Responsible consumption and production – DDRN

Wasted at Both Ends: How the Global Food System Discards from Farm to Shelf

Sofia Kiryttopoulou — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 11:08:33 +0000

At a plantation in coastal Ecuador, a crate of bananas is set aside, not because it is spoiled, but because it is slightly curved in the wrong way, too small, or marked by minor blemishes. Thousands of kilometers away, in a Paris supermarket, sealed yogurt containers are emptied into a bin at the end of the day, discarded not for contamination, but because they have passed their “best before” date. Neither is unsafe. Yet both are destined for waste.

This contrast is not incidental. It reflects a deeper structural reality within the global food system, where food is routinely discarded both before and after it reaches the market. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, roughly one-third of all food produced globally is lost or wasted, while the European Commission reports over 58 million tonnes discarded annually in Europe alone.

What emerges is not a broken system, but a coordinated one: production and retail practices that generate surplus on one end and enforce selectivity on the other. The result is a continuous flow of food that is grown, transported, and ultimately discarded at different stages of the same supply chain. To understand how this dynamic takes shape, it is necessary to begin at the source: the conditions under which food is grown, selected, and often discarded long before it ever reaches global markets.

The Producer’s Burden: Invisible Waste in Peru

In export-oriented regions such as Latin America, food waste is not primarily the result of poor farming practices or environmental conditions. It is shaped by the requirements of international trade.

Global supply chains operate under strict grading systems in which the value of produce is determined by standardized criteria of size, color, and shape. Retailers in high-income markets impose detailed specifications that define what is considered marketable. Produce that deviates from these parameters, even slightly, is excluded from export channels regardless of its nutritional quality. This system effectively prioritizes visual uniformity over edibility.

For producers these requirements create a structural dilemma. Because even minor imperfections can lead to rejection, farmers are compelled to overproduce as a form of risk management. To fulfill a contract for a fixed quantity of “Class A” produce, growers must account for the proportion of their harvest that will not meet these standards.

Evidence from Peru illustrates the scale of this dynamic. A case study from the REFRESH Project documents how cosmetic specifications imposed by export markets generate substantial losses at the farm level. In some crops, rejection rates range from 10 to 40 percent depending on quality requirements. In one instance, more than 3,500 tons of edible onions were discarded in a single year because they did not meet size or shape criteria. Citrus producers face even higher levels of uncertainty, with exportability rates for certain fruits dropping to around 50 percent. When local markets are unable to absorb this surplus, rejected produce is often left to decompose or is buried, as the cost of transport exceeds its potential value.

Price volatility further intensifies these losses. Agricultural markets are highly sensitive to fluctuations in supply and demand. Periods of overproduction can lead to sharp declines in prices, making it economically unviable to harvest or distribute crops. In such conditions, farmers may leave produce in the fields, not because it lacks demand in absolute terms, but because it cannot be sold at a price that covers production and distribution costs. This reflects a broader imbalance in which producers bear the risks of market instability while operating within constraints set by distant buyers.

The environmental implications of this upstream waste are significant. Food that is never consumed still embodies the full cost of its production. Water, fertilizers, land, and labor are expended regardless of whether the crop reaches the market. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, agriculture accounts for a substantial share of global freshwater use, meaning that production losses translate directly into resource waste.

This is particularly evident in regions such as the Ica Valley in Peru, where large volumes of water are used to produce export crops that may ultimately be discarded due to market standards. Studies highlight that water-intensive food is wasted in areas already facing severe water stress, illustrating how food loss translates directly into inefficient use of scarce water resources.

The result is a system in which a significant share of food is filtered out at the very beginning of the supply chain. This upstream waste remains largely invisible to consumers, yet it forms a foundational part of the global food economy and sets the stage for further losses at the retail level.

The Retail Gatekeeper: Why Good Food Dies on the Shelf

While part of the global food waste crisis occurs on distant farms, it also continues in the climate-controlled aisles of supermarkets. In these regions, food waste is not caused by a lack of technology or storage capacity. Rather, it is the result of retail strategies that prioritize brand image, visually appealing displays, and risk avoidance over the actual consumption of food. Supermarkets function as the ultimate gatekeepers of the supply chain, and internal policies often mandate the disposal of large quantities of perfectly edible products.

One of the most significant drivers of this waste is the “aesthetic of abundance.” Retailers operate on the principle that overflowing shelves encourage purchases. This leads to a cycle of overstocking, particularly in produce, bakery, and deli sections. To maintain the appearance of abundance until closing time, stores stock more than they can reasonably expect to sell. In one case study of a supermarket in Poland, a single store generated 3.3 tonnes of food waste in just two weeks, with meat, fruits, and vegetables comprising more than half of the discarded volume. Often, it is cheaper for retailers to discard surplus than to risk a half-empty shelf affecting customer perception.

Date-label practices further exacerbate the problem. “Use By” dates indicate food safety, while “Best Before” dates refer only to quality. Many retail policies fail to distinguish between the two. Once a product reaches its “Best Before” date, it is frequently removed and discarded, even if it remains safe to consume. Research by WRAP shows that consumer confusion over date labels drives significant household waste, but the cycle begins with retailers, whose policies often prevent discounts or donations of items approaching these thresholds. Products such as yogurt, cheese, and bread are routinely disposed of despite being perfectly edible.

Policy interventions provide important examples of how this dynamic can be addressed. In 2016, France passed the Loi Garot, making it illegal for supermarkets over a certain size to destroy unsold food. Large grocers are now required to establish donation contracts with charities. Before the law, many stores destroyed edible products to prevent “dumpster diving.” While the legislation has increased food donations, over-ordering and waste at the retail level persist.

The retail system treats food as a high-volume, low-margin commodity where disposal functions as a routine inventory management tool. When a supermarket discards a crate of aged produce, it is not only wasting food. The energy, labor, water, and transportation that brought it to the shelf—including scarce water from Peru’s Ica Valley—is lost. The retail gatekeeper completes a cycle that began thousands of miles away, linking upstream overproduction to downstream disposal. By prioritizing a flawless shopping experience over resource efficiency, the system guarantees that millions of tonnes of food are grown, transported, and ultimately discarded.

Environmental Costs and Pathways Forward

The cumulative effect of waste at both ends of the supply chain is staggering. Globally, if food waste were a country, it would rank as the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to methane released from decomposing organic matter in landfills. Each discarded item carries the embedded energy, water, and labor that went into its production, transport, and storage. In regions like Peru’s Ica Valley, water scarcity is severe, yet millions of cubic meters are used annually to grow crops that never reach consumers. Similarly, fuel, fertilizer, and packaging invested in overproduced or rejected food in Latin America and the energy used to ship it thousands of miles to Europe or North America are effectively wasted, amplifying both carbon and resource footprints.

Addressing this dual-hemisphere crisis requires structural change. Shortening supply chains through direct-to-consumer models or subscription services for “ugly” produce allows farmers to sell imperfect but nutritious crops that would otherwise be discarded. Reforming cosmetic standards can significantly reduce waste at the production stage and ensure more food reaches markets while protecting both revenue and resources. On the retail side, clearer guidance on date labels and mandatory donation policies, such as France’s Loi Garot, can prevent edible food from being thrown away unnecessarily. Greater transparency in contracts between retailers and producers could reduce overproduction and distribute risk more evenly across the chain.

Reducing food waste is not a matter of isolated fixes but of rethinking the value of food. Each discarded item represents lost labor, water, energy, and land, resources concentrated in producing regions but wasted globally. Combining supply chain reforms, policy interventions, and consumer education can shift the system from a cycle of disposal to one that respects the true cost of food production. Tackling this challenge benefits both the environment and the communities that grow the food, creating a more equitable and sustainable global food system.

Sofia Kiryttopoulou is studying for a Bachelor’s Degree in Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies. Specialization: Politics and Law, at University of Macedonia | Thessaloniki, Greece.

The Myth of Sustainability

Maya Rakha — Sun, 01 Feb 2026 22:05:50 +0000

Definition
I have an old, uncreative newsflash, but one that many in the field of sustainability seem to forget: sustainability is not only CO₂ emissions. Shocking, I know. But what is the definition of sustainability? It is actually pretty subjective. In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In the charter for the UCLA Sustainability Committee, sustainability is defined as: “the integration of environmental health, social equity and economic vitality in order to create thriving, healthy, diverse and resilient communities for this generation and generations to come. The practice of sustainability recognizes how these issues are interconnected and requires a systems approach and an acknowledgement of complexity.” But with many trends: definitions, goals, and actions, things start to become a little bit blurred. Suddenly, the word sustainability is thrown around to describe everything, but at the end of the day, what is truly sustainable?

