Nine African Countries Join a $60 Million Push to Rethink Electronics

Nine African countries are included in the first phase of a new $60 million programme designed to change how electronics are made, used, repaired and discarded. The Global Electronics Management (GEM) programme brings together Botswana, Djibouti, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia and South Africa, alongside seven countries in Asia and Latin America. Its ambition is broader than adding recycling capacity: it seeks to make circular practices part of the electronics value chain, from product design and production through repair, reuse, collection and environmentally sound recovery.

The African Development Bank announced the programme on 16 October, following its launch in Manila on 7 October. GEM is funded by the Global Environment Facility and led by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, with the Bank, UNDP and the UN Environment Programme as partners. The $60 million figure covers a multinational initiative, not a pot reserved exclusively for Africa. That distinction will matter as participating countries define work plans, financing and measures of progress.

The programme arrives as digital devices become more central to communication, commerce, public services and energy access. Phones, computers, network equipment, batteries and other electronics enable economic activity, but their short useful lives and complex materials can leave governments with a growing waste burden. The opportunity is to keep more products and materials in productive use without shifting the costs of unsafe handling onto workers and communities.

A programme built around the whole product lifecycle

GEM describes its scope as lifecycle-wide. It aims to support resource-efficient production and longer product lifespans, then repair, reuse, collection, recovery and safe recycling. The programme also intends to strengthen policy, regulation, financing and technology adoption. UNDP’s programme overview describes goals that include reducing e-waste generation, improving circularity and resource recovery, and reducing harmful chemicals in the electronics sector.

This framing is significant because recycling is only the last stage of a much longer chain. If equipment is designed to be difficult to repair, if spare parts are unavailable, or if replacement is cheaper than maintenance, more devices become waste sooner. Collection systems cannot recover products that households and businesses have no convenient way to return. And a recycling target alone says little about whether workers are protected or valuable materials are recovered safely.

The Global E-waste Monitor 2024 estimated that the world generated 62 million tonnes of electronic waste in 2022. It said 22.3 per cent was documented as formally collected and recycled in an environmentally sound way, and projected global e-waste generation could reach 82 million tonnes by 2030. These are global figures rather than an Africa-specific baseline, but they show why the programme’s emphasis on prevention and product lifespan matters alongside treatment of discarded equipment.

Nine countries, two regional tracks

The African participants are linked through two regional projects. Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia are included in a Horn of Africa project implemented by the African Development Bank. Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa fall under a Southern Africa and SADC project implemented by UNEP. That structure offers an opening to share standards, technical knowledge and market experience across neighbouring countries rather than designing every intervention in isolation.

Regional cooperation can be useful where national markets are too small to support every specialised service. Repair networks, testing facilities, safe dismantling and material recovery all need predictable flows of equipment and clear rules. Common approaches can make it easier for businesses operating across borders to invest in compliant services, while reducing the risk that weak regulation in one place undercuts better standards elsewhere.

But regional language does not guarantee practical coordination. The participating governments still need to identify which agencies lead, how responsibilities are divided between environment, industry, trade and digital authorities, and how informal repairers and collectors can participate. Cross-border movement of used equipment and scrap also needs rules that distinguish reusable products from waste being moved for cheap or unsafe processing.

Repair and reuse can create value before recycling

The programme’s focus on repair and longer product life opens a different economic conversation from waste disposal. Repair technicians, refurbishment businesses, parts suppliers and responsible collection operators can extend the useful life of devices and preserve more of their original value. These are possibilities, not guaranteed job numbers: they depend on demand, skills, access to parts, product quality and a regulatory environment that rewards safe practices.

For countries seeking broader digital access, refurbished electronics may also offer a lower-cost route to devices for households, schools and small businesses. Yet reuse markets require trust. Buyers need clear information about condition and remaining life, and suppliers need standards for testing, data wiping and warranties. A circular system should not become a route for exporting obsolete products to consumers who lack safe repair or eventual disposal options.

Recycling remains essential for equipment that cannot be repaired or reused. It can recover useful materials and reduce reliance on raw inputs, but the economics are complicated. Electronics combine many materials in small quantities, and safe processing requires appropriate technology, trained workers, reliable electricity and environmental controls. Where collection is fragmented or volumes are low, formal recyclers may struggle to compete with informal operators who bear fewer compliance costs.

What to look for in implementation

The programme’s credibility will depend on measurable country-level milestones. Governments and partners can publish baselines for the amount of electronic equipment placed on markets, collected, repaired, reused and formally processed. They can also report whether rules for extended producer responsibility, collection obligations or hazardous components are adopted and enforced. Each measure should make clear what is being counted and who verifies the data.

Financing is another test. The announcement names policy, financing and technology adoption as enabling areas, but the headline programme budget does not establish how much each country will receive or which facilities will be built. Public plans should clarify the balance between grants, private investment, government resources and producer contributions. They should also explain how small repair businesses and community collectors can access training or finance without being pushed out by larger formal operators.

Worker safety and environmental protection must be built into the design. Informal workers already collect, sort and repair devices in many markets, often with limited protective equipment and uncertain income. A transition that simply closes informal activity could remove livelihoods without creating an adequate replacement. Better approaches can combine practical training, safer working conditions, routes into licensed enterprises and consultation with workers who understand local collection networks.

From a launch announcement to durable systems

GEM gives nine African countries a platform to connect circular-economy policy with digital transformation and industrial development. The programme’s strongest proposition is that electronics should not be treated as disposable once the first user is finished with them. Longer product lives, repair, reuse and responsible recovery can reduce pressure on materials and create more value from goods already in circulation.

The hard part is execution. Governments will need clear standards, dependable inspection, practical collection options and fair rules for producers, retailers, recyclers and repairers. Partners will need to publish what the funding supports and how outcomes are assessed. And people should be able to see the result in products that last longer, safer work, trustworthy second-hand markets and less equipment leaking into uncontrolled disposal.

The launch establishes a shared programme, not proof that these outcomes have been achieved. As implementation begins across the Horn of Africa and southern Africa, the key question is whether cooperation can build local capability and viable markets rather than a set of short-lived pilot projects. If repair and recovery become normal parts of how electronics are sold and serviced, the initiative could support both digital access and environmental goals. If collection, accountability and business incentives remain weak, the region’s devices will continue to deliver digital value for a brief period and leave the costs behind.