║JAI SRI GURUDEV║

Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust (R)

S J B INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
BGS Health & Education City, Kengeri, Bengaluru – 60.

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION

ENGINEERING

E-WASTE MANAGEMENT [21EC755]

Module 1-SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
AND
E-WASTE MANAGEMENT
ACADEMIC YEAR – 2024-2025

Faculty Name Mrs. Latha S

Designation Assistant Professor
Course E-waste management
Course Code 21EC755
Semester 7th
 MODULE 1: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND
E-WASTE MANAGEMENT

1.1 Importance of electrical and electronic equipment in a nation's

development, and e-waste as toxic companion of digital era

E-waste (electronic waste) as the fastest growing waste stream is now recognized as
‘tsunami’ by the United Nations (UN). E-waste is also described as ‘the toxic
companion of digital era; one cannot escape it in the present gadget loving age’
(Haldar 2020). The rapid growth of technology, upgradation of technical
innovations, and a high rate of obsolescence in the electronics industry have led to
one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world, which focuses on the Life
Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) as well as end-of-life (EoL) solutions.
In the waste management parlance, optimal and efficient use of natural resources,
minimization of wastes, development of cleaner products, environmentally sustainable
recycling, and disposal in environmentally friendly manner of wastes are some of the
issues which need to be addressed by all concerned while ensuring the economic
growth and enhancing the quality of life (LARRDIS 2011: 2). In addition to this, it is
hoped that better e-waste data eventually contributes to cohesive, effective e-waste
management. Statistical database is looked upon as a useful tool in expanding
discourse on e-waste management; along with toxicity, improvement in environment
and human health, legislative and extended producer responsibility (EPR) related
initiatives, statistics added newer dimensions of resource efficiency, circular economy,
livelihood opportunities or job creation, right to repair and so on.

TABLE 1.1 E-waste generation between 2013 and 2019 across the globe

E-waste related details

No. of country
having national
Intrinsic value of legislation (% of
Year of e-waste Generated in Formally secondary materials world population
No. data, source Mt (kg/inh) treateda (%) estimated covered)
1. 2013 41.8 Mt 6.5 Mt Approx. 48 61
(GEM 2014) (5.8 kg/inh) (15.5%) billion EUR (44%)
2. 2016 44.7 Mt 8.9 Mt Approx. 55 67
(GEM 2017) (6.1 kg/inh) (approx. billion EUR (66%)
 2 Sustainable development
20%)
3. 2019 53.6 Mt 9.3 Mt Approx. 57 78
(GEM 2020) (7.3 kg/inh) (17.4%) billion USD (71%)
(48 billion
EUR)

It is important to know that the generation of e-waste and its ‘distribution is

uneven: richer countries produce more. Norway, for example, produces 28.5 kg
per person per year, compared to an average of less than 2 kg in African countries’
(Parajuly et al. 2019: 8). Also, that although the GEMs (2014, 2017, 2020) provide
e-waste generation and estimate of intrinsic value of secondary materials recovered
from the e-waste generated, they do not provide statistics on production of EEE and
their contribution to nation’s development or development index of a nation. This
is the intrinsic limitation of the e-waste statistics.

1.2 : Let's understand e-waste

Every electrical and electronic product (e-product) has stipulated life. Once any
e-product reaches its end of its useful life, it becomes e-waste. Before any e-product
reaches EoL or stops functioning or a new technology makes the e-product obso-
lete, however, the e-product could be repaired or refurbished. The lifespan of any
e-product could be increased with repair and refurbishing, 3 and could be brought
to reuse (Figure 1.1).
Among varied definitions of e-waste, the following are the most accepted: ‘An
e-product becomes EEE waste (e-waste) when its owner discards the whole prod-
uct or its parts without an intention to reuse it’ (Miliute-Plepiene and Youhanan
2019: 5); and ‘anything with a plug, electric cord or battery (including EEE) that has
reached the end of its life, as well as the components that make up these end-of-life

Raw material input

End-of-life /
Production Sales Consumption Treatment Disposal
Generation

Resale/ Repair,
Landfill
Reuse Refurbish
FIGURE 1.1 Life cycle of an e-product

products’ (PACE and WEF 2019: 7). Broadly, e-waste means any EEE, whole or in
part discarded as waste by the consumer or bulk consumer as well as rejects from
manufacturing, refurbishment, and repair processes (Bhardwaj 2016: 1). Based on
lifespan, usability of the product, and obsoleteness of the technology, the waste has
been defined. International Labour Organization (ILO) (2019a: 2) opined, ‘the
term “e-waste” itself can be misleading since it overlooks the inherent value of
the discarded products’. The terms WEEE (waste EEE) and e-scrap are used
interchange- ably for e-waste in the existing literature including legal
frameworks. E-waste is a casual name for electronic waste generated after helpful
life of e-products.
WEEE is different from any other waste (solid, liquid, bio-medical, and construc-
tion waste) on two counts: first, e-waste contains hazardous waste, thus, is considered
as a toxic waste [Link] of hazardous substance get leached to soil and water
and contaminate,4 which can cause serious environmental and health problems; 5
and improper management of e-waste contributes to global warming.6 Second,
WEEE is a complex waste flow in terms of variety of products, composed of differ-
ent materials and components, contents in hazardous substances and growth pattern.
Any e-product is a complex composition of different elements (valuable and haz-
ardous); though the largest part of them by weight is represented by metals and plas-
tics, the materials used in e-products can be classified into four main groups: metals,
rare earth elements,7 plastics and other petroleum-based materials, and minerals and
non-metallic materials8 (Miliute-Plepiene and Youhanan 2019: 7).Therefore, proper
treatment of e-waste (mainly EoL solution / dismantling / recycling) and its discard
are stressed upon, to prevent its adverse effects on the environment and human
health on one hand while resource recovery and reuse on the other (Figure 1.2).
E-waste contains several toxic additives or hazardous substances, such as, hazard-
ous (highly toxic), and non-hazardous; both types have potential negative envi-
ronmental impacts. Hazardous substances are – Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd),
Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs),
Chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), Hydro chlorofluorocarbon (HCFCs), PVC (PolyVinyl
Chloride) and phosphorus compounds. Many organic pollutants such as polyaro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl, BFRs, Poly Brominated
 4 Sustainable development

Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb),

Hazardous
Mercury (Hg), Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs),
substances
Chlorofluorocarbon, PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride), phosphorus
compounds, and many more

Non-hazardous Base metals and precious metals (Copper, Selenium, Zinc,

substance and Gold, Silver, and Platinum respectively)

FIGURE 1.2 Hazardous and non-hazardous substances in e-products

Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin furans (PCDD/

Fs)) are released into the environment during improper e-waste processing (Awasthi
et al. 2016: 259). A total of 50 tonne of mercury and 71 kt (kilo tonne) of BFR
plastics are found in globally undocumented flows of e-waste annually, which is
largely released into the environment and impacts the health of the exposed work-
ers (Forti et al. 2020). Non-hazardous substances are base metals (Copper, Selenium,
and Zinc) and precious metals (Gold, Silver and Platinum).
Safe environment and health concerns are closely linked to preventing contamina-
tion of air, soil and water, harming micro-organisms, disrupting ecosystems and enter-
ing food chains though complex bio-accumulation mechanisms. Thus, other than
proper disposal by the users, treatment, and management of WEEE in environmen-
tally sound manner (ESM) is stressed [Link] ESM refers to scientific methods for
resource recovery, doing away from largely prevalent rudimentary methods of recy-
cling of e-waste, such as, acid bath, open burning of wires and cables, etc. and manual
scrapping/dismantling to certain extent. Different care aspects against improper recy-
cling and disposal processes used for treating e-waste pose serious threats to human
health (failure of organs, diseases, and adverse impact on skin and other parts of human
body), and environment in order to prevent health hazards are critical.
Every government aims at optimal and efficient use of natural resources, mini-
misation of waste, development of products having longer life and lesser use of
hazardous substances, and environmentally sustainable recycling, and disposal system
of waste are some of the issues which need to be addressed by all concerned while
ensuring the economic growth and enhancing the quality of life, as part of e-waste
management (LARRDIS 2011). Usually, the municipal solid waste (MSW) manage-
ment considers the framework of 3Rs – reduce, reuse, recycle; its recycling is associ-
ated with energy generation and other by-products related benefits. E-waste requires
additional considerations in this existing framework of waste management, mainly
because of presence of hazardous substances, metals, glass, plastics and other elements.
Deriving from other wastes management strategy (‘waste management hierar-
chy’),9 e-waste management has started recognising need for adding three more Rs
(repair, refurbish, resource recovery) to the existing 3Rs framework (reuse, recy-
cling, and recovery) for waste management, making 6R framework for e-waste

management. Pont et al. (2019: 18) has suggested another model focusing on
e-product users/consumers, by adding 3Rs, that is, release (spread the information,
awareness), realise (know the importance of e-waste management), and responsibil-
 ity (assume your role in 3Rs framework plus recycling and resource recovery).The
components of recycling and resource recovery in e-waste management are seen as
a process of ‘problem to resources’, bringing circular economy (CE) and resource
efficiency (RE) to centre-stage along with safe environment and human [Link]
CE and RE are associated with social and economic benefits including job creation,
investment in technology development and infrastructure building.

1.3 E-waste management thinking across the globe

In the existing literature, mostly, the need for ‘e-waste management’ arises referring
to its regulation and treatment, along with e-waste definition, classification, gen-
eration, and its flow with a policy/regulatory framework/legislation is the general
trend. Until 2010, e-waste was closely associated with safe environment and human
health through legislation or its management under the EPR as a strategy, adopting
waste management framework. In the last five years or so, this thinking has added
two more aspects: first, the consumer is the purchaser of electronics as well as the
generator of e-waste; and second, in the digital era, e-products are epitome of devel-
opment, efficiency, and comfort and transforming entire production and market
system of various products as well as activities in various sectors, such as, education,
healthcare, entertainment and so [Link], consumption of electronic gadgets is
likely to increase multiple folds, and in turn increase in e-waste generation. Higher
rates of e-waste generation are caused by shorter life cycles of e-products, and fewer
repair options. Thus, introducing resource recovery, REs and CE link with recy-
cling/treating e-waste. Spreading awareness among users of e-products, user roles
in minimising e-waste, and contribution to tax regime/fees for recycling also have
become the agenda of e-waste management.
The dominant discourse on governance of e-waste includes increasing e-waste
collection and recycling; generating and harmonising statistics on e-waste across the
world; existing regulatory/legislative framework, expansion of legal net and legal

Prevent
impacts on
environment,
Increase health
lifespan Regulation
through on reduce
Repair, RoHS, safe
Refurbish, treatment
Reuse
E-waste
management
Affordable
technology
for RE,
strengthen
CE Users'
awareness,
responsibility
for safe
disposal

FIGURE 1.3 Components of e-waste management

 6 Sustainable development
compliance; urban mining; economic potentials – resource recovery and reduc-
ing use of virgin materials; and protecting health of workers exposed to hazard-
ous e-waste in improper working conditions; adhering environmental concerns.
Different components of e-waste management thinking are presented in Figure 1.3.
To be more accommodative and able to incorporate the evolving ideas and practices
regarding e-waste, the term is used,‘e-waste management thinking’.

1.4 Evolution of legal definitions of e-waste

Until 2007, there was no globally accepted standard definition of e-waste, though
a few countries had developed their own definitions, interpretations and usage
of the term “e-waste/WEEE”. With evolution of legal frameworks, e-waste has
been defined based on its characteristics, such as use of hazardous elements, chemi-
cals, and organic persistent pollution; and therefore, transboundary movements of
e-waste have been under vigil through regulations.
Internationally, three sets of legislation/regulatory frameworks exist mainly for
management of e-waste: (i) EU (European Union) legislations applicable to EU
countries, such as Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive10 and WEEE
Directive11 – and a regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction
of Chemicals (REACH) (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemical
Substances);12 (ii) multi-lateral environmental agreements including The Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal13 (henceforth Basel Convention), Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
(1998), and Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001); and (iii)
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Of these,
WEEE Directives, RoHS Directive and the Basel Convention are frequently referred

regulatory frameworks. As names of the regulations suggest, they aim to regulate

hazardous substances, chemicals and transboundary movements of the e-waste.
At first, definition of WEEE has been described as per the WEEE Directives and
the Basel Convention as mentioned by Inventory Assessment Manual by UNEP (2007:
12). The Manual describes definition under the WEEE Directive along with ten
categories of WEEE and items covered under the categories as follow:

(2002/96/EC) The definition of e-waste as per the WEEE Directive

“Electrical or electronic equipment which is waste including all compo-
nents, subassemblies and consumables, which are part of the product at the
time of discarding.”
The Directive 75/442/EEC, Article 1(a) defines “waste” as “any substance
or object which the holder disposes of or is required to dispose of pursuant to
the provisions of national law in force.”
(a) ‘electrical and electronic equipment’ or ‘EEE’ means equipment which
is dependent on electrical currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work
properly and equipment for the generation, transfer and measurement of such
current and fields falling under the categories set out in Annex IA to Direc-
tive 2002/96/EC (WEEE) and designed for use with a voltage rating not ex-
 ceeding 1,000 volts for alternating current and 1,500 volts for direct current.
(UNEP 2007: 13)

The Basel Convention covers all discarded/disposed materials that possess hazard-
ous characteristics as well as all wastes considered hazardous on a national [Link]
Annex VIII refers to e-waste, which is considered hazardous under Art. 1, para. 1(a)
of the Convention (UNEP 2007: 21). The Article 2 (“Definitions”) of the Basel
Convention, defines waste as “substances or objects, which are disposed of or are
intended to be disposed of or are required to be disposed of by the provision of
national law” (quoted in Forti et al. 2020: 17).The waste ‘…includes all components,
subassemblies and consumables, which are part of the product at the time of discard-
ing.’ It further clarifies that ‘national provisions concerning the definition of waste
may differ, and the same material that is regarded as waste in one country may be
non-waste in another country.’ (op. cit.)
The Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP) initiative14 in its White Paper (UNU/
StEP 2014: 4) establishes importance of definition of e-waste, mentioning that

There is global inconsistency in the understanding and application of the

term “e-waste” in both legislation and everyday use. This has resulted in
many definitions contained within e-waste regulations, policies and guide-
lines…To provide a foundation to support the definition of e-waste, it is
necessary to first define electrical and electronic equipment (EEE).The StEP
definition of EEE is:“Any household or business item with circuitry or elec-
trical components with power or battery supply…”The term “e-waste” itself
is self-explanatory, in the sense that it is an abbreviation of “electronic waste.”

