Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Botswana: Prospects and challenges.

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València] On: 08 April 2015, At: 07:18 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Botswana: Prospects and challenges ab

a

Daniel Mmereki , Baizhan Li & Wang Li’ao

c

a

Faculty of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China b

College of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China

c

College of Resources and Environmental Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China Accepted author version posted online: 07 Mar 2014.Published online: 20 Dec 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Daniel Mmereki, Baizhan Li & Wang Li’ao (2015) Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Botswana: Prospects and challenges, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65:1, 11-26, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2014.892544 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2014.892544

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

REVIEW PAPER

Waste electrical and electronic equipment management in Botswana: Prospects and challenges 1,2,⁄ 1 3 Daniel Mmereki, Baizhan Li, and Wang Li’ao 1

Faculty of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China College of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China 3 College of Resources and Environmental Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China ⁄Please address correspondence to: Daniel Mmereki, Faculty of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering, Chongqing University, 174 Shazhengjie, Shapingba District, Chongqing City 400045, P.R. China; e-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded by [Universitat Politècnica de València] at 07:18 08 April 2015

2

The management of waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) is a major challenge in developing and transition countries. The paper investigates recent strategies to manage this waste stream in an environmentally sound way. Obsolete electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) are a complex waste category containing both hazardous and valuable substances. Many countries and regions in the world are undertaking extensive scientific research to plan and develop effective collection and treatment systems for end-of-life EEE. In developing countries such as Botswana, effective strategies that cover all stages throughout the lifecycle of products, particularly at the end-of-life, still lag behind. Infrastructure, pre-processing, and end-processing facilities and innovative technologies for end-of-life management of e-waste are noticeably absent due to lack of investment and high costs of its management. The objective of the paper is to present the e-waste situation in Botswana, highlighting (a) measures taken in the form of legislative and policy regulations; (b) existing practices to manage e-waste; and (c) effective solutions for e-waste management in emerging economies. Studies from other countries on e-waste management issues provided insights on the “best” technical and logistical pre-processing and end-processing strategies to treat hazardous waste. The paper also highlights key societal factors that affect successful implementation of cost-effective collection and value recovery of end-of-life EEE. These include unavailability of national “e-waste policy,” absence of formal take-back system, absence of financing and subsidies, inadequate source separation programmes, absence of technical and logistical integration of pre-processing and end-processing facilities, and limited infrastructure and access to technologies and investment. Effective strategies such as an “integrated approach” (mixed options), access to technologies, establishment of pre-processing and end-processing facilities and optimization of logistics, optimizing diversion of e-waste from disposal sites, and investment in e-waste are suggested to manage this complex waste stream in an environmentally sound way. Implications: E-waste management has become a major challenge due to limited infrastructure, innovative technologies, and investment, no comprehensive system of monitoring either its generation or its movement and no coordinated strategic framework of actions to deal with e-waste economically and in a sustainable manner. For better management of EEE at their end-of-life, sustainable and specific practical policies, rules and regulation should be established and applied to all levels of e-waste management, particularly at the post-consumption stage. This paper reviews the current situation of e-waste management in Botswana, with a view towards formulating an effective regulatory and sound waste management strategy as well as the promotion of incentives and environmental sustainability. potential of environmental impact), and valuable substances (e.g., nonprecious metals: iron, steel, copper, aluminium, etc.; precious metals; gold, silver, platinum, palladium, etc.; plastics) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2000; Onwughara et al., 2010; Nnorom et al., 2011; Osuagwu and Ikerionwu, 2010; Perrine and Susanne, 2009). E-waste has the potential to generate significant public and environmental impacts if handled and disposed of inappropriately (Wang et al., 2012). Several researchers have shown that large quantities of e-waste have been rapidly accruing in the fast-growing cities or metropolises of developing and transition countries. This e-waste includes waste from both domestic consumption as well as imported waste (Khetriwal et al.,

Introduction With the rapid development of electronic technology and gradual improvements of living standards, the life span of electrical and electronic equipment has greatly reduced, resulting in increasing quantities and types of e-waste (Ramzy et al., 2008; Darby and Obara, 2004; Jofre and Morioka, 2005; Kalana, 2010). E-waste is a complex waste category because of the combination of heteromeneous materials it contains, both hazardous substances (e.g., lead, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], polybrominated biphenyls [PBBs], mercury, polybrominated diphenyl ethers [PBDEs], and brominated flame retardants [BFRs] and other coolants with heavy 11

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65(1):11–26, 2015. Copyright © 2015 A&WMA. ISSN: 1096-2247 print DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2014.892544 Submitted September 20, 2013; final version submitted January 6, 2014; accepted February 3, 2014. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uawm.


12

Mmereki et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 11–26

2009; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008a; Mugisha, 2009). This is combined with rapid product obsolescence, high penetration market, and replacement market of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), which corresponds to increase in the quantity and type of obsolete electronic products (Nnorom et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2005; Macauley et al., 2003; Darby and Obara, 2004). Data from available from the European Union (EU) member states indicate that the volume and composition of e-waste, and how it is utilized and categorized varies from country to country depending on the level of technological advancement and how it is defined. A study by Ylä-Mella et al. (2004) estimates that waste electrical and electronic equipment generated in Europe ranges between 6.5 and 7.5 million tons per year, increasing annually at the rate of 16–28%. A report on landfill forecasts in Australia indicates that 75% of the 3 million computers bought every year will end up in landfills (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006). In the United States, it is noted that for end-of-life (EoL) management, 18% (414,000 tons) were collected for recycling and 82% (1.84 million tons) were disposed of primarily in landfills (EPA, 2008). Another study states that in 2003, the U.S. electronics recycling industry consisted of just over 7000 employees and annual revenue of over US$700 million (International Association of Electronics Recyclers [IAER], 2003). In Germany, consumers still dispose of their e-waste with regular domestic waste (Dimitrakakis et al., 2009). In Hong Kong, families discarded around 490,000 old televisions and computer monitors each year (So, 2011). In South Africa and China, it is forecast that obsolete computers will rise by 500% in 2020 compared with their 2007 levels (Schuelp et al., 2009). Additionally, it is estimated that about 50–80% of e-waste from developed countries is exported to regions such as China, India, and Africa (Ongondo et al., 2011; Joseph, 2007; Huisman et al., 2008; Pucket et al., 2002; Hosoda, 2007). Existing studies report that this is driven by the demands for secondhand and secondary resources by refurbishment and dismantling informal facilities as an income-generating source for the local communities (Cobbing, 2008; Schwarzer et al., 2008; Schmidt, 2006). However, in many developing and transition countries including Botswana, e-waste handling is dominated by the backyard/informal recyclers using intensive manual dismantling of equipment. This is usually followed by the use of archaic techniques for the recovery of valuable materials and components or burning of cables and residues without basic working protection regarding health and safety (Puckett et al., 2002; Chi et al., 2011). For instance, it has been shown that in Guiyu (China) and Bangalore (India), heavy contamination from backyard recycling brings severe damage to the local environment and leads to human health risks (Ha et al., 2009; Sepúlveda et al., 2010). Elsewhere, studies on informal/backyard recycling have revealed that informal recovery of valuable materials such as precious metal has low yields and thus leads to loss of resources, which leads to increased demand for extraction and mining capacity (Alake and Ighalo, 2012; Lee et al., 2000). Therefore, the establishment of environmentally sound collection and treatment systems is essential for developing and transition countries to reduce the environmental and public health impacts from rapidly increasing quantities and types of e-waste. The management of e-waste is a highly complex system, in which the flow of materials includes a wide range of stakeholders, including customers, manufacturers, suppliers,

regulators, and decision-makers (Joseph, 2007). It has been noted that this complexity can be divided into two subsystems: (1) the technical system applying treatment technologies and innovations in industrial infrastructure; and (2) the societal system responsible for adoption of innovations and management of the technical system under treatment standards and legal requirements (Schluep et al., 2009). Therefore, the technical system is formed by a cluster of processors, refiners, and final disposers in different treatment stages, fulfilling the necessary tasks to recycle secondary materials and enable toxic control over hazardous substances (Castro et al., 2007; Meskers et al., 2009; Tschakert and Singha, 2007). The performance of the technical system depends on available technologies, processing equipment, and facilities. On the other hand, the societal system provides a conditional framework, which influences the selection of technologies and performances of the technical systems through domestic take-back systems, policies, economic rules, market dynamics, and environmental standards (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007). To buttress this, Wang and others (2012) observed that there is an apparent geographic and socioeconomic division of e-waste handling patterns across the globe. Legislation such as the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive and Restriction on the Usage of Hazardous Substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) (Sawhney et al., 2008), Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (Wath et al., 2010; Sinha-Khitrewal et al., 2009), legislation for home appliances and personal computers (Japan) (Darby and Obara, 2004), Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR), Product Stewardship, eco-design, (reducing the use of toxic substances), design for environment (DfE) and reverse logistics provisions (Srivastava, 2007), landfill bans for disposal of certain toxic and hazardous materials (Kang and Schoenung, 2005; Widmer et al., 2005), separate collection channels, and sophisticated treatment has been established to manage e-products throughout all stages of the equipment’s lifecycle, particularly at the end-of life stage in developed countries. Nevertheless, in developing and transition countries, unregulated repair and reuse with substandard informal recycling channel prevails, without the involvement of municipalities to cooperate in the collection and treatment of e-waste. Wang et al. (2012), therefore, recommend that the introduction of innovative technologies and development of e-waste treatment systems should be combined systematically with the socioeconomic context. Botswana is generally referred to as a middle-income country with a significant number of working class people who can increasingly afford to purchase EEE products (Mmereki et al., 2012). Additionally, the country is experiencing rapid economic growth (Khupe, 1996; Mosha, 1996). Associated with this, the country is believed to be harboring a large stream of e-products with highly import-led and limited manufacturing of EEE (Taye and Kanda, 2011). The international corporate organizations dealing with EEE business in Botswana include Samsung, Nokia, Sony, Defy, and others. These companies have agents who give support to their customers in terms of servicing the products if they have technical breakdown. Although in Botswana there are no regulations like those in Europe on Extended Product Responsibility (EPR), there are some procedures that provide



