3.1 Background

Waste electrical and electronic equipment (abbreviated as waste electrical and electronic equipment () or e-waste) is generally regarded as all end-of-life devices that use electricity (battery or cord/circuity). It thus includes televisions, computers, phones, refrigerators, washing machines, toys, kettles, etc. It encompasses almost any household or business device in addition to medical equipment (e.g. resonance tomography scanners) (Kuehr 2019). There is no precise figure determining the generation of e-waste worldwide, but it is agreed that it has been rising consistently and should continue to increase as new technologies are released and the lifespan of equipment decreases (Balde et al. 2015; Ongondo et al. 2011). Other reasons for the continuous e-waste increase are the affordable prices of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), the rapid economic growth, urbanization and growing demand for consumer goods, which increased both the consumption of EEE and the generation of WEEE (Babu et al. 2007; Kumar et al. 2017). The generation of e-waste appears to be higher in developed countries than 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).

In the search for determining the scale of the e-waste problem, several studies attempted to estimate the production of e-waste globally. In 2009, an estimation calculated that WEEE generation was between 20 and 25 million tons yearly, originating mainly from the USA, Europe, and Australasia (Robinson 2009). In the same year, it was estimated that the yearly generation of e-waste was somewhere between 20 and 50 million tons (Schluep et al. 2009) – an upper limit almost twice as high. In 2012, the yearly generated figure totaled about 46 million tons (Perkins et al. 2014). Recent published studies indicate that the current e-waste generation in the world is between 20 and 50 million tons and should increase between 3% and 4% yearly (Abdelbasir, El-Sheltawy, and Abdo 2018; Abdelbasir, Hassan, Kamel, and El-Nasr 2018; Balde et al. 2017). Moreover, merely one-fifth of all e-waste generated is reported to be collected and recycled (Balde et al. 2017). Currently (2019), e-waste is the fastest growing waste stream in the world (Abdelbasir, Hassan, Kamel, and El-Nasr 2018; Cucchiella et al. 2021), and the estimates report it should continue to grow. The latest figures indicate that the e-waste generation in 2019 was 53.6 Mt. worldwide, and the projection is for this value to achieve 74.7 Mt. by 2030 (Forti et al. 2020). This growing waste generation underpins a pressing challenge because e-waste is associated with several potentially hazardous substances (e.g. mercury, cadmium, and halogens). Moreover, its mismanagement contributes to global warming and leads to loss of valuable and scarce materials. The latter is quite significant, as estimates indicate the total raw material value contained in global e-waste equals to roughly US$ 57 billion (Forti et al. 2020; Kuehr 2019).

3.2 International Legislation and Transboundary Movement

The excuse of the “digital divide” served for the purpose of breaching international treaties that would, otherwise, impede such movement of hazardous equipment. An example of such treaty, and arguably the most important international regulation around WEEE, is the “Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal” (Basel Convention hereafter), which was established in 1989. The Basel Convention introduced important changes in the global waste panorama. Its goal was to restrain the illegal waste traffic and to enhance international cooperation toward hazardous waste management (UNEP 1989). It established that the consent of all the parties involved was necessary before the export, import, and transport of hazardous waste. Therefore, its introduction has made the transport of waste more difficult worldwide (Li et al. 2013). From 2002, the Basel Convention, following its sixth meeting, identified e-waste as a priority waste stream in the strategic plan of the years to come (Herat and Agamuthu 2012). Because of the Basel Convention, about one-third of the countries that imported electrical and electronic waste banned such practice (Li et al. 2013).

Nevertheless, the Basel Convention impacted neither the generation nor the flux of WEEE. This led to the creation of national directives aiming to tackle the e-waste challenge with direct regulations. Two of the most important were the European WEEE Directive (Directive on WEEE) and the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) Directive (Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances), both implemented in 2003, and later updated in 2012 and 2011, respectively (European Commission 2018). The latter banned manufacture and sale of EEE containing lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls, and polybrominated diphenylethers. This, in turn, obliged other countries that wanted to trade with the European Union (EU) to stop using these substances in manufacturing their goods (Veit and Bernardes 2015). The current maximum levels by weight for the substances restricted by the European RoHS are as follows (European Parliament 2011): lead (0.1%), mercury (0.1%), cadmium (0.01%), hexavalent chromium (0.1%), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) (0.1%), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) (0.1%). Exemptions may be requested and these are assessed by a certified competent body (Oeko-Institut 2019).