A key part of the definition is the word “waste” and what it logically implies
–that the item has no further use and is rejected as useless or excess to the
owner in its current condition.

The definition of e-waste that has been agreed by StEP is:

‘E-Waste is a term used to cover items of all types of electrical and electronic
equipment (EEE) and its parts that have been discarded by the owner as waste
without the intention of reuse.’

Three terms are explained as part of the definition in StEP White Paper (2014: 5):

As there is no room for regional variance or preference in a global definition;

the fact that the item in question meets the definition “with circuitry or elec-
trical components with power or battery supply” qualifies it for inclusion.
The inclusion of “parts” within the definition refers to parts that have been
removed from EEE by disassembly and are electrical or electronic in nature…
The use of the term “discarded” meaning to throw away or get rid of as use-
[Link] term implies that the item in question is considered excess or waste
by the owner. It is the critical point at which the potential nature of the item
changes from a useful product to that of waste.
 8 Sustainable development

The StEP Paper (2014: 6–7) defines reuse,15 preparation for reuse,16 recycle,17 and
disposal;18 also continue to explain perception of e-waste by the owner and sub-
jectivity in the definition, ‘the point at which EEE becomes e-waste: when it is
discarded as waste by the owner without the intention of reuse.’ This is the most
elaborated, inclusive definition of e-waste, developed by StEP in 2014.
The concept of e-waste or e-scrap has evolved from different types of devices
and their classification as per the WEEE Directive19 (enforced in the EU states),
and the recast of the WEEE Directive from 15 August 2018. The recast of the WEEE
Directive comprise of six categories of e-waste were evolved; at present these cat-
egories are followed in the GEMs – 2014, 2017 and [Link] are: (i) temperature
exchange equipment; (ii) screens and monitors; (iii) lamps; (iv) large equipment; (v)
small equipment; and (vi) small IT and telecommunication equipment (Forti et al.
2020: 14–15).

1.5 E-waste statistics: quantities, collection and recycling

The GEM published by the UNU (United Nations University) in 2014, 2017 and
2020 are the most important documents that capture e-waste statistics from all
the countries across the world since 2009 and considered to be the only authentic
source for quantity of e-waste.20 At present, 54 EEE product categories are grouped
into six general categories that correspond closely to their waste management cat-
egories (Forti et al. 2020: 18–19).21 Based on these categories, e-waste generation,
collection, recycling, intrinsic value, number of countries having e-waste legisla-
tions, etc. statistics are generated and harmonised across the world.

1.6 E-waste categories and harmonising statistics

In 2016, global e-waste volume was collected from 190 countries, and in 2019, from
193 countries. The Table 1.2 provides and overview on e-waste quantities, recycling
and flow in each region, also describing the trends and characteristics of each region
in dealing with e-waste.
The highest amount of e-waste comprises small equipment followed by large
equipment, temperature exchange equipment. The lamps are the smallest portion
among the e-waste.
Table 1.3 presents data on e-waste generated (in Mt and in kg/inh) and formally
collected and recycled, comparing across five regions in 2016 and 2019.

TABLE 1.2 E-waste quantities as per its categories – comparing 2016 and 2019

Amount of e-waste (in Mt)

Quantity
E-waste category 2016 2019 change (%)
Small equipment 16.8 17.4 +4
Large equipment 9.1 13.1 +4
Temperature exchange equipment 7.6 10.8 +7
Screens and monitors 6.6 6.7 −1
Lamps 0.7 0.9 +4
Small IT and telecommunication equipment 3.9 4.7 +2
Total 44.7 53.6
 TABLE 1.3 E-waste generation, collection and recycling across regions – comparing 2016
and 2019 data

Total e-waste Total e-waste Documented e-waste – to be

generated (in Mt) generated kg/inh collected, recycled (in Mt) (in %)
Continent / No. of
region countries 2016 2019 2016 2019 2016 (in %) 2019 (in %)
Africa 53 2.2 2.9 1.9 2.5 0.004 (0.0) 0.03 (0.9)
Americas 34 11.3 13.1 11.6 13.3 1.9 (17.0) 1.2 (9.4)
Asia 46 18.2 24.9 4.2 5.6 2.7 (15.0) 2.9 (11.7)
Europe 39 12.3 12 16.6 16.2 4.3 (35.0) 5.1 (42.5)
Oceania 12 0.7 0.7 17.3 16.1 0.04 (6.0) 0.06 (8.8)
Total 184 44.7 53.6 8.944 (73.0) 9.29 (83.3)
The comparison between the data of 2016 and 2019 across the regions reveals the
following: there is an increase in e-waste generation across in Africa, Americas, and
Asia regions while Europe reported minor drop, and Oceania reported status quo
(reduction in per capita e-waste). As against e-waste generation, Americas and Asia
observed drop in formal collection and recycling. The significant increase in Asia
matches with China producing maximum 10,129 kt (10.2 Mt) e-waste. Based on
these statistics, Europe’s performance is better compared to the others – drop in e-
waste generation along with per capita and increase (7.5%) in formal [Link]
against e-waste generated, collection rate is much lower; absence of legislation and
influential presence of informal sector are two reasons given repeatedly by various
observers.
The GEM 2020 reported that despite the relatively high environmental aware-
ness in the EU), e-waste is still disposed of in residual waste, and the small e-waste
ends up in residual waste bins. This comprises approximately 0.6 Mt of the EU’s
e-waste (Forti et al. 2020: 77). Central Asia reported most e-waste being landfills
or illegal dumping sites. PACE and WEF (2019: 9) shared,‘Of this total amount, 40
million tonnes of e-waste are discarded in landfill, 21 burned or illegally traded and
treated in a substandard way every year.’
The difference of e-waste generated in developed versus developing countries is
quite large. The richest country in the world in 2016 generated an average of 19.6
kg/inhabitant, whereas the poorest generated only 0.6 kg/inhabitant (MeitY &
NITI Aayog 2019: 29).
Africa region
Total 2.9 Mt e-waste was generated in Africa in 2019, which is 5% of total e-waste
generated in the world. This data is collected from 53 countries with 1.2 billion
population: among them, Egypt (0.58 Mt), Nigeria (0.46 Mt) and South Africa
(0.41 Mt).The highest e-waste generation per inhabitant is Southern African coun-
tries with 6.9 kg/inh. South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Namibia and Rwanda have
some facilities in place for e-waste recycling, but those co-exist with the existence
of a large informal sector. Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya are reliant on informal recy-
cling. Of 53 countries, 13 countries have a national legislation, regulation or policy
in place (Forti et al. 2020: 71).
 10 Sustainable development

Americas (north and south) region

In Americas, total e-waste generation was 13.1 Mt in 2019, which is almost 25%
of total e-waste generated in the world. Of this, almost half of it is generated by
America (6.9 Mt), 20.9 kg/inh in North America followed by Brazil (2.1 Mt);
Jamaica is the least e-waste generating country with 18 kt. A total of 1.2 Mt is
documented to be collected and recycled, mostly coming from North [Link]
geographical distribution and e-waste management characteristics are very different
across the continent. Of 34 countries, 10 countries have a national legislation/
regulation/policy in place.

Asia region
In Asia, the total e-waste generation was 24.9 Mt (5.6 kg/inh) from 46 countries
with 4.45 billion population in 2019, its proportion is almost 40% of the e-waste
generated in the world. Three countries generating the highest e-waste in Asia are:
China (10.1 Mt), India (3.2 Mt, Japan (2.6 Mt), and Indonesia (1.6 Mt) while
Kyrgyzstan produces the least (10 kt). Western Asia generates 2.6 Mt (9.6 kg/inh) e-
waste. Of 46 countries, 17 countries have a national legislation, regulation or policy
in place.
The sub-region includes both high-income countries, such as, Qatar and Kuwait while
6% of e-waste is reported to be collected and recycled, mainly by Turkey, negligible
from Cyprus and Israel (Baldé et al. 2017: 70).
The Regional E-waste Monitor: East and Southeast Asia provided country profiles, which
throws lights on extent of e-waste generated:
e-waste arising found in Hong Kong of 21.7 kg/capita in 2015, followed by
Singapore (19.95 kg/capita) and Taiwan, Province of China (19.13 kg/capita). Of the
countries studied for this report, Cambodia (1.10 kg/capita),Vietnam (1.34 kg/capita)
and the Philippines (1.35 kg/capita) had the lowest e-waste arising per capita in
2015.

Europe region
In Europe, the total e-waste generation was 12.0 Mt from 39 countries with 0.74
billion population in 2019, its proportion is little more than one-fourth of the total e-
waste generated in the world. Total 5.1 Mt (42.5%) documented to be collected and
recycled e-waste. Germany generated 1.6 Mt the highest quantity of e-waste in
Europe, followed by Great Britain (1.6 Mt), and Italy (1.0 Mt). Europe, Switzerland,
Norway and Sweden show the most advanced e-waste management practices across the
globe. However, other countries are still catching up with Northern Europe, whose
collection rate is 59% and western Europe with 54%, are the highest in the world. Of
39 countries, 37 countries have a national legislation, regulation or policy in place
(Forti et al. 2020: 76).
 Oceania region
In Oceania, the total e-waste generation was 0.7 Mt from 13 countries with popula-
tion of 0.042 billion in 2019. The collection rate is 6%; consequently 0.06 Mt was
documented to collected and recycled. The top country with the highest e-waste
generation in absolute quantities is Australia (0.55 Mt, 21.3 kg/inh) followed by
New Zealand with 96 kt. Of 12 countries, one country has a national legislation,
regulation or policy in place (Forti et al. 2020: 78).
The Australian government implemented its National Television and Computer
Recycling Scheme in 2011. Official data shows that only 7.5% of the e-waste gener-
ated in Australia is documented to be collected and recycled while in New Zealand
and the rest of Oceania, the official collection rate is [Link] e-waste is now mostly
landfilled. Across the Pacific Island countries, e-waste management practices are
predominantly informal. The Pacific Island sub-region, consisting of 22 countries
and territories (PICTs) faces unique challenges due to their geographical spread
regarding e-waste collection and recycling (Baldé et al. 2017: 76).
The GEM 2020 provided environmental and health concerns/data from undoc-
umented flows of e-waste (e.g. potential release of GHG emission, amount mercury,
and amount of BFRs), and economic concern / data (e.g. value of raw materials in
e-waste).Table 1.4 presents these details across different regions.22
The data from undocumented flows of e-wastes revealed substantial emission of
CO2 and BFRs, and deposition of [Link] link between emission of CO2 and
global warming leading to climate change is well-established. Mercury is persistent
and bio-accumulative in the environment and retained in organisms. Most of the
mercury found in the environment is inorganic mercury, primarily entering the
environment through emissions to the air from several sources.
The GEM 2020 has presented a list of suggestion, which are purely curative
waste management aspects (collection and recycling), such as, implementation of
EPR, strengthen monitoring for legal compliance, creating favourable investment
conditions for recyclers, incentivising informal sector to give away e-waste to for-
mal recyclers, evolving financing models (upfront fee by the producers, making
consumers responsible for disposal of e-waste, and adopting market share approach
for financing operational costs), and so on.