I Hate Paper Straws
I am a sustainability manager in companies within the chemical building industries. Funny, I know. But due to my job, I am oftentimes exposed to a lot of bureaucratic procedures, and with that come the people (like me) who like to find loopholes so that they do not have to take on any extra work. I should be treading lightly, as my job is important to me, so let’s take a moment to clarify that I am in no way talking about anything that happens within any of the companies that I work at.

That being said, humans love to find loopholes. Rules are meant to be broken, and ever since the first rule was established, a loophole came shortly after. Which is good and well, as this showcases problem-solving skills.

Anyway, back to my original statement: I hate paper straws

When I order my orange juice and receive it with a paper straw, my mood is instantly ruined. I do not want to spend the next five minutes downing my juice in fear that I will later be met with a soggy straw that is falling apart in my mouth. I will go as far as to assume that most kids have tried to eat paper when they were younger, or at least I did, and if it had been in any way delicious, I would have continued eating it. I stopped for a reason. So why is it now in my orange juice?

Paper straws have actually been around for a very long time. About a century, apparently. Not to get fully into the history of straws and paper straws, but for now, what is important to know is that paper straws have been advertised as a sea-turtle-friendly, sustainable solution to single-use plastic straws. This advertisement reached the point where people started claiming: “I am an environmentally conscious person, I help the world by drinking out of a paper straw!”

And the intention is great. It is great to want to make small changes in daily life in order to become more environmentally conscious. But what is even better is to actually stop and think about what is being advertised.

Is a paper straw actually sustainable?

Are companies buying carbon credits actually sustainable?
Is planting a random tree in a random field in a country far, far away really what makes a company “sustainable”?

Or are all of those just loopholes in order to ignore what actually needs to be done?

The Life Cycle of a Paper Straw

Back to my passion against paper straws.

I think it is fairly obvious that paper, in general, is not advertised as edible. At least that was the vibe I got based on my mum’s reaction when I once told her that I tried to eat some paper. I also think it is relatively obvious that paper is not a raw material.
Paper production causes water and air pollution, waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and in some cases deforestation.

A life cycle assessment is a means to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product, process, or service which encompasses its production, usage, transportation, disposal, and so on. A comparative study examined bio-plastic straws and paper straws. Bio-plastic straws undergo multiple stages, from corn starch production and lactic acid fermentation to polymerization, molding, transport, and disposal. Paper straws similarly begin with wood extraction, followed by pulping, papermaking,
straw formation, transport, and end-of-life treatment. Although the study was conducted in Malaysia and therefore is not globally representative, the findings encompass the issue that we struggle with when it comes to sustainability. The researches have found that paper straws showed higher global warming and acidification impacts, due to energy-intensive paper production. Bio-plastic straws performed worse in terms of eutrophication, driven by agricultural inputs for corn starch. So basically, neither option is to be considered as sustainable or better for the environment. It is actually really misleading to claim that paper straws are a guilt-free solution to our environmental issues. And just a reminder, paper cannot hold itself up in the shape of a straw in general, and especially not in liquids. Once it becomes a soggy mess, how could it be recycled? That’s right: it probably isn’t recycled, making it a single-use pollutant. Also, the chemicals that they use to bind the paper straw and glue it together? Either a celiac’s nightmare due to the use of wheat as a binding agent, or a yummy chemical substitute. Either way, I’m passing and focusing on what actually will help save the planet: green washing at the corporate level! Yes, really sticking it to the man.

Humans at the Core of Sustainability

Now that we are on the topic of humans and sustainability, the first thing to say is that without humans, there would be no need for sustainability. I will go a step further and say that the issue is not inherently humans, but rather greed, but that is a philosophical argument for another day.

The point about humans and sustainability is that we are the core of it. We need to find a way to continue with “business as usual” without burning every last bit of this Earth to the ground. Sorry, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but unfortunately, it is the reality for many people (and trees and sea turtles) who are being eradicated, all in the name of business. The more important question is: who does modern-day sustainability actually serve? I say this with caution, as sustainability could also be defined not as a movement or a field, but rather as a way of life.

Sustainability Is Not New
One of the most remarkable examples of sustainability can be found in Ancient Egypt: “…their agricultural practices. The annual inundation of the Nile River provided fertile soil for farming, which was carefully managed to prevent overuse and ensure long-term productivity. Farmers adhered to practices that minimized waste and preserved soil quality, such as crop rotation and the use of natural fertilizers.” And yet: “Western imperialism, which is embedded in the phenomenon of globalisation, is spreading dominant cultures and values through trade, production and consumption patterns, and communication. The unmastered modernisation, which Africans are subtly and brutally forced into through the globalisation process, is impeding
Africa’s sustainable development prospects. Sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. ”It is a planned economic, social, and environmental change for the better. This change requires active cooperation at all levels by all stakeholders for the wellbeing of the masses.“

This sounds almost too familiar to some colonialist theories, but I promised my husband not to go on an anti-colonialist rant this time, so I will move on.

But you get what I mean, right? I am genuinely wondering why sustainability is advertised as a new and upcoming trend or movement when it has been deeply embedded in the way of life of many civilizations, especially in countries that are now suffering precisely because of their forced “modernisation” and “development.”

Maya Rakha has a Master’s Degree of Arts in International Security at University of Groningen and is a DDRN Correspondent

Building Research Capacity for Sustainability Assessment in Tanzania

DDRN — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 04:33:44 +0000

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: I work as an Associate Professor, Natural Resources Management, Head of Department, Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences (DAARS), Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), situated in Morogoro, Tanzania. I also work as Deputy Principal for the College of Agriculture in this university. But in relation to the talk we have today, I served as the overall coordinator for the Building Stronger Universities (BSU) program, which ran over 12 years. I served for almost half of this time.

Morten Birkved: I am a professor at University of Southern Denmark. I am also heading the Life Cycle Centre, which is a research unit, where we conduct research on industrial ecology and environmental engineering. Over the years I have been participating in a number of projects in emerging economies, one of which being the BSU III project, where Anthony was acting as the Southern leader. I am also participating in a newer project, ‘Create Green Africa’, which is similar to the BSU program. It is also about improving environmental educational capacities in the South. It is a collaboration between nine African countries, where the exchange of students takes place over a period of three years in order to improve the educational level within environmental engineering and environmental assessment capabilities. During BSU III, I visited SUA quite a number of times. Towards the last part of BSU III, we managed to build a test biogas plant at SUA which started running at the end of the project. The intention with that biogas plant was to improve teaching capacities within novel and sustainable energy conversion technologies.

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: First, I should say that BSU was a unique program for SUA, because before BSU we used to have mainly research projects, and we used to collaborate with our partners in research-related projects. For BSU, it was not really an intervention on research, but rather it was a project on institutional capacity development strengthening the capacity of the institution to undertake quality research. So, it was not really research-oriented like the FFU projects; it was unique and for that matter it was also unique for the SUA community. And for quite long, we had no such kind of projects. In terms of strengths, we thought there were a number of issues for this project. First, this project managed to end while developing three post graduate programs, all of them for PhDs. These programs have been institutionalized in the SUA system; they have been hosted by the departments within SUA. They are enrolling students. That was a tick number one, and a major issue was that everyone at SUA and in Tanzania would keep remembering the existence of the BSU. We had PhD programs in agro-ecology and agrobusiness, these programs exist, and in my department, I have one which is Master of Science in aquaculture. We are training men and women in this program, and aquaculture in particular is a very growing industry in Tanzania, it is a very particular sector because of the need for the protein and fish could be one of the most accessible proteins for the livelihood, safety and food security for community. So that was a big issue. BSU trained six academic SUA staff to the level of PhD in a full funding mode. They were ten months in Denmark. Some achieved double degrees from SUA and from universities in Denmark. They are now a very well workforce in SUA. Some are actually getting higher positions in administration now. So that was really another big issue for BSU. And there were a number of capacity building in innovative pedagogic approaches: How to teach our students and mainly BSU transformed the way of teaching. Mainly we were under the teacher-centered approaches where you just give lectures, students memorize and then do the exams. But we see a transformation through BSU, where people were trained in a number of these pedagogical approaches transforming the thinking from teacher-centered to student-centered approach. And that has helped even for the students to think as they do their education. The other area was actually the capacity of staff to do research and also to write research projects. It was through the training that we had in the BSU. Researchers could even write research projects and get funding from other donors. And we have this program going on now, like we established an agro-ecology hub in Tanzania. It is a hub that coordinates initiatives on agro-ecology in Tanzania and that is hosted by SUA and it is being funded by a foundation from USA. This is a capacity that was built through the BSU and now we have a hub for agro-ecology going on in Tanzania hosted here at SUA and I am one of the secretaries, I work in that hub. And we are continuing with projects through this hub, and we are working with almost all partners in agro-ecology in the country – universities like Nelson Mandela Institute and we work with University of Dar es Salam and University of Dodoma and we have NGOs and research institutes in the hub. And we have farmers who are working in agro-ecology and organic farming. So, you can see that this was a seed that was planted through the BSU. And you can see now that this hub is working and that SUA is coordinating all stakeholders supporting government policies related to agro-ecology and we have reached a stage where we have the strategy for agro-ecology. We don’t yet have a real policy, but we developed a policy in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Livestock and other partners. We are there.