In 2015, the EU Directive 2015/863 was published (known as RoHS-Recast); it announced the addition of four substances (phthalates) to the RoHS list and lower levels of tolerance for the restricted substances – the latest modifications came into effect in July 2019. Regulations similar to the European RoHS were also applied in several other countries with the same concept and slight variations: these include Japan in 2000; China, California (USA), and South Korea in 2007; Singapore in 2017; and Turkey in 2018 (RoHS Guide 2020). Just like the recast of the EU, China implemented the RoHS 2, which came into effect in July 2016 and directly targets EEE by restricting the use of hazardous substances in its manufacturing (RoHS Guide 2019).

The formerly mentioned European WEEE Directive sets targets for the rate of collection, recovery, and recycling, which increase over time. Other requirements include, but are not limited to (EU Directive 2012): (i) All collected WEEE must undergo proper treatment, which means preparing for reuse, and recovery or recycling operations; (ii) The quality standards for the recycling of WEEE shall reflect state of the art; (iii) WEEE can only be exported for treatment outside of the EU if the country exporting can prove that the treatment took place in conditions that are equivalent to the requirements of the WEEE Directive; (iv) Member states should increase customer awareness by providing information such as the cost of end-of-life processing (at the time of sale of an EEE), not to dispose of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste, reverse logistics systems available to them, and the potential effects the hazardous substances of WEEE have on human health and the environment.

Moreover, the Directive introduces a greater control over WEEE and its components, requiring equipment to be weighed when entering and leaving the treatment facilities (or recycling facilities). It establishes minimum treatments required prior to exportation of any WEEE, requires that member states must distinguish EEE from WEEE, and also requires several pieces of evidences attesting the exported material is fully functional – to avoid deceptive export of WEEE as used EEE (EU Directive 2012).

However, these regulations, treaties, and conventions were not enough to stop the e-waste transboundary movement. Slowly, the countries individually began creating their own set of regulations to impede or regulate such movement (Tables 3.1 and 3.2), but in 2013 a similar import/export pattern was still reported (Figure 3.1). Recently, the Basel Action Network (a nonprofit organization) proposed alternative guidelines to the Basel Convention under the claim that there are loopholes in the current regulations, which allow any export to be considered as nonwaste under the claim that it is “e-waste for repair” (BAN 2019). Therefore, despite national and international effort, e-waste trafficking (illegal movement) from developed to developing countries continued (Premalatha et al. 2014).

Recent studies have also shown this global transboundary movement (Garlapati 2016; Kumar et al. 2017) and reported additional developing countries as destination places (importers), which implies that this pattern is still in course. In the past three years, the Basel Action Network (BAN) has published several studies on “scam recycling,” in which companies from developed nations (e.g. European countries, Canada, Australia, USA) supposedly recycle WEEE, but in reality export it abroad to junkyards where the waste is dismantled using dangerous and polluting methods (BAN 2016). Developed countries, large e-waste generators, in the name of international trade – using the “reuse” excuse to save their environment and money flow – dump their e-waste in developing countries like India and China (Goel 2017).

This scenario calls for a verification system capable of assessing the particularities WEEE management, recycling, and treatment. This is to ensure sound end-of-life practices, but also to track double counting of WEEE, which is suspected to happen in some countries as a means to boost results (Toffolet 2016). As can be anticipated, this need was filled by several different conformity verification systems, especially in Europe. As a result, trade between member states was made difficult because, for each country, a different set of rules applied. For this reason, the WEEELABEX (short for WEEE Label of Excellence) was created. Its objective is to design a set of European standards for collection, sorting, storage, transportation, preparation for reuse, treatment, and disposal of all categories of WEEE, while harmonizing the rules and procedures for conformity verification in Europe. This would facilitate trade among the member states and level the playing field for stakeholders (Leroy 2012).

