006 Gutberlet
006 Gutberlet
006 Gutberlet
Department of Geography, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada
ABSTRACT: The generation of waste is a key concern in the city, particularly when inadequacies,
absences and weaknesses shape local waste management. The instruments, modes, procedures and
different actors that are involved and the patterns that arise influence governance outcomes. When
informal waste pickers organize collectively, e.g. as community-based organizations (CBOs), for
example youth-groups, cooperatives, associations, unions, networks or micro-enterprises and when
they engage in dialogues and partnerships with Government, industry or NGOs they create
opportunities to address sustainability. Through their everyday work waste picker organizations have
developed important spaces where innovations for sustainability and social justice can happen. These
grassroots social innovations are knowledge centers, sometimes constituting new technological
approaches, such as designing new products and finding new markets for discarded materials. They
discover novel ways of organizing themselves and their work flow and of managing their human and
material resources. Or they become involved in the dialogue and negotiations for new policies and legal
frameworks, benefitting organized waste pickers, the community and the environment. Diverse social
innovations have evolved out of the everyday work perspective of waste pickers, building on their local
knowledges on waste. While often unrecognized and unsupported waste picker organizations all over
the globe are contributing to improving the urban environment, reducing the carbon footprint of cities,
recovering resources, improving the environmental conditions and health of low-income residents, and
creating many jobs and income, particularly among the poor. Sometimes waste picker organizations
use the knowledge they have generated and accumulated as a resource to impact institutional reforms
and structural changes to waste management and waste governance. Overall their work addresses
several of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly poverty reduction (goal # 1),
reduction of inequalities (goal # 5), decent work and economic growth (goal # 8), sustainable cities and
communities (goal # 11), and sustainable consumption and production patterns (goal # 12). This paper
will share findings from research conducted in 2018, mostly in Brazil on waste governance and
grassroots social innovations, as part of an international research project. Case study data from the
metropolitan region and the interior of São Paulo provides insights on some of the innovations of these
groups, the immediate outcomes, as well as some of the remaining challenges and policy
recommendations.
Keywords: waste governance, waste management, waste pickers, grassroots social innovations, sustainable
development goals, SDGs
The human population worldwide generates unprecedented amounts of solid waste, two billion
tonnes per year of municipal waste in cities alone, and these amounts are expected to further rise and
even double by 2030 (UNEP, 2017). Not to overlook is the fact that since 1950 the world’s urban
population has grown from 746 million to 3.9 billion in 2014 (UNESCAP, 2014). Estimates show that 3
billion people worldwide are lacking waste collection and adequate waste disposal facilities, which
poses health risks (infections, exposure to chemicals, dust) and environmental impacts (soil and water
pollution, GHG emissions) (UNEP, 2019). The challenge is not only how we deal with waste, but how
and what we produce and consume. Cities are core drivers of the waste problem, but they are also
places, where significant change can happen. The problematic realities that emerge with waste
obviously require robust solutions.
Local governments have important decisions to make on how to best handle the complex waste
issues. Among the key challenges particularly global South cities are facing is the inability and absence
of the state in providing services and infrastructure to informal settlements and, as a consequence, the
trend of privatization of solid waste management services (Latendresse & Bornstein, 2017). Waste
governance sets out strategic goals and guiding principles, applies legal and financial instruments,
institutional arrangements, procedures and modes of operation, and involves different actors to address
waste collection and management (Kooiman, 2003). Particularly polycentric (Andersson & Ostrom,
2008) and multilevel governance (Benz, 2007; Kübler & Pagano, 2012) is cumulatively additive and
complementary and thus has the potential to enhance innovations, levels of cooperation between
participants for better outcomes and innovative learning. In this case, “[p]olitical authority is dispersed to
separately constituted bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship
to each other” (Skelcher, 2005, p. 89). By tailoring governance to the specific local circumstances and
by enhancing accountability and transparency, more trust is developed within the community, creating
the ability to address big challenges, such as waste and poverty.
In many parts of the world waste pickers are the major recycling force, particularly when formal
recycling programs are lacking (Medina, 2000; Wilson et al., 2006, 2012; Chaturvedi & Gidwani, 2010;
Samson, 2009; Scheinberg, 2011; Linzner & Lange, 2013; Gutberlet, 2008; 2016). An estimated 15 to
20 million people are operating globally as waste pickers, many of them still on dumpsites (ILO, 2013).
There is great potential to improve selective waste collection and recycling in the city, increasing
material recovery rates, levels of reuse and material diversion into the circular economy with the
inclusion of organized waste pickers. There are several examples where governments have allowed for
the formal participation of waste pickers in local waste management (Arpacana, 2017; Ezeah et al.,
2013). In many of these cases the innovations coming from the waste picker sector have enabled better
selective waste collection programs, more social and economic inclusion, and have contributed to
building better communities and a cleaner environment. While many hurdles still remain, there is
currently a noticeable momentum of rising policy urgency related to waste issues.
