The Oti Landfill: Assessing the potential of the informal waste recycling economy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3337339/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Oti Landfill: Assessing the potential of the informal waste recycling economy

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3337339/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The informal recycling sector has gained recognition in recent times as the base of the industrial value chain. The focus is achieving effective recycling with the help of the informal waste economy. In spite of the fact that operators of this informal economy are a common sight in the urban areas of in many developing countries, very little is known about them and scant attention is paid to them. The aim of the study was to investigate the activities of the informal waste recyclers on the Oti landfill and estimate the economic value of their activities. The study adopted a mixed method approach of research and descriptive survey to collect the necessary data using interviews, field guides and observations. A total of 39 waste pickers and 16 waste buyers were interviewed. One waste picker picked on average 27–45kg of recyclables a day and obtained on average 1,186USD per annum whereas one waste buyer obtained 54,300 USD per annum. These figures were based on retrieving just over 5% of the recycling materials received on the landfill which translates to about 3700 tonnes annually. The results revealed that the role of informal waste economy plays a significant role in the broader waste management system as well as the local economy and therefore requires urgent attention and appropriate policy responses from policy makers.

Informal recycling economy

Economic value

Waste pickers

Waste management system

Increasing populations in developing countries, rural-urban migration and the general slowing of world economies has led to rising unemployment and poverty levels in developing countries. However, people must survive and therefore the creation of informal economies of which waste picking is one. Waste picking is the collection of recyclable waste whether for personal use or resale to higher-level traders and/or buy-back centres (S. M. Dias, 2016; Hayami et al., 2006). Waste pickers (WPs) are small-scale, self- employed agents, characteristically encountered in the urban informal sector. They are variously referred to as scavengers, reclaimers, salvagers, recyclers among others. In developing countries, waste-pickers play an important role in solid waste management systems, acting in a parallel way to formal waste collection and disposal agents. Scavengers collect from the streets, dumpsites, or landfills re-usable and recyclable materials that can be reincorporated into the economy's production process (S. M. Dias, 2016; Gutberlet, 2019; Scheinberg & Anschtz, 2007).

The physical characteristics of cities in developing countries, their rapid expansion, and the lack of resources to provide for necessary infrastructure and urban services translates into insufficient collection of waste generated, as well as its improper disposal on the streets, vacant lots and at best, in municipal open dumps (Schenck & Blaauw, 2011). Population growth in developing countries as well as changes in production and consumption patterns has increased rates of solid waste production - aggravating the already fragile situation of lack of environmental controls on industrial processes and inadequate or insufficient facilities for waste management (Moreno-Sánchez & Maldonado, 2006).

Despite spending 30 to 50 percent of their operational budgets on waste management, authorities in developing countries only collect between 50 and 80 per cent (Medina & Dows, 2000). of the refuse generated, leaving, in some cases, a significant portion of the population without access to waste collection services - Systems for transfer, recycling and /or disposal of solid waste are unsatisfactory from an environmental, economic and financial point of view (Moreno-Sánchez & Maldonado, 2006). This has led to a situation where waste collection and treatment services are seldom provided in an equitable, consistent way and this has created opportunities for the informal waste workers. In cities with no or irregular household waste collection coverage, informal workers provide the sole source of waste collection, harvesting waste as a livelihood while providing a vital public service. In cities with no municipal recycling system, waste pickers fill the gap by reclaiming recyclables and providing inputs of raw material into the formal recycling chain (S. M. Dias, 2016; Gutberlet, 2019; Scheinberg, 2012).

Recycling in low- and middle-income countries is neither the service of removal, nor an activity of “greening” related to ecological modernization. It is first of all an economic activity of commodities extraction, upgrading, and trading and as such it provides a livelihood for millions of persons worldwide (Marello & Helwege, 2018; Scheinberg et al., 2011). In doing so, they make significant contributions to reducing the carbon footprint of cities, recovering resources and reintroducing them into the circular economy, improving environmental conditions and health, particularly in low-income residential areas and generating income among the poor. Although waste picking is unlicensed, untaxed and unregistered, they contribute significantly to national economies (Marello & Helwege, 2018; Roberts et al., 2013).

