From E-Waste to Opportunity: How a $60 Million Programme Could Reshape the Electronics Economy

The $60 million GEM programme aims to reduce electronic waste across 16 countries, creating opportunities for traders, repair businesses and recyclers while helping consumers use devices longer. Its success will depend on effective policies, affordable compliance, consumer safeguards and cooperation among governments, industry and communities.

A $60 million international programme to transform electronics management could open new opportunities for traders, repair businesses and recyclers while helping consumers keep devices working longer. Launched in Manila in October 2026, the Global Electronics Management (GEM) Program is funded by the Global Environment Facility and led by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, alongside the African Development Bank, UNDP and UNEP. Its significance lies in linking environmental protection with a practical economic question: how can countries expand digital access without accumulating an increasingly costly waste problem?

Turning Discarded Devices Into Economic Opportunity

The scale of the challenge is substantial. The Global E-waste Monitor 2024, produced by the International Telecommunication Union and United Nations Institute for Training and Research, recorded 62 million tonnes of electronic waste in 2022. Only 22.3 per cent was documented as formally collected and recycled in an environmentally sound manner. Annual generation is projected to reach 82 million tonnes by 2030. These are historical measurements and a projection, rather than estimates of current recycling performance.

For participating economies, the commercial opportunity extends beyond extracting materials from discarded equipment. Repairing, refurbishing and reselling functioning devices could preserve more product value while supporting local businesses. Collection, testing, logistics and maintenance services could also benefit.

However, discarded electronics do not automatically become profitable resources. Businesses must cover collection, transport, sorting and safe treatment costs. Their viability depends on reliable supplies of equipment, demand for recovered materials and competition from operators with lower environmental standards. GEM's economic promise therefore rests on building workable markets alongside stronger safeguards.

Traders Face New Markets and Compliance Pressures

The programme covers 16 countries, including Botswana, Djibouti, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia and South Africa. Other participants span Asia, Latin America and Europe. Its priorities include longer product lifetimes, cleaner production, repair, reuse and responsible recovery, supported by policy improvements and better access to finance and technology. These are programme objectives, rather than evidence of benefits already delivered.

For electronics traders, this approach could encourage business models built around maintenance contracts, refurbishment and take-back services. Retailers able to demonstrate product quality and reliable after-sales support may gain customer confidence.

The adjustment could nevertheless be difficult for smaller firms. Testing equipment, documenting transactions and arranging responsible disposal all require money and skills. If governments introduce requirements without affordable compliance options, formal businesses could face higher costs while less accountable competitors retain an advantage.

Policymakers should therefore consider phased implementation, accessible guidance and shared collection arrangements. Clear distinctions between reusable equipment and waste would also help legitimate second-hand trade while reducing opportunities to disguise unusable goods as affordable technology.

Consumers Need Affordable Repairs and Trusted Products

For households and small enterprises, the most immediate potential benefit is a lower lifetime cost of owning electronics. A repairable phone or computer can remain useful longer, reducing the financial pressure to replace essential equipment.

Yet longer use will depend on more than repair workshops. Consumers need spare parts, competent technicians, clear prices and dependable warranties. Refurbished devices must offer acceptable performance and safety. Secure handling of personal data is another practical requirement when equipment changes ownership.

Poorly designed collection schemes could struggle if returning a device involves long journeys, uncertainty or little incentive. Convenient collection points and transparent procedures would make participation easier.

Environmental benefits also have a public health dimension. The ITU identifies significant costs associated with poorly managed hazardous substances, including lead and mercury emissions. Safer treatment can therefore serve surrounding communities as well as equipment owners.

Affordability remains central. Any new producer or importer obligations should be assessed for their possible effect on retail prices, particularly where consumers already depend on inexpensive second-hand equipment.

Policy Success Will Depend on Delivery and Accountability

For governments and development partners, the launch creates an opportunity to align digital policy, industrial development and waste management. These responsibilities need coordination: expanding connectivity while neglecting discarded equipment can shift costs onto municipalities, workers and communities.

Producer responsibility arrangements, collection targets and procurement standards are policy options worth examining. Their design should reflect local enforcement capacity and market conditions. Informal collectors and repair workers also need a route into safer, recognised businesses, supported by training and practical incentives.

Financial institutions, manufacturers, recyclers and civil society have complementary roles. Investors need credible business plans and predictable rules; communities need accessible services and accountability. Shared international knowledge can help, but cannot replace local implementation.

The published launch announcements do not establish country-level job outcomes, household savings or future collection performance. Those results remain to be demonstrated.

GEM should ultimately be judged by measurable improvements: more equipment repaired, more waste reaching sound treatment, safer livelihoods and sustainable businesses. Turning a coordinated launch into those everyday outcomes is the programme's decisive test.