Building E-waste Management Systems

Vanessa Gray frames e-waste as an urgent global governance issue that cannot be solved by technical fixes alone. She argues that effective response depends on a combination of policy, regulation, financing, security considerations and broad stakeholder engagement.

She opens the session by saying it reflects action on country-level regulatory change for e-waste and the circular economy, and stresses that policy, regulation, security and stakeholder engagement are essential pillars for addressing e-waste as the fastest-growing waste stream globally .

Vanessa explains the project as a joint effort to help countries design and implement national e-waste policy frameworks that fit circular economy principles. She highlights extended producer responsibility as a central mechanism in this work.

She states that the ITU-CST project was launched to support countries in developing and implementing national e-waste policies and regulations aligned with circular economy principles, with a key focus on adopting extended producer responsibility and reducing e-waste through recycling and sustainable digital transformation .

Vanessa argues that e-waste systems are inherently complex because they require coordination across many institutions and stakeholders. Her point is that effective regulation must be developed through broad consultation and participation rather than by a single authority alone.

After the project video, she notes that 484 unique stakeholders from 278 entities across Paraguay, Rwanda and Zambia were involved, and says this demonstrates the complexity of these systems and the effort needed to develop and implement e-waste regulation . She later reiterates that government initiatives must bring everyone on board because of this complexity .

Vanessa identifies an institutional barrier: some telecommunications regulators do not yet recognise e-waste as falling within their remit. She suggests that changing this perception is necessary before broader stakeholder engagement and legislative progress can happen.

She says that from the ITU side, regulators in some cases claim there is no real role for regulators on e-waste and that the topic is not on the agenda, and she describes raising awareness of the role of telecommunication regulators as a challenge the ITU is trying to address .

Vanessa treats the informal sector as an essential part of any realistic e-waste system. Her argument is that formal regulation will only work if informal actors are actively included and given a place within the new system rather than ignored.

Responding to a question on the informal sector, she says it is key in project discussions to engage every single stakeholder, including the informal sector, and to see how they can be integrated into the new system .

Vanessa presents the partnership as both a country-support project and a wider learning platform for global replication. She suggests that the project’s value lies not only in the three beneficiary countries but also in the ability to inspire and support other governments.

She says the session should inspire other countries to support this work and notes that ITU has many requests from governments around the world for more support on e-waste regulation . She also closes by saying there was strong interest from other countries and offering follow-up support and contacts for further learning .

Abdulaziz Altamra links e-waste policy to Saudi Arabia’s broader Vision 2030 agenda, where sustainability is integrated into national development and the digital economy. He argues that low recycling rates create both environmental harm and lost economic value, which can only be addressed through stronger international cooperation, financing and technical collaboration.

He says sustainability is a national priority under Vision 2030 and that this includes the digital economy as Saudi Arabia accelerates digital transformation responsibly . He adds that only 20% of electronic devices are recycled globally, calling this both a serious environmental risk and a major untapped economic opportunity, and says closing the gap requires international cooperation, innovative financing and shared technical expertise .

Altamra argues that the project’s main achievement is practical implementation rather than abstract commitment. He says targeted international cooperation can convert planning into real policy tools such as updated regulations, guidelines, cost assessments and producer responsibility arrangements.

He says the initiative showed how targeted cooperation can help countries move from planning to implementation . He gives examples including updating regulation, developing national guidelines, assessing management costs and supporting producer responsibility frameworks, and says these achievements demonstrate practical progress when partners work together .

Archana Gulati argues that digital transformation has created a sharp rise in device ownership and therefore in hazardous e-waste. Because only a small share is formally collected and recycled, she presents the ITU-CST partnership as a necessary response to a growing environmental and health problem.

She says the digital transformation of economies and societies has led to the proliferation of electronic devices and a concomitant surge in e-waste, releasing toxic substances that harm the environment and human health . She cites the Global E-Waste Monitoring figure of 62 million tons per year globally, with less than a quarter collected and recycled, and uses this to explain why ITU and CST are working together to support governments in building e-waste management systems .

