|
The Problem of Plastics in Haiti: Impacts on Human and
Environmental Health in Production, Use and Disposal and Globalization
and Waste: Solutions for Communities.
Prepared for the Haitian Collective for the Protection of the
Environment and Alternative Development
Skillshare: Plastic Waste in Haiti, April 22-23, 2002.
By Timothy J. Krupnik
Recycling Department
Berkeley Ecology Center
1231 Second Street. Berkeley, California. 94710 USA
510-527-5555
Abstract: Little known to the general public, plastic products
represent a significant health hazard to the population, especially
in developing countries where effective waste management systems
have not yet been implemented. The threat comes in 3 major
forms:(A) via direct ingestion of toxic substances from plastic
products, (B) through inhalation and (C) air pollution due to
incineration and open burning of wastes. The last threat is centered
on ecological disruption due to the influence of plastic waste.
The following report will consider each of these instances in
detail and examine them in light of their impacts upon the Haitian
public. I will then attempt to explain the waste crisis
in Haiti in light of current global economic trends. The
report will conclude with a series of suggestions for implementing
a “zero waste” strategy in Haiti.
ISSSUE ONE: Human and Environmental Health in Plastic Production,
Use and Disposal
1.1 Health Effects and Energetics of Plastics at the Source: Manufacturing
Toxicity
Plastics are made from Ethylene, which is a natural gas.
Ethylene is released during the process of petroleum refining.
In this sense, plastics are directly derived from crude oil, which
is a non-renewable resource. The gas is harnessed,
extruded and mixed with a number of other additives (many of which
are toxic) to produce the product.
Once ethylene has been harnessed, it is mixed with solvents, co-monomers,
additives, and other chemicals that serve to bind the plastic
into a rigid form. Next, a chemical reaction called “polymerization”
is implemented. This new polymer product is then extruded,
pelletized, or flaked; the product is called a “resin.”
Resin is sold, re-extruded, and made into containers, films, and
other products.” [1]
Incidentally, ethylene gas could also be used for a variety
of other purposes such as electricity generation and heat production,
yet it is used for other “low-en d” purposes such as
plastic manufacturing.
Depending on the type and use of the plastic product produced,
various resins (typically numbered 1-7) and chemical additives
will be utilized. Many PET soda bottles, for example, make
use of lead barriers in the bottle structure. Because of
the numerous chemicals added to these products, plastic production
is an extremely toxic process. A 1996 study by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the
plastic industry contributed 14% of the annual toxic releases
to the atmosphere in the US (called Toxic Release Inventory or
TRI). Moreover, production of a 16 ounce polyethylene terephthalate
bottle (PET #1) creates nearly 100 times that of a 16 ounce glass
bottle. This makes glass a by far more attractive bottle
product. [2]
Some common toxic additives to plastics are as follows :
Benzene: Causes Cancer, ranked in the worst 10% of hazardous compounds
Styrene: Causes Cancer s, most ranking systems place it as “extremely
toxic”
Acetone: Harmful to the heart, blood, kidneys and respiratory
system
Sulfur Oxides: Harms respiratory system
Nitrous Oxides: harms heart, blood, central nervous system
and behavioral development in children.
Ethylene Oxide: Causes Cancer, toxic to Male and Female reproductive
systems
Volatile Organic Compounds: Cancerous, harmful to Male and Female
reproductive capacity, causes physical behavioral development
impairment inchildren. [3]
1.2: The Energetics of Plastic Production
Plastic production (and indeed reprocessing) requires significant
amounts of energy, especially when compared to other packaging
mediums. Studies produced in 1999 by the Grass Roots Recycling
Network (USA) concluded that plastic, with the sole exception
of virgin aluminum requires extensive energy to produce and reprocess.
PET (#1) plastic required approximately 98 million BTUs of energy
per ton produced and HDPE (#2) required 73 million BTUs/ton to
produce and recycle. Conversely, Newsprint required 46 million
BTUs/ton, 30 cardboard BTUs/ton, Tin Cans 22 BTUs/ton, and
glass 13 million BTUs/ton.[4] More importantly, Glass and
tin do not down-cycle as readily as plastic which is composed
of numerous compounds—that is they can be reprocessed into
their original packaging again and again.
With plastics, however, potential contaminants are more plentiful
and much more difficult to control. Separating plastics is particularly
problematic because there is little variation in physical properties
(such as density and solubility) to use in sorting. Also, the
six basic types of plastic resin include multiple grades and colors
within each resin type, and often several resin types are used
to make a single container….Primary plastics reprocessing
is therefore strongly limited by the chemical properties of the
material. Reprocesses that make plastic containers out of other
plastic containers typically blend virgin resin with the recycled
resin to boost the product’s performance. One study reported
that it is possible to make containers with recycled contents
of up to 50%, if the reclaimed containers used are themselves
made of pure virgin resin. At least one blow-molder was also able
to produce a 100%-recycled content bottle with the desired properties
using a particular blend of post-consumer resins. However, large-scale
reprocesses have found that using more than 15% to 25% of post-consumer
feedstock reduced the strength of their containers.[5]
Moreover, “The total energy required to produce,
package, and transport a 16 oz. PET container is 32 MJ compared
to 34 MJ for a 16 oz. glass container - virtually the same.”
