CASE STUDY

E-waste management
programme in Cox’s
Bazar refugee camps
Sanjana Srivastav, Aimee Jenks, Dewan Mowdudur
Rahman, and Mohammad Sijanur Rahaman Robin

How can e-waste be effectively managed in situations

of fragility and displacement? This case study outlines
the experience of a collaborative programme (launched
by UNHCR Bangladesh supported by UNHCR Innovation
Service, the NGO Forum for Public Health, Schneider
Electric, Electriciens Sans Frontiers, and UNITAR/GPA) to
promote e-waste management and build local capabilities
for e-waste repair and recycling in the Rohingya refugee
camps in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh.

DIRECTED BY FUNDED BY PARTNERED BY

 UNHCR, Dewan Mowdudur Rahman

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the colleagues who generously shared their time,
resources, and invaluable knowledge, which were crucial in writing this case-
study on e-waste management. We particularly appreciate the collaborative
efforts of UNHCR Bangladesh, NGO Forum for Public Health, and UNITAR/
GPA, whose partnership and support were instrumental in developing this
case study. In particular, we would like to thank Aimee Jenks (UNITAR/GPA),
Elif Demir (UNITAR/GPA), Mohammad Sijanur Rahaman Robin (NGO Forum for
Public Health), Dewan Mowdudur Rahman (UNHCR), Paul McCallion (UNHCR),
Ehsanul Hoque (UNHCR), Tashawar Mohammad Azraf (UNHCR), and
Tala Budziszweski (UNHCR).

Front cover photo: UNHCR, Sumayet Naiyer Oshmita

2 — STATE FRAGILITY INITIATIVE

 CONTENTS

1. Background 4

2. Implications of improper disposal of e-waste 5

3. E-waste assessment in camps 6

3.1. E-waste assessment 6

3.2. Repair shop assessment 7

4. Project implementation 8

5. Achievements and challenges 10

6. Lessons learned 12

3 — E-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME IN COX’S BAZAR REFUGEE CAMP

1. Background
The Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, host
approximately 968,000 displaced individuals who depend on basic
energy services for their daily activities and essential needs. Many of
these energy needs are met through solar-powered appliances provided
by humanitarian organisations. However, the rapid turnover and limited
lifespan of these appliances have generated substantial amounts of
electronic waste (e-waste), resulting in a significant environmental
challenge. To address this issue, a collaborative project supported
by UNHCR Innovation service was launched by UNHCR Bangladesh,
NGO Forum for Public Health, Schneider Electric, Electriciens Sans
Frontiers and UNITAR/GPA to manage e-waste effectively and build local
capacities for e-waste repair and recycling. The project aims to develop
skills in e-waste management and promote sustainable recycling
practices within the camps while boosting livelihood opportunities.

A key component of this project was the establishment of a Green

Innovation Hub (GIH), designed to enhance local skills and infrastructure
for e-waste management. The GIH serves as a dedicated space for
training refugees in e-waste collection, analysis, and repair of solar
and domestic appliances. By establishing e-waste take-back and
recycling value chains, the project aims to extend the lifespan of
electronic products and ensure environmentally responsible disposal.
Additionally, the project also seeks to improve the overall sustainability
of humanitarian operations and support economic activities in both the
refugee and host communities.

This case study provides an overview of the e-waste situation in the

Kutupalong and Nayapara refugee camps, outlines the implementation
of the project, key challenges, achievements, and shares lessons learned.

The report contributes to the wider knowledge base and lessons learned
of the global humanitarian sector e-waste task force, managed by
the Coordination Unit of the Global Platform for Action on Sustainable
Energy in Displacement Settings (GPA) hosted at UNITAR.

4 — STATE FRAGILITY INITIATIVE

2. Implications of improper disposal
of e-waste
The surge in electronic device usage within the refugee camps in Cox’s
Bazar has led to a significant increase in e-waste. Before intervention,
some common practices in the camps involved burning cables to extract
valuable copper for resale, disposing battery water into nearby drains
or yards, and dumping invaluable waste in the garbage. These practices
not only posed environmental and health hazards but also contributed
to the release of hazardous materials such as lead, cadmium, mercury,
and nickel, as well as endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

These toxic substances, contained in e-waste, can leach into soil

and water, contaminating local ecosystems and posing serious
health risks to nearby communities. Exposure to these toxins is linked
to severe health issues, including developmental delays, learning
difficulties, and reduced IQ in children, as well as kidney damage,
cancer, and neurological impairments. Children and pregnant women
are particularly vulnerable due to their developing systems and higher
absorption rates.

