As United Nations Development Program – UNDP- Guatemala’s Accelerator Lab, we began our mapping journey to understand how people are managing to be resilient to climate change. Even though such a complex challenge has a wide range of dimensions to comprehend, we decided to begin to sense the solid waste management system in Guatemala City.

Solid waste from the Metropolitan Area and the Motagua river basin.

Today, UNDP Guatemala is leading a bi-national project for the “Comprehensive environmental management of the Motagua River”[1] basin; the largest river in Guatemala[2].  Currently this river is suffering from pollution from three main sources[3]:

a)      Solid waste disposed in the main metropolitan landfill, which is washed away by local river (Las Vacas), until they flow into Motagua River.
b)      Solid waste mismanagement along the river from smaller communities or productive activities in the countryside.
c)       From the lack of water management systems, allowing polluted water to be disposed from many territories, municipalities, and productive activities.

With the UNDP Country Office, we have seen this project as an opportunity to integrate the Accelerator Lab into this initiative considering our development challenge is a) to improve the cooperation between society and public institutions; and b) increase resilience to climate change.

Some learning questions raised in our process are: 1.  What barriers do public institutions face to cooperate with society? 2. How to carry out plans to improve the resilience to climate change? Already comprehensive questions, we decided to conduct our first journey of sensing focusing on how solid waste is managed in the largest city in Guatemala.

[1] UNDP Guatemala PRODOC approved in September 2020 between UNDP Guatemala, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Funded by the GEF Trust Fund.

[2] The Motagua River basin is a 17,991 sq/km, located on the slopes of the Caribbean Sea in the southeast of Guatemala and the northeast of Honduras. It has more than 500 tributaries and an average daily flow of 216 cubic meters per second and the volume of water it contributes is estimated at 6.5 billion cubic meters per year in Guatemala and 2,072 in Honduras.

[3] The Motagua river basin presents multiple threats, resulting in its environmental degradation. These threats include: a) contamination of surface water and groundwater caused by solid waste not properly managed, discharge of wastewater without treatment and disposal of agrochemical by-products in up to 34 municipalities; b) deforestation, which between 2001 and 2006 amounted to more than 87,000 hectares and affected 66 of the municipalities in the basin; c) forest fires, which affect 50 municipalities; d) reduction of flows and elimination of tributaries in 47 municipalities; e) erosion, which affects water quality in 39 municipalities; and f) also, the Basin has been affected by drought; storms and hurricanes; floods; and desertification, on average from 21 to 30 municipalities.

Background of a mixed system in Guatemala City

According to the Guatemalan Constitution, Civil Code and Municipal Code, the solid waste management, from collection, treatment, and final disposition, is a service that municipalities must provide.  However, it doesn’t specify, and it is still not clear, where the financial sources are going to be obtained by municipal administration for these purposes.

Since early 20^th Century, informal collection of solid waste has been held in Guatemala City. The collection service has evolved from informal micro business into private medium enterprises allied in 3 main associations. Currently around 560 “yellow trucks” collect domestic[1] waste not only in Guatemala City, but within 8 other municipalities within the metropolitan area.

In the 40’s, waste was disposed in an open ravine without any separation nor treatment. This ravine[2] located in central area of Guatemala City, was filled and by the 1960’s it began to grow into the northern natural basin, where the today the municipal open landfill[3] is. Currently, there is not an institutional operation on sorting and classifying the waste previously to disposition, neither recycling procedures, however there are other solutions happening, on which we are writing this blog.

[1] Including big generators such as restaurants, office buildings, schools or any other facility that produces ordinary waste.

[2] In private property

[3] The municipal landfill also called as dumpster, was not built as a technical waste management facility, but was used as an open dump without permeability to the soil or leached liquids treatment.

Sensing solid waste from households to final disposition

To begin the process of mapping, we focused on two main activities:

1. Observation and casual interview on waste to be collected from the source points (domestic generation)[1].

[1] Paola, our Solutions Mapper, conducted 17 casual interviews with urban households on how they dispose their own waste.

