2
e-Waste Management and Practices in Developed and Developing Countries*

Pablo Dias1,2, Andréa M. Bernardes2, and Nazmul Huda3

1University of New South Wales, School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, 229 Anzac Parade, Kensington, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

2Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Engineering School, Department of Materials, Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, Porto Alegre – RS 91509-900, Brazil

3Macquarie University, School of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Balaclava Rd, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia

2.1 Introduction

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE or e-waste) is classified as a solid waste within the hazardous waste category (Goel 2017). E-waste consists in end-of-life electronic and electrical equipment, it comprehends – but is not limited to – obsolete, broken, or used computers, televisions, stereos, photocopiers, printers, faxes, monitors, and mobile phones (Westcott 2012). It also comprehends the less notable equipment such as radios, washing machines, microwave ovens, hair dryers, and photovoltaic panels (EU Directive 2012; Robinson 2009). Moreover, the WEEE definition also includes the components, subset of parts, peripheral accessories and materials used in the manufacturing of these equipment (EU Directive 2012).

The generation of e-waste appears to be higher in developed countries than that in developing economies (Goel 2017), but the WEEE generation has been increasing in both realities (Schluep et al. 2009). Furthermore, a positive correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) and e-waste generated in a given country was confirmed in a recent research. Interestingly, no correlation was found between e-waste generation and population (Kumar et al. 2017).

The current e-waste generation pattern poses one of the world’s greatest pollution problems. On top of the growing generation pattern, e-waste is a particularly important waste stream because of its potential to be pollutants that pose a risk to the environment and to sustainable economic growth; and the potential to be resources, given the significant concentration of precious metals and high-demand materials it contains (Babu et al. 2007; Goosey 2012; Sugimura and Murakami 2016).

2.2 Overview on WEEE Management and Practices

WEEE management is a global challenge especially given many countries have no structured system of reverse logistics, and most WEEE is still disposed of in landfills or open places exposed to the inclement weather (Veit and Bernardes 2015). Tools such as the life cycle analysis (LCA), material flow analysis (MFA), and tailored policies such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) created to assist in waste management are also being applied to the WEEE challenge. These, however, are generally seen in operation only in developed countries (Kiddee et al. 2013). Developed countries tend to have laws and regulation to process WEEE safely. The compliance with these regulations is difficult to assure, given sound processing frequently runs against economic interests (Sthiannopkao and Wong 2013). These take-back systems and end-of-life processing legislation for the electronics industry were originally proposed because of environmental motives (Stevels 2007). A schematic of the management of e-waste from consumption to disposal is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

A different management approach for the global WEEE challenge was proposed recently and named best-of-two-worlds philosophy (Bo2W). It seeks to achieve the most sustainable solution for developing countries under the current international panorama. In summary, the philosophy claims developing countries should take advantage of the low labor cost to employ manual dismantling to liberate e-waste components. These separated and sorted components would then be exported (sold) to developed economies, where technology and infra-structure are available for sound downstream processing. This theoretically ensures labor and revenue for developing nations while ensuring state-of-the-art and environmentally safe end-processing (Goel 2017; Wang et al. 2012).

Schematic illustration of wee management flowchart.

Figure 2.1 WEEE management flowchart.

Source: Caiado et al. (2017).

Published research also describes measures to achieve better waste management practices. An important component identified is community awareness. Public awareness, outreach campaigns, and educational measures that show the negative impacts of incorrect e-waste disposal and their effective disposal value are particularly important. These campaigns should inform the roles and responsibilities of the agents involved in the e-waste management, including their rights as citizens to access waste management services (Rao et al. 2017; Schumacher and Agbemabiese 2019). To discourage the international e-waste transfer and enhance proper device collection, country studies on the size and destination of the complementary streams should be performed and used to create specific collection targets per WEEE category to specific countries (Huisman 2012).

The world is still searching for an ideal WEEE management model, even if that model is only fitted for a specific country or region. Currently, different country/states have different kinds of regulations and take-back systems. Europe is perhaps the best example to illustrate this great variety, as Great Britain alone holds 44 distinct take-back systems (Figure 2.2).

Regulations can allow or prohibit take-back systems to coexist and/or to compete. In some countries, the collection and recycling operational costs are distributed to the take-back systems according to the producers they represent. The verdict of whether a system run by a monopoly or a system run by companies in competition is more effective, however, is unclear at present. Moreover, the competent authorities hold the essential role of regulating the WEEE management systems to allow them to compete in a fair manner (Toffolet 2016).

Schematic illustration of distinct WEEE take-back systems in Europe.

Figure 2.2 Distinct WEEE take-back systems in Europe.

Source: Toffolet (2016).

