Preliminary social impact assessment for the proposed ...

Preliminary social impact assessment for the proposed involvement of Waste for Life in the

Western Province of Sri Lanka

Toby Stephen

Supervisors: Winthrop Professor Caroline Baillie & Randika Jayasinghe School of Environmental Systems Engineering Faculty of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics The University of Western Australia June 2012

Toby Stephen

This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering (Environmental) at The University of Western Australia.

2|P a g e

Toby Stephen

Abstract

Waste pickers are workers within the informal sector who collect, clean and sell discarded recyclable waste gathered from open dumpsites, streets and various other locations. The current flow of materials from seller to buyer is inherently limiting because waste pickers can only sell directly to middlemen from whom they obtain enough income to barely survive. Despite these unfavourable conditions faced by waste pickers, who create intangible economic and environmental benefits from their recycling activities, they remain one of the most invisible, socially marginalised groups within the Western Province of Sri Lanka.

Waste for Life (WfL) is a not-for-profit organisation which aims to develop and apply poverty-reducing solutions to waste problems in order to improve the livelihoods of such individuals. This has been achieved in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where a low-cost manufacturing machine called a hotpress has been implemented to convert recovered plastics and fibres into composite (reinforced plastic) material products to sell in order to assist local waste pickers to become more autonomous. WfL is currently investigating the potential for a similar composite-based project in the Western Province.

Historical criticisms of such development projects imply an intrinsic Western bias that fails to embody the needs and concerns of those affected most. In this study a critical social impact assessment methodology is adopted to highlight the positive and negative impacts that could arise through WfL's involvement in the Western Province. The use of previous assessments coupled with the attainment of primary data aims to counter this Western bias by remaining cognisant of asymmetries of privilege and status that may exist.

Qualitative data was acquired from waste experts and members of the informal sector through various interviews and questionnaires. Analysis of the data reveals a total of 51 potential social impacts, of which 40 were deemed positive and 11 negative. Each impact was assessed based on a set of criteria developed which was deemed to best suit local needs, with mitigative techniques identified and recommended for each potentially negative impact. Results of the study indicate a strong willingness to participate from all interviewees with recommendations including a thorough market analysis and further profiling to be completed regarding location and suitability of the potential beneficiary.

3|P a g e

Toby Stephen

Acknowledgments

I would firstly like to thank my supervisors, Caroline Baillie and Randika Jayasinghe, for their untiring assistance and patience throughout the project. Each contributed significant first-hand knowledge, advice and support and provided nothing but encouragement and constructive feedback. Caroline provided unique insight into Waste for Life and the importance of framing the study through a social justice lens. Randika was an invaluable source of local knowledge and I thank her for the constant support, the obtaining of data and the translations provided. I would also like to acknowledge the guidance provided by staff members from the School of Environmental Systems Engineering, particularly Rita Armstrong who was instrumental to my understanding of post-development theory among many other things. To SESE friends, thanks for the support and good times along the journey. Finally to my parents, Graeme and Julie, thank you for your endless support throughout my time spent at university and for being unfailing sources of constructive feedback, criticism and direction.

4|P a g e

Toby Stephen

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 9 List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. 9 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.1 Project Aims ................................................................................................................... 12 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 13 Social Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 13

2.1 Introduction to SIA......................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Conventional SIA Limitations ....................................................................................... 14 2.3 Technocratic and Participatory Approaches .................................................................. 16 2.4 Defining and Assessing Social Impacts ......................................................................... 18 2.5 Comparison of Methodologies ....................................................................................... 21 2.6 Benefits of SIA............................................................................................................... 23 2.7 Sources of Information................................................................................................... 24

2.7.1 Expert Judgment...................................................................................................... 25 2.7.2 Local Knowledge .................................................................................................... 25 2.7.3 Errors ....................................................................................................................... 26 2.7.4 Lack of Quantitative Data ....................................................................................... 26 Study Area................................................................................................................................ 27 2.8 The Western Province, Sri Lanka .................................................................................. 27 2.8.1 Current Waste Management Profile ........................................................................ 30 2.8.2 Informal Waste Collection ...................................................................................... 30 2.8.3 Formal Waste Collection......................................................................................... 36 2.8.4 Legislation ............................................................................................................... 40 Waste for Life and Post-Development Theory ........................................................................ 42

5|P a g e

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download