[6] Another study concludes that “…producing a
pound of plastic resin, however, uses nearly nine times the energy
of producing a pound of glass.” [7] These comparisons assume
the use of virgin glass.
Finally, plastic production factories have been known to emit
toxic particulates and gasses to the atmosphere. For this reason,
plastic plants are considered to be dangerous places to work:
fires and explosions have caused numerous deaths and property
damage world wide. “Serious accidents have included
explosions, chemical fires, chemical spills, and clouds of toxic
vapor. These kinds of occurrences have caused deaths, injuries,
evacuations and major property damage. A review of the US
EPA’s data base of 10,000 accidents and spills from 1980-87
shows that nearly 1,600 (16%) of industrial accidents were associated
with producing plastics or plastic constituents.[8] In countries
where industrial regulatory standards have not been developed
this danger is increased.
1.3 Health effects of Plastics in Personal Use
As outlined above, plastic products contain numerous toxic additives
that can be considered a health risk when ingested or inhaled
(via burning). This reason alone is enough to warrant a
serious reconsideration of plastic use both on an industrial (productive)
and personal scale. But the dangers do not end here: there
are other serious problems associated with plastic use, two of
which will be summarized below: Endocrine Disruption (ED) and
polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Before explaining Endocrine Disruption and the myriad of health
impairments that are associated with it, it is important to become
familiar with the endocrine system of the human body.
This system is dominated by hormones, which are natural chemical
agents that aid in the regulation of the body’s internal
processes. Their roles are numerous. Some of the most
important hormonal tasks include regulation of the nervous, reproductive
and immune systems. Without the proper functioning of the
immune system the body falls prey to sickness and disease with
limited ability to heal itself. Impairment of the hormonal
system can significantly damage human development aiding in mortality.
Although the research concerned with ED is relatively new, scientists
have shown serious concern:
The historic meeting on ED that took place in July 1991…in
Racine, Wisconsin….scientists issued the Wingspread Statement,
an urgent warning that humans in many parts of the world are being
exposed to chemicals that have disrupted the development of wildlife
and laboratory animals, and that unless these chemicals are controlled,
we face the widespread danger of disruption in human embryonic
development and the prospect that the damage will last a lifetime.
[9]
So what does this have to do with plastics? The answer,
and accordant problem lies in the chemical/ structural make up
of plastic products. Plasticisers are a body of chemicals
which are used to soften plastic, mold it into form, and to make
it less rigid. An overwhelming number of plasticisers
contain phalates, a toxic chemical material and known endocrine
disrupter. Phalates can be ingested by the body when using plastic
products as drinking vessels or for the storage of foods. Carbonated
drinks, fatty foods, and products heated in plastic cause leeching
of these chemicals from the packaging into the food or drink product
itself. Fatty foods are known to contain higher rates of
phalates as the fats allow a greater potential for migration.
When these chemicals migrate into the endocrine system, they mimic
the body’s natural hormones. This confuses the endocrine
system and is the gateway to serious health disorders.
In a study aimed at examining ED associated with plastic linings
used in canned foods,
…twenty brands of canned foods purchased
in the United States and in Spain… discovered not only Bisphenol-A
contamination, the same chemical Stanford researchers found leeching
from polycarbonate lab flasks…they also found stunningingly
high concentrations in products such as corn, artichokes and peas...(the
chemicals were found at) such levels (that) a synthetic estrogen
mimic might contribute significantly to a person’s
exposure whether it is a “weak” estrogen or not…Biologically
active plastics were leaching from cans, containers where one
would not expect to find them at all. [10]
Incidentally, plastics are not the only products that are associated
with endocrine disruption: other compounds can be readily found
in pesticides, chemical cleaning agents, cigarettes, certain paints
and numerous other industrially produced products can be dangerous.
Other studies have shown that endocrine disrupting compounds can
actually migrate across the placenta in pregnant women, effectively
contaminating the fetus. So what are some of the impacts
of ED? A whole range of Cancers, Attention Deficit Disorder, difficulty
with coordination, infertility, reproductive problems, physical
abnormalities (especially of the sexual organs) and behavioral
disorders are all thought to be caused at least in part by endocrine
disruption.[11]
Contrary to assertions by critics, the hormonal activity of synthetic
chemicals is not always “weak.”…Few if any safety
data exist on these chemicals…The discovery that hormone
disrupting chemicals may lurk in unexpected places, including
products considered biologically inert such as plastics, has challenged
traditional notions about human exposure and suggests that humans
may be exposed to far more than previously expected.[12]
It is for these reasons that most plastics are best avoided or
even legislated against, and that solarization (a method used
to “cleanse” water of bacterial matter) of drinking
water in plastic bottles is not recommended. While this
method may indeed clean water of immediate pollutants, it encourages
gradual poisoning due to ED.
Finally, it is worthy to mention Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC), plastic #3. Although Haiti produces relatively little
PVC, the pollution caused by this process is nonetheless important.
