E-Waste in Central Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan

In the digital age, electronic devices have become integral to daily life. However, the rapid turnover of these devices has led to a surge in electronic waste (e-waste), posing significant environmental and health challenges. Central Asia, particularly Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, is grappling with the implications of this growing waste stream. This article delves into the e-waste scenarios of these two nations, examining the scale of the problem, projected future trends, existing management strategies, and potential pathways forward.

1. The Scale of E-Waste Generation

Uzbekistan

As of 2019, Uzbekistan generated approximately 96 kilotons (kt) of e-waste, equating to 2.9 kg per capita. This figure rose to 128 million kilograms in 2022, with a per capita generation of 3.7 kg. The country lacks specific legislation addressing e-waste, and the collection rate remains below 1%, indicating a significant gap in formal recycling efforts.

Kyrgyzstan

In 2019, Kyrgyzstan produced around 12 kt of e-waste, or 1.9 kg per capita. Similar to Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan lacks formal e-waste legislation, and there is no official data on e-waste collection or recycling rates. The absence of structured management systems exacerbates the environmental risks associated with e-waste.

2. Projected E-Waste Trends for 2030 and 2050

Uzbekistan

Projections indicate that Uzbekistan's e-waste generation will increase by approximately 5 kt annually, reaching nearly 268 kt per year by 2050—almost double the 2019 figure. Without significant intervention, this trend suggests escalating environmental and health hazards.

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan's e-waste is expected to grow by about 500 tons annually, reaching nearly 26 kt per year by 2050. Under a "Business as Usual" scenario, the accumulated unmanaged e-waste from 2023 to 2050 could total 554 kt. However, adopting a "Circular Economy" approach could reduce this to 225 kt, recovering 186.4 kt of valuable materials and achieving a positive economic effect of USD $18 million.

3. Differences in E-Waste Management

Legislative Framework

Uzbekistan's primary waste management law, the Waste Act (362-II from 05.04.2002), does not specifically address e-waste. The country lacks extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, collection targets, and recycling targets. Similarly, Kyrgyzstan has no definition of electronic waste in its legislation, and there are no established procedures for the disposal of hazardous electronic equipment.

Infrastructure and Public Awareness

In Uzbekistan, the infrastructure for e-waste management is limited, with a collection rate below 1%. Public awareness campaigns are minimal, and the country has not signed international treaties like the Rotterdam Convention. In Kyrgyzstan, the situation is dire, with no official e-waste disposal facilities. Informal recycling practices are prevalent, often involving hazardous methods that pose health risks to workers and the environment.

4. Similarities in Challenges

Both countries face common challenges:

• Lack of Specific Legislation: Neither country has comprehensive laws addressing e-waste management.

• Informal Recycling Practices: The absence of formal systems has led to informal recycling, often involving unsafe methods.

• Environmental and Health Risks: Improper disposal and recycling practices contribute to soil, water, and air pollution, posing health risks to communities.

• Economic Implications: Valuable materials like gold, copper, and rare earth metals are lost due to inadequate recycling, representing missed economic opportunities.

5. Pathways Forward

Policy Development

Both nations need to develop and implement specific e-waste legislation, incorporating EPR schemes to hold producers accountable for the end-of-life management of their products.

Infrastructure Investment

Investing in formal recycling facilities and collection systems is crucial. This includes establishing designated e-waste collection points and ensuring safe recycling practices.

Public Awareness Campaigns

Educating the public about the dangers of improper e-waste disposal and the benefits of recycling can drive behavioral change and increase participation in formal recycling programs.

International Collaboration

Engaging with international organizations can provide technical assistance, funding, and best practices to develop effective e-waste management systems.

Conclusion

Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are at a critical juncture in addressing the growing e-waste challenge. By implementing comprehensive policies, investing in infrastructure, and raising public awareness, these nations can mitigate environmental and health risks while unlocking economic opportunities through the recovery of valuable materials. The path forward requires concerted efforts from governments, industry stakeholders, and communities to build sustainable e-waste management systems.

References

• The National E-waste Monitor 2024 – Uzbekistan

• The National E-waste Monitor 2024 – Kyrgyzstan

• Uzbekistan – ITU E-waste Country Page

• Recycling e-waste benefits both nature and the economy

• Kyrgyzstan has No Place to Dispose of Electronic Waste

• Global E-waste Statistics – Uzbekistan 2019

• Global E-waste Statistics – Kyrgyzstan 2019

Note: This article is based on data available up to April 2025.