E-Waste in Zimbabwe and Zambia*

Fred Gweme1, Hasha Maringe2, Luka Ngoyi3, Gertjan van Stam1

Abstract

With the advent of Information and Communications Technology, the

issue of electronic waste rises in importance. E-waste comprises of

electronics/electrical goods no longer fit for their originally intended use

or that have reached their expiry date. Apart from the e-waste produced

by its e-consumption (mobile phones, computers), African countries are

on the receiving end of Western e-waste. Presently, Zimbabwe and

Zambia, despite being recipients of ICTs, do not have e-waste disposal

mechanisms of their own. This paper discusses e-waste in both countries

and indicates the measures that are being taken, or can be taken, to

combat it.

1
Science and Industrial Research and Development Centre (SIRDC), Harare,
Zimbabwe
2
ICT Association of Zimbabwe (ICTAZ), Mutare, Zimbabwe
3
University of Zambia, School of Engineering, Lusaka, Zambia

1
Introduction

With the advent of the mainstreaming of Information and

Communications Technology, issues pertaining how to handle e-waste

become pregnant. Worldwide, in the decade between 1994 and 2003,

about 500 million personal computers containing approximately 718,000

tonnes of lead, 1,363 tonnes of cadmium and 287 tonnes of mercury,

reached their end-of-life (Smith et al., 2006). It is estimated that global

e-waste generation is growing by about 40 million tonnes a year.

Electronic waste comprises of discarded electronics/electrical goods that

are not fit for their originally intended use or have reached their end of

life (Sansa-Otim et al., 2012). Apart from the e-waste produced by their

e-consumption (e.g. mobile phones and computers), countries in the

Global South are on the receiving end of e-waste from the Global North.

Therefore, the issue of e-waste is growing exponentially in Africa.

Most African countries lack the capacity to handle and recycle the

hazardous materials contained in e-waste. Furthermore, the common

practice of disposal of e- waste on dumpsites represents a source of

2
environmental pollution. Due to its toxicity, e-waste creates real health

hazards for the nearby communities (Gweme, 2015). The modalities of

e-waste problems are little known in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

There exist no minimum specifications for second-hand equipment in

the fields of Information and Communication Technologies. As a result,

second-hand computers received in Zambia and Zimbabwe are often not

fit for purpose. Even if second-hand electronic goods are usable, their

limited lifespan accelerates their descend into e-waste. Shipping of used

computers to African countries often represents dumping. Second-hand

computers, whether usable or not, often end up in the informal sectors of

the economy. Here computers sustain informal employment and a

livelihood. Due to its nature, the informal sectors are rather immune for

government policies and regulation.

As e-waste contains electronic components that contain valuable

metals, the extraction of these metals gets attention by the informal

sector. Subsequently, e-waste is mostly handled by unregistered,

unauthorised informal recyclers. Craftspersons in the informal sectors do

not necessary possess knowledge and skills on how to recover valuable

components in a safe manner. Poignant documentaries from Kenya and

3
Ghana show e-waste being burned to dispose of its encapsulating parts.

Burning puts lethal toxins such as lead, cadmium, beryllium and

brominate flame retardants into the air.

Zimbabwe and Zambia do not have government-approved e-waste

recyclers. There are no entities that are individually licensed to collect,

process and dispose of e-waste. Therefore, e-waste involves informal

recycling in a context of inadequate legislation and a continued lack of

awareness of the stakeholders.

The tantalising problems of e-waste

“Only a few countries in the developed world are able to scientifically

recycle or dispose the E-waste they generate. In other developed

countries only a fraction of the E-waste is properly recycled, the rest is

either incinerated or sent to landfills" which are solutions that cause

serious secondary problems. Worse still, a sizeable portion of the E-

waste generated in the developed world is exported to developing

countries where it is recycled or dumped without any concern for the

gross pollution that is being caused. It can be said that if the situation

4
vis-a-vis E-waste is posing a challenge in most developed countries, it is

alarmingly bad in the developing world." (Spiegel & Maystre, 1998).

Loopholes in the current Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

(WEEE) Directives allow the export of e-waste from so-called

developed to so-called developing countries (Schluep et al., 2011). 70%

of the collected WEEE ends up in unreported and largely unknown

destinations4. Spiegel and Maystre (1998) already saw that “altogether it

is roughly estimated that during the past few years, at least 250,000 tons

of e-waste per annum ‘illegally entered the ports of the five selected West

African countries ... This number is comparable to the total amount of e-

waste generated in small European countries such as Belgium or the

Netherlands, and equates to approximately 5% of all e-waste generated

in the European Union”. Wolfe and Baddeley (2012) state that “the size

and the complexity of the E-waste problem is increasing at much faster

rate than the efficacy of our strategies to contain it. This trend is not

likely to reverse soon and the only viable means to solve the problem is

to drastically reduce generation of waste”.

