0
Conduct field research on informal lead-acid battery recycling supply chains in Nigeria
ActiveGrant
$13,000raised
$13,000funding goal
Longer description of your proposed project
The Problem
Lead poisoning reduces global GDP by ~$6 trillion a year. Used lead acid battery recycling is one of the largest sources of exposure, but non-profits shy away from the issue because there is very little research on it. Funding will allow us to research actionable solutions.
Lead-acid batteries are used in essentially all cars on the road today (including EVs) for starting, lighting, and ignition purposes due to their low cost and reliability, but only last ~500 cycles, and then have to be recycled.
The recycling process extracts the lead from these batteries, which is then generally put back into new lead-acid batteries (these batteries account for more than 80% of global lead demand). This process is done relatively safely with machinery in developed countries like the U.S. and Germany. But in LMICs, it’s often done at a small scale by individuals without specialized equipment.
Unsafe ULAB recycling poisons those doing the recycling —but also contaminates air, soil, and water, and contributes significantly to lead poisoning in neighboring areas, especially among children.
ULAB poisoning is intensely underfunded and under-researched, so it’s not clear what percentage of lead poisoning comes from informal recycling. But there is consensus among major NGOs focused on lead poisoning that it’s one of the leading causes.
Despite this agreement, current solutions being worked on by the relatively few major lead poisoning organizations are focused on the areas in which reduction is easiest — like lead paint — not necessarily where exposure is largest.
From the experts we talked to, including at Pure Earth and LEEP, we got the sense this is largely because ULABs are seen as a hard problem and don’t work well with existing lead reduction methodologies.
Current lead reduction efforts focus on identifying and remediating centralized sources of exposure. Organizations test consumer goods (e.g. spices) and identify ones with dangerous levels. They then find the manufacturers and work with them to remove lead from their products.
There has been some work to apply this to ULABs with a test-and-remediate approach where the grounds of suspected recycling sites are tested for lead, and then if toxic remediated. However from our conversation with Pure Earth and other reading, it seems this approach has substantial scaling issues.
However, we believe a policy that changes the underlying economics of informal recyclers like a subsidy or buyback program could shift recycling to the centralized, and safer, supply chain, where it can further be regulated as necessary.
But any efforts to design and test such an intervention will require an understanding of the economics and structure of informal recycling. Additionally, without this understanding, it is hard to portray the issue as tractable and attract government and non-profit resources to it.
Right now, there is effectively no research on how batteries flow into the informal recycling market or how informally recycled lead is sold back into the broader commodities supply.
Our Proposal
We are applying for this grant to conduct focused field research on the ULAB supply chain in Nigeria to attempt to understand the underlying mechanics of the market and identify targets for effective policy intervention.
On the supply side, we want to understand where informal recyclers are buying their batteries and at what price, and where those batteries are coming from. On the demand side, we want to understand how their lead flows back into the global market. We will meet with people across the lead supply chain, including battery resellers, formal and informal recyclers, commodities traders, academics, and policy makers.
We will publish this research online (we are in the process of launching a blog focused on ULAB-related poisoning) as well as on the Effective Altruism forum. We’ll also distribute it to those we’re working with in non-profits and academia.
We think Nigeria is a good place to conduct this research because it has both documented informal recycling and a real formal sector, which will be valuable in understanding the differences in the unit economics of formal and informal recycling. Additionally, it’s English-speaking and, from our conversations with economics researchers, has good research infrastructure that we could able to leverage for larger-scale surveys.
While not definitive, systematically understanding the economics of ULAB in a market with formal and informal recycling will be valuable in identifying tractable ways to address the issue.
More specifically, it is a crucial foundational step for quantitative size-and-scope research, which we anticipate being the next step for us or other researchers. From our conversations with academics who have conducted similar research, a broader understanding of the market is necessary to design surveys that provide the quantitative data necessary to effectively tackle the issue.
Describe why you think you're qualified to work on this
We’ve both been interested in Effective Altruism for years, and took the giving pledge. Right now, we’re economics students at the University of Chicago and don’t have any direct experience in lead poisoning. However, we’re both passionate about the issue and are considering taking time off from our careers post-graduatiation to pursue ULAB recycling full time.
We’ve spoken with donors interested in funding an ambitious attempt to tackle ULAB recycling — however, we don’t yet have data that could support a larger-scale project. We believe that this initial supply chain research is crucial for any kind of work around designing potential surveys or more comprehensive market research, and consequently raising funding to support that.
So far, we’ve conducted independent investigations into lead poisoning and ULAB recycling. We have spoken to leaders at three major nonprofits focused on the issue — Pure Earth, the Center for Global Development, and the Lead Exposure Elimination Project — to understand current evidence gaps and why ULAB recycling has seen little targeted intervention so far. These conversations have shaped our emphasis on supply chain fact-finding as a prerequisite for policy change. They have also equipped us to collaborate productively with other researchers in this space.
While we do not have direct experience with on-the-ground ULAB recycling supply chain research or international field work, we recognize these are core competencies for this project and are committed to rapidly acquiring them. We have discussed logistical considerations for visiting recycling sites and interviewing local stakeholders with faculty advisors and will continue developing our knowledge of best practices.
We’ve also talked with UChicago staff at the Development Innovation Lab, an economics research outfit focused on developing countries, and the Center for Radical Innovation and Social Change, a more EA-specific UChicago organization, and have contacts in both organizations. These contacts will be able to help us leverage the research we do to make a broader impact in the academic and non-profit worlds.
We think that if we are able to come to these partners, as well as our donors, with promising initial research, there is a substantial chance that we will be able to get additional support and funding.
Other ways I can learn about you
We’re not very active on social media, but John’s Twitter is @johnlohier and Hugo’s is @hugorsmith
How much money do you need?
Something in the range of $8,500 (pre-tax, or ~$6k post-tax) for round trip flights and lodging, plus on-the-ground costs including transportation, phone service, and local support.
Links to any supporting documents or information
Lancet article on damage of lead poisoning in LMIC, estimates damage at $6 trillion:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196%2823%2900166-3/fulltext
Definitive UN/Pure Earth report on lead poisoning:
Rethink Priorities Global Lead Exposure Report, good summary of existing efforts:
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/global-lead-exposure-report
Estimate your probability of succeeding if you get the amount of money you asked for
If we define success as “develop a pretty good understanding of the supply chain behind formal and informal ULAB recycling in Nigeria,” we put our chances of success around 80%. The biggest risk is that people are unwilling to talk to us, but we have consulted with others who have done similar on-the-ground research and believe this risk is small.
We put our chances of this project driving additional academic research and non-profit activity at 55%. We think this initial research will be useful in convincing academic and non-profit partners to devote resources to ULAB’s specifically, and also in identifying and designing specific projects they would be open to funding.