Archana summarises the country-level outputs of the partnership to show concrete institutional progress. Her argument is that the project produced specific regulatory, financial and implementation tools tailored to each country’s context, especially around producer responsibility.

For Rwanda, she says the project updated regulations to better reflect producer roles and financing, leading to the country’s first electronic producers compliance scheme for take-back of unwanted devices . For Zambia, she says it estimated total e-waste management costs, proposed producer responsibilities, developed draft guidelines and a compliance manual, and identified a legal entity to drive implementation . For Paraguay, she says it prepared the country’s first full draft decree on e-waste management under extended producer responsibility and developed national guidelines, supported by a detailed cost assessment informing producer fees .

The video narration presents e-waste as a rapidly expanding global problem with long-term environmental and resource implications. It argues that efficient management is necessary both to limit environmental damage and to preserve valuable materials for future generations.

The video says global e-waste is expected to reach 82 million tons by 2030 and states that efficient e-waste management is crucial to reduce environmental harm and conserve valuable resources for future generations .

The video argues that the project goes beyond regulation drafting by producing practical guidance. The toolkit is presented as a transferable resource that different actors can use to improve e-waste management in concrete ways.

The video says that under the project, a circular economy toolkit was published that provides actionable steps for policymakers, businesses and the public to move towards sustainable e-waste management .

Rakan argues that countries do not need to wait for complete regulatory systems before taking action on e-waste. He presents Saudi Arabia’s take-back and donation initiative as a practical early intervention that can deliver immediate benefits.

He explicitly says that even without regulation and policy, countries can pursue a quick-win initiative like the Kingdom’s approach, which gave individuals and the public sector an opportunity to donate devices and benefit from recycling or repair . He identifies the ‘Recycle Your Device’ initiative as one of Saudi Arabia’s e-waste management measures launched from 2022 onward .

Rakan explains the Saudi model as an ecosystem approach rather than a single campaign. Its success rests on coordination with ministries and waste authorities, convenient collection through delivery apps, incentives in the early phase, and ongoing monitoring and refinement based on public behaviour.

He says the initiative was developed with the Ministry of Communications and the national waste authority, and addresses the lack of e-waste management awareness and systems . He explains that delivery apps were used to collect devices from homes because many individuals did not want to travel to drop-off points, and he describes the four pillars of assessment, planning and governance, implementation, and monitoring and refining . He also notes that incentives and awards were offered in 2022 to encourage participation at the start .

Rakan argues that public trust is a precondition for successful e-waste return schemes. People will only hand over devices if they believe data will be securely erased and the process will produce real benefits.

When asked about broader engagement, he says device sensitivity centres on data privacy and that the initiative used mechanisms and equipment to delete everything on devices so that people could feel confident donating them . He also says the success of the initiative depended on giving people confidence that donating their devices was safe and impactful .

Rakan broadens the discussion from managing waste to preventing it upstream. He argues that standardisation and eco-design, such as common chargers, can reduce the creation of future e-waste before devices reach end of life.

In response to an audience question, he says that although his presentation focused on recycling devices, national work also considers eco-design and standardisation, including chargers, in order to minimise device inflows and reduce e-waste before it is generated .

Rakan identifies partnership as the decisive factor behind the programme’s effectiveness. In his view, government collaboration with public and private actors made awareness, logistics and implementation possible.

Asked about key elements of success, he says the initiative succeeded because of the partners, describing work with the public and government as key, alongside awareness and confidence-building . He also describes reliance on delivery apps and private-sector partners for collection logistics rather than the regulator directly operating the system .

Rakan argues that consumer behaviour does not change automatically, so awareness campaigns, trust-building and incentives are all needed, particularly in the early stages. These tools help normalise device return and increase participation until the practice becomes self-sustaining.

He says one major challenge was public awareness and notes that the initiative initially offered awards or incentives to encourage participation . Later he explains that incentives were stopped after around 100,000 devices had been collected because awareness had reached the public, with more than a million website visits in about a quarter helping confirm uptake .

