Abstract
Waste pickers are collecting and sorting recyclable items at scale, enabling local material recycling systems around the world: in particular, across the Global South, where the state may not be able to establish any or much of the relevant resource recovery services and infrastructure. They are workers typically operating in the informal part of the economy – informal waste workers: sometimes, the academic term of informal recycling sector (IRS) is used. This is not unusual, as in the Global South a considerable part of the economy is indeed informal, denoting unregistered and/or untaxed activities. Currently, there are novel and strong opportunities for a ‘Just Transition’ arising for the sector, due to their direct relevance to the Net Zero, circular economy and plastic pollution mitigations agendas – the latter being the most rapidly evolving, as part of the Intergovernmental Negotiations Committee (INC) working towards a legally binding instrument between countries to end plastic pollution (Plastic Treaty, hereafter). Generic elements of a Just Transition for the waste pickers have been proposed elsewhere, such as by the Fair Circularity Initiative, and I outlined specific wider challenges in the past (Velis, 2017). Here, in the emergent context of plastic pollution mitigation, I revisit some of opportunities and challenges, especially as certain ones seem to not sufficiently feature in the public debate.
Circularity: Plastic pollution – Recycling futures
Although there is a wide consensus amongst stakeholders that a Just Transition is in principle much needed and should be actively pursued, there is inherent uncertainty on what this practically means, particularly so, as part of a global Plastics Treaty and its implementation. A majority of proponents of an ‘ambitious’ Plastics Treaty put increasing emphasis on the early stages of the plastics lifecycle – aiming at both a dramatic reduction in the production of less needed (avoidable / non-essential) and most harmful materials/products (e.g., single-use plastic items); and, in embedding circularity by design, which is often perceived as occurring before traditional mechanical recycling – the only currently well-established form of circularity for plastics. In this case, for example, not only there could be substantial decrease in the amount of plastics targeted for recycling, but also substitution of plastics with other recyclable materials, such as aluminium, paper and card. In addition, one might want to start reflecting on what could be the role of waste pickers in novel retail systems widely relying on dispensing or takeback and wider re-use systems.
Another end-of-the-spectrum solution amongst the aspired ones for plastic pollution aims at complimenting or even widely replacing mechanical recycling with forms of depolymerisation through thermal or chemically based processes (often referred to under the umbrella term of ‘chemical recycling’). In this scenario, much greater quantities of plastics need to be collected to satisfy the at-scale operation of such processing plants. This option could alos result in increased targeting of plastic films, which despite being already partly targeted for recycling mainly in certain Global South settings, they remain the most problematic part of the existing mechanical recycling systems. Theoretically, such a future development could increase the demand for the waste pickers’ services.
Arguably, the analysis I sketch out here on the effect of possible plastics circularity futures to the operations of waste pickers is overly simplistic, partial and not quantified. We need systems descriptions and data analytics to confidently theorise and account – still to happen, as we only have to rely on inevitably relatively simplistic calculations available to date, such as the seminal Plastics to Ocean model. Conversely, to limit the existing chemicals pollution that is taking place via the legacy substances in plastic materials, products featuring such chemical compounds would have to be identified and removed from the circular systems: an identification challenge for waste sorters.
In any case, our evolving baselining efforts seem to establish beyond doubt that without the copious and risky efforts of the waste pickers, current global figures of mechanical recycling would have been worryingly lower (Cottom et al., 2023). They collect by far most of the plastic intended for recycling, much more than the formal waste management industry does, and therefore currently offering a most substantial mitigation to plastic pollution. Whether this role is to be preserved, amplified or decline in the coming decades, will be the outcome of additional ‘external’ forces to the sector and the directly involved agendas and associated strategies and policies. Here, I offer limited examples.
Artificial intelligence (AI): Digitisation – Sensor-based systems – Robotics
Rapid technological advances redefine how we can process after-use materials/products. Artificial intelligence (AI), for example, via machine learning, offers us unprecedented opportunities for material type identification in sensor-based, automated and possibly robotics-operated separation systems. Digitisation of the chemical (polymeric) composition of the plastic products is promoted to serve the urgent need for transparency and traceability of material flows in the economy and across geographies around the world. This change is much needed, not least, to mitigate recent failures of globalised recycling systems, to prevent flows of waste/recyclables along the least environmental protection pathways and the associated waste crime. Such systems also could potentially negate the source-separation activity by waste generators, such as householders: if all items can be effectively sorted in mechanical sensor-based plants, then it could make loads of sense to collect all plastic, paper/card and metals together in single dry recycling bins, massively increasing the recyclables capture rate. Underground storage bin systems, with or without compaction, start dominating the affluent city centres, preventing access to recyclables. However, all these examples of currently explored or even deployed novel capabilities would result in loss of jobs for the informal waste workers, at least in their traditional roles. Evolution here mandates to open the debate on how informal waste workers can use advanced technoloy, rahter than been excluded.
