Maroussia Klep, OECD Environment Directorate
There’s an old saying that “you can’t really understand someone else’s experience until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes”. Personally, I am not sure that you can ever truly understand what it is like to be that person, but you can make every effort to consider his or her perspective. Such efforts are ever more essential for policymakers in governments and international organisations, whose everyday work may impact the lives of thousands of people.
Last week, officials and experts from OECD member countries and OECD staff working on waste issues had the opportunity to plunge into the reality of a landfill during a 90 minute documentary, Something Better to Come.. And it wasn’t any old landfill: at the time of filming, the Svalka was the largest garbage dump in Europe, located 20 kilometres outside the centre of Moscow and covering an area of 500,000 square meters. On this huge mountain of trash, which was recently shut down, lived hundreds of people in a lawless society, drinking vodka to survive cold winters and worked to the bone by the mafia that ran the dump’s illegal recycling centres.
In 2000, Oscar-nominee Hanna Polak, the Polish director of the movie, was working on a project on homeless kids living in Moscow’s railway stations when she first heard of the existence of the Svalka. She managed to sneak inside despite the guards posted to keep intruders away. The misery she discovered, and the terrible human and environmental conditions, made her determined to come back and make a film in order to raise awareness of the situation. For almost ten years, she “broke in” to this enclosed area from which many others wanted to break out, to follow the lives of the deprived people living on the dump. Amidst the garbage, the young Yula, a beautiful girl with a head full of dreams and determination, slowly becomes the heroine of the movie and a symbol of hope.
The screening of the documentary at the OECD had a visibly strong impact on the audience. The director was flooded with questions at the end: How did such a situation arise? Which policies do you think would be most useful to address it? How could informal recyclers be integrated into the formal economy? What happened to Yula? How were you psychologically and morally strong enough to withstand all this…?
Even though the movie takes place in Russia, similar situations exist (or have existed) in many places around the world. For policymakers from OECD member states, where informal recyclers have been largely integrated into the formal economy in recent decades, experiencing the life of these people from so close was an eye-opener. It also created a sense of urgency to collaborate further with emerging and developing countries still confronted with these issues.
The situation on the Svalka, which was eventually closed in 2007, shows the intricate link between environmental and social issues. When Hanna started making the film, each Russian produced around 350 kilograms of waste a year on average. That figure is now approaching 600 kilograms, and it all has to be treated. Simply shutting down landfills to reduce pollution without considering the impacts on informal workers who depend on it for their livelihood may be devastating for those people. In addition, it fails to take into account the valuable work they accomplish by providing garbage collection services almost for free.
Building on this idea, a colleague in the audience shared an inspiring story: La Chureca in Nicaragua was the largest landfill in Central America and used to be home to about 1000 people living in extreme poverty. They suffered terrible health conditions, doing arduous, yet very important work as informal recyclers. In 2012, thanks to support from the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development (AECID), the dump site was sealed to create a new energy generation plant, which would help provide stable and decent jobs as well as subsidised housing to the families who were living and working on the dump.
As the Nicaragua story reveals, terrible situations such as the ones witnessed in the movie can be improved with efforts and a genuine willingness to make change happen. By bringing reality inside the walls of the OECD, Hanna’s documentary has made a powerful contribution to raising awareness on the issue – hopefully for “something better to come”.
We’d like to thank Unico van Kooten and the Dutch Waste Management Association who supported the organisation of the screening and visit of the director to the OECD.
Today’s post is from Liisa-Maija Harju, Environmental Coordinator in the OECD Operations Service
Each year OECD countries generate over four billion tonnes of waste. By 2020, we could be generating 45% more waste than we did in 1995.
OECD’s work on waste management focuses on promoting sustainable materials management in order to limit waste generation in the first place. According to the recent report Greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for mitigation from materials management within OECD countries, in most OECD countries, at least 4 percent of current annual GHG emissions could be mitigated if waste management practices were improved. The report focuses on municipal solid waste that forms only a portion of total waste generation across OECD countries.
Typically GHG emissions from the waste sector have accounted for 3% to 4% of total emissions in OECD member countries’ GHG emission inventories. This approach might be outdated because it only considers direct emissions primarily from landfill methane emissions and incinerators.
A systems view would be needed to assess GHG emissions associated with materials and waste because materials production, consumption and end-of-life management are so closely linked together. Looking at the whole life cycle would allow for the inclusion of GHG emissions from the acquisition, production, consumption, and end-of-life treatment of physical goods in the economy.
When viewed from a life-cycle perspective, GHG emissions arising from materials management activities are estimated to account for 55% to 65% of national emissions for four OECD member countries studied. This suggests that there is a significant opportunity to potentially reduce emissions through modification and expansion of materials management policies. The report also reminds us that basic recycling and source reduction are effective tools to reduce total GHG emissions.
How about us here at the OECD itself? The OECD Secretariat’s total GHG footprint amounted to approximately 9332 metric tonnes CO2-equivalent in 2010. Our GHG Inventory tool does not include waste management directly, and we don’t yet have the means to calculate the real GHG emissions savings of our waste management efforts.
Since 2008 we have sorted paper, and in the past four years the total amount of waste produced has gone down by 45%, although the baseline was exceptionally high because we moved offices over 2007-2009 when our headquarters buildings were being refurbished and the new conference centre built. In 2011 the Secretariat produced 477 tonnes of waste (of which 274 tonnes was paper waste) compared to 861 tonnes of waste in 2008 (of which 363 tonnes was paper waste). Last year we installed a machine that allows for the compression of bottle, can, cardboard, and paper waste at our facilities before transportation, cutting down the number of truck trips needed to take away the waste.
To further improve our waste management infrastructure, we will install a comprehensive sorting system for bottles and cans this June. Hopefully we will be able to switch our focus to sustainable materials management and the prevention of all the waste in the first place so that by 2020 we will be generating at least 45% less waste than we did in 2011.