I will now proceed with the weaknesses. When we were in BSU 2, if you remember, we entered into an era of Covid 19, and I can assure you that it reduced our speed of intervention and it impacted a lot on this program. Most of the face-to-face interventions could not be done for almost two years. And we were not prepared for online communications and unfortunately SUA was not very good in that area, if you compare it with other universities. So, it really impacted us a lot, and it reduced the speed of implementation. But in BSU we also worked to develop research groups. And we learned from this process that it was not easy. Before we thought it was just a normal thing. As we talk now, we are still united, we call it BSU family. When there is a call for proposal, what we have been doing in BSU is that all members will get information. So, within this BSU family, we have research teams. If you go to agribusiness, you will find two or three teams working together. I assure you, it was not very easy to reach that, because we are people with different disciplines. That was a new experience. Sometimes before, people on crop science would work by themselves. But today, a crop scientist will work with an animal scientist and somebody in agribusiness. So that is how it looks now. And we reached there with a lot of difficulties. Something that was also a bit delimiting and challenging was the linkages to the industry. Our interventions did not have a very clear link to what is happening in the industry in some cases. And at the end, we realized that it would be an area where we need to be more attentive. So, we are working with farmers, but it was not at a level where we really needed. But also, another weakness that we found was the approval of professors, where we are trying to accredit the programs which we developed. The design was to have this program up and run earlier than was expected, so there was a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of teams had to be made to project the capacity of teaching these courses and lot of logistics issues from the governing bodies. Later, they were approved, but they were approved a bit later than we expected in the project. These were a few issues that I can mention that became limitations in our interventions under BSU.

Morten Birkved: My role in the BSU3 project was to be responsible for teaching academic staff and PhDs in sustainability assessment competences and disseminate sustainability assessment frameworks and so on. It was a substantial travelling I had. It did not amount to as many hours as Anthony has invested in the project by far. I think the framework of BSU has some strengths seen from my engineering perspective, which is quite different from that of most other participants from the North who came from a humanistic and socio-economic and socio-technical background. I felt that through the courses and tools and methods which I was disseminating I got the sense that the receiving Southern partner had the feeling of being empowered by a larger global agenda, which is of course sustainability enabling them to do something active for their own area of research for their own industrial sector within which they were working and got quite positive feedback. Of course, it was quite challenging to disseminate a complicated framework, but I think overall the people received it quite well and they felt empowered because it was facilitating the Southern part to engage in the global sustainability challenge and actually provide decision support for local policy makers and also national policy makers. I got a positive impression of the engagement that was exhibited by the local Southern partner. Overall, I see it as a success, because we have actually disseminated these competencies, and it was received quite well. And of course, it is becoming more and more urgent that South countries participate in the sustainability challenge or green transition challenges. And these tools are requisites for engaging in this challenge in an informed way. I think SUA staff and PhDs have learned quite a lot and some quite useful things. Further, being able to build that biogas plant at SUA also provided a teaching tool which will enable SUA to teach actual technologies that can facilitate green transition. That is what I saw as positive sides to the program. As mentioned earlier, it is a very limited role that I played in the program. On the negative side, in relation to the follow up program, BSU4, I got the sense that the Danish funding bodies suddenly had a change of mind about what they would like to support. It felt discontinuous, so in that way it is a very limited, narrow timeframe that DFC (Danida Fellowship Centre) allocates for focusing on this particular area. In that way, they are not trying to ensure the success of survival in the long term, which was a bit disappointing seen from my side, because I think by supporting what was achieved during BSU3, it would be possible to ensure the survivability of the majority of the competences that were disseminated to the people at SUA. But that was not a priority for the Danish funding parties. The shifted focus and now it is something new, which they are focusing on. And of course, they are free to do that. I just had the impression that we could do a lot more by ensuring survivability of what has been achieved. I think that is it from my limited view of BSU3.

AW: Do you have any specific changes or improvements of the BSU program, which is still on?

Morten Birkved: I don’t think the shift in focus is in the interest of DFC nor the people participating in these large programs. So, building in some continued focus supporting the survivability of what has been achieved is something that DFC should maybe consider.

AW: Dr. Anthony, what is your recommendations for improvements of the BSU program? How do you respond to what Morten has just pointed out?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: Yes, I have more or less similar feelings like what Morten said. At the end, when we heard this announcement that there is no longer funding for BSU 4, we asked for reasons and DFC said that it was about the capacity building and they have a feeling that our universities are now becoming stronger and they would like to go to smaller universities also to build their capacity, and for Tanzania they had to choose the State University of Zanzibar (SUZA), which is a relatively newer and smaller university to SUA, and also other areas in the South; they went to Uganda, Gulu University, and also Somaliland where there is a university. But also we requested, if that is the case maybe if you have a feeling that our capacities are well enhanced maybe we need to take a role to partner now with these new universities and act as mentors. And that could be actually strengthening South to South partnerships and collaborations, but at the same time we could also proceed with the South-North partnerships that were on my view actually somehow strengthened because it was also very easy for Morten I think for this talk to just say ‘well I can have this talk with Anthony just because we have worked together before, he knows me, to mention another person. Like the biogas plant I think Morten worked with the two researchers, David who is in my department, but there is another lady, Amina, who is in a small campus close to where I am. So, already we established very clear working relations and to me I thought we would have taken this much further rather than actually ending at BDU3. If you look at how we implemented BSU3, it was in the same order that there are some issues in BSU1, which started way back in 2011, and we came to develop the programs actually in BSU2 we started it in 2014. So, when we came to 2017, when we initiated BSU 3, actually, the idea was to consolidate our efforts that were made in BSU 1 and BSU2. So, for BSU4, it was the proper time to cement whatever we started in BSU3 like the running of the programs. And we initiated activities like circular economy was more into the BSU3 and almost at the end of it. So, luckily for example that the biogas plant was constructed, it started working, and by the end of the project, it was working and is an area where now can be used by farmers to train, by postgraduate students to do research. So, there were issues now that we needed actually to continue, for example in the area of circular economy, which is very hot today. We needed more time, because it is one of the areas that were not very

much developed under BSU3. So, I have the same feeling that I think it is also good to scale up to other areas. We agree. It is also good to scale up other areas, but I think we were supposed to have some activities going on to cement whatever we initiated in these three phases.

AW: Let me move on to another topic. I mean, the methodology of lifecycle assessment is sort of a key methodology in sustainable development. And it was also taught and promoted in the BSU program. I mean, to what extent is LCA life cycle assessment practiced in Tanzania today? Are there examples of products being, I mean, analyzed with this methodology? Morten, maybe you can start.

Morten Birkved: We were teaching the LCA framework with the, how can I say, the background that this is the default assessment methodology within Europe. And our hopes were that by enabling the Tanzanians to conduct various assessments of products and most formerly food items that could be exported to Europe. Tanzania could gain an upper hand on the export market by becoming aware of what data the European authorities would need for these assessments. The PEF framework, which is this product environmental footprint, which is being promoted in Denmark and Europe in these days for comparing various items. That way, the Tanzanians would have the upper hand by being very familiar with the framework that needed data from the Tanzanian producers and industry sectors in order to assess the products from Tanzania and facilitating a more seamless marketing process of these products in Europe. And that of course I think is in the overall interest of Tanzania to gain an upper hand in the export of products in general. And of course, also over time become, I can say, able to conduct these assessments themselves and at least introduce some decision support in navigating various industry sectors, for instance the food sector, in terms of what products should be promoted nationally and what health slash sustainable nutritional strategies should be promoted within Tanzania. Overall, I sense that there was a great interest in this program, especially in terms of the data part what data were needed by the European authorities and other authorities that was of great interest to the to the locals in SUA in Tanzania and I think the framework as such is not more complicated – it is complicated – but it’s not more complicated than it can be handled by also academics from Tanzania.

