The Global E-waste
Monitor 2020

Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential
Authors: Vanessa Forti, Cornelis Peter Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr, Garam Bel
Contributions by: S. Adrian, M. Brune Drisse, Y. Cheng, L. Devia, O. Deubzer,
F. Goldizen, J. Gorman, S. Herat, S. Honda, G. Iattoni, W. Jingwei, L. Jinhui,
D.S. Khetriwal, J. Linnell, F. Magalini, I.C. Nnororm, P. Onianwa, D. Ott, A.
Ramola, U. Silva, R. Stillhart, D. Tillekeratne, V. Van Straalen, M. Wagner,
T. Yamamoto, X. Zeng

Supporting Contributors:

2

The Global E-waste Monitor 2020
Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential
Authors:
Vanessa Forti, Cornelis Peter Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr, Garam Bel
Contributions by:
S. Adrian, M. Brune Drisse, Y. Cheng, L. Devia, O. Deubzer, F. Goldizen, J. Gorman, S. Herat, S. Honda, G. Iattoni, W.
Jingwei, L. Jinhui, D.S. Khetriwal, J. Linnell, F. Magalini, I.C. Nnororm, P. Onianwa, D. Ott, A. Ramola, U. Silva, R.
Stillhart, D. Tillekeratne, V. Van Straalen, M. Wagner, T. Yamamoto, X. Zeng3

Copyrightand publication information
4

Contact information:
For enquiries, please contact the corresponding author C.P. Baldé via scycle@unitar.org.
Please cite this publication as:
Forti V., Baldé C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities,
flows and the circular economy potential. United Nations University (UNU)/United
Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – co-hosted SCYCLE Programme,
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association(ISWA), Bonn/Geneva/Rotterdam.
ISBN Digital: 978-92-808-9114-0
ISBN Print: 978-92-808-9115-7
United Nations University (UNU) is an autonomous component of the UN General
Assembly dedicated to generating and transferring knowledge and strengthening
capacities relevant to global issues of human security, development, and welfare. The
University operates through a worldwide network of research and training centres andprogrammes, coordinated by the UNU Centre in Tokyo. www.unu.edu.
The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) is a dedicated trainingarm of the United Nations, with a mission of developing the individual, institutional, andorganizational capacity of countries and other United Nations stakeholders throughhigh-quality learning solutions and related knowledge products and services to enhance
global decision-making and to provide support at the country level in overcoming global
challenges. www.unitar.org.
The SCYCLE Programme, now in transition from UNU to UNITAR, envisions enabling
societies to reduce the environmental load from production, use, and the disposal ofubiquitous goods and especially electrical and electronic equipment to sustainablelevels by means of independent, comprehensive, and practical research and training,providing more thorough fact bases for policy development and decision-making.
Therefore, SCYCLE activities are focused on the development of sustainable production,
consumption, and disposal patterns for electrical and electronic equipment, as wellas other ubiquitous goods. SCYCLE leads the global e-waste discussion and advances
sustainable e-waste management strategies based on life-cycle thinking. For detailed
information on SCYCLE and its projects, including its research and training activities,
please visit www.scycle.info and http://scycle.vie.unu.edu.
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the specialized United
Nations agency for information and communication technologies (ICTs), driving
innovation in ICTs together with 193 member states and a membership of morethan 900 companies, universities, and international and regional organizations.

Established in 1865, ITU is the intergovernmental body responsible for coordinating theshared global use of the radio spectrum, promoting international cooperation in assigning
satellite orbits, improving communication infrastructure in the developing world, andestablishing the worldwide standards that foster seamless interconnection of a vast range ofcommunications systems. From broadband networks to cutting-edge wireless technologies,
aeronautical and maritime navigation, radio astronomy, oceanographic and satellite-based
earth monitoring as well as converging fixed-mobile phone, internet, and broadcasting
technologies, ITU is committed to connecting the world. For more information, visit
www.itu.int.
About ISWA:
The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) is a global, independent and non-profit
making association, working in the public interest promoting sustainable, comprehensive
and professional waste management and the transition to a circular economy.
Disclaimer:
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations
University (UNU)/ United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), theInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU), or the World Health Organization (WHO)concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of its authorities,
or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Trademark names andsymbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement of trademark
or copyright laws. Moreover, the views expressed in this publication are those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent those of the UNU/UNITAR, ITU, or WHO, nordoes citing of trade names, companies, schemes, or commercial processes constituteendorsement. We regret any errors or omissions that may have unwittingly been made.
© Maps, photos, and illustrations as specified.
This publication is licensed by the United Nations University/United Nations Institute forTraining and Research and the International Telecommunication Union under a Creative
Commons Attribution Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 IGO License. Please take the timeto learn more about Creative Commons.

© UNU/UNITAR and ITU, 2020.
Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
Credits© Illustrations UNU/UNITAR SCYCLE -Nienke Haccoû
Credits© Photos UNU/UNITAR SCYCLE -Yassyn Sidki
5

Acknowledgments

6

The Global E-waste Monitor 2020 is a collaborative effort of the Sustainable Cycles(SCYCLE) Programme presently co-hosted by the United Nations University (UNU)
and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).
This collaborative effort was made possible by financial contributions from:• International Telecommunication Union (ITU)• United Nations University (UNU)• International Solid Waste Association (ISWA)• World Health Organization (WHO)• German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) acting throughthe Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ GmbH)
Authors Vanessa Forti, Kees Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr (UNU/UNITAR), and Garam Bel(ITU) would like to thank the contributing authors and reviewers for their contribution to
the preparation of this third edition of the Global E-waste Monitor. Contributing authors
and reviewers have contributed to the report in varying capacities; their affiliations areincluded for identification purposes.
Project steering committee:
Kees Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr (UNU/UNITAR), Garam Bel (ITU), Aditi Ramola (ISWA).
Contributors:• Stephanie Adrian (US EPA) – North America• Marie Noel Brune Drisse (WHO) – E-waste Impacts on the Health of Children andWorkers• Yu-shu (Candy) Cheng (E-titanium Consulting, Inc) – Taiwan, Province of China• Leila Devia (Basel Convention Regional Centre for South America) – South America• Otmar Deubzer (UNU/UNITAR SCYCLE) – The Potential of E-waste in a Circular
Economy• Fiona Goldizen (WHO consultant) – E-waste Impacts on the Health of Children andWorkers• Julia Gorman (WHO consultant) – E-waste Impacts on the Health of Children andWorkers• Sunil Herat (Griffith University) – Oceania• Shunichi Honda (United Nations Environment Programme) – Japan• Wang Jingwei (Shanghai Collaborative Innovation Center for WEEE Recycling) –East and Southeast Asia
• Li Jinhui (Tsinghua University) – East and Southeast Asia
• Deepali Sinha Khetriwal (UNU/UNITAR) – South Asia
• Jason Linnell (Electronic Recycling) – North America• Federico Magalini (SOFIES) – Policy & Legislation – Africa and Southeast Asia

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Innocent Chidi Nnororm (Abia State University) – Africa
Percy Onianwa (Basel Convention Coordinating Centre for the African Region)– Africa
Daniel Ott (RLG Americas) – Latin America
Uca Silva (RELAC) – Latin America
Ruweyda Stillhart (SOFIES) – Policy & Legislation – Africa and Southeast Asia
Dulip Tillekeratne (CleanTech, GSMA) – Policy & Legislation – Africa and Southeast
Asia
Xianlai Zeng (Tsinghua University) – East and Southeast Asia

Design:Nienke Haccoû | Op de Kaart | www.bureauopdekaart.nl
Photography:
Yassyn Sidki | Yassyn Sidki Photography | www.yassynsidki.com
Additional thanks to:
Reed Miller (Yale University Center for Industrial Ecology), Giulia Iattoni (UNU/UNITAR),
Vincent Van Straalen (Statistics Netherlands), Michelle Wagner (UNU/UNITAR), andTales Yamamoto (Institute of Environmental Science – Leiden University) for theirsupport in data collection and analysis.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United
Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) for their collaboration in distributing questionnaires
on e-waste to various countries.
Terry Collins and Mijke Hertoghs (ITU) for their support in the launch of the publicationand the media campaign.

7

Foreword
UNU, ITU, and ISWA
8

Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) has become an essential part of everyday
life. Its availability and widespread use have enabled much of the global population tobenefit from higher standards of living. However, the way in which we produce, consume,and dispose of e-waste is unsustainable. Because of the slow adoption of collection
and recycling, externalities –such as the consumption of resources, the emissionof greenhouse gases, and the release of toxic substances during informal recycling
procedures– illustrate the problem to remain within sustainable limits. Consequently,
many countries are challenged by the considerable environmental and human healthrisks of inadequately managed Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), widely
known as e-waste. Even countries with a formal e-waste management system in place areconfronted with relatively low collection and recycling rates.
Monitoring the quantities and flows of e-waste is essential for evaluating developments
over time, and to set and assess targets towards a sustainable society and circular
economy. The development of a recycling infrastructure, sound policies, and legal
instruments are more efficiently implemented on the basis of sound e-waste data.
Without a global picture of e-waste, the true nature of transboundary movements and, insome cases, illegal shipments will also be incomprehensible.
Building on the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, the United Nations
University (UNU), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International
Solid Waste Association (ISWA), in close collaboration with the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), have joined forces in the Global E-waste Statistics
Partnership (GESP). Since late 2019, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research(UNITAR) has been co-hosting SCYCLE, UNU’s specialized programme on e-waste. TheGESP collects data from countries in an internationally standardized way and ensuresthat this information is publicly available via its open-source global e-waste database,www.globalewaste.org. Since 2017, the GESP has made substantial efforts by expanding
national and regional capacity on e-waste statistics in various countries.
Ultimately, the GESP assists countries in compiling e-waste statistics that are useful fornational policy-making with an internationally recognised, harmonised measurement
framework. The GESP brings together policy makers, statisticians, and industry
representatives to enhance quality, understanding, and interpretation of e-waste data.
At the global level, the GESP contributes to the monitoring of relevant waste streams,
measuring progress made towards reaching the Sustainable Development Goals 11.6,
12.4, and 12.5. Recently, e-waste has officially been included in the work plan for the
12.4.2 and 12.5.1 indicator and in the documentation pertaining to this indicator. TheGESP allows international organizations, such as the ITU, to measure progress towards
their own goals. In 2018, the highest policy-making body of the ITU, the Plenipotentiary
Conference, established a target of increasing the global e-waste recycling rate to 30%
by 2023. This would correspond to a 12.6% increase in today’s global average.

This third edition of the Global E-waste Monitor is a result of the GESP and its close
collaborators; a follow-up to the 2017 edition and UNU-SCYCLE’s groundbreaking Global
E-waste Monitor 2014. This report shows that the global growth in the generation ofe-waste continues.
In 2019, the world generated 53.6 million metric tons (Mt), and only 17.4% of this wasofficially documented as properly collected and recycled. It grew with 1.8 Mt since 2014,
but the total e-waste generation increased by 9.2 Mt. This indicates that the recycling
activities are not keeping pace with the global growth of e-waste.
Besides a global perspective, this report includes national and regional analysis one-waste quantities and legislative instruments. Although 71% of the world’s population iscovered by some form of e-waste policy, legislation, or regulation, greater efforts must be
made towards implementation and enforcement in order to encourage the take-up of acollection and recycling infrastructure.
The Global E-waste Monitor 2020 introduces the wider public to the global e-waste
challenge, explains how the challenge currently fits into international efforts to reach
the SDGs, and discusses how to create a circular economy and sustainable societies. In
parallel, we encourage decision-makers to increase their activities to measure and monitor
e-waste by using and adopting the internationally recognised methodological framework
developed by UNU-SCYCLE, in collaboration with the Partnership on Measuring ICT for
Development.
We would like to thank all authors and contributors for this report, and we invite you
to collaborate with the GESP and support our continuous efforts to improve the global
understanding and environmentally sound management of e-waste.

Ruediger Kuehr
Director of the Sustainable
Cycles Programme,
UNU & UNITAR, (SCYCLE)

Doreen Bogdan-Martin
Director of theTelecommunication
Development Bureau,
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

Antonis Mavropoulos
President of theInternational Solid Waste
Association (ISWA)

9

Tableof contents
10

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 1. What is EEE and E-waste? .................................................................................. 16
Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics ...........................................................................20
Chapter 3. How E-waste Data Contribute to the SDGs ...................................................28
Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics ...........................................................................32
Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics
Partnership...................................................................................................................................42
Chapter 6. E-waste Legislation and Transboundary Movement ................................50
Chapter 7. The Potential of E-waste in a Circular Economy ........................................56
Chapter 8. E-waste Impact on the Health of Children and Workers .........................62
Chapter 9. Regional E-waste Key Statistics ......................................................................68
Africa ........................................................................................................................................ 70
Americas ................................................................................................................................. 72
Asia .............................................................................................................................................74
Europe....................................................................................................................................... 76
Oceania .................................................................................................................................... 78
Endnotes........................................................................................................................................80
Literature...................................................................................................................................... 84
About the Authors..................................................................................................................... 94
Annex 1: UNU-KEYS and Link to E-waste Categories ....................................................96
Annex 2: Methodology............................................................................................................100
Annex 3: Country E-waste Key Statistics.........................................................................104
11

Executive
Summary
12

E
Am

Af

Oc

nia 0.7
ea

t
M

19

7.3 kg per capita

-w

20

ba

EEE

a s t e g e n e rat

edof
20 9.214 M tl
2. g ro w
5
M tht

E-wasteUrbanizationan u ofh
wt ce
G ro s i n

Higher consumption
rates of EEE

Short life
cyclesAn

Industrializationt

53.6 Mt
G lo

This monitor provides the most comprehensive
update of global e-waste statistics. In 2019, the world
generated a striking 53.6 Mt of e-waste, an averageof 7.3 kg per capita. The global generation of e-wastegrew by 9.2 Mt since 2014 and is projected to grow to
74.7 Mt by 2030 – almost doubling in only 16 years.
The growing amount of e-waste is mainly fueled byhigher consumption rates of EEE, short life cycles,
and few repair options. Asia generated the highest
quantity of e-waste in 2019 at 24.9 Mt, followed by theAmericas (13.1 Mt) and Europe (12 Mt), while Africa
and Oceania generated 2.9 Mt and 0.7 Mt, respectively.
Europe ranked first worldwide in terms of e-waste
generation per capita, with 16.2 kg per capita. Oceania
was second (16.1 kg per capita), followed by theAmericas (13.3 kg per capita), while Asia and Africa
generated just 5.6 and 2.5 kg per capita, respectively.

a 2.9 MricleAfter its use, EEE is disposed of, generating a waste
stream that contains hazardous and valuable materials.
This waste stream is referred to as e-waste, or Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), a term
used mainly in Europe.

ia 24.9 Mt
Asicas 13.1
er

Mt

Higher levels ofdisposable income

ope 12 M
urt

The consumption of Electrical and Electronic Equipment(EEE) is strongly linked to widespread global economic
development. EEE has become indispensable inmodern societies and is enhancing living standards,
but its production and usage can be very resourcedemanding, as such also illustrates a counter to thatvery improvement in living standards. Higher levels ofdisposable incomes, growing urbanization and mobility,and further industrialization in some parts of the world
are leading to growing amounts of EEE. On average, thetotal weight (excluding photovoltaic panels) of global
EEE consumption increases annually by 2.5 million
metric tons (Mt).

Few repair
options

Executive Summary13

17.4% | 9.3 Mt

53.6 Mt

Global e-waste
ﬂows thatare not
documented

82.6% | 44.3 Mt

Collection and recycling rates
A

A

O

A

ia
an
ce

a
si

8.8%

E
e
op
ur

9.4%

cas
eri
m

0.9%

42.5%

11.7%

aluminium

7-20%

8%

iron

Executive Summaryste generatwae

7.3 kg per capita

Recycled materials
are reclaimed

14

In middle- and low-income countries, the e-waste
management infrastructure is not yet fully developedor, in some cases, is entirely absent. Hence, e-waste is
managed mostly by the informal sector. In this case,e-waste is often handled under inferior conditions,causing severe health effects to workers as well as tothe children who often live, work and play near e-waste
management activities.

2019
ed

h
wt e 2
Grosi n c

Global e-waste
documented to becollected andproperly recycled

Glob
al

The majority of undocumented domestic andcommercial e-waste is probably mixed with otherwaste streams, such as plastic waste and metal
waste. This means that easily recyclable fractions
might be recycled but often under inferior conditions
without depollution and without the recovery of all
valuable materials. Therefore, such recycling is notpreferred.

ica
fr

The fate of 82.6% (44.3 Mt) of e-waste generated
in 2019 is uncertain, and its whereabouts and theenvironmental impact varies across the different
regions. In high income countries, a waste recycling
infrastructure is usually developed, and:• Around 8% of the e-waste is discarded in waste bins
and subsequently landfilled or incinerated. This ismostly comprised of small equipment and small IT.
• Discarded products can sometimes still be
refurbished and reused, and thus are usuallyshipped as second-hand products from high-income
to low- or middle-income countries. However, aconsiderable amount of e-waste is still exported
illegally or under the guise of being for reuse orpretending to be scrap metal. It can be assumed
that the volume of transboundary movements ofused EEE or e-waste ranges from 7-20% of thee-waste generated.

•of
0 1 1.8
Mt
4

In 2019, the formal documented collection andrecycling was 9.3 Mt, thus 17.4% compared toe-waste generated. It grew with 1.8 Mt since 2014,
an annual growth of almost 0.4 Mt. However, the total
e-waste generation increased by 9.2 Mt, with an annual
growth of almost 2 Mt. Thus the recycling activities are
not keeping pace with the global growth of e-waste.
The statistics show that in 2019, the continent with thehighest collection and recycling rate was Europe with42.5%, Asia ranked second at 11.7%, the Americas andOceania were similar at 9.4% and 8.8%, respectively,
and Africa had the lowest rate at 0.9%.

copperis estimated to beexported as
second-hand products
or e-waste

is discarded
into waste bins
in high-income
countries

19

E-waste is an 'urban mine', as it contains several precious, critical, and other noncritical metals that, if recycled, can be used as secondary materials. The value of raw
materials in the global e-waste generated in 2019 is equal to approximately $57
billion USD. Iron, copper, and gold contribute mostly to this value. With the current
documented collection and recycling rate of 17.4%, a raw material value of $10 billion
USD is recovered in an environmental sound way from e-waste globally, and 4 Mt of
raw materials could be made available for recycling. The recycling of iron, aluminium,
and copper contributed to a net saving of 15 Mt of CO2, equivalent to emissions fromthe recycling of secondary raw materials substituted to virgin materials.

20

17

Improper management of e-waste also contributes to global warming. First ofall, if the materials in e-waste are not recycled, they cannot substitute primary raw
materials and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from extraction and refinement ofprimary raw materials. Next, the refrigerants that are found in some temperatureexchange equipment are greenhouse gases. A total of 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. This is approximately
0.3% of global energy-related emissions in 2019 (IEA).

20

61 countries

67 countries

78 countries

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

Globa
le

Global e-waste ﬂows that are
not documented

Global e-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled

17.4% | 9.3 Mt

4 Mt

amount of raw
materials

71 kt$57 billion USD
value of raw
materials in e-waste

98 Mt
CO2

Mercury(Hydro)chlorofuorocarbons ((H)CFCs)

53.6 Mt
7.3 kg per capita

82.6% | 44.3 Mt

Brominated
Flame Retardants (BFR)gaste enera
t
-w

2019
ed

E-waste contains several toxic additives or hazardous substances, such as
mercury, brominated flame retardants (BFR), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), orhydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). The increasing levels of e-waste, low collection
rates, and non-environmentally sound disposal and treatment of this waste stream
pose significant risks to the environment and to human health. A total of 50 t ofmercury and 71 kt of BFR plastics are found in globally undocumented flows of
e-waste annually, which is largely released into the environment and impacts thehealth of the exposed workers.

20

14

Since 2014, the number of countries that have adopted a national e-waste policy,
legislation, or regulation has increased from 61 to 78. However, regulatory advancesin some regions are slow, enforcement is poor, and policy, legislation, or regulation
does not yet stimulate the collection and proper management of e-waste due to lack ofinvestment and political motivation. In addition, the product scope in the legislation isusually different than the e-waste classification systems suggested by the commonly
used, internationally harmonised methodological framework on e-waste statistics.
These differences in the product scopes lead to a lack of harmonisation of e-waste
statistics across countries.

50 t

Aluminium

Iron$10 billion USD
value of raw
materials

CopperIn summary, it is essential to substantially increase the officially documented 17.4%
global e-waste collection and recycling rate, especially in view of the rapid growth of
this waste stream, which is already projected to reach 74.7 Mt by 2030, combinedwith increasing recovery of materials towards closed material loops and reducing theuse of virgin materials.

Executive Summary

15

Chapter 1
What is EEE and
E-waste?
16

17

What is EEE and E-waste?
EEE includes a wide range of products with circuity or electrical components with a poweror battery supply (Step Initiative 2014). Almost any household or business use products
like basic kitchen appliances, toys, tools to music, and ICT items, such as mobile phones,
laptops, etc.
Besides everyday household and business use, EEE are becoming increasingly used intransport, health, security systems, and generators of energy, such as photovoltaics.
Traditional products, such as clothes and furniture, are often equipped with electricalcomponents, and consequently are increasingly contributing to the global e-waste
generated. More and more EEE is also employed in the expanding sector of the Internetof Things (IoT), such as sensors or devices pertaining to the concept of the “smart home”
or “smart cities”.
EEE becomes e-waste once it has been discarded by its owner as waste without the intent
of reuse (Step Initiative 2014). Each product has different material content, is disposed ofand recycled in different ways, and is unequally harmful to the environment and humanhealth if not managed in an environmentally sound manner.
EEE comprises of a large variety of products. For statistical purposes, however, EEE isclassified by similar function, comparable material composition, average weight, andsimilar end-of-life attributes. The E-waste Statistics Guidelines on Classification Reportingand Indicators – Second Edition (Forti, Baldé, and Kuehr 2018) therefore divides EEE into
54 different product-centric categories. The categorization is referred to as the UNUKEYs. The full list of UNU-KEYs can be viewed in Annex 1.
The 54 EEE product categories are grouped into six general categories that correspondclosely to their waste management characteristics.

18

Chapter 1. What is EEE and E-Waste?

1. Temperature exchange equipment:
more commonly referred to as cooling and freezing equipment. Typical equipment includes refrigerators, freezers,
air conditioners, and heat pumps.

4. Large equipment:
typical equipment includes washing machines, clothes
dryers, dishwashing machines, electric stoves, large
printing machines, copying equipment, and photovoltaic
panels.
USB

5. Small equipment:
typical 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 electronicUSBtools, small medical devices, small monitoring, and control
instruments.

2. Screens and monitors:
typical equipment includes televisions, monitors, laptops,
notebooks, and tablets.

USB

3. Lamps:
typical equipment includes fluorescent lamps, highintensity discharge lamps, and LED lamps.

6. Small IT and Telecommunication equipment:
typical equipment includes mobile phones, Global
Positioning System (GPS) devices, pocket calculators,routers, personal computers, printers, and telephones.
USB

USB

E-waste systems and schemes do not yet cover any kind of batteries, accumulators, or electrical components of vehicles.
Currently, this categorization is compliant with both the WEEE directive adopted
by European member states (European Paliament 2003) and the internationallyB
recognised USframework
for e-waste statistics described in the aforementioned
Guidelines (Forti, Baldé, and Kuehr 2018) that are used in this report.
USB

Chapter 1. What is EEE and E-Waste?

19Chapter 2
Global E-waste
Key Statistics
20

21

Electric and electronic products are an essential featurethat contribute to global development and comprisea large variety of products that are used in daily life.

They can be found in households and businesses allaround the world. However, ownership per capita varies
per income level.