Rakan presents the workshop as a milestone rather than a conclusion. He emphasises continuity through shared learning resources, replication in other countries and future collaboration to improve recycling outcomes over time.

In his closing remarks, he invites participants to scan a barcode to follow the project journey and view the toolkit built from the use cases . He also says the work will not stop here, that collaboration will continue, and that the goal is to see the percentage of e-waste recycled grow over the coming years .

Janet explains that Rwanda’s regulatory reform is centred on making producers and importers financially responsible for end-of-life electronics. The producer responsibility organisation is designed as the institutional mechanism to collect and manage these fees under the EPR model.

She says the main objective of the partnership was to revise Rwanda’s e-waste regulations and include the principle of extended producer responsibility because only 20% of e-waste is formally collected and recycled . She explains that importers of electrical and electronic devices will pay a small fee to the producer responsibility organisation under the Rwanda ICT Chamber .

Janet argues that Rwanda’s progress was possible because the process included all relevant actors from the outset. She sees inclusion as both a political and operational necessity, since missing a stakeholder can later obstruct implementation.

She describes engagement with ministries, environmental and regulatory agencies, the private sector federation, the ICT chamber and producers in developing the regulation and PRO governance structure . She reports engagement of 161 stakeholders from 104 entities and says it is very important not to miss any stakeholder because exclusion can make implementation difficult .

Janet presents digital integration as a way to make EPR implementation more efficient and enforceable. By embedding core procedures into the Irembo platform, Rwanda aims to streamline registration, permits and membership processes while lowering transaction burdens.

She says Rwanda plans to combine three EPR processes into the Irembo platform, including business permits, producer product registration and automatic PRO membership . She explains that this is intended to reduce costs, reduce transaction time, increase collaboration and improve enforcement .

Janet distinguishes clearly between passing rules and making them work in practice. She argues that Rwanda has made progress on regulation but still requires continued support to operationalise the producer responsibility organisation and implementation systems.

She says that even as the project closes, Rwanda still has tasks ahead, including cost assumptions for collection and management and registration of all producers and importers with the PRO . She adds that Rwanda still needs support from partners to implement the producer responsibility organisation successfully, stressing that regulation is only one achievement while implementation is the key milestone .

Janet argues that private-sector participation cannot be an afterthought. Her view is that treating business actors as partners and involving them at each stage of policy design is the best way to secure buy-in and implementation support.

In response to Vanessa’s question, she says Rwanda does not make a distinction with the private sector because it is considered a partner, and that private actors are engaged in every government or public-sector discussion so that no one is left behind .

Janet identifies cost-sharing as the most politically sensitive aspect of Rwanda’s reform. She also notes that the inclusive consultation model, while necessary, created delays in finalising the regulation.

She says the specific challenge was the introduction of a fee into an existing regulation, noting that any new cost for producers and businesses is difficult and brings resistance . She adds that stakeholder engagement also caused delays in implementation and finalisation of the regulation .

Ángel explains that Paraguay’s current legal treatment of e-waste under general solid waste law is not sufficient. The country is therefore developing a dedicated legal framework to regulate e-waste specifically and to apply extended producer responsibility.

He says Paraguay’s primary legislation currently classifies e-waste as solid waste requiring special handling under integrated solid waste rules, with MADES responsible for enforcement . He then states that a dedicated legal framework is being developed to establish a management system for electrical and electronic equipment and apply extended producer responsibility .

Ángel presents the project as having produced a full package of policy and implementation tools for Paraguay. These outputs combine legal drafting, technical guidance, financial analysis and stakeholder capacity-building to support eventual roll-out.

He says the project team prepared a new waste-management policy based on the EPR principle, along with a regulation for waste management, national EPR guidelines, consultation and validation processes, financing study, and capacity and engagement work . He also refers to the calculated total net cost of e-waste management for 2025 and to capacity-building for government officials and electronics producers .

Ángel argues that e-waste management should be organised through differentiated but shared responsibilities. Rather than placing the full burden on one institution, each stakeholder should take responsibility for the stage of the chain they control.