2. Observation on delivery of solid waste (already collected), either to the municipal landfill or other destination points.

We took a tour to observe the activities and characteristics of the neighborhood around the landfill, as well as follow the trucks at the end point of their routes.  We had the opportunity to talk with some recyclers from the neighborhood around, and we were amazed about our findings.

Informal systems that have assembled a solid waste recovery chain

Even though the waste collection has been operating with informal mechanisms through an autonomous[1] private service, many spontaneous environmental practices have emerged. These practices are a way to cope with the economic struggles most of the waste collection trucks’ employees face.

Apparently, the current conditions for waste collection workers aren´t meeting the minimum wage nor health benefits or programs[2]. Somehow, they have realized the economic value of recovering material either to reusage or recycling purposes. Without any technical knowledge, except their instinct to be resilient to economic issues, employees of yellow waste collection trucks have developed skills and have self-learned on how to sort waste into the main categories demanded by market.

Since most households generally mix the waste they put out, collectors initiate a process of sorting waste during the collection routes, classifying by type of material in large sacks that are hanging from the trucks. If the waste from households was already sorted, the work would have been easier for them, avoiding getting messy during the process. And, what do collectors do with the sorted waste? Well, they know how to sell it to a spontaneous recovery network!

[1] Each yellow truck is requested to pay an annual permit around US$50, allowing them to download waste in the Municipal landfill. That’s the only fee they are charge by the municipal authorities. The collection service fee is set by them, according to socioeconomical conditions of the generator and the neighborhoods, plus the average volume to carry.

[2] We haven’t been able to access to that kind of information, yet, and we assume this due to the conditions they are working on.

The role of brokers in a recovery chain

We’ve learnt about the spontaneous practices on sorting waste, but it wouldn´t be recycled in informal or formal ways if it wasn’t for brokers along this unprompted system. Simultaneously, we have found out that some former waste pickers at the landfill have now become brokers who trade valued waste as small informal businesses that have grown locally around this neighborhood. These brokers are also connected to intermediaries linked to larger industries on recycling.

The waste that has been already classified by the collectors reaches the main discharge yard of the landfill or already goes directly to the small recovery centers of the intermediaries. Depending on the type of material, it is sold to be reused as a second-hand object, reused for spare parts or to be recycled through industrial processes.

We had the opportunity to hold casual interviews with some of them, which was truly instructive:

All three were very friendly and open to discuss their activities with us. They didn't talk much about individual income. However, they seemed to orient their business according to fluctuation and market prices on recyclable materials. Their activities depend on the demand for these materials. They are also well known in the neighborhood and in the networks of buying reusable and recycling material. Each one of them carries out their own process showing that division of labor has helped them to master their knowledge about the use of materials and the market.

Many questions arose after having these conversations. How much they earn from these activities, individually and collectively? How many people are involved in the recovery process and how this alleviates their economic struggles? What is the total amount they recover daily, weekly, monthly, annually?

Of course, other deeper questions arise about these grassroots solutions, and about the behavior of household waste generators, and about the behavior of household generators. One of our main findings is the opportunity to promote from public institutions these spontaneous practices that have already become complex systems.

Opportunities for collaboration between society and public institutions

During our brief visit to the surroundings of Guatemala City’s landfill, we were able to observe several unattended needs.

For example, people’s safety seemed to be vulnerable. The constant exposure to sharp or toxic objects can cause injuries, and absence of hygiene can cause diseases. This is particularly problematic for children present in the area. Also, getting hurt or sick could greatly impact their income by reducing their ability to work. It’s possible that people are prone to taking risks to avoid mitigation costs. Therefore, there is an opportunity to collaborate in reducing the costs of safety.

Also, we didn’t observe any trouble, even though the absences of local authorities. Activities were scattered; however, interactions were peaceful and seemed to follow established patterns. This raises the question of what happens when a conflict arises? If rules are enforced unevenly, based on asymmetrical power relationships, there may be a need to protect people from potential abuses.

