Challenges in Solid Waste Management in Buenos Aires ­ From a Sustainable Development Perspective Anna Nilsson Handledare: Cecilia Sundberg AL125x Examensarbete i Energi och miljö, grundnivåStockholm 2016 SAMMANFATTNING Avfallshanteringen i urbana områden i låg­ och medelinkomstländer med växande ekonomi och befolkning är ett växande och allt mer betonat problem. Ökad konsumtion tillsammans med växande miljöproblem efterfrågar ett välfungerande avfallssystem och ansvarstagande. Detta projekt utvärderar avfallssystemet i Buenos Aires, genom att genomgå dess historia från starten som ett officiellt system, dess senare historia, samt nuläget. Med hjälp av detta har huvudsakliga utmaningar för Buenos Aires avfallssystem att utvecklas på ett hållbart sätt identifierats. Genom att intervjua olika intressenter samt studier av rapporter inom ämnet avfallshantering, så diskuteras framtiden kring Buenos Aires avfallssystem, och olika framtida scenarier formuleras. För­ och nackdelar kring dessa diskuteras vidare. I historien kring Buenos Aires avfallshantering spelar den informella sektorn en väsentlig roll. De informella återvinnarna har varit de enda existerande återvinnare och har mötts av mycket motstånd från både staten och resten av samhället. Staten har i huvudsak satsat på deponiföretag, vilka fortfarande idag tar hand om i princip alla stadens sopor. De senaste åren har satsningar på stora “gröna” kampanjer gjorts i samband med investeringar i ny teknologi såsom MBT. Detta i ett försök att minska mängden avfall som hamnar i deponier. Avtal har också skrivits under mellan återvinningskooperativ och staten med avsikten att formalisera kooperativens arbete. Utöver detta lägger organisationer ner allt mer energi i avfallsfrågan vilket har resulterat i flertalet projekt med ökad återvinningen i staden som mål. Trots dessa försök så expanderar fortfarande mängden avfall som går till deponi och situationen för de informella sopsorterarna har inte blivit bättre. I rapporten ses statens distribuering av pengar som ett huvudsakligt problem, med för stor satsning på inköp av ny teknologi före satsning på att minska genereringen av sopor samt säkerställt en god kvalitet på avfallet. De huvudsakliga utmaningar som rapporten kommer fram till är de informella sopsorterarnas situation, platsbrist och infrastruktur, kvalitet på avfallet och kunskapsbrist hos beslutsfattare och befolkning. Fyra framtidscenarier formulerades och diskuterades; business as usual, förbränning, förbättrad återvinning samt ny teknologi. Slutsatsen är att det mest fördelaktiga framtidsscenariot ur ett hållbar utvecklingsperspektiv vore det att fokus principiellt sätts på att förbättra återvinningssystemet. 1 ABSTRACT The waste treatment in urban areas in low and middle­income countries with growing economies and populations is an emerging problem. The increasing consumption along with growing environmental issues requests well functioning waste systems and high responsibility. This project examines the solid waste treatment system in Buenos Aires, reviewing the history from the start of a public system, recent history and the current situation. From this the main challenges for Buenos Aires solid waste management to develop in a sustainable way are identified. By interviewing different stakeholders about facts and opinions and by studying other reports on the subject, the future is debated and possible future scenarios and their pros and cons. In the history of Buenos Aires solid waste treatment the informal sector has played a significant role. The informal recyclers have been the only recyclers in the area and have met a lot of opposition from the Government and the rest of the society. Instead the Government have put their focus on landfill companies which still is the current main way of solid waste treatment in the area. Lately, “green” campaigns has been driven and investments have been made in new technology, such as MBT, as an effort to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills. Also, agreements have been made between waste pickers cooperatives in the city and the Government, in efforts to formalize the work of waste pickers. Additionally, non governmental organizations are expanding and putting more energy in the waste treatment sector, resulting in new projects with the ambition to increase the rate of recycled material. Despite these efforts, the landfill areas are still expanding and the waste pickers situation is not improving. A main problem is the Government distributing too much money in new technology before reducing the amounts of generated waste and securing a good quality waste. The main challenges are identified as the situation of the informal recycler section, economic problems, the lack of space and infrastructure, the quality of the waste and poor knowledge among decision makers and the residents. Four future scenarios are discussed; Business as usual, incineration, improved recycling and new technology. The conclusion is that the most favourable choice from a sustainable development point of view would be to put the focus on an improved recycling system. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Introduction Study Area Buenos Aires Aim and Objectives Question Formulation METHODS RESULTS History Recent History Main issues ANALYSE AND DISCUSSION ​Future Scenarios CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES ATTACHMENTS 3 INTRODUCTION Introduction The waste treatment in urban areas in low and middle­income countries with growing economies and populations is an emerging problem. The increasing consumption together with growing environmental issues requests well functioning waste systems and high responsibility. The Earth is facing big challenges regarding climate change, natural resources and energy. The waste section is causing pollution and the people of the Earth is using up natural resources. ​The main source of emissions from post consumer waste regarding global greenhouse gas emissions in methane gas emissions from landfills and wastewater (Santalla, 2013). ​With increasing economies and growing cities the consumption is growing rapidly. To battle the issues of the waste sector an increase in recycled material and a decrease in generation of waste is needed. By recycling more, money, resources and environment are saved. The lack of education among residents makes it harder to introduce recycling and separation to cities and homes. The next step of the issue is the final disposal of the waste, which is a more political problem. Even though recycling is the best way of waste treatment, everything can not be recycled. An acceptable final disposal method is therefore necessary. Mainly, three methods of final disposal are used today; sanitary landfills, open dumps and incineration, which all have their pros and cons regarding the environment and economy. In Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, the local waste treatment is a discussed subject and growing problem. The official method of final disposal is sanitary landfills, treated by waste treatment companies hired by the local Government, but also a number of secret open dumps are distributed around the city in the Buenos Aires province. This way of taking care of the the waste is not sustainable in the long run and it is also very expensive. Additionally, Buenos Aires reached its landfill space­peak in 2012. There is no more room to create new landfill sites. An introduction to incineration has not been an option since it has been illegal in the province since 1978 (​Schamber, 2010​). In recent years, the Government has realized a Green City­project in efforts to reduce the amounts of generated waste, reduce the amounts of waste that ends up in landfills and to increase the rate of recycled materials. The goals that were set for the project was far from reached, the actual amounts of waste ending up in landfills increased (Quiroga, 2015). 