“informal” take-back systems—“exchange-old-for-new” (Mmereki et al., 2012). Furthermore, the country is experiencing rapid urbanization, with the projected proportion of the total population living in urban areas growing from 41% in 1990 to 53% by 2010, and expected to continue increasing (United Nations Population Division, 2012). The rapid urbanization of Botswana has generated an increased demand for information and communication technology (ICT) due to the integration of computer-based technologies into the centerfold of public administrative reforms to digitize and optimize the delivery of services and the process of governance (Mmereki et al., 2012). However, the e-waste landscape is not well documented, which limits stakeholder involvement. In many developing and transition countries, including Botswana, the increasing improper handling and unregulated dumping of e-waste as well as the lack of systems covering all steps from disposal until final processing due to limited infrastructure and access to technologies and investment are becoming very serious concerns (Mmereki, 2012). The treatment of e-waste is therefore a major priority, especially in the capital city Gaborone and the other major settlements of Botswana where there is a rapid population increase and the rate of lifestyle changes is higher than in other parts of the country, as reflected by increase in mobile telephony, Internet usage, etc. However, little is known about the systematic studies undertaken to determine the magnitude of the e-waste problem as well as collection and treatment systems in Botswana, and the region. Therefore, the principal objective of this paper is to facilitate a better understanding of the e-waste management system in Botswana and provide key information and insights that will contribute to the achievement of the goal of developing e-waste policy, set priorities, and propose approaches for effective collection and treatment of e-waste. It seeks possible effective alternative strategies and “best” pre-processing and end-processing technologies for e-waste management in Botswana.

E-Waste–Related Regulation in the Perspective of Botswana In Botswana, there is no specific legislation that deals specifically with e-waste, although a Waste Management Act was passed in 1998 after the ratification of the Basel Convention to deal with issues such as hazardous waste (management and handling) (Toteng, 2001; Gwebu, 2003; Ketlogetswe and Mothudi, 2005; Mbongwe et al., 2008). The Waste Management Act defines hazardous waste as “controlled waste which has the potential, even in low concentrations, to have significant adverse effect on the public or the environment on account of its inherent chemical and physical characteristics, such as toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, carcinogenicity or other properties” (Waste Management Act [WMA], 1998). However, the Act does not introduce measures such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), collaboration among stakeholders, and long-term initiatives in e-waste management (Mmereki et al., 2012). It confirms the findings that collection and treatment of e-waste is an intricate system, in which flow of materials includes a wide range of stakeholders connected (Wang et al., 2012). However, in Botswana due to the

13

unavailability of “e-waste policy,” it is difficult to identify the stakeholders in the e-waste management system and demarcate different roles and responsibilities. Additionally, the country lacks sufficient technical systems to adopt treatment technologies and innovations in industrial infrastructure to manage ewaste. Scientific reviews in developing and transition countries reveal that the problem is compounded by limited collection infrastructure, separate collection channels, access to technologies, equipment, and facilities for solid waste management (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007; Advanced Tropical Environment [ATE], 2012). Available evidence reveals that due to the lack of “e-waste policy,” there are no formal take-back systems, economic incentives, and adequate environmental standards, or separate collection channels (Mmereki et al., 2012). Collection of e-waste is a crucial stage to aggregate and divert the e-waste stream to the desirable treatment facilities (Wang et al., 2012). Existing studies report that there are loopholes in the existing legal framework to ensure that e-waste from developed countries is not exported to the country under the pretext of “donations” (Mmereki, 2012). Co-disposal of assorted domestic and hazardous waste in open dump sites and municipal landfills is generally practiced. Although the recommendation of establishing recycling system has been adopted, progress with regards to the collection system and the construction of formal recycling facilities is still slow (National Conservation Strategy [Co-ordinating] Agency/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH [German Agency for Technical Cooperation] [NCS/GTZ], 1996). Therefore, it is essential to develop and implement systematic collection and treatment solutions targeting more optimal balances in environmental, economic, and social performance. Major milestones in environmental management legislation and by-laws exist that govern the disposal of waste according to classification and hazardous and nonhazardous (Gwebu, 2003; Kgosiesele and Zhaohui, 2010; Urio and Brent, 2006). A National Waste Management Strategy exists for Botswana (Kgathi and Bolaane, 2001; Kgosiesele and Zhaohui, 2010; Toteng, 2001). The strategy focuses on the sustainable utilization of natural resources, the application of the “polluter pays principle,” and encourages the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste (Ketlogetswe and Mothudi, 2005; Urio and Brent, 2006). Also, the Waste Management Strategy Act and landfill guidelines underlie the importance of landfilling (Gwebu, 2003). To make the environmental management law more effective, nongovernmental and private organizations have developed initiatives such as drop-off centers and recycling initiatives (glass bottles, plastic bottles, waste paper, and cans) as well as scientific research to facilitate recycling of scrap metals, oil containing wastes, medical waste, packaging wastes, industrial wastes, and tyres and battery wastes (Gwebu 2003; Urio and Brent, 2006). Evidence from existing legislation associated with e-waste implies that (1) legislation is examined from different perspectives, thereby confusing the problem; (2) enforcement of the environmental management laws is carried out by different government departments, at different levels of government, and as such there is no uniformity in dealing with e-waste or hazardous waste; and (3) some environmental management laws at the municipal level have a potentially negative impact on recycling


14


or collection activities insofar as hazardous waste, storage, collection, and transport are concerned (Mmereki et al., 2012). The practical implication would be that greater environmental impact would occur in Botswana. Available evidence suggests that developed countries have been able to develop e-waste policies, innovative technologies, and technical skills to deal with e-waste concerns (Wang et al., 2012). The fact that developed countries remain responsible for the bulk of e-waste exported to the developing and transition countries reflects the failure of their policies within the socioeconomic context rather than lack of requisite innovative technologies. Whereas collection and treatment systems in developed countries such as Switzerland, Sweden (have with the cooperation of municipalities and producers, set up nonprofit collection management systems), Germany, the United States, and Japan are wellestablished and coordinated by producers and municipalities (Kang and Schoenung, 2005; Yoshida and Yoshida, 2009), this is not the case for developing and transition countries such as China and India where collection is typically by independent informal sectors (Li et al., 2006). It is noted that the unavailability of technology and technical capacity puts limitations on e-waste legislation, processing, and recycling of e-waste. Elsewhere, research has shown that legislation is usually promulgated relative to the society’s capability (ATE, 2012). The collection and treatment of e-waste is undertaken by the so-called “informal” and “invisible” backyard/informal recyclers using archaic techniques to cannibalize some useful materials and components (Mmereki et al., 2012; Taye and Kanda, 2011). However, in developing and transition countries, the sector is characterized by the following observations: (1) the majority of the so-called informal/backyard collections are not yet International Organization for Standardization (ISO) compliant; (2) there is a lack of enforcement of environmental health standards (EHS) (workers protection, safety, and safety information); and (3) potentially hazardous e-waste is disposed of in landfills; and also by the supply deficiency of formal recyclers and the safety problems of remanufactured electronic products (Chi et al., 2011; Nnorom et al., 2008). Such a situation poses serious threats to the environment and public health from e-waste materials such as lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), mercury,

polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) (EPA, 2000). Therefore, the development of new formal recycling systems in developing and transition countries should take the so-called “informal” sectors into account, and more policies need to be made to improve working conditions and the efficiency of the so-called “informal” players and set up incentives for informal recyclers so as to reduce improper handling activities and divert more e-waste flows into the formal recycling sector.

State of E-Waste in Botswana: Sources The major movers of domestic and industrial general wastes are municipalities and their sub-contractors. The sources of e-waste are quite diverse, as it emanates from individual households, corporate sectors, public institutions, government departments, and others (NSA/GTZ, 1996; Taye and Kanda, 2011). The use of electronic equipment has found niche areas: information and communication technology; medicine; health; education; food supply; environmental monitoring; and others (ATE, 2012). Environmental researchers indicate that basic EEE appliances that have become an integral part of human life including many domestic devices, such as televisions, personal computers (PCs), laptops, mobile telephony, refrigerators, washing machines, printers, irons, and children toys (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007; Schluep et al., 2009). As stated earlier, there are non-existent manufacturers of EEE in Botswana. Manufacturing consists of assembling imported parts (Taye and Kanda, 2011). Botswana, however, provides no such estimate of how much EEE is present within the country, where it is, and where it is moving to (Mmereki et al., 2012). Analysis of data shows that in Botswana, e-waste flow is a complex issue (Mmereki, 2012). As a consequence, it is difficult to know the flow of secondary equipment and waste products, and the contribution of e-waste generated by individual households, corporate sectors, public institutions, government departments, and others. In many developed countries, increasing attention is being given to the quantification of e-waste generation as well the identification of e-waste flows (ATE, 2012). The sources of e-waste in Botswana are summarized in Table 1. However, due to lack any specific controls on e-waste management,

Table 1. Summary of e-waste generators, type of e-waste, and electronic waste collectors in Botswana

E-Waste Generators

Types of E-Waste

Retailers/distributors

Disassemblies such as metal scrap, ICT board, etc. Whole units of e-waste such as computers, telephone, printers, etc. Subunits of e-waste or whole units of e-waste Whole units of e-waste such as computers, telephone, printers, etc. Whole units of e-waste such as computers, telephone, printers, etc.

