Study of Mercury-containing lamp waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa

	69329
	The WORLD BANK Study of Mercury-containing lamp waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa Final Report
	First draft - September 2^nd 2010 Second draft – November 16^th 2010 Third draft – December 10^th 2010 Fourth and final draft – July 20^th 2011
	Ernst & Young, in association with Fraunhofer IML

Contents

List of abbreviations

AICD	African Infrastructure Country Diagnostic
AGLV	German joint working group of lamp producers and recyclers
BAU	Business as usual
CAGR	Compound Annual Growth Rate
CAPEX	Capital expenditure
CFL	Compact fluorescent lamp
DSW	Domestic Solid Waste
EoL	End of life
EPR	Extended Producer Responsibility
FL	Fluorescent lamp
FT	Fluorescent tube
HID	High-intensity discharge
IFI	International Financial Institutions
IL	Incandescent Lamp
INRS	French National Institute for Research and Safety
LED	Light-emitting diode
LFG	Landfil Gas
MAC	Maximum allowable concentration
MCL	Mercury-containing lamp
MSW	Municipal Solid Waste
O&M	Operations and maintenance
OPEX	Operational expenditure
SSA	Sub-Saharan Africa
TL	Tubular Lamps
UBA	German Environmental Protection Agency
UNEP	United Nations Environment Program
USAID	United States Agency for International Development
US EPA	United States Environmental Protection Agency
WB	World Bank
WDI	World Development Indicators
WEEE	Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WHO	World Health Organisation

Abstract

One of the main objectives of this report is to provide policy-makers with the knowledge and tools they need when confronted with a potentially significant flow of EoL mercury containing lamps and the potential mercury pollution it could generate, either airborne or by seeping through the ground to water bodies.

The risks related to MCL waste are either low or easily controllable in the business-as-usual scenario with a domestic waste collection scheme and landfilling. The design of the landfill, which should be engineered, is essential to reduce human exposure, environmental impact and associated risks.

The most effective solutions to reduce overall mercury emissions, which are incineration with activated carbon filters and mercury extraction and which require a separate collection scheme, also result in the highest risk for the workers. This risk is manageable with very high technical capacities and enforcement of best security procedures, which may be difficult to ensure in most SSA countries.

Mercury extraction, which requires a technology specific to lamp recycling, may not be a financially feasible option in most SSA countries considering the size of the markets compared to the capacity of their equipment. But there may be an opportunity to overcome the market size barrier by combining it with an MCL production facility, which produces large quantities of waste.

Some alternative measures can be more effective and more sustainable; these require local involvement from the government to reinforce policies as well as broader involvement of lighting manufacturers at the international level. In particular, whereas the overall amount of mercury in the MCL market in SSA is low compared to other sources of mercury, it can be further reduced up-stream by improving lamp lifetime and mercury content. Another essential measure is to prepare the lighting market for a shift to other mercury-free lighting technologies. LED has been under the spotlight for several years now, but it will need further development before it becomes commercially viable, and even more so in SSA.