Aparcana Sandra
UNEP DTU Partnership, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Marmorvej 51, 2100 København Ø, Denmark.
Waste Manag. 2017 Mar;61:593-607. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.028. Epub 2016 Dec 27.
The Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) sector represents a major challenge for low-and middle-income countries due to significant environmental and socioeconomic issues involving rapid urbanization, their MSWM systems, and the existence of the informal waste sector. Recognizing its role, several countries have implemented various formalization measures, aiming to address the social problems linked to this sector. However, regardless of these initiatives, not all attempts at formalization have proved successful due to the existence of barriers preventing their implementation in the long term. Along with this, there is a frequent lack of knowledge or understanding regarding these barriers and the kind of measures that may enable formalization, thereby attaining a win-win situation for all the stakeholders involved. In this context, policy- and decision-makers in the public and private sectors are frequently confronted with the dilemma of finding workable approaches to formalization, adjusted to their particular MSWM contexts. Building on the review of frequently implemented approaches to formalization, including an analysis of the barriers to and enabling measures for formalization, this paper aims to address this gap by explaining to policy- and decision-makers, and to waste managers in the private sector, certain dynamics that can be observed and that should be taken into account when designing formalization strategies that are adapted to their particular socioeconomic and political-institutional context. This includes possible links between formalization approaches and barriers, the kinds of barriers that need to be removed, and enabling measures leading to successful formalization in the long term.
This paper involved a literature review of common approaches to formalization, which were classified into three categories: (1) informal waste workers organized in associations or cooperatives; (2) organized in CBOs or MSEs; and (3) contracted as individual workers by the formal waste sector. This was followed by the identification and subsequent classification of measures for removing common barriers to formalization into five categories: policy/legal, institutional/organizational, technical, social, and economic/financial. The approaches to formalization, as well as the barrier categories, were validated through the assessment of twenty case studies of formalization. Building on the assessment, the paper discussed possible links between formalization approaches and barriers, the 'persistent' challenges that represent barriers to formalization, as well as key enabling factors improving the likelihood of successful formalization.
Regardless of the type of approach adopted to formalization, the review identifies measures to remove barriers in all five categories, with a stronger link between the approaches 1 and 2 and the existence of measures in the policy, institutional, and financial categories. Regarding persistent barriers, the review identified ones arising from the absence of measures to address a particular issue before formalization or due to specific country- or sector-related conditions, and their interaction with the MSWM context. 75% of the case studies had persistent barriers in respect of policy/legal issues, 50% of institutional/organizational, 45% of financial/economic, and 40%, and 35% of social and technical issues respectively.
This paper concludes that independently of the formalization approach, the lack of interventions or measures in any of the five categories of barriers may lead formalization initiatives to fail, as unaddressed barriers become 'persistent' after formalization is implemented. Furthermore, 'persistent barriers' may also appear due to unfavorable country-specific conditions. The success of a formalization initiative does not depend on a specific approach, but most likely on the inclusion of country-appropriate measures at the policy, economic and institutional levels. The empowerment of informal waste-workers is again confirmed as a further key success factor for their formalization.
由于快速城市化、城市固体废弃物管理(MSWM)系统以及非正规废弃物部门的存在所引发的重大环境和社会经济问题,城市固体废弃物管理部门对低收入和中等收入国家而言是一项重大挑战。认识到其作用后,一些国家已实施了各种正规化措施,旨在解决与该部门相关的社会问题。然而,尽管有这些举措,但由于存在阻碍其长期实施的障碍,并非所有正规化尝试都取得了成功。与此同时,对于这些障碍以及可能促成正规化从而让所有相关利益者实现双赢的措施类型,人们常常缺乏了解。在此背景下,公共和私营部门的政策制定者及决策者经常面临两难境地,即要找到适合其特定城市固体废弃物管理情况的可行正规化方法。在回顾常见的正规化实施方法(包括对正规化的障碍和促成措施进行分析)的基础上,本文旨在通过向政策制定者、决策者以及私营部门的废弃物管理者解释在设计适合其特定社会经济和政治制度背景的正规化战略时可以观察到且应予以考虑的某些动态情况,来填补这一空白。这包括正规化方法与障碍之间的可能联系、需要消除的障碍类型以及能促成长期成功正规化的措施。
本文对常见的正规化方法进行了文献综述,这些方法分为三类:(1)以协会或合作社形式组织起来的非正规废弃物工作者;(2)以社区组织(CBOs)或微型和小型企业(MSEs)形式组织起来的;(3)由正规废弃物部门作为个体工人签约的。随后,将消除正规化常见障碍的措施识别并归类为五类:政策/法律、机构/组织、技术、社会以及经济/金融。通过对20个正规化案例研究的评估,验证了正规化方法以及障碍类别。基于该评估,本文讨论了正规化方法与障碍之间的可能联系、构成正规化障碍的“持续性”挑战,以及提高成功正规化可能性的关键促成因素。
无论采用何种正规化方法,该综述都确定了消除所有五类障碍的措施,方法1和方法2与政策、机构和金融类措施的存在之间有更强的联系。关于持续性障碍,该综述确定了因在正规化之前缺乏解决特定问题的措施、特定国家或部门相关条件以及它们与城市固体废弃物管理情况的相互作用而产生的障碍。75%的案例研究在政策/法律问题方面存在持续性障碍,50%在机构/组织方面,45%在金融/经济方面,40%和35%分别在社会和技术问题方面。
本文得出结论,无论正规化方法如何,五类障碍中任何一类缺乏干预或措施都可能导致正规化举措失败,因为未解决的障碍在实施正规化后会变得“持续存在”。此外,由于不利的国家特定条件,也可能出现“持续性障碍”。正规化举措的成功并不取决于特定方法,而很可能取决于在政策、经济和机构层面纳入适合国情的措施。非正规废弃物工作者的赋权再次被确认为其正规化的另一个关键成功因素。