Government organization, institution (corporate users) Individual household, the public Embassies, mission Private sector, organization, institution (corporate users)

E-Waste Collector Unknown Sent to refurbishment facility and auctions related to electronic equipment Local authorities Auctions related to electronic equipment Auctions related to electronic equipment

15


there is virtually no data on the specific types of e-waste generated or disposed by the individual households, embassies, corporate sectors, and public institutions. This indicates that the data on the quantity of e-waste generated and the per capita e-waste generation from the diverse sources could not be determined, pointing to the need for an inventory of e-waste and sustainable disposal and management.


State of E-Waste in Botswana: Methods of Disposal The country’s largest volume of WEEE comes from information communication and technology equipment, especially computers and accessories (Taye and Kanda, 2011; Mmereki et al., 2012). To date, due to the absence of mandatory e-waste policy, limited infrastructure and access to technologies and insufficient investment, and absence of transfer stations and transportation modes, there are no separate collection channels and treatment systems for e-waste. This leads to difficulties in determining the quantities and types of e-waste generated, collected, treated, and recycled and the emanating environmental risks (Mmereki et al., 2012). Similarly, it has been revealed that there is no uniformity in the method(s) of disposal for obsolete electronic products. The domestic WEEE flows and management are far from understood. Most of the WEEE recycling activities are spontaneous (NCS/GTZ, 1996). Past research indicates that many of the disposal practices (such as unregulated sites and landfills) are not environmentally friendly. The existing e-waste management practices in Botswana are listed in Figure 1. After e-products reach the end-of-use or end-of-life, there are various types of destinations for e-waste generated in Botswana. However, both the amount of e-waste being generated in Botswana and the

different destinations remain unclear. A survey of 45 corporate institutions in Gaborone City by Mmereki et al. (2012) found that usually “hoarding”—the transfer of EEE for secondhand usage—is the preferred disposal practice for end-of-life equipment. The authors also showed that the majority of households (associated with psychological obsolescence or pass them to family members and friends) prefer to store their old e-products at home rather than dispose them off, whereas the business sector and corporate institutions auction them on a “sell as is basis of e-products to secondhand users” and/or donate end-of-life equipment to the underprivileged members of the society, charitable organizations, or nonprofit organizations, effectively extending their life span (Mmereki, 2012). A similar case study conducted in Gaborone City, in 2012, revealed that some corporate institutions take back their items of end-of-life equipment— exchange-old-for-new—when purchasing new items. Government departments through the Botswana Television project “Computer Refurbishment Project (CRP),” in Gaborone City, the largest urban hub in the country, donate obsolete electronic appliances (e.g., computers and accessories) to public primary schools (Taye and Kanda, 2011). Other EEE that have totally lost productive capacity are cannibalized for spare parts, which can then be used to build other computers. Finally, due to lack of legislation in Botswana, reuse and recycling often occur informally by “invisible informal” recyclers for valuable components and materials. Such recyclers usually scavenge for recyclable materials, but they do not have professional treatment and disposal facilities; thus, precautionary measures aren’t taken to protect workers, and environmental pollution is mainly caused by this channel of e-waste disposal (Mmereki 2012). Figure 2 presents the amount of EoL e-products sent to the refurbishment center. Only government departments and

Temporary storage Consumers of e-products e.g. households, government departments etc.

New eproducts

Domestically generated e-waste

From Government departments Refurbishment of eproducts

Reuse by schools Informally recovered materials

E.g. computers and accessories

Poor data availability Figure 1. Flow of e-waste in Botswana.

Informally collected and treated e-waste

Landfill disposal of e-waste or discard in open dumps

16



Figure 2. Discarded e-products at the refurbishment centre project for the period 2008–2010. Adapted from Mmereki (2012).

institutions are allowed to participate in this reuse program, through which they sent EoL e-products to the center, which put them at a significant reasonable advantage over private institutions and households to manage EoL e-products. As the figure illustrates, the amount of EoL e-products sent to the refurbishment centre increased steadily between 2008 and 2010. For the EoL e-products sent to the refurbishment center, the number of refurbished EoL e-products annually is lower than the number of nonrefurbished EoL e-products, meaning that there is still considerable room for them to be discarded as municipal waste or temporarily stored in the center. Although the refurbishment and donation of computers by the CRP is a positive application of reuse and recycling, it is not a system that functions at an efficient level. The challenges include (1) complex procedures especially for private corporate institutions; (2) limited information about the refurbishment project to the general public; (3) list of items of EoL equipment is limited (only computers and accessories are accepted); (4) no formal recycling and treatment facilities for residuals from refurbished products; (5) a lack of capacity in collecting other e-waste from widely-distributed generators because it is expensive for them to establish a comprehensive network that can cover each generator; (6) limited technical and storage capacity and environmental standards; (7) logistics and cost of disposal; and (8) an absence of government subsidized voluntary recycling program (Mmereki, 2012). A growing concern has been the fact that some of the end-of-use and abandoned e-products are unsightly stockpiled in offices, storerooms, etc. (Mmereki et al., 2012). The storage time varies from several months to several years. A key factor that determines storage time is the collection system. As is the fate of most municipal solid waste (MSW) components (Nagabooshnam, 2011), e-waste ends up in landfills, whereas the majority is disposed of in uncontrolled sites or improvisational dumpsites (NCS/GTZ, 1996). Therefore, there is often a higher rate of disposal of e-waste than recycling. The refurbishment center has no effective e-waste controlling system and the ewaste generated by the center is not yet utilized. Several researchers have opined that when obsolete e-products are disposed of in landfill sites or other unregulated or inappropriate sites, millions of tons of materials that could be recovered and reused for new products are being lost (Manomaivibool, 2009; Alake and Ighalo, 2012; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008; Williams et al., 2008). Therefore, considering the great variety of categories and diverse interpretations of e-waste scope in developing and transition

countries (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007), e-waste legislation and management should be diverse and set priorities for equipment and substances with most environmental and resource impact in mind (Wang et al., 2012). In addition, to gain a more thorough understanding of the systemic flows of e-waste in Botswana, a more complete and reliable data on all sectors must be collected and updated regularly. The availability of reliable and accurate information is essential to help policymakers understand the roles of the various actors within the e-waste management system and the material flows between and among them. Therefore, such information may also help policy- and decision-makers regarding the development of collection channels, recycling facilities, and standards and regulation for e-waste management and the level of investment necessary, and it would enable a more accurate grasp of the magnitude of e-waste and complementary flows.

Quantity and Composition of E-Waste In Botswana, e-waste is generally considered an integral part of MSW. Although the management of MSW has been recognized as a huge problem, its quantities and characteristics have not been adequately documented. Systematic data on the initial statistics of total MSW are scanty and insufficient. Also, data on the average per capita generation rate are scanty and insufficient (Mmereki, 2012). This indicates that the quantification of the generated MSW and the per capita generation in Botswana are both less investigated, pointing to the need for a national inventory of MSW and its flows covering all major settlements. Although research elsewhere indicates that initial information on the quantities and types of waste is a prerequisite for the development of appropriate e-waste collection and treatment systems (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008; Wang et al., 2102), there is a dearth of information that tracks e-waste from its origins and details on the composition and relevant parameters (e.g., volume) in developing and transition countries (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007). This situation is made worse by the current system of gathering information, in which waste products are, by and large, invisible to national statistics (Mmereki et al., 2012). Also, there is a dearth of information on the management and recycling of e-waste, as no system to record the amount of collected, generated, treated and disposed waste exists (Mmereki, 2012). Information on how much e-waste is generated and where, and on where it is moving to, is limited (Mmereki et al., 2012). This situation is made worse by the current system of limited upto-date scientific research work (NCS/GZT, 1996), and scientific understandings about e-waste management (Taye and Kanda, 2011). Some scholars have indicated that the generation and discarding characteristics of e-waste are different in different locations. They also showed that the generation of e-waste is influenced by the economic structure, the level of economic development, and the source sector. The quantity of e-waste generated in urban areas in Botswana is relatively higher than in rural areas. The areas where the quantity of discarded e-waste is highest are the urban areas: Gaborone, Francistown, and Selebi Phikwe (NCS/GTZ, 1996), as shown in Figure 3.

17



Figure 3. Variation in trends and occurrence of e-waste generated in different centres in Botswana. Adapted from NCSA/GTZ (1996).

Historically, it is thought that the e-products that are most pronounced among urban householders include mobile phones, electrical ovens, computers, washing machines and refrigerators, and video cameras/camcorders. On the other hand, the most commonly possessed appliances among rural households were color televisions and telephones. Meanwhile, the penetration rates of e-products in rural areas is still low because home appliances were only introduced on a broad scale in many rural areas in recent years, so the rate of obsolescence is still low. The figures suggest that these urban areas, because of their rapid urbanization and changing lifestyles and consumption patterns on e-products, tend to generate more e-waste. It is noteworthy that great difficulties are encountered in rendering these data comparable. These figures only provide a total quantity of ewaste in tons of units without specifying key information such as the year of the data, the size of the population from which the ewaste were generated, or whether the figures were disposal figures or waste generated figures. The majority of e-waste is not separated, so the proportion of recoverable materials is not known, as it is comingled and dumped into landfills and open dumps. It is therefore accurate to say that if Botswana is to be able to account for effective management of e-waste in rural areas, it requires investigation into the purchasing patterns, stocks, and discarding trends in rural areas.