He says each stakeholder is expected to assume responsibility for a specific stage of e-waste management and that implementation is conducted through sectoral agreements establishing shared but differentiated responsibilities .

Ángel suggests that one of the most important outcomes was not only technical drafting but also consensus-building. By improving common understanding among stakeholders, the project laid the groundwork for legal endorsement and practical implementation.

He says the project created an initial network of stakeholders to support formal endorsement of the legal framework, further socialisation of the draft regulation with producers and associations, stronger financing models and continued capacity-building . In response to a later question, he adds that the biggest achievement was building a common understanding of the e-waste challenge in Paraguay and bringing all relevant stakeholders together with clear recommendations for the future .

Kawana explains that Zambia was not starting from nothing, but its legal tools were incomplete for e-waste. Existing environmental law and EPR regulation covered some waste streams, especially plastics, but did not adequately define responsibilities for electronic waste.

He says Zambia already has a legal foundation through the Environmental Management Act of 2011 and also has EPR regulations, but those current EPR rules focus more on plastic and are not sufficient for e-waste .

Kawana argues that the project provided Zambia with the main building blocks required for an operational e-waste system. These included legal drafting, fee and cost analysis, design of material and information flows, and practical manuals for implementation.

He says the project focused on four key areas: policy, financing, system design and implementation . He explains that it supported draft e-waste EPR regulations, financed a study on e-waste management and producer fees, mapped how money, information and materials would flow, developed manuals and guidelines for producer responsibility organisations, and supported creation of a voluntary industry-led ICT sector EPR scheme with a potential PRO .

Kawana explains that Zambia’s market structure shapes its regulatory model. Since nearly all electronics are imported, importers effectively serve as producers and should therefore bear part of the cost of collection, transport and environmentally sound disposal.

He says almost all electronic equipment in Zambia is imported and that under EPR the importers will become legal producers responsible for handling end-of-life e-waste . He specifies that these responsibilities include financing collection systems, transport and environmentally friendly disposal .

Kawana argues that Zambia’s e-waste framework depends on institutional coordination across regulators and sustained engagement with market actors. He highlights collaboration with environmental authorities, dealer registries and industry bodies as the practical basis for implementation.

He says that in Zambia there is an environmental regulator and an ICT regulator, and that collaboration between them is necessary to make e-waste management work at national level . He also explains that ZICTA licenses dealers and therefore has a registry of device sellers and importers, which helps identify players in the market . In his presentation he notes that the ICT Association of Zambia was identified as a potential voluntary PRO because many sector actors belong to it .

Jean challenges the idea that electronics become waste after a single use cycle. She argues instead for a multi-life perspective in which products are designed and managed so they can be repaired, reused and eventually recycled more effectively.

She says she appreciates the phrase that products ‘eventually’ become waste because electronics rarely have one first use and then become waste, and she notes that informal sectors often support refurbishment or material recovery . She adds that Lenovo’s goal is for products to last long, be suitable for one, two or three uses or more, and then be easy to dismantle and recycle at end of life .

Jean argues that end-of-life outcomes are largely determined by upstream design choices. Design for modularity, repairability, durability and upgradeability makes products more compatible with refurbishment and recycling systems later on.

She says Lenovo consistently looks at design, including how modular products are, how easy they are to repair, how durable they are, and whether they can be upgraded . She also cites Lenovo’s work with iFixit to assess repairability and with SERI and the R2 standard to improve recycler and refurbisher compatibility, with the long-term goal of keeping products in use longer and recovering materials more easily at end of life .

Carolien argues that procurement is a powerful but often underused lever for shaping the electronics market. She suggests that governments and institutions can operationalise sustainability by relying on recognised Type 1 ecolabels such as EPEAT, backed by expert criteria and third-party verification.

She cites the Oxford Climate Policy Monitor 2025 annual review, saying public procurement represents 13 to 20 percent of GDP across countries and an estimated 15 percent of global emissions . She also gives the example of new rules in the Philippines aimed at steering over 52 billion US dollars in annual government purchasing towards greener options . She explains that EPEAT 2.0 contains 90 criteria across climate change, circularity, chemicals and responsible supply chains, with third-party verification of compliance .

