Recycling as a Social Safety Net

This week, the ­­Jardim Gramacho dump in Rio, site of the film Wasteland, was finally closed. Long the bane of environmental activists, the dump had been heavily blamed for polluting the Guanabara Bay, and its closure has become a potent symbol of Brazil’s efforts to update its solid waste management infrastructure following passage of last year’s new waste management law. In Minas, a similar effort is underway as the state government seeks to establish new public-private partnerships to help close the many existing dumps across the state and replace them with landfill, incineration, and recycling programs. Following the closure of the Bordo Poniente dump in Mexico City earlier this year, it is clear that Latin America is entering a new era in the way it deals with its trash.

While the closure of the dumps is clearly a sign of progress, it raises a very difficult social question: how to deal with the catadores that will now lose their major source of income. Thousands of catadores in both Mexico City and Rio lost their livelihoods after the closure of the dumps. In Rio, each worker has received a severance package and promises of government assistance via vocational training programs, but many fear that this will prove inadequate in the long run.

The dilemma of what to do with the catadores underscores the social nature of recycling in developing countries. The recycling market is one of the largest social safety nets in the world. Even in the U.S., picking up cans and other recyclables is often the only way for some of society’s poorest individuals to eke out a basic living.

As we move forward in our efforts to create environmentally sustainable solid waste management, we run the risk of undermining this social safety net. As recycling becomes a big business managed by large companies, society’s marginalized individuals become shut out of the market, many deemed too unproductive to be hired as laborers in large recycling plants. This, of course, goes back to the fundamental dilemma between social inclusion and efficiency that I have discussed many times on this blog.

Ultimately, I believe that despite this dilemma, we must move forward in creating better solid waste management. If recycling is ever to become a central part of our trash disposal, it needs to become big business. It cannot be a social safety net forever. It is the responsibility of the government, not the trash dumps, to provide adequate welfare programs for society’s poorest. We cannot ignore the need to improve waste management simply because it will keep more people employed.

Yet I hope that, to a certain extent, it will be possible for us to reconcile our environmental and social goals. Recycling is a labor-intensive activity, and as it grows the industry will create many jobs, especially in sorting warehouses. In the developing world, the waste pickers can be the agents of this change, growing the recycling market and becoming public service providers through cooperatives and commercialization networks. But there is certainly a fear that, in the drive to improve efficiency, the least productive members will be left out. The elderly, the disabled, the drug addicts, and others with problems will find themselves left behind. This is a tragic result, but I fear that it may ultimately be unavoidable. We must work to integrate these individuals as much as possible into the labor force, and search for alternatives if necessary. But we cannot allow the social importance of recycling to hold back efforts to develop this sector. Instead of accepting the status quo, we must work both to improve recycling and to create a more expansive and inclusive social safety net for the individuals at the margins.