Why People Dig Through Garbage in Peru

According to Peru’s National Institute of Statistics, 39.3 percent of Peru’s population live in poverty. Jobs are scarce. The Peruvian government generally does a poor job of collecting trash and there is almost no formal recycling in the country. Garbage is just placed on the streets of Peru in whatever kind of plastic bag is available. In the capital city of Lima, where approximately one third of Peru’s 28 million people live, residents take out the trash on a daily basis. In other cities, it also generally is a fairly regular activity. So, with a regular supply of garbage, an organized industry of black market recycling has erupted.

For an American like myself, it was an odd and uncomfortable feeling when I first saw people digging through my trash, pulling out empty soda bottles, cans, and other items that might be of use. I began to wonder why this was occurring, so I asked my wife who is Peruvian to explain. She described initially that “it was a job” and that many people in Peru were happy just to have one. Next she said that the plastic bottles and other items were sometimes sold to businesses that would sometimes refill the bottles and containers with unsanitary water, phony liquids, fake pharmaceutical substances, and other cheap impostors. These fake items are then sold to Peru’s poor, or to the general public by stores that choose not to monitor that their suppliers are legitimate.

Sounds bad, right? Well, as I wrote earlier, it’s not that simple.

Peru’s Recycling Problem and Another Ethical Dilemma

According to one of the more comprehensive and well-written guidebooks about Peru that I own,

nearly 200 million plastic bottles are produced every month in Peru alone, and a good chunk of these are consumed by tourists– who need a few liters of purified water for each day in Peru… There is no plastic recycling in Peru, so everything ends up in landfills or, as is the case with the Urubamba, floating downstream to the Amazon.

Ouch! So at least someone is recycling in Peru.

But what are the negative consequences for people who collect re-usable and recyclable items for the black market? In addition to the almost assured disability to earn a tremendous amount of money, there are the health issues involved. The constant need to search through waste exposes these impoverished people to disease, toxic substances, and any other number of negative environmental factors. For example, there are the increased instances of being near the ubiquitous street dogs that live in Peru– a potentially nasty health hazard.

There is also the issue of child labor. An estimated 2.3 million children between the ages of 6 and 17 work in Peru, almost a third of that demographic. Many of them collect trash. Click here to read the story of Diego, a 13-year-old trash collector. One can only guess that sifting through garbage pounds a heavy psychological and physical toll on much of Peru’s youth.

So these circumstances explain why I have a dilemma on every day that I take out the trash. If I were to cut up my family’s plastic bottles, boxes, and other recyclables, I’d be helping to curtail a black market industry that preys on the poor and unsuspecting with shoddy and unhealthy products. On the other hand, if I did so, I’d also be contributing to the tons and tons of waste accumulating in Peru every day, stymying what little recycling there is in Peru (and some of it is legitimate), and also putting some very desperate and needy people out of potential earnings and jobs. So, I’ve decided (at least so far), that it’s the lesser of two evils to continue putting my recyclables out on the street for the taking. But it hasn’t stopped me wondering how this problem might be solved, or at least improved.

Potential Solutions to the Problem, and One Bright Shining Example of Creativity

One solution to the problem would be for the Peruvian government to improve their waste management programs and actually start a serious recycling program that could employ impoverished Peruvians. Such infrastructure improvements would fit in well, for example, as part of the Peruvian President Alan Garcia’s plan for Peru to bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. The government could also choose to crack-down upon those businesses who sell and produce impostor products. During my research for this article, however, I found an example of an organization that has already worked within the circumstances to brilliantly turn the tables on the negative aspects of black market recycling.

A Peruvian industrial engineer named Albina Ruiz created a powerful organization to help Peru address its waste management problem. Ciudad Saludable (Healthy City) helps to empower local Peruvian communities by having local businesses privatize the management of trash. In addition to employing 150 people, serving 3 million people, and cleaning up countless communities, Ciudad Saludable helps educate people about environmental issues and some of its employees have even begun to make organic fertilizer from the garbage they collect. For these successes, Ruiz was praised as “A New Hero” by a PBS program, was asked to create a national program for Peru, and has been contacted by other countries in Latin America interested in modeling their efforts on those of Ciudad Saludable. The organization also beat out 700 international environmental organizations to win an “Innovative Environment Project” award this year.

I think we all can say, best wishes Ms. Ruiz on leading Peru to a better future in every possible way (but don’t feel free to ignore the problem, either, government of Peru).

For more information on how you can donate money to the efforts of Ciudad Saludable, click here. For the organization’s website click here.

Related on the GO Network:

Life Hack: Make Money While Recycling in Greece by Stefanos Kofopoulus

City is not the Problem, City is the Solution by Janel Sterbentz

Urban Options: Fundamentalist Recycling and the Point of Sale Conscience by Robin Schidlowski

Recycling Misconceptions, Part Deux: “Sure, I Recycle Paper” by Kyle Weatherholtz

More Cities and Stores Banning Plastic Bags by Janel Sterbentz

China Bans Certain Plastic Bags and Charges for Others by Jennifer Lance

Photo Credit: shioshvili at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Critics of the plan emerged quickly, and Peru’s prime minister was equally fast to label the critics as “the same ones that some time ago said Peru couldn’t host the EU-LAC summit and were pessimistic when it was announced.” Peru’s current infrastructure does raise numerous doubts about how successful the Olympics could be in Peru. Lima would no doubt host the lion’s share of events, while Cuzco, Trujillo, Arequipa, and others cities might play a part as well. Traffic problems, environmental and social issues, and financial difficulties could all make the Olympics a disastrous and harmful event for Peru. But, also, despite what the critics might say, the move to bid for the Olympics might have been a brilliant and ingenious action thought up by President Alan Garcia’s staff.