4
http://www.unep.org/gpwm/FocalAreas/E-WasteManagement/tabid/56458/Default.aspx

5
 Progressive legislation regulating e-waste has been adopted at both

regional and international contexts. However, little is done to assist

African countries to come up with their national legislation or strategy

on dealing with e-waste. Most countries in Africa, like Zimbabwe and

Zambia, have ratified the international treaties on e-waste management

without transposing it into national law. As a result, regulatory efforts

and supervising efforts are fragmented. Therefore, the implementation

of international e-waste policies and legislations remains a challenge

since there is no national laws and regulations to support them.

Among the general challenges faced in Zambia and Zimbabwe are

the limited capacity and capability of responsible institutions, lack of

implementation of legal instruments, strained participation among

stakeholders, and lack of resources. As e-waste is mostly handled in

informal industries, there is no reliable data on the volume, costs, and

benefits. The United Nations Environment Programme published its e-

waste estimates in 2009 (Hayden, 2009). Virtually all electronic

equipment contains toxic materials that can be harmful to people and the

environment. A lot of this hazardous materials are found in the circuit

board, and it includes the lead found in the solder and the mercury that

is found in relays and switches (Allsopp et al., 2006). Other electronic

6
equipment like smartphones and laptops contain heavy metals like

cadmium, beryllium, hexavalent chromium or arsenic which have been

shown to build up in our bodies and the environment (UNEP, 2010).

Kumar (2013) explains how hazardous substances come free from e-

waste through

• the product itself when landfilled, for instance the lead in

circuit boards or Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) glass and

mercury in Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) backlights

• distraction in substandard processes, for instance dioxin

formation during burning of halogenated plastics or use of

smelting processes without suitable off-gas treatment

• the use of reagents in the recycling process, for instance

cyanide and other strong leaching acids, nitrogen oxides

(NOx) gas from leaching processes and mercury from

amalgamation

Due to its lack of structure, the issue of electronic waste disposal is

delicate to handle in Zambia and Zimbabwe, much like other countries

in the Global South (e.g. Kanda & Taye, 2011). Recycling and disposal

of e-waste is a risky undertaking, and the risks do go beyond the area

where recycling is being done due to the leakage of hazardous materials

such as mercury and lead from landfills and incinerator ashes (Spiegel

7
& Maystre, 1998). In the mean time, the ICT industry is affected by the

globalised phenomenon of consumerism and what one is called a ‘built

in obsolescence’ of equipment (Charisa, 2013; Chitotombe, 2013). The

life span of computers has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two

years in 2005, and mobile phones have a lifespan of even less than two

years. Hi-tech products like cell phones and computers are driving the

purchasing and discarding of products in a way unknown a generation

ago5. Subsequently, many equipment arriving in Africa can be

considered e-waste at its arrival. Wolfe and Baddeley (2012) noted “70%

of all imports to the five countries are used electronic equipment, with

30% of the used EEE imported being determined to be non-

functioning.”.

E-Waste in Zambia and Zimbabwe

Authorative guidances on the handling of e-waste are set in the Basel

Convention of 1989 and the Bamako Convention of 1994. These

conventions ban the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste. In

many countries in the Global South, these treaties are not supported by

local legislation. Equipment ends up at dumping sites and landfills.

5
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/nov/27/news.waste

8
Zimbabwe has no policy or legislation on e-waste. In general, the

Environmental Management Act (20:27) prohibits the discharge of

hazardous substances into the environment, but there is no specific

legislation regulating e-waste6. The Environmental Management

Agency (EMA) is drafting a document or strategy for the safe handling

and disposal of e-waste. Responding to questions from environmental

stakeholders during a seminar to mark Africa Environment Day, Clifford

Muzofa said that Harare was yet to come up with a way of disposing of

electronic waste: “It’s something that is new to us, and we do not have a

method of dealing with electronic waste. Except for hazardous

substances, the rest of our waste is dumped at Pomona and taken away

by scavengers."7

In Zambia, e-waste in handled by persons who do most of the repairing

and reusing of electronic equipment. Their simple processing of

electronic waste involves serious health and pollution risks. According

to the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA), only a

small percentage of e-waste is being recycled. Sometimes, Zambia sends

6
http://www.thestandard.co.zw/2013/11/10/identifying-key-strategies-e-waste-zim/
7
http://www.thezimbabwean.co/news/zimbabwe/56816/no-plan-for-electronic-
waste.html

9
its electronic waste to South Africa for disposal. Even when taken to a

recycling centre, e-waste is usually not recycled, at least not in the ways

experts think of the term recycling. What happens in some case is that

the gadgets are just buried in heaps underground without regard for the

health of the environment and the people around that particular area. A

small percentage of e-waste is estimated to be sent to recyclers in Zambia

according to the extended product responsibility. The remainder is

mostly dumped or burned, either in informal landfills and makeshift

incinerators. These inappropriate disposal methods of electronic waste

fail to reclaim valuable materials or manage the toxic materials safely.