There is growing evidence on the contribution of waste pickers to the environment, personal economies and the city solid waste management systems and they play a pivotal role in material recycling in different economies in developing countries. However, waste picking in Ghana constitutes a largely unresearched phenomenon partly because it is a largely shunned community and there are feelings of mistrust on the part of the waste pickers. The aim of this study therefore was to build a profile on the activities of informal recycling sector and trace the value chain where possible and assess the potential of the informal recycling industry using the Oti landfill as a case study. For the purposes of this study, waste pickers (WPs) /scavengers would refer to people collecting recyclables from the dumpsites or landfill sites.

Description of the study area

The Oti landfill site is one of the three engineered landfills in Ghana developed under external funding (World Bank and DFID) and commissioned in May 2004 (Owusu-Sekyere et al., 2013). The facility which until recently was located within the Kumasi metropolitan area is now in the Asokwa Municipality. It is owned by the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (KMA) and until October 2017 was managed by JSO company Ltd on behalf of the Assembly. From that time onwards however, management has reverted. The facility occupies a land mass of about 100 acres and located approximately 10 km northeast of the central business district of Kumasi. Up until July 2019, it was the final destination for all industrial, institutional, commercial and domestic waste generated within the greater Kumasi metropolitan area. However, about 60% of the waste has now been diverted to the Kumasi Compost and Recycling Plant (KCARP) and the facility now receives on average 900 tonnes of waste daily. The facility which started operating in May 2004 had a design life of 15 years – this end point has been reached and currently some portions are being decommissioned. Each day, solid waste deposited at the tipping face is spread and levelled off using a bulldozer, the waste pickers ply their trade here - as the dozer spreads the waste exposing valuable materials, the waste pickers rummage through the waste to retrieve materials like scrap metals, tins and cans and plastics.

Data Collection

The study adopted a mixed method approach where both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Primary and secondary data were used for the study. Primary data was sourced through preliminary reconnaissance field surveys, focus group discussions, questionnaires, face-to-face interviews and field observations. The appropriate tool was employed to elicit information from the landfill managers, staff and waste pickers / waste buyers as the case may be. Secondary data on the daily quantities of solid waste received at the site and the number of registered waste pickers were collected for analyses. Data was obtained from the waste pickers through a semi-structured interview guide. This was employed to allow for flexibility and frank discussions with the waste pickers. The discussions were conducted in three sessions in a month for three months in the form of focus group discussions. This was to ensure that a good number of the WPs were represented. In all, thirty-nine (39) waste pickers and sixteen (16) waste buyers (WBs) all stationed on the landfill were interviewed. Data on the materials scavenged daily by WPs was obtained at the time of weighing for sale to the buyers. All potential respondents were read a consent form that described the purpose of the discussions. A verbal consent was given before the discussions were conducted.

To determine the quantities of recyclables that were removed from the landfill, data was obtained from the WBs through discussions and records of sales to aggregators who came weekly or biweekly. This data was collected over a 3-month period. To estimate the economic value of the informal waste recycling sector related to WPs and WBs as well as the profitability thereof, the following equation adapted from (Sasaki et al., 2014) was used.

$$Y=\sum _{i=1}^{n}m{}_{i,x}\bullet P{}_{i}$$

where Y is the economic value of the informal waste recycling sector relevant to WPs, m_i,x is the number of recycled materials collected by different pickers, i represents the type of material (such as metal, cardboard, paper, plastics, glass, etc.), x represents the type of picker (such as street pickers, itinerant buyers, dump scavengers, and municipal cleaners), and p_i is the price of material type i. the profitability ratio is calculated as follows:

profitability ratio = revenue/cost.

If the figure is above 1, a profit has been made and if it is below 1, it implies losses were incurred in the course of doing business.

To determine the profitability of this venture, the cost incurred in obtaining the recyclables was determined based on cost elements such as the daily minimum wage of waste pickers/buyers (DMW, 2022), cost of transport, cost of food and miscellaneous cost which is usually estimated at 5% of the total cost build-up.

