet of 50%
an increase in the share of patent applica-

tions for critical raw materials recovery. 39% Cables
40%
30%
20%
11% Circuit boards
10%
2% Solar equipment
0
2010 2015 2020 1% Lamps 2025
Year

Chapter 8. Environmental Impact
vities are air and water pollution, damage to an annual global net anthropogenic green-
Chapter 8. land and biodiversity loss.32 Human health is house gas emissions of 59 ± 6.6 trillion kg of
also affected by mining activities, for example, CO2-equivalent in 2019, the current emissions
Environmental when respiratory diseases are caused by the of e-waste management on climate change
air pollution resulting from the use of mercury is just above 0.2 per cent.34 The emissions
Impact to extract gold.33 Other detrimental effects during use and production of EEE are not yet
are related to non-respect for basic human calculated.
Environmentally sound e-waste manage- rights, as when child labour is used for mining
ment systems prevent damage to the activities or basic worker rights are outed or Unmanaged e-waste has a direct impact
environment and help recover secondary to illegal mining, if organized crime is involved. on the environment and people’s health.
raw materials and avoid emissions. One of the main reasons why mining poses Currently, 58 thousand kg of mercury and
challenges is that the minerals that contain 45 million kg of plastics containing bromi-
There are a number of ways in which the the metals of interest are rare and difficult nated flame retardants are released into
management of e-waste impacts economies, to extract. Large volumes of rock have to be the environment every year as a result of
societies and the environment. It is also extracted to produce a substantive amount non-compliant management of e-waste.
important to recognize the important of the minerals containing the metals. For
spill-over effects, and to assess the direct instance, 3 million kg of mineral ore (rock) E-waste contains toxic and persistent
and indirect costs. This includes the price have to be mined to produce 1 kg of gold. substances such as the ame retardants that
paid by society in terms of long-term and Recycling, or urban mining, on the other are used in appliances and in EEE containing
externalized health and environmental costs hand, brings secondary raw materials back plastics. There are currently 17 billion kg of
emanating from unmanaged hazardous into economies and lowers the demand for e-waste plastics. Of that, 59 million kg contain
substances and greenhouse gas emissions. primary mining. The largest contributors to ame retardants an estimated million kg
the 900 billion kg of ore that were not exca- of which are not managed under compliant
Thanks to the production of secondary vated are recovered copper (around 50 per conditions. Most ame retardants per
raw material from e-waste recycling, cent), followed by gold (around 20 per cent), cent) are found in screens and monitors. They
900 billion kg of ore were not excavated iron (around 10 per cent) and palladium (less are used, for example, in computer chassis,
during primary mining and 52 billion kg of than 5 per cent). printed wiring boards, connectors, relays,
CO2-equivalent emissions were avoided. wires and cables. The recycling of plastic
The recovery of secondary raw materials from containing brominated ame retardants
Urban mining (i.e. the extraction of resources e-waste recycling also avoided 52 billion kg of represents a major challenge because of the
from waste instead of the Earth’s crust) CO2-equivalent emissions. The avoided emis- cost of separating the plastic containing the
reduces reliance on mining but also prevents sions of environmentally sound management retardants from other plastics. Several inter-
environmental degradation. The extraction of refrigerants that also contribute to global national studies of the emissions caused by
of minerals from the Earth’s crust provides warming is estimated to be 41 billion kg, both open burning of various materials, including
materials for many economic activities but curbing climate change and its effects. In hazardous materials, highlight the health
also poses risks for sustainable development.31 2022, 145 billion kg of CO2-equivalent emis- risks of inhaling the heavy metals (e.g. lead,
The most challenging environmental impacts sions escape into the environment as a result cadmium, chromium, copper) and brominated
of both large-scale and artisanal mining acti- of mismanagement of refrigerants. With ame retardants contained in plastic e-waste.35
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac 50
Chapter 8. Environmental Impact
A recent study revealed a high risk of harm to Temperature exchange equipment contains
a large group of 11 million informal entrepre- refrigerants. Depending on the type of refri- Box 4. The 1987 Montreal
neurs who work closely with waste in low- and gerant used, it contributes to climate change and Protocol and the Management
middle-income countries, and to the wider helps deplete the ozone layer. According to the of Refrigerant E-waste
communities living in geographical proximity.36 Global E-waste Monitor datasets, 73 per cent
of all temperature exchange equipment world- The 1987 Montreal Protocol on
Mercury is another dangerous substance wide is managed in an environmentally Substances that Deplete the Ozone
found in e-waste. New provisions on how unsound manner. Countries with no e-waste Layer regulates the production
to treat it are set out in the Minamata legislation (i.e. most low- and middle- and consumption of manmade
Convention on Mercury37, which was adopted income countries) release refrigerants into chemicals known as ozone-depleting
in 2013 and entered into force in 2017. A the atmosphere directly. Countries with substances. It covers the phasing
milestone for chemical safety, the Convention e-waste legislation usually provide for the out of the chloro uorocarbons
has since been amended to include (when safe degassing and recycling or disposal of and hydrochloro uorocarbons that
alternatives are available) the phasing out of the refrigerants, but fail to collect and manage remain present in the refrigerant
certain uses of mercury by 2025, including all temperature exchange equipment, and circuits and insulating foams of
for compact uorescent lamps and satellite also face significant illegal scavenging and cooling and freezing equipment,
propellant.38 While mercury is contained in emissions from the compressors containing such as refrigerators, freezers
different types of EEE, including screens and a significant part of the refrigerants.39 and air-conditioning systems
small IT devices, up to 95 per cent of mercury n addition not only chloro uorocarbons and produced before 2000. While
emissions are derived from lamps. In 2022, hydrochloro uorocarbons but also hydro u- neither chloro uorocarbons nor
58t of mercury emissions were produced as orocarbons which are not ozone-depleting, hydrochloro uorocarbons are used
a result of environmentally unsound e-waste contribute to climate change. ydro uoro- in cooling equipment produced
management, according to the data collected carbons are regulated under the Kyoto Protocol since 2000, they continue to be
for the Global E-waste Monitor. to the United Nations Framework Convention released in environmentally unsound
on Climate Change and are targeted for net recycling procedures, especially
Finally, another major - but often overlooked zero emissions. ome hydro uorocarbons are lower-middle-income and low
- concern is the unmanaged recycling of regulated by the Montreal Protocol (see Box 4) income countries. These molecules
temperature exchange equipment, which and are targeted for phasing down. The unre- have a long-term negative effect
contributes to climate change and depletion gulated export of e-waste from high-income to since they have a long lifespan in the
of the ozone layer. lower-income countries for recycling can also atmosphere and react with ozone
result in additional emissions from transport molecules, generating molecular
and handling, adding to the overall carbon oxygen that thins the stratospheric
footprint. It is crucial to implement proper ozone layer. This in turn increases
e-waste management practices, including the amount of ultraviolet radiation
regulated recycling processes and respon- that can pass through the strato-
sible disposal, and to adopt circular economy sphere, heightening the risk of skin
principles to minimize waste and resource use. cancer, eye-related diseases and
weakening of the immune system.
51
Chapter 9. Economic Assessment
Figure 22. Economic Value of Metals from E-waste (Before Management) in USD billion (2022)
Chapter 9. Rh Ag Sb
0.3
0.9
Economic Au
15
2.3
Others
Zn
Assessment Pd 1
Current e-waste management practices

8
result in around USD 28 billion worth of Co Sn
metals being turned into secondary raw 2.3 1.4
materials worldwide in 2022. However, the
overall impact of e-waste management
represents a net cost of approximately USD Fe
37 billion, mainly in the form of externalized 16
health and environmental costs arising
from unmanaged hazardous substances Ni Al
and emissions of greenhouse gases. 14 11
In 2022, the overall gross value of the metals
contained in e-waste was estimated at USD
91 billion.vii Most of the potential value in
secondary raw materials in e-waste lies in
copper (USD 19 billion), gold (USD 15 billion) Cu
and iron (USD 16 billion). These metals can be 19
efficiently reclaimed with high recycling rates
using current e-waste management tech-
nologies and in current financial conditions.
That said, not all metals are recycled into
secondary raw materials in an environmen-
tally sound manner, owing to the low global
collection rate of 22.3 per cent, and signi-
ficant amounts are managed by the informal
sector (Figure 22). These factors are further
Copper (Cu) Iron (Fe) Gold (Au) Nickle (Ni) Aluminum (Al) Palladium (Pd)
explored in the simple cost-benefit analysis
Rhodium (Rh) Cobalt (Co) Tin (Sn) Zinc (Zn) Silver (Ag) Antimony (Sb)
as shown on the next pages. Others: Lead (Pb), Osmium (Os), Iridium (Ir), Platinum (Pt), Indium (In), Ruthenium (Ru), Germanium (Ge), Bismuth (Bi)
vii
his is a significant increase from the billion estimated in . he increase can be attributed to two main factors
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 the rising prices of secondary raw materials and the growing volume of e-waste generated. 52
he economic benefits of e-waste management were calculated in The externalized costs amount to an estimated
terms of metal recovery and contributions to climate change. The • USD 36 billion in long-term socio-economic (see Box 5 for an
value of the metals recovered in e-waste (viable recovery) is esti- example of gender dynamics) and environmental costs arising
mated at USD 28 billion for all e-waste management routes in 2022. from the emission of the greenhouse gases that drive climate
For some metals, recycling is at present technically or economically change;
not feasible or the metals are collected in other ows with lower • USD 22 billion representing the cost of illnesses and decreases
recovery efficiencies. he viable recovered materials billion of in human capital (productivity and wages) and the average
iron, copper, aluminum and platinum-group metals) come from docu- monetized value of working lives caused by mercury emissions;
mented formal collection and recycling schemes. The informal sector • USD 19 billion arising from the release of plastic waste into the
in low- and lower-middle-income countries is estimated to have environment;
processed around USD 12 billion of metals (mostly iron, copper and • Less than USD 1 billion arising from the release of lead into the
platinum-group metals). Approximately USD 7 billion of metals (mostly environment and its effects on wildlife and humans.
bulky iron and copper components) are recovered outside compliant
e-waste management schemes in high- and upper-middle-income Other externalized costs, arising, for instance, from the mismanagement
countries. The least value is recovered from e-waste ending up as of other hazardous materials such as ame retardants and cadmium
residual waste in high- and upper-middle-income countries (around or from the use of primitive informal recycling techniques, could not
USD 0.5 billion). This was calculated using World Bank data to the effect be uantified. he above costs are estimated and vary greatly across
that 15 per cent of residual waste worldwide is incinerated40 and ends regions.
up as bottom ash, from which only a few metals are viably recovered.
The estimated value of the greenhouse gas emissions avoided in
this way is USD 23 billion. When added to the value of USD 28 billion
worth of viable recovered metals, a value of USD 51 billion is created for
society by global e-waste management.
However, the collection and management of e-waste also has costs.

The highest are the externalized costs of USD 78 billion to human
health and the environment and are not re ected in treatment costs
or costs paid for through EPR systems. They arise when e-waste is not
managed in line with proper environmental health and safety standards.
Examples are shredding entire devices together with scrap metal or
selective dismantling of the equipment into marketable components
and materials by the informal sector. When this happens, hazardous
substances and greenhouse gases from refrigerants are released into Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac
the environment or the e-waste ends up in uncontrolled landfills.

Another cost is the price of treating e-waste, which amounts to USD 10 billion worldwide.viii
Half of that amount (USD 5 billion) is incurred by the environmentally sound treatment of
e-waste, and the other half by the disposal of residual waste, by recycling outside compliant
systems in upper-middle- and high-income countries, and by the informal sector in low- and
lower-middle-income countries. In all, 13.7 billion kg of e-waste undergo environmentally sound
treatment at a cost USD 0.36/kg; this is 3 times more than the average cost of e-waste disposed
of as residual waste, recycled outside compliant recycling schemes or managed by the informal
sector (USD 0.12/kg). The higher treatment costs are mostly attributable to the costs of depol-
luting e-waste and of auditing, administrating and attaining the minimum environmental health
and safety standards associated with compliant management of e-waste.
When the total benefits from viable recovery of metals as secondary resources (USD 28
billion) and avoided greenhouse gas emissions (USD 23 billion) are deducted from the
costs of e-waste treatment (USD 10 billion) and externalized costs to human health and
the environment (USD 78 billion), the result is a net loss of USD 37 billion in the world’s
current e-waste management practices.
-37
billion Benefits
USD
lost because of e-waste Costs
management external effects
benefits minus costs
Monetized value of avoided greenhouse gas emissions.

Worth of recovered metals brought back into the circular economy.
Associated to the cost for treatment of e-waste.

Externalized costs to the population and the environment. Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024
viii
his figure does not include all costs the costs of separate collection of e-waste at
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 municipalities or retailers, for example, were not assessed. Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac 54
Box 5. Gender Dynamics in E-waste gender norms and systemic biases. In many strength and technical expertise frequently In some instances, community mobilization
Managementa cases, women have less representation in the discourage women from participating, efforts, as seen in Bhavnagar, Indiac, have
sector and the roles they do occupy are often perpetuating the gender gap in the e-waste successfully organized female e-waste
Formal regulatory frameworks for overseeing non-specialized, low-paying and lack safety management field. workers, allowing them to purchase and
e-waste management are still emerging in measures tailored to women s specific needs. process smaller e-waste components, chal-
most countries, with even well-established Opportunities for women in e-waste lenging traditional gender roles and providing
systems, such as those in the European Union, For instance, in Nigeria’s predominantly management livelihood-enhancing opportunities.
being only 2 decades old. In the absence of informal e-waste sector, the workforce is The e-waste management sector presents
comprehensive regulations, informal e-waste primarily composed of men and young boys. an untapped opportunity for women to excel, By addressing these challenges and imple-
businesses have proliferated in many nations The few women involved in this sector typi- especially as the sector becomes more regu- menting supportive strategies, the e-waste
to address the growing e-waste issue. These cally serve as collectors, gathering electronic lated and formalized. Given that e-waste management sector can promote gender
informal systems often involve refurbishing items from households and dumpsites for represents a valuable secondary source equality, provide more opportunities for
used electronic equipment for resale or sale to recyclers, often with limited nego- of metals with steadily increasing volumes, women to excel, and ensure a more inclusive
dismantling and processing for valuable tiation opportunities due to gender power the reverse supply chain for e-waste and sustainable future for all.
components, frequently utilizing rudimentary imbalances.b In India’s informal sector, women management can offer lucrative prospects
tools and techniques. However, the extraction often engage in specific tasks such as wire for individuals and businesses alike. The
of metals from e-waste through hazardous stripping or waste collection at the lowest growing push to regulate and formalize this a
UNEP International Environmental Technology
processes and chemicals exposes workers to tiers of the waste management hierarchy. value chain, coupled with gender-responsive Centre. 2022. The role and experience of
risks, including improper chemical handling, policy frameworks, is creating an enabling women in e-waste management [online]; Fan M,
toxic fumes and harmful substances. However, some women are employed in policy environment that could potentially Khalique A, Qalati SA, Gillal FG and Gillal RG.
Evidence suggests that the chronic exposure formal e-waste recycling companies as, provide entrepreneurial and employment 2022, Antecedents of sustainable e-waste
associated with such practices may dispro- for example, dismantlers and machinery opportunities for women. disposal behavior: the moderating role of
portionately affect women, especially operators, or in administrative, management gender. Environmental Science and Pollution
pregnant women who have gender-specific and leadership positions, but they frequently Efforts should concentrate on upskilling Research, Vol. 29, pp. 20878-20891; Bhatia A
vulnerabilities related to reproductive health, face gender-specific challenges and biases in women by offering specialized vocational and Kiran C. 2022. A study on attitude of
and children, potentially impacting neonatal these spaces. In these more formal settings, training programmes that are sensitive to women towards management of e-waste.
development, hormonal levels and immune women might confront biases in hiring and women’s unique needs and constraints, National Seminar on Gender Sensitive Issues
function. promotion processes, wage disparities, or improving access to financial incentives and and Women Empowerment, pp. 362-370;
even a lack of gender-sensitive facilities and resources tailored for women, and providing Sama AA. 2017. Women Empowerment: Issues
Gender disparities in the e-waste sector protective equipment tailored to their needs. mentorship opportunities from female leaders and Challenges [online]. The International
Women’s participation in the e-waste in the field to unlock their potential. Moreover Journal of Indian Psychology, Vol. 4, Issue 3, No.
management sector is both limited and Despite growing evidence regarding e-waste increasing the visibility of successful women 103, April - June. Gender Issues.
context-dependent. Unlike the plastic management and increased concerns about in the sector can help counteract societal
waste management sector, where women its practices, there remains limited globally prejudices that discourage women from b
Bhatia A and Kiran C. 2022, note a above.
frequently constitute a substantial portion of documented evidence concerning women’s entering technical fields while also providing
the workforce, the presence of women in the experiences within the sector, particularly role models for aspiring female professionals. c
Sama AA. 2017, note a above.
e-waste sector varies widely depending on regarding the gender-specific challenges
social contexts, which tend to be shaped by they face. Gender stereotypes related to

Chapter 10. Improvement Outlook from 2022 to 2030
Chapter 10. Improvement

Outlook from 2022 to 2030
Over time, there has been a decline in the and the current edition cannot be directly
global e-waste collection and recycling compared. The time series that can be
rate, which stood at 22.3 per cent in 2022. compared is provided in this edition. This Figure 23. Possible Future Formal E-waste Collection and Recycling
The ITU target to increase the rate to 30 indicates an overall decrease in the global Rates According to Different Scenarios
per cent by 2023 seems unattainable in e-waste collection rate.
the light of that trend. However, if there is a
shift in momentum and adequate e-waste Formally documented e-waste collection 70%
management infrastructure is put in place, and recycling rates are calculated by dividing
the global e-waste collection and recycling the mass of formally collected and recycled
60% 60% Aspirational
rate might be increased to at least 38 per e-waste by the total mass of e-waste gene-
cent by 2030. rated. Collection methods and recycling
infrastructure have improved over time, 50%
SDG target 12.5 is to, “by 2030, substan- resulting in better documentation of e-waste.
tially reduce waste generation through However, the rapid growth in e-waste gene- 44% Ambitious
prevention, reduction, repair, recycling, and rated has outpaced these efforts, resulting 40%
38% Progressive
reuse”. SDG sub-indicator 12.5.1 measures in a larger denominator and a decline in the
total formal e-waste collected and recycled global collection rate.
divided by total e-waste generated. Measu- 30% 30% ITU 2023
Formal e-waste collection rate

target
rements to date point to neither an increase To achieve the SDGs targets for e-waste, the
in the e-waste recycling rate nor a propor- current trend must be reversed. 4 scenarios
20% 22% 20% Business
tionate increase in environmentally sound are considered here: business as usual, and 3 as usual
treatment as opposed to e-waste generated. levels of ambition (Figure 23 and Figure 24). All
In 2010, the formal documented collection 4 envision the future (up to 2030) based on 10%
and recycling rate for e-waste was 23.4 per the current situation, with very little deviation
cent worldwide, which is higher than the from past and present consumption levels.
2022 global collection rate of 22.3 per cent.ix The model used makes projections based on 0%
The documented collection rates reported the current situation and changes in existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
in the 3 previous Global E-waste Monitors trends, whereby the amount of EEE placed Year
deviated from this, as the fact that more data on the market keeps pace with GDP growth
on e-waste statistics were available in some and demographic trends. It encompasses
countries led to better global statistics. This trends in miniaturization and demateriali-
means that the data in the 2020 Monitor zation due to obsolete technologies up to
The documented collection rates reported in the three previous Global E-waste Monitors deviated from this, as the fact that more data on e-waste statistics were available in some countries led to
ix
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 better global statistics. This means that the data in the 2020 Monitor and the current edition cannot be directly compared. The time series that can be compared is provided in this edition. 56
Figure 24. Potential Impacts of Different Scenarios
Overall economic impact 2030. The model assumes that there will be
60
40 no additional waste prevention arising from
20 the transition to a global circular economy
and no disruptive changes in consumption
USD billion
0
-20 patterns. This is because 2030 is relatively
-40 close and most products that will become
-60 waste in 2030 are already in use today and
-80 not yet designed optimally for circular stra-
-100 tegies like repair, remanufacturing or reuse.
a. b. c. d. e.
2022 2030 2030 2030 2030 Additionally, there are not enough refrige-
current practice business as usual progressive ambitious aspirational
rators, laptops and other items on the market
to supply every household with at least one of
these items. Therefore, even if the transition
Value of recovered metals in Value of avoided greenhouse
to a circular economy occurs, the demand
e-waste gas emissions
60 60 for new products being placed on the market
40 40 remains, leading to limited waste prevention
20 20 at the global level until 2030. E-waste gene-
USD billion
USD billion
0 0 ration has been projected for each country

-20 -20
worldwide up to 2030, for an estimated total
-40 -40
of 82 billion kg.
-60 -60
-80 -80
The primary distinction between the
-100 -100
a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c. d. e. scenarios lies in the extent to which e-waste
management infrastructure, legislation and
technology is projected. The scenarios
Treatment costs Externalized costs*
60 60 appear achievable, given that the technology
40 40 for e-waste management currently exists and
20 20 requires mainly capital investment in deve-
USD billion
loping infrastructure and legislative efforts.

USD billion
0 0 UNITAR
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
-80 -80
-100 -100
a. b. c. d. e. a. b. c. d. e.
*due to lead, mercury emissions, plastic leakages and global warming contribution

The quantities of e-waste formally docu- Benefits Scenario 1: Business as Usual by 2030
mented as collected and managed in an • Viable recovery of metals: USD 42 billion.
environmentally sound manner are projected • Value of avoided greenhouse gas emis-
to increase at the same pace as observed sions: USD 26 billion. KEY E-WASTE STATISTICS METALS
in the time series between 2010 to 2022,
reaching 16 billion kg by 2030. This implies Costs 16 billion kg | 20%
e-waste projected to be formally
25 billion kg
a further decline in the global e-waste • The primary costs consist of USD 93 metal resources are viably recovered.
collected and managed by 2030.
17 billion kg
collection rate to only 20 per cent of the billion in externalized costs to the popu-
e-waste generated, because the substantially lation and the environment, stemming
higher rate of e-waste generation will outpace from lead and mercury emissions, plastic metal resources are lost.
any improvements in e-waste management. leakages and contributions to global
Therefore: warming as a result of non-compliant
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
• A rising share of e-waste (24 billion kg) activities, particularly in cases where
will be managed outside formal systems
by the informal sector in low- and middle-
hazardous substances are not properly
managed (such as in the informal sector, 46 thousand kg 149 billion kg
income countries. This shift is anticipated e-waste in residual waste and e-waste emissions of mercury released. CO2-eq. contributing to global warming.
11 thousand kg 105 billion kg

because of the faster growth in formally mixed with scrap metal).
undocumented collection and recycling • Additional costs are associated with the
of e-waste in countries without regu- treatment of e-waste, amounting to USD mercury emissions avoided. CO2-eq. emissions avoided.
lated e-waste management systems. The 15 billion, primarily comprising compliant
environmental impact will be 46 thousand e-waste recycling costs. Costs incurred
kg of mercury released and 149 billion kg by the informal sector, scrap metal and
OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF E-WASTE MANAGEMENT
of CO2-equivalent emissions contributing residual waste management are compa-
to global warming. ratively lower, as such processes are enefits osts
• E-waste collected and recycled outside considerably cheaper to manage.
formal systems in upper-middle-income 26 billion USD 15 billion USD
Benefits
and high-income countries is expected to value of avoided value of compliant
greenhouse emissions. recycling costs.
Costs
increase to 22 billion kg.
• As a result, approximately 25 billion kg of
metal resources are projected to be viably
42 billion USD 93 billion USD
value in viable value of externalized costs to the
recovered by various means, including recovery of metals. population and the environment.
formal (environmentally sound) collection
and recycling, mixing with scrap metal,
-40 billion USD
residual waste and the involvement of the
projected annual
informal sector. The amount of metals lost economic monetary
(non-viable to recover) is estimated to be impact of e-waste
17 billion kg. management globally.
• The overall economic assessment for
this scenario is that the cost of e-waste
management is projected to grow to USD
40 billion by 2030.

Scenario 2: Progressive by 2030 e-waste management infrastructure will the release of thousand kg of mercury
boost their collection rates by improving the emission of 116 billion kg of CO2 equi-
enforcement and implementing more acces- valents and the generation of 1.4 trillion
KEY E-WASTE STATISTICS METALS sible return systems covering a wider range kg of waste from ore extraction will be
31 billion kg | 38%
28 billion kg of products. This means that the majority of
EU and high-income countries (except those •
avoided.
As a result, approximately 28 billion kg
metal resources are viably recovered. in which collection rates are currently below of metal resources are projected to
collected and managed by 2030.
14 billion kg
40 per cent) will achieve the EU collection be brought back into the economy as
target of 85 per cent. At the same time, the secondary resources (viable recovery) by
metal resources are lost. resource efficiency of environmentally sound various means, including formal (environ-
e-waste management increases such that mentally sound) collection and recycling,
there will be lower losses of printed circuit mixing with scrap metal, residual waste
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
boards thanks to higher specific dismantling and the involvement of the informal sector.
36 thousand kg 21 thousand kg 116 billion kg 155 billion kg and the implementation and optimization of • The amount of metals lost (non-viable to
of mercury emissions emissions of mercury CO2-eq. emissions CO2-eq. emissions waste management technologies using arti- recover) will be reduced to an estimated
released. avoided. released. avoided. ficial intelligence automation and advanced 43 billion kg.
robotics play a growing role in waste treatment • The overall economic assessment for
processes. Therefore: this scenario is that the cost of e-waste
OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
• The global e-waste collection and recy- management will be close to net zero (-
E-WASTE MANAGEMENT
In this scenario, global action takes the form cling rate will increase to 38 per cent. USD 4 billion).
-4 billion USD of voluntary collection schemes in regions • Most changes will occur in upper-middle-
projected annual where no legislation is currently in force. and high-income countries optimizing Benefits
Benefits
economic In regions that currently have legislation their collection rates and printed circuit • Viable recovery of metals as secondary
Costs
monetary impact and decent e-waste management infra- board dismantling rates. resources: USD 52 billion.
of e-waste structure, formal collection rates increase • As a consequence, in middle- and high- • Value of avoided greenhouse gas emis-
management
to 85 per cent. The dismantling and final income countries, the amount of e-waste sions: USD 39 billion.
globally.
treatment of waste printed circuit boards is being collected and recycled outside
expected to be optimized, to extract more formal channels will fall to 14 billion kg and Costs
value. the amount disposed of as residual waste • The primary costs consist of USD 75 billion
enefits osts to 13 billion kg. Resources will still be lost, in externalized costs to the population
Countries with unregulated e-waste however, and there will still be an environ- and the environment, stemming from lead
39 billion USD 20 billion USD management will launch voluntary collection mental impact. and mercury emissions, plastic leakages
value of avoided value of
schemes, essentially starting from scratch, • The amount of e-waste collected and and contributions to global warming from
greenhouse compliant
emissions. recycling costs. with the aim of collecting 10 per cent of recycled outside formal systems in low- the release of refrigerants.
the total e-waste generated. Countries that and lower-middle-income countries is • The costs associated with the treatment
value in viable value of already have (drafted) legislation for e-waste expected to stay the same, at 24 billion kg. of e-waste increase to USD 20 billion,
recovery of externalized costs collection but do not have an established It will be managed mainly by the informal primarily comprising compliant e-waste
metals. to the population e-waste management infrastructure will start sector and will continue to have a serious recycling costs. The costs incurred by the
and the strengthening their enforcement efforts so negative environmental and social impact. informal sector, scrap metal and residual
environment. as to substantially increase collection rates, • There will nonetheless be some impro- waste management are comparatively
to 15 per cent. Countries with established vement in terms of environmental impact: lower, as they are considerably cheaper to
manage.

In scenario 3, global action takes the form became waste. Therefore: hazardous substances are not properly informal sector, scrap metal and residual
of effective voluntary collection schemes, • The global e-waste collection rate will managed (such as in the informal sector, waste management are comparatively
while governments focus on enhancing increase to 44 per cent, with 37 billion kg e-waste in residual waste and e-waste lower, as they are considerably cheaper
source separation of e-waste in regular waste of e-waste managed in an environmen- mixed with scrap metal). to manage.
management systems. Efforts will be made tally sound manner. • The costs associated with the treatment
to formalize the informal sector, and formal • A total of 12 billion kg of e-waste will even- of e-waste increase to USD 21 billion,
collection schemes will be established to tually be diverted from residual waste and primarily comprising compliant e-waste
collect a portion of imported used EEE items less e-waste will be managed outside the recycling costs. Costs incurred by the
in low- and middle-income countries. As in formal e-waste management system in
the progressive scenario, the dismantling and upper-middle- and high-income coun-
final treatment of waste printed circuit boards tries.
is expected to be optimized, to extract more • Better efforts in low- and middle-income
value. countries will lead to a modest decrease Scenario 3: Ambitious by 2030
in the amount of e-waste managed by the
Under this more ambitious scenario, all informal sector, to 21 billion kg. KEY E-WASTE STATISTICS METALS
countries that currently lack formal e-waste • The impact on the environment will be
management systems will actively participate
in the collection and management of more
further improved, and approximately 29
billion kg of metal resources are projected
37 billion kg | 44%
29 billion kg
metal resources are viably recovered.
e-waste, building on the voluntary actions to be viably recovered by various means, collected and managed by 2030.
already carried out. They will gradually
engage with the informal sector and formalize
including formal (environmentally sound)
collection and recycling, mixing with scrap
13 billion kg
its working conditions, providing safety metal, residual waste and the involvement metal resources are lost.
measures and training in more efficient and of the informal sector. The amount of
environmentally sound treatment. They metals lost (non-viable) will be reduced ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
will guarantee acceptance of the materials
collected in the informal sector by forma-
to an estimated 13 billion kg.
• The overall economic assessment for this 32 thousand kg 25 thousand kg 103 billion kg 171 billion kg
lized environmentally sound final treatment scenario is that e-waste management will of mercury emissions emissions of mercury CO2-eq. emissions CO2-eq. emissions
processes in low- and middle-income be net positive. released. avoided. released. avoided.
countries. Furthermore, high-income coun-
tries lacking specific e-waste legislation will Benefits OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF E-WASTE MANAGEMENT
commence source separation, bolstered • Viable recovery of metals: USD 54 billion.
by the establishment of effective collection • Value of avoided greenhouse gas emis- enefits osts
schemes. sions: USD 43 billion.
Benefits
Costs
value of avoided value of compliant
National governments with existing recycling Costs greenhouse emissions. recycling costs.
systems will place higher priority on further • The primary costs consist of USD 66 54 billion USD 66 billion USD
increasing collection rates through targeted billion in externalized costs to the popu- value in viable value of externalized costs to the
interventions, such as implementing eased lation and the environment, stemming recovery of metals. 10 billion population and the environment.
return systems and setting appropriate and from lead and mercury emissions, plastic USD
ambitious collection rates. There will also be leakages and contributions to global projected annual economic monetary
a focus on collecting imported used EEE in warming arising from non-compliant impact of e-waste management globally.
low- and middle-income countries after they activities, particularly in cases where

In scenario 4, high- and upper-middle- lead to the treatment of more imported substantially improving and formalizing the mercury emissions and 209 billion kg of
income countries with legislation will attain used EEE goods. Similar to the progressive work of the latter. This will include prioritizing CO2-equivalent emissions will be avoided.
a formal collection rate of 85 per cent. All scenario the dismantling and final treatment source separation of e-waste in countries his will essentially be due to significant
other countries with legislation will collect of waste printed circuit boards will be opti- lacking specific e-waste legislation and esta- improvements in working conditions in
and formally manage 40 percent of their mized, to extract more value. blishing effective collection schemes. The the informal sector.
e-waste, as will countries without legislation. separately collected e-waste is then trans- • The overall economic assessment for this
Furthermore, collaborative efforts between here will be significant cooperation between ferred to environmentally sound e-waste scenario is that e-waste management will
low-income and high-income countries will the formal and informal sectors, focused on recyclers. National governments with existing be net positive globally, at 38 billion USD,
recycling systems will prioritize increasing mainly thanks to monetized mitigated
collection rates through targeted interven- greenhouse gas emissions. However, in
tions and setting appropriate collection rates. low- and middle-income countries, the
Under this scenario, all imported used EEE result could be still negative. Realistically,
Scenario 4: Aspirational by 2030 will be collected at end of life in low- and the revenue gained will not be used to pay
middle-income countries. Large investments the externalized costs.
KEY E-WASTE STATISTICS METALS in e-waste management capacity will drive
demand for recycled materials, resulting in Benefits
54 billion kg | 60%
30 billion kg higher prices for both informal recyclers and
formal waste managers.
• Viable recovery of metals: USD 57 billion.
• Value of avoided greenhouse gas emis-
metal resources are viably recovered.
collected and managed by 2030. sions: USD 52 billion.
12 billion kg Consequently, the global e-waste collection

rate will further increase to 60 per cent, Costs
metal resources are lost. with 54 billion kg of e-waste being managed • The primary costs consist of USD 47
in an environmentally sound manner. In this billion in externalized costs to the popu-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT scenario most gains are realized in low- and lation and the environment, stemming
23 thousand kg 34 thousand kg 73 billion kg 209 billion kg middle-income countries, as follows:

• The amount of e-waste managed outside
from lead and mercury emissions, plastic
leakages and contributions to global
of mercury emissions emissions of mercury CO2-eq. emissions CO2-eq emissions the formal sector in lower-middle- and warming arising from non-compliant
released. avoided. released. avoided. low-income countries (the informal activities, particularly in cases where
sector) will fall to 13 billion kg. hazardous substances are not properly
OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF E-WASTE MANAGEMENT • The amounts disposed of in mixed managed (such as in the informal sector,
residual waste and/or treated outside e-waste in residual waste and e-waste
enefits osts compliant schemes in high- and upper- mixed with scrap metal).
middle-income countries will fall slightly, • The costs associated with the treatment
Costs
Benefits
value of avoided value of compliant to 10 billion kg. of e-waste increase to USD 24 billion,
greenhouse emissions. recycling costs. • Consequently, an estimated 30 billion kg primarily comprising compliant e-waste
57 billion USD 47 billion USD of metal resources will be viably reco- recycling costs. Costs incurred by the
value in viable value of externalized costs to the vered globally. The amount of metals lost informal sector, scrap metal and residual
recovery of metals. 38 billion population and the environment. (non-viable to recover) will be reduced to waste management are comparatively
USD an estimated 12 billion kg. lower, as they are considerably cheaper
projected annual economic monetary • The main gains for society are impro- to manage.
impact of e-waste management globally. vements in terms of releases into the
environment, as 34 thousand kg of

E-waste Status in Africa in 2022

KEY E-WASTE STATISTICS E-WASTE TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT (2019)
5.5 billion kg 546 million kg imports
EEE POM
3.5 billion kg | 2.5 kg per capita Controlled, 19 Uncontrolled, 527
E-waste generated
25 million kg | 0.7% 132 million kg exports
E-waste documented as formally
collected and recycled rate Controlled, 19 Uncontrolled, 113
LEGISLATION COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST E-WASTE

11 countries GENERATION PER SUB-REGION
have a national e-waste policy, Eastern Africa 470 million
legislation or regulation 430 2.4 | 0.5% E-waste (million kg)
9 countries 1. Kenya .................................................................................................... 88

use the EPR principle 2. Ethiopia ............................................................................................. 88
1 country 3. Tanzania, United Republlic of ..............................................61
Legend
has collection targets in place Central Africa 190 million
E-waste generated
0 countries 310 0.1 | 0% E-waste (million kg)
kg per capita
have recycling targets in place 1. Angola ................................................................................................ 150
0-5 kg
2. Congo, Democratic Rep. of the....................................... 56
5-10 kg
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3. Cameroon.........................................................................................33
10-15 kg
12.4 billion kg CO2 equivalents Northern Africa 260 million
National e-waste
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 1,500 0 | 0% WEEE (million kg)
policy, legislation or
6 thousand kg 1. Egypt .................................................................................................690
regulation in place
Emissions of mercury 2. Algeria..............................................................................................330
Use the EPR
3 million kg 3. Morocco ......................................................................................... 180
principle
lastics containing brominated ame Southern Africa 68 million UN Clear Map
retardants, unmanaged 580 23 | 4% E-waste (million kg) Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024
1. South Africa..................................................................................530
GENERAL INFO 2. Botswana...........................................................................................23 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST E-WASTE GENERATION IN THE REGION
1,408 million 3. Namibia ............................................................................................... 17 Total million kg kg per capita
population Western Africa 420 million 1. Egypt ....................................................................................... 690 1. Libya...............................................................................................14
54 countries 750 0 | 0% E-waste (million kg) 2. South Africa ...................................................................... 530 2. Seychelles.................................................................................14
analyzed 1. Nigeria.............................................................................................. 500 3. Nigeria ...................................................................................500 3. Mauritius....................................................................................12
2. Ghana ..................................................................................................72 4. Algeria.....................................................................................330 4. Equatorial Guinea ................................................................ 11
3. Côte d’Ivoire ...................................................................................42 5. Morocco ................................................................................180 5. South Africa.............................................................................9

Africa
NORTHERN AFRICA
In North Africa, only Egypt has legislation

referring to e-waste management. Law No.
202 of 2020 established a new regulatory
agency for the waste management industry,
and Decree 165/2002 prohibits the impor-
tation of hazardous substances and wastes,
and lists e-waste resulting from EEE.41 Tunisia
is also taking steps to regulate e-waste,
drafting a decree that will establish a polluter
pays system for importers of EEE.42
North African countries suffer a persistent

lack of awareness of the importance of
collecting and recycling e-waste, although
some mobile network operators and e-waste
treatment facilities are implementing aware-
ness-raising initiatives. In Tunisia, an e-waste
treatment facility, Collectun D3E Recyclage,
partnered with the GIZ (the German interna-
tional development cooperation agency) on
an advocacy campaign that motivated more
than 30 companies to hand over e-waste An e-waste collection and sorting centre has freon and other CFCs/HFCs, and screens
for recycling. In Egypt, some operators have recently opened in Soukra, Tunisia. Moreover, containing cathode-ray tubes.44 Given the
designated several branches as collection the Korea International Cooperation Agency, absence of e-waste treatment facilities in
points for e-waste and the Ministry of the which supports projects to improve e-waste many North African countries, a more coordi-
Environment is supporting the construction management in low-income countries, is nated approach at the subregional level could
of e-waste treatment facilities to high helping to set up an e-waste treatment facilitate the movement of materials across
environmental and technological standards.43 facility in Tunisia that will handle some of borders to locations where the environmen-
In some countries in North Africa (e.g. Egypt), the e-waste that is currently not being tally sound management of e-waste can be
open markets for collected e-waste supply recycled, such as coolers, polyurethane foam, guaranteed.
materials to recyclers.

