Module-1

Sustainable development and e-waste management

Importance of electrical and electronic equipment in a nation's development, and e-waste as

toxic companion of digital era

The digital technology facilitates transformation of information, communication, transportation,

energy supply, health, and security systems, making a country more productive and developed. This
technology is proliferated with different electrical and electronics equipment (EEE) or e-products,
such as PCs, the Internet, Satellite TV, standardised containers, fibre-optic cables, electronic
barcodes, and global supply chains, making human lives more convenient and work more efficient
E-waste (electronic waste) as the fastest growing waste stream is now recognised as ‘tsunami’ by
the United Nations (UN). E-waste is also described as ‘the toxic companion of digital era; one cannot
escape it in the present gadget loving age.

The rapid growth of technology, upgradation of technical innovations, and a high rate of
obsolescence in the electronics industry have led to one of the fastest growing waste streams in the
world, which focuses on the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) as well as end-of-life (EoL)
solutions.

The latest, GEM 2020, informed that in 2019, the world generated 53.6 million metric tonnes1 (Mt)
(7.3 kg/inh2), of this, 17.4% was officially documented as properly collected and recycled. In 2016,
the world generated 44.7 million metric tonnes Mt) e-waste or an equivalent of 6.1 kilogram per
inhabitant (kg/inh) annually; in 2014, 41.8 Mt/5.8 kg/inh e-waste was generated.

Safe and sustainable disposal of e-product as e-waste in the context of generation and recycling is
also a major concern, as ‘only 35% of this waste is recycled, while the remaining 65% is exported,
illegally recycled, or simply thrown into common landfills’ (Pont et al. 2019: 2). ‘Globally, volumes
of e-waste are estimated to be increasing by approximately 3 to 5% annually since the 1990s and it
continues to grow three times faster than municipal solid.
It is important to know that the generation of e-waste and its ‘distribution is uneven: richer countries
produce more. Norway, for example, produces 28.5 kg per person per year, compared to an average
of less than 2 kg in African countries’ (Parajuly et al. 2019: 8). Also, that although the GEMs (2014,
2017, 2020) provide e-waste generation and estimate of intrinsic value of secondary materials
recovered from the e-waste generated, they do not provide statistics on production of EEE and their
contribution to nation’s development or development index of a nation.

I: Let's understand e-waste

Every electrical and electronic product (e-product) has stipulated life. Once any e-product reaches
its end of its useful life, it becomes e-waste. Before any e-product reaches EoL or stops functioning
or a new technology makes the e-product obsolete, however, the e-product could be repaired or
refurbished. The lifespan of any e-product could be increased with repair and refurbishing,3 and
could be brought to reuse (Figure 1.1).

Based on lifespan, usability of the product, and obsoleteness of the technology, the waste has been
defined. International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2019a: 2) opined, ‘the term “e-waste” itself can
be misleading since it overlooks the inherent value of the discarded products’. The terms WEEE
(waste EEE) and e-scrap are used interchangeably for e-waste in the existing literature including
legal frameworks.

WEEE is different from any other waste (solid, liquid, bio-medical, and construction waste) on two
counts: first, e-waste contains hazardous waste, thus, is considered as a toxic waste stream. Toxicity
of hazardous substance get leached to soil and water and contaminate,4 which can cause serious
environmental and health problems;5 and improper management of e-waste contributes to global
warming.6 Second, WEEE is a complex waste flow in terms of variety of products, composed of
different materials and components, contents in hazardous substances and growth pattern.
Any e-product is a complex composition of different elements (valuable and hazardous); though
the largest part of them by weight is represented by metals and plastics, the materials used in e-
products can be classified into four main groups: metals, rare earth elements,7 plastics and other
petroleum-based materials, and minerals and non-metallic materials 8 (Miliute-Plepiene and
Youhanan 2019: 7). Therefore, proper treatment of e-waste (mainly EoL solution / dismantling /
recycling) and its discard are stressed upon, to prevent its adverse effects on the environment and
human health on one hand while resource recovery and reuse on the other (Figure 1.2)
E-waste contains several toxic additives or hazardous substances, such as, hazardous (highly toxic),
and non-hazardous; both types have potential negative environmental impacts. Hazardous
substances are – Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg),
Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs), Chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), Hydro chlorofluorocarbon
(HCFCs), PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) and phosphorus compounds. Many organic pollutants such
as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl, BFRs, Poly Brominated
Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin furans (PCDD/Fs)) are released
into the environment during improper e-waste processing.