So it is, I think, proper preparation to at least become familiar with this framework in order to gain the upper hand in a very competitive export market.

AW: Dr. Anthony, what is your opinion about, I mean, the application of LCA, both for export, but also in the national context of Tanzania.

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: Let me declare the interest that actually this is not a subject of mine, but so far we are discussing issues related to the SDG number 12, which relates to these assessments about responsible consumption and production and i think we understand Tanzania is one of the country where population is also increasing and for that matter there is a need to have methods okay for doing assessment and monitoring like food waste, because we know we are producing a lot of food. Sometimes there are also a lot of waste that are produced, and we are all aware of the global population increase. And if we don’t have clear methods for assessing such issues, then it’s a problem. I think the government needs to have policies. Policies of reducing waste generation but also promoting circularity, circular economic practices, and having sustainable procurement policies and also looking at ways that are sustainable in our lifestyles. So how do we consume our food? How do we choose production? Where we produce with lower environmental impacts? And how can we have activities that lowers carbon footprint and so on? So, I think in my view, all these issues are being currently researched here at SUA. And life cycle assessment is one of the methods that are used in various research, and in so doing, I think we are really tackling this sustainable development goal number 12. Those are my observations. And BSU, I think, as I said before, we started here, but unfortunately it is where we really ended, almost at the end of the BSU3.

AW: Are there any specific examples of LCA applications? I mean, for example, in the form of messages or recommendations, advice to the general public about healthy food and labeling of food products, and similar things in Tanzania?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: I think there are examples because I’m seeing now a lot of initiatives and even in the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. If you look at the strategy also that has been developed for agroecology and the organic farming, you see a number of activities, but also lifestyle issues that leads to communities, to encourage community to see the need of consuming safe food and also communities or farmers to produce in a sustainable way so that there is local ownership of technologies, production, but also consumption, reducing waste, and consuming health food for sustainability. So, I see some initiatives in this line in Tanzania. Morten, if you can add anything.

Morten Birkved: At least from the literature I see comparison of European production forms and African production forms, especially for pork meat, and especially how the two production forms can benefit from each other and how the expectations are in terms of exporting meat from Africa to Europe within this green transition and what the constraints will be. So, I see some work going on in terms of optimizing the southern production forms in such a way that they fit with the expectations of the European Union as a receiving market. So, there is a focus on empowering the southern producers in assessing the product in such a way that they become competitive with European products. I think it’s very important for the African agricultural industry to be aware and to be capable of conducting these assessments in order to achieve this export upper hand that we talked about before. If they’re not capable and do not understand what it is that the European Union is asking for, they will be helpless.

AW: In the national context of Tanzania, I mean, do you see any scope for an even more advanced application of LCA that is, I mean, to establish circular economy in certain product lines? Can you point out any examples, which might, I mean,

Morten Birkved: That was the whole purpose of this biogas plant, that circular economy, converting organic material into energy. And the purpose of LCA in that context is to explore utilizations of various residual resources, kitchen waste, and I think we had waste from sunflowers and various infield activities. There were plant residues that could be used in various forms either for as direct fuel or for biogas and then also for fertilizers so the question is what route would be the optimal to utilize these resources in and that was something that Amina and David picked up quite fast that, okay, you need LCA to decide which route or route works best seen from a climate perspective, seen from an environmental perspective, seen from a resource perspective, and that there is no, I’m going to say, black and white. You actually need to figure out how to compare climate performance with resource challenges and so on. So in that way, the decision support power of LCA is something that was grasped by the locals at SUA and I hope it’s something that they utilize, especially when they teach biogas production to the academic staff and to the students in such a way that they become aware that the decision to produce biogas is not as simple as, yes, we can do it, that’s why we do it. No, sometimes you have to go through calculations and also figure out which route is the best and whether it actually makes a residual resource for biogas plants.

AW: Dr. Anthony, any comments on this question about the biogas plant and the scope for circular economy?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: Yes, if I talk a bit broadly from what Morten said, you know, at SUA now we have decided to initiate these courses that have a holistic approach like PhD agroecology. At first, we were mainly concentrating on this like conventional agriculture and so on. Now, with the PhD up and running at SUA, we thought it was not enough because sometimes we receive fewer students in that program. Now we have developed the MSc Agroecology. The whole idea is to have trained staff who will go out and work with farmers who will have these skills: How do you handle agriculture on a holistic approach apart from having an MSc and PhD? We have also developed tailor-made courses for in-service extension staff, those who are already working with farmers out there and they have never gone through such holistic thinking of producing crops and livestock. So, we have also done these tailor-made courses for in-service extension staff. And the whole idea is to create awareness for the farmers, the people who are keeping fish, the fisheries, the livestock keepers and so on. To start thinking that there is a better way of producing our products. And the whole idea is the security of the resources and efficient use of the resources in the biosystems. So, at SUA, we have even a plot, a demonstration plot, where we demonstrate how circular economy works on the ground. And only that the biogas plant is designed in let’s say like a hundred meters out of this pilot. We could not find a better place for that plant, but it’s very close to it. So, farmers, students and anyone who wants to learn about it, there is a plot where you could see how you can, for example, produce fish in a sustainable way and how can you use the effluent coming from the fish into the gardens, into the pasture? And how can this pasture also be used to feed livestock? And the livestock will produce manure, manure will come back to the farm, but also livestock will produce manure that will also be the input for the biogas and get the clean energy afterwards. So, we have a demo plot that actually demonstrates how circular economy works.

AW: What is the scope for future research cooperation between the two of you? Have you any specific plans in the pipeline for new projects?

Morten Birkved: We already tried out one GFC application that didn’t work out. We didn’t make it through first round. So of course, there is an incentive to attract new projects that can extend what has already been established in BSU3. Of course, GFC provides funding for that, but to me it also appears that Tanzania is not an easy country to attract funding for. There are projects being launched in Tanzania, that should be said, but it appears that it’s not as easy as it used to be and competitive, quite fierce. But I think with effort we should be able to attract funding for a new smaller project where we could focus on for instance, circular economy and sustainability assessment, even industrial ecology if that is something of interest. So, there is hope for future collaboration, but we haven’t been able to fund these plans yet.

AW: Dr. Anthony, how do you see the situation? What are your priorities for future research and in particular, of course, collaboration with Morten and his team at SDU?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: I think when we were trying to train our staff on circular economy particularly, eight young staff from SUA visited Denmark for some two or three months. And when they were in Denmark, other issues that they learned on how to do circular economy projects. And when they came back, they started to design like small research projects. Some of these projects are being implemented by masters students now but the idea was also to develop some of this into researchable research projects and try to work with the Danish partners to implement maybe through funding from Danida or European Union that has not happened yet to reach a point where we have a consolidated project and submitted to EU or Danida. But that has been our thinking. That’s the way we want to enhance our future collaborations and our future partnerships. Although some of these small research projects are developed now, and I’m not very sure but some of these have been submitted to COSTEC, which is the National Commission for Science and Technology which normally provides research funding to institutions so that is another area that we target for such kind of research projects. So, there are some initiatives about the four research ideas were developed out of the trip that was done to Denmark. And we are working to see if these can be developed further to a level that can also be funded in future collaborations. That’s what we have now.

AW: Any concluding remarks from your side, Morten?

Morten Birkved: No, except that, of course, it was a very positive experience with BSU3, and I really hope that we, at some point, will manage to attract funding that allows us to continue some of the activities that we had within the project.

Dialogue between Professor Morten Birkved and Professor Anthony Zozimus Sangeda moderated by Editor Arne Wangel

https://ddrn.dk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/audio1502904665publish.mp3

Wild Animals, the Forbidden Gourmet Dish Served in Ecuador’s Amazon Region

Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:00:00 +0000

In the Amazonian provinces of Sucumbíos and Pastaza in Ecuador there are restaurants that offer visitors armadillo, guanta or roasted deer soup as an exotic delicacy, even though it is an environmental crime. The dishes made with bushmeat cost between 3.5 and 10 dollars, depending on the place. A hidden but constant trade.

-What do you have?

-Today, armadillo soup… I’m just cooking it, it’ll be ready in half an hour.

It is 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning in September at the market Los Plátanos (the plantains) in Puyo, capital of the province of Pastaza, Ecuador. The enquirer is a carrier known to the seller. Minutes later, a woman who looks like a foreign tourist asks a similar question, but the answer is very different: ‘No, we don’t sell bushmeat… It’s a crime, it’s forbidden.’