In Botswana, a small amount of literature has noted that the recycling rate of e-waste is relatively low, and the technical level of recycling was not advanced; e.g., the so-called “informal” sector recycled e-waste without environmental protection facilities. Usually, in these locations (rural areas), the local authorities do not have enough manpower skilled and resources to monitor and regulate this sector (NCS/GTZ, 1996). Currently, the stateof-the-art disposal facilities are absent to satisfy the disposal requirements (Mmereki, 2012). A lot of e-waste is disposed of by being mixed with MSW. For example, CRT monitors, mobile phones, and MSW are often mixed with waste chemicals, reagents, and paint. The inappropriate treatment of electronic waste may create serious air and water pollution problems. Existing studies report that the average retention and usage of household equipment is approximately 15 years, whereas for consumer products such as personal computers, the life span is 5 years (NCSA/GTZ, 1996). Scientific reviews indicate that for personal computers (PCs), the obsolescence rate now exceeds the rate of production and obsolescence is decreasing (Kang and Schoenung, 2005). E-waste generation rate may result from technical obsolescence, psychological obsolescence, feature obsolescence, lack of information on how to dispose of the product, and lack of knowledge about collection and treatment after end-of-life of e-products. Other factors mentioned by scholars are lack of recycling projects and infrastructure, and poor handling of e-products, which may lead to broken parts (e.g., residuals) (Nnorom et al., 2011). Generally, e-waste contains both hazardous (e.g., mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.) and valuable materials (e.g., precious metals: gold, silver, copper, plastics, etc.; and nonprecious metals: iron, steel, copper, etc.). Also, e-waste is reusable or recyclable (Wang et al., 2012). However, due to data unavailability on other e-waste products, this paper provides information only on the quantities of the major waste home appliances, as shown in Table 2. The amount of e-waste generation in the country for only the five non-plasma and non–liquid crystal display televisions, refrigerators, washing

Table 2. Botswana’s e-scraps generation from household devices 2005–2010

Year

Composition

Until 2005

Fe NF Plastics Glass e1 parts Diverse

Total Until 2010

Refrigerators (tons)

Electrical Ovens (tons)

Washing Machines (tons)

Air Conditioners (tons)

Total (tons)

781 19 260 28 — 9 1097 1798 43 599 65 — 22 2527

310 4 4 30 20 32 400 891 11 11 6 57 92 1250

33 1 3 1 7 4 49 128 5 13 2 27 14 191

400 180 35 — 30 24 669 1353 611 115 80 100 80 2260

1523 204 302 59 57 69 2215 4170 671 739 153 185 208 6128

Fe NF Plastics Glass e1 parts Diverse

Total Note: Adapted from NCSA/GTZ (1996).


18


machines, electrical ovens, and air conditioners and the substances they contain were 2215 and 6128 tons per year for 2005 and 2010, respectively. Iron and plastics represent a significant proportion of the total weight of electroscraps generated in 2005–2010. Other materials found between these products include glass, nonferrous (NF) metals and diverse materials. The weight of these materials is also significant, more specifically glass (NCS/GTZ, 1996). Existing literature indicates that one possible advantage of recycling e-scrap is the possibility of using plastic as fuel in energy recovery and also an ecologically sound way to manage a significant portion of the plastics from EoL eproducts (Wang et al., 2012). However, in Botswana, crude “backyard” recycling processes present treatment problems because of their significant negative environmental and public health impacts during the recovery of precious metals. Assuming this treatment process continues unabated, this will lead to loss of valuable resources. Therefore, the knowledge of iron and plastics in these products could be useful for assessing their potential recyclability and to identify recovery strategies and environmentally friendly recycling systems. Meanwhile, treatment addresses environmental impacts and public health by removing toxic materials and allows for recovery of valuable materials (Wang et al., 2012; Umicore, 2005). Comingled waste disposal is the most prevalent practice in Botswana. Tables 3 and 4 summarize quantitative characteristics and estimates for the total weight of waste disposed in GaModubu landfill by category. As shown in Table 3, in 2011, 423.6 tons of e-waste was discarded as municipal waste without pre-treatment. A survey of GaModubu landfill showed that WEEE constituted a remarkably lower percentage (1%) composition of all solid waste corresponding to 1.9 kg/capita/year

disposed of in the landfill (Taye and Kanda, 2011). Nevertheless, waste from industrial facilities and households accounted for a significant proportion of e-waste disposed of in the landfill. Although, it is remarkably low; it is predicted that there might be a dramatic change in e-waste generation due to the decreasing lifespan of most of e-products and a substantial amount of obsolete EEE that seem to linger the socioeconomic system. These data suggest that acknowledging and planning around the amount of e-waste disposed of in landfills can help to develop multiple convenient formal collection channels available to generators and implement an effective recycling system.

E-Waste Management Policies and Regulations Comparison of policies and regulations of e-waste management in developed and developing countries Past scientific studies on WEEE management indicate that developed countries have adopted a series of measures in the management of e-scrap in order to protect the environment and human health and to achieve sustainable development (Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2008). In the EU, the European Council and Parliament released the EU directive on WEEE (EU, 2002), and many others and non-European state have launched initiatives for the recycling of e-products. The directive has been in force since August 2004 and has continued to dictate national implementation since the August 2005 deadline for compliance. It obliges each EU member state to install a recycling system for EEE with the objectives to (i) reduce the quantity of WEEE that ends up in landfills; (ii) increase WEEE recovery, reuse, and

Table 3. Breakdown of estimated e-waste quantities per annum at GaModubu Landfill

Waste Type

Estimated Annual Amount of Waste (tons)

Household waste 35726.3 Commercial waste 18801.6 Industrial waste 1364.7 Other waste type 6880.8 Total amount of WEEE in the landfill 423.6

Percentage Composition of WEEE (%)

Estimated Annual Amount of WEEE (tons)

0.79 0.66 0.97 0.06

282.2 124.1 13.2 4.1

Note: Adapted from Taye and Kanda (2011).

Table 4. Material composition of the primary waste categories

Waste Composition by Percentage (Weighted Average %) Primary Waste Category Paper, textile, leather, and rubber waste Food, wood, and garden waste Plastic, metal, and glass Electronic waste Loss Note: Adapted from Taye and Kanda (2011).

Household Waste

Commercial Waste

Industrial Waste

Other Waste Type

26.93 45.50 23.70 0.79 3.08

34.70 30.03 30.84 0.66 3.77

47.79 20.32 26.38 0.97 4.54

24.20 49.33 24.61 0.06 1.80

19



recycling; and (iii) mandate an extended producer responsibility for the whole EEE life span (Huisman et al., 2008). On the other hand, countries such as Japan have regulations focused on “reuse, recycling, and recovery” (Darby and Obara, 2004). Furthermore, Canada, the EU, Japan, several states in the United States, and Australia have developed their systems based on the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). EPR is a policy that mandates e-products manufacturers and importers to be actively involved in the EoL management of e-products throughout their lifecycle, particularly at the postconsumption stage (Khetriwal et al., 2009). Generally, the producers of e-products are financially and physically responsible for environmentally sound recycling of WEEE and the management of EoL products (Liu et al., 2005; Li et al., 2005). EPR can be implemented through administrative, economic, and informative instruments. Therefore, EPR policy instruments can include different types of product fees and taxes, such as advance recycling fees (ARFs), product take-back mandates, virgin material taxes, and even combinations of these instruments (Huisman et al., 2008). In the United States, Product Stewardship has been implemented to manage WEEE. It is a product-centerd approach for environmental protection. It calls on those in the product lifecycle, especially the manufacturers, retailers, users, and disposers, to share responsibility for reducing the environmental impacts of e-products after EoL (EPA, 2000). Similarly, the concept of product self-management has been implemented (Nnorom et al., 2008). However, developing and transition countries do not have well-established systems for collection, separation, storage, transportation, and disposal of e-waste (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008). Meanwhile, developing and transition countries cannot fully duplicate the European WEEE system due to the characteristics of WEEE flow and recycling practices in these countries (Li et al., 2006). Until now, WEEE recycling activities in most developing and transition countries have been mostly performed by the so-called informal sector without using efficient technologies and state-of-the-art recycling facilities (Li et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2006). As a result, e-wastes are managed through various low-end management alternatives such as disposal in open dumps, backyard recycling, and disposal into surface water bodies (Yu et al., 2010). As far as policies and regulations are concerned, most developing and transition countries have no legislation dealing specifically with e-waste and there is lax enforcement of existing laws dealing with general waste management when compared with the developed countries, and they will face severe challenges in addressing the pollution resulting from these activities if alternative measures are not taken (Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2007; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008). Although the Basel Convention bans transboundary movement of e-waste, the illegal importation of WEEE from developed countries to developing and transition countries exists (Liu et al., 2006), which are treated through crude recycling methods, causing serious air, water, and soil pollution as well as significant negative health impacts (Yu et al., 2010). Similarly, developing and transition countries do not have integrated framework regarding the monitoring and management of toxic and hazardous materials and wastes. The principles of waste minimization and sustainable development have been slow in these countries

(Nnorom et al., 2008). In some developing and transition countries such as South Africa, several official pilot projects have been undertaken with the goal of establishing a sustainable environmentally sound e-waste management system for the country (ATE, 2012). Meanwhile, there is a huge gap between developed and developing countries in terms of WEEE/e-waste policies and regulations. In order to address this gap, a number of agencies have undertaken initiatives at global, regional, and country levels. These include the Basel Convention (e.g., Asian countries), StEP-Solving the E-waste Problem, United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP/DTIE) International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) (Nsengimana and Bizimana, 2011).