Moreover, improper e-waste disposal releases harmful substances

into the air, water, and soil, causing respiratory problems, cancer
risks, and ecosystem degradation. Effective e-waste recycling can
mitigate these risks by recovering valuable materials and preventing
toxins from entering the environment, thereby protecting both human
health and ecological integrity while supporting a circular economy.
Robust e-waste management programmes are thus essential to
safeguarding vulnerable populations and promoting environmental
sustainability.

5 — E-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME IN COX’S BAZAR REFUGEE CAMP

3. E-waste assessment in camps
The e-waste project was implemented in the Kutupalong Refugee Camp
(KRC) and the Nayapara Refugee Camp (NRC), which are structured into
various blocks (A, B, C, D etc.). Representative leaders from each block
played a crucial role in the project’s implementation and facilitated
community engagement. The block-level approach allowed for targeted
intervention and fostered community ownership and participation in
managing e-waste within the camps.

3.1. E-waste assessment

A detailed e-waste assessment was conducted at the household level in
KRC through door-to-door interviews in four blocks. The data collected in
A-block revealed that fans, solar panels, and various types of batteries
accounted for more than 70% of the total e-waste by weight, as can
be seen in Figure 1 below. The assessment documented approximately
349 kilograms of e-waste in A-Block, including:

• Fans and solar panels: Major contributors to the e-waste stream.

• Batteries: Varied types including dry cell, lead-acid, and lithium-ion

batteries.

• Other items: Mobile phones, lights, headphones, and small household

appliances.

Figure 1. Amount (kg) of e-waste observed in Camp KRC – Block A

For the other six blocks (B, C, D, E, F, G), e-waste data was collected
based on the number of items observed. The most frequently found
types of e-waste in these blocks included chargers, LED bulbs, ceiling
and stand fans, cables, and batteries, among other items. More than a
hundred different types of individual e-waste items were recorded,
most of which were found in small quantities ranging from one to fifty
and categorised under “other,” as shown in Figure 2 below.

6 — STATE FRAGILITY INITIATIVE

Figure 2. Number of e-waste recorded in Camp KRC – Block B, C, D, E, F, G

E-waste in KRC is typically purchased by the local repair shops based

on the material type, such as plastic, iron, aluminium, and others.
For example, batteries are classified as toxic, fans are categorised as
plastic/copper/iron, cables are categorised as copper/aluminium.

3.2. Repair shop assessment

An initial survey conducted in July 2022 identified four informal e-waste
repair shops in KRC. The initial survey revealed that repair shops
primarily dealt with mobile phones and Interruptible Power Supply (IPS)
systems, with limited tools and technical knowledge for more complex
repairs. The most common e-waste observed in the repair shop can be
seen in Figure 3 below. Key findings included:

• Tool availability: Basic tools such as screwdrivers, pliers, cutters,

tweezers, multi-meters, variable power supplies, and soldering
machines were available in the repair shops.

• Repairs: The repairmen mainly specialise in repairing items such as

fans, lights, mobile phones, amplifiers, scales, and mosquito-killing
bats.

• Training needs: Shop owners expressed a need for training in repairing

more complex items, including fridges, televisions, and batteries.

• Storage: The repairmen reported storing e-waste for varying periods

of time, ranging from less than six months to more than five years.

Figure 3. Most common e-waste observed in the repair shop

7 — E-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME IN COX’S BAZAR REFUGEE CAMP

4. Project implementation
The implementation of the project involved establishing a
comprehensive e-waste collection, repair, and recycling scheme
tailored to the unique needs and conditions of the Kutupalong and
Nayapara Refugee Camps. This initiative aimed to manage e-waste
effectively by categorising items as repairable or non-repairable and
taking appropriate action accordingly.