WEST AFRICA mental (Electrical and Electronics Sector) In an endeavour to increase home lighting, most active ports - Durban (South Africa),
Regulations (originally of 2011), which aim to especially in off-grid areas, an estimated Bizerte (Tunisia) and Lagos (Nigeria) - have
In the subregion of West Africa, Ghana, Nigeria strengthen the EPR system. 2.23 million solar products were sold in East, all been identified as ma or ports of entry
and te d voire have specific legislation West and Central Africa in the second half for used EEE, suggesting that e-waste ship-
on e-waste management. Both the National Progress is being made in other West of 2018.48 Technicians from repair hubs use ments continue to circumvent the Basel and
Environmental (Electrical and Electronic African countries. In Senegal, plans were off-grid batteries discarded by businesses Bamako Conventions.
Sector) Regulations (2022) in Nigeria and the announced in 2022 to set up a regulatory such as banks to provide solar energy for
Hazardous and Electronic Waste Control Act framework for e-waste management but households while increasing the capacity A study in Ireland that used the StEP Initi-
(917) (2016) in Ghana underscore the EPR currently face delays.45 Pending the legis- to collect and refurbish other off-grid solar ative person-in-the-port methodology found
principle but there is little information on how lation entry into force, awareness raising products.49 Such products have high reuse that roll-on/roll-off vehicles, rather than
EPR systems operate and perform, and it is and collection and pre-treatment activities rates, and off-grid solar waste is therefore containers, were the main carriers of used
therefore unclear to what extent the principle continue, supported by the telecommu- reportedly only a fraction of the total sum of EEE from Ireland to West Africa. The study,
is being enforced. nication regulatory authority (Autorité de e-waste generated in Africa.50 which involved vehicle and enforcement
Régulation des Télécommunications et des document inspections at Ringaskiddy port
In Ghana, all EEE producers pay an “eco levy” Postes). Other countries in West Africa, such For many years, demand for imported used in Ireland, scaled sampling data to annual
to the Ghana Revenue Authority, according as Niger and Gambia, are in the process of EEE in West Africa has been significant. shipment figures and estimated that over
to their market share; the levy is allocated preparing and approving national e-waste However, in some countries (e.g. Nigeria), seventeen thousand kg of used EEE were
by the Environmental Protection Agency, management strategies. Neither Niger nor increasingly strict enforcement of bans on exported from Ireland annually and around 1
which is also responsible for setting up a ambia currently has an official e-waste the import of certain second-hand products, in 5 vehicles exported contained used EEE.52
formal e-waste recycling facility. Pursuant to management system or adequate regulatory such as screens containing cathode-ray n response to findings like these countries
the Electronic Waste Control Act, 10 formal framework and e-waste collection network. tubes and non-tested EEE, has recently led to in West Africa are taking steps to introduce
e-waste management companies esta- Although e-waste generation in countries like a reported decline in the import of used EEE. better monitoring of used EEE and e-waste
blished an association in 2020 called the Niger is not at the levels seen in Nigeria and There have also been reports, by the Lagos imports by strictly enforcing existing guide-
Electronic Waste Round Table Association. Ghana, there is the possibility that Niger will State Environmental Protection Agency, of lines and conducting thorough physical
The German Development Bank is funding the experience an increase in the near future as a a decline in the amount of e-waste being inspections of import shipments.
construction of a dedicated centre for the result of digitalization.46 disposed of at dumpsites.
purchase of e-waste from informal collectors
or private individuals and the establishment Other initiatives in West Africa have been As a result of improvements in enforcement
of a sustainable national e-waste recycling driving formal e-waste collection by, for and regional collaboration, progress has been
system. example, training informal sector workers and reported in the control of illegal shipments of
arranging for donations of personal protective e-waste in West Africa. However, in January
In Nigeria, the EPR system is private sector-led, equipment. Furthermore, mobile phone repair 2023, an organized crime group was caught
operationalized by the E-waste Producer has been one of the most marketable tech- smuggling over 5 million kg (331 containers)
Responsibility Organisation Nigeria (EPRON) nical artisan opportunities in West Africa for of e-waste from the Canary Islands to Ghana,
and regulated by the government. EPRON several years now and some countries in the Mauritania, Nigeria and Senegal. Furthermore,
maintains a registry to determine the market region have established training centres at in 2020, the Spanish authorities intercepted
share of EEE producers and on that basis which young people can learn the requisite a network responsible for shipping 2.5
then collects an EPR fee that it allocates to skills. For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, a project billion kg of material to several countries in
collection and recycling, awareness-raising, launched in 2020 in Abidjan called Create Africa including thousand kg of falsely
research, standards development and its Lab has been teaching the public how to certified e-waste.51 Even though the import
own administrative functions. In January repair, reuse and recycle EEE and e-waste in of e-waste into Africa is being monitored, it Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
2023, Nigeria amended the National Environ- their communities.47 is notoriously difficult to control. of Africa s

CENTRAL AFRICA informal sector still dominates activities and collection, sorting and high-end recycling.
processes many thousands of kilograms of In this regard, the African Telecommunica-
ameroon was one of the first African coun- e-waste each year. tions Union has issued pan-African guidelines
tries to have developed e-waste legislation. for the ICT sector aimed at harmonizing
However, many neighbouring countries in EAST AFRICA approaches to e-waste.
Central Africa have no such legislation. Some
countries have integrated the promotion As in other parts of Africa, e-waste gene- In recent years, some countries in East Africa
of circular principles into their high-level ration is on the rise in East Africa, where the have begun establishing collection, recy-
sustainable development or green economy following countries have an e-waste policy, cling and repair services. Created in 2010,
policies but have yet to introduce any specific legislation or regulation: United Republic of the Burundi-based Great Lakes Initiative
legal framework for e-waste management. In Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda. A regulation for Communities Empowerment (GLICE)
2019, Solidarité Technologique established has been drafted in Kenya but has not yet is a non-profit association promoting the
the Ewankan Centre to recycle e-waste in been approved, and the existing national reduction of the digital and energy divide
Cameroon; the centre aims to treat 5 million e-waste strategy and guidelines are the while protecting the environment. GLICE
kg of e-waste per year.53 Unfortunately, in current normative references. The United Burundi is establishing services for collecting
Cameroon - as in other countries in Central Republic of Tanzania has general environ- e-waste. In Kenya, the WEEE Centre esta-
Africa - there are few licensed e-waste mental management regulations that refer to blished in 2012 offers training and disposal
operators, which creates partnership chal- certain restrictions on e-waste. Rwanda has services for e-waste, while in Rwanda the
lenges for collecting and recycling e-waste. had a regulation on e-waste management Enviroserve Rwanda Green Park is dedi-
An e-waste initiative at the Benelux Afro since 2018. A second regulation is currently in cated to e-waste dismantling and recycling.
Center, in the Democratic Republic of the draft form and is expected to set out provi- Although it is an objective of the EACO
Congo, introduced courses on sustai- sions relating to EEE being put on the market regional strategy, there is currently limited
nable management of e-waste. By 2021, the in the context of the registration of importers, harmonization when it comes to the catego-
centre, an NGO that imports and donates with a view to incorporating EPR into business rization of EEE across countries in East Africa.
computers had recycled nearly thousand operator licensing. Uganda has a national For example, Appendix B of the 2012 Elec-
kg of e-waste.54 e-waste policy and in Burundi a national tronic Waste (E-waste) Management Policy
e-waste policy is currently being approved for Uganda categorizes EEE in 7 groups, while Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
There have been reports of an increase in the following its validation in 2022. There is Annex A of Regulation No.002 of 26/04/2018
intra-African movement of e-waste between currently no policy instrument in place in on Governing E-waste Management in
countries such as South Africa, Nigeria and South Sudan covering e-waste management. Rwanda lists 13 categories of EEE, as does EPR framework that covers a wider range of
Tunisia, on the one hand, and other coun- Schedule 5 of the draft Kenyan Environmental product categories, as opposed to prior initi-
tries such as the Democratic Republic of A growing topic of discussion in East Africa Management and Co-ordination (E-waste atives that mainly focused on single products.
the Congo, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, on is the growth and integration of e-waste Management) Regulations, 2013. The draft Environmental Management and
the other. In an attempt to control imports, collection and recycling infrastructure and Coordination EPR Regulations, 2021 are a
the Government of Cameroon has intro- networks and the harmonized incorporation The development of policy and regulations in result of this endeavour.57 In Rwanda, the
duced a robust “one-stop shop” (guichet of the EPR principle into national regulations. the region has to some extent been delayed Government is revising the existing regulation
unique) system to manage the import and The discussion has been led at the regional by changing priorities. In Kenya, for example, governing e-waste management, in particular
control of products that use HFCs, verifying level by the East African Communications there have been delays in implementing EPR56, Article 24, on EPR. The country has also been
all shipments entering the country.55 Gene- Organisation, through the implementation of although the current draft EPR regulations making significant efforts to operationalize
rally speaking, however, e-waste collection its Regional E-waste Management Strategy are at an advanced stage of preparation. The the EPR system by unifying the digital regis-
and treatment infrastructure is lacking across 2022-2027. In East Africa, regional harmo- delays have been caused by the government tration process for all business operators in
Central Africa, and in many countries the nization could help overcome limitations to endeavour to establish a comprehensive the EEE sector.

Data-collection efforts have improved in The tools for calculating EEE POM and Figure 25. Percentage of Kenyan Households and Businesses in
some countries in East Africa thanks to inter- e-waste generated provided to the 6 bene- Possession of at Least One Type of EEE by Type
national support. In collaboration with the ficiary countries ganda outh udan
EACO Secretariat, ITU and UNITAR - as part Rwanda, United Republic of Tanzania, Kenya Mobile phones (including 98%
smartphones/pagers) 93%
of the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership and Burundi) by the Global E-waste Statistics
Flat display panel
- have conducted household surveys in Partnership revealed a rapid rise in EEE POM televisions
85%
50%
Burundi and Kenya which revealed that higher in East Africa in recent years, to as much (LCD/LED/Plasma)
ownership rates apply to mobile phones in as 170 million kg in 2021. This has caused a Laptops (including 62%
tablets) 65%
both countries: 96 per cent of the Burundian concomitant increase in the generation of
Small household
households and up to 98 per cent of the e-waste, to as much as 128 million kg in 2021, equipment for hot
58%
52%
Kenyan households interviewed possess at which presents a challenge in a region with water preparation
least one mobile phone (Figure 25). limited e-waste collection and recycling Fridges (including 51%
combi fridges) 40%
infrastructure, and only one formal e-waste
The surveys also sought responses regarding recycling facility (in Rwanda) with a capacity Equipment for 41%
the most common disposal routes for EEE. In of approximately 7 million kg per year. food preparation 21%
Kenya, refrigerators, for example, are usually Microwaves (including 40%

brought to an e-waste collection centre or ational uantification studies using EEE combined, excluding grills) 32%
to a county-designated drop-off point (20 POM and e-waste generated tools have Kitchen equipment
39%
per cent of the total), or they are picked also been conducted in East Africa. he first (e.g. large furnaces/ 21%
ovens/cooking...)
up from homes by the companies that sold National E-Waste Statistics Report of the
Personal care equipment 37%
the product (30 per cent). The latter route United Republic of Tanzania, published in (e.g. tooth brushes/hair...) 21%
is not used to dispose of small household 2019, showed that EEE POM on the Tanzanian
Desktop PCs (excluding 19%
equipment, most of which is discarded mainland increased from 21.7 million kg (0.72 monitors/accessories) 55%
together with mixed residual solid waste kg per capita) in 1998 to 47.5 million kg (0.93
Flat display panel monitors 17%
(31 per cent) or sold to a refurbishment or kg per capita) in 2017, with large equipment for computers (LCD/LED) 44%
repair shop (33 per cent). Other studies accounting for the bigger share of EEE POM Washing machines
13%
in Kenya indicate that the current annual and small equipment becoming increasingly (including 6%
volume of e-waste being generated there is prominent in recent years. he findings further combined dryers)
11.4 million kg from refrigerators, 2.8 million kg indicate that the amount of e-waste gene- 12%
Freezers 21%
from televisions, 2.5 million kg from personal rated increased from about 2 million kg (0.01
computers thousand kg from printers kg per capita) in 1998 to 35.8 million kg (0.70 Printers (e.g. scanners/- 10%
multi functionals/faxes) 53%
and thousand kg from mobile phones.58 kg per capita) in 2017.60 The few reported
In Burundi, less equipment is picked up from e-waste generation, collection and recycling Telecommunication 9%
equipment (e.g. cordless) 26%
homes by the company that sold the products rates across the continent are difficult to
and there is no evidence of equipment being compare due to different interpretations. Air conditioners (household 8%
installed and portable) 21%
collected by the local authorities. Moreover,
a higher number of households reported Dryers (wash 7%
dryers/centrifuges) 9%
that they had not been informed about the
disposal route or were still in possession of Vacuum cleaners 6%
the product.59 (excluding professional) 15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Kenya households Kenyan businesses Possession rate, 2022
Source: Adapted from: International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and United Nations Institute for Research
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 and Training Sustainable SCYCLE Programme (UNITAR SCYCLE). Towards the Harmonization of Data Collection 66
– A Baseline Study for E-waste in Africa. Geneva/Bonn 2023
SOUTHERN AFRICA international organizations, the government gories being put on the market. This has been an e-waste recycling centre was set up in
has begun preparing a specific regulation on accompanied by a concomitant rise in the Madagascar in partnership with a Kenyan
In South Africa, mandatory EPR came into e-waste management and in 2023 it started amount of e-waste generated, to 12.8 million recycler; the emphasis is on the creation of
effect in 2021 under Section 18 of the developing a specific E regulation covering kg in from thousand kg in . he innovative practices for waste management
National Environmental Management Waste electronics and packaging materials. Zambia main contributors in the past 20 years have related to urban mining and on stimulating
Act, which covers EEE among other waste has also made progress towards introducing been the small equipment and small IT and greater awareness among the public for the
streams. Amendments to the Act allow EEE standards on e-waste management, with 11 of telecommunication equipment categories. need to safely manage e-waste. In other
producers to establish and implement their 4 proposed standards having been adopted.61 island States, such as Seychelles, there is
own EPR schemes. All existing EEE producers Several other countries in Southern Africa currently no legally binding instrument in
of identified products must register with the In Malawi, a draft national e-waste are also in the process of developing a first place for e-waste management. However,
government. Producer responsibility organi- management policy is currently in the guiding document on e-waste management. some peripheral laws do refer to EEE, such
zations must also register and are obliged to process of being approved. The policy was For example, in Botswana and Namibia, a as the Consumer Protection Act (2010) in
integrate informal sector e-waste operators developed via a detailed process of stake- draft national e-waste strategy and policy, Seychelles, which sets the minimum warranty
into the post-consumer collection value holder consultation and validation and will respectively, were recently validated and are for EEE at 6 months. The law requires EEE
chain, while EEE producers operating indi- be implemented over a 5-year period. It currently in the approval stage. Despite the suppliers to repair products returned for
vidual take-back schemes must compensate will be Malawi s first guiding document for recent normative progress, however, it is still a valid reason within 60 days or to replace
informal collectors who register with the e-waste management. Furthermore, with too often the case in Southern Africa that them within 7 days or to refund the customer
National Registration Database for collection support from the Global E-waste Statistics even when an e-waste policy, legislation or within 24 hours. The high logistics costs for
services and environmental benefits. artnership a recent national uantification regulation is in place, sometimes for many island States can be reduced by increasing
study conducted with the National Statistics years, implementation and enforcement fall the longevity of EEE (e.g. by repairing it) and
In Zambia, Statutory Instrument No. 65 on ffice found that the availability of EEE in short, mostly because of underfunding and a thereby reducing the need to export waste.
Extended Producer Responsibility Regula- Malawi has increased significantly from . lack of government capacity and resources.
tions (2018) is a legally binding instrument million kg in 1995 to 12.5 million kg in 2022. In collaboration with the Global E-waste Only a few countries in Southern Africa have
that regulates EPR but has been infrequently Small equipment and temperature exchange tatistics artnership national uantification formal take-back schemes but specific
implemented. However, with support from equipment are currently the main cate- studies were also conducted in Botswana and e-waste collection points are made available
Namibia, in collaboration with the respective in many countries by e-waste collection
national statistics offices. n otswana for and recycling companies such as the ed-
example, it was found that 21.1 million kg of gling businesses operating in Botswana,
EEE were placed on the market in 2020 and Namibia and Zambia. Where there are
13.5 million kg of e-waste were generated. greater volumes of e-waste, medium- and
large-scale collection and recycling opera-
The island States of Southern Africa have also tions exist (e.g. in South Africa), with formal
been making progress towards regulating e-waste collection systems and the technical
e-waste management. The Government of capability in some cases to extract precious
Mauritius is in the process of introducing metals.63 Like in East Africa, there has been
Environment Protection Regulations aimed increasing discussion of regional harmoni-
at implementing a collective EPR scheme zation in outhern Africa driven chie y by the
for EEE.62 Madagascar’s Decree No. 2015- perceived need to create economies of scale
930, on WEEE, sets out a framework for the in the region, given the varied size of neigh-
classification and management of e-waste bouring economies and populations, and thus
Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac by promoting the disposal of goods in an of the volumes of e-waste being generated in
environmentally sound manner. In 2018, each country.

E-waste Status in the Americas in 2022

19 billion kg 393 million kg imports
EEE POM
14 billion kg | 14.1 kg per capita Controlled, 89 Uncontrolled, 305
E-waste generated
4.3 billion kg | 30% 547 million kg exports

have a national e-waste policy, Carribean 32 million
legislation or regulation 240 0.1 | 0% E-waste (million kg)
9 countries 1. Dominican Republic ................................................................100

Legend
use the EPR principle 2. Puerto Rico..................................................................................... 65
E-waste generated
3 countries 3. Trinidad and Tobago.................................................................24
kg per capita
have collection targets in place Central America 180 million
0-5 kg
0 countries 1,800 60 | 3% E-waste (million kg)
5-10 kg
have recycling targets in place 1. Mexico ...........................................................................................1,500
10-15 kg
2. Guatemala........................................................................................92
15-20 kg
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3. Costa Rica....................................................................................... 66
20-25 kg
30.9 billion kg CO2 equivalents Northern America 380 million
National e-waste
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 8,000 4,100 | 52% E-waste (million kg)
policy, legislation or
12.4 thousand kg 1. United States of America............................................... 7,200
regulation in place
Emissions of mercury 2. Canada ............................................................................................770
Use the
9 million kg South America 440 million
EPR principle
lastics containing brominated ame 4,400 230 | 52% E-waste (million kg) Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 UN Clear Map
retardants, unmanaged 1. Brazil.............................................................................................. 2,400
2. Argentina.......................................................................................520
GENERAL INFO 3. Colombia.......................................................................................390 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST E-WASTE GENERATION IN THE REGION
1,020 million Total million kg kg per capita
population 1. United States of America......................................7,200 1. United States of America...............................................21
36 countries 2. Brazil ...................................................................................2,400 2. Aruba............................................................................................21
analyzed 3. Mexico................................................................................ 1,500 3. Canada .....................................................................................20
4. Canada .................................................................................. 770 4. Puerto Rico............................................................................20
5. Argentina..............................................................................520 5. Bahamas....................................................................................18

of purchase; the fee is then paid into a fund United States of America to low-income Prior research had forecast this change in
Americas supporting state-wide e-waste management. countries with cheap labour, where informal e-waste composition and highlighted the
dismantling poses health risks in the form of need to expand the product scope in e-waste
The Americas is one of the regions with the In EPR-based e-waste management models exposure to toxic materials.68 However, recy- legislation, in order to capture critical metals
highest levels of e-waste generation globally, in the United States of America, the state cling standards and certifications such as from newer technologies.69 For example,
at 14 billion kg, and yet, the national e-waste environment department defines a set of R2 (Responsible Recycling) and e-Stewards the state of California, in anticipating such
legislation in place across the region differs in targeted product categories for recycling, aim to limit the improper handling and illegal changes, expanded its product scope in 2022
many ways. In the United States of America often called “covered electronic devices”. export of e-waste containing toxic chemicals. to include organic light-emitting diode and
and Canada there is no federal legislation These categories usually encompass only LCD devices.72 Other states have amended
because e-waste is regulated at the state/ consumer electronics (laptops, television sets, The plethora of participants and products their e-waste legislation to expand the
provincial level, whereas in South American monitors, printers) and not large appliances.65 covered by regulation across states in the product scope and to increase the number
countries it is regulated at the national level. Large appliances are excluded from most United States of America makes it challenging of collection sites.73 While states typically use
hese laws vary in terms of the financial official statistics as they are disassembled to compare e-waste recovery rates at the the producers’ market share and the previous
models they apply and the scope of targeted and recycled by removal companies. Each federal level. Recently, state-level e-waste year’s e-waste collection rates to set annual
product categories, among other stipula- producer is assigned an annual collection collection rates per capita have shown a collection targets, recent research on e-waste
tions. In North America, the design of state/ target by the state department based on its decline.69 This has been attributed to changes generation has also been used to inform
provincial waste management systems and share of EEE put on the market in the state. in the quantity and types of used televisions decision-making about collection targets. For
the roles and responsibilities of the various The list of eligible EEE categories for free recy- in the e-waste stream, where traditionally example, the state of Oregon relied heavily
participants also differ, ranging from EPR cling varies from state to state.66 While some large cathode-ray tube televisions are being on academic literature to gain insights into
with and without consumer fees to various states cover consumer electronics, others replaced by lighter at panel televisions with near-term e-waste ows when determining
shared responsibility models. Apart from the exclude items such as tools, toys, e-ciga- liquid crystal display and LED screens.70 collection goals for 2023 and 2024.74
United States of America, all countries in the rettes, smart furniture and clothes. Similarly,
Americas have ratified the asel onvention. state laws also differ in terms of “covered
entities”, which are eligible consumer groups
NORTH AMERICA from whom used products can be collected
for recycling under that state EPR system.
United States of America These groups may include households,
In the United States of America, a total of government non-profit organizations busi-
states and the istrict of olumbia have nesses and schools. State-level e-waste
implemented legislation establishing programmes typically collect e-waste from
state-wide e-waste recycling programmes.64 households and some include non-profits
Some states have also enacted laws prohi- businesses and other entities.67 However,
biting e-waste landfilling and incineration large businesses are often excluded from
and requiring separate treatment. The end-of-life product recycling programmes.
EPR principle is the most common policy
approach and is applied in the majority of The absence of a uniform federal law has led
states. State policies on EPR typically apply to a regulatory patchwork of different state
the same approach as in other countries, laws, creating EPR compliance challenges for
with the exception of California, where there producers. A significant share of used EEE is
is an advance recycling fee. Under this model, either stored in households or disposed of
Photointoto / Shutterstock.com
consumers pay retailers a fee of USD 6 to 10 in landfills and incinerators. Another concern
(depending on the product type) at the time is the export of collected e-waste from the

n ew ork became the first state to the e-waste legislation under the Resource They have hazardous waste regulations that
enact right-to-repair legislation for digital Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016, address persistent organic pollutants, but
electronic devices. Under the legislation, which came into force in 2021, introduced not e-waste. Costa Rica, on the other hand,
which is to take effect within one year75, individual producer responsibility, so no eco has e-waste legislation and is implementing
EEE producers must provide repair manuals, or environmental handling fee is passed to it. General Law No. 8839 on Integrated Waste
enabling individuals and small businesses to the consumer. nstead producers are finan- Management was enacted in 2010 and the
repair digital devices. It is anticipated that cially responsible for collecting, reusing or Regulation for the Declaration for Waste
other states will follow suit, paving the way recycling their products.78 Requiring Special Management in 2014. These
for a national right-to-repair law. Such initi- regulations adopt the EPR principle, with
atives indirectly support the management of anada s e-waste ow tripled between producers reporting their annual e-waste
e-waste by extending product lifespans and and 2019 and is forecast to reach 1.2 billion collection volumes on a voluntary basis.
thus reducing the annual e-waste ow rate kg by 2030.79 This increase is partly attri-
and volume. buted to the country’s growing population, In Mexico, the Secretariat of Environment and
to some extent as a result of immigration. As Natural Resources, which oversees environ-
Canada in the United States of America, the absence mental laws and standards81, has developed
In Canada, e-waste is regulated at the of federal legislation complicates e-waste national standards to control the end-of-life
provincial level. All provinces and territories, management across Canada because management of EEE. or example fficial
except Nunavut, have implemented e-waste varying provincial statutes on e-waste result Standard NOM-161-SEMARNAT-2011 (NOM-
legislation based on the EPR model, often in compliance challenges and higher costs defines the obligations for handling
called product stewardship for targeted for EEE producers and service providers urban solid/special waste, including techno-
EEE in Canada.76 andfill bans have been operating in more than one province. National logical waste generated by the IT sector and
imposed in the provinces of Newfoundland, institutions and standards play a crucial role EEE producers which is classified as waste ermess / Adobe Stock
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and in in harmonizing the range of provincial regu- requiring “special handling”.82
the municipality of Vancouver and parts of lations. Provincial EPR programmes often
British Columbia and Ontario. Moreover, at include community education initiatives to The General Law for the Prevention and
the federal level, Environment and Climate inform stakeholders about their responsi- Integral Management of Waste requires
Change Canada has enacted toxic substance bilities in e-waste management. Although companies or individuals generating waste
control legislation and other instruments that initiatives supported by the government to have special waste-handling plans. The
indirectly support e-waste management. support the eco-design of EEE, the current law is modelled on shared responsibility
EPR programmes in Canada do not directly principles involving all stakeholders, such as
In most Canadian provinces, EPR legis- incentivize any improvement in EEE product producers, exporters, marketers, consumers,
lation requires EEE producers to charge design, such as enhanced repairability or waste management companies, and federal,
consumers.77 Unlike most models in the recyclability. state and municipal levels of the Mexican
United States of America, where producers Government.83 Mexico’s states are authorized
bear the cost of e-waste collection and CENTRAL AMERICA to establish their own guidelines or specific
recycling, aside from the state of California, legislation for special waste handling. Their
in Canada an environmental fee is charged In most Central American countries, e-waste plans must include waste diagnostics or data
on the purchase of certain EEE, at the management is governed by general provision on the quantity of waste generated
point of sale. However, some provinces are hazardous waste legislation. El Salvador, during specific periods and information on its
shifting the direct financial responsibility Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Belize and movement within and outside the country.
from consumers to producers. For example, anama have no specific legislation covering At the municipal level, Mexico City recently
in the province of Ontario changes made to E or official e-waste collection targets.80 implemented Environmental Standard for

the Federal District NADF-019-AMBT-2018, the absence of e-waste collection and El Salvador and Panama have drafted new Carribean
which focuses on e-waste management84 recycling infrastructure in Honduras, Nica- regulations, with El Salvador also being in the Most Caribbean countries do not have a
and mandates producers, marketers and ragua and Belize leads consumers to rely on process of approving a regulation. Additionally, significant EEE manufacturing industry. he
distributors of EEE to submit their e-waste informal collectors or to simply dispose of Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama have deve- Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad
management plans to Mexico City’s Secretary e-waste with residual waste. loped complementary financing strategies and Tobago have a small EEE manufacturing
of the Environment. for e-waste management. Another project sector that produces items such as TVs,
In recent years, several international projects involving UNEP has resulted in the publication radios, home appliances, audio equipment,
A 5-year project funded by UNDP and have been implemented in Central America. of regulations on the treatment of luminaires cables, circuit boards, refrigerators and air
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and For example, the UNIDO-GEF PREAL project - covered by the Minamata Convention on conditioning units.90,91
successfully wound up in 2022 helped (2018-2022) aimed to strengthen national Mercury - in Honduras. The UNEP project is
Mexico meet specific re uirements under the e-waste initiatives and promote regional expected to pave the way for an EPR system E-waste management poses a pressing chal-
Stockholm Convention. The project speci- cooperation on the management of for broader e-waste categories in Honduras. lenge in the Caribbean in the absence of any
fically addressed the release of persistent persistent organic pollutants in e-waste. As specific regulations and policies addressing
organic pollutants from the e-waste stream a result, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, According to the Regional E-waste Monitor for the issue. While countries such as Jamaica,
in Mexico. 4 pilot programmes for managing Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama made Latin America, countries in Central America Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados have
e-waste were successfully carried out in significant progress towards drafting rules rarely report the export of e-waste compo- taken steps to develop waste management
Baja California, Mexico City and Jalisco, and for e-waste collection and expanding their nents to other countries, despite having policies they do not have specific e-waste
the project facilitated e-waste sampling e-waste recycling capacity. EPR has been ratified the asel onvention.89 To address regulations. E-waste management responsi-
analysis for substances like bromine.85,86 At identified as the main financing mechanism this issue, the StEP Working Group for Latin bilities in different Caribbean countries are
the supranational level, the latest version for e-waste management in the majority of America and the Caribbean is actively working shared among various entities. In Antigua
of the United States of America-Mexico countries in Central America. In Honduras, to identify and solve the challenges faced by and Barbuda, the Ministry of Health and
Environmental Program: Border 2025, esta- however, changes in the government have e-waste recyclers and government officials the Solid Waste Management Corporation
blished by the United States Environmental hampered the development of an EPR system in limiting illegal transboundary shipments of oversee e-waste management. In Barbados,
Protection Agency and Mexico’s Secretariat for e-waste. As a result of the PREAL project, hazardous e-waste. that responsibility lies with the Ministry of
of Environment and Natural Resources, iden- Environment and ational eautification the
tifies e-waste as a priority waste stream Environmental Protection Department and
to target when developing strategies to the Solid Waste Management Unit. In Trinidad
reduce illegal dumping and promote material and Tobago, the regulation of e-waste
recovery.87 management is overseen by the Environ-
mental Management Authority.
In Costa Rica and El Salvador, environmental
health and safety standards for the environ-
mentally sound management of e-waste exist
and are being implemented. In Honduras and
in El Salvador, the government departments
in charge of the environment oversee the
regulation of e-waste, while in Costa Rica
and Panama the Ministry of Health is the lead
authority responsible for regulating e-waste.
Other countries, such as Belize, have general
ShutterPrice / Shutterstock.com
waste policies that do not, however cover
e-waste management.88 Generally speaking,

In Jamaica, the National Solid Waste Secretariat.92,93,94,95,96,97 For example, in 2019, SOUTH AMERICA
Management Act empowers the National Solid Jamaica exported 39.8 thousand kg of
Waste Management Authority to regulate the e-waste to the Republic of Korea, and in 2021, Andean Region
collection, transport and disposal of all solid Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, and Trinidad In the Andean subregion, countries such as
waste, including e-waste. The Act requires and obago exported thousand kg of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Plurinational
e-waste collectors and recyclers to register e-waste components to France for treatment State of Bolivia have been actively working
and prohibits the disposal of e-waste in and recovery. However, unreported exports to improve e-waste management practices.
landfills. n rinidad and obago the Environ- exist, as some Caribbean countries are not Recognizing the potential environmental and
mental Management Act is the overarching party to the Basel Convention and do not human health hazards posed by e-waste
law on the management of all waste, including report their e-waste movements. The chal- management, these countries have taken
e-waste. Trinidad and Tobago, for its part, lenges in accurately mapping and monitoring steps to address the issue by adopting legis-
regulates the provision of import licenses for these movements arise from incomplete data lation and ratifying international treaties. All
EEE importers and environmental permits for coverage. countries in this subregion have established
e-waste recyclers. specific e-waste regulations that include
Within the region, the Dominican Republic, EPR; with the exception of the Plurinational
In the Dominican Republic, Law No. 225-20 Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago are State of Bolivia and Ecuador, they all have EPR
on the Integral Management and Co-pro- the largest generators of e-waste. Limited schemes.101,102,103,104
cessing of Solid Waste introduced the infrastructure, a lack of awareness, and
principle of EPR. As a result of an ITU/UNEP the presence of informal recycling and In Colombia, the Ministry of Commerce,
project, the recently enacted Decree 253-23 illegal dumping practices pose e-waste Industry and Tourism recently published
aims to implement the EPR principle under management challenges in the Caribbean. a resolution that modifies the registration
Law No. 225-20. The regulation of e-waste To address these issues, various initiatives process for producers and sellers of EEE.
in the Dominican Republic is overseen by have been taken, including e-waste collection The resolution adds new devices, such
the Ministry of Environment and Natural drives, public education campaigns and the as e-bicycles, scooters, skateboards and
Resources. Decree 253-23 lays out the establishment of e-waste recycling programs motorcycles, to the list of items subject to
legal responsibilities of producers of EEE in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.98,99 The registration. It offers a 50 per cent reduction
and retailers, bulk consumers and waste presence of an informal e-waste recycling in registration fees for small and medi-
managers. It stipulates several reporting, sector in the Caribbean underscores the need um-sized enterprises, in order to promote
registration and EPR requirements. for improved e-waste management systems their development and competitiveness.
and regulatory frameworks. In response, Collection points for computers, lamps and
Comprehensive data on transboundary some countries are exploring initiatives, such batteries nationwide have been mapped and
e-waste movements in the region are limited. as refurbishment programmes, to promote their locations shared with the public through
From 2016 to 2021, only 6 out of 12 Caribbean the repair and reuse of electronic devices. an official government website.
countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, However, the development and imple-
the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint mentation of effective e-waste policy and In Ecuador, the Ministry of Environment
Lucia, and Trinidad and Tobago) submitted regulation face various obstacles, including and Water established a comprehensive
national reports on their e-waste exports the lack of comprehensive legislation, limited legal framework in June 2002 that clas-
to various destinations for treatment and recycling infrastructure insufficient public sifies e-waste into categories large
material recovery to the Basel Convention awareness and financial constraints.100 appliances, small appliances, ICT equipment,
consumer equipment, lighting equipment,
and electrical and electronic tools.