Far from the eyes and ears of the trader, the transporter leaves the explanation: the vendors are afraid of the sanctions they may face for selling wild animals. For this reason, they only offer them to those they identify as neighbors or acquaintances. ‘I’ll come back and bring you the plate so you can see. Or maybe you should come with me to eat,’ he says with a touch of cheek. Indeed, when he returns, he is served a plate with part of the armadillo’s shell and one of its legs sticking out.

It is a gourmet dish that is a specialty of this area. Despite the fact that article 247 of Ecuador’s Organic Integral Penal Code (COIP) states that it is a crime to hunt, fish and capture wildlife for commercial purposes. But these are only empty words. This report found that the trafficking of wild animals or protected species to supply kitchens in the Ecuadorian Amazon is a common practice, especially in rural areas. And the State does very little to combat it.

According to the COIP, the consumption of bushmeat is only allowed within indigenous territories, as long as it is destined for the subsistence of the families, i.e. for self-consumption. This is not the same as selling the meat of these animals to visitors or tourists on the roadside, which is what was found while working on this investigation.

In our research we were able to corroborate that at least five restaurants in the city of Puyo also sell armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), guanta (Cuniculus paca) and guangana (Tayassu pecari) meat. And animal rights organizations claim that this is a widespread practice in the Ecuadorian Amazon [ .

What is striking is that despite the fact that the infraction is clearly being committed, the State does very little to sanction and combat it. In its fifth National Report on Biological Biodiversity published in 2015, the Ministry of Environment cited a study by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) on bushmeat trafficking in Yasuní National Park. According to the study, between 13,000 and 14,000 kilos of bushmeat were sold annually at the Pompeya market on the banks of the Napo River alone.

The data have not been updated, but the fact is that today in the Ecuadorian Amazon there are more than a few restaurants that offer trusted diners dishes based on wild animal meat, especially guanta and armadillo, but also peccaries (wild pigs), deer and other species. In the aforementioned market Los Plátanos, for example, this can be verified at one of the traditional food stalls. Under the gaze of dozens of people, a diner serves himself an armadillo hand in a bowl of soup, accompanied by yucca, green plantain and malanga (Colocasia esculenta). He paid $5 for the dish.

‘I like the taste of the armadillo fat,’ says another diner. The vendor, a Kichwa woman (one of the eleven indigenous nationalities that inhabit the Ecuadorian Amazon), recognizes that it is a crime to offer this dish: ‘If the Ministry of the Environment comes, I can get into trouble. I sell because the people from the communities bring me and they also need the money. They hunt them and bring them to sell; if I don’t buy from them, they sell elsewhere. According to bushmeat vendors, selling bushmeat is the only way for some indigenous people to get some cash when they go out to the cities.

The Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition (MAATE) only presents overall figures for seizures of wild animals. It does not differentiate between those destined for consumption for their meat and those captured for pets, despite the fact that this was requested by means of a public request for information. Analyzing the figures provided for this report, it is striking how wildlife rescues and seizures have fallen since 2019. If that year there were 4,493, in 2023 there were 700, 6 times less. And this year the trend remains the same.

The Ministry was consulted about this striking drop in seizures, but there was no official explanation. ‘MAATE has no control capacity. Since the merger between the Water Secretariat (SENAGUA) and the Ministry, there has been a lack of personnel for control tasks. Nor do they have the resources to carry out controls, such as vehicles or petrol”, explains biologist Pedro Gualoto, a former official of MAATE in the province of Orellana.

Added to this is the lack of continuous leadership in the Ministry of Environment; during a period of only three years, they have changed ministers five times. Diego Naranjo, a specialist who works in wildlife control at the Ministry of Environment in Orellana, says that ‘trafficking in the Amazon region is totally different from other areas of the country because of its high biodiversity’. He mentions that this has put at risk species such as guanganas (wild pigs or white-lipped peccaries), willow pigs, large and small charapa tortoises, and chorongo monkeys.

Naranjo laments the fact that the environmental crime of illegal bushmeat consumption in Ecuador continues unabated. In 2023 alone, 138 kilos of this product were seized, including mammals, fish and reptiles, a figure that, according to Naranjo, will surely be surpassed in 2024. The highest proportion of confiscations of this type at the national level are made in the Amazonian municipality of Orellana, according to a report by the Ministry of the Environment. The Pompeya market is located there, where recently, on 7 November 2024, 80 pounds of wild meat of white-lipped peccary, red deer and nine-banded armadillo were seized.

The Pompeya market, located on the banks of the Napo River, opposite one of the entrances to the Yasuní National Park (YNP), is a traditional market where, until a few years ago, live and dead wild animals were sold. Even though this trade is no longer carried out in the open, it is still very active. Illegal hunting is one of the main causes for the disappearance of hundreds of species. Ecuador tops the Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List in Latin America, with 2,714 endangered animal and plant species. Among them is the white-lipped peccary, whose meat is served in the dishes prepared in one of the restaurants visited for this report.

According to the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the hunting of this animal (also known as huangana) is of concern. ‘It is much more sensitive because they don’t kill one, but 30 or 40 at the same time, because they live in large groups,’ says Galo Zapata Ríos, scientific director of WCS in Ecuador.

Apart from the fact that their sale is illegal, the consumption of these species represents a risk to human health. Many of these animals are reservoirs of certain diseases, explains Pedro Gualoto Farinango, biologist and zookeeper at the zoo in the Ecuadorian town of Guayllabamba: ‘In the case of armadillo meat consumption, there is a risk of leprosy contagion because they are healthy carriers of the bacteria. In the case of deer, peccaries, guantas and tapir, there is also a risk of transition of gastrointestinal diseases due to undercooked meat (parasites such as giardia intestinalis)’.

The expert adds that ‘during contact with ectoparasites, there is a risk of typhus, which is a zoonosis transmitted by fleas and mites that are present in wildlife. Sarcocystosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis and taeniasis are also common diseases from eating bushmeat. WCS has monitored the sale of bushmeat in the Ecuadorian Amazon for about 20 years. They do not have up-to-date data, but mention as an example that just over a decade ago, in September 2011, an average of 13,000 kilos of bushmeat was sold in the Pompeya market alone, located on the banks of the Napo River near the Yasuní National Park.

But these health risks do not stop people from consuming their desired bushmeat. ‘The demand is great, widespread, in the Ecuadorian Amazon. But it is in our interest to conserve wild animals as well because otherwise people will run out of protein. In the Amazon there are still an estimated half a million people who depend on wildlife for food. And those people have no money,’ explains Galo Zapata Ríos, scientific director of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in Ecuador. Each pound of armadillo or guanta costs 5 dollars, and each pound usually yields two plates. Zapata Ríos does not believe that these two animal species are endangered, because their populations are stable despite hunting.

In another study, carried out between 2005 and 2007 in the same market, WCS recorded the sale of 12,000 kilos of bushmeat and 77 live animals of at least 56 species. From this data, they estimated that between 13,000 and 14,000 kilos of bushmeat were traded in this market each year. It is difficult to map, but the negative impacts on the forests are evident: parrots, primates, guanta, deer… And it is also very serious because it is equivalent to emptying 45 hectares of animals,’ says Zapata Ríos. The ecosystem cannot function well if the animals disappear. Ecuador is the most densely populated country in South America, so this demand for bushmeat is not sustainable. The only reason why these animals have not disappeared is because Yasuní is huge,’ he adds.

Bushmeat on the menu
Article 247 of the COIP establishes that ‘the person who hunts, fishes, captures, collects, extracts, possesses, transports, traffics, benefits from, exchanges or commercializes specimens or their parts, their constituent elements, products and derivatives, of flora or wild terrestrial, marine or aquatic fauna, of threatened, endangered and migratory species, listed at national level by the National Environmental Authority as well as international instruments or treaties ratified by the State, will be sanctioned with a prison sentence of one to three years’.

Although the regulations are clear, the sale of wild animals is commonplace. South of Puyo, on the road to Macas, there is a turnoff at kilometer 16. There, at the Puente de las Boas, guanta and armadillo soup are also offered. It is the weekend and bushmeat in the restaurants is scarce today. ‘I only bought a small guanta and we’ve already run out of dishes’, says one of the vendors. In this place built by the Autonomous Decentralized Provincial Government of Pastaza (GAD Pastaza) there are four traditional food stalls. All of them sell bushmeat dishes, but they are usually sold out before noon. Dozens of diners come from Puyo and Macas to buy these dishes. Most of them are mestizos and the few who dare to talk say that they like the taste, that it is part of their traditions.