PVC, by far the most dangerous of plastic resins, has been widely
connected to cancer and other health disorders resulting from
dioxin poisoning:
Dioxin is the common name for a class of 75 chemicals. Dioxin
has no commercial use. It is a toxic waste product formed
when waste containing chlorine is burnt or when products containing
chlorine are manufactured. PVC plastic is a major source
of chlorine…[13]
It is for this reason that the use of PVC for construction purposes
must be carefully questioned and outright opposed—to produce
such a material without regard for environmental or social safety
is ethically negligent.
1.4 Health effects of Plastics in Disposal and Recycling
“Cradle
to the grave” is a phrase often toted by manufacturing companies
when promoting their products. In other words, plastic companies
like to maintain as “green” an image as they can:
they hope that their products are disposed of in a “responsible”
manner (i.e. by recycling). Nonetheless, this “rule”
of product stewardship does not often extend to developing countries.
Because of inadequate refuse collection and disposal systems in
Haiti, plastic wastes are commonly dealt with in several ways:
terrestrial disposal, disposal into streams, canals and rivers
(these can be referred to as direct disposal)or by burning (incineration).
Each has serious consequences. Plastic bags, juice, and water
bottles are discarded onto the ground when the consumer has finished
with them. A simple survey of Port Au Prince illustrates
this fact. Streets, gutters, fields and unused areas are
rife with pollution. Because plastics are not biodegradable,
they remain at their point of disposal until moved by the wind
or by the rain. In the case of the latter, plastics (especially
in cities like Port Au Prince, Cap Haitian, and other ocean side
villages) wash downhill and are eventually deposited in the sea.
Other plastics commingle with other waste materials in gutters
and drainage pathways. These form miniature dams and water
flow obstructions that disrupts sewage and run-off systems and
cause serious urban flooding.
Take for Example Cite Soleil, in Part Au Prince. Perhaps
the most impoverished 3 square miles in the Western Hemisphere,
approximately 500,000 people live crammed into a dense, maze-like
shanty town. Because the area lacks a formal sewage system,
people make due by relieving themselves in alley-ways, streets
and near garbage piles. Plastics, like other refuse, is
disposed of at random. Comparatively little is burnt because
the density of the area invites increased fire-risks.
The tropics are known for torrential downpours of rain.
In places like Cite Soleil, the consequences of such rainfall
can bedevastating. Plastic products often lodge themselves
in potential water drainage paths, causing damming and subsequent
flooding. When this occurs, sewage laden waters spread across
the landscape and into peoples’ homes. This in turn
elevates the health risk: if people are not immediately flooded
out of their homes, they have to navigate a swampy and precarious
terrain. Infectious water born diseases (some which are
a result of unclean water and others which are a result of “pooled”
water) like scabies, malaria and hepatitis are easily contracted
in such a degraded environment. To illustrate the seriousness
of this problem, consider the latter part of May, 2002.
During two days of particular fierce rains, over 200 families
in Cite Soleil lost their make shift homes due to flooding.
Although other factors played into this disaster, waste materials,
notably plastics, greatly exacerbated the flooding.
Once the plastic wastes exit the city into the sea they create
numerous other problems. Fish mistake bits of plastic waste for
plankton and other aquatic life. As a consequence, fishermen
complain that their catch has decreased—fish have been suffocating
on plastic wastes that were mistaken as edible food. After continual
poor catches, fish were dissected to reveal plastic wastes clogging
their intestines.[14] Consequently, the random disposal
of plastics into the environment has repercussions for fishermen
who rely upon the bounty of the sea to make a living.
There exists another popular means of waste disposal. Across
Haiti, one can see vast clouds of black smoke rising from households
and market places. These smoke clouds come from burning
piles of garbage, both organic and inorganic, and are a serious
cause of airborne pollution. While incineration of wastes (in
this case community burning or “back yard” burning)
appears appealing (the volume of tangible wastes shrinks by up
to 80%), it is perhaps the most damaging method of waste disposal
from a human health perspective. When plastics are burned they
release a deadly mix of chemicals to the atmosphere notably dioxin
and other poisonous chemicals (CO2, CO, SO2).
Dioxin particles are carried by the wind until they drop onto
land or water. We now know that dioxin can travel thousands
of miles. Grazing animals and fish ingest the toxin, but
they can not break it down, so it travels up the food chain.
Ninety Percent of human exposure to dioxin occurs through
diets of meat, dairy products and fish. …every person has
some amount of dioxin in their body.[15]
In this sense, the problem of plastics, and indeed other toxic
garbage, is dispersed across the globe. Consequently, “no-burn”
communities can still fall victim to irresponsible waste management
practices thousands of miles away.
Incineration is widely regarded as an appropriate “quick
fix” to the waste management crisis, especially in developing
countries. Large lending institutions like the World Bank
have long favored incineration in blatant disregard of the pollution
that it creates.[16] By funding incineration on an industrial
scale, the Bank has succeeded in ‘vanishing” the garbage
problem by dispersing it into the atmosphere, thus creating multiple
other problems, notably the impairment of human health.
The miniscule amount of energy produced by incineration pales
in comparison to the magnitude of the problems created.
In fact, the Grassroots Recycling Network estimates that incineration
produces only a fraction of the energy that would in fact be saved
if materials were recycled rather than burnt. [17] Finally, little
attention is paid by incineration promoters to the toxic ash that
remains after the incineration process.