E-Waste Management Practices and Implications for Sustainable E-Waste Management Solid waste management, which is already a mammoth task in Botswana, is becoming complicated by the invasion of e-waste (which contains both hazardous and valuable substances). E-waste management is the systematic control and monitoring of unwanted and discarded e-products as well as cost-effective treatment systems covering all steps from disposal until final processing of e-waste (Sawhney et al., 2008). Across the globe, the treatment of e-waste involves the technical and logistical integration of “best” pre-processing and “best” end-processing facilities to treat hazardous and complex fractions of e-waste in an environmentally sound way (Wang et al., 2012). The internationally accepted hierarchy of end-of-life options for such environmentally sound management (ESM) of e-waste takes the form of the following hierarchy (Figure 4). The top priority involves reuse of e-products as a whole after they have reached their EoL or end-of-use (EoU) from different consumers after their primary use, and/or reuse of subassemblies and components from e-waste. Also, minimizing e-waste output from individual households, the corporate sector, public institutions, government departments, and others, practice material

1) Re-use product as a whole

Highest level

2) Re-use subassemblies and components

3) Material recycling

4) Incineration 5) Disposal as waste Lowest level Figure 4. Hierarchy of end-of-life options. Adapted from Knoth et al. (2001).


20


recycling of valuable substances and components from hazardous e-waste materials must be treated to primarily remove single-component-containing hazardous substances from the equipment. Treatment of e-waste also eliminates dispersion and contamination and loss of target materials into undesirable streams (Darby and Obara, 2004; Kang and Schoenung, 2005). Finally, end-processing of e-waste has to be undertaken to detoxify and refine various outputs in order to upgrade materials and reduce impurities as well as final disposal (Wang et al., 2012). For nonrecyclable and/or nonreusable components and materials, they have to be disposed of in an environmentally sound way (Knoth et al., 2001). Therefore, it has been noted that a wide spectrum of materials contained in e-waste demands diverse and separate treatment processes, and considerable investment in advanced technologies is required to reach high recovery rates and low environmental impact (Wang et al., 2012). In many developing and transition countries, e-waste is most often disposed of in landfills, unregulated or improvisational dumpsites, and open dumps or incinerated (Puckett et al., 2005; Brigden et al., 2008). Existing studies on e-waste report that across the globe, there are three categories of WEEE collection systems: producer collection, municipal collection, and independent collection (Kang and Schoenung, 2005; Terazono, 2010; Yoshida and Yoshida, 2009). Also, mature recycling management models are widely applied in advanced industrialized countries to treat e-waste (Li et al., 2012). But despite of these ewaste treatment systems elsewhere in the world, the informal sector dominates collection, reuse, and recycling in developing and transition countries due to the absence of mandatory legislation, limited infrastructure, and limited access to technologies and investment. So for these reasons, items such as recoverable materials, which consist largely of metals and plastics, a considerable quantity apparently goes to informal recyclers as resources and income-generating opportunities (Magashi and Schluep, 2011; Wasswa and Schluep, 2008; Finlay and Liechti, 2008). It is, however, to be noted that challenges faced by informal recyclers include (1) logistics (e.g., transport costs); (2) removal and treatment of hazardous fractions not being widely adopted; (3) environmentally sound management (ESM) and proper safety conditions (occupational safety and health [OSH]) not being adopted, which ultimately cause serious air pollution, contamination of the soil and groundwater; and (4) absence of state-of-the-art equipment and advanced technologies for e-waste treatment. For instance, South Africa has a successful informal sector but it faces challenges in dealing with hazardous fraction, such as cathode ray tube (CRT) glass, and finding markets for flame-retardant plastics, and also liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. At the same time, basic environmental precautions are absent at some recyclers, and health and safety regulations are loosely enforced (ATE, 2012; Bondolif, 2007). Therefore, establishing awareness-raising programs and activities related to ESM and OSH, and formation of cooperatives and integration of the informal sector into the formal sector in developing and transition countries, is essential to reduce environmental and public health impacts. However, it is noted that a common feature of the informal sector is that it consists of the poor people with little or no formal education; many are illiterate

(ATE, 2012). This, therefore, should be kept in mind when considering the effect of information and education on the informal recyclers or “role in informal recycling.” Landfills are the primary and conventional disposal methods for all different waste streams; however, most of these sites are hosts to invisible informal recyclers. There is no official logistic provider who specializes in e-waste collection. Globally, recycling practices that extend the producer’s responsibility throughout the entire life cycle of the product chain, from production through to end-of-life management of e-waste, have been successfully implemented (Luther, 2010). Recently, increasing attention has been focused on the introduction of innovative technologies and improvement of the status of informal sector. One philosophy, the “Best-of-2-Worlds” philosophy (Bo2W), assists in a better global optimization of e-waste treatment and faster development of highly desired sustainable take-back and recycling systems in a world of rapidly growing supply and demand for materials used in and derived from electronics (Wang et al., 2012). In Botswana, many material-recycling schemes have been recommended by the NCS/GTZ study (1996), but the actual implementation of waste recycling is limited to a few components of MSW such as glass, plastic, and metals, which do not necessarily originate from e-waste materials. The problem of WEEE management in Botswana is similar to that of developing and transition countries in a number of aspects, namely, (1) invisible flow of materials and poor participation among the stakeholders; (2) insufficient legislation dealing specifically with e-waste and lax enforcement of existing laws dealing generally with waste management; (3) lack of comprehensive data and systematic studies undertaken to determine the magnitude of the e-waste problem, as well as insufficient data for further research on WEEE recycling systems; (4) absence of technical and logistical integration of pre-processing and end-processing; (5) limited capacity and capability of responsible institutions and poor implementation of legal instruments; (6) limited access to innovative technologies, home-grown technology, and investment; (7) lack of specific definition, legal instrument, policy, or strategy; (8) poverty and other developmental priorities; and (9) low level of consumer awareness on a product-by-product basis of collection, treatment, and recycling processes, and the disposal of e-waste, amongst others (Mmereki, 2012; Taye and Kanda, 2011). It is noted that although some of these problems are similar in a number of areas, there could be quite a lot of differences concerning the socioeconomic context (e.g., geography, economic development, etc.) (Wang et al., 2012). Waste minimization, and sustainable development, does not depend only on the efforts of government and the operators of recycling services, but also on public participation, and an integrated framework regarding the monitoring and management of e-waste to reduce the amount of e-waste generated and its significant negative environmental and public health impacts. However, the economic and technical conditions (technical know-how and investment) in developing and transition countries remain inadequate. There is also a need to develop and implement effective strategies to manage e-waste, as shown in Figure 5. These include mainly e-waste policy framework,

21


Collection Channels

Consumers of e-products


E-waste policy framework

Retail takeback and storage

Household level

Collection system

Private institutions Government departments

Create public awareness

Municipal collection and storage

Collection Infrastructure

Other collection points e.g. door-to-door

E-waste treatment technology

E-waste treatment system

Figure 5. Effective strategies for e-waste management in Botswana.

collection systems, collection channels, collection infrastructure, e-waste treatment systems, e-waste treatment technology, recycling and final disposal, and a combination of regulation with incentives and environmental improvements. The introduction of an “e-waste” policy is essential to promote management activities such as public awareness, collection, and recycling systems. In the collection system, e-waste should be sourceseparated at all the sectors and classified as several parts such as recyclable materials (metals and plastics), reusable items, and nonrecyclable materials.

Prospects for E-Waste Management in Botswana Integrating informal sector into the formal sector and implementing e-waste recycling Recycling activities are predominantly undertaken by the “invisible informal” recyclers, who in turn sell them to formal recyclers for further handling or processing to increase their income and the technical levels of the recycling of e-waste are still low. The key to controlling e-waste quantity and pollution is to improve the recycling of e-waste. The recommendation of establishing recycling systems has been adopted, but progress with regard to the legislation, the collection system, and the construction of formal recycling facilities is slow. The government should consider organizing and managing this informal system so that it can be better regulated and formalized into a

waste collection plan overseen by both Department of Waste Management and Pollution Control (DWMPC) and municipal authorities. Not only would this improve the efficiency of ewaste collection and recovery, but it would also provide job opportunities for these informal waste collectors as well as better protection of their health and the environment. Because of the imbalances in economic development, many “invisible informal” recyclers make a living by sorting and selling waste materials; the result is that there are few metal materials such as copper, gold, and aluminum and plastics in MSW in landfill sites. More detailed research is needed on these e-waste management methods.

Reforming the e-waste management system Botswana’s private environmental protection companies have also made efforts to improve the recovery rate of e-waste such as used toners. Specialized companies and non-governmental organizations and the community have been involved in solid waste management. Obviously, this practice plays a key role in the underpinning of Botswana’s e-waste recycling system. The collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste have been operated by the municipal authorities, which mean that administration, supervision, and operation of solid disposal were carried out by the same organization. But for e-waste, generators are responsible for the collection, transportation and disposal, and the absence of a requirement to report it to the government makes what actually happens quite unclear. This solid waste management system should be reformed and collection services for

22


generators of e-waste should be established. Substantial administrative reforms in monitoring the movement of e-products and e-waste flows are required. Therefore, it is essential to define the categories and scope of e-waste generated according to various data sources and known product properties.