4 A first step in an improved waste management system is identifying the main issues and possible ways to go to finally reach the goal. In this report the main challenges in the case of Buenos Aires are identified and discussed, based on interviews, study visits, reports and articles. Furthermore future scenarios are analyzed and discussed. The SWM in industrialized countries has in the last half of the 20th century had a focus on engineered well­defined systems, while the main target in developing countries has been the collection and removal. Studies has shown that different approaches are needed in the SWM in developing countries today (Wilson, 2007). Due to a number of factors such as growing population, inequality and economic growth; policy and governance; cultural and environmental aspects; and international influences, the approach to the SWM in different developing countries has to be specifically studied and formed in able to reach a successfully functioning system. Instead of successfully used methods in industrialized countries, the development of new approaches are of big importance. This means a more complex system thinking including a number of different factors, using a sustainable development perspective (​Marshall, 2012​). In especially some cases regarding decisions in SWM, there is a tendency to be made without sufficient planning, leaving some aspects outside of the situation, only looking from a short­term perspective or to be affected by political interests. SWM is not just a technological issue, it is a lot more broad. It is a composition of institutional, social, legal and financial aspects and involves coordinating and collaborating with many involved stakeholders and the public. Therefore, the management of a well functioning SWM requires a careful consideration of local conditions (Zurbruegg, 2003). Study Area As the population of urban areas is increasing rapidly together with growing economies and wealth, the solid waste management (SMW) is a growing issue for the world's developing countries. As economic growth is leading to changing consuming patterns and the global as well as the local and regional environmental issues connected to our way of taking care of our waste, the SWM system are of increasing importance. Since the 1960s different engineering models and systems has been applied to cities in developing countries with the aim to make the decision making easier and to optimise the existing SWM systems. What these models did not include was socio­cultural aspects and the stakeholders in the SWM systems; government officials, local communities, litter pickers, industrial and formal private sector services providers (Marshall, 2012). In many developing country cities, a large amount of people depend on collecting and selling recyclable materials for the livelihoods, so called litter pickers, and plays a big role in the city's recycling system. These people make the content of the informal recycling sector (IRS) of their city or area. As a result of limited 5 resources, social groups as these, already suffering from inequities, are affected negatively. The IRS plays an important part in the SWM in these cities, but are yet unrecognised. Studies has shown that the IRS reduces collection and disposal costs for the government's (Velis, 2012). By applying a holistic perspective when studying the SWM system of cities in low­ and middle income countries, which few models up to date do, there is an ability to study the socio­cultural, environmental, economic, political and technical connections and interactions. By so means in a sustainable development perspective. This project includes a case study of the city of Buenos Aires in Argentina. The project gives a description of the historical SWM of the city and how it has changed until today. This includes the history of ​los Cartoneros, the litter pickers, of Buenos Aires who has had a significant importance, politically, technically, socially and economically. The project also discusses the main problems and the future of the SWM of Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires Buenos Aires is the capital and also the biggest city of the Nation of Argentina, situated in South America. The city is geographically situated in a flat landscape connected to the river Río de la Plata. Argentina is a country with a big population of 42, 98 million people, whereof 90 percent lives in urban areas. The amount of generated municipal solid waste (MSW) differs broadly between the urban areas and the rest of the provinces where the population density usually is lower than 100 000 people per square kilometer. In these provinces the amount MSW generated per inhabitant and day is counted to 0.44 kg whilst the corresponding number in the urban areas is counted to 1.52 kg, in 2010 (Santalla, 2013). The whole country is separated in 23 provinces. There is a distinct difference between the Buenos Aires province, the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires (AMBA) and the autonomous city of Buenos Aires (CABA). The province of Buenos Aires consists of 135 municipalities, AMBA of 40, which all have their own municipal governments and laws. By this means that the the SWM is regulated on a municipal level (Interview, 2016). The area of CABA is the actual city of Buenos Aires whilst AMBA includes the areas surrounding CABA. The metropolitan area had 2010 a population of 15.6 million, of which ​2.9​ million people living in the city (La Nación, 2010). In year 2012 the whole province had a daily MSW generation rate of 14,000 tonnes , which today (2016) has grown to almost 18,000 tonnes per day, of which 6,000 was generated in the city (Andreassi, 2012). L​a Coordinación Ecológica Área Metropolitana Sociedad del Estado (CEAMSE), is a landfill company with the main responsibility to treat all of this waste. The main part, therefore ends up in sanitary landfills. In the province there is also a considerable amount of secret open dumps, which are prohibited by law, but still being used. 6 Ten percents of the generated waste in the city is recycled by the 12 recycling cooperatives in the city. The last decade the Government's and CEASEs emphasis has been put on closing the existing open dumps and to focus on the construction of waste treatment plants for recycling of materials, transfer stations, new landfills and also to expand already existing landfills. Regarding the recycling possibilities there is no or few possibilities of recycling in the homes. In some parts of the city the residents have the possibility of separating recyclables from non recyclables, but not more specific. In the remaining parts there is only one bin for mixed waste. In the last couple of years recycling stations has been installed in public areas in the more wealthy parts of the city (Green Tomato, 2016). Currently, in 2016, there is one treatment plant for recycling of materials and plans on constructing another one (Rocha, 2016). Every municipality handles the waste treatment by itself. There are, so far, no national legal boundaries regarding landfill gas capture (LFG). Neither is there any legislations for environmental and human protection, only recommendations. In 2005 a zero waste law was implemented including four future goals. The goals were set for the years 2010, 2012, 2017 and 2020 respectively and aimed to reduce the amount of solid waste put into landfills by 30% by 2010, 50% by 2012, 75% by 2017 and by 2020 recyclable materials would be prohibited to put into landfills. The measurements would be made withe the produced amount of waste in 2004 (Andreassi, 2012). Today LFG capture is used to produce electricity in one out of the four existing landfill sites in the province. This electricity covers the need of 25,000 households (Ceamse, 2016). Aim and Objectives This project will lead to a deeper understanding of the recycle and solid waste management (SWM) of Buenos Aires. This will be made with help from historical, technical, political and cultural studies. The project will be made from a sustainable development perspective. The project will give a profound overall, holistic picture of the SWM and the informal recycling sector of Buenos Aires, to be able to identify weaknesses and strong points of the system. From this future possible scenarios will be compared and discussed, from a sustainable, but also, economic perspective. Question Formulation Which are the main challenges for the Solid Waste Management in Buenos Aires to become a more sustainable system environmentally, socially and economically. 7 METHODS This section will explain the methodology that has been practised to carry out this study. To reach a good understanding of the SWM system in Buenos Aires historical and political studies has been made as they make a significant importance of the system. Apart from that a number of interviews has been made with different stakeholders in the SWM system of Buenos Aires. These stakeholders includes non governmental organizations, a recycling cooperative, engineers, students, a waste picker and a landfill company. ​The questions that were used for the interviews can be found in Attachment 1. Study visits has been realized with the help of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of the nation of Argentina (el ​Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable). Due to anonymity the interviewees are not cited in the report. The interviews served partly as a source of better understanding on the system and the laws of the SWM of Buenos Aires. The interviews also functioned to get as many different points of view as possible and to learn about the different opinions from different stakeholders. This information and opinions were then used to identify the main challenges of the SWM in Buenos Aires to reach a more sustainable system. Study visits were made to the waste treatment company Ceamse, the recycling cooperative el Ceibo, the Ceamse library and a governmental separation plant. The study visits gave a more profound understanding on the waste cycle in reality, and it gave an insight on the existing problems. It also gave the opportunity to ask questions regarding technical, economical and social issues. Information about the history was, besides the interviews, gathered from a number of different academic reports, argentinean newspapers and interviews. Furthermore, literature studies gave proposals to different ways of approaching the issues regarding the SWM and what factors that are