In light of the transboundary movement of e-waste worldwide, important changes occurred in 2017 when China, a major waste-destination country, announced stricter monitoring regarding the quality and contamination of the scrap material received. In July 2017, the former Ministry of Environmental Protection of China announced at the World Trade Organization (WTO) that “by the end of 2017, China will forbid the import of four classes, 24 kinds of solid wastes, including plastics waste from living sources, vanadium slag, unsorted waste paper and waste textile materials” (WTO 2017). It later confirmed the announcement about the import ban on a range of polymers (highly present in e-waste), which would came into force by the end of 2018 (Resource Recycling 2018). Shipments of scrap polymers to China dropped by 99.1% from 2018 to early 2019 (Resource Recycling 2019). These changes highly impacted the international scrap trade and diverted the material flow to other Asian countries, especially Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand (Staub 2018). The overload in these new destination countries was extreme to the point that, less than one year later, both the Vietnamese and the Thai governments announced they would stop receiving scrap plastics (i.e. also announced import bans) (Resource Recycling 2018). China has already proposed a total import ban, which would take place in 2020 and includes scrap fiber and every other form of solid waste. The change was implemented, however, from 01 January 2021. The country has completely banned the import of solid waste (Ministry of Ecology and Environment 2021). These measures were announced with the intent of protecting the environment, improving people’s health, and favoring domestic material over international (Resource Recycling 2018; State Council 2017). The COVID pandemic has delivered yet another blow of uncertainty to this scenario, increasing the difficulty to move scrap materials internationally (Resource Recycling 2020).

3.3 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy in which the manufacturer is held responsible for its products when they reach their end of life. It is based on the polluter-pay principle and has been widely adopted in e-waste management systems worldwide. Switzerland, Japan, European Union (e.g. UK, Holland, Germany), some regions of the USA and Canada (Table 3.3), and more recently China have adopted this policy (Kiddee et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2018). The introduction of EPR was important to achieve sustainable e-waste management, it allowed the financing of unprofitable (but necessary) processing steps, the evolution of the e-waste recycling industry, a synergy between policies and legislations, and a consumer demand for sound dispose option for e-waste (Schluep 2014). The EPR requires the producer to undertake the financial costs of the end-of-life management of WEEE (as is the case in the EU). In some cases, however, the financial burden is split with different stakeholders, including the consumers who are often required to pay a fee for the processing of its EEE once it reaches the end of its lifespan. These fees must be perceived by the payers as fair, reasonable, and based on actual costs of the end-of-life management. They should also be revised periodically as the schemes in place are better understood and audited (MS2 and Perchards 2009).

3.4 Regulations in Various Jurisdictions

As of 2019, 78 countries adopted a national e-waste policy, legislation, or regulation (Forti et al. 2020), but enforcement, investment, and other context-related factors need to be scrutinized to fully understand the regulations in place, and the extent to which they work. The particularities and characteristics of the WEEE regulation in specific countries are described in the section hereafter. Data availability, consolidated e-waste management system, and importance in the international scenario were the criteria used to choose the countries.

3.5 Conclusions

There is a worldwide struggle to find a solution to the WEEE challenge. Different countries are trying different approaches and there is still little information about the material flow and management systems in many developing nations. While each individual country has its particularities, the exchange of experiences and comparison of different approaches toward WEEE management among countries yields important insights toward best waste management practice. Once identified, qualities and shortfalls of a given system can be adapted for a different country in a process of continuous enhancement through regulatory framework and management system setup. Examples of such exchange can be verified by looking at the foundation the European regulations gave to several other non-European countries, or the implementation of the Australian scheme, which took principles from schemes overseas and adapted to a country with large territorial size. In light of this, it becomes necessary to have more scientific outputs analyzing the e-waste management setup of different countries. This is especially important in developing countries, where details and studies are still insipid.

Regulatory initiatives should be more consumer-oriented, without scarifying the strict implementation of the EPR strategy. Specific guidelines on collection and recovery strategies should be reflected directly in the e-waste management regulation – such as financial and material flow accounting found in the Swiss e-waste management system. Critical and emerging aspect (e.g. circular economy and urban mining) should be considered when reforming and developing e-waste management-related regulations. This shall enhance the technical capabilities of the policymakers tackling the e-waste problem and waste can be converted to resources creating jobs and entrepreneurship. Additionally, it is important to have unified or collaborative legislations that assist each other in the task of achieving greater resource efficiency from e-waste, as opposed to legislations that create difficulties to stakeholder acting across different jurisdictions/regions, as is the case for the USA.

