Ebook the geographies of garbage governance interventions, interactions and outcomes – part 1

THE GEOGRAPHIES OF GARBAGE GOVERNANCE In memory of Michael John Davies The Geographies of Garbage Governance Interventions, Interactions and Outcomes ANNA R DAVIES Trinity College, University of Dubli[.]

THE GEOGRAPHIES OF GARBAGE GOVERNANCE

In memory of Michael John Davies

The Geographies of Garbage Governance Interventions, Interactions and Outcomes

ANNA R DAVIES

Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland

© Anna R Davies 2008

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system

or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording

or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Anna R Davies has asserted her moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act,

1988, to be identified as the author of this work.

Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company

Aldershot Burlington, VT 05401-4405

England

Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Davies, Anna R.

The geographies of garbage governance : interventions,

interactions and outcomes

1 Refuse and refuse disposal

I Title

363.7'28

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Davies, Anna R.,

The geographies of garbage governance : interventions, interactions, and outcomes / by Anna

R Davies.

p cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-7546-4433-0 (alk paper)

1 Refuse and refuse disposal Government policy 2 Recycling (Waste, etc.) Government policy I Title

HD4482.D38 2007

363.72'8 dc22

2007025287 ISBN 978-0-7546-4433-0

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall.

Acknowledgements ix

Glossary of Foreign Words (Irish and Māori) xi

INTRODUCTION

1 Garbage and Governance: An Introduction 3

PART 1: THEORIES, CONCEPTS AND FRAMEWORKS

2 Governance, Environmental Governance and Garbage 23

3 Garbage Governance in International Context 37

PART 2: GOVERNING GARBAGE: CASE STUDIES

4 A Comparative Framework: Contextual Background 59

5 Garbage Governance in Ireland: Waste Wars in the Emerald Isle 87

6 Garbage Governance in New Zealand: Clean and Green? 121

PART 3: COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

7 Comparing Garbage Governance: Shades of Green Governance 159

8 Geographies of Garbage Governance: Some Concluding Thoughts 171

Bibliography 177 Index 199

This page intentionally left blank

List of Figures

1.1 Waste management hierarchy 12 1.2 Integrated solid waste management 13 1.3 Resource stewardship model 14 4.1 Ireland administrative boundaries 62 4.2 New Zealand administrative boundaries 73 5.1 Irish waste planning regions 90 5.2 Networks of anti-incineration organizations and individuals related

to Galway Safe Waste Alliance 113

List of Tables

1.1 Annex I of Waste Framework Directive 2006/112/EC 6 4.1 Pressures for environmental restructuring in New Zealand 79 5.1 1996 Irish Waste Management Act 89 5.2 Irish waste planning regions 91 5.3 Irish waste policy interventions 96 6.1 New Zealand household waste targets 2002 126 6.2 Key principles of the 2002 New Zealand waste management strategy 128 6.3 New Zealand waste policy interventions 130

I would like to acknowledge the support of the Environmental Protection Agency ERTDI Programme, the Royal Irish Academy Third Sector Research Programme and Trinity College for providing me with essential funding to conduct research that has shaped my thinking within the field of waste governance In particular I would like to thank the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences who provided me with an invaluable Research Fellowship 2005-2006 that allowed this book project to grow roots That Research Fellowship took me to New Zealand and

to the Geography Department of Auckland University The help I received while

at Auckland University and throughout my stay in New Zealand made my research endeavours there a pleasure Most importantly the legitimacy of my research depends on the goodwill and accessibility of people working on the coalface of waste management I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all those who have given up their time and shared their expertise during conferences, interviews and site visits During the preparation of this book, many people have been on hand to offer their advice and guidance I am grateful to Ashgate and especially to Valerie Rose who took on this project and to Neil Jordan who finally cracked the whip I would like to express my gratitude to colleagues in the Geography Department at Trinity College Dublin who helped in many ways during the books gestation period Particular thanks go to Sheila McMorrow for her help with illustrations, but also to David Taylor, Pete Coxon, Robin Edwards and Mabel Denniston for their support and good humour which kept me sane during periods of adversity Susan Owens, Harriet Bulkeley and Frances Fahy all took on the onerous task of reading early extracts of this book Their comments much improved the final version, although any errors, inaccuracies or omissions of course remain my own Finally friends and family have been incredibly patient while ‘the book’ was in preparation and special mention must go to Homer for distracting Dimitris while I spent long evenings working on the manuscript My thanks go to all for them for their forbearance and for maintaining an interest in my progress even as I immersed myself into the less than glamorous world of waste research