of importance when approaching SWM systems. With the literature studies on SWM approaches in developing countries, the ability and the efficiency of the interview work was significantly improved. This by targeting the more important focusing areas, issues and possible improvements. The results of this study is gathered information about the holistic system of solid waste management in Buenos Aires. With opinions from different stakeholders taken into account, the main challenges of the SWM of Buenos Aires in approaching a more sustainable development has been identified. In the study of sustainable development a core idea is to make social and economical development possible together with the protection of the 8 environment. This study therefore includes all three of these aspects. The social situation is analyzed, especially in the case of the ​cartoneros. Furthermore the role of the residents and their possible ways of participation in a more sustainable SWM is discussed. The economical aspects are analyzed and the more economical options are identified, in a two generation time perspective. Also the environmental aspects are taken into account, both locally and globally. Literature studies in SWM systems provided information used when formulating future scenarios with the aim to optimize all three aspects, to reach a sustainable development in the SWM of Buenos Aires. From the information provided by the analyzes and waste management techniques gathered from a number of reports, four future scenarios has been formulated. Using the information about the SWM system of Buenos Aires today and adding it to todays possible systems and methods used in other countries, together with recent announcements from authorities and newspapers the scenarios were formulated. Later on they were analyzed from a sustainable development perspective, emphasizing the correlation between social and economical development and the preservation of the environment. Inputs from different stakeholders provided by interviews was here of help. It should be said that these future scenarios are explorative and that there are many aspects that are not taken into account. For example political aspects. It is also hard to predict how residents would respond to different kinds of changes. The method used in this study made it possible to get a broad outlook by including all groups of the system and their different interests and points of view. This i specifically of importance when making a study from a sustainable development perspective. This study does only include the province of Buenos Aires. RESULTS To understand the the results and the main issues explanations was made regarding the differences between sanitary and open landfills. Additionally, Mechanical Biological Treatment is briefly explained below. Sanitary Landfills A sanitary landfill is a method of final disposal of waste, which is basically a depression in the ground covered by an inner membrane. The inner membrane is usually plastic covered with clay. The core idea is to isolate the waste from the rest of the environment until a point when it is no longer considered a risk, healthwise and ecologically. This implies that the 9 waste is completely degraded biologically, chemically and physically. A plumbing network is attached to ba able to take care of leachates from the waste. The waste is put in waste­soil layers to help the process of decomposition go more rapidly. When the sanitary landfill is full, it is covered with clay. A sanitary landfill is environmentally preferable to an open landfill, but there are some concerns regarding sanitary landfills. Primarily, a sanitary landfill is a source of pollution. Along with the time, the waste produces methane gas which pollutes the air and also is an explosive gas. At some sanitary landfill sites landfill gas capture (LFG capture) is used, meaning that the gas produced by the waste is captured and converted into energy. LFG capture is used at one of Ceamse’s landfill sites, el Norte III, to produce electricity (Ceamse, 2016). Secondly, a sanitary landfill is a risk of contamination of the groundwater. Thirdly, the sanitary landfill releases odours annoying residents living close to the landfill area. For a site to be considered a sanitary landfill, four requirements needs to be fulfilled. These requirements are hydrogeological isolation (fully or partly), formal engineering preparations, permanent control and planned waste emplacement and covering (Unep, 2015). Open Landfills At an open landfill waste is basically dumped and left completely untreated. It is therefore a source of contamination and causes health risks and damages to the environment. In the province of Buenos Aires, the use of open landfills as a final disposal site, is illegal. Nevertheless, around 350 secret open landfills exist in the province (La Nación, 2016). MBT In Mechanical Biological Treatment organic waste is used to produce biogas through anaerobic digestion. The obtained biogas can then be used to produce electricity or heat. What is vital for the process is though a high quality organic waste, well separated from the rest of the waste. A first important step is therefore a well functioning system of separation of the organic waste. According to the plans of the Government of the province and the municipalities, there is a big focus on the implementation/extension of MBT systems. History The history of the cartoneros and the appearance of a public waste management system and waste treatment companies is given below. The most important changes in laws and projects made recently are later explained. 10 From private to municipal responsibility Looking at the different methods that has been used for the treatment of waste in Buenos Aires, there are four main methods that has been used since the mid 19th century; Disposal in holes and wasteland, open burning, incineration and landfill disposal. During the 19th century waste treatment was a private concern. Usually the garbage ended up in holes made close to the houses. Gradually the task was transferred to the municipalities and the waste was disposed to land levelling and flood­prone districts. But when hygienic and sanitary problems emerged, such as the cholera in 1867 and the yellow fever in 1871, the municipalities began to carry the waste to areas outside of the city. These areas were cheap land were not many people lived. The biggest of these areas is called La Quema, situated southwest of Buenos Aires. During the second half of the 19th century, open burning of garbage also started to grow as a method. Already at this time, waste pickers existed in Buenos Aires. Above them were the officially acknowledged “garbage managers” who had the rights to first pick out the most valuable recyclables from the generated waste. After that the waste pickers came before the municipal disposal outside of the city. Already then, waste pickers was accused of stealing and reducing the garbage managers profits. Around La Quema a big group of waste pickers started to emerge, searching for valuable recyclables; paper, cardboard, glass, plastic etc. By the end of the 19th century, among 3000 people could be observed in La Quema searching for recyclables. The general attitude against the waste pickers was always in the negative direction. In the late 19th century the authorities argued that the recyclable materials were needed in the waste to make the process burning it easier, since a lot of the recyclables were burnable materials. Later, in 1945, a report was written by a special commission trying to find solutions to problems within the waste management of the city. In the report one argued against the waste pickers only because of medical­sanitary and socio­medical reasons; the work was according to the writers “an unsanitary and psychologically depressing job that is inherently dirty”. Thereby the report suggested incineration of all waste generated. There are interviews with waste pickers working in La Quema during the same periods who confirms their appreciation of their job, and no signs of depression. Big furnaces was installed in the districts Chacarita, Pompeya and Flores. Apart from those, some households kept private incineration stoves. Open burning was still allowed in the AMBA region outside of CABA, and was also the most used method there at this time. 11 But the capacity of the stoves in the city could not completely replace La Quema. Some waste therefore kept being disposed in some areas, one of them next to the Flores cemetery, where waste pickers continued their work. At this time, the waste picking on the streets of the city had yet not started (Schamber, 2010). The creation of CEAMSE In March 1976 the current president Isabel Martínez de Perón was overthrown by a right­wing military coup. A military junta was created to replace Perón. The military dictatorship lasted until 1983. During their time of power over 30 000 people disappeared and were sent to secret prisons and concentration camps. Among these people were journalists, students, guerilla members and activists, all suspected of left­wing sympathies (Aasmundsen, 2013). In 1978 the dictatorship created ​La Coordinación Ecológica Área