Finally, the recent waste ban implemented in China showed the magnitude of e-waste volume shipped to the country from all over the world. It also revealed how the current global setup is dependent on the Chinese recycling industry and how little infrastructure exists elsewhere. The unfolding of the ban over the next few years should render significant changes in the transboundary movement of e-waste and the regulations associated with this waste stream worldwide.

References

1. Abdelbasir, S.M., El-Sheltawy, C.T., and Abdo, D.M. (2018). Green processes for electronic waste recycling: a review. Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy 4: 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-018-0175-3.
2. Abdelbasir, S.M., Hassan, S.S.M., Kamel, A.H., and El-Nasr, R.S. (2018). Status of electronic waste recycling techniques: a review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 16533–16547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2136-6.
3. ABRI. (2018). ABRI – Australian Battery Recycling Initiative. www.batteryrecycling.org.au. (retrieved 13 August 2018)
4. Adediran, Y.A. and Abdulkarim, A. (2012). Challenges of electronic waste management in Nigeria. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology 4: 640–648.
5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). 4613.0 – Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends, 2006.
6. 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.
7. 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).
8. Balde, C., Kuehr, R., Blumenthal, K. et al. (2015). E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on Classifications, Reporting and Indicators. Bonn, Germany: United Nations University, IAS-SCYCLE.
9. BAN (2016). Scam Recycling: e-Dumping on Asia by US Recyclers. Seattle: Basel Action Network (BAN) http://www.ban.org/trash-transparency (retrieved 03 August 2018).
10. BAN (2019). BAN Intervention on the Technical Guideline on Electronic Waste. Seattle: Basel Action Network (BAN) https://myemail.constantcontact.com/BAN-Intervention-on-the-Technical-Guideline-on-Electronic-Waste.html?soid=1114999858498&aid=nT9EqVLY1Hw (retrieved 19 December 2019).
11. BMU. (2015). Objectives and content of the Law on Marketing, Return and environmentally sound disposal of electrical and electronic equipment (Electrical and Electronic Equipment Act – ElektroG) (Kurzinfo zum ElektroG: Ziele und Inhal). BMU – Bundesministerium für umwelt, naturschutz und nukleare sicherheit (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety). http://www.bmu.de/themen/wasser-abfall-boden/abfallwirtschaft/abfallpolitik/elektrog (retrieved 19 August 2018).
12. Bob, U., Padayachee, A., Gordon, M., and Moutlana, I. (2017). Enhancing innovation and technological capabilities in the management of E-waste: case study of South African government sector. Science, Technology and Society 22: 332–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721817702293.
13. 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.
14. Brasil. (2010). Brazilian Policy of Solid Waste (Política Nacional de Resíduos – PNRS) Lei n. 12.305 Câmara dos Deputados, Edições Câmara. 2. ed. 73 p. 2002.
15. C4PA. (2018). C4PA – Cartridges 4 Planet Ark. https://cartridges.planetark.org (retrieved 13 August 2018).
16. 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.
17. Chaudhary, K. and Vrat, P. (2018). Case study analysis of e-waste management systems in Germany, Switzerland, Japan and India: a RADAR chart approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal 25: 3519–3540. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2017-0168.
18. Chen, M., Ogunseitan, O.A., Duan, H. et al. (2018). China E-waste management: struggling for future success. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 139: 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.08.006.
19. Chinese Government Network. (2017). Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Issuing the Implementation Plan for Prohibiting the Entry of Foreign Garbage and Advancing the Reform of the Solid Waste Import Administration System.
20. Suzana Correa and Tiago Dantas (2021). A decade after the law, most Brazilian cities still use dumps and waste production grows with pandemic (Uma década após lei, maioria das cidades brasileiras ainda usa lixões e produção de resíduos crescem com pandemia) https://oglobo.globo.com/sociedade/um-so-planeta/uma-decada-apos-lei-maioria-das-cidades-brasileiras-ainda-usa-lixoes-producao-de-residuos-cresce-com-pandemia-24988904.
21. Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Lenny Koh, S.C., and Rosa, P. (2015). Recycling of WEEEs: an economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51: 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.010.
