Used Lead-acid Battery Recycling Regulation Advocacy

ULAB recycling is likely one of the largest sources of lead exposure.
Given the economic value of lead-acid batteries and the profitability of their recycling, addressing this issue requires very different solutions than those for other sources of lead exposure.
Experiences from countries like Brazil suggest that regulatory measures can effectively transition ULAB recycling from the highly polluting informal sector to the less polluting formal sector.
There is significant space for new, dedicated actors to support governments in passing and implementing the most promising regulatory solutions.
Thus we recommend an organization advocating for policies and regulations that reduce the harms associated with used lead-acid batteries (ULAB) recycling.

What’s the problem?

Lead-acid batteries account for 86% of global lead consumption.
They have a limited lifespan and must be recycled every 1–5 years.
Recycling releases lead into the environment, with emissions ranging from under 1% for high-quality formal facilities to over 20% for small-scale informal sites.
Informal recycling often takes place in densely populated areas, increasing the risk of widespread lead exposure.

Why does it matter?

Lead exposure is estimated to contribute to between 1.5 and 5.5 million deaths annually.
It negatively impacts brain development and learning outcomes, potentially resulting in USD 300–500 billion in global economic losses each year, mostly in LMICs.
ULAB recycling could be responsible for 5–30% of this burden—though the exact figure is highly uncertain due to the lack of rigorous estimates.

Neglectedness:

While the problem has received significant attention in the past, few resources have been allocated to systemic solutions.
Interviews we conducted with 13 experts suggest that these individuals represent the majority of those working on this issue in some form.
To our knowledge, very few—if any—individuals in the non-profit sector are currently working full-time on ULAB recycling regulation in LMICs.

What’s the proposed solution?

Different policy and regulatory solutions will likely vary in their appropriateness and tractability across countries.
Drawing on Brazil's successes, we are most excited about advocating for the following policies:
- Tax exemptions for ULABs to narrow the price gap between formal and informal recycling
- Extended producer responsibility, requiring manufacturers or importers to ensure proper ULAB recycling within the formal sector
- Establishing a producer responsibility organization to enforce compliance
Other promising approaches include creating incentives for exporting ULABs to countries with high-quality formal recyclers and supporting formal recyclers in implementing technical upgrades.

Why do we trust this solution?

While we only have moderate confidence in these solutions’ effectiveness, we believe a dedicated charity will be able to experiment and refine approaches over time.
Most experts we consulted expressed support for these regulatory strategies.

How robust is the evidence?

The evidence for the effectiveness of these solutions is weak, relying on case studies and economic reasoning rather than rigorous trials.
We are concerned that the “Brazil playbook” may only work in countries with reasonably strong regulatory capacities, requiring alternative, possibly novel approaches elsewhere.

What impact could this have?

We estimate that this charity could operate in parallel across three countries (each similar in size to Thailand) and, in each, have a 20% chance of achieving a 5% reduction in local blood lead levels.
This equates to approximately 12,000 expected income doublings per year.
Additionally, a dedicated nonprofit could generate much-needed evidence on ULAB recycling, including the prevalence of various practices, the feasibility of different regulatory approaches, and eventually the effectiveness of implemented solutions—helping accelerate global progress.

Estimated cost-effectiveness:

Our model estimates that this intervention could achieve a cost-effectiveness of USD 11 per year of doubled consumption, making it highly cost-effective.
However, given the uncertainty along multiple points in the theory of change, actual cost-effectiveness could vary significantly.

Ideal founders of this charity should be comfortable with high levels of uncertainty—both in determining the best course of action and in evaluating the charity’s ultimate impact.
Founders should be adept at adapting strategies based on emerging evidence, either from their own work or from others in this space.
This idea may be a particularly good fit for someone keenly interested in understanding the complex lead-acid battery market and the various ways of regulating it.
Given the advocacy-heavy nature of this work, strong stakeholder management skills or experience in government advocacy would be a valuable asset.