Metropolitana Sociedad del Estado (CEAMSE). According to the new management all generated waste in AMBA had to be disposed by Ceamse, in their sanitary landfills. Any other kind of recovery was forbidden. This meant no more recycling and no more incineration, incineration is in 2016 still prohibited by law in AMBA. The military junta had the ambition to transform the city of Buenos Aires to a residential town, where waste pickers among others did not fit in. Many people from insecure parts of the city had to move out of the city against their will, in the same way as the waste was sent outside of the city barriers. According to the Government these people lacked “hygiene and sanitation suitable for urban life”. It showed in the coming years that the sanitary landfills of Ceamse was not enough to cover all of the waste generated in AMBA. Therefore new, small, landfills emerged in different places around the city (Schamber, 2010). After the dictatorship, 20th century and basura cero The implementation of neo­liberal economics in the 90s led to a catastrophic economic collapse in 2001 in the country. Argentina suffered from increasing poverty, unemployment and inequity. The unemployment rate went to three times higher than in 1991 and the rate of critically poor people went from 3% in 1993 to 18% in 2002. As a result of the economic crisis and a hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs, the group of waste pickers grew rapidly, as did the class­segregation of the city (Robinson, 2014). Whole families transported themselves every day from the outside suburbs to the city to pick valuable garbage. The 70 percent devaluation of the currency lead in the end the Government to devalue the currency. An unintended effect from this was escalating prices of paper and copper, which made it too expensive to import. This was another factor driving new litter pickers of Buenos Aires. 12 A big change in the game came in 2002 when the city government withdrew the law that made litter picking illegal, and implemented ​la ley 992 also called the ​cartonero law. The economy slowly grew stronger but the working conditions for the cartoneros remained substandard (Garcia, 2007). The cartoneros was provided or let to use an abandoned train to help them transporting their recyclables from the city every day. This train, known as the “White train” or the “Ghost train”, became a sign of poverty after the crisis. Socially, the cartoneros were not completely accepted. They were accused of stealing, mainly by garbage companies who were paid per ton buried garbage, and of ruining the city landscape. According to the former cartonero Sergio Sánchez, who is now the ​president of the Argentine Federation of Litter Pickers and Recyclers​ (FACyR), the cartoneros was looked down on and litter picking was not accepted as a “real job”. They would also be hassled by the police. As an example a cartonero who was hit by a car and brought it to court, resulting in the cartonero himself being punished for breaking the city’s transport norms, charged for pulling his cart on the road without lights (Balch, 2016). What the governance were preoccupied about was to attract capital investments in the city, partly by keeping the city economically and aesthetically in a good shape. Remaining the fact that by doing the same work as the waste management companies, the ​cartoneros were saving the local government huge costs which they otherwise would have had to pay the waste companies. During these years, since the late 90’s, another problem also had emerged. The existing landfills that the military regime had ​created in the marshes along the streams reaching out to the Río de la Plata, started to get filled up, which lead to big movements against the creation of new landfills. This was because the landfills had caused, among other environmental effects, contamination of the river. The military regime’s plan had been to fill up the marshes to afterwards build highways and green areas on these landfills. An existing example of this is the Plata highway. Regarding the green areas nothing ever really happened (Interview, 2016). In the beginning of 2002 approximately 25,000 cartoneros were working in the city. In the end of that year the number had grown to 40,000. The cartoneros preferred working in the wealthier parts of the city, where the rate of waste generation was higher. The working conditions as a ​cartonero was unhealthy and risky. In 2002 the implementation of new waste management laws began, mainly laws regulating the activity of the ​cartoneros. To grow stronger cartoneros started to cooperate and establishing cooperatives with the aim to come to better prices, and more importantly to receive acceptance for providing the only recycling movement existing in Buenos Aires. As it was, their profits depended on the prices 13 set by the “middle people”. As the director of the Ente Regulador de Servicios Públicos expressed himself: “​While each cartonero receives 1,200 per month, each recycling firm makes about 72,000 pesos. This is part of a model of economic concentration that continues to operate”. The first cooperative, ​el Ceibo, was created in the 80’s by ten women ​cartoneras. Many cooperatives and ​cartoneros developed personal agreements with residentials, stores and companies in the neighbourhoods they were working. After the recognition of the ​cartoneros in 2002 and the implementation of ​la ley 992 the cooperatives of the city gained more power. By 2003 the economy started to recover and the tourism expanded again. The governance wanted to restore the city culturally, socially, aesthetically, and organizing the activity of the cartoneros. Part of ​la ley 992 was also the creation of a certain register, Official Unique Permanent Urban Recyclable Collectors Registry and six ​Centros Verdes (Green centers). The thought behind the green centers was for the cooperatives to be able to sort, treat and store their material there, instead of in the streets. The centers were placed in different parts of the city long away from the nicer residential parts, where the collection was made. For the cartoneros to be able to use the centers they were obliged to be registered. Included was also working clothes, gloves and an identification card. They would always have to bring their identification card, to be able to show citizens and police that they were legal workers. The social identity was also changed from “Cartoneros” to “Recuperadores Urbanos”. The plan with the green centers never reached the goals. Since the registration process required the ability to fill out paperwork, financial declarations etc., which most of the cartoneros lacked, they could not make the registration. Another weak point was the situation of the centers. None of the cooperatives could pay for trucks to transport all the material to the centers. But the governance and the cooperatives found other ways of agreements. The cooperative el Ceibo made in 2002 an agreement with the local government to collect recyclables from a certain region in Palermo, a touristic neighbourhood in Buenos Aires, on a daily basis. In exchange el Ceibo got to use a warehouse in Palermo. By not hiring private waste management companies to do the recycling and transporting, the government saved 2,5 million pesos per day (numbers from 2011). In 2006 around 11 percent of the total waste generated in the city of Buenos Aires was recycled by cartoneros (Sternberg, 2010). 14 Recent History The Zero Waste­Law and the formalization of cartoneros In 2004 the argentinean Government developed a National Strategy for Integrated USW Management, ENGIRSU, set for the timespan 2005 to 2025. To help implement it, Argentina requested the World Bank for technical and financial support, which also was approved by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in February 2006. The approval consisted of a loan agreement of 40 million dollars for the implementation of the national project on Integrated Management of Urban Solid Waste, PNGIRSU. The core focuses and objectives of the project are listed as follows: ● Minimize the generation of solid waste and maximize the valorization ● Minimize the disposal in landfills ● Master plans of solid waste management developed and operational in each province ­regionalization of management ● Implementation of projects that include integrated solid waste management promoting social inclusion of waste pickers ● Closure of open dumps ● Collection, processing and dissemination of information ● Communication and participation (Santos Capra, 2013) Through this came the next big change in the SWM of Buenos Aires in 2005. The government implemented, with ideas and pressure from Greenpeace Argentina, as part of the Ciudad Verde Plan (Green City Plan) a new law;​ la ​Ley de Basura Cero (the Zero Waste Law), with the principal aim to reduce the amount of waste ending up in landfills. By using the garbage generation of 1,497,656 tonnes in 2004 as a reference line, the amount of waste buried in landfills was going to be reduced by 30% by 2010, 50% by 2012 and 75% by 2017. According to the law the burial of recyclable waste was going to be prohibited by 2020. The law also