E-Waste Treatment Facility in Uganda Business Plan

E-Waste Treatment Facility in Uganda
Business Plan
Draft Report, May 2014
Markus Spitzbart*
Contributions: Magdalena Höller, Peter Kurz
Die Wiener Volkshochschulen GmbH/ Dismantling- and Recycling-Centre (D.R.Z.), Austria
Mathias Schluep*
Contributions: Fabian Blaser
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA) /
World Resources Forum Association (WRFA), Switzerland
*Corresponding Authors
Prepared for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

Business plan for an e-waste treatment facility in Uganda
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We want to thank the following organizations for supporting the project

 the social enterprise BUZ-Neudorf in Austria, where the dismantling trails for CRTs
and FPDs have been conducted, and
 the Belgian organization WorldLoop for providing us with information concerning
acquisition costs for treatment equipment and layout considerations.
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To address the issue of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), or e-waste, in
Uganda, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) is targeting the
implementation of a manual e-waste treatment facility in Kampala, Uganda. In a first phase,
financially supported by the Austrian Development Cooperation, the current situation
concerning e-waste in Uganda has been analyzed, potential quantities have been estimated
[UCPC, 2013] and a feasibility study for an e-waste dismantling facility [Blaser et al., 2013]
has been elaborated. The present business plan for a manual dismantling facility in Kampala
marks the final step within the first phase.
The main objective of this business plan is to submit a concrete profit and loss forecast for a
manual e-waste dismantling facility in Kampala that could work as a practicable business
case under the current framework conditions following international quality standards and
environmentally-sound waste management.
The business plan consists of three parts. The first part is a strategic analysis based on the
previously mentioned studies proposing the following framework conditions for
implementation:
 Remuneration of recycling fees for appliances where the intrinsic value of the treated
material is not sufficient for a break-even;
 Collection fees charged for CRTs from B2B collection;
 Market prices for recyclable fractions according to the market situation in July 2013;
 Government-provided estate and building for the facility, including free rental for the first
two years of operation.
For the business case, a public-private partnership between a private entrepreneur and a
governmental authority is proposed. Besides manual dismantling it has been considered that
depollution of CRT tubes would take place in the facility.
The second part analyzes a potential profit and loss forecast and break-even on the basis of
input quantities and composition from four different input streams over a period of five years
of operation. The following input streams have been assumed:
 delivery of e-waste to the facility by scavengers;
 B2B collection from companies and institutions;
 B2B collection from repair shops;
 delivery of e-waste at collection points spread over the municipal area of Kampala.
For the input streams, different potential quantities and compositions have been assumed.
The overall input has been estimated to start at 90 t/a in the first year, jumping to 270 t/a in
the second year of operation and then slowly increasing from 220 t/a in the third year up to
300 t/a after five years of operation. The expected input is dominated by CRT devices, which
will count for more than 60% of the entire input, followed by desktop PCs and minor shares
of notebooks, printers/ scanners, FPD devices and IT accessories.
Based on these assumptions, the following calculations have been conducted:
 quantities of produced output fractions, transport costs and potential revenues or
disposal costs to destine each of these fractions to further recycling or final disposal;
 operational costs (staff, infrastructure, equipment, etc.), and
 recycling fees as additional revenues to ensure a positive financial performance.
Page 2
Based on the assumed input, a possible layout for the facility has been designed and an
investment plan has been calculated. The resulting profit and loss forecast is shown in Table
A-1.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
[USD/a] [USD/a] [USD/a] [USD/a] [USD/a]
Total Revenues 67,002 205,192 162,149 187,031 218,439
Total Purchase and Downstream Costs -30,870 -87,715 -78,396 -92,945 -111,414
Total Staff Costs -28,248 -36,168 -29,832 -31,416 -33,000
Total Infrastructure Costs -7,048 -7,048 -12,092 -12,092 -12,092
Total Equipment Costs -1,496 -3,141 -1,645 -2,094 -2,243
Total Transport Costs -820 -1,332 -1,152 -1,244 -1,356
Total Administration Costs -4,800 -4,800 -4,800 -4,800 -4,800
Total Depreciation -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040
Operating Result -8,320 62,948 32,193 40,400 51,494

Investments -39,190
Operating Result + Investments -47,510 62,948 32,193 40,400 51,494
Credit Costs -9,094 -10,913 -5,403 -2,325
Net Income Before Taxes -56,604 52,036 26,790 38,076 51,494
Taxes -15,611 -8,037 -11,423 -15,448
Net Income After Taxes -56,604 36,425 18,753 26,653 36,046
Table A-1: Summarized Profit and Loss forecast for a manual dismantling facility in Kampala, Uganda
The profit and loss forecast demonstrates that after five years of facility operation, separate
collection and dismantling of e-waste in Kampala
 can achieve revenues of more than 200,000 USD/a;
 with half of these revenues having to be spent on purchase, disposal and external
transport costs;
 with 25% of revenues to be spent on operational costs for running the facility;
 and with another 25%, or up to 50,000 USD/a, left as a positive operating result.
This applies to collecting and dismantling 300 tons of e-waste per year and considering
average revenues from recycling revenues of 200 USD/t of collected e-waste.
Based on these results, different profit and loss forecasts have been calculated while
modifying certain framework conditions. The most promising financial performance could be
reached assuming a scenario, where
 CRT glass could be disposed in Uganda in an environmentally-sound manner;
 required investments could be financed by a non-repayable grant, and
 the government provided the estate and building for the facility within a public-private
partnership.
Under these framework conditions, the profit and loss forecast revealed a positive financial
performance without collecting recycling fees as additional revenues. Under these optimized
framework conditions, the intrinsic value of appliances like PCs or FPD monitors/TVs would
even be able to finance recycling costs for devices like CRTs.
Page 3
CONTENT
PART A) INTRODUCTION + GENERAL INFORMATION .................................................. 6
A.1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 6
A.1.1. History and Setup of the Project ........................................................................................ 6
A.1.2. Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7
A.1.3. Methodology...................................................................................................................... 8
A.2. Description of the Planned Recycling Business ........................................................ 9
A.2.1. Characterisation of E-Waste/ Focused Electronic Appliances .......................................... 9
A.2.2. Description of the Proposed Process Chain ..................................................................... 10
A.2.3. Downstream Options ....................................................................................................... 12
A.3. Options Concerning Ownership and Operator’s-Model ..........................................14
PART B) STRATEGIC ANALYSIS ......................................................................................16
B.1. Current Situation ..................................................................................................16
B.1.1. Current Legal Framework ............................................................................................... 16
B.1.2. E-Waste Generation and Current Massflows .................................................................. 18
B.1.3. Stakeholders and Competitors ......................................................................................... 20
B.2. Opportunities and Risks ........................................................................................23
B.3. Proposed Setup .....................................................................................................24
B.3.1. Proposed Operator’s Model ............................................................................................. 24
B.3.2. Assumed Framework Conditions .................................................................................... 25
PART C) COLLECTION STRATEGY AND DOWNSTREAM OPTIONS .............................26
C.1. Collection Strategy ................................................................................................26
C.1.1. General Objectives and Approach ................................................................................... 26
C.1.2. Input Streams ................................................................................................................... 26
C.1.3. Purchase Conditions ........................................................................................................ 27
C.2. Expected Input......................................................................................................28
C.3. Produced Output Fractions ...................................................................................30
C.3.1. Selected Processing Options ............................................................................................ 30
C.3.2. Existing Downstream Options ......................................................................................... 31
C.3.3. Selected Transport and Storage Options.......................................................................... 34
PART D) LAYOUT, INVESTMENTS AND EQUIPMENT ....................................................37
D.1. Required Human Resources ..................................................................................37
D.1.1. Assumed Basic Data ........................................................................................................ 37
D.1.2. Required Staff .................................................................................................................. 37
D.2. Infrastructure and Equipment ...............................................................................39
D.2.1. Required Space ................................................................................................................ 39
D.2.2. Required Equipment ........................................................................................................ 40
D.2.3. Proposed Layout .............................................................................................................. 43
Page 4
D.3. Required Investments............................................................................................47

D.3.1. Estate and Building.......................................................................................................... 47
D.3.2. Investment for Equipment ............................................................................................... 47
PART E) OPERATIONAL REVENUES AND COSTS ...........................................................48
E.1. Purchase Costs and Revenues ................................................................................48
E.1.1. Expected Purchase Costs ................................................................................................. 48
E.1.2. Required Recycling Fees from Producers ....................................................................... 48
E.2. Sales Revenues and Downstream Costs .....................................................................49
E.2.1. Prices/ Costs per Tons ..................................................................................................... 49
E.2.2. Sales Revenues ................................................................................................................ 50
E.2.3. External Transport Costs ................................................................................................. 50
E.2.4. Disposal Costs ................................................................................................................. 51
E.2.5. Net Sales Revenues ......................................................................................................... 52
E.3. Operational Costs .................................................................................................53
E.3.1. Staff Costs ....................................................................................................................... 53
E.3.2. Infrastructure Costs.......................................................................................................... 54
E.3.3. Equipment........................................................................................................................ 54
E.3.4. Transport Costs ................................................................................................................ 56
E.3.5. Administration Costs ....................................................................................................... 57
E.3.6. Depreciation..................................................................................................................... 57
PART F) PROFIT & LOSS FORECAST AND INTERPRETATION .....................................58
F.1. Required Recycling Fees........................................................................................58
F.2. Profit & Loss Forecast...........................................................................................60
F.3. Calculated Break-Even..........................................................................................62
F.4. Modeling Different Framework Conditions ............................................................62
F.4.1. Modeling Framework Conditions .................................................................................... 64
F.4.2. Modeling Recycling Fees ................................................................................................ 66
F.5. Conclusions...........................................................................................................67
PART G) ANNEX .................................................................................................................68
G.1. List of Tables .................................................................................................68
G.2. List of Figures ...............................................................................................69
G.3. List of References .........................................................................................70
Page 5
PART A)
INTRODUCTION + GENERAL INFORMATION
A.1. INTRODUCTION
As in many other African countries, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), or e-
waste, has become a serious environmental issue in Uganda. The consumption rates for
electric and electronic appliances (EEE) have accelerated in the last decade. Due to this
trend, the amount of WEEE thrown away by its users or handed to the informal sector is
growing. Authorities, organizations and a numerous companies have been storing end-of-life
equipment due to a lack of existing options to return WEEE for proper treatment.
As there does not exist a recycling industry following international quality and environmental
standards, e-waste is treated under conditions hazardous to human health and is causing
negative environmental impacts by, for instance, the removal of valuable components like
ferrous and non-ferrous metals and dumping toxic substances. On the other hand,
dismantling of WEEE can be an opportunity for entrepreneurs to set up sustainable recycling
businesses and creating green jobs.
Against this background, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO),
with financial support of the Austrian Government, set up the present project to implement a
manual e-waste dismantling facility in Kampala, Uganda.
A.1.1. HISTORY AND SETUP OF THE PROJECT

The project “Establishment of a manual dismantling facility for e-waste in Uganda” is
designed in two phases:
1. analyzing the current situation concerning e-waste in Uganda, elaborating required
framework conditions and developing a concrete business plan for an e-waste
recycling facility as key objectives for the first phase;
2. the concrete implementation of a manual dismantling facility in Kampala as the core
action in a second phase.
The first phase was conducted between the end of 2012 and beginning of 2014. As a first
step, an “Inventory on e-waste management practices in Uganda” was conducted by the
Uganda Cleaner Production Centre [UCPC, 2013] under guidance of the Swiss Federal
Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA). Within this inventory, the
potential EEE- and WEEE- quantities for Uganda were estimated. Purchase prices for e-
waste devices and other crucial costs to run a facility were estimated and the current legal
framework conditions analyzed.
Based on the data provided within the inventory and complemented by additional surveys, a
feasibility study for an e-waste treatment facility in Kampala [Blaser et al, 2013] was
elaborated by the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA)
supported by the D.R.Z–Dismantling and Recycling Centre (D.R.Z). Within this feasibility
study, the financial balance for a future dismantling facility in Uganda was estimated under
different conditions. This included the variation of input quantities, WEEE composition,
achievable prices for valuable output fractions, prices to be paid for hazardous fractions and
transport costs.
Page 6
The main result of the feasibility study was that under the current local and global economic
conditions, the e-waste treatment facility in Kampala cannot become an economically self-
sufficient business if solely relying on the intrinsic value of the treated material. These
findings can be attributed to two cost factors which stand out with regard to their significance:
the purchase prices for e-waste that are paid to incentivize collection, and the costs for the
treatment of cathode ray tubes (CRTs). A further relevant issue for the business is the
difficult transport situation for waste fractions destined for the regional or international
market. Transport is cost- and time-consuming, as Uganda is a landlocked country and
several border crossings are required, which generally entail a considerable bureaucratic
effort.
Furthermore the feasibility study concludes that a sustainable e-waste treatment business
can only grow in Uganda in combination with a comprehensive framework, which ensures:
1. that business sustainability is guaranteed under both favorable and unfavorable
economic conditions, i.e. an additional flexible income stream - enabled through a
financing scheme - needs to be established for periods in which the intrinsic value of
the treated material is not sufficient for a break-even. Additionally, seed funding or
grants to support the initial phase of building up a business might be required;
2. that e-waste businesses can grow on a level playing field, i.e. that rules set by
legislation and standards, as well as monitoring and control mechanisms favor high
standard operations;
3. that market incentives, such as high collection and treatment rates, are encouraged,
i.e. appropriate collection processes need to be attractive, ensuring that high volumes
of both valuable and non-valuable waste materials are collected equally and that those
materials reach appropriate treatment facilities;
4. that regional, cross-national, cooperation models are supported in order to gather
critical volumes of e.g. PWBs. These models should allow e-waste businesses to
participate on the global market for a maximal return of value for secondary raw
materials, which also requires that government bodies guarantee a smooth, reliable
and timely handling of export licenses and other administrative procedures to facilitate
exports of certain e-waste materials.
The present business plan calculates revenues and costs for a period of five years based on
the results of the inventory and the feasibility study, considering the suggestions made
concerning required framework conditions.
A.1.2. OBJECTIVES
The present business plan for an e-waste treatment facility in Uganda pursues the following
main objectives:
- The financial balance for e-waste dismantling calculated within the feasibility study
should be extended to a five-year business plan including profit and loss forecast
calculation as well as break-even estimation. Estimated revenues and costs should be
based on realistic assumptions concerning input of e-waste from different streams,
process calculation and downstream options.
- Barriers identified in the feasibility study should be adapted based on realistic
assumptions concerning required framework conditions such as remunerations from
financing mechanisms, etc. Using the completed business plan, interested
entrepreneurs should be in a position to get a loan from a bank or investor for the
required investments and initial phase of operation.
Page 7
- Apart from the profit and loss calculation, the written business plan should provide
information concerning space requirements and proposals to design the layout of the
facility, required number of employees, equipment etc.
- Furthermore this business plan should be elaborated so as to be used in the future as
a blueprint for similar UNIDO projects, by adapting regional framework conditions and
key figures concerning prices and costs.
The current business plan calculates revenues and costs for material recycling of e-waste
only. In many cases, it will make sense to establish the recycling facility together with a
refurbishment center or extend an existing refurbishment center by a dismantling facility
selecting reusable EEE from the input streams. Revenues and costs for refurbishment have
to be calculated separately and are not included in this business plan.
A.1.3. METHODOLOGY
The present business plan consists of two main parts:
 a strategic analysis based on the inventory [UCPC, 2013] and the feasibility study
[Blaser et al., 2013], and
 a calculation of a profit and loss forecast based on assumed mass flows and
expected revenues and costs
For the business plan, a calculation tool, developed within the StEP (Solving the e-waste
problem) network (Task-Force 4 Recycling) in cooperation with KERP, D.R.Z and EMPA, has
been further developed by the corresponding authors into an Excel-based business plan
calculation tool.
With the business plan calculation tool it is possible to calculate the financial performance for
the first five years of operation based on expected input quantities and composition of
appliances groups. Local relevant cost factors like average salaries, purchase prices, fuel
prices etc. have to be provided. Based on the general data provided and considering the
chosen modeling parameters (dismantling depth and dismantling efficiency), the tool
calculates the following results:
 required staff, investments and equipment;
 expected revenues and operational costs;
 an entire profit and loss forecast;
 required additional income stream (e.g. through an EPR financing mechanism,
recycling fees, etc.);
 a calculated break-even.
Using the business plan calculation tool, different profit and loss scenarios for the planned
facility in Kampala have been calculated by modifying certain framework conditions (chapter
F.4).
Page 8
A.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNED RECYCLING