Following that road, on the turnoff to Palora (another Amazonian town), there is another complex of five restaurants and a tarabita which, like the one at the Boas Bridge, was built by the state. In this case by the municipal government of Mera, it is the Puerto Santana lookout point. Here they gather to cross the river to Palora in a basket propelled by an old pick-up truck engine. A sign marks the spot from where there is a panoramic view of the Pastaza River. The sign has the logos of the GAD of Mera, the GIZ (the German Society for International Cooperation) and the Ministries of Tourism and Environment. In this place with an apparent state presence, bushmeat is sold.

The restaurants at the lookout point offer dishes with guanta, armadillo and deer. But there is also grilled agouti and smoked huangana (wild pig or peccary). Each dish sells for 5 dollars and a pound of meat for the same price. Vendors say that the supply is not constant and that there are weeks when they bring them several animals and others, like this time, when they only have one type of meat to offer. When asked about the origin of wild animals, their answers are evasive. ‘From the communities, from the forest…’. They also recognize that it is a crime, but they don’t give a damn. A vendor shamelessly opens the fridge and shows the peccary, agouti and armadillo.

A few meters from the viewpoint is the entrance to the Yawa Jee Protected Forest and Vegetation, run by an indigenous Shuar/Kichwa family. Here, too, the state has its part to play: there is a sign from the Ministry of the Environment, but also from international cooperation (the NGOs The Nature Conservancy and Conservation International, the Spanish Embassy in Ecuador and the Spanish Cooperation).

While wild animals and plants are protected in the forest, a few meters away they are eaten roasted on the roadside. But this consumption is not only restricted to the province of Pastaza. When travelling through Sucumbíos, in the north of the Ecuadorian Amazon, the situation is similar. Saturdays and Sundays are the days when most of these dishes are offered. In the market of las Nacionalidades in the city of Lago Agrio (the provincial capital, near the Colombian border), bushmeat is just another product on offer at the vegetable stalls. The vendors buy it from the indigenous people. This was acknowledged by two of them during the report. The selling price: 3.5 dollars per pound of bushmeat.

In two restaurants on the outskirts of Lago Agrio, guanta, armadillo, deer, boa and even caiman are offered clandestinely. But not to just anyone: the presence of irregular groups and organized criminal gangs means that all strangers are under constant observation. In a dining room located on the road to El Coca, the atmosphere is tense and the diners speak in hushed tones as the team of journalists enter, accompanied by a local inhabitant. It is the driver of the van transporting the reporters who speaks and asks for prices: 5 dollars for guanta soup or roast venison. Fried boa costs 10. Venison, similar to beef, is served as a grilled steak, accompanied by cassava, fried green plantain and a salad of onion and tomato.

The journey continues to the north-east of Lago Agrio. The response in the villages of Chiritza, Palma Roja and Aguas Negras is similar: ‘No hunting, it is forbidden’. But the reality is different: bushmeat is obtained on demand and sold through a network of contacts. The driver makes a couple of calls and receives confirmation that they have guanta for 3.50 dollars a pound in Chiritza, a village 40 minutes from Lago Agrio. As you move towards Cuyabeno Fauna Production Reserve, there are several signs warning that wildlife trafficking is a crime. But close to these warnings, bushmeat is sold. You just have to know where to buy guanta, armadillos or deer to prepare them in soups.

According to WCS, this is also a cross-border environmental crime. ‘We know of people coming from the Peruvian Amazon to buy bushmeat in Ecuador. They take it to sell it to the market in Iquitos – the largest city in the Peruvian Amazon – ‘where the demand is huge. This has been happening in recent years, as there are no strict controls and it is easy to move in these areas,’ explains Zapata Ríos. During the reporter’s visit to the Amazon, no control operations were observed, neither by the military, nor by the police, nor by park rangers, despite the fact that there are protected areas such as the Cuyabeno Fauna Production Reserve, in the province of Sucumbíos.

Thus, safe in the knowledge that the state is not around to enforce the law, restaurants continue to prepare and sell gourmet dishes based on meat from protected species. Because for diners, the taste of eating them outweighs the penalty for breaking the law.

This work was carried out with the support of Earth Journalism Network.

Global South-North Divide: Local Innovations Should Be Upscaled and More Just Conditions Introduced

Petra Kascakova — Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:09:15 +0000

If you are interested in international relations and development, you have probably come across the terms: Global South and Global North. Chances are you are using them without a second thought. But have you ever asked yourself how we came to use these terms so easily? And are they not misleading in today’s world?

Let’s discuss this, and a little bit more with Helen Balslev Clausen, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at Aalborg University, campus in Copenhagen.

Helene is very active in doing research and participating in projects with countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, focusing on entrepreneurship to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One of the most recent highlights of her work in progress is a publication, Handbook of Sustainability Transitions and Innovation in Latin America, which is coming out in the next 6 months.

What is the handbook about?

“It’s mainly focused on local movements in the sense of how all these localized initiatives can actually upscale, so we can learn something about it on the national level, on the global level instead of only maintaining them at a local level. The huge sustainable transitions need to come from below, as well as being guided through policy.

A part of this handbook will be about innovations in Latin America, but the publisher asked us to expand the view because it was so nice. So, other parts will include Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Africa – East Africa.”

Do you mean a bottom-up approach, but also a top-down?

“Yes. It needs to be a mix, but mostly from the bottom up because the people’s needs and voices need to be heard, and depending on context, we cannot do the same, even though our governments think that we can do the same all over. Context is extremely important.”

Can you give an example of one of these initiatives?

“For instance, there’s a part about waste management and garbage workers. In Argentina, they develop their own system and machines, and they try to recycle plastic bottles in a more efficient way. The garbage workers collect the bottles and divide them into groups. Depending on the plastic, some will be made into new products to sell.”

In 2021, the Ministry of Public Space and Urban Hygiene in Argentina received four separate awards for their innovative initiatives in recycling and waste management.

“It’s quite interesting how they have this knowledge about the plastic that our engineers at universities also have, but they can also figure out how to separate and decide on which plastic is recyclable and not. I think that’s impressive. They’re also doing it in Kenya because there’s a huge plastic problem,” adds Helene. “I think we need to be more alert to what’s happening at the local level and look at the different context.”

The origins of the term “Global South” in a nutshell

Other terms have been used previously to represent power and economic differences between nations: “First, Second, and Third World”. These terms depicted world powers starting with the US, then the Soviet Union, and lastly the “developing” countries. The term “Global South” was used for the first time by American political activist and writer Carl Oglesby in 1969, observing the culmination of the North’s dominance over the global South after the Vietnam War. The term refers to economically disadvantaged nation-states and has been used primarily within intergovernmental development organizations that originated in the Non-Aligned Movement.

However, the term was not really used widely until the 1980s, when the Brandt report introduced an imaginary boundary dividing the world into the Global North and Global South. The main criterion for the Brandt line was gross domestic product (GDP), dividing the countries between those with a higher and lower GDP per capita. Most countries with a high GDP were located in the Northern Hemisphere, however, it is important to understand that the term is not geographical, but geopolitical. In fact, India and China, countries considered part of the Global South, are located in the Northern Hemisphere, while “Northern” Australia lies in the South. The division based on economic growth becomes even less relevant nowadays, as many Global South countries are gradually becoming economically stronger, especially the BRICS countries.

Do you think it is okay that we use the terms Global South and Global North?

“I think it’s very problematic that we use these terms, and I don’t think we should characterize the Global South and Global North in that way because it follows a lot of stereotypes and images. Even though these terms are more neutral, or objective, which I think is better compared to the terms ‘developed’ and ‘developing’, or a ‘Third World’ – but I’m not too keen on this divide because you see a lot of interaction between Global South – Global South and you see a lot of it is not homogeneous. Neither is the Global North. Just within the European Union, you can see huge differences between the countries. I don’t think it’s very useful to talk about this divide either. We can talk about trade relations, we can talk about identities and transnationality, development as such, but I think it’s very problematic to use Global South and Global North as a term.”

“And usually, there are also, unfortunately, a lot of connotations to who is the most clever, who is the one that has the best education, who is the one that is coming with resources… That’s a lot of associations that are not very constructive in the long term and even less when we talk about sustainable development goals,” says Helene. “You can see the narrative about the Global North – we think it’s us having the resources to create transitions, and that’s sort of the image. But if you move around all over Africa, Asia, and not least China and India, you see how they are making a lot of progress related to the SDGs. They’re spending a lot more resources than we are in the Global North. We keep on doing what we have always done, we don’t really create interventions that are necessary to reach the global agenda.