Countries like Haiti, however, are already intimately familiar
with such issues. After 2,000 to 4,500 tons of toxic incinerator
ash shipped in from the US city of Philadelphia was dumped on
the beach in Gonaives in 1987, incineration on an industrial scale
was understandably frowned upon throughout Haiti. Unfortunately,
international agreements like the Basel Convention on the toxic
trade in international wastes do not frown upon incineration—in
fact, in some cases the language of the Convention even suggests
plastic incineration. [18] Still, portions of the Basel
Convention can aid countries in protecting themselves from the
import of toxic wastes, and therefore is worthwhile. The Convention
does not, however, go far enough in protecting communities from
inappropriate waste management strategies (nonetheless, the Basel
Convention is a helpful tool for nations that wish to exclude
the import of toxic materials). It is for this reason that countries
like Haiti, which thus far have no industrial incineration apparatus
should take the lead in banning such socially and ecologically
in-appropriate technologies on a national scale.
One final note on “back-yard burning.” In many poor
countries where individuals are faced with no real waste management
choices (either due to a lack of education, infrastructure or
both), burning becomes the only means ofdisposal.
This does not make it an appropriate waste management strategy,
nor does it remedy the garbage situation. It does, however, shed
light on the direction that civil society and non-governmental
organizations must move in: the active promotion of non-incinerating,
local recycling strategies that are accessible to poor and marginalized
communities.
In addition to these disposal issues, the plastic recycling process
is not entirely safe to human health. Plastic reprocessing
plants typically deal with numerous toxic and chemical compounds.
If the recycling process is not well designed or regulated, there
exists a direct threat to the health of workers and nearby communities.
Consider the following description of a plastic recycling facility
in India:
The factory which employs mostly women and children,
does not have even a first-aid box, no ventilation or safety devices.
Like the lead batteries, much of the plastic waste processed here
is imported from the West…. Some workers have worked in this
plastic-recycling factory most of their lives. Another man interviewed
does not know his exact age ("Must be somewhere around 25,"
he shrugs), and it's equally hard to estimate. Hard work and long
hours in unventilated rooms breathing fumes from melting plastics
have taken a toll. His daughter was born deaf and dumb. His brother,
who lives with him, suddenly started having seizures, despite
no family history of related illness. The man blames it on the
pollution caused by over 50 such plastics recycling units in his
village.…Local authorities do not do much about these units.
How can you prove that these plastic and lead recycling factories
are causing these problems? They ask, dismissing such arguments.
Studies are time consuming and expensive. So business continues
for the owners, and villagers die a slow death…. During the
past two years, as the local health clinic doctor confirms, there
has been a sharp increase in lung disorders. Over 40 villagers
are chronic asthmatics. There are not enough free bronchodilators
to hand out.[19]
Because of the volatile nature of many of the materials
plastic recyclers deal with, explosions and fires are common in
reprocessing plants. Typically, recyclers in the United
States find it difficult to achieve the stringent worker and environmental
health standards forced upon the industry by lawmakers.
This is one of the reasons that many plastic reprocessing facilities
have closed their doors only to be replaced by recycling facilities
in developing countries where similar standards are non-existent.
Issue Two: Globalization and Garbage: The Economic Relationship
Between Trade Liberalization and Waste
It is impossible
to understand the waste crisis in the third world without considering
the larger economic processes which drive the growth of garbage.
Across the globe, poor countries are facing the expansion of non-biodegradable
garbage on an unprecedented scale. This can be attributed largely
to three factors: (A) the uncontrolled import of waste materials
for disposal, (B) the increased import of inexpensive consumer
goods designed with disposable packaging and (C) the unregulated
production of non-biodegradable wastes on a national scale.
The latter two are widely explained away as part of the process
of integrating poor nations into the “global economy,”
or as part of the condition known as “modernity.”
In either situation the results are the same: the growth of pollution
and environmental health hazards. Plastic wastes in particular
are endemic to this “globalization of garbage” as they
can not be easily re-used or reprocessed and have numerous associated
health risks.
When President Aristide returned to office after the military
coup, he was forced to agree to a series of “structural”
economic agreements with the United States and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) Group. These “structural
adjustment programs” (SAP’s) are intended to open Haiti
to increased and liberalized trade while reducing government expenditure
on social services—the typical recipe of the free market
model of economic development. Similar SAP programs have
been instituted throughout the third world. In contrast to the
Bank’s stated reasons for adjustment programs—poverty
alleviation and development-- effect of such economic tampering
has been disastrous.
Evidence from over 80 SAP countries has shown that they have generally
failed in their goals of development and poverty alleviation.
[20] The true nature of SAP programs are difficult not to
comprehend: the leveraging open of markets for consumer goods
imported from wealthy countries while increasing the export of
raw materials from SAP nations—the free market model.