BUSINESS
A.2.1. CHARACTERISATION OF E-WASTE/ FOCUSED
ELECTRONIC APPLIANCES
Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), or e-waste for short, is a generic term
embracing various forms of electric and electronic equipment that have ceased to be of any
value to their owners. In the present context, we use the terms WEEE and e-waste
synonymously and in accordance to the EU WEEE Directive. The categories according to the
EU WEEE Directive are listed in Table A-1.
Table A-1: WEEE categories according to the EU directive on WEEE [WASSWA, SCHLUEP, 2008]
When e-waste is disposed of or recycled without any controls, there are predictable negative
impacts on the environment and human health. E-waste contains more than 1,000 different
substances, many of which are toxic, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, selenium,
hexavalent chromium, and flame retardants that create dioxin emissions when burned.
These toxins can cause a variety of ailments, ranging from allergic reactions to brain damage
and cancer. E-waste contains considerable quantities of valuable materials such as precious
metals. Early generation PCs used to contain up to 4 g of gold each; however this has
decreased to about 1 g today. The value of ordinary metals contained in e-waste is also very
high: one ton of e-waste contains up to 0.2 tons of copper [WASSWA, SCHLUEP, 2008].
Regarding the types of appliances to be treated in the future dismantling facility, the business
plan follows the selected appliances within the feasibility study [Blaser et al., 2013], that
encompassed appliances of the following WEEE categories1: small household appliances
(cat. 2), IT and telecommunications equipment (cat. 3) and consumer equipment (cat. 4). The
focus is set on the following appliances:
• desktop PCs (cat. 3),
• IT accessories (cat. 3),
• CRT and LCD monitors (cat. 3),
• laptops (cat. 3),
• printers, scanners, copiers (cat. 3)
• CRT and LCD TVs (cat. 4).
1
See classification according to the EU WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:037:0024:0038:EN:PDF
Page 9
It was decided to base the business plan calculations on these types of appliances due to the
following reasons:
 The selected types of appliances are most relevant concerning quantities, content of
resource efficient substances and potential negative environmental impact due to
hazardous components.
 The calculations had to focus on typical appliances concerning the mentioned aspects
to allow modeling procedures concerning output composition and financial
performance.
It is expected that other types of appliances will be found in the input as well, like irons or
other small household appliances. However, such devices can be treated in the facility
without relevant influence on technical and financial aspects, with two exceptions:
 End-of-life cooling and freezing appliances are a serious public issue due to their
content of climate-relevant gases and hazardous substances. Contrary to other
equipment, they are also relevant in terms of existing quantities.
 For depollution and recycling of cooling and freezing appliances, a
separate project has to be set up due to different material composition and
recycling requirements.
 At the stakeholder workshop in Kampala in July 2013 several stakeholders remarked
that waste from medical devices is a serious environmental issue in Uganda:
 Medical appliances have to be collected and treated separately due to
issues of hygene and therefore are beyond the scope of the current project.
The expected composition of the WEEE bulk (see chapter C.2) that is collected (with regard
to the chosen sample) is estimated based on previous studies in Morocco and Tanzania
[(GIZ 2010; Blaser and Schluep 2012) see in Blaser et al., 2013], a field survey with
scavengers in Uganda carried out by UCPC and the following assumptions:
• 15% laptops (of all computers)
• One printer for every two PCs
• 10% LCD monitors / 90% CRT monitors
• 10% LCD TVs / 90% CRT TVs
A.2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROCESS CHAIN

The design of the facility and the calculation of the future financial performance of the
dismantling facility follow the process chain pictured in Figure A-1.
E-waste is generated both by private households and companies, organizations and
authorities. As part of a collection strategy this business plan suggests to set up collection
points at strategic locations in Kampala, in order to make it convenient for consumers or
individual collectors to hand in their e-waste. It is assumed that these collection points are
run by entrepreneurs and that the facility is buying and picking up the collected e-waste with
their own vehicles from these collection points.
Page 10
Figure A-1: Overall process-flow through the facility
E-waste generated by companies, organizations and authorities has to be acquired directly

and collected from the point of generation by a facility’s vehicles and is characterized as
B2B-collection. Collection from repair-shops works in a similar fashion to B2B-collection. As
repair shops are dealing with broken devices mainly from private use, the composition of
collected e-waste might differ from that of B2B-collection. Collection trips will probably have
to be planned differently as well as orders from businesses to collect e-waste might fill a
whole truck or even require more than one trip per order. Collected amounts of e-waste from
repair shops will probably be lower per trip, as these shops do not have a lot of space for
storage. On the other hand, repair shops generate e-waste regularly. Regular trips collecting
e-waste from several repair shops per trip might be the solution for this input stream.
Deliveries of e-waste by consumers and informal collectors directly at the facility have been
considered as a fourth input stream within the business plan.
The receiving of e-waste is the first process that has to be considered at the facility regarding
space and personnel resources. All incoming e-waste has to be weighed and registered in
respect of origin or destination. Selection of reusable appliances for refurbishment can take
place at the e-waste intake point as well. Registered e-waste will go to an input storage,
where the dismantling workers can take the material for dismantling and further processing.
Depollution and further dismantling of appliances for material recycling are the main
operation processes within the facility (Figure A-2). The main dismantling steps are:
 Opening of the appliance (separation of the housing from the rest of the appliance)
 Localization, identification and removal of hazardous components
 Dismantling and separation of the remaining components into marketable fractions
For the dismantling of CRTs, aeration of the CRT-tube has to be included as an additional
dismantling step to avoid implosion.
Page 11
Figure A-2: Examples of different dismantling workstations
Depending on the disposal options in the region, further depollution steps might be
necessary and have to be considered in designing the layout and calculation of investments
and operational costs (Figure D-3 in chapter D.2.2).
 Further treatment of CRT-tubes: If a recycling plant for CRT-treatment does not exist in
the region, it is recommended to invest in equipment for that recycling step. CRT-tubes
are normally opened using a heated wire. Then the phosphor powder is sucked away
and the lead-containing CRT-glass remains.
 Decontamination of mercury-containing lamps: Some electronic appliances such as
scanner or copiers contain Hg-containing lamps. As lamps get easily broken when
transported over long distances, the facility should have at least a mobile
decontamination unit for lamps if there is no stationary recycling plant for lamps in the
region. A mobile decontamination unit for lamps is able to crush lamps under exclusion
of air and separate mercury/ powder from the rest (glass and aluminum).
 Stripping of cables: Stripping units for the separation of copper from the insulation exist,
and can be easily used to gain pure copper out of cables. Burning of cables has to
strictly be avoided due to the resulting heavy environmental pollution and health
problems.
 Crushing/ separation of plastics: Plastics can normally easily be recycled when
separated into pure types of plastics (ABS, PP and so on). Unfortunately, electronic
appliances contain more than 20 different types of plastics. Furthermore, some plastics
can contain internationally banned brominated flame retardants (BFRs) that can produce
dioxins when molded under uncontrolled temperature conditions. In addition, some
BFRs are listed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and should not be re-introduced
into secondary plastics. Hence plastics containing such BFRs have to be separated and
disposed of. When the whole mixed plastic fraction is passed to specialized plastic
recyclers, normally crushing for transport optimization is required. Separation of plastics
into different types requires identification equipment (at least an IR-handheld device) and
at least 50% of produced plastics will remain to be disposed of.
A.2.3. DOWNSTREAM OPTIONS

Depending on the input and the chosen dismantling scenario, the output of a dismantling
plant for e-waste can comprise up to 30 different fractions. Dismantling scenarios
concentrating on depollution and gaining high valuable fractions only (such as PWBs) lead to
a high content of mixed fractions (mixed scrap, power supplies, etc.) that have to be further
separated by means of mechanical separation processes. Dismantling scenarios trying to
Page 12
gain as many pure materials as possible produce more pure metals destined directly to metal
recovery processes (smelters, refineries, etc.).
However, any manual dismantling process for e-waste is the first treatment step within the e-
waste recycling chain to gain secondary raw materials. The recovery of secondary raw
materials requires mechanical and/or sophisticated chemical-physical processes that cannot
be provided by a dismantling plant. In any case, manual dismantling has to follow
international quality standards. Substandard practices like burning of cables or leaching
PWBs have to strictly be avoided due to serious environmental pollution and health problems
caused by these practices. A list of possible output fractions and appropriate downstream
destinations are listed in Table A-2.
Possible output fractions Further recycling/ recovery destinations
Fractions with positive economic value
Metals containing minimal impurities:
iron/ steel, stainless steel, aluminum, copper, Smelting plants for metal recovery
bronze, brass, ...
Mixed fractions containing both Fe/ NF-
metals and other materials as plastics, glass
etc.: Recycling plants for further mechanical
mixed scrap, cables, hard disc drives, other separation
drives, power supplies, deflection coils, motors,
inductors, transformers
Fractions containing precious metals:
printed wired boards, processors, mobile Precious metals refinery
phones without batteries
Some hazardous fractions:
 batteries and lead accumulators  Battery recycling plant
 printer cartridges  Refilling or/and disposal of hazardous waste
Fractions with very low or no positive economic value
Plastics: Depending on the quality of the fraction(s):
 pure types of plastics without BFRs - recycling plants specialized on plastic
 mixed plastics containing BFRs separation/ recycling or
(brominated flame retardants) - pelletizing and molding or
- thermal disposal/ landfill
Nonmetals as wood, glass, ... Material or thermal recycling
Fractions with negative economic value
Main part of hazardous fractions:
 capacitors, LCD-displays, getter pill, ...  Controlled disposal of hazardous waste
 fluorescent tubes
 CRT-tubes or  Treatment of CRT-tubes
 CRT-glass (lead glass)  Recovery or controlled disposal of CRT-
glass
Non-hazardous waste:
containing rubber, foam, dirt, etc. Landfill or thermal disposal
Table A-2: Output fractions from manual dismantling plants and further destinations
Usually it is possible to commercialize several fractions at the national or regional market

(aluminum smelters, plastic recyclers, etc.). For several fractions (PWBs, etc.) adequate
purchasers might be found only overseas. For the shipment of these fractions, relatively high
transport costs have to be considered in the business plan.
Page 13
A.3. OPTIONS FOR OWNERSHIP AND

OPERATOR’S MODELS
The way the recycling business will be set up concerning ownership and plant management
(hereinafter called “business model”) is crucial for the success in the long term. As there are
several environmental issues that have to be matched with economic aspects, a form of
ownership that is capable to lead despite profit-reducing factors due to environmental issues
needs to be found. It is a question of public interest that the dismantling and downstream
processes comply with international quality standards in dealing and disposal of hazardous
fractions. Due to missing resources in Uganda, hazardous and many other output fractions
have to be exported for material recovery and/or disposal which reduce profit perspectives.
The following different business model options could be identified:
Establishment and operation of the facility financed and run solely by private
investors and/or local entrepreneurs:
A local entrepreneur setting up the business on its own is one practicable way for
ownership and operator’s model. A further characteristic of this business model is the
missing involvement of the governmental sector. Required investments can come from
financial resources brought in by the entrepreneur himself, from a bank loan, from a
financial entity or a combination of them. As the business offers solutions to a serious
ecological problem, creating green jobs and acquiring grants for investment from
international development cooperation entities should be possible.
Economic efficiency is one of the advantages this form of ownership brings with it, as the
local entrepreneur has an intrinsic interest to set up an economically viable solution. A
challenge will be that the entrepreneur has to have the knowledge to negotiate with
international purchasers and also be able to manage a recycling plant. Since private
entrepreneurs are mostly interested in maximizing profit, this operator’s model would
probably be the weakest solution when ensuring environmental responsibility. The private
entrepreneur will probably always try to minimize efforts for cost intensive disposal. As
long as strict legislation is not in place, it will be difficult to prosecute offenses in that
regard.
Establishment and operation of the facility within a public-private partnership
Public-private partnership is a business model promoted by UNIDO and Microsoft Corp.
[2008] as a solution for poverty reduction in countries like Uganda. Its main characteristics
are ownership split between private and public shareholders and the nomination of the
plant management by a board on which all shareholders are represented.
As this form of partnerships builds bridges between business and the poor, it creates
mutual benefits that go beyond immediate profits and higher incomes. For business, these
include driving innovations, building markets and strengthening supply chains. For the
poor, they include higher productivity, sustainable earnings and social and economic
empowerment. For the implementation of a refurbishment center in Kampala, a
shareholder-based commercial company was created composed of the local private
sector, ICT providers as well as private individuals. The adopted business model further
provided a seat on the company’s board to the government and grants veto rights on
strategic decisions.
For the dismantling plant, a similar approach could be an appropriate way to balance
ecological responsibilities and economic sustainability. A joint venture between a private
investor/ entrepreneur and a governmental authority - especially in the initial phase - could
be a practicable way to catalyze negotiations with producers concerning the payment of
Page 14
recycling fees and/or acquisition of funds for investment. Infrastructure like the estate and
building for the plant brought in by the government could be an in-kind contribution.
In return, the government would have direct influence on how quality standards and
cleaner production directives are met. As the dismantling facility would be the first pilot
recycling company for e-waste in Uganda, a public-private partnership would offer the
opportunity to gain practical experience in recycling e-waste, highlighting requirements for
issues related to existing and potential legislation.
Recycling facility run by the municipality
A business model executed in some European cities consists of the execution of waste-
recycling activities by a department of the municipality administration or a company owned
by the municipality. When operated by the municipality, managing and operating staff are
employees of the city administration. This business model was quite popular until the
1980s. In the 1990s a lot of city administrations outsourced waste management activities
to private companies.
One main advantage of this business model is the fact that revenues from
commercialization of fractions can be used to reduce waste management fees charged to
households and commercial entities.
Association-based ownership and facility operation
In many African and Latin American countries it is quite common that scavengers for
paper, metals and other scrap are organized as associations, where every individual or
family collects scrap on their own, but commercialization takes place on behalf of the
association to reach better market conditions. Besides their main business purpose, a lot
of these waste management associations manage to organize additional benefits for its
members such as literacy courses, crèches, etc.
Separate e-waste collection and manual dismantling could be organized in a similar way,
where collection and preliminary dismantling steps are conducted by individual members
and further treatment and recycling steps are organized by the association.
WEEE dismantling by a social enterprise
Social enterprises active in WEEE recycling exist in many Western European countries
like Germany, France, Sweden or Austria. The main target of social enterprises is the re-
integration of long-term unemployed persons into the primary labor market via temporary
job contracts (normally between six months and one year).
Contracted persons both work in the company’s departments and receive personal
support and career planning in order to graduate to a permanent job contract on the
primary job market.
At this stage, the business plan can only point out different options concerning ownership
and operator’s model. The decision about the setup has to be made in the beginning of the
second phase based on a more accurate evaluation of the different options involving the
different stakeholders again.
 Experiences in many countries show that further aspects like additional social
benefits could be integrated as part of the recycling solution where the political
context is advantageous.
Page 15
PART B)
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS
B.1. CURRENT SITUATION

B.1.1. CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The following chapter is an excerpt of e-waste related legislations and regulations described
in the inventory on e-waste management practices in Uganda elaborated by UCPC [2013].
No further research has been conducted in this area.
Electronic Waste Management Policy for Uganda
A specific regulation addressing treatment standards for the recycling of e-waste in Uganda
does not exist. On the other hand, Uganda adopted international conventions concerning e-
waste, such as the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants and the World Charter for Nature. Thus, technical standards provided by these
international conventions should build the framework for setting up the technical design of
the dismantling facility until national regulations are in force.
However, in August 2012 the government of Uganda brought the “Electronic Waste
Management Policy for Uganda” [Ministry of ICT, 2012] into force. The main goal of the
policy is to guide, promote and ensure the safe management of e-waste in Uganda.
Following issues are defined as objectives that the national e-waste policy shall pursue:
(a) To provide for the establishment of e-waste management facilities in the country.
(b) Awareness and Education: To mobilize and sensitize the Government, private sector
and communities on the proper management and handling of e-waste on a sustainable
basis.
(c) To provide specific e-waste regulations (legal and regulatory) for the acquisition and
handling, up to the final disposal processes.
(d) To develop a critical human resource base, knowledgeable in handling e-waste.
(e) To provide for resource mobilization for efficient management and disposal of e-waste.
(f) To provide guidance on the standards of electronic equipment that is imported in the
country.
(g) To incentivize investments in e-waste refurbishment facilities.
(h) To engage in regional and international efforts seeking transnational and global
solutions
Policy strategies are defined for each objective, which if fully implemented should lead to
achievement of the goal, mission and vision of the policy. Although the strategies do not
contain specific guidelines for the technical design and operation of a dismantling facility,
several paragraphs of direct concern should be considered. Several strategies of the policy
point out
- the need to develop sustainable models for e-waste management such as public-
private partnerships (PPP),
- the importance of cross-cutting issues in e-waste management, like job creation for the
unemployed youth and people with disabilities,
- the objective to elaborate national standards in strong compliance with international
conventions,
- the willingness to integrate producer responsibility in the future recycling scheme,
Page 16
- the plan to develop incentives for the establishment of sustainable e-waste disposal
agencies through mutually beneficial reuse and/or recycling schemes.
E-Waste Related Legislation

Further e-waste related legislation is listed in Table B-1:
Legal instrument Objective of legislation