meant to put more responsibility on manufacturers and their products, and suggested ways to reduce waste, improve recycling and reduce the toxicity of waste (Government of Buenos Aires, 2005). The reduction of generated waste and waste buried in landfills as the law implied did not succeed to be reached. For the limits put to be reached, a reduction of 748, 828 tonnes would have had to be made by the end of 2012, while the actual amount was three times higher. Between 2001 and 2011 the amount of generated solid waste increased by 24 to 35 percent. Solid waste sent to landfills increased from 1.4 million tonnes in 2002 to 2.2 million tonnes 15 in 2010, without any relevant increase in the number of residents (Santos Capra, 2013). ​Only in 2014 the waste reduction reached 15 percent. This reduction was mainly due to retrieving and converting arid waste taken from construction working areas, which was not produced in the residential parts of the city. The arid waste is neither a source of greenhouses, as organic waste is. Nor is the arid waste as pollutive as the organic waste (Quiroga, 2015). The law also prohibits the use of incineration and emphasizes the promotion of separation of the solid waste at source. Puntos Verdes As a part of the green city plan a number of puntos verdes (green points) were installed around the city. The idea is for residents to be able to bring their garbage to separate it there. There are possibilities to separate glass, cardboard, paper, metal and plastic. The 32 stations in total, situated all around the city, but more frequently in the wealthier parts, usually at squares or in parks. The stations does not use a self service system, they are all manned and have specific opening hours. As part of the plan green garbage containers was placed next to the conventional black ones, with the purpose to be used for only recyclable materials (Buenos Aires Ciudad, 2016). Apart from the puntos verdes put up by the Government, the NGO ​BA Cambio has a similar project. Once a week, ​BA Cambio puts up nin temporal recycling centers in parts of the city where the possibility to recycle yet not exist for the residents. At the end of the day the collected material is brought to cooperatives. The organization does not have the economic strength to keep the stations open more often, it is too expensive to have people working in the stations. The stations also functions as an educational spot where people can go to ask questions regarding recycling (Interview, 2016). Formalization of city recyclers In 2012 the landfills reached its absolute limit. All waste generated in the city was transported to landfills in provinces surrounding the Buenos Aires province, who began to reject the city's waste. They would no longer accept any waste from the city. In January 2013 the government of the city of Buenos Aires and the cooperatives of the city reached an historic agreement on the responsibility of the recycling in the city. The agreement realizes the actual formalisation of the cartoneros work on a timespan of four years. The municipal Government provides the cartoneros with uniforms, a small social security, workplace insurance and an economic 16 stimulus. The economic stimulus consists of a monthly payment of 5200 pesos a month (in 2013) which is below the national minimum wage of 6000 pesos a month. The agreement gives the cooperatives the responsibility of emptying the city's green bins once a day, bring it to their station for separation and recycling. There are in total twelve cooperatives. With help from the NGO Green Tomato each cooperative were given a particular zone of the city to be responsible for. The people from the government cooperating with Green Tomato in this project, chose to be anonymous. The reason for that is for the landfill companies not to be able to find out who it was, since they are against the cooperatives and any kind of cooperation with them. The landfill companies are paid by the government per ton waste they bring through their gates (Interview, 2016). Additionally, buildings with more than 19 floors, shopping centers, schools and public offices in the city, are obliged to separate recyclables for the cooperatives to collect. Many cartoneros also have personal agreements with families, buildings and neighbourhoods who separate their waste specifically for them. Usually these families knows the schedule of the cartonero or agreements on pick up­time are made every week. But not all cartoneros are included in the system. Out of around 15,000 people in Buenos Aires who are dependent on recycling, one third have a contract. Half of that third does receive full payment and the rest receive a monthly payment of 2700 pesos per month. Many of these people therefore sell materials private and in the black market as well, instead of giving it to the cooperatives, to be able to live from it. The cooperatives have contributed to a 15 percent recovery of the city's generated solid waste, which automatically is the total rate of recovery since the cooperatives are the only organ recycling in the city. But according to estimations made of Greenpeace and other critics, the capacity of all the cities cartoneros could, with better support from the local Government, reach a rate of 40 percents recovery of the solid waste (Lacunza, 2013). To integrate cartoneros and recycling with the landfill companies, the government therefore proposed to let cartoneros work and sort materials inside of their gates. In that way the will still be payed for the recycled waste. That is the only way CEAMSE accept the cooperation with cartoneros. CEAMSE In 2016 the waste generated in the city and the province generally ends up in three different places; private waste treatment companies, cartoneros and hidden open landfills. The main destination is CEAMSE, who receives 17, 000­18, 000 tonnes every day (Källa: möte med Marcelo Rosso, Ceamse). This responds to the whole metropolitan area, which CEAMSE is responsible for, minus the green containers in the city which the cooperatives take care of. 17 CEAMSE has in total four different treatment plants, el Norte III, Ensenada, González Catán and Villa Domínico. Villa Domínico is since 2004 no longer active, but is still producing gas. In all sites sanitary landfills are used as final disposal method. El Norte III is the biggest of them all and is because of its size separated into three parts, A, B and C. The total area of the site is 500 hectares of which 300 hectares is sanitary landfills. El Norte III receives 14, 000 tonnes of waste per day, which makes it the biggest receiver in South America (Rocha, 2016). Apart from the sanitary landfills, Norte III installed in 2013 Argentina's first mechanical biological treatment plant, MBT (Ceamse, 2013). It has a capacity of 1100 tonnes a day. The site also keeps two degradification plants, generating 15 MWh with which it is providing 25, 000 households with electricity. Due to aquifers the water is controlled every month. El Norte III also has, since the formalization agreement with the local government, two manual separation plants with a group of about a dussin working cartoneros. Ceamse is hired by the Government. The responsibilities regarding the waste is distributed between residents, municipality and Ceamse as shown in Table 1 (Ceamse, 2016). Activity Responsibility Generation Residents First disposal Residents Collection Municipality Transfer Ceamse Transport Ceamse Treatment Ceamse Final disposal Ceamse Table 1 Ceamse thus is responsible to every day empty and take care of all black garbage containers. The transportation is made with trucks. The trucks firstly bring the garbage to a transfer site in the city neighbourhood Colegiales, where the garbage is weighed and compacted to finally be transported to el Norte III. In MAMBA, a total of 2500 trucks transporting waste are in function in 39 municipalities. With the increasing consumption the corresponding number of trucks needed in 2030 is expected to be 3900 trucks (Rocha, 2016). 18 Recent Changes Recently, in February 2016, the Government confirmed an extension of el Norte III. The site will be expanded with 161 hectares which primarily will be used for new landfills, estimated to be in use in 2018. The plan also includes a new separation plant and more focus on the production of biogas. In April another, additional, plan was presented by the province of Buenos Aires. This plan includes four new sanitary landfills, the installation of five new MBT plants and two incineration plants to produce energy. The latter means a change in the law will be required, since the Zero Waste law prohibits incineration. The timespan of the whole projects reaches to 2030, but the incineration plants are expected to be set to function in 2023. So far there are no official numbers of the required investments, but the estimated value is around 1000 million dollars. The plan also includes the elimination of all open dumps in the province. In each of the four new landfills, there is also going to be a separation plant. Responsible for the project are the minister of the Buenos Aires Government, ​Federico Salvai​, The director of el Organismo Para el Desarollo Sostenible (the Organism for Sustainable Development), Ricardo Pagola​, and the minister of Ambiente de la Nación (the Environment of the Nation), Sergio Bergman​. Furthermore it is the municipalities how has direct responsibility for the waste management, which means the question require the participation of all levels of Government. There has also been discussions on using the existing net of railways for transportation of the waste (Rocha, 2016). 