266 JOHAN POST AND ISA BAUD
material in both cities. These concern local by-laws on SWM, labour and factory regu-
lations, and the regulations for imports of raw materials.
The studies confirm that local authorities have not introduced any ‘greening’ of local
government by-laws on SWM. They remain firmly rooted in the public health
perspective, in which there is no room for waste material recovery and recycling. No
elements of the ‘waste management’ hierarchy have been introduced through local
government in either city. Neither is source separation by households part of the regu-
latory framework. This means that current activities in that sector remain outside the
government purview, and take place solely out of economic considerations. The
danger is that when these reasons disappear, the recycling sector will also be reduced
(as occurred in Europe in the 1960s and early 70s). If so, it will take more to rebuild
it afterwards, when an environmental perspective becomes more accepted.
The reasons for trading and recycling waste materials currently lie in the economic
context of both cities, of too little employment with a living wage, and enterprises
producing products which do not require high quality raw materials. This situation has
existed over a long period of time in India, and has gradually emerged more recently
in Nairobi, as the economy deteriorated there. The activities take place in the context
of an economy characterized by enterprises and employment ranging on a continuum
from formal to very informal. This context makes the survival activities of waste
pickers and itinerant buyers possible, as they do not adhere to labour and enterprise
regulations. Such activities are likely to become uneconomical if the regulatory
context for production and employment changes, although such changes are unlikely
in either country in the near future.
National regulatory frameworks for raw material imports have generally made it diffi-
cult for entrepreneurs to obtain virgin materials, such as plastic in Kenya and good
quality paper in India. However, after the two countries started opening their econo-
mies in the 1990s, import barriers were reduced, with the result that alternative sources
have become available in both countries. This has negatively affected the recycling of
domestic waste materials (plastics, paper): in Kenya, the plastics market has collapsed.
The effects are felt in Kenya more than in India, as the market for waste materials is
less developed. It does not preclude the international trade in waste materials. If they
were not hazardous, this would be an alternative market, as van Beukering has
suggested (2001).
Privatisation was the last major change in the regulatory context. Although the
changing way of collecting waste should have affected access to waste for recycling
in both cities, the studies found no major closing off of access because of this process.
In both cities, the private sector waste collection companies also earn from their waste
trading activities.