The framework sets out responsibilities Countries in the Andean region are party to for recovery or disposal is prohibited in South formed between formal e-waste operators
for consumers and collectors/recyclers of international agreements but, for example, America111, yet shipments of used EEE enter and informal sector cooperatives comprising
e-waste, including proper disposal at autho- only Colombia and Peru have been providing the continent frequently. former informal workers.112 Across South
rized collection points, compliance with annual national reports under the Basel America, voluntary initiatives for e-waste
technical standards and environmental regu- Convention (from 2016 to 2021). According to The informal e-waste sectors in Colombia, collection are widespread, with coun-
lations for e-waste management, obtaining these reports, Peru exported 260 thousand Peru, Ecuador and the Plurinational State of tries conducting collection campaigns and
licences and permits for their activities, and kg of e-waste to Switzerland and Sweden in olivia play a significant role in managing awareness programmes. These initiatives
reporting on their operations. The framework 2019, while Colombia exported 19 thousand kg e-waste. Informal recyclers manually often involve collaboration with municipalities
also incorporates guidelines for the appli- to Canada and the United States of America dismantle e-waste to extract valuable and key stakeholders, including universities,
cation of EPR and outlines the creation of a between 2019 and 2020 for treatment and components, at the risk of their health and private sector entities like mobile phone
national plan for the integral management of disposal purposes.109,110 It is important to note safety, and of environmental pollution. In companies and retailers, and sometimes
e-waste.105 that importing e-waste or hazardous waste Peru, successful partnerships have been NGOs.
There is strong recognition in Peru of the

importance of revising and updating national
e-waste policy. In this regard, new rules
require mandatory collection targets and
controlled e-waste management across
all categories.106,107 The Ministry of the
Environment is responsible for overseeing
e-waste management, implementing the
national e-waste regulations and coordi-
nating with various stakeholders, including
municipalities, the private sector, civil society
and international organizations.108
In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, national

legislation places primary responsibility for
waste management on producers, who are
held accountable for the products they sell.
Consumers, the government and municipal
authorities share additional responsibi-
lities. Despite the progress made in e-waste
management and e-waste legislation, supple-
mentary instruments defining concrete
requirements (e.g. collection targets) are
missing in many countries, including the Pluri-
national State of Bolivia. These supplements
to existing laws are crucial for facilitating the
implementation of collection targets and
enhancing the overall environmentally sound
management of e-waste.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 rblfmr / Shutterstock.com 73

EASTERN SOUTH AMERICA AND BRAZIL e-waste is a challenge due to the country’s
vast size and the extensive involvement of
n Eastern outh America specifically the informal sector in precarious collection,
enezuela uyana and uriname specific recycling and refurbishment activities. The
e-waste legislation is lacking. Instead, national e-waste management system is
e-waste management is primarily regulated based on shared responsibility among stake-
by general waste or hazardous waste law (in holders and EPR by producers. To tackle
the case of Venezuela, the Organic Law on these challenges effectively, partnerships
the Environment).113 In Venezuela, proposals and initiatives have been fostered among the
for the regulation of e-waste management private and public sectors, academia and civil
have been drafted. Once approved, they will society. These partnerships have been raising
lay the foundation for implementing effective awareness, conducting research, promoting
management practices and contribute to innovation, improving recycling technologies,
Joa Souza / Shutterstock.com
the establishment of sustainable e-waste developing best practices and enhancing
management systems in the country.114 public education and participation.121,122
In Guyana, e-waste management is covered Since the end of 2023, support is being All countries in the subregion are party to the In Venezuela, e-waste management is of
in the Environmental Protection Act (1996). provided through a project with ITU focusing Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conven- mounting concern with the significant
The National Solid Waste Management on the development of specific e-waste tions. In addition, Venezuela is a signatory involvement of informal sector activities
Strategy 2017-2030 also contains provisions regulations in Paraguay. and Suriname is in the process of acceding raising safety issues. In Guyana, Suriname
on e-waste management, relating to the to the Minamata Convention on Mercury. In and Paraguay, e-waste management is in
proposed development of a legal framework, Various laws have been implemented in and a reported kg of its infancy, lacking proper infrastructure
public awareness campaigns and the esta- Brazil to address e-waste management. The printed circuit boards from e-waste were and regulations and relying heavily on
blishment of collection centres.115 Similarly, in National Solid Waste Policy (Law 12.305/2010) exported from Venezuela to Japan and Spain scavengers to collect valuable materials from
Suriname, e-waste management is covered provides a framework for waste management, for treatment and recovery. According to discarded EEE. While Guyana and Suriname
by general waste and hazardous waste law, including e-waste. E-waste is specifically national reports for thousand kg have launched awareness campaigns and
specifically in the Environmental Management regulated by Decree No. 10 240, issued in of printed circuit boards from e-waste were collection points, further measures are
Act (2002) and its associated regula- 2020, which establishes a mandatory reverse exported from Brazil to the Republic of Korea necessary in both countries for effective
tions providing the overarching framework logistics system (SisResíduos) that tracks for treatment and recovery. e-waste management. In Paraguay, where
for waste management. In Paraguay, the and monitors e-waste throughout its lifecycle the Government has launched awareness
management of e-waste is referred to in the and outlines the roles and responsibilities The largest generator of e-waste in South campaigns and is working with private
integrated waste management law, which of stakeholders. It sets targets for e-waste America is currently Brazil, at 2.4 billion kg organizations, the comprehensive regu-
proposes a national waste management collection and recycling, aiming for 17 per annually, followed by Venezuela with 303 lation of e-waste and the improvement of
system encompassing e-waste and other cent of average annual sales by 2023 and 30 million kg and Paraguay with 56.5 million kg. collection and recycling infrastructure are
waste streams. The overarching law outlines per cent by 2025. The system performance Suriname and Guyana generate the least crucial for the future of effective e-waste
principles and responsibilities for prevention, is monitored, reported and evaluated through amount of e-waste, with 6.8 and 6.5 million management.123,124,125
reduction, reuse, recycling, treatment and established mechanisms. Brazil also has kg, respectively. Brazil is the sole country
final disposal. EEE producers are re uired technical standards (ABNT NBR 16156:2014) engaged in the manufacturing of EEE in
to register with the Ministry of Environment issued by the Brazilian Association of Tech- South America, particularly in the production
and Sustainable Development and to submit nical Standards, which provide guidance for of consumer electronics such as televi-
an annual report on the amount and desti- the environmentally sound management of sions, smartphones and home appliances.
nation of collected and processed e-waste.116 e-waste.117,118,119,120 The environmentally sound management of

SOUTHERN CONE on the management of e-waste specifically is Argentina, Chile and Uruguay all face chal-
currently pending. lenges owing to the limited existence of
The Southern Cone subregion comprises treatment facilities, exacerbated by incre-
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Each country In Argentina, Law No. 25.916 (2004) and asing amounts of e-waste. All 3 countries rely
has different levels of development and regu- Resolution No. 92/2019 offer guide- heavily on the informal or semi-formal sectors,
lation of e-waste management. In Chile, Law lines for managing hazardous waste, where hazardous e-waste is recovered and
. represents a significant step specifically including e-waste. oth instru- processed in suboptimal conditions.132,133
towards addressing e-waste. The law makes ments encourage the proper handling and In the Southern Cone, e-waste collection
EEE producers responsible for managing the disposal of e-waste and urge producers rates are highest in Chile at 3.2 per cent (equi-
lifecycle of the products they place on the to support the management of this waste valent to 7.3 million kg nationally); in Uruguay
market, including their collection, recycling stream. Although Argentina lacks specific and Argentina they are estimated at 2.9 per
and disposal. It positions EPR as the main national e-waste legislation, certain provinces, cent (equivalent to 1.3 million kg nationally)
policy principle covering 6 priority products: including Buenos Aires, Córdoba and Santa each. Existing infrastructure and practices
lubricant oils, EEE, batteries, packaging, tires Fé, have implemented their own e-waste remain inadequate in the face of the broader
and expired medicines.126 The law calls for the management regulations.130 Argentina, e-waste challenge across these countries.
establishment of a national registry of EEE Uruguay and Chile are all party to the he informal sector contributes significantly
producers, to track and monitor their acti- Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Minamata to e-waste management throughout South
vities. It also promotes the establishment of Conventions, but only Uruguay and Argentina America. In Chile however, efforts have been
e-waste collection points, encourages recy- have submitted national reports to the Basel made to establish partnerships between
cling and recovery, and aims to reduce the Convention Secretariat. In 2019, a reported formal e-waste operators and informal sector
environmental impact of e-waste disposal.127 thousand kg of printed circuit boards from cooperatives.134 These cooperatives engage
owever the inclusion of specific collection e-waste were exported from Argentina to in the sale of informally collected e-waste
targets and collection categories remains France for treatment and recovery. However, and informal operators participate in e-waste
pending.128 there are also understood to be unreported collection and preliminary processing acti-
exports from South American countries, vities.
Argentina and Uruguay have also made which makes it a challenge to track and
significant progress towards addressing address the transboundary movement of
e-waste management. Both countries have e-waste.
established comprehensive management
frameworks that encompass the proper Argentina is the second-largest generator of
handling, disposal and recycling of hazardous e-waste in South America, with 517 million
waste, including e-waste. In Uruguay, Law No. kg annually, after Brazil. This is followed by
19.829 (2017) serves as a comprehensive Chile with 230 million kg and Uruguay with
overarching legal framework for waste 44 million kg. In addition to Brazil, the only
management, including high-level provisions other countries manufacturing EEE in South
on e-waste and EPR. It lays out provisions America are Chile and Argentina. Chile is
for the collection, treatment and recycling known for specializing in mining-related tech-
of e-waste in respect of 6 categories of EEE: nologies and renewable energy equipment,
large household appliances, small household while Argentina plays a prominent role globally
appliances, ICT equipment, consumer in the production of automotive electronics,
equipment, lighting equipment, and elec- large household appliances and televisions.131
trical and electronic tools.129 A draft decree

E-waste Status in Asia in 2022

56 billion kg 2.9 billion kg imports
EEE POM
30 billion kg | 6.6 kg per capita Controlled, 1.1 Uncontrolled, 1.8
E-waste generated
3.6 billion kg | 11.9% 2.5 billion kg exports
collected and recycled rate Controlled, 1.0 Uncontrolled, 1.5

have a national e-waste policy, Central Asia 76 million
legislation or regulation 400 13 | 3.2% E-waste (million kg)
11 countries 1. Kazakhstan.....................................................................................200
use the EPR principle 2. Uzbeikstan......................................................................................130
7 countries 3. Turkmenistan................................................................................. 45 Legend
have collection targets in place Eastern Asia 1,600 million E-waste generated
4 countries 16,000 3,200 | 20% E-waste (million kg)
kg per capita
have recycling targets in place 1. China........................................................................................... 12,000 0-5 kg
2. Japan .......................................................................................... 2,600 5-10 kg
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3. Korea, Republic of...................................................................930 10-15 kg
82.4 billion kg CO2 equivalents South-Eastern Asia 680 million 15-20 kg
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 4,400 0 | 0% E-waste (million kg)
20-25 kg
34.5 thousand kg 1. Indonesia .....................................................................................1,900 National e-waste
Emissions of mercury 2. Thailand.......................................................................................... 750 policy, legislation or
26 million kg 3. Philippines....................................................................................540 regulation in place
lastics containing brominated ame Southern Asia 2,000 million Use the EPR principle Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 UN Clear Map
retardants, unmanaged 6,100 60 | 1% E-waste (million kg)
1. India.................................................................................................4,100
GENERAL INFO 2. Iran..................................................................................................... 820 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST E-WASTE GENERATION IN THE REGION
4,577 million 3. Pakistan..........................................................................................560 Total billion kg kg per capita
population Western Asia 290 million 1. China..................................................................................12,000 1. Hong Kong, China ............................................................... 22
49 countries 3,000 270 | 9.1% E-waste (million kg) 2. India ......................................................................................4,100 2. Japan ...........................................................................................21
analyzed 1. Turkey...............................................................................................1,100 3. Japan .................................................................................2,600 3. Singapore................................................................................20
2. Saudi Arabia................................................................................620 4. Indonesia.......................................................................... 1,900 4. Brunei Darussalam...........................................................20
3. Iraq......................................................................................................270 5. Turkey ...................................................................................1,100 5. Taiwan (Province of China)......................................... 19

practices in the collection, recycling and

Asia disposal of e-waste139 make it a significant
contributor to environmental pollution and
EASTERN ASIA human health risks. Informal workers often
work with limited resources and inade-
China quate protective equipment, exposing them
The Government of China has implemented to hazardous chemicals that can lead to
various policies and regulations and has long-term health issues.
undertaken initiatives to manage e-waste.135
One of its key policy initiatives was the intro- Another significant challenge in hina is
duction of the EPR principle in 2008; there the lack of public awareness and under-
have since been several updates to include standing about e-waste management.140
more EEE. In addition to the EPR principle, Many consumers in China know little about
a comprehensive regulatory framework for the proper disposal and recycling of e-waste,
e-waste management has also been esta- and this often leads to e-waste being
blished. The framework comprises various discarded in regular waste streams. The
laws and regulations, such as the Circular absence of an effective e-waste collection
Economy Promotion Law and the Solid Waste and transportation system also poses a signi-
Law that provide guidance for the safe and ficant challenge to the recycling process. ue
effective management of e-waste.136 The to the high transportation costs and logistical
Chinese Government has invested heavily challenges, many e-waste recyclers in China
in infrastructure development for e-waste are located in large urban centres, which
management. For example, the Ministry of results in e-waste from rural areas being left
Ecology and Environment has launched a uncollected or improperly disposed of.141 One
national e-waste recycling pilot programme promising development is the increasing
to establish a standardized and regulated adoption of circular economy models, which
e-waste recycling system.137 The programme prioritize resource efficiency and waste
aims to build a network of licensed recy- reduction. For instance, several Chinese
cling facilities across the country and companies have started implementing
provide incentives for manufacturers to circular business models in the electronics
design products that are easier to recycle.138 industry, such as product design for recycling,
Another significant initiative is the establis- product take-back programmes and the
hment of the National Hazardous Waste List, use of recycled materials in new products.
which specifies the hazardous substances Moreover, advances in technology, such as
contained in EEE and provides guidance for blockchain and the Internet of Things, are
their management. expected to play a crucial role in improving
e-waste management in the country.142
Despite the efforts made by the Chinese These technologies can enable the trans-
Government and various stakeholders to parent tracking of e-waste from collection
manage e-waste, several challenges remain. to disposal, ensuring that e-waste is properly
zlikovec / Adobe Stock
One of the main challenges is the informal recycled and disposed of without harm to the
sector, whose unregulated and often unsafe environment or human health.

Taiwan, Province of China the equipment is sorted based on type and condition. This sorting
aiwan rovince of hina has made significant strides in the process enables efficient and appropriate recycling procedures. he
management of e-waste, demonstrating its commitment to environ- collection points typically have separate containers or bins to accom-
mental sustainability.143 It has established a robust legal framework to modate different types of e-waste, such as televisions, computers,
regulate e-waste management, ensuring proper disposal and recycling mobile phones and small household appliances.
of EEE. The Waste Disposal Act and the Recycling Fund Management
Act serve as the cornerstone of this regulatory framework. One key Once collected, the e-waste is transported to advanced recycling faci-
aspect of its approach to managing e-waste is the implementation lities using specialized vehicles designed for safe transportation. These
of an EPR system, which follows a 4-in-1 approach involving the colla- facilities are equipped with state-of-the-art technology to handle
boration of multiple stakeholders to achieve comprehensive e-waste e-waste in an environmentally sound manner. The recycling processes
management. The 4 key stakeholders in this system are the gover- involve dismantling devices and separating various components such
nment, manufacturers/importers, retailers and consumers. as metals, plastics, glass and circuit boards. Advanced technologies
are used to extract valuable metals like gold, silver, copper and rare
The Government of Taiwan, Province of China plays a crucial role in earth elements from electronic components.145 These extracted mate-
establishing regulations and standards, and in monitoring compliance rials are either reused or sold, contributing to resource conservation
with e-waste management requirements. It sets targets for recy- and the minimization of primary resource extraction.
cling rates defines product categories sub ect to E and enforces
penalties for non-compliance. Manufacturers and importers of EEE It is important to note that while the collection and recycling of e-waste
are responsible for fulfilling their obligations under the E system.144 in Taiwan, Province of China is well-established, there are costs asso-
They are required to design products with recycling in mind, establish ciated with the recycling processes as part of the 4-in-1 system.
collection systems and finance the recycling and proper disposal of These costs relate to transportation, sorting, dismantling, processing
e-waste. This encourages manufacturers to adopt environmentally and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. They vary
friendly product design and take responsibility for the entire lifecycle depending on the type and quantity of e-waste being processed and
of their products. Retailers also play a role in e-waste management on the specific recycling facility involved. As a result of these compre-
by providing collection points for consumers to return their old or hensive measures and cost-sharing mechanisms, recycling rates in
unwanted EEE. These collection points can be found at retail stores, Taiwan, Province of China are tending to increase. Research indicates
service centres or designated drop-off locations. Retailers are respon- that the recycling rate for formally regulated e-waste has consistently
sible for properly handling e-waste and transferring it to approved reached around 80 per cent in recent years146, with around 31.4 per
recycling facilities. Consumers also have a vital role to play in the 4-in-1 cent of the e-waste generated being collected in these formally regu-
system. They are encouraged to separate their e-waste from general lated schemes. his achievement can be attributed to the efficient
waste and to bring it to designated collection points. By participating collection infrastructure and the active participation of EEE producers
in proper e-waste disposal, consumers contribute to recycling efforts in recycling programmes. Through their involvement, producers
and minimize the environmental impact of electronic products. contribute to the proper treatment and recycling of e-waste materials.
Taiwan, Province of China boasts a well-developed collection and

recycling infrastructure for e-waste. Consumers have access to desig-
nated collection points, including recycling centres, drop-off locations
and collection events organized by local authorities or recycling orga-
nizations. These collection points provide convenient avenues for
individuals to dispose of their unwanted electronic devices, preventing
them from ending up in landfills or being improperly discarded. When Boris Golovnev / Shutterstock.com
consumers bring their old or unwanted EEE to these collection points,

Japan
Japan has a comprehensive regulatory framework for e-waste apan is taking significant steps to improve its e-waste management
management, with the Resource Circulation Act as the main law system. Its goal is to recycle 70 per cent for the 4 items indicated in
governing collection and recycling.147 Under this law, manufacturers the Home Appliance Recycling Law by 2025, and it has taken several
and importers are responsible for collecting and recycling e-waste, measures to that end.150 One of these measures is the expansion of
and consumers are required to separate their e-waste for proper recycling programmes, which includes regulations and guidelines to
disposal. In 2021, the government announced plans to revise the ensure proper disposal and recycling of e-waste. In 2020, the Ministry
Resource Circulation Act to strengthen the responsibility of manu- of the Environment revised the Act on the Promotion of Recycling of
facturers and importers for the proper disposal of their products Small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment to require retailers to
and to require more detailed reporting on the collection and recy- accept old EEE from consumers at no charge. This has helped increase
cling of e-waste.148 This is indicative of the government continued the collection of e-waste for recycling. In addition to expanding recy-
commitment to improve e-waste management practices in the cling programmes, Japan is promoting a circular economy approach
country. The government has also announced plans to expand the to e-waste management, encouraging the reuse and refurbishment
number of designated collection sites and to improve recycling rates of EEE and the recycling of valuable resources such as rare metals.
for e-waste. To help achieve this, the government is encouraging manufacturers to
design products with recyclability in mind.
Japan has been promoting the use of more sustainable products
through eco-labeling programmes, which are used to identify products Republic of Korea
that meet certain environmental criteria; Eco Mark is the most widely he epublic of orea has made significant progress in terms of
recognized eco-label.149 The programmes encourage manufacturers e-waste management in recent years. It has implemented a compre-
to produce more environmentally friendly products and consumers hensive legal framework and institutional mechanisms to manage
to make more sustainable purchasing decisions. However, one of the e-waste effectively. The main goal of the Ministry of Environment is to
primary challenges for Japanese consumers remains lack of awareness promote a circular economy by extending the lifespan of EEE, reducing
and knowledge about proper e-waste management. This has led to waste generation and promoting recycling and resource recovery.
many devices being discarded. Additionally, the cost of recycling
e-waste is relatively high in Japan and as such the burden falls on ne significant measure is the Act on esource irculation of Electrical
manufacturers, who may choose to export the e-waste to countries and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles, enacted in January 2020.151
with lower recycling costs. The act mandates producers of EEE to take responsibility for managing
the e-waste generated by their products. It also requires mandatory
recycling rates for different types of e-waste and the development of
a tracking system for e-waste management. Another initiative is the
Green Card programme, launched by the Ministry of Environment in
2011.152 The programme provides incentives to consumers who choose
environmentally friendly products including EEE that is energy-effi-
cient and eco-friendly.153

Mongolia One major government initiative is the esta-

Mongolia faces an increase in the amount blishment of the National Electronic and
of e-waste being generated owing to the Electric Equipment Management and Recy-
rapid development of its electronics industry cling Programme, which aims to manage
and the rising demand for EEE. The gover- e-waste through a comprehensive approach
nment has recognized the need for proper that includes awareness-raising campaigns,
e-waste management and has begun esta- the setting up of collection centres, proper
blishing a relevant legal framework and treatment and disposal of e-waste, and the
policies. In 2012, the Law on Environmental promotion of sustainable practices.142 Another
Protection was amended to include provi- notable initiative is the Eco Town Project,
sions on e-waste management, and in 2016, which was launched in 2019 to promote
the National Programme on Environmental e-waste recycling and reuse in Ulaanbaatar.
rotection was updated to include specific The project focuses on creating eco-friendly
targets for e-waste management.154 However, urban communities that promote sustainable
many people still dispose of their electronic waste management practices, including
devices in regular waste bins or burn them, the collection, separation and disposal of
and the country has very little infrastructure e-waste.
or capacity for e-waste management. There
are only a few e-waste recycling facilities
and most of them are located in the capital,
Ulaanbaatar. This leads to the accumulation
of e-waste in other parts of the country and
makes it difficult to collect and transport
e-waste to recycling facilities.155
To address these challenges, the Government

of Mongolia has taken steps to improve
e-waste management. In 2020, the Ministry
of Environment and Tourism launched a
campaign to raise public awareness about
the proper disposal of e-waste.156 In addition,
the government has promoted the esta-
blishment of e-waste recycling facilities in
other parts of the country. In 2021, it signed a
memorandum of understanding with a private
company to establish an e-waste recycling
facility in Darkhan, the second-largest city in
Mongolia.157
Bénédicte Kurzen for Fondation Carmignac

SOUTH EASTERN ASIA e-waste, including producers, importers and

retailers of EEE, waste management operators
Brunei and government agencies responsible for the
The Government of Brunei Darussalam has enforcement of regulations and laws related
been taking steps to address environmental to e-waste management.161
concerns, including waste management.
Its vision for 2035 is to achieve sustainable Cambodia
development and reduce environmental In Cambodia, the 2016 National Environment
impact emphasizing responsible and effi- Strategy and Action Plan recognizes that
cient waste management practices. The aim e-waste is a growing environmental and
is to reduce waste to 1 kg per capita per day health concern, and that it must be properly
by 2035.159 managed and disposed of to protect
public health and the environment.162 The
A waste management strategy was developed plan covers a range of activities and stra-
for the period 2019 to 2030. The strategy tegies to address the e-waste challenge,
contains a comprehensive government plan including promoting sustainable production
to promote sustainable waste management and consumption patterns; strengthening
practices in the country. It sets out a range e-waste management infrastructure;
of targets and initiatives aimed at reducing enhancing public awareness and partici-
waste generation, increasing recycling rates pation; and boosting institutional capacity.
to 60 per cent by 2030, and promoting The 2018 Law on Environmental Protection
sustainable waste management practices. and Natural Resources Management also
It also sets out a comprehensive e-waste contains provisions on e-waste management.
management system, including the deve- The current informal recycling system in
lopment of an e-waste recycling facility and Cambodia is creating challenges, with workers
promotion of environmentally friendly prac- exposed to hazardous materials and environ-
tices in the handling and disposal of e-waste. mental pollution.163,164 The country lacks the
In 2021, the Department of Environment, necessary infrastructure, including recycling
Parks and Recreation released the Guidelines facilities and collection systems, to manage
for the Management of E-waste in Brunei e-waste properly. To improve e-waste
Darussalam, which provide a framework management in Cambodia, it is crucial to
for e-waste management with a view to invest in infrastructure development, esta-
promoting sustainable practices in the blish proper collection systems and promote
handling, storage, transport and disposal of recycling facilities with environmentally
e-waste. The guidelines also emphasize the sound practices. In order to foster a culture
need to prioritize the reuse and recycling of sustainable disposal practices, it is vital to
of e-waste in line with the Waste Hierarchy raise awareness among the public, businesses
approach.160 They outline the responsibilities and government agencies of the importance
of various stakeholders in the management of of responsible e-waste management.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 Rajan Zaveri 81

Indonesia e-waste collectors, recyclers and disposal

In Indonesia, e-waste is referred to in the sites, which will help to ensure that e-waste is
Hazardous and Toxic Waste Management managed safely and responsibly. The system
Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah No. is still being developed and is expected to be
101/2014), which aims to ensure that fully operational by 2023.
e-waste does not harm public health and
the environment. The regulation sets out the Lao People’s Democratic
procedures for handling hazardous waste, Republic
including e-waste, focusing on collection, The Lao PDR has experienced rapid economic
transportation and disposal. Despite this growth in recent years, resulting in increased
overarching regulation, e-waste management consumption of EEE and mounting e-waste
in Indonesia is still in the early stages of generation. There is limited awareness that
development.165 Moreover there is no specific the country’s e-waste management involves
regulation on e-waste. The country has limited inadequate solid waste management prac-
facilities and technologies for the safe and tices such as open dumping and burning,
responsible disposal of e-waste and there which can harm human health and the
is little effective policy or public awareness environment.168 As a result, most e-waste is
about the issue.166 As a result, much of the disposed of in an unsafe and unsustainable
e-waste generated in Indonesia ends up in manner. Additionally, there is no proper
landfills where it can pose significant risks to e-waste management infrastructure or
the environment and human health. policies governing e-waste. To address this
issue, the government has adopted several
To address these challenges, the Gover- instruments, including the National Solid
nment of Indonesia developed the National Waste Management Strategy and Action
Action Plan on E-waste Management in Plan for 2019-2028, which aims to promote
2019.167 The plan was launched in February environmentally friendly waste management
2020 and covers the period from 2020 practices and the recycling of e-waste.169
to 2025. It aims to establish a sustainable In 2021, the government also announced a
e-waste management system in Indonesia policy that will require EEE producers to be
by implementing various initiatives, such as responsible for managing the disposal of
developing regulations, building recycling their products at the end of their lifecycle.170
facilities, heightening public awareness and E-waste management is further hindered
supporting research and innovation. It also by insufficient funding and investment. he
aims to create job opportunities in the formal lack of coordination among stakeholders and
e-waste management sector and increase limited access to technology and expertise
the country’s capacity to manage e-waste. for e-waste management and recycling also
ne of its most significant achievements is add to the challenges in this sector.
the development of a roadmap for e-waste
management in Indonesia. The E-waste
Management System set up by the Ministry
Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac of Environment and Forestry aims to provide
a comprehensive database of EEE producers,

Malaysia use of longer-lasting and repairable elec- e-waste rather than being lost.173 Awareness proper disposal.175 In 2023, Myanmar began
In Malaysia, laws and regulations such as the tronic devices, and to reduce the amount of and education on e-waste management is planning to introduce EPR schemes for
Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) e-waste being generated.172 another important aspect of the plan. EEE. However, the lack of infrastructure for
Regulations 2005, the National Solid Waste e-waste management remains a significant
Management Act 2007 and the Commu- The Malaysian Government has recognized the One challenge in Malaysia is the prevalence challenge. There are very few recycling faci-
nications and Multimedia Act 1998 have need for sustainable e-waste management of informal e-waste recycling activities. lities in the country and the informal sector
been enforced for some time, with various and has implemented several initiatives to Many informal workers dismantle e-waste is responsible for most e-waste recycling
measures being taken over the years to address the issue. The National Strategic without proper protective equipment or activities. This often involves the dismantling
ensure compliance.171 For example, in 2021, Plan for Solid Waste Management (2018- environmental controls. There is also a lack and sorting of EEE without proper safety and
the Department of Environment conducted 2030) outlines the government commitment of infrastructure for e-waste collection and health measures, leading to environmental
a series of enforcement operations in several to promote sustainable waste management recycling. The National Strategic Plan for Solid and health risks.176
states to monitor the handling and disposal practices, including the management of Waste Management sets targets for e-waste
of scheduled wastes, including e-waste. e-waste. One of the key initiatives is the management that will guide efforts to that There is a lack of awareness among the
These operations resulted in several premises promotion of e-waste collection and recy- end in Malaysia.174 general public and stakeholders regarding the
being issued with notices for non-com- cling systems throughout the country. This impact of e-waste on the environment and
pliance and fines for violating the regulations. includes the establishment of e-waste Myanmar human health. This has resulted in a low level
Furthermore, in 2022, the Malaysian Commu- collection centres and the implementation The Government of Myanmar has recog- of participation in e-waste collection drives
nications and Multimedia Commission of EPR schemes. The plan also encourages nized the need to address the issue and has and recycling programmes.177 Moreover, most
launched a voluntary certification scheme the development of the e-waste recycling started to work on developing regulations, EEE is imported from neighbouring coun-
for electronic communication equipment industry in Malaysia. In so doing, the gover- but progress has been slow. As a result, there tries, which makes it challenging to regulate
complying with the Commission standards. nment hopes to promote a circular economy is no system in place to track the amount product quality. This likely also contributes to
The scheme is intended to promote the where valuable resources are recovered from of e-waste being generated or to ensure its the generation of e-waste in Myanmar.
rizalfaridz71 / Shutterstock.com

Philippines One key challenge in the Philippines is the development of strategies to reduce the
The primary types of e-waste in the Philip- lack of access to proper e-waste disposal environmental impact of their products.181
pines are consumer electronics such as facilities and infrastructure, especially in rural
televisions, refrigerators, washing machines areas. This limits the collection and disposal To facilitate the collection and disposal
and mobile phones. These devices are often of e-waste in these areas, and often results of e-waste, Singapore has established a
imported from other countries and regulating in the illegal dumping of e-waste in rivers, network of e-waste recycling points and
their quality can be challenging, likely leading landfills and other areas. here is also a programmes. The programmes are designed
to a high rate of product obsolescence and lack of proper regulation and enforcement to encourage the proper disposal and recy-
premature disposal. This is a common theme of existing laws and regulations related to cling of electronic products, and to heighten
across the region. The country has a mixed e-waste management. This results in the the public awareness of the environmental
approach of formal and informal e-waste illegal export of e-waste to other countries. and health risks associated with improper
management. The formal sector comprises There is growing recognition of the impor- e-waste disposal. Despite these efforts,
government and private sector initiatives tance of proper e-waste management in challenges remain, principally the coun-
that focus on the proper disposal, treatment the Philippines. The Revised National Solid try’s limited capacity for e-waste recycling
and recycling of e-waste. The informal sector, Waste Management Strategy and the various and processing. This has led to a signi-
on the other hand, comprises scavengers programmes and initiatives launched by local ficant amount of e-waste being exported to
and waste pickers who collect and extract governments, NGOs and private companies other countries, where it may be processed
valuable components from discarded elec- are all steps in the right direction. There under less environmentally friendly condi-
tronics. is also a growing trend to adopt circular tions. Another challenge is the lack of public
economy principles, which prioritize resource awareness and participation in e-waste recy-
In response to the growing e-waste challenge, efficiency and the reuse and recycling of cling programmes. While the government has
the Philippine Government has enacted over- materials. This could lead to the development worked to promote these programmes and
arching laws and regulations that refer to of a more sustainable e-waste management raise awareness about e-waste management,
e-waste management. The Ecological Solid system in the Philippines.180 there is a need for greater engagement
Waste Management Act of 2000 (Republic with the public and a greater emphasis on
Act No. 9003) mandates the proper handling Singapore education and outreach.182
and disposal of solid waste, including e-waste. The National Environment Agency is respon-
Additionally, the Department of Environment sible for managing e-waste in Singapore, Despite these challenges, Singapore’s
and Natural Resources issued Adminis- where the e-waste management system is e-waste management system has made
trative Order No. 2013-22, which outlines based on a 3-pronged approach of reduce, significant progress in recent years. he
guidelines for the environmentally sound reuse and recycle. The agency aims to reduce National Environment Agency has set a target
management of e-waste in the country.178 the amount of e-waste being generated by of recycling 30 per cent of waste generated
The department also released the Revised implementing a national EPR scheme, encou- in Singapore by 2030 and is working with
National Solid Waste Management Strategy raging the reuse of EEE through repair and stakeholders to achieve this goal.183
in 2021, which includes provisions for e-waste refurbishment programmes, and increasing
management. Under the revised strategy, the recycling of e-waste through collection
e-waste is defined as end-of-life EEE and its and processing programmes. Under this
parts that have ceased to be of value to their framework, manufacturers and importers
users or become unusable due to wear and of EEE are responsible for the management
tear damage or obsolescence. he definition of their products at the end of their useful
also includes equipment that is intended for life. This includes the collection, transpor- Heng Lim / Shutterstock.com
reuse, resale or disposal.179 tation and disposal of e-waste, and the