Global average number of selected appliances owned per capita, by country's income level
High/middle income

High income

Average household size:

Low income

Average household size:

Average household size:

Average household size:

3.6

4.5

5.3

5.0

Average purchasing power
parity in USD per capita:

Average purchasing power
parity in USD per capita:

Average purchasing power
parity in USD per capita:

Average purchasing power
parity in USD per capita:51.581

21.697

9.874

3.503

1.261

0.7

1.6

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.02

0.1

16

0.4

8

0.2

6

0.1

6

0.01

4

0.001

0.4

1.4

0.1

1.2

0.03

1

0.01

0.9

0.003

0.6

Fridges(incl. combi-fridges)

22

Middle/low income

Average household size:

2.8
Average purchasing power
parity in USD per capita:

Middle income

Laptops(incl. tablets)

Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics

Lamps

Washing machines(incl. combined dryers)

Microwaves(incl. combined, excl. grills)

Mobile phone
subscriptions

Glob
a

44.4 Mt

53.6 Mt

Glo
b

Glo
b

t
M
.2
9
w t h o f 014
since 2aste gen
e-w
er
al

ed
at

G ro

ted
ra

d
ate
er

-waste Gen
lEaste genee-w
al74.7 Mt

7.3 kg per capita

9 kg per capita

6.4 kg per capita

2019

2014

17.0% | 7.5 Mt

GrGlobal e-waste documented tobecollected andproperly
17.4% | 9.3 Mtowths i o f 1.8
Mt
nc
e 20
14

In 2019, approximately 53.6 million metric tons (Mt) of
e-waste (excluding PV panels) was generated, or 7.3 kg
per capita. It is estimated that the amount of e-waste
generated will exceed 74Mt in 2030. Thus, the global
quantity of e-waste is increasing at an alarming rate ofalmost 2 Mt per year.
In 2019, the formal documented collection andrecycling was 9.3 Mt, thus 17.4% compared to e-waste
generated. It grew with 1.8 Mt since 2014, an annual
growth of almost 0.4 Mt. However, the total e-waste
generation increased by 9.2 Mt, with an annual growthof almost 2 Mt. This illustrates that recycling activities

2030

Global e-waste ﬂows that are notdocumented
82.6% | 44.3 Mt

43.7 Mtof e-waste is unknown; this e-waste is
likely dumped, traded, or recycled in a
non-environmentally sound way

0.6 Mtis estimated to end up in waste bins in EU
countries

are not keeping pace with the global growth of e-waste.
Statistics on e-waste collected and recycled are
based on data reported by countries. The most recent
information available on the e-waste documented
as formally collected and recycled worldwide refers
on average to the year 2016 (see Annex 2 for the
methodology and Annex 3 for the country data).
In 2019, the large majority of e-waste generated(82.6%) was most likely not formally collected andnot managed in an environmental sound manner.
Those flows are usually not documented in aconsistent or systematic manner. The lack of data on
formally collected and recycled e-waste implies thatmost of the e-waste generated in 2019 (44.3 Mt) is
managed outside the official collection system and,in some cases, is shipped to developing countries. In
households of higher income countries, small-size
electronics can end up in normal waste bins and be
disposed with the municipal solid waste. Therefore, it
is not subjected to proper recycling, resulting in a lossof materials. It is estimated that in EU countries, 0.6 Mtof e-waste ends up in waste bins (Rotter et al. 2016).

Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics

23

Global E-waste Generated by year
Mt

44.4

2014

2015

6.6

46.4

2015

2016

6.8

48.2

2016

2017

6.9

50.0

2017

2018

7.1

51.8

2018

2019

7.3

53.6

2019

2020

7.5

55.5

2020

2021

7.6

2022

7.8

57.4

2021

59.4

2022

61.3

2023

63.3

2024

2025

8.3

2026

8.5

67.2

2027

8.6

69.2

2027

71.1

2028

2028

8.8

2029

8.9

2030

9.0
10

0

10

50 60 70
30 40
80
20
90

10
0

6

4

2

0

2026

40

60

since

+4%

since

t
.1 M
3
1

+5%

2030

74.7
20

t
9M
.
0

Screens
and monitors

2029

72.9

Mt
8

2025

65.3

-1%

14
20

8.0
8.2

Temperature exchangeequipment

14
20

2023
2024

+7%

since

t
7M
6.

14
20

6.4

since
14
20

kg per capita

2014

Mt
.8
0
1

80

100

(Future projections do not take into account economic consequences related to the Covid-19 crisis)

Lamps

Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics

Mt
.4
17

since

+4%

since

t
7M
4.

14
20

24

(+5%), and Lamps and Small equipment (+4%).
This trend is driven by the growing consumption ofthese products in lower income countries, where
the products enhance living standards. Small IT andtelecommunication equipment have been growing at
lower speed, and Screens and monitors have shown aslight decrease (-1%). This decline can be explained by
the fact that, lately, heavy CRT monitors and screens
have been replaced by lighter flat panel displays,
resulting in a decrease of the total weight even as thenumber of pieces continue to grow.

14
20

The global quantity of e-waste in 2019 is mainlycomprised of Small equipment (17.4 Mt), Large
equipment (13.1 Mt), and Temperature exchangeequipment (10.8 Mt). Screens and monitors, Small
IT and telecommunication equipment, and Lamps
represent a smaller share of the e-waste generated
in 2019: 6.7 Mt, 4.7 Mt, and 0.9 Mt, respectively.
Since 2014, the e-waste categories that have been
increasing the most (in terms of total weight of e-waste
generated) are the Temperature exchange equipment(with an annual average of 7%), Large equipment

Large
equipment

+2%

USB

Small
equipment

Small IT and telecommunication equipment

Europe
12 Mt (16.2 kg per capita)
e-waste generated

AmericasAsia

5.1 Mt | 42.5%
e-waste documented
to be collected andproperly recycled

24.9 Mt (5.6 kg per capita)
e-waste generated
2.9 Mt | 11.7%
e-waste documented
to be collected andproperly recycled

13.1 Mt (13.3 kg per capita)
e-waste generated
1.2 Mt | 9.4%
e-waste documented
to be collected andproperly recycled

Africa
2.9 Mt (2.5 kg per
capita)e-waste generated
0.03 Mt | 0.9%
e-waste documented
to be collected andOceania
0.7 Mt (16.1 kg per capita)
e-waste generated

In 2019, most of the e-waste was generated in Asia
(24.9 Mt), while the continent that generates the mostin kg per capita is Europe (16.2 kg per capita). Europe isalso the continent with the highest documented formal
e-waste collection and recycling rate (42.5%). In allother continents, the e-waste documented as formallycollected and recycled is substantially lower than theestimated e-waste generated.

Current statistics show that in 2019, Asia ranked
second at 11.7%, the Americas and Oceania stood at
9.4% and 8.8%, respectively, while Africa ranked last
at 0.9%. However, statistics can vary substantiallyacross different regions as the consumption anddisposal behavior depends on a number of factors (e.g.
income level, policy in place, structure of the waste
management system, etc.).(2)0.06 Mt | 8.8%
e-waste documented
to be collected andproperly recycled

Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics

25

2014

As of October 2019, 71% of the world’s population
was covered by a national e-waste policy, legislation,or regulation. Improvements have been made since2014 when only 44% of the population was covered.
The high coverage rate is affected by the fact that themost populous countries, such as China and India,
have national legal instruments in place. However,this population coverage equates to only 78 of the 193
countries. Thus, less than half of all countries in theworld are currently covered by a policy, legislation, or
regulation.

26

Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics

2017

2019

44%

66%

71%

population covered bylegislation, policy, or
regulation

population covered bylegislation, policy, or
regulation

population covered bylegislation, policy, or
regulation

61 countries

67 countries

78 countries

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

Chapter 2. Global E-waste Key Statistics

27

Chapter 3
How E-waste Data Contributeto the SDGs28

29

In September 2015, the United Nations and all member states adopted the ambitious
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and identified 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets for ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuringprosperity for all over a 15-year span. Increasing levels of e-waste, improper and unsafe
treatment, and disposal through incineration or in landfills pose significant challenges tothe environment, human health, and to the achievement of the SGDs.
Progress towards attaining the SDGs and their 169 targets are measured by indicatorsand official statistics. Several targets and indicators are defined or are currently in theprocess of being measured as part of monitoring progress. Per target, a custodian
agency, or agencies, have been defined to guide the process.
E-waste management closely relates to many SDGs, such as SDG 8 on decent workand economic growth, SDG 3 on good health and well-being, SDG 6 on clean waste andsanitation, and SDG 14 on life below water. In particular, given the high raw material
demand for the production of EEE, e-waste also closely relates to the SDG indicatorson 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). Relatively general indicators are being used tomeasure progress towards these SDGs. By contrast, for e-waste, a more specific subindicator has been recognised for monitoring growth in the waste stream, which is ofparticular concern due to both its potential hazardousness and its high residual value.
E-waste has been officially included in the work plan for the 12.5.1 SDG indicator and in
the documentation around the indicator.(3) The importance of considering e-waste is
discussed further in SDG indicator 12.4.2 on hazardous waste.
30

Chapter 3. How E-waste Data Contribute to the SDGs

E-waste is covered namely by SDGs 11 and 12.

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements
inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable

SDG 12.5.1 National recycling rate and tons of material
recycled (e-waste sub-indicator)
The e-waste sub-indicator in SDG 12.5.1 has been defined as:
Total e-waste recycled

Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities bypaying special attention to air quality as well as municipal and other waste management.
Since over half of the world’s population lives in cities, rapid urbanization requires new
solutions to address rising environmental and human health risks, especially in densely
populated areas. Most e-waste will be generated in cities, and it is particularly importantto properly manage e-waste in urban areas, improve collection and recycling rates, andreduce the amount of e-waste that ends up in dumpsites. The move towards smart cities
and the use of ICTs for waste management offer new and exciting opportunities.

SDG 12.5.1 Sub-indicator on e-waste =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.

consumption within a national territory in a given reporting year, prior to

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption andproduction patterns

Total e-waste generated

Where the “Total e-waste recycled” is equivalent to the “E-waste formallycollected”, which is defined in E-Waste Statistics Guidelines (Forti, Baldé,and Kuehr 2018) as the amount of e-waste that is collected as such by
the formal collection system. The “e-waste generated” is defined as theamount of discarded electrical and electronic products (e-waste) due toany collection, reuse, treatment, or export.
For methodology and datasets, the custodian agencies UNEP and UNSD use
the datasets and methodologies developed by SCYCLE, the Global E-waste
Statistics Partnership, and the Partnership Measuring ICT for Development.
With the current data, the SDG 12.5.1 sub-indicator on the e-waste recycling

Target 12.4: By 2030, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals
and all waste throughout the life cycle, in accordance with agreed-upon internationalframeworks, and significantly reduce their release into air, water, and soil in order tominimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

rate is 17.4% for 2019.

Indicator 12.4.2: Treatment of waste, generation of hazardous waste, and hazardous waste
management, by type of treatment.
Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction,
repair, recycling, and reuse.
An increasing number of people on the planet are consuming growing amountsof goods, and it is critical to make production and consumption more sustainable byraising awareness levels of producers and consumers, specifically in the area of electricaland electronic equipment.
Indicator 12.5.1 National recycling rate and tons of material recycled.
Chapter 3. How E-waste Data Contribute to the SDGs

31

Chapter 4
MeasuringE-waste Statistics
32

33

e-waste data. Understanding the quantities and flowsof e-waste provides a basis for monitoring, controlling,
and ultimately preventing illegal transportation,
dumping, and improper treatment of e-waste. In the

Monitoring the quantities and flows of e-waste is essential
for evaluating developments over time, for setting andassessing targets. The development of sound policies
and legal instruments can only be achieved with better

Reduce e-waste
Reduce e-waste
generation
generation

Promote Promote
recycling recyclingiron
aluminium

iron

U

SB

SB

copperNational
Create green
Createjobsgreenin thejobs
refurin the refurbishment bishment
and recycling
and recycling
sectors sectors

At the global level, better data will help to minimize e-waste generation as a resultof taking stock of the challenges and having the basis to make targeted policy
interventions. Understanding the quantities of e-waste better helps and setting up
ad-hoc instruments to promote recycling. Understanding the potential for e-waste
recycling and refurbishment activities enables a forecast of potential green job
creation in the refurbishment and recycling sectors. Having better e-waste data isessential in order to measure progress towards the global target set in 2018 at the

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

Set appropriate
Set appropriate
collectioncollection
and recycling
and recycling
targets targets

U

Global34

Quantify the
Quantify
magnitude
the magnitudeofofthe e-waste
thechallenges
e-waste challenges

aluminium
copperPrevent dumping
Prevent anddumpingemissions,and emissions,as well as wellas the improperas the improper
treatmenttreatmentof e-wasteof e-waste

absence of any quantification of transboundary movements
or informal e-waste activities, policy makers at the national,
regional, and international levels will not be in a position toaddress these issues.

Establish Establish
priorities priorities
for policy formakers,policyinﬂumakers, inﬂuencing regulations,encing regulations,and setting
andpolicysettingtargets
policy targets

Allocate adequate
Allocate adequateﬁnancial resources
ﬁnancial resources

ITU Plenipotentiary Conference of increasing the global e-waste recycling rate to 30%
by 2023.
Meanwhile, at the national level, harmonised and coherent e-waste data will also contributeto estimating the magnitude of challenges relating to e-waste, setting appropriate
collection and recycling targets, establishing priorities for policy makers, influencing
regulations, setting policy targets, and allocating adequate financial resources.

The internationally standardized methodology for measuring e-waste has been developedby the UNU SCYCLE Programme, in collaboration with the Task Group on Measuring
E-waste within the UN Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. The first edition of
the E-waste Statistics Guidelines on classification, reporting, and indicators was publishedin 2015 and authored by UNU-SCYCLE(4), and underwent global consultation (Baldé,
et al. 2015). The second edition was updated by UNU in 2018 (Forti, Baldé, and Kuehr
2018). The international methodology helps to harmonize the measurement frameworkand indicators, proving to be a substantial step towards reaching an integrated andcomparable global measurement framework for e-waste. The same concepts formed thebasis for the first Global E-waste Monitor (Baldé, Wang et al. 2015), and they are also usedin the European Union as the common methodology to calculate the collection target ofthe recast EU-WEEE Directive (EU WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU).

Nowadays, there are only a few data sources on e-waste statistics that have global coverage,such as the WEEE Calculation tools developed by UNU-SCYCLE (European Commission2019). International agencies, such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD), the OECD Working Party on Environmental Information (WPEI),
targeting non-EU OECD Member States, the United Nations Environment (UNEP), andthe United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD, Environment Statistics Section) haverecently begun gathering data on e-waste through specific questionnaires addressedto the ministries in charge of e-waste monitoring or National Statistical Offices. Several
countries outside the EU still lack a measurement framework for measuring e-waste
statistics. Other less developed countries lack a waste management infrastructure,
specific legislation, and/or enforcement. Most importantly, the majority of the countries,
including those that have received a survey, have reported the unavailability of official
data on e-waste formally collected and recycled.

The framework captures and measures the most essential features of a country's e-waste.
The following indicators can be constructed from the framework:
1.

Total EEE Placed on the Market (POM) (unit kg per capita).This represents the sizeof the national e-goods market.

2.

Total e-waste generated (unit kg per capita). This represents the size of the national
e-waste generated.

3.

E-waste formally collected (unit kg per capita). This represents the amount ofe-waste that is collected as such by the formal collection system.

4.

E-waste collection rate =total e-waste recycled
total e-waste generated

x 100 per centThis indicator represents the performance of the formal collection systems.

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

35

The E-waste Statistics Guidelines describe ameasurement framework that captures the mostimportant dynamics of flows and stocks of EEE ande-waste.

Legislation, Policies, Expenditures (Countering Illicit Trade,
Financing, Environmental Protection), and Beneﬁts(Environmental, Reclaimed Materials, Jobs)

Life-time

Production
and Trade

1. Market Entry

2. Use phase, including
items in hibernation

Trade

The measurement framework starts with tracking
the “production and trade” of EEE. There is astrong link between trade statistics and national
production statistics. In this stage, the data iscollected and published by custom organizations
and/or national statistical institutes. By
deducting the exports from the EEE imported
and domestically produced, one is able to obtaindata on EEE POM. The market entry includes EEE
placed on the market by households, businesses,
and the public sector.

36

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

After the equipment has been sold, it stays inhouseholds or businesses for some time until it isdisposed of. This period is called “lifetime”. The
equipment in households, businesses, and the
public sector is referred to as the “use phase”,
and includes the items that are in hibernation. Thisis destined to become e-waste in the future. The
lifetime includes the dormant time in sheds andexchange of second-hand equipment between
households and businesses within the country.

3. E-waste
Generated

Import& Export

The third phase is when the product becomesobsolete to its final owner, is disposed of, andturns to waste, which is referred to as “e-waste
generated”. It is the annual supply of domesticallygenerated e-waste prior to collection without
imports of externally generated e-waste.

Scenario 1:
E-waste formally collected

E-wasteGenerated

Scenario 2:
E-waste in waste bins

The e-waste generated is usually
managed in one of four ways(5)Scenario 3:
E-waste collected outside of formal systems
in countries with a developed (e-)waste
management infrastructure

Scenario 4:
E-waste collected outside of formal systems
in countries with no developed (e-)waste
management infrastructure

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

37

Scenario 1.
E-waste formally collected

E-WASTERECYCLING

E
E-WASTING
RECYCLThe “formal collection” activities usually fall under therequirements of national e-waste legislation, in whiche-waste is collected by designated organizations,producers, and/or the government. This happens via
retailers, municipal collection points, and/or pick-up
services. The final destination for the collected e-waste
is a specialized treatment facility, which recovers thevaluable materials in an environmentally controlled
way and manages the hazardous substances in anenvironmental sound way. Residuals will then go toincineration or controlled landfills.

E-WASTE
RECYCLING

RETAIL STORECOLLECTION
POINT

U

SB

MUNICIPAL PICK-UP SERVICE

38

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

COMMERCIALPICK-UPSERVICEScenario 2.
E-waste in waste bins
In this scenario, the holder directly disposes of e-waste
in normal waste bins with other types of household
waste. As a consequence, the disposed e-waste
is then treated with the regular mixed-waste fromhouseholds. This waste is most likely incinerated orlandfilled without material recycling, depending on
the waste management infrastructure in a country.
Neither option is regarded as an appropriate technique
for treating e-waste because both could potentiallynegatively impact the environment and lead toresource loss.

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

39

Scenario 3.
E-waste collected outside of formal
systems in countries with a developed(e-)waste management infrastructure

METAL
RECYCLING

PLASTICRECYCLING

In countries that have developed waste management
laws, e-waste is collected by individual waste dealers
or companies and traded through various channels.
Possible destinations for e-waste in this scenario
include metal recycling and plastic recycling; however,
the hazardous substances in e-waste are most likely
not depolluted. In this scenario, e-waste is often nottreated in a specialized recycling facility for e-waste
management, and e-waste might also be exported.

PLASTICRECYCLING

INDIVIDUALWASTECOMPANIES

40

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

METAL
RECYCLINGEXPORTScenario 4.
E-waste collected outside of formal
systems in countries with no developed(e-)waste management infrastructure

SECOND-HAND MARKET

In most developing countries, a significant number of
informally self-employed people are engaged in thecollection and recycling of e-waste. The collection
happens from door-to-door by buying or collecting
used-EEE or e-waste from households, businesses,
and public institutions. They sell it to be repaired,refurbished, or to be dismantled. Dismantlers manually
break the equipment down into usable marketablecomponents and materials. Recyclers burn, leach,and melt e-waste to convert it into secondary raw
materials. This “backyard recycling” causes severe
damage to the environment and human health.
BACKYARD
RECYCLINGDISMANTLING

DOOR-TO-DOOR BUYERS

Chapter 4. Measuring E-waste Statistics

41

Chapter 5Worldwide Harmonisation by the
Global E-waste Statistics Partnership42

43

Building on the partnership on Measuring ICT for
development, in 2017, the United Nations University –SCYCLE programme (UNU-SCYLE), the International
Solid Waste Association (ISWA), and the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) joined forces to create
the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership in close
collaboration with the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) to create the Global E-waste
Statistics Partnership as a way of addressing thechallenges associated with managing e-waste.

This initiative aims to collect data from countries andbuild a global e-waste database to track developments
over time. The partnership has achieved this result
by publishing the second edition of the Global
E-waste Monitor – 2017 and building a website
www.globalewaste.org to publicly visualize the most
relevant e-waste indicators.
Since 2017, the Global E-waste Statistics Partnershiphas made substantial progress by organizing national

Regions that participated in e-waste statistics workshops

Between 2017 and 2020361

and regional progress by organizing workshops on
e-waste statistics in various countries. So far, regional
capacity-building workshops have been conductedin East Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and
the Arabian States. More than 360 people from60 countries have been trained on the internationallyadopted methodology. Between 2017 and 2019,
approximately nine countries (apart from EU countries)
have started compiling e-waste statistics on the
adoption of the harmonised measurement framework,and most of them have obtained satisfactory results.

people have been trained on e-waste
statistics
CIS region

Eastern Europe

60

countries participated in e-waste
statistics workshops

Arab states

East Africa

944

countries (apart from EU countries)
have started compiling national
e-waste statistics

Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership

Latin AmericaMulindwa Muminu Matovu

EEE
Placedthe Market
EEE
Put
on
market(inEEE
Put
on thetheonmarket(in kt)kt) (in kt) in Uganda

Senior Statistician,Environment andForestry Statistics
Bureau of Statistics,
UgandaUgandaUganda

40
40
35
35

Uganda

30
30
25
25

20
20
15
15
10
10
55

“The workshop on e-waste statistics, held in November 2017 in Arusha, Tanzania, wasvery useful and provided me with a basic knowledge of e-waste statistics, which enabled
me to initiate Ugandan statistics on e-waste. Having learned that the key variable for
the POM was exports and imports of electronics, I started off with an inquiry from the
Ugandan trade statistics section for provision of the data on EEE. I was then able to covert
the national POM data in the international classification system, thanks to the correlationtables provided by SCYCLE. Finally, I was able to enter the data into the excel tool andcalculate the e-waste generated in Uganda over a lengthy time period. This is an importantachievement as country-specific e-waste statistics are useful both for quantifying the
problem of e-waste in Uganda and for policy-making. I wish to thank the SCYCLE team forthe invaluable support”.

00

2014
2014

2015
2015

2016
2016

2017
2017

2018
2018

2017
2017

2018
2018

E-waste generated(in kt) in Uganda
E-WasteE-Waste generated
generated (in(in kt)
kt)
20
20
15
15
10
10
55
00

2014
2014

2015
2015

2016
2016

Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership

45

Enas Mohammad Al-Arabyat

E-waste generated from households in Jordan in2018 (in tons)

Head Assistance ofEnvironment
Statistics Division

JordanDepartment of
Statistics, Jordan

Sudki Sameer Hamdan
Temperatureexchangeequipment

Screens andmonitors

160

823

Lamps

Large
equipment

657

11225

USB

Small equipment

563

46

Small IT andtelecommunicationequipment

20

Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership“With SCYCLE’s support, the teamExpertEnvironmental andand Environment Statistics Division
Energy Statistics
carried out a workshop in October
2018 to develop the expertise in the
Department offield of electronic waste statistics. The
Statistics, Jordan
workshop was a good opportunity toidentify the current available data thatcan be used to produce e-waste statistics
and identify the data gaps. The tools thatwere provided helped us to produce
estimations of e-waste generated in the country. As a result of the capacity-building
exercise, some data-producing institutions have adopted clear and specific methods
and classifications (such as DOS, General Customs Department, Ministry of Industry
and Trade). Additionally,the Environment Statistics Division carried out the survey ofelectronic and electrical waste in the domestic sector by using the international e-waste
classification (Hamdan 2019). This exercise is the first of its kind in the region andrepresents a great success for the Jordan Department of Statistics. The data modelledusing the e-waste statistics tools provided by SCYCLE have been used to match theresults obtained from the surveys.
The Department of Statistics in Jordan plans to prepare an e-waste inventory report in
the near future, and further refine the calculations for EEE POM and e-waste, and develop
other monitoring methods.
Our warm thanks go to the SCYCLE team and the Global E-waste Statistics Partnershipfor their support and assistance in developing such an internationally harmonised e-waste
classification, databases, and methodological framework. The results obtained in Jordan
will be useful for informing policy makers and enhancing decisions”.

Bosnia andHerzogovinaŠevala Korajčević
Head of Transport,
Environment, Energy
and Regional Statistics Department
Agency of Statistics,
Bosnia andHerzegovina

EEE
Placedthe Market
EEE
Put
on theonmarket(in kt) (in kt) in Bosnia and Herzegovina
EEE Put on the market (in kt)
35

Bosnia andHerzogovina“Thanks to the cooperation with the SCYCLE programme from the United Nations
University/Vice-Rectorate in Europe, Bosnia and Herzegovina adapted the e-waste
generated tool for the calculation of e-waste in the country. The national bureauof statistics successfully calculated national EEE POM data in accordance with therequirements of Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 4thof July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Additionally, the total
e-waste generated both in terms of total weight and per capita was calculated. Results
show that the average annual e-waste per capita is on the rise”.