To provide for sustainable management of the
environment; to establish an authority as a
National Environment Act 4/1995
coordinating, monitoring and supervisory body for
that purpose
To collect, organize, analyze, interpret and
The Environmental Impact Assessment
communicate information that is relevant to the
Regulations S.1 No 13/1998
consideration of the initiation of a new project;
The National Environment (Delegation of
Waste Discharge Functions) Regulations Monitoring and implementation of standards
S.I. No. 56/1999
The National Environment (Standards for
Discharge of Effluent into Water or on To regulate management of wastewater
Land) Regulations S.I. No. 5/1999
The National Environment (Solid Waste
To regulate management of solid wastes
Management) Regulations S.I. No. 52/1999
The National Environment (Management of
Ozone Depleting Substances and Products) To regulate management of ODSs
Regulations S.I. No. 63/2001
To support ICT-related development in the
The National ICT Policy
country
Provides for the procedure for ratification of
The Ratification of Treaties Act 5/1998 treaties in accordance with Article 123 of the
Constitution
To provide for the use, protection and
The Water Statute 9/1995
management of water resources and supply
To regulate the management of wastes and
hazardous wastes including: sorting, disposing,
The Waste and Hazardous Waste
internal movement, transportation, packaging,
Management Regulations, 2000
labeling, trans-boundary movement, notification
procedures, environmental impact assessment
establishes the Uganda National Bureau of
National Bureau of Standards Act, Cap 327 Standards whose functions include the promotion
of standardization in industry
Has few provisions relating to environmental
The Penal Code Act Cap 120
protection
The Factories Act, Cap 220, Laws of Provides guidelines concerning protection of
Uganda workers
Stipulates conditions for the manufacture of
The Explosives Act, Cap 298
explosives
Table B-1: Environmental laws related to e-waste management [WASSWA, SCHLUEP, 2008]
Page 17
Licensing Relevant Legislation

Before implementing the dismantling facility, the need for licensing procedures under the
following regulations should be checked:
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) proceeding the “National Environment Impact
Assessment Regulations” (1998) monitored by the National Environment Authority
(NEMA),
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (2006)
Further general licensing requirements have to be identified at the beginning of the
implementation phase.
International Conventions
Uganda is a signatory to a number of international conventions and guidelines which in one
way or another address issues pertaining to e-waste. The International Conventions to which
Uganda is a signatory are given in Table B-2.
Table B-2: International conventions and guidelines related e-waste managment [Wasswa, Schluep, 2008]
B.1.2. E-WASTE GENERATION AND CURRENT MASSFLOWS

In 2008, the mass flow of computers in Uganda has been researched by WASSWA,
SCHLUEP [2008]. According to this study, the main stages of the product are the import, the
distribution via retailers and refurbishment centres and the consumption. Once the computer
reaches its end-of-life (EOL) it might stay in storage at the consumer for some time (not
shown in diagram), but eventually enters the waste stream. In the waste stream, it either gets
dumped informally or formally on dump sites and landfills or gets collected. In Uganda,
Page 18
currently only informal collectors exist, who sort out plastics and metals and sell those
fractions to existing plastic and metal recyclers. Remaining parts most probably are dumped
or buried informally. Figure B-1 gives an overview of the different life cycle stages of a
computer in Uganda.
Figure B-1: Massflow diagram of computers in Uganda, situation of 2007 [Wasswa, Schluep, 2013]
The life cycle stages for televisions, monitors, printers, scanners, etc. probably are quite
similar to those of computers.
It was assumed by WASSWA, SCHLUEP [2008] that in 2007, approximately 300,000
computers were in use. The study assumes that imported second-hand computers are used
for five years and new computers for nine years, as a result of two usage stages: first use of
about four years as it was reported by several businesses and a second use phase of five
years according to the life span of a second-hand computer.
According to these figures at least 30,000 units of computers (or 300 tons) should have
reached an end-of-life status every year by 2007. As the ICT sector has increased
significantly since then, the amounts should be higher by now. Further assuming that
computers count for about 20% of EEE (see considerations in A.2.1) at least 1,500 tons of
ICT-equipment and TV sets should have reached an end-of-life status in Uganda by now.
The study further revealed that only a minor fraction of these appliances appears at informal
collectors, plastic and metal recyclers and landfill sites. Assuming that only around 10% of
EOL equipment currently reaches the waste stream, the country might have up to 80,000
computer units in stock, which are not in use anymore.
Based on these estimations and considerations, it was assumed that after five years of
operation at least 300 tons of e-waste can be acquired as input to the planned dismantling
facility. It was further assumed that in the second year of operation, the input will be about
270 tons due to the large number of EOL units in stock. Governmental institutions and large
enterprises in particular will start to clear their stocks from the moment when a sustainable e-
waste recycling option exists.
Page 19
B.1.3. STAKEHOLDERS AND COMPETITORS

According to UCPC [2013], the key stakeholders of e-waste generation and management in
Uganda are the policy-makers/regulators, importers, distributors and retailers, consumers,
repair workshops/technicians (refurbishers), collectors, recyclers and disposal facilities.
Policy-Makers/ Regulators
According to UCPC [2013], the following governmental institutions are relevant concerning
the implementation and operation of a manual dismantling facility: Ministry of Information and
Communications Technology (ICT), National Information Technology Authority-Uganda
(NITA-U), Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry (MTTI), Ministry of Health (MOH), National
Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Uganda Communications Commission (UCC),
National Information Technology Authority – Uganda (NITA-U), Uganda National Bureau of
Standards (UNBS), Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), Local Governments, Uganda
Investment Authority, Public Procurement and Disposal Authority (PPDA), Uganda Research
Institute (URI).
Manufacturers, Importers and Distributors

Although the ICT sector is one of the most vibrant within the region, showing significant
annual growth rates, no manufacturing of ICT equipment exists in Uganda - all electronic
appliances are imported. According to UCPC [2013], there are two categories of imports into
the country: formal cross-border trade through the Customs Department of the Uganda
Revenue Authority (URA) and the informal cross-border trade transactions between Uganda
and its neighboring countries.
According to WASSWA, SCHLUEP [2008], over 100 distributers of computers in the country
exist. The main distributors according to customs records are:
- Computer Point (U) Ltd
- Kazinga Channel
- NCR service and computer industries
- Seven Seas computer empire
- CAL (Computer applications Ltd); The IBM representatives
- MFI computer solutions
- Master electronics (U) Ltd
In 2007, computers imported by these seven companies represented 42% of all the imports
within that year. Major clients of the firms are finance and banking institutions, non-
government organizations, education and research institutions, corporate sectors and
government ministries / parastatals.
Important stakeholders at the interface between product- and waste-regime are the
innumerable small refurbishers and repair-shops in the center of Kampala (Figure B-2). As
they replace broken components with functioning ones, they can serve as an important
source of e-waste for the facility. On the other hand, they can be important disseminators for
the planned recycling business to private consumers.
Page 20
Figure B-2: EEE-distributors and repair shops in the center of Kampala
Consumers
According to WASSWA, SCHLUEP [2008], consumers of ICT equipment can be divided into
four different groups:
Government: According to interviews from Ministries of Trade Tourism and Industry; Health,
Finance and Works/Transport, the average life span of new computers is three to five years.
After this period, the now “old computers” are auctioned to the public (which might include
employees of the ministry in question) after being inspected by the Board of Surveys, under
the Ministry of Finance. The reason for lifespan ranges between three and five years is that
some computers when inspected at three years are found “suitable for use” for another two
years whereas others are not.
Large enterprises: In large enterprises (source: telecommunication companies and NGOs)
the average life span of new computers is four years after which they are sold to
small/medium enterprises, the public, or donated to schools.
MSMEs including schools: Micro, small and medium sized enterprises are major buyers of
second-hand/refurbished computers. Responses from five selected schools and three
medium-size enterprises indicate that life span of second-hand computers is five years but
can be extended to seven years when the faulty components are replaced by new ones.
Private households: Based on a random sampling among 20 private computer owners,
private households tend to hold on to their PCs longer than any other sector. All the
interviewees had bought second-hand computers. 11 of the households indicated that that
they had owned their (second-hand) PCs for more than five years and believed that they
could serve for another three years because most had replaced the hard drives with new
ones.
Page 21
Collectors, Recyclers and Disposal Facilities

According to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), there is no formal
collection of e-waste in Uganda. Informal collection of obsolete computers exists where
individuals survive on selling scrap from computers for cash to plastic plants, or metallic
components to informal vendors. Downstream vending is a common practice and vendors
engage in resale of whole units, refurbishing for reuse, dismantling into parts, and selling
copper components to local welding practitioners [UCPC, 2013].
Concerning a collection strategy for the future dismantling plant, it will probably be one of the
strongest challenges to compete with informal collectors. As environmentally sound e-waste
recycling has to include controlled disposal of hazardous substances, it is natural that this
process will be more expensive than what informal collectors do: namely, taking out valuable
components and dumping the rest.
In terms of recycling and disposal, a few metal recycling plants and several companies which
recycle plastics exist. Fractions like iron, aluminum and some separated plastics can be sold
on the local market. All further fractions have to be commercialized on the international
market as secondary raw material. Due to missing disposal options in Uganda, hazardous
fractions have to be shipped to other countries as well. In this context, companies specialized
on material recycling/ recovery and disposal are important stakeholders both in neighboring
countries as well as overseas.
Stakeholder Overview and their Roles for the Facility

Based on the subchapters above, the key stakeholders have been summarized below in
Table B-3 again. Their potential roles for the recycling business have been listed.
Stakeholders Role for the Facility
- One governmental institution should be a partner/
shareholder of the facility
Governmental institutions
- Important for acquisition of funds
- Important source of e-waste (B2B-collection)
Producers (international brands) - Important stakeholders concerning recycling fees
- Potential disseminators
Importers and distributors
- Potential partners concerning take-back-system
- Potential source of e-waste (B2B-collection)
Refurbishers and repair shops
- Potential disseminators
Large enterprises/ organizations - Potential source of e-waste (B2B-collection)
MSMEs including schools - Potential source of e-waste (B2B-collection)
- Potential source of e-waste (serviced via collection
Private households
points and informal collectors)
Local metal and plastic recycling - Purchasers of output fractions (iron/ steel,
companies aluminum, plastic)
- Purchasers of all fractions which cannot be
International companies for
commercialized locally
recycling, recovery and disposal
- Purchasers of hazardous fractions
Institutions for financing and - Important for financing investments and
funds acquisition of initial required funds
Shipping agencies - Partners for shipment of fractions
Table B-3: Important Stakeholders and their Role for the Facility
Page 22
Based on the considerations above, important initial intervention steps concerning

stakeholders can be listed as followed:
 Establishment of a public-private partnership with a governmental institution
 Negotiations with producers
 Identification of large stocks of e-waste and acquisition of these amounts
 Negotiations with local recyclers and international recycling companies concerning
commercialization of recyclable fractions and disposal of hazardous fractions
The required key intervention mechanisms are pictured below in Figure B-3.
Figure B-3: Required intervention mechanisms to enable e-waste recycling in Uganda [Schluep, 2013]
B.2. OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS

Summarizing the current situation, some favorable factors for the implementation of an e-
waste dismantling facility in Kampala can be identified:
 First of all, e-waste has been recognized as an important issue by the government. The
e-waste management policy [Ministry of ICT, 2012] reflects the government’s
determination to catalyze sustainable solutions for e-waste recycling in Uganda,
providing concrete policy strategies and claiming collaboration from various
stakeholder institutions.
 An essential strategy from the point of view of a future plant operator is the favored set
up for e-waste recycling facilities as public-private partnerships, expressing the
Page 23
government’s position that e-waste has to be seen as a joint responsibility between the
public and the private sector.
 Surveys in relation with the inventory [UCPC, 2013] evidenced quite a high volume of
old ICT equipment stored in governmental institutions and big companies. Being able
to purchase this e-waste quantities in an early stage of plant operation with relatively
low collection effort will facilitate the initial operation and have positive effects on the
financial performance.
 The high number of repair shops in Kampala represents a second potential relevant
input stream that can be serviced quite easily. By starting a pilot collection cooperation
programme with some of them, specific input, purchase conditions and required
collection efforts can be identified and used for technical plant design.
Besides these favorable factors, a future manual dismantling facility will face several serious
challenges and risks as identified in the feasibility study [Blaser et al., 2013]:
 The purchase prices having to be paid to informal collectors for e-waste is a critical
factor with regard to the budget and to the collected volumes (collection incentive),
which however reflect re-use prices rather than material prices.
 Under current conditions, the intrinsic material value of e-waste does not finance the
operation of an e-waste treatment facility in Uganda, mainly due to high volumes of
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) in the waste stream, which are costly to treat.
 Missing recycling and disposal capacities in Uganda and the geographical position of
the country without direct access to the ocean means a challenging transport situation
for waste fractions destined for the regional or international market. Relatively high
transport and disposal costs and the dependency on global commodity prices have to
also be interpreted as a relevant risk for the business’ profitability.
B.3. PROPOSED SETUP

B.3.1. PROPOSED OPERATOR’S MODEL
It is recommended to set up the e-waste dismantling facility in strong collaboration with
governmental institutions to seek a joint venture with the responsible authorities for two
reasons:
 As the intrinsic value of e-waste material does not completely finance the plant
operation, additional financial input streams are required to ensure a balanced financial
performance of the recycling business. In a long-term perspective, additional
remuneration has to come from a take-back system financed by extended producer
responsibility. During initial plant operation, additional external financing will probably
be necessary. A joint responsibility between the public sector and a private plant
operator will foster the acquisition of such funds. Joint experiences in initial plant
operation will support the design of an effective take-back-system and facilitate the
process of claiming responsibility from producers.
 Public-private partnerships are seen as an effective business model by the government
in solving the e-waste problem for Uganda.
Page 24
B.3.2. ASSUMED FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS

Based on the findings of the economic feasibility study [Blaser et al., 2013], the following
settings have been assumed as achievable framework conditions for the business plan
calculation:
Remuneration of recycling fees for appliances where the intrinsic value of the treated
material is not sufficient for a break-even:
- An additional flexible income stream depending on the composition of the input
material can be acquired: through a financing scheme in the future and through other
channels (funds, others) until this scheme is set up.
- The required amount of recycling fees has been calculated separately for each
appliance group. For appliance groups with a high intrinsic value these calculations
result in a “reverse recycling fee” (money to be paid to the financing scheme for
recycling). These appliance groups help to reduce the calculated recycling fees for the
whole business.
For the purchase of CRTs from B2B, a collection fee can be charged:
- Contrary to the feasibility study where the average prices currently paid for appliances
in the informal sector have been assumed as purchase conditions for all collection
channels, the business plan calculation has modified these purchase conditions as
follows:
- For the purchase of CRTs (monitors and TV-sets) from B2B, a collection fee of
2 USD/piece can be charged.
- Purchase prices for CRTs from other collection streams have been reduced to
3.5 USD/piece (from 5-6 USD/piece in the feasibility study), reflecting the material
value of cables and deflection coil out of each appliance currently negotiated in the
informal sector.
Market prices for recyclable fractions according to the market situation in July 2013
- Despite the fact that the international market for secondary material is a highly volatile
issue, the business plan has been calculated with fixed market prices for all five initial
years based on the market situation in July 2013, which represents an average price
level compared to the last five years.
Special conditions for rental of the estate and building:
- Due to the favored setup as public-private partnership, it was assumed that the estate
and building for plant operation are provided by the government. The plant layout will
be adapted according to the conditions of the provided building. No construction costs
are necessary.
- It was further assumed that the estate and building can be rented for free during the
initial two years of operation. After this, rental costs of 10 USD/m² per year have been
estimated.
Page 25
PART C)
COLLECTION STRATEGY AND
DOWNSTREAM OPTIONS
C.1. COLLECTION STRATEGY

C.1.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
The main objective of the e-waste treatment facility in Uganda is to ensure that high volumes
of both valuable and non-valuable waste materials are collected equally and that those
materials reach the facility. Hence the collection strategy has to ensure:
 Convenience for the consumer: it is convenient and attractive for the consumer to
give back their end-of-life appliances. This means that the logistical effort for the
consumer is minimal.
 Competitiveness: It is attractive for either the consumer or specialized collectors to
deliver their waste material to the facility (instead of selling it to somebody else). This
means that competitive market prices have to be paid for the waste material.
 Quality of waste: scavenging is avoided and waste is ideally collected as an
untouched unity. I.e. neither non-valuable / hazardous parts nor valuable parts have
been separated before the waste collected reaches the facility. This means that
facility rules and purchase prices have to be set so that it is more attractive for the
consumer / collector to hand in entire appliances instead of parts (e.g. whole CRT
monitors instead of only the copper coil / an exceptional case are repair shops, who
are usually disposing of parts of appliances only)
In order to achieve this, the collection strategy defines appropriate input streams (the
logistics) and purchase conditions (the incentives) as outlined in the following sub-chapters.
C.1.2. INPUT STREAMS