19 Year Municipality Generated waste (tonnes/person) 2014 San Isidro 0.6723 2014 Ezeiza 0.1156 2014 Capital Federal 0.4427 1996 San Isidro 0.5757 1996 Ezeiza 0.1156 1996 Capital Federal 0.5730 Table 2 Table 2 shows the amount of waste generated in tonnes/(resident*year) in one of the the municipalities with the highest income per capita, San Isidro, one of the municipalities with the lowest income per capita, Ezeiza, and the city of Buenos Aires, la Capital Federal. Table 2 shows the waste generation in Buenos Aires municipalities with a significant mean income gap. San Isidro is one of the wealthiest municipalities meanwhile Ezeiza is one of the poorest municipalities. Capital Federal is the inner city of Buenos Aires where the residents are considerably wealthy. The table shows how the waste generation in communities with high incomes is high in comparison to communities with low incomes. The table also shows how the waste generation has increased in San Isidro between the years 1996 and 2014. In Ezeiza the corresponding number has remained unchanged. Main issues From the interviews and study visits that has been made in this study, thoughts and opinions where noted and some main issues in the SWM of Buenos Aires was identified. 1. The cartoneros and the cooperatives 2. The economy 3. The quality of waste including the lack of knowledge among residents 4. Infrastructure, space and location The four main issues that was identified are explained more carefully as follows. 1. The Cartoneros and the Cooperatives 20 The cartoneros of Buenos Aires has a long and problematic history. Even though the agreement from 2013 was a historic milestone, thousands of cartoneros willing to work remain outside of the system. Instead of including more people into the system and reach a higher rate of recycled waste, money are put into landfills. Furthermore, the treatment companies are paid by the Government for their work, meanwhile the cooperatives are not, even though they both, in the end, are performing the same job; taking care of the garbage of the city. The local Government is thereby not treating the cooperatives and the waste treatment companies equally. Meanwhile the waste treatment companies are paid per weight unit of waste received, the cooperatives are given a small subsidy, which is not promoting the separation at source. In this way, the local Government is focusing more on waste treatment and not on the prior stages. Additionally, it is advantageous for the waste treatment companies, economically, the larger amounts of waste going to landfills, instead of being separated at source (Lacunza, 2013). Apart from that manual separation is a health and security risk for the workers. The health aspect is especially high for those working in the manual separating at Ceamse. The waste that Ceamse receives is a complete mix, and since it is not separated at source makes the recyclable materials wet and contaminated. Regarding the agreement from 2013 there are so far no signs on any prolongation or a new contract. 2. The Economy The Buenos Aires Government is currently spending 10 percent of the budget on waste treatment, which is a lot (Interview BA Cambio, 2016). It is expensive for the Government to put the waste into landfills. With more emphasis on recycling a lot of money could be saved. New technology is very expensive and is hard to use to its fullest without well separated waste. By investing in new technology and expanding with new plants before assuring the quality of the waste, there is a risk of losing a lot of money. Even though Argentina is not counted as a developing country it has many economical problems, and a high rate of poverty. A big problem is the corruption. According to interviews the corruption is swallowing a lot of money, money that goes away in every step of the chain. 3. The Quality of the Waste Including the Lack of Knowledge/Education Among Residents 21 To be able to fully use new technology, like MBT, a high quality waste is required. The waste that the treatment companies receives in 2016 is a mix of all kinds of waste; recyclables, organic waste, and non­recyclables. Since the recyclables were not separated at source, a big fraction of them loses its value due to contamination (for example wet cardboard etc.). It is a hard assignment to make the residents separate their waste. Many residents does not make any difference between the green and the black bins. Many people are not completely sure about what recyclables are, or why it is a good thing to recycle. There is a lack of knowledge, not only among residents, but also in the authorities. From interviews with different NGOs it has been told that questions about the SWM received by Greenpeace was by Greenpeace directed to the Government who on then passed it on to another NGO, Green Tomato, which is an NGO with no specific knowledge in the area. Green Tomato is originally a design studio that makes recycling campaigns as a side project, based on information they have taken from the internet. They are contacted a lot by people with questions about recycling and the SWM, and the reason for this, according to themselves, is because they pay Google to be placed among the first results when someone googles anything about the subject. More cooperation between politicians and the universities would therefore be good. The recent made plans regarding the expansion of landfills, separation plants and MBTs, does not correspond with the main objectives of the UNEP plan and the Basura Cero plan, where emphasis is put on the separation at source and the minimization of the amounts of generated waste. Furthermore, the separation plant that is now in function at el Norte III, is not functioning very well. It is sorting by density and it also has a magnet function. The mix coming as a product from this separation plant is then again sorted manually (Ceamse, 2016). A problem with Ceamse is that people from the Government have private business interests in the company, as owners of truck companies as an example. This keeps the interests high to keep the waste inside of the gates of Ceamse (Interview, 2016). 4. Infrastructure, Space and Location Another problem is the space, even though the planned four new sites is a bit of a relief for Ceamse and the Government. But the creation of new landfills is really just swiping the dirt under the carpet. Also, by stretching the limits of objectives is an acceptance of not taking them seriously. That makes it easier to do it again. Consistence is therefore important, and to respect the objectives that has been set earlier. 22 Another landfill problem is the smell. The complaints from neighbours to el Norte III are increasing, implying that the smell is also a contamination. Regarding the infrastructure the amount of trucks operating every day is big. This is a problem that is hard to avoid, the transportation will always be necessary. Even though less trucks would be needed the less garbage that is generated (Interviews, 2016). An additional problem is how to integrate regulations at all levels. In the system of today the greatest responsibility lies with the municipalities, but the support from provincial and national governments is weak. Few municipalities have developed a plan on how to decrease its generation of waste. Improvements in cooperation and support on municipal and provincial levels is therefore needed (Unep, 2016). ANALYSIS Future Scenarios Four future scenarios has been formulated from existing waste management techniques, with the aim to optimize these techniques in a sustainable way. Firstly, a business as usual scenario was formulated, analyzing the development of the SWM of Buenos Aires in a sustainable development perspective, if no changes was made. In other words, the business as usual scenario investigates the outcomes of a system where the methods that are used today remains the same. The second future scenario is a scenario where incineration is legalized and reintroduced to the SWM system of Buenos Aires. A discussion regarding how social, economical and environmental aspects could be affected is made, aiming to find the pros and cons from a sustainable development perspective. The third future scenario examines the effects of investing in new technology as a main method of waste treatment in the area. Despite the pros with new technology in general, and the environmental pros specifically, putting it in the situation of Buenos Aires, it might not be the best solution in a sustainable development perspective. The fourth future scenario considers the effects of putting more focus on improving the recycling in the city. Business As Usual 23 A business as usual scenario is an unsustainable scenario. There is almost no space left and economically