TABLE 1.4 Environmental, health, and economic data from undocumented flows of
e-waste (2019)
Economic concern/ data
Environment concerns/data from undocumented flows of from undocumented
e-waste flows of e-waste

Continent / Potential release of GHG Amount of Amount of Value of raw materials

region emissions (in Mt CO2) mercury (in kt) BFR (in kt) (in billion USD)
Africa 9.4 0.01 5.6 3.2
Americas 26.3 0.01 18.0 14.2
Asia 60.8 0.04 35.3 26.4
Europe 12.7 0.01 11.4 12.9
Oceania 1.0 0.001 1.1 0.7
Total 110.2 0.091 71.4 57.4
12 Sustainable development

The occupational health and conditions of workers, especially children that are
getting exposed to hazards of e-waste have been reported by the GEM 2020. The
associations between exposure to informal e-waste recycling and health problems,
such as, adverse birth outcomes (stillbirth, premature birth, lower gestational age,
lower birth weight and length, and lower APGAR scores), increased or decreased
growth, altered neurodevelopment, adverse learning and behavioural outcomes,
immune system function, lung function and DNA damage, changes in gene expres-
sion, cardiovascular regulatory changes, rapid onset of blood coagulation, hearing
loss, and olfactory memory are reported (Forti et al. 2020: 65).
GHG emissions, contribution of e-waste to global warming, contamination of
air, water and soil are major concerns expressed for safe [Link] prevalent
scenario has become a part of discourse on e-waste management across the globe.

E-waste flow and data on transboundary movements

Transboundary movement is considered to be a way of dumping waste / e-waste
from one country to another. Lundgren (2012) has provided examples to show
substantial internal and regional trade; e-waste is shipped from developed to devel-
oping countries is not always true. For example, in 2001, Africa exported most of
its e-waste to Korea and Spain, and since 2006, the growth in global trade overall
has been primarily in two areas: in internal markets, and in Asia becoming the
dominant recipient of global exports.‘E-waste recycling operations have been iden-
tified in several locations in China and India. Less-investigated locations are in the
Philippines, Nigeria (in the city of Lagos), Pakistan (Karachi) and Ghana (Accra)’
(Lundgren 2012: 14). The issue of transboundary movement is closely linked with
shipping of e-waste to developing countries where rudimentary techniques are
often used to extract materials and components. ‘Global trading of electronics and
substandard recycling in developing countries has led to environmental catastrophes
in places like Guiyu, China and Agbogbloshie, Ghana, to name two examples’ (Baldé
et al. 2015: 4).
The following statistics show gradual decrease in transboundary movement of
e-waste, for ten years; that is, 2002 to 2012. During the period 2004 to 2006, over
10 million tonnes of export per year was reported, with an increase of 15% in 2006
compared with 2004. This is mainly due to changes in wastes defined as hazardous
wastes according to Article 1.1.b of the Basel Convention. Transboundary move-
ments of hazardous wastes as defined under Article 1.1.a of the Convention show an
increase of only 4% in the same [Link] movements of ‘other wastes’
are decreasing (Wielenga 2010: 12).
Based on a case study of ‘person-in-the port’ project in Nigeria in 2015–2016,
Baldé et al. (2017: 45) provides data on transboundary movements:

Around 71,000 tonnes of WEEE were imported annually into Nigeria through
the two main ports in Lagos. WEEE imported in containers, with and without
vehicles, contributed around 18,300 tonnes of WEEE per year
with 52% imported in containers with vehicles. In total, most imported WEEE
originated from ports in Germany (around 20%) followed by the UK (around
19.5%), and Belgium (around 9.4%). The Netherlands (8.2%) and Spain (7.35%),
followed by China and the USA (7.33% each), are next in the ranking of main
exporters, followed by Ireland (6.2%). Overall, these eight countries account for
around 85% of WEEE imports into Nigeria. EU mem- ber states were the origin of
around 77% of WEEE imported into Nigeria.

In 2012, EU exported 0.09 Mt was exported for reuse out of 1.5 Mt e-waste of
screens; 0.03 Mt was exported for reuse out of approximately 1.4 Mt of e-waste
cooling and freezing equipment (Baldé et al. 2016: 10).23
In 2010 in USA, approximately 258.2 million units (equivalent to approximately
1.6 Mt) of used electronics (computers, monitors, TVs and mobile phones) were
generated; of which 171.4 million units (0.9 million tonnes) were collected, and
14.4 million units (0.027 million tonnes) used electronic products were exported to
the developed and developing countries) (Duan et al. 2013: 10–11). Mobile phones
dominate generation, collection and export on a unit basis, but TVs and monitors
dominate on a weight basis. Regarding flow, Latin America and the Caribbean is a
common destination for products, along with North America. Asia represents the
next largest destination. Africa is the least common destination (Duan et al. 2013:
12–13).
The ILO report (Lundgren 2012: 14–17) has described important observations
about transboundary movements of e-waste; wherein four aspects or phenom-
ena are described: (i) illegal trade which has intensified corporate, or ‘white collar’
crime; (ii) use of ‘second hand goods’ label – to disguise mislabel containers and mix
waste with legitimate consignment, and lack of reliable data on illegal waste activ-
ity; (iii) recent emergent field of ‘green criminology’ – e-waste trade as an example,
which poses environmental risk and expected to be compliant to regulatory norms,
though not criminalised as such; and (iv) security implications – more research is
needed in order to find out more about the networks behind the illegal export that
is taking place.

Creating and updating statistics, datasets: opportunities and

challenges
An overview of the existing statistics reveals that macro level data have begun to
emerge and throw light on different aspects and trends of e-waste management,
namely, standard definition of e-waste, quantity of e-waste generated and treated,
methodology, flow of e-waste including transboundary movements, and initiatives
towards achieving 2030 Development Agenda.
Three GEMs (2014, 2017 and 2020) at the regular interval of three years is con-
sidered to be trendsetting and promising initiative for statistics and exploring exist-
ing e-waste scenario. Advantages and disadvantages of every method are elaborated,
challenges of creating and updating data are also articulated – gaps are identified,
14 Sustainable development

processes that lead to misinformation or wrong labelling and misleading data (espe-
cially on transboundary movements) are identified – are avenues to improve upon.
The GEM 2020 has begun build up to data on three important aspects of e-waste
management – CE, toxicity and impact on children and workers. More information
on different aspects of environment and human health could be built up further,
either through national registry or micro studies, for example, on extent of toxicity,
types of toxicity, every aspect of environment (energy in LCIA approach to e-waste,
fossil use, carbon prints, contamination of air, soil and water). As more countries are
adopting e-waste legislation/regulatory policy, it is important to provide data that
facilitate the complexities of decision-making, for example, whether to treat e-waste
domestically or through export, issues that are of environmental, political, economic
and ethical nature and how to address them by legal framework.

III: An overview on status of e-waste related legislation across the

globe
Most legislative instruments aim at resource recovery through recycling and focus
on countermeasures against environmental pollution, and adverse impacts on human
health, at the EoL of products. The reduction of e-waste volumes and substantive
repair and reuse of EEE has been limited so far (Forti et al. 2020: 52).
The laws and policies concerning the proper management of electronic devices
are continuing to evolve in different parts of the globe. The legislation does not
imply complete legal compliance, as in many countries, policies are non-legally
binding strategies, but only programmatic ones (Forti et al. 2020). The legisla-
tion largely focusses on regulating guidelines for collection, reuse and recycling of
e-waste, except New York city of USA which has introduced landfill bans of scrap.
Other initiatives include setting up take-back channel, initiating programmes for
collection and recycling and appointing private companies for recycling (Baldé et
al. 2017: 60), or regulating e-waste through a directive or administrative regulation.
The following table presents law related information in different regions of the
world (Table 1.5).
In 2014, 61 countries were covered by legislation/ regulation/policy with 44%
of world’s population; in 2017, 67 countries were covered by legislation/policy/
regulation with 66% of world’s population; and in 2019, 78 countries were covered
by legislation/policy/regulation with 71% of the world’s population (Forti et al.
2020: 26). Less than half of the countries (78 out of 193) in the world covered by
e-waste legislation, regulation or policy framework; this is an increase by 5% from
66% in 2017. This also means that 11 countries (including the state of Alabama in
the USA, Argentina, Cameroon, Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Zambia) enacted
legislation or introduced policy/regulation on e-waste in last three years; and more
countries may be in the process of enacting legislation or policy to tackle e-waste.
EPR is a common feature in these legislations in most countries; much more
responsibility is put on producers to deal more effectively with the e-waste and
e-products they produce. Chapter 2 discusses EPR in detail. Producers are tasked
TABLE 1.5 Countries having legislation or policy for e-waste management (2019)

Continent / Name of country where the legislation in existence, year Legislation underway / % of population covered by
region absent legislation per sub-region

Africa Madagascar (2015), Kenya (2016), Ghana (2016), Uganda, Rwanda, Cameroon, Nigeria, South Eastern 33
Africa, Zambia, Middle 7
Western 33
Northern 21
Southern 6
North United States Environment Protection Agency has taken some generic measures – Electronics USA – Ohio, and North 39 (including
America Action Plan in 2005; Sustainable Materials Management (SMM); managing domestic e-waste Massachusetts Caribbean)
through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; regulations for recycling CRTs; and Canada – states have Central 18
the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship framework. USA, state & provincial laws local regulation
Puerto Rico and DC (consumer take-back law); New York City has banned landfill. except the Yukon
Alabama and Nunavut
South South / Latin America – Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico Brazil, Panama and Approx. 43
America and Peru. California, Massachusetts, Maine and Minnesota states have imposed regulation on Uruguay
design, manufacture, reuse, recovery, disposal of e-waste
Asia China (2007), India (2011 onward), Japan, South Korea,Vietnam (2015), Cambodia (2016), Eastern 36
Singapore,Taiwan, Sri Lanka Central 0.7
South-eastern 15
Southern 42

Sustainable development 17
Western 6
Europe The EU enacted RoHS and WEEE Directive (2003), REACH (2007). Moldova Eastern 39
Balkan sub-region – Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Northern 14
Serbia, and Slovenia are covered. UK national law has adopted WEEE Directive in 2006 Southern 21
Western 26
Oceania Australia (2011) New Zealand Australia, New
Zealand – 75
Melanesia, Micronesia
& Polynesia – 25

Source:This table is compiled by the author based on data available from Baldé et al. (2017: 48); LARRDIS (2011: 87–90); Ram Mohan et al. (2019: 176–181); Patil and
Ramakrishna (2020: 6–8); and Forti et al. (2020: 105–116).
18 Sustainable development

with extensive reporting and monitoring procedures to demonstrate compliance

with the regulation. The waste hierarchy has been extended and prioritised as pre-
vention, reuse, recycle, recovery and, as a last resort, disposal of waste.
Of 78 countries having legislation to regulate e-waste management, more than
half reported dominant presence of the informal sector; i.e. from collection to recy-
cling of e-waste. In many countries, government control of e-waste sector is mini-
mal, and infrastructure for recycling is non-existent or grossly mixed; overall the
informal sector is dominant in collection, refurbishing and repairing e-waste.
Regarding recycling and legislation, Patil and Ramakrishna (2020: 2–5) observed
that, as there is no uniformity in e-waste legislation across all the countries, it is dif-
ficult to monitor e-waste recycling on a global scale. Eastern European countries
(Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova) are not as advanced as EU countries; in Poland,
Czech Republic, Hungary and Bulgaria, e-waste collection and recycling are mainly
led by the private sector. In North America, e-waste is well managed by the govern-
ment. The California Electronic Waste Recycling Act, 2003 shifts financial burden
of recycling on consumer since 2005. Asian continent represents a mix of countries
at different stages of economic [Link] economic condition of the coun-
tries influences their domestic e-waste production and management. In East-Asia,
the official collection rate is close to 25% but in Central and South Asia, it is still nil
(informal sector). China levies penalty on non-compliance of the administration of
e-waste. Overall, not many countries reported more than 25% of e-waste collection
and recycling across the world.
In the case of Africa, particularly western Africa (e.g. Ghana and Nigeria) as
a dumping yard destination for e-waste from various regions of the world is dis-
cussed in the context of legal framework, and two concerns are highlighted: first,
illegal import of e-waste, and second, recycling activities carried out in informal
basis and the residues are landfilled, impacting the health of recycling workers and
local environment. If both practices are properly regulated and managed, recycling
e-waste can help to develop local economies and reduce poverty (Baldé et al.
2015: 38).

Relevance of international legislative frameworks across the

globe: trends and challenges
Internationally, mainly three sets of legislation/regulatory frameworks exist for
management of e-waste: (i) EU) legislations applicable to EU countries; (ii) multi-
lateral environmental agreements; and (iii) SAICM.

(i) EU legislations applicable to EU countries

The legislations / treaties founded by the EU are applicable to EU and its member
states. The European Parliament is the only body in the EU to which EU citizens
directly elect members to represent them. The Parliament has a term of office for
five years; with the Council of the European Union, both are the main legisla-
tors of the EU. The treaties instruct domestic courts that priority is given to EU
 Sustainable development 19

law over national law, which means that member state legislators have to modify
domestic laws to align with EU laws if there is a conflict between the two secondary
sources of EU law transposed from the treaties consist of regulations and directives.
A regulation is binding and is directly incorporated into member state law without
that member state having to use national legislation to incorporate them into law,
whereas a directive sets out the requirements that the legislation should achieve;
and a directive then leaves it to the member state to implement as it sees fit to meet
the requirements. The directive will provide for a set period of time within which
implementation has to be achieved via nation state legislative processes (Stewart
2012: 20).
The regulatory framework of EU, especially WEEE Directives, have followed the
terminology of

product life cycle thinking by encouraging producers to prevent waste gen-

eration in the first instance…By following this principle, the member states
are expected to adhere the following: prevention of waste, preparation of
waste for reuse, recycle waste, other recovery (e.g. energy), and disposal.