Thailand The National E-waste Management Plan also plays a significant role in e-waste recycling in
One of Thailand’s key policy initiatives recognizes the importance of educating Thailand. While informal recyclers provide an
addressing the e-waste challenge is the the public about the proper handling and important service, they often work in unsafe
National E-waste Management Plan, launched disposal of e-waste. It includes campaigns conditions and without proper training or
in 2018 by the Pollution Control Department to heighten awareness of the environmental equipment. This can lead to environmental
of the Ministry of Natural Resources and and health risks associated with improper and health risks, and to suboptimal recovery
Environment. The plan aims to establish a e-waste disposal, and efforts to promote rates for valuable materials.186
more sustainable and effective system for more responsible consumption and product
managing e-waste in the country. To achieve design. By raising public awareness, the plan According to a material ow accounts study
this goal, it outlines a series of strategies aims to encourage more responsible behavior of e-waste management in Thailand for
and actions that focus on reducing e-waste among consumers and reduce the amount of refrigerators (UNU-KEY 0108), air conditi-
generation, promoting recycling and proper e-waste generated. It is important to note oners (UNU-KEY 0111), personal computers
disposal, and improving overall management that Thailand is one of the largest manufac- (UNU-KEY 0302), cathode-ray tube tele-
practices. One of the main goals of the turers of temperature exchange equipment, visions (0308), LCD televisions (UNU-KEY
National E-waste Management Plan is to esta- which includes air conditioners and refrige- 0309), phones (UNU-KEY 0305) and mobile
blish a more efficient and effective system rators. This means that there are domestic phones (UNU-KEY 0306), an estimated
for collecting and transporting e-waste. producers of EEE in the country, making 218 million kg of e-waste were dismantled
This includes the development of e-waste it even more important for the country to using manual processes in 2023.187 Of those
collection points and the implementation of address e-waste management. amounts, around 80 per cent were recy-
regulations to ensure that e-waste is properly clable materials and around 20 per cent were
handled and transported. By improving One key challenge facing e-waste non-valuable materials. The recyclable parts
collection and transportation, the plan aims management in Thailand is the lack of a are normally recycled, whereas non-sellable
to ensure that e-waste is properly disposed comprehensive regulatory framework. While parts ended up in landfill or were incinerated.
of and that valuable materials are recovered regulations exist for hazardous and solid waste According to another study by the same
and recycled.184 management there is currently no specific authors, of the 417 million kg of e-waste
regulation governing e-waste management. generated by households, 125 million kg are
In 2021, the Strategic Plan on Integrated A draft WEEE act developed by the Pollution hoarded by the households, 263 million kg
E-waste Management in Thailand (2022- Control Department on the basis of the EPR are managed by informal sector workers and
2026) was launched to follow up on the concept is currently being revised following 29 million kg are managed by a formalized
2018 National E-waste Management Plan. consultation with national stakeholders, sector.188
The latter establishes a long-term framework including producers. However, in the absence
for the management of e-waste in Thailand, of a consensus on the draft act - espe-
while the former aims to achieve short- and cially the model through which the e-waste
medium-term goals by 2026. The strategic management system would be financed -
plan focuses on the implementation of the and with no enforceable e-waste regulation
national plan objectives and targets, including in place, e-waste management continues
strengthening the e-waste management to suffer from a fragmented approach, with
system, promoting the circular economy and different agencies being responsible for
enhancing public awareness and partici- different aspects. Another challenge is the
pation.185 prevalence of the informal sector, which

Vietnam The private sector has also taken initiatives to

The Vietnamese Government has taken improve e-waste management in Viet Nam.191
steps to address e-waste management. For example, the Vietnam E-waste Solutions
In 2020, the Ministry of Natural Resources Joint Stock Company was established in 2020
and Environment issued the National Action to promote a circular economy for e-waste
Plan on management of waste from elec- in Viet Nam. The Vietnam Environment and
tronic products in Viet Nam for the period Sustainable Development Institute provides
of 2020-2025. The plan aims to improve expertise on e-waste management, including
e-waste management across the country by collection, transportation and recycling
promoting the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) services, to businesses and individuals in Viet
approach and strengthening the relevant legal Nam.
framework. It also sets a target to collect and
treat 70 per cent of the e-waste generated Viet Nam faces challenges in implementing
in the country by 2025.189 The government and enforcing e-waste management regula-
has also implemented various regulations to tions effectively. One of the main challenges
control the import and export of e-waste. In is the lack of awareness among the general
2020, it issued Decree No. 31/2020/ND-CP, public and businesses regarding the impor-
which covers the management of used EEE tance of proper e-waste disposal. As a
and components. The decree aims to control result, e-waste is sometimes mixed with
the import and export of e-waste by requiring general waste, leading to improper disposal.
that importers of used EEE and compo- To address these challenges, collaborative
nents have an environmental protection initiatives have been undertaken involving
commitment in accordance with the law government agencies, private sector entities
and ensure that the imports/exports are not and NGOs. These efforts aim to raise
hazardous waste.190 awareness about e-waste issues, improve
recycling practices and establish a more
sustainable e-waste management system.
Heng Li Hanoi Photography / Adobe Stock

Central Asia Another important regional document on e-waste management organized. With
The countries of Central Asia are party to related to e-waste, the Agreement on the support of UNITAR, a project on national
several multilateral environmental agree- Cooperation on the Management of Waste monitoring of e-waste is being implemented
ments aimed at environmental conservation Electronic and Electrical Equipment194, in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
and minimizing the negative impact of was signed in 2018 by representatives of Tajikistan. One of the results of the project will
hazardous chemicals on the environment and Member States of the Commonwealth of be the development of national roadmaps to
human health. These agreements have been Independent States, including Uzbekistan, improve the e-waste collection and recycling
adopted and ratified by some countries in the Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the system.
region, while other countries have expressed Russian Federation and Tajikistan. The main
their commitment to complying with them. objective of the agreement is to promote Kazakhstan stands out as a leader in the region
All Central Asian countries, together with the establishment of a regional system for regarding e-waste management regulation, as
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, are party to the management of e-waste. This includes the country has specific regulations in place.
the Basel Convention.192 At the time of writing, maximizing the utilization of such waste as a Developing a robust waste management
Turkmenistan had taken steps to incorporate source of secondary materials thanks to the system is a priority for Kazakhstan. The
the country’s international obligations under development and implementation of the best main legal act governing waste management
the Basel Convention into domestic law by available technologies. is the Environmental Code195, which was
developing procedures for the import, export adopted in 2021. The code contains provi-
and transboundary movement of hazardous There are few differences in the way e-waste sions for the separate collection of e-waste,
and other wastes. is handled and the level of infrastructure mercury-containing waste, batteries and
development among Central Asian coun- other hazardous components. It makes the
The member countries of the Eurasian tries. E-waste recyclers are located in the transfer of such waste to recycling faci-
Economic Union have adopted several region, but they usually collect e-waste lities mandatory. Since 2017, EPR has been
important legal documents aimed at regu- from legal entities. A common practice of applicable to EEE in Kazakhstan. The respon-
lating the management of e-waste. One e-waste management is the reuse and repair sibilities of the EPR operator have currently
of these, the Technical Regulation on the of used EEE. Another practice is buy-back or been assigned to a State organization, but the
Restriction of Hazardous Substances in free-of-charge removal of household appli- country is exploring the possibility of intro-
Electrical and Electronic Products (TR EAEU ances by service organizations that repair ducing its own EPR system for manufacturers
037/2016), came into effect in 2018 and and resell used EEE. Public awareness of the and importers of EEE.196
applies to all Eurasian Economic Union coun- negative impact of e-waste and the need
tries, including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, for its collection and recycling remains low.
Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation. The Only some countries, e.g. Kazakhstan and
Technical Regulation sets forth requirements Uzbekistan, run occasional public awareness
for the design and production of EEE with campaigns and collect household e-waste.
restrictions on the presence of lead, mercury,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybromi- Some countries of Central Asia and the
nated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl Commonwealth of Independent States are
ethers. During the manufacturing process, developing and implementing projects aimed
the concentration of these substances in at improving the e-waste collection and recy-
the homogeneous materials used should not cling system. For example, with the support
exceed 0.1 per cent by weight, and hexavalent of ITU and UNEP, proposals have been drawn
chromium should not exceed 0.01 per cent.193 up for the implementation of EPR for e-waste
and a series of seminars and training sessions

Western Asia importers to either treat their e-waste and addition to a number of ministerial deci- All countries in the region have ratified the
The Western Asia subregion encompasses battery waste directly or to sign a contract sions that regulate the collection, transport Basel and Stockholm Conventions (Israel has
the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Cyprus, with companies accredited to treat them. and storage of hazardous waste. In the State only signed the Stockholm Convention) and
Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, The Ministry of Environmental Protection is of Palestine, e-waste is mentioned in the all have ratified the otterdam onvention.
the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen, Lebanon, responsible for ensuring that this equipment 1999 Environmental Act201 as a component The regulation of the import and export of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iraq, Jordan, the - which includes mobile phones, computers, of hazardous waste but there is no specific e-waste is essentially based on the provisions
State of Palestine and Türkiye. television sets and refrigerators - is properly strategy law or technical specification on of the Basel Convention. Kuwait, Lebanon, the
disposed of once it can no longer be used or e-waste management. State of Palestine, Qatar and the United Arab
In Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, that it is recycled whenever possible. Emirates have also enacted national laws on
Lebanon, Oman, the State of Palestine, Qatar, Only Israel, Türkiye and the United Arab the import and export of hazardous waste,
Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the The Turkish Regulation came into force on 1 Emirates have introduced the EPR principle including e-waste.
United Arab Emirates and Yemen, e-waste February 2023. It introduces a framework for e-waste and batteries, but Jordan and
management is characterized by inadequate for the implementation of EPR for manu- Lebanon are in the process of establishing Several countries, such as Jordan, Kuwait,
practices regardless of the income level of the facturers of EEE and regulates the relevant EPR regulations. No other country or territory Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the
country concered: 99.9 per cent of e-waste strategies, policies and administrative, legal in the region has implemented or drafted United Arab Emirates, prohibit the import of
is currently unmanaged or mismanaged and technical procedures and principles. legislation on an EPR system for e-waste. hazardous waste and materials but permit
(except in Israel and Türkiye). The e-waste The Regulation prioritizes the use of recycled their export under the Basel Convention.
ends up in landfills and or is managed by materials, wherever technically feasible Several countries in Western Asia have More specifically ordan and ebanon allow
the informal sector, with severe health and and especially in newly designed products. adopted, or are in the process of adopting, the export of hazardous wastes (including
environmental repercussions owing to the E-waste and e-waste fractions that cannot environmentally sound management stan- e-waste under specific licensing conditions
release of hazardous substances, greenhouse be sent for reuse or recycling are disposed dards or policies for waste in general. Jordan and with the authorization of the supervising
gas emissions and loss of critical material of in facilities with the appropriate environ- and Bahrain have issued policies on e-waste ministry. Kuwait and Qatar allow the export of
resources. ecause of the lack of specific mental permits and licences. The Regulation management specifically while atar is in the such wastes under Basel Convention condi-
legislation, e-waste in those countries can sets specific targets for the collection of drafting phase. In Israel, companies need to tions only where no plant for recycling or
only be managed through existing legislation EEE, namely: 40 per cent in 2025; and from apply for accreditation to treat e-waste for treating them exists in the exporting country.
on general or hazardous waste. Some coun- 2025 onwards, a yearly increase of 5 per cent importers and manufacturers. At the moment,
tries (e.g. Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, the up to 65 per cent by 2030. After 2030, the 2 companies are accredited until 2024.202
State of Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and collection target is 65 per cent unless the
the United Arab Emirates) have well-deve- Ministry establishes otherwise.
loped legal and regulatory frameworks on
waste management and or more specifically Qatar’s comprehensive law on the treatment
on hazardous waste, which should also apply and disposal of hazardous waste (Executive
to e-waste. By-Law of the Environment Protection Act,
issued via Decree-Law No. 30, 2002) prohibits
With regard to the existing legal framework, the treatment and disposal of such waste
no country in the region has specific e-waste in facilities not properly designed for that
laws, with the exception of Israel and its purpose.199 Similarly, the United Arab Emirates
Electrical and Electronic Equipment and adopted an integrated waste management
Batteries (or E-waste) Law197, and Türkiye law in 2018.200 Lebanon adopted Decree No.
and its Regulation on the Management of 5606/2019, detailing the fundamentals of
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.198 hazardous waste management and listing OVKNHR / Shutterstock.com
The Israeli law requires manufacturers and e-waste as a type of hazardous waste, in

n eorgia e-waste is regulated as a specific for the implementation of relevant plans and and recycling such appliances.208 Moreover,
waste stream at the legislative level and measures. However, its implementation is there are 3 associations in Türkiye that have
managed within the framework of the focused on the construction of landfills and it been licensed by the Ministry of Environment
Waste Management Code.203 The code does not regulate e-waste. and Urbanization for the production of elec-
defines specific wastes as those gene- trical and electronic devices (ELDAY, AGID
rated from products that require special Formal environmentally sound e-waste and A . A for example was
management measures and careful handling collection exists in a few of the region’s appointed by the ministry in 2015 as the
after being transformed into waste. This States, namely Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab authorized institution for the collection of
category includes packaging, oil, tires, motor Emirates and Türkiye. In Qatar, for instance, televisions/monitors and ITC consumer
vehicles, batteries, accumulators and EEE. e-waste is collected from residential areas equipment waste. It continues to carry out
Furthermore, the Government of Georgia through announced plans organized in coor- various training, consultancy and campaign
has approved several regulations speci- dination with the competent authorities, activities, and its website lists the addresses
fically addressing e-waste management. such as the Ministry of Municipalities and of 294 e-waste collection centres.209
One of the key regulations is the Technical the Environment. E-waste from government
Regulation on the Management of Waste offices industrial and commercial faci- In Lebanon, all e-waste is managed under
Electronic and Electrical Equipment 204, which lities and other sectors is collected through a general hazardous waste decree and the
establishes rules for the management of agreements between a licensed private country is in the process of establishing
e-waste, including provisions related to EPR, collector and the generator of the e-waste EPR, which is referenced in its 2019 national
promoting waste prevention and ensuring concerned. In the United Arab Emirates, strategy for integrated solid waste
reuse. he classification of EEE outlined in the e-waste is collected by the municipal autho- management.210 The proposed targets for
Technical Regulation is harmonized with the rities and through voluntary disposal at e-waste are as follows: a minimum of 2 kg per
E and international classification of e-waste. formal collection points (known as United capita per year for recovery, and a minimum
Arab Emirates waste collection centres). In of 4 kg per capita per year for separate
Armenia’s Comprehensive and Enhanced addition, the country is home to the only collection within 5 years of its introduction.
Partnership Agreement with the European e-waste recycling and processing facility in The strategy is currently being revised, which
Union includes provisions for strengthening Africa and the Middle East: the facility has the might result in a change in the targets.211
environmental cooperation.205 Under the capacity to process 40 million kg of all types According to a 2019 UNIDO assessment,
agreement, Armenia is obliged to implement of e-waste per year. In 2019 and 2020, the e-waste management infrastructure in
the polluter pays principle and plans to Ministry of the Environment in Jordan started Lebanon falls short on several counts: it
introduce an EPR system. The regulation licensing companies for e-waste collection is limited, including by high energy costs;
of waste in the country is governed by and recycling: 7 companies are currently the sector has many informal participants
the Law on Wastes206, which establishes licensed to collect (including from informal working in the absence of health and environ-
the legal principles and rules governing collectors) and dismantle e-waste for export mental safety measures there is no specific
waste management, including collection, in accordance with the Basel Convention e-waste legislation; awareness is limited; and
processing, recycling and transportation. rules.207 there are no e-waste statistics.212
owever except for specific types of e-waste
such as mercury and uorescent lamps In Türkiye, the e-waste recycling rate is low,
e-waste is not explicitly included in the list of despite the current legal framework. Although
regulated wastes. Türkiye is currently one of the largest manu-
facturers of small household appliances in
In Azerbaijan, the National Strategy for Europe, shortcomings in its current policies
Improving Solid Waste Management provides prevent it from achieving its targets for reusing

SOUTHERN ASIA duced phased collection targets for e-waste, by fiscal - . he entral ollution management of electronics, and proposed
starting with a per cent target in the first ontrol oard has also notified the draft a comprehensive action agenda to enhance
India year and going up to 70 per cent. average lifespan of each product included.217 resource efficiency and the circular economy
India, one of the world’s largest gene- in the sector.
rators of e-waste, is also a forerunner in the The 2016 rules were amended in 2018 with a he overnment of ndia has also identified
region when it comes to e-waste legislation view to bringing new entrants to the Indian the need for, and opportunities offered by, The overall circular economy strategy also
and infrastructure for collection and recy- electronics market under the ambit of the a shift to a circular economy. The National encourages repairs, with the Ministry of
cling. he first E-waste Management and E-waste Rules and thus leveling the playing Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) Consumer Affairs setting up a committee to
Handling) Rules213 were notified in by the field. he amended version also rationalized has published several strategy papers on come up with a right-to-repair framework.
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate collection targets, to give industry more the broader policy direction to be imple- Initially, the framework will focus on mobile
Change, which is responsible for waste-re- time to evolve and establish the system. It mented by the government to mainstream phones, tablets and consumer durables.
lated legislation; they have been regularly introduced the requirements to be met by a resource-efficient and circular ndian The Right to Repair Portal India218 of the
updated and amended since then, with the producer responsibility organizations wishing economy. The Ministry of Electronics and Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of
latest amendment having come into force in to register with the Central Pollution Control nformation echnology specifically released Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution,
April 2023. The E-waste Rules214 also include Board, and signaled a conscious decision to a strategy paper on the circular economy and provides warranty and post-sales infor-
a schedule, similar to the EU RoHS Directive, shift to a centralized, nationally regulated EPR EEE in which it identified key areas for inter- mation, by consumer brand, to consumers in
restricting the use of certain hazardous authorization regime for e-waste, to ensure vention, particularly in respect of end-of-life India.
substances in EEE if safer alternatives exist. seamless pan-India compliance. The 2016
rules and subsequent amendments have
The E-waste Rules 2011 had 21 product cate- given the entire stakeholder value chain the
gories, mainly IT devices and a few consumer impetus to initiate systemic improvements
appliances. They introduced the concept of and investment in infrastructure and heigh-
EPR for e-waste management, including of tened awareness. As a result, there has been
producers, dismantlers, recyclers and regu- a rapid increase in recycling capacity, from
lators. They also contained requirements billion kg in to over billion kg in
aimed at reducing the amount of hazardous with 400 authorized recyclers operating in
substances from products, in line with the the country today, compared to only 23 in
EU RoHS Directive. Guidelines for the Imple- 2010.216
mentation of E-waste Rules 2011 were issued
by the Central Pollution Control Board, the The E-waste Rules attempt to simplify the
federal body for environmental regulation. The regulatory and reporting requirements,
rules were revised in 2016, with the new rules mainly focusing on producers, manufacturers
coming into force the same year.215 The revised and recyclers. The revised rules also focus
rules further strengthened the EPR framework on recycling, introducing recycling targets,
and introduced the concept of producer as compared to collection targets previously.
responsibility organizations. Although the Importantly, they also expand the scope of
product scope remained the same, the appli- mandatory products to over 100, including
cability of the rules was extended to include solar panels, medical devices, tools, toys and
components, consumables, and parts and lab equipment. The recycling targets slowly
spares of the electronic equipment covered ratchet up from 60 per cent of EEE POM
under the rules, to provide clarity on the (based on average lifespan of the product) in Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
scope. Most importantly, the 2016 rules intro- fiscal - to per cent of EEE M

Afghanistan all EEE to register with the Department of

Afghanistan generates the lowest amounts Environment, have an approved e-waste
of e-waste per capita in the region (0.8 management plan and reach collection
kg for a total of approximately kg in targets of 10 per cent in 2022, increasing
. t currently has no specific legislation annually by 10 percentage points to 50 per
on e-waste management. According to a cent in 2026. The restrictions related to
2017 government report on the country’s hazardous substances are aligned with those
progress towards the Ha Noi 3R Declaration of the European Union.
ustainable oals for Asia and the acific
2013-2023), Afghanistan had a poor recy- Despite the progress made, the Gover-
cling and recovery rate for e-waste and other nment of Bangladesh has been unable to
recyclables. Goal 13 (ensuring environmen- implement the rules, which contain reduced
tally sound management of e-waste), Goal standards for lead and are therefore blocked
14 (effective enforcement to prevent illegal by the World Trade Organization. In 2022, the
transboundary movements of e-waste) and Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory
Goal 15 (implementation of EPR) were iden- Commission, which is responsible for regu-
tified as not relevant for the country.219 lating and approving the import, installation
and use of telecom equipment, approved
Bangladesh the uideline on E-Waste Management and
Bangladesh is one of the largest generators Recycling System222 following a stakeholder
of e-waste in the region (over 350 million kg process that had commenced in June 2021.
annually at a rate of 2.2 kg per capita), yet it Several development partners have shown Matyas Rehak / Shutterstock.com
has few licensed e-waste dismantlers and an interest in helping Bangladesh establish
they use basic resource recovery practices an effective e-waste management system.
that are polluting and unsafe. In the absence An ongoing World Bank initiative223 includes In the meantime, the handful of formal
of formal e-waste infrastructure or enfor- e-waste management infrastructure as a e-waste recyclers established by local entre-
cement of e-waste legislation, the e-waste is specific component with financing to the preneurs often struggle to access e-waste.
mainly handled by the informal sector. tune of USD 71 million committed to support The dominant informal sector has extensive
the piloting of an effective private-public networks with buyers, including from outside
Rapid growth in the amount of e-waste gene- partnership to attract private investment in Bangladesh, who are able to offer much higher
rated in the country nevertheless resulted e-waste facilities that ensure environmen- prices than local entrepreneurs. This can be
in regulatory and enforcement pressure tally sound treatment, provide technical seen in the price escalation observed on the
from civil society220 and from international assistance on certification standards and market, where prices for e-waste have gone
development partners and multilateral orga- incentives, etc. up three- or tenfold as informal dismantlers
nizations. The Ministry of Environment, Forest, become more aware of the value of e-waste
and Climate Change, which is responsible for and are able to better sort and separate in
the coordination of all matters related to the order to gain added value.
environment, including e-waste management,
issued the E-waste Management Rules in
2021, after nearly 10 years of talks.221 The rules
introduce the EPR framework for e-waste
management, requiring producers of almost

Bhutan stakeholders in the system, with responsibi- he overnment of epal has yet to finalize
Statistical estimates indicate that Bhutan lities for collecting all EEE and for auctioning and publish any policy or legislation related
generates 5.2 million kg of e-waste per year. government IT devices, respectively. to e-waste. The Ministry of Science and
The Waste Prevention and Management Act, Technology has commissioned the Nepal
2009224 sets out the direction and objec- Despite the progress made, poor know- Telecommunications Authority to publish a
tives of the Government of Bhutan on waste ledge about e-waste, the lack of e-waste draft framework for e-waste legislation by
management. It establishes key agencies management entities to collect, transport, 2023.
and monitoring authorities to effectively sort and recycle e-waste in an environmen-
implement the act, which covers various tally sound way, and inadequate facilities The Ministry of Federal Affairs and General
types of waste including e-waste. t defines have all resulted in the improper handling Administration is addressing e-waste as a
e-waste as “discarded, obsolete or recy- and disposal of e-waste remaining a common waste category in its revision of the Solid
clable electrical or electronic equipment practice. The Thimpu Waste Management Waste Management Act 2011, but details on
including all components, subassemblies plan also highlights these issues, indicating this have not yet been published. Neither
and consumables at the time of discarding”. that even though Bhutan is a signatory to the Ministry of Forest and Environment nor
The National Environment Commission is the the Basel Convention, the e-waste generated the Department of Environment has been
apex monitoring body responsible for coor- within the country is mostly sold to scrap as active on the topic as the other gover-
dinating and overseeing the performance dealers across the country’s borders.226 nment agencies, although they are potentially
of designated implementing agencies. The major stakeholders. The lack of coordination
Department of Information Technology and Maldives and collaboration across stakeholders in the
Telecom is mandated to ensure prevention The Maldives Ministry of Environment, e-waste value chain is also re ected in the
and management of e-waste, also as per Climate Change and Technology published various dialogues and public consultations
the National Waste Management Strategy, the E-waste Management Guidelines in March that have taken place, with few concrete
2019.225 2022.227 The guidelines acknowledge that outcomes. Moreover, in the absence of an
Maldives has limited options for hazardous Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac EPR system, most producers are unaware of
Under the umbrella of the Waste Prevention waste management and no formal mechanism the need for solutions for safe collection and
and Management Act, the Waste Prevention or infrastructure for separate collection. They recycling of end-of-life EEE. A nascent recy-
and Management Regulation, 2012, came suggest that bringing e-waste management Valley alone generated approximately 18 cling industry does exist, with formal e-waste
into effect on 18 April 2012. The regulation under an EPR framework would make recycling million kg of e-waste in 2017. The inventory recycling facilities being set up that are
includes provisions on e-waste management, more efficient and also lead to ob creation. also found that the average lifespan was two offering voluntary take-back and recycling
with guidelines for producers, exporters and The Maldives Environment Protection Agency years for mobile phones, 4 years for laptops, services.
consumers, and creates an e-waste fund to and the Waste Management Department are 8 years for televisions and computers,
support implementation efforts. Chapter important stakeholders for the development and 10 years for refrigerators and washing Driven by regional and global commit-
VII, on e-waste, lays out the scope of appli- and implementation of the regulatory machines.228 he inventory included a field ments, some producers are starting to take
cation, the functions of stakeholders, and framework for e-waste management in the survey that polled the public about the main proactive steps voluntarily to take back
reporting and disclosure requirements. The country. causes of e-waste generation, with most e-waste and are working with recyclers for its
e-waste fund is managed by the Department fingers pointing to new technology advanced safe disposal. It is nevertheless a challenge
of Information Technology and Telecom in Nepal models. Physical damage, limited awareness for a landlocked country like epal to find
consultation with the National Environment Nepal generates 41.5 million kg of e-waste and the high cost of repairs were also cited as suitable downstream treatment options for
ommission it finances implementation every year; its per capita rate of 1.4 kg is one reasons for discarding EEE. However, a report fractions that cannot be treated or recycled
of the e-waste management system. The of the lowest in the region. According to an commissioned by the National Telecommuni- in the country and that are often shipped
Department of Revenue and Customs and the e-waste inventory commissioned by the cations Authority found that repair and reuse across multiple borders, making the process
Department of National Properties are also Department of Environment, the Kathmandu of EEE is very common in Nepal.229 more time-consuming and expensive.

Pakistan manufacturers. The recycling sector in their parents of the importance of managing
Pakistan, as the second most populous Pakistan is dominated by informal operators. e-waste. The Central Environmental Authority
country in the region, is a large generator of While Karachi is the main hub for e-waste also publishes a list of licensed e-waste
e-waste estimated at million kg in dismantling and recycling, secondary markets collectors in Sri Lanka indicating (as of June
albeit with a rate of 2.4 kg/capita. It is also a have also emerged in Lahore, Faisalabad, 2023) 13 organizations that are involved in
destination for e-waste exported from other Gujranwala and Peshawar.232 e-waste management.234 There are limited
countries, with a study published in 2017 downstream options for final treatment and
estimating that approximately 95.4 million Sri Lanka recovery, for which transboundary shipments
kg of e-waste were imported into Pakistan Sri Lanka, as an island country with little are necessary. As a signatory to the Basel
annually. Of this, the large majority of imports manufacturing of EEE, imports all the Convention, Sri Lanka requires Prior Informed
were personal computers and power cables equipment consumed domestically. Like Consent from the importing country, and lists
(37 per cent each), followed by monitors (15 most countries in the region, Sri Lanka does the related procedure and costs online.235
per cent). The study also found that 89 per not, as yet, have a legal framework governing
cent of e-waste imports enter the country e-waste management. Responsibility for the
in Karachi. Similar to most countries in the management of e-waste lies with the Central
region, Pakistan’s current regulations (as of Environmental Authority,233 which has deve-
June 2023) at both provincial and federal loped a draft e-waste policy that supports
level lack specific provisions on e-waste implementation of the polluter pays principle
management. The National Hazardous Waste and lays the ground for legislation based on
Management Policy 2022, published by the the EPR framework. The policy suggests that
Ministry of limate hange identifies e-waste ways be explored of applying the polluter
as one of the waste streams to be included pays principle to generate revenue from effi-
in a regulatory framework to be developed cient and effective e-waste management
following the policy approval.230 and that financial instruments be found to
generate revenue and promote efficient use.
The Ministry had previously published the
Environmental Guidelines for Sound Disposal Notwithstanding the lack of an e-waste regu-
Management of Mercury in Compact Fluo- lation, the Central Environmental Authority
rescent Light Bulbs.231 However, the guidelines has initiated on-site projects to collect and
only indicate the method of handling and manage e-waste. As part of the 2014 National
disposing of the light bulbs; it deems the E-waste Programme, which aims to recycle
disposal of end-of-life bulbs to be the all forms of “mobile” waste generated by
corporate social responsibility of manu- customers around the country, the authority
facturers. A study commissioned by the signed memoranda of understanding with
Asian Development Bank on the solid waste 14 partner organizations from the telecom-
management sector in Pakistan in 2022 munication and appliance industry on the
highlighted the need for an action plan to voluntary collection of e-waste. Another
set up an effective e-waste management memorandum of understanding concerned
system. It also called for collaboration collaboration with a network of 5000
among stakeholders such as the Ministry schools in Sri Lanka that proved not only to
of Climate Change, the Ministry of Indus- be an effective collection mechanism but Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
tries and Production and original equipment also created awareness among children and

E-waste Status in Europe in 2022

14 billion kg 1.2 billion kg imports
EEE POM
13 billion kg | 17.6 kg per capita Controlled, 0.6 Uncontrolled, 0.6
E-waste generated
5.6 billion kg | 42.8% 1.9 billion kg exports
collected and recycled rate Controlled, 0.6 Uncontrolled, 1.3

have a national e-waste policy, Eastern Europe 290 million
legislation or regulation 3,700 1,000 | 27% E-waste (million kg)
37 countries 1. Russian Federation...............................................................1,900

use the EPR principle 2. Poland..............................................................................................520
34 countries 3. Ukraine............................................................................................390
have collection targets in place Northern Europe 100 million
31 countries 2,500 1,000 | 42% E-waste (million kg)
have recycling targets in place 1. United Kingdom...................................................................... 1,700

2. Sweden........................................................................................... 220 Legend
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3. Norway............................................................................................. 140 E-waste generated kg per capita
16.6 billion kg CO2 equivalents Southern Europe 150 million 0-5 kg 5-10 kg 10-15 kg
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 2,700 1,100 | 40% E-waste (million kg) 10-15 kg 15-20 kg 25+ kg
4.7 million kg 1. Italy ....................................................................................................1,100 National e-waste policy, legislation or regulation in place
Emissions of mercury 2. Spain.................................................................................................930 Use the EPR principle
6 million kg 3. Greece ............................................................................................. 190
lastics containing brominated ame Western Europe 200 million
Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 UN Clear Map
retardants, unmanaged 4,200 2,500 | 58% E-waste (million kg)
1. Germany ......................................................................................1,800
GENERAL INFO 2. France ..........................................................................................1,400 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST E-WASTE GENERATION IN THE REGION
742 million 3. Netherlands.................................................................................390 Total million kg kg per capita
population 1. Russian Federation..................................................... 1,900 1. Norway ........................................................................................27
40 countries 2. Germany........................................................................... 1,800 2. United Kingdom of Great Britain
analyzed 3. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...................................................... 24
and Northern Ireland................................................1,700 3. Switzerland ............................................................................ 23
4. France .................................................................................1,400 4. France ....................................................................................... 22
5. Italy.........................................................................................1,100 5. Iceland ...................................................................................... 22

by restricting the use of certain hazardous targets. For the WEEE generated method,
Europe substances in EEE for which there are safer the EU target is 85 per cent, and for EEE
alternatives. These restricted substances POM, the target has been 65 per cent since
NORTHERN EUROPE, WESTERN EUROPE, include heavy metals ame retardants and 2019. Only 3 of the 27 EU Member States
AND EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERS FROM plasticizers. The RoHS Directive promotes (Croatia, Bulgaria and Poland) have reached
SOUTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE. the recyclability of EEE, as EEE and its the collection target set out in the WEEE
components will contain fewer hazardous Directive, according to the latest available
European countries, especially those in substances. he findings of a public consul- dataset. This means that 24 EU Member
the European Union, are considered good tation on the review of the RoHS Directive States are presently not reaching the target;
examples in terms of the way they legislate in mid-2022 helped to identify possible the majority of those are below the 50 per
and manage e-waste. The legislation, policies changes needed. This includes amending the cent target using the EEE POM method.
and systems in place in the 27 EU Member provisions on recovered spare parts, which
States (plus Norway) are based on the EU could have a positive impact on CO2 emis-
WEEE and RoHS Directives. Non-member sions and resource efficiency and assuming
States, including Iceland and Switzerland, that a substitute is available when it has been
have implemented laws aligned with the demonstrated that such is the case for a
WEEE Directive. In addition to recognizing the majority of manufacturers in the EU market.237
importance of properly managing e-waste
to ensure environmental sustainability, the The EU WEEE Directive describes two
European Union has also recognized the methods for calculating the collection rate
need to ensure that valuable resources are in EU Member States. The WEEE generated
recovered from EEE. In March 2023, the method involves dividing the mass of e-waste
European Commission published the Critical collected by the mass of e-waste generated
Raw Materials Act, which recognizes the in the same year. Based on this method, the
need to strengthen the Union’s autonomy collection rate increased from 40 per cent
in the supply of key raw materials. The main in 2014 to 54 per cent in 2021. Increases
objective of the act is to ensure the “supply are mainly driven by the higher e-waste
of critical raw materials…, indispensable for a collection rates compared to e-waste gene-
wide set of strategic sectors including the net ration. The other calculation method is the
zero industry, the digital industry, aerospace, EEE POM method, whereby the mass of
and defence sectors”.236 e-waste collected is divided by the average
amount of EEE POM in the 3 preceding
The EU WEEE Directive sets criteria for the years. The collection rate using the EEE POM
collection, treatment and recovery of WEEE. method increased from 39 to 50 per cent
The European Commission is currently between 2013 and 2016. From 2016 to 2020,
reviewing the directive to assess whether it the collection rate dropped to 44 per cent,
remains fit for purpose to simplify the text the result of even larger amounts of EEE being
and to determine whether a further review put on the market.
is needed. The EU RoHS Directive aims to
prevent the risks posed to human health Every year, EU Member States can choose
Alexanderstock23 / Shutterstock.com
and the environment by the management of either method to calculate their collection
electronic and electrical waste. It does this rate and track progress on e-waste collection