Carolien argues that sustainable procurement must cover the full product lifecycle rather than just production conditions. This includes material content, durability, software and battery support, repair and reuse options, and post-use arrangements such as data deletion and take-back.

She structures the issue around three lifecycle questions: what products are made of, how they can be used as long as possible, and what happens after they no longer serve the organisation . She gives examples including demand for recycled content, firmware and operating system updates, battery life, design for repair and reuse, software parts pairing, repair services, secure data deletion and product take-back provisions .

Carolien argues that circular procurement is beginning to extend beyond new devices into the refurbished market. She sees formal ecolabelling for refurbished ICT as a way to increase confidence, comparability and market scale for second-life products.

She says there is increasing demand for refurbished products in government tenders . She adds that EPEAT has published a proposal for ‘EPEAT Renew’, described as the first ecolabel for refurbished ICT notebook computers, and that the updated version will be published after public consultation .

Francesca explains that the Basel Convention provides the main international legal framework for controlling e-waste movements and management. She highlights its two core pillars: environmentally sound management of waste and prior informed consent for cross-border movement of hazardous and other waste.

She says the Basel Convention regulates transboundary movements of hazardous and other waste and that e-waste can be either hazardous or non-hazardous, so both are covered . She then identifies the Convention’s two pillars as environmentally sound management, including prevention, and control of transboundary movements through a prior informed consent procedure requiring written consent from every state involved .

Francesca argues that environmentally sound management requires institutional systems, not just legal principles. Permits, oversight and protected working conditions are necessary for all actors, including informal workers, so that waste management does not create human health or environmental damage.

She defines environmentally sound management as handling waste in a way that does not negatively affect human health and the environment . She says this requires a permitting system, that all actors should be permitted, and that the informal sector should be involved in a pathway towards protected work so that people’s health is not harmed .

Francesca warns that badly designed rules can unintentionally obstruct repair and refurbishment. She argues that countries should clearly regulate the status of used equipment meant for repair or failure analysis, and in some cases exempt it from strict waste movement procedures to support longer product life.

She says it is necessary to enact systems that allow companies, private sector entities, individuals and informal actors to collect products and repair them . She then explains that countries need to regulate the status of used equipment intended for repair or failure analysis, and notes that some countries exclude this fraction from prior informed consent procedures precisely to allow repair, refurbishment and movement of parts across borders .

Francesca argues that not every country will perform every e-waste management function domestically. Regional cooperation matters because countries may need to share facilities and move materials across borders under Basel rules or authorised exceptions.

She says countries should work with neighbouring states to see whether recycling facilities exist and whether one country can collect or dismantle while another recycles . She adds that Basel competent authorities need to work together to ensure these movements take place either under prior informed consent procedures or under applicable exceptions .

Yaxuan argues that postal systems are well placed to become part of e-waste collection and reverse logistics because they already have extensive physical and digital reach. Their existing infrastructure can be repurposed to connect end users with repair, refurbishment and recycling systems.

She says postal networks can be viewed as infrastructure connecting customers, repairers, refurbishers, recyclers and manufacturers through services that allow material, data and finance to flow backwards . She supports this by citing the global postal community’s more than 670,000 offices, 4.6 million employees, millions of vehicles and digital assets, 2.3 billion postal accounts and reach into remote areas through universal services .

Yaxuan argues that postal operators can do more than transport parcels; they can become service actors in circular device systems. This can create environmental value while also opening new revenue-generating business models for postal operators.

She gives the example of Thailand Post working with AIS to build an e-waste hub targeting one million devices through 3,000 drop points and a network of stakeholders, and notes that the post is generating revenue from this activity . She also gives the example of Poste Italiane in a school digital inclusion programme where the post collected, registered and redeployed devices within three days, effectively becoming a large repair hub and keeping over 600,000 devices in productive use .