An interesting scientific study and analysis by two researchers in a 1998 edition of the journal Leisure Studies points to a few tips for Peru. In their article “Olympic Games: Catalyst of Urban Change” (subscription required) Stephen Essex and Brian Chalkey discuss how most Olympics play a transformational role in the cities where they take place. They cite Barcelona, Spain’s excellent use of the 1992 Olympics to revamp its transportation routes and system, upgrade its sewage system, rehabilitate a “run-down coastal area” that housed failing industries with a marina and beaches, and also upgrade telecommunications technology, helping facilitate the growth of new business opportunities. Sydney, Australia is credited in 2000 with starting a new wave in sustainable development and green design for the Olympics. The authors also mention how Tokyo, Japan in 1964 and Seoul, South Korea in 1988 were successful in their efforts to build roads and enhance public health through revisions to sewage and waste disposal systems, air pollution programs, and water quality improvements. So when does an Olympics go wrong?

One of the key factors that causes a city to suffer from hosting an Olympics, according to Essex and Chalkey, is when the city chooses to construct new facilities through private funding, rather than restoring and enhancing old facilities through a combination of government and private funding. These “show facilities” are meant to provide a new image for a city and country, but often end up costing more money they are worth and are paid for and subsequently used by businesses and corporations that do little to provide jobs and economic development for local communities. In fact, they might help to widen the gap between those people who are most in need of economic jump-starts in their communities, and the wealthy tourists and locals who can afford to use these new facilities and attend Olympic events.

This privatized hijacking of sorts has been one of the criticisms made toward the Beijing, China Olympics that will be held later this year. It was also one of the major failings of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. On the other hand, in 1976, Montreal, Canada failed miserably by attempting to build an “Olympic Park” solely with public financing, and consequently put itself and its citizens in serious debt. Essex and Chalkey note that the Los Angeles, California Olympics of 1984 was a huge financial success largely because older facilities were used, and events were spread out throughout the city and outlying communities, so as to lessen the burden on traffic.

Traffic and transportation systems seem to be a major issue for hosting a successful Olympics. Essex and Chalkey describe how Mexico City’s 1968 Olympics caused a tremendous burden upon the transportation needs of the local population. They mention how protests were also initiated because many Mexican citizens believed that the money to pay for the Olympics should have been used to alleviate poverty instead. Atlanta likewise suffered in 1996 from terrible traffic congestion, as private funders did not invest in improving infrastructure like roads and public transportation.

So what does this all mean for Peru and Lima? It’s hard to say. Lima’s transportation system is currently inadequate for hosting an event on the scale of the Olympics. Recycling, waste management, and water treatment facilities are in need of tremendous improvements. But while it’s easy to dwell on these negatives, perhaps President Garcia and his staff envision the Peru Olympics mirroring those took place in Barcelona, Seoul, Tokyo, and Sydney. Also on the side of positive thinking, even those cities that fail in their efforts to win an Olympic bid sometimes are left with city improvements because of their efforts to try to win the right to host an Olympics.

While we can only speculate as to whether or not Lima and Peru would be able to have a successful Olympics, it still remains to be seen if the International Olympic Committee will accept Peru’s application after the deadline. In June of this year, the committee will create a short list of applicant cities who are still in contention. The final selection of which city will host the 2016 Olympics will occur in October of 2009. Other cities who have submitted applications include

• Baku, Azerbaijin
• Chicago, United States
• Doha, Qatar
• Madrid, Spain
• Prague, Czech Republic
• Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
• and Tokyo, Japan

Good luck, Peru. And cheers to your ambition and optimism President Garcia to advance your country, despite what challenges an Olympics in Peru might create.

Related on the GO Network:

Football: Euro 2008 to be “One Big Toilet” by Mark Seall

Beijing’s Olympic Forest Goes for Gold with Sustainability by Michael dEstries

Korean Environmental Leader Refuses the Olympic Torch by Gavin Hudson

Photo Credit: Striatic at Flickr under a Creative Commons license

This facility at Waste Management’s (WMI: NYSE) Altamont Landfill in Livermore, California will begin operation in 2009. It comes with a price tag of $15.5 million, with grants providing $1.4 million.

Cleaner Fuel

Waste Management is the largest waste management company in North America and operates the largest US fleet of heavy-duty collection trucks. The company has a goal to reduce fleet emissions by 15% by 2020.

The new facility will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30,000 tons per year, according to Linde North America. LNG is a cleaner burning transportation fuel that emits less nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and particulates than diesel-fueled vehicles.

Duane Woods, senior vice president, Western group of Waste Management, said, “This will be the largest plant of its kind and we hope to break new ground by producing commercial quantities. Natural gas is already the cleanest burning fuel available for our collection trucks, and the opportunity to use recovered landfill gas offers enormous environmental benefits to the communities we serve.”

Demand for Low-carbon Fuels

California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 and other states may follow. Demand for low-carbon fuels is expected to increase significantly in California as the state starts requiring a decrease in carbon emissions. Waste Management will be ahead of the curve by having plants like this in operation, creating lucrative business opportunities.

Related Posts on Alternative Fuels:

• Landfill Gas Heats and Powers School
• The Cleanest Cars on Earth: Honda Civic GX and Other Natural Gas Vehicles (NGV’s)
• Natural Gas Cars: CNG Fuel Almost Free in Some Parts of the Country

Photo Credit: Waste Management