The NGO Forum, in collaboration with other stakeholders, hired 20

incentivised volunteers (10 in Kutupalong and 10 in Nayapara; 14 men
and 6 women) who were responsible for door-to-door collection of 1 to
2 e-waste items per household. These volunteers were trained to handle
e-waste safely and were compensated according to the government’s
‘Cash for Work’ regulations, receiving 50 BDT per hour with a maximum
wage of 350 BDT per day. This section describes the various components
and phases involved in the implementation of the e-waste take-back
and storage programme.

Awareness raising
The project commenced with awareness raising among different
community groups about the detrimental effects of improper e-waste
disposal on health and the environment. Residents in KRC and NRC
camps received information on the harmful effects of e-waste through
door-to-door campaigns, leaflet distributions, and block-level efforts
led by trained refugee volunteers. Additionally, the involvement of
community leaders was instrumental in gaining broader acceptance
and understanding of e-waste issues. Multiple open-yard community
awareness sessions were conducted throughout the collection process
which successfully conveyed the importance of responsible e-waste
management.

Collection process
Following the awareness raising, e-waste collection occurred at the
block level using two methods: daily temporary collection points and
on-site collection directly from household premises. As such, designated
teams, comprising NGO Forum supervisors and trained community
volunteers, collected e-waste from households through door-to-door
visits and centralized collection desks which operated on specific
days of the week. This dual approach ensured maximum coverage and
convenience for the community members.

8 — STATE FRAGILITY INITIATIVE

Cash-based intervention
To incentivise the community to participate in the e-waste collection
scheme, a Cash for Work mechanism was implemented. The monetary
value of the collected e-waste was determined based on a market
assessment of common e-waste prices in the informal scrap market.
For example, a smartphone was valued at 200 BDT, while e-waste with
high iron content was purchased at 40 BDT per kg. Community members
received cash for the e-waste they provided, which they could exchange
for cash on designated dates. This cash-based incentive aimed to
mitigate the issue of improper e-waste disposal and provide a small
income for the community members.

Data storage and management

A comprehensive logbook system was established to document the
e-waste collection process. This logbook recorded essential details
such as date, time, block, shed, room, type and quantity of e-waste,
and household ID. This system ensured transparency and accountability,
allowing the project team to track progress, manage funds, and
analyse data on existing e-waste within the camps.

E-waste storage and assessment

Once collected, the e-waste was transported to dedicated storage
facilities in the camps, specifically designed to meet international
e-waste storage standards. These facilities were managed by the
NGO Forum as an extension of their local camp-based offices and
were equipped with fire detection and prevention features to mitigate
risks of accidental incidents. The collected items were then assessed
to determine whether they could be repaired or needed to be sent
for recycling. Repairable items were stored for future repair activities
planned to take place in the GIH, while non-repairable items were sent
to the authorised e-waste recycling company, Azizu, based in Dhaka.

A summary of the key phases of the e-waste take-back and storage

process can be seen in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. E-waste take-back and storage process

9 — E-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME IN COX’S BAZAR REFUGEE CAMP

5. Achievements and challenges
The e-waste management programme achieved significant milestones
in a highly challenging environment. A notable success was the
engagement of 4,253 or 49.4%1 of Rohingya refugee households across
the KRC and NRC, who actively participated in the programme, leading
to the collection of over 9.4 tons of e-waste. Comprehensive awareness
and education campaigns played a key role in this success and helped
mitigate improper e-waste management practices and their associated
health hazards.

The programme saw a positive shift in community behaviour towards

e-waste management along with a significant reduction in visible
e-waste within the camps. Previously harmful practices, such as burning
cables and improper disposal of lead-acid battery water, significantly
decreased. The community’s increased interest in proper e-waste
management and repair activities, as well as their active participation
in the program, marked significant progress. More than 80% of people in
the targeted camps are now familiar with the e-waste concept and they
practice adhering to the process of safe disposal and recycling shared
by the NGO Forum team.

As the project progressed, the camp also witnessed notable reduction

in waste, particularly in the solid waste management facility within the
camp. Previously, broken parts and small cables were frequently visible
in the camp and drainage areas. However, these instances significantly
decreased since the initiation of the programme. Communities also
showed an increased tendency to store various types of e-waste, with
some actively repairing damaged electronics and expressing interest in
learning diverse repair techniques.