2.3 International WEEE Management and Transboundary Movement

The WEEE rising waste volumes and peculiar characteristics aforementioned created a global export trend, where developed nations sent unwanted WEEE to developing nations. This has been reported in scientific papers to have started from the beginning of the twenty-first century due to large volumes of obsolete electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) in developed countries, and justified as an attempt to bridge the “digital divide” between developed and developing economies (Nnorom and Osibanjo 2008; Yang 2019). Herat and Agamuthu (2012) cited that large volumes were being sent to developing countries for reuse, refurbishment, recycling, and recovery of precious metals, and that some of the main countries receiving e-waste are India, China, Philippines, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Nigeria. In Nigeria, for instance, it was found that in the period between 2000 and 2010, the majority of its EEE/WEEE was coming from the USA, the UK, Germany, and China (for TVs, cathode ray tubes [CRTs], and personal computers [PCs]), and the imports have increased considerably from 2003 (Babayemi et al. 2015). The total transboundary shipment of hazardous wastes has increased since 2000 for most Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members and two-thirds of the EU countries, regardless of their trading positions (Yang 2019).

Most developing countries do not have a program for the storage, separation, collection, transport, or disposal of waste, nor adequate legislation and/or monitoring over the waste treatment procedures and the risks associated with incorrect disposal/treatment; this is especially true for e-waste (Nnorom and Osibanjo 2008; Sindiku et al. 2015). Several studies address the consequences of poor end-of-life treatment that happens in developing countries, the main ones involve severe environmental damage and negative impacts on human health (Egeonu and Herat 2016; Li et al. 2019; Schluep 2014; Zhang et al. 2018). These issues should be tackled by increasing the responsibility of the manufacturers (the EPR) and through the technology exchange between countries that export and import e-waste (Li et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the current global panorama remains the same as in previous decades, with large WEEE volumes being transported (legally or illegally) to developing economies (Figure 2.3) (Awasthi and Li 2017).

An important paradigm shift, however, was observed in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Australia: the export of high-end components to countries with established downstream recycling industry. This involves a domestic industry setup capable of executing first stage recycling (i.e. separation of components) and organizing the logistics associated with collection and international shipping, which is achieved either by local companies that work as “material concentrators” and then sell these high-value components abroad or by large foreign downstream recycling enterprises that install sister companies abroad to act as collector, concentrator, and exporter of high-value components. In developing countries, the establishment of this industry is natural because of the relative low cost of labor, whereas in Australia it occurs due to the regulations in place. This shift creates a controversial situation in which destination countries (such as Brazil, Nigeria, and Mexico) receive unwanted e-waste components with little value while exporting the e-waste components with high value (printed circuit boards (PCBs), hard drives, processors) (Dias et al. 2019; Dias et al. 2018b; Dias et al. 2018c; Iwenwanne 2019; Lydall et al. 2017; Snyman et al. 2017). Moreover, this export pattern contributes to maintain the downstream recycling industry of these destination countries stagnant (Dias et al. 2018a). Recent research even suggests the growing re-export of e-waste from the developing world back to advanced countries creates an offset by which countries importing high-quality used electronics send back an equal volume of e-waste. The (documented) transactions tend to occur between trade partners where the importer has a lower GDP per capita than the exporter. The same authors claim that while there is a movement of e-waste from developed to developing countries, there is also a substantial e-waste trade between developing countries. (Larmer 2018; Lepawsky 2015; Lepawsky and Mcnabb 2010).

Schematic illustration of known sources, destinations, and suspected destinations of WEEE transboundary movement worldwide.

Figure 2.3 Known sources, destinations, and suspected destinations of WEEE transboundary movement worldwide.

Source: Kumar et al. (2017).

2.4 WEEE Management and Practices – Developed and Developing Countries

Solid waste management generally involves (i) identifying and categorizing the source and nature of waste, (ii) separation, storage, and collection, (iii) waste transport, (iv) processing, and (v) ultimate waste disposal. This linear economy approach has been widely applied and is still a management model in many countries (Rao et al. 2017). Furthermore, solid waste management aims to minimize waste, maximize recycling and reuse, and ensure safe and environmentally sound disposal of waste. These objectives should be achieved in a sustainable manner employing and developing the capacity of the community, private enterprises, workers, and government (Rao et al. 2017). The ultimate goal of any waste management system is to increase the resource efficiency and reach the circular economy target (Nowakowski and Mrówczyńska 2018). Currently, this can be achieved by using resources more efficiently in the provision of an activity or product, using less resource-related services, reusing product and services, recycling the resources and materials in products (Worrell and Reuter 2014). The material recovery present in WEEE may be achieved by reusing its components, by recycling of the whole equipment (or a fraction of it), or by transforming waste into energy (energy recovery) (Nnorom and Osibanjo 2008). A sustainable management of WEEE has a significant role on the circular economy approach (D’Adamo et al. 2019; Nowakowski and Mrówczyńska 2018).

