126 ISA BAUD
have allowed CBOs in Bolivia to participate in the provision of public services by
monitoring, control and evaluation of public or private sector SWM activities (Arroyo
Moreno et al., 1997/1999). In Colombia, a law now allows recycling co-operatives to
bid for public contracts for carrying out solid waste management activities.
In India, the effects of decentralisation have been different. There was already a local
responsibility for direct provision, and almost no policy development concerning
SWM at state and national levels. Court cases by concerned citizens have led to more
attention now being given to developing standards for SWM by centralised govern-
ment levels (to be developed further through the Pollution Control Boards).
Decentralisation as a result of changes in the Constitution in India, has led to large
financial flows going to the state governments, and from there, being earmarked for
local authorities (such as in Tamil Nadu). This means that more funds are now in prin-
ciple available for investment in SWM. Although this is usually not taken into
account, there have been some initiatives to have such investments include waste
recovery through conversion to energy (see also chapter 9). Such initiatives are all
large-scale, and ignore the recovery and recycling systems currently in place.
Effects of NGO/CBO initiatives
Local authorities have shown themselves more willing to work together with NGOs
and community-based organisations in developing new models in the area of SWM.
This has often taken the form of promotion of micro- and small enterprises for primary
collection of waste, but in which recovery and recycling also take place by the
members of the enterprises. Moreno has called this a form of social privatisation (cf.
Arroyo Moreno et al., 1997/99).
An inventory of initiatives that NGOs/CBOs undertake in SWM in India shows that
there are several types of civil society organisations. They include those that are inter-
ested in adapted technology, those working with women waste pickers to form
co-operatives, those working with street children picking waste to ‘rehabilitate’ them,
and those providing public education on SWM issues (Bhuvaneshwari, 1998). Their
perspectives differ: some work from a social justice viewpoint, others from a ‘cleaner
living environment’ perspective, and others from an ecological perspective (Schenk et
al., 1998). A different inventory of community-based solid waste and water projects,
carried out by WASTE (Anschütz, 1996), also indicates that recovery of (in)organic
waste materials is often part of a community-based SWM system. However, the report
also shows that the micro-enterprises are the ones interested in promoting resource
recovery, because it can provide added income. The micro-enterprises involved find
it very difficult to motivate households to carry out source separation effectively,
which would make resource recovery more economically viable.