Only one country (Poland) has surpassed the 85 per cent collection few efforts are apparently being made to make sure that consumers
rate and met the more ambitious target of 85 per cent collection rate return equipment, either by providing incentives or by simplifying
for e-waste collection under the WEEE-generated method. 19 countries take-back systems. Contrary to other waste streams, such as pack-
had rates in the 50 to 85 per cent range, while 11 countries remained aging, biomass or paper, the consumer is expected to return e-waste
below 50 per cent. Switzerland does not have any such targets in place over an extensive delivery system to collection points of municipa-
but would meet the EU target calculated using the EEE POM method. lities and retailers. The use of e-waste collection containers for small
equipment, while not widespread, is rising in the European Union.
E-waste treatment in the United Kingdom is based on the Waste
Electrical and Electronic Waste Regulation 2013, which is in line with
the EU WEEE Directive, even though the United Kingdom is no longer
an EU member. The government has started to review this statutory
instrument. In both the United Kingdom and the European Union,
the focus is very much on setting up schemes for the collection of
single-use devices such as vaporizers, because they are also e-waste,
and their numbers are growing.
The countries that reach the targets seem to contradict both the
overall trend and the underlying factors observed across the rest of
the European Union, and the quality of the data produced by some
countries has been called into uestion. esides official government
statistics, there are no public reports or research available that allow
for a better understanding of collection rates.238 Understandably, the
objective is to substantially increase collection in the European Union
so as to meet the self-set targets and avoid penalties.
A recent study found that EU households are home to an average 74

electrical and electronic items each (excluding lamps and luminaires),
for a total mass of 90 billion kg.239 Of those 74 items, 61 are in use, while
an estimated 4 items per household are hoarded and not working (and
thus have not yet been discarded). This is equal to 3 billion kg of broken
appliances that could be repaired or handed over to WEEE collection
schemes, increasing collection rates considerably if consumers were
convinced or incentivized.
Government trials in, for example, Austria and Germany are monetarily
supporting the repair of EEE and thus extending product lifetimes.
Deposits on EEE continue to be discussed as a way to secure
higher return rates but have yet to be widely applied, also because
of substantive administrative costs. Governments are also trying to
supplement existing data and raise the relatively low collection rates by,
UNITAR
for instance, including data on transboundary movements (equipment
leaving the country), plastic components, etc. Interestingly, relatively

SOUTHERN EUROPE (NON-EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERS) Informal participants often dismantle and sort e-waste before the
recovered fractions are sold to local recyclers or exported. There are
The non-EU member States of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monte- many licensed e-waste collectors in the Western Balkans but only a
negro, Albania and North Macedonia are commonly referred to as few are active241, and some only cover business-to-business products.
the Western Balkans. The countries in the Western Balkans are slowly Although all countries in the Western Balkans are signatories to the
aligning their e-waste management approaches with the EU WEEE Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, e-waste continues to be
Directive, which includes introducing the EPR principle in their related moved across borders within the region because some countries have
legislation. However, not all countries in the Western Balkans have no specific laws banning e-waste imports and exports. he import of
fully implemented an EPR system. Most have provisions for ambitious used EEE is not specifically regulated in all countries in the region but
e-waste collection and treatment targets, which in a few cases have at the same time there is a huge demand from consumers. The region
expired and need to be renewed, but measures to enforce and track has a strong culture of reuse and EEE is often repaired by consumers
them through a comprehensive monitoring framework are lacking. instead of being immediately disposed of. In fact, EEE is sometimes
Additionally, some of the countries are gathering and publishing data donated or sold to companies (local reuse centres), or individuals
on the amount of e-waste being collected and recycled. However, a involved in the trade of second-hand devices in the Western Balkans.242
clear reporting framework for the amount of EEE being put on the
market and for the amount of e-waste being generated is missing. This
makes it challenging to set appropriate targets.
While all the countries in the Western Balkans have e-waste collection
and treatment infrastructure, the maturity levels vary and in most
cases the infrastructure remains limited, particularly in Albania and
Montenegro. Most countries have the capacity to pre-treat e-waste
before it is sent abroad. One major challenge is that consumers are
not discarding e-waste in the receptacles provided specifically for
that purpose. As a result, most of the e-waste is picked up by the
informal sector and sold as scrap metal in the Western Balkans.240 In
addition, even when reporting systems are in place, EEE producers are
not always fully aware of their legal obligations. Informal sector partici-
pants operating e-waste management activities in the Western Balkans
collect the waste door-to-door, which often leads to cherry-picking -
they collect only high-value waste products and components.
Matyas Rehak / Adobe Stock

EASTERN EUROPE (NON-EUROPEAN waste, including hazardous waste, is regulated facturing, processing, treating, selling and/or WEEE, batteries and packaging), but not all
UNION MEMBERS) by several national laws and rules in all coun- importing products subject to EPR. The main are fully compliant with EPR principles all of
tries in the subregion. responsibility of producers is to ensure achie- the time, also due to the complexity of the
The Eastern European subregion encom- vement, individually or via collective systems, new approaches introduced by the EU Waste
passes the EU Member States of Bulgaria, the An EPR system covering e-waste has already of the collection and recycling targets set by Framework Directive, to limited recycling and
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania been established in Belarus, Georgia, Moldova the government. Several producer responsi- treatment capacities within the country and
and Slovakia (see Northern Europe, Western and the Russian Federation. Ukraine is bility organizations have been established in to poor understanding of their roles.244
Europe and EU Member States from Southern currently drafting a text on EPR for e-waste. Moldova for different waste streams (e-waste,
and Eastern Europe above). It also includes These countries apply EPR to the waste
the non-EU members Belarus, Ukraine, the streams arising from several products,
Republic of Moldova and the Russian Fede- such as packaging, batteries and accumu-
ration, of which only Belarus, Ukraine and lators, EEE, vehicles and oils. In Belarus, the
Moldova presently have e-waste-specific EPR system has been in place since August
legislation. 2012. The range of goods covered includes
different type of packaging, computers and
elarus classifies e-waste as hazardous mobile phones. The system is State-owned
waste and is in the process of adopting and has only one producer responsibility
specific e-waste management regulations organization. EEE producers in Belarus are
and standards. Currently, e-waste is covered mandated to collect and recycle or neutralize
by the legal framework on general waste the waste from their products by one of the
management. Similarly, the Russian Fede- following channels applied singly or in combi-
ration regulates e-waste using bylaws. In nation: (a) their own waste collection systems
Moldova, e-waste is regulated in accordance (buy-back centres or containers), production
with the requirements of the Law on Waste lines and repair shops; they must ensure
No. 209, dated 29 July 2016, and the Provi- the recycling/neutralization of waste either
sions on WEEE approved by Government directly or by a third party, and producers and
Resolution No. 212 in March 2018. Other legal suppliers have to collect not less than 30 per
instruments related to waste management cent of EEE placed on the market annually;
are also relevant for e-waste. (b) a contract with the waste management
operator. Producers and suppliers in the
As regards Ukraine, the main regulatory country tend to use the second option.
document governing waste management is Retailers and trade organizations are also
Law No. 187/98-BP(66), on waste, of 5 March engaged in the collection of WEEE in Belarus
1998, as amended and supplemented. The (through shops and places of repair or main-
legal framework covers the full list of existing tenance).243
waste, including e-waste. In addition, a number
of ministerial resolutions and orders are In Moldova, Article 12 of Law No. 209/2016
dedicated to e-waste management. Belarus, on waste provides for implementation of the
Georgia, Moldova, the Russian Federation EPR scheme in the country to boost reuse,
and Ukraine have recently adopted or are prevention, collection and recycling. The
in the process of adopting specific e-waste scheme involves individuals or legal entities FotograFFF / Shutterstock.com
management standards. The management of that are in the business of developing, manu-

The subregion’s countries have signed or Stockholm Conventions, and all countries mainly in the Russian Federation, where a
ratified several international agreements except Belarus are party to the Rotterdam processing plant was opened in 2020. Belarus
related to e-waste. These range from onvention. ollowing its ratification of the also accepts printed circuit boards for final
multilateral environmental agreements to Basel Convention, Belarus amended Article treatment and recycling. Informal operators
agreements restricting the use of hazardous 27 of Law No. 271-3 of 20 July 2007, on waste still play a central role, especially those that
substances in manufacturing or promoting management, to regulate the transboundary travel from door to door collecting e-waste.
the circular economy.245 More specifically movement of waste; in Moldova, Chapter VIII One reason is the lower cost when e-waste
all countries are party to the Basel and of Waste Law 209/2016 establishes rules for is not delivered to formal collectors; the
the import and export of waste. Moreover, informal collectors also give cash incentives.
Moldova ratified the Minamata onvention In terms of consumers, in Belarus and Ukraine
on Mercury in 2017, while Belarus and the they pay for the collection and treatment/
Russian Federation have signed it but have recycling of e-waste and batteries when
yet to complete the ratification process. purchasing new equipment and batteries: the
cost of these services is included in the price
In 2020, TR EAEU 041/2017, a technical regu- of the goods by the producers, but it is not
lation adopted by the Eurasian Economic visible.
Union, which includes Belarus and the
Russian Federation among its Member States,
entered into force. The regulation, which is
based on the EU RoHS Directive, restricts the
substances that can be used to manufacture
electrotechnical and electronic products.246
In terms of industrial recyclers, in Moldova

treatment companies are active in sorting,
dismantling and ensuring the primary
treatment and recycling of e-waste before
it is exported abroad for further treatment
(e.g. to EU Member States). In 2021, Belarus
had 10 e-waste treatment companies able to
process all types of e-waste: the materials
obtained from disassembling are processed
in compliance with the legislation, although
valuable components are sometime sent to
the Russian Federation or the European Union
for further treatment. In Ukraine, of 115 orga-
nizations licensed for e-waste management,
about 80 per cent have licences for e-waste
recycling. Waste printed circuit boards,
specifically are dismantled in the e-waste
management process in Belarus, Moldova and
the Russian Federation, but treated/recycled

E-waste Status in Oceania in 2022

750 million kg 0 million kg imports
EEE POM
707 million kg | 16.1 kg per capita
E-waste generated
292 million kg | 41.4% 22 million kg exports

1 country GENERATION PER SUB-REGION
has a national e-waste policy, Australia and New Zealand 31 million
legislation or regulation 680 290 | 43% E-waste (million kg)
1 country 1. Australia...........................................................................................580
uses the EPR principle 2. New Zealand ................................................................................100
1 country Melanesia 12 million
has collection targets in place 21 0 | 0% E-waste (million kg)
1 country 1. Papua New Guinea ....................................................................... 13

has recycling targets in place 2. Fiji ..........................................................................................................6.7
3. Solomon Islands......................................................................... 0.8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Micronesia 0.3 million Legend
359 million kg CO2 equivalents 0.8 0 | 0% E-waste (million kg)
E-waste generated kg per capita
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) 1. Micronesia, Federated States of..................................... 0.2 0-5 kg 5-10 kg 10-15 kg
542 kg 2. Palau ................................................................................................... 0.2 15-20 kg 20-25 kg
Emissions of mercury 3. Kiribati ............................................................................................... 0.2 National e-waste policy, legislation or
389 thousand kg Polynesia 0.3 million regulation in place
lastics containing brominated ame 1.1 0 | 0% E-waste (million kg)
Use the EPR principle Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 UN Clear Map
retardants, unmanaged 1. Samoa..................................................................................................0.7
2. Tonga.................................................................................................. 0.4
GENERAL INFO 3. Tuvalu..............................................................................................0.03 COUNTRIES WITH THE HIGHEST E-WASTE GENERATION IN THE REGION
44 million Total million kg kg per capita
population 1. Australia................................................................................. 580 1. Australia..................................................................................... 22
14 countries 2. New Zealand .......................................................................100 2. New Zealand .........................................................................20
analyzed 3. Papua New Guinea.............................................................13 3. Palau .............................................................................................12
4. Fiji .....................................................................................................7 4. Fiji .....................................................................................................7
5. Solomon Islands ...............................................................0.8 5. Nauru ............................................................................................6

improvement from the recycling rate of only

Oceania 9 per cent in 2008.
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND The National Television and Computer

Recycling Scheme is Australia’s sole co-regu-
Australia latory framework. 5 approved organizations
Australia is the only country in the South currently operate under this co-regulatory
acific with specific legislation covering arrangement. n the financial year -
e-waste management.247 The Australian 2021, the framework collected 50.5 million
overnment established the first ational kg of televisions and computers, achieving a
Waste Policy in 2009, providing directions for maximum recovery rate of 96.7 per cent.250,251
enhancing waste and resource management The scheme target for the overall amount of
and facilitating national reporting of waste e-waste to be recycled rose from 50 to 70
and resource recovery data.248 In 2018, an per cent between 2015 and 2022, and the
updated version of the policy was published aim is to reach 80 per cent by 2035.252 The
to guide the country towards a circular scheme covers national e-waste collection
economy by defining principles aligned locations in urban and remote areas. With
with strategies specific to waste recycling more than 697 permanent drop-off sites
and resource recovery.249 and one-off collection events, the Australian
population has convenient access to e-waste ymgerman / Shutterstock.com
The National Television and Computer drop-off services.253,254,255
Recycling Scheme is one of the most signi-
ficant producer responsibility schemes In terms of voluntary product stewardship, gories: network connectivity, smarthome by encouraging households to recycle old,
to be implemented in Australia under the EEE product schemes are industry-led and technology, and wearables and peripherals. non-functional devices and accessories.257
government Product Stewardship Act 2011, can operate autonomously or with Australian Members of the scheme include mobile Despite Australia’s advances in e-waste
which came into effect on 8 August 2011. Government accreditation. Accreditation handset manufacturers, network carriers, management, discussions with stakeholders
The related Product Stewardship (Tele- ensures that the scheme human well-being modem manufacturers, and accessory and state/territory governments have high-
visions and Computers) Regulations 2011 and environmental results have been vali- manufacturers and distributors. lighted several challenges. All states support
came into effect on 8 November 2011. This dated, contributing to Australia’s recycling the principle of banning e-waste from land-
scheme provides Australian households and waste reduction goals. Currently, there The Australian mobile recycling programme, fills nationwide. owever regions with remote
and small businesses with access to indus- are 2 government-accredited industry-led MobileMuster, operates 3 000 public drop-off communities, like the Northern Territory, are
try-funded collection and recycling services voluntary schemes: MobileMuster and points, ensuring convenient access for 96 concerned about the viability of landfill bans
for televisions and computers. The Australian B-cycle. MobileMuster, the industry recy- per cent of the country’s population within a until they have guaranteed access to the
overnment reports that to date over cling programme for mobile phones, obtained 10-kilometre radius. By 2022, it had succes- National Television and Computer Recycling
collection services have been made available accreditation in 2014. The programme aims sfully collected thousand kg of mobile Scheme.258
to consumers, resulting in over 130 million kg to divert mobile phone products from land- phones and components, achieving a 99.3
of television and computer waste collected fills and recycle them in a safe secure and per cent recycling recovery rate.256 Mobi-
and recycled. An estimated total of 122 million ethical manner. It is administered on behalf of leMuster has actively promoted recycling
kg of televisions and computers reached the mobile phone industry by the Australian through various campaigns since its launch,
end of life in Australia in 2014-2015, of which Mobile Telecommunications Association, including the nationwide campaign Go
around 43 million kg were recycled (35 per which expanded the stewardship programme for Zero 2023, which aims to stop broken
cent under this scheme. his a significant in July 2022 by adding 3 more product cate- mobile phones from being sent to landfills

To protect the environment and provide social, economic and cultural MICRONESIA (FEDERATED STATES OF), MELANESIA AND POLY-
benefits the ew ealand overnment introduced the Waste Minimi- NESIA
sation Act (2008), promoting waste minimization and a reduction in
disposal. Compared to Australia, New Zealand is still in the process Micronesia (Federated States of), Melanesia and Polynesia consist of
of developing a national scheme to deal with the e-waste issue. 22 countries and territories that face unique challenges owing to their
nconfirmed reports estimate that around million kg of e-waste geographical spread. Furthermore, the limited availability of suitable
are produced in New Zealand annually, with less than 1 per cent being land on small islands and atolls for constructing facilities, combined
sent for recycling and the remainder going into landfills. n the with the islands’ remoteness and relatively small populations, raises
Ministry of Environment contracted a private organization to develop issues of economies of scale for waste management. These challenges
a product stewardship framework for managing e-waste in New are compounded by changing weather patterns and rising sea levels.
Zealand. This organization undertook a comprehensive stakeholder Waste management overall in the acific is governed by the recently
engagement and consultation; it also collected and analysed e-waste adopted acific egional Waste ollution Management trategy -
data to develop recommendations for an e-waste stewardship option leaner acific which details the current situation and the
for New Zealand.259 It is understood that the New Zealand Government future strategy for managing all waste streams, including e-waste.263
is still considering these various options. It is also closely monitoring
the success of the Australian scheme. he entities in charge of e-waste management vary among acific
Island countries, with some managed by national governments (Cook
The Ministry for Environment recognizes that e-waste recycling is Islands, Samoa and Tonga), state governments (Micronesia) or local
currently limited. Many recycling activities involve processing e-waste governments (Fiji, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands), and some sharing the
into individual components, which are then shipped outside the country responsibility (Kiribati and the Marshall Islands). Moreover, socioeco-
for further processing and materials recovery. Manual processes make nomic factors across the subregion result in varying levels of e-waste
disassembly activities economically challenging owing to high labour management, with private recycling companies in charge of e-waste
costs, high disposal fees and high prices for disassembled e-waste management in countries such as Palau, while other countries have
components. While white goods and IT equipment are frequently underdeveloped recycling services.264
remanufactured or recycled for their valuable internal components,
disassembly processes by companies in New Zealand may not be
economically viable.260 New Zealand’s Waste Minimisation Fund, with
a budget of over USD 75 million, supports projects that facilitate the
country’s transition towards a low-emission and circular economy.261
In alignment with the New Zealand Waste Strategy 2023, the gover-
nment has acknowledged the importance of a mandatory product
stewardship scheme for EEE, including large batteries. With this goal
in mind, it aims to launch a regulated electrical and electronic product
stewardship plan by 2025.262
Audreycmk / Shutterstock.com

urrently a significant amount of e-waste is stockpiled on acific

islands and awaiting further handling. Efforts to deal with these stock-
piles are hamstrung by economic and logistical challenges, limited
access to disposal points and recycling markets, and the high cost of
transporting e-waste out of the region. o find a sustainable solution
for the management of e-waste and other hazardous waste streams,
a -year E -funded pro ect referred to as the acWaste acific
Hazardous Waste) project and managed by the Secretariat of the
acific egional Environment rogramme in amoa aims to collect
information on current e-waste management practices and stock-
piles in acific island countries in order to prioritize future actions
to assist other countries in the acific to manage e-waste. Additio-
nally the acific islands have received support from the E -funded
Implementing Sustainable Low and Non-chemical Development in
Small Island Developing States (ISLANDS) programme, which is helping
countries in the acific transition to a cleaner acific by . he
ISLANDS programme helps control the import of hazardous materials
and to dispose of hazardous wastes in an environmentally responsible
manner.265
The Samoa Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, with

support from PacWastePlus (a follow-up to the PacWaste project), has
deemed e-waste a priority waste stream. Currently, e-waste in Samoa
is improperly disposed of ending up in landfills or being burned or
unlawfully discarded, leading to environmental contamination and
health risks for residents. The Samoa PacWastePlus project aims
to establish the E-waste Product Stewardship Scheme to support
long-term e-waste management. It also aims to develop a dismantling
and storage facility for e-waste and its components, to be located
in Tafaigata. The scheme’s design is expected to be completed by
September 2023.266,267,268 In Niue, the accumulation of e- and other
waste is a challenge in the absence of proper storage facilities, training
and financing. n ecember an e-waste clean-up effort resulted
in the collection of 6 containers of e-waste. To address the lack of
infrastructure, the Niue Department of Environment, in partnership
with the PacWastePlus project, is constructing a new recycling transfer
facility to collect and manage e-waste and household recyclables.269,270

Global E-waste Statistics Partnership
has produced a series of national e-waste By understanding the volume, composition Box 6. Prime Minister Modi
monitors for Malawi, Namibia, Botswana, and trends of EEE POM and e-waste gene- Stresses Proper E-waste
Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Tanzania, Lebanon and ration, decision-makers can identify areas of Disposal in India
the Netherlands. It has strived to establish concern, allocate resources effectively and
Global E-waste the foundation for quantitative assessment prioritize interventions to address e-waste India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi
models and in so doing has helped identify management challenges. discussed e-waste during his monthly
Statistics critical e-waste challenges, uncover avenues Mann Ki Baat radio programme in
for improvement and promote collaboration E-waste data help set realistic and achie- January 2023. Emphasizing the need
Partnership among stakeholders on a national scale vable recycling targets. By analysing the to properly dispose of e-waste, he said
towards data harmonization. Regional e-waste amount of e-waste generated and current that “today’s latest devices are also
Initially formed in 2017, and today run by monitors have been developed for East and recycling rates, policy-makers can establish the future’s e-waste” and “devices like
UNITAR-SCYCLE and ITU, the Global E-waste South-east Asia (2016), Latin America (2022), appropriate goals for recycling and recovery. mobile phones, laptops and tablets have
Statistics Partnership has 3 key objectives: the Arab States (2021) and the Common- These targets can guide the development of become common in every household.
to collect global e-waste data using an inter- wealth of Independent States/Georgia (2021), recycling infrastructure, investment in tech- Their number will be in billions across
nationally adopted methodology; to enhance and an edition of Outlooks to 2050 for West nology and the implementation of collection the country. Whenever someone buys a
stakeholder understanding of the e-waste Asia (2023).272 and recycling programmes to meet recycling new device or replaces one’s old device,
challenge through data; and to improve objectives. it becomes necessary to keep in mind
statistics quality through capacity building. In 2022, ITU and UNITAR-SCYCLE collabo- whether it is discarded properly or not.
Its website (www.globalewaste.org) continues rated with the East Africa Communications E-waste data enable the identification of If e-waste is not discarded properly, it
to provide an open-source portal for the Authority to improve e-waste data in East gaps and bottlenecks in e-waste collection can also harm our environment.” Citing
e-waste data it compiles. The Global E-waste Africa (Rwanda, United Republic of Tanzania, systems. By analysing collection rates and the Global E-waste Monitor 2020, Modi
Monitor is now in its fourth edition, with Uganda, Burundi, Kenya and South Sudan). identifying regions or EEE with low collection added, “50 million tonnes of e-waste
previous editions published in 2020, 2017 and E-waste data and statistics play a crucial rates, decision-makers can develop targeted are thrown every year. Can you guess
and is the E agship publication.271 role in decision-making, target setting and strategies to improve collection mechanisms how much? Even if the weight of all the
It enhances understanding and interpre- improving e-waste collection rates. Accurate and raise awareness among consumers. This commercial planes that have been built
tation of global e-waste data in relation to and up-to-date e-waste data provide deci- can involve setting up convenient collection in the history of mankind is combined,
the Sustainable Development Goals, providing sion-makers with valuable insights into the points, establishing EPR schemes, promoting it will not equal the amount of e-waste
valuable insights for policy-makers, industries, scale and impact of e-waste, enabling them take-back programmes or incentivizing being released. It is like every second
academia, the media and the public. to develop informed policies and strategies. proper e-waste disposal (see Box 6). 800 laptops are being thrown away.”
In August 2021, Modi also announced a
The GESP has conducted national and regional Waste-to-Wealth mission focused on
workshops, training participants from more making better use of waste.
than 80 countries, and facilitated the adoption
of a harmonized measurement framework. Countries To hear part of the recording of the
Since 2020, 62 countries have participated Prime Minister’s statement, go to https://
that have
in e-waste statistics workshops, including ewasteindia.com/2023/01/31/mann-ki-
from the following regions: East Africa, Latin participated baat-e-waste-handling/.
America, Eastern Europe and the Arab in GESP
States. In addition, 4 countries have succes- workshops
sfully compiled national e-waste statistics.
As a result of these workshops, the GESP

About the Authors
About
the Authors
Dr. Cornelis P. Baldé Dr. Otmar Deubzer Dr. Deepali S. Khetriwal
enior cientific pecialist enior cientific pecialist International E-waste Expert
UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme &
Fraunhofer IZM Vittoria Luda di Cortemiglia
Professor Ruediger Kuehr Project Manager/Consultant,
Senior Manager SCYCLE Programme & Elena Fernandez-Cubillo UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme
Adjunct Professor, Department of Electronics Individual Contractor,
& Computer Engineering, UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme Yuliya Lobuntsova
University of Limerick (Ireland) Director of the Department of Waste
Vanessa Forti and Chemical Safety,
Tales Yamamoto Associate fficer CSD Center
Individual Contractor, UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme
UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme Professor Innocent Nnorom
Vanessa Gray Professor,
Dr. Rosie McDonald Head, Environment and Abia State University
limate hange fficer Emergency Telecommunications
ITU Division, BDT, ITU Noémie Pralat
E-waste Policy Support,
Elena D’Angelo Professor Sunil Herat ITU
Individual Contractor, Professor,
UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme riffith niversity Michelle Wagner
Technical Project Coordinator,
Dr. Shahana Althaf Dr. Shunichi Honda WEEE Forum
Sustainability Scientist, rogramme Management fficer
Aligned Incentives International Environmental Technology
Centre (IETC), UNEP
Garam Bel
Circular Economy Coordinator, Giulia Iattoni
ITU Assistant rogramme fficer
UNITAR, SCYCLE Programme

Annex 1. Methodology Details
Annex 1.
Methodology Details
Table A.1.1 UNU-KEYS and link to 6 e-waste categories
UNU DESCRIPTION EU- EU- UNU DESCRIPTION EU- EU-

KEY 6 6PV KEY 6 6PV
0001 Central Heating (household installed) 4 4a 0202 Equipment for Food Preparation (e.g. toaster, grills, food processing, 5 5
frying pans)
0002 Photovoltaic Panels (incl. inverters) 4 4b
0203 Small Household Equipment for Hot Water Preparation (e.g., coffee, tea, 5 5
0101 Professional Heating & Ventilation (excl. cooling equipment) 4 4a water cookers)
0102 Dishwashers 4 4a 0204 Vacuum Cleaners (excl. professional) 5 5
0103 Kitchen Equipment (e.g., large furnaces, ovens, cooking equipment) 4 4a 0205 Personal Care Equipment (e.g. tooth brushes, hair dryers, razors) 5 5
0104 Washing Machines (incl. combined dryers) 4 4a 0301 Small IT Equipment (e.g., routers, mice, keyboards, external drives & 6 6
accessories)
0105 Dryers (wash dryers, centrifuges) 4 4a
0302 Desktop PCs (excl. monitors, accessories) 6 6
0106 Household Heating & Ventilation (e.g., hoods, ventilators, space heaters) 4 4a
0303 Laptops (incl. tablets) 2 2
0108 Fridges (incl. combi-fridges) 1 1
0304 Printers (e.g., scanners, multi functionals, faxes) 6 6
0109 Freezers 1 1
0305 Telecommunication Equipment (e.g. (cordless) phones, answering 6 6
0111 Air Conditioners (household installed and portable) 1 1 machines)
0112 Other Cooling Equipment (e.g., dehumidifiers, heat pump dryers) 1 1 0306 Mobile Phones (incl. smartphones, pagers) 6 6
0113 Professional Cooling Equipment (e.g., large air conditioners, cooling 1 1 0307 Professional IT Equipment (e.g., servers, routers, data storage, copiers) 4 4a
displays)
0308 Cathode Ray Tube Monitors 2 2
0114 Microwaves (incl. combined, excl. grills) 5 5
0309 Flat Display Panel Monitors (LCD, LED) 2 2
0201 Other Small Household Equipment (e.g., small ventilators, irons, clocks, 5 5
adapters) 0401 Small Consumer Electronics (e.g., headphones, remote controls) 5 5
0402 Portable Audio & Video (e.g., MP3, e-readers, car navigation) 5 5

UNU DESCRIPTION EU- EU- UNU DESCRIPTION EU- EU-

KEY 6 6PV KEY 6 6PV
0403 Music Instruments, Radio, Hi-Fi (incl. audio sets) 5 5 0703 Leisure Equipment (e.g., sports equipment, electric bikes, juke boxes) 4 4a
0404 Video (e.g., Video recorders, DVD, Blue Ray, set-top boxes) and 5 5 0801 Household Medical Equipment (e.g. thermometers, blood pressure 5 5
projectors meters)
0405 Speakers 5 5 0802 Professional Medical Equipment (e.g., hospital, dentist, diagnostics) 4 4a
0406 Cameras (e.g., camcorders, photo & digital still cameras) 5 5 0901 Household Monitoring & Control Equipment (alarm, heat, smoke, excl. 5 5
screens)
0407 Cathode Ray Tube TVs 2 2
0902 Professional Monitoring & Control Equipment (e.g., laboratory, control 4 4a
0408 Flat Display Panel TVs (LCD, LED, Plasma) 2 2 panels)
0501 Small Lighting Equipment (excl. LED & incandescent) 3 3 1001 Non-cooled Dispensers (e.g., for vending, hot drinks, tickets, money) 4 4a
0502 Compact Fluorescent Lamps (incl. retrofit & non-retrofit) 3 3 1002 Cooled Dispensers (e.g., for vending, cold drinks) 1 1
0503 Straight Tube Fluorescent Lamps 3 3

Table A.1.2 6 e-waste categories
0504 Special Lamps (e.g., professional mercury, high & low pressure sodium) 3 3
0505 LED Lamps (incl. retrofit LED lamps) 3 3 FULL NAME
0506 Household Luminaires (incl. Household Incandescent Fittings & 5 5 1 Temperature Exchange Equipment
Household LED Luminaires)
2 Screens, Monitors, and Equipment Containing Screens
0507 Professional Luminaires (offices, public space, industry) 5 5
3 Lamps
0601 Household Tools (e.g., drills, saws, high pressure cleaners, lawn mowers) 5 5 4a Large Equipment (excluding photovoltaic panels)
0602 Professional Tools (e.g., for welding, soldering, milling) 4 4a 4b Photovoltaic Panels (including converters)
0701 Toys (e.g., car racing sets, electric trains, music toys, biking computers, 5 5 5 Small Equipment
drones)
6 Small IT and Telecommunication Equipment
0702 Game Consoles 6 6

Table A.1.3 Indicator framework used in the Global E-waste Monitor 2024
THEME INDICATOR INTERPRETATION
EEE Placed on Market 1. Total EEE Placed on the Market (POM) This represents the size of the national EEE goods market, or consumption by households, economic
(measured in unit kg per capita or tonnage). units.
E-waste generation 2. Total e-waste generated (measured in unit This indicator is defined as the amount of discarded electrical and electronic products (e-waste) resulting
kg per capita or tonnage). from consumption within a national territory during a given reporting year, prior to any collection, reuse,
treatment, or export. This represents the amount of e-waste generated nationally.
E-waste management 3a. E-waste formally collected and managed This represents the amount of e-waste documented to be separately collected and managed through
(measured in unit kg per capita or tonnage). formal waste management systems.
3b. E-waste disposed of in residual waste This represents the amount of e-waste disposed of with the mixed residual waste.
(measured in unit kg per capita or tonnage).
3c. E-waste collected and managed by This represents the amount of e-waste that is collected and recycled outside the compliant system.
companies outside of formal systems It may be mixed metal scrap and shredded. It typically has lower environmental health and safety
(measured in unit kg per capita or tonnage). standards as it does not undergo depollution steps, and hence is not compliant with specific e-waste
legislation.
3d. E-waste collected and managed by This represents the amount of e-waste that is managed by the informal sector, focusing on valuable
informal recyclers (measured in unit kg per parts and does not undergo depollution steps.
capita or tonnage).
4. E-waste collection rate (measured as unit This indicator assesses the performance of the formal collection systems. It is calculated as follow: total
per cent).* e-waste formally collected x 100 per cent / total e-waste generated.
Transboundary 5. Total imports and exports of e-waste, This represents the amount of e-waste that is imported or exported into a country.
movements disaggregated into controlled (5a) and not
controlled (5b) (measured in unit kg per
capita or tonnage).
Environmental 6. Greenhouse gas emissions (unit: billion kg The direct emissions are calculated from improper management of refrigerants due to activities of indi-
impact of CO2-eq). cator 3b to 3d.
7. Greenhouse gas emissions avoided. This covers the direct and indirect emissions avoided thanks to e-waste management. The avoided direct
emissions are calculated assuming that the gasses in the refrigerants are not released when cooling and
freezing equipment are compliantly managed (indicator 3a). The indirect avoided emissions are calculated
from saved emissions due to less mining or primary raw materials assuming that recovered secondary raw
materials from e-waste can be used for the production of new EEE.
8. Release of hazardous substances These are the modelled direct releases of the substances into the environment if they are not treated
disaggregated into mercury (8a), lead (8b) under environmentally sound conditions in activities under indicator 3b to 3d.
and Plastics containing brominated flame
retardants (8c).
9. Ore excavation avoided (unit: billion kg). The amount of ore not excavated is calculated from the amount of viable resources recovered from
e-waste and therefore not mined as primary raw materials.

THEME INDICATOR INTERPRETATION
Resources in e-waste 10. Total metals in e-waste. This is disag- This is calculated by tracing individual metals in the e-waste types. For each e-waste category, the
gregated into viable recovery (10a) and recycling effectiveness for 3 components (printed circuit boards, cables and the rest) and per e-waste
non-viable recovery (10b). management route (3a to 3d) was determined from the literature, stakeholder interviews and expert
judgement.
Innovations for 11. Share of patent applications on e-waste Technological development and innovation are not only adding to the constantly growing mountain
e-waste treatment recycling, disaggregated into several of e-waste, they are also essential for improving recycling rates and the overall efficiency of e-waste
technology keywords. management, particularly in the context of recycling technologies. Patent data serves as a valuable
indicator of inventiveness, where e-waste patents reflect the capacity of innovators to foresee new tech-
nological and economic opportunities in the e-waste management domain.
Economic impact 12. Total value of metals in e-waste. Disag- The quantities from indicator 10 are calculated with using the commodity prices of the individual metals.
gregated into viable recovered metals (12a)
and non-viable (12b) (unit: USD).
13. Value of greenhouse gas emissions This is the monetized value of long-term benefits of the greenhouse gas emissions avoided from
avoided (unit: USD). indicator 7.
14. Treatment costs of e-waste management. These are the costs involved to manage e-waste.
Disaggregated into environmentally sound
(compliant) treatment costs (14a), treatment
of e-waste in residual waste (14b), treatment
costs of e-waste mixed with metal waste
(14c), and treatment costs of informal sector
(14d) (unit: USD).
15. Externalized costs to society (unit: USD). Emissions to the environment lead to costs elsewhere in society and are not included in the usual pricing
mechanisms. These hidden costs are called ‘externalized costs’, and are estimated based on the environ-
mental and health damage due to emissions of mercury, lead, plastics and greenhouse gases in indicators
6 and 8, mostly stemming from activities in indicators 3b to 3d.
Net economic impact (unit: USD). This is calculated by adding the value of viable recovery (12b) of greenhouse gas emissions avoided (13)
and then subtracting treatment costs (14) and externalized costs (15).
Legislation Number of countries having legislation Legislation and regulations on e-waste are crucial in stimulating environmentally sound e-waste
management and the construction of e-waste management infrastructure.
* The indicator for SDG target 12.5.1 (national recycling rate and tonnes of material recycled) is defined as total e-waste recycled/total e-waste generated. The “total e-waste recycled” is equivalent to the
formal collection of e-waste documented using the method and datasets of the Global E-waste Monitor. To report on the indicator, the custodian agencies UNEP and the United Nations Statistics Division use
the datasets and methodologies developed by SCYCLE, the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership and the UN Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. The relevant data sources may be found in Annex 1.