Every item is defined under the Directive, such as ‘waste,’24 ‘waste management,’25
‘prevention,’26 ‘recovery,’27 and ‘recycling,’28 (op. cit.: 25–26) which is similar to 3Rs
framework for waste – reuse, recycling, recovery.
EU legislation includes the following regulatory frameworks – (i) RoHS
Directive (2002/95/EC – RoHS1) by EU) in 2003 and subsequent amendments
in 2011 (2011/65/EU – RoHS2), 2017 (amending Annex II of RoHS2), and
Directive (EU) 2015/863 – RoHS3;29 (ii) WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC), 2003
and WEEE 2 (Directive 2012/19/EU), 2014; and (iii) The regulation on REACH
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restrictions of Chemical Substances)
(EC 1907/2006).

WEEE directives
The WEEE directive is set out over 19 articles, among them the important ones
are: scope (Article 2–10 categories of WEEE), definitions (Article 3), product design
(Article 4), separate collection (Article 5), treatment (Article 6), recovery (Article
7). The other Articles provide details on responsibilities of different stakeholders
include registration and reporting to national authorities on volumes of EEE placed
on their market; organising and/or financing the collection, treatment, recycling,
and recovery of WEEE and providing specific information to recycling companies;
and labelling products with the crossed-out wheelie bin symbol to allow for correct
disposal by end-users.
The WEEE Directive30 sets out the financial responsibilities; and mandates the
treatment, recovery, and recycling of EEE by every producer; and encourages the
design of electronic products that ensures environmentally safe recycling and recov-
[Link] applicable products in the EU market after 13 August 2006 must pass WEEE
20 Sustainable development

compliance and carry the wheelie bin [Link] WEEE Directive covers collection
and recycling of waste from a broad range of EEE at their EoL solutions.
The WEEE directive tackles WEEE and complement EU measures for prevent-
ing landfill and incineration of e-waste, overall reduction of e-waste and adopt-
ing environmentally sound disposal methods. Five areas of e-waste management
are addressed under the EPR, namely: (i) production, including improved product
design; (ii) distribution; (iii) consumption (by domestic and business consumers)
and separate collection of e-waste with targets specified for recovery, reuse, and
recycling of different classes of WEEE (creating take-back channel by the producer);
(iv) e-waste handling – reuse, recycling, and recovery; and (v) e-waste treatment and
disposal including specifications for exporting e-waste for treatment. The WEEE
Directive has covered aspects of financing and electronics user awareness (Ledwaba
and Sosibo 2017; GIZ and MESTI 2019).

In 2012, a recast version of the WEEE Directive31 includes new, ambitious

[Link] targets are no longer based on a collection target per inhabitant,
but instead on a percentage of the amount of EEE placed on market or the
amount of WEEE generated.
(Ffact et al. 2013: 5)

The WEEE Directive (2002) was assessed by three independent consultants in

2007. All three of the reports highlighted the vast differences in practices between
member states in a few key areas and questioned whether some member states were
actually complying with the directive at all. These reports also made a few sugges-
tions for tackling the [Link] WEEE Directive was recast based on these three
reports (Stewart 2012).

RoHS directives
This EU legislations (RoHS 1,2,3)32 restrict the use of hazardous substances in
EEE, promoting the collection and recycling and/or reuse of EEE, and consumers
returning their used WEEE free of charge.

The Directive on the RoHS (2002/95/EC) is companion legislation to the

WEEE Directive. Unlike the WEEE Directive, the RoHS Directive is enacted
by Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Treaty
Amsterdam 1997), which has much less flexibility that those enacted by arti-
cle 175 such as the WEEE Directive.
(Stewart 2012: 38)

The RoHS Directive is set out in ten articles and an associated annex and should
be read in tandem with its sister legislation – the WEEE Directive.
The RoHS1 required that any product in scope should not contain any of the
six restricted substances (Lead, Mercury, Cadmium, Hexavalent Chromium and
 Sustainable development 21

Flame Retardants – Poly Brominated Biphenyls (PBB) or PBDE) and its weight;
the company (manufacturer, importer, or distributor) placing the product on the
EU market should maintain records to show compliance; and these restricted sub-
stances need to be substituted by safer alternatives. The RoHS2 requires additional
compliance, that is, recordkeeping from everyone in the supply chain at least for
ten years (including a conformity assessment, CE marking, maintenance of compli-
ance throughout production, and self-reporting of non-compliance). The RoHS3,
or the Directive 2015/863, adds four additional restricted substances (phthalates33)
to the original list of six substances, as cited under the REACH regulation; and adds
Category 11 products ([Link] [Link]-
[Link]).Table 1.6 presents an overview of RoHS 1,2,3.

REACH (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of

chemicals)
The REACH regulation was released in 2006 and entered into force on June 1,
2007. This is a regulation of the EU, adopted to improve the protection of human
health and the environment through the better and earlier identification of the
intrinsic properties of chemical substances, deals with 197 Substances of Very High
Concern (SVHC).

The regulations were published in 2006 along with amendments to its sister
legislation the Dangerous Substances Directive (Directive 67/548/EEC). The
Regulation is set out in 141 articles and 17 annexes, spanning 849 pages, so
this section simply attempts to give an overview of the main highlights.
(Stewart 2012: 44)

The regulation impacts almost every product made in or imported into the
European Economic Area (EEA).34 This is done by the four processes of REACH,
namely the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals and
places the burden of proof on [Link] regulation affects the use and sale of a
vast array of items, ranging from industrial goods to cleaning products, clothing, fur-
niture and appliances; e-waste specific matters are presented here. REACH places
responsibility on the manufacturer/producer for ensuring that any chemicals they
put on the market are properly assessed and managed in terms of their risks. Public
authorities are tasked with ensuring the industry meets this obligation.
REACH also aims to enhance innovation and competitiveness of the EU chemi-
cals [Link] manufacturers and importers of EEE are required to gather infor-
mation on the properties of their chemical substances, which will allow their safe
handling, and to register the information in a central database in the European
Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in [Link], REACH manages the databases nec-
essary to operate the system, co-ordinates the in-depth evaluation of suspicious
chemicals and is building up a public database in which consumers and professionals
can find hazard information.35
 22 Sustainable development
TABLE 1.6 Overview of RoHS 1,2,3

RoHS details ROHS1 (27 January 2002) ROHS2 (8 June 2011) ROHS3 (31 March 2015)
ROHS details, its objectives Directive 2002/95 / EC Directive 2011/65 / EU of Commission delegated Directive (EU)
of the European the European 2015/863 of 31 March 2015 amending
Parliament and of the Parliament and of the Annex II to Directive 2011/65 / EU
Council applicable Council applicable until of the European Parliament and of the
until 8 June 2011 22 July 2019 Council applicable until 22 July 2021
Restricting the use of Restricting the use of A list of substances
certain hazardous certain hazardous subject to restrictions
substances in electrical substances in electrical
and electronic and electronic
equipment equipment
Device categories covered by this policy All applicable (i to x) All applicable (i to x) + All applicable (i to x) + (xi) Other EEE
(i) Home appliances; (ii) Small household (xi) Other electrical and
appliances; (iii) IT and telecommunications electronic equipment
equipment; (iv) Consumer electronics; (v)
Lighting fixture; (vi) Electrical and electronic
tools (except stationary large industrial tools);
(vii) Toys and sports and leisure equipment;
(viii) Medical devices (with the exception
of all implanted and infected products); (ix)
Monitoring and control instruments; and (x)
Automatic output devices
Other EEE – Newly introduced Newly introduced
restrictions regarding
Phthalates
RoHS details ROHS1 (27 January 2002) ROHS2 (8 June 2011) ROHS3 (31 March 2015)
Substances which are subject to restrictions, as Lead (0.1%) Lead (0.1%) Lead (0.1%)
referred to in Article 4(1), and maximum Mercury (0.1%) Mercury (0.1%) Mercury (0.1%)
concentrations in homogeneous materials by Cadmium (0.01%) Cadmium (0.01%) Cadmium (0.01%)
weight Hexavalent chromium Hexavalent chromium Hexavalent chromium (0.1%)
(0.1%) (0.1%) Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) (0.1%)
Polybrominated Polybrominated biphenyls PBDE (0.1%)
biphenyls (PBB) (PBB) (0.1%) Added
(0.1%) PBDE (0.1%) Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
PBDE (0.1%) (0.1%)
Butyl Benzyl phthalate (BBP) (0.1%)
Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (0.1%)
Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (0.1%)

Sustainable development 23
24 Sustainable development

Link between RoHS, WEEE and REACH

These are three key pieces of legislation relating to EEE and WEEE. All three
frameworks lay out results that must be achieved by the European countries, but
each country is free to choose the means of achieving those results when trans-
posing European rules into national laws. WEEE and RoHS Directives deal with
complex sets of WEEE (both apply to the same range of products with some
differences); these legislations work in complementarity. RoHS regulates the haz-
ardous substances (wiring, components, circuit boards, displays, subassemblies,
cabling) used in the manufacture of EEE while WEEE regulates the disposal of
this same equipment; REACH controls all chemicals (enclosures, brackets, coat-
ings, paints, solvents, etc.) and that might be used to manufacture EEE. All the
RoHS restricted substances (identified as being carcinogenic, mutagenic,36 repro-
toxic,37 bio-accumulative and toxic, or as endocrine disruptors) are also on the
REACH restricted list. RoHS compliance unites into WEEE by reducing the
amount of hazardous chemicals used in electronics manufacture ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]).
EPR is a common feature/framework in these legislations; much more responsi-
bility is put on producers to deal more effectively with the e-waste and e-products
they produce. Producers are tasked with extensive reporting and monitoring proce-
dures to demonstrate compliance with the [Link] waste hierarchy has been
extended and prioritised as prevention, reuse, recycle, recovery and, as a last resort,
disposal of waste. EPR is dealt in detail in the following section of this chapter.
Many of the points mentioned in the evaluative study of the WEEE Directive
are important and relevant even after thirteen years of its [Link] estimate
regarding e-waste generation, need for higher rate of collection and better treat-
ment for resource recovery, role of awareness in e-waste management and imple-
mentation of such regulatory measures, and recycling of old and newer EEE like
CRT and LCD/LED TVs.

(ii) Multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEA)

There are three important international conventions seeking to control the shipping of
waste; after these, various regional conventions have been signed to regulate hazardous
waste [Link] are: (i) Basel Convention on the Control ofTransboundary Movements
of HazardousWastes and their Disposal (1989); (ii) Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
(1998);38 (iii) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001).39
Article 11 of the Basel Convention allows Parties to enter bilateral, multi-lateral or
regional agreements regarding transboundary movements of hazardous [Link],
three regions – Africa, the EU and the South Pacific – have instituted agreements
concerning such movements of waste and, in particular, e-waste. Relevant agree-
ments have also taken shape and come into force in Latin America. The following
table summarises MEA signed by different regions and countries (Table 1.7).
TABLE 1.7 Multi-lateral environmental agreements signed by different regions

No. Country/region Convention/declaration Details

1. Africa Bamako convention – signed ⇨ Ban of the import into Africa and the control of transboundary movement and management
in Bamako, Mali, in of hazardous wastes within Africa, especially from non-contracting parties.
January ⇨ According to the African Union, in 2010, 24 of the 52 countries which form the African
Union have ratified the Bamako Convention.
1991 and entered into
⇨ Enforcement remains a challenge because of the lack of adequate and predictable resources.
force in 1998
⇨ Ghana had not signed this convention until 2017, now under process.
⇨ It calls for the establishment of an African regional platform and/or an e-waste forum in
Durban Declaration – cooperation with established African networks and international bodies.
was developed from ⇨ It requires countries to review existing legislation, improve compliance with existing
COP8 of the Basel legislation and amend existing waste management legislation to allow for regulation of
Convention on e-waste management.
e-Waste Management ⇨ Policies centring on banning or regulating imports or practices such as open burning have so
in Africa in 2008 far been weakly enforced.

Libreville Declaration ⇨ Health and Environment in Africa recognises that there is a need for further research and
policies to increase understanding of the vulnerability of humans to environmental risk
factors, particularly in Africa. Risk factors identified in relation to e-waste are chemicals, poor
waste management practices and new toxic substances.