The impact of such programs can be seen globally. Haiti is similar
to many Asian and Pacific Rim nations where SAP programs entailed
limiting worker’s wages in order to ensure cheap labor for
the clothing assembly industry. Moreover, many of
these countries have experienced increased waste due to the explosive
growth of industry and imports. Haiti is no exception to
this trend. “Assembly industries also do not pay duty on
raw materials, packing materials (often non-degradable, disposable
wastes—ED), machinery, tools, transport vehicles or construction
materials.”[21]
Interestingly, recycling facilities themselves have followed a
similar trajectory. During the latter part of the century,
the majority of the western United State’s PET reprocessing
facilities closed down. Rather than recycling locally, materials
brokers (middle-men who purchase scrap materials and sell them
at a profit) abandoned domestic sales in search of a more lucrative
market. Due to the lack of investment in domestic recycling
infrastructure combined with the ongoing federal subsidies for
virgin resource extraction[22] and the explosive growth of plastic
packaging, materials brokers (middle-men who purchase scrap
materials and sell them at a profit) looked to new and lucrative
markets. India, China (notably the Shanghai region), and
Pacific Rim Countries became major destinations for post consumer
recyclable plastic (their markets were all the more attractive
due to lax environmental standards and low wage structures)
from the Western United States. These countries,
however, got more than simply recyclable materials:
After plastic containers are collected, they must be sold, reprocessed,
and made into new products. ...The market in post-consumer resin
is dominated by a few large plastic-reprocessing facilities in
the US and by Pacific Rim countries. Both can pay high prices
for the post-consumer resource, the first because of automation
and the second because of low labor costs for sorting…. In
addition, plastics are a major component of an international trade
in discarded resources that has become a source of serious problems.
Discarded materials that are collected in industrialized countries
and shipped to third-world countries as recyclable are sometimes
badly contaminated (with non-recyclable trash or plastic resins—ED).
Occasionally the contamination is hazardous waste. The countries
that ship the materials rely on the often-weak regulatory climates,
huge reservoirs of cheap labor, and desperate economies of the
receiving countries. Greenpeace and other organizations have documented
conditions at recycling facilities in countries that import this
material and have found conditions to be hazardous and exploitive.
In addition, Greenpeace found that exported plastics were very
poorly sorted. In a seven-country survey, up to 50% of the discards
shipped overseas were contaminated and had to be dumped, often
in unlined, unmanaged sites. Little or no documentation has been
found regarding the market stability or soundness of the products
that these countries produce with plastic scrap. The "cradle
to grave" approach to waste management does not apply if
the "grave" is in another country.[23]
To this day, Asian and Pacific Rim countries are grappling with
this problem. It is for this reason that countries like Haiti
should never consider importing materials to fuel a recycling
industry.
The globalization of garbage does not cease with the direct trade
in waste materials. Instead the impacts of SAP’s on
the environment is much more hidden. Many IMF loans (and
SAP’s) require a decrease in import tariff levels.
The result is dramatic. Haitian citizens have commented
that the country did not have problems with plastic ten years
ago, and that the growth of such wastes have only developed into
a serious problem in a relatively short period of time.[24]
Much of this can be attributed to the lowering of national tariff
rates when Aristide was forced to agree to SAP’s. Because
Haiti was suddenly “locked into place” as a country
with a reliable market, it soon became a destination for large
quantities of consumer goods from developed countries, notably
the US. Many of these goods are packaged of or made from
plastics. What becomes of the products when they have reached
the end of their useful life? More than likely they are
disposed of in an ecologically unsound manner. Similar situations
have occurred throughout other nations with burgeoning SAP’s.
[25]
Reduced tariffs opened the doors for increased imports of raw
plastic, in the form of unprocessed pellets. Between
1996 and 1998, approximately 59% of the plastic imported to Haiti
was in this raw form.[26] Any attempt to lessen the amount
of plastic produced in Haiti would doubtless conflict with the
IMF’s SAP, and could therefore be challenged in international
courts. Without understanding the way in which the waste crisis
in Haiti is related to the expansion of the neo-liberal model,
it is impossible to identify and confront the problem at it’s
source. Still, to do so is no easy task as it involves directly
challenging the current economic model and exposing it for
what it is: a system that values the economic growth of the commodity
market over thewell-being of the people and environment.
The next section will consider some of the pro-active things communities
and municipalities can do to begin to seek solutions to the problem
of plastic in Haiti.
What Can Be Done? Zero Waste and Declining Consumption
Although it is easy to point the finger at consumers for waste
generation (after all, it is the consumer who disposes of a product
after it has outlived its usefulness), they are never the true
source of the problem. It is the product manufacturer
who should bear the burden of the materials they create and market.
Additionally, the role of the economic system that encourages
wasteful marketing should be called into question. Ideally,
manufactures should exhibit what is called extended producer responsibility,
an ideal by which companies would design waste out of the product
cycle. Extended Producer Responsibility is part of a larger
movement that is rapidly gaining publicity and acceptance world
wide. That movement is called Zero Waste.
Zero Waste seeks to do away with the entire concept of garbage.
From the standpoint of the Zero Waste philosophy, it is not only
possible, but economically viable to design, produce and market
products that are environmentally benign. This is by identifying
the problems and sources of the waste crisis, from production
to disposal, examining both producers and consumers alike. Many
Zero Waste groups are working with producers to redesign
products to make use of wastes generated in the manufacturing
process. Other businesses are eliminating waste from productive
and consumptive cycles all together.