22. DEQ (2018). NC Electronics Management Program. North Carolina: Department of Environmental Quality https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/electronics (retrieved 16 August 2018).
23. 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.
24. EPRA. (2014). EPRA – Electronic Products Recycling Association. http://epra.ca (retrieved 20 August 2018).
25. 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 L 197: 38–71.
26. European Commission. (2018). Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm (retrieved 03 August 2018).
27. European Parliament. (2011). Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. 174.
28. 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.
29. FECOMERCIOSP. (2020). With a new decree, the rule provided for in the sectoral agreement is now applied by all those responsible for the life cycle of electronic products [Com novo decreto, regra prevista pelo acordo setorial passa a ser aplicada por todos os responsáveis pelo ciclo de vida de produtos eletroeletrônicos] (WWW Document). FecomercioSP. www.fecomercio.com.br/noticia/com-novo-decreto-regra-prevista-pelo-acordo-setorial-passa-a-ser-aplicada-por-todos-os-responsaveis-pelo-ciclo-de-vida-de-produtos-eletroeletronicos (accessed 12 January 2020).
30. Forti, V., Baldé, C.P., Kuehr, R., Bel, G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor 2020 120.
31. Garlapati, V.K. (2016). E-waste in India and developed countries: management, recycling, business and biotechnological initiatives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54: 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.106.
32. Goel, S. (2017). Advances in Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
33. 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.
34. Grandelle, R. (2018). Lack of plan concerning solid waste prevents the solution for 3 thousand dump sites [Falta de plano sobre resíduos sólidos impede solução para 3 mil lixões]. https://oglobo.globo.com/sociedade/falta-de-plano-sobre-residuos-solidos-impede-solucao-para-3-mil-lixoes-22857340. O Globo (retrieved 12 July 2018).
35. Herat, S. (2008). Australia’s ever growing e-waste mountain. Electronics World 114: 34–36.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Irani, A.K., Shirazi, F., Bener, A. (2016). A critical interrogation of e-waste management in Canada: evaluating performance of environmental management systems. 16.
39. Islam, M.T., Dias, P., and Huda, N. (2018). Comparison of E-waste management in Switzerland and in Australia: a qualitative content analysis. International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 12. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1474825.
40. Iwenwanne, V. (2019). Nigeria’s e-waste mountain. Resource 7.
41. 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.
42. Kuehr, R. (2019). E-waste seen from a global perspective. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook (eds. V. Goodship, A. Stevels and J. Huisman), 1–16. Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00002-1.
43. 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.
44. Lane, R., Gumley, W., Santos, D. (2015). Mapping, characterising and evaluating collection systems and organisations. Characterising and Evaluating Collection Systems and Organisations, Monash University, Australia.
45. Ledwaba, P., Sosibo, N. (2016). E-waste management in South Africa: case study: cathode ray tubes recycling opportunities. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201608.0021.v1
46. Lee, C.-H., Chang, S.-L., Wang, K.-M., and Wen, L.-C. (2000). Management of scrap computer recycling in Taiwan. Journal of Hazardous Materials 73: 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(99)00191-0.
47. Leroy, P. (2012). 4 - The WEEE forum and the WEEELABEX project. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials (eds. V. Goodship and A. Stevels), 66–77. Woodhead Publishing https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096333.1.66.
48. 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.
49. McCann, D., Wittmann, A. (2015). E-waste prevention, take-back system design and policy approaches. Step Green Paper Series 92.
50. Ministry of Ecology and Environment (2021). https://www.hbzhan.com/news/detail/140248.html (accessed 05 May 2021).
51. Ministry of Environment. (2013). Call to elaborate the sectoral agreement to implement the reverse logistic system for WEEE and its components [Chamamento para a Elaboração de Acordo Setorial para a Implantação de Sistema de Logística Reversa de Produtos Eletroeletrônicos e seus Componentes]. Ministry of Environment – Brazil (Ministério do Meio Ambiente).
52. MMA. (2012). National Solid Waste Plan [Plano Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos]. Solid waste management information system [Sistema de informações sobre a gestão dos resíduos sólidos]. Ministry of Environment [Ministério do Meio Ambiente].