Deduced from the strategic analysis, the e-waste collection strategy for Kampala will be
based on the following input streams:
Input stream 1: in-house-collection
E-waste can be handed in directly at the e-waste treatment facility. The facility will pay
competitive purchase prices in order to ensure that it is attractive to hand in waste material
directly at the facility. This scheme is mainly addressing individual collectors from the
informal sector and private consumers (households).
Concerning facility layout and resources, the e-waste receiving area has to be designed so
that individuals can hand in devices. This area needs to be run by the administrative staff
and has to include weighing equipment and a cash desk.
Input stream 2: B2B-collection (business-to-business):

The facility collects e-waste directly from companies or authorities. It depends on the kind of
agreement (tender offer, donation, etc.) if a price is paid and how much it is. Average
purchase conditions are given in the following sub-chapter.
Page 26
The business plan is based on the assumption that the facility has its own truck, and that e-
waste from companies and authorities are collected using this truck. Besides the driver, one
co-driver for loading and unloading is considered.
Input stream 3: collection from repair shops

Collection from repair shops is a special version of B2B-collection. One of the main
differences is that electronic devices for recycling are not provided by the end user but
resulting from repair services. Therefore, the composition will be different, i.e. the waste
material will be composed of broken components rather than of entire devices.
Input stream 4: decentralized collection points:

At different locations in the city, the facility will seek business partnerships with small
collection points. It is assumed that individual entrepreneurs will be interested to set up such
collection points if the facility provides appropriate incentives to them. Hence the facility will
have to pay competitive purchase prices to the collection points in order to ensure that it is
attractive for those entrepreneurs to have a business relationship with the facility, i.e. selling
their collected waste to the facility. In addition, it should be considered to support the
entrepreneurs with basic infrastructure needs, such as secure containers. Similar to the in-
house collection, this scheme is mainly addressing individual collectors from the informal
sector and private consumers (households), but should also provide additional locations to
hand in waste material, which are closer and more convenient.
The business plan calculation assumes that the transport of e-waste from the collection
points to the dismantling facility will be run by the facility using its own truck.
C.1.3. PURCHASE CONDITIONS

The prices that have to be paid to the suppliers of e-waste (i.e. informal collectors,
households, companies, authorities) are summarized in Table C-1. These numbers are
based on the assumptions and estimations made in the feasibility study [Blaser et al. 2013]
and should reflect a competitive and realistic market price. Since those prices depend on
several factors, such as the international raw material market prices, they are in constant
change. Hence once a treatment facility has been set up and is running, they need to be re-
evaluated on a regular basis.
Since the treatment of CRT monitors and TVs will be one of the main cost drivers of the
facility, special assumptions have to be made. While it is assumed that B2B channels will pay
the facility to treat CRTs, this cannot be assumed for the other input streams. On the
contrary, individual collectors and consumers will expect remuneration; otherwise they would
scavenge the CRT for the copper coil, sell it separately and dump the rest. Therefore, the
facility will have to pay a price which is set so CRTs will be collected and brought to the
facility as an untouched device.
The decentralized collection points will cause higher purchase costs than waste received in-
house due to the operational costs and own profit margins of the collection points. The
business plan was calculated with a purchase price 20% above the one for in-house
collection.
As outlined in the general objectives, in general, purchase prices will be paid only for
delivered entire devices and not for components. This is to ensure that all hazardous
components will enter the recycling process and an environmentally sustainable business
Page 27
can be set up. Exemptions might have to be made concerning e-waste from repair shops,
when it is clear that the collected components come from repair processes where broken
pieces had to be replaced.
4-Decentralized
Appliance Group 1-Facility 2-B2B 3-Repair shops Collection
points
Small household appliances coffee -0,20 /piece -0,24 /piece -0,24 /piece -0,24 /piece
Small household appliances cloths -0,20 /piece -0,24 /piece -0,24 /piece -0,24 /piece
PC/ Server -5,00 /piece -6,00 /piece -6,00 /piece -6,00 /piece
Notebook -3,00 /piece -3,60 /piece -3,60 /piece -3,60 /piece
Printer/Scanner/Copier -0,50 /piece -0,60 /piece -0,60 /piece -0,60 /piece
IT accessories (mix keyboard, mouse) -0,10 /piece -0,10 /piece -0,10 /piece -0,12 /piece
Mobile phone (incl. recharger) -0,80 /piece -0,96 /piece -0,96 /piece -0,96 /piece
CRT monitor -3,50 /piece 2,00 /piece -3,50 /piece -4,20 /piece
FPD monitor -1,00 /piece -1,00 /piece -1,00 /piece -1,20 /piece
Audio appliances (CD-/Radiorecorder) -0,50 /piece -0,60 /piece -0,60 /piece -0,60 /piece
Video appliances (CD-/DVD-Player) -0,50 /piece -0,60 /piece -0,60 /piece -0,60 /piece
CRT TV -3,50 /piece 2,00 /piece -3,50 /piece -4,20 /piece
FPD TV -1,00 /piece -1,00 /piece -1,00 /piece -1,20 /piece
Table C-1: Assumed purchase prices for the different input streams [USD/piece]
C.2. EXPECTED INPUT

The business-plan has been based on the following input expectations (Table C-2).
Collection Scheme Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
1-In-house-collection (facility) 20 t/a 30 t/a 40 t/a 45 t/a 50 t/a
2-B2B-institutions and companies 50 t/a 200 t/a 100 t/a 100 t/a 100 t/a
3-B2B-collection from repair shops 10 t/a 20 t/a 30 t/a 40 t/a 50 t/a
4-Collection points 10 t/a 20 t/a 50 t/a 70 t/a 100 t/a
Total 90 t/a 270 t/a 220 t/a 255 t/a 300 t/a
Table C-2: Expected input divided per collection schemes
Deliveries at the facility are supposed to increase from an initial input of 20 t/a continuously
up to 50 t/a after five years. Concerning B2B-collection from institutions and companies, it
was supposed that during the second year of operation e-waste stores in governmental
institutions and big companies will be emptied and therefore the input from this source will be
higher in the beginning than during the following years. Collection from repair shops is
supposed to increase similar to in-house collection. Decentralized collection points are
expected to be the most important input source after five years but it is supposed that it will
take up to two years’ time until contracts between the facility and collection point operators all
over Kampala are established.
It is expected that the composition of collected e-waste will be different from the various
sources (Table C-3). While B2B-collection will probably be dominated by monitors and PCs,
it is expected that TV devices will have a high share in the e-waste delivered at the facility
and collected at the collection points. E-waste collected from repair shops will probably have
a wider distribution. Additionally, it is assumed that the largest share of notebooks will come
from this input stream, as a lot of repair shops visited have been specialized on these items.
Page 28
3-Repair 4-Collection
Appliance Group WEEE-Sub 1-Facility 2-B2B
shops points
Small household appliances coffee 2A
Small household appliances cloths 2A
PC/ Server 3A 9.0% 30.0% 39.0% 9.0%
Notebook 3A 1.0% 6.0%
Printer/Scanner/Copier 3A 2.0% 4.0% 20.0% 2.0%
IT accessories (mix keyboard, mouse) 3A 1.0% 12.0%
Mobile phone (incl. recharger) 3A
CRT monitor 4A 15.0% 63.0% 8.0% 15.0%
FPD monitor 4A 1.0% 5.0%
Audio appliances (CD-/Radiorecorder) 3B
Video appliances (CD-/DVD-Player) 3C
CRT TV 4B 73.0% 73.0%
FPD TV 4C 1.0% 10.0% 1.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table C-3: Expected composition of e-waste per collection scheme
The assumptions concerning input during the first five years (Table C-2, Table C-3) mean
that the CRT TVs and monitors are the dominating appliance groups within the input.
According to the input assumptions, their share within the whole input will be 65% (22 t/a +
37 t/a in the first year, 110 t/a + 90 t/a within the fifth year). PCs will have a share of between
21% and 27%; the expected input concerning these items will be 22 t/a in the first year, grow
up to 72 t/a in the second year due the expected inventory liquidation in governmental
institutions and then grow constantly from 50 t/a (third year) up to 63 t/a (fifth year). All other
appliance groups will play a minor role in the input. The expected input divided per appliance
groups can be seen in Figure C-1 and Figure C-2. The input distribution after five years
correlates with the composition of WEEE assumed by Blaser et al. [2013] for the feasibility
study: 69% CRTs, 20 % PCs, 3% FPDs, 5% Printers/ Scanners/ Copiers, 1% Notebooks, 2%
IT accessories.
Expected Input [t/a]

300 7 4
CRT TV 3 17
CRT monitor 4 3
FPD TV 13
250 6
FPD monitor 14 63
3
PC/ Server
72 5 4
Printer/Scanner/Copier 12 56
200 7
IT accessories 3 3
3 50
Notebook 5
3
90
150 4
83
135 79
100 1 2
5
22 1
1
110
50
37 84
66
37
22
0
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Figure C-1: Expected Input in t/a
Page 29
Due to different weights per appliance, the distribution of collected volumes is spread wider
than the distribution per weight (Figure C-2). According to the assumptions, the input after
five years will be about 8,000 units of CRTs per year, a bit more than 6,500 PCs and 11,000
printers, copiers, scanners and IT accessories (mouse, keyboard) per year.
Expected Input [t/a]

30,000
CRT TV
1,428
CRT monitor
25,000 FPD TV 1,142

FPD monitor 1,214 7,216
4,536
PC/ Server
20,000 Printer/Scanner/Copier 1,000 5,979

IT accessories 2,888
4,742 3,777
Notebook
3,177
15,000
7,610 2,622
6,631
600 5,889
10,000 5,242
147 700
392 382
600 302
1,752 500 229
1,022 5,264
5,000 7,947 4,908
2,273 200 4,641
76
2,164 2,807
1,684 2,152
561 935
0
Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Figure C-2: Expected Input in pieces/a
C.3. PRODUCED OUTPUT FRACTIONS

C.3.1. SELECTED PROCESSING OPTIONS
Due to low staff costs and missing further treatment options, a deep dismantling depth is the
adequate treatment option within the facility where collected appliances are manually
dismantled up to a point where only further mechanical processes can achieve higher
material purities of the produced output fractions (Table C-4).
Due to missing mechanical recycling options in Uganda at the moment, this dismantling
approach is the only way to ensure that hazardous components are securely separated from
recyclable fractions (i.e. power supplies from computers).
Concerning further treatment steps, the business plan only included CRT-processing to
separate lead glass and the fluorescent powder from the barium glass and other
components, as other recycling facilities offering this treatment step do not exist and this
recycling step is unconditionally necessary to ensure an environmentally- sustainable
recycling solution.
Cable stripping and shredding of plastics can become economically feasible options over
time, especially if there exist possibilities to purchase further power supply cables (from cars
or houses for example). The assumed input of cables from e-waste results in a maximum
potential of 8 t/a, which is not enough in sustaining the investment of a cable stripping
machine taking into account that only a share of about 35% of cables coming out of the
Page 30
dismantling process have the required diameter to be treated in a cable stripper (only
possible for power supply cables).
Selected Dismantling A B C
Depth superficial medium deep
Selected Further CRT- Cable- Plastic-

Treatment Steps Processing Stripping Shredding
Table C-4: Selected Process Options
Concerning processing efficiency, the following options have been selected (Table C-5)
Dismantling Efficiency Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Dismantling low middle high high high
Further Treatment CRT-Tubes low middle high high high
Table C-5: Selected Efficiencies
Low efficiency means that workers need twice the time for doing the same job as with high
efficiency; “middle” efficiency takes 25% more dismantling time compared to high efficiency.
C.3.2. EXISTING DOWNSTREAM OPTIONS

Depending on the selected process options, the dismantling and further treatment results in
25 output fractions (Table C-6). The major part of them (15 fractions) can be destined for
material recycling. Residual waste has to be disposed of locally and six fractions are
hazardous waste that has to be shipped to recycling and disposal facilities overseas.
Currently, local recycling options are only available for four fractions (aluminum, iron/steel,
stainless steel and unleaded CRT glass). Concerning the recycling from WEEE-plastics, it
has to be considered that part of them contain BFRs (brominated flame retardants) and
therefore have to be separated from plastics without BFRs before further recycling. Plastics
containing BFRs can emit dioxins and furans when not recycled under optimal conditions. In
addition, some BFRs are internationally banned chemicals and should not be reintroduced
into secondary raw materials and therefore need special treatment and separation.
Although there is currently a lack of possibilities for the special treatment of BFR plastics in
Uganda, the business plan calculations have been based on the assumption that both
recycling of plastics without BFRs and disposal of plastics containing BFRs can be done
locally. It was further assumed that sales revenues for recyclable plastics can cover the costs
for the disposal of non-recyclable plastics. For the future implementation of a dismantling
facility the special treatment or disposal of BFR plastics in Uganda, in the nearby region or
overseas, as well as its impact on the cost structure need to be evaluated again.
For fractions like mixed scrap, motors/inductors/transformers and cables, there might be
downstream options available in the near future within a regional cross-national context
anticipating growing recycling markets in Kenya or Tanzania.
This is different for fractions like printed wiring boards (PWBs) that contain precious metals,
which can be extracted only within sophisticated physical-chemical processes. They have to
be shipped overseas as there exists a global market for these fractions and smelters for
precious metals are located in Europe, Northern America and Asia.
Page 31
Hazardous fractions like batteries, capacitors, leaded CRT funnel glass, etc. also need to be
shipped overseas for further treatment. Printer cartridges as hazardous waste are supposed
to be treated/ disposed within a regional cross-national cooperation; it might be possible to
destine some of them for refilling as well.
Fractions that are produced in very low quantities, like fluorescent powder, probably have to
be stored for several years until transportable lot sizes are reached.
Pretreatment of fluorescent tubes removed from scanners, copiers, etc. could be done by
means of mobile decontamination stations. Transporting them over long distances entails the
risk that they get broken and mercury is released. Within the business plan, fluorescent tubes
have been considered as a fraction that will be stored until there exist adequate recycling
options in Uganda or in neighboring countries in the future.
Disposal of non- Disposal of hazardous

Material recycling
hazardous waste waste
- Aluminum - Residual waste - Plastics containing BFRs
Local - Iron/ Steel
commercialization - Stainless Steel Intermediate Storage:
/ disposal - Plastics without BFRs - Fluorescent Tubes
- Glass - Fluorescent Powder
- Copper - Printer Cartridges
- Cable without plugs
Regional cross-
- Motors/Inductors/
national
Transformers
cooperation
- Deflection Coil
- Mixed Scrap
- Neodym Magnet - Batteries
- Processors - Capacitors
International
- Printed Wiring Boards - LCD-displays
shipment
(Q1, Q2 and Q3) - CRT glass
- Getter pill – electron gun
Table C-6: Identified downstream options for the output fractions
According to the selected dismantling depth and further treatment options, the whole process
leads to an output balance as depicted in Table C-7.
Almost half of the output by weight can be recycled or disposed of locally. This is important
especially for iron/steel which represents the second-highest quantity among all output
fractions.
About the same amount of output unfortunately has to be shipped for material recovery and
further treatment/ disposal overseas due to missing local or regional options. CRT glass is
the dominant output fraction (between 37% and 40% of the whole output) and responsible for
over 80% of the overseas shipment in the first year. In our business model, this would even
increase up to 85% after five years. It is therefore suggested that Uganda should consider a
safe deposit of leaded CRT glass within national borders. However, it is assumed that this
would need a longer political process and hence such a solution is not expected within the
near future.
Fractions that can be destined to further recycling and recovery processes in neighboring
countries represent about 10% of the whole output.
Page 32
Output after Dismantling and CRT-Processingt [t/a]

Fractions Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Fluorescent Powder 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Fluorescent Tubes 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.11
Total Intermediate Storage 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Aluminium 2.6 8.3 6.1 6.9 7.9
Iron/ Steel 20.1 65.4 47.2 53.6 61.1
Stainless Steel 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
Plastics 15.9 47.6 39.2 45.7 53.8
Glass 0.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.3
Total Material Recycling Local 39.4 123.5 94.3 108.5 125.5
Residual waste 1.0 2.9 2.5 2.9 3.4
Total Disposal Local 1.0 2.9 2.5 2.9 3.4
Total Local Destination 40.4 126.5 96.8 111.4 128.9
Copper 0.8 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.2
Bronze/Brass 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Cable without plugs 2.5 8.1 6.0 6.9 7.9
Motors/Inductors/Transformers 2.6 8.5 5.9 6.5 7.4
Deflection coil 2.1 6.9 5.0 5.6 6.4
Mixed scrap 1.5 4.6 3.6 4.2 4.9
Total Material Recycling Regional Cross-National 9.6 31.1 22.3 25.2 28.7
Printer Cartridges 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9
Total Hazardous Waste Regional Cross-National 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9
Total Regional Cross-National Destination 9.8 31.8 23.0 26.0 29.7
Neodym Magnet 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Processors 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3
Printed Wired Board, Q1 2.4 7.8 5.6 6.4 7.3
Total Material Recycling International Shipment 5.7 18.3 13.6 15.5 17.8
Batteries 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8
Capacitors 0.4 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.1
LCD-displays 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9
Getterpill - electrogun 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2
CRT glass 33.2 90.6 84.4 99.5 120.4
Total Hazardous Waste International Shipment 34.1 93.3 86.6 102.1 123.5
Total International Shipment 39.8 111.7 100.1 117.5 141.3
Total 90.0 270.0 220.0 255.0 300.0
Table C-7: Output fractions and destinations
Page 33
C.3.3. SELECTED TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OPTIONS