2016

2017

2018

Bosnia andHerzogovina

30
35
25
30
20
25
15
20
10
15
5
10
0
5
0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

E-wastegenerated(in kg per capita)
E-Wastegenerated(in kt)in Bosnia and Herzegovina

E-Wastegenerated (in kt)
10
9
10
8
9
7
8
6
7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
31
2
0
1
0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership

47

EEE
Put
onon
thethemarket(in (inkt) kt)EEE
PlacedontheMarket(in kt) in Tanzania
PutmarketAg. Director for
Population Census
and Social Statistics

50
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
10 15
5 10
0 5
0

Tanzania

Put on the market (in kt)

0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0

2014
2014

2015
2015

2016

2016

2017

2017

E-Wastegenerated
perpercategoryin 2017(in kt)E-wastegeneratedcategoryin 2017(in kt) in Tanzania
E-Waste generated per category in 2017 (in kt)
1.5

1.9

2014

1.9

0.7

1.5

0.7

2016

2015

Temperatureexchange equipment
Temperatureexchange equipment
2017
Screens and monitors

Screens and monitors
Lamps

4.8

4.8

LargeLamps
equipment

equipment
SmallLarge
equipment(inITkt)
Waste generated per category in 2017Small
andequipment
telecommuniSmall

cation equipment
Small IT and telecommunication equipment

7.9

7.9

1.9

1.5

0.7

19.0

19.0

Temperatureexchange equipment
Screens and monitors
Lamps

48

Ruth Minja

Tanzania
Tanzania

Large equipment

Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership

National Bureau of
Statistics, Tanzania“Before 2018, Tanzania, like many other developing countries, had challenges with respect
to available and reliable e-waste data for tracking the progress to the implementation ofnational, regional, and global development frameworks. In addressing e-waste data gaps,
the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) of Tanzania has taken a lead role in a special
programme to enhance availability of such data in the country. The outcome of thisprogramme is the publication of the National E-Waste Statistics Report, 2019 (NEWSR).
The NEWSR is the first-ever analytical report on e-waste in Tanzania and presents a fresh
statistical outlook of the problem of e-waste in Tanzania. The NEWSR features analysis ofdata for EEE POM, mobile phone service subscriptions, and possession of some EEE fromrecent household surveys.
The production of NEWSR is a result of institutional collaborations, with NBS taking thelead role. In this collaboration, the SCYCLE team provided capacity-building and tools
for data analysis. NEWSR wishes to thank the SCYCLE team for their technical support
and all other institutions that financially supported this effort: Government of Tanzania,
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ GmbH), United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), and the Global e-waste Statistics Partnership”.

Chapter 5. Worldwide Harmonisation by the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership

49

Chapter 6
E-waste Legislation andTransboundary Movement50

51

Governments around the world are developing national e-waste policies and legislation
to deal with the growth of end-of-life electrical and electronic products. Such a policies
lay out plans or courses of action and indicate, in a non-binding manner, what can beachieved by a society, institution, or company. Legislations are enacted at the national or
municipal level and enforced by regulators, and a regulation indicates the way in which a
legislation is enforced by regulators.

2014

2017

2019

44%

66%

71%

population covered bylegislation, policy, or
regulation

population covered bylegislation, policy, or
regulation

population covered bylegislation, policy, or
regulation

61 countries

67 countries

78 countries

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

covered by legislation,
policy, and regulation

As of October 2019, 78 countries have either a policy, legislation, or regulation governinge-waste in place. With these, 71% of the world’s population is currently covered. This is anincrease by 5% from 66% in 2017. But the coverage rate can be misleading, as it gives theimpression that there is little left to do in terms of regulating the management of e-waste:
in many countries, policies are non-legally binding strategies, but only programmatic ones.
Across Africa and Asia, for example, there are 19 countries with legally binding legislationon e-waste, 5 countries with an e-waste policy but non-legally binding legislation, and 31
countries with policy in development (GSMA 2020).
52

Chapter 6. E-waste Legislation and Transboundary Movement

However, even in some countries where legally binding policies are enacted, enforcement
is a key issue. In the European Union, for example, the range of collected e-waste is visà-vis to what has been put on market, and ranges from 12% in Malta to 26% in Cyprus to
56% in Sweden to 58% in both Poland and Austria to 61% in Hungary. Only Estonia (82%)
and Bulgaria (79%) are above the legally binding 65% target, jointly set in the European
Union (SCYCLE data, unpublished).
Having the best policy or regulatory framework in the world means nothing unless it issetting reachable targets and effectively enforced. This is, unfortunately too often not
the case, while at the same time, the overarching e-waste management system in many
countries is not appropriately financed – if it is financed at all.
Since the Global E-waste Monitor 2017, policy makers in industrialized and emerging
economies have continued focusing much of their policy and legislative efforts ondeveloping financing and awareness schemes that ensure better participation of both theprivate sector and individual consumers. The objective here is to ensure higher collection
and recycling rates and to generate the revenue necessary to meet treatment costs.
Most legislative instruments concentrate on resource recovery through recycling andcountermeasures against environmental pollution and human health impacts at the endof-life of products. The reduction of e-waste volumes and substantive repair and reuse of
EEE has been limited so far.
Since the Global E-waste Monitor 2017, more and more e-waste-related policies,
legislations, and resulting regulations are also considering more upscale design
and production aspects – no longer focusing on the purely curative waste
management aspects. This is in line with the globally increasing policy efforts towards
a Circular Economy. Also, in response to the recently forecasted scenarios for e-waste
increases in 2050 and 2100 (Parajuly et al. 2019), which could result in more than adoubling of the annual e-waste generation in the next 30 years, a reconsideration of thepresent approaches, or at least a substantial enforcement of the present legislations andregulations, is required.

The Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP) initiative, involving stakeholders from industry,
academia, governments, NGOs, and international organizations, has establishedthe following set of guiding principles to develop e-waste management systems andlegislation:

Establish a clear legal framework for e-waste
collection and recycling.

But not all stakeholders may be willing to take their parts and voluntarily begin collecting
and recycling e-waste. And though most legislations are, thus far, centred around an
extended producer responsibility (EPR), it is no longer a debated matter that only aharmonised multi-stakeholder approach will help to steer shifts towards sustainable
solutions. Therefore, the definition, role, and obligations of each stakeholder need to beclearly laid out in the regulations. In more detail, an e-waste legislation or regulation must
include:Introduce extended producer responsibility to ensure producers
finance the collection and recycling of e-waste.

√√√

Enforce legislation for all stakeholders, and strengthen monitoring andcompliance mechanisms across the country to ensure a level playing
field.

√√√Create favourable investment conditions for experienced recyclers tobring the required technical expertise to the country.
Create a licensing system or encourage certification via international
standards for collection and recycling.

√√√definitions for the role of municipalities and the government.
a clear definition of who is responsible for organizing the collection and recycling.
a clear definition of who is responsible for financing the e-waste collection andrecycling.
national alignment on definitions of e-waste.
a permitting and licensing structure for e-waste collectors and recyclers.
a clear definition of “producer”, if the system is based on the so-called “Extended
Producer Responsibility” (EPR) principle. Without this, no producer will feel obliged
to comply, and the fair enforcement of legal provisions across industry will be moredifficult.
the allocation of collection and recycling obligations among producers.
a description of how companies shall register as “producers”.
documentation of their compliance status and a clear description of the goals andtargets of the legislation.

If an informal collection system exists, use it to collect e-waste, andensure e-waste is sent to licensed recyclers through incentives.
When no local end-processing facilities exist for an e-waste fraction,
ensure good and easy access to internationally licensed treatment
facilities.
Ensure that costs to run the system are transparent, and stimulatecompetition in the collection and recycling system to drive costeffectiveness.
Ensure that all stakeholders involved in e-waste collection andrecycling are aware of the potential impacts on the environment andhuman health as well as possible approaches to the environmentallysound treatment of e-waste.
Create awareness on the environmental benefits of recycling among
consumers. (Magalini et al. 2016)

Chapter 6. E-waste Legislation and Transboundary Movement

53

McCann and Wittmann (2015) worked out that, based on the differences in theoperational and financial structures of systems in place around the world, it is possible todefine at least three generic financing models, or stakeholder groups, that have potential,
individual, or shared responsibility for end-of-life EEE:(i)

Entire society: the first model looks to set upfront fees to be paid by the producer
when the product is placed on the market.
(ii) Consumers: secondly, there is the model that makes the person or entity responsiblefor disposing the e-waste financially liable for the cost of the collection andrecycling.
(iii) Producers: the third type uses a market share approach to financing, seeking torecoup all the actual operational costs of running the collection system.
Also, since the Global E-waste Monitor 2017, the EPR principle is usually taken into accountwhen developing new legislations and policies around the globe. With this, the producers
shall also take responsibility over the post-consumer stage of a product’s lifecycle.
Therefore, EPR policies were expected to incentivize product design that encourages
reuse and recycling. But it is becoming more and more obvious that most producers
are unwilling and likely unable to take up their responsibility without a concerted effort
with other key stakeholders, such as governments, municipalities, retailers, collectors,
recyclers, and consumers. The staggering collection against what is put of market gives
reason for this assessment. Moreover, producers also show increasingly less interestin e-waste initiatives such as StEP or the Basel Convention’s PACE and, instead, areinterested in being associated with circular economy approaches.

About the Basel Convention
The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements ofHazardous Wastes and Their Disposal is a multilateral treaty aimed at
suppressing environmentally and socially detrimental hazardous waste trading
patterns. The convention was opened for signature in 1989 and made effective
in 1992 and, to date, has been signed by 187 countries. (6) E-waste, due to its
constitution, often contains hazardous elements. Therefore, the Convention
affirms that in order to protect human health and the environment, hazardous
waste should not be traded freely like ordinary commercial goods, and thus
it establishes a written notification and approval process for all cross-border
movements of hazardous wastes. But the Basel Convention’s regulatory
exemption on equipment destined for reuse is entirely compatible with its prime
environmental objective of preventing waste generation, as reuse extends thelife cycle of EEE and therefore mitigates the generation of hazardous waste. By
prolonging the functionality of electronics, reuse promotes natural resource
conservation and at least temporarily diverts the need for recycling or disposal.
However, the distinction of whether something is waste or not, and therefore
intended for reuse, is a longstanding discussion under the Basel Convention.
Although the most recent Conference-of-Parties (COP14) adopted, on aninterim basis, the revised technical guidelines on transboundary movementsof electrical and electronic waste and used electrical and electronic equipment,a final consensus has still not been reached concerning the definition of waste.
National reporting, which is carried out voluntarily by Parties to the Convention,
currently stands at less than 50% of signatories.
There are two sound policy decisions that can be made unilaterally withregard to ensuring better and more effective enforcement, which is the major
stumbling block for all legislation and policies in place. First, more resources
should be provided to customs and harbour officials to help them in combatting
the illegal trade in e-waste. Given all the other priorities that are often rightly
deemed more critical for authorities to focus on – such as the arms trade, drug
shipments, and human trafficking – it is of little wonder that e-waste is not in
the priority list, despite of recent development towards a circular economy.
Secondly, penalties for trying to export e-waste illegally should be increased sothat they provide some sort of meaningful deterrent, or at least a substantial
inconvenience, to those trying to break the law.

54

Chapter 6. E-waste Legislation and Transboundary Movement

Parties, discrepancies in reporting, and data inaccuracies (Forti, Baldé, and Kuehr 2018).
Currently, international trade data do not distinguish between new and used EEE, and,obviously illegal trade flows across countries are cumbersome to measure directly, due
to the illegal nature of the activity. An interesting update is that recently, the Harmonised
System Committee (RSC) provisionally adopted amendments to the HS codes to provide
for the identification of electrical and electronic waste in the HS nomenclature under
8549. The amendments are likely to enter into effect on 1 January 2022 (Basel Convention2019).

Transboundary flows of e-waste have become a major concern for both exporter andimporter countries. Some data suggests that the majority of e-waste is shipped fromthe Northern hemisphere for informal disposal in developing countries. Although theexact volume of the flow of e-waste is difficult to measure – as much of it is exported
illegally or under the guise of being intended for reuse or as scrap – it is widely acceptedthat the volume is significant, but a considerable share takes other routes. The issue oftransboundary movements of e-waste from developed to developing countries raises
concerns both because it causes an additional environmental burden in the destination
countries and because e-waste is likely to be managed by the informal sector. As aconsequence, the management of e-waste is carried out in an environmentally unsoundmanner, which poses significant risks to health and the environment. However, recent
trends show that, in some cases, e-waste shipments take a regional route (e.g. from
Western/Northern Europe to Eastern Europe) rather than a strictly “North-South” route.
On the other end, as the e-waste collection system make progress in developing counties,
there is evidence that valuable components such as Printed Circuit Boards (PCB) arebeing shipped these days from the Southern hemisphere to the Northern hemisphere forrecycling. This is the case in Ghana and Tanzania, for example. And though transboundary
movements were long-perceived as exports from the rich to the poor, there are growing
indications worldwide that historically well-regarded import countries such as China arealso increasingly exporting e-waste to Southeast Asia, Africa, and elsewhere (Lepawsky2015). Transboundary movement also appears dynamic in time, reacting to social,economic, and regulatory changes. One example is the rapid shift of processing operations
from China to Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam as aconsequence of the China’s import ban on waste in effect since 2018.
Currently, there are very few statistics based on hard data that are related to imports
and exports of waste, used electronics, and e-waste. The national reporting data byParties (meaning country signatories) to the Basel Convention mandated under Article
13 provides some information to analyse flows and amounts of transboundary movementof e-waste, but it is insufficient for a comprehensive analysis because of incomplete
reporting by many Parties, ambiguous definitions, incorrect categorization among theThus far, there have been some attempts to quantify the transboundary movements ofused electronics and e-waste, using several different methods. Most credible reports
regarding transboundary flows of used EEE in the USA were conducted by Duan et al.
(2013) under the Step umbrella. The study undertook a quantitative analysis of thetransboundary flows of used electronics between and from North American countries
and used a Mass Balance method together with a Hybrid Sales Obsolescence-Trade Data
Method (HSOTDM). By analysing the results, it can be concluded that approximately
8.5% of the used EEE products generated in 2010 were exported (Lasaridi et al. 2016).
Another study presented a similar result for the year 2011: 7% of used EEE were exported
from the USA in 2011 (USITC 2013).
According to a study for the European Commission (BIO intelligence Service 2013),
roughly 15% of used electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE) is exported from the EU,
mainly for reuse. It is important to note that part of this UEEE either becomes WEEE during
the transport (e.g. if there is not appropriate protection of the product during transport)
or shortly after arriving in the destination country. This share is confirmed by anotherstudy undertaken by the Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) project, which found thatin the EU, 15.8 % (1.5 Mt) of the e-waste generated in 2012 (9.5 Mt) was exported. 1.3 Mt
departed the EU in undocumented exports. Since the main economic driver behind these
shipments is reuse and repair, as opposed to the dumping of the e-waste, an estimated
30% of this volume is e-waste (Huisman et al. 2015). A more recent study (Baldé et al2020) reports that 8% of the total e-waste generated in the Netherlands is exported
for reuse. Another study conducted in 2019 (Zoeteman, Krikke, and Venselaar 2010)
assumed that free riders were responsible for 10-20% of the total e-waste generated
being illegally exported to non-OECD countries, and that a part was exported legally forreuse in developing countries. An earlier study (Geeraerts, Mutafoglu, and Illés 2016)
suggested that assuming a “minimum export/import scenario”, 10% of EU e-waste isexported illegally from the EU, while another 10% of the EU e-waste is exported legally as
used EEE.
Based on the above estimates, it can be concluded that the transboundary movements ofused EEE or e-waste is in the range of 7-20 % of the e-waste generated.

Chapter 6. E-waste Legislation and Transboundary Movement

55

Chapter 7
The Potential of E-waste ina Circular Economy
56

57

6.94

9.0121831

Lithium

Beryllium

11

Na

SodiumThis report shows that, globally, only 17.4% of e-waste is documented to be formallycollected and recycled. Collection and recycling rates need to be improved worldwide.

2

H

1.008

HydrogenLi

Helium

Be

B

6

C

7

N

8

O

9

F

6.94

9.0121831

10.81

12.01114.00715.99918.998403163

Beryllium

Boron

CarbonNitrogen

OxygenFluorineNa

22.98976928
Sodium19

K

12

Potassium

37

13

Mg

Al

14

Si

15

P

16

S

17

Cl

10

Ne

20.1797
Neon

18

Ar

24.30526.9815385

28.08530.973761998

32.06

35.45

39.948Magnesium

Aluminium

SiliconPhosphorus

SulfurChlorine

Argon

20

39.0983

Ca

40.078

Calcium

38

21

Sc

22

44.955908
Scandium39

Ti

47.867

Titanium40

50.941524

Cr

51.9961

25

Mn

26

54.938044

Vanadium

Chromium

Manganese

41

42

43

Fe

55.84527

58.933194

Iron

44

Co

Cobalt

45

28

Ni

29

58.6934
Nickel46

Cu30

63.546

Zn

Ga

65.38

Copper

47

31

Zinc

48

32

69.723

Gallium

49Ge

72.630Germanium

50

33

As

34

74.921595
Arsenic

51

Se

35

78.971

Selenium

52

Br

36

79.90439.0983

40.07844.955908

47.86750.9415

Calcium

Scandium

Titanium

Vanadium85.467887.62

88.90584

91.22492.90637

Rubidium

Strontium

Yttrium

Zirconium

Niobium

Bromine53

88.90584

91.22492.90637

Nb

Mo

Tc

Ru
101.07102.90550

Rh

Pd
106.42107.8682

Ag

Cd
112.414114.818

In

Sn

Sb

Te
127.60126.90447

131.293

Yttrium

Zirconium

Niobium

Molybdenum

Technetium

Ruthenium

Rhodium

Palladium

SilverCadmium

IndiumTin

Antimony

Tellurium

Iodine

Xenon

74

75

76

56

Ba

Caesium

Barium132.90545196

87137.327

88

Fr

Ra

Francium

Radium223

226

Lanthanide
SeriesActinide
Series

57
71
89
103

57

72

73

Hf

192.217
Iridium

186.207

Tungsten

Rhenium

106

107

108

Ir

109

79

Pt

80

81

195.084Au

196.966569

Hg

Platinum

Gold

110

111

118.71082

83

200.592Tl

204.38Pb

Mercury

Thallium

112

113

121.760

84

85

207.2

208.98040

Po

At

Lead

BismuthPolonium

Astatine

114

115

209

116

210

117

Sg

Bh

Hs

Mt
278

Ds

Rg

Cn

Uut

Fl

Uup

Lv

269

294

294

Bohrium

Hassium

Meitnerium

Darmstadtium

Roentgenium

Copernicium

Ununtrium

Flerovium

Ununpentium

Livermorium

Ununseptium

Ununoctium

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

281

61

62

140.116140.90766

Nd

Pm

Sm

Eu

Gd

CeriumPraseodymium

Neodymium

Promethium

Samarium

Europium

91

92

93

94

90

Th

60

270

Pr

Lanthanum

59

269

Pa

144.242145

150.36151.964

281

285

286

157.25Tb

158.92535

Dy
162.500

164.93033

Gadolinium

Terbium

Dysprosium

Holmium

167.259Tm

168.93422

Yb
173.054174.9668

ErbiumThulium

Ytterbium

Lutetium

96

100

101

Am

Cm

Bk

Cf

Es

Fm

Md

No

Lr

Neptunium

Plutonium

Americium

CuriumBerkelium

Californium

Einsteinium

Fermium

Mendelevium

Nobelium

Lawrencium

231.03588

238.02891

Protactinium

Uranium

237

244

Chapter 7.
The Potentialof E-waste in a Circular Economy
Elements
found
in
EEE

243

247

247

251

252

257

258

Tu

223

226

267

268

Francium

RadiumRutherfordium

Dubnium

138.90547

140.116140.90766

Lanthanum

CeriumPraseodymium

266

S

Sea

60

N

14

Neo

92

227

232.0377

231.03588

23

Thorium

Protactinium

Ur

Elements found in
EEE
Elements quantiﬁedin the report
Precious
CriticalNon-critical

103
259

106

ActiniumLu

95

232.0377

102

1

Tantalum

Uus Uuo

Pu

Thorium

99

293

Np

227

98

Er

289

U

Actinium

97

Ho

289

180.94788

222

Seaborgium

268

W

178.49Hafnium

Radon

Db

74

137.327

118

Dubnium

267

M

Moly

Barium

Rn

Rf

5

Ch

42

Caesium

86

Bi

Rutherfordium

Ce

Ac

190.23

Osmium183.84

Tantalum

105

78

Os

180.94788

104

77

Re

178.4958

89

W

HafniumLa

138.90547

Ta

73

24

132.90545196

Xe

87.62

98

72

Krypton

54

I

Kr

Sr

95.95

56

83.798Strontium

Cs

Zr

V

Rb

55

Y

23

Rubidium85.4678

58

5

Lithium

11

He

4.002602

424.305

Potassium

55

3

Mg

Magnesium

Cs devices,
Ba 57 suchHf as Ta
On the other hand, base metals (e.g. gold) used in certain71
mobile phones and PCs, have a relatively high level of concentration:
280 grams
87
88
104
105
per ton of e-waste. Methods employed to separate and recycle
Fr e-waste
Ra 89 canRf be Db
103
economically viable, especially if carried out manually, where the material losses
are less than 5% (Deubzer 2007). Separate collection and recycling of e-waste can
57
58
thus be economically viable for products containing highLanthanide
concentrations
and59
La
Ce
Pr
Seriescontents of precious metals. Nevertheless, the recycling rate of most CRMs is still
89
90
91
very low and can be improved for precious metals by better collection
and pre-treatment
ActinideAc Th
Paof e-waste.
SeriesWithin the paradigm of a circular economy, the mine of e-waste should be considered
an important source of secondary raw materials. Due to issues relating to primarymining, market price fluctuations, material scarcity, availability, and access toresources, it has become necessary to improve the mining of secondary resources
and reduce the pressure on virgin materials. By recycling e-waste, countries
could at least mitigate their material demand in a secure and sustainable way.

1

12

On the other hand, the recycling sector is often confronted with high costs of recycling
19
21
22
23
and challenges in recycling the materials. For instance, the recovery
of20 somematerials
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
such as germanium and indium is challenging because of their dispersed use in products,
37
38
39
40
41
and the products are neither designed nor assembled with recycling
principles
having
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
been taken into account.

From a material design perspective, EEE is very complex. Up to 69 elements from theperiodic table can be found in EEE, including precious metals (e.g. gold, silver, copper,
platinum, palladium, ruthenium, rhodium, iridium, and osmium), Critical Raw Materials(CRM)(7) (e.g. cobalt, palladium, indium, germanium, bismuth, and antimony), and noncritical metals, such as aluminium and iron.

22.98976928

Source: Deubzer et al. 2019

Iron, aluminium, and copper represent the majorityof the total weight of raw waste materials thatcan be found in e-waste in 2019. These quantities
and the material value could be recovered only inan ideal scenario in which all e-waste generated
globally is recycled and the recycling of all selected raw
materials is economically viable or even feasible withthe recycling technologies currently available.
By improving e-waste collection and recycling practises
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.
The demand of iron, aluminium, and copper forthe production of new electronics in 2019 was

manufacturing

25 Mt
estimated amount of theanalysed raw materials$57 billion USD in e-waste in 2019

0% recycli
ng
al 10
ide

potential value of the analysed
raw materials in e-waste in 201953.6 Mtal

7.3 kg per capita

d

17
5
108
3532
71
320
3
644

b

c

le

kt mill.USD
0.2
In
0.001
Ir
0.01
Os
0.1
Pd
0.002
Pt
0.01
Rh
Ru 0.0003
76
Sb

Glo

re

yc

579
6062
9481
1.3
1036
10960
24645
0.4

39 Mt
estimated demandof raw materials forthe production of
new electronics

temill.USDin
irg ialv
f er
t o at
m

E-

ra

kt
1.2
Ag
3046
Al
0.2
Au
0.1
Bi
13
Co
1808
Cu
Fe 20466
0.01
Ge

EEE

approximately 39 Mt. Even in an ideal scenario in
which all the iron, copper and aluminium resulting frome-waste (25 Mt) is recycled, the world would still requireapproximately 14 Mt of iron, aluminium and copper fromprimary resources to manufacture new electronics (11.6
Mt, 1.4 Mt, and 0.8 Mt, respectively).(10) This indicatesthat the gap between the secondary iron, aluminiumand copper found in e-waste and their demand
for the production of new EEE is quite large. Thisis a consequence of the continuous growth of sales of
EEE.