But still, we maintain this weird, I think very weird, narrative about Denmark being very green and sustainable. That’s not the case. We could do a lot more.”

Another project Helene is working on now is about coffee flowers in Uganda. The collaboration between Danish and Ugandan researchers focuses on how to use not only the beans but the whole plant. “It’s very interesting what they’re doing, and they are extremely inspiring to work with,” she comments.

Around 10,000 small-scale farmers in Uganda are participating in workshops where they’re trying to partly educate the farmers but also figure out together how the coffee plant can be used differently and how farmers can benefit from it in a more sustainable way. However, there is much to learn from them, as Helene states: “We are working with agriculture in Denmark and different agronomists in Uganda and with a lot of stakeholders to set up the value chain for these farmers. But they have a lot of knowledge, so we want to co-create everything with them. So, it’s not only research, but also about creating a new value chain where these farmers, mainly female farmers, can benefit from their knowledge and capture the value of their own products and innovate.”

If you want to learn more about this project, check it out here: Coffee flowers – turning waste into value with female farmers and socio-tech solutions.

Based on your experience – do you think that countries generally considered part of the Global South need help from other countries in terms of development and doing business?

“I think we need the private sector to create transitions… Countries in the Global South are very keen on entrepreneurship, and they know how to do it. They have been doing it for a long time, for many that’s a way of survival as well. So, they set up their businesses to survive because they don’t have the same welfare system as we have in Denmark, for instance, or countries in the Nordics.

So, I’m not sure. I don’t think they need aid as such. I think they need to, from my experience at least, when I enter into collaboration with them, they are keener on knowledge. Different knowledge is how they can create value and maintain value. But we also have to remember that we are within a global system where trade is important, and the conditions adjust. Both socially, but certainly also economically. The economic system is extremely unfair. And it might be too rude to say exploitation, but there are some conditions that could be renegotiated.”

Can you elaborate on that?

“Let’s take certifications and labeling systems, for example. It’s still the Global North countries that are deciding the conditions for the farmers and it is extremely expensive for the farmers in the Global South to enter this fair-trade system.

The farmers simply cannot afford to be a member of a fair trade. Their conditions are actually sustainable, but they need to verify documentation and fulfill a lot of processes and requirements that are too expensive apart from paying to be part of the organization. So, all these systems that we set up all the time to control our consumers in the Global North might come in handy for the consumer but for the farmers in this specific case, I think we must reconsider.”

So there needs to be better conditions for collaboration?

“Yes, more just conditions designing. For instance, value chains that are more socially and economically just.

We can see a few companies in Denmark, such as Kontra Coffee and Husted Vin, that are actually skipping fair-trade and saying: ‘no, we know our farmers, we know they are sustainable, they cultivate and do the best they can, and they are sustainable because they cannot afford pesticides. So, we’ll just negotiate and talk with them directly’. This way the value actually stays with them.

There is a recent movement to reject these systems that are set up, where we still sort of capitalize on people that we shouldn’t. It’s extremely important as well that this movement is going on in Denmark.

We also have to take care and look into what we’re actually buying or doing because some are also greenwashing and simply using the SDGs as a way to basically sell more and capitalize on sustainability, instead of actually doing something or acting upon it.”

“And of course, the private sector needs to create profit, but we also have to take care of not only going there, sort of capitalizing on everything. Fortunately, we have private stakeholders that are also looking into the social part of their business model, so they integrate the sustainable and social part and it’s not only about profit.

We need to rethink our business models. I think the biggest challenge is to include the social part.

Some of the businesses I know are trying to change, but it’s also extremely difficult because the guidelines and the policies in, among other countries, Denmark, are not encouraging it. Quite the contrary. So, we also need the politicians to speed up, move faster.”

Read more about Helene’s experience with research collaboration and policymakers in the Global South in an upcoming article.

Petra Kascakova is a M.Sc. student in Culture, Communication and Globalization, Aalborg University Denmark, and a DDRN Intern

Sorting Out India’s Mounting Waste Crisis

Nilesh Vijaykumar — Tue, 02 Jan 2024 21:12:54 +0000

India’s economic growth story is remarkable: from a less than $500 billion economy at the turn of the millennium to the world’s third-largest economy with over $3.5 trillion in 2022. The GDP per capita increased from $451 to $2,379. As the country’s economy boomed, there has also been an increase in waste generation. In 2000, India generated 115,000 tonnes of waste per day which has now risen to over 150,000 tonnes per day.

Although the amount of waste generated per day increased by a modest 30% since 2000, many Indian cities are struggling to cope with the burden of unprocessed waste. This is despite India having one of the lowest per capita waste generation rates at just 0.57 kilograms per capita per day. In contrast, countries like Denmark and Germany, often lauded for their waste management practices, generate 2.17kg and 1.72kg of waste per capita per day, according to the World Bank Group’s What a Waste 2.0 – A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050 report.

One of the primary waste management challenges in India is the low levels of waste segregation at the source – the practice of sorting waste into different categories at home.

Waste Management Landscape in India

As of 2022, India’s capacity for treating solid waste stood at 95,000 tonnes per day, which accounted for 62% of the total daily waste generated, based on data provided by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). However, the remaining 38% (approximately 55,000 tonnes per day) of waste remains unprocessed. Out of this, about 8% or 12,000 tonnes per day finds its way into landfills. What happens to the remaining 30% – around 45,000 tonnes? Unfortunately it lacks documentation.

It is presumed that a significant portion of this unaccounted waste is either carelessly discarded in the environment or managed within the extensive yet disorganized waste management sector. This sector engages millions of individuals working as waste pickers and scrap dealers. Their primary tasks involve gathering waste from landfills, openly disposed garbage sites, and households. Subsequently, they sort the collected waste into categories such as plastic, e-waste, and other segments to prepare it for further processing. Although there are no official figures regarding the precise number of waste pickers in India, estimates from over a decade ago by the Alliance of Indian Waste Pickers pegged it at approximately 1.5 million individuals.

Mountains of Waste

India’s daily waste management capacity increased from just 21,000 tonnes per day in 2015, to 95,000 tonnes per day in 2022. However, most cities and towns in India have huge landfills with millions of tonnes of waste, accumulated over the decades.

According to CPCB data, over 87 million tonnes of waste is piled up at 1,356 dumping sites across India. At 453 of these sites, approximately 48,000 tonnes of waste continue to be dumped every day even now. Only at 255 of these sites have government agencies initiated biomining and bioremediation measures to reduce the accumulated waste and restore the environment.

In many of these waste landfills, the waste accumulated over the years is causing environmental problems, including pollution of groundwater and soil, harmful environmental conditions for people living in surrounding areas, and degradation of the air quality. There are often reports of fires at these dumping sites due to the inflammable gases released by the heaps of rotting waste.

Waste Segregation Woes

At the core of India’s solid waste management challenges lies the lack of segregation of waste at its source – the sorting of waste at home into recyclables, non-recyclables, and biodegradables.

The rules governing solid waste management in India were first introduced in 2000 and were subsequently revised as the Solid Waste Management Rules in 2016. These make it mandatory for every waste generator to segregate waste at the source. However, the enforcement of these rules varies significantly across India’s 28 states and eight union territories.

According to the CPCB, 100% segregation of waste at source occurs in only one state and union territory each. In the remaining regions, the level of segregation varies widely, from a complete lack of segregation in some cities to partial coverage in others.

The lack of segregation at the source has also hindered efforts to convert waste into energy, despite India’s substantial potential in this area.

According to India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the potential for Waste-to-Energy (WtE) generation in India exceeds 5,000 MW. However, only 11 waste-to-energy plants are currently generating 132.1MW of energy by processing 11,000 tonnes of waste per day although the installed capacity of WtE power plants in India is around 550 MW.

A major hindrance is the unseggregated nature of waste collected from households. A study published this year in the journal Environmental Technology & Innovation points out: “To operate the waste-to-energy plants effectively, the waste has to be collected and segregated according to the requirements of the plant. India lacks the proper waste management standards that are necessary for proper functioning and continuous supply of quality feedstock required for WtE plants.”

Success Stories: Smaller Cities Take The Lead

Some Indian cities have taken the lead in waste management, serving as inspiring examples of how waste segregation at home is the first step toward a landfill-free city. Most of these cities are smaller cities where the municipalities are more enthusiastic and flexible, and suffer less bureaucratic apathy and political interference as compared to big cities. For context, there are more than 40 cities in India with million-plus population.