Type of Transport and Storage for Collected E-Waste
Collection of e-waste can happen in different ways. The following is a summary of known and
common options. However the final solution will have to be chosen by the facility and will be
based on the availability of options in Uganda.
Lattice boxes are a common way to store and transport small WEEE. One main advantage
for this way of collection is that collected appliances remain in the same receptacle at the
collection point, during transport, weighing input storage and the lattice boxes can be placed
directly at the dismantling workstations. Reusable devices can be transported without being
damaged and can be separated from devices for dismantling.
Other options for collection are pallets or containers. Containers have the advantage that
they can receive large quantities of devices but reusable devices get damaged due to the
way of being packed within the container. For the transport of containers, a special container
truck is required. Examples for collection of e-waste can be seen in Figure C-3.
Collection in lattice boxes
Collection on pallets Collection in containers

Figure C-3: Different types of transport bundles for collected e-waste
Page 34
Type of Transport and Storage for Outgoing Fractions

For transport of outgoing fractions from the facility to the further recycling/ recovery the
following options exist:
1. own truck for local transport
2. own container/ own container truck
3. container provided by purchaser
4. container - external transport costs
In general, the way fractions are transported from the facility to the downstream processes
determine the way they can be stored at the facility. Different storage options can be seen in
Figure C-4.
As collection often is done with an own closed van (see Figure D-2) the same vehicle can be
used for transport of outgoing fractions to local purchasers, if there are free capacities
(option1). Option 2 with an own container and own container truck, only makes sense for
facilities with an input of at least 3,000 t/a as the investment is high and the container truck
has to be kept in operation as well to justify the investment.
Lattice boxes Container
Plastic drums for hazardous fractions Bulk storage

Figure C-4: Different types of storage for output fractions
Page 35
A common option in Europe is that purchasers provide containers for storage and transport
for some of the fractions. When fractions are collected from the dismantling facility for further
recycling, the purchaser provides an empty container with the same vehicle transporting the
fraction to his recycling facility (see Figure C-4). Normally, purchasers include transport costs
and container rent in their offers. These types of logistics are economically viable for
fractions produced in quantities of 100 t/a or more.
For transport of fractions that have to be transported long distances or shipped
internationally, shipping companies have to be commissioned. This means that fractions
have to be stored at the facility in boxes or as a bulk storage and containers have to be
loaded when ordered. According to international standards, hazardous fractions have to be
stored in acid-resistant receptacles to avoid soil contamination by substances from
hazardous components like batteries or capacitors. Fluorescent tubes should be stored in a
lying position to avoid breakage and mercury contamination.
Transport and storage solutions for output fractions concerning the current business plan are
listed in Table C-8.
Output fractions Type of Transport Type of Storage
Aluminium own truck Collection Box
Iron/ Steel own truck Bulk Storage
Copper container - external transport costs Collection Box
Neodym Magnet container - external transport costs Box for high valuable fractions
Bronze/Brass container - external transport costs Collection Box
Stainless Steel own truck Collection Box
Plastics own truck Bulk Storage
Cable without plugs container - external transport costs Collection Box
Processors container - external transport costs Box for high valuable fractions
Printed Wired Board, Q1 container - external transport costs Collection Box
Motors/Inductors/Transformers container - external transport costs Collection Box
Deflection coil container - external transport costs Collection Box
Getterpill - electrogun container - external transport costs Plastic drum
Mixed scrap container - external transport costs Bulk Storage
Glass own truck Bulk Storage
Residual waste own truck Bulk Storage
Batteries container - external transport costs Plastic drum
Capacitors container - external transport costs Plastic drum
LCD-displays container - external transport costs Plastic drum
Fluorescent Tubes Box for fluorescent tubes
Printer Cartridges container - external transport costs Pallet
Fluorescent powder Plastic drum
CRT-glass container - external transport costs Bulk Storage
Table C-8: Type of Transport and Storage per Fraction
Type of transport and storage determine required space for storage (see chapter D.2.1).
Page 36
PART D)
LAYOUT, INVESTMENTS AND EQUIPMENT
D.1. REQUIRED HUMAN RESOURCES

D.1.1. ASSUMED BASIC DATA
The dimensioning of the facility concerning human resources has been based on the data
listed in Table D-1. In general it was assumed that one general manager will be needed to
manage the company. Concerning department managers it was assumed that one
department manager can coordinate up to 30 workers; this means that the calculation model
proposes two department managers for more than 30 workers, three department managers
for more than 60 workers and so on. As the assumed input is quite low still, no sales
manager was considered, but instead it was supposed that sales and material acquisition
issues will be covered by the general manager. It was assumed that 10% of all workers are
skilled workers and 10% of all required human resources are administrative staff.
Employees Quantities Calculation bases
General Manager 1
Department Manager 1 per 30 dismantling workers
Sales Manager 0
Skilled workers 10% of all workers
Unskilled workers 90% of all workers
Administrative Staff 10% of total staff
Security 0
Drivers 1 per truck
Co-Drivers 1 per truck
Incidental wage costs 10%
Saleries/a 12
Working hours per week 8 hs
Working days per week 6 days
Average sick leave per worker 5%
Official Holidays per Year 10 days
Holiday Entitlement per year 2 weeks
Working days per year 275 days
Annual working hours 2,196 hs
Table D-1: Assumed basic data concerning staff composition and working hours
The calculation of available working hours per employee has been based on information
given by UCBC [2013]. According to this information and additional assumptions, the
average working hours per employee was estimated to be almost 2,200 hours per year.
D.1.2. REQUIRED STAFF

According to the selected processing options for plant operation, the annual working hours
listed in Table D-2 are required. More than 60% of required working hours are necessary for
dismantling, about 30% for transport and logistics; CRT processing requires only about 5% of
total required working hours. Due to the assumptions concerning time efficiency (“low” within
the first year and “middle” within the second year) as well as for the input-composition (higher
share of CRTs within the second year of operation due to stock liquidation from B2B
Page 37
sources), required working hours for the second year of operation are higher than for the
other years.
Dismantling Groups Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
smallWEEE 4,097 hs 8,876 hs 4,824 hs 5,511 hs 6,279 hs
CRT 1,817 hs 3,948 hs 2,109 hs 2,354 hs 2,691 hs
FPD 550 hs 1,030 hs 712 hs 873 hs 1,037 hs
Total Dismantling 6,464 hs 13,854 hs 7,645 hs 8,738 hs 10,007 hs
CRT Treatment 273 hs 888 hs 633 hs 706 hs 807 hs
Cable Stripping
Plastic Shredder
Total Further Treatment 273 hs 888 hs 633 hs 706 hs 807 hs
Weighing/ Take Over 418 hs 1,187 hs 996 hs 1,150 hs 1,342 hs
Internal Logistics 1,011 hs 2,211 hs 1,242 hs 1,417 hs 1,622 hs
Transport: Drivers 220 hs 736 hs 556 hs 644 hs 760 hs
Transport: Co-Drivers 220 hs 736 hs 556 hs 644 hs 760 hs
Total Transport and Logistics 1,868 hs 4,871 hs 3,350 hs 3,854 hs 4,484 hs
Total Workers 8,605 hs 19,613 hs 11,627 hs 13,298 hs 15,298 hs
Table D-2: Required working hours per year
Required working hours for weighing/ take-over have been based on the assumed time
requirements of 10 minutes per take-over procedure. It was assumed that on average 40 kg
of e-waste will be delivered from individuals; from B2B-collection, 100 kg is the average
quantity per weighing procedure. Required working hours for internal logistics are supposed
to be 15% of required working hours for dismantling and further treatment. Working hours for
transport are the result of transport calculations (chapter E.3.4).
Required Workers [n] Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
Dismantling small WEEE 1.9 4.0 2.2 2.5 2.9
Dismantling CRT 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.8
Dismantling FPD 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4
CRT Treatment 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
Cable Stripping
Plastic Shredder
Weighing/ Take Over 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
Internal Logistics 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.7
Transport: Drivers 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Transport: Co-Drivers 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Total 3.7 8.5 5.0 5.7 6.5
Table D-3: Required full-time equivalents
Based on the results in Table D-2 and available working time per employee of 2,196 hours
per year, between 3.7 and 8.5 full-time equivalents of workers are required (Table D-3).
Together with managing and administrative staff, the facility will need a staff of seven to 12
persons during the initial five years of operation (Table D-4).
Required Staff [n] Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
General Manager 1 1 1 1 1
Department Manager 1 1 1 1 1
Sales Manager
Skilled workers 1 1 1 1 1
Unskilled workers 3 8 4 5 6
Administrative Staff 1 1 1 1 1
Security
Total Staff 7 12 8 9 10
Table D-4: Selected staff composition
Page 38
D.2. INFRASTRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT

D.2.1. REQUIRED SPACE
Table D-5 gives an overview about the required space for the whole dismantling facility.
Administration and sanitary rooms will at least require 95 m². This has been calculated based
Required on the specific space require-
ments listed in Table D-6 and the
Space results concerning staff compo-
WEEE-receiving area 20 m² sition (Table D-4).
Management/ Administration 45 m² The same procedure was used to
Recreation and sanitary rooms 30 m² calculate the required space for
Total Administration and Sanitary Rooms 95 m² dismantling and further treatment.
Additional dismantling space for
Dismantling smallWEEE and FPD 100 m² logistics was set at 25% above
Dismantling CRT 100 m² the entire space for dismantling.
Additional Dismantling Space 50 m² As for the assumed input
Charging Stations Lift Truck quantities, a lift truck is not
necessary and no space for a
Total Dismantling Area 250 m²
charging station is required.
CRT-treatment area 20 m²
Space for storage is required to
Cable Stripping area buffer fluctuant input that cannot
Plastic Shredder area be treated immediately on the
Total Further Treatment 20 m² one hand, and for output fractions
that have to be stored until
Input Storage 22 m²
specific lot sizes have been
Output Storage 169 m² achieved, on the other hand.
Storage Hazardous Fractions 22 m² Output storage can be stored in
Locked Storage 6 m² the output storage or in open
Total Indoor Storage 219 m² shelters; hazardous fractions
have to be stored in a separate
Open Shelter 63 m² area that has to comply with
Parking Area 20 m² higher requirements concerning
Total Open Area 83 m² floor sealing. For highly valuable
fractions like processors,
neodymium magnets etc. a
Total Indoor Area 584 m² locked storage is advised which
Total Open Area 83 m² can be included in the storage for
Total Required Area 667 m² hazardous fractions.
Table D-5: Required space for the dismantling facility
The input storage was set up on the condition to cover 2,000 kg of input, a specific storage
weight of 178 kg/m³ and the possibility to be stored in one layer of collection boxes. Required
space for storage has been calculated using the following assumptions and specific data:
 type of storage for the output fractions listed in Table C-8,
 different specific storage weights: from 100 kg/m³ for fractions like plastics, mixed scrap,
fluorescent tubes up to more than 1,000 kg/m³ for the most heavy fractions like motors,
batteries, etc.
 the possibility of two-layer storage for all fractions stored in collection boxes, one-layer
storage for hazardous fractions and a maximum height of 2 m for bulk storage.
It was assumed that the storage space has to cover at least the lot size for each fraction that
is commercialized locally and regionally. For international shipment the possibility of mixed
Page 39
lots (i.e. shipment of batteries together with printed circuit boards in one container) have
been considered.
D.2.2. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT

General Description
Key elements of the dismantling facility are the dismantling workstations, tools and further
equipment for the dismantling workers (Figure D-1). The tables should have a height that
permits workers to work in a standing position. Safety equipment like safety boots, work
gloves, dust masks and safety glasses are essential. Figure D-1 shows a standard toolbox;
included tools are sufficient for dismantling most of the equipment received. A cordless
screwdriver should be part of the toolbox because it increases the dismantling efficiency
significantly. For deeper dismantling (i.e. HDD) an additional toolbox including torx
screwdrivers are required.
Dismantling workstation, tools and safety equipment
Dismantling working place Overall and safety boots
Toolbox and Safety Equipment

Figure D-1: Dismantling workstation, tools and safety equipment
Page 40
For transporting collected e-waste to the facility and the output fractions produced to further
recycling plants, vehicles are required. The type of vehicles depends on the amount, the
input mix and the type of collection executed (see chapter C.3.3). For input up to 500 t/a,
closed or open trucks as shown in Figure D-2 are the most adequate solution. For higher
inputs, and a lot of own transport of output fractions, the use of a truck that can load
containers or dumpsters should be considered.
Internal logistics require hand pallet trucks. Forklift trucks facilitate loading, unloading and
weighing and are necessary when fractions are stored in containers or in grid boxes in
several layers. For storage logistics in more than one layer high-lift stacker as shown in
Figure D-2 can be an alternative to a forklift truck.
Equipment for transport and logistics
Truck Forklift truck
High-lift stacker (source: Hand pallet truck

www.jungheinrich.at)
Figure D-2: Equipment for transport and logistics
Type and extent of further treatment steps highly depend on purchasers for critical output
fractions located at an adequate distance. Figure D-3 shows equipment for all further
treatment steps that should be considered:
 a CRT-treatment station for the separation of leaded funnel glass from fluorescent
powder and front glass
 a small crusher for smashing fractions like plastics for transport optimization
 a cable stripper for increasing the content of pure copper in the output, if mechanical
cable recycling plants are located at a long distance to the facility
 mobile equipment for decontamination of mercury-containing lamps
All these further treatment steps are essential to implement sustainable recycling practices,
avoiding that hazardous substances might pollute the environment. Additionally, these
Page 41
practices ensure that the percentage of hazardous fractions having to be transported for long
distances - causing high transport costs - can be reduced significantly.
In case the planned dismantling plant is the first in the region, the purchase of further
treatment equipment can mean that hazardous fractions can be purchased from other future
facilities, or decontamination services can be offered in the future.
Equipment for further treatment steps
CRT-treatment station Crusher
Cable stripping machine Mobile lamp decontamination station

Figure D-3: Equipment for further treatment steps
Both for collection of e-waste, as well as for storage of fractions, appropriate receptacles are
needed. The type of receptacles used depends on the practices in the country. Commonly
used receptacles are pictured in Figure D-4.
Page 42
Often used receptacles
Grid boxes Pallets Acid proof barrels

Figure D-4: Examples for commonly used receptacles
Required Quantities and Investment Costs per Item

According to the assumptions concerning input and processing, the equipment listed in Table
D-6 is required to run the dismantling facility. Table D-6 further contains specific acquisition
costs for the required items [UCPC, 2013]. Average life span indicated has been based on
experiences in European dismantling facilities.
Required Required
Items Costs [/unit] Lifespan [a] Calculation bases
space quantity
WEEE-receiving and sorting area 25 20.0 m² 1 total per facility
Administrative Working Place (PC, table, chair) -1,000 15 15.0 m² 1 per administrative staff member
Recreation and sanitary rooms 25 2.5 m² per total staff member
Dismantling Working station (table, chair) -200 10 20.0 m² 1 per dismantling worker
CRT-treatment unit -10,000 25 40.0 m² 1 total per facility
Cable stripper -5,000 25 25.0 m² 0 total per facility
Plastic Shredder -10,000 25 40.0 m² 0 total per facility
Lift truck -14,000 20 6.0 m² 0 per 1000 t/a Input
Truck -18,000 20 20.0 m² 1 per 1000 t/a Input
Container (for transport) -2,000 25 20.0 m² 0 total per facility
Working tools -300 1 1 per dismantling worker
HSE (shoes, helm, gloves, etc.) -149 1 1 per worker
Ventilator -50 10 1 per total staff member
Collection box -90 15 10 per 100 t/a Input
Palette -5 10 5 per 100 t/a Input
Scale -1,190 20 1 per 2000 t/a Input
Pallet truck (internal transport) -500 20 4 per 1000 t/a Input
Table D-6: Specific space requirements and acquisition costs for infrastructure and equipment
D.2.3. PROPOSED LAYOUT