14
ra M
w

Overall, the value of selected raw materials(8) containedin e-waste in 2019 was equal to approximately $57
billion USD(9), corresponding to a total of 25 Mt.

w aste Gen

e

us

e

Chapter 7. The Potential of E-waste in a Circular Economy

59

With the current documented formal collection and recycling rate of 17.4%, a potential raw
material value of $10 billion USD can be recovered from e-waste, and 4 Mt of secondary
raw materials would become available for recycling. Focusing only on iron, aluminium,
and copper and comparing emissions resulting from their use as virgin raw materials or
secondary raw materials, their recycling has helped save up to 15 Mt of CO2 equivalentemissions in 2019 (see Annex 2 for details on the methodology).
EEE also contains hazardous substances, usually heavy metalssuch as mercury, cadmium,or lead and chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons(HCFCs), and flame retardants. Approximately 71 kt of plastic containing BFR (Brominated
Flame Retardants) arise from the unaccounted flows of e-waste generated in 2019(see Annex 2 for details on the methodology). In particular, BFR are used in appliances
to reduce the product's flammability, appearing, for example, in outer casings of

0.05 kt

amount of mercury from unaccounted
ﬂows of e-waste

71 kt

a
w
eof cum.6% t do82ois npotentially released from theinferior recycling of undocumented
fridges and air-conditioners

Mt CO2 equivalents

8060

ste Generat
a
ed
w
E-

53.6 Mt
7.3 kg per capita

potential value that
could be recovered

4 Mt

estimated amount of raw materials
that could be available for recycling
CO2-15 Mt of CO2 equivalents

their reuse as secondary products
has helped save up to 15 Mt of CO2
equivalents emissions

17.4%
doc
coll
um
ect
e
ed/
pro nted
pe
:
rly

d
cle
cy
re

s
en te ﬂ
te ow
d
s

100

40
20

2019

2017

2018

2016

2014

2015

2012

2013

2011

2009

2010

2007

2008

2006

2004

2005

2002

2003

2000

0

2001

60

Glob
al

+ 98 Mt of CO2 equivalents

CO2$10 billion USD

9
201
in

amount of Brominated Flame Retardants(BFR) from unaccounted ﬂows of e-waste

computers, printed wiring boards, connectors, relays, wires, and cables (McPherson,
Thorpe, and Blake 2004 & Herat 2008). The recycling of plastic containing BFR represents amajor challenge for e-waste recycling because of the costs related to the separation of plastic
containing PBDEs and PBBs from other plastic. Recycled plastic with PBDE and PBB content
higher than 0.1% cannot be used for manufacturing of any products, including EEEs. In mostcases, compliant recyclers incinereate plastic containing PBDEs and PBBs under controlled
conditions to avoid the release of dioxins and furans. On the other end, if incineration is not
carried out in an environmentally sound manner, those substances are likely to pose risks
to health or the environment. The use of PBDEs and PBBs have been banned in Europe(European Parliament 2011). Some of these contaminants have been banned in Europe, asrisk assessment studies have shown that they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic,and can be responsible for kidney damage, several skin disorders, and nervous and immune
systems and effects to the nervous and immune systems.

Chapter 7. The Potential of E-waste in a Circular Economy

ironaluminium
copperMercury is used in fluorescent light sources, e.g. in background lights of older flat panel
displays and TVs, in compact fluorescent lamps (“energy-saving lamps”), fluorescentlamps, in measure and control equipment, and in old switches. (Baldé et al. 2018).
If these appliances are abandoned in open dumpsites as opposed to being properly
recycled, mercury can enter the food chain and accumulate in living organisms whilebringing damage to the central nervous system, thyroid, kidneys, lungs, immune system,etc (Baldé et al. 2018). A total of 50 t of mercury can be found in the unaccounted flows of
e-waste generated in 2019 worldwide.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are present inrefrigerant circuits and insulating foams of older generations of cooling and freezing
equipment, such as refrigerators, freezers, and air-conditioning systems. These molecules
have a long lfespan in the atmosphere. They react with ozone molecules (O3), generating
molecular oxygen that thins the stratospheric ozone layer (ozone hole). This processleads to an increment of the UV radiation that can pass the stratosphere, likely causing
skin cancers, eye-related diseases, and a weakening of the immune system. The Montreal
Protocol (adopted in 1987) regulates the production and consumption of manmadechemicals known as ozone-depleting substances, which includes the phasing out of CFCs
and HCFCs. These gases have high global warming potential (GWP). If EEE containing
these gases is not managed in an environmentally sound manner, refrigerants could beemitted into the atmosphere. Estimations show that a total of 98 Mt of CO2 equivalents(11)were released from the inferior recycling of undocumented fridges and air conditioners(40% in Europe and 82.6% in the rest of the world). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from the improperly managed refrigerants estimated to be found in air conditioners
overtook the emissions from fridges in 2013. In 2019, of the total CO2 equivalents
estimated to be released into the atmosphere, 73% were from air conditioners and 27%
were from fridges. This is explained by the fact that refrigerants with high global warming
potential were used before 1994 (e.g. R-11 and R-12) and until 2017 (R-134a and R-22).
Since then, the refrigerants have been substituted by others with a substantially lower
GWP (e.g. R-152a and R-124yf). The decrease of CO2 equivalent emissions, reflecting therecent obligations for replacing the refrigerants, will be observed only in the next decades,
when the new products placed on the market will become waste (see Annex 2 for details
on the methodology).

The presence of hazardous substances and scarce or valuable materials in e-waste
makes it necessary to recycle and treat the e-waste in an environmentally sound manner;
doing so helps avoid the release of such substances into the environment and the lossesof ecologically and economically valuable materials. Although several pieces of legislation
have banned the use of some substances and are pushing for them to be replaced by safer
materials, appliances that were produced in the past and still contain those substancesmust, once discarded, be treated adequately in order to contain the risks that they canpose to the environment and health. In addition, new equipment may also still containsmaller amounts of those banned substances, due to the fact that they technically cannot
yet be substituted or eliminated.
It can be assumed that at least most e-waste collection, treatment, and disposal in the formal
sector is legally compliant, thus taking care of the environmental, health, and safety aspects.
This assumption may not be applicable for treatment and disposal outside the formal
sector. Non-compliant recycling proves to be a cheaper option than the compliant recycling.
A recent study by the European Electronics Recyclers Association (EERA) and the United
Nations University (Magalini and Huisman 2018) shows that a European compliant
recycler incurs substantially higher costs than a non-compliant recycler. In detail, thecompliant recyclers based in Europe normally incur technical costs such as costs related
to treatment, de-pollution, disposal of hazardous fractions, and disposal of non-hazardous
fractions, as well as the proof of legal compliance, quality, and service level.
Cooling and freezing
equipment$220 USD
per tonLarge household
equipment$130 USD
per tonSmall household
equipment$290 USD
per tonSource: Magalini and Huisman 2018

The study concludes that the potential cost reductions that can be realised by noncompliant treatment exceed the normal economic margins of legitimate recyclers,
applying best available technology and ensuring full compliance, which leads to unfair
competition.
Chapter 7. The Potential of E-waste in a Circular Economy

61

Chapter 8
E-waste Impact on the Healthof Children and Workers
62

63

Children live, work, and play in informal e-waste
recycling sites. Adults and children can be exposed byinhaling toxic fumes and particulate matter, throughskin contact with corrosive agents and chemicals, andby ingesting contaminated food and water. Children
are also at risk from additional routes of exposure.
Some hazardous chemicals can be passed frommothers to children during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Young children playing outside or in nature
frequently put their hands, objects, and soil in theirmouths, increasing the risk of exposure. Fetuses,
infants, children, and adolescents are particularly
vulnerable to damage from exposure to toxicants ine-waste because of their physiology, behaviour, andadditional routes of exposure (Landrigan & Goldman
2011; Pronczuk de Garbino 2004).

Adverse health effects recently found to be associated with e-waste
Since the publication of the previous e-waste monitor in 2017, the number of studies on the adverse healtheffects from e-waste have increased. These studies have continued to highlight the dangers to human healthfrom exposure to well-studied toxins, such as lead. Recently, research has found that unregulated e-waste
recycling is associated with increasing numbers of adverse health effects. These include adverse birthoutcomes (Zhang Y et al. 2018), altered neurodevelopment (Huo X et al. 2019b), adverse learning outcomes(Soetrisno et al. 2020), DNA damage (Alabi OA et al. 2012.), adverse cardiovascular effects (Cong X et al.
2018), adverse respiratory effects (Amoabeng Nti AA et al. 2020), adverse effects on the immune system(Huo X et al. 2019b), skin diseases (Decharat S et al. 2019; Seith et al. 2019), hearing loss (Xu L et al. 2020),
and cancer (Davis JM et al. 2019).

Sources of health or environmental impact caused by informal e-waste recycling

Occupational exposure
Community exposure- Exposure through food, water, air- Home based workshops- Inhaling fumes from burning
wires and cooking circuit boards- Pregnant women working as
recyclers – exposure of fetuses

Environmental contamination- Dumping acid used to remove gold into rivers- Leaching of substances from landﬁlls or stored electronics- Particulate matter, dioxins, furans from dismantlingelectronics- Contaminants entering the water system and food systemthrough livestock, ﬁsh, and crops

64

Chapter 8. E-waste Impact on the Health of Children and Workers

Children- Ingesting contaminated dust on surfaces- Playing with dismantled electronics- Children and adolescents working incollection, dismantling, and recycling

Associations
betweenexposure
to informal
e-wasterecycling
Associations
betweenexposure
to informal
e-wasterecycling
andthehealthofofinfants
children.
andhealthinfants andand children
Adverse birth outcomes.(12)

Effects on the immune
system.(16)

Increased or decreased growth.(13)

Effects on lung function.(17) (18)

Altered neurodevelopment,
adverse learning, and behavioural
outcomes.(14) (15)Multiple studies have investigated theimpact of e-waste exposure on thyroid
function of children but have reported
inconsistent results.(19)Since the publication of the previous e-waste monitor
in 2017, research on unregulated e-waste recycling
and its associations with adverse health outcomes has
expanded. These studies have continued to highlightthe dangers to human health from exposure to wellstudied toxins, such as lead. The following section
highlights the most recent findings between e-waste
recycling and human health outcomes.
Studies have reported associations between
exposure to informal e-waste recycling and adverse
birth outcomes (stillbirth, premature birth, lower
gestational age, lower birth weight and length, andlower APGAR scores), increased or decreased growth,
altered neurodevelopment, adverse learning andbehavioral outcomes, immune system function, andlung function. Multiple studies have investigated theimpact of e-waste exposure on thyroid function inchildren but have reported inconsistent results. A
small number of studies have also suggested that DNA
damage, changes in gene expression, cardiovascularregulatory changes, rapid onset of blood coagulation,
hearing loss, and olfactory memory may be associatedwith exposure to informal e-waste management.

A small number of studies havesuggested the effects to health shown
below, which may be associated with
exposure to informal e-waste
management.

Olfactory memory(20)DNA damage(21) and changes
in gene expression(22) (23)

Because of their unique vulnerability and susceptibility
to environmental toxicants, infants and children havebeen a significant focus of health effects studies.

Hearing loss(24)Rapid onset of blood
coagulation(25)Cardiovascular regulatory changes(26)Chapter 8. E-waste Impact on the Health of Children and Workers

65

Associations
betweenexposure
to informal
recycling
Associations between
exposure
to informal
e-wastee-waste
recyclingandhealthofofworkers.
and thehealthworkers
The lack of workplace health and safety regulations
leads to an increased risk of injuries for workers in
informal e-waste dismantling and recycling.(27) (28)

E-waste workers have also reported stress,
headaches, shortness of breath, chest pain,
weakness, and dizziness.(29) (30)

As well as

DNA damage(31) (32)

Fasting blood glucose
levels(33)Effects on liverfunction(34)Male reproductive and genital disorders,
as well as effects on sperm quality(35) (36)66

Chapter 8. E-waste Impact on the Health of Children and Workers

The lack of workplace health and safety regulations
leads to an increased risk of injuries for workers in
informal e-waste dismantling and recycling.
E-waste workers have also reported stress, headaches,
shortness of breath, chest pain, weakness, anddizziness. Among adults involved in informal e-waste
management or living in e-waste communities,
DNA damage has been associated with exposure tochemicals in e-waste. A small number of studies havealso reported effects on liver function, fasting blood
glucose levels, male reproductive and genital disorders,and effects on sperm quality from exposure to informal
e-waste recycling. There has been a large increase inresearch into the health impacts of e-waste recycling
over the last decade. It is difficult to assess whether
exposure to e-waste as a whole causes specific healthoutcomes because of studies' small populations, thevariety of chemical exposures measured, the variety ofoutcomes measured, and the lack of prospective longterm studies. Yet the body of research suggests there
is a significant risk of harm, especially to children who
are still growing and developing. Individual chemicals in
e-waste such as lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium,
PCBs, PBDEs, and PAHs are known to have serious
impacts on nearly every organ system (Grant et al.
2013).

Availability of health statistics
In addition to reliable statistics on e-waste collection, processing, and conditions of work,
harmonised data on the number of people exposed, exposure to hazardous toxicants,
and health effects are critical to understanding the impact of e-waste management.
Harmonised statistics are vital for monitoring health impacts, informing decision-makersof the scope of the problem, and evaluating interventions.
Exposure
Limited data are available on the number of people exposed to e-waste. Only roughestimates are available of the number of people involved in informal e-waste management
internationally and in impacted countries (EMG 2019; ILO, 2019; Perkins DN 2014;
Prakash et al 2010; Xing GH et al. 2009). It is often unclear what methods have beenused to produce these estimates. They often do not take into account individuals living
in communities but not involved in informal recycling, children, or those exposed topollutants through environmental contamination.

Health effects
Although there is a growing amount of information about the health effects of e-waste
exposure, there is limited data available about the number of people suffering fromthe effects. Academic studies of exposure and health effects have primarily been small
studies of 50 to 450 participants (Grant K et al. 2013; Song Q & Li J 2015; Zeng X etal. 2019b; Zeng Z et al. 2018a). Some of these studies have reported contamination ofcontrol groups, suggesting the widespread transport of contaminants (Sepúlveda etal. 2010; Song Q & Li J 2015). No large-scale longitudinal studies have been published.
There are significant challenges to collecting e-waste-related health statistics, such as
the large number of potential health outcomes, the challenges of studying chemical
mixtures, the lack of confirmed exposure-outcome relationships, and the long latency
periods of some diseases. Internationally harmonised indicators can assist in measuring
the number of people at risk of e-waste-related health effects and with monitoring trends
over time.

Large populations in e-waste recycling hotspots may be at risk. But just because acountry doesn’t have a concentrated neighbourhood of e-waste recycling activity doesn’tmean it has no e-waste problem. E-waste is part of a larger waste context and is often
collected door-to door or sent to landfills as part of general waste. Waste-pickers, who
are among the poorest and most vulnerable, may be exposed in communities aroundthe world (Gutberlet J & Uddin SMN 2017). In Latin America, e-waste is often recycled
in small shops across cities, instead of being concentrated in one area (ITU et al. 2016a).
A growing number of studies have measured the daily intake and body burden of single
e-waste pollutants, but they have been limited to small numbers of participants (Song& Li 2014). Long-term monitoring of occupational exposure, burdens on the body,environmental levels, and health is needed to quantify the impact of e-waste (Heacocket al. 2018). Experts have recommended that exposure and environmental monitoring
include metals, small particulate matter (PM2.5), persistant organic pollutants (POPs),
and PAHs (Heacock et al. 2018). Large biomonitoring initiatives are being developed tomonitor exposure to chemical hazards (Prüss-Ustün A et al. 2011) and may be a goodmodel for e-waste.

Chapter 8. E-waste Impact on the Health of Children and Workers

67

Chapter 9
Regional E-Waste
Key Statistics
68

69

E-waste status in Africa in 2019
2.9 Mt | 2.5 kg per capita$3.2 Billion

e-waste generated

value of raw materials
in e-waste

0.9% | 0.03 Mt

9.4 Mt CO2 equivalents

e-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled

potential release of GHG emissions from undocumented wasted fridges and air conditioners

13 countries

0.01 kt

have a national e-waste legislation/policy or regulation in place1152

population (millions)amount of mercury from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

5.6 ktamount of BFR from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

49

countries analysed

Nevertheless, specific e-waste legislation on management of e-waste is still lacking inmost African countries. Few countries have e-waste legislation published in Africa (e.g.
Egypt, Ghana, Madagascar, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Cameroon, Côte D'Ivoire).
However, enforcing the legislation is very challenging. Some countries, such as Rwanda,
have recently passed regulations governing e-waste management. Uganda implemented
an Electronic Waste Management Policy in 2012. In the East Africa community,
Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, and South Sudan have adopted a regional
e-waste strategy to achieve a sustainable e-waste management system (EACO 2017).
The strategy prioritizes a) strengthening the policy, legal, and regulatory frameworkfor sustainable resourcing of e-waste management, b) putting in place the requisitee-waste management infrastructure, c) establishing mechanisms for comprehensive andsustainable mobilization for e-waste management resources, d) strengthening e-waste
coordination structures at regional and national levels, and e) promoting research andinnovation in e-waste management.

Countries with the highest e-waste
generation per sub-region
Eastern Africa
0.3 Mt | 0.8 kg per capita
Ethiopia
Kenya
Tanzania

1.3% | 0.004 Mt

383

55.2 kt
51.3 kt
50.2 kt

Middle Africa
0.2 Mt | 2.5 kg per capita
AngolaCameroon
Congo

0.03% | 0.0001 Mt

80

125.1 kt
26.4 kt
18.3 kt

Northern Africa
1.3 Mt | 5.4 kg per capita
Egypt
Algeria
Morocco0% | 0 Mt

240

585.8 kt
308.6 kt
164.5 kt

Southern Africa
0.5 Mt | 6.9 kg per capita

4% | 0.02 Mt

67

South Africa 415.5 kt
Botswana
18.8 kt
Namibia15.7 kt

Western Africa
0.6 Mt | 1.7 kg per capita

Legend

0.4% | 0.002 Mt

382

Nigeria461.3 kt
Ghana
52.9 kt
Côte d'Ivoire 30.0 kt

70

Legislation
In past years, there have been some improvements in the legal, institutional, andinfrastructural framework for achieving sound management of e-waste in some countries.
In Ghana, Technical Guidelines on Environmentally Sound E-Waste Management forCollectors, Collection Centers, Transporters, Treatment Facilities, and Final Disposal
have been developed and are being enforced. In Nigeria, the EPR took off with formationof the E-waste Producer Responsibility Organisation of Nigeria (EPRON), a non-profit
organization set up by electrical and electronic producers in Nigeria. EPRON is the first
Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for electronic waste in Nigeria and wasfounded in March 2018 with such stakeholders as HP, Dell, Phillips, Microsoft, and Deloitte
contributing towards its establishment in Nigeria. In East Africa, there are also significant
continuing developments, with Rwanda adopting e-waste regulation and other countries
looking at adopting future regulations.

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

E-waste generated (in Mt
and kg per capita)
E-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled
Population(in millions)E-waste generated
0 to 1 kg per capita
1 to 3 kg per capita
3 to 6 kg per capita
6 to 10 kg per capita
10+ kg per capita

E-waste management system
E-waste management in Africa is dominated by thriving informal sector collectors andrecyclers in most countries; neither organized take-back systems nor license provisions
for sorting and dismantling e-waste exist. Government control of this sector is currently
very minimal and inefficient. The handling of e-waste is often processed in backyards
by manual stripping to remove electronic boards for resale, open burning of wires torecover few major components (e.g. copper, aluminum, and iron), and the depositionof other bulk components, including CRTs, in open dumpsites. An example that has
attracted international attention is the Agbogbloshie site in Ghana – always referred toas Africa's largest electronic waste dump. However, Agbogbloshie's reality is complex
and can be described as a well-organized scrapyard as opposed to an e-waste dumpsite.
At Agbogbloshie, roughly 5,000 scrap workers turn up at the dump every day to searchfor valuable metals contained in the waste, such as aluminium and copper.

In such cities or countries where the e-waste is a source of revenue for many, the“informal” e-waste collection rate is extremely high, most of the valuable materials arerecovered, and many components are reused or resold. The downside of such intense
informal activities is not of interest economically or that don't end up having a second
application are disposed of in a hazardous way.
Few countries, such as South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Namibia, and Rwanda, havesome facilities in place for e-waste recycling, but those co-exist with the existence of alarge informal sector. Therefore, some of those recycling companies have struggled toprogress and increase the volumes processed, but interesting pilots and energies are also
mobilized through new initiatives. On the other hand, sizeable countries such as Nigeria,
Kenya, and Ghana are still very reliant on informal recycling. A study conducted in Nigeria
shows that approximately 60,000-71,000 t of used EEE were imported annually into
Nigeria through the two main ports in Lagos in 2015 and 2016. It was found that mostof the imported used e-waste was shipped from developed countries such as Germany,
UK, Belgium, USA, etc. Additionally, a basic functionality test showed that, on average, atleast 19% of devices were non-functional (Odeyingbo, Nnorom, and Deubzer 2017).
E-waste management problems and attendant remedies are somewhat similar in
the various sub-regions of Africa. In summary, the major problems include the lackof adequate public awareness, lack of government policy and legislation, lack of aneffective collection system and EPR system, the dominance of the recycling sector by anuncontrolled, ill-equipped informal sector that pollutes the environment, lack of adequate
recycling facilities, and poor financing of hazardous waste management activities.

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

71

E-waste status in the Americas in 201913.1 Mt | 13.3 kg per capita$14.2 billion USD

e-waste generated

value of raw materials
in e-waste

9.4% | 1.2 Mt

26.3 Mt CO2 equivalents

e-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled

potential release of GHG emissions from undocumented wasted fridges and air conditioners

10 countries

0.01 kt

have a national e-waste legislation/policy or regulation in place984

population (millions)amount of mercury from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

18 kt

amount of BFR from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

34

countries analysed

Countries with the highest e-waste
generation per sub-region
Caribbean
0.1 Mt | 7.8 kg per capita
Jamaica

1% | 0.001 Mt

16

15% | 1.2 Mt

367

18 kt

Northern America
7.7 Mt | 20.9 kg per capita
USA
Canada6.918 kt
757 ktCentral America
1.5 Mt | 8.3 kg per capita
MexicoGuatemalaCosta Rica

3% | 0.04 Mt

176

0.7% | 0.03 Mt

425

1.220 kt
75 kt
51 kt

South America
3.9 Mt | 9.1 kg per capita
BrazilArgentina
Colombia

2.143 kt
465 kt318 ktLegendE-waste generated (in Mt
and kg per capita)
E-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled
Population(in millions)72

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

E-waste generated

0 to 4 kg per capita
4 to 7 kg per capita
7 to 10 kg per capita
10 to 15 kg per capita
15+ kg per capita

Legislation
The United States of America does not have national legislation on the management ofe-waste, but 25 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of legislation.
The state laws vary in their scope and impact and in whether or not they prohibit
consumers from disposing electronics in landfills. In all, the laws cover 75-80% of the
USA population. However, due to the differences in scope, many areas of the country,
including states covered by laws, do not have convenient collection opportunities. Apartfrom California and Utah, all states that have implemented laws use an EPR approach.
Canada does not have a national legislation in effect on the management of e-waste, as
the federal agency would not have this authority. However, 12 provinces and territories
have regulations in place with industry-managed programmes – all but Nunavut, the least
populated territory in Canada. On average, the product scope is much wider than USA;in many Canadian provinces, the EPR requirements can be met by joining an approved
e-waste compliance scheme.
Regulatory advances in Latin America take time, and only a few countries have managed
to establish e-waste laws. Although there has been considerable progress regarding theimplementation of specific e-waste regulations in Latin America in the past 5-10 years,
this progress is limited to a few countries, and for the rest, the road ahead is still very
long. Apart from Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Peru – likely the leading forces in theregion for environmentally sound e-waste management and which, in 2020, are working
on improving the already established systems, only Brazil and Chile are establishing thebases from which to start with the implementation of a formal regulatory framework for
e-waste.
Brazil recently published the “Sectoral Agreement for the Implementation of the Reverse
Logistics System for WEEE from households” for public consultation, and its formal
signature is expected in 2020.
After enacting the “Framework Law on Waste Management, Extended Producer
Responsibility, and Promotion of Recycling” in 2016, Chile is now working on the specifice-waste regulation, which will include collection and recycling targets and set theguidelines for the implementation of formal collection systems.
Seven years after implementing Decree 1512 for waste from computers, printers,
and peripherals, Colombia is working on a new regulation to extend EPR to all e-waste
categories and make adjustments to the integrated management system for e-waste,taking into account the lessons learned and the guidelines established by WEEE Law 1672
and the National Policy for WEEE Management.
Looking back already on five years since the implementation of its first e-waste
management systems, Peru has been evaluating the experience very closely so that it
can close loopholes and make alignments with the country’s general waste management
strategy. The revised regulation is expected to be published soon and will also extend
the scope of e-waste categories with a mandatory collection target of small and large
household appliances and, in particular, cooling appliances.