To determine the percentage of recyclables received at the landfill, a waste characterization exercise was conducted to ascertain its mean composition. This sampling was done according to international standard ASTM D 5231-92(2003) and RCRA regulations. This exercise was based on the collection and manual sorting of 5 samples of waste over a 5-day period. Vehicle loads of waste were designated for sampling and a sorting sample was collected from the discharged vehicle load. Vehicles (tricycles) for sampling were selected at random during each day of the 5-day sampling period. Each vehicle weighed about a tonne. One half of the load was properly prepared (mixed, coned and quartered by six men with garden forks and shovels) and a sorting sample collected. Each sorting sample weighed between 91–110 kg. The sample was sorted manually into the different waste components as follows:

Table 1

Components of MSW
Waste Components
1 Organics
2 Plastics Plastics/ HDPE gallons
3 PET bottles
4 Plastic LDPEs
5 Glass
6 Other plastics; PS, PVC, etc.
7 Cardboard
8 Paper
9 Cans/tins/iron/expired electrical products - metals
10 Combustibles (textile, synthetic hair, leather: THL)
11 Rubber, sacks: R/S
12 Inert (stones, sand porcelain, demolition waste etc.)
13 Miscellaneous (sanitary towels, diapers, materials that do not belong

The weight fraction of each component in the sorting sample was calculated by the weights of the components. The mean waste composition was calculated using the results of the composition of each of the sorting samples. From here, the quantities of the materials of interest to waste pickers and buyers received at the landfill were determined as well as the quantities they were able to salvage using 900 tonnes as the average tonnage received daily. The data obtained was used to estimate the potential of the recycling industry on the Oti landfill.

Ethical Clearance

The study was approved by the Committee on Human Research, Publications and Ethics of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Reference number: CHRPE/AP/518/22). Informed consent was sought from the participants before commencing the study and permission was obtained from the management of the landfill through the Waste Management Department of the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly

2.1 Assessment of the of waste pickers (WPs)

Thirty-nine (39) WPs were interviewed. They consisted of thirty -three (33) males and six (6) females. From the numbers of WPs interviewed, there were more men than women (85% and 15% respectively). These statistics are similar to observations made by Owusu-Sekyere, (2015) and Schenck & Blaauw, (2011) when these researchers conducted some work on scavengers in Kumasi and Pretoria respectively. They identified that there were more men than women in this trade – this could be attributed to fact that the task of rummaging through waste required a lot of muscle to accomplish. This is further corroborated by various researchers in Delhi, India, and Cairo Egypt (Fahmi & Sutton, 2010; Hayami et al., 2006). Their ages ranged between eighteen (18) and sixty-nine (69) years with the average age of 75% of them being 35. The age for waste pickers varies widely across the globe – in a study in South Africa, the ages ranged from 23 to 72 years (Maclean 2000). Younger people are attracted to this trade because it is physically appropriate for them as it requires long hours of standing and carrying heavy loads. Some interviews conducted among waste pickers in Mitchells plain indicated that their average age was between 50 and 65 years old (Langenhoven & Dyssel, 2007). There is no defined age range for entering into the recycling business since it does not require any qualification.

The most educated had a JSS certificate and up to seventy percent (70%) had very little or no education at all. 80% of the WPs interviewed were introduced to the trade by a relative corroborating the findings from Cairo, Egypt where the Zabbaleen, a Coptic Christian minority group have whole families engaging in this activity (Fahmi & Sutton, 2010). In most South American cities, where waste picking is established, whole families form small cooperatives with the man going out to get the recyclables and the women and children doing the sorting into the various components (S. M. Dias, 2016; Scheinberg & Anschtz, 2007). Seventy-two percent (72%) were married and had up to five dependents. Only twenty-five percent (25%) of those interviewed lived within 2km of the landfill - the remaining lived within a 5km radius of the facility and had to get there by their motors or public transport. Sixty-eight percent (68%) had been in the business for a minimum of twelve (12) years with the longest serving being a woman who had followed the city administration wherever they disposed of waste before settling at the present location. Four of them had just been recently employed by WBs to pick cardboard and PETs. For all of them, it was their main day job - although some were trained carpenters and welders, they practised their trade when such services were needed on the landfill. They worked averagely 6 hours a day all the days of the week so long as the facility was opened and there was an operational machine to spread the waste and expose the materials of interest. They usually worked alone with a few teaming up to enhance their efforts. Four (4) people collected only cardboard, four (4) collected only low-density polyethylene (LDPEs). three (3) collected only polyethylene bottles (PETs) and twenty (20) picked a mixture of high-density polyethylene (HDPEs), metals (including expired electrical appliances), tins and cans together usually called “mix”. Three (3) picked all types and colours of glass, two (2) picked sacks, another two (2) picked rubber of all types and one, a shepherd came around to pick edibles for his livestock.