Additional strategies entail designing biodegradable products
or by promoting “green” products as a market niche (consumers
are more likely to purchase products if they know that they did
not harm the environment). Finally, on a municipal scale,
city and regional governments are encouraged to discourage waste:
taxes are imposed on pollution and wasteful industries,
bottle deposit programs are instituted to recapture recyclable
material (often levied through “producer/polluter pays”
tax), and toxic products are outlawed.[27]
Although a total Zero Waste program would be difficult to implement
in Haiti, there are valuable lessons to be learned from countries
that have implemented similar projects. Take for example
the Asian country of Nepal, which successfully banned the plastic
carry bag at the national level. India is currently attempting
to do the same based on evidence that polyethylene bags are a
leading pollutant. Germany has instituted a “Green
Dot” program whereby industries that can prove significant
waste reductions are permitted to place an “earth friendly”
green dot on their products. This has encouraged consumers
to make wiser “green” choices when shopping.
The Island of Maldives near Shri Lanka passed legislation forcing
tourists to “pack out” any plastic waste they may bring
with them to the island, thereby ensuring that the island is not
significantly polluted by outsiders.
What would a Zero Waste Strategies look like in Haiti? It is difficult
to say: in many ways these decisions are up to the members of
Haitian civil society. With a proud tradition of popular movements,
Haitians no doubt can develop comprehensive zero waste projects.
Nonetheless, here are some suggestions for proceeding with such
a project (arranged by type of suggestion).
Responsible Manufacturing/ Use
àFind the largest in and out of country waste generators
that do business in Haiti. Attempt to track the imports
if plastic waste into the country, both in raw and unprocessed
form. In the case of products that have been previously
produced, develop a list of companies that are importing ecologically
irresponsible materials. This information is invaluable
for illustrating the severity of the problem and targeting the
appropriate source producers. Additionally, alliances can
be built with NGO’s and activist groups in the global north
where many of these products are produced. By working with
these internally focused groups, pressure can be brought upon
the corporations which produce many of these wastes.
Currently, Port Au Prince is considered
to produce 1,500 tons of garbage a day, (5 (135 tons) of which
is plastic refuse. [28] What companies are the leaders in
this waste production? Might they be willing to consider
a zero waste strategies? In what ways could they stand to gain
from zero waste? Studies show that Haiti produces the following
plastic resins: HDPE (73%), PP (10%), PET:7%, PVC (5%).[29]
For this reason it would be most appropriate to mount a campaign
against the production and use of HDPE plastic, most commonly
processed into plastic carry bags and juice containers.
HAPACK, for example, produces up to 6 million of these bags a
month.[30] Additionally, due to it’s relatively minute size
yet large environmental and toxic impact, the PVC industry is
an appropriate target for banning.
àDemand and legislate for better packaging and consumer
materials. While this is by far more easily
said than done, it is an important component of any zero waste
program. Furthermore, a tax could be levied against “producer
non-conformity:” if a producer manufactures an item which
is not easily recycled or re-used, they must pay an environmental
tax for not designing more “earth friendly” products.
àWaste materials, especially plastic wastes can be collected
and returned to the producer. This is an especially good
tactic to use for gaining media attention for the issue.
àFinally, (if there were a means to produce a reliable
source of electricity) plastic wastes can be reprocessed into
secondary, useful products. Reproduction, it should be noted,
is not without serious problems: rather than a solution
to the waste crisis—plastic recycling merely deals with the
aftereffects without changing the situation itself. Because these
products downcycle (create secondary, new products that do not
displace the need for primary products, the cycle of consumption,
resource extraction and industrial waste is not really abated).
Any recycling strategies must therefore be partnered with an education
and zero waste initiative aimed at reducing the amount of garbage
produced. Nonetheless, because the waste crisis in Haiti
is so extreme, developing a means to recycle plastic should be
considered. HDPE can be reprocessed into “plastic
lumber,” which can be used for construction of benches, sidewalks
and other “low-end” building purposes. It is not,
however advisable to attempt to use such products for architectural
construction as the materials exhibit poor structural integrity
(plastic lumber is flexible rather than rigid). It is also important
to consider that plastic lumber is a by-product of a toxic process
and therefore should only be used out of doors as it off-gasses
(releases minute amounts of toxins to the atmosphere—in an
enclosed space harms air quality and heightens health risks) and
is extremely flammable. Nonetheless, in a deforested country
like Haiti, plastic lumber could be a very useful product.
Care must be taken when developing a recycling industry to pay
adequate wages to workers, ensure that the factory adheres to
strict environmental standards and thereby reduces toxins and
pollutants.
Trade (Especially Trans-national)
àPlastic imports can and should be banned until producers
can prove they are responsible for the materials they produce
(by re-capturing programs, take-back plans or redesign o products).
At the very least the import and production of disposable plastics
should be outlawed. This is perhaps one of the most important
things Haiti could do to combat the garbage crisis; it is also
one of the most difficult because it stands in opposition to the
economic program that has been imposed upon the country.
Nonetheless, it is important or exactly that reason: banning the
import and production of disposable plastics sharply identifies
the causes of the waste crisis and seeks to prevent them at the
source.