Involving the private sector and non-governmental organizations An increase in waste collection occurred due to private sector involvement. In the past decade, these organizations have become increasingly important to the overall waste management in Botswana. Most prominent among the solid waste management organizations are the private limited companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Today, many private organizations are involved in the transportation of waste. Despite the private sector being limited to waste collection only, its participation is still very encouraging. On a smaller scale, waste collection campaigns are carried out by communities and NGOs, and youth clubs are also involved in the collection of waste.

Implementing an integrated disposal method for e-waste Based on current comingled disposal of e-waste, recyclables, and reusable items should be sorted out from the main bulk of solid waste. This change would be an advantage when recycling and reusing EoL e-products and/or e-waste. The residual e-waste generated after refurbishing EoL e-products could be disposed of in an environmentally sound way. This integrated final disposal method would reduce the quantity of e-waste, thereby relieving the pressure on the central government and municipal authorities. Nevertheless, in the future, Botswana should enlarge its waste disposal capacity according to the amount of e-waste growth, advancement in technology, high market penetration, and higher obsolescence rate to avoid the actual treatment and disposal capacity.

Challenges of E-Waste Management in Botswana We provide an overview of the major challenges faced by the country in managing e-waste in the recent years. The challenges that impede the complete management of e-waste are as follows. Lack of clear roles and responsibilities for stakeholders. This is the most significant challenge in e-waste management in Botswana. In fact, the EPR has been adopted by many countries, with Switzerland already achieving remarkable success in the management of e-waste (Liu et al., 2006). Experiences from Switzerland show that a country could assign clear responsibilities of e-waste for all stakeholders in the long term and efforts are needed to establish a mature collection system step by step (Kang and Schoenung, 2006). Botswana has not adopted an EPR to set up a well-established collection and recycling system. Therefore, the responsibilities of collectors, producers, consumers, and governments in the e-waste management system,

especially for e-waste collection and disposal, are absent or unclear. These lack of responsibilities and actions by the stakeholders are the most difficult obstacles for building an effective e-waste management system (Li et al., 2006). Furthermore, in many developing and transition countries such as Botswana, ewaste generators are expected to dispose of their own e-wastes through formal collection channels (e.g., landfill) (Nagabonshem, 2011). As a result, in Botswana, policy- and decision-makers have yet to develop and implement standards for end-of-life EEE management (Mmereki, 2012). Meanwhile, it is still not clear to the general public how to distinguish old eproducts and waste EEE, and which kind of e-waste have to be disposed of rather than treated for reuse or recycling. Simultaneously, no standards exist for the quality control of secondhand EEE in Botswana. All these practical problems bring many difficulties to the whole e-waste management system, not only at the collection stage, but at the final disposal stage. Lack of incentives and channel of formal treatment. The second challenge is the lack of incentives for management of e-waste. Essentially, the cost to manage e-waste is very high. In developed countries, consumers are required to take back used e-products to manufacturers (e.g., Switzerland) (Khetriwal et al., 2009), and even need to pay money for e-wastes discarding (e.g., Japan), which ensures that treatment plants can get enough e-wastes for economical treatment (Darby and Obara, 2005). However, in Botswana, consumers cannot take-back their old products when new ones are bought. The segregation of e-waste is generally done unsystematically, for example by municipal solid waste personnel, and sometimes by the scavengers at landfill sites. At present, it is reported that almost all e-waste is recovered by the so-called “informal” recyclers, which use environmentally unsound recycling methods (Taye and Kanda, 2011). It should be noted that these informal recyclers do not use specialized equipment when extracting and reclaiming valuable materials from used e-products for reuse or recycling and then sell them to formal recyclers, and then discard the rest of e-wastes indiscriminately into the surrounding environment (Mmereki, 2012). The remainder of the e-waste generated is largely handled and discarded by municipalities along with domestic wastes. Because of the low-end management practices, the related environmental and public health impacts are not considered at all. It is therefore essential that a holistic approach be implemented for effective management of e-waste. Limited infrastructure. An effective e-waste management system needs a well-established infrastructure for management, separation, storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of waste. For example, Japan and the United States have a variety of e-waste collection options, including curbside, permanent drop-off centers, and through special dropoff events and point-of-purchase to facilitate collection of ewastes (Kang and Schoenung, 2005). Therefore, developed countries such as Japan and the United States have wellestablished, effective, and flexible collection infrastructure for e-wastes collection, treatment, disposal, etc. Botswana,



however, provides no such services on scrapped consumer equipment. A significant effort is needed to engage in active cooperation and involvement of all stakeholders for more effective management of WEEE to mitigate environmental and social burdens. Absence of an integrated framework regarding the monitoring and management of toxic and hazardous materials and wastes. In general, Botswana still lags behind in e-waste recycling, treatment technology, and management strategy compared with many developed countries. Throughout the country, monitoring and management of toxic and hazardous waste such as e-waste is becoming a major issue (Mmereki et al., 2012). The treatment and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials and wastes will be an important goal for the local authorities of all major centers in the years to come. Currently, there is limited source separation for recyclable and reusable items because e-waste is not sorted out from the main bulk of solid waste and the hazardous content will increase. This could be a disadvantage when comingled disposal is practiced. This absence of an integrated system manifests itself through the following: (1) a lack of specialized separation and collection based on each category of e-waste; (2) inadequate collection, recycling, and treatment systems; and (3) absence of an integrated disposal method. Therefore, the e-waste generated could have significant negative environmental and public health impacts. Meanwhile, this lack of an integrated framework regarding the monitoring and management of e-waste could increase the quantity of the e-waste, thereby increasing the pressure on disposal capacity of the municipal authorities.

Future Challenges Rapid economic growth combined with changing lifestyles, advancement in technology, and decreasing life span of e-products will impact on the composition and quantity of e-waste, particularly in the urban areas, and may lead to new problems of e-waste management, as this waste stream is increasing at a pace faster than the MSW as a result of new e-products introduced in Botswana. However, the unavailability of data will affect future e-waste management. The situation is further worsened by the lack of trade statistics on e-products and inflow of these e-products into the socioeconomic system. Indiscriminate dumping in open spaces and landfills without proper treatment and disposal are the problems that are widespread, which corresponds to public attitudes and awareness contributing to a public health and environmental problem. Generally speaking, e-waste still lacks a systematic management framework, as compared with domestic solid waste. Thus, the challenges of sustainable waste management are overwhelming, as major centers in Botswana are grappling with lack of infrastructure, changing consumption patterns of e-products, and heightening environmental pollution as causes and impacts. Although the primary concern for sustainable waste management is waste reduction, reuse,

23

recycling, and recovering resources, production processes are never completely a “closed loop.” Some amounts of ewaste will be generated and should be properly treated and safely disposed. This e-waste stream should be managed in such a way that our present and future generations will not be affected by its environmental and public health impacts. Most of the e-waste generated is disposed of in the landfills. However, the landfills are poorly maintained and lack pretreatment and recycling facilities. There is a need for effective management of e-waste and development of pretreatment facilities, transfer stations, recycling and reuse facilities, and treatment and management of the disposal sites. Existing practices must be revamped and reformed immediately, as they create environmental problems. Landfills must have waste pretreatment facilities prior to disposal. In addition, scavenging activities should be integrated into formal recycling facilities and fully controlled and monitored to minimize environmental impacts. Even though several departments, such as the DWMPC and municipal authorities, are involved in waste management, their functions are always overlapping and not clear in terms of e-waste management, and there is also no single institution that is designated to coordinate e-waste management programs and activities (Mmereki et al., 2012). The lack of coordination among the relevant institutions often results in weak institutional mechanisms to enforce regulation and duplication of efforts in e-waste management, and unsustainability of overall e-waste management programs. On the central government and local government side, however, lack of technical, financial capacity, human capacity and expertise, absence of separate collection channels, inadequate treatment infrastructure used for waste, inadequate policy and regulatory provisions, and resource constraints are the key factors that are challenging the e-waste recycling and reuse scenario in the country today.

Conclusion and Policy Implications The paper critically highlights the prospects and the challenges of e-waste management, and proposes alternative approaches for e-waste management in Botswana. Our analysis of the situation in Botswana has shown that the chief concern, however, centres in the performance of the e-waste management system due to the growing domestic consumption of electronics, particularly computer waste. We found that there is no single government department to supervise and monitor the range of activities related to ewaste management, including collection, refurbishment, and treatment logistics, and the government is failing in dramatic fashion to properly enforce and implement existing regulations relating to hazardous waste management by failing to monitor its inflow and movement. These challenges are associated with significant negative environmental and public health impacts and loss of valuable economic resources as well as social and economic performance, sustainable development, and institutional capacity and the efficiency of solid waste management. In Botswana, there is only one independent system, which is based on the invisible and so-called informal recyclers and accounts for a significant proportion of e-waste collection and recycling system. Informal processing often leads to