Sustainable development 25
(Continued)
TABLE 1.7 (Continued)

26 Sustainable development
No. Country/region Convention/declaration Details
2. European Aarhus Convention – ⇨ It grants rights to the public and imposes on Parties and public authorities’ obligations
Union entered into force in regarding access to information, public participation and justice.
2001 ⇨ Under the Convention, the Aarhus Protocol on Heavy Metals was one of eight protocols
intended to address air quality issues within the EU.
⇨ It is based on the principle of producer responsibility and promotes the green design and
The WEEE Directive – production of electronic products.
entered into force in ⇨ It includes separate collection of e-waste, and the use of best available treatment, recovery
2003 and recycling techniques and makes producers responsible for financing the take-back and
management of e-waste; to better control.
the illegal trade of e-waste.
⇨ Despite extensive legislation targeting the e-waste problem, experience in the first few years
of implementation of the WEEE Directive has shown that it is facing difficulties – less than
half of the collected e-waste is currently treated and reported.
⇨ Aims to restrict the use of hazardous substances in EEE and contribute to the protection of
human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of e-waste.
RoHS Directive – entered
into force in 2003
REACH – entered into
force in 2007
The EU Waste Framework
Directive, 2008
No. Country/region Convention/declaration Details
3. Latin America Mercosur Policy ⇨ Most countries need to evolve legal framework.
Agreement of 2006 ⇨ Costa Rica, the first country in the region to develop specific, national e-waste legislation.
mandates its member ⇨ An attempt to introduce the concept of EPR as an environmental policy principle.
states, Argentina, ⇨ Central American Integration System is developing a model waste law discussing possible
Paraguay, Uruguay and common hazardous wastes rules for Central America, possibly including e-waste.
Brazil, to take national
actions to ensure post-
consumer responsibility
by producers and
importers
4. South Pacific Waigani Convention – ⇨ Bans the importation of hazardous and radioactive waste and controls the transboundary
movements and management of hazardous waste within the South Pacific region
signed in 1995 and
⇨ Although there is no specific reference made to e-waste; Annex A does include waste having
entered into force in constituents such as cadmium and lead compounds.
2001. As of June 2008,
there were 13 Parties
to the Convention.
⇨ To control the importation of e-waste. Non-compliance is subject to a fine, with

Sustainable development 27
5. Ghana National legislation
the revenue invested in an e-waste recycling trust fund. Other measures include the
– Electronic
Waste (Disposal designation of disposal assembly points and a code of conduct for the safe disposal
and Recycling) of e-waste.
Regulations
Source: Lundgren (2012: 35–38); and Baldé et al. (2017: 48). Compiled by the author.
28 Sustainable development

The Basel Convention

The Basel Convention is considered to be one of the initial initiatives for dealing
with e-waste – its transboundary movement and regulations to prevent adverse
impact on environment and human health. The Basel Convention is an initiative
of UNEP, which focuses on controlling transboundary movements of hazardous
wastes and its disposal. It was first adopted on 22 March 1989 by the Conference
of Plenipotentiaries in Basel, Switzerland, in response to public outcry following
the discovery about toxic waste flowing to Africa and other parts of developing
world, in the 1980s. The Convention came into force in May 1992, and started
working on e-waste in 2002, with later addendums in 2006 (Nairobi Declaration)
and 2011 (Cartagena Decisions). In 2006, the EU transposed the Basel Convention and
the OECD Council Decision into European regulation with the European Waste
Shipment Regulation (WSR). The WSR implements the international obliga-
tions of the two regulations and includes the internationally agreed upon objective
that wastes shall be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner (Baldé et al.
2016: 5).The regulatory system under the Basel Convention includes prior informed
consent for export and import; and the intended movement is possible only after
receiving written consent from both the concerned state authorities.
The Basel Convention is also considered to be one of the most significant MEA
in relation to tackling the issues surrounding e-waste and its management – its
transboundary movement and regulations to prevent adverse impact on environ-
ment and human health. There are four important aims of the Convention related
to e-waste, as follow:

(i) prevention – to reduce hazardous waste generation at its source; (ii) reduction
– to promote and ensure the environmentally sound management of hazardous
waste; (iii) resource recovery – to promote the proximity principle, advocating
disposal as close to the source as possible; and (iv) final disposal – to regulate and
monitor the remaining transboundary movements of hazardous waste.
(Lundgren 2012: 33)

Under Article 6 of the Convention, the hazardous waste shipment must

undergo the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure – this system requires
exporters to notify the destination country, any intermediary countries, of its
intent to conduct trade in hazardous waste, through a notification of consent
prior to the transboundary movement.
(op. cit.)

In order to combat illegal traffic of e-waste, the Convention provides for the
development of tools and training activities through the Green Customs Initiative
(GCI). The Basel Convention started to address e-waste issues in 2002 through the
adoption of The Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI).40 After which the Nairobi
Declaration41 (during COP842) was adopted which gave a mandate to the Secretariat
to implement the environmentally sound management of e-waste (Chaudhary
 Sustainable development 29

2018: 3). These initiatives provided the mandate for a roadmap for future strategic
action on e-waste. In October 2011, during COP10, all 178 Parties agreed to allow
an early entry into force of the BAN Amendment, a major breakthrough decision.
As of October 2018, 186 states and the EU are parties to the Convention; Australia,
Canada, Japan, South Korea, and USA have not ratified this Convention (Lundgren
2012: 34; [Link]).
The importance of the Basel Convention is that if it properly implemented and
enforced, negative impacts of treating waste at the importing state could be pre-
[Link] procedures for legal cross-border movements have set up mechanisms for
avoiding ecological disasters and maintaining a high level of protection of workers
and the [Link] shipment can only take place if the state of transit and the state of
import give their written consent. Moreover, a confirmation is required of a contract
between the exporter and the disposer specifying ESM (Levinson et al. 2019: 163).
The synergies among the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm conventions are: promote
a life cycle approach to chemicals management as each convention targets different
stages of a chemical’s life cycle; and developing programmatic cooperation and sup-
port for the implementation of the three conventions in areas of common concern,
such as e-waste (Lundgren 2012).

(iii) The strategic approach to international chemicals management

SAICM is an international policy framework to promote chemical safety, adopted
by the First International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM1) at
Dubai, on 6 February 2006, with the overall objective of achieving sound manage-
ment of chemicals throughout their life cycle. The second international confer-
ence on chemicals management, ICCM2, agreed to initiate a project on chemicals
in e-products with a multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral character and empha-
sises chemical safety as a sustainability issue. This approach aims at minimising the
way chemicals are produced and used in ways which by 2020, in order to mini-
mise significant adverse impacts on environment and human health. Its objectives
are grouped under five themes: risk reduction, knowledge and information, gov-
ernance, capacity building, technical cooperation, and illegal international traffic
([Link]; Lundgren 2012: 35).
This policy framework is closely linked to three regulatory frameworks, they
are: (i) London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International
Trade (1989) (henceforth ‘London Guidelines’);43 (ii) Montreal Protocol;44 and (iii) The
Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2013.45
Complementing international and regional conventions, international organisa-
tions also have an important role to play, for example, in monitoring the transport
of toxic substances and running programmes to reduce the impact of e-waste on
human health and the environment.
An analysis of the legislations/regulations, such as, the Basel Convention, WEEE
Directives, MEA and national legislative framework, shows that the WEEE Directives
seemed to be most comprehensive in nature since they have defined e-waste and
introduced EPR. Cumulatively, these regulatory frameworks have impacted three
30 Sustainable development

strategic points of e-waste management in India – first, acceptance and implemen-

tation of EPR; second, recover resources and enhancing CE; and third, improve-
ment in environment and human health. The existing regulatory frameworks have
promoted institutional mechanism, guidelines for implementation of legal provi-
sions, widening net of stakeholders and defining their responsibilities, and spreading
awareness about use of chemicals (hazardous and non-hazardous) and their impact
on environment and human health.

Increasing thrust on circular economy

The CE approach intends for restorative economy and to create a regenerative sys-
tem of handling e-waste by handling them in closed loops through which optimal
reuse, renovation, remanufacturing, and recycling of products and efficient recovery
of materials could be ensured. For efficient resource recovery, it focuses on product
design, e-waste collection and disposal practices and mechanism, recycling technol-
ogy, reuse, etc., and closing resource loops by employing reverse supply chain and
the reverse logistics46 strategies/frameworks. By improving e-waste collection and
recycling practices worldwide, a considerable amount of secondary raw materials –
precious, critical and non-critical – could be made readily available to re-enter the
manufacturing process while reducing the continuous extraction of new materials
(Forti et al. 2020: 59). This entire loop including proper EoL services, and reuse of
EoL products, facilitated by specific government’s regulations, has generated new
economic markets, and new entrepreneurial activities, which has great economic
potentials across the world. This way, CE is gaining greater relevance in academic
research and policy making agenda. In this context, reverse logistic processes of col-
lection, recycling and reuse of e-waste plays a critical role for different reasons; also,
can be regarded as a business strategy in which recovery activities are imposed for
the purpose of increasing sustainability (Isernia et al. 2019: 2–4).
The CE as a concept employs REs, resource recovery and re-using resources;
making suitable shift to 6Rs framework (repair, reuse, refurbish, responsibly dis-
posed, recycle and resource recovery) from the existing 3Rs framework (reduce,
recycle and reuse – applicable to other wastes), making management of secondary
materials an integral part of e-waste management. The RE considerations are now
being advocated in the design products and increase in productivity other than
electrical and electronic sector, especially in the communications, construction and
engineering [Link] CE and RE are stressed upon in the context of dominant
presence of informal sector in several countries, from e-waste collection to recy-
cling, and final disposal.
As presented in Table 1.3, the quantum of e-waste generation is increasing, while
the percentage of formally collected and recycled e-waste shows undulating move-
ment – from 15.5% in 2013 to 20% in 2016, and 17.4% in [Link], the value of
selected raw materials/intrinsic value of e-waste indicates (approx. 48–55 billion
EUR) potential of resource recovery. For example, GEM 2020 has presented an
example of how demand of iron, aluminium, and copper can be met if the current
 Sustainable development 31

E-waste to be regulated for safe environment, human health

Extended Producer Responsibility for end-of-life solution

Life cycle approach for tackling e-waste

Legislation / Design, life-span, collect, mine (urban mining), repair,
policy for refurbish, recycle, recover, resale, reuse
regulation

Collection
mechanism Circular economy
E-waste Formal–informal Sustainable Development
Recycling parnership Goals
inventory
infrastructure

FIGURE 1.4 Tackling e-waste

recycling rate (17.4%) is increased. At this rate, a potential raw material value of
10 billion USD can be recovered, along with 4 Mt of secondary material would
become available for recycling. Detailed discussion on recycling is covered linking
it with toxicity in Chapter 3 and with REs and CE in Chapter 4.
The Figure 1.4 represents e-waste management thinking/tackling e-waste at
global level. India has developed e-waste management parlance following global
way of tackling e-waste.

IV: UN initiatives for e-waste management: creating partnerships

and achieving Agenda 2030
By recognising e-waste as a tsunami, the UN has undertaken various initiatives at
international and regional levels, especially the collaborative efforts. A number of
global agencies have formed ‘Global E-waste Statistics Partnership’ (GESP) in 2017
to address e-waste challenges by improving e-waste data.
As part of a range of initiatives have undertaken by the UN e-waste manage-
ment, forming a group or an agency, initiating a programme or intervention is note-
worthy. For example, co-ordinating with the Environment Management Group
(EMG);47 the ‘Solving the E-waste Problem’ (StEP) initiative; the Sustainable Cycles
(SCYCLE) programme;48 and UNU-ViE SCYCLE.49 Each programme or agency
contributes to e-waste management in a specified manner. The partnership has
achieved the result by publishing the second edition of the GEM 2017 and build-
ing a website ([Link]) to publicly visualise the most relevant e-waste
indicators. Other initiatives include training of people from 60 countries for inter-
nationally adopted methodology for building statistics (Forti et al. 2020).
32 Sustainable development

BOX 1.1: SDGS AND E-WASTE RELATED TARGETS AND

INDICATORS

Target 3.9:
Use of hazardous chemicals and its impact on human health.
Target 8.3 and 8.8:
Decent job creation and access to financial services, and safe working environ-
ment and protecting labour rights.
Target 11.6 and its indicator 11.6.1:
Percentage of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final
discharge with regard to the total waste generated by the city.
Target 12.4 and indicator 12.4.2:
Treatment of waste, generation of hazardous waste and hazardous waste man-
agement, by type of treatment.
Target 12.5 and indicator 12.5.1:
National recycling rate and tonnes of material recycled.

Sources: Author unless otherwise specified.