àAlthough the BASEL Convention is far from an ideal solution
for toxic wastes, it is still one of the most important things
that a country can do to protect itself from the import of toxic
materials. While the BASEL convention has been agreed to in Haiti,
it has not yet been ratified. Until it is, there stands
a legitimate threat that Haitian shores could again become the
resting place wastes such as those from Philadelphia. Therefore
it is important to continue to pressure the national government
to ratify the agreement as soon as possible.
The Informal Sector: Promotion of Crafts and Micro-Enterprise
à Work to promote sustainable, local crafts and traditional
materials wherever possible. Although many are quick to
claim that such a notion is somehow “primitive” or “backwards”
it is important to note that in contrast to industrially produced
items, traditional materials are (a) low in embodied energy (2)
do not significantly degrade the environment (c) are almost always
non-toxic and (d) provide a source of income and employment to
the marginalized social classes. In many cases the crafts
sector provides a necessary source of self employment.
Plastic wastes can be hand-processed into toys, planters and other
useful goods. Other products that make use of organic materials
can be promoted in opposition to plastic: what were shoes made
from before they were displaced by plastic “slippers?”
What was commonly used before the plastic bag? What sorts
of vessels were sued to carry water? Many of these items
can be identified, improved upon and promoted as a sustainable
solution to plastics.
àIdentify individuals and collectives involved in handy
craft production and work with them: mount a campaign promoted
by NGO’s to develop useful products from waste materials.
The Development GAP estimates that the informal sector comprises
approximately 66% of urban employment in Port Au Prince.
Prior to the Coup Years, traditional handicrafts and art comprised
between $10-15 million (US) in export goods a year. This
is approximately 10% of Haiti’s total exports.[31]
These figures point to the untapped reserves of creativity represented
by the Haitian public; such a crafts sector could be nourished
and revived to produce materials from former wastes.
Education for Change
Educate and encourage decreased consumption. Education is paramount
to fighting the waste crisis-- without a thorough understanding
of the types and dangers of wastes, notably plastic, little can
be done to change the situation. Making use of public media
and the scholastic system is an excellent approach to an education
campaign. Such programs should do more that simply educate
the public regarding the dangers of waste. They should also
actively encourage a decrease in the consumptive patterns that
have developed as a result of inexpensive product marketing.
Re-use, wherever possible, should also be encouraged.
Conclusion:
Although the waste crisis in Haiti is extreme, there are positive
aspects to the problem. Across the world inappropriate waste
management practices have been adopted—this entails incineration,
dumping, land filling, export to other countries, down cycling,
wasteful product designs and a lack of public education regarding
the causes and possible solutions to such a problem. Although
the first world produces the lion’s share of the globe’s
garbage, most western nations have managed to “disappear”
the problem. That is to say that by land filling, burning
or through mediocre recycling programs the reality of waste is
“swept out of public view.” In the third world,
however, where many of these methods have not yet been implemented,
the waste is exactly the opposite: less in sheer volume, yet public
and a significant threat to social and ecological health.
Haiti is no exception to this trend.
Unfortunately, many “developing” countries seeking to
find a way out from “under the garbage” have simply
adopted the western version of waste management. Large landfill
projects, industrial scale incinerators, toxic recycling businesses
have sprung up the world over. Although these developments
are toted as “environmental,” (due to the fact that
they remove the waste problem from the watchful eyes of the public)
they are not always the best solutions to waste problems—in
fact, in many cases these are not true solutions at all.
Rather than seeking to halt the processes that create and encourage
waste, these programs simply attempt to “manage” it.
With this approach, little is solved. Resources are still
extracted at alarming rates, toxic products are marketed to the
public, and polluting waste management industries flourish.
Considering Haiti’s economic position in the Western Hemisphere,
solutions to these problems do not come easily, Nonetheless,
if a country like Haiti was successful in implementing Zero Waste
strategies, it would serve as a benchmark in appropriate development
in the Third World. Rather than being implemented by multi
or bi-lateral aid programs, a localized Zero Waste initiative
aimed at plastic waste reduction and elimination rather than strict
management would be an inspiration to other Third World
Nations grappling with the questions to appropriate technology
transfer and appropriate development. Having said
this, I would like to end by lending support to these efforts:
if reduction and reversal of waste, especially toxic wastes like
plastic can be successful in a place like Haiti, it can be successful
anywhere in the world. Consequently a Haitian Zero
Waste policy would have a positive effect on policies in the United
States (which has historically been slow to implement such
measures). The time has come to move from waste management to
zero waste, and from simple economic solutions to socially/ecologically
centered solutions. It is my hope that Haiti can help lead
the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Various Authors. Report of the Berkeley Plastics Task Force.
http://www.ecologycenter.org/plastics/report1996/report1996_toc.html
(1996)
[2) Ibid.
[3] Holder, Cheryl; Schneider, Rochard; Shirley, Christine.
Toxics A to Z:A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards. Berkeley,
University of California Press. (1991)
[4] Sheenan, Bill. Zero Waste, Recycling and Climate
Change http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/climate_change.html (2000)
[5] Report of the Berkeley Plastics Task Force, P 9, 1996.
