This week I’m tackling a much longer text (over 300 pages) so I’ll be taking it in small chunks over the next few weeks. I’m going chapter by chapter, so you should see at least a few summaries from me this week. The text is titled, ‘Solid Waste Management and Recycling: Actors, Partnerships and Policies in Hyderabad, India and Nairobi, Kenya’ edited by Isa Baud, Johan Post and Christine Furedy.

Technically I started with Chapter 2 for this book since Chapter 1 is an introduction. Chapter 2: Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Urban Solid Waste, tracks the history of privatization of social services such as SWM in India (And Kenya, but for the purposes of my research I’m just looking at India specifically). It follows India’s emphasis on industrialization after independence, the failure of heavily regulated, state run services and the call for privatization, which the prevailing theory being that private enterprise could serve the growing population better than the disorganized and overly bureaucratic central government.  Like other articles I’ve read addressing privatization of SWM services, the article addresses the pros and cons of such a system.

Interestingly, despite the government resistance to privatization (seen as a challenge to strong government authority and a threat to social welfare), at the time of the article’s publication (2004) the government was also hesitant to work with local CBOs and other local organizations even though they (At least on the small scale) have proven extremely successful financially. The article blames this resistance to the prevailing view that working with such organizations isn’t the way (Westernized) modern cities are run, hinting at one of the many lingering effects of Imperialism in India – The idea that “The West Does It Best”. Governments also fear that working with such informal institutions will make setting health codes and standards impossible making it impossible to prosecute any mishandling of services. These strong local organizations are thus under utilized.

The article also addresses how the emphasis in SWM in India remains on improving public health, not environmental awareness and how the leap has not been made to link the two as two sides of the same issue. Public health feels (to local governments) a responsibility well within their jurisdiction, whereas the multitude of environmental issues is easier to distance oneself from. Also, there is the not-so-secret fact that environmental regulations and standards cost money to implement and maintain, cutting down the bottom line (initially) and restricting economic growth – something that India has been trying to increase rapidly since the end of the 1980s. Public health maintenance also costs money, but Waste-to-Energy initiatives and sale of compost materials offset the cost and are actually the primary reasons private companies get involved in waste management in the first place. What ultimately exists is a conflict of interest between healthy environmental practices and economic growth.

The article lists 5 different types of privatization (Though does not provide a definition. I will make a point of looking them up this week):

• -Divestiture
• -Contracting
• -Concession
• -Franchise
• -Open Competition

Of these, Contracting and Franchise are listed as most commonly used in waste management.

There is also an exploration of the difference between ‘Collective Goods’ and ‘Private Goods’. Collective goods or services are those that are available to all and are difficult to deny access too (Police force, firemen, street cleaning). Private goods are held by individuals and their access can be restricted to anyone who (for example) can’t pay for them. Herein lies a delicate balance when it comes to waste management. If it’s purely privatized, companies can deny services to those who cannot afford them because private companies are for-profit ventures. Want someone to take your trash away at the end of the week but don’t have the cash? It’s going to stay out front your house indefinitely or until the government spends the funds itself to clean up, leading to an uneasy relationship between all three parties – Government, Private Company and Local.

Phew. And that’s just the first (second) chapter.

-Ashley