Innovative environmental waste governance has the potential to tackle Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), the United Nations Development Program universal call to action to end poverty, protect
the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. Particularly the following goals can be
addressed through innovative waste management, as will be demonstrated later: SDG1: End poverty;
SDG5: Achieve gender equality; SDG8: Productive employment and decent work; SGD11: Make cities
and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable and SDG12: Ensure sustainable
consumption and production patterns.
The paper starts with providing an introduction to the literature on grassroots social innovations and
will link the discussion specifically to waste and waste pickers, based on empirical evidence. The next
section highlights the context of waste governance, specifically defining polycentric and multilevel
governance, as a prospective format and mode that can address the challenges that come with waste
management. Waste is no longer an issue to be dealt with solely by engineers and through improved
technology, but rather requires the involvement of multiple actors in addressing waste from production,
Seyfang and Smith have coined the term ‘grassroots innovations’ to “describe networks of activists
and organizations generating novel bottom up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that
respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” (2007, p. 585).
Grassroots social innovations are bottom-up, reflect ordinary peoples’ everyday life experiences and
struggles and involve democratic processes, actively engaging community members in the design,
development or production of an innovation, to benefit their community or the public at large, by bringing
social change developed, approved and owned by the grassroots. Social innovations can be linked to a
technology, a strategy and a management or governance practice. This involves “any type of
collaborative social undertaking that is organized at the local community level, has a high degree of
participatory decision-making and flat hierarchies" (Grabs et al., 2016, p. 100). I focus particularly on
grassroots and community-based social initiatives that emerge from organized waste pickers, in specific
local contexts and that explore alternative configurations in waste management, shaping governance
outcomes.
Smith, Fressoli and Thomas (2014) highlight the fact that grassroots movements seek socially
inclusive knowledge, processes and outcomes geared towards local communities. Grabs et al. (2016)
describe the different levels that influence successful grassroots innovations. At the individual level,
those involved in the innovation process act as role models, providing the social stimulus for the
development of the innovation. The group level promotes community action, engagement and support,
which increases the capacity to expand the innovation. Finally, with the societal level backing up the
innovation change, e.g. to local infrastructure can happen. There are obvious limitations to the process
of grassroots social innovations, primarily linked to the vulnerable situations of grassroots members in
terms of unstable employment, low income, racial inequality, low education levels, lack of social
services for this part of the population, and low access and insufficient health care (Gerometta et al.,
2005). Further barriers to the successful grassroots innovations are rural living location, overall lack of
recognition and even stigmatization of certain groups like waste pickers and little support from
community and family members.
Community support is crucial for an innovation to develop further, which means acknowledging
community inputs, values, and needs. It is also about continuity, persistence and engagement, involving
continuous learning and adapting to change. Cities are places of innovation, sites where new economic
ideas arise and were people organize in diverse and creative forms seeking to address everyday
politics, struggling for just and healthy cities.
3. WASTE GOVERNANCE
For cities in the global South to transition into more sustainable urban agglomerations, the
participation of grassroots actors and a shift in governance towards environmental governance is
required. The authors Lemos and Agrawal define environmental governance as the “interventions
aiming at changes in environment-related incentives, knowledge, institutions, decision making, and
behaviors” (2006, p. 298). It is about the set of rules and regulations, mechanisms and organizations
Figure 2. Key sectors and key actors involved in waste governance in the city of São Paulo
The example for partnerships established between waste picker cooperatives, via their network
(WPN), to deliver waste services to the municipality or specific industries, as discussed earlier, are also
a good example for multilevel and polycentric governance structures applied to the municipal level,
allowing for innovative approaches in waste reduction, collection and diversion.
Similar to other recent international research reports (UN, 2017; 2014; WBGU, 2016), the 2016 UN
Habitat World Cities Report makes it very clear that “the new urban agenda should promote sustainable
cities and human settlements that are environmentally sustainable and resilient, socially inclusive, safe
and violence-free, economically productive; and better connected to and contributing towards sustained
rural transformation” (UN Habitat, 2016, p.2). The newly adopted 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development presents 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to focus on in order to address
sustainability transition (Gupta & Vegelin, 2016; Le Blanc, 2015). Waste is a central topic in moving
towards sustainability transitions in cities of the global South. In this section I will argue, based on
research results and the literature, that inclusive forms of polycentric, multilevel, environmental
governance can tackle most of the SDGs. The following table (Table 1) describes nine goals that can be
tackled at various levels with innovative and inclusive approaches to waste management and
governance. In this paper the focus will be on the most evident contributions to only five of these goals.