In fact, soil, water and air are being contaminated.

The Zambia Environmental Management Agency has formulated some

objectives to control the e-waste. These focus on the encouraging of

resource recovery recycling reclamation, direct re-use, or alternative

uses to promote environmentally sound disposal methods. The Extended

Product Responsibility (EPR) extends the responsibilities of the

manufacturers’, importers’ or distributors’ financial or physical

responsibility for a product from its initial stages to the postconsumer

stage. The EPR includes waste minimization programmes through

financial contributions to any fund that may have been established to

10
promote the minimization, recovery, re-use or recycling of waste.

Further, the EPR sustains awareness programmes to inform the public of

the impacts of e-waste emanating from the product on human health and

the environment and any other measures to reduce the potential

implications of the product on human health and the environment. Some

of the other EPR objectives are

• to minimise the generation of e-waste

• to maximise on the e-waste collection efficiency

• to reduce the volume of e-waste requiring disposal and maximise

the economic value of it.

Discussion

With the growing use of ICTs, the production and handling of e-

waste continues to expand. Given the fragmented realities, or general

lack of capacity to handle e-waste in Africa, efforts should focus how to

reduce the impact of e-waste. One such effort is Green Computing.

Green computing is the use of computers and related resources in an

environmentally responsible manner and to avoid disposal for toxic

chemicals.

11
 Obviously, Zimbabwe and Zambia should avoid taking e-waste from

the Global North.

Another approach is to solicit contributions from citizens as well as

the manufacturers and producers. The citizens or consumers can

contribute by making their preferable choice to buy those electronic

products which can be recycled or it can be reused, or choose those

which contains a less toxic chemicals.

Educational institutions could integrated Green Computing as a

compulsory subject, rather than an optional one. New ideas can be

solicited from students, based on Green IT fueling innovations that could

make products less hazardous. Institutions of higher learning can

incorporate the important issues of e-waste in their research agenda.

As technology importing countries, there is a need for relevant

authorities to ensure that the recycling process is taken into consideration

already at import and/or purchase (pricing) of electronic equipment. The

contemporary adagio ‘from cradle to cradle’ provides for a clear

challenge to sustainable the transformation of waste into material

12
resources. E-waste could sustain business activities that include provide

for

• take-back systems

• manual dismantling facilities

• local pre-processing activities

• sound end-processing activities.

Within African philosophy, ‘things’ (Nguni: Kintu) are also seen as

part o ‘life.’ Thus (e-)waste also is part of the life in communities. This

view contrasts with a deconstructed philosophy in the Global North,

where materials are seen as lifeless, and thus ready to be manipulated

and even discarded. In African philosophy, the whole process of

technology is to be inclusive (Mawere & van Stam, 2016). Thus

technology starts when it is discussed for the first time (during design)

and is taken as to exist from that life with humans up to the sublimation

of the physical/tangible form. In this line of thought, discarding of waste

is foreign, because waste is not recognised in such

atomised/disconnected/sequenced way, but ‘the remains’ are still part of

the relational aspects with things. In that sense, African philosophy can

provide a basis for a more holistic, integrated approach to e-waste. When

13
addressing e-waste from an African positionality, we could envision

more integrated views. These view can contrast with the neo-liberal

methods privatisation of the benefits and externalising of the cost

(pollution, waste).

Further, there is need for thorough understanding the local context

and economy and how it provides for incentives for informal collectors

of e-waste. When appropriately approached and incentivised, the

informal sector can collect e-waste for registered, and thus formal,

recycling services. Further, there should be the right incentives for

consumers to part with the electronic goods they no longer want - and

that are often hoarded at home - in exchange for new benefits.

At present, the international treaties and (draft) policies best function

as ‘sensitization', but not necessarily as ‘training' as there appears little

research to gain an understanding of the complex and diverse realities.

Therefore, apart from the ‘top down' approach, a ‘bottom up' approach

can be fostered, in which every country must come up with their e-waste

management strategy and policy which should feed into Regional ones.