Safe environment and health concerns are closely linked to preventing contamination of air, soil
and water, harming micro-organisms, disrupting ecosystems and entering food chains though
complex bio-accumulation mechanisms. Thus, other than proper disposal by the users, treatment,
and management of WEEE in environmentally sound manner (ESM) is stressed upon. The ESM
refers to scientific methods for resource recovery, doing away from largely prevalent rudimentary
methods of recycling of e-waste, such as, acid bath, open burning of wires and cables, etc. and
manual scrapping/dismantling to certain extent. Different care aspects against improper recycling
and disposal processes used for treating e-waste pose serious threats to human health (failure of
organs, diseases, and adverse impact on skin and other parts of human body), and environment in
order to prevent health hazards are critical.

E-waste management thinking across the globe

In the existing literature, mostly, the need for ‘e-waste management’ arises referring to its regulation
and treatment, along with e-waste definition, classification, generation, and its flow with a
policy/regulatory framework/legislation is the general trend. Until 2010, e-waste was closely
associated with safe environment and human health through legislation or its management under
the EPR as a strategy, adopting waste management framework. In the last five years or so, this
thinking has added two more aspects: first, the consumer is the purchaser of electronics as well as
the generator of e-waste; and second, in the digital era, e-products are epitome of development,
efficiency, and comfort and transforming entire production and market system of various products
as well as activities in various sectors, such as, education, healthcare, entertainment and so on.
Therefore, consumption of electronic gadgets is likely to increase multiple folds, and in turn
increase in e-waste generation.

Higher rates of e-waste generation are caused by shorter life cycles of e-products, and fewer repair
options. Thus, introducing resource recovery, REs and CE link with recycling/ treating e-waste.
Spreading awareness among users of e-products, user roles in minimising e-waste, and contribution
to tax regime/fees for recycling also have become the agenda of e-waste management.

The dominant discourse on governance of e-waste includes increasing e-waste collection and
recycling; generating and harmonising statistics on e-waste across the world; existing
regulatory/legislative framework, expansion of legal net and legal compliance; urban mining;
economic potentials – resource recovery and reducing use of virgin materials; and protecting health
of workers exposed to hazardous e-waste in improper working conditions; adhering environmental
concerns. Different components of e-waste management thinking are presented in Figure 1.3. To
be more accommodative and able to incorporate the evolving ideas and practices regarding e-waste,
the term is used, ‘e-waste management thinking.

Evolution of legal definitions of e-waste

Internationally, three sets of legislation/regulatory frameworks exist mainly for management of e-

waste:
(i) EU (European Union) legislations applicable to EU countries, such as Restriction on
Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive10 and WEEE Directive11 – and a regulation on
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)
(Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemical Substances);
(ii) Multi-lateral environmental agreements including The Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal13 (henceforth Basel
Convention), Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (1998), and Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001);
(iii) (iii) Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). Of these,
WEEE Directives, RoHS Directive and the Basel Convention are frequently referred
regulatory frameworks. As names of the regulations suggest, they aim to regulate hazardous
substances, chemicals and transboundary movements of the e-waste.
The definition of e-waste as per the WEEE Directive

“Electrical or electronic equipment which is waste including all components, subassemblies and
consumables, which are part of the product at the time of discarding.”