too expensive for the Government to keep putting the city's waste into landfills. Furthermore, the climate change and environmental threats are putting higher pressure on how the countries of the world are treating their waste and what kind of energy that is being used. Together with a growing economy and consumption changes in the SWM in Buenos Aires has to be made. If the city keeps putting almost all its waste into landfills they are going to shave to spend considerable amounts of money. It would also have a negative impact on the environment, locally and globally. Additionally, sooner or later, there will be no more space left for the creation of new landfills. Socially, the business as usual scenario also would have a negative impact as it would put many people in unemployment. By not using the pool of informal recyclers, many people are left without a job. This scenario would therefore not lead to a sustainable development of the SWM of Buenos Aires. Incineration According to the latest statements from the authorities, incineration is strongly considered as a future alternative as treatment method of the urban solid waste. Incineration is part of the most recent plans presented by Ceamse and the Government. Even though incineration climatewise is a better alternative than landfill disposal, there are reasons speaking against the implementation of incineration, or at least before a successful recycling system has been reached. The incineration of unsorted waste causes the loss of big amounts of valuable material. The recycling of these materials can create many new job opportunities and favours the climate. One of the world's climate challenges today is the use of natural resources which is why recycling is of important value. By separating and collecting the recyclable materials from the waste the use of raw materials gets sustainable in the long run and the process of manufacturing becomes more competitive. For a country as Argentina with economical problems and a high rate of unemployment there is an important value in the job opportunities that the recycling industry can offer. As for the companies there is also a marketing value, both nationally and internationally. As a green company the products become stronger in the markets. Therefore the step to the implementation of incineration in Buenos Aires might not be a very strategical move. Recycling complemented with renewable energy has clearly less impact on the climate and the economy. It might therefore be better for Buenos Aires to skip the incineration step completely, or to postpone it until the recycling system is functioning. 24 The implementation of incineration comes with the risk that the human laziness leads the focus away from the recycling. With the possibility to use incineration there is no longer an urgent need to improve the recycling system. Furthermore, with money invested in incineration plants there will be a will to make the plants useful, and less money to use to improve the recycling system. Also, job opportunities are lost. A positive aspect of implementing incineration is that it is an alternative that will give a rather quick effect and is relatively easy to install. It would solve the current space problem. In comparison, to improve and expand the recycling system is a more complex task. It requires good communication, organization and a lot of money. It requires action on all levels, from residents to companies and authorities. The provincial and municipal governments of Buenos Aires shows big interest in new technology in the sector of waste management. This as a part of the attempt of commercializing the city as a green city along with the Green City Plan. The plan has good intentions but there is a risk that one important step is skipped; There is no point in spending a lot of money in new technology without a high quality raw material i.e. well separated waste. Buenos Aires has a big pool of workers willing to separate and an existing market for recycled materials. At the same time the country has big economical problems. With the earth's climate challenges of today the city, sooner or later, will have no choice but finding a responsible and sustainable way of treating the generated waste, and the most effective way would be to start right away and not to sweep the dirt under the carpet. From this reasoning, the incineration scenario, despite its environmental pros, is not favourable in the case of Buenos Aires. Due to the lack of progress in recycling and separation of organic waste, the city needs more time to improve these aspects before moving on to incineration. In the sustainable development perspective, incineration would not improve the social or the economical aspects, since it would lead to the loss of many jobs and is an expensive installation. New Technology In the scenario where the Government decides to invest in new technology could lead to good and bad things. Firstly, focusing on new and green technology such as MBT is a more environmentally friendly option than a business as usual scenario. But new technology is expensive and requires a good quality waste. It is even more expensive for the Government to buy new technology and not be able to use it in full, and continue to pay Ceamse to put it into landfills. If separation and composting in homes would be introduced in a functioning way, it would enable a good use of MBT and other green technology. But, introduction to separation in homes can be expensive and difficult. Education programs would be required for the residents and new systems for collection and transportation would have to be developed. But 25 in the long run, it could be favourable. A good start would be to implement separation of organic waste by supermarkets and restaurants. At Ceamse already have one MBT and LFG­capture at one landfill site, which is a good start. What would save to most money and be the most environmentally sustainable would be to increase the rate of recycled materials. Improved Recycling Buenos Aires has a big group of people willing to work as recyclers. In recent years the formalization of cartoneros has been realized and the results have been positive. But still, the cooperatives are not paid by the Government for their services, as the waste treatment companies are for their services. This seems like a first step of justice and to improve the recycling in the city. Even the contract on formalizing recyclers has an unsure future, since it has not yet been prolonged. An improved rate of recycling would be more sustainable, cheaper and it would solve the space problem. It would also erase the odor problem that the residents living close to landfill sites have been complaining about. As already said, separation in homes is difficult and expensive and might be more interesting to discuss in the future. What would be possible is to start by only separating organic waste in the homes. Only separating one material is less complex and requires less education and energy to start with. By letting resident separate the organic waste it could be collected and used to produce energy. Maybe this would be favourable to separating recyclables from non­recyclables as it is today. The rest of the garbage could then be separated by recyclers. Without the organic waste, their job would be more hygienic. This would save money and the environment. From mentioned aspects the best option from the sustainable development perspective would be to put the emphasis on the improvement of recycling. This would save money, the environment and it would create jobs. In a longer time perspective, new technology or incineration could be introduced with positive effects. Below Ceamse’s current garbage cycle is shown followed by a proposal of how an alternative Garbage Cycle could look like; Current Garbage Cycle (at CEAMSE): 26 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Generation Collection Reception Compaction/compression Transportation Separation Final disposal => 8a. Gas treatment; 8b. Liquid treatment Proposal of Alternative Cycle: 1. Generation 2. Separation (by residents and generators) => a. Organic waste 3. Collection and transportation => Generation of energy 4. Collection of other waste 5. Treatment => a. Treatment, separation and selling of recyclables; b. Treatment/compacting/compression of the rest. 6. Transportation 7. Final disposal => a. Gas treatment; b. Liquid treatment; c. Incineration DISCUSSION The results and analyses from this study are based from the perspective of many different factors. Aspects such as cultural and political aspects are hard to include the whole spectrum. When using interviews and study visits it is hard to analyse from a completely objective perspective, even though that is the aim. For this study to reach an even more objective analysis, more time is required to get a deeper understanding of every stakeholder's perspective. Additionally, the policy and governance system would have to be studied more carefully, and an expansion of the cultural study applied. A SWM system is complex and requires advanced knowledge in many factors and reliable information. It can be hard to find good and reliable information in a country like Argentina, where corruption is of significant importance and a lot of data and information is not accessable. However, this study led to the identification of the main issues in the SWM in Buenos Aires, which could be evaluated even deeper with more time and information. The results are a good beginning and could be used as a base for further studies on the subject. The future scenarios offers a proposal of different approaches and the ability to develop the SWM of Buenos Aires in a sustainable way. These scenarios can be further discussed and studied in a more technical, economical and political way. However, this requires more time and knowledge. 