Calculation of EEE POM and E-waste ness-as-usual scenario.274 This procedure the amount of panels placed on the market. Step 8
Generated was repeated for each year, as each coun- This is estimated as the annual change in The POM time series was extended. Past POM
try’s PPP changes over the years, especially in installed capacity in the year. The source used were calculated back to 1980 based on trends
The amount of e-waste generated is calcu- low-xin countries. This process was useful to to calculate the historical annual installed in the available data and the appliance date
lated using both empirical data from the make statistics comparable between coun- capacity of photovoltaic panels and its future of market entry. Future POM were predicted
apparent consumption method for calcu- tries and to calculate trends between groups. projection was data from the International to 2030 using sophisticated extrapolation
lating EEE POM and a sales-lifespan model. In Renewable Energy Agency.276 By applying methods. The principle considers the ratio
this model, lifespan data for each product are • Group 1: highest PPP (higher than USD annual conversion factors (kg photovoltaic between the POM and PPP per county and
subjected to the EEE POM (using a Weibull per capita in panels/megawatts installed) obtained from uses that ratio to estimate POM with the
function) to calculate the amount of e-waste • roup high - the PV Cycle Association277, it was possible to forecast PPP from the Shared Socioeconomic
generated. The data in this report were per capita in 2017) estimate the annual amount of panels placed Pathways database.278
obtained and processed as set out below. • roup medium - on the market expressed in kilograms.
per capita in Step 9
Step 1 • roup low - per Step 6 The amount of e-waste generated by country
The relevant codes describing EEE in the capita in 2017) The POM data were automatically corrected was determined using the POM and lifetime
Harmonized Commodity Description and • roup lowest less than for outliers, in order to detect values that distributions. Lifetime data were obtained
Coding System (HS) were selected. per capita in 2017) were too low (due to the lack of domestic from the 28 EU Member States using the
production data in some countries where Weibull distribution. Ideally, the lifetime of
Step 2 Step 3 domestic production is relatively large) or each product is determined empirically per
For the European Union, the international The units were converted to weight using the too high (due to misreporting of codes or product and per type. At this stage, only
trade statistical data were extracted from average weight data per appliance type. The units). The entries detected were replaced harmonized European residence times of
Eurostat as 8-digit combined nomen- average weights are published in the E-waste with more realistic sales values either from EEE were available from extensive studies
clature codes. Domestic production data Statistics Guidelines.275 the time series of the origin country or from performed for the European Union; they
were also extracted from Eurostat, in the comparable countries. These statistical were found to be quite homogeneous across
M classification. or the other coun- Step 4 routines resulted in a harmonized dataset Europe, leading to a 10 per cent deviation in
tries, statistical data on imports and exports The POM weight was calculated for the with a similar scope and consistent sales for final outcomes.279 Due to the absence of data,
were extracted from the United Nations 54 UNU-KEYS by using the apparent a country based on its own trade statistics. it was assumed that the higher residence
Commodity Trade Statistics database. This consumption approach: POM = Domestic times per product in the European Union
was done for 193 countries and approximately Production + Import - Export (this equation Step 7 were approximately applicable for non-EU
220 8-digit HS codes for the years 1995- applies to the 28 EU Member States). When Manual corrections were performed based on countries as well. In some cases, this would
2022. For countries other than the 27 EU data on domestic production were not the analysis of the automatic corrections, in lead to an overestimate, as a product could
Member States, data on domestic production available, the following approach was used: order to correct unreliable data using know- last longer in low-income countries than in
were retrieved from the Eurostat PRODCOM POM = Import - Export. Undercounting as a ledge of the market. For instance, cathode-ray high-income countries because residents of
database in CPC1.1(39)273, while for China result of no domestic production data was tube televisions have not been sold in recent low-income countries are more likely to repair
and Viet Nam, data on domestic production subsequently corrected for in the outlier years. n addition official M country data products. However, it can also lead to an
were retrieved from national registries. For detection steps in step 6. following the same methodology provided underestimate, as the quality of products is
some countries, no data on production were by Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Bosnia and often lower in low-income countries because
available, and this was corrected for in the Step 5 Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, reused equipment or more cheaply produced
outlier detection routines. Data are given as The numbers presented in this report for Guatemala, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, versions that do not last as long might enter
the number of units. Countries were then UNU-KEY 0002 (photovoltaic panels) use the Moldova and Uruguay were inserted in the the domestic market. In general, however, it is
classified into groups according to the annual installed capacity of panels expressed datasets. assumed that this process leads to relatively
purchasing power parity (PPP) for the busi- in megawatts as a basis for the calculation of accurate estimates. It should be noted that

POM are much more sensitive for the amount The unavailable data were extrapolated using or close to zero e-waste documented as The e-waste types are:
of e-waste generated than lifespans. the e-waste collection rates of the closest formally collected and recycled. The e-waste 1. temperature exchange equipment;
available years and multiplying them by the managed by low- and lower-middle-income 2. screens and monitors;
Vapes (e-cigarettes) e-waste generated during the extrapolated countries was allocated here. 3. lamps;
Waste from e-cigarettes was calculated year. The calculations were made for coun- 4. large equipment, excluding photovoltaic
separately in this edition due to recent tries for which there was at least one data Population covered by national policies panels;
interest. The 2022 POM were calculated by point available. and legislation 5. photovoltaic panels;
analysing world trade statistics for the HS The development of national e-waste policies 6. small equipment;
code 854340 (electronic cigarettes and Used EEE and e-waste and legislation was evaluated in this report to 7. small IT and telecommunication
similar personal electric vaporizing devices). imported or exported assess whether a country had such policies equipment.
Trade data from China were taken as a refe- The quantities of uncontrolled e-waste and/or legislation in effect through 2023.
rence because evidence was found that imports and exports were taken from the esti- Population data were obtained from the The components were printed circuit boards,
80 per cent of all disposable vapes are mates contained in the Global Transboundary United Nations Department of Economic and cables and others.
produced in China.280 The data were vali- Flows E-waste Monitor 2022285,which can be Social Affairs Population Division.
dated by comparing the results with those consulted for more information. The assessment involved evaluating the lite-
of other estimation methods reviewed. This Quantification of raw materials found in rature for each combination to determine
include a comparison with estimates of the E-waste in residual waste and e-waste e-waste dismantling rates per component, recovery
global number of vapers (82 million in 2021)281 collected outside formal systems in coun- The amount of raw materials found in e-waste efficiency per element and recovery effi-
in combination with the average number tries with developed recycling outside a was calculated by linking the composition ciency per e-waste category (temperature
of single-use vapes consumed in a year.282 compliant system data from ProSUM to the estimated amount of exchange equipment, screens and monitors,
The results were also validated by calcu- The data on e-waste disposed of in residual e-waste generated.287 The following elements lamps, large equipment excluding photo-
lating the amount of lithium present in each waste and on collection and recycling outside were considered: aluminium, copper, lead, voltaic panels, photovoltaic panels, small
vape (0.15g)283 and comparing that to global the compliant system in the European Union tin, nickel, zinc, gold, platinum, silver, bismuth, equipment and small IT equipment). A variety
statistics on lithium consumption for the were collected from 2 studies conducted in cobalt, iron, germanium, indium, iridium, of data sources were used288, alongside
production of vapes worldwide (90 kg).284 Europe.286 For the remaining countries, the data osmium, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium and internal datasets from UNITAR, particularly
were estimated based on the gap between antimony. The viable and non-viable recovery from recyclability studies. Where there were
E-waste documented as formally e-waste generated, on the one hand, and of secondary raw materials was calculated no data, expert judgment from the authors
collected and recycled e-waste documented as formally collected using a model where recovery as secondary was used.
For the European Union, total e-waste formally and recycled in the country and e-waste raw materials was assessed by considering
collected and recycled was extracted from exported, on the other. For high-income and e-waste management, type of e-waste and
the Eurostat database. For other countries, it upper-middle-income countries, the gap was the components in the e-waste. A detailed
was collected from questionnaires produced allocated half to e-waste collected outside matrix was established for the following
by SCYCLE, the OECD and the United Nations formal systems in countries with developed quantities:
Statistics Division, or downloaded from e-waste management infrastructure. This 1. documented as formally collected and
the websites of national institutes dealing is comparable to the shares found in the recycled;
with e-waste. If no data were available, European Union. 2. e-waste in residual waste;
searches were conducted in peer-reviewed 3. e-waste collected outside formal
academic literature and in grey literature. E-waste managed outside formal systems collection systems in countries with
The longest possible time series was down- in countries with no developed waste developed waste management systems;
loaded and split into the e-waste categories management infrastructure 4. e-waste collected outside formal
where possible. This was the basis for the Most of the countries with no developed collection systems in countries with no Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
construction of time series for 2010 to 2022. e-waste management infrastructure had zero developed waste management systems.

Table A.1.4 Use of rare earth elements table Greenhouse gas emissions arising from
e-waste management
SOURCE KEY EEE RARE EARTH SOURCE The greenhouse gas emissions arising from
COMPONENT ELEMENTS e-waste management were assessed by
measuring the direct emissions of refri-
Fluorescent powders Fluorescent lamps Europium, terbium, CEWASTE projecta
yttrium, cerium, lant-
gerants that contribute to global warming
hanum and potential avoided emissions from
secondary raw material recovery. The scope
Cathode-ray tube Yttrium, terbium, CEWASTE projecta
of this research is to estimate the amount
monitors and TVs europium, gadolinium,
lanthanum, cerium of CO2 equivalents that could potentially be
released into the atmosphere if cooling and
Neodymium magnets Speakers (e.g. in Neodymium, praseo- CEWASTE project, freezing equipment (and thus the refrigerants
mobile phones); hard dymium, dysprosium, Bobba et al., 2020.b
disc drives in laptops, gadolinium, terbium
it contains) was not recycled and treated in
desktop computers, an environmentally sound way and if all used
professional IT (data materials were primary materials instead of
centres); electrical partly secondary ones.
motors in drones
Displays, LEDs, lasers, Other electrical and Neodymium, Bobba et al., 2020.b The literature was reviewed to assess the
printed circuit board electronic equipment dysprosium amount and type of refrigerants used in
and components
cooling and freezing equipment. Relevant
thereof
information was found for refrigerators
Alloys and non-struc- 3D-printers Neodymium, scandium Bobba et al., 2020.b and air conditioners.293 Subsequently, the
tural parts amount of refrigerants was linked to the esti-
a
Council of Europe. 2007. Management of municipal solid waste in Europe. Document 1173, 5 February; mated amount of waste refrigerators and
b
Bobba et al. 2020, note 303. For information on the CEWASTE project, see https://cewaste.eu/about-the-project/. air conditioners generated by each of the
193 countries analysed, by year. Lastly, the
Additional data on the use of rare earth studies.291 Emissions of plastics containing global warming potential was researched
elements were obtained from the CEWASTE brominated ame retardants and mercury for each type of refrigerant and linked to
project and a 2020 study.289 This is summa- were assessed in the light of the quantities the amount of refrigerants found in refrige-
rized in Table A1.4. managed outside the documented formal rators and air conditioners. In refrigerators,
compliant management system. the refrigerants R-11 and R-12 were used until
Plastics containing brominated flame 1994; they were then substituted with R-134a
retardants and mercury in e-waste Rock excavations during mining and R-22 until 2017. Since 2017, only R-152a
The literature was searched for composition The amount of rock waste from excavations and R1234yf have been used. In air conditi-
data relating to brominated ame retardant was calculated using the rock-to-metal ratio oners, R-410a, R-134a and R-22 were used
plastics.290 Similarly to the raw materials found from the 2022 UG Geological Survey292 for the until 2017, and R-32 and R-1234yf have been
in e-waste, composition data on brominated potential recovery quantities of aluminium, used since. The potential avoided emissions
ame retardants were linked to the estimated copper, lead, tin, nickel, zinc, gold, platinum, from secondary raw materials were calcu-
amount of e-waste generated. The amount silver, cobalt, iron, iridium, palladium, rhodium lated using the net greenhouse gas emissions
of mercury in e-waste was calculated using and ruthenium and. For bismuth, germanium, between primary and secondary raw material
internal UNITAR datasets on the amount of indium, osmium, and antimony an averaged production. Various sources were utilized to Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac
mercury per UNU-KEY and from a variety of “rock to metal ratio” was used. derive the net greenhouse gas emissions.294

The calculations were performed for iron, The compliant system was assessed using in countries with no developed waste
aluminium, copper, zinc, lead, nickel, silver, the revenues derived from extracted management infrastructure (USD 12 billion),
platinum, rhodium, palladium and gold. secondary resources, the costs for depol- and the costs obtained were divided by an
lution of e-waste and the externalized average of 3.65, leading to roughly USD 270
E-waste patents (hidden) economic damages to human health per thousand kg. Collection was included in
Patents on e-waste recycling are patents and the environment of unmanaged mercury, the costs, but not included in compliantly
for technology concerning management of lead, plastic waste/greenhouse gases. managed e-waste, as this varied widely by
e-waste found in Cooperative Patent Clas- country and was usually paid through muni-
sification W . atents in these The treatment costs were taken from the cipal collection costs, costs for retailers, etc.
technology areas were selected based on the UNU-European Energy Research Alliance
international patent classification code. ata study on treatment costs, supplemented The externalized average long term
were downloaded from the PATSTAT database with internal UNITAR datasets per type of socio-economic cost of unmanaged mercury,
of the World Intellectual Property Organi- waste.303 The average amount for compliant lead, plastics and CO2 emissions was taken
zation and from Espacenet, which have global treatment of 1 thousand kg of e-waste was from several publications.305,306,307,308,309,310,311
coverage.295 USD 372. The treatment costs for disposal The values used in this publication are USD
in mixed residual waste were not readily 712 thousand per kg of mercury, USD 20 per
Economic assessment available and could be found in only one kg of lead, USD 8.5 per kg plastics in small
The overall economic assessment of global study, where it was EUR 67 per thousand kg equipment, and USD 250 USD per tonne of
e-waste management was estimated by in in European countries for landfilling. CO2 equivalent emissions.
assessing the viable recovery of metals, the After correcting for in ation this amounted
monetized value of greenhouse gas emis- to around EUR 100 per thousand kg in 2022. E-waste outlook to 2030
sions and avoided greenhouse gas emissions, A European Commission document on muni- In the business-as-usual scenario, docu-
and externalized costs, plus the costs of cipal solid waste management also indicated mented formal e-waste collection and
e-waste management systems with a recent around EUR 100 per thousand kg. This was recycling follows the same trend as the
developed methodology.296 Projections were converted to USD using the average EUR/USD 2010 to 2022 time series. For the 3 other
made using a per cent yearly in ation rate exchange rate in 2022. The costs for mixing scenarios, documented formal e-waste recy-
and all data found in euros were converted waste with scrap metal were taken from the cling and collection is set according to a
into US dollars using the exchange rates of UNU- European Energy Research Alliance matrix depending on whether the country has
that year. study on metal rich bulky e-waste without legislation and e-waste management infra-
deducting depollution and compliance costs structure, and whether it manages imports
The value of viable recovery was assessed and amounted to EUR 38 per thousand kg in for reuse. These parameters increase with the
per type of metal for aluminium, copper, lead, 2017. level of ambition. The data are summarized in
tin, nickel, zinc, gold, platinum, silver, bismuth, Table A1.5. The e-waste managed outside the
cobalt, iron, germanium, indium, iridium, The informal sector was assessed using a formal collection and recycling systems was
osmium, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium and study conducted in 2021 in Pakistan304, which allocated using the same methodology as for
antimony by multiplying the quantities under found that the costs were between twice the 2022 data.
viable recovery by the metal prices. These and almost 5 times as high as the economic
metal prices were sourced from either the benefits. he economic benefits were
World Bank commodity price database297 or assessed in the light of the viable recovery
multiple online sources.298,299,300,301,302 of e-waste managed outside formal systems

Table A.1.5 Overview on Grouping and Calculation Parameters of 2030 Outlook on Legislation Methodology only national legally and non-legally binding
E-waste Management instruments. The subsequent analysis stage
This part provides a comprehensive overview involves a systematic review of each record in
GROUP STATUS OF DOCUMENTED INCOME DOCUMENTED of the methodology used to calculate the the dataset, following the stepwise approach
LEGISLATION COLLECTION LEVEL COLLECTION SHARE OF USED headline indicator for tracking global progress described below.
AND AND EEE IMPORTS on e-waste policy, legislation and regulation.
RECYCLING RECYCLING THAT ARE
RATE IN RATE IN LATEST MANAGED (IN It aims to provide a stepwise approach Step 1
LATEST YEAR YEAR (IN %) %) for making the process as transparent as The geographical scope of the measure
possible while establishing an indicator that recorded was checked in the “Territory
1a No legislation < 10% Low- and 10 20 40 0 25 50 respects the criteria previously explained. It is Covered” column. Only those implemented
lower-
middle
important to note that the methodology has at the national level were included in the next
been improved for this version following some step; those at state or provincial level were
1b No legislation < 10% Upper- 10 20 40 0 25 50 discrepancies found in the Global E-waste excluded. For the United States of America
middle Monitor 2020 regarding the coverage of and Canada, a state/provincial analysis was
and high
countries with an e-waste policy, legislation done.
2a Draft and in < 10% Low- and 15 25 50 0 25 50 or regulation. There is therefore a break in
force lower- data comparability. Thus, despite a continued Step 2
middle upward trend, represented by an increase in The “Status” of the measure in the record was
the headline indicator from 81 to 80 between analysed. Only records with the indication “In
2b Draft and in < 10% Upper- 15 25 50 0 25 50
force middle the 2020 edition and this one, there are diffe- force” were included in the next steps; those
and high rences in the results per country displayed in marked “Archived” were excluded. Records
their entirety in Annex 2. marked “Proposed” were not immediately
3 Draft and in 10% < x < 20% All 30 50 60 0 25 50
excluded but instead considered for the
force
The information was collected, analysed and Review and Validation stage (see next para-
4 Draft and in 20% < x < 30% All 50 65 75 0 25 50 reviewed as described below.i graph).
force
First, the data were collected from the Step 3
5 Draft and in 30% < x < 40% All 65 75 85 0 25 50
force Compliance to Product (C2P)312 dataset, The record was analysed to determine the
which is a global compliance knowledge type of measure. f the measure ualified as
6 Draft and in > 40% All 85 85 85 0 25 50 management system for regulations, stan- a policy, regulation or law related to e-waste,
force
dards and management relating to various WEEE or specific categories or products
areas, including e-waste. The C2P dataset within the definition of e-waste then it was
PROGRESSIVE
AMBITIOUS
ASPIRATIONAL
PROGRESSIVE
AMBITIOUS
ASPIRATIONAL
includes detailed information on legislative considered for the Review and Validation
measures (policies, regulations, legislation, stage. Other measures, including recycling
guidelines, standards) at national and state/ standards certification programmes and
provincial level and on items such as status, technical guidelines, were excluded, as were
dates and web reference. It currently has 645 those that did not cover e-waste.
records for e-waste policy, legislation and
regulation, with each record describing the Step 4
territory in which the instruments are in force. After the C2P dataset had been analysed, the
The C2P registry does not include guidelines intermediate outcomes were further validated
and standards for e-waste recyclers, however, based on the information collected from other
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 i

For more information, see ITU and UNITAR, Consultation on the Methodology for Measuring the Global Progress of E-waste Legislation. 114
data sources, such as the outcomes of ques- Step 6 • Strategy: Often a high-level and not e-waste management policy is often
tionnaires received from the United Nations The records were compared against other ad legally binding document, the strategy a plan or course of action set out by a
Statistics Division313, the OECD314 and ITU hoc sources and the review of existing lite- is designed to inform stakeholders how government at, for instance, the municipal,
(through its annual World Telecommunication/ rature and previous studies. These sources the country will reach its objectives for provincial or national level.
ICT Regulatory Survey).315 The goal was twofold: include country workshops conducted by the the e-waste management system and
to validate or correct the outcomes of the SCYCLE team as part of capacity-building achieve its vision. A national e-waste • Legislation: Legislation often sets out the
analysis of the C2P dataset, given the potential initiatives under the Global E-waste Statistics management strategy often spells out the overarching principles for a particular
lack of clarity arising from the translation of Partnership. They also include information priority areas for e-waste management as topic; in the case at hand, the overarching
the title of the recorded measures. The record drawn from ITU’s technical assistance for a whole but can equally be developed to legislation usually covers the environment
was validated against the national responses national e-waste policy and regulatory deve- explore a particular approach for specific at large and often contains provisions
received to the OECD questionnaire and the lopment, which is provided directly to national sectors within the electronics value chain. on waste in general. From these, regula-
ITU Regulatory Survey. governments. As it is a high-level document, a strategy tions can be developed to help with the
is also well suited for use in the context enforcement of specific aspects. ational
The OECD questionnaire was co-developed by Step 7 of a regional approach, where there may legislation may authorize a particular
the SCYCLE team as part of the international Once each record had been carefully be more uncertainty about the future of ministry to develop regulations for legis-
initiative to document e-waste-related infor- reviewed against these three sets of supple- e-waste management. lation enforcement by regulators.
mation and sent by the OECD to its member mentary information the final decision was
countries. t contains a specific uestion on made on whether to include it to calculate the • Policy: Often a statement of intent by the • Regulation: Often national legislation
existing national e-waste legislation, its content indicator. If validated, the record was included government to tackle a particular issue, in empowers a particular ministry to develop
and scope, and the custodian entity. These in the calculation of the indicator; otherwise it this case e-waste management, a policy regulation, which may govern the enfor-
details were compared with the outcome of was excluded. is not legally binding. Policy documents cement of e-waste management in
the analysis for each OECD country. At the normally contain specific policy ob ec- a particular way, unlike a strategy or
same time, the ITU Regulatory Survey was The outcome of the data-collection, analysis, tives, strategies and an action plan for policy developed to explore a change in
used to compare with the outcome of the review and validation process is the conso- attaining them, and in some cases preli- direction, vision or strategy of the existing
analysis. The survey covers a wide range of lidated database, in which the data for each minary definitions and targets. A national legal framework.
ICT policy and regulatory issues and serves country are stored.
to track the latest ICT trends and evolutions,
including some key aspects of the regu- he definitions set out316 were used when
latory environment of e-waste management. analysing the datasets. ypically a financial
t includes a specific uestion on existing mechanism would cover anything from waste
national e-waste legislation. collection, separation and transfer, treatment,
recycling and final disposal to monitoring and
Step 5 control, public information and awareness,
The previous step validates the records only and the delivery of training programmes.317
for OECD countries. For the rest, the records And, typically, the producers (manufacturers,
were reviewed and validated based on the distributors, importers, resellers) of EEE, either
responses received to a questionnaire sent individually or collectively, through some form
out by the United Nations Statistics Division of organizational structure, would cover the
that is similar to the OECD questionnaire and costs of these activities.
the environmental part of the ITU survey, and
was developed for documenting e-waste-re-
lated information for non-OECD countries.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac 115
Annex 2. Datasets
Annex 2.
Datasets
Table A2.1. Average number of items in stock (households, businesses and public sector) disaggregated by
income group and e-waste category and normalized per capita (2022)
Income level > HIGH- UPPER- LOWER- LOW-

INCOME MIDDLE-INCOME MIDDLE-INCOME INCOME
Total 145 56 41 19
Total excl. lamps 109 30 17 4
Total excl. lamps and small

12.1 3.3 1.4 0.4
equipment
Temperature exchange
1.4 0.7 0.3 0.1
equipment
Screens and monitors 3.5 0.9 0.4 0.1
Lamps 36.2 26.4 23.3 14.3
Large equipment 3.7 1.3 0.3 3.9
Small equipment 97.1 26.6 15.8 3.9
Small IT and telecommunication

3.5 0.5 0.3 0.1
equipment

Annex 2. Datasets
Table A2.2. Regional e-waste key statistics
REGION SUB REGION NUMBER OF INHABITANTS E-WASTE GENERATED E-WASTE DOCUMENTED AS FORMALLY COLLECTED
COUNTRIES AND RECYCLED
IN REGION
MILLIONS MILLIONS KG PER CAPITA KG PER CAPITA MILLION KG MILLION KG MILLION KG MILLION KG COLLECTION COLLECTION
IN 2010 IN 2022 IN 2010 IN 2022 IN 2010 IN 2022 IN 2020 IN 2022 RATE 2010 (%) RATE 2022 (%)
ALL 54 1,040 1,408 1.6 2.5 1,640 3,551 1.9 25 0.1 0.7
Eastern Africa 18 337 466 0.5 0.9 154 431 1.9 2.4 1.2 0.5
Central Africa 9 131 193 1 1.6 131 307 0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Africa
Northern Africa 6 205 257 3.7 5.8 763 1,484 0 0 0.0 0.0
Southern Africa 5 59 68 5.4 8.5 317 578 0 23 0.0 4.0
Western Africa 16 308 424 0.9 1.8 275 752 0 0 0.0 0.0
ALL 36 918 1,021 9.9 14.1 9,068 14,427 3,149 4,328 34.7 30.0
Caribbean 14 29 32 5.1 7.6 148 241 0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Americas Central America 8 155 178 6.1 10.2 940 1,811 31 60.3 3.3 3.3
Northern America 2 344 376 16.6 21.2 5,695 7,963 3,118 4,151 54.8 52.1
South America 12 391 435 5.8 10.1 2,285 4,413 0 117.1 0.0 2.7
ALL 49 4,168 4,677 3.2 6.4 13,259 30,147 1,030 3,568 7.8 11.8
Central Asia 5 63 77 2.5 5.2 161 396 0 12.8 0.0 3.2
Eastern Asia 7 1,554 1,638 4.9 9.9 7,672 16,292 1,027 3,225 13.4 19.8
Asia
South-Eastern 11 596 678 3.4 6.4 2,045 4,362 0 0 0.0 0.0
Asia
Southern Asia 9 1,723 1,999 1.1 3.1 1,883 6,140 unknown 60.1 unknown 1.0
Western Asia 17 232 286 6.5 10.3 1,498 2,957 2.6 270.1 0.2t 9.1

Annex 2. Datasets
REGION SUB REGION NUMBER OF INHABITANTS E-WASTE GENERATED E-WASTE DOCUMENTED AS FORMALLY COLLECTED
COUNTRIES AND RECYCLED
IN REGION
MILLIONS MILLIONS KG PER CAPITA KG PER CAPITA MILLION KG MILLION KG MILLION KG MILLION KG COLLECTION COLLECTION
IN 2010 IN 2022 IN 2010 IN 2022 IN 2010 IN 2022 IN 2020 IN 2022 RATE 2010 (%) RATE 2022 (%)
ALL 40 733 742 13.3 17.6 9,739 13,076 3,780 5,593 38.8 42.8
Eastern Europe 10 295 291 7.4 12.7 2,177 3,678 355 1,005 16.3 27.3
Europe Northern Europe 10 99 106 18.4 23.2 1,824 2,456 940 1,042 51.5 42.4
Southern Europe 13 152 150 15.5 18 2,349 2,700 844 1,069 35.9 39.6
Western Europe 7 188 196 18.1 21.7 3,389 4,243 1,641 2,478 48.4 58.4
ALL 14 36 44 12.6 16.1 452 707 unknown 292 unknown 41.4
Australia and 2 26 31 16.8 21.9 441 684 unknown 292 unknown 42.8
New Zealand
Oceania
Melanesia 4 9 12 1.1 1.8 10 21 0 0 0.0 0.0
Micronesia 5 0.3 0.3 1.4 2.6 0.4 0.8 0 0 0.0 0.0
Polynesia 3 0.3 0.3 2.7 3.3 0.8 1.1 0 0 0.0 0.0
World ALL 193 6,896 7,893 5 7.8 34,157 61,908 7,961 13,807 23.3 22.3

Annex 2. Datasets
Table A2.3. Country groupings used in the report
REGION SUB REGION NUMBER OF COUNTRIES IN REGION
Eastern Africa Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Sudan, United Republic of
Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe
Central Africa Central African Republic, Angola, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tomé and Príncipe
Africa
Northern Africa Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia
Southern Africa Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland
Western Africa Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
Caribbean Aruba, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago
Central America Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama
Americas
Northern America United States of America, Canada
South America Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela
Central Asia Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
Eastern Asia China, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Macao (China), Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Taiwan (Province of China)
South-Eastern Asia Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam
Asia
Southern Asia Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand
Western Asia Arabia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi, Syrian Arab Republic, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates,
Yemen
Eastern Europe Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine
Northern Europe Denmark, Estonia, Finland, United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden
Europe
Southern Europe Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia
Western Europe Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland
Australia and New

Australia, New Zealand
Zealand
Melanesia Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu

Oceania
Micronesia Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau
Polynesia Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu

Annex 2. Datasets
Table A2.4. Key e-waste statistics, by country or territory (2022)
COUNTRY REGION E-WASTE E-WASTE E-WASTE REFERENCE FOR NATIONAL EPR FOR COLLECTION RECYCLING
GENERATED GENERATED DOCUMENTED E-WASTE COLLECTION E-WASTE E-WASTE TARGET IN TARGETS IN
(MILLION (KG/CAPITA) AS FORMALLY AND RECYCLING DATA LEGISLATION/ PLACE PLACE
KG) COLLECTED POLICY OR
AND RECYCLED REGULATION
(MILLION KG) IN PLACE
Afghanistan Asia 32 0,8 N/A No No No No
Albania Europe 24 8,3 N/A Yes Yes No No

Algeria Africa 333 7,5 N/A No No No No
Angola Africa 148 4,2 N/A No No No No
Antigua and Americas 1 13,3 N/A No No No No
Barbuda
Argentina Americas 517 11,4 14,4 Communication with Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Yes Yes No No
Development in the context of this report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé,
V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor
for Latin America: Results for the 13 countries participating in
project UNIDO-GEF 5554, Bonn (Germany), 2022. https://www.
scycle.info/regional-e-waste-monitor-latin-america-2021/
Armenia Asia 22 7,8 N/A* Questionnaires conducted by UNSD, OECD and UNECE in No No No No
2014/2015. Data point is added to the global totals, but data is not
published.
Aruba Americas 2 20,7 N/A No No No No
Australia Oceania 583 22,4 292,4 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes Yes Yes Yes
equipment (WEEE - e-waste).
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EWASTE
Austria Europe 175 19,6 133,2 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
by waste management operations (env_waselee), Metadata in
Euro SDMX Metadata Structure (ESMS). Eurostat, the statistical
office of the European Union.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_waseleeos/
default/table?lang=en
Azerbaijan Asia 90 8,7 0,01 Communication with JSC “Tamiz Schahar” in the context of this No No No No
report: C.P. Baldé, G. Iattoni, V. Luda, I.C Nnorom, O. Pecheniuk,
R. Kuehr, Regional E-waste Monitor for the CIS + Georgia - 2021,
2021, United Nations University (UNU) / United Nations Institute
for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosting the SCYCLE
Programme, Bonn, Germany.
https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
REM_2021_CISGEORGIA_WEB_final_nov_11_spreads.pdf
Bahamas Americas 7 17,7 N/A No No No No
Bahrain Asia 26 17,8 N/A Yes No No No
Bangladesh Asia 367 2,2 N/A Yes Yes Yes No
Barbados Americas 4 14,7 N/A No No No No

Annex 2. Datasets
Belarus Europe 111 11,6 31 Communication with Ministry of Housing and Utilities in the Yes Yes No No
context of this report: C.P. Baldé, G. Iattoni, V. Luda, I.C Nnorom,
O. Pecheniuk, R. Kuehr, Regional E-waste Monitor for the CIS +
Georgia - 2021, 2021, United Nations University (UNU) / United
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosting
the SCYCLE Programme, Bonn, Germany. https://ewastemonitor.
info/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/REM_2021_CISGEORGIA_WEB_
final_nov_11_spreads.pdf
Belgium Europe 252 21,7 162,8 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data-
browser/view/env_waseleeos/default/table?lang=en
Belize Americas 3 7,1 N/A No No No No
Benin Africa 14 1,1 N/A No No No No
Bhutan Asia 5 6,7 0,5 UNSD — Environment Statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2023, from No No No No
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envstats/qindicators
Bolivia Americas 89 7,3 2,4 Communication with Ministry of Environment and Water of Yes Yes No No
(Plurinational the Plurinational State of Bolivia in the context of this report:
State of) M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni.
Regional E-waste Monitor for Latin America: Results for the
13 countries participating in project UNIDO-GEF 5554, Bonn
(Germany), 2022. https://www.scycle.info/regional-e-waste-moni-
tor-latin-america-2021/
Bosnia and Europe 33 10,1 4,9 Communication with BHAS 2022/Zeos/Kim/Tec 2022 in the Yes Yes Yes Yes
Herzegovina context of this report: G. Iattoni, I.C Nnorom, D. Toppenberg,
R. Kuehr, C.P. Baldé. Regional E-waste Monitor for the Western
Balkans - 2023. International Telecommunication Union
(ITU), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
- SCYCLE Programme. https://www.scycle.info/wp-content/
uploads/2023/12/Regional-E-waste-Monitor-Balkan-2023.pdf
Botswana Africa 23 8,7 N/A No No No No
Brazil Americas 2443 11,4 79 P. Dias, J. Palomero, M.Pilotto Cenci, T. Scarazzato, A. Moura Yes Yes Yes No
Bernardes. Electronic waste in Brazil: Generation, collection, recy-
cling and the covid pandemic,
Cleaner Waste Systems. Volume 3, 2022, ISSN 2772-9125, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.clwas.2022.100022. (https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S2772912522000227)
Brunei Asia 9 19,9 N/A No No No No
Darussalam

Annex 2. Datasets
Bulgaria Europe 90 13,2 75,5 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Burkina Faso Africa 17 0,8 N/A No No No No
Burundi Africa 8 0,6 N/A No No No No
Cambodia Asia 25 1,5 N/A Yes No No No
Cameroon Africa 33 1,2 0,1 Communication with Solidarite Technologique in the context of Yes Yes No No
this report: Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste
Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy
potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosted
SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/
Geneva/Rotterdam. https://www.scycle.info/global-e-waste-mo-
nitor-2020/
Canada Americas 774 20,2 98 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes No No No
Cape Verde Africa 3 5,3 N/A No No No No
Central Africa 3 0,6 N/A No No No No
African
Republic
Chad Africa 12 0,7 N/A No No No No
Chile Americas 230 11,7 7,3 Communication with Ministry of Environment of Chile in the Yes Yes No No
context of this report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V. Luda, I. C Nnorom,
R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor for Latin America:
Results for the 13 countries participating in project UNIDO-GEF
5554, Bonn (Germany), 2022. https://www.scycle.info/regio-
nal-e-waste-monitor-latin-america-2021/
China Asia 12066 8,5 1951,7 Communication with Ministry of Environment in the context of Yes Yes No Yes
potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations
Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosted SCYCLE
Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & Inter-
national Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Rotterdam.
https://www.scycle.info/global-e-waste-monitor-2020/

Annex 2. Datasets
China, Hong Asia 161 21,6 71,6 Communication with Hong Kong Environmental Protection No No No No
Kong Special Department in the context of this report: Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr
Adminis- R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and
trative the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/
Region United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) -
co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/
Geneva/Rotterdam.
China, Macao Asia 13 18,5 N/A No No No No
Special
Adminis-
trative
Region
Colombia Americas 388 7,5 4,9 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes Yes No No
Comoros Africa 1 1,5 N/A No No No No
Congo Africa 16 2,7 N/A No No No No
Costa Rica Americas 66 12,7 5,8 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes Yes No No
Croatia Europe 54 13,3 35,3 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
default/table?lang=en"
Cyprus Asia 16 13 3,5 C.P. Baldé, G. Iattoni, C. Xu, T. Yamamoto, Update of WEEE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Collection Rates, Targets, Flows, and Hoarding - 2021 in the EU-27,
United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland, 2022, SCYCLE
Programme, United Nations Institute for Training and Research
(UNITAR), Bonn, Germany. https://www.scycle.info/new-study-up-
date-of-weee-collection-rates-targets-flows-and-hoarding/
Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)
Czech Europe 173 16,5 118,9 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Republic by waste management operations (env_waselee), Metadata in

