Waste...not?

Blogger and social critic Gerry Popplestone recently commented on the current state of waste, recycling and reuse from a consumer's perspective. He gives a few examples from the developing world, including a great example of passive integrated waste "management" in Brazil where the scavengers work so effectively that the people have no concern about littering, don't sort their garbage and yet they have one of the highest rates of aluminum can recycling thanks to "homeless" scavengers. These collectors can make a decent living at collecting cans, the author citing an AP press article from January 3, 2000, he writes about one case where the scavenger makes almost twice the median wage in Brazil ($260/week compared to $140).

In an older article on scavengers, he questions the sensationalism around scavenging, including statistics inflation by NGOs seeking funding and resources. The author asserts that formal waste collectors no longer have an adversarial relationship with scavengers, and view them as useful contributions to the process of waste management. Oh, how I wish it were true! He read Wilson, Whiteman & Tormin, and also some of Medina's articles, but apparently didn't see where Medina classifies the four levels of municipal response to scavengers, only one of which is supportive! In many places scavengers are exploited, or worse, repressed by those in power, whether the municipality or the private sector (with the muni turning a blind eye).

He refers to the sa leng system of informal collectors in Bangkok. Quoting a World Bank study, 70% of Bangkok's wastes are collected by a combination of both formal and informal sector workers. It doesn't say how much money the muni saves by not paying the informal workers but it does say a muni collector makes about 700 baht/day ($19) and there are approximately 15,000 sa leng plus 4,000 scavengers, which would come out to a savings of US $361,000 per day! Many articles, including this one, do not stress this enough. Not only are the scavengers providing a public good (public health) in the form of collecting wastes, and also an environmental good by reducing the waste , but they are also saving the municipality a lot of money in collection, transport and disposal costs.

Posted by Katrina Mitchell at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"...you do see families working, even living, on the dumps. I am not sure that they actually decide to go to the dump to sort through the waste for anything worth recycling. I think they go because they have no choice."

While the reason people start scavenging is most likely out of lack of opportunity (Portes' neoliberal viewpoint, and one upheld by many, including Wilson and Medina), they might not continue working the dumps if the pay wasn't better than what they could find as unskilled laborers elsewhere. The recent downturn in the recycling market is driving families in China to return to subsistence farming as their relatively meager incomes are half what they were just a few months ago. In other places, organized waste workers can make up to 3 times the minimum wage (Medina) and through collectives, they control sorting and storing facilities, and have improved working conditions.

Buzzards and people compete for sustenance at the San Pedro Sula dump.

"The environmental impact of unregulated dumps is considerable. The most immediate impact, the one that you notice first, is the smell. The rotting organic matter attracts insects and rodents, both transmitters of disease. As the matter decomposes it creates other problems, such as organic acids that leach out and pollute rivers and underground sources of water. The decomposition also creates methane, the worst of the greenhouse houses responsible for global warming. The methane often results in uncontrolled fires within the body of the garbage, which are almost impossible to extinguish until the rains come.

Taking everything into account – resource recovery, public health, economic opportunity, environmental protection – it seems that the best long term solution is integrated management for waste reduction. This could be achieved through a number of supportive policies including encouraging informal collection through concessions directly with scavengers, helping scavengers set up enterprises to turn waste into resource (food for livestock, creative consumer goods, building materials), and encouraging waste worker organizations to improve working conditions at the dumpsite.

Posted by Katrina Mitchell at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to the Economist article, "the economic downturn has cut prices for recyclables by half or more since last summer." Where are these figures coming from and how can I get them?

Posted by Katrina Mitchell at 11:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This commentary on the Economist article about recycling and cost state that when new construction declines the rag pickers in less developed countries (India) feel the pinch.

It also argues that the rag pickers are more effective at diverting waste from landfill and they do more complex sorting at a much lower cost. Of course, the environmental justice and human rights aspects of their livelihood are not internalized into the cost. Material recycling facilities (MRFs) are very costly, and it is challenging to recover the costs with resource recovery. Adding simple sorting facilities and ensuring basic rights (such as freedom from exploitation) for waste pickers could elevate their working/living conditions while retaining the simplicity and effectiveness of waste picking.

Posted by Katrina Mitchell at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)