53. MMA. (2020). SINIR – National Solid Waste Management Information System [Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre a Gestão dos Resíduos Sólidos]. Ministry of Environment [Ministério do Meio Ambiente]. https://sinir.gov.br/component/content/article/2-sem-categoria/474-acordo-setorial-de-eletroeletronicos (retrived 1 December 2020) [WWW Document]. URL https://sinir.gov.br/component/content/article/2-sem-categoria/474-acordo-setorial-de-eletroeletronicos (retrived 1 December 2020).
54. Mobile Muster. (2017). Annual Report-2016–2017. www.mobilemuster.com.au (retrieved 13 August 2018).
55. Morawski, C., Millette, S. (2014). Waste electronics management in Canada. Shortcomings and opportunities for improvement abound. Solid Waste Management. www.solidwastemag.com (retrieved 17 August 2018).
56. 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.
57. MS2 and Perchards. (2009). Product Stewardship in North America and Europe. MS2 – Martin Stewardship & Management Strategies Pty Ltd. Perchards Ltd. Final Report.
58. Namias, J. (2013). The future of electronic waste recycling in the United States: obstacles and domestic solutions (Master’s thesis). http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Namias_Thesis_07-08-13.pdf (retrieved 17 August 2018).
59. NEA (2018). Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Oslo, Norway: NEA – Norwegian Environment Agency https://www.environment.no/topics/waste/avfallstyper/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment (retrieved 02 December 2019).
60. NYSDEC. (2019). “The Electronic Equipment Recycling and Reuse Act”, ENVIROMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW ARTICLE 27 TITLE 26. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. http://www.dec.ny.gov (retrieved 17 December 2019).
61. Oeko-Institut (2019). RoHS Evaluations of Exemtion Requests and Other Topics. Freiburg, Germany: Oeko-Institut https://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=214 (retrieved 19 December 2019).
62. 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.
63. Owusu, L. (2017). Developing a conducive legal framework for sustainable management of E-waste in Ghana: experience and way forward. https://www.wrforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-10-24-Owusu-Ghana-legal-framework-WRF.pdf (retrieved 2 December 2019).
64. Peluola, A. (2016). Investigation of the implementation and effectiveness of electronic waste management in Nigeria. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment 2: 100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0155-1.
65. Perkins, D.N., Brune Drisse, M.-N., Nxele, T., and Sly, P.D. (2014). E-waste: a global hazard. Annals of Global Health 80: 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2014.10.001.
66. Pharino, C. (2017). Electronic waste management in Thailand. In: Challenges for Sustainable Solid Waste Management: Lessons from Thailand, SpringerBriefs on Case Studies of Sustainable Development (ed. C. Pharino), 93–115. Singapore: Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4631-5_7.
67. Premalatha, M., Abbasi, T., and Abbasi, S.A. (2014). The generation, impact, and management of E-waste: state of the art. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 44: 1577–1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2013.782171.
68. Resource Recycling. (2018). From Green Fence to red alert: A China timeline. https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/02/13/green-fence-red-alert-china-timeline (retrieved 9 August 2018).
69. Resource Recycling. (2019). China: Plastic imports down 99 percent, paper down a third. https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2019/01/29/china-plastic-imports-down-99-percent-paper-down-a-third (retrieved 20 June 2019).
70. Resource Recycling. (2020). Lockdowns and shipping strife snarl scrap exports. https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2020/03/31/lockdowns-and-shipping-strife-snarl-scrap-exports (retrieved 01 December 2020).
71. 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.
72. RoHS Guide. (2019). China RoHS. https://www.rohsguide.com/china-rohs (retrieved 31 July 2019).
73. RoHS Guide. (2020). Other RoHS Green Initiatives Worldwide. www.rohsguide.com (retrieved 14 September 2020).
74. 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.
75. Schluep, M. (2014). Chapter 25 – Waste electrical and electronic equipment management. In: Handbook of Recycling, 397–403. Boston, MA: Elsevier https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00025-8.