24


detrimental effects on the environment and the health and safety of informal recyclers. Therefore, there are policy implications from this paper. Firstly, there is therefore an urgent need for the introduction of legislation dealing specifically with e-waste (legal and regulatory) for the acquisition, handling, and final disposal processes of e-waste in Botswana and that should be applied to all levels of ewaste management, particularly at the post-consumption stage. The country can probably consider and/or learn from other countries’ experiences and then adopt the EPR policy instruments including the different types of product fees and taxes, such as advance recycling fees (ARFs), product takeback mandates, virgin material taxes, and even combinations of these instruments as well as the implementation of a costeffective and sound e-waste management strategy. Secondly, the introduction of product reuse strategies such as formal recycling will be necessary looking at the present low-end management practices that are causing environmental and public health impacts. Therefore, a special system should be established according to Botswana’s WEEE flow and recycling practices. The establishment of an effective collection network is the key factor for the development of an environmentally sound recycling system for WEEE in Botswana. Furthermore, collection and recycling systems specifically affect e-waste flows and determine the success or failure of an e-waste management system. If the existing capacities of the “invisible informal” sector can be monitored and controlled, they could play an important role in recycling domestic WEEE in Botswana. Integrating and raising profiles of small-sized “invisible informal” recyclers will achieve economic, social, and environmental benefits. Therefore, recognition of the diversity of participants, their differential identities and experiences, as well as participation, engagement, capacity, and transdisciplinarity of the most affected in environmental and public health decision-making processes (Tschakert and Singha, 2007) is essential to manage e-waste effectively. Common concepts and overlaps in knowledge therefore ought to be used as starting points for in-depth awareness-raising programs to address education and outreach. Increasing environmental awareness in e-waste management should encompass the socioeconomic and cultural dynamics and educational needs of the invisible and so-called informal sector populations and, hence, can be largely effective. This must elicit information from the invisible and so-called informal sector to better understand their knowledge base and needs, and bring information to them. One of the key limitations to this paper was the difficulty to accurately and consistently identify up-todate data on the quantities of e-waste generated and a dearth of systematic studies that explores the actual e-waste situation in Botswana. Finally, potential topics and approaches for future developments in e-waste management should include establishing policy targets and comprehensive policy assessments, technology assessment, and development of appropriate home-grown technology following the principles of waste minimization and sustainable development, and improving the conditions of the informal sector.

References Advanced Tropical Environment (ATE). 2012. Identification of the Magnitude of the Electrical and Electronic (E-Waste) Situation in South Africa: A Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) E-Waste as an Emerging Policy Issue. The Africa Institute for Environmentally Sound Management of Hazardous and Other Wastes, and the Department of Environmental Affairs, Republic of South Africa. http://africainstitute.info/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/02/E-WASTE-South-Africa-2012.pdf (accessed October 2013). Alake, T.J., and G.I. Ighalo 2012. End of life strategies for effective electronic waste management in Nigeria. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 1:73–76. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2006. Australia’s environment: Issues and trends. http://www.abs.gov.au (accessed July 23, 2013). Bondolfi, A. 2007. The Green E-Waste Channel: Model for a Reuse and Recycling System of Electronic Waste in South Africa. Lausanne, Switzerland: University of Lausanne and Swiss Federal Laboratories for Material Testing and Research (EMPA). http://ewastguide.info/ Bondolfi_2002_UNIL-EMPA (accessed July 2013). Brigden, K.I., Labunska, D. Santillo, D., and P. Johnston. 2008. Chemical Contamination at E-Waste Recycling and Disposal Sites in Accra and Korforidua, Ghana. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Greenpeace International. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/ reports/chemical-contamination-at-e-wa.pdf (accessed September 2013). Castro, M.B.G., J.A.M. Remmerswaala, J.C. Brezeta, and M.A. Reuter. 2007. Energy losses during recycling and the resource efficiency of product systems. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52:219–233. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.01.014 Chi, X., M. Streicher-Porte, M.Y.L. Wanga, and M.A. Reuter. 2011. Informal electronic waste recycling: A sector review with special focus on China. Waste Manage. 317:731–742. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.11.006 Cobbing, M. 2008. Toxic Tech: Not in Our Backyard, Uncovering the Hidden Flows of E-Waste. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International. Darby, L., and L. Obara. 2004. Household recycling behaviour and attitudes towards the disposal of small electrical and electronic equipment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44:17–35. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.09.002 Dimitrakakis, E., A. Janz, B. Bilitewski, and E. Gidarakos. 2009. Small WEEE: Determining recyclables and hazardous substances in plastics. J. Hazard. Mater. 162:913–919. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.04.054 Finlay, A., and D. Liechti. 2008. E-Waste Assessment South Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa: Openresearch, EMPA. Gwebu, T.D. 2003. Population, development, and waste management in Botswana: Conceptual and policy implications for climate change. Environ. Manage. 31:348–354. doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2883-4 Ha, N.N., T. Agusa, K. Ramu, N.P. Tu, S. Murata, K.A. Bulbule, P. Parthasaraty, S. Takahashi, A. Subramanian, and S. Tanabe. 2006. Contamination by trace elements at e-waste recycling sites in Bangalore, India. Chemosphere 76: 9–15. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.02.056 Hosoda, E. 2007. International aspects of recycling of electrical and electronic equipment: Material circulation in the East Asian region. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 9:140–150. doi:10.1007/s10163-007-0179-8 Huisman, J., C.B. Boks, and A.L.N. Stevels. 2008. Quotes for environmentally weighted recyclability—The concept of describing product recyclability in terms of environmental value. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41:3649–3665. International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER). 2003. IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report. New York: International Association of Electronics Recyclers. Jofre, S., and T. Morioka. 2005. Waste management of electric and electronic equipment: Comparative analysis of end-of-life strategies. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 7:24–32. doi:10.1007/s10163-004-0122-1 Joseph, K. 2007. Electronic waste management in India—Issues and strategies, Sardinia. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, CISA, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 1–5 October 2007. Italy: CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre. Kalana, J.A. 2010. Electrical and electronic waste management practice by households in Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 1: 132–144.


Mmereki et al. / Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 65 (2015) 11–26 Kang, H.-Y., and J.M. Schoenung. 2005. Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S. infrastructure and technology options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 45: 368–400. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.06.001 Ketlogetswe, C., and T. Mothudi. 2005. Botswana’s environmental policy on recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 44:333–342. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2004.11.006 Kgathi, D.L., and B. Bolaane. 2001. Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Waste Manage. Resour. 19:342–353. doi:10.1177/0734242X0101900411 Kgosiesele, E., and L. Zhaohui. 2010. An Evaluation of waste management in Botswana: Achievements and challenges. J. Am. Sci. 6:144–150. Khetriwal, D.S., P. Kraeuchi, and R. Widmer. 2009. Producer responsibility for e-waste management: Key issues for consideration—Learning from the Swiss experience. J. Environ. Manage. 90: 153–165. Khupe, S.J.N. 1996. Water, supply, sewage and waste management for Gaborone, Botswana. Ambio 25:134–145. Knoth, R., M. Hoffmann, B. Kopacek, and P. Kopacek. 2001. Re-use of end-of-life. electronic equipment and components-logistic aspects. Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, 2001. In. Proceedings EcoDesign 2001: Second International Symposium, December 11–15, 692–695. Tokyo: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. Lee, C., S. Chang, K. Wang, and L. Wen. 2000. Management of scrap computer recycling in Taiwan. J. Hazard. Mater. 73: 209–220. doi:10.1016/S03043894(99)00191-0 Li, X., M. Park, and O. Demirbilek. 2012. Comparison of informal and regulated WEEE collection methods in China. In International Conference on Environmental, Biomedical and Biotechnology, IPCBEE, Singapore, Vol. 41. Singapore: IACSIT Press. http://www.ipcbee.com/ vol41/027-ICEBB2012-R017.pdf (accessed August 2013). Liu, X., M. Tanaka, and Y. Matsui. 2005. Electrical and electronic waste management in China: Progress and the barriers to overcome. Waste Manage. Resour. 24:92–101. doi:10.1177/0734242X06062499 Luther, L. 2010. Managing electronic waste: Issues with exporting e-waste. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. http://www. fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40850.pdf (accessed June 2013). Macauley, M., K. Palmer, and J. Shih. 2003. Dealing with electronics waste: Modelling the costs and environmental benefit of computer monitor disposal. J. Environ. Manage. 68:13–22. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00228-1 Magashi, A., and M. Schluep. 2011. E-Waste Assessment Tanzania. UNIDO E-Waste Initiative for Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Cleaner Production Centre of Tanzania and EMPA, Switzerland. Manomaivibool, P. 2009. Extended producer responsibility in a non-OECD context: The management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53:136–144. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2008.10.003 Mbongwe, B., B.T. Mmereki, and A. Magashula. 2008. Healthcare waste management: Current practices in selected healthcare facilities in Botswana. Waste Manage. Resour. 28:226–233. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2006.12.019 Meskers, C.E.M., C. Hagelüken, S. Salhofer, and M. Spitzbart. 2009. Impact of pre-processing routes on precious metal recovery from PCs. In Proceedings of European Metallurgical Conference (EMC), Innsbruck, Austria, June 28–July 1. Clausthal Zellfeld, Germany: GDMB Verlag. Mmereki, D. 2012. Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) management strategies in Botswana: A system dynamics approach in Gaborone City. PhD thesis, College of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China. Mmereki, D., B. Li, and L. Wang. 2012. Estimation of waste electronic and electrical equipment arising in Botswana—A case study of Gaborone City. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 3:441–452. doi:10.6088/ijes.2012030131043 Mosha, A.C. 1996. The city of Gaborone, Botswana: Planning and management. Ambio 25: 118–125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314437 (accessed January 6, 2011). Mugisha, E. 2009. E-waste management in Uganda: Current perspective. Presented at E-Waste Management Forum—Circulating Success, Cairo, Egypt, 9–10 February 2009.