On the use of PPEs, most pickers wore some protective gear particularly boots, but the quality was low and nose masks were almost absent. Waste pickers were very reluctant to divulge information about health and injuries on the facility, but it was obvious they were on their own and individuals had to take care of themselves when health emergencies arose. Table 2 represents the demographics of the waste pickers interviewed.

Table 2

Demographics of waste pickers
Demographics of 39 waste pickers
	N = 39	%
Gender
Male	33	85
Female	6	15
Age
< 25	3	7.6
25–35	7	17.9
36–60	27	69.2
> 60	2	5.1
Level of education
< JSS certificate	3	7.6
> JSS	36	92
Years in waste picking
< 3	4	10.2
3–10	15	38.4
> 10	20	51.2

The four (4) waste pickers who picked only cardboard picked on average 4.9 tonnes per month. The four (4) collectors of LDPEs picked on average 4.72 tonnes monthly. The three (3) who picked only PETs picked on average 2.3 tonnes monthly. Twenty (20) of them picked “mix” and they picked on average 21.9 tonnes per month. Two (2) each picked sacks and rubber and the quantities were 1.79 and 1.13 tonnes respectively. As at the time of collecting data, glass pickers had stockpiled glass bottles for over four (4) months without a buyer and were uninterested in giving information on monthly quantities. The loner who picked organic waste for his livestock was not considered.

In general, each WP picked between 27 and 45kg of materials daily. Male waste pickers tended to collect the more lucrative materials – “mix”. As they rummaged through the waste, other less-valuable ones were exposed that were then picked by women (from the discussions no female WP picked “mix”). LDPEs, cardboard and PETs and “mix” were mostly weighed and sold daily to buyers who were also stationed on-site. Collectors of glass bottles, rubber and sacks usually stockpiled until buyers came around and these were sold a piece for the bottles and sacks.

“Mix” recyclables were the most targeted of all the recyclables that were deposited on the landfill. This could be attributed to the fact that they fetched the most (GHC1,700/tonne) and there was a booming market for it. For most informal recycling businesses, metals recycling is the main framework on which the others are hinged. This is confirmed by the fact that fifty percent (50%) of the waste pickers targeted that. Cardboard, LDPEs, PETs and sacks followed in that order. Glass bottles were the least purchased – However, used olive oil bottles of all sizes had a market. This may be attributable to people wanting it to resell olive oil in small quantities for religious purposes. Organic waste had no market at all but for an occasional loner who came around regularly to collect it for his herd of cattle and sheep. This contradicts findings in other jurisdictions where organic waste is marketed to livestock owners or actively recovered by scavengers to feed their own livestock (Jaligot et al., 2016; Oteng-Ababio, 2011; Scheinberg et al., 2011). Table 3 summarizes information on the quantities of different recyclables collected and the selling prices.

Table 3

Types of recyclables and going prices
Waste components	No. of collectors	Q’ty/day (tonnes)	Q’ty/month (tonnes)	Price/tonne (GHC)	Sales/month (GHC)
HDPES, metals, tins and cans	20	0.70	21.90	1,700.00	37,230.00
PETs	3	0.08	2.30	800.00	1,840.00
LDPEs	4	0.16	4.72	500.00	2,360.00
Cardboard	4	0.16	4.90	600.00	2,940.00
Rubber	2	0.04	1.13	200.00	226.00
Sacks	2	0.06	1.73	400.00	692.00
Glass bottles	3	0.00	0.00	-	-
Organics	1	0.00	0.00	-	-
Total	39	1.2	36.68	4,200.00	45,288.00

From the WPs interviewed, one made on average 14,000 GHC per annum (1,186 USD June 2022 exchange rate). This was estimated by adapting Eq. 1 – this figure is twice more than the daily minimum wage in Ghana which works out to 494 USD per annum (2022 daily minimum wage).