The proposed layout for the dismantling facility (Figure D-6, next page) has been developed
based on practical dismantling experiences of the D.R.Z – Dismantling and Recycling Centre
in Vienna, Austria, and includes layout considerations by WorldLoop [2013]. Impressions of a
visit at the WEEE-Center in Nairobi by a UNIDO delegation in July 2013 have been
integrated.
The proposed layout does not exactly correspond with the calculated space requirements.
Furthermore it provides space for cable-stripping and crushing of plastics which was not
considered in the calculations due to low quantities.
The layout design intends to give an impression of the overall dimensions and workflow
through the whole facility. As the business plan is based on the premise that an adequate
Page 43
building will be provided by the government, layout and workflow have to be redesigned
corresponding to the actual conditions of the estate.
General aspects regarding the layout that should be considered:
 The spatial arrangement of the registration and weighing area is crucial to provide an
efficient workflow. It should be located where it can be reached both by incoming
streams and outgoing fractions. The required size of the area depends on the way e-
waste is delivered and transported: delivery by individuals and/or handling with big
trucks, forklift trucks, etc. Sufficient space for sorting e-waste should be considered
when reuse activities are integrated.
 Depending on the expected fluctuations concerning the input quantities, the layout
should include a sufficiently large input storage. It is important that dismantling workers
can constantly take e-waste for dismantling from this input storage.
 In principle, the spatial arrangement of the different operational departments
(dismantling, treatment of CRT-tubes, etc.) should follow the process flow. It should be
avoided that intermediate fractions have to be transported long distances to the
subsequent workstations.
 Dismantling workstations should be arranged in a way that input to be dismantled can
be placed close to the dismantling workstations. The area surrounding the dismantling
workstations should also provide enough space for boxes receiving the various output
fractions.
 Furthermore, the dismantling department has to provide an area for intermediate
storage of hazardous fractions, where dismantling workers can place batteries,
capacitors etc. which were removed from the electronic devices, in receptacles
appropriate to receive hazardous materials.
Page 44
Figure D-5: Example for storage of hazardous fractions
 Full receptacles have to be transferred from this intermediate storage into a lockable
storage for hazardous substances (Figure D-5). Following international quality
standards, this storage space has to have a sealing that will ensure that any eventual
leakage of hazardous substances cannot pollute the subsurface.
 Providing space for storing output fractions is a further crucial criteria to ensure an
efficient workflow. The storage should be situated where it can be easily reached from
the department producing relevant quantities. Some output fractions can be stored
outdoors in open space, while some should be locked due to high economic value. The
required space further depends on the available logistical equipment. Forklift trucks for
example can lift grid boxes to be stored in up to three layers. This way required storage
space can be significantly reduced.
Page 45
Figure D-6: Proposed layout
Page 46
D.3. REQUIRED INVESTMENTS

D.3.1. ESTATE AND BUILDING
The present business plan was calculated on the assumption that the estate and building are
provided by the government. No extras investment costs for theestate and building have
been considered.
D.3.2. INVESTMENT FOR EQUIPMENT

The current business plan is based on relatively low investment requirements of about
40,000 USD (Table D-7).
Costs Required units acquisition
Items
[/unit] [number] costs
Administrative Working Place (PC, table, chair) -1,000 3 -3,000
Dismantling Working station (table, chair) -200 4 -800
CRT-treatment unit -10,000 1 -10,000
Truck -18,000 1 -18,000
Ventilator -50 10 -500
Collection box -90 40 -3,600
Palette -5 20 -100
Scale -1,190 1 -1,190
Pallet truck (internal transport) -500 4 -2,000
Total -39,190
Table D-7: Calculated investment costs [USD]
The highest investment amounts concern the purchase of a truck and a CRT-treatment unit.
Further investments are required to equip the dismantling and administrative workstations, as
well as provide a scale and logistical equipment.
Page 47
PART E)
OPERATIONAL REVENUES AND COSTS
E.1. PURCHASE COSTS AND REVENUES

E.1.1. EXPECTED PURCHASE COSTS
According to the assumed input quantities and composition from different collection streams
(see chapter C.2), and the purchase prices for e-waste devices listed in Table C-1, the
following purchase costs have to be considered within the business plan (Table E-1).
Appliance Group Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Small household appliances coffee
Small household appliances cloths
PC/ Server -13,453 /a -45,379 /a -31,074 /a -34,911 /a -39,316 /a
Notebook -1,414 /a -4,114 /a -3,600 /a -4,371 /a -5,143 /a
Printer/Scanner/Copier -604 /a -1,720 /a -1,556 /a -1,887 /a -2,244 /a
IT accessories (mix keyboard, mouse) -175 /a -454 /a -474 /a -598 /a -722 /a
Mobile phone (incl. recharger)
CRT monitor 2,553 /a 12,826 /a 3,829 /a 2,769 /a 1,338 /a
FPD monitor -200 /a -600 /a -500 /a -600 /a -700 /a
Audio appliances (CD-/Radiorecorder)
Video appliances (CD-/DVD-Player)
CRT TV -2,096 /a -3,538 /a -6,551 /a -8,451 /a -11,137 /a
FPD TV -78 /a -149 /a -235 /a -311 /a -394 /a
Total -15,468 /a -43,127 /a -40,161 /a -48,360 /a -58,318 /a
Table E-1: Expected Purchase Costs and Revenues for WEEE [USD/a]
Table E-1 shows that almost 75% of all purchase costs have to be paid for PCs. Due to the
assumption that for CRTs from private deliveries, reduced purchase prices have to be paid
compared to the feasibility study [Blaser et al; 2013], and CRTs from B2B channels can be
acquired without additional purchase costs, the purchase costs for CRTs are much lower
than in the feasibility study. Even considering these assumptions, purchase costs are about
25% of all expected revenues. For this reason the ability to control purchase costs within
certain limits will be crucial for a successful financial performance.
E.1.2. REQUIRED RECYCLING FEES FROM PRODUCERS

As the feasibility study [Blaser et al., 2013] already showed, the intrinsic value of CRTs and
some other electronic devices do not cover the required efforts for sustainable recycling of
these appliances. Thus, recycling fees paid by producers directly or via take-back systems
are crucial to get a positive financial balance for the planned dismantling facility.
According to the business plan calculations, recycling fees will be required to dismantle CRT-
monitors and CRT-TVs, printers, scanners, copiers and IT accessories.
For all other appliances, the fractions coming out of the dismantling should cover the efforts
for the recycling chain covered by the facility (collection, treatment, transport and disposal).
As CRTs have a large share within the expected input, the required recycling fees will be
almost USD 15,000 for the whole first year of operation and grow up to more than
USD 60,000 per year after five years of operation, as Table E-2 shows.
Page 48
Appliance Group Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Small household appliances coffee
Small household appliances cloths
PC/ Server -9,720 /a -32,535 /a -22,410 /a -25,178 /a -28,350 /a
Notebook -330 /a -960 /a -840 /a -1,020 /a -1,200 /a
Printer/Scanner/Copier 1,817 /a 5,135 /a 4,661 /a 5,649 /a 6,715 /a
IT accessories (mix keyboard, mouse) 476 /a 1,232 /a 1,288 /a 1,624 /a 1,960 /a
Mobile phone (incl. recharger)
CRT monitor 11,776 /a 43,232 /a 25,248 /a 26,704 /a 28,640 /a
FPD monitor -40 /a -120 /a -100 /a -120 /a -140 /a
Audio appliances (CD-/Radiorecorder)
Video appliances (CD-/DVD-Player)
CRT TV 10,841 /a 18,068 /a 32,522 /a 41,555 /a 54,203 /a
FPD TV -338 /a -650 /a -1,014 /a -1,339 /a -1,690 /a
Total 14,482 /a 33,402 /a 39,355 /a 47,875 /a 60,138 /a
Table E-2: Required Recycling Fees from Producers [USD/a]
Recycling fees have to cover between 15% and 25% of all revenues in order to get a positive
financial balance under the identified circumstances.
E.2. SALES REVENUES AND DOWNSTREAM COSTS

E.2.1. PRICES/ COSTS PER TONS
The calculation of expected revenues and disposal costs have been based on the
assumptions listed in Table E-3.
Output fractions Price/ Costs per ton* Transport Costs Price/ Costs per ton**
Aluminium 1,000 /ton -9 /ton 991 /ton
Iron/ Steel 250 /ton -9 /ton 241 /ton
Copper 4,000 /ton -286 /ton 3,714 /ton
Neodym Magnet 5,350 /ton -501 /ton 4,849 /ton
Bronze/Brass 2,000 /ton -286 /ton 1,714 /ton
Stainless Steel 250 /ton -9 /ton 241 /ton
Plastics 0 /ton -9 /ton -9 /ton
Cable without plugs 1,700 /ton -286 /ton 1,414 /ton
Processors 60,000 /ton -286 /ton 59,714 /ton
Printed Wired Board, Q1 9,800 /ton -286 /ton 9,514 /ton
Printed Wired Board, Q2 2,700 /ton -286 /ton 2,414 /ton
Printed Wired Board, Q3 700 /ton -286 /ton 414 /ton
Motors/Inductors/Transformers 400 /ton -286 /ton 114 /ton
Deflection coil 1,000 /ton -286 /ton 714 /ton
Getterpill - electrogun -1,000 /ton -200 /ton -1,200 /ton
Mixed scrap 150 /ton -286 /ton -136 /ton
Glass 0 /ton -9 /ton -9 /ton
Residual waste 0 /ton -9 /ton -9 /ton
Batteries 350 /ton -200 /ton 150 /ton
Capacitors -1,300 /ton -286 /ton -1,586 /ton
LCD-displays -1,000 /ton -286 /ton -1,286 /ton
Fluorescent Tubes 0 /ton
Printer Cartridges -100 /ton -200 /ton -300 /ton
Fluorescent powder 0 /ton
CRT-glass -100 /ton -200 /ton -300 /ton
*without transport costs from the dismantling plant to recycling plants
** including transport costs from the dismantling plant to recycling plants
Table E-3: Expected Sales Revenues and Disposal Costs per Ton [USD/ton]
Page 49
E.2.2. SALES REVENUES

The main share of the revenues comes from the commercialization of fractions. According to
the expected input sales, revenues will be almost 53,000 USD during the first year of
operation, more than 170,000 USD during the second year and then grow up from 122,000
USD up to almost 160,000 USD after five years of operation (Table E-4).
Sales Revenues [USD/a]
Aluminium 2,579 8,329 6,071 6,902 7,896
Iron/ Steel 5,027 16,353 11,792 13,390 15,268
Stainless Steel 30 98 69 78 89
Plastics
Glass
Total Material Recycling Local 7,636 24,781 17,932 20,370 23,252
Copper 3,336 11,878 7,335 7,930 8,662
Bronze/Brass 7 19 17 20 24
Cable without plugs 4,313 13,782 10,215 11,657 13,393
Motors/Inductors/Transformers 1,023 3,412 2,346 2,607 2,947
Deflection coil 2,138 6,883 4,996 5,602 6,437
Mixed scrap 223 688 542 631 733
Total Material Recycling Regional Cross-National 11,039 36,663 25,450 28,449 32,195
Neodym Magnet 127 421 296 336 380
Processors 5,646 18,696 13,128 14,856 16,800
Printed Wired Board, Q1 23,494 76,792 55,119 62,792 71,383
Total Material Recycling International Shipment 33,763 110,097 79,207 90,094 102,571
Batteries 82 250 204 243 283
Total Hazardous Waste International Shipment 82 250 204 243 283
Total 52,520 171,790 122,794 139,156 158,301
Table E-4: Expected Sales Revenues [USD/a]
As Table E-4 demonstrates very clearly, more than 60% of all sales revenues come from
fractions that have to be shipped overseas, mainly printed circuit boards. Only 15% to 20% of
sales revenues come from fractions sold on the local market and further 20% from fractions
transported to neighboring countries.
E.2.3. EXTERNAL TRANSPORT COSTS

The sales situation described in chapter E.2.2 leads to comparatively high logistic costs for
fractions having to be transported to neighboring countries or overseas. The following Table
E-5 contains all expected external transport costs. These costs include all expenses that
have to be paid for agencies to transport fractions to neighboring countries on the road and
for further shipment overseas. They do not include transport costs caused by own transport
logistics, which are calculated as operational costs within chapter E3.4.
The output of quite a few fractions within one year is too low to fill a whole container for
shipment. The business plan calculation is based on the assumption that fractions with a
quantity lower than that to fill a 20ft-container can be shipped together with some other
fractions.
Page 50
External Transport Costs [USD/a]

Copper -238 -848 -524 -566 -619
Bronze/Brass -1 -3 -2 -3 -3
Cable without plugs -725 -2,316 -1,717 -1,959 -2,251
Motors/Inductors/Transformers -731 -2,437 -1,676 -1,862 -2,105
Deflection coil -611 -1,966 -1,427 -1,601 -1,839
Mixed scrap -425 -1,311 -1,032 -1,203 -1,397
Total Material Recycling Regional Cross-National -2,730 -8,883 -6,379 -7,194 -8,214
Printer Cartridges -51 -143 -130 -157 -187
Total Hazardous Waste Regional Cross-National -51 -143 -130 -157 -187
Total Regional Cross-National Destination -2,781 -9,026 -6,508 -7,351 -8,401
Neodym Magnet -12 -39 -28 -31 -36
Processors -27 -89 -63 -71 -80
Printed Wired Board, Q1 -685 -2,239 -1,607 -1,831 -2,081
Printed Wired Board, Q2 -320 -1,017 -755 -855 -986
Printed Wired Board, Q3 -601 -1,868 -1,440 -1,644 -1,913
Total Material Recycling International Shipment -1,645 -5,252 -3,892 -4,432 -5,096
Batteries -47 -143 -117 -139 -162
Capacitors -107 -348 -249 -281 -320
LCD-displays -65 -169 -176 -220 -266
Getterpill - electrogun -12 -34 -29 -33 -40
CRT glass -6,631 -18,129 -16,870 -19,890 -24,087
Total Hazardous Waste International Shipment -6,862 -18,824 -17,441 -20,563 -24,875
Total International Shipment -8,507 -24,076 -21,333 -24,996 -29,971
Total -11,288 -33,102 -27,841 -32,347 -38,372
Table E-5: Calculated External Transport Costs [USD/a]
Between 56% and 65% of all external transport costs have to be paid for shipment of CRT-
glass. All external costs reduce sales revenues by about 20%.
E.2.4. DISPOSAL COSTS

Disposal/ treatment costs for hazardous fractions are dominated by treatment costs for CRT-
glass, which cause about 85% of all disposal costs as shown in Table E-6. Disposal costs for
other fractions form a minor financial impact on the business plan.
Disposal Costs [USD/a]
Capacitors -486 -1,584 -1,134 -1,278 -1,458
LCD-displays -229 -593 -615 -770 -931
CRT glass -3,315 -9,065 -8,435 -9,945 -12,044
Total International Shipment -4,089 -11,414 -10,329 -12,160 -14,631
Total -4,114 -11,485 -10,394 -12,238 -14,725
Table E-6: Calculated Disposal Costs [USD/a]
Page 51
E.2.5. NET SALES REVENUES

The following Table E-7 contains all expected sales revenues from commercialization of
fractions reduced by external transport and shipment costs and by disposal costs.
Net Sales Revenues [USD/a]
Aluminium 2,579 8,329 6,071 6,902 7,896
Iron/ Steel 5,027 16,353 11,792 13,390 15,268
Stainless Steel 30 98 69 78 89
Plastics
Glass
Total Material Recycling Local 7,636 24,781 17,932 20,370 23,252
Residual waste
Total Disposal Local
Total Local Destination 7,636 24,781 17,932 20,370 23,252
Copper 3,097 11,030 6,811 7,364 8,043
Bronze/Brass 6 16 14 17 21
Cable without plugs 3,588 11,466 8,498 9,698 11,142
Motors/Inductors/Transformers 292 975 670 745 842
Deflection coil 1,527 4,916 3,569 4,002 4,598
Mixed scrap -202 -623 -490 -571 -664
Total Material Recycling Regional Cross-National 8,309 27,780 19,072 21,254 23,981
Total Regional Cross-National Destination 8,233 27,566 18,877 21,019 23,701
Neodym Magnet 115 382 269 304 344
Processors 5,619 18,607 13,065 14,785 16,720
Printed Wired Board, Q3 872 2,709 2,088 2,384 2,774
Total Material Recycling International Shipment 32,118 104,845 75,315 85,661 97,475
Batteries 35 107 88 104 121
Capacitors -593 -1,933 -1,384 -1,559 -1,778
LCD-displays -294 -762 -791 -989 -1,196
CRT glass -9,946 -27,194 -25,305 -29,835 -36,131
Total International Shipment 21,249 74,857 47,749 53,181 58,251
Total 37,118 127,203 84,559 94,570 105,205
Table E-7: Calculated Net Sales Revenues for Commercialization of Fractions [USD/a]
Net sales revenues are between 350 USD and 450 USD per ton input depending on the
share of CRTs in the input. This means net sales revenues of almost 37,000 USD/a during
the first year of operation and growing up to about 100,000 USD/a.
Commercialization of printed circuit boards is the main income source. The sales of these
fractions contribute 32,000 USD/a during the first year, and almost 100,000 USD/a after
five years of operation. Revenues from international shipments are reduced by 38%-46%
due to high external transport and disposal costs for CRT-glass. Thus, net sales revenues
from fractions commercialized overseas cover about 50% of all net sales revenues.
Fractions commercialized locally and within a regional cross-national destination contribute
about 25% to entire net sales revenues. Iron/steel, cables, aluminum and copper are the
main income sources for fractions sold locally and to neighboring countries.
Page 52
A striking detail concerning regional cross-national destination is the commercialization of

mixed scrap. Mixed scrap comprises all composite materials consisting of different metals
and plastics that cannot be further separated into pure materials without mechanical crushing
and separation. Due to a lack of recycling facilities in Uganda, the business plan calculated a
cross-national destination for this fraction, but transport costs are higher than possible sales
revenues for mixed scrap. Thus, a local disposal for this fraction should be considered as an
alternative.
E.3. OPERATIONAL COSTS