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

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

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

The concept of e-waste or e-scrap has evolved from different types of devices and their
classification as per the WEEE Directive19 (enforced in the EU states), and the recast of the WEEE
Directive from 15 August 2018. The recast of the WEEE Directive comprise of six categories of e-
waste were evolved; at present these categories are followed in the GEMs – 2014, 2017 and 2020.
They are: (i) temperature exchange equipment; (ii) screens and monitors; (iii) lamps; (iv) large
equipment; (v) small equipment; and (vi) small IT and telecommunication equipment

II: E-waste statistics: quantities, collection and recycling

The GEM published by the UNU (United Nations University) in 2014, 2017 and 2020 are the most
important documents that capture e-waste statistics from all the countries across the world since
2009 and considered to be the only authentic source for quantity of e-waste.

Based on these categories, e-waste generation, collection, recycling, intrinsic value, number of
countries having e-waste legislations, etc. statistics are generated and harmonised across the world.

E-waste categories and harmonising statistics

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

E-waste generation, collection and recycling across regions – comparing 2016 and 2019 data

The GEM 2020 reported that despite the relatively high environmental awareness in the EU), e-
waste is still disposed of in residual waste, and the small e-waste ends up in residual waste bins.
This comprises approximately 0.6 Mt of the EU’s e-waste. Central Asia reported most e-waste
being landfills or illegal dumping sites. PACE and WEF (2019: 9) shared, ‘Of this total amount, 40
million tonnes of e-waste are discarded in landfill, 21 burned or illegally traded and treated in a
substandard way every year.’ The difference of e-waste generated in developed versus developing
countries is quite large. The richest country in the world in 2016 generated an average of 19.6
kg/inhabitant, whereas the poorest generated only 0.6 kg/inhabitant .

E-waste flow and data on transboundary movements

Transboundary movement is considered to be a way of dumping waste / e-waste from one country
to another. Lundgren (2012) has provided examples to show substantial internal and regional trade;
e-waste is shipped from developed to developing countries is not always true. For example, in 2001,
Africa exported most of its e-waste to Korea and Spain, and since 2006, the growth in global trade
overall has been primarily in two areas: in internal markets, and in Asia becoming the dominant
recipient of global exports. ‘E-waste recycling operations have been identified in several locations
in China and India. Less-investigated locations are in the Philippines, Nigeria (in the city of Lagos),
Pakistan (Karachi) and Ghana (Accra)’ (Lundgren 2012: 14).
The issue of transboundary movement is closely linked with shipping of e-waste to developing
countries where rudimentary techniques are often used to extract materials and components. ‘Global
trading of electronics and substandard recycling in developing countries has led to environmental
catastrophes in places like Guiyu, China and Agbogbloshie, Ghana, to name two examples’

The ILO report (Lundgren 2012: 14–17) has described important observations about
transboundary movements of e-waste; wherein four aspects or phenomena
are described:
(i) illegal trade which has intensified corporate, or ‘white collar’ crime;
(ii) use of ‘second hand goods’ label – to disguise mislabel containers and mix waste with
legitimate consignment, and lack of reliable data on illegal waste activity;
(iii) recent emergent field of ‘green criminology’ – e-waste trade as an example,
which poses environmental risk and expected to be compliant to regulatory norms, though not
criminalised as such;
(iv) security implications – more research is needed in order to find out more about the networks
behind the illegal export that
is taking place.