In the context of Agenda 2030/SDGs, more specific targets and their sub-indi-
cator have been recognised for monitoring growth of e-waste, taking cognisance
of its potential hazardousness, and its high residual [Link] SDG’s targets include
3.950 (use of hazardous chemicals and its impact on human health), 8.3 (decent
job creation and access to financial services), 8.8 (safe working environment and
protecting labour rights), 11.6 (preventing adverse environmental impacts through
wastes management), 12.4 (reduction in use of hazardous substance and their dis-
posal) and 12.5 (substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduc-
tion, repair, recycling and reuse). The details are presented in the following box. As
every country collects and updates data on each SDGs, its targets and indicators to
keep track on Agenda 2030, the existing database could be used for each country’s
e-waste management quotient (Box 1.1).
SDGs are considered a roadmap for sustainable development by every country,
and therefore, every country has started documentation of progress on each SDG, its
targets and indicators, and its publication on regular basis/[Link], SDGs have
become a platform which provides country based updated data, a check point for
progress and sustainability, and a future roadmap of every SDG. Given the high raw
material demand for the production of EEE, e-waste is closely linked to the SDG
indicators on the material footprint (SDGs 8.4.1 and 12.1.1) and the SDGs on the
domestic material consumption (SDGs 8.4.2 and 12.2.2). GESP and the Partnership
Measuring ICT for Development has developed methodology for SDG indicators,
specifically for the SDG 12.5.1 – National recycling rate and tonnes of material
recycled (e-waste sub-indicator), and SDG indicator 12.4.2 on hazardous waste.
 Sustainable development 33

The e-waste sub-indicator in SDG 12.5.1 has been defined as follow:

Totale-waste recycled
SDG 12.5.1 sub-indicator on the e-waste =
Totale-waste generated
where the ‘Total e-waste recycled’ is equivalent to the ‘e-waste formally collected’
is divided by the ‘e-waste generated’51 (Forti et al. 2020: 31). This method could be
employed to examine extent of hazardous waste created in each country every year.
Sustainability and CE are two sides of a coin. The depletion of mineral depos-
its, declining metal recoveries and grades, the concentration of strategic minerals
in politically unstable regions and general risks associated with primary mining
(Ledwaba and Sosibo 2017: 2). Mining and the extraction of raw materials52 are
important links and sources of environmental and human health problems associ-
ated with the lifecycle of e-products. Reduction in mining may lead to less destruc-
tion to the environment and local ecosystems of the mining regions.
The UNEMG report (2017) has documented UN systems’ response 154 initia-
tives53 covering ten focus areas, and 12 types of interventions, and their focuses,
types and performance across different regions; along with various partnerships
and collaborative efforts put in by the UN systems in 14 years (between 2004 to
2017) by the 23 entities associated with UN systems.54 However, those most active
UN agencies including UNU and the UNU-led StEP initiative, UNIDO, UN
Environment, DFS and UNICEF; the secretariat of the Basel Convention, ITU, and
the GEF (Global Environment Facility) are left absent due to their focus on internal
corporate e-waste management rather than the provision of direct support to mem-
ber states on e-waste matters (UNEMG 2017: 23) (Table 1.8).
Taking cognisance of the existing informal e-waste system in different coun-
tries, of 154 initiatives by UN, 63 related to recycling and ESM of e-waste, and
12 initiatives are Education/Employment/Health related, which indicate need for
addressing problems of recycling, health and environment. Of a total of 63 initia-
tives, (i) three are related to acquisition of raw materials; (ii) four are linked to
design; (iii) five each for production, transportation/delivery, repair; (iv) seven each
for consumer use and reuse; and (v) 12 each for EoL treatment, and final disposal.
The foremost concern is to work on the life cycle principle; that is, to understand
different stages of the life cycle of EEE in the e-waste initiatives.
The types of initiatives undertaken by the UN are: (i) one for standardisation; (ii)
two for policies; (iii) three for programmes; (iv) six for working groups and work-
shops; (v) seven each for glossaries and compilations, and trainings and learnings;
(vi) 11 for partnerships; (vii) 13 for networks and consortiums; (viii) quantitative
assessments; (ix) 23 are studies and reports related; (x) 28 for projects; and (xii) 30
for preparing manuals and guidelines.
Total 139 collaborations and partnerships by UN provide an idea of various
aspects of e-waste management and need for addressing requirements on different
counts. The characteristics of existing collaborations for e-waste management are:
68 (49%) collaborations are UN and public; 50 (36%) collaborations are UN and
private; and 21 (15%) collaborations are UN-only.55
34 Sustainable development

TABLE 1.8 UN initiatives to tackle e-waste across different regions during 2004 and 2017

Total
Region Focus of the initiative number

North America Shipment of e-waste 01 01

South America Knowledge sharing 01 13
E-waste management and disposal 06
Chemicals 03
Others 03
Europe Legal/regulation/patents 04 19
E-waste management and disposal 06
Education/Employment/Health 02
Knowledge sharing 01
Shipment of e-waste 03
Material/Design 01
Others 02
Africa & Knowledge sharing 01 25
Sub-Sahara ICTs 02
Chemicals 06
E-waste management and disposal 12
Legal/regulation/patents 03
Other 01
Asia & Oceania Shipment of e-waste 02 34
Knowledge sharing 03
ICTs 01
Chemicals 07
E-waste management and disposal 17
EPR 01
Education/Employment/Health 02
Legal/regulation/patents 01
Total 92

Source: UNEMG (2017: 34–39). Compiled by the author.

V: Indian scenario: e-waste generation, collection and recycling

India ranks third in the world with waste generation of 3,230 kt or 3.2 Mt in 2019
(2.0 Mt in 2016), 2.4 kg/inh followed by China (10,129 kt or 10.1 Mt, 7.2 kg/inh),
and USA (6,918 kt or 6.9 Mt, 21 kg/inh). India moved up to third rank (in 2019) in
three years from fifth in 2016, leaving Japan (2.1 Mt in 2016) and Germany (1.9 Mt
in 2016) behind in 2019. At present, there are ten countries producing more than
1,000 kt e-waste annually. At present, officially documented global e-waste collec-
tion and recycling rate is 17.4%.
 Sustainable development 35

India collected and recycled 30 kt (0.030 Mt) in 2019 (Forti et al. 2020: 109),
which is less than 0.036 Mt of its e-waste in 2016–2017 (Baldé et al. 2017: 68).This
reveals that the e-waste generation in India is almost 60% higher in three years, as
against its recycling capacity. As of today, some 95% of e-waste is managed by the
informal sector in India including collection, transportation, dismantling, recycling,
and selling of secondary/recovered materials in the market. The informal sector56
broadly refers to existence, material and financial flows – it characterises an informal
existence and setup (it may not be registered as a dismantling or recycling unit) and
follow a disorganised way of functioning, with an informal economy including cash
transactions, inadequate tools and safety measures, inadequate wages to labour, and
often employing semi-skilled labourers or even children,57 lack of social security for
labour, etc; informal channels for e-waste collection, transportation and informal
way (rudimentary techniques) of treating e-waste; insufficient resource recovery;
getting rid of e-waste residues; and remaining out of legal frameworks in some ways.
In the absence of a database, the number of jobs, levels of remuneration, and condi-
tions of employment in e-waste management remain largely unknown (ILO 2014).
E-waste in India is majorly processed using inefficient technologies, inadequate
infrastructures, and improper and unhealthy eco-system (Toxics Link 2019b: 2).
Despite being highly effective in collecting WEEE, its recycling techniques yield
low extraction rates and result in large scale environmental pollution, which nega-
tively affects the physical wellbeing of thousands of people (GIZ 2017: 4). In 2017,
over 200 manufacturers of electronic goods, including some e-giants, were served
notices by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for not complying with
e-waste procurement norms (Henam 2018).

Historical, domestic e-waste in India: generation and composition

One of the first studies was carried out by GTZ and BIRD in 2007. This study
calculated ‘the total annual e-waste generated in India in the year 2007 is 382,979
metric tonnes (MT),58 including 50,000 MT of imports in India…the amount
available for recycling was 144,143 MT but due to the presence of considerable
refurbishment market only 19,000 MT of e-waste has been recycled in the year
2007’ (Khattar et al. 2007: 9).
The CPCB estimated 146,800 MT of e-waste was generated in India in 2005;
at that time, an estimate was projected – 800,000 MT by 2012, and 16.4 lakh [1.64
million] MT by 2014 (Committee on subordinate legislation 2016: 34). The main
sources of e-waste in India are the government, public and private industrial sectors,
which account for almost 70% of total e-Waste generation.

An Indian Market Research Bureau (IMRB) survey of ‘e-waste generation at

source’ in 2009 found that out of the total e-waste volume in India, televisions
and desktops including servers comprised 68% and 27% respectively. Imports
and mobile phones comprised of 2% and 1% respectively (LARRDIS 2011:
5).As such, large household appliances like washing machines and refrigerators
36 Sustainable development

E-waste Generation in India (2005–2019)

3,500,000 3,230,000

3,000,000
E-waste generated in MT

2,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000 1,700,000
1,500,000

1,000,000
382,979 439,000
500,000 146,800
0
2005 2007 2009 2014 2016 2019
Year

FIGURE 1.5 E-waste generation in India (2005–2019)

in the overall e-waste stream composition is not that significant but not dis-
posing them (more than 50% stored quantities) reflect disposal behaviours of
consumers in India (Figure 1.5).
(Dwivedy and Mittal 2010b)

Of a total of 2.0 Mt e-waste generated in India in 2016, 1.58 Mt (79% of the total)
from unorganised manner while 0.42 (21% of the total) Mt was from organised sec-
tor. Of the e-waste collected, computers accounted for almost 70% of e-waste, fol-
lowed by telecommunication equipment-phones (12%), electrical equipment (8%)
and medical equipment (7%) with the remainder consisting of household e-waste
(ASSOCHAM-cKinetics 2017).
A survey by ASSOCHAM-NEC in 2018b revealed that ten states in India
contribute the most to e-waste generation. Maharashtra tops with 19.8% of the
total e-waste generated (including 120,000 MT from Mumbai and 25,000 met-
ric tonnes from Pune), followed by Tamil Nadu (13% including 67,000 metric
tonnes from Chennai), Andhra Pradesh (12.8% including 32,000 metric tonnes
from Hyderabad), Uttar Pradesh (10.1%),West Bengal (9.8% including 55,000 met-
ric tonnes from Kolkata), Delhi (9.5% including 98,000 MT from Delhi-NCR),
Karnataka (8.9% including 92,000 metric tonnes from Bangalore), Gujarat (8.8%
including 36,000 metric tonnes from Ahmedabad), Madhya Pradesh (6.6%), and
Punjab (ASSOCHAM-NEC 2018b: 43).

Imported e-waste in India

Skinner et al. (2010: 9) mentioned in 2010 that e-waste is often shipped via third
world countries; it is unrealistic to expect these statistics to be exact. They further
 Sustainable development 37

mentioned that of the e-waste imported by India, it is estimated that approximately

80% originates from the USA, while the remaining 20% is predominantly imported
from the EU. As such, the import of e-waste is regulated with recent legislation in
India, but until 2016 its import was illegal.

The main global sources of e-waste are the United States, the EU, Australia,
Japan and the Republic of Korea, and the main recipients of e-waste are
China and India, followed by Mexico, Brazil, the Eastern European countries,
and African countries, including Egypt, Ghana and Nigeria, among others.
(Lundgren 2012: 64)

The E-waste Management Rules, 2016 tasks the state pollution control boards
(SPCB) to make the estimates of imported e-waste based on inventory prepared,
but no SPCB has done that yet (Kaur 2018).

Futuristic projections for e-waste in India

By 2020, the demand for e-products in India is expected to reach nearly $400 billion
with a CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 41% during 2016–2020 (MeitY
and NITI Aayog, 2019: 14). As a result, e-waste is likely to be increased by 30% dur-
ing 2018–2020. Out of the 67.8 billion tonnes of global material use, India’s share was
about 7.1% amounting to 4.83 billion [Link] rising population and at the current
high growth rates, India’s material use is expected to triple by [Link] to GEM
2017, the estimated value of raw materials which can be mined from e-waste stood
at €55 billion, of which mobile phones alone constituted €9.5 billion (op. cit.: 16–17).

Essentials of e-waste cohesive management thinking in India

India has largely focused on a regulatory framework, employing EPR as manage-
ment and enforcement strategy for various aspects of e-waste management along
with increasing thrust on RE and CE. Under the existing legal framework, i.e. the
E-waste Management Rules, 2016 (henceforth ‘Rules, 2016’) and E-waste Management
(Amendment) Rules, 2018 (henceforth ‘Amended Rules, 2018’), effective implemen-
tation of EPR occupies centre stage. The producers or the producer responsibility
organisation (PRO) is expected to establish collection channel, segregation, safe
transportation and ensure recycling of e-waste. The e-waste items are specified in
the rules, and proportion of e-waste collection and recycling is also specified for
every consecutive year after 2016. The responsibilities of consumer and ‘bulk con-
sumers’59 are also specified in the rules. Chapter 5 focuses exclusively on e-waste
management through legislation in India.
The MeitY (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) and NITI
Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India), Government of India has
launched a document, titled, Strategy on REs in EEE sector in January 2019. The
strategy paper presents that RE would lead to CE, a key element to sustainable
38 Sustainable development

development as well as the solutions to possible conflicts which can arise from
socio-economic, socio-political and politico-economic inter-relationships which
are caused due to the scarcity of resources. It also envisages linking of three mis-
sions – Make in India, Digital India, and Clean India (Swachh Bharat) for effective
e-waste management.
When essentials of e-waste management in India are thought of and enlisted,
the need for material flow analysis (MFA) is identified, which elaborates a list of
essentials for cohesive e-waste management thinking in India, as presented in the
following chart (Figure 1.6).