At a global level, clearly defined standards and best practices could

14
be presented as examples from National and Regional Policies. The

Global Partnership for Waste Management (GPWM) should assist

developing countries with expertise and funding for the formulation of

National E-Waste Strategies and Policies. Efforts should also be made to

ensure that Regional and International Conferences and Workshops on

e-waste attract a fair representation with more participation from the

regions worst affected by e-waste. The role of Private Public

Partnerships (PPP) can be strengthened in tackling the e-waste

challenge. International Conventions should set deadlines for

submission of National Policies and Strategies on e-Waste Management

and encourage the development of national evidence basis.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the hazardous nature of e-waste is one of the rapidly

growing environmental problems of the world. The ever-increasing

amount of e-waste is exacerbated by a general the lack of awareness.

Unappropriate skills is deepening the problem.

Currently, the informal sector is involved with the crude dismantling

of electronic waste, as part of for their livelihood. They, their

communities, and the environment is at great risk; therefore there is an

15
urgent need to strategise to contain health hazards of e-waste handling

among these workers in Zambia and Zimbabwe.

For e-waste management a number technical solutions are available.

However, these florish only in the right regulatory environment. A

context appropriate hybrid management system can be developed, for

which there is much room for operational research and evaluation

studies.

References

Allsopp, M., Santillo, D., & Johnston, P. (2006). Environmental and

human health concerns in the processing of electrical and electronic

waste. Greenpeace research laboratories, Department of Biological

Sciences, University of Exeter.

Bogale, Z. T. (2012). E-Responsibility: E-wast, International Law and

Africa’s Growing Digital Wasteland. In E-Responsibility.

Chirisa, I. (2013). Solid waste, the “Throw-Away” culture and

livelihoods: Problems and prospects in Harare, Zimbabwe. Journal of

16
Environmental Science and Water Resources, 2(1), 1–8.

Chitotombe, J. W. (2013). Globalization of Information Communication

Technology ( ICT ) and consumerism in developing countries:

Confronting the challenges of e- waste disposal in Harare urban,

Zimbabwe. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 3(6),

2172–2185.

Gweme, F. (2015). Complexity of the e-Waste Challenge: The

Zimbabwe Situation. In e-Waste Symposium, Harare.

Kumar, V. (2013) Electronics Wastes and Environmental Impact: A Text

Book on Environmental Studies for Engineers. Training and Placement

Wing.

Sansa-Otim, J., Lutaaya, P., Kamya, T., & Mutaawe, S. (2012). Analysis

of Mobile Phone e-Waste Management for Developing Countries: A

Case of Uganda. In Fourth International IEEE EAI Conference on e-

Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries (Africomm

2012).

17
Smith, T., Sonnenfeld, D. A., & Pellow, D. N. (Eds.). (2006).

Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the

Global Electronics Industry.

Hayden, T. (2009). UNEP Year Book 2009: New Science and

Developments in our Changing Environment. Nairobi, Kenya: United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Kanda, W., & Taye, M. (2011). E-waste management in Botswana.

Linkoping: Linkoping University, Institute of Technology.

Premalathaa, M., Abbasia, T., Abbasia, T., & Abbasia, S. A. (2013). The

generation, impact, and management of E-waste: State-of-the-art.

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology.

Schluep, M., Hagelueken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C.,

Meskers, C., … Wang, F. (2009). Recycling - From E-waste To

Resources. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) & United Nations University.

Schluep, M., Manhart, A., Osibanjo, O., Rochat, D., Isarin, N., &

18
Mueller, E. (2011). Where are WEee in Africa? Basel, Switzerland:

Secretariat of the Basel Convention.

Shanmugavelan, M. (2010). Tackling e-waste (Vol. 47). Panos, London.

Spiegel, J. & Maystre L.Y. (1998) International Labour Office.

Environmental pollution control and prevention. In: Stellman J. M.

(editor). Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. 4th ed. Vol 2.

Geneva: International Labour Office

UNEP.As e-waste mountains soar, UN urges smart technologies to

protect health. February 22, 2010a.

http://www.un.orh/apps/news/printnewsAr.asp?nid=33845

Wolfe, R., & Baddeley, S. (2012). Regulatory Transparency in MEAs:

Controlling exports of tropical timber, e-waste and conflict diamonds. In

OECD Workshop on Regulatory Transparency in Trade and Raw

Materials. Paris, France.

*
Gweme, F., Maringe, H., Ngoyi, L., & van Stam, G. (2016). E-Waste
in Zimbabwe and Zambia. In 1st Institute of Lifelong Learning
and Development Studies International Research Conference,
Chinhoyi University of Technology, 2-5 August 2016, Chinhoyi,
Zimbabwe.

19