This figure may be an underestimation because there were a lot more WPs who were unwilling to participate in the discussions. While cost modelling may come with significant uncertainties and sometimes arbitrary figures, the big picture provides clear signals of the size of economic benefits generated by informal recycling sector activities.

From the discussions held, the cost build-up in obtaining the recyclables is indicated in Table 4

Table 4

Average monthly cost incurred by waste pickers
Waste components	No. of WPs	Daily minimum wage /WP (GHC)	Transport/day (GHC)	Food/day (GHC)	Misc. 5% (GHC)	Cost buildup/day (GHC)	Cost buildup/month (GHC)
HDPES, metals, tins and cans	20	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	872.13	26,163.90
PETs	3	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	130.82	3,924.59
LDPEs	4	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	174.43	5,232.78
Cardboard	4	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	174.43	5,232.78
Rubber	2	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	87.21	2,616.39
Sacks	2	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	87.21	2,616.39
Glass bottles	3	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	130.82	3,924.59
Organics	1	13.53	10	18.00	2.08	43.61	1,308.20
Total	39					1700.65	51,019.61

Judging from Tables 3 and 4, this venture would be unprofitable to engage in because the profitability ratio is less than 1 (0.92). It is a fact that WPs to date have only been paid the market related, although highly variable, resource value upon sale of recyclables at intermediaries such as buy-back centres. They are not paid for the collection services they provide, unlike many formal collectors (Godfrey, 2021). They pay their own costs, much of it with their muscles, and derive the economic benefit. Thus, the daily minimum wage was be excluded in the cost build-up. It is likely that payment for both the value of the recyclable material and collection service will have significant cost implications on aggregators and ultimately producers. Excluding the daily minimum wage (Table 5) brings the profitability ratio to 1.36 making the venture profitable. The high demand for metals and HDPEs suggests that more could be obtained from this enterprise by separating waste at the household level and introducing a collection system that would make it more easily available to WPs.

Table 5

Cost build-up excluding minimum wage
Waste components	No. of WPs	Transport/day (GHC)	Cost of food/day (GHC)	Misc. 5% (GHC)	Cost buildup/day (GHC)	Cost buildup/month (GHC)	Cost buildup/month ($)
HDPES, metals, tins and cans	20	10	18.00	1.40	588.00	17,640.00	1,494.92
PETs	3	10	18.00	1.40	88.20	2,646.00	224.24
LDPEs	4	10	18.00	1.40	117.60	3,528.00	298.98
Cardboard	4	10	18.00	1.40	117.60	3,528.00	298.98
Rubber	2	10	18.00	1.40	58.80	1,764.00	149.49
Sacks	2	10	18.00	1.40	58.80	1,764.00	149.49
Glass bottles	3	10	18.00	1.40	88.20	2,646.00	224.24
Organics	1	10	18.00	1.40	29.40	882.00	74.75
Total	39				1,146.60	34,398.00	2,915.08

2.2 Assessment/Profile and activities of the of waste buyers (WBs)

All sixteen (16) WBs on the landfill were interviewed. They consisted of fifteen (15) males and one female. Their ages ranged between thirty-five (35) and sixty-five (65) years. They all had at least completed JSS. They were all married and had up to five dependents. All sixteen buyers lived more than 2km away from the landfill and had to get there by their motors or public transport. Eight (8) of them had been in the business for a minimum of ten (10) years. For all of them, this was their main day job. Three (3) of them had employed waste pickers to pick specific types of waste for them (cardboard and PETs). They bought waste from pickers so long as they had products to sell and they also bought from drivers/attendants of waste service vehicles. All sixteen buyers together employed 101 people (43 females and 58 males) to help with the sorting and packaging of recyclables for onward sale to aggregators. Of the sixteen, eleven bought only “mix” and employed the greatest number of people – 68 to segregate the wastes into its various components. Of the 68 employed, 37 were females. One bought PETs, two bought LDPEs and the remaining 2 bought cardboard. All eleven (11) buyers of “mix” bought on average 136.5 tonnes of metals, tins cans, expired electrical appliances and 57.3 tonnes of HDPEs per month (193.8 tonnes in total). About 70% of buyers bought the “mix” recyclables confirming that it is the most sought-after recyclable in the sector. This contrasts with research done on the Kpone landfill in Accra, Ghana and Bantar Gebang final disposal site in Jakarta Indonesia where plastic waste was the most recovered recyclable commodity (Amfo-otu, 2018; Sasaki & Araki, 2014). It is possible that metals, tins and cans do not feature prominently in the waste streams destined for those landfills and it is also probable it is taken out before the other types of waste are discharged.