The cost of waste management activities is mainly associated with the cost of transport, facilities, operation (energy/fuel and labor), and real estate (Rao et al. 2017). For e-waste, specific factors have been claimed to influence the economic feasibility and environmental consequences of e-waste recycling (Hula et al. 2003; Nnorom and Osibanjo 2008): Product structure, materials, location of recycling facilities, applicable regulations, geography, and cultural context. All these factors combined will determine the feasibility of recycling certain products or goods. Another study uses four key aspects to evaluate the recycling potential and determine which element should be prioritized in the recycling of WEEE: the quantity of material in specific waste (e.g. gold in PCs), the toxicity of the given material, its market value and technology developed for recycling (Zeng et al. 2017). Thus, there is no single solution when deciding if and how to recycle WEEE because all these factors will vary on a case-to-case basis (Sinha-Khetriwal et al. 2005). While the waste management tends to be country-specific, there are general trends that outline developed countries to the detriment of developing countries.

As opposed to developing nations, developed nations usually have centralized waste treatment systems, which result in significant differences in relation to the former. The segregation of waste, for instance, is a voluntary exercise in most developed countries, but represents a source of income in developing nations, and allows the formation of a large informal network of people dedicated to waste collection (door-to-door) and meticulous waste segregation (Goel 2017; Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012). Because of this network, countries of less-income have financial incentives and door-to-door collection, which create a convenient scenario toward material recycling. The waste sorting may occur prior to disposal (case of developed nations), prior to collection, during the collection or at the disposal site (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012). Schluep (2014) cites that “collection, manual dismantling, open burning to recover metals, and open dumping of residual fractions are normal practice in most developing and in transition countries.” This also creates two different realities, a contrasting example is that of Switzerland and India: in the former, the consumers pay a recycling fee (for collection, treatment, etc.), whereas in the latter, the collectors in many cases pay the consumers for their obsolete appliances (Sinha-Khetriwal et al. 2005). The line that splits developed and developing economies, however, is not well defined when concerning e-waste. As shown in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, there are places like Taiwan, which are considered a benchmark in e-waste management while being dubbed a developing economy by the United Nations (UN/DESA et al. 2019). Furthermore, within a single country, there may be disparities in the way the WEEE management is administered and in its efficiency. As is the case for China (whose mainland management system varies greatly from that of Taiwan and Hong Kong, for instance), it is impossible to state a single WEEE management in the whole United States, since each state has its own policies and systems in place (Li et al. 2013; Ongondo et al. 2011; Schumacher and Agbemabiese 2019). It is noteworthy that these inter-region (or inter-country) differences can add challenges in the waste management industry due to different requirements and expectations placed upon stakeholders that practice across state/region boarders (Hickle 2014; Schumacher and Agbemabiese 2019).

Currently, developed economies have a reasonably sustainable infrastructure to deal with waste, while the rest of the world still have a large amount of organizing and implementing ahead of them (Goel 2017). The disposal of waste on land is still the most common practice worldwide due to its low cost. The main difference between developed and developing economies is that in the former this generally happens in engineered landfills, while in the latter in the form of open dumping (Goel 2017; Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012). The choice between landfilling and incineration, however, is not a matter of economic development, but rather a matter of land: in countries where land is plenty, landfilling has been the matter of choice. This is mainly due to the cost–incineration is at least three-fold higher than landfilling (Goel 2017). The section hereafter will briefly describe the management system for electronic waste management in a few selected developed and developing nations to illustrate the discrepancies among them and allow further discussion about the current practices.

2.5 Developed Countries

2.5.1 Switzerland

Switzerland is considered a WEEE management benchmark as it currently has one of the world’s highest collection rates: more than 79% of the average of all EEE placed onto the market in the country during the three preceding years (Toffolet 2016). The system is currently managed by the producers (manufacturers and importers), which are organized in four producer responsible organizations (PROs). The PROs manage the daily operations, set the recycling fee, and license and audit recyclers. The consumers pay a fee when they purchase an EEE (advanced recycling fee), which exempts them from any fees at the time of disposal. Consumers can drop off their WEEE at specific collection points or retailers – the latter being the main collection network. The role of the authorities is controlling and monitoring the outcomes of the different stakeholders in the WEEE management system. The government oversees the process, frames the basic regulations, and licenses the recyclers (Román 2012). There is about one service provider (retailer or designated take-back site) per 444 inhabitants in the country; recyclers have to operate according to the recycling criteria of ISO 14 000, and must have the PRO license and the government authorization (Morris and Metternicht 2016).

2.5.2 Japan

While the EU countries are mechanizing their operations, Japan still relies heavily on manual disassembly, which is one of the reasons the Japanese overall recycling cost is superior to that of the EU. It is believed that Japan’s high recycling cost (and high recycling fee) leads to recycling outside the formal scheme and encourages WEEE export. That’s why, in general terms, items taken back free of charge go abroad, whereas items that are paid for enter the domestic used market (Yoshida and Yoshida 2012).