E.3.1. STAFF COSTS
According to UCPC [2013], salaries listed in Table E-8 have to be paid to different staff
levels. Workers and administrative staff get between USD 120 and USD 140 per month, the
salaries for department manager and sales manager can be assumed to be USD 500 per
month and USD 1,000 for the general manager. According to additional information
concerning incidental wage costs of 10% [UCPC, 2013] and the assumption that 12 wages
per year are paid to employees, personnel costs are between USD 1,584 and USD 1,848 per
year for workers and between USD 6,600 and USD 13,200 for managing staff.
Salary Personal costs [per

Employees
[brutto/month] employee/a]
General Manager -1,000 -13,200

Department Manager -500 -6,600
Sales Manager -500 -6,600
Skilled workers -140 -1,848
Unskilled workers -120 -1,584
Administrative Staff -140 -1,848
Table E-8: Salaries and personnel costs per employee [USD/a]
Based on the selected staff composition (Table D-4) between USD 28,248 and USD 36,168
per year are the expenses for staff costs during the first five years of operation (Table E-9).
Staff Costs [USD/a] Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
General Manager -13,200 /a -13,200 /a -13,200 /a -13,200 /a -13,200 /a
Department Manager -6,600 /a -6,600 /a -6,600 /a -6,600 /a -6,600 /a
Sales Manager
Skilled workers -1,848 /a -1,848 /a -1,848 /a -1,848 /a -1,848 /a
Unskilled workers -4,752 /a -12,672 /a -6,336 /a -7,920 /a -9,504 /a
Administrative Staff -1,848 /a -1,848 /a -1,848 /a -1,848 /a -1,848 /a
Security
Total Staff -28,248 /a -36,168 /a -29,832 /a -31,416 /a -33,000 /a
Table E-9: Staff costs [USD/a]
Page 53
E.3.2. INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

Rental Costs
For the present business plan, it was considered that the estate and building for the
dismantling facility will be provided by the government.
The business plan was based on the further assumption that the operator for the facility does
not have to pay rental costs during the initial two years of operation. After two years of
operation, costs of USD 10 per year and m² have been considered to be charged on the total
indoor area of 581 m² (see chapter D.2.1). The considerations result in rental costs of USD
5,815 per year.
These very low rental costs have been assumed due to the fact that sustainable e-waste
management is a new business of strategic importance for the country and a positive
financial performance can be reached only by considering additional recycling fees.
Electricity
Expenses for electricity have been based on the specific electricity consumption in the
dismantling facility D.R.Z – Dismantling and Recycling Centre in Vienna/ Austria
(40 kWh/m².a). According to prices of USD 0.20 per kWh having to be paid for electricity in
Uganda, expenses will be USD 3,852 per year.
CMR Infrastructure
Expenses for cleaning, maintenance and repair of infrastructure have been calculated using
the experiences of the D.R.Z again. USD 3 per m² and year was the specific value used for
the calculation, what leads to expenses of USD 1,445 per year for CMR infrastructure.
Business Liability Insurance and Tax

Due to lack of information from Uganda, business expenses for liability insurance and taxes
have been estimated to be USD 1,500 per year.
E.3.3. EQUIPMENT
Annual costs for equipment are expenses for low -value assets. Purchase prices for all items
listed in Table D-6 with a life span of one year are covered by the calculated annual
equipment costs (working tools and HSE - shoes, helmets, gloves, etc.). Required expenses
vary between USD 1,500 per year and nearly USD 3,200 per year (Table E-10).
Working tools -900 -1,800 -900 -1,200 -1,200
HSE (shoes, helm, gloves, etc.) -596 -1,341 -745 -894 -1,043
Total -1,496 -3,141 -1,645 -2,094 -2,243
Table E-10: Calculation of costs for low value assests per year [USD/a]
Expenses for operating supplies have been ignored for the business plan calculation.
According to the experiences of the D.R.Z, expenses for operating supplies are very low for
dismantling activities and can be neglected.
Expenses for required equipment with a lifespan of more than one year have been
considered in the investment plan (chapter D.3.2) as well as annual depreciation costs
(chapter E.3.6).
Page 54
Page 55
E.3.4. TRANSPORT COSTS

Fuel
Calculations of expected fuel costs per year have been based on the assumption that all
following transport is conducted using own vehicles:
 all collected WEEE from organizations, companies or collection points are
transported to the facility (except the quantities delivered at the facilities by others)
 all fractions that are commercialized on the local market
Further general assumptions have been made as followed:
 Capacity of own trucks: 2t
 fuel consumption: 10 l/100km
 fuel price: 1 USD/litre
 number of transport trips per day 2 trips
 required time per trip 4,0 hours
 kilometers driven per trip 40 km
These assumptions result in fuel costs of USD 220 per year within the first year and grow up
to USD 760 per year after five years of operation (Table E-11).
Local Transported Quantities Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5
WEEE Purchase 70 t 240 t 180 t 210 t 250 t
Commercialisation Fractions 41 t 127 t 98 t 112 t 130 t
Total 111 t 367 t 278 t 322 t 380 t
Required trips per year 55 trips 184 trips 139 trips 161 trips 190 trips
Required own truck hours per year 220 hs/a 736 hs/a 556 hs/a 644 hs/a 760 hs/a
Required own trucks 0,10 0,34 0,25 0,29 0,35
Kilometres driven per year 2.200 km 7.360 km 5.560 km 6.440 km 7.600 km
Fuel costs per year -220 /y -736 /y -556 /y -644 /y -760 /y
Table E-11: Calculation of fuel costs per year [USD/a]
Motor Vehicle Insurance and Tax

Expenses for motor vehicle insurance and tax have been set with USD 300 per year due to
lack of further information.
CMR Vehicles
Maintenance costs for vehicles have been set with USD 300 per year due to lack of further
information.
Page 56
E.3.5. ADMINISTRATION COSTS

Expenses for administration have been estimated as listed in Table E-12.
Profit/ Loss - Forecast Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Travel Costs -2,500 -2,500 -2,500 -2,500 -2,500
Office Supplies, Postal and Bank Charges -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Telecommunication/ Internet -300 -300 -300 -300 -300
Consulting Services -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Marketing and Public Relations -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Permissions and Quality Management -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Table E-12: Estimated administration costs per year [USD/a]
E.3.6. DEPRECIATION
Depreciation of Infrastructure
As the estate and building are rented according to the business plan, it is assumed that no
depreciation costs for the estate and building occurs.
Depreciation of Equipment and Vehicles

Depreciation costs within the first five years of operation are USD 2,400 per year due to the
aquired equipment and the expected lifespan for each item listed in Table E-13.
Costs Required units acquisition
Items Lifespan [a] Depreciation
[/unit] [number] costs
Administrative Working Place (PC, table, chair) -1,000 15 3 -3,000 -200
Dismantling Working station (table, chair) -200 10 4 -800 -80
CRT-treatment unit -10,000 25 1 -10,000 -400
Truck -18,000 20 1 -18,000 -900
Ventilator -50 10 10 -500 -50
Collection box -90 15 40 -3,600 -240
Palette -5 10 20 -100 -10
Scale -1,190 20 1 -1,190 -60
Pallet truck (internal transport) -500 20 4 -2,000 -100
Total -2,040
Table E-13: Calculation of depreciation costs for equipment [USD/a]
Page 57
PART F)
PROFIT AND LOSS FORECAST AND
INTERPRETATION
F.1. REQUIRED RECYCLING FEES

Under the current framework conditions, a balanced financial performance cannot be
reached without additional revenues from recycling fees. As a following step, the business
plan calculation tool was used to calculate the required recycling fees with respect to
remaining profits for each appliance group.
The modeling has been conducted as followed:
 Using the business plan calculation tool, profit and loss forecasts have been calculated
assuming that the input consists of one of the appliance groups concerned only for
each modeling step. The input quantities have been assumed as in the business plan
calculations for mixed input.
 Within a second modeling step, required recycling fees or remaining profits have been
varied until the profit and loss forecasts led to a net profit after five years of operation of
about 35,000 USD. The same modeling step has been repeated with all appliance
groups concerned.
The resulting required recycling fees and remaining profits in USD/t are listed in Table F-1.
Required
Appliance Group Remaining Profit
Recycling Fee
[USD/t] [USD/t]
PC/ Server € 450
Notebook € 300
Printer/Scanner/Copier -€ 395
IT accessories (mix keyboard, mouse) -€ 280
CRT monitor -€ 320
FPD monitor € 40
CRT TV -€ 495
FPD TV € 260
Required Recycling Fees over All Appliance Groups -€ 200
Table F-1: Required Recycling Fees/ Remaining Profits USD/t]
Table F-1 shows that recycling fees as additional revenues are required to achieve a
balanced financial performance concerning printers/ scanners/ copiers, IT accessories, CRT-
TVs and CRT-monitors. The highest amount is required for CRT-TVs (495 USD/t) followed
by CRT-monitors (394 USD/t).
The recycling of PC/ servers, notebooks, FPD-TVs and FPD-monitors has a positive financial
performance. The intrinsic value of these appliance groups is sufficient to cover all
operational costs; a profit up to 450 USD/t can be achieved.
Concerning the assumed input composition in the fifth year of operation (see Figure C-1),
recycling fees of 200 USD/t over all appliance groups concerned are required to achieve a
balanced financial performance with the dismantling facility under the current framework
conditions.
Page 58
Page 59
F.2. PROFIT AND LOSS FORECAST

The profit and loss forecast, listed in Table F-2 shows the expected revenues and costs for
the initial five years of operation, according to the required framework conditions.
[USD] [USD] [USD] [USD] [USD]
Funds
Remuneration Take-Back-System 14,482 33,402 39,355 47,875 60,138
Sales Revenues 52,520 171,790 122,794 139,156 158,301
Total Revenues 67,002 205,192 162,149 187,031 218,439
Purchase Costs -15,468 -43,127 -40,161 -48,360 -58,318
Disposal Costs -4,114 -11,485 -10,394 -12,238 -14,725
External Transport Costs -11,288 -33,102 -27,841 -32,347 -38,372
Total Purchase and Downstream Costs -30,870 -87,715 -78,396 -92,945 -111,414
Netto Revenues 36,132 117,477 83,753 94,086 107,024
Management -19,800 -19,800 -19,800 -19,800 -19,800

Administration -1,848 -1,848 -1,848 -1,848 -1,848
Workers -6,600 -14,520 -8,184 -9,768 -11,352
Total Staff Costs -28,248 -36,168 -29,832 -31,416 -33,000
Rental Costs -5,044 -5,044 -5,044
Electricity -4,035 -4,035 -4,035 -4,035 -4,035
CMR Infrastructure -1,513 -1,513 -1,513 -1,513 -1,513
Business Liability Insurance and Tax -1,500 -1,500 -1,500 -1,500 -1,500
Total Infrastructure Costs -7,048 -7,048 -12,092 -12,092 -12,092
Low Value Assests and Operating Supplies -1,496 -3,141 -1,645 -2,094 -2,243
Total Equipment -1,496 -3,141 -1,645 -2,094 -2,243
Fuel -220 -732 -552 -644 -756
Motor Vehicle Insurance and Tax -300 -300 -300 -300 -300
CMR Vehicles -300 -300 -300 -300 -300
Total Transport Costs -820 -1,332 -1,152 -1,244 -1,356
Travel Costs -2,500 -2,500 -2,500 -2,500 -2,500
Office Supplies, Postal and Bank Charges -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Telecommunication/ Internet -300 -300 -300 -300 -300
Consulting Services -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Marketing and Public Relations -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Permissions and Quality Management -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
Depreciation Infrastructure
Depreciation Equipment and Vehicles -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040
Total Depreciation -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040
Total Costs -44,452 -54,529 -51,560 -53,685 -55,530
Operating Result -8,320 62,948 32,193 40,400 51,494

Investments -39,190
Table F-2: Profit and Loss Forecast [USD/a]
According to the assumed input and framework conditions, revenues are fed by the sales of
output fractions (75%) and recycling fees (25%). For e-waste input quantities of about
300 t/a, revenues of more than 200,000 USD/a can be achieved. Half of these revenues are
eaten up by purchase-, disposal- and external transport costs. 30%-35% of these costs are
due to high shipment and disposal costs for CRT glass to be treated overseas. Shipment
Page 60
and disposal costs for CRT glass (10,000-36,000 USD/a) are almost as high as the
calculated remuneration from recycling fees (15,000-60,000 USD/a).
Operational costs are 44,000 USD/a in the first year of operation, growing to about 55,000
USD/a after five years of operation. The highest share of operational costs (60%-65%) has to
be spent on staff costs.
Infrastructure costs are the second highest consumer of operational costs: 12%-15% of
operational costs during the first two years, and 20%-22% afterwards. Due to the assumed
framework conditions, they are comparatively low. If the estate and building had to be rented
without the assumed governmental support, rental costs would be significantly higher.
This also applies to the calculated investment costs. As the estate and building can be
rented, the business plan does not have to consider construction costs. Calculated
investment costs of almost 40,000 USD have been earned by the net income balance after
three years already. Due to this fact, depreciation costs are of minor importance: Provisions
in the amount of 2,000 USD/a have to be considered as operational costs.
Annual costs for equipment and local transport costs are of minor importance compared to
other cost factors. However, it has to be remarked that calculated transport costs only
include transportation of collected WEEE and locally commercialized fractions. Calculations
including a passenger car and fuel costs for local trips concerning meetings and negotiations
would lead to higher transport costs.
Due to missing correlations with other cost factors in the business plan calculation model,
administration costs had to be based on assumptions. The estimated share of 8%-10% of all
operational costs for administration can give a rough scale for expenses that have to be
provided for the business administration. Furthermore, administration costs will depend a lot
on the need fornegotiations with purchasers of output fractions in neighboring countries and
overseas, as almost half of the calculated administration costs are travel costs. In case
shipment of fractions requires extensive negotiations, administration costs will consume a
higher share of operational costs.
Overall the profit and loss forecast demonstrates a perspective that after five years of facility
operation, separate collection and dismantling of e-waste in Kampala
 can achieve revenues of more than 200,000 USD/a,
 with half of these revenues having to be spent on purchase-, disposal and external
transport costs,
 with 25% to spent on operational costs of running the facility
 and with another 25%, or up to 50,000 USD/a, left as a positive operating result.
This applies to collecting and dismantling 300 tons of e-waste per year and considering the
assumed framework conditions (see chapter B.3.2).
Page 61
F.3. CALCULATED BREAK-EVEN

Break-even has been calculated in a simplified way. Calculation steps have been conducted
as follows:
 Based on the operating result including investment, an account balance without credit
costs was calculated deducting provisions for depreciation.
 Credit costs and savings have been calculated on this account balance without credit
costs. According to UCPC [2013], the following amounts for interests have been used:
20% on credits and 5% on savings. A simplified calculation has been conducted
assuming that all interests have to be paid at the end of the year.
 Net income before taxes has been calculated based on the operating result including
investments reducing calculated credit costs.
 Taxes on earnings have been calculated based on the net income before taxes: 30%
according to UCPC [2013].
 The bank account balance including credit costs is the amount of money that will be in
the bank account if no additional money exceeding operational costs is withdrawn. The
freely available money is the amount that can be seen as the accumulated profit. This
position was calculated by reducing allowances for investments (i.e. depreciation) of
the account balance.
The result of the above described calculation steps can be seen in Table F-3. According to
this simplified calculation, a positive account balance can be achieved after three years of
operation. Considering that allowances have to be built, profit can be taken out of the
company after fou years of operation.
[USD] [USD] [USD] [USD] [USD]
Credit Costs -9,094 -10,913 -5,403 -2,325 0
Net Income Before Taxes -56,604 52,036 26,790 38,076 51,494
Taxes 0 -15,611 -8,037 -11,423 -15,448
Net Income After Taxes -56,604 36,425 18,753 26,653 36,046
Account Balance (without credit costs) -45,470 -54,564 -27,013 -11,623 14,745
Credit Costs/ Interests on Savings -9,094 -10,913 -5,403 -2,325 737
Repayment of Credit/ Profit 0 38,464 20,793 28,693 38,085
Bank Account Balance (including credit costs) -54,564 -27,013 -11,623 14,745 53,568
Allowances -2,040 -4,079 -6,119 -8,158 -10,198
Remaining Profit -56,604 -31,092 -17,741 6,587 43,370
Table F-3: Break-Even Calculation [USD/a, USD]
F.4. MODELING DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK

CONDITIONS
Based on the calculated profit and loss forecast, two different modeling steps have been
conducted. The first modeling step analyzed the impact of modified framework conditions on
the operating result and the net income after taxes assuming the same recycling fees
calculated in the baseline scenario. Within a second modeling step for two scenarios, the
recycling fees have been re-calculated, getting similar results for the financial performance
as in the baseline scenario.
Page 62
Page 63
F.4.1. MODELING FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS

The following scenarios have been chosen for modeling:
B0 = Baseline scenario: B0 is the profit and loss forecast as calculated in chapter F.2.
S1a = Scenario without recycling fees: S1 is a profit and loss forecast based on B0 but
calculated without revenues from recycling fees.
S1b = Scenario without support for estate/ building: S2 is a profit and loss forecast
based on B0. Unlike the baseline scenario in scenario S1b, the estate and building
have to be rented on the property market. Due to missing further information, rental
costs have been estimated at 25 USD/m² and year.
S1c = Scenario including funding for investment: S1c is a profit and loss forecast based
on B0. Unlike the baseline scenario in S1c, investments do not have be financed by
a credit loan but are funded by a non-repayable grant.
S1d = Scenario assuming favorable disposal conditions for CRT-glass: S1d is a profit
and loss forecast based on B0. The difference to B0 is that in scenario S1d CRT-
glass does not to have shipped overseas, but an environmentally sound possibility
for final disposal of CRT glass in Uganda can be found. It was assumed that 25
USD/t have to be paid for local disposal of CRT glass.
S1e = Scenario S1b + S1d: Scenario S1e is a scenario that contains the framework
conditions both of scenario S1b and S1d: local disposal for CRT glass and no
support for estate/ building by the government.
The modeling results are shown in Figure F-1 and Figure F-2.
Operating Results with Different Framework Conditions

100,000
B0-Baseline
Scenario
75,000
S1a-without
recycling fees
50,000
S1b-without
[USD/a]
support for
estate/ building
25,000 S1c-funding for

investment
S1d-local
0 disposal option
for CRT-glass
S1e-Scenario 1b
+ 1d
-25,000
Figure F-1: Operating Results with Different Framework Conditions
Page 64
Net Income After Taxes with Different Framework Conditions

75,000
B0-Baseline
Scenario
50,000
S1a-without
recycling fees
25,000
S1b-without
[USD/a]
support for
0 estate/ building
S1c-funding for
investment
-25,000
S1d-local
disposal option
-50,000 for CRT-glass
S1e-Scenario 1b
+ 1d
-75,000
Figure F-2: Net Income after Taxes with Different Framework Conditions
The modeling shows that missing recycling fees (S1a) have dramatic consequences both on
the operating result and the net income after taxes. In this scenario, a positive financial result
can be achieved only in year two due to favorable composition of e-waste (more PCs
because of a higher share of B2B-collection).
When the estate and building are not provided by the government (S1b), operating results
are about 5,000 USD and the net income after taxes about 10,000 USD below the results of
the baseline scenario. Within five years of operation, a positive account balance cannot be
achieved.
Funding for investment (S1c) does not influence the operating result and has low influence
on the net income after taxes, but a positive account balance can be achieved already after
one year of operation.
The most significant effect on the financial performance can be achieved if CRT glass can be
disposed of in Uganda (S1d). Modeling this scenario results in financial results up to 75%
better than in the baseline scenario. If then the estate and building are not provided by the
government (S1e) the financial results are 10-15% lower than in scenario S1d.
Page 65
F.4.2. MODELING RECYCLING FEES

In the second modeling step, the profit and loss forecast for two scenarios have been
calculated. The recycling fees have been adapted so that the profit and loss forecast led to
similar results concerning operating result and net income after taxes as in the baseline
scenario. The following scenarios have been chosen:
B0 = Baseline scenario:
B0 is the profit and loss forecast as calculated in chapter F.2.
S2a = Scenario S1b + S1d and adapted recycling fees:
Scenario S2a calculated a profit and loss forecast based on a local option for
disposal of CRT glass as in scenario S1d, and assumed that the estate and building
have to be rented on the property market without support of the government.
S2b = Scenario S1c + S1d and adapted recycling fees:
Scenario S2a calculated a profit and loss forecast including the local option for
disposal of CRT glass as in scenario S2a, but assumed that the estate and building
are provided by the government for free during the first two years of operation and
can be rented for 10 USD/m² per year afterwards. As in scenario S1c, the profit and
loss forecast in scenario S2b is based on the assumption that required investments
can be financed by a non-repayable grant.
The results are listed in Table F-4. In scenario S2a, the required recycling fees for CRT-
monitors and CRT-TVs can be reduced by about 20% due to the local option for disposal of
CRT-glass. The required recycling fee over all appliances is reduced from 200 USD/t to
137 USD/t.
Required Recycling Fees (+)/ B0 S2a S2b

Remaining Profit (-)
[USD/t] [USD/t] [USD/t]
PC/ Server 450 /t 450 /t 510 /t

Notebook 300 /t 300 /t 380 /t
Printer/Scanner/Copier -395 /t -395 /t -315 /t
IT accessories (mix keyboard, mouse) -280 /t -280 /t -195 /t
Mobile phone (incl. recharger) 0 /t 0 /t 0 /t
CRT monitor -320 /t -246 /t -95 /t
FPD monitor 40 /t 40 /t 120 /t
CRT TV -495 /t -381 /t -200 /t
FPD TV 260 /t 260 /t 340 /t
Recycling Fees over
-200 /t -137 /t 0 /t
All Appliances Groups
Table F-4: Modeling Results for Recycling Fees in Different Scenarios
The best news is the results for scenario S2b. In case that
 there is an environmentally sound solution for local disposal of CRT glass available in
Uganda,
 the estate and building for the recycling plant can be provided by the government and
 initial investment for infrastructure and equipment are funded by a non-repayable
grant
the dismantling plant can be operated without additional recycling fees. Remaining profit from
the recycling of PCs, notebooks, FPD monitors and TV sets are able to compensate the
negative financial balance from recycling CRT TVs, CRT monitors and some other appliance
groups.
Page 66
F.5. CONCLUSIONS
The feasibility study conducted by Blaser et al. [2013] already demonstrated the main
challenges for implementing and operating a manual dismantling facility for e-waste in
Kampala:
 Relatively high purchase costs have to be paid to get the available e-waste as input for
the dismantling facility, even for devices, whose recycling causes higher costs than
generate revenues. Almost 35% of all operational costs have to be accounted for
purchasing e-waste.
 Due to the geographical position of Uganda as a landlocked country and missing
recycling options for a lot of produced output fractions, more than 55% of the produced
output has to be transported long distances to neighboring countries or shipped
overseas for further recycling or final disposal. This results in disposal costs and
international transport cost that eat up more than 25% of potential revenues.
 Among all fractions, international shipment and disposal for CRT glass has the most
significant effect on the financial performance. Due the expected high share of CRT
devices, almost 40% of the output is expected to be CRT glass.
The calculated business plan could show that a manual dismantling facility can be
implemented and operated under the current conditions without additional funds, if
 recycling fees of USD 200 per ton (calculated over all appliance groups) can be
acquired from a take-back-system or directly from the producers,
 the estate and building for the facility can be provided by the government or any other
body without required additional investment for infrastructure,
 the facility can be rented for free during the first two years of operation.
Under these framework conditions, positive operating result and net income can be achieved
already in the second year of operation. If all investments have to be raised as credit, it will
take four years to reimburse this credit from the profit. Afterwards, the dismantling facility can
yield a profit of about USD 20,000 to 30,000 per year. Thus, dismantling of e-waste operated
in a sustainable manner can raise green jobs, under the current conditions it will not be a big
business yielding high profits for investors. Against this background, the operator’s model
(see chapter A.3 for the different options) should be chosen carefully. From our point of view,
an operational form of organization and ownership should be chosen that focuses on
employment and ecological responsibility as part of the company’s identity.
Taking into account that the transport and disposal costs for CRT glass will be almost as high
as the calculated remunerations from recycling fees, strongest effort should be put on
identifying environmentally sound options in Uganda for recycling or disposal of CRT glass.
Modeling different framework conditions within the profit and loss forecast clearly showed
that local solutions for CRT glass would have the most significant effect on the financial
performance of the dismantling facility. Assuming
 local environmentally sound disposal of CRT glass,
 the possibility of funding for investment as a non-repayable grant and
 and a public-private partnership, where the government provides the estate and
building and charges rental costs only after two years of operation
the profit and loss forecast reveals a positive financial performance without getting recycling
fees as additional revenues. Under these optimized framework conditions, the intrinsic value
of appliances like PCs or FPD monitors/TVs are able even to finance recycling costs for
devices like CRTs.
Page 67
PART G) ANNEX
G.1. LIST OF TABLES

Table A-1: Summarized P&L-forecast for a manual dismantling facility in Kampala, Uganda........... 3
Table A-1: WEEE categories according to the EU directive on WEEE [WASSWA, SCHLUEP, 2008]
.............................................................................................................................................. 9
Table A-2: Output fractions from manual dismantling plants and further destinations......................13
Table B-1: Environmental laws related to e-waste management [WASSWA, SCHLUEP, 2008].......17
Table B-2: International conventions and guidelines related e-waste managment [Wasswa, Schluep,
2008].....................................................................................................................................18
Table B-3: Important Stakeholders and their Role for the Facility .................................................22
Table C-1: Assumed purchase prices for the different input streams [USD/piece] ...........................28
Table C-2: Expected input divided per collection schemes ...........................................................28
Table C-3: Expected composition of e-waste per collection scheme ..............................................29
Table C-4: Selected Process Options .........................................................................................31
Table C-5: Selected Efficiencies ...............................................................................................31
Table C-6: Identified downstream options for the output fractions ................................................32
Table C-7: Output fractions and destinations ..............................................................................33
Table C-8: Type of Transport and Storage per Fraction ...............................................................36
Table D-1: Assumed basic data concerning staff composition and working hours ...........................37
Table D-2: Required working hours per year ..............................................................................38
Table D-3: Required full-time equivalents .................................................................................38
Table D-4: Selected staff composition .......................................................................................38
Table D-5: Required space for the dismantling facility ................................................................39
Table D-6: Specific space requirements and acquisition costs for infrastructure and equipment ........43
Table D-7: Calculated investment costs [USD] ...........................................................................47
Table E-1: Expected Purchase Costs and Revenues for WEEE [USD/a] ........................................48
Table E-2: Required Recycling Fees from Producers [USD/a] ......................................................49
Table E-3: Expected Sales Revenues and Disposal Costs per Ton [USD/ton] .................................49
Table E-4: Expected Sales Revenues [USD/a] ............................................................................50
Table E-5: Calculated External Transport Costs [USD/a] .............................................................51
Table E-6: Calculated Disposal Costs [USD/a] ...........................................................................51
Table E-7: Calculated Net Sales Revenues for Commercialization of Fractions [USD/a] .................52
Table E-8: Salaries and personal costs per employee [USD/a] ......................................................53
Table E-9: Staff costs [USD/a] .................................................................................................53
Table E-10: Calculation of costs for low value assests per year [USD/a] ........................................54
Page 68
Table E-11: Calculation of fuel costs per year [USD/a] ................................................................56

Table E-12: Estimated administration costs per year [USD/a] .......................................................57
Table E-13: Calculation of depreciation costs for equipment [USD/a] ...........................................57
Table F-1: Required Recycling Fees/ Remaining Profits USD/t] ...................................................58
Table F-2: Profit & Loss Forecast [USD/a] ................................................................................60
Table F-3: Break-Even Calculation [USD/a, USD]......................................................................62
Table F-4: Modeling Results for Recycling Fees in Different Scenarios .........................................66
G.2. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A-1: Overall process-flow through the facility ..................................................................11
Figure A-2: Examples of different dismantling workstations ........................................................12
Figure B-1: Massflow diagram of computers in Uganda, situation of 2007 [Wasswa, Schluep, 2013] 19
Figure B-2: EEE-distributors and repair shops in the center of Kampala ........................................21
Figure B-3: Required intervention mechanisms to enable e-waste recycling in Uganda [Schluep, 2013]
.............................................................................................................................................23
Figure C-1: Expected Input in t/a ..............................................................................................29
Figure C-2: Expected Input in pieces/a ......................................................................................30
Figure C-3: Different types of transport bundles for collected e-waste ...........................................34
Figure C-4: Different types of storage for output fractions ...........................................................35
Figure D-1: Dismantling workstation, tools and safety equipment .................................................40
Figure D-2: Equipment for transport and logistics .......................................................................41
Figure D-3: Equipment for further treatment steps ......................................................................42
Figure D-4: Examples for often used receptacles ........................................................................43
Figure D-5: Example for storage of hazardous fractions...............................................................45
Figure D-6: Proposed layout.....................................................................................................46
Figure F-1: Operating Results with Different Framework Conditions ............................................64
Figure F-2: Net Income after Taxes with Different Framework Conditions ....................................65
Page 69
G.3. LIST OF REFERENCES
Blaser F., Schluep M., Spitzbart M. [2013]: e-Waste Treatment Facility in Uganda, Economic
Feasibility Study, prepared for United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO), Switzerland/ Austria/ Uganda, July 2013
Ministry of ICT [2012]: Electronic Waste (E-waste) Management Policy for Uganda, Republic
of Uganda, Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Uganda,
August 2012
Schluep M. [2013]: Economic Feasibility of e-Waste Treatment in Uganda, Presentation at
the UNIDO-Stakeholder Workshop, Kampala, Uganda, 9th August 2013
Schluep M., Wasswa J., Kreissler B., Nicholson S. [2008]: e-Waste Generation and
Management in Uganda, Proceedings of the 19th Waste Management Conference
of the IWMSA (WasteCon2008), 6-10th October 2008, Durban, South Africa
UCPC [2013]: Inventory on e-waste management practices in Uganda, prepared by the
Uganda Cleaner Production Centre for United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO), Uganda, October 2013
UNIDO & MICROSOFT [2008]: Promoting Public-Private Partnerships: An innovative
business model to foster pro-poor growth through information and communication
technology (ICT), December 2008
Wasswa J., Schluep M. [2008]: e-Waste Assessment in Uganda, A situational analysis of e-
waste management and generation with special emphasis on personal computers,
Study on behalf of UNIDO & MICROSOFT, May 2008
Worldloop [2013]: Provided documents out of e-waste projects in Tanzania and other African
countries: acquisition costs for equipment and layout considerations
Page 70

E-Waste Treatment Facility in Uganda Business Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-Waste Treatment Facility in Uganda Business Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-Waste Treatment Facility in Uganda

Draft Report, May 2014

Prepared for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

We want to thank the following organizations for supporting the project

Total Depreciation -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040 -2,040

Operating Result -8,320 62,948 32,193 40,400 51,494

D.3. Required Investments............................................................................................47

A.1.1. HISTORY AND SETUP OF THE PROJECT

A.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNED RECYCLING

A.2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROCESS CHAIN

Figure A-1: Overall process-flow through the facility

E-waste generated by companies, organizations and authorities has to be acquired directly

Figure A-2: Examples of different dismantling workstations

A.2.3. DOWNSTREAM OPTIONS

Usually it is possible to commercialize several fractions at the national or regional market

A.3. OPTIONS FOR OWNERSHIP AND

B.1. CURRENT SITUATION

E-Waste Related Legislation

Legal instrument Objective of legislation

Licensing Relevant Legislation

B.1.2. E-WASTE GENERATION AND CURRENT MASSFLOWS

B.1.3. STAKEHOLDERS AND COMPETITORS

Manufacturers, Importers and Distributors

Figure B-2: EEE-distributors and repair shops in the center of Kampala

Collectors, Recyclers and Disposal Facilities

Stakeholder Overview and their Roles for the Facility

Based on the considerations above, important initial intervention steps concerning

B.2. OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS

B.3. PROPOSED SETUP

B.3.2. ASSUMED FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS

C.1. COLLECTION STRATEGY

C.1.2. INPUT STREAMS

Input stream 2: B2B-collection (business-to-business):

Input stream 3: collection from repair shops

Input stream 4: decentralized collection points:

C.1.3. PURCHASE CONDITIONS

C.2. EXPECTED INPUT

Expected Input [t/a]

Figure C-1: Expected Input in t/a

Expected Input [t/a]

25,000 FPD TV 1,142

20,000 Printer/Scanner/Copier 1,000 5,979

Figure C-2: Expected Input in pieces/a

C.3. PRODUCED OUTPUT FRACTIONS

Selected Further CRT- Cable- Plastic-

C.3.2. EXISTING DOWNSTREAM OPTIONS

Disposal of non- Disposal of hazardous

Output after Dismantling and CRT-Processingt [t/a]

C.3.3. SELECTED TRANSPORT AND STORAGE OPTIONS

Collection in lattice boxes

Collection on pallets Collection in containers

Type of Transport and Storage for Outgoing Fractions

Lattice boxes Container

Plastic drums for hazardous fractions Bulk storage

D.1. REQUIRED HUMAN RESOURCES

Employees Quantities Calculation bases

D.1.2. REQUIRED STAFF

D.2. INFRASTRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT

Table D-5: Required space for the dismantling facility

D.2.2. REQUIRED EQUIPMENT

Dismantling workstation, tools and safety equipment

Dismantling working place Overall and safety boots

Toolbox and Safety Equipment