6.3 tonnes of PETs were purchased by one buyer, 12.6 tonnes of LDPEs by two buyers and 97 tonnes of cardboard were purchased by two other buyers. Buyers for sacks and rubber products were not stationed on the landfill and general demand for it was quite low and therefore not considered.

Below is a table summarizing the quantities of recyclables obtained by waste buyers per month.

Table 6

Average quantities of recyclables purchased per month
Recyclable component	No. of buyers	Monthly quantities retrieved (tonnes)	Buying Price/tonne (GHC)	Amount paid to WBs/month (GHC)	Amount paid to WBs/month ($)
Plastic HDPEs & metals	11	193.80	3,500.00	678,300.00	57,483.05
Plastic PETs	1	6.30	1,600.00	10,080.00	854.24
Plastic LDPEs	2	12.60	1,700.00	21,420.00	1,815.25
Cardboard	2	97.00	1,500.00	145,500.00	12,330.51
Total	16	309.7		855,300.00	72,483.05

The cost build-up for the waste buyers is indicated in Table 6. It is based on the cost figures used for the waste pickers and the daily minimum wage was excluded in the calculation. To ascertain the profitability, a ratio of the revenue to the cost is determined from Tables 8 and 9. The profitability ratio is 1.97 indicating the business is very profitable – more profitable than that of the waste pickers. This corroborates the fact that as you climb the pyramid in the informal waste sector, the business becomes more lucrative.

Table 7

summary of goods purchased by waste buyers
Waste components	No. of buyers	Quantities bought/month (tonnes)
Plastic HDPEs	11	57.3 ± 1.2
Plastic PETs	1	6.3 ± 2.1
Plastic LDPEs	2	12.6 ± 0.6
Cardboard	2	97 ± 3
Cans/tins/iron metals	11	136.5 ± 4.1

Table 8

average monthly cost incurred by waste buyers
Recyclable component	No. of buyers	Cost of food (GHC)*	Cost of transport (GHC)*	Misc. 5% (GHC)	Quantities retrieved (tonnes)	Buying Price/tonne (GHC)	Amount paid to WPs (GHC)*	Cost build-up (GHC)*
Plastic HDPEs & metals	11	5,940.00	3,300.00	462.00	193.80	1,700.00	329,460.00	339,162.00
Plastic PETs	1	540.00	300.00	42.00	6.30	500.00	3,150.00	4,032.00
Plastic LDPEs	2	1,080.00	600.00	84.00	12.60	700.00	8,820.00	10,584.00
Cardboard	2	1,080.00	600.00	84.00	97.00	800.00	77,600.00	79,364.00
	16							433,142.00
*Average figures

On average one WB earned GHC 640,000 (USD 54,362) per annum and this is very profitable. The middlemen who aggregated from all the buyers were unwilling to give information.

Composition of waste

The results of the waste characterization exercise conducted over the 5-day period are indicated in the chart below. This was to get a better idea of the quantity of recyclables received at the landfill and retrieved by waste pickers. (The volumes were obtained by using 900 tonnes as the average volume received daily). Organics, which constituted the major component of the waste was 56.5%. The recyclable plastics of interest – HDPEs, LDPEs, PETs together made 15.5% of the waste whereas cardboard constituted 3.1% and metals accounted for 3.5% of the waste that was received.