[6] Franklin Associates, Comparative Energy and Environmental
Impacts of Soft Drink Delivery Systems, for the National Association
for Plastic Container Recovery, March 1989.
[7] CSG/Tellus Packaging Study : “Assessing the Impacts of
Production and Disposal of Packaging and Public Policy Measures
to Alter its Mix : Volumes I and II,” prepared for the Council
of State Governments, US Environmental Protection Agency, and
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy,
Boston, MA, May 1992. (P. 5)
[8] US EPA, Final Report, Acute Hazardous Events Data Base,
1989.
[9] Colborn, Theo; Dumanoski, Dianne; Peterson Myers, John. Our
Stole Future. New York: The Penguin Group. Pp. 170-171 (1996)
[10] Colborn, Theo; Dumanoski, Dianne; Peterson Myers, John. Our
Stole Future. New York: The Penguin Group. P135. (1996)
[11] 2002. Gottlich, Paul. Endocrine Disrupters www.mindfully.org/pesticide/Eds-PWG-16jun01.htm
[12] Colborn, Theo; Dumanoski, Dianne; Peterson Myers, John. Our
Stole Future. New York: The Penguin Group. Pp. 139. (1996)
[13] Essential Action. What is Dioxin. http://www.no-burn.org/resources/index.html.
(2002)
[14] Personal communication with Haitian fishermen. (May 2002)
[15] Essential Action. What is Dioxin. http://www.no-burn.org/resources/index.html.
(2002)
[16] Multinational Resource Center/Health Care Without Harm. The
World Bank’s Dangerous Medicine: Promoting Medical Waste
Incineration in Third World Countries. http://www.essentialaction.org/waste/worldbank/
(2002)
[17] Sheenan, Bill. Zero Waste, Recycling and Climate Change
http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/climate_change.html (2000)
[18] Environment News Service. Plastic Waste Disposal Guidelines
Adopted. http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-23-03.html
(2001)
[19] Agarwal, Ravi. India's Booming Toxic Waste Trade. In The
Monitor. http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9809a/indiawaste.html
(2000)
[20] McGowan, Lisa. Democracy Undermines, Economic Justice Denied:
Structural Adjustment and the Aid Juggernaut in Haiti. http://www.developmentgap.org/haiti97.html
(1997)
(22) Ibid.
[22] Naiman, Arthur and Zepezauer, Mark. Oil and Gas Tax Breaks:
$2.4 billion a year excerpted from the book Take the Rich Off
Welfare. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Oil_Tax_Breaks.html
(1996)
It is a well known fact that tax breaks approved by the
US Government have long driven oil exploration and extraction.
Dating back to the “oil depletion allowance” of
1926, this manipulation of finances has served to drive the growth
of the virgin oil economy. “The current oil and gas
tax breaks encourage the use of fossil fuels at the expense of
cleaner alternatives, reward drilling in environmentally sensitive
areas like wetlands and estuaries, and artificially attract to
the oil industry investment money that could be used more productively
in other areas of the economy,” explains Mark Zepezauer and
Arthur Naiman. “the oil depletion allowance lets certain
companies deduct 15% of the gross income they derive from oil
and gas wells from their taxable incomes, and continue to do that
for as long as those wells are still producing…This tax break,
on which we lose about $1 billion a year, can add up to many times
the cost of the original exploration and drilling. In fact, it
formerly could amount to 100% of the company's profits-in which
case the company paid no taxes, no matter how much money it made.”
It is because of such market manipulation that recycled plastics
are more costly to produce (and thus more expensive) than recycled
content plastics. Consequently, the best market for the
reprocessing of plastic is a market that restricts “unnecessary
costs” such as the US based minimum wage, etc. This
market is the third world market.
[23] Report of the Berkeley Plastics Task Force, P 11-12,
1996.
[24]
It is important to note that the majority of plastic wastes are
geographically centered in urban areas. To date, rural zones
have experienced less of a waste crisis than the cities, although
this is changing. The rapid rate of urbanization and rural
migration that is occurring in Haiti (and indeed many third world
countries) has served to only exacerbate this trend. As
more and more people abandon the subsistence lifestyle (or have
their land appropriated from them), many opt to migrate to the
cities. As a consequence, the waste crisis grows as do urban
populations.
[25]
Last year, I visited numerous African countries bridled with SAP’s.
Interestingly, the most “successful” SAP countries were
also the ones facing the most severe waste problems. Kenya
is a good example of such a country—Nairobi is littered with
unmanaged wastes, and open burning is a popular method of refuse
disposal. Similar situations can be observed throughout
the third world.
[26] H. Tippenhauer, “Etudie sur les dechets plastiques at
les possibilities de valorization,” document du Ministere
de l’Environnement de la Republique d’haiti (MDE). Nov.
1998.
[27] The Grassroots Recycling Network (Grrn). What is Zero Waste?
http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/zerowaste_faq.html
[28] June 2001. COHPEDA La Problematique des Dechets Plastiques
en Haiti.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] McGowan, Lisa. Democracy Undermined, Economic Justice
Denied: Structural Adjustment and the Aid Juggernaut in Haiti.
http://www.developmentgap.org/haiti97.html (1997).
|