List of Abbreviations

CBRO Community Based Recycling/Resource Organisation CDB City/County Development Board

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPM Environmental Planning Model

EU European Union

GAIA Global Anti Incineration Alliance/Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives

GEA Galway Environmental Alliance

GSE Galway Safe Environment

GSWA Galway Safe Waste Alliance

IBEC Irish Business and Employers Confederation

ICT Information and Communication Technologies IDA Industrial Development Agency

IDEA Irish Doctors Environmental Association

IFA Irish Farmers Association

IIRS Institute for Industrial Research and Standards IPC Integrated Pollution Control

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention Control

ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management

MfE Ministry for the Environment

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NIMBY Not in my back yard

PPP Public Private Partnership

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

REPS Rural Environmental Partnership Scheme

RMA Resource Management Act

SCP Sustainable Cities Programme (of the UN)

SDP Sustainable Dar es Salaam Programme

SPA Social Partnership Agreement

TAN Transnational Advocacy Network

UN United Nations

Glossary of Foreign Words

(Irish and Māori)

An Bord Pleanála Irish planning appeals board

Bunreacht nah Éireann Irish Constitution

Dáil Éireann Irish House of Representatives

Hapuu Māori sub-tribe or extended family

Hikoi Māori term for a journey, protest march or parade Iwi Māori tribe

Kai Māori term for food

Kaitiaki Māori term for guardian, protector, steward

Kaitiakitanga Māori term for stewardship of the environment Mahinga kai Māori term for food gathering areas

Māori Indigenous people of New Zealand

Mauri Māori term for life essence of a living creature or thing Oireachtas Irish National Parliament

Pākehā Māori term for European settlers of New Zealand Senead Éireann Irish Senate

Tikanga Māori Māori term for things Māori

Tangata whenua Māori term for people of the land

Taoiseach Irish Prime Minister

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Garbage and Governance:

An Introduction

Garbage, all I’ve been thinking about all week is garbage We’ve got so much of it, you know? I mean, we have to run out of places to put this stuff eventually (Andie

MacDowell, Sex Lies and Videotape 1989).

Early one morning I watched from my vantage point as a packer truck compacted my peanut butter jars and chicken bones with those of my many, many neighbours What had been mine was now, unceremoniously, the city’s It was time to come downstairs,

to find out what happened next (Royte 2005, 24).

Until recently and despite its familiarity the garbage (rubbish, trash or municipal waste as it is also known) we generate through commercial and household activities has been considered worthy of little attention except as something to be removed from immediate experience as quickly as possible As noted by Scanlan (2005, 9)

‘garbage is everywhere but, curiously, is mostly overlooked in what we take to be valuable from our lived experiences, and crucially, in the ways we organize the world’ From a management perspective such garbage has tended to be conceptualized as a technical issue, a concern mainly for local authorities with a statutory duty to provide waste collection and disposal That the production and management of garbage might have political or cultural dimensions was barely acknowledged, leading to its characterization as a ‘lost continent’ for social scientists (Fagan 2004)

Despite the best efforts of a few academics in sociology, politics, economics and geography (see for example Barr 2002; Boyle 2002; Fagan 2004; O’Brien 1999; Thomson 1979) to highlight the significance of contemporary ‘rubbish society’ for modern social analysis critical examination of the ways in which our garbage is governed remains embryonic This is surprising for while municipal solid waste (the formal term for garbage) is not the largest waste stream it is the most widespread being produced by literally billions of people on a daily basis There is diversity, both in terms of spatial reach and material content, in municipal solid waste that means it demands significant financial and logistical resources to control, collect, recycle and arrange final disposal Given the extent of the resources required for waste management in recent years attention to it has moved beyond the realm of engineered solutions to become a matter for political consideration within municipal government (the sub-national tier of government), nation states and international organizations At the same time non-state actors are increasingly familiar participants

in discussions about the ways in which waste could and should be governed as well

as being active waste service providers

The Geographies of Garbage Governance

4

Despite the groundswell of participants becoming involved in municipal solid waste management the amounts being produced continue to rise across the globe It

is estimated that more than two billion tonnes was produced worldwide in 2006 alone (Keynote 2007) and this waste is not static Municipal solid waste is increasingly fluid, moving both within and between nation states, traversing administrative and political boundaries and encountering differing management conditions The manifold costs,

to the environment and society, of dealing with such mobile mountains of municipal solid waste are such that ‘[f]rom centuries of obscurity the waste industry [has] found itself at the hub of environmental argument’ (Murray 1999, 20) and it was in recognition of these conditions that the seeds of this book were sown