As of 2020, Mexico is planning on reviewing the current regulation after its first five-year
term and has been expanding several studies in order to redefine the responsibilities of
involved stakeholders, establish clearly defined categories, and set mandatory collection
targets, thereby increasing collected and formally recycled volumes.
Costa Rica has finally overcome its initial challenges created by contradictory regulations
and is now focusing on improving the implementation of the current regulation.
Following numerous unsuccessful initiatives and law projects with a specific focus one-waste at both the federal and provincial level, Argentina has now changed its approachby drafting an EPR law for multiple waste categories. The law is still being discussed in theCongress.
Through its Ministerial Agreement 191, Ecuador has been enforcing the take-back ofmobile phones from all mobile phone operators and importers, which led to the collection
and recycling of nearly 50,000 units in 2017.
Bolivia introduced the principle of EPR in its general waste management law in 2015,
which applies to several waste fractions, especially batteries. Nevertheless, the law has
never been regulated and therefore doesn’t establish any applicable collection targets.
The short summary of abovementioned countries highlights a general problem observablethroughout the region: the lack of harmonisation of these regulations and the generalprinciples they are based upon. Most of them present differences in the general approach(EPR vs. shared responsibility vs. public sector programmes), in jurisdictions level (federal
vs. state vs. city), the definitions of the fundamental principles, the involved stakeholders,the allocation of roles and responsibilities, and the applicable e-waste categories, just to
name a few.
E-waste management system
The USA undertook general measures to prevent e-waste at the federal level and,so, does have a set of regulatory measures for limiting the adverse effects posed byunappropriated disposal and treatment of electronics. Certain electronics, if meetingcertain criteria, must be managed under the requirements of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Federal agencies are directed to use electronics recyclers thatare certified according to either the Responsible Recycling (R2) or e-Stewards standards.
Hundreds of electronics recycling facilities have been independently certified to one orboth of the certification programmes, whose standard have been updated and enhanced
since their inception in 2010.
Latin America still offers a very wide range of companies involved in today’s e-waste
management and disposal activities, especially when it comes to the development of thelocal recyclers. On one hand, while there were only three R2-certified companies south of
Mexico just a few years ago, there are now more than 15. On the other hand, the numberof e-waste recyclers in nearly all countries has grown considerably, but most of the newer
companies are still at the very bottom of the learning curve. Although there have beensome interesting initiatives, it has not been possible yet to establish technical standards

that respond to the local conditions of the region.
Without a doubt, the growing number of recyclers in the region is also a consequenceof the growing volumes of formally collected end-of-life electronics. In countries with a
specific legal framework for e-waste and mandatory collection targets, such as Colombia
and Peru, the growth of the collected volumes has been steady and remarkable. In
parallel, the range of appliances collected has also widened. The focus is no longer only on
information and communication technologies only. Goods – especially cooling appliances– have been included in the scope, and there are several projects focusing primarily onenergy efficiency programmes and the development of local infrastructure in order toensure proper handling and treatment of discarded appliances and, thus, the reductionof greenhouse gas emissions.
Driven by regulation, the importance of formal collection systems is also increasing,as is the number of individual or collective compliance schemes. Very large quantities
are still handled by the informal sector or, in the best cases, stored away in basements.
The informal sector is part of the labor structure of Latin America, but only very few
countries, such as Brazil and Chile, are actively addressing their role in relation to e-waste
management. Recognition, regulation, and integration of their work in this area is clearly
one of the region's great challenges.
Another challenge is the lack of contributions from the research field. There are hardly
any e-waste statistics, and the few available have been overused and are worn out. Thereis a need for up-to-date information and proven methodologies that support the definitionof policies and regulations. Only by getting a grip on such updating of information will it bepossible to tackle the far more complex topic of raising the awareness level and educating
consumers of all sorts to help bring e-waste management in Latin America to the nextlevel.

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics73E-waste status in Asia in 201924.9 Mt | 5.6 kg per capita$26.4 billion USD

e-waste generated

value of raw materials
in e-waste

11.7% | 2.9 Mt

60.8 Mt CO2 equivalents

e-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled

potential release of GHG emissions from undocumented wasted fridges and air conditioners

17 countries

0.04 kt

have a national e-waste legislation/policy or regulation in place

4445

population (millions)amount of mercury from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

35.3 kt

amount of BFR from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

46

countries analysed

E-waste generated

0 to 2 k per capita
2 to 5 kg per capita
5 to 10 kg per capita
10 to 15 kg per capita
15+ kg per capita

LegendE-waste generated (inMt and kg per capita)
E-waste documented to be collected
and properly
recycled
Population(in millions)

Countries with the highest e-waste
generation per sub-region
Western Asia
2.6 Mt | 9.6 kg per capita
TurkeySaudi Arabia
Iraq

6% | 0.2 Mt

272

5% | 0.01 Mt

31

847 kt595 kt278 ktCentral Asia

Eastern Asia

0.2 Mt | 7.1 kg per capita
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan

172 kt39 kt
10 kt

3.5 Mt | 5.4 kg per capita

74

1.618 kt
621 kt425 kt20% | 2.7 Mt

Southern Asia
0% | 0 Mt

656

4.8 Mt | 2.6 kg per capita
India
Iran (Isl. Rep.)
Pakistan

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

3.230 kt
790 kt433 kt

0.9% | 0.04 Mt

In Southeast Asia, some countries are more advanced. The Philippines does not have aregulation specifically for e-waste management, but it does have a range of 'hazardous
waste' regulations that cover e-waste as it is considered “hazardous” waste. The
Philippines has formulated the “Final Draft Guidelines on the Environmentally Sound
Management (ESM) of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)”, which
will hopefully be passed soon. Cambodia now has a specific law relating to e-waste
management with the 2016 Sub-decree on Electrical and Electronic Equipment Waste
Management (E-waste Management). This Sub-decree covers all activities regarding
disposal, storage, collection, transport, recycling and dumping of EEE waste. Myanmar
does not have regulation for e-waste, and e-waste has not specifically been categorized ashazardous waste. However, Myanmar has recognised the importance of hazardous waste
management and is currently working towards a Master Plan and guidelines for it.
China has national legislation in force that regulates the collection and treatment offourteen types of e-waste (i.e. five types, initially, and nine more were later added). The
regulated fourteen types of e-waste are: televisions, refrigerators, washing machines,
air conditioners, personal computers, range hoods, electric water-heaters, gas waterheaters, fax machines, mobile phones, single-machine telephones, printers, copiers, andmonitors. Other countries in East Asia, such as Japan and the Republic of Korea, haveadvanced e-waste regulation.
In Japan, most EEE products are collected and recycled under the Act on Recycling ofSpecified Kinds of Home Appliances and the Act on Promotion of Recycling of Small
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Japan was one of the first countries globally to
implement an EPR-based system for e-waste.

1590

10.129 kt
China
2.569 ktJapan
Republic of Korea 818 kt

South-Eastern Asia
Indonesia
ThailandPhilippines

13.7 Mt | 8.6 kg per capita

Legislation
The South Asian region has begun to recognise the importance of proper e-waste
management. India is the only country in Southern Asia with e-waste legislation, althoughseveral other countries are considering such legislation. In India, laws to manage e-waste
have been in place since 2011, mandating that only authorised dismantlers and recyclers
collect e-waste. A manufacturer, dealer, refurbisher, and Producer Responsibility
Organization (PRO) were brought under the ambit of the E-Waste (Management) Rules
2016. The National Resources Policy (still in draft at time of publishing) also envisages astrong role for producers in the context of recovering secondary resources from e-waste.

1896

In Western and Central Asia, e-waste legislation advances are still very poor. There aresome formalized legislation of mercury-containing lamps. However, for types of e-waste,collection, legislation, and e-waste management infrastructure is mostly absent. Somehighlights are that the Kyrgyz government is developing new legislation introducing the
EPR concept, which will also apply to e-waste. The government is currently developing a
resolution aimed at addressing the management of e-waste. It contains a definition of thiscategory of waste and provides directives for its collection, storage, disposal, transport,and recycling. In Kazakhstan, the EPR for e-waste has been reflected in the concept fortransition of the Republic of Kazakhstan to a Green Economy, adopted in 2013, which
provides a basis for the implementation of “the principles of a manufacturer’s extended
liability to cover part of the costs for collection and disposal of packaging, electronic andelectric equipment, transport vehicles, batteries, furniture, and other used goods”. Thisis close to the EPR concept, but does not have any licensing or financing mechanism tocover the transportation and depollution in the legislation. The inclusion of such licensing
and financial mechanisms are currently under discussion.
E-waste management system
The e-waste management systems found in Asia are rather broad. The e-waste
management systems found in Asia are rather broad. They range from very advanced
e-waste management systems, such as in South Korea, Japan, China (including theProvince of Taiwan) to informal activities that coexist alongside the advanced recycling
system in China, but which dominate the e-waste management in the other parts of Asia.
E-waste management in South Asia is largely based on informal sector activities forcollection, dismantling, and recycling. Legislation in India has been a driver for thesetting up of formal recycling facilities, and there are 312 authorised recyclers in India,
with the capacity for treating approximately 800 kt annually. However, formal recycling
capacity remains underutilised, as the large majority of the waste is still handled by the
informal sector. There are 31 authorised PROs providing compliance services, including
the collection and channelization of e-waste to formal recycling facilities, as well as theadministration of awareness campaigns. Enforcing rules remains a challenge, as doother aspects, such as the lack of proper collection and logistics infrastructure, limited
awareness of consumers on the hazards of improper disposal of e-waste, the lack ofstandards for collection, dismantling of e-waste and treatment of it, and an inefficient andtedious reporting process.
Current statistics show that China is the world's top e-waste producer, having generated
10.1 Mt of e-waste in 2019. China plays a key role in the global EEE industry for two
primary reasons: it is the world's most populous country, so the domestic demand of
EEE is very high, and it has a strong EEE manufacturing industry. Additionally, China
plays a significant role in the refurbishment, reuse, and recycling of e-waste. Driven by
e-waste regulation and the facilities expansion, the formal e-waste recycling industry
has shown considerable growth in treatment capacity and quality; more than 70 million
e-waste units are dismantled annually (China Ministry of Ecology and Environment 2019).
According to the Chinese government, the actual collection and recycling rate is 40%,
but it is important to note that this number only refers to 5 EEE products, as opposed to
the 54 EEE products (UNU-Keys) listed in the international e-waste classification (Annex
1). The collection and recycling rate drops to 15% if all 54 products are considered. The
informal sector has been dramatically declining, due to stricter controls from China’s
new environmental law. The illegal importation of e-waste disappears more expeditiously

because of the solid waste ban import policy. However, the increasing gap between fundlevies and subsidies is imposing the distinct challenges for e-waste funding policy (Zenget al. 2017). The Chinese Government has set targets of sourcing 20% of raw materials for
new electronics products from recycled content and recycling 50% of electronic waste by2025 (World Economic Forum 2018). Taiwan’s (Province of China) e-waste collection andrecycling rate had reached 64% of the products covered by the legislation in 2018(37); thissignificant achievement is based on the 4-in-1 recycling system that focuses on applying
the EPR concept to the recycling system. The mechanism has substantially improved
under the supervision of the Recycling Fund Management Board (RFMB). Taiwan,
Province of China, has about 20 e-waste recycling facilities whose capacity is higher thanthe current domestic e-waste generation, so the e-waste recycling business in Taiwan,
Province of China, is experiencing challenges. Japan relies on a strong legal framework, anadvanced collection system, and developed processing infrastructure. In 2016, under the
Act on Recycling of Specified Kinds of Home Appliances, Japan collected 570.3 kt throughofficial channels.
In Central Asia, most of e-waste generated ends up in landfills or illegal dumping sites. In
the Kazakhstan EPR system, some collection and recycling sites have been set up, but
the capacity is not sufficient to manage the country's entire e-waste or to finance thetransportation of e-waste to it. In the entire region, it is common that consumers send
their discarded electric/electronic devices to small companies, which then dismantle
them and reuse certain components. So, several governments took measures in orderto address the issue. For instance, in Uzbekistan, progress was achieved from 2014-2016
by upgrading municipal waste infrastructure, and in 2017, the president launched a major
five-year programme to improve waste collection, disposal, and recycling nationwide.
However, no regulatory measures have been introduced specifically in relation to e-waste.
In Western Asia, the countries range from very rich to very poor. Despite that, the e-waste
management system is mostly informal. In the rich countries, there are large migrant
workers that reuse or repair donated used-EEE from the richer households, but this is
unique within the region. The United Arab Emirates have invested in a specialized facility
located at the Dubai Industrial Park that has a capacity of 100 kt of e-waste per year.
However, as aforementioned, most e-waste is largely uncontrolled and managed by the
informal sector. In the middle and south of Palestine, there are three main landfills where
e-waste is dumped, and the region is experiencing illegal imports of e-waste without having
the adequate environmentally sound recycling infrastructure in place. According to ane-waste study conducted in 2019 by UNIDO in coordination with the Lebanese Ministryof Industry, a certain quantity of e-waste in Lebanon is also landfilled, and more still isexported as scrap, mainly by the informal sector, while a small percentage is dismantled
and sent to abroad to recycling facilities through the formal sector. The study also revealed
that e-waste recycling in Lebanon is currently limited because of high operational costs,
particularly energy, and the complexity and potential hazards of e-wastes (UNIDO 2019).
Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

75E-waste status in Europe in 201912.0 Mt | 16.2 kg per capita$12.9 billion USD

e-waste generated

value of raw materials
in e-waste

42.5% | 5.1 Mt

12.7 Mt CO2 equivalents

e-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled

potential release of GHG emissions from undocumented wasted fridges and air conditioners

37 countries

0.01 kt

have a national e-waste legislation/policy or regulation in place740

population (millions)amount of mercury from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

11.4 kt

amount of BFR from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

39

countries analysed

Countries with the highest e-waste
generation per sub-region

LegendE-waste generated (in Mt
and kg per capita)

Eastern Europe
3.2 Mt | 11 kg per capita

23% | 0.7 Mt

289

Russian Federation 1.631 kt
Poland443 ktUkraine324 ktNorthern Europe
2.4 Mt | 22.4 kg per capita
United Kingdom
SwedenNorway59% | 1.4 Mt

105

34% | 0.9 Mt

151

1.598 kt
208 kt139 ktSouthern Europe
2.5 Mt | 16.7 kg per capita
Italy
Spain
Greece1.063 kt
888 kt181 ktWestern Europe
4 Mt | 20.3 kg per capita
Germany
FranceNetherlands

76

54% | 2.1 Mt

195

1.607 kt
1.362 kt
373 ktChapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

E-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled
Population(in millions)E-waste generated

0 to 5 kg per capita
5 to 10 kg per capita
10 to 15 kg per capita
15 to 20 kg per capita
20 to 25 kg per capita
25+ kg per capita

Legislation
In Europe, the majority of e-waste is regulated by the WEEE Directive (2012/19/EU). This
regulation is in force in the European Union and in Norway. Other countries – including
Iceland, Switzerland, and several Balkan countries, such as Serbia and Bosnia andHerzegovina – have similar laws. The WEEE Directive set collection, recycling, reuse,
and recovery targets for all six categories of e-waste. From 2018 onwards, article 7 of
the WEEE Directive states that the minimum collection rate to be achieved annually
by a member state shall be either 65% of the average weight of EEE POM in the three
preceding years or 85% of e-waste generated on the territory of a member state in2018. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania,
Slovenia, and Slovakia may have the option to remove themselves from this regulation by2021 because of their relatively low level of EEE consumption. The latest developmentsin the implementation of the WEEE Directive are the introduction of the open scope andnewly specified reporting guidelines.
Since August 15, 2018, the so-called open scope has been in place. The open scope meansthat EEE products are a priori considered to be in scope in the European Union, unlessspecific exclusions apply. This means, in practice, that new products, such as clothes andfurniture with electric functionality, can fall under the directive. With regard to e-waste
statistics, the most important decisions are calculation methods for preparation of reuse,
exports of e-waste, the e-waste generated methodology, and the reporting categories.
Preparation for reuse is defined as the weight of whole appliances that have become waste
and of components of e-waste that, following checking, cleaning, or repairing operations,can be reused without any further sorting or preprocessing. It also contains a decisionon the registration of e-waste exports. Where e-waste is sent for treatment in anothermember state or exported for treatment in a third country in accordance with Article 10 of
Directive 2012/19/EU, only the member state that has collected and sent or exported thee-waste for treatment may count it towards the minimum recovery targets referred. Notethat the directive does not yet cover any decision on exports of reused products, as they
are not yet waste. Also, member states have to report the data on the weight of e-waste
generated. Another decision is that data shall be reported in the six categories, but that
Category 4, Large equipment, is split into Category 4a (Large equipment excluding
photovoltaic panels) and Category 4b (Large equipment including photovoltaic panels).
In Ukraine, an EPR system based on the EU WEEE Directive is in development, by the
association agreement from the EU and Ukraine. Thanks to the collaborative project
supported by the EU, the Ministry of Ukraine Regional Development received support toestablish a legal basis on the disposal of electronic waste and batteries. Recently, thetwo-year project “Implementation of Management System for Waste of Electric andElectronic Equipment and Batteries in Ukraine” has been completed. This project helped
develop two laws: The Bill on Batteries and Accumulators and the Bill on Waste of Electricand Electronic Equipment, which is expected to pass parliament in 2020.

In Belarus, there is a general law, Law No. 271-Z on waste management, dated July 20,
2007. E-waste is managed within a framework of EPR of manufacturers and suppliers.
The e-waste categories featured are large equipment, whose lengths are over 160 cm;
medium-sized items, sized 80-160 cm; and small items, under 80 cm in length. Withinthe “Municipal Waste Management and Use of Recycled Resources” component of thenational programme “Comfortable Accommodation and Favourable Environment” for2016-2020 (Order of the Council of Ministers of Belarus, dated April 21, 2016, No. 326),
an objective was set to reach the intermediate target of 20% by 2019. Ferrous metal lawbans the collection of e-waste by metal scrap recyclers. Despite that, such collection
probably still happens. Valuable components are taken out, and hazardous substances
are dumped. In Moldova, a national strategy on waste has been in effect since 2013. Thereis an EU-Republic Moldovan association agreement, under which several associationagreements on environmental legislation exist. Within that context, the EPR on e-waste
was approved in 2018. In Moldova, e-waste is classified into the 10 categories of the old
EU WEEE Directive, as opposed to the current 6 categories enforced in the EU. The EPR
law specifies that there are also collection and recycling targets based on EEE POM of thethree preceding years. In 2020, there is a 5% collection target. This will gradually increaseby 5% each year until 30% in 2025. In 2017, Russia has started an EPR programme forelectrical and electronic scrap. Manufacturers and importers must help collect andprocess obsolete electronics in accordance with Russian circular economy legislation.
E-waste management systems
In the European Union, there is a very well-developed compliant e-waste management
infrastructure to collect e-waste in shops and municipalities by private operators, as wellas to further recover the recyclable components of the collected e-waste and dispose
residuals in a compliant and environmentally sound manner. This has been establishedby the relatively long-running history of EU e-waste legislation since early in 2003.
Consequently, statistics show that 59% of the e-waste generated in Northern Europe and
54% of e-waste generated in Western Europe is documented as being formally recycled;
the e-waste collection data was reported for 2017. Those are the highest percentages
in the world. For the reference year 2019, 85% of e-waste generated, or 65% EEE POM
of the three preceding years, has to be collected by a member state of the EU, whichindicates that collection and recycling must increase even further to meet the collection
targets.
The feasibility of achieving the target and the location of other e-waste have therefore
been subject to several country studies in recent years. During the writing of this study,
the most recent studies have been performed in the Netherlands (Baldé et al. 2020)
and Romania (Magalini et al. 2019). These studies indicate that an increasing share ofe-waste, compared to the e-waste generated, has been compliantly recycled in the past.
However, significant parts are still managed outside the compliant recycling sectors in
the EU. E-waste management takes place by exporting for reuse, e-waste that is disposedof in mixed residual waste as well as e-waste that is non-compliantly recycled with metal
scrap. In the Netherlands, the exports for reuse have been quantified as being roughly 8%of the total e-waste generated (Baldé et al. 2020). These exports are mostly comprisedof EEE from IT servers and laptops from dedicated refurbishing companies, as well as
used fridges, used microwaves, and other durable goods that are stuffed in second-handvehicles or containers and shipped to Africa. Exports for reuse are considered as lifetime
extensions and are a part of the circular economy. But many other EU countries do nothave such data, and without it, reaching the collection targets in those exporting countries
will be more difficult, if not impossible. The lower-income EU countries that have a lower
consumption of EEE than higher-income countries can also be recipient countries of
those exports for reuse. The recent studies also indicate that despite the relatively highenvironmental awareness in the EU, e-waste is still disposed of in residual waste, and thesmall e-waste ends up in residual waste bins. This comprises approximately 0.6 Mt of
the EU's e-waste (Rotter et al. 2016). A positive note is that the share of e-waste in theresidual waste declined in the Netherlands from 11% to 9% of e-waste generated in thepast decade (Baldé et al. 2020). The largest uncompliant flow of e-waste is managed
together with metal scrap, but without proper depollution steps in place.
Compared to other European countries in its region, Belarus has a relatively advanced
e-waste collection and recycling sector. There are municipal drop-off and collection
points and private pick-up and collection points, and e-waste is also collected from
repair and service centers. Belarus collected 23 kt of e-waste in 2019. The collection
from households is incentivized by a small financial transaction that the compliant waste
collector (or recycler) receives from the government. However, private companies andgovernmental agencies have to pay for the e-waste collection. The e-waste collection
from public agencies might be hampered because they have to pay a small fee, and theagencies are typically underfunded. So, public agencies typically store the equipment.
In other Eastern European countries, such as the Balkans, e-waste collection is beginningand an e-waste management infrastructure is currently in development, but not yetachieving same rates of e-waste as in Northern and Western Europe. In Moldova, there
are collection points from municipalities. Some private companies get equipment fromschools, universities, and other public authorities. In Russia and Ukraine, there areenterprises that collect e-waste and manage it in an environmentally sound manner.
However, there are too few e-waste collection points, and the e-waste management
capacity is not enough to recycle all domestic e-waste in an environmentally soundmanner. Thus, e-waste is likely to be recycled together with metal scrap or dumped inlandfills.

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

77E-waste status in Oceania in 2019
0.7 Mt | 16.1 kg per capita$0.7 billion USD

e-waste generated

value of raw materials
in e-waste

8.8% | 0.06 Mt

1.0 Mt CO2 equivalents

e-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled

potential release of GHG emissions from undocumented wasted fridges and air conditioners

1 country

0.001 kt

has a national e-waste legislation/policy or regulation in place42

population (millions)amount of mercury from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

1.1 ktamount of BFR from undocumented ﬂows of e-waste

12countries analysed

E-waste management system
Under the Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011, approved
co-regulatory arrangements are required to provide independently audited annual
reports for the Department to publish. These co-regulatory arrangements report on a
range of matters related to their role as administrators of the plan. Currently, four coregulatory arrangements manage the day-to-day operation of NTCRS. Since the plan's
inception, more than 291 kt of TV and computer e-waste has been collected and recycled.
During the 2017-2018 financial year, the plan recycled approximately 58 kt of e-waste,equating to a recovery rate greater than 93%. The plan also ensured that all recyclers
were certified to AS/NZS 5377:2013 standards with regard to recycling e-waste safely(Australian Government 2019).

Countries with the highest e-waste
generation per sub-region
Australia and New Zealand
0.7 Mt | 21.3 kg per capita
Australia
New Zealand

9% | 0.06 Mt

31

554 kt96 kt

Melanesia
0.02 Mt | 1.5 kg per capita
Papua New Guinea
Fiji0% | 0 Mt

10

9 kt
5 kt

Micronesia
0.0005 Mt | 2 kg per capita
Micronesia (Fed. St.)Palau

0% | 0 Mt

0.2

0% | 0 Mt

0.3

0.20 kt
0.17 kt

Polynesia
0.001 Mt | 3.1 kg per capita
Samoa
Tonga

0.6 kt0.3 ktLegendE-waste generated (in Mt
and kg per capita)
E-waste documented to becollected and properly recycled
Population(in millions)78

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

Legislation
The National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme (NTCRS) was implemented inAustralia under the Australian Government’s Product Stewardship Act 2011. The Act went
into effect on August 8, 2011. Under the Act, the Product Stewardship (Televisions andComputers) Regulations 2011 also went into effect on November 8, 2011. This regulation
provides Australian householders and small business with access to industry-fundedcollection and recycling services for televisions and computers. The co-regulatory aspect
is a key feature of the above regulation, whereby the Australian Government, throughthe regulations, has set the outcomes to be achieved by industry and how the plan to be
implemented. The television and computer industries, operating through the approved
co-regulatory arrangements (Producer Responsibility Organisation) will determine
how to deliver these outcomes efficiently. The plan provides approximately 98% of theAustralian population with reasonable access to collection services. These services may
include a permanent collection site at a local waste transfer station or retail outlet, or at
one-off events. The television and computer industries are required to fund collection andrecycling of a proportion of the televisions and computers disposed of in Australia eachyear and to increase the rate of recycling of televisions and computers in Australia to 80%
by 2026-2027.

