International - Sanitation

IN FOCUS

Sanitation

"UDDT at rural area (5984471812)" by SuSanA Secretariat - via Wikimedia Commons 

Sanitation in informal settlements: A networked Problem

Sanitation is a challenge in all parts of the world. Developed nations continually face challenges of growing populations and maintaining working systems, but developing nations face these issues and more. According to the article produced by Colin Mcfarlane for IIED many common sanitation challenges include perception of sanitation as a private good, misplaced community and national priorities, political will, unaccountable public departments, education, and discrimination. These challenges are not independent of each other and they must be conceptualized within the context of the lives of the urban poor.

Mcfarline’s main thesis is a belief that “if sanitation solutions are to work, they must be rooted in […] contexts, lives, and perception of the poor.” Citing his multi-country analysis, they found solutions must be context-specific. Thus global initiatives need to be location specific and “understanding the context and challenges of a particular group in particular cities” will make for a more effective approach.

What is most interesting concept here is that of sites of entitlement as a reflection of moral economies. Sites of entitlement are areas in which a groups’ understanding of their entitlement, or lack-there-of, is dictated by their every day experiences, interactions, and relations with other people, the government, and other systems. Moral economies are a groups’  understanding of what the state should provide verse what other actors (private sector or NGOs) should provide for access and maintenance; in this case, specifically referring to sanitation systems.

He states “[Moral economies] are made socially and [are] subject to change through different individual circumstances, collective struggles, and changing conditions within and beyond neighborhoods”. This idea of moral economies as reflective of a specific communities experience is important. One could imagine communities in urban New York USA to have entirely different needs, wants, and experiences from communities in rural Louisiana. Why, then, is our approach to global aid different? Why is there continual persistence in the belief of copy and paste methodology?

.

The article is specific to urban sanitation, but this is an important lens for environmental engagement and community development as a whole. As is the case with successful urban sanitation projects, the larger umbrella of development would benefit from a networked process approach that is geographically and contextually specific. Development viewed through the scope of sites of entitlement influenced by moral economies that cater to and engage with specific communities based on their needs will make for better development. 

Local- E-Waste in the EU and lots of happy tidbits (titbits if you aren't American)

IN FOCUS

E-Waste in the EU

By bleahbleahbleah via Wikimedia Commons

We are in an era where electronics are an ever growing part of human life on Earth. People from the first world to the developing world produce an estimated 40 million tonnes of electronic waste. The rate of consumption is made worse by falling prices and cheaper production. Disposable electronics are now within the reach of many more people as countries like India and China’s middle class expand. Countries like Myanmar are seeing massive expansions of electronic use as businesses expand their markets into previously limited access countries. As the demand for electronic goods increase, many countries suffer the consequences of resource extraction, cheap labor, little return to producers, and other environmental and human exploitation.

There are many good things that come from integrating technology into everyday life. Making these benefits accessible to communities and under privileged groups is especially important to reducing the poverty gaps, say for instance, education and creating a competitive advantage in youth populations. Farming is another industry that benefits from electronics by helping to preserve foods, keeping the market stable and through knowledge sharing. With all the positives that do exist, one important consideration is often over looked in the push to improve the socioeconomics of a country or community through electronic access – what happens to the electronics afterwards? E-waste impacts on communities and the environment is equally as important to consider as the resource extraction impacts and the community improvements.

E-waste has major environmental and human health impacts. Transportation alone is a massive endeavor and less efficient than it has been in the past. Components of electronics often include toxic substances, such as arsenic, CFCs, lead, and mercury. These compounds are detrimental to human health and ecosystems that often have limited safety standards. As a result of these concerns many countries have created electronic waste recycling systems, and many countries have attempted to ban the export of e-waste. The Basel Convention was created to reduce the transport of hazardous goods from developed countries to less developed countries. Included in this treaty is the transport of non-functional toxic electronics. However, illegal e-waste trade and exports continue and this greatly impacts developing nations.

In March, the UN claimed 90% of the world’s e-waste is illegally traded or dumped and is valued at $19 billion USD. This is a staggering amount. What is more surprising, however, is the findings that mismanagement of within the European countries is ten times the volume of exported e-waste.

The article states:

"1.3 million tonnes of discarded electronics departed the EU in undocumented mixed exports, of which an estimated 30% was electronic waste, and 70% functioning equipment.

This means more than 4 million tonnes of e-waste was illegally managed or traded across and within the borders of European countries. The EU report links fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and organized crime to cases of e-waste mismanagement.

What does this means for countries like Myanmar? One, this highlights some of the challenges Myanmar may face in the future. If countries with a history of strong legal enforcement and environmental awareness still suffer from the impacts of electronic wastes, then Myanmar must learn from the mistakes the EU has already had. But most importantly, as Myanmar increases its consumption of electronic goods the importance of regulation and enforcement becomes an increasingly important issue.

What is more, is a consideration of aid projects focused on technology access and improvement. For Myanmar to be prepared for the upcoming economic boom and access, there needs to be a mechanism for the country do handle, recycle, and dispose of electronic wastes. The existing informal systems of recycling continue to pose a threat to the communities that live and work in those conditions. Electronic waste will add a complexity to this problem as well as introducing new challenges to the local ecosystems. Finally, a major change that must be present in Myanmar is in the psychology of recycling, trash, and sanitation. With minimal effectiveness of national and local law, the greatest impact and prevention will come from the community. Education and cultural changes towards waste management will help prevent the introduction of e-waste toxins into the environment.