Yaxuan argues that reverse logistics becomes sustainable only when it is treated as an integrated value chain. Material flows alone are not enough; data and finance must also move so that repairers, refurbishers and logistics actors can identify and extract value.

She says the key in reverse value chains is not only logistics but also having data and finance move together . She explains that this allows repairers and refurbishers to understand what is circulating in the network, access component devices and undertake upcycling, while higher stakeholder participation creates larger volumes for the postal network .

Yaxuan argues that postal participation will scale more easily where regulation creates demand and defined responsibilities. EPR frameworks are especially useful because they align upstream and downstream actors and generate the volume and incentives needed for viable reverse logistics.

She says postal operators themselves point to regulatory enhancement as important for scale . She explains that EPR systems bring upstream and downstream client groups together and generate incentives for better volume and participation in reverse logistics networks .

The audience contribution argues that waste prevention should come before waste management. It suggests that policies on eco-design and promoting refurbished or second-hand devices are important complements to end-of-life recycling systems.

One audience participant says that the best e-waste is the e-waste not produced and asks whether policies on eco-design and promoting refurbished or second-hand phones are included, or whether the work focuses only on e-waste management .

Audience members stress that replication in other countries will be difficult unless the informal sector is addressed directly. Informal collectors and dismantlers already handle large volumes of e-waste, so excluding them would undermine the effectiveness of formal systems.

An audience participant from Senegal says the biggest challenge in their country is the informal sector and asks how it was engaged, stressing its importance for replication . Another participant describes free riders collecting devices informally, moving them to remote areas and polluting soil and the atmosphere .

The audience raises a practical design issue for collection campaigns: incentives can boost uptake, but they also have costs and may not be needed forever. The question is how to determine the right milestone for ending incentives once behaviour change has taken hold.

A participant from Senegal asks Rakan specifically when Saudi Arabia decided to stop incentives and what milestone was used to determine that awareness and participation had grown enough to phase them out .

Audience members argue that national e-waste systems need to be tested and socially grounded. They ask about engaging civil society, using pilot models, and learning from practical experimentation before scaling regulation nationally.

One participant from Senegal asks whether there was specific engagement from civil society and what the main implementation challenges were . A participant from Uganda asks whether the initiatives used pilot models to test approaches before broader duplication and whether lessons from pilots informed regulation .

This audience intervention highlights that implementation depends not only on policy but also on technical skills. It argues that people need training in how to separate and handle e-waste properly, and suggests virtual reality as a practical training tool.

A participant from Kenya says a main challenge is the engineering complexity of e-waste collection because people need to know what to remove and where to place it . He then describes a virtual reality project that could train people to carry out these tasks and offers it as a contribution .

Noémie explains that the panel’s purpose was to connect high-level commitments with practical implementation. By convening speakers from manufacturing, procurement, international regulation and postal logistics, she aimed to show how policy can be translated into systems on the ground.

She says the session aims to bridge the gap often encountered in e-waste management between policies and commitments on the one hand and implementation on the ground on the other . She adds that practical solutions require coordination across industry, regulators, service providers and new actors, and introduces panellists representing these perspectives .

Noémie argues that implementation readiness requires more than passing regulations; producer responsibility organisations also need practical governance and fee-setting tools. The project therefore developed business-model and governance support so that PROs can become operational quickly after adoption.

Responding to a question on business models, she says one key project element was supporting stakeholders in Rwanda and Zambia on financing and ensuring that once regulations are gazetted, the producer responsibility organisation is equipped with all the tools needed for full implementation . She explains that this included work on governance structures, governance documents, and tools to calculate reasonable producer fees .

Noémie presents the workshop as part of an ongoing knowledge-sharing effort rather than a one-off event. By circulating presentations and pointing participants to related sessions and contacts, she supports continued learning and uptake of the project’s lessons.

At the end of the panel, she points participants to another same-day session on circular ICTs, eco-design, e-waste and digital product passports, suggesting the discussion will continue there . In the closing, she says a QR code will be shared so attendees can leave their email and receive the presentations made during the session .