Creating and updating statistics, datasets: opportunities and

Challenges

An overview of the existing statistics reveals that macro level data have begun to emerge and throw
light on different aspects and trends of e-waste management, namely, standard definition of e-waste,
quantity of e-waste generated and treated, methodology, flow of e‑waste including transboundary
movements, and initiatives towards achieving 2030 Development Agenda. Three GEMs (2014,
2017 and 2020) at the regular interval of three years is considered to be trendsetting and promising
initiative for statistics and exploring existing e-waste scenario. Advantages and disadvantages of
every method are elaborated, challenges of creating and updating data are also articulated – gaps
are identified, processes that lead to misinformation or wrong labelling and misleading data
(especially on transboundary movements) are identified – are avenues to improve upon.
The GEM 2020 has begun build up to data on three important aspects of e-waste management –
CE, toxicity and impact on children and workers. More information on different aspects of
environment and human health could be built up further, either through national registry or micro
studies, for example, on extent of toxicity, types of toxicity, every aspect of environment (energy
in LCIA approach to e-waste, fossil use, carbon prints, contamination of air, soil and water). As
more countries are adopting e-waste legislation/regulatory policy, it is important to provide data
that facilitate the complexities of decision-making, for example, whether to treat e-waste
domestically or through export, issues that are of environmental, political, economic
and ethical nature and how to address them by legal framework

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

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

IV: UN initiatives for e-waste management: creating partnerships and achieving Agenda 2030

By recognising e-waste as a tsunami, the UN has undertaken various initiatives at International and
regional level, especially the collaborative efforts. A number of global agencies have formed
'Global E-waste Statistics Partnership' (GESP) in 2017 In address e-waste challenges by improving
e-waste data.
As part of a range of initiatives have undertaken by the UN e-waste management, forming a group
or an agency, initiating a programme or intervention is note-worthy. For example, co-ordinating
with the Environment Management Group (I:MC): * the Solving the E-waste Problem' (StEP)
initiative; the Sustainable Cycles (SOYOLE) programme, * and UNU-ViE SCYCLE." Each
programme or agency attributes to e-waste management in a specified manner. The partnership has
achieved the result by publishing the second edition of the GEM 2017 and building a website
(www.globalewaste.org) to publicly visualise the most relevant e-waste indicators. Other initiatives
include training of people from 60 countries for inter-nationally adopted methodology for building
statistics.

In the context of Agenda 2030/SDGs, more specific targets and their sub-indi-cator have been
recognised for monitoring growth of e-waste, taking cognisance of its potential hazardousness, and
its high residual value

SDGs are considered a roadmap for sustainable development by every country, and therefore, every
country has started documentation of progress on each SDG, its targets and indicators, and its
publication on regular basis/annually Thus, SDGs have become a platform which provides country
based updated data, a check point for progress and sustainability, and a future roadmap of every
SDG. Given the high raw material demand for the production of EEE, e-waste is closely linked to
the SDG indicators on the material footprint (SDGs 8.4.1 and 12.1.1) and the SDGs on the domestic
material consumption

The e-waste sub indicator in SIO 12.5. 1 bas been defined as follow:

SIG 12.5. I sub-indicator on the c-waste = Total e-waste recycled

Total e-waste generated

where the 'Total e-waste recycled' is equivalent to the 'e-waste formally collected' divided by the

his method could be employed to examine extent of hazardous waste created in each country every
year.
Sustainability and CE are two sides of a coin. The depletion of mineral depos-its, declining metal
recoveries and grades, the concentration of strategic minerals in politically unstable regions and
general risks associated with primary mining 'e-waste generated'

Mining and the extraction of raw materials? are important links and sources of environmental and
human health problems associated with the lifecycle of e-products. Reduction in mining may lead
to less destruction to the environment and local ecosystems of the mining regions.

The foremost concern is to work on the life cycle principle; that is, to understand different stages
of the life cycle of EEE in the e-waste initiatives.
The types of initiatives undertaken by the UN are: (i) one for standardisation; (ii) two for policies;
(iii) three for programmes; (iv) six for working groups and work-shops; (v) seven each for glossaries
and compilations, and trainings and learnings; (vi) 11 for partnerships; (vii) 13 for networks and
consortiums; (viii) quantitative assessments; (ix) 23 are studies and reports related; (x) 28 for
projects; and (xii) 30 for preparing manuals and guidelines.
Total 139 collaborations and partnerships by UN provide an idea of various aspects of e-waste
management and need for addressing requirements on different counts. The characteristics of
existing collaborations for c-waste management are:
B8 (49%) collaborations are UN and public; 50 (36%) collaborations are UN and private; and 21
(15%) collaborations are UN-only