Annex 2. Datasets
Côte d'Ivoire Africa 42 1,5 N/A Yes Yes No No
Democratic Africa 56 0,6 N/A No No No No
Republic of
the Congo
Denmark Europe 131 22,3 79 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Djibouti Africa 2 1,7 N/A No No No No
Dominica Americas 1 8,9 N/A No No No No
Dominican Americas 99 8,8 N/A Yes Yes No No
Republic
Ecuador Americas 108 6 3,3 Communication with Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment, Water Yes Yes Yes No
and Ecological Transition (MAATE) in the context of this report:
M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni.
Egypt Africa 692 6,3 N/A Yes Yes No No
El Salvador Americas 41 6,4 0,5 Communication with Ministry of Environment and Natural No No No No
Resources from El Salvador in the context of this report: M.
Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni.
Equatorial Africa 18 10,6 N/A No No No No
Guinea
Eritrea Africa 3 0,7 N/A No No No No
Estonia Europe 19 14,2 12,4 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ethiopia Africa 88 0,7 N/A No No No No
Fiji Oceania 7 7,2 N/A No No No No

Annex 2. Datasets
Finland Europe 118 21,3 89,6 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
France Europe 1445 22,4 860,7 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gabon Africa 21 8,7 N/A No No No No
Gambia Africa 4 1,4 N/A No No No No
Georgia Asia 34 8,9 N/A Yes Yes Yes No
Germany Europe 1767 21,2 956,6 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ghana Africa 72 2,2 N/A Yes Yes No No
Greece Europe 194 18,6 58,6 C.P. Baldé, G. Iattoni, C. Xu, T. Yamamoto, Update of WEEE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grenada Americas 1 10,4 N/A No No No No
Guatemala Americas 92 5,2 1,1 Communication with Ministry of Environment and Natural No No No No
Resources in the context of this report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V.
Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor for
Latin America: Results for the 13 countries participating in project
UNIDO-GEF 5554, Bonn (Germany), 2022. https://www.scycle.info/
regional-e-waste-monitor-latin-america-2021/
Guinea Africa 14 1 N/A No No No No
Guinea- Africa 1 0,6 N/A No No No No
Bissau

Annex 2. Datasets
Guyana Americas 7 8,1 N/A No No No No
Haiti Americas 12 1,1 N/A No No No No
Honduras Americas 36 3,5 0,1 Communication with Secretariat of Natural Resources and No No No No
Environment in the context of this report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V.
Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor for
Latin America: Results for the 13 countries participating in project
UNIDO-GEF 5554, Bonn (Germany), 2022. https://www.scycle.info/
regional-e-waste-monitor-latin-america-2021/
Hungary Europe 138 14,3 90,4 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Iceland Europe 8 22,4 4,8 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
India Asia 4137 2,9 59,6 Communication with Assocham India in the context of this report: Yes Yes Yes No
Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor
2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United
Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (UNITAR) - co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Asso-
ciation (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Rotterdam.
Indonesia Asia 1886 6,9 N/A No No No No
Iran (Islamic Asia 817 9,3 N/A Yes No No No
Republic of)
Iraq Asia 267 6,1 N/A No No No No
Ireland Europe 103 20,6 67,4 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Israel Asia 148 16,5 72,4 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes Yes No No
equipment (WEEE - e-waste). https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?-
DataSetCode=EWASTE

Annex 2. Datasets
Italy Europe 1124 19 461,6 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Jamaica Americas 21 7,4 0,1 Communication with National Solid Waste Management Authority No No No No
in the context of this report: Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the
circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) -
co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/
Geneva/Rotterdam. https://www.scycle.info/global-e-waste-mo-
nitor-2020/
Japan Asia 2638 21,2 613,4 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes No No Yes
DataSetCode=EWASTE
Jordan Asia 69 6,1 1,6 Communication with National Statistics Office in the context of Yes No No No
Kazakhstan Asia 196 10,2 12,4 UNSD Questionnaire (UNSD 2019). Yes Yes Yes No
Kenya Africa 88 1,6 N/A No No No No
Kiribati Oceania 0 1,3 N/A No No No No
Kuwait Asia 71 16,7 N/A No No No No
Kyrgyzstan Asia 14 2,2 N/A No No No No
Lao People's Asia 27 3,6 N/A No No No No
Democratic
Republic
Latvia Europe 22 11,9 11,6 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes

Annex 2. Datasets
Lebanon Asia 60 10,7 0,1 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) No No No No
Lesotho Africa 3 1,3 N/A No No No No
Liberia Africa 3 0,6 N/A No No No No
Libya Africa 94 13,8 N/A No No No No
Lithuania Europe 37 13,4 16,7 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Luxembourg Europe 13 20,9 6,8 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Madagascar Africa 19 0,6 N/A Yes No No No
Malawi Africa 11 0,5 N/A No No No No
Malaysia Asia 411 12,2 N/A Yes No No No
Maldives Asia 5 10 N/A No No No No
Mali Africa 20 0,9 N/A No No No No
Malta Europe 8 14,1 3,2 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Marshall Oceania 0 3 N/A No No No No
Islands
Mauritania Africa 12 2,7 N/A No No No No
Mauritius Africa 16 12,1 0,1 Business Mauritius, UNDP Mauritius (2021). Circular Economy: No No No No
Optimising private sector investment in Mauritius. https://www.
undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/mu/Circular-Eco-
nomy--Optimising-private-sector-investment-in-Mauritius.pdf
Mexico Americas 1499 11,8 52,6 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes No No No

Micronesia Oceania 0 1,9 N/A No No No No
(Federated
States of)
Mongolia Asia 20 5,9 N/A No No No No
Montenegro Europe 8 13 0,2 Communication with Western Balkans NGO in the context of this Yes No No No
report: G. Iattoni, I.C Nnorom, D. Toppenberg, R. Kuehr, C.P. Baldé.
Regional E-waste Monitor for the Western Balkans - 2023. Interna-
tional Telecommunication Union (ITU), United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (UNITAR) - SCYCLE Programme.
https://www.scycle.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Regio-
nal-E-waste-Monitor-Balkan-2023.pdf
Morocco Africa 177 4,8 N/A No No No No
Mozambique Africa 20 0,6 N/A No No No No
Myanmar Asia 76 1,4 N/A No No No No
Namibia Africa 17 6,8 0,03 Communication with Namigreen in the context of this report: No No No No
Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor
2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United
Nauru Oceania 0 6,3 N/A No No No No
Nepal Asia 42 1,4 N/A No No No No
Netherlands Europe 387 22,1 228,5 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Zealand Oceania 101 19,6 N/A No No No No
Nicaragua Americas 21 3 0,1 Communication with Ministry of Environment in the context of No No No No
this report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr,
G. Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor for Latin America: Results for
the 13 countries participating in project UNIDO-GEF 5554, Bonn
Niger Africa 14 0,5 N/A No No No No
Nigeria Africa 497 2,3 N/A Yes Yes Yes No

Annex 2. Datasets
Norway Europe 145 26,8 107,2 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Oman Asia 71 15,7 N/A No No No No
Pakistan Asia 559 2,4 N/A No No No No
Palau Oceania 0 12,2 N/A No No No No
Panama Americas 54 12,4 0,1 Communication with Ministry of Health in the context of this No No No No
report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé, V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G.
Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor for Latin America: Results for
Papua New Oceania 13 1,3 N/A No No No No
Guinea
Paraguay Americas 57 8,4 N/A No No No No
Peru Americas 221 6,5 3,4 Communication with Ministry of Environment in the context of Yes Yes Yes No
Philippines Asia 537 4,7 N/A No No No No
Poland Europe 517 13,5 417,8 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Portugal Europe 183 17,8 60,3 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Puerto Rico Americas 65 20 N/A No No No No
Qatar Asia 44 16,2 0,2 Communication with Ministry of Municipality and Environment No No No No
in the context of this report: Ministry of Municipality and
Environment, 2019.
Republic of Asia 930 17,9 443,1 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes Yes No No
Korea equipment (WEEE - e-waste).

Republic of Europe 21 6,8 0,2 Communication with Ministry of Agriculture, Regional Deve- Yes Yes Yes No
Moldova lopment and Environment in the context of this report: C.P. Baldé,
G. Iattoni, V. Luda, I.C Nnorom, O. Pecheniuk, R. Kuehr, Regional
E-waste Monitor for the CIS + Georgia - 2021, 2021, United Nations
University (UNU) / United Nations Institute for Training and
Research (UNITAR) - co-hosting the SCYCLE Programme, Bonn,
Germany. https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
REM_2021_CISGEORGIA_WEB_final_nov_11_spreads.pdf
Romania Europe 250 13 71,5 C.P. Baldé, G. Iattoni, C. Xu, T. Yamamoto, Update of WEEE Yes Yes Yes Yes
Russian Europe 1910 13,2 120,8 Communication with Analytical Center for the Government of Yes Yes No No
Federation Russian Federation in the context of this report: Forti V., Baldé
C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quan-
tities, flows and the circular economy potential. United Nations
University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and
Rwanda Africa 10 0,7 2 Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosted Yes Yes No No
SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
& International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/
Rotterdam.
Saint Kitts Americas 1 15 N/A No No No No
and Nevis
Saint Lucia Americas 2 11,4 0,03 Roldan M. 2017. “E-waste management policy and regulatory No No No No
framework for Saint Lu-cia”. Telecommunication Management
Group, Inc
Saint Americas 1 10,6 N/A No No No No
Vincent and
the Grena-
dines
Samoa Oceania 1 3,1 N/A No No No No
San Marino Europe 1 22,1 N/A No No No No
Sao Tomé Africa 0 1,9 N/A No No No No
and Príncipe

Annex 2. Datasets
Saudi Arabia Asia 617 17,1 N/A No No No No
Senegal Africa 25 1,5 N/A No No No No
Serbia Europe 81 11,1 31,2 Communication with IENE in the context of this report: G. Iattoni, Yes Yes Yes No
I.C Nnorom, D. Toppenberg, R. Kuehr, C.P. Baldé. Regional E-waste
Monitor for the Western Balkans - 2023. International Telecom-
munication Union (ITU), United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) and United Nations Institute for Training and Research
(UNITAR) - SCYCLE Programme.
Seychelles Africa 1 13,5 N/A No No No No
Sierra Leone Africa 6 0,7 N/A No No No No
Singapore Asia 121 20,3 N/A Yes No Yes No
Slovakia Europe 84 15,4 47,3 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Slovenia Europe 36 17 15,1 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Solomon Oceania 1 1,1 N/A No No No No
Islands
Somalia Africa 9 0,5 N/A No No No No
South Africa Africa 527 8,8 22,9 Lydall M, Nyanjowa W, and James Y. 2017. “Mapping South Africa’s Yes Yes No No
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Dismantling,
Pre-Processing and Processing Technology Landscape", Mintek
South Sudan Africa 15 1,4 N/A No No No No
Spain Europe 935 19,6 395,2 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sri Lanka Asia 175 8 N/A No No No No
Sudan Africa 103 2,2 N/A No No No No
Suriname Americas 7 11,1 N/A No No No No

Annex 2. Datasets
Swaziland Africa 7 6,2 N/A No No No No
Sweden Europe 221 21 151,2 Eurostat, 2022. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Switzerland Europe 204 23,4 129 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes Yes Yes Yes
DataSetCode=EWASTE
Syrian Arab Asia 121 5,6 N/A No No No No
Republic
Taiwan Asia 463 19,4 145,4 Communication with EPA Taiwan (Province of China) in the No No No No
(Province of context of this report: Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The
China) Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular
economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosted
SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
& International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/
Rotterdam.
Tajikistan Asia 12 1,2 0,11 Communication with Isfara waste plant in the context of this No No No No
report: C.P. Baldé, G. Iattoni, V. Luda, I.C Nnorom, O. Pecheniuk,
R. Kuehr, Regional E-waste Monitor for the CIS + Georgia -
2021, 2021, United Nations University (UNU) / United Nations
Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - co-hosting the
SCYCLE Programme, Bonn, Germany. https://ewastemonitor.info/
wp-content/uploads/2021/11/REM_2021_CISGEORGIA_WEB_final_
nov_11_spreads.pdf
Thailand Asia 753 10,5 29 Borrirukwisitsak, S., Khwamsawat, K. & Leewattananukul, S. The No No No No
use of relative potential risk as a prioritization tool for household
WEEE management in Thailand. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23,
480-488 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01175-x
The former Europe 21 10 3,4 Communication with SSO 2022/MoEPP 2022 in the context of Yes Yes Yes No
Yugoslav this report: G. Iattoni, I.C Nnorom, D. Toppenberg, R. Kuehr, C.P.
Republic of Baldé. Regional E-waste Monitor for the Western Balkans - 2023.
Macedonia International Telecommunication Union (ITU), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Institute for
Training and Research (UNITAR) - SCYCLE Programme.
Timor-Leste Asia 2 1,6 N/A No No No No
Togo Africa 8 0,9 N/A No No No No
Tonga Oceania 0 4 N/A No No No No

Annex 2. Datasets
Trinidad and Americas 24 15,4 N/A No No No No
Tobago
Tunisia Africa 85 6,9 N/A No No No No
Turkey Asia 1077 12,7 186,9 Communication with Exitcom in the context of this report: Forti Yes Yes Yes Yes
V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020:
Quantities, flows and the circular economy potential. United
Turkme- Asia 46 7,1 N/A No No No No
nistan
Tuvalu Oceania 0 2,4 N/A No No No No
Uganda Africa 41 0,9 0,2 Communication with Computers for School Uganda in the context Yes No No No
of this report: Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global
E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular economy
Ukraine Europe 385 8,9 31,2 UNSD — Environment Statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2023, from Yes No No No
United Arab Asia 178 18,9 5,4 UNSD — Environment Statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2023, from Yes Yes No No
Emirates https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envstats/qindicators
United Europe 1652 24,5 501,9 UK Environment Agency, 2022. WEEE collected in the UK. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Kingdom of https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/waste-elec-
Great Britain trical-and-electronic-equipment-weee-in-the-uk
and Northern
Ireland
United Africa 61 0,9 N/A Yes Yes No No
Republic of
Tanzania
United Americas 7188 21,3 4052,8 OECD Statistics, 2022. Waste from electrical and electronic Yes No No No
States of equipment (WEEE - e-waste).
America https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EWASTE
Uruguay Americas 44 12,9 1,3 Communication with Ministry of Environment in the context of No No No No

Annex 2. Datasets
Uzbekistan Asia 128 3,7 N/A* nternal data from A that is confidential. ata point is added No No No No
to the global totals.
Vanuatu Oceania 0 1,2 N/A No No No No
Venezuela Americas 303 10,8 1 Communication with Ministry of the People's Power for Eco-soci- No No No No
(Bolivarian alism (MINEC) in the context of this report: M. Wagner, C.P. Baldé,
Republic of) V. Luda, I. C Nnorom, R. Kuehr, G. Iattoni. Regional E-waste Monitor
for Latin America: Results for the 13 countries participating in
project UNIDO-GEF 5554, Bonn (Germany), 2022. https://www.
scycle.info/regional-e-waste-monitor-latin-america-2021/
Viet Nam Asia 516 5,3 N/A Yes Yes No No
Yemen Asia 49 1,5 N/A No No No No
Zambia Africa 23 1,1 N/A Yes Yes No No
Zimbabwe Africa 17 1,1 0,03 UNSD — Environment Statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2023, from No No No No
A hese data points are considered in the total but due to confidentiality cannot be disclosed as single values

Annex 2. Datasets
Table A.2.5. Overview of e-waste flows for 2030 scenarios and viable recovery of metals
SCENARIO E-WASTE E-WASTE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED INFORMAL TOTAL IRON COPPER GOLD NICKEL ALUMI-
DOCUMENTED DOCUMENTED E-WASTE E-WASTE SECTOR NIUM
AS FORMALLY AS FORMALLY IN WASTE IN SCRAP
COLLECTED COLLECTED BIN METAL
AND RECYCLED AND
(SDG INDICATOR RECYCLED
12.5.1) (SDG 12.5.1)
Unit per cent billion kg billion kg billion kg billion kg billion kg billion kg billion kg thousand kg million kg billion kg
2022 - current
22 14 14 16 18 19 16 1.1 47 1.9 1.1
practice
2030 - business as
20 16 20 22 24 25 21 1.4 50 2.1 1.4
usual
2030 - progressive 38 31 13 14 24 28 24 1.6 78 4.3 2.2
2030 - ambitious 44 37 12 13 21 29 24 1.6 79 4.5 2.4
2030 - aspirational 66 50 10 10 13 30 25 1.7 79 4.9 2.9

Annex 2. Datasets
Table A.2.6 Overview of environmental/economic impact of the 2030 scenarios
SCENARIO AVOIDED MERCURY AVOIDED GREENHOUSE GAS OVERALL VALUE OF VALUE OF TREATMENT EXTERNALIZED COSTS
MERCURY EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS CAUSED ECONOMIC RECOVERED AVOIDED COSTS ARISING FROM LEAD/
EMISSIONS GAS EMISSIONS BY ENVIRONMENTALLY COST METALS GREENHOUSE MERCURY EMISSIONS,
(DIRECT AND UNSOUND E-WASTE GAS PLASTIC LEAKAGES
INDIRECT) MANAGEMENT OF EMISSIONS AND GLOBAL WARMING
REFRIGERANTS CONTRIBUTION
Mt CO2 Mt CO2
Unit 1000 kg 1000 kg billion USD billion USD billion USD billion USD billion USD
equivalent equivalent
2022 - current practice 94 145 -36 28 23 -10 -78
2030 - business as usual 11 46 105 149 -40 42 26 -15 -93
2030 - progressive 21 36 155 116 -4 52 39 -20 -75
2030 - ambitious 25 32 171 103 9 54 43 -21 -66
2030 - aspirational 34 23 209 74 38 57 52 -24 -47
PradeepGaurs / Shutterstock.com

References
11] Munro PG, Samarakoon S, Hansen UE, 20] De Meneses AA and Molyneux CG. 28] Deubzer O, Herreras L, Hajosi E, Hilbert
Kearnes M, Bruce A, Cross J, Walker 2023. European Commission Publishes I, Buchert M, Wuisan L and Zonneveld,
S and Zalengera C. 2023. Towards a Directive on the Right of Repair Proposal. N. 2019. Baseline and Gap/Obstacle
repair research agenda for off-grid solar Global Policy Watch, Covington’s Public Analysis of Standards and Regulations.
e-waste in the Global South. Nature Policy and Government Affairs Group. CEWASTE Project, UNU, Bonn, Germany;
References Energy 8, 123-128 (2023). 21] European Commission. 2023. Ecodesign SCRREEN. 2020. Factsheet updates
12] Baldé CP, Iattoni G, Xu C and Yamamoto for Sustainable Products Regulation. based on the EU Factsheets 2020: Rare
T. 2022. Update of WEEE Collection Brussels, Belgium. Earth Elements. Solutions for Critical
Rates, Targets, Flows, and Hoarding - 22] OECD. 2016. Extended Producer Raw materials - a European Expert
2021 in the EU-27, United Kingdom, esponsibility uidance for efficient Network (SCRREEN). Tables 25 and 26.
1] StEP Initiative. 2014. ne lobal efi- Norway, Switzer-land, and Iceland. waste management. Policy Highlights. 29] CEWASTE. 2023. About the Project.
nition of E-Waste. Solving the E-Waste SCYCLE Programme, UNITAR, Bonn, OECD Publishing, Paris, France. 30] Baum ZJ, Bird RE, Yu X and Ma J. 2022.
Problem (Step) White Paper, UNU 3576 Germany. 23] UNU and StEP. 2019. Developing Legis- Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling - Overview
(June), 08. 13] Grigoropoulos CJ, Doulos LT, Zerefos lative Principles for e-waste policy in of Techniques and Trends. ACS Energy
2] ITU. 2022. Facts and Figures 2022. ITU SC, Tsangrassoulis A and Bhusal P. developing and emerging countries. Lett. 2022, 7/2, pp. 712-719.
Subscriptions. 2020. Estimating the benefits of incre- StEP White Paper, Bonn, Germany. 31] UNDP and UNEP. 2018. Managing
3] Forti V, Baldé CP and Kuehr R. 2018. asing the recycling rate of lamps from 24] ITU. 2021. Policy Practices for E-waste mining for sustainable development: A
E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on Clas- the domestic sector: Methodology, Management. ITU and the World sourcebook. UNDP, Bangkok, Thailand.
sifications eporting and ndicators opportunities and case study. Waste Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. 32] Chepkemoi J. 2017. What is the environ-
second edition. UNU, ViE - SCYCLE, Management, vol. 101, 2020, pp. 188-199. 25] Reuter MA, van Schaik A, Gutzmer J, mental impact of the mining industry?
Bonn, Germany. 14] Baldé CP, D’Angelo E, Luda V, Deubzer Bartie N and Abadías Llamas A. 2019. WorldAtlas, 25 April 2017.
4] StEP Initiative. 2014, note 1. O and Kuehr R. 2022. Global Trans- Challenges of the Circular Economy - 33] McWhorter WB. 2017. Exploring the
5] Forti V et al. 2018, note 2. boundary E-waste Flows Monitor - 2022. A material, metallurgical and product potential health and safety issues of
6] European Space Agency. 2022. Recy- UNITAR, Bonn, Germany. design perspective. Annual Review of artisanal and small-scale gold mining
cling in space: wannabe or reality? ESA 15] Ibid. Materials Research, Issue 49, 2019, pp. in Ghana: a case study. Tuscaloosa,
Blogs, 10 January 2022. 16] Odeyingbo O, Nnorom I and Deubzer 253-274. Alabama.
7] European Commission. 2023. Critical O. 2017. Person in the Port Project - 26] European Commission. 2022. EU Critical 34] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Raw Materials: ensuring secure and Assessing Import of Used Electrical Raw Materials Act. Brussels, Belgium. Change. 2023. Summary for Policy-
sustainable supply chains for EU’s green and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria. 27] Hagelüken C, Lee-Shin JU, Carpentier makers. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis
and digital future. European Commission, UNU-ViE SCYCLE and BCCC Africa, A and Heron C. 2016. The EU circular Report. Contribution of Working Groups
16 March 2023, Brussels, Belgium. Bonn, Germany. economy and its relevance to metal I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report
8] Baldé CP, Kuehr R, Blumenthal K, Fondeur 17] Prevent Waste Alliance. 2022. Controlling recycling. Recycling, 2016, 1(2), pp. of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Gill S, Kern M, Micheli P, Magpantay E E-waste Imports in Tanzania. 242-253. Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H.
and Huisman J. 2015. E-Waste Statistics 18] Baldé CP, Wagner M, Iattoni G, and Kuehr Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva,
uidelines on lassification eporting R. n.d. In-depth Review of the WEEE Switzerland, pp. 1-34.
and Indicators. UNU, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Collection Rates and Targets in the
Germany. EU-28, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland,
9] Forti V et al. 2018, note 2. 2020. UNU/UNITAR, Bonn, Germany.
10] UN Statistics. 2023. SDG indicator 19] Calboli I. 2023. The Right to Repair:
metadata. UN Statistics, 31 March 2023. Recent Developments in the USA. WIPO
Magazine, Geneva, Switzerland.

References
35] Williams M, Gower R, Green J, White- 42] Merdassi N. 2023. An Interview with 54] Luyeye P. 2023. Case study - Benelux 66] Electronics Recycling Coordination
bread E, Lenkiewicz Z and Schröder DP. Ines Temimi, Collectun D3E Recyclage, Afro Center: Innovative relay stations Clearinghouse. 2023. Product Scope
2019. No Time to Waste: Tackling the a Woman-Owned Recycling Business in involving young people in the proper Map.
Plastic Pollution Crisis before It’s Too Tunisia. Women’s Council on Energy and recycling of e-waste in the DRC. 67] Electronics Recycling Coordination
Late. Tearfund, Teddington, UK; World the Environment (WCEE), Washington, 55] ITU. 2021, note 48. Clearinghouse. 2023. Covered Entities
Health Organization. 2019. Ambient DC. 56] Onianwa PC. 2020. Achieving Sustai- by State.
(outdoor) air pollution: Key Facts. 43] Yahya M. 2022. Voucher incentive, phone nable and Sound E-waste Management 68] Lee D, Offenhuber D, Duarte F, Biderman
Geneva, Switzerland. app promote e-waste recycling among in African Cities through EPR Schemes. A and Ratti C. 2018. Monitour: Tracking
36] Velis C, Cook E. 2021. Mismanagement Egyptians. Xinhua, 16 March 2023. Basel Convention Coordinating Centre global routes of electronic waste. Waste
of plastic waste through open burning 44] Merdassi N. 2023, note 44. for the African Region, Ibadan, Nigeria. Management, 72, pp. 362-370.
with emphasis on the global south: a 45] Magoum I. 2022. Senegal: Towards 57] World Wild Fund for Nature. 2022. 69] Electronics Recycling Coordination
systematic review of risks to occupa- the regulation of electronic waste Extended producer Responsibility for Clearinghouse. 2020. Per Capita
tional and public health. Environmental management. Afrik 21, 20 October. Single-use Plastics and Packaging Waste Collection 2018-2020.
Science Technology, June, Vol 1;55(11), 46] ITU. 2023. E-waste Policy Development Streams: An Assessment for Kenya. 70] Connecticut Department of Energy
pp. 7186-7202. and Data Collection: Examples from Gland, Switzerland. and Environmental Protection. 2022.
37] UNEP. 2019. Minamata Convention on African countries. 58] Njathi I. 2022. Kenya’s E- Waste 2022 Status Report on Connecticut’s
Mercury - Text and Annexes. Nairobi, 47] Bergeron JR. n.d. Initiatives to tackle Management strategy. Tharuma Trevisan State-wide Consumer Electronics Recy-
Kenya. e-waste in Ivory Coast. Borgen Project. Advocates, 4 March. cling Program.
38] Secretariat of the Minamata Convention 48] EEP Africa and Nordic Development 59] ITU and UNITAR. 2023. EACO Regional 71] Althaf S, Babbitt CW and Chen R. 2019.
on Mercury. 2023. Minamata Convention Fund. 2020. Solar E-waste Management E-waste Data Harmonization. Geneva orecasting electronic waste ows for
in 2022: Progress report on activities. Innovations in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Bonn. effective circular economy planning.
UNEP, Geneva, Switzerland. webinar, 26 May 2020. 60] Government of Tanzania, National Bureau Resources, Conservation & Recycling,
39] Magalini F and Huisman J. 2018. WEEE 49] Global LEAP Awards. 2020. WEEE Centre of Statistics and UNU, ViE - SCYCLE. 151, pp. 1-10.
Recycling Economics - The shortco- Creates an Economically Viable E-waste 2019. National E-Waste Statistics Report 72] Dell Technologies. n.d. State by State
mings of the current business model. Management Model. The Global Leap 2019. Dodoma, Tanzania, and Bonn, Recycling.
UNU and European Energy Research Awards Spotlight. Germany. 73] Paben J. 2023. State program revamp
Alliance. 50] GOGLA 2019. E-waste Toolkit: Module 4 61] Africa Clean Energy 2021. Stand Alone proposal advances in Oregon. Resource
40] Silpa K, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P and Van riefing ote - E-waste egulation and Solar (SAS): Market Update Zambia. ACE Recycling, 5 April.
Woerden F. 2018. What a Waste 2.0: Compliance. November. Contributors: Tetra Tech International Development, 74] Department of Environmental Quality.
A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Drew Corbyn, Juliana Martínez, Rebecca March. 2023. Oregon E-cycles Collections
Management to 2050. Overview booklet. Cooke. 62] Green Crossroads. 2017. Green Cross- Determination for 2024. State of Oregon,
World Bank, Washington, DC. 51] Skrdlik, J. 2023. Spain Nabs Euro- roads and “Green Mauritius” project. 20 1 May.
41] ITU. 2021. Policy practices for e-waste pe-Africa Electronic Waste Smugglers. February. 75] Moloney S. 2023. NY Becomes First
management: Tools for fair and econo- Oganized Crime and Corruption 63] ITU. 2021, note 48. State to Enact “Right to Repair” Law for
mically viable extended producer Reporting Project, 6 January. 64] Electronics Recycling Coordination Consumers of Digital Electronic Devices.
responsibility - Examples from African 52] McMahon K, Uchendu C, Fitzpatrick C. Clearinghouse. 2023. Maps. Norwood News, 1 January.
countries. ITU and the World Economic 2021. Quantifying used electrical and 65] New Jersey Department of Environ- 76] Xavier LH, Ottoni M and Lepawsky J.
Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. electronic equipment exported from mental Protection. 2017. E-waste 2021. Circular economy and e-waste
Ireland to West Africa in roll-on roll-off Frequently Asked Questions. Trenton, management in the Americas: Brazilian
vehicles. Resources, Conservation & New Jersey. and Canadian frameworks. Journal of
Recycling 164 (2021), 105177. Cleaner Pro-duction, 297, 126570.
53] ITU. 2021, note 48.

References
77] Dell Technologies. 2023. Canada’s Recy- 88] Government of Belize. 2020. Belize - 96] Basel Convention. 2020. Basel 106] Cueva A, Carlos A, Hernández S, Alhilali
cling Laws. Nationally Determined Contribution Convention National Reports - Year 2020. S, Ives-Keeler K and Casanas B. 2023.
78] Resource Productivity & Recovery under the United Nations Framework Secretariat of the Basel Convention. Promoting Circular Economy through
Authority. 2023. Information Technology, Convention on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.basel. esource-Efficient Electronic ecycling
Telecommunications, Audio-visual. 89] Wagner et al. 2022, note 82. i n t /C o u n t r i e s / N at i o n a l Re p o r t i n g / across Latin America. Going Green CARE
79] Habib K, Mohammadi E and Withanage 90] 90 UNSD. 2022. The United Nations NationalReports/ BC2020Reports/ Innovation 2023, Vienna, May.
SV. 2023. A first comprehensive estimate Statistics Division. 2022. https://unstats. tabid/8989/Default.aspx. 107] Government of Peru, Ministry of the
of electronic waste in Canada. Journal of un.org/UNSDWebsite/. 97] Basel Convention. 2021. Basel Environment. 2021. Disposiciones
Hazardous Materials, vol. 448. 91] United Nations Statistics Division. 2022. Convention National Reports - Year 2021. complementarias al Decreto supremo
80] Wagner M, Baldé CP, Luda V, Nnorom IC, United Nations Statistics Division - Secretariat of the Basel Convention. No 009-2019-MINAM, que aprueba el
Kuehr R and Iattoni G. 2022. Regional Commodity Trade Statistics Database Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.basel. régimen especial de gestión y manejo
E-waste Monitor for Latin America: (COMTRADE). 8 May. int/Countries/NationalReporting/Natio- de residuos de aparatos eléctricos y
Results for the 13 countries participating 92] Basel Convention. 2016. Basel nalReports/BC2021Reports/tabid/9379/ electrónicos.
in project UNIDO-GEF 5554. Bonn, Convention National Reports - Year 2016. Default.aspx. 108] Sustainable Recycling Industries.
Germany. Secretariat of the Basel Convention. 98] Government of Jamaica, Ministry of 2023. Peruvian Minister to Promote
81] International Trade Administration. 2022. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.basel. Local Government and Community the Creation of a Public-Private Group
Environmental Technologies, Mexico - int/Countries/NationalReporting/Natio- Development. 2022. National Solid to Strengthen e-Waste Management
Country Commercial Guide. nalReports/BC2016Reports/tabid/6145/ Waste Management Authority - Jamaica. during the Closing Ceremony of the
82] Denogean JI. 2016. Electronic Waste Default.aspx. 99] Loop News. 2018. Watch: Electronic Sustainable Recycling Industries Project
Treatment in Mexico: Viability and 93] Basel Convention. 2017. Basel Waste Recycling Project Helps Unem- [blog]. 15 June.
Obstacles. MS thesis, Department of Convention National Reports - Year 2017. ployed. Trinidad & Tobago. 109] Basel Convention. 2019. Basel
Earth and Environmental Engineering, Secretariat of the Basel Convention. 100] Mihai FC, Grazie M-G, Meidiana C, Convention National Reports - Year
Columbia University. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.basel. Chukwunonye E and Elia V. 2019. Waste 2019. 2019. http://www.basel.int/
83] Government of Mexico. 2003. General int/Countries/NationalReporting/Natio- Electrical and Electronic Equipment Countries/NationalReporting/National-
Law for the Prevention and Integral nalReports/BC2017Reports/tabid/7749/ (WEEE): Flows, Quantities, and Manage- Reports/ BC2019Reports/tabid/8645/
Management of Wastes. fficial ournal Default.aspx. ment-a Global Scenario. In: Electronic Default.aspx.
of the Federation, 8 October. 94] Basel Convention. 2018. Basel Waste Management and Treatment 110] Basel Convention. 2020. Basel
84] Grupo Briffault. 2021. Environmental Convention National Reports - Year 2018. Technology, pp. 1-34. Elsevier, San Diego. Convention National Reports - Year
Standard for the Federal District NADF- Secretariat of the Basel Convention. 101] Wagner et al. 2022, note 82. 2020. 2020. http://www.basel.int/
019-AMBT-2018. 26 April. Geneva, Switzerland. https://www. 102] Government of Colombia, Ministry of Countries/NationalReporting/National-
85] UNDP and GEF. 2020. Management basel.int/Countries/NationalReporting/ Commerce, Industry and Tourism. 2023. Reports/BC2020Reports/tabid/8989/
of POPs Containing Waste in Mexico. N at i o n a l Re p o r t s / B C 20 1 8 Re p o r t s / Resolución-0479-de-2023. 27 April. Default.aspx.
Project Implementation Review (PIR) tabid/8202/Default.aspx. 103] PREAL. 2022. Ecuador [PREAL blog]; 111] Basel Convention. 2021. Basel
86] UNDP. 2019. Sound Management of POPs 95] Basel Convention. 2019. Basel Miranda GM. 2022. República del Convention National Reports - Year 2021.
containing waste in Mexico (EvMT). Convention National Reports - Year 2019. Ecuador Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua 2021. http://www.basel.int/Countries/
ndependent Evaluation ffice. Secretariat of the Basel Convention. y Transición Ecológica. NationalReporting/ NationalReports/
87] Environmental Protection Agency Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.basel. 104] Miranda GM. 2022. República del BC2021Reports/tabid/9379/ Default.
and Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y i n t /C o u n t r i e s / N at i o n a l Re p o r t i n g / Ecuador Ministerio del Ambiente, Agua aspx.
Recursos Naturales. 2020. Border 2025: N at i o n a l Re p o r t s / B C 20 1 9 Re p o r t s / y Transición Ecológica. 112] StEP Initiative. 2019. Partnership Models
United States - Mexico Environmental tabid/8645/Default.aspx. 105] Ibid. between the Informal and the Formal
Program. Sector.