This volume will confront the processes of translocalization and politicization that have emerged within the arena of municipal waste by adopting a comparative governance perspective that permits consideration of the multitude of actors involved

in waste In particular it examines the socio-political and spatial dimensions of municipal waste management to complement the dominant technical analyses, essentially paying detailed attention to the geographies of waste governance As

a result this volume expands sectoral coverage and sits alongside other studies

of environmental governance that have focused mostly on issues such as climate change or specific spheres of governance such as new social movements, but it also progresses analytical intervention within the field of comparative governance The remainder of this chapter provides some parameters for municipal solid waste governance and its geographies First the concept of waste is defined and dissected with attention to the various classificatory mechanisms that have been developed for its conceptualization In particular the links between these categories and the evolution of waste management discourses are scrutinized General definitional matters concerning governance, including environmental and waste governance, are then explored Drawing these two areas of debate together the final section presents

an agenda for a geographically sensitive comparative analysis of municipal solid waste governance

Waste: Definitions, Classifications and Management Discourses

As a precursor to the development and application of a waste governance analysis

it is important to define key terms and concepts Waste itself, for example, is a word that has multiple meanings and applications In different contexts it can be used as

a verb, a noun or an adjective to refer to thoughtless spending or consumption; the failure to take advantage of an opportunity or a place that is uncultivated, uninhabited

or devastated; as well as a catch-all term for unwanted or unusable substances and materials A number of texts have addressed these wider social processes of wasting (see Girling 2005 and Scanlan 2005) but the focus for this book is on waste as unwanted or unusable materials Such waste emanates from numerous sources from industry and agriculture as well as businesses and households, it can be liquid, solid

or gaseous in nature and hazardous or non-hazardous depending on its location and concentration

Garbage and Governance: An Introduction 5

Definitional Debates

It is now a commonly quoted truism that what some people consider to be waste materials or substances are considered a source of value by others These contradictory evaluations are particularly apparent when comparing different time periods through history, diverse places or disparate communities (Scanlan 2005) The subjectivity of delineating waste means that even at a given moment in one location there can be different interpretations of the value of materials or substances Supporters of a Zero Waste approach, for example, see the disposal of any materials through landfill or incineration as a flagrant misuse of valuable resources while others might see the reclamation of energy from waste through incineration as a useful form of resource recovery, even recycling Equally a five year old computer within a European academic institution may be considered redundant (i.e waste) because of its incompatibility with information technology upgrades, but the same computer may be seen as a fully functioning machine for other community sectors or

a source of valuable recyclates for less economically developed societies This last example is important because waste products are often a combination of materials, some of which might be useful and therefore of value and others not It is estimated that around half of the materials within modern computers are potentially recyclable with the rest either contaminated plastic, coated with chemical flame retardants, or toxic materials such as lead, cadmium or mercury How products are recycled into valuable commodities, who undertakes these practices and under what conditions, are increasingly important questions that deserve more detailed attention than can be afforded here (but see Adeola 2000 and O’Neill 2000) Nonetheless acknowledging the different definitional considerations and evaluative frameworks is important not only because it reveals significant details about the differences within and between communities, states and societies, but also because it is a precursor to constructing the kinds of mechanisms for dealing with the materials thus defined

As waste legislation has emerged in many economically developed countries during the 19th and 20th centuries so the need for more precise definitions of waste has increased because of the financial and legal implications such legislation can have for producers and consumers In addition establishing agreed definitions of waste is vital to the generation of data about waste and for the planning of waste management activities Following on from this, definitions of waste have been developed by various governmental and non-governmental organizations For example, the 1975

EC Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC 1975) defined waste as any substance

or object which is discarded or which will be discarded This definition has been amended on a number of occasions to finally read ‘any substance or object set out

in Annex I which the holder discards, or intends to discard, or is required to discard’ (Waste Framework Directive 2006/12/EC) Under this definition once a substance or object is defined as waste it remains so until it has been fully recovered or does not pose any potential threat to either human health or the environment As with many definitions this European Union (EU) statement requires further clarification and the

‘holder’ is defined as the producer of waste or the person in possession of it The broad definition is also supplemented by a list of categories defined in Annex I (see Table 1.1) However these categories were interpreted differently across EU member