2.5.3 Australia

Research suggests that e-waste collection systems in Australia does not allow a feasible domestic material recovery, which leads to significant material export for processes to be undertaken abroad (Golev et al. 2016; Kumar et al. 2017). This has been further explained by Sahajwalla et al. (2016), who claimed that “while safe resource recovery from e-waste is technically possible, it is expensive and currently relies largely on access to large scale, high tech furnaces, mostly located in Europe. Many nations, including Australia, have few or no viable resource recovery processes for e-waste.” Little WEEE volume is also given as a reason for not having recovery operations in the country in another study (Dias et al. 2018a; Golev and Corder 2017). Moreover, the metal downstream recycling industry (end-processing) of the country has been reported to be well established only for iron (steel scrap). Concerning the nonferrous metals, there are only separation and smelting facilities for aluminum (Corder et al. 2015). Yet another report, this time from an industry player, agrees with the difficulties of responsibly recycling e-waste in Australia because of the high cost of labor, the low volume of e-waste recycling undertaken, the maturity of the market (low investment in infrastructure), and the availability of appropriate downstream processing (ANZRP 2015).

A study from 2015 reports that most material recovery (for PCs and TVs) occurs overseas and the role of the domestic e-waste recyclers is restricted to the collection and basic separation (Lane et al. 2015). Corder et al. (2015) showed that approximately half the scrap metal collected in Australia is currently being transported overseas. Research shows that the current economic model used in the country contributes to significant illegal exports of e-waste, given the struggle to maintain a positive economic balance and the constant approach of agents wanting to buy e-waste for unauthorized export (Lane et al. 2015). A recent study showed that these current conditions should lead to even greater WEEE material export unless incentives for domestic downstream processing are implemented (Dias et al. 2018a). The main countries to officially receive the WEEE components were China, Indonesia, and Japan (Dias et al. 2018a), but a recent report from BAN (2018) tracked down nondismantled WEEE in primitive acid-stripping operation in Thailand.

2.6 Developing Countries

2.6.1 Brazil

The WEEE generation in Brazil is estimated to be about 1.5 million tons yearly (Balde et al. 2017), and the expected increase between 2013 and 2020 is of 20% (Isıldar et al. 2018). Research suggests Brazil is still learning how to put reverse logistics of WEEE into practice, particularly with the environmental licensing of generators, transporters, and end-of-life EEE receivers (de Araujo et al. 2015). The attitudes of Brazilians toward e-waste also seem to be still behind in comparison to developed countries, given 18% of the population disposes of their end-of-life cellphone along with general waste (Moura et al. 2017). Furthermore, while the majority of Brazilians seem to hold a positive intention toward recycling e-waste, only a minority carries forward the attitude and adopt adequate recycling practices (Echegaray and Hansstein 2017). Recent studies also indicate that the lifespan of EEE used in Brazil is decreasing, in particular for cellular phones. (Moura et al. 2017).

Brazil lacks an industry capable of undertaking downstream recycling processes (end-processing) (Dias et al. 2018b; de Oliveira et al. 2012). This was reinforced in a research published in 2017, in which the authors also claim installing such industry requires high investments (de Oliveira Neto et al. 2017). This can be observed in the private sector of recycling companies in Latin America reported to mainly disassemble computers and cellular phones with the aim of recovering the valuable materials contained therein (Balde et al. 2017). Furthermore, formal reverse logistics seems to be unfeasible in the country due to operational costs and logistical constraints (Caiado et al. 2017). On the other hand, the country has built an industry around the export of valuable WEEE components, with companies specializing in stockpiling specific WEEE components and selling it overseas to developed nations, which requires a well-structured collection system and sufficient profit for at least three agents within the country (Dias et al. 2018b).

Informal end-of-life practices toward e-waste are popular in Brazil. In the collection phase, for instance, the country has a significant number of waste pickers who scavenge waste to selectively sort the e-waste materials that can be later sold (Ghisolfi et al. 2017; Guarnieri and Streit 2015). This results in a recycling system based on handpicked collection (cherry-picking) of exclusively high-value components, as opposed to a sustainable collection system (Caiado et al. 2017). Recent research suggest that the informal e-waste recycling market has increased in Brazil (Moura et al. 2017).

2.6.2 India

In India, e-waste is often viewed as a commodity of value, which causes reluctance when deciding whether to dispose of it or not, and the considerable price difference between the new and used EEE in India and other developing countries renders in equipment being forwarded for second-hand use multiple times (Borthakur and Govind 2018; Wath et al. 2010). Moreover, the main collection channel is (informal) door-to-door and involves the purchase of e-waste by the so-called kawariwalas. This system results in a well-established informal network driven by profit and capable of undertaking 90% of the country’s WEEE. The recycling processes undertaken in the informal network, however, use rudimentary techniques and, most often, e-waste ends up in landfills mixed with municipal waste (Dwivedy et al. 2015). The difference among countries like India vs. developed countries is remarkable in the sense that population from low-income countries prefer to sell their obsolete equipment in the informal sector because they expect to obtain a profit when giving away a WEEE, whereas in countries like Japan consumers are required to pay to dispose of their WEEE – as mentioned in the Section 2.5.2 (Borthakur and Govind 2018; Dwivedy et al. 2015).