E-waste generated

0 to 5 kg per capita
5 to 15 kg per capita
15+ kg per capita

With a ban starting in July 2019, the Government of Victoria is the latest Australian state
government to ban e-waste in landfills and has announced an A$16.5 million package bothto encourage safe management of hazardous materials found in e-waste and to enable
greater recovery of the valuable materials, ultimately leading to a more stable industry andmore jobs for Victoria. Sustainability Victoria launched a new campaign, implementing a
A$1.5 million community education programme on July 4, 2018 to educate Victorians
about the value of e-waste and how it can be recycled. The campaign features a new
website, ewaste.vic.gov.au, which includes an animated video showcasing the valuable
materials inside our electronics and social media and digital advertising (Sustainability
Victoria 2019).

Compared to Australia, the Government of New Zealand is still considering developinga mandatory national plan for dealing with the e-waste issue. Estimations are that morethan 97 kt of e-waste are being disposed of as landfill each year with more than 98.2%
of generated household e-waste ending up in landfills. Such an outcome is largely due tolimited diversion of e-waste into more appropriate recycling and treatment and the lack ofa mandatory product stewardship-based approach to managing e-waste in New Zealand.
E-waste product stewardship plans by individual producers are few and relatively minor.
As well, there is no formalized system overall for e-waste management (Blake, Farrelly,and Hannon 2019).
The Pacific Islands region (PICTs), consisting of 22 countries and territories, face uniquechallenges due to their spread-out geography. The limited availability of suitable land on
small islands and atolls for constructing landfills, the islands' remoteness, and the islands'
relatively small populations cause issues for large economies, as waste management
technologies, rapid urbanisation, limited institutional, and human resource capacities
are among the key challenges faced by PICTs. The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP) has the lead responsibility for regional coordinationand delivery of waste management and pollution control action and uses the strategic
management framework, Cleaner Pacific 2025, in guiding regional cooperation andcollaboration. SPREP also works with key international and regional partners to achieve
greater integration of sustainable funding and to support mechanisms for waste,chemicals, and pollution management programmes.

Chapter 9. Regional E-Waste Key Statistics

79

Endnotes

80

(1)

The e-waste collection rate is identical to the sub-indicator defined in SDG 12.5.1.
If the e-waste is collected through official collection systems, it can be assumed
that e-waste collected equals e-waste recycled, though in practice there might belosses taking place during the treatment phase. > page 23(2) E-waste documented as being formally collected and recycled and its respective
recycling rate refer to data officially reported by governments (the preferred data
source in this report) or, in other instances, by recyclers. In several countries andglobal regions, e-waste is often also collected by the informal system, but thosequantities are not accounted for in either the indicator “e-waste documented to becollected and recycled” or the respective recycling rate – for two main reasons:
1) due to the activities' “informal” nature, they are not regulated, and data are
hardly available at the governmental level; and 2) e-waste managed by the
informal system is most likely not recycled in an environmental sound way.
> page 25(3) The workplan and other information is available fromhttps://uneplive.unep.org/indicator/index/12_5_1. > page 30(4) The Guidelines were endorsed by ESCAP, ESCWA, ITU, OECD, UNCTAD, UNECA,EUROSTAT, UNEP/SBC, and UNU. > page 35(5) E-waste is also often not discarded by its owner and, instead, is stored at homeor can be donated as a second-hand product. However, by definition, the EEE
becomes e-waste only once its owner intends to discard the product and, thus,
after it leaves the home. > page 37(6) www.basel.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/PartiesSignatories/tabid/4499/
Default.aspx > page 54(7) Critical raw materials are identified as one of the priority areas in the EU action
plan for the Circular Economy. The most recent criticality assessment, performed
in 2017, identified 27 critical raw materials. > page 58(8) Precious metals (e.g. gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, ruthenium,
rhodium, iridium, and osmium) and critical materials (e.g. cobalt, palladium,
indium, germanium, bismuth, and antimony). > page 59(9) The methodology for the calculation of the value of precious metals found in
e-waste has been updated from the methodology in the Global E-waste Monitor
2017. This update is explicated in Annex 2. > page 59(10) The total amount of raw materials found in e-waste generated in 2019 wascompared to the total amount of raw materials found in EEE Placed on the Market
in the same year. The methodology for the calculation of raw materials found in
e-waste and the related data sources are presented in Annex 2. > page 59(11) The releases of CO2 equivalents were estimated by linking the amount and type of
refrigerant used in fridges and air conditioners produced between 1995 and 2019
to their global warming potential, expressed in CO2 equivalents (Duan et al. 2018).
> page 61(12) Guo Y at al. 2010a; Guo Y et al. 2012a; Huo X et al. 2019a; Li M et al. 2018a; Wu K etal. 2011a; Wu K et al. 2012a; Xu X et al. 2012a; Xu L et al. 2015b; Xu L et al. 2016a;
Zhang Y et al. 2018a. > page 65(13) Zheng G et al 2013a; Xu X et al. 2015a; Zeng X et al. 2019a, Xu X et al.
2015b. > page 65(14) Li Y et al. 2008b; Zhang R et al. 2015a; Liu J et al. 2011a; Liu L et al. 2015a;
Liu L et al. 2018a; Wang X et al. 2012a; Zhang R et al. 2015a. > page 65(15) Soetrisno et al. 2020. > page 65(16) Cao J et al. 2018; Dai Y et al. 2017a; Huo X et al. 2019b; Zhang Y et al 2016a; Zhang
Y et al. 2017a. > page 65(17) Zheng G et al. 2013a; Zeng X et al. 2017a; Zeng X et al. 2017b. > page 65(18) Amoabeng Nti AA et al. 2020. > page 65(19) Grant et al. 2013; Xu P et al. 2015a. > page 65(20) Zhang B et al. 2017a. > page 65(21) Li Y et al. 2008a; Ni W et al. 2014a. > page 65(22) Li Y et al. 2011. > page 65(23) Neitzel RL et al. 2020; Alabi OA et al. 2012. > page 65(24) Liu Y et al. 2018a. > page 65(25) Zeng Z et al. 2018a. > page 65(26) Cong X et al. 2018a; Lu X et al 2018a. > page 65(27) Yohannessen K et al. 2019; Ohajinwa CM et al. 2018. > page 66(28) Fischer et al. 2020; Decharat et al 2020. > page 66(29) Decharat S 2018; Feldt T et al. 2014. > page 66(30) Okeme JO et al. 2019; Decharat et al 2020; Seith et al. 2019. > page 66(31) Chen L et al. 2010a; Li K et al. 2014a; Liu Q et al. 2009a; Wang Q et al. 2011a; Yuan
J et al. 2008a. > page 66(32) Neitzel RL et al. 2020. > page 66(33) Song S et al. 2019a. > page 66(34) Chen Y et al. 2019a. > page 66(35) Li Y et al. 2012a; Xu X 2014a. > page 66(36) Igharo OG et al. 2018. > page 66(37) Regulated Recyclable waste under the 4-in-1 Recycling system: laptops,
motherboards, hard disks, power packs, shells, monitors, printers, keyboards,
televisions, washing machines, refrigerators, air conditioners, fans, and lightbulbs/tubes (US EPA and Office of Internartional Affairs Tribal 2012). > page 75(38) The Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, generally referred
to as “Harmonised System” or simply “HS”, is a multipurpose international
product nomenclature developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO).
> page 101(39) Central Product Classification (CPC), Version 1.1. > page 101

Endnotes

81

Sources to Annex 3: Country E-waste Key Statistics > page 104(40) Telecom Argentina.
(41) Australian Ministry of Environment.
(42) Eurostat.
(43) UNSD Questionnaire (UNSD 2019).
(44) Reporte de Sustentabilidad Bienal 2011-2012.
(45) Solidarite Technologique.
(46) OECD Questionnaire.
(47) Ministry of Environment (Chile).
(48) Ministry of Environment (China).
(49) Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department.
(50) Ministry of Education (El Salvador).
(51) Litterature (Rush Martínez et. al 2015).
(52) Assocham India.
(53) National Solid Waste Management Authority (Jamaica).
(54) National Statistics Office (Jordan).
(55) Africa Institute 2012.
(56) Namigreen.
(57) Ministry of Health (Peru).
(58) Analytical Center for the Government of Russian Federation.
(59) Ministry of Trade and Industry (Rwanda).
(60) Litterature (Roldan 2017).
(61) IENE.
(62) Litterature (Lydall M. et al. 2017).
(63) Exitcom.
(64) Computers for School Uganda.
(65) Environmental Protection Agency (USA).
(66) Questionnaires conducted by UNSD, OECD and UNECE in 2014/2015.

82

Endnotes

Endnotes

83Literature84

Abbasi, G. 2015. “Story of Brominated Flame Retardants : Substance Flow Analysis of
PBDEs from Use to Waste”.

Deubzer, O. 2007. “Explorative Study into the Sustainable Use and Substitution of Soldering Metals in Electronics”.

Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Energy. 2019. “National
Television and Computer Recycling Scheme – Home Page | Department of the Environment and Energy”. 2019.

Deubzer O, Herreras L, Hajosi E, Hilbert I, Buchert M, Wuisan L, and Zonneveld N.
2019. “Baseline and gap/obstacle analysis of standards and regulations – CEWASTE
Voluntary Certification Scheme for Waste Treatment”. https://cewaste.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2020/03/CEWASTE_Deliverable-D1.1_191001_FINAL-Rev.200305.pdf.

Baldé CP, D’Angelo E, Forti V, Kuehr R, and Van den Brink S. 2018 “Waste mercury perspective, 2010-2035: from global to regional – 2018”. United Nations University (UNU),
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Bonn/Vienna.
Baldé CP, Forti V, Gray V, Kuehr R, and Stegmann P. 2017. “The Global E-Waste Monitor 2017”. Edited by United Nations University (UNU), International Telecomunication
Union (UNU), and International Solid Waste Association (ISWA). United Nations University. Bonn/Geneva/Vienna. https://globalewaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/
Global-E-waste-Monitor-2017.pdf
Baldé CP, Kuehr R, Blumenthal K, Fondeur Gill S, Kern M, Micheli P, Magpantay E, andHuisman J. 2015. “E-Waste Statistics Guidlines on Classification, Reporting and Indicators”.
Baldé C.P, van den Brink S, Forti V, van der Schalk A. and Hopstaken F. The Dutch
WEEE Flows 2020. “What happened between 2010 and 2018”. United Nations University(UNU) / United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) – co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, Bonn, Germany.
BIO intelligence Service. 2013. “Equivalent Conditions for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Recycling Operations Taking Place Outside the European Union”.
DG Environment.
Blake V, Farrelly T, and Hannon J. 2019. “Is Voluntary Product Stewardship for E-Waste
Working in New Zealand? A Whangarei Case Study”. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (11):
1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113063.
Chen Y, Jinhui L, Lieqiang C, Shusheng C, and Weihua D. 2012. “Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) in Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Plastics and Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs)”. Procedia Environmental Sciences 16: 552–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.10.076.
China Ministry of Ecology and Environment. 2019. “Waste Electrical and Electronic Products Processing Information System”. 2019. http://weee.mepscc.cn/Index.do.

Duan, H, Miller TR, Gang L, Xianlai Z, Keli Y, Qifei H, and Jian Z. 2018. “Supporting
Information for : Chilling Prospect : Climate Change Effects of Mismanaged Refrigerants
in China Table of Centent Tables and Figures”. Environmental Science and Technology
52 (11).
Duan H, Miller TR, Gregory J, and Kirchain R. 2013. “Quantitative Characterization ofDomestic Flows of Used Electronics.” Step, no. December: 122.
EACO. 2017. “Regional E-Waste Strategy. Edited by Waste Management Steering Committee under Working Group 10 : Environment and E-Waste Management”.
European Commission. 2019. “Statistics - Electronics Waste - Environment - European
Commission”. 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/data_en.htm.
European Paliament. 2011. “DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTAND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2011 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous
Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment.” Official Journal of the European Union, 88–110.
European Paliament. 2012. “Directive 2002/96/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 Jenuary 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)”.
Official Journal of the European Union, 2003, no. June: 38–71.
Forti V, Baldé CP, and Kuehr R. 2018. “E-Waste Statistics Guidelines on Classification,
Reporting and Indicators”. Edited by ViE - SCYCLE United Nations University. Bonn, Germany.
Geeraerts K, Mutafoglu K, and Illés A. 2016. “Illegal Shipments of E–Waste from the
EU to China”. Fighting Environmental Crime in Europe and Beyond, no. 320276: 129–60.
GSMA.
2020.
“GSMA
CleanTeche-wastepolicyhttps://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/cleantech/e-waste/

Literature

study”.

85

Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (GESP). 2019. “About GESP”.
[Website]. Switzerland: “Global E-waste Statistics Partnership (GESP)”.
https://globalewaste.org/about-us/, accessed 8 September 2019.
Hamdan S. 2019. “‫ اﻟﻨﻔﺎﻳﺎت اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ واﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬2018 ‫”ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎزل‬.

Magalini F, Feng W, Huisman J, Kuehr R, Baldé K, van Straalen V, Hestin M, Lecerf L,
Sayman U, and Akpulat O. 2014. “Study on Collection Rates of Waste Electrical and Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Possible measures to be initiated by the commission as required by article 7(4), 7(5), 7(6) and 7(7) of directive 2012/19/eu on waste
electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)”. European Commission.

Herat S. 2008. “Environmental Impacts and Use of Brominated Flame Retardants in Electrical and Electronic Equipment”. Environmentalist 28 (4): 348–57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-007-9144-2.

Mccann D, and Wittmann A. 2015. “E-Waste Prevention, Take-Back System Design and
Policy Approaches”. Step (February): http://www.step-initiative.org/files/_documents/
whitepapers/StEP_TF1_WPTakeBackSystems.pdf.

Hopson E., and Pucket J. 2016. “Scam Recycling: e-Dumping on Asia by US Recyclers”.
Basel Action Network, USA.

McPherson A, Thorpe B, and Blake A. 2004. “Brominated Flame Retardants in Dust on
Computers”, 1–40.

Huisman J, Botezatu I, Herreras L, Liddane M, Hintsa J, Luda di Cortemiglia V, Leroy P, Vermeersch E, Mohanty S, van den Brink S, Ghenciu B, Dimitrova D, Nash E,
Shryane T, Wieting M, Kehoe J, Baldé CP, Magalini F, Zanasi A, Ruini F, MännistöT, and Bonzio A. “Countering WEEE Illegal Trade (CWIT) Summary Report, Market Assessment, Legal Analysis, Crime Analysis and Recommendations Roadmap”. August 30,
2015. Lyon, France.

Odeyingbo O, Nnorom I, and Deubzer O. 2017. “Person in the Port Project - Assessing Import of Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment into Nigeria”.
http://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6349/PiP_Report.pdf.

Huisman J, Downes S, Leroy P, Herreras L, Ljunggren M, Kushnir D, Løvik AN, et al.
2017. “ProSUM FINAL REPORT - Deliverable 6.6”.
Lasaridi K, Terzis E, Chroni C, and Kostas A. 2016. “Bir Global Facts & Figures World
Statistics on E-Scrap Arisings and the Movement of E-Scrap Between Countries 20162025.”
Lepawski J. (2015). “The changing geography of global trade in electronic discards: Timeto rethink the e-waste problem.” The Geographical Journal, 181(2), 147–159.
Lydall M, Nyanjowa W, and James Y. 2017. “Mapping South Africa’s Waste Electricaland Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Dismantling, Pre-Processing and Processing Technology Landscape”, Mintek.
Magalini F, and Huisman J. 2018. “WEEE Recycling Economics”. 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24945.53608.
Magalini F, Smit E, Adrian S, Gunsilius E, Herbeck E, Oelz B, Perry J, et al. 2016.
“Guiding Principles to Develop E-Waste Management Systems and Legislation”. 3576: 15.
ISSN: 1999-7965.
Magalini F, Thiebaud E, and Kaddouh S. 2019. “Quantifying WEEE in Romania 2019 vs 2015”.
86

Literature

Parajuly K, Kuehr R, Awasthi AK, Fitzpatrick C, Lepawsky J, Smith E, Widmer R, andZeng X. 2019. “Future E-Waste Scenarios”. Step (Bonn), UNU ViE SCYCLE (Bonn) &UNEP IETC (Osaka).
Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’Neill B, Fujimori S, Bauer N, et al.
2017. “The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and Their Energy, Land Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implications: An Overview”. Global Environmental Change 42 (January): 153–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2016.05.009.
Roldan M. 2017. “E-waste management policy and regulatory framework for Saint Lucia”. Telecommunication Management Group, Inc.
Rotter VS, Maehlitz P, Korf N, Chancerel P, Huisman J, Habib H, Herreras L, Ljunggren
SM, and Hallberg A. 2016. “ProSUM Deliverable 4.1 - Waste Flow Studies”. 1–100.
Rush Martínez M. and Cálix, N. 2014. “Estimación de la Generación de los Residuos deAparatos Eléctricos y Electrónicos (RAEE) en Honduras”. Tegucigalpa M.D.C, Honduras.
Step Initiative. 2014. “One Global Definition of E-Waste”. United Nations University 3576
(June): 08. https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6120/step_one_global_definition_
amended.pdf.
Sudki, Hamdan. 2019. “‫ اﻟﻨﻔﺎﻳﺎت اﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮوﻧﻴﺔ واﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬2018 ‫”ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﺎزل‬.

Sustainability Victoria. 2019. “E-Waste”. 2019. https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/
You-and-your-home/Waste-and-recycling/Household-waste/eWaste.
UNDESA. 2019 – Population Division. 2019. “World Population Prospects - Population
Division”. https://population.un.org/wpp/.
UNICEF. 2018. “Surveys - UNICEF MICS”. 2018. http://mics.unicef.org/surveys.
UNIDO. 2019. “Preliminary Baseline Assessment of E-wastes in Lebanon”.
UNSD. 2019. “UNdata | Industrial Commodity Statistics Database (UNSD)”. 2019.
http://data.un.org/Browse.aspx?d=ICS.
USITC. 2013. “Used Electronic Products: An Examination of U.S. Exports,” Investigation
no. 332-528.
Van der Voet E, Van Oers L, Verboon M, and Kuipers K. 2019. “Environmental
Implications of Future Demand Scenarios for Metals: Methodology and Application to the Case of Seven Major Metals”. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23 (1): 141–55.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12722.
Wagner M, Bavec Š, Huisman J, Løvik AN, Söderman ML, Emmerich J, Sperlich K, etal. 2019. “Optimizing Quality of Information in RAw MAterial Data Collection across Europe Draft Good Practice Guidelines for the Collection of SRM Data, Improvement Potential,
Definition and Execution of Case”. 1–189.
Wolk-Lewanowicz A, James K, Huisman J, Habib H, Brechu M, Herreras L, andChancerel P. 2016. “ProSUM Deliverable 3.2 - Assessment of Complementary Waste
Flows”. 3.2.
World Economic Forum. 2018. “Recovery of Key Metals in the Electronics Industry in the
People’s Republic of China: An Opportunity in Circularity”. January.
Yu D, Duan H, Song Q, Liu Y, Li Y, Li J, Shen W, Luo J, and Wang J. 2017. “Characterization of brominated flame retardants from e-waste components in China”.
Waste Management 68: 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.033.
Zoeteman BC.J, Krikke HR, and Venselaar J. 2010. “Handling WEEE waste hows: on the effectiveness of producer responsibility in a globalizing world”. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 47 (5–8): 415–36.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2358-3.

Literature

87References from Chapter 8. E-waste Impact on the Health of Workers and Children
Alabi OA, Bakare AA, Xu X, Li B, Zhang Y, and Huo X. 2012. “Comparative evaluationof environmental contamination and DNA damage induced by electronic-waste in Nigeria
and China”. Sci Total Environ. 423:62-72. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.056.
Amoabeng Nti AA, Arko-Mensah J, Botwe PK, Dwomoh D, Kwarteng L, Takyi SA, et al.
2020. “Effect of particulate matter exposure on respiratory health of e-waste workers at
Agbogbloshie, Accra, Ghana”. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(9):E3042. doi:10.3390/
ijerph17093042.
Amoyaw-Osei Y, Agyekum OO, Pwamang JA, Mueller E, Fasko R, and Schluep M. 2019.
“Ghana e-Waste country assessment. SBC E-waste Africa Project”. http://www.basel.
int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/eWaste/E-wasteAssessmentGhana.pdf.
Cao J, Xu X, Zhang Y, Zeng Z, Hylkema MN, and Huo X. 2018. “Increased memory T
cell populations in Pb-exposed children from an e-waste-recycling area”. Sci Total Environ.; 616-617:988-995. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.220. Epub 2017 Oct 31. PubMed PMID: 29096958.
Chan JK, and Wong MH. 2013. “A review of environmental fate, body burdens, and human health risk assessment of PCDD/Fs at two typical electronic waste recycling sites in
China”. Sci Total Environ. 463-464:1111-23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.098.
Chen L, Guo H, Yuan J, et al. 2010. “Polymorphisms of GSTT1 and GSTM1 and increased
micronucleus frequencies in peripheral blood lymphocytes in residents at an e-waste dismantling site in China”. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 45: 490–97.
Chen Y, Xu X, Zeng Z, Lin X, Qin Q, and Huo X. 2019. “Blood lead and cadmium levels
associated with hematological and hepatic functions in patients from an e-waste-pollutedarea”. Chemosphere. 220:531-538. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.129. Epub 2018
Dec 20. PubMed PMID: 30594806.
Chi X, Streicher-Porte M, Wang MY, and Reuter MA. 2011. “Informal electronic waste
recycling: a sector review with special focus on China“. Waste Manag. 31(4):731-42. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2010.11.006.
Cong X, Xu X, Xu L, Li M, Xu C, Qin Q, and Huo X. 2018. “Elevated biomarkers of sympatho-adrenomedullary activity linked to e-waste air pollutant exposure in preschool
children”. Environ Int.115:117-126. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.03.011. Epub 2018 Mar 20.
PubMed PMID: 29558634.