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

India ranks third in the world with waste generation of 3,230 kt or 3.2 Mt in 2019
(2.0 Mt in 2016), 2.4 kg/inh followed by China (10,129 kt or 10.1 Mt, 7.2 kg/inh). and USA (6,918
kt or 6.9 Mt, 21 kg/inh). India moved up to third rank (in 2019) in three years from fifth in 2016,
leaving Japan (2.1 Mt in 2016) and Germany (1.9 Mt in 2016) behind in 2019. At present, there are
ten countries producing more than 1,000 kt e-waste annually. At present, officially documented
global c-waste collection and recycling rate is 17.4%
E-waste in India is majorly processed using inefficient technologies, inadequate infrastructures, and
improper and unhealthy eco-system.
Despite being highly effective in collecting WEEE, its recycling techniques yield low extraction
rates and result in large scale environmental pollution, which negatively affects the physical
wellbeing of thousands of people. In 2017, Dyer 200 manufacturers of electronic goods, including
some e-giants, were served notices by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for not
complying with waste procurement norms

Essentials of e-waste cohesive management thinking in India

India has largely focused on a regulatory framework, employing EPR as management and
enforcement strategy for various aspects of e-waste management along increasing thrust on RE and
CE. Under the existing legal framework, i.e. the E-waste Management Rules, 2016 (henceforth
'Rules, 2016") and E-waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (henceforth Amended Rules,
2018), effective implementation of EPR occupies centre stage. The producers or the producer
responsibility of organization (PRO) is expected to establish collection channel, segregation, safe
transportation and ensure recycling of e-waste.

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

As per the rules of 2016. the EEE manufacturers and users (consumers, bulk consumers) are the
generators of domestic e-waste; the inflow of imported e-waste is observed, though legally banned.
This is the first layer in this sequence of e-waste disposal and collection. The individual consumers
are disposing e-waste - either give away for reuse to individuals and institutions or sell it to the
kabaadiwala. The bulk consumers either auctioned off, sold to scrap dealers, or given away to
PROs.
The manufacturers dispose of c-scrap to scrap dealers, and the imported e-waste is directtly entering
the trade by dealing with scrap dealers. The second level - c-waste collection introduces three actors
- first level of kabaalivala, scrap dealer/scrap dealer/ government agency (MSTC) that trades in
metal scrap/PRO, and scrap dewler/scrap trader who may or may not refurbish the e-waste. In the
third layer at dealing with e-waste, mainly the local kabaadiwala sell the e-scrap to city level waste
aggregators. Before the e-waste steps to large-scale aggregators in the fourth layer, most e-waste is
reported to be sorted, dismantled and/or cannibalised. The last layer is of large-scale waste
aggregators who may be informal recyclers; if not, they dell off e-waste to the formal and informal
recyclers. The e-scrap dealer/trader sells e waste to the formal/informal recyclers while the PROs
pass on the e-waste to the formal /authorised recyclers for legal compliance. In this layer, leakage
of e-waste lo reported, and thus, the e-waste (sorted, dismantled, cannibalised) come back to the
market for resale. The last layer is of sale of secondary material in the market for tense/in the supply
chain (Figure 1.7)
In this trade value chain, the collection to recycling trade provides livelihoods to a significant
number of urban poor. Moreover, recovery of materials from this waste and ploughing them back
into the supply chain process are some of the advantages of the sector. The flipside of the recycling
sector is the hazardous practices and processes (Basu 2019; Sinha 2019). In this context, building
up partnership of formal-informal players has been considered as a strategic action for larger legal
compliance and cohesive c-waste management.