Table 1: Waste picker organizations contributing to waste governance and tackling SDGs
SDG SDG Theme SDF Focus Links to grassroots membership- Links to polycentric and
based organizations (MBOs) and multilevel, environmental
waste picker networks (WPNs) governance
Goal No Poverty Economic growth MBOs provide income andSpecific policies, programs
1 must be inclusive to opportunities for human and skill and strategies in support of
provide sustainable development. WPNs provide
inclusive selective waste
jobs and promote capacity building and skill
collection, remunerating
equality. development to expand income MBOs for the resource
opportunities. recovery service they provide,
thus tackling poverty
reduction.
Goal Gender Gender equality is The majority of waste pickers Social work reaches women in
5 Equality not only a working in MBOs are women. vulnerable situations (single
fundamental Women participate to a large parent, abusive relationship,
human right, but a extend in the leadership of MBOs. poverty, illiteracy, etc.) in
necessary MBOs for specific actions to
foundation for a address these cases.
peaceful,
prosperous and
sustainable world.
Goal Decent Work Sustainable Improved working conditions in Decent work and economic
8 and Economic economic growth MBOs, following labor laws and growth are only possible with
Growth will require regulations; adding to economic fair service remuneration.
societies to create growth. WPNs help MBOs to MBOs and WPNs are key
the conditions that improve their working conditions actors in negotiating waste
allow people to and outcomes (work flow management contracts. Public
have quality jobs. organization, work efficiency and policies, laws and bylaws
effectiveness, health and safety at guarantee fair co-production.
work).
Goal Industry, Investments in Innovation and investment in Policy and funding availability
9 Innovation infrastructure are infrastructure to improve specifically to stimulate
and crucial to achieving collection, sorting, grassroots social innovations
Infrastructure sustainable commercialization and in waste management and
development. transformations to add value. waste governance.
WPNs support collective
commercialization and
Goal Reduced Policies should be MBOs are mostly equity oriented, Support from social work to
10 Inequalities universal in following cooperative principles address the many social
principle, paying and values, applying self- challenges deriving from
attention to the determination and collective, inequality (e.g. alcohol and
needs of democratic deliberation processes. drug abuse, violence,
disadvantaged and WPNs make an effort to support illiteracy, homelessness,
marginalized less structured and weaker MBOs. stigmatization).
populations.
Goal Sustainable There needs to be a Recycling and education services Creating public fora with
11 Cities and future in which provided by waste pickers benefit multiple actor participation to
Communities cities provide local communities, reducing the stimulate and cross-fertilize
opportunities for waste of materials, reducing the the drive for healthy cities and
all, with access to risk of water logging and flooding, communities; recognizing the
basic services, etc. WPNs participate in different role waste pickers can play in
energy, housing, city forums, contributing ideas and this drive. MBOs and WPNs
transportation and experience in waste management. have important voices and
more. ideas to share.
Goal Responsible Responsible Waste picker MBOs educate the MBOs and WPNs participate
12 Production Production and public on the 3Rs. They present at in environmental awareness
and Consumption. schools, universities or businesses; campaigns for zero waste and
Consumption participate in conferences, responsible consumption.
workshops and seminars; make They participate in business
videos and art projects and council meetings and other
disseminate environmental stakeholder committees.
education materials on 3Rs and
how to best separate materials.
WPNs and MNCR are active in
discussions on responsible
production and consumption
(reverse logistics).
Goal Climate Action Climate change is a Waste pickers are at the core of Qualify the work of resource
13 global challenge resource recovery and the circular recovery waste pickers
that affects economy. They reduce landfill gas perform as 'clean
everyone, emissions (methane). GHG development mechanism' and
everywhere. emissions and energy are saved remunerate waste picker
from the resource recovery for MBOs for GHG emission
recycling, sparing virgin resources. reductions.
WPNs and MNCR are active in
discussions and activities on climate
action.
Goal Life Below Careful Waste pickers collect recyclables There is not yet a program in
14 Water management of which could otherwise be leaking place to actively strengthen
this essential global into the environment and and support waste picker
resource is a key waterbodies. The WPNs nor MNCR MBOs in coastal communities,
feature of a have yet engaged as concerted specifically gearing their
sustainable future. effort in this SDG. efforts to avoid waste leakage
into the ocean.
SDG # 1 urges for poverty reduction. Waste pickers are numerous throughout the global South with
approximately 1 to 1.5 per cent of the urban population working informally or semi-informally with waste.
There are opportunities for poverty reduction in waste management.