2.6.3 South Africa

Measuring and characterizing the e-waste management scenario in South Africa is important because the country is viewed by other African countries as a continent leader for developing sustainable waste management practices (Snyman et al. 2017). South Africa’s e-waste management industry, however, is still at its infancy, as is the case for most developing countries (Ledwaba and Sosibo 2016).

The WEEE management is virtually voluntary and dependent on individuals, organizations, and small companies. Despite this setup, there are a handful of well-established companies capable of running their business by promoting the value chain of collecting and sorting e-waste to later sell it as a commodity or as concentrated waste components. These businesses collect WEEE by making use of advertisements and word of mouth, but also benefit from the informal sector to obtain waste (Snyman et al. 2017). Informal collection is a common activity in the country as “waste pickers” collect e-waste in addition to other waste streams – it was estimated that informal collection accounts for one-fourth of the total collection volume in the country (Salhofer et al. 2017). It is also estimated that only 20% of e-waste finds its way to recyclers because of the absence of adequate take-back centers and financing mechanisms for recyclers (Snyman et al. 2017). The recycling processes in South Africa mainly employ dismantling and sorting of simple components, while complex components are shredded and sent overseas (mainly to Asia and Europe) for downstream processing (Lydall et al. 2017; Snyman et al. 2017). A different study, however, claimed there were two companies in South Africa that undertook the extraction of precious metals from complex components such as PCBs (Salhofer et al. 2017). The dismantling of WEEE is not profitable for small businesses, which end up only undertaking it as a secondary activity (Lydall et al. 2017). This information is in contrast to the significant increase in the number of companies the country has seen in recent years (Salhofer et al. 2017). While South Africa may have developed better recycling facilities with respect to the rest of the African continent, it is still lagging behind developed nations in terms of legislation, enforcement, and characterization (Ledwaba and Sosibo 2016).

2.6.4 Nigeria

Nigeria has been a major importer of WEEE/EEE; however, it still severely lacks appropriate infrastructure and facilities to sustainably recycle the vast amount of imported e-waste (Babayemi et al. 2015). As a result, most of the imported e-waste from the developed countries end up in open dumpsites in a number of African countries, especially in Nigeria and Ghana (Asante et al. 2019). The importation of WEEE increased greatly from 2003, and especially after China reduced its importations in 2005/2006. Large volumes of waste going into Asia were then diverted to countries like Nigeria and Ghana. This has reached its peak in 2009 and was later counter through policies that regulated import and stopped shipments from entering the country (Babayemi et al. 2015). This has warranted an urgent need to formulate appropriate strategies and policies that should be in place to tackle the growing demand. The understanding of Nigeria’s current setup also needs to take into account the (i) lack of technology (or industry) capable of undertaking advanced recycling processes (as defined by Dias et al. 2018b), which results in formal recyclers sending dismantled components overseas for downstream processing, and (ii) the behavior of the local population, who “are not ready to give out their e-waste for proper collection and recycling because they are expecting financial value for their waste” (Iwenwanne 2019). Assessment of quality and functionality of the e-waste to be recycled is also trivial. Assessment approach was based on the conditions stipulated in the importation guidelines developed by National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) in Nigeria (Odeyingbo et al. 2019); however, a review should be conducted on the current guidelines to improve the process and incorporate currently untapped e-waste. Furthermore, strategies should be developed for the country to ensure that responsibility falls to the (former) producers and importers of articles containing toxic/damaging materials (Sindiku et al. 2015).

2.6.5 Taiwan

Taiwan sets itself apart from its developing counterparts. Taiwan is one of the main references in e-waste management in the Asia Pacific region and has had a steady increase in e-waste recycling in recent years (Fan et al. 2018). The Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (TEPA) is the governmental agency responsible for the main activities involved in the e-waste management. It is also responsible for monitoring the flow of waste materials (Shih 2017). These activities require a system with high levels of monitoring and, therefore, high costs associated with it, which has been described as one of the weaknesses of the setup.

The idea behind the 4-in-1 recycling program is that community residents (i), private recyclers/collectors (ii), local government (iii), and the recycling fund (iv) all play a role in the program. Residents must separate and deposit their e-waste in appropriate collection points, private sector operates recycling and collection, local governments organize and sell the appropriate waste to the private companies, and the recycling fund (managed by TEPA) subsidizes the operation of the whole system (EPA 2012). In summary, Taiwan has a competitive e-waste take-back system that is state-operated (Shih 2017).

2.7 Conclusions

The global e-waste generation increased in the past decade, as was predicted in several scientific studies, and it should continue to increase in the following years. The overall transboundary movement of e-waste remained stagnant as unwanted items or components are still shipped in large volumes from developed to developing countries, either through legislation loopholes or illegally. A new pattern of e-waste international trade is currently observed: developing countries sending valuable e-waste components to developed countries. Examples of such movement were found in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, and Nigeria. Additionally, in a developed country such as Australia, this valuable e-waste components movement was also detected. In Brazil and Australia particularly, this was accompanied by the establishment of number of private organizations whose main activity revolves around organizing and exporting valuable components. This pattern, however, requires further research to confirm whether it is a new global e-waste exchange trend or just isolated cases from a few countries. Other than the specific changes pointed out in this chapter, little has changed in the global macro WEEE status quo as recycling processes, management, and market remains unchanged.