Moreover, a significant highlight of the project was the development

of the GIH, which was utilised to provide technical knowledge and
hands-on training related to electrical items and e-waste repair.
This facility, equipped with training equipment for solar home systems
and electrical wiring donated by the Schneider Electric Foundation
and supported by Electriciens Sans Frontieres, aimed to upskill the
refugee community and promote entrepreneurship. During the pilot
phase (2022-2023), a comprehensive curriculum was developed to
train community members on solar repair and maintenance, including
solar lanterns, streetlights, home systems, mini-grids, and e-waste.
The collaboration with stakeholders, including government
representatives and agency partners, further strengthened the
programme’s impact. These stakeholders were engaged through
meetings to secure their support and raise awareness about
the e-waste collection process and its environmental benefits.
Additionally, the collected e-waste was handed over to Azizu for
ethical recycling, ensuring responsible disposal in compliance with
safety and environmental standards.

1 The total population for KRC and NRC is 43,056 individuals or roughly 8,611 households.

10 — STATE FRAGILITY INITIATIVE

Alongside the achievements and community engagement, the programme
faced the following key challenges that provide valuable lessons:

• Collection and documentation issues: Initially, the household-to-

household collection method proved time-consuming and difficult
due to the diverse range of e-waste and the need for detailed
paper-based documentation, especially during the monsoon season.
To improve efficiency, temporary collection points were established
at pre-designated block centres, utilising open yard meeting rooms
and shop facilities. This adjustment significantly minimised the
time required for waste collection and provided disposal sites near
households rather than requiring them to walk long distances.

• Competition with informal collectors: Another challenge was the

competition from informal e-waste collectors who offered higher
prices to ‘compete’ with the e-waste collection process set up
through the project, bringing more monetary value to the community.

• Financial constraints: Financial constraints also impacted the

programme’s sustainability. Providing cash incentives based on the
weight of e-waste involved logistical challenges. Delays in payments
due to rigorous paperwork and the need to adhere to Cash for Work
modalities made it difficult to compete with local scrap dealers who
could provide instant cash. During this pilot, the project provided
a total of BDT 2,322,639 in cash to refugees who returned e-waste.
Azizu charged a total of BDT 242,800 for the recycling/disposal and
transportation expenses incurred in collecting e-waste from Cox’s
Bazar to Dhaka.

• Operational challenges: Operational challenges included ensuring

the safe storage of collected e-waste with fire detection and
prevention features, which required significant resources and
management. Additionally, coordination with other agencies, such as
the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which operated a
solar lantern repair desk in an adjacent camp, required inter-agency
discussions to optimise e-waste use and recycling, posing its own set
of challenges.

• Government and administrative restrictions: Rohingya refugees

are not legally allowed to work on the formal market so there was
some resistance to developing a training and repair centre inside
the camp. The restrictions on refugees’ rights to work and access
to bank accounts resulted in delays and hindered the establishment
of a sustainable revenue stream for the GIH, limiting the project’s
financial sustainability. Despite the delays, once the project was
underway, it generated considerable interest and acceptance from
government authorities administering the camp due to the innovation
and opportunities it brought to the community living there.

These achievements and challenges highlight the programme’s

impact and the obstacles faced, providing valuable insights for future
initiatives and replicability in similar settings.

11 — E-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME IN COX’S BAZAR REFUGEE CAMP

6. Lessons learned
The implementation of the e-waste management project in KRC and
NRC camps revealed several crucial insights. These lessons underline
the complexity of managing e-waste in such settings and emphasise
the need for adaptable and inclusive strategies. The key lessons learned
from the programme, identified by stakeholders and implementors
involved, are outlined below:

1. Informal e-waste systems already existed: Informal e-waste

systems were already in place, with most e-waste purchased from
local markets. When establishing formalised e-waste collection
and recycling processes, it is important to acknowledge and
integrate these existing systems. This approach ensures that
different parts of the value chain are involved to avoid disrupting
established dynamics. For example, existing repair shops could be
consulted and included in e-waste training and repair activities
to support their small income-generating activities and maintain
local, small-scale livelihoods. This integration helps foster greater
community acceptance and enhances the effectiveness of e-waste
management initiatives.

