کیفیت زندگی و اتحاد در مدیریت ضایعات جامد: سرمایه ها به توسعه پایدار شهری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29061||2001||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6246 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Cities, Volume 18, Issue 1, February 2001, Pages 3–12
This paper examines the contributions that new alliances in urban solid waste management (SWM) systems can make to the quality of life by improving effective provision of this urban basic service, based on case studies of three multi-million cities in developing countries: Chennai, India; Manila, Philippines; and Lima, Peru. It starts with a systematic examination of the main types of alliances formed around SWM activities (including formal collection, transportation and disposal as well as informal collection, trade, re-use and recycling). These include public–private, public–community, community–private and private–private alliances. The main conclusion is that local authorities work together with large enterprises and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), but refuse to deal directly with the informal trade and recycling enterprises which recover large fractions of waste – linking to them only through NGO or community-based organisation (CBO) mediation. It goes on to examine the contributions different alliances can make to sustainable development in cities, utilising the multiple goals of sustainable development as developed by Satterthwaite in 1997 (Urban Studies 34 (1997) 1667). Using a nine-point indicator system, it shows that current contributions of alliances between local authorities and large enterprises lie mainly in the area of improved disposal, cleaner neighbourhoods and financial viability. In contrast, alliances between local authorities, NGOs or CBOs and through them informal trade and recycling enterprises contribute more heavily to financial viability, employment, and cleaner urban neighbourhoods, as well as greater re-use and recycling of waste fractions.
Research on urban solid waste management (SWM) in developing countries has developed from two main concerns: the concern for public sector reform (including privatisation issues), and the concern for sustainable development in the urban context.1 The latter is associated particularly with a focus on quality of life (QOL) aspects. The first category of studies is closely connected to the neo-liberal doctrine proclaiming a resurgence of the market and a reduction of state control. The structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s included as crucial items curtailing of government bureaucracies and cutting of public expenditure. The strong push for privatisation initiated then still has strong effects on policy discussions about delivery of urban services. Private sector involvement in service provision raises issues of public interest and acceptability. Governments must still ensure appropriate standards, achieve co-ordinated provision, provide a competitive environment, avoid monopoly control of essential services by non-accountable private providers, and minimise corruption and inequity (Rondinelli and Iacono, 1996 and Burgess et al, 1997). Therefore, privatisation in service provision usually implies a public–private arrangement. In such situations the government retains some degree of power, while saving on costs, reducing political interference and red-tape, and lowering levels of coercion. SWM studies in this category include those by Bartone et al (1991), Ali (1993), Fernandez (1993), Cointreau-Levine (1994), Lee (1997), and Post (1999). Sustainable development is the second major source of inspiration for many analyses of SWM systems in the developing world. The 1992 Earth Summit brought environmental problems to the forefront of international policy debates. However, developing countries have made it abundantly clear that environmental policies should reflect their own priorities and not curtail their legitimate desire for economic growth. They have shifted the environmental focus from issues of natural resource depletion and resource management2 to pollution issues (the so-called “brown agenda”), with a predominantly urban focus (UNCHS, 1996). The brown agenda is defined as . . . the immediate and most critical environmental problems which incur the heaviest costs on current generations, particularly the urban poor in terms of poor health, low productivity and reduced income and quality of life: lack of safe drinking water, sanitation and drainage, inadequate solid and hazardous waste management, uncontrolled emissions from factories, cars and low grade domestic fuels, accidents linked to congestion and crowding, and the occupation of environmentally hazard-prone lands, as well as the interrelationships between these problems (Bartone et al, 1994: 10–11). This focus on pollution problems carries implicitly a conception of sustainable development, which combines “meeting the needs of the present generation . . . without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (cf. Mitlin and Satterthwaite, 1996 and Satterthwaite, 1997: 1681). Improvements to the natural environment are considered in conjunction with improvements in the quality of life in the urban habitat. SWM studies carried out within this framework usually deal with the contributions various actors can make to improve environmental performance as well as contribute to urban livelihood strategies. These include contributions by Furedy, 1992 and Furedy, 1997, Pacheco (1992), Bose and Blore (1993), and Baud and Schenk (1994). Both sets of literature share a preoccupation with relationships between actors. In the literature on privatisation of SWM, the analysis of public–private partnerships is given primary importance, and usually covers collection, transportation and disposal activities. Studies enlarge on failures in public servicing, and suggest different methods of privatisation for greater efficiency and effectiveness. The major concern is to evaluate the organisational and financial aspects of privatisation initiatives, and to assess the capacity of government departments and private contractors to perform their new roles. Little attention is given to the potential of small-scale, private operators and community-based organisations (CBOs) removing solid waste informally from residential areas. Local authorities prefer to link up with formal enterprises. There is an emphasis on strong contractual arrangements, for which informal businesses and communities do not qualify. Although their potential is increasingly acknowledged, few governments have started to include them in their policies. In the literature on SWM from the perspective of sustainable development, a larger range of investigated relationships is covered, including public–private, community–public and private–private arrangements. Although some studies relate to public sector activities, the majority focus on other activities within the SWM system – notably, separation of waste, and the productive use of waste. Focus is often on examples of informal economic activities and community initiatives. Studies deal not only with linkages laid down in (semi-)contractual arrangements, but also with small-scale business transactions3 and the impact of official rules and regulations on private or communal undertakings. Finally, more effective provision of services to poor households and the safety and health aspects of activities within the SWM sector are given more importance (Huysman, 1994). A major gap in the current literature on SWM in developing countries is that the system is rarely investigated in its entirety, and assessments combining ecological, environmental health and socio-economic considerations are still largely absent.4 This paper attempts to contribute to a framework for integrated assessment by (1) identifying existing types of partnerships in SWM systems, and (2) carrying out a qualitative exploration of their contributions to a QOL perspective by looking at such socio-economic and ecological aspects.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The existing alliances show a clear preference by local authorities to privatise services through large-scale enterprises. They are generally reluctant to create alliances with small-scale enterprises, waste traders and waste pickers because of their unofficial status and the number of units involved. The elusiveness of such informal activities is at odds with the enforcement of rules and regulations (including sanitary codes and health standards) and could make effective sanctions in cases of malpractice difficult to enforce. In addition, official attitudes towards such undertakings in many countries are still overwhelmingly hostile, especially when they relate to activities that are socially stigmatised as dirty, unhealthy, chaotic and illegal. However, in those cases where “informal actors” are integrated into the official system through the mediation of NGOs or CBOs, there are positive spin-offs in terms of socio-economic and ecological sustainability, and public health aspects. In particular, the waste trading and recycling actors contribute to cleaner urban neighbourhoods, financial viability, reduced volumes of disposed waste through recycling, re-use and composting, and employment creation for predominantly poor people. If the privatisation of SW collection, transportation and disposal is restricted to large-scale enterprises only, the financial viability and disposal levels may improve, but the prospects for achieving ecological gains are gloomy. Large-scale enterprises in solid waste collection do not seem to be interested or able to capitalise on waste separation and resource recovery, unless they involve small-scale operators. These results suggest that the concept of “partnerships” as used in the literature should be more inclusive of a wider range of actors than are generally acknowledged by proponents of public sector reform, in order to obtain the added benefits to greater ecological sustainability and socio-economic and public health goals. The results also indicate that a wider range of alliances is feasible in practice, as those discussed above have only partially occurred in a project setting. Finally, there are clear remaining roles for local authorities as “enablers” by developing legal and regulatory frameworks that permit other actors to develop a wider range of activities in the direction of more integrated sustainable solid waste management systems.