From the waste composition exercise conducted, the materials of interest to waste pickers and buyers constitute about 25% of the waste received at the landfill estimated at 225 tonnes of waste daily (6750 tonnes/month). However, the quantities purchased monthly are in the region of 310 tonnes - a mere 4.5% of the quantities of recyclable materials received on the landfill making the resource recovery rate very low. The very low recovery rate at the time of collecting data could be attributable to the mode of operations adopted by the managers of the facility – to conserve fuel, the dozer pushes and spreads the waste every other day instead of daily. Meanwhile, the ability of WPs to salvage waste is contingent on the spreading of the waste making the recyclables accessible. Figure 4.2 depicts the quantities of recyclables retrieved. The most recovered recyclables are metals and the least are glass and sacks.

From the Oti landfill, waste pickers salvage just about 3700 tonnes per annum representing about 5% of the recyclable materials received annually. The high incidence of the activities of itinerant waste buyers (IWBs) confirms latent demand, and the ability of the value chain to absorb and pay for more materials (Scheinberg et al., 2011). On the other hand, materials picked from mixed waste have the potential to enter society and cause grave health consequences and this is the basis for the economic feasibility of source separation and separate collection.

This study paints a picture of how people rummage through waste for their livelihoods – these waste pickers form the base of a pyramidal market structure. There are sub-markets that trade at different levels in a complex system where buyers and sellers change places for different commodities. As the pyramid thins out, there is specialization in the commodities traded. Value can be added to the materials by cleaning, classifying, washing and drying, compacting, aggregating them into commercial quantities, and altering their physical shape to facilitate transport (Asim et al., 2012; Wilson et al., 2006). It is at this point that recyclable materials transit to manufacturing industries.

Despite being very visible in most cities of the global South, waste pickers’ contributions to the urban environment and economy are largely unnoticed and undervalued by city authorities The informal waste recycling sector generates employment and creates opportunities where they might not otherwise exist. It is therefore a critical source of livelihood for the working/urban poor and they make relevant contributions to cities by increasing the lifespan of landfills through lowering the quantities of waste to be disposed of - This sector exists for economic reasons but their actions impact positively on the environment; they divert waste from landfill sites contributing to environmental sustainability.

Though this sector may be looked down upon, they make a significant contribution to industry and the economy at large – it allows new enterprises and trading networks to evolve and investments to take place (Gunsilius, 2010). Furthermore, the activity delivers a steady, reliable supply of valuable secondary raw materials to local industries (such as recycled plastic pellets) (Matter et al., 2013). Meanwhile, waste management policy in most developing countries does not acknowledge their involvement so there are no defined laws under which they operate. It is therefore imperative to review policy to find space for the informal recycling industry.

It is hereby recommended that municipalities include the informal sector in solid waste management and offer them support. This is because municipalities have incredible potential of increasing the productivity of this sector. This can be achieved by establishing formal agreements with them as is the case in certain areas in Brazil. In this example, the informal sector is the official provider of recycling services. This means that the municipalities compensates them for the services provided just as it would with a private waste company (M. Dias & Samson, 2016; Scheinberg et al., 2011) and they get additional funds from selling the recyclables.

One lesson that is obvious from this study is that waste pickers are vital players in the local and national economies by contributing to improving public health and reducing the costs associated with municipal solid waste management. Governments must therefore be interested in sustaining this sector by formulating policies that are friendly towards them. This could include helping waste pickers form associations / cooperatives and providing incentives so they can enter new niches. The municipalities could consider a means of introducing waste pickers in either refuse collection and/or resource recovery within source segregation schemes with payments of waste pickers through contracts or subsidies. The latter would guarantee waste pickers a type of semi-formal status through formal agreements. Governments/municipalities could provide infrastructure for sorting, and baling, etc.; carrying out educational campaigns to help not only change the biases the general public holds towards informal waste workers, but also to encourage more segregation of recyclables; and finally, offering, on a regular basis, capacity building and management courses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the officials of the Waste Management department of the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, the landfill managers and staff as well as the waste pickers and buyers on the Oti landfill site for their cooperation during the course of this study.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT:

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All the data supporting this study are included in the article.