88

Literature

Dai Y, Huo X, Zhang Y, Yang T, Li M, and Xu X. 2017. “Elevated lead levels and changes
in blood morphology and erythrocyte CR1 in preschool children from an e-waste area”.
Sci Total Environ. 592:51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.080. Epub 2017 Mar 29.
PubMed PMID: 28301822.
Davis JM, and Garb Y. 2019. “A strong spatial association between e-waste burn sites
and childhood lymphoma in the West Bank, Palestine”. Int J Cancer. 144(3):470-75. doi:
10.1002/ijc.31902.
Decharat S. 2018. “Urinary Mercury Levels Among Workers in E-waste Shops in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand”. J Prev Med Public Health. 51(4):196-204. doi:
10.3961/jpmph.18.049.
Decharat S, and Kiddee P. “Health problems among workers who recycle electronic
waste in southern Thailand”. 2020. Osong Public Health res Perspect. 11(1):34-43. doi:
10.24171/j.phrp.2020.11.1.06.
Feldt T, Fobil JN, Wittsiepe J, Wilhelm M, Till H, Zoufaly A, Burchard G, and Göen T. 2014.
“High levels of PAH-metabolites in urine of e-waste recycling workers from Agbogbloshie,
Ghana”. Sci Total Environ. 466-467:369-76. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.06.097. Epub
2013 Aug 7. PubMed PMID: 23921367.
Fischer D, Seidu F, Yang J, Felten MK, Garus C, Kraus T, et al. 2020. “Health consequences for e-waste workers and bystanders – a comparative cross-sectional study”. Int
J Environ Res Public Health. 17(5):1534. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051534.
Goldizen FC, Sly PD, and Knibbs LD. 2016. “Respiratory effects of air pollution on children”. Pediatr Pulmon. 51(1):94–108.
Grant K, Goldizen FC, Sly PD, Brune MN, Neira M, van den Berg M, et al. 2013. “Healthconsequences of exposure to e-waste: a systematic review”. Lancet Glob Health. 1:
e350–61.
Guo Y, Huo X, Li Y, et al. 2010. “Monitoring of lead, cadmium, chromium and nickel inplacenta from an e-waste recycling town in China”. Sci Total Environ. 408: 3113–17.
Guo Y, Huo X, Wu K, Liu J, Zhang Y, and Xu X. 2012. “Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons in umbilical cord blood of human neonates from Guiyu, China”. Sci Total
Environ. 427: 35–40.
Gutberlet J, and Uddin SMN. 2017. “Household waste and health risks affecting waste
pickers and the environment in low- and middle-income countries”. Int J Occup Environ

Health. 23(4):299-310. doi: 10.1080/10773525.2018.1484996.
Heacock M, Trottier B, Adhikary S, Asante KA, Basu N, Brune MN, et al. 2018. “Prevention-intervention strategies to reduce exposure to e-waste”. Rev Environ Health. 33(2):219–228.
Hu C, Hou J, Zhou Y, Sun H, Yin W, Zhang Y, et al. 2018. “Association of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exposure with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk: A role ofmean platelet volume or club cell secretory protein”. Environ. Pollut. 233:45-53.
Huang CL, Bao LJ, Luo P, Wang ZY, Li SM, and Zeng EY. 2016. “Potential health risk
for residents around a typical e-waste recycling zone via inhalation of size-fractionatedparticle-bound heavy metals”. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 317:449-456.
Huo X, Dai Y, Yang T, Zhang Y, Li M, and Xu X. 2019. “Decreased erythrocyte CD44
and CD58 expression link e-waste Pb toxicity to changes in erythrocyte immunity in preschool children”. Sci Total Environ. 2019b May 10;664:690-697. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.040. PubMed PMID: 30763849.
Huo X, Wu Y, Xu L, Zeng X, Qin Q, and Xu X. 2019. “Maternal urinary metabolites of
PAHs and its association with adverse birth outcomes in an intensive e-waste recyclingarea”. Environ Pollut.245:453-461. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.098. Epub 2018 Nov 7.
PubMed PMID: 30458375.
Igharo OG, Anetor JI, Osibanjo O, Osadolor HB, Odazie EC, and Uche ZC. 2018. “Endocrine disrupting metals lead to alteration in the gonadal hormone levels in Nigerian e-waste workers”. Universa Medicina. 37(1):65-74. doi: 10.18051/UnivMed.2018.
ILO. 2013. “The Informal Economy and Decent Work: A Policy Resource Guide supporting transitions to formality. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization”.
https://www.ilo.org/emppolicy/pubs/WCMS_212688/lang--en/index.htm, accessed
16 August 2019.
ILO. 2019. Decent work in the management of electrical and electronic waste (e-waste).
Issue paper for the Global Dialogue Forum on Decent Work in the Management of Electrical and Electronic Waste (E-waste) (9–11 April 2019). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/sector/activities/sectoral-meetings/
WCMS_673662/lang--en/index.htm, accessed 7 August 2019.
ITU, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNU, WIPO, BCRC-SouthAmerica, and ECLAC. 2016. “Sustainable management of waste electrical and electronicequipment in Latin America”. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunications Union.

Landrigan P, Goldman LR. 2011. “Children's vulnerability to toxic chemicals: a challenge
and opportunity to strengthen health and environmental policy”. Health Aff (Millwood).
30(5):842-50. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0151.
Li K, Liu S, Yang Q, Zhao Y, Zuo J, Li R, Jing Y, He X, Qiu X, Li G, and Zhu T. 2014.
“Genotoxic effects and serum abnormalities in residents of regions proximal to e-waste disposal facilities in Jinghai, China”. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2014a Jul;105:51-8. doi:
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.03.034. PubMed PMID: 24785710.
Li M, Huo X, Pan Y, Cai H, Dai Y, and Xu X. 2017. “Proteomic evaluation of human umbilical cord tissue exposed to polybrominated diphenyl ethers in an e-waste recycling area”.
Environ Int. 2018a Feb;111:362-371. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.09.016. PubMed PMID:
29169793.
Li Y, Huo X, Liu J, Peng L, Li W, and Xu X. 2011. “Assessment of cadmium exposurefor neonates in Guiyu, an electronic waste pollution site of China”. Environ Monit Assess.
177(1-4):343-51. doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1638-6.
Li Y, Xu X, Liu J, et al. 2008. “The hazard of chromium exposure to neonates in Guiyu of
China”. Sci Total Environ. 403: 99–104.
Li Y, Xu X, Wu K, et al. 2008. “Monitoring of lead load and its effect on neonatal behavioral neurological assessment scores in Guiyu, an electronic waste recycling town in China”. J Environ Monit. 10: 1233–38.
Li Y, Li M, Liu Y, Song G, Liu N. 2012. “A microarray for microRNA profiling in spermatozoa from adult men living in an environmentally polluted site”. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. Dec;89(6):1111-4. doi: 10.1007/s00128-012-0827-0.
Liu J, Xu X, Wu K, et al. 2011. “Association between lead exposure from electronic waste
recycling and child temperament alterations”. Neurotoxicology. 32: 458–64.
Liu L, Xu X, Yekeen TA, Lin K, Li W, and Huo X. 2015. “Assessment of association between the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) polymorphism and neurodevelopment of children exposed to lead”. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int.. 22(3):1786-93. doi: 10.1007/s11356014-2565-9. Epub 2014 Jan 28. PubMed PMID: 24469773.
Liu L, Zhang B, Lin K, Zhang Y, Xu X, and Huo X. 2018. “Thyroid disruption and reduced mental development in children from an informal e-waste recycling area: A mediation
analysis. Chemosphere”. 193:498-505. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.059. Epub
2017 Nov 13. PubMed PMID: 29156335.

Literature

89

Liu Q, Cao J, Li KQ, et al. 2009. “Chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage in humanpopulations exposed to the processing of electronics waste. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int”.
16: 329–38.
Liu Y, Huo X, Xu L, Wei X, Wu W, Wu X, and Xu X. 2018. “Hearing loss in children with
e-waste lead and cadmium exposure”. Sci Total Environ. 624:621-627. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.091. Epub 2017 Dec 27. PubMed PMID: 29272831.

Prakash S., Manhart, A., Amoyaw-Osei, Y., and Agyekum. 2010. “O. Socio-economic assessment and feasibility study on sustainable e-waste management in Ghana”. Accra. Freiburg, Germany: Öko-Institut e.V. (https://www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1057/2010-105-en.
pdf).
Pronczuk de Garbino J. 2004. “Children’s health and the environment: a global perspective. A resource manual for the health sector”. In: Pronczuk de Garbino J, ed. New York:World Health Organization.

Lu X, Xu X, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Wang C, and Huo X. 2018. “Elevated inflammatory LpPLA2 and IL-6 link e-waste Pb toxicity to cardiovascular risk factors in preschool children”. Environ Pollut. 234:601-609. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.094. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
PubMed PMID: 29223817.

Prüss-Ustün A, Vickers C, Haefliger P, and Bertollini R. 2011. “Knowns and unknowns
on burden of disease due to chemicals: a systematic review”. Environ Health. 10:9. doi:
10.1186/1476-069X-10-9.

Lundgren
K.
2012.
“The
globalimpactofe-waste:addressing
thechallenge.
Geneva:International
LabourOrganization”.
http://www.ilo.org/sector/Resources/publications/WCMS_196105/lang--en/index.htm.

Sabra S, Malmqvist E, Saborit A, Gratacós E, and Gomez Roig MD. 2017. “Heavy metals exposure levels and their correlation with different clinical forms of fetal growth restriction”. PLoS One. 12(10):e0185645. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185645.

Mitro SD, Johnson T, and Zota AR. 2015. “Cumulative Chemical Exposures During
Pregnancy and Early Development”. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2(4):367-78. doi: 10.1007/
s40572-015-0064-x.

Secretariat of the UN Environment Management Group (EMG). 2019. “A New Circular
Vision for Electronics: Time for a Global Reboot”. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic
Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_A_New_Circular_Vision_for_Electronics.pdf

Navas-Acien A, Guallar E, Silbergeld EK, and Rothenberg SJ. 2007. “Lead exposure andcardiovascular disease - a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect” 115(2007):472482.

Seith R, Arain AL, Nambunmee K, Adar SD, and Neitzel RL. 2019. “Self-Reported Healthand Metal Body Burden in an Electronic Waste Recycling Community in Northeastern Thailand”. J Occup Environ Med. 61(11):905-909. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001697.

Neitzel RL, Sayler SK, Arain AL, and Nambunmee K. 2020. “Metal levels, genetic instability and renal markers in electronic waste workers in Thailand”. Int J Occup Environ
Med. 11(2):72-84. doi: 10.34172/ijoem.2020.1826.

Sepúlveda A, Schluep M, Renaud FG, Streicher M, Kuehr R, and Hagelüken C. 2010.
“A review of the environmental fate and effects of hazardous substances released fromelectrical and electronic equipments during recycling: Examples from China and India”.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 30(1):28-41.

Ni W, Huang Y, Wang X, Zhang J, and Wu K. 2014. “Associations of neonatal lead, cadmium, chromium and nickel co-exposure with DNA oxidative damage in an electronic waste
recycling town”. Sci Total Environ. 15;472:354-62. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.032.
Epub 2013 Nov 30. PubMed PMID: 24295751.
Ohajinwa CM, van Bodegom PM, Vijver MG, Olumide AO, Osibanjo O, and Peijnenburg
WJGM. 2018. “Prevalence and injury patterns among electronic waste workers in the informal sector in Nigeria”. Inj Prev. 24(3):185-192. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042265.
Okeme JO, and Arrandale VH. 2019. “Electronic waste recycling: occupational exposures and work-related health effects”. Curr Environ Health Rep.6(4):256-268. doi:
10.1007/s40572-019-00255-3.

90

Literature

Soetrisno FN, and Delgado-Saborit JM. 2020. “Chronic exposure to heavy metals frominformal e-waste recycling plants and children’s attention, executive function and academic performance”. Sci Total Environ. 717:137099. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137099
Song S, Duan Y, Zhang T, Zhang B, Zhao Z, Bai X, Xie L, He Y, Ouyang JP, Huang X,
and Sun H. 2019. “Serum concentrations of bisphenol A and its alternatives in elderly
population living around e-waste recycling facilities in China: Associations with fastingblood glucose”. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 169:822-828. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.101.
Epub 2018 Nov 29. PubMed PMID: 30597781.
Song Q, and Li J. 2014. “A systematic review of the human body burden of e-waste exposure in China”. Environ Int. 68:82-93. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.018.

Song Q, and Li J. 2015. “A review on human health consequences of metals exposure to
e-waste in China”. Environ Pollut. 2015 Jan;196:450-61.

electronic waste recycling area”. Chemosphere. 246:125829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.125829, doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.125829.

The Basel Action Network (BAN), Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). 2002.
“Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia”. The Basel Action Network (BAN), Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC).

Xu L, Huo X, Zhang Y, Li W, Zhang J, and Xu X. 2015. “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers inhuman placenta associated with neonatal physiological development at a typical e-waste
recycling area in China”. Environ Pollut. 196:414-22. PubMedPMID: 25468211.

Wang F, Kuehr R, Ahlquist D, and Li J. 2012. “E-waste in China: a country report”. Bonn,
Germany: United Nations University/StEP Initiative. https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/
UNU:1624/ewaste-in-china.pdf, accessed 7 September 2019.

Xu P, Lou X, Ding G, Shen H, Wu L, Chen Z, Han J, Han G, and Wang X. 2014. “Association of PCB, PBDE and PCDD/F body burdens with hormone levels for children in ane-waste dismantling area of Zhejiang Province, China”. Sci Total Environ. 499:55-61. doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.057. Epub 2014 Aug 29. PubMed PMID: 25173862.

Wang Q, He AM, Gao B, et al. 2011. “Increased levels of lead in the blood and frequencies
of lymphocytic micronucleated binucleated cells among workers from an electronic-waste recycling site”. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 46: 669–76.
Wang X, Miller G, Ding G, et al. 2012. “Health risk assessment of lead for children in
tinfoil manufacturing and e-waste recycling areas of Zhejiang Province, China”. Sci Total
Environ. 426: 106–12.
WHO. 2003. “Making a Difference: Indicators to Improve Children’s Environmental
Health”. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
https://www.who.int/phe/children/childrenindicators/en/, accessed 15 September 2019.
Wu K, Xu X, Liu J, Guo Y, and Huo X. 2011. “In utero exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and reduced neonatal physiological development from Guiyu, China”. Ecotoxicol
Environ Saf. 74: 2141–47.
Wu K, Xu X, Peng, Liua J, Guo Y, and Huo X. 2012. “Association between maternal exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) from electronic waste recycling and neonatal
health outcomes”. Environ Int. 48: 1–8.
Xing GH, Chan JK, Leung AO, Wu SC, and Wong MH. 2009. “Environmental impact andhuman exposure to PCBs in Guiyu, an electronic waste recycling site in China”. Environ
Int. 35(1):76-82. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.025.
Xu L, Ge J, Huo X, Zhang Y, Lau ATY, and Xu X. 2016. “Differential proteomic expressionof human placenta and fetal development following e-waste lead and cadmium exposure in utero”. Sci Total Environ. 550:1163-1170. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.084. Epub
2016 Feb 16. PubMed PMID: 26895036.
Xu L, Huo X, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Qin Q, and Xu X. 2020. “Hearing loss risk and DNA methylation signatures in preschool children following lead and cadmium exposure from an

Xu P, Lou X, Ding G, Shen H, Wu L, Chen Z, Han J, and Wang X. 2015. “Effects of PCB
sand PBDEs on thyroid hormone, lymphocyte proliferation, hematology and kidney injury markers in residents of an e-waste dismantling area in Zhejiang, China”. Sci Total
Environ. 536:215-222. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.025. Epub 2015 Jul 25. PubMed
PMID: 26218560.
Xu X, Yang H, Chen A, et al. 2012. “Birth outcomes related to informal e-waste recycling
in Guiyu, China”. Reprod Toxicol. 33: 94–98.
Xu X, Hu H, Kearney GD, Kan H, and Sheps DS. 2013. “Studying the effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on peripheral arterial disease in the United States”. Sci. Total
Environ. 461–462:341-347.
Xu X, Liu J, Huang C, Lu F, Chiung YM, and Huo X. 2015. “Association of polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and lead co-exposure with child physical growth and development in an e-waste recycling town”. Chemosphere. 139:295-302. doi: 10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2015.05.080. Epub 2015 Jul 4. PubMed PMID: 26151377
Xu X, Zeng X, Boezen HM, Huo X. 2015. “E-waste environmental contamination andharm to public health in China”. Front Med. 9(2):220-228.
Yohannessen K, Pinto-Galleguillos D, Parra-Giordano D, Agost A, Valdés M, Smith LM,
Galen K, Arain A, Rojas F, Neitzel RL, and Ruiz-Rudolph P. 2019. “Health Assessment ofElectronic Waste Workers in Chile: Participant Characterization”. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 16(3). pii: E386. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030386. PubMed PMID: 30700055; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6388190.
Yuan J, Chen L, Chen D, et al. 2008. “Elevated serum polybrominated diphenyl ethers
and thyroid-stimulating hormone associated with lymphocytic micronuclei in Chinese
workers from an E-waste dismantling site”. Environ Sci Technol. 42: 2195–200.
Literature

91

Zeng X, Xu X, Boezen HM, Vonk JM, Wu W, and Huo X. 2017. “Decreased lung function
with mediation of blood parameters linked to e-waste lead and cadmium exposure in preschool children”. Environ Pollut. 230:838-848. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.014. Epub
2017 Jul 19. PubMed PMID: 28734265.
Zeng X, Xu X, Qin Q, Ye K, Wu W, and Huo X. 2019. “Heavy metal exposure has adverse
effects on the growth and development of preschool children”. Environ Geochem Health.
41(1):309-321. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0114-z. Epub 2018 Apr 25. PubMed PMID:
29696494.
Zeng X, Xu X, Zhang Y, Li W, and Huo X. 2017. “Chest circumference and birth weightare good predictors of lung function in preschool children from an e-waste recyclingarea”. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 24(28):22613-22621. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9885-5.
Epub 2017 Aug 15. PubMed PMID: 28808870.
Zeng Z, Huo X, Zhang Y, Xiao Z, Zhang Y, and Xu X. 2018. “Lead exposure is associatedwith risk of impaired coagulation in preschool children from an e-waste recycling area”.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 25(21):20670-20679. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2206-9.
Zhang B, Huo X, Xu L, Cheng Z, Cong X, Lu X, and Xu X. 2017. “Elevated lead levels frome-waste exposure are linked to decreased olfactory memory in children”. Environ Pollut.
231(Pt 1):1112-1121. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.015.
Zhang R, Huo X, Ho G, Chen X, Wang H, Wang T, and Ma L. 2015. “Attention deficit/hyperactivity symptoms in preschool children from an e-waste recycling town: assessmentby the parent report derived from DSM-IV”. BMC Pediatr. 15:51. doi: 10.1186/s12887-0150368-x. PubMed PMID: 25939992; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4429982.
Zhang Y, Huo X, Cao J, Yang T, Xu L, and Xu X. 2016. “Elevated lead levels and adverse effects on natural killer cells in children from an electronic waste recycling area”. Environ Pollut. 213:143-150. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.02.004. Epub 2016 Feb 17. PubMed
PMID: 26895538.
Zhang Y, Xu X, Chen A, Davuljigari CB, Zheng X, Kim SS, Dietrich KN, Ho SM, Reponen
T, and Huo X. 2018. “Maternal urinary cadmium levels during pregnancy associated withrisk of sex-dependent birth outcomes from an e-waste pollution site in China”. Reprod
Toxicol. 75:49-55. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2017.11.003. Epub 2017 Nov 14. PubMed PMID:
29154917.
Zhang Y, Xu X, Sun D, Cao J, Zhang Y, and Huo X. 2017. “Alteration of the number andpercentage of innate immune cells in preschool children from an e-waste recycling area”.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 145:615-622. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.07.059. Epub 2017 Aug
92

Literature

12. PubMed PMID: 28806563.
Zheng G, Xu X, Li B, Wu K, Yekeen TA, and Huo X. 2013. “Association between lungfunction in school children and exposure to three transition metals from an e-waste recycling area”. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 23: 67–72.

Literature

93

About the Authors

94

Vanessa FORTI is a Programme Associate at UNUVie-SCYCLE. Vanessa's research is focused on wastequantification and the evaluation of its impacts, and she is
the author of various publications that focus on quantifying
e-waste amounts and environmental impacts, such as the2017 edition of the Global E-waste Monitor 2017 (Baldé etal. 2017) and the globally recognised E-waste Statistics
Guidelines on classification, reporting and indicators(Forti et al. 2018). The Global E-waste Monitor 2017 won
the European Advanced SDG award from the Diplomatic
Academy in Vienna. She is responsible for the regular update of methodologies,
programming, data collection, surveying, modelling, and reporting on waste statistics(e-waste, mercury, and battery waste), and she attained the role of Data Manager within
the SCYCLE team. In addition, she has co-developed EEE Placed on Market and WEEE
Generated tools and manuals that are used globally. She is also a member of the Global
E-waste Statistics Partnership, which works to help countries produce e-waste statistics
and to build a global e-waste database for tracking developments over time. She is incharge of organizing, developing, and conducting capacity-building workshops on
e-waste statistics and building institutional capacity on e-waste in developing countries.
Vanessa holds a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering from Università degliStudi di Bologna, where she graduated cum laude.
Dr. Cornelis Peter BALDÉ (Kees) is a Senior Programme
Officer at the Sustainable Cycles Programme at the United
Nations University. At the UNU, Kees’s main tasks are tolead the statistical work, build institutional capacity on waste
statistics in various countries, and waste policies, provide
policy advice on e-waste to countries, and supervise staff
and the strategic development of the team. He is one of thefounders of the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership. Keesis currently the co-chair of the Taskforce on Waste Statisticsof the UNECE Conference of European Statisticians that is
tasked with developing a framework for waste statistics that is sufficient for monitoring
current and future circular economy policies as well as waste policies. Additionally, Kees
has been selected by the Dutch government as a member of the board of directors of
the Dutch Waste Electronical and Electronic Appliances Register, a role he has held
since 2015. In 2018, the Global E-waste Monitor 2017 won the European Advanced SDG
award from the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna. At Statistics Netherlands, Kees received
the Innovation Award for the Dutch Green Growth publication in 2012. Previously, Kees
worked at Statistics Netherlands as the deputy head of the Environment Statistics team.
He earned his PhD on hydrogen storage at the Faculty of Chemistry at Utrecht University.

Dr. Ruediger KUEHR is Director of the UNU Vice Rectorate
in Europe, Sustainable Cycles Programme (SCYCLE),
focusing its work and activities on sustainable production,
consumption, and disposal. Ruediger co-founded theSolving the E-waste Problem (StEP) Initiative and functioned
as its Executive Secretary from 2007-2017. From 19992009, he served as Head of the UNU Zero Emissions Forum(ZEF) – European Focal Point, and from 2000-2002 he was
Secretary to the Alliance for Global Eco-Structuring (AGES)
under UNEP’s Cleaner Production Network. Ruediger has
co-authored and co-edited several books, studies, and proceedings, including the previous
Global E-waste Monitors in 2014 and 2017. He also publishes and lectures on, inter alia,
environmental technology transfer, transnational environmental policies, strategic
sustainable development, and development cooperation. Ruediger has also been the
Project Manager of the “2008 Review of Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical andelectronic equipment (WEEE)” (2007). A political and social scientist by education witha PhD (Dr. rer. pol.) from the University of Osnabrück (Germany) and an MA from the
University of Münster (Germany), as well as additional post-graduate studies in Tokyo,(Japan), he has served as Senior R&D Specialist with The Natural Step in Sweden and as afreelance policy-consultant to various national governments, international organizations,and companies. He was a visiting fellow to the Free University of Berlin (Germany) and theHitotsubashi University (Japan) and a Research Associate to the Japan Research Centreof the University of Osnabrück.
Garam BEL is the E-waste Officer for the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), based in Geneva. Working
in the Environment and Emergency Telecommunications
Division (EET), he oversees the e-waste activities of BDT,
covering policy development and awareness-raising. As
part of the Global E-waste Statistics Partnership, Garamcoordinates the input from BDT on capacity-building andawareness initiatives relating to e-waste quantification.
Prior to joining ITU, he worked for the Environment
Management Group, which is a system-wide UN coordination body on environment andhuman settlements. In this position, he led activities towards streamlining the various
e-waste-related initiatives of UN agencies and programmes. Before moving to Geneva,
Garam worked for a local government in Scotland in the area of municipal solid waste.
He holds a master's degree in Standardization, Social Regulation and Sustainable
Development from the University of Geneva.