References

  1. ANZRP (2015). Response to the National Television and Computer Scheme – Operational Review. ANZRP – Australia and New Zealand Recycling Platform Limited www.anzrp.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/ANZRP-Response-to-Op-Review-Feb-15.pdf (retrieved 8 June 2017).
  2. Asante, K.A., Amoyaw-Osei, Y., and Agusa, T. (2019). E-waste recycling in Africa: risks and opportunities. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, Special Issue on Africa – Green solvents 18: 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2019.04.001.
  3. Awasthi, A.K. and Li, J. (2017). Management of electrical and electronic waste: a comparative evaluation of China and India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76: 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.067.
  4. Babayemi, J., Sindiku, O., Osibanjo, O., and Weber, R. (2015). Substance flow analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in plastic from EEE/WEEE in Nigeria in the frame of Stockholm convention as a basis for policy advice. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 14502–14514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3228-6.
  5. Babu, B.R., Parande, A.K., and Basha, C.A. (2007). Electrical and electronic waste: a global environmental problem. Waste Management & Research 25: 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07076941.
  6. Balde, C., Forti, V., Kuehr, R., and Stegmann, P. (2017). The Global E-waste Monitor. Bonn/Geneva/Vienna: United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).
  7. BAN (2018). Illegal Export of e-Waste from Australia. The Basel Action Network (BAN) http://www.ban.org/trash-transparency (retrieved 17 October 2018).
  8. Borthakur, A. and Govind, M. (2018). Public understandings of E-waste and its disposal in urban India: from a review towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 1053–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.218.
  9. Caiado, N., Guarnieri, P., Xavier, L.H., and de Lorena Diniz Chaves, G. (2017). A characterization of the Brazilian market of reverse logistic credits (RLC) and an analogy with the existing carbon credit market. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 118: 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.021.
  10. Corder, G., Golev, A., and Giurco, D. (2015). “Wealth from metal waste”: translating global knowledge on industrial ecology to metals recycling in Australia. Minerals Engineering 76: 2–9.
  11. D’Adamo, I., Ferella, F., Gastaldi, M. et al. (2019). Towards sustainable recycling processes: wasted printed circuit boards as a source of economic opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 149: 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.012.
  12. de Araujo, M.V.F., de Oliveira, U.R., Marins, A.S.F., and Jorge, M. (2015). Cost assessment and benefits of using RFID in reverse logistics of waste electrical & electronic equipment (WEEE). Procedia Computer Science, 3rd International Conference on Information Technology and Quantitative Management, ITQM 2015 (55): 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.075.
  13. de Oliveira, C.R., Bernardes, A.M., and Gerbase, A.E. (2012). Collection and recycling of electronic scrap: a worldwide overview and comparison with the Brazilian situation. Waste Management 32: 1592–1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.04.003.
  14. de Oliveira Neto, G.C., de Jesus Cardoso Correia, A., and Schroeder, A.M. (2017). Economic and environmental assessment of recycling and reuse of electronic waste: multiple case studies in Brazil and Switzerland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.011.
  15. Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., and Huda, N. (2018a). Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management: an analysis on the australian e-waste recycling scheme. Journal of Cleaner Production 197: 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.161.
  16. Dias, P., Bernardes, A. M., Huda, N. (2018c). Defining valuable waste: the problem of defining mass as a measurement unit for waste electrical and electronic equipment [Definindo Resíduo Valioso: O Problema De Definir Massa Como Unidade De Medida De Resíduos De Equipamentos Eletroeletrônicos]. 29o Encontro Técnico AESABESP, FENASAN 2018. www.fenasan.com.br/fenasan2018 (accessed 16 March 2021).
  17. Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., and Huda, N. (2019). Ensuring best E-waste recycling practices in developed countries: an Australian example. Journal of Cleaner Production 209: 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.306.
  18. Dias, P., Machado, A., Huda, N., and Bernardes, A.M. (2018b). Waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) management: a study on the Brazilian recycling routes. Journal of Cleaner Production 174: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.219.
  19. Dwivedy, M., Suchde, P., and Mittal, R.K. (2015). Modeling and assessment of e-waste take-back strategies in India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 96: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.003.
  20. Echegaray, F. and Hansstein, F.V. (2017). Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.064.
  21. Egeonu, N. and Herat, S. (2016). E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Review of issues, challenges and solutions in African countries. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 17: 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2016.078602.
  22. EPA (2012). U.E.P.A. Case study on Taiwan’s E-waste management system. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/taiwan_iemn_case_study_12.7_final.pdf (retrieved 26 March 2019).
  23. EU Directive (2012). Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE. Official Journal of the European Union L197: 38–71.
  24. Fan, C., Fan, S.-K.S., Wang, C.-S., and Tsai, W.-P. (2018). Modeling computer recycling in Taiwan using system dynamics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 128: 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.006.
  25. Ghisolfi, V., de Diniz Chaves, G.L., Ribeiro Siman, R., and Xavier, L.H. (2017). System dynamics applied to closed loop supply chains of desktops and laptops in Brazil: a perspective for social inclusion of waste pickers. Waste Management 60: 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.018.