Amfo-otu, R. (2018). Contribution of Informal Sector Recycling Workers to Sustainable Landfill Management: The Case of Kpone Landfill Site in the Greater Accra Region. September.
Asim, M., Batool, S. A., & Chaudhry, M. N. (2012). Scavengers and their role in the recycling of waste in Southwestern Lahore. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 58, 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.10.013
Dias, M., & Samson, M. (2016). Sector Report: Waste Pickers (Issue February).
Dias, S. M. (2016). Waste pickers and cities. Environment and Urbanization, 28(2), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816657302
Fahmi, W., & Sutton, K. (2010). Cairo’s contested garbage: Sustainable solid waste management and the Zabaleen’s right to the city. Sustainability, 2(6), 1765–1783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061765
Godfrey, L. (2021). Quantifying economic activity in the informal recycling sector in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 117(9–10), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.17159/SAJS.2021/8921
Gunsilius, E. (2010). Role of informal sector in solid waste management and enabling conditions for its integration. Experiences from GTZ. German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), …. http://www.transwaste.eu/file/001441.pdf
Gutberlet, J. (2019). Waste picker social economy organizations addressing the Sustainable Development Goals. Presented at UNTFSSE International Conference in Geneva, 25(June), 26.
Hayami, Y., Dikshit, A. K., & Mishra, S. N. (2006). Waste pickers and collectors in Delhi: Poverty and environment in an urban informal sector. Journal of Development Studies, 42(1), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500356662
Jaligot, R., Wilson, D. C., Cheeseman, C. R., Shaker, B., & Stretz, J. (2016). Applying value chain analysis to informal sector recycling: A case study of the Zabaleen. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 114, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.006
Langenhoven, B., & Dyssel, M. (2007). The recycling industry and subsistence waste collectors: A case study of Mitchell’s plain. Urban Forum, 18(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02681233
Marello, M., & Helwege, A. (2018). Solid Waste Management and Social Inclusion of Wastepickers Opportunities and Challenges. 45(218), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X17726083
Matter, A., Dietschi, M., & Zurbrügg, C. (2013). Improving the informal recycling sector through segregation of waste in the household e The case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International, 38, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.06.001
Moreno-Sánchez, R. del P., & Maldonado, J. H. (2006). Surviving from garbage: The role of informal waste-pickers in a dynamic model of solid-waste management in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics, 11(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X06002853
Oteng-Ababio, M. (2011). Missing links in solid waste management in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area in Ghana. GeoJournal, 76(5), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9363-9
Owusu-Sekyere, E. (2015). Scavenging for wealth or death? Exploring the health risk associated with waste scavenging in Kumasi, Ghana. Ghana Journal of Geography, 6(1), 63–80. http://www.ajol.info/index.php/gjg/article/view/111135
Owusu-Sekyere, E., Osumanu, I. K., & Yaro, J. A. (2013). Dompoase Landfill in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area of Ghana: A ‘ Blessing ’ or a ‘ Curse ’? International Journal of Current Trends in Research, 2(1), 87–99.
Roberts, C., Ezeah, C., Fazakerley, J. A., & Roberts, C. L. (2013). Emerging Trends in Informal Sector Recycling in Developing and Transition Countries Emerging trends in informal sector recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Management, 33(11), 2509–2519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.06.020
Sasaki, S., & Araki, T. (2014). Estimating the possible range of recycling rates achieved by dump waste pickers: The case of Bantar Gebang in Indonesia. Waste Management and Research, 32(6), 474–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X14535651
Scheinberg, A. (2012). Informal Sector Integration and High Performance Recycling: Evidence from 20 Cities. In WIEGO Working Paper (Vol. 23, Issue March).
Scheinberg, A., & Anschtz, J. (2007). Slim pickin’s: Supporting waste pickers in the ecological modernization of urban waste management systems. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 5(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1386/ijtm.5.3.257/1
Scheinberg, A., Spies, S., Simpson, M. H., & Mol, A. P. J. (2011). Assessing urban recycling in low- and middle-income countries: Building on modernised mixtures. Habitat International, 35(2), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.08.004
Schenck, R., & Blaauw, P. F. (2011). The Work and Lives of Street Waste Pickers in Pretoria-A Case Study of Recycling in South Africa’s Urban Informal Economy. Urban Forum, 22(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-011-9125-x
Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006). Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat International, 30(4), 797–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Oti Landfill: Assessing the potential of the informal waste recycling economy

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

2.1 Assessment of the of waste pickers (WPs)

2.2 Assessment/Profile and activities of the of waste buyers (WBs)

Conclusions and recommendations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1