The ILO estimates approximately 15 to 20 million informal waste workers worldwide with very low
incomes, often living below the poverty level. For Latin America and the Caribbean, estimates suggest
up to 3.8 million waste pickers, most of them working independently (Terraza & Sturzenegger, 2010).
Census data from Brazil shows that only 38.6 per cent of the waste pickers in Brazil work in formalized
organizations (IBGE, 2012). The monthly income of waste pickers varies significantly, depending on
whether they work independently or are organized, depending on the location where they work, the
access to infrastructure and technology, as well as the quality and quantity of materials, and level of
collective organization of the waste picker groups in the hierarchy of the commercialization of their
materials. In most cases waste pickers earn a higher income when they are organized and work
collectively.
Research results from the interviews unanimously underline the fact that the environmental and
community services waste pickers provide on a daily routine need to be fairly remunerated. Those
groups that have established a contract for the services of collection and waste diversion, are in a better
economic condition and are able to improve their working conditions. The municipal contracts are a
pathway to providing income security. However, without the support of the local government, and
without paying a fair price for the work of waste pickers the aim of eradicating poverty will not be
reached. In addition to income security, the ILO (2002) underlines the necessity for representation
security for decent work conditions. The better the representation, e.g. by the national waste pickers
movement (Movimento Nacional dos Catadores de Materiais Recicláveis), or waste picker networks,
the more powerful waste pickers are in negotiating contracts with the Government. Depending solely on
the income of commercializing the materials they have collected and separated will only perpetuate
poverty. This recommendation relates closely to SDG # 8.
Several international agencies, including the United Nations, the International Labor Organization,
and the International Co-operative Alliance, have declared that “the cooperative enterprise is the type of
organization that best meets all dimensions of reducing poverty and exclusion” (Wanyama, 2014, p. 59).
This has to do with the collective and value-based approach cooperatives take, that often empowers the
disadvantaged to fight for their rights and interests, and provides security (e.g. job security) given their
collective and solidarity-based way of operating.
Many of the waste picker networks also have the mandate to improve the working conditions and
outcomes (work flow organization, work efficiency and effectiveness, health and safety at work) in waste
picker MBOs, following labor laws and regulations.
The organized work of waste pickers also contributes towards SDG # 5, achieving gender equality.
The cooperative space attracts more women than men. It is an environment that affirms collective
female identities, allowing them to value themselves, develop personal self-esteem and provide
opportunities for personal growth, empowerment and leadership development Dias & Ogando, 2015). A
regional study identifies 56 per cent of organized waste pickers as women (INSEA Instituto Nenuca de
5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The research shows how waste picker networks, as grassroots social innovation, enable collective
commercialization among network members as a form of improving income (and thus tackling SDG #1)
but also as an important starting point for the beginning of the articulation between waste picker
organizations, local governments and industries. Having a concrete and tangible goal, such as
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I acknowledge funding for this research from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada as well as from the Swedish Research Council. I would like to thank all waste picker
representatives who have participated and contributed to this research, as well as my colleagues from
the research project Environmental Governance in the São Paulo Macrometropolis, funded by the
Funding Agency of the State of São Paulo FAPESP, Brazil – Process No. 2015/03804-9.
REFERENCES
Andersson, K.P. & Ostrom, E. (2008) Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective.
Policy Sciences, 41, 71-93.
Aparcana, S. (2017) Approaches to formalization of the informal waste sector into municipal solid waste
management systems in low- and middle-income countries: Review of barriers and success factors. Waste
Management, 61 (2017), 593–607.
Aquino, I. F.; Castilho Jr., A. B. & Pires, T. S. D. L. A (2009) Organização em rede dos catadores de materiais
recicláveis na cadeia produtiva reversa de pós-consumo da região da grande florianópolis: uma alternativa de
agregação de valor. Gestão & Produção, 16 (1), 15–24.
Asim, M.; Batool, S.A. & Chaudhry, M.N. (2012) Scavengers and their role in the recycling of waste in
Southwestern Lahore. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 58, 152–162
Benz, A. (2007) Multilevel governance. In: Benz, A. et al. Handbuch Governance. Theoretische Grundlagen und
empirische Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 297-310.
Besen, G. R.; Ribeiro, H.; Gunther, W. M. R. & Jacobi, P. R. (2014) Selective waste collection in the São Paulo
metropolitan region: impacts of the national solid waste policy. Ambiente & Sociedade [online], Vol. XVII (3):
253-272. Doi: 10.1590/S1414-753X2014000300015.
Besen, G.R. and Fracalanza, A.P. (2016) Challenges for the Sustainable Management of Municipal Solid Waste in
Brazil. Journal disP - The Planning Review. 52 (2), 45-52. DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2016.1195583