27 The report concludes the main challenges for the SWM of Buenos Aires to be developed in a sustainable way. The challenges are of social, legal and technical character and involves many stakeholders. The problem as a whole is therefore big and requires the collaboration of these stakeholders. Furthermore the report identifies some main possible future scenarios, evaluating the information provided. From the analysis the conclusion can be made that the preferred alternative is the scenario where focus is put on an improved recycling system. Positive effects are also seen with other scenarios such as the incineration scenario and the new technology scenario, but to optimize the utilization of these, the emphasis should at least primarily be put in the recycling sector. Regarding the business as usual scenario, no positive effects could be identified. CONCLUSIONS Since the appearance of waste treatment companies in Buenos Aires, there has not been any radical changes. The main way of treatment is still sanitary landfill treatment, despite a big potential of recycling in the informal sector. The province is facing space problems and economical problems. Efforts has been made to increase the rate of recycled material and reduce the amounts of waste ended up in landfills. This has been made in forms of programs and projects such as the “Green City Plan”, and has lead to little progress. Part of the informal recycling sector has been formalized, but their future as formalized recyclers is unsure. The Government's distribution of money is another problem. Too much money is put in the treatment while other crucial steps are being ignored. It is pointless to invest in new technology without a good raw material to use i.e. well separated waste. REFERENCES Aasmundsen, Hans Geir (2013) ​Pentecostalism, Globalisation and Society in Contemporary Argentina, Södertörns Högskola, Stockholm, Sweden Andreassi C. (2012)​ Bursting at the Seams: Where Can Buenos Aires Put Its Rubbish?, http://www.argentinaindependent.com/socialissues/urbanlife/bursting­at­the­seams­where­ca
n­buenos­aires­put­its­rubbish/​, The Argentina Independent, assessed 2016­02­17 28 Association for the Study of Solid Waste (2016), ​Global Partnership on Waste Management Argentina, UNEP, ​http://www.unep.org/gpwm/Default.aspx?tabid=106557​, assessed 2016­05­12 Balch O. (2016),​ ​The new generation of Buenos Aires trash pickers reenergizing recycling in the capital, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/20/buenos­aires­litter­pickers­cartoneros­
recycling­argentina­environment​, The Guardian, assessed 2016­02­17 Buenos Aires Ciudad (2016),​ Puntos Verdes, http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/agencia­de­proteccion­ambiental/puntos­verdes­especiales​, assessed 2016­06­05 (in Spanish) CEAMSE (2013) ​Primera Planta de Tratamiento Mecánico Biológico en Argentina, http://www.ceamse.gov.ar/primera­planta­de­tratamiento­mecanico­biologico­mbt­en­argenti
na/​, assessed 2016­05­12 (in Spanish) CEAMSE (2016)​ La Empresa, ​http://www.ceamse.gov.ar/quienes­somos/​, assessed 2016­03­10 (in Spanish) Garcia M., Foderé A. (2007)​ The White Train, the Virginia Qvarter Review, ​Fall 2007 issue Government of the city of Buenos Aires (2005), ​Legislatura de la ciudad autónoma de Buenos Aires Ley Nº 1854/05, http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/areas/leg_tecnica/sin/normapop09.php?id=81508&qu=c&ft=0
&cp&rl=1&rf&im&ui=0&pelikan=1&sezion=1094340&primera=0&mot_toda&mot_frase&
mot_alguna​, assessed 2016­05­03 (in Spanish) La Nación (2016) ​Evalúan reformar la ley de basura cero, La Nación, ​March 16​ (in Spanish) Lacunza S. (2013) ​Buenos Aires Mayor Slammed for Slow Pace on “Zero Waste” Targets, Inter Press Service (IPS),​ January 28 Marshall R., Khosrow F. (2012) ​Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries, Elsevier, School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada Quiroga​ C. (2015), ​How ‘Green’ Is Buenos Aires’ Ecological Agenda?, http://www.bubblear.com/green­buenos­aires­ecological­agenda/​, The Bubblear, assessed 2016­02­17 Robinson K. (2014) ​Buenos Aires embraces “cartoneros” in push for zero waste, Citiscope, October 16 29 Rocha L., Serra L. (2015)​ Basura: la higiene urbana, una materia pendiente en la gestión del gobierno porteño, http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1787104­basura­la­higiene­urbana­una­materia­pendiente­en­la­
gestion­del­gobierno­porteno​, La Nación, assessed 2016­02­17 (in spanish) Rocha L. (2016) ​Ampliarán el relleno sanitario que recibe residuos de 28 distritos, La Nación, ​March 16​ (in Spanish) Rocha L. (2016) ​Otros cuatro rellenos sanitarios para el área metropolitana, La Nación, May 19 ​(in Spanish) Santalla E., Córdoba V., Blanco G. (2013)​ Greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector in Argentina in business­as­usual and mitigation scenarios, ​DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2013.800167​, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 63:8, 909­917 Santos Capra A. (2013) ​Workshop on “Guidelines for the development, update and reviewing of national waste management strategies” , UNEP, http://www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/Other%20documents/NWMS/Argentina%E2%80%93N
ational%20Waste%20Management%20Strategy%20in%20Argentina.pdf​, assessed 2016­05­14 Schamber P. (2010) ​A historical and structural approach to the cartonero phenomenon in Buenos Aires: continuity and new opportunities in waste management and the recycling industry, ​2:1­2, 6­23, DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2010.507962​, International Journal of Urban Sternberg C. (2013) ​From “cartoneros” to “recolectores urbanos”. The changing rhetoric and urban waste management policies in neoliberal Buenos Aires, ​ISSN 0016­7185​, Geoforum, Chicago, United States Sustainable Development, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras (FFyL), Universidad Nacional de Lanús, Argentina UNEP (2005) ​Chapter XIV. Sanitary Landfill, http://www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/SWM­Vol1­Part3.pdf​, assessed 2016­08­11 Velis C., Wilson D., Rocca O., Smith S., Mavropoulo A., Cheeseman C. (2012) ​An analytical framework and tool (‘InteRa’) for integrating the informal recycling sector in waste and resource management systems in developing countries, DOI: 10.1177/0734242X12454934 Waste Management & Research Wilson, D.C. (2007) ​Development drivers for waste management, Waste Management & Research 25 (3), 198–207 30 Zurbruegg, C. (2003) ​Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries: A Sourcebook for Policy Makers and Practitioners: EAWAG/SANDEC. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Interview Questions 1. Describe your way of working with issues regarding the waste management? 2. Have you had any previous success with projects you have been working on? 3. What are the biggest obstacles and opportunities in your opinion? 4. How is waste a problem for development? 5. How do you picture an ideal model of waste management? 6. What is your opinion on the current recycling system? 7. What is your opinion about the “Basura Cero” law? 8. What is your opinion on the “cartoneros issue”? 9. What advantages and/or positive effects can you see from the current waste management system? 10. What is your opinion about privatizing parts of the waste management system? 11. What is your opinion on the new recycling centres that are being planned? 12. Are you working with spreading education and increasing the awareness of the waste issue? 13. Are you in contact with the government or CEAMSE? 14. How are you working with the “Ley Nacional de Envases”? 15. What is your next goal regarding the waste issue? 16. How do you finance your projects? 17. Do you work anything with spreading information/educating about recycling? If not, why? Is it something you are planning to do in the future? If yes, how? 18. Do you receive any kind of economic support from the government? 19. Has the relatively new black and green bins made any difference for you/made your work easier or harder? How? 20. How do you think the city could make recycling easier for you and for the residents in Buenos Aires? 21. Do you think separation in the houses could be a possibility? 31 22. * How do you collect the materials? Have you gotten any financial help from the government to buy trucks? 23. What is your opinion about the governments formalisation of some cartoneros? 24. * From what areas do you collect? * ­ Questions specifically put for el Ceibo 32