No one size fits all: Worldwide variation of needs
How imminent that loss of jobs prospect is, one might ask. Our global municipal solid waste model conservatively estimates 1.5 billion persons without access to waste collection in 2020 worldwide (Cottom et al., 2023), demonstrating that there is still a substantial role for waste pickers in the coming decades. Even more so, if we factor in the strong association of waste management systems with the average level of socioeconomic development of each country (Velis et al., 2023). Oversimplifying, this linkage, implies that the ‘formalisation’ of waste and resources management systems in the Global South will take place only as fast as the countries can become more affluent and implement polices advancing their socioeconomic state, and this can be an evolution over many decades rather than years, as the evidence of historic trends suggests. Even where pockets of affluence have been reached locally, there remain massive areas of informal, unplanned human settlements and rural areas, which lag behind in formal services provision. Therefore, one could safely argue that in the coming decades, irrespective of rapid technological advances, there will remain a strong need for the expertise and services of the informal waste workers. How could the Plastics Treaty and Just Transition aspirations help transform the remuneration and work conditions for the IRS?
Financing, capacity development and poverty-free futures
Waste management systems in the Global South have been historically suffering from chronic inability to secure the financing required to deploy infrastructure and offer (local) training – for example, the overseas development finance (ODF) funds were simply not offered or not being able to be absorbed. The operational costs have been unaffordable for parts of the population, and the wiliness to pay very low, especially in the neglected places where there is no prior experience of waste management services at all. The true complete costs of keeping after-use resources in circulation have not been sufficiently covered by taxpayers’ money. And, product stewardship systems, such as the extended producer responsibility (EPR), may not be in place or still not totally effective, and in any case, not fully/suitabely include waste pickers in their provisions.
On the other hand, waste informal workers are convincingly now making the case for a fair remuneration. One that could be reflecting not just the market value of the materials, which they salvage under extremely difficult conditions and trade under unfavourable terms, but also the environmental protection services they de facto offer. And covering for the wider support, they need to break through waste-associated social stigma and their marginalisation, resulting in wider exploitation. So, these agendas converge here – more funds for an effective waste and resource management needed and could include resources that would offer a transformative Just Transition for the waste pickers. The concept of living income and the associated methodology is a major stepping stone helping us to discuss more objectively the realities and needs of IRS. In addition, a wider and only partially overlapping debate about fair value distribution and appropriation along the secondary materials value chain is urgently needed, with the aim to eventually create fairer and more win–win conditions for all players and sectors.
Targeted futures: Their pathways and ownership
Achieving decent work conditions, fair remuneration and resilience to changes introduced by the technological advancements necessitate some theorising about the form of Just Transition, regarding both the aspired end point and the pathway to it. For example, let us consider here a favourable scenario as part of the changes implemented by a Plastics Treaty, assuming an increased political international and country-level determination to advance solid waste management solutions. Both would result in substantial additional financial resources from responsible producers and from ODF made available, also to the IRS, which is imperative for a step change (Velis et al., 2022).
How such extra resources should be allocated is the pertinent question. Will the waste pickers be paid directly from an EPR mechanism? Will they be remunerated for their environmental services? Will funds be made available for capacity development so that they can be skilled to understand better the quality of the material they collect, sort and trade, and to adapt to technological and legal advances? Will there be new categories of materials targeted for collection (e.g., films – flexibles) or a safety net built for periods of market crises? Will there be sufficient resources distributed to existing waste informal workers already in cooperatives and associations or instead used for empowering those who are outside any support network? Should support for children’s schooling, and safe working modes and access to health services be prioritised instead? Will some of the capacity development target reskilling for other waste-related jobs or even employment in other sectors? And ultimately, how much influence the IRS would have internationally and locally to decide about the optimal distribution of such resources? A ‘seat at the table’ is promised, but yet to materialise.
Data, tools and the end of invisibility?
The waste informal workers have been suffering from a multiple settings that make them often ‘invisible’: they can be belonging to marginalised groups; have no opportunity to collect use and report data; and the state not recognising their status due to economic informality or absence of citizenship paperwork. Increasingly, methodologies, toolkits and implementation initiatives intended for practitioners and waste picker organisations, will allow data to be collected on the IRS activity and therefore bring them out of this negligence status. Our review on enumeration and productivity is a small stepping stone (Cook et al., 2024). A new associated method is to be released soon. The Integration Radar (‘InteRa’) toolkit remains relevant to any inclusion/transition planning effort (Velis et al., 2012). Recently released, a novel methodology on ‘Living Income’ starts casting light on the economics of waste pickers and their needs.
A new framework urges national statistical authorities to start documenting the waste picker activities and their contribution to waste and resources management systems. No matter what agreement is reached in the inevitably narrowly focused Plastics Treaty, it will have a transformative power for the IRS, and it will be supporting data collection. It is about time to start the Just Transition by ending the IRS invisibility, not only theorising, but also using data to quantify possible desirable futures, so that tangible targets can be set and implementable policy pathways agreed.