  26. Goel, S. (2017). Advances in Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  27. Golev, A. and Corder, G.D. (2017). Quantifying metal values in e-waste in Australia: the value chain perspective. Minerals Engineering 107: 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2016.10.021.
  28. Golev, A., Schmeda-Lopez, D.R., Smart, S.K. et al. (2016). Where next on e-waste in Australia? Waste Management 58: 348–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.025.
  29. Goosey, M. (2012). The materials of WEEE. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook (eds. V. Goodship, A. Stevels and J. Huisman), 123–144. Elsevier.
  30. Guarnieri, P. and Streit, J.A.C. (2015). Implications for waste pickers of Distrito Federal, Brazil arising from the obligation of reverse logistics by the National Policy of Solid Waste. Latin American Journal of Management for Sustainable Development 2: 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1504/LAJMSD.2015.067468.
  31. Herat, S. and Agamuthu, P. (2012). E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Review of issues, challenges and solutions in Asian countries. Waste Management & Research 30: 1113–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12453378.
  32. Hickle, G.T. (2014). Moving beyond the “patchwork:” a review of strategies to promote consistency for extended producer responsibility policy in the U.S. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.013.
  33. Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a Waste: a Global Review of Solid Waste Management, Urban development series; knowledge papers no. 15. Washington, DC.: World Bank.
  34. Huisman, J. (2012). 6 – Eco-efficiency evaluation of WEEE take-back systems. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials (eds. V. Goodship and A. Stevels), 93–119. Woodhead Publishing https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096333.1.93.
  35. Hula, A., Jalali, K., Hamza, K. et al. (2003). Multi-criteria decision-making for optimization of product disassembly under multiple situations. Environmental Science & Technology 37: 5303–5313. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0345423.
  36. Isıldar, A., Rene, E.R., van Hullebusch, E.D., and Lens, P.N.L. (2018). Electronic waste as a secondary source of critical metals: management and recovery technologies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Sustainable Resource Management and the Circular Economy 135: 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.031.
  37. Iwenwanne, V. (2019). Nigeria’s e-waste mountain. Resource 7.
  38. Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., and Wong, M.H. (2013). Electronic waste management approaches: an overview. Waste Management 33: 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.006.
  39. Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., and Espinosa, D.C.R. (2017). E-waste: an overview on generation, collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122: 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.018.
  40. Lane, R., Gumley, W., and Santos, D. (2015). Mapping, Characterising and Evaluating Collection Systems and Organisations. Australia: Monash University.
  41. Larmer, B. (2018). E-waste offers an economic opportunity as well as toxicity. The New York Times. p. 12.
  42. Ledwaba, P. and Sosibo, N. (2016). E-waste management in South Africa: case study: cathode ray tubes recycling opportunities. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201608.0021.v1.
  43. Lepawsky, J. (2015). The changing geography of global trade in electronic discards: time to rethink the e-waste problem. The Geographical Journal 181: 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12077.
  44. Lepawsky, J. and Mcnabb, C. (2010). Mapping international flows of electronic waste. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien 54: 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00279.x.
  45. Li, H., La Guardia, M.J., Liu, H. et al. (2019). Brominated and organophosphate flame retardants along a sediment transect encompassing the Guiyu, China e-waste recycling zone. Science of The Total Environment 646: 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.276.
  46. Li, J., Lopez, B.N., Liu, L. et al. (2013). Regional or global WEEE recycling. Where to go? Waste Management 33: 923–934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.011.
  47. Lydall, M., Nyanjowa, W., and James, Y. (2017). Mapping South Africa’s waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) dismantling, pre-processing and processing technology landscape – executive summary. Waste Research Development and Innovation Roadmap Research Report 9.
  48. Morris, A. and Metternicht, G. (2016). Assessing effectiveness of WEEE management policy in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 181: 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.013.
  49. Moura, J.M.B.M., Gohr Pinheiro, I., Lischeski, D., and Valle, J.A.B. (2017). Relation of Brazilian institutional users and technical assistances with electronics and their waste: what has changed? Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127: 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.022.
  50. Nnorom, I.C. and Osibanjo, O. (2008). Electronic waste (e-waste): material flows and management practices in Nigeria. Waste Management 28: 1472–1479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.012.
  51. Nowakowski, P. and Mrówczyńska, B. (2018). Towards sustainable WEEE collection and transportation methods in circular economy – comparative study for rural and urban settlements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135: 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.016.
  52. Odeyingbo, A.O., Nnorom, I.C., and Deubzer, O.K. (2019). Used and waste electronics flows into Nigeria: assessment of the quantities, types, sources, and functionality status. Science of The Total Environment 666: 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.102.
  53. Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., and Cherrett, T.J. (2011). How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Management 31: 714–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.023.