Challenge – Dominant
presence of informal
Demand growth
sector – collection to
Awareness about environment
recycling, resale of User’s behaviour towards 6Rs
recovered materials

Innovation, advancement
–Design materials, design
EEE users product
Sector based growth
Technology

Production, Consumption,
Disposal – resource use
Business Design and marketability
E-waste Linear vs circular model
manage Formal-informal partnership
ment
thinking Management
(linked to all EPR, inventorisation
components) Fee and taxation
Circular Economy
Achieving SDGs
Environment concerns
Policy /
regulation
Impacts Generation, target collection,
treatment (domestic, imported)
Role of actors in value chain,
logistics, its cost
EoL, MFA assessment based
on inventory
Recycling activities,
LCIA based infrastructure
MFA based Resource recovery, losses
Human health Proactive pathways
Resource use, recovery Informal trade chain to
Green technology beaddressed

FIGURE 1.6 Essentials of cohesive e-waste management thinking in India

 Sustainable development 39

The management incorporates user’s behaviour; technology (design product and

sector-based growth); business; inventorisation (e-waste generation, target collec-
tion and treatment to e-waste, shipment (if applicable – transboundary movements),
stages from collection to recycling including role of actors in value chain, and logis-
tics and its cost, EoL solutions, resource recovery and losses); and implementation
of policies. The impacts include environmental concerns – toxicity and pollutants
(harmful chemicals), and pollution of soil, water, and air; energy use during e-prod-
uct production, consumption and disposal; human health hazard due to exposure to
e-waste containing toxins, natural resource (water, land, energy) use and recovery;
and clean and green technological solutions.
The MFA60 for e-waste management works as a tool for comprehensive under-
standing on why, how, where, and what of e-waste (the flow of matter – com-
pounds, chemical elements, materials, or commodities) at different levels / with
a certain categorisation (e.g. national-level assessment, regional-level assessment,
product-level assessment, element-level assessment). The MFA helps in what sup-
ports a material balancing, conservation flow that brings in multiple axes – e-waste
generation estimation, material flow and stock estimation, potential material recov-
ery, socio-technical structure of WEEE management, economic sustainability of
e-waste management system, product substitution effects due to technology transi-
tion, product and element characterisation, etc. (Islam and Huda 2019).

Informal e-waste trade chain in India

As per the rules of 2016, the EEE manufacturers and users (consumers, bulk con-
sumers) are the generators of domestic e-waste; the inflow of imported e-waste is
observed, though legally banned. This is the first layer in this sequence of e-waste
disposal and collection. The individual consumers are disposing e-waste – either
give away for reuse to individuals and institutions or sell it to the kabaadiwala. The
bulk consumers either auctioned off, sold to scrap dealers, or given away to PROs.
The manufacturers dispose of e-scrap to scrap dealers, and the imported e-waste is
directly entering the trade by dealing with scrap [Link] second level – e-waste
collection introduces three actors – first level of kabaadiwala, scrap dealer/scrap
trader/ government agency (MSTC) that trades in metal scrap/PRO, and scrap
dealer/scrap trader who may or may not refurbish the e-waste. In the third layer
of dealing with e-waste, mainly the local kabaadiwala sell the e-scrap to city level
waste aggregators. Before the e-waste steps to large-scale aggregators in the fourth
layer, most e-waste is reported to be sorted, dismantled and/or [Link] last
layer is of large-scale waste aggregators who may be informal recyclers; if not, they
sell off e-waste to the formal and informal [Link] e-scrap dealer/trader sells
e-waste to the formal/informal recyclers while the PROs pass on the e-waste to the
formal/authorised recyclers for legal compliance. In this layer, leakage of e-waste
is reported, and thus, the e-waste (sorted, dismantled, cannibalised) come back to
the market for [Link] last layer is of sale of secondary material in the market for
reuse/in the supply chain (Figure 1.7).
40 Sustainable development

Formal / Informal
recyclers, (may Recovered materials
Large scale waste aggregators refurbish and sold in the market
resale), (leakage
reported)

Working parts
cannibalised

Auctioned off or Given to PRO

Given away / sold sold to scrap
to kabaadiwala dealers

Formal / Informal
Given away to Donated to recyclers (may
friends/ relatives institutions refurbish and resale)

Traders

Individual Bulk consumers Manufacturers Imported e-waste

customers (legally banned)

FIGURE 1.7 E-waste flow and recycling scenario in India

In this trade value chain, the collection to recycling trade provides livelihoods to
a significant number of urban poor. Moreover, recovery of materials from this waste
and ploughing them back into the supply chain process are some of the advantages
of the [Link] flipside of the recycling sector is the hazardous practices and pro-
cesses (Basu 2019; Sinha 2019a). In this context, building up partnership of formal-
informal players has been considered as a strategic action for larger legal compliance
and cohesive e-waste management.
Other aspects of cohesive e-waste management thinking, such as CE, recy-
cling, RE, impacts on environment and human health are dealt with in detail in
Chapter 3; users perspectives, business and technological concerns are dealt with
in Chapter 6.

Opportunities and challenges of e-waste management in India

Among the opportunities of e-waste, REs tops,61 followed by infrastructure devel-
oped for collection and treatment of WEEE, and achieving improved environment
and human health by dealing with toxicity of e-waste. Mainly three opportunities
 Sustainable development 41

are seen in e-waste – very high value material, especially gold, silver and platinum
group metals; harvesting e-waste would lead to produce lesser CO2 emission com-
pared to mining in earth’s crust, and in turn reduce global warming; and extending
the life of products (revised product design, repair, refurbish) and re-using compo-
nents brings even larger economic benefits.

Opportunities
As per one estimate, e-waste is worth at least $62.5 billion annually, which is more
than the gross domestic product (GDP) of most countries (PACE and World
Economic Forum 2019: 5). Some metals recovered per year globally is as follow:
copper (4,500,000 tonnes), tin (90,000 tonnes), antimony (65,000 tonnes), cobalt
(11,000 tonnes), and silver (6,000 tonnes). Proper separation of different elements
from WEEE, recovering of the elements of economic value, and prevention of envi-
ronmental pollution of hazardous components depend on dismantling and recy-
cling technologies (Toxics Link 2019b: 5). For India, the FICCI CE Report, 2017
estimated,

the business opportunity for extracting gold from e-waste is to the tune of
$0.7–$1 billion (approx. 70–75 crore INR). Furthermore, one ton of ore has
an extractable reserve of about 1.4 grams of gold while a ton of mobile phone
PCBs can produce about 1.5 kg.
(Quoted in MeitY and NITI Aayog, 2019: 20)

Environmental impacts are now shifting from ‘use’ to the ‘production’ and
‘material extraction’ stages… lifecycle impact of bulk metals per unit is
smaller than that of special metals (e.g. gold, palladium and cobalt).The min-
ing of critical resources often requires more effort than for bulk metals.
(Quoted in Parajuly et al. 2019: 13)

and, it may lead to conflicts.

Contributing to methods for collecting data and creating reliable database is
looked upon as an opportunity. Better e-waste data will eventually contribute to
minimising e-waste generation, prevent illegal dumping and improper treatment
of e-waste, promote recycling, and create jobs in the refurbishment and recycling
sector (Baldé et al. 2017: 2). The GoI considers creating awareness about e-waste
management among users, which would in turn help in effective implementation of
existing legal framework and producers’ of EEE and their pro-activeness for opera-
tionalising EPR are also seen as opportunities.
With the introduction and implementation of the rules in 2016, a few notewor-
thy opportunities were created, such as the possibility of creating database statistics,
the use of data for effective enforcement (monitoring and evaluation of achiev-
ing targets and compliance) and legal compliance, and movement towards formal
42 Sustainable development

economy could begin (dealing with informal sector with competitive spirit and
business activities) for domestic e-waste. With this shift towards formal economy,
more jobs would be created. Specific data on imports of e-waste would be useful
in identifying transboundary movement of e-waste and take necessary action for
proper treatment of e-waste, may that be repaired and reused or recycled in ESM
and EoL.

Challenges
The set of opportunities are challenges too for e-waste management. Imagine about
3.0 Mt untreated e-waste is discarded for landfill or burnt or illegally traded or
treated in a substandard way every year, and the threat it creates to the environment,
sustainable development, economy, human health and surrounding ecosystems.
Practitioners of e-waste management have shared challenges, such as, establish-
ing logistics and transportation cost for collection of e-waste; recycling technol-
ogy, economics and viability of recycling ventures; dealing with informal sector and
informal economy and how make a shift to formal economy through e-waste man-
agement; and role of citizens and producers of EEE in effective implementation of
the legal framework and EPR respectively (Turaga and Bhaskar 2019). The leakage
of e-waste and resale of leaked e-waste being resold – from one vendor to another
vendor or recycler and returning to the market again, is a major problem reported.
Such circulation of e-waste, without getting treated, may show as ‘treated e-waste’
on paper for legal compliance is reported as a [Link] is a challenge for effec-
tive enforcement of the existing regulatory framework (Singhal 2019a). Further,
regarding technology, innovation and advancement including design of the product
(planned obsolescence, inability to repair, or software compatibility issues) and mate-
rials used, and sector-based growth are closely linked; these aspects have remained
peripheral issues, least talked about, least enforced under the broad canopy of EPR.
In order to comply with the WEEE Directive, industrialised countries have made
convenient use of the word ‘recycling;’ they justify the free trading of hazardous
waste materials to the developing countries of Asia, where labour is cheap and
health and environmental restrictions are negligent. For emerging economies, these
materials offer a business opportunity, and entire new economic sectors revolve
around trading, repairing, and regaining materials from surplus electronic devices
(Babu et al. 2007: 311). On the other hand, the semi-formal or informal sector
actors employ rudimentary techniques for recovery of materials, which are risky
and earning lower income compared to advance technology of recycling. Thus, as
against the opportunity of creating of jobs or livelihood for the workers, the infor-
mal sector in India creates challenges for e-waste management.
The report of MeitY and NITI Aayog (2019: 28, 45) articulated challenges of
e-waste management in India, which are presently guided by complex dynamics.
They are: (i) producers have been tasked with ensuring collection of EoL mate-
rial, and parallelly the informal sector has been handling WEEE (from collection
to recycling) through its wide network for the last few decades; (ii) EEE is diverse
 Sustainable development 43

and complex with respect to the materials and components used and, waste streams
from the manufacturing and recycling processes; (iii) characteristics of e-waste is
of paramount importance for developing a resource efficient, economically viable
and environmentally sound recycling system – high cost of setting up recycling
facility and making it sustainable; (iv) accurate and updated data on e-waste gen-
eration, flow, collection and treatment, and trends are also difficult to ascertain; (v)
mapping of documentation of the entire value chain is difficult, as there are several
human actors involves, each with different set of functions and responsibilities; (vi)
establishing linkage amongst stakeholders and preparing them with win–win situ-
ations through various incentives, awareness measures, penalties, etc. is a challenge
in itself; (vi) little awareness amongst different sectors about the rules of 2016; and
(vii) strong implementation of legislation across the whole country, wherein exist.
The gap between business concerns (resource availability, recovery and management
of secondary materials, marketability of an e-product, etc.) versus linear thinking
(model, concepts, and concerns) of the existing policy/Rules, 2016, pressing for
enforcement through EPR, fee and taxation and facing penalties in cases of non-
compliance. In this gap, morale and intent of producers and PROs for achievement
under EPR, lack of motivation and incentives for all the stakeholders, and economic
viability of recycling infrastructure are critical.

Notes
1 1 million metric tonnes = 1,000,000,000 kg.
2 ‘kg/inh’ represents kilogram per inhabitant.
3 Refurbishing is a process to make devices functional in a way that they work according to
new standards vis-à-vis obsolete technology. For example, old parts are replaced by new
ones, new software could be installed.
4 The samples of soil and water collected from acid processing/leaching facility in Delhi
in 2005, heavy metals (Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Tin) were detected in high levels in
the final spent acid wastes (e.g. 68 mg/L antimony, 240 mg/L copper, 20 mg/L lead, 478
mg/L nickel, 340 mg/L tin and 2,710 mg/L zinc) (Greenpeace 2005: 5). Residues of
phthalate esters and chlorophenols were also detectable in these acid wastes. Toxic sub-
stances like mercury and lead are commonly used in e-products, which contaminate the
land, water, and air.
5 The toxins are different types, such as, carcinogenic (having potential to cause cancer),
neurotoxic (can cause damage to nervous systems), reprotoxic (toxic effect on reproduc-
tion processes), bio-accumulative, mutagenic (Mutagen is a physical or chemical agent
that changes genetic material. In genetics, a material that can alter genetic material, for
example, DNA is mutagenic), etc.
6 98 Mt of CO2-equivalents were released into the atmosphere from discarded fridges and
air-conditioners that were not managed in an environmentally sound manner (Forti et al.
2020: 15).
7 There are 17 rare earth elements – Cerium (Ce), Dysprosium (Dy), Erbium (Er), Europium
(Eu), Gadolinium (Gd), Holmium (Ho), Lanthanum (La), Lutetium (Lu), Neodymium
(Nd), Praseodymium (Pr), Promethium (Pm), Samarium (Sm), Scandium (Sc), Terbium
(Tb),Thulium (Tm),Ytterbium (Yb), and Yttrium (Y) (Buchert et al. 2012: 1).
44 Sustainable development