25

Nagabooshnam, J.K. 2011. Solid waste generation and composition in Gaborone, Botswana. Potential for resource recovery. Master thesis, Department of Management and Engineering, Linkoping University, Sweden. National Conservation Strategy (Co-ordinating) Agency/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German Agency for Technical Cooperation) (NCS/GTZ). 1996. Study on the Recycling of Metal Wastes. Report No. NCS/GTZ 6/96. Gaborone, Republic of Botswana: NCS/GTZ. Nsengimana, H., and J.P. Bizimana. 2011. Assessment of E-Wastes Status and Trends in Rwanda and Development of Recommendations for the Prevention and Management of E-Wastes. Final Report. Butare, Rwanda: REMA. Nnorom, I.C., and O. Osibanjo. 2007. The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries. Waste Manage. Res. 25:489–501. Nnorom, I. C., and O. Osibanjo. 2008. Electronic waste (e-waste): Material flows and management practices in Nigeria. Waste Manage. 28:1472–1479. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.012 Nnorom, I.C., O. Osibanjo, and K.C. Ogbonna. 2008. Modelling waste generation by the telecom sector in Nigeria: The grey side of the impressive outing. Waste Manage. Resour. 26:317–326. Nnorom I.C., O. Osibanjo, and M.O.C. Ogwuegbu. 2011. Global disposal strategies for waste cathode ray tubes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55:275–290. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.10.007 Ongondo, F.O., I.D. Williams, and T.J. Cherrett. 2011. How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Manage. 31:714–730. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.023 Onwughara, N.I., O.C. Kanno, R.C. Chukwuma, and I.C. Nnorom. 2010. Disposal methods and heavy metals released from certain electrical and electronic equipment wastes in Nigeria: Adoption of environmental sound recycling system. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 1:290–297. doi:10.7763/ IJESD.2010.V1.57 Osuagwu, O. E., and C. Ikerionwu. 2010. E-cycling e-waste: The way forward for Nigeria information technology and electro mechanical industry. Int. J. Acad. Res. 21:142–149. Perrine, C., and R. Susanne. 2009. Recycling-oriented characterization of small waste electrical and electronic equipment. Waste Manage. 29:2336–2352. Puckett, J., L. Byster, S. Westervelt, R. Gutierrez, S. Davis, and A. Hussain. 2002. Exporting Harm, the High-Tech Trashing of Asia. Seattle, WA: The Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). Puckett, J., S. Westervelt, R. Gutierrez, and Y. Takamyia. 2005. The Digital Dump, Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Seattle, WA: The Basel Action Network (BAN). Ramzy, K., K. Junbeum, X. Ming, A. Braden, W. Eric, and Z. Peng. 2008. Exploring e-waste management systems in the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52:955–964. Republic of Botswana. 1998. Waste Management Act. Gaborone: Government Printer. Sawhney, P., M. Henzler, and A. Lung, and S. Melnitzky. 2008. Best Practices for E-Waste Management in Developed Countries. Asia ECO II, European Aid Co-operation Office. http://www.smallb.in/sites/default/files/knowledge_base/ bestpracticesforEwasteManagement-developedcountries.pdf (accessed April 2013). Schluep, M., C. Hagelueken, R. Kuehr, F. Magalini, C. Maurer, C. Meskers, E. Mueller, and F. Wang. 2009. Sustainable Innovation and Technology Transfer Industrial Sector Studies: Recycling—From E-Waste to Resources. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations University. Schmidt, C.W. 2006. Unfair trade: E-waste in Africa. Environ. Health Perspect. 114:A232–A235. doi:10.1289/ehp.114-a232 Schwarzer, S., A. De Ono, P. Peduzzi, G. Giuliani, and S. Kluser. 2005. E-Waste, the Hidden Side of IT Equipment’s Manufacturing and Use. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme. Sepúlveda, A., M. Schluep, F.G. Renaud, M. Streicherc, R. Kuehr, C. Hagelüken, and A.C. Gerecke. 2010. A review of the environmental fate and effects of hazardous substances released from electrical and electronic equipments during recycling: Examples from China and India. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30:28–41. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.04.001


26


Sergio J., and M. Tohru. 2005. Waste management of electric and electronic equipment: Comparative analysis of end-of-life strategies. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 7:24–32. So, K. 2011. Electronic waste management in Hong Kong: Electronic waste management in Hong Kong. Master’s thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/144059. Srivastava,S. 2007. Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 9:53–80. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x Streicher-Porte, M., R. Widmer, A. Jain, H.-P. Bader, R. Scheidegger, and S. Kytzia. 2005. Key drivers of the e-waste recycling system: Assessing and modelling e-waste processing in the informal sector in Delhi. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25:472–491. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.004 Taye, M., and W. Kanda. 2011. E-Waste Management in Botswana. Master thesis, Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Linköping University, Sweden. Terazono, A. 2010. Management of e-waste and mixed metal scrap: Current issues and future tasks. Presented at the South Pacific Regional E-waste Workshop (e-waste 2010), Brisbane, Australia, 21 July 2010. Toteng, E.N. 2001. Urban environmental management in Botswana: Toward a theoretical explanation of public policy failure. Environ. Manage. 28:19–30. doi:10.1007/s002670010203 Tschakert, P., and K. Singha. 2007. Contaminated identities: Mercury and marginalization in Ghana’s artisanal mining sector. Geoforum 38:1304–1321. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.05.002 Umicore. 2005. Exploring Umicore Precious Metals Refining. Brussels, Belgium: Umicore. http://www.preciousmetals.umicore.com/PMR/Media/ Umicore/ExploringUPMR_secured.pdf (accessed June 2013). United Nations Population Division. 2012. Botswana: Country implementation profile. In International Conference on Population and Development Beyond 2014, July. Geneva: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Population Division. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Electronic Reuse and Recycling Infrastructure Development in Massachusetts. EPA-901R00002. Boston: Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Electronics waste management in the United States. http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/materials/ecycling/ manage.html (accessed October 2013). Urio, A.F., and A.C. Brent. 2006. Solid waste management strategy in Botswana: The reduction of construction waste. J. S. Afr. Inst. Eng. 48:18–22. Wang, F., J. Huisman, C.E.M. Meskers, M. Schluep, Ab. Stevels, and C. Hagelüken. 2012. The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: Developing local

dismantling and global infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging economies. Waste Manage. 32:2134–3146. Wasswa, J., and M. Schluep. 2008. E-Waste Assessment in Uganda: A Situational Analysis of E-Waste Management and Generation with Special Emphasis on Personal Computers. Kampala/Uganda, St. Gallen/Switzerland: Uganda Cleaner Production Center, EMPA. Wath, S.B., A.N. Vaidya, P. Dutt, and T. Chakrabarti. 2010. A roadmap for development of sustainable E-waste management system in India. Sci. Total Environ. 409:19–32. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.030 Widmer, R., H. Oswald-Krapf, D. Sinha-Khetriwal, M. Schnellmann, and B. Heinz. 2005. Global perspectives on e-waste. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25:436–458. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.04.001 Williams, E., R. Kahhat, J. Kim, M. Xu, B. Allenby, and P. Zhang. 2008. Exploring e-waste management in the United States. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 52:955–964. Yang, J., B. Lu, and C. Xu. 2008. WEEE flow and mitigating measures in China. Waste Manage. 28:1589–1597. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2007.08.019 Ylä-Mella, J., E. Pongrácz, and R.L. Keiski. Recovery of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Finland. In Proceedings of the Waste Minimization and Resources Use Optimization Conference, University of Oulu, Finland, June 10, 2004, ed. E. Pongrácz, 83–92. Oulu: Oulu University Press. Yoshida, F., and H. Yoshida. 2009. Japan, the European Union, and waste electronic and electrical equipment recycling key lessons learned. Environ. Eng. Sci. 27:1–27. Yu, J., E. Williams, and S. Chaofeng. 2010. Managing e-waste in China: Policies, pilot projects and alternative approaches. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54: 991–999. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.02.006

About the Authors Daniel Mmereki is a post doctoral fellow at Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China. Baizhan Li is a professor and dean of College of Urban Construction and Environmental Engineering in Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China. Wang Li’ao is professor and lecturer at the College of Resources and Environmental Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing City, P.R. China.

Challenges in legislation, recycling system and technical system of waste electrical and electronic equipment in China.

Characterisation and materials flow management for waste electrical and electronic equipment plastics from German dismantling centres.

Mass balance and life cycle assessment of the waste electrical and electronic equipment management system implemented in Lombardia Region (Italy).

Recovery of gold from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) using ammonium persulfate.

Recycling of non-metallic fractions from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): a review.

Melt processing and property testing of a model system of plastics contained in waste from electrical and electronic equipment.

Evidence of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) relevant substances in polymeric food-contact articles sold on the European market.

Reduction of heavy metals in residues from the dismantling of waste electrical and electronic equipment before incineration.

Optimising waste from electric and electronic equipment collection systems: a comparison of approaches in European countries.

Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India.

Life cycle assessment of post-consumer plastics production from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) treatment residues in a Central European plastics recycling plant.

Implementation of the Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses strategy: challenges and recommendations in Botswana.

Experimental evolution: prospects and challenges.

Evolutionary transgenomics: prospects and challenges.

Management of Cardiac Electronic Device Infections: Challenges and Outcomes.

Clinical waste management in the context of the Kanye community home-based care programme, Botswana.

A geological reconnaissance of electrical and electronic waste as a source for rare earth metals.

"Safety of medical electrical equipment".

Global challenges for e-waste management: the societal implications.

Towards an AIDS vaccine: challenges and prospects.

Editorial: Petroleum Microbial Biotechnology: Challenges and Prospects.

Laser ignited engines: progress, challenges and prospects.

Mining cancer methylomes: prospects and challenges.

Immunosuppression following heart transplantation: prospects and challenges.