Curitiba and many other Global South cities are tackling a problem that has been prevalent for many years, municipal solid waste management. Many of these cities have attempted to replicate the centralized systems used in the U.S. or Japan, but have failed due to the differing needs of the Global South. Consequently, an alternative solution has come about, and it is scavenging. Scavenging provides economic, social and environmental benefits while continuing to be more cost efficient than other methods of waste disposal. This essay will seek to compare the new alternative structure of scavenging in the Global South to the concept of the Commons, where, as the name suggests, consists of a society where the people collectively own a vast range
…show more content…
The largest and most prevalent was where governments outlawed scavenging in municipalities, dumps, and landfills. Waste could still be seen as a “common resource” in that everyone theoretically had access to them, however, it was not legal or safe for scavengers or coops to gather it. In Medina’s reading we saw that some governments employed the “repression” tactic, in which scavengers/beggars could experience extreme hostility and violence. Forming these alternative structures helped to reduce violence, and legalize the scavenging process, however there are still threats prevalent for the stakeholders. For instance, many scavengers must go through open dumps in order to find recyclable materials. These unsanitary conditions threaten the stakeholder’s health and well-being through prolonged exposure. Also, in cities where scavenging coops are encouraged, some of the smaller scale scavengers may experience competition for access to common resources and struggle to collect …show more content…
There is a proportional equivalence between benefits and costs, scavengers are fairly rewarded through payments, better living situations, or goods. Monitors exist throughout the municipalities, evaluating the safety/effectiveness of landfills and dumps. Additionally, there are many NGO’s and grassroots organizations that provide support for scavenging coops, including legal assistance, thus creating a “low-cost” method of conflict resolution. Despite these similarities, these alternative structures also operate under a number of contexts that go against the rules of a CPR governance. There is a lack of clearly defined boundaries on the common resources, it appears that many of the governments are providing incentives for scavenging and recycling but there does not seem to be an sanctions for violation of rules set forth for the scavenging activities. Also, many of the rules and regulations around scavenging is created by the government or people in political power, and the true stakeholders of the common resources do not have much say in the
The largest and most prevalent was where governments outlawed scavenging in municipalities, dumps, and landfills. Waste could still be seen as a “common resource” in that everyone theoretically had access to them, however, it was not legal or safe for scavengers or coops to gather it. In Medina’s reading we saw that some governments employed the “repression” tactic, in which scavengers/beggars could experience extreme hostility and violence. Forming these alternative structures helped to reduce violence, and legalize the scavenging process, however there are still threats prevalent for the stakeholders. For instance, many scavengers must go through open dumps in order to find recyclable materials. These unsanitary conditions threaten the stakeholder’s health and well-being through prolonged exposure. Also, in cities where scavenging coops are encouraged, some of the smaller scale scavengers may experience competition for access to common resources and struggle to collect …show more content…
There is a proportional equivalence between benefits and costs, scavengers are fairly rewarded through payments, better living situations, or goods. Monitors exist throughout the municipalities, evaluating the safety/effectiveness of landfills and dumps. Additionally, there are many NGO’s and grassroots organizations that provide support for scavenging coops, including legal assistance, thus creating a “low-cost” method of conflict resolution. Despite these similarities, these alternative structures also operate under a number of contexts that go against the rules of a CPR governance. There is a lack of clearly defined boundaries on the common resources, it appears that many of the governments are providing incentives for scavenging and recycling but there does not seem to be an sanctions for violation of rules set forth for the scavenging activities. Also, many of the rules and regulations around scavenging is created by the government or people in political power, and the true stakeholders of the common resources do not have much say in the