8 Silicone and its derivatives are the main substrate material in the production of micro-
chips and semiconductors. Other non-metal or semimetal materials are antimony, bis-
muth, cobalt, fluorite, garnet, magnesium and talc. Other materials like ceramics are also
used for its insulation characteristics. Certain clays, glasses, calcium and carbon (in various
forms) are also often used.
9 The waste management hierarchy is as a strategy or guiding principle for manufacturers,
governmental organizations, consumers, and other actors in society on how to priori-
tize waste management approaches to decrease its environmental impacts and increase
circularity. In this hierarchy, waste prevention and minimisation, reuse, recycling, energy
recovery and landfilling are the stages (Miliute-Plepiene and Youhanan 2019: 25–26).
10 RoHS is for the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substance in the EEE, and to
promote greener products. It came into force with effect from 1 July 2006’ (LARRDIS
2011: 84).
11 Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 27 January 2003,
as amended by Directive 2003/108/EC of the restriction of the European Parliament
and Council of 8 December 2003 on WEEE (OJ [Official Journal] L37/24, 13.02.2003)
(quoted in Levinson et al. 2019: 151).
12 REACH regulation came into force on 1 June 2007. It asked for approximately 30,000
existing substances to undergo a registration procedure during 2007–2018. This regula-
tion moves burden from the authorities to the industries (Ram Mohan et al. 2019: 170,
175–176).
13 The Basel Convention is an initiative of UNEP, which focuses on ‘controlling transbound-
ary movements of hazardous wastes and its disposal’. Started in 1989 and came into force
in 1992, the convention started working on e-waste in 2002. This Convention has been
ratified by 187 countries.
14 The StEP is an initiative of the United Nations (UN). It is a global network of more
than 55 member organisations for holistic e-waste management. For further details visit
[Link]
15 ‘Reuse’ of EEE or its components is
to continue the use of it (for the same purpose for which it was conceived) beyond
the point at which its specifications fail to meet the requirements of the current owner
and the owner has ceased use of the product.
Products could be donated or traded before or in this phase.
16 ‘Preparation for reuse’ comprises any operation performed to bring used EEE or its com-
ponents into a condition to meet the requirements of a next potential owner.
17 Recycling:
The phase of the product lifecycle where due to lack of functionality, cosmetic condi-
tion or age the product is broken down into component materials and recycled into
raw material for use in the manufacture of new EEE or other products.
18 Disposal:
Material that cannot be recycled into raw material for use in manufacture of new EEE
or other products would need to be disposed of using other methods, such as energy
recovery or landfill. Items that are disposed of in household bins may move directly to
this phase avoiding any opportunity of reuse or recycling.
19 The first WEEE Directive listed 10 categories for which data was [Link] were:
(i) Large household appliances; (ii) Small household appliances; (iii) IT and telecommuni-
cations equipment; (iv) Consumer equipment; (v) Lighting equipment; (vi) Electrical and
electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools); (vii) Toys,
leisure, and sports equipment; (viii) Medical devices (with the exception of all implanted
 Sustainable development 45

and infected products); (ix) Monitoring and control instruments; and (x) Automatic dis-
pensers (Forti et al. 2018: 14–15).
20 For details, refer McCann and Wittmann. 2015 (StEP Green Paper Series), p. 10. Data
also available from Baldé, C.P.,Wang, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J. (2015),The global e-waste
monitor – 2014, United Nations University, IAS – SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany.
21 Category 1 for temperature exchange equipment including cooling and freezing equip-
ment. Category 2 for screens and monitors includes televisions, monitors, laptops, note-
books, and tablets. Category 3 covers lamps. Category 4 for large equipment incorporating
washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashing machines, electric stoves, large printing
machines, copying equipment, and photovoltaic panels. Category 5 small equipment
includes vacuum cleaners, microwaves, ventilation equipment, toasters, electric kettles,
electric shavers, scales, calculators, radio sets, video cameras, electrical and electronic toys,
small electrical and electronic tools, small medical devices, small monitoring, and control
instruments. Category 6 for IT (information technology) and telecommunication equip-
ment includes mobile phones, Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, pocket calcula-
tors, routers, personal computers, printers, and telephones.
22 No details are provided in GEM 2020, for example, about method for deriving these
figures, equivalent details, or its impact on environment. In absence of such details, it is
assumed that these figures are projections, based on informal way of treating e-waste and
emission of CO2 and BFRs, and deposition of mercury.
23 For region-wise information of type of e-waste across transboundaries, refer Baldé
et al. 2016.
24 Any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.
25 The collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, including the supervision of
such operations and the aftercare of disposal sites, and including actions taken as a dealer
or broker.
26 Measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste.
27 Any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose.
28 Any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials
or substances whether for the original or other purposes.
29 There has been difference of opinion regarding ROHS3. The website [Link]
considers as (EU) 2015/863 is considered as ROHS3 by ([Link]
[Link]/hc/en-us/articles/360001203047-What-is-EU-RoHS-3-). However, Valeire
Kruntz contested this by saying,‘There is a common misconception that Directive (EU)
2015/863 which amends Directive 2011/65/EU (also referred to as “RoHS 2”) can be
referred to as “RoHS 3”’ (Kruntz 2020).
30 For more details visit [Link]
31 Directive 2012/19/EG of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012
concerning waste of electrical and electronic equipment (revised).
32 For more details visit [Link]
33 Phthalates are manmade compounds, used as additives, for softness and flexibility of the
product, such as, plastics, food package, cosmetics, and medical devices.
34 EEA includes all European Union member states, in addition to Iceland, Liechtenstein,
Norway and Croatia.
35 For more information, visit websites – [Link]
standing-reach; [Link] and
[Link]
36 Mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes genetic material. In genetics, a
material that can alter genetic material, for example, DNA is mutagenic.
46 Sustainable development

37 Reprotoxic represents reproductive toxicity. This is associated with some chemical sub-
stances which can interfere with normal reproductive functions.
38 This Convention was adopted on 10 September 1998 and entered into force on 24
February 2004. It promotes shared responsibility between exporting and importing coun-
tries in protecting human health and the environment and provides for the exchange of
information about potentially hazardous chemicals that may be exported and imported;
and creates legally binding obligations for the implementation of the PIC procedure
([Link]).
39 This Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) was adopted in 2001 and came
into force in 2004. E-waste contains many chemicals classified as [Link] Convention
requires Parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the
environment, aiming at protection of human health and the environment from [Link]
date, 176 countries are Parties to the Convention ([Link]; Lundgren 2012).
40 The Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) was adopted by the sixth meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in 2002. For more information,
visit: [Link]
Overview/tabid/3268/[Link]
41 The Nairobi Declaration on the Environmentally Sound Management of Electrical and
Electronic Waste. It was adopted in Eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal in Nairobi in 2006. For more information, visit: [Link]
portals/4/basel%20convention/docs/meetings/cop/cop8/[Link]
42 Eighth Conference of the Parties.
43 The London Guidelines (1989) aim to assist governments in the process of increasing
chemical safety in all countries through the exchange of information on chemicals in
international trade. They aim to enhance the sound management of chemicals through
the exchange of scientific, technical, economic and legal information, and assist states in
the process of developing future [Link] Code of Ethics on the International Trade in
Chemicals (1994) complements the London Guidelines. It addresses industry and other pri-
vate sector parties in all countries with the aim of setting out the principles, guidance and
governing standards of conduct for the promotion of ESM of chemicals in international
[Link] the implementation of this code, the private sector parties are expected to
enter into voluntary commitment (Lundgren 2012: 35).
44 The Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer entered into force in 1987
with the objective of protecting the ozone layer from chemicals destroying it. 96 chemi-
cals are currently controlled by the Montreal Protocol. These chemicals are commonly
found in articles such as old fridges (ibid.).
45 This Convention on Mercury is a global treaty to protect environment and human health
from the adverse effects of Mercury. This Convention entered into force on 16 August
2017. Major highlights of the Minamata Convention include a ban on new Mercury mines,
the phase-out of existing ones, the phase out and phase down of Mercury use in a num-
ber of products and processes, control measures on emissions to air and on releases to
land and water, and the regulation of the informal sector of artisanal and small-scale gold
mining. The Convention also addresses interim storage of mercury and its disposal once
it becomes waste, sites contaminated by mercury as well as health issues ([Link]-
[Link]).
46 Broadly, ‘reverse logistics’ refers to logistics activities carried out in source reduction,
recycling, substitution, reuse of materials and [Link] is a process of planning, imple-
menting, and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow of raw materials, in-process
 Sustainable development 47

inventory, finished goods, and related information from the point of consumption to
the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing value or proper disposal. For different
definitions of ‘reverse logistics’, see Isernia et al. (2019: 4).
47 The EMG is a UN System-wide coordination body on environment and human settle-
ments. It was established in 2001 pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 53/242 in
July 1999.
48 Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) is a programme hosted by UNU-ViE based in Bonn,
Germany succeeding, the former UNU-IAS (Institute for the Advanced Study of
Sustainability) SCYCLE. Its activities are focused on the development of sustainable
production, consumption/usage, and disposal of ubiquitous goods with a special focus
on EEE and advances sustainable e-waste management strategies based on life cycle
thinking.
49 UNU-ViE SCYCLE was formed for conducting research; developing inter-disciplin-
ary and multi-stakeholder public-private partnerships; assisting governments in devel-
oping e-waste legislation and standards; etc. ([Link]
sustainable-cycles-scycle#overview).
50 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemi-
cals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
51 ‘E-waste formally collected’ is defined as the amount of e-waste that is collected as such
by the formal collection system, and ‘e-waste generated’ is defined as the amount of dis-
carded e-products (e-waste) due to consumption within a national territory in a given
reporting year, prior to any collection, reuse, treatment, or export.
52 The extraction of one kg of raw copper generates 310 kg of mining waste, while the
extraction of one gm of gold generates 1–5 tonnes of mining waste. Additionally, 1–4
tonnes of waste could be produced during the processing of gold to make it ready for
application in the electronics industry (Miliute-Plepiene and Youhanan 2019: 17).
53 Total 154 initiatives are classified as 10 focus areas, and 12 types. Since the figures are
neither presented region-wise or inter-linking the focus and type of initiatives in the
report, they are described here separately, with respective numbers. The focus of the
initiatives is: (i) three initiatives are Statistics/Assessment related; (ii) three initiatives are
EPR related; (iii) seven for Materials / Design; (iv) ten initiatives for Legal/Regulation/
Patents; (v) 11 initiatives are EEE and ICTs related; (vi) 12 initiatives are Education/
Employment/Health related; (vii) 13 initiatives are Knowledge sharing related; (viii) 15
initiatives are Chemicals related; (ix) 17 initiatives are for e-waste management; and (x)
63 for Recycling and ESM of e-waste related.
54 UN associated entities include (i) WHO (World Health Organisation) and UNICEF
(United Nations Children’s Fund) for Health and sanitation matters; (ii) UNDP
(United Nations Development Program), UNCTAD (United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development), World Bank, OECD (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development), UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development
Organisation), and ITU (International Telecommunication Unio) dealing with
Development related issues; (iii) FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) and ILO
for Agriculture and Labour related matters; and (iv) IMO (International Maritime
Organisation), UN ESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific), UN Environment for issues related to environment, energy, and
transport.
55 For more details, see UNEMG report, 2017.
56 The informal sector in India is characterised with unorganised and irregular (as and
when required) way of functioning of economic enterprises, mostly unregistered entities
48 Sustainable development

that are engaged in production, and/or distribution of goods, and/or services meant for
the purpose of sale, operate under ownership category of proprietary or partnership.
For business, these enterprises employ workers on a daily basis or as casual–contractual
worker. They operate in such a way that they do maintain records of their accounts,
activities; and thus, they are not covered under legal and financial net.
57 In India, about 500,000 child labours between the age group of 10–14 are observed to
be engaged in various e-waste activities, without adequate protection and safeguards in
various yards and recycling workshops (ASSOCHAM-cKinetics 2017).
58 Of total 382,979 MT e-waste, 50,000 MT was imported, 56,324 MT was of comput-
ers, 27,5000 MT was of TVs, and 1,655 MT of mobile phones. Of total 144,143 MT
e-waste available for recycling, 50,000 MT was imported, 24,000 MT was of computers,
70,000 MT was of TVs, and 143 MT was of mobile phones. Of total 19,000 MT e-waste
recycled, 12,000 MT was of computers and 7,000 MT was of TVs.
59 As per the Rules 2016, a ‘bulk consumer’ includes central government or state gov-
ernment institutions, financial institutions (Banks), educational institutions (schools, col-
leges, universities, etc.), hospitals and other health care facilities (having turnover of more
than one crore or have more than 20 employees), multinational organisations, interna-
tional agencies, hotels, partnership and public or private companies registered under the
Factories Act 1948, and companies Act 2013.
60 MFA is one of the most widely accepted and utilised tools in the industrial-ecology
discipline, that measures the input-output materials and examines the pathways and flux
of each material flow within the whole system is a systematic assessment of the flows and
stocks of materials within a system defined in space and time.
61 As per recycling technologies available in India, metals like Copper, Aluminum, Ferrous
metals, lead, Indium ingot, Tin, Silver, Gold, and Palladium; transparent glass and plastic
scrap are recovered from CRTs, LCD panels, PCBs, and mobile phones. Among them, as
neodymium (vital for magnets in motors), indium (used in flat panel TVs) and cobalt (for
batteries) are the most precious metals (Toxics Link 2019b: 6,8).