About the Authors95

Annex 1

UNU-KEYS and Link
to E-waste Categories
Classification of EEE under the UNU-keys and correlation of UNUkeys with the categories under EU-6 classification

96

UNUKEY

Description

EEE category
under EU-6

UNUKEY

Description

EEE category
under EU-6

0001

Central Heating (household installed)

Large equipment

0112

Other Cooling equipment (e.g. dehumidifiers, heat

Temp. exchange

pump dryers)

equipment

Professional Cooling equipment (e.g. large air conditi-

Temp. exchange

oners, cooling displays)equipment

0002

0101

Photovoltaic Panels (incl. inverters)

Professional Heating & Ventilation (excl. cooling

Large equipment

0113

Large equipment

0114

Microwaves (incl. combined, excl. grills)

Small equipment

Large equipment

0201

Other small household equipment (e.g. small ventila-

Small equipment

equipment)
0102

Dish washers

tors, irons, clocks, adapters)
0103

Kitchen equipment (e.g. large furnaces, ovens,

Large equipment

0202

cooking equipment)
0104

Washing Machines (incl. combined dryers)

Equipment for food preparation (e.g. toaster, grills,

Small equipment

food processing, frying pans)
Large equipment

0203

Small household equipment for hot water preparation

Small equipment(e.g. coffee, tea, water cookers)
0105

Dryers (washer-dryers, centrifuges)

Large equipment

0204

Vacuum Cleaners (excl. professional)

Small equipment

0106

Household Heating & Ventilation (e.g. hoods, ventila-

Large equipment

0205

Personal Care equipment (e.g. tooth brushes, hair

Small equipment

tors, space heaters)
0108

Fridges (incl. combi fridges)

dryers, razors)
Temp. exchange

0301

equipment
0109

Freezers

Temp. exchange

Small IT equipment (e.g. routers, mice, keyboards, ex-

Small ITternal drives, accessories)
0302

Desktop PCs (excl. monitors, accessoires)

Small IT

0303

Laptops (incl. tablets)

Screens andequipment
0111

Air Conditioners (household installed and portable)

Temp. exchangeequipment

monitors
Annex 1. UNU-KEYS and Link to E-waste Categories

97

UNUKEY

Description

EEE category
under EU-6

UNUKEY

Description

EEE category
under EU-6

0304

Printers (e.g. scanners, multifunctionals, faxes)

Small IT

0406

Cameras (e.g. camcorders, photo & digital still came-

Small equipment

ras)
0305

Telecommunication equipment (e.g. [cordless]Small IT

0407

Cathode Ray Tube TVs

phones, answering machines)
0306

Mobile Phones (incl. smartphones, pagers)

Screens andmonitors

Small IT

0408

Flat Display Panel TVs (LCD, LED, Plasma)

Screens andmonitors

0307

Professional IT equipment (e.g. servers, routers, data

Large equipment

0501

Small Lighting equipment (excl. LED & incandescent)

Small equipment

Screens and0502

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (incl. retrofit &Lampsstorage, copiers)
0308

Cathode Ray Tube Monitors

monitors
0309

Flat Display Panel Monitors (LCD, LED)

Screens andnon-retrofit)
0503

Straight Tube Fluorescent Lamps

Lamps

0504

Special Lamps (e.g. professional mercury, high & low

Lamps

monitors
0401

Small Consumer Electronics (e.g. headphones, remote

Small equipment

controls)
0402

Portable Audio & Video (e.g. MP3 players, e-readers,pressure sodium)
Small equipment

0505

LED Lamps (incl. retrofit LED lamps)

Lamps

Small equipment

0506

Household Luminaires (incl. household

Small equipment

car navigation)
0403

Musical Instruments, Radio, Hi-Fi (incl. audio sets)

incandescent fittings & household LED luminaires)
0404

Video (e.g. Video recorders, DVD and Blu-ray players,

Small equipment

0507

set-top boxes) and Projectors
0405

Speakers

Professional Luminaires (offices, public space,industry)

Small equipment

0601

Household Tools (e.g. drills, saws, high-pressure cleaners, lawnmowers)

98

Annex 1. UNU-KEYS and Link to E-waste Categories

Small equipment

Small equipment

UNUKEY

Description

EEE category
under EU-6

0602

Professional Tools (e.g. for welding, soldering,

Large equipment

milling)
0701

Toys (e.g. car racing sets, electric trains, music toys,

Small equipment

biking computers, drones)
0702

Game Consoles

Small IT

0703

Leisure equipment (e.g. sports equipment, electric

Large equipment

bikes, juke boxes)
0801

Household Medical equipment (e.g. thermometers,

Small equipment

blood pressure meters)
0802

Professional Medical equipment (e.g. hospital,

Large equipment

dentist, diagnostics)
0901

Household Monitoring & Control equipment (alarm,

Small equipment

heat, smoke, excl. screens)
0902

Professional Monitoring & Control equipment

Large equipment(e.g. laboratory, control panels)
1001

Non-cooled Dispensers (e.g. for vending, hot drinks,

Large equipment

tickets, money)
1002

Cooled Dispensers (e.g. for vending, cold drinks)

Temp. exchangeequipment

Annex 1. UNU-KEYS and Link to E-waste Categories

99Annex 2

Methodology

100Calculation of EEE Placed on Market (POM), E-waste Generated, and Stocks
The calculation of e-waste generated is based on both empirical data from the apparent
consumption method for calculating the EEE POM and a sales-lifespan model. In thismodel, lifespan data for each product is subjected to the EEE POM (using a Weibull
function) to calculate the e-waste generated. The methodology described to determine
EEE Placed on the Market is compliant with the Common Methodology approach as
defined in Article 7 of the EU-WEEE Directive (Magalini et al. 2014).
The data in this report was obtained and treated using the following steps:
1. Select the relevant codes that describe EEE in the Harmonised Commodity
Description and Coding System (HS).(38)2.

For the European Union, the international trade statistical data was extracted from
Eurostat in the eight-digit combined nomenclature (CN) codes. Domestic production
data was also extracted from Eurostat. For the other countries, statistical dataon imports and exports was extracted from the UN Comtrade database. This wasdone for 181 countries and approximately 220 HS codes for the years 1995-2018.
Countries were then classified into five groups according to the Purchasing Power
Parity (PPP) for the scenario business as usual, retrieved from Riahi et al. 2017.
This procedure was repeated for each year since the Country’s PPP changes over
the years, especially for developing countries. This process was useful to makestatistics comparable between countries and to calculate trends between groups.
Group 1: highest PPP (higher than $32,312 USD per capita in 2016)
Group 2: high PPP ($32,312 USD - $13,560 USD per capita in 2016)
Group 3: mid PPP ($13,560 - $6,217 USD per capita in 2016)
Group 4: low PPP ($6,217 - $1,769 USD per capita in 2016)
Group 5: lowest PPP (lower than $1,769 USD per capita in 2016)

3.

Convert the units to weight using the average weight data per appliance type. The
average weights are published in E-waste Statistics Guidelines (Forti, Baldé, andKuehr 2018).

4. Calculate the weight of Placed on the Market for the 54 UNU-KEYS by using theapparent consumption approach: POM = Domestic Production + Import – Export(this equation refers to the 28 EU member states). For countries other than the
28 EU member states, data on domestic production was retrieved from the UNSD
database in CPC1.1(39) (UNSD 2019), while for China and Vietnam, data on domestic
production was retrieved from national registries. When data on domestic production
was not available, the following approach was used: POM = Import – Export.
5.

The numbers presented in this report exclude the UNU-KEY 0002 (Photovoltaic

Panels) because data are not available in the UN Comtrade database.
6.

Perform automatic corrections for outliers on the sales data. This is needed todetect values that were too low (due to the lack of domestic production data insome countries where domestic production is relatively large) or too high (due tomisreporting of codes or units). Those detected entries are replaced with more
realistic sales values either from the time series of the origin country or fromcomparable countries. These statistical routines lead to a harmonised dataset with asimilar scope and consistent sales for a country based on their own trade statistics.

7.

Perform manual corrections based on the analysis of the automatic corrections.
This is needed to correct unreliable data using knowledge of the market.
For instance, CRT TVs have not been sold in recent years. In addition, country
data on Placed on the Market kindly provided by Bosnia and Herzegovina were
substituted to the data estimated with the apparent consumption method.

8. Perform corrections based on the knowledge of the possession rates measured by
ITU for desktop PCs and by UNICEF (UNICEF 2018) for 75 countries and 5 UNU_
KEYS (0403, 0407, 0306, 0305, 0108).
9. Extend the time series of Placed on the Market. Past POM are calculated back to1980 based on the trends of the available data and the market entry of the appliance.
Future POM are predicted until 2030 using sophisticated extrapolation methods. The
principle takes into account the ratio between the POM and the PPP per county anduses that ratio to estimate the Placed on the Market with the forecast of the PPP fromthe SSP Database (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) (Riahi et al. 2017).
10. Determine the e-waste generated by country by using the Placed on the Market andlifetime distributions. Lifetime data is obtained from the 28 EU member states using
the Weibull distribution. Ideally, the lifetime of each product are determined empiricallyper product per type of country. At this stage, only harmonised European residence
times of EEE were available from extensive studies performed for the EU and were
found to be quite homogeneous across Europe, leading to a 10% deviation in final
outcomes (Magalini et al. 2014). Due to the absence of data, it was assumed that thehigher residence times per product in the EU were approximately applicable for nonEU countries as well. In some cases, this would lead to an overestimation, as a productcould last longer in developing countries than in developed countries because residents
of developing countries are likelier to repair products. However, it can also lead toan underestimation, as the quality of products is often lower in developing countries
because reused equipment or more cheaply produced versions that don’t last as long
might enter the domestic market. But in general, it is assumed that this process leads
to relatively accurate estimates. It should be noted that the Placed on the Market
Annex 2. Methodology

101are much more sensitive for the amount of e-waste generated than the lifespans.
11. Determining the stock quantities as the difference between the historical Placed on
the Market and the e-waste generated over the years.
E-waste in Waste Bins
The data on waste bin complementary waste flows in the EU were gathered from the
ProSUM project (Wolk-Lewanowicz et al. 2016 & Rotter et al. 2016); the ProSUM projectis a comprehensive review and analysis of literature of current data and past trends
regarding the disposal of WEEE in waste bins in the EU-28, plus Norway and Switzerland
Primary and secondary data sources were analysed using the ProSUM bibliography,
which consisted of publications, journals, and country studies quantifying the country’s
WEEE and the analysis of household waste sorting in order to assess the presence of
WEEE in current municipal solid waste flows destined for incineration and landfills (WolkLewanowicz et al. 2016).
E-waste documented to be formally collected and recycled
For the EU, total amount of e-waste formally collected and recycled was extracted fromthe Eurostat database for 32 countries. The latest data refer to the year 2017. For othercountries in the world, data was collected from questionnaires conducted by SCYCLE,
OECD, and UNSD. Questionnaires have been distributed to more than 80 countries in total,
but in most cases countries did not have any information, and for those that responded,
the datasets were far from complete and harmonised. If data was not available, relevant
information was searched in literature. On average, data on e-waste formally collected
and recycled refer to the year 2016. For all countries, data for 2019 were nowcasted
by using recycling and collection rates in the available time series and multiplying thatwith the e-waste generated data. The calculations were conducted for the countries forwhich there was at least one data point available. The results of the UNSD and OECD
questionnaires and pilot questionnaires were used to compile the global totals on e-waste
collection and recycling in this report.

102

Annex 2. Methodology

Unknown FlowsThe e-waste gap is the amount of e-waste that is unaccounted for. The unknown flows arecalculated by subtracting the e-waste quantities officially collected and the e-waste foundin waste bins from the total amount of e-waste generated.
Transboundary movements of UEEE or e-waste
The range of UEEE or e-waste exported was derived by reviewing estimates published inexisting literature (e.g. Duan et al. 2013; Lasaridi et al. 2016; USITC 2013; BIO intelligence
Service 2013; Huisman et al. 2015; Zoeteman, Krikke, and Venselaar 2010; Geeraerts,
Mutafoglu, and Illés 2016).
Population covered by national policies and legislation
The development of national e-waste policies and legislation was evaluated in this reportto assess whether a country had national e-waste management policy and/or legislationin effect through 2019. Population data was obtained from the UNDESA - Population
Division 2019. The e-waste policy and legislation status in countries were derived froma database that was kindly provided by C2P and complemented with information from a
GSMA study (GSMA, 2020).
Quantification of raw materials found in e-waste
The amount of raw materials found in e-waste was calculated by linking the composition
data from ProSUM to the estimated amount of e-waste generated (Huisman et al. 2017).
The list of elements considered in the analysis is Ag, Al, Au, Bi, Co, Cu, Fe, Ge, Hg, In, Ir,
Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru, Sb.
Quantification of BFR found in E-waste
Composition data relative to Brominated Flame Retardant plastics were searched for in
the literature, and relevant information was found in (Chen et al. 2012; Abbasi 2015; Yu et
al. 2017). Similarly to the raw materials found in e-waste, composition data on BRF werelinked to the estimated amount of e-waste generated.

Quantification of mercury found in E-waste
The amount of mercury found in e-waste was calculated by linking the composition datafrom ProSUM to the estimated amount of e-waste (Huisman et al. 2017).
Quantification of savings of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (primary vs secondary
production)
Estimates of GHG emissions per kg of produced metal in the case of primary andsecondary production were sourced from Van der Voet et al. 2019 and multiplied by theamount of metals (iron, aluminium and copper) estimated to be recycled globally in 2019.
Quantification of GHG missions for refrigerants
The scope of this research is to estimate the amount of CO2 equivalents that could
potentially be released into the atmosphere if cooling and freezing equipment (and,thus, the refrigerants contained in the appliances) were not recycled and treated in anenvironmentally sound way.
A literature review was conducted to assess the amount and type of refrigerants usedin cooling and freezing equipment. Relevant information was found for fridges and air
conditioners in Duan et al. 2018. Subsequently, the amount of refrigerants was linked tothe estimated amount of waste fridges and air conditioners generated by each of the 181
countries analyzed, as well as by year. Lastly, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) was
researched for each type of refrigerant and linked the amount of refrigerants found in
fridges and air conditioners. It was discovered that in fridges, the refrigerants R-11 andR-12 were used until 1994; they were then substituted with R-134a and R-22 until 2017.
Since 2017, only R-152a and R1234yf have been used. In air conditioners, R-410a, R-134a,and R-22 were used until 2017, and the R-32 and R-1234yf have been used since.

Annex 2. Methodology

103Annex 3

Country E-waste
Key Statistics
104E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionAfghanistan

Asia

23

0.6

NA

No

Albania

Europe21

7.4

NA(66)

Yes

Algeria

Africa

309

7.1

NA

No

AngolaAfrica

125

4.2

NA

No

Antigua and Barbuda

Americas

1.2

12.7

NA(66)

No

Argentina

Americas

465

10.3

11 (2013)(40)

Yes

Armenia

Asia

17

5.8

NA(66)No

Aruba

Americas

2.2

19.3

NA

No

Australia

Oceania554

21.7

58 (2018)(41)

Yes

Austria

Europe168

18.8

117 (2017)(42)

Yes

Azerbaijan

Asia

80

8.0

NA

No

BahamasAmericas

6.6

17.2

NA

No

Bahrain

Asia

24

15.9

NA

No

Bangladesh

Asia

199

1.2

NA

No

Barbados

Americas

3.6

12.7

NA

No

BelarusEurope88

9.3

6.2 (2017)(43)

Yes

Belgium

Europe234

20.4

128 (2016)(42)

Yes

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

105E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionBelizeAmericas

2.4

5.8

NA

No

Benin

Africa

9.4

0.8

NA

No

Bhutan

Asia

3.4

4.0

NA

No

Bolivia

Americas

41

3.6

NA

Yes

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Europe27

7.8

NA(66)

Yes

Botswana

Africa

19

7.9

NA

No

BrazilAmericas

2143

10.2

0.14 (2012)(44)No

Brunei Darussalam

Asia

8.7

19.7

NA

No

Bulgaria

Europe82

11.7

54.5 (2017)(42)

Yes

Burkina Faso

Africa

13

0.6

NA

No

BurundiAfrica

5.3

0.5

NA

No

Cabo Verde

Africa2.8

4.9

NA(66)

No

Cambodia

Asia

19

1.1

NA

Yes

Cameroon

Africa26

1.0

0.05 (2018)(45)

Yes

CanadaAmericas

757

20.2

101 (2016)(46)

Yes

Central African Republic

Africa

2.5

0.5

NA

No

(Plurinational State of)106

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionChad

Africa

10

0.8

NA

No

Chile

Americas186

9.9

5.5 (2017)(47)

Yes

China

Asia

10129

7.2

1546 (2018)(48)

Yes

China, Hong Kong Special

Asia

153

20.2

55.8 (2013)(49)

Yes

Asia

12

18.1

NA

Yes

Colombia

Americas318

6.3

2.7 (2014)(46)

Yes

Comoros

Africa

0.6

0.7

NA

No

Congo

Africa

18

4.0

NA

No

Costa Rica

Americas

51

10.0

NA

Yes

Côte d'Ivoire

Africa

30

1.1

NA

Yes

Croatia

Europe48

11.9

36 (2017)(42)

Yes

Cyprus

Asia

15

16.8

2.5 (2016)(42)

Yes

Czech Republic

Europe167

15.7

91 (2017)(42)

Yes

Denmark

Europe130

22.4

70 (2017)(42)

Yes

Djibouti

Africa

1.1

1.0

NA

No

Administrative Region
China, Macao Special
Administrative Region

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

107E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

RegionDominica

Americas

0.6

7.9

NA

No

Dominican Republic

Americas

67

6.4

NA

No

EcuadorAmericas99

5.70.005 (2017)(43)

Yes

Egypt

Africa

586

5.9

NA

Yes

El Salvador

Americas37

5.50.56 (2012)(50)

No

Eritrea

Africa

3.4

0.6

NA

No

Estonia

Europe17

13.1

13 (2017)(42)Yes

Ethiopia

Africa

55

0.6

NA

No

Fiji

Oceania

5.4

6.1

NA

No

FinlandEurope110

19.8

65 (2017)(42)

Yes

FranceEurope1362

21.0

742 (2017)(42)

Yes

Gabon

Africa

18

8.7

NA

No

Gambia (Republic of)Africa

2.7

1.2

NA

No

Georgia

Asia

27

7.3

NA

No

Germany

Europe1607

19.4

837 (2017)(42)

Yes

Ghana

Africa

53

1.8

NA

Yes

GreeceEurope181

16.9

56 (2017)(42)

Yes

108

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)CountryE-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionGrenadaAmericas

1.0

8.8

NA

No

GuatemalaAmericas

75

4.3

NA

No

GuineaAfrica

11

0.8

NA

No

Guinea-Bissau

Africa

1.0

0.5

NA

No

GuyanaAmericas

5.0

6.3

NA

No

HondurasAmericas25

2.6

0.2 (2015)(51)

No

Hungary

Europe133

13.6

63 (2017)(42)

Yes

IcelandEurope7.6

21.4

5.3 (2017)(42)

Yes

India

Asia

3230

2.4

30 (2016)(52)

Yes

Indonesia

Asia

1618

6.1

NA

No

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Asia

790

9.5

NA

Yes

Iraq

Asia

278

7.1

NA

No

IrelandEurope9318.7

52 (2017)(42)

Yes

Israel

Asia

132

14.5

NA

Yes

Italy

Europe1063

17.5

369 (2016)(42)

Yes

Jamaica

Americas18

6.2

0.05 (2017)(53)

No

Japan

Asia

2569

20.4

570 (2017)(46)

Yes

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

109E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionJordan

Asia

55

5.4

1.3 (2018)(54)

Yes

Kazakhstan

Asia

172

9.2

10 (2017)(43)

No

Kenya

Africa

51

1.0

NA

Yes

Kiribati

Oceania

0.1

0.9

NA

No

Kuwait

Asia

74

15.8

NA

No

Kyrgyzstan

Asia

10

1.5

NA

No

Lao People's Democratic

Asia

17

2.5

NA

No

LatviaEurope20

10.6

9.3 (2017)(42)

Yes

Lebanon

Asia

50

8.2

NA

No

LesothoAfrica

2.3

1.1

NA

No

Libya

Africa

76

11.5

NA

No

Lithuania

Europe34

12.3

13 (2017)(42)

Yes

Luxembourg

Europe1218.9

6.1 (2017)(42)Yes

Madagascar

Africa

15

0.6

NA

Yes

MalawiAfrica

10

0.5

NA

No

Malaysia

Asia

364

11.1

NA

Yes

Republic

110

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionMaldives

Asia

3.4

9.1

NA

No

Mali

Africa

15

0.8

NA

No

Malta

Europe6.8

14.5

1.7 (2016)(42)

Yes

Mauritania

Africa

6.4

1.4

NA

No

Mauritius

Africa13

10.1

2 (2011)(55)

No

MexicoAmericas

1220

9.7

36 (2014)(46)

Yes

Micronesia (Federated

Oceania

0.2

1.9

NA

No

Mongolia

Asia

17

5.2

NA

Yes

Montenegro

Europe

6.7

10.7

NA

Yes

MoroccoAfrica

164

4.6

NA

No

Mozambique

Africa

17

0.5

NA

No

Myanmar

Asia

82

1.6

NA

No

Namibia

Africa16

6.4

0.05 (2018)(56)

No

Nepal

Asia

28

0.9

NA

No

Netherlands

Europe373

21.6

166 (2017)(42)Yes

New Zealand

Oceania

96

19.2

NA

No

States of)Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

111E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

RegionNicaraguaAmericas

16

2.5

NA

No

Niger

Africa

9.3

0.5

NA

No

Nigeria

Africa

461

2.3

NA

Yes

North Macedonia

Europe

16

7.9

NA

Yes

NorwayEurope139

26.0

99 (2017)(42)

Yes

Oman

Asia

69

15.8

NA

No

Pakistan

Asia

433

2.1

NA

No

Palau

Oceania

0.2

9.1

NA

No

PanamaAmericas

40

9.4

NA

No

Papua New Guinea

Oceania

9.2

1.1

NA

No

Paraguay

Americas

51

7.1

NA

No

Peru

Americas204

6.3

2.7 (2017)(57)

Yes

Philippines

Asia

425

3.9

NA

No

PolandEurope443

11.7

246 (2017)(42)

Yes

Portugal

Europe170

16.6

70 (2017)(42)

Yes

Qatar

Asia

37

13.6

NA

No

Republic of Korea

Asia

818

15.8

292 (2017)(46)

Yes

112

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)CountryE-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionRepublic of Moldova

Europe

14

4.0

NA

Yes

Romania

Europe223

11.4

47 (2016)(42)

Yes

Russian Federation

Europe1631

11.3

90 (2014)(58)

No

RwandaAfrica7.0

0.6

0.7 (2018)(59)

YesSaint Kitts and Nevis

Americas

0.7

12.4

NA

No

Saint Lucia

Americas1.7

9.7

0.03 (2015)(60)

NoSaint Vincent and the Gre-

Americas

0.9

8.3

NA

No

Samoa

Oceania

0.6

3.1

NA

No

Sao Tome and Principe

Africa

0.3

1.5

NA

Yes

Saudi Arabia

Asia

595

17.6

NA

No

SenegalAfrica

20

1.2

NA

No

SerbiaEurope65

9.4

13 (2015)(61)

Yes

Seychelles

Africa

1.2

12.6

NA

No

Sierra Leone

Africa

4.2

0.5

NA

No

Singapore

Asia

113

19.9

NA

Yes

Slovakia

Europe70

12.8

30 (2017)(42)Yesnadines

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

113E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

RegionSlovenia

Europe31

15.1

12 (2016)(42)

Yes

Solomon Islands

Oceania

0.5

0.8

NA

No

South Africa

Africa416

7.1

18 (2015)(62)

Yes

Spain

Europe888

19.0

287 (2017)(42)Yes

Sri Lanka

Asia

138

6.3

Sudan

Africa

90

2.1

NA

No

Suriname

Americas

5.6

9.4

NA

No

Swaziland

Africa

7.0

6.3

NA

No

SwedenEurope208

20.1

142 (2017)(42)

Yes

Switzerland

Europe201

23.4

123 (2017)(46)

Yes

Syrian Arab Republic

Asia

91

5.2

NA

No

Thailand

Asia

621

9.2

NA

Yes

Timor-Leste

Asia

3.8

2.9

NA

No

Togo

Africa

7.5

0.9

NA

No

Tonga

Oceania

0.3

3.3

NA

No

Trinidad and Tobago

Americas

22

15.7

NA

No

114

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)CountryYesE-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Country

RegionTunisia

Africa

76

6.4

NA

No

Turkey

Asia

847

10.2

125 (2015)(63)

Yes

Turkmenistan

Asia

39

6.5

NA

No

TuvaluOceania

0.0

1.5

NA

No

UgandaAfrica32

0.8

0.18 (2018)(64)

Yes

UkraineEurope324

7.7

40 (2017)(43)

Yes

United Arab Emirates

Asia

162

15.0

NA

No

UK of Great Britain andEurope1598

23.9

871 (2017)(42)

Yes

Africa

50

1.0

NA

Yes

Northern Ireland
United Republic of
Tanzania
United States of America

Americas

6918

21.0

1020 (2017)(65)

Yes

Uruguay

Americas

37

10.5

NA

No

Vanuatu

Oceania

0.3

1.1

NA

No

Venezuela (Bolivarian

Americas

300

10.7

NA

No

Asia

257

2.7

NA

No

Republic of)Viet Nam

Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

115E-waste
generated(kg per capita) (2019)

National e-waste legislation/policy or
regulation in place

Region

Yemen

Asia

48

1.5

NA

No

ZambiaAfrica

19

1.0

NA

Yes

Zimbabwe

Africa17

1.1

0.03 (2017)(43)

No

Total Questionnaires(66)116Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

E-wastegenerated (kt)(2019)

E-waste documented to be collected
and recycled (kt)Country

18.4 (~2015)(66)Annex 3. Country E-waste Key Statistics

117

The Global E-waste Monitor 2020
Quantities, flows, and the circular economy potential

118

Chapter 1
What is EEE and E-waste?

Chapter 2
Global E-waste Key Statistics

Chapter 3
How E-waste Data Contributeto the SDGs

Chapter 4
Measuring E-waste Statistics

Chapter 5
Worldwide Harmonisation by the
Global E-waste Statistics Partnership

Chapter 6
Legislation on E-waste and theIssue of Transboundary Movement

Chapter 7
The potential of Circular Economy
for E-waste

Chapter 8
E-waste Impact on the Health ofWorkers and Children

Chapter 9
Regional E-waste Key Statistics

119ISBN Digital: 978-92-808-9114-0