2. There is need for flexible funding: There is a lack of funding for

developing a circular business model and funding is hard to obtain
for this topic. Managing e-waste is often challenging due to the high
costs associated with this practice. Setting up collection points and
storage facilities, incentivising people to relinquish their e-waste,
and transporting the waste to recycling facilities – often located
far away – are all costly endeavours. Therefore, there is a need for
flexible, multi-year funding to adapt to evolving needs. The 18-month
funding from the UNHCR Environment and Climate Action Innovation
Fund was pivotal for the project’s success.

3. No standard models for incentivising e-waste return: Incentivising

the return of e-waste proved difficult due to government restrictions
on cash payments and the lack of formal disposal systems.
The project had to adopt ‘Cash for Work’ regulations, which led
to some refugees preferring informal scrap dealers who offered
immediate cash.

4. There are limitations in circularity and repair models: Delays in

establishing the Green Innovation Hub and government restrictions
hindered efforts to create a revenue stream from repaired e-waste.
The multifaceted nature of e-waste infrastructure, which includes
not just recycling but also repair and better product design, poses
challenges in achieving sustainable practices. Consequently,
sustaining e-waste collection and disposal would require additional
grant funding to support these diverse aspects of circularity and
repair models.

12 — STATE FRAGILITY INITIATIVE

5. E-waste recycling is dependent on in-country recycling capacity:
The project benefited from an ISO-certified recycling company in
Dhaka, essential for end-of-life e-waste recycling. This partnership
allowed valuable metals in e-waste to be discounted from overall
disposal costs, minimising expenses. These factors reduce recycling
costs and minimised the need for expensive cross-border waste
disposal.

6. Government and administrative challenges: Legal restrictions on

refugee employment and bureaucratic delays, exacerbated by
frequent rotations of authorities responsible for project approvals,
hindered the development of the GIH. Despite these challenges,
the project’s innovative approach and potential benefits to the
community played a key role in eventually gaining interest and
support from local authorities. This experience highlights the need
for streamlined regulatory policies and frameworks to facilitate
e-waste management initiatives, including regulations and
supportive policies to provide clearer guidelines and incentives
for sustainable e-waste management practices in refugee camps
and beyond.

7. Developing a public-private partnership is complex: Developing

effective public-private partnerships required significant time and
resources. The collaboration among UNHCR, NGO Forum, UNITAR,
Schneider Electric, and Electriciens Sans Frontieres evolved over two
years, demonstrating the need for strong facilitation and sustained
commitment.

8. There are knowledge gaps in e-waste recycling: There was a

general lack of knowledge, research, and data on e-waste recycling
practices. Research and learning from resources like GOGLA
on circularity and e-waste recycling companies in Bangladesh
were essential to set up effective e-waste collection, storage,
and recycling processes. Setting up basic infrastructure for data
collection (e.g., through regular surveys and evaluation and
monitoring frameworks) is essential to address these knowledge
gaps. Engaging NGOs, sellers of electrical and electronic
equipment (EEE), and other stakeholders is key to scaling these
efforts and improving recycling practices. Building partnerships
and collaboration will help in gathering comprehensive data and
improving recycling practices. Additionally, creating communities
of practice or forums for continuous knowledge sharing among
stakeholders can enhance learning and the dissemination of best
practices in e-waste management.

9. Community engagement and ownership took time: Initially, the

concept of e-waste was unfamiliar to the Rohingya community.
Through extensive awareness campaigns, the project successfully
educated over 80% of the targeted population on the importance of
safe e-waste disposal and recycling. The involvement of community
leaders, who are trusted within their communities, played a pivotal
role in raising awareness and gaining broader acceptance of
e-waste issues. Their structured approach and influence were
instrumental in fostering understanding and encouraging active
participation in the e-waste management initiatives.

13 — E-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME IN COX’S BAZAR REFUGEE CAMP

 UNHCR, Sumayet Naiyer Oshmita

The State Fragility initiative (SFi) is an International

Growth Centre (IGC) initiative that aims to work with
national, regional, and international actors to catalyse
new thinking, develop more effective approaches to
addressing state fragility, and support collaborative
efforts to take emerging consensus into practice.
SFi brings together robust evidence and practical
insight to produce and promote actionable, policy-
focused guidance in the following areas: state
legitimacy, state effectiveness, private sector
development, and conflict and security. SFi also serves
as the Secretariat for the Council on State Fragility.

www.theigc.org