  54. Rao, M.N., Sultana, R., and Kota, S.H. (2017). Solid and Hazardous Waste Management: Science and Engineering. Oxford, England: India: Butterworth-Heinemann; distributed by BS Publications.
  55. Robinson, B.H. (2009). E-waste: an assessment of global production and environmental impacts. Science of The Total Environment 408: 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.044.
  56. Román, E. (2012). 22 – WEEE management in Europe: learning from best practice. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials (eds. V. Goodship and A. Stevels), 493–525. Woodhead Publishing https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096333.5.493.
  57. Sahajwalla, V., Pahlevani, F., Maroufi, S., and Rajarao, R. (2016). Green manufacturing: a key to innovation economy. Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy 2: 273–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-016-0087-z.
  58. Salhofer, S., Kopacek, B., Gericke, M., 2017. Developing a roadmap for e-waste management in South Africa. Sardinia 2017 / Sixteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium / 2 – 6 October 2017.
  59. Schluep, M. (2014). Chapter 29 – Informal waste recycling in developing countries. In: Handbook of Recycling (eds. E. Worrell and M.A. Reuter), 439–444. Boston: Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00029-5.
  60. Schluep, M., Hagelüken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C., Meskers, C., Thiébaud-Müller, E., Wang, F. (2009), United Nations Environment Programme. Recycling – from e-waste to resources.
  61. Schumacher, K.A. and Agbemabiese, L. (2019). Towards comprehensive e-waste legislation in the United States: design considerations based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 149: 605–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.06.033.
  62. Shih, H.-S. (2017). Policy analysis on recycling fund management for E-waste in Taiwan under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production 143: 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.103.
  63. Sindiku, O., Babayemi, J.O., Tysklind, M. et al. (2015). Polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PBDD/Fs) in e-waste plastic in Nigeria. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 14515–14529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5260-6.
  64. Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Kraeuchi, P., and Schwaninger, M. (2005). A comparison of electronic waste recycling in Switzerland and in India. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.006.
  65. Snyman, J., Vorster, K., Jacobs, S.J. (2017). Towards sustanable e-waste management in South Africa, 5th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Presented at the ATHENS 2017.
  66. Stevels, A.L.N. (2007). Adventures in ecodesign of electronic products 1993–2007. Design for sustainability program publication, 17.
  67. Sthiannopkao, S. and Wong, M.H. (2013). Handling e-waste in developed and developing countries: initiatives, practices, and consequences. Science of the Total Environment 463–464: 1147–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.088.
  68. Sugimura, Y. and Murakami, S. (2016). Problems in Japan’s governance system related to end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment trade. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 112: 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.009.
  69. Toffolet, R. (2016). Chapter 1 – WEEE management. In: WEEE Recycling (eds. A. Chagnes, G. Cote, C. Ekberg, et al.), 1–30. Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803363-0.00001-8.
  70. UN/DESA, UNCTAD, ECA, ECE, ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, UNWTO (2019). World Economic Situation and Prospects 2019. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the five United Nations regional commissions (Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). United Nations Publication.
  71. Veit, H.M. and Bernardes, A.M. (2015). Electronic waste: generation and management. In: Electronic Waste (eds. H.M. Veit and A. Moura Bernardes), 3–12. Cham: Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15714-6_2.
  72. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M. et al. (2012). The best-of-2-worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Management, Special Thematic Issue: Waste Management in Developing Countries 32: 2134–2146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.029.
  73. Wath, S.B., Vaidya, A.N., Dutt, P.S., and Chakrabarti, T. (2010). A roadmap for development of sustainable E-waste management system in India. Science of The Total Environment 409: 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.030.
  74. Westcott, M. (2012). e-Waste. Queensland Parliamentary Library and Research Service. http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/researchpublications/researchbriefs/2012/rbr201206.pdf (retrieved 06 April 2017).
  75. Worrell, E. and Reuter, M.A. (2014). Recycling. In: Handbook of Recycling (eds. E. Worrell and M.A. Reuter), 3–8. Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00001-5.
  76. Yang, S. (2019). Trade for the environment: transboundary hazardous waste movements after the Basel convention. SSRN Electronic Journal https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3386820.
  77. Yoshida, F. and Yoshida, H. (2012). 25 – WEEE management in Japan. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials (eds. V. Goodship and A. Stevels), 576–590. Woodhead Publishing https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096333.5.576.
  78. Zeng, X., Wang, F., Li, J., and Gong, R. (2017). A simplified method to evaluate the recycling potential of e-waste. Journal of Cleaner Production 168: 1518–1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.232.
  79. Zhang, Y., Xu, X., Chen, A. et al. (2018). Maternal urinary cadmium levels during pregnancy associated with risk of sex-dependent birth outcomes from an e-waste pollution site in China. Reproductive Toxicology 75: 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2017.11.003.

Note

  1. *Received 20 December 2019. Revised 01 December 2020.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.227.228.95