Additionally, we observed limited capacity to increase productivity. Doña Elsy told us that she buys plastic containers from waste collectors, which she then cleans to sale for reuse. However, she is only able to clean about one hundred containers a day. There is an opportunity to help people like her to increase her efficiency.

According to the dynamics that occur around the Landfill, the generators are alien to it. There was no evident connection between the people who generate waste, the people who process it, and the people who receive negative externalities from the landfill. It’s possible that if people were more aware of how their actions are connected, there would be more opportunities to collaborate.

We observed the need for safety, conflict resolution, efficiency, and connecting society by looking for what was missing. This is an approach that opens the possibility for public institutions to collaborate by building from what is already in place, rather than destroying it. 

Transferable technical skills that can improve resilience

Large scale events can create shocks in societies that negatively affects the wellbeing of local communities. For instance, the recent pandemic and strong tropical hurricanes have affected entire communities in Guatemala exacerbating their socioeconomic conditions. When someone faces a challenge like this, a common response is to take advantage and employ any already existing occupational skill for own subsistence. For instance, one can try to find a new job or even create a new way of generating income.

In that regard, when conducting the field visit to the surroundings of the landfill, we noticed that strong technical skills are embedded in the informal workers of the local community. For instance, Mr. Edgar carefully identifies, separates and repair metallic parts that ended in the garbage (like a television or a refrigerator) and sell them to interested buyers as individual items. As he explained, he has been working on this task for over three decades. This evidently shows that he has mastered specific skills associated to practical knowledge in mechanics, electricity, and electronics (to name a few).

As research from Alabdulkareem et al (2018) shows, work occupations are associated to specific social-cognitive and sensory-physical skills. Also, even though skills are polarized in high- and low-wage occupations, some workers can transition between occupations building on an existing skill. Thus, skill transfer from types of occupation can allow societies to acquire comparative advantages.

Our observations suggest that, potentially, there are strong-enough existing skills in the local community we visited that would allow individuals to be more resilient to external shocks. This opens a door of opportunity to inform new strategies to mitigate the negative effects of events that directly affect employment in the informal economy.

Recognition of grassroots institutions | Ostrom’s Polycentricity

One of the most surprising finding is that this informal solid waste recovery chain we observed, provides real life example on Vincent and Elinor Ostrom’s concept of polycentricity. They acknowledge the power of the grassroots self-governance. This informal recovery chain might be considered as an authentic bottom-up institution’s framework. The rules, procedures, and the system itself have not been written (yet), but it is a product of necessity and within free association allows to be resilient individually and as a community.

As Vincent Ostrom stated: “We need not think of ‘government' or ‘governance’ as something provided by states alone. Families, voluntary associations, villages, and other forms of human association all involve some form of self-government. Rather than looking only to states, we need to give much more attention to building the kinds of basic institutional structures that enable people to find ways of relating constructively to one another and of resolving problems in their daily lives. Which, in addition, also connect to more encompassing communities and patterns of interaction.”[1]

Therefore, this is not only a recovery system, but a polycentric institution built for the past 35-40 years. Perhaps this is a spontaneous way to be resilient to social exclusion and cope with economic struggles. These activities would have already ceased if they weren´t profitable. Stakeholders around the recovery chain might not even be aware of the environmental benefits that recycling does. Yet to be measured, this self-governed system is lessening greenhouse gases and relieve Motagua River from larger pollution and somehow reducing climate change impacts. Therefore, shall we call this a green economy? Or rather a circular one?

We have also asked ourselves, is it possible for a formal system to compete or coexist within these informal networks? There are other formal small businesses operating in a very small scale and apparently for environmental purposes[2]. Could these solutions be replicated considering the economic costs of operation

[1] Rethinking Institutional Analysis: Interviews with Vincent and Elinor Ostrom by Paul Dragos Aligica. Mercatus Center, George Mason University. October 2009.

[2] We will be addressing this topic either on future blogs or network weekly reflections.  

Lee este blog en español aquí

Blog written by:

Carlos Mazariegos
Head of Exploration

Paola Constantino
Head of Solutions Mapping  

Javier Brolo
Head of Experimentation