References
113] Wagner et al. 2022, note 82. 122] Xavier, Lúcia Helena da Silva Maciel, 127] Wagner M et al. 2022, note 82. 140] Lou T, Fang F, Hu Q et al. 2022. Evolution
114] Cueva et al. 2023, note 108. Luciana Contador, Emmanuelle Freitas, 128] Cueva et al. 2023, note 108. of e-waste resources disposal with
115] Basel Convention Regional Centre for Ricardo Sierpe, Luciana Marelli Mofati, 129] Congress of Uruguay, House of Repre- propa-ganda education and monetary
Training and Technology Transfer for the Mariano Laio de Oliveira, and Ariella sentatives. 2019. Law No. 19.829 on incentives the in uence mechanism of
Caribbean. 2020. The Problem - E-waste Vianna Fontes. 2023. Diagnostico da Integrated Waste Management. consumer knowledge level. Journal of
Management in the Caribbean. 2 August. mineração urbana dos resíduos elet- 130] Wagner M et al. 2022, note 82; Gover- Material Cycles and Waste Management
116] Alabate J, Maricel González JT, Sosa C, roeletrônicos no Brasil: Projeto MINARE: nment of Argentina, Ministry of 24, pp. 2620-2635.
Laviosa L and Grenada A. 2018. Reciclaje relat rio final. E EM M . http://mine- Environment and Sustainable Deve- 141] 141 Li W and Achal V. 2020. Environ-
de Electrónicos en Paraguay. Universidad ralis.cetem.gov.br/handle/cetem/2632. lopment. 2023. Resolución 27/2023. mental and health impacts due to
Católica Nuestra Señora de la Asunción, 123] Mohammadi E, Singh SJ and Habib K. olet n ficial. e-waste disposal in China - A review.
Gestión Ambiental para el Desarrollo 2021. Electronic Waste in the Caribbean: 131] Wagner M et al. 2022, note 82. Science of the Total Environment,
Sustentable, Asunción, December. An Impending Environmental Disaster or 132] WEEE Forum. 2019. Argentina. October.
117] Xavier LH, Ottoni M, Gomes CF, de Araújo an Opportunity for a Circular Economy? 133] Maffei L and Burucua A. 2020. E-Waste 142] Han Y, Shevchenko T and Qu D. 2022.
RA, Bicov N, Nogueira M, Espinosa D and Resources, Conservation and Recycling and Employment in Argentina, Executive Smart E-waste Management in China: A
Tenório J. 2020. Guia de desmontagem 164 (January): 105106; Congress of Summary (abstract). International Review. Congress on Intelligent Systems,
de resíduos de equipamentos elet- Paraguay, Chamber of Deputies. 2022. Labour Organization. vol. 111, pp. 515-533.
roeletrônicos. Centro de Technologia Buscan Crear un Marco Regulatorio 134] StEP Initiative. 2019, note 115. 143] Tsai, W.-T. 2018. Current practice and
Mineral/Ministry of Science, Technology para la Disposición Final de Residuos 135] Liu YC. 2021. E-waste management in policy for transforming e-waste into
and Innovation. Eléctricos y Electrónicos. November; China: Status, challenges, and future urban mining: case study in Taiwan.
118] Xavier LH, Ottoni M and Sierpe R. 2021. Basel Convention Regional Centre for outlook. Waste Management, pp. 12-22. International Journal of Environment and
Project Datare: Final Report, November Training and Technology Transfer for the 136] Junming Zhu, Chengming Fan, Haijia Shi Waste Management, pp. 1-15.
2021. Centro de Technologia Mineral/ Caribbean. 2020, note 119. and Lei Shi. 2018. Efforts for a Circular 144] Ma, H.-K. 2018. Recycling Waste Elec-
Ministry of Science Technology and 124] Cámara de Diputados del Paraguay. Econ-omy in China: A Comprehensive trical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
Innovation. 2022. ‘H. Cámara de Diputados Review of Policies. Journal of Indus- and the Management of Its Toxic
119] Xavier LH, Silva R, Ottoni M and Cugula J. Del Paraguay’. November 2022. trial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(1), Substances in Taiwan - A Case Study.
2021. Método Para a Categorização e a http://diputados.gov.py/index.php/ February, pp. 110-118. Toxics, pp. 811-823.
Estimativa da Geração de Resíduos Elet- noticias/buscan-crear-un-marco-regu- 137] Zhen Wang and Jiazhen Huo. 2023. Do 145] Ibitz A. 2020. Assessing Taiwan’s ende-
roeletrônicos no Brasil. Revista Brasileira latorio-para-la-disposicion-final-de-re- government intervention measures avors towards a circular economy: the
de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade siduos-electricos-y-electronicos. promote e-waste recycling in China? electronics sector. Asia Europe Journal,
8 (January), pp. 1533-51. 125] BCRC Caribbean. 2020. Waste Elec- Journal of Environmental Management, pp. 493-510.
120] Xavier LH, Contador L, Freitas E, Sierpe trical and Electronic Equipment - BCRC vol. 342, 118138. 146] Ibid.
R, Marelli Mofati L, Laio de Oliveira M and Caribbean. Basel Convention Regional 138] Wang Qixiang, Linghui Kong, Jin Li, 147] Akinaga, K. 2022. Japan’s E-waste
Vianna Fontes A. 2023. Diagnostico da Centre for Training and Technology Bangyi Li and Fan Wang. 2020. Beha- Management: Current Status and Chal-
mineração urbana dos resíduos elet- Transfer for the Caribbean, 2 August vioral Evolutionary Analysis between the lenges. Recycling, 17.
roeletrônicos no Brasil: Projeto MINARE: 2020. https://www.bcrc-caribbean.org/ overnment and ncertified ecycler in 148] Basu, A. &. 2021. A review of status,
relat rio final. Centro de Technologia our-projects/waste-electrical-and-elec- China’s E-Waste Recycling Management. trends, and challenges. Journal of
Mineral/Ministry of Science, Technology tronic-equipment/. International Journal of Environmental Material Cycles and Waste Management,
and Innovation. 126] Arya S and Kumar S. 2023. Global Research and Public Health 17, No. 19. pp. 261-278.
121] Xavier LH et al. 2021, note 122; Xavier LH E-Waste Management Strategies and 139] Bakhdi M. 2022. Managing e-waste in 149] Eco Mark ffice. . Eco Mark appli-
et al. 2023, note 123. Future Implications, 1st edition. Elsevier, China: the formal and informal sectors. cation. Retrieved from https://www.
Amsterdam. International Journal of Economic ecomark.jp/acquire/appli_eng/
Performance, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 388-399.

References
150] Industrial Structure Council, C. E. 2022. 159] Government of Brunei, Ministry of 167] Rimantho D, Syaiful S, Nurfaida and 175] Gamaralalage Jagath Premakumara
Report of Progress on the Home Finance and Economy. 2020. Voluntary Sulandari U. 2022. Electronic waste D, Hengesbaugh M, Onogawa K and
Appliance Recycling Law. Ministry of National Review Report of Brunei bank model as a solution for imple- Hlaing OMT. 2017. Waste Management
Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan. Darussalam for 2020 United Nations menting circular economy: Case study in Myanmar: Current Status, Key Chal-
151] Hong JY. 2021. Management of E-waste High-Level Political Forum on Sustai- DKI Jakarta-Indonesia. Frontiers in Built langes and Recomendations for National
in Korea: Current Status and Chal- nable Development. Brunei Darussalam. Environment. and City Waste Management Strategies.
lenges. Journal of Korean Society of 160] Idris R, Yusof I and Shams S. 2023. Status 168] UNEP/GRID-Geneva. 2023. Pollution. UN Environment/IGES Centre Colla-
Environmental Engineers, pp. 589-595. of e-waste management in Brunei Interactive Country Fiches. borating with UNEP on Environmental
152] Hyun S. 2022. Current Status and Chal- Darussalam. AIP Conference Procee- 169] Government of the Lao PDR, Department Technologies , Japan.
lenges of Green Digital Finance in Korea. dings, 2643 (1). of Pollution Control and Monitoring. 176] World Bank. 2019. Myanmar - Country
In: Taghizadeh-Hesary F and Hyun S 161] Ibid. 2020. Lao PDR: Country Report (in Lao). Environmental Analysis : A Road towards
(eds), Green Digital Finance and Sustai- 162] GMS Environment Operations Center. 170] Government of the Lao PDR, Ministry Sustainability, Peace, and Prosperity.
nable Development Goals. Springer, pp. 2018. Cambodia’s Road Map for Sustai- of Finance. 2023. Draft E-Waste Synthesis Report.
243-261. nable Development: The National Management Plan. 177] Htun HH 2019. A Study of Public
153] Kim DK. 2021. Development and Imple- Environment Strategy and Action Plan. 171] Yusof Y, Ismail W, Mohd N, Noor A and Awareness Concerned with E-Waste
mentation of E-waste Recycling Asian Development Bank, Bangkok. Bakar M. 2023. E-Waste Management and Management Strategies. Myanmar.
System in Korea. Journal of Korean 163] Dek Vimean Pheakdey NV. 2022. Chal- toward Environmental Sustainability in 178] Government of the Philippines,
Society of Environmental Engineers, pp. lenges and Priorities of Municipal Solid Malaysia. In: Sustainable Approaches Department of Environment and Natural
208-215. Waste Management in Cambodia. and Strategies for E-Waste Management Resources. 2021. EMB: National policy,
154] Davaasuren N. 2021. Waste International Journal of Environmental and Utilization, IGI Global, pp.239-259. regulatory framework already in place
management policy, status and chal- Research and Public Health, 8458. 172] ofian anafiah MM Woon and for e-waste mngt.
lenges in Mongolia. In: Anquandah CE, 164] GIZ. 2019. Partnership Ready Cambodia: Hassan FM. 2023. Characteristics of 179] Ibid.
E-waste management in Africa and Asia, Waste management. Deutsche consumer towards development of 180] Talavera E. 2022. Case Study: Philippines.
pp. 89-103. Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusam- sustainable e-waste management in Recognising Green Skills for Environ-
155] Davaasuren N. 2021. Electronic waste menarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Berlin, Germany. Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Earth mental and Sustainable Development
management in Mongolia. The Asia-Pa- 165] Ardi R and Akbar IA. 2022. Deve- and Environmental Science, 1167. in Four Selected Industries. In M Pavlova
cific ournal of cience echnology and lopment of Integrated Electronic Waste 173] Mohamad Razip M, Savita KS, Kalid KS, and M Singh (eds), Recognizing Green
Sustainable Development, pp. 41-55. Management System Strategies in Ahmad MN, Zaffar M, Rahim EEA, Baleanu Skills Through Non-formal Learning - A
156] Ibid. Indonesia. Proceedings of the First D and Ahmadian A. 2022. The deve- Comparative Study in Asia. Springer.
157] Science Japan. 2021. Electronic waste Australian International Conference on lopment of sustainable IoT e-waste 181] Government of Singapore, National
recycling system established by NEDO Industrial Engineering and Operations management guideline for households. Environment Agency. 2023. Sustainable
and ARBIZ Corporation. Japan Science Management, Sydney, Australia, 20-21 Chemosphere, vol. 303, Part 1, 134767. and esource Efficient ingapore.
and Technology Agency, 4 August. December, pp. 2190-2200. 174] Mohamad NS, Ai CT and Hon TH. 2022. 182] Government of Singapore, Ministry of
158] Yeruultsengel B. &. 2021. Electronic 166] Kurniawan Kurniawan MD. 2022. Current The Determinants of Consumers’ Sustainability and the Environment.
waste management and recycling status of the recycling of e-waste E-Waste Recycling Behavior through 2023. Zero Waste Masterplan in
in Mongolia. Journal of Environmental in Indonesia. Geosystem Engineering, the Lens of Extended Theory of Planned Singapore.
Science and Technology, pp. 251-260. 83094. Behavior. Sustainability 14, No. 15: 9031. 183] Government of Singapore, National
Environment Agency. 2023. E-Waste
Management.

References
184] Ammartsena A, Ditthapan S and 193] Government of Belarus, Department 204] Parliament of Georgia. 2020. Tech- 214] Government of India, Ministry of
Leenapaesanan P. 2023. E-waste of Technical Regulation and Accredi- nical Regulations on the Management Environment, Forest and Climate
Management in Communities: Gaps in tation. 2016. Technical regulation TR EEU of Waste Electronic and Electrical Change. 2022. E-waste Management
the Law and a Review of Existing Policies. 037/2016 on Restrictions on the Use of Equipment, Resolution No. 226, 25 May System. New Delhi, India.
Thailand. Hazardous Substances in Electrical and 2020 (in Georgian). 215] Government of India, Ministry of
185] Enviliance ASIA information services. Electronic Equipment (in Russian). 205] Government of Armenia, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate
2023. Thailand, Draft WEEE Action Plan 194] The text of the agreement is available in Foreign Affairs. 2022. The Compre- Change. 2016. Gazette of India (Extraor-
2022-2026. Russian at https://cis.minsk.by/reestrv2/ hensive and Enhanced Partnership dinary Part II, Section 3, Sub-section I),
186] Duangthong T and Boonmee T. 2022. doc/5785#text. Agreement between the Republic of otification March . ew elhi
Interest groups and electronic waste 195] Government of Kazakhstan. 2021. Armenia and the European Union (CEPA). India.
management policy. Corporate & Environmental Code of the Republic of 206] Government of Armenia. 2004. The Law 216] Government of India, Central Pollution
Business Strategy Review, vol. 3, Issue 1, Kazakhstan, 2 January (in Kazakh). of the Republic of Armenia on Waste, 24 Control Board. 2021. Annual Report
pp. 124-133. 196] UNITAR, Ministry of Ecology and Natural November 2004 (in Armenian). 2020 - 2021. New Delhi, India.
187] Borrirukwisitsak S, Khwamsawat K, Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan 207] Iattoni G, Vermeersch EM, Baldé CP, 217] Government of India, Ministry of
Leewattananukul S. et al. 2023. Material and Center Cooperation for Sustainable Nnorom IC and Kuehr R. 2021. Regional Environment, Forest and Climate
ow analysis and life cycle assessment Development. 2023. National E-waste E-waste Monitor for the Arab States Change, Central Pollution Control Board.
of WEEE dismantling into recycled Monitor 2023 - Kazakhstan. Bonn/ 2021. Bonn, Germany. 2022. Draft Average life proposed for
materials in Thailand. Journal of Material Astana/Almaty. 208] Kemal Konyalioglu A and Bereketli I. the notified Electrical and Electronic
Cycles and Waste Management. 197] Government of Israel. 2012. Environ- 2023. A Decision Support System for Equipment (EEE) items under the
188] Borrirukwisitsak S, Khwamsawat K and mental Treatment of Electrical and small household appliances’ waste E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2022.
Leewattananukul S. 2021. The use of Electronic Equipment and Batteries Law, management in Turkey. Conference New Delhi, India.
relative potential risk as a prioritization 5772-2012. paper: Tenth International Conference 218] Available at https://righttorepairindia.
tool for household WEEE management in 198] Government of Türkiye. 2023. Regulation on Environmental Management, Engi- gov.in/.
Thailand. Journal of Material Cycles and on the Management of Waste Electrical neering, Planning & Economics (CEMEPE 219] Government of Afghanistan. 2022.
Waste Management 23, pp. 480-488. and Electronic Equipment (in Turkish). 2023), Skiathos, Greece. Country Report, Afghanistan (draft).
189] Hoang TK. 2021. E-waste management 199] Government of Qatar. 2002. Executive 209] Ozhan Akyuz A and Kumas K. 2022. Elec- Seventh Regional 3R Forum in Asia
in Vietnam: Current status, challenges By-Law for the Environment Protection trical and electronic wastes in the world and the acific Adelaide Australia -
and solutions. Environmental Science Law, Issued vide the Decree Law No. 30 and Türkiye: policies and practices in November 2016. United Nations Centre
and Pollution Research, 24039-24050. for the Year 2002. Türkiye and some recommendations. for Regional Development.
190] Le VP. 2023. E-waste management 200] Government of the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Energy Applica- 220] Hossain S. 2010. Study on E-waste:
in Viet Nam: Policies, practices, and 2018. Federal Law No. 12 of 2018 on Inte- tions and Technologies 9(3), 2022, pp. Bangladesh Situation 2010. Environment
challenges. Journal of Environmental grated Waste Management. 71-80. and Social Development Organization,
Management. 201] Government of the State of Palestine. 210] Iattoni G et al. 2021, note 218. Dhaka, Bangladesh.
191] Government of Viet Nam, Ministry of 1999. Palestinian Environmental Law. 211] Baldé CP, Panchal R and Forti V. 2022. 221] Aziz M. 2022. Bangladesh e-waste
National Resources and Environment, 202] Government of Israel, Ministry of National E-waste Monitor for Lebanon rules hang in limbo as electrical goods
Vietnam Environment Administration. Environmental Protection. n.d. Bottles, 2022. Bonn, Germany. companies ask for delay. Mongabay
2020. E-waste management in Vietnam Tires, Packaging, Appliances, Plastic 212] Ibid. News, 21 October 2022.
[slide presentation]. Bags: Extended Producer Responsibility. 213] Government of India, Ministry of 222] Bangladesh Telecommunication Regu-
192] Basel Convention. 2023. Basel 203] Parliament of Georgia. 2014. The Waste Environment and Forests. 2011. E-waste latory Commission. 2022. E-waste
Convention on the Control of Trans- Management Code of the Republic of (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011, Management (in Bengali).
boundary Movements of Hazardous Georgia, No. 2994. otification May . ew elhi ndia.
Wastes and their Disposal. Geneva.

References
223] World Bank. 2023. Bangladesh Environ- 233] Government of Sri Lanka, Auditor Gene- 242] UNEP. 2015. National Implementation 251] Government of Australia, Department of
mental Sustainability and Transformation ral’s Department, Performance and Plan for the Stockholm Convention in Climate Change, Energy, the Environment
Project (P172817). Environment Audit Division. 2016. Elec- Bosnia and Herzegovina. UNEP, UNIDO, and Water, and Blue Environment Pty.
224] Parliament of Bhutan. 2009. Waste tronic Waste Management in Sri Lanka, GEF and Ministry of Foreign Trade Ltd. 2022. National Waste Report 2022.
Prevention and Management Act. 2016, Report No. PER/2016/EW/0. and Economic Relations, Bosnia and 252] Government of Australia, Department of
225] Government of Bhutan, National Environ- 234] Government of Sri Lanka, Central Herzegovina. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment
mental Commission. 2019. National Environmental Authority. 2023. 243] Basel Convention Regional Centre in and Water. 2022. Recycling and Waste
Waste Management Strategy 2019. Licensed Collectors of Electronic Waste Bratislava. 2022. Project: Improving of Reduction (Product Stewardship-Te-
226] Government of Bhutan, National Management in Sri Lanka. Environmentally Sound Management levisions and Computers) Rules 2021.
Environment Commission. 2019. 235] Government of Sri Lanka, Central of computing equipment and mobile Federal Register of Legislation, Compi-
Thimphu Waste Management Plan. Environmental Authority. 2023. Transit or phones in Moldova and Belarus - lation No. 2.
Thimphu, Bhutan. Transshipment approvals for Hazardous Activity 1.1 (Belarus). 253] ActivGroup. 2023, note 261.
227] Government of Maldives, Ministry of Waste through Sri Lanka under the Basel 244] Basel Convention Regional Centre in 254] Australia New Zealand Recycling
Environment, Climate Change and Tech- Convention. Bratislava. 2022. Project: Improving of Platform. 2023. 2021/22 Annual Report;
nology. 2022. E-Waste Management 236] European Commission. 2023. Critical Environmentally Sound Management Ecycle Solutions. 2023. 2021/22 Annual
Guideline for Digital Maldives for Raw Materials: ensuring secure and of computing equipment and mobile Report.
Adaptation, Decen-tralization and Diver- sustainable supply chains for EU’s green phones in Moldova and Belarus - 255] Ecycle Solutions. 2023. 2021/22
sification ro ect. and digital future. Press release, 16 Activity 1.1 (Moldova). Annual Report. Ecycle solutions
228] PACE Nepal Pvt. Ltd. 2017. Final Report March, Brussels, Belgium. 245] Baldé CP, Iattoni G, Luda V, Nnorom IC, E-waste & Polystyrene recycling.
on Inventory Preparation of E-waste and 237] European Commission. 2022. Review: Pecheniuk O and Kuehr R. 2021. Regional h t t p s : // w w w. d c c e ew. gov. a u /s i te s /
Its Management in Kathmandu Valley. Restriction of the use of hazardous E-waste Monitor for the CIS + Georgia - default files documents ecycle-soluti-
Kathmandu, Nepal. substances in electronics. 10 March. 2021. UNU/UNITAR, Bonn, Germany. ons-annual-report-2021-22.pdf
229] Inclusive-Everest JV. 2023. To develop 238] Baldé, CP et al. 2022, note 11. 246] Ibid. 256] MobileMuster. 2022. Annual Report
national policy/strategy and regu- 239] Baldé, CP et al. 2022, note 13. 247] Patil RA and Ramakrishna S. 2020. A MobileMuster.
latory framework for an e-waste 240] 240UNDP. 2020. Rapid Assessment comprehensive analysis of e-waste 257] MobileMuster. 2023. Go for Zero 2023.
management in Nepal. eport on the enefits of ircular legislation worldwide. Environmental Aussies’ love affair with mobiles - 25
230] Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Economy on Mitigation of GHGs Science and Pollution Research, 27, pp. years of MobileMuster. News.
Climate Change and Environmental Emission in the Waste Sector: Republic 14412-14431. 258] Local Government Association of
Coordination. 2022. National Hazardous of North Macedonia. Ministry of 248] Government of Australia, Department the Northern Territory. 2022. LGANT
Waste Management Policy, 2022. Isla- Environment and Physical Planning of of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Submission to Stewardship for
mabad. North Macedonia, GEF and UNDP. Arts, National Environment Protection Consumer and Other Electrical and
231] Government of Pakistan, Ministry of 241] European Commission. 2022. Support Council. 2009. National Waste Policy: Electronic Products: Discussion Paper.
Environment. 1997. Environmental Guide- in the implementation of the waste Less Waste, More Resources. Australia.
lines for Sound Disposal Management of management legislation and Extended 249] Government of Australia, Department of 259] SLR Consulting NZ Limited. 2015. E-waste
Mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lights Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, Climate Change, Energy, the Environment Product Stewardship. Framework for
Bulbs (CFLs). Islamabad. Annex C1: Twinning Fiche. Brussels, and Water. 2018. National Waste Policy: New Zealand. Final Report. Ministry
232] Sheikh AT. 2023. Hazardous Waste Chal- Belgium. Less waste, more resources. for the Environment, Report Number
lenge. DAWN News, Pakistan, 4 May. 250] ActivGroup. 2023. The Activ Group 720.10008, Wellington.
Co-regulatory Annual Report FY 21/22. 260] Government of New Zealand, Ministry
for Environment. 2021. Recycling WEEE.
30 March.

References
261] Government of New Zealand, Ministry for 273] Eurostat. 2019. Prodcom - statistics by 282] Glimov A, Leventhal A, Meza L. et al. 2021. 289] Bobba S, Mathieux F and Blengini GA.
Environment. 2022. Waste Minimisation product. Prevalence of disposable pod use and 2020. How will second-use of batteries
Fund. Last updated 18 October 2022. 274] Riahi K et al. 2017. The Shared Soci- consumer preference for e-cigarette affect stocks and ows in the E A
262] Tech Collect NZ. 2020. E-Waste Product oeconomic Pathways and their energy, product characteristics among vape model for traction Li-ion batteries.
Stewardship - New Zealand. land use, and greenhouse gas emis- shop customers in Southern California: Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
263] ecretariat of the acific egional sions implications: An overview. Global a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2021, vol. 145, June 2019, pp. 279-291.
Environment Programme. 2016. Cleaner Environmental Change, vol. 42, January vol. 11/10. 290] Chen et al. 2012 en Y, Jinhui L, Lieqiang
acific acific egional Waste and 2017, pp. 153-168. 283] Chapman M. 2022. Rise of single-use C, Shusheng C, and Weihua D. 2012.
Pollution Management Strategy 2016- 275] Forti V, Baldé CP, Kuehr R. 2018. E-waste vapes sending tonnes of lithium to “Brominated Flame Re[1]tardants
2025. Apia, Samoa. tatistics uidelines on lassifications landfill. The Bureau of Investigative (BFRs) in Waste Electrical and Elec-
264] acific eef avers td. . E-Waste Reporting and Indicators, second edition. Journalism, 15 July. tronic Equipment (WEEE) Plastics
Country Assessments. Summary UNU, ViE - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. 284] Barnes O and Heal A. 2023. The environ- and Prin[1]ted Circuit Boards (PCBs)”.
Report to the PacWaste Technical 276] International Renewable Energy Agency. mental cost of single-use vapes. Procedia Environmental Sciences
Advisory anel outh acific egional 2023. Country Rankings (accessed on Financial Times, 7 March. 16: 552-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Environment Programme. 24 March); International Renewable 285] Baldé CP et al. 2022, note 13. proenv.2012.10.076; Abbasi. 2015.
265] GEF. 2022. ourteen acific sland Energy Agency. 2020. Global Rene- 286] Baldé CP et al. 2022, note 13, and Baldé “Story of Brominated Flame Retardants:
nations make major strides towards a wables Outlook: Energy transformation CP et al. 2020, note 11. Substance Flow Analysis of PDBEs from
leaner acific. Press release, 9 March. 2050. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 287] Huisman M, Kern P, Micheli P and Use to Waste, PhD-thesis; Yu et al. 2017.
266] acWaste lus outh acific egional 277] PV Cycle Italy Group. 2023. Recycling Magpantay E. 2015. E-waste “Charac[1]terization of brominated
Environment Programme. 2021. Samoa Solutions for Every Type of Refuse. Milan, statistics: Guidelines on classifica- ame retardants from e-waste compo-
Commits to Enhancing E-Waste Italy. tions, reporting and indicators. Bonn, nents in China”. Waste Management
Management in Collaboration with The 278] Riahi K et al. 2017, note 285. Germany, United Nations University, IAS 68: 498-507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
PacWastePlus Programme. News 18 May. 279] Magalini F, Wang F, Huisman J, Kuehr R, - SCYCLE. wasman.2017.07.033.
267] outh acific egional Environment Baldé K, Straalen VVS, Hestin M, Lecerf H, 288] Tecchio P, Ardente F, Marwede M,
Programme. 2022. Subject: Request Sayman U and Akpulat O. 2014. Study on Christian C, Dimitrova G and Mathieux
for tenders (RFT): Design of Samoa’s collection rates of waste electrical and F. 2018. Analysis of material efficiency
E-Waste Product Stewardship Scheme. electronic equipment (WEEE). European aspects of personal computers product
268] outh acific egional Environment Commission, Brussels, Belgium. group. E ublications ffice
Programme. 2023. Tender Name: 2022/ 280] Tom Grill. 2022. Are Disposable Vapes of the European Union, Luxembourg;
PWP-103-CON: Design of Samoa’s Bad For The Environment? The Ecoex- Buchert M, Jenseit W, Merz C and
E-Waste Product Stewardship Scheme. perts, 20 December. Schüler D. 2011. Ökobilanz zum „Recy-
269] acWaste lus outh acific egional 281] erzy ski and timson . . Esti- cling von Lithium-Ionen-Batterien“
Environment Programme. 2021. Project mation of the global number of vapers: (LithoRec). Öko-Institut e.V., Final Report,
Snapshot Niue. November. 82 million worldwide in 2021. Drugs, Darmstadt; Huisman J. 2004. QWERTY
270] acWaste lus outh acific egional Habits and Social Policy, vol. 24/2, 2023, and eco-efficiency analysis on cellular
Environment Programme. 2022. Niue pp. 91-103. phone treatment in Sweden. TU Delft,
E-waste Clean-up. 19 December. Sweden.
271] Available at https://ewastemonitor.info/
monitors/.
272] Available at https://ewastemonitor.info/
monitors/.

References
291] Maragkos KG, Hahladakis JN and 294] Fritz B, Aichele C and Schmidt M. 2020. 303] Magalini F and Huisman J. 2018, note 39. 314] OECD. 2023. OECD.Stat.
Gidarakos E. 2013. Qualitative and Environmental impact of high-value 304] Shaikh S. 2021. A critical analysis of 315] ITU. 2019. ITU Telecommunication/ICT
quantitative determination of heavy gold scrap recycling. The International e-waste management and recycling in Regulatory Survey.
metals in waste cellular phones. Waste Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(10), Pakistan: a life cycle assessment. PhD 316] Ibid.
Management, Vol. 33 (9), pp. 1882-1889; pp. 1930-1941; Nuss P and Eckelman MJ. thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne, 317] Wikipedia. 2023. DIKW pyramid.
Wäger P, Schluep M and Müller E. 2012. 2014. Life cycle assessment of metals: Australia.
RoHS substances in mixed plastics A scientific synthesis. PLoS ONE, 9(7); 305] Giang A and Selin NE. 2015. enefits of
from waste electrical and electronic Usapein P and Tongcumpou C. 2016. mercury controls for the United States.
equipment. Environmental Science and Greenhouse gas emission in jewelry PNAS, 113 (2) pp. 286-291.
Technology, Vol. 46 (2), pp. 628-635; industry: A case study of Silver Flat 306] Pain DJ, Dickie I, Green RE, Kanstrup N
Böni H. and Widmer R. 2011. Entsorgung Ring. Applied Environmental Research, and Cromie R. 2019. Wildlife, human
von Flachbildschirmen in der Schweiz. pp. 11-18; Van der Voet E, Van Oers L, and envi-ronmental costs of using lead
Empa and Swico; Cucchiella F, D’Adamo Verboon M and Kuipers K. 2018. Environ- ammunition: An economic review and
I, Lenny KSC and Rosa P. 2015. Recycling mental implications of future demand analysis. Ambio 48, pp. 969-988.
of WEEEs: An economic assessment of scenarios for metals: Methodology and 307] Dalberg Advisors. 2021. Plastics: The
present and future e-waste streams. application to the case of seven major Costs to Society, the Environment & the
Renewable and Sustainable Energy metals. The Life Cycle Assessment Economy. World Wide Fund for Nature,
Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pp. 263-272; of Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) - Gland, Switzerland.
Savvilotidou V, Hahladakis JN and Gida- Reference Year 2017 & 2022 Update, 308] Pindyck RS. 2016. The Social Cost of
rakos, E. 2014. Determination of toxic International Platinum Group Metals Carbon Revisited. National Bureau of
metals in discarded Liquid Crystal Association, Munich - Germany. News. Economic Research, Working Paper
Displays (LCDs). In JN Hahladakis (ed.), 295] World Intellectual Property Organization 22807, Cambridge MA.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, (WIPO). 2023. PATSTAT Online; WIPO 309] Ricke K, Drouet L, Calderia K and Tavoni
Vol. 92, pp. 108-115. and European atent ffice European M. 2018. Country-level social cost of
292] Nassar NT, Lederer GW, Brainard JL, atent ffice. . Espacenet Patent carbon. Nature Climate Change 8, pp.
Padilla AJ and Lessard JD. 2022. Rock- search. 895-900.
to-Metal Ratio: A Foundational Metric for 296] UNITAR et al. 2023, note 203; Yumashev 310] Kikstra JS, Waodelich P, Rising J,
Understanding Mine Wastes. Environ- D and Baldé CP. 2022. Electrical and Yumashev D, Hope C and Brierley CM.
mental Science & Technology 2022 56 electronic equipment: A tool for 2021. The social cost of carbon dioxide
(10), 6710-6721. setting targets for e-waste collected. under climate-economy feedbacks and
293] Duan H, Miller TR, Gang L, Xianlai Z, Keli Y, UNITAR, Bonn, Germany. temperature variability. Environmental
Qifei H and Jian Z. 2018. Chilling Prospect: 297] World Bank. 2023. Latest Commodity Research Letters, 2021, 16(9):094037.
Climate Change Effects of Mismanaged Prices Published, Commodity Markets. 311] Rennert K, Errickson F and Prest BC, et al.
Refrigerants in China. Environmental 298] ISE Metal Quotes. Metal Prices. 2022. Comprehensive Evidence Implies
Science and Technology, 52 (11). 299] Daily Metal Prices. 2022. Metal Spot a Higher Social Cost of CO2. Nature 610,
Prices by Date. 1 July 2022. pp. 687-692.
300] Umicore. 2023. Iridium. Precious Metal 312] Compliance and Risks. 2023. CRP
Management, Prices. Platform Overview.
301] Metalary. 2023. Osmium Price. 313] United Nations Statistical Division.
302] Daily Metal prices. 2022. Metal Spot 2023. Questionnaire on Environmental
Prices by Date. Daily Metal Prices, July Statistics.
01, 2022.

United Nations Institute
for Training and
Research (UNITAR)
Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) Programme
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1
53113 Bonn, Germany
International
Telecommunication
Union (ITU)
Place des Nations, 1211
Geneva 20, Switzerland
Fondation Carmignac
Villa Carmignac, Porquerolles
Île de Porquerolles
La Courtade
83400 Hyères, France
Contact
balde@unitar.org Maurizio Marcato / Shutterstock.com

GEM 2024-18-03 Web Page Per Page Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEM 2024-18-03 Web Page Per Page Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEM 2024-18-03 Web Page Per Page Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE GLOBAL

Image: Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac

Pdf version: 978-92-61-38781-5 Fondation Carmignac

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 2

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 3

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 10 Asia..............................................................................................................................................76

Chapter 1: What is EEE and E-waste?............................................................................. 18 Europe....................................................................................................................................... 94

Chapter 2: Methodology.....................................................................................................22 Oceania................................................................................................................................... 100

Chapter 3: Key Global Statistics..................................................................................... 26 Global E-waste Statistics Partnership....................................................................... 104

Chapter 4: Transboundary Movements....................................................................... 38 About the Authors.............................................................................................................. 105

Chapter 5: Legislation......................................................................................................... 42 Annex 1: Methodology Details........................................................................................ 106

Chapter 6: Recovery of Valuable and Critical Metals............................................. 44 Annex 2: Datasets.................................................................................................................116

Chapter 7: Treatment Technology Innovations......................................................... 48 References..............................................................................................................................138

Chapter 8: Environmental Impact..................................................................................50

Chapter 9: Economic Assessment................................................................................. 52

Chapter 10: Improvement Outlook from 2022 to 2030......................................... 56

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 4

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 is funded, and prepared in part-

Overall coordination was provided by Dr. Cornelis P. Baldé and Professor

The authors would like to thank Professor Maria Holuszko (University

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 5

ABBREVIATION FULL NAME ABBREVIATION FULL NAME

HFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbons UNU United Nations University

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 6

Muntaka Chasant for Fondation Carmignac

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 7

Universal and meaningful connectivity are prerequisites of digital trans-

E-waste is a special waste stream due to its varied nature which

Natalia Catalina / Shutterstock.com

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 8

Mr. Nikhil Seth

Dr. Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 9

62 billion kg of e-waste generated

Executive globally in 2022.

Summary 7.8 kg per capita.

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 10

62 billion kg Composition of Global

13.8 billion kg 16 billion kg 18 billion kg 14 billion kg

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 11

Amount of E-waste Generated and Collected

Source: The Global E-waste Monitor 2024

Documented formal collection and recy- advances in e-waste management; moreover,

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 12

Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 13

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 14

0.6 accounting for 65 per cent of the total

photovoltaic panels. Most controlled transboundary ows take

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 15

In a progressive scenario, the global collection and recycling rate

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 16

Any substantial increase in the collection and recycling of e-waste

Bénédicte Kurzen / NOOR for Fondation Carmignac

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 17

EEE encompasses a wide range of products used by households and

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 18

Figure 1. Equipment Categories

EEE comprises a wide variety of products,

This categorization is in line with both the