76. Schluep, M., Hagelüken, C., Kuehr, R. et al. (2009). Thiébaud. In: Recycling – from E-Waste to Resources (eds. E. Müller and F. Wang). United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) & United Nations University (UNU) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278849195_Recycling_-_from:e-waste_to_resources.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Snyman, J., Vorster, K., Jacobs, S.J. (2017). Towards sustanable e-waste management in South Africa, in: 5th International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Presented at the ATHENS 2017.
80. Song, X., Wang, J., Yang, J., and Lu, B. (2017). An updated review and conceptual model for optimizing WEEE management in China from a life cycle perspective. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 11: 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0985-8.
81. State Council. (2017). Action plan to phase out waste imports. State Council. The people’s republic of China. http://english.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2017/07/27/content_281475756814340.htm (retrieved 9 August 2018 ).
82. Staub, C. (2018). Exporter response to China: ‘We are changing our whole strategy’. Resource Recycling. https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/01/09/exporter-response-china-changing-whole-strategy (retrieved 9 August 2018).
83. STEP. (2019a). STEP – Solving the e-waste problem. E-waste Rules, Regulations, Policies and Guidance. http://www.step-initiative.org (retrieved 02 December 2019).
84. STEP. (2019b). Ontario (Canada): Waste-Free Ontario Act, Bill 151 Enacted, 2016. STEP – Solving the E-waste Problem. http://www.step-info.org/ontario-canada-waste-free-ontario-act-bill-151-enacted-2016.html (retrieved 02 December 2019).
85. TEC. (2008). Tipping point: Australia’s E-waste Crisis. TEC – Total Environment Centre. www.tec.org.au/reports (retrieved 23 March 2016 ).
86. The Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) (2017). Annual Report on Environmental Pollution Prevention and Control of Solid Waste in Large and Medium Cities in 2017. Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MME) https://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/sthjzk/gtfwwrfz/201912/P020191220699179334061.pdf (accessed 23 August 2019). (In Chinese).
87. Thi Thu Nguyen, H., Hung, R.-J., Lee, C.-H., and Thi Thu Nguyen, H. (2019). Determinants of residents’ E-waste recycling behavioral intention: a case study from Vietnam. Sustainability 11: 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010164.
88. 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.
89. UBA (2016). Electrical and Electronic Waste. UB – Umwelt Bundesamt (Environment Federal Office) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278849195_Recycling_-_from:e-waste_to_resources (retrieved 19 August 2018).
90. UNEP (1989). 1989 Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. Journal of Environmental Law 1: 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/1.2.255.
91. Vadoudi, K., Kim, J., Laratte, B. et al. (2015). E-waste management and resources recovery in France. Waste Management & Research 33: 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15597775.
92. 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.
93. Victoria State Government. (2019). E-Waste Landfill Ban. Engage Victoria. Environment, land, water and planning. https://engage.vic.gov.au/waste/e-waste (retrieved 24 October 2018).
94. Wang, J., Wang, Y., liu, J. et al. (2018). Effects of fund policy incorporating extended producer responsibility for WEEE dismantling industry in China. Resources. Conservation and Recycling 130: 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.11.016.
95. 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.
96. Woggborg, A. and Schroder, P. (2018). Nigeria’s E-waste management: extended producer responsibility and informal sector inclusion. Journal of Waste Resources and Recycling 1: 103–111.
97. Wong, N. (2018). Electronic waste governance under “one country, two systems”: Hong Kong and mainland China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15: 2347. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112347.
98. WTO. (2017). Notification. Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, 17–3880. World Trade Organization. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/impl_03oct17_e.htm (retrieved 9 August 2018).
99. 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.
100. Zeng, X., Gong, R., Chen, W.-Q., and Li, J. (2016). Uncovering the recycling potential of “new” WEEE in China. Environmental Science & Technology 50: 1347–1358. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05446.
101. Zeng, X. and Li, J. (2019). Chapter 19. WEEE management in China. In: Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook (Second Edition), Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials (eds. V. Goodship, A. Stevels and J. Huisman), 521–540. Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102158-3.00019-7.