Panaji

One of these cities is Panaji in the state of Goa, a small city with a population of around 120,000. Panaji achieved landfill-free status despite generating around 42 tonnes of waste daily. The city’s commitment to waste management included the implementation of a revolutionary plan in 2021, which saw waste segregated at the source into 16 categories, now expanded to 28 categories.

Ambikapur

Another landfill-free city is Ambikapur in the state of Chattisgarh, with a population of over 150,000. Before 2015, Ambikapur had a stinking and overflowing landfill, but it has since transformed this site into a beautiful garden. This change was made possible through the city’s municipal body and self-employed women’s groups, who embarked on a journey to achieve 100 percent segregation, collection, and processing of waste. While waste is sorted at home into recyclables and biodegradables, further sorting occurs in more than 150 categories at the Solid and Liquid Resource Management (SLRM) centres.

Indore

Indore, located in the state of Madhya Pradesh, is often hailed as the leader in waste management and cleanliness in India. It is also an exception to the rule, with a population of around 3.5 million. It has been ranked as the cleanest city in India for six consecutive years by the government in its annual cleanliness rankings. Since 2016, the city has ensured 100% segregation of waste at the source. In 2019, the city’s municipal body removed a landfill that had accumulated 1.5 million tonnes of waste over decades through bioremediation.

India’s Quiet Success in Plastic Recycling

When it comes to recycling plastic waste, there is a story that often goes untold. Denmark is known for its strong environmental initiatives. The country recycles more than 70% of the waste it generates. However, a closer look reveals that Denmark faces challenges in recycling plastics.

According to the Denmark’s ‘Action Plan for Circular Economy’, in 2019, the country managed to collect only 25% of the 514,000 tonnes of plastic waste it generated. Estimates suggest that only half of this collected plastic waste was recycled. This equates to a recycling rate of just 12.5% for plastic waste in Denmark. As part of the policy, by the year 2030 Denmark looks to reduce its plastic waste incineration by 80 percent.

In contrast, India recycled 27% of the plastic waste it generated in 2020-2021, according to the compliance report by the CPCB on the implementation of Plastic Waste Management Rules. Considering that the nation generated an estimated 4.1 million tonnes of plastic waste during that period, approximately 1.1 million tonnes were recycled. Remarkably, five of India’s 28 states recycle more than 50% of the plastic waste they produce.

Pursuing Shared Ambitions and Collaborative Initiatives

While Denmark advances its efforts towards establishing a successful circular economy and sustainable waste management practices, India is equally committed to enhancing its waste management strategies.

At the national level, India’s commitment to addressing the waste challenge is underscored by the ‘Waste to Wealth’ initiative – one of the nine scientific missions overseen by the Indian government’s Principal Scientific Adviser. This mission is dedicated to the identification, development, and deployment of technologies for waste processing, energy generation, material recycling, and the extraction of valuable resources.

India’s waste generation is projected to increase by 4% annually. The India Investment Grid reveals investment prospects worth a staggering $2 billion in the solid waste management domain. Circular economy plays an important role in the India-Denmark Green Strategic Partnership. With the presence of abundant business opportunities in this sector in India, there is a promising outlook for collaborative endeavours between the two countries.

Nilesh Vijaykumar has a M.Sc. Science and Communications, Savitribai Phule Pune University, India. In September 2022, Nilesh relocated to Vejle, Denmark, and is a DDRN correspondent.

Missing the Long Term Perspective on Development

Asger Roejle Christensen — Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:12:36 +0000

Advisors have been replaced by consultants. Broader projects have partially been replaced by narrower ones with singular purposes. This has had both positive and negative impact on the development research that takes place, says a Danish veteran.

Once upon a time, in Nepal in the early 2000s, there was a Danish community of aid professionals, project advisors, NGO volunteers, and UN employees.

”At one point, we were eighteen Danish advisors in the country,” Torsten Rødel Berg remembers. At the time, he was already an experienced advisor, having worked in irrigation and rural energy projects in the Mid-Western hills outside the capital, Kathmandu. Now, a quarter of a century later, he is back in Denmark as senior research coordinator at the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University.

”In today’s world, personally, I miss the long-term opportunity we had then to follow development processes in the same area for fifteen years. It was fabulous to look back and see that important changes had actually happened, partly as a result of our work. We stayed for a long time, and we did our job thoroughly.

Of course, many mistakes were also made, but much development was created, and much new understanding and knowledge was achieved. We shouldn’t forget that.”

Torsten Rødel Berg graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Development Studies from the University of East Anglia in Britain in 1987, and got his master’s degree from Roskilde University (RUC). In the following two decades, he and his family lived in different Asian countries, where he was working as an advisor at a series of aid projects. His expertise lies within rural development, natural resources, and agriculture.

”In Nepal, we assisted in the rehabilitation of small-scale community-based irrigation systems. I was the ‘expert’ on the socio-economic part, and we did not only focus on irrigation in the technical sense. We used the whole palette. It sounds almost anachronistic nowadays, but we organized mothers’ groups in order to better handle the social changes that happened; we established credit groups; we had volunteers from Danish Action Aid (Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, ed.) who contributed with what they were clever at; we had UN volunteers who contributed with agronomic expertise. Altogether, it was an effort which was indeed very holistic and long term.”

It all happened in the 1990s when Nepal became gradually more democratic and civil society groups began to play a major role in society. ”Suddenly, there was a democratic space for change, and the effort we were part of actually achieved results to a remarkable degree.”

After returning to Denmark early in the new century, Torsten Rødel Berg wrote his PhD thesis on hill irrigation in Nepal. ”Part of my research was to identify the impact of the project as a whole. I had baseline data from the beginning – and collected data again fifteen years later. I was able to compare, over time, the indicators for productivity, land use change, water management and migration.”

Torsten Rødel Berg nowadays coordinates development research projects in the Global South at the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University and looks at the development projects in front of him with a researcher’s eyes. He suggests that achieving and tracing the effects of interventions is more difficult under today’s conditions.

”There are fewer advisors, the time frames appear shorter and the efforts less intensive. Advisers disappeared, not so much because of bad results, but rather because of a shifting focus towards programmes and budget support. However, the advisors – some came from the North, others were local – were involved for several years and were the true anchors at the projects, some of which were actually quite big. Now, these on-the-ground people tend to be replaced by consultants, and sometimes researchers, who come and go. The success of this approach depends on the context of the country.”

Networks in Ghana

The Department of Agroecology, at Foulum outside Viborg, has established itself in recent years as a very active center for development research in the Global South, in recent years especially so in Ghana. Over the years, the network has benefited from funding for many projects from FFU (the Danida research fund) and from multilateral sources. Torsten Rødel Berg has been involved in several of these applications and projects.

”Some projects are genuinely ’South-driven’,” he explains. ”Our recent Danida-funded cocoa project together with the Kwame Nkrumah University in Ghana is based on an idea from the local researchers – to have more resilient cocoa production, specifically by understanding the function of shade trees – and our colleagues in Ghana, very skilled and dedicated people, really have taken ownership of the whole process.

They arrived in Denmark very well prepared, and we sat down for three weeks to write the application together. It ended up as a very successful project. But for many projects, still, the major initiative comes in reality from the North, as our researchers have better conditions for attracting funding, including institutional capacity to create combined incentive and administrative systems.”

Torsten Rødel Berg underlines that the research capacity in the South, as in Ghana, has been strengthened in recent years. Such strengthening has been the goal of Danida’s so-called BSU-programs, Building Stronger Universities, in which the department also participates (together with Copenhagen University, and the private companies Access2Innovation and Gregart Consult). Through participation in the program, Global South universities have strengthened their research administration and capacity for applying for funding from the North.

By building projects on top of other projects, researchers at the Department of Agroecology in Aarhus have been ”able to contribute to some strong networks in Ghana,” as Torsten Rødel Berg puts it; including long-term, thematically coherent projects with focus on climate change adaptation in the crop cultivation and irrigation areas.

This coherence has helped offset the tendency towards the short-term time frames that is frequently seen in development projects. Hopefully, according to him, it will also help in gauging the effects of collaboration through the patterns of change that will emerge over time.

Ghana vs. E-waste: Relevance of E-waste Legislation in Ghana

Joel Agbesinyale — Tue, 08 Aug 2023 12:01:41 +0000

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), e-waste/Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. E-waste includes electrical or electronic equipment, along with its parts and components, that are approaching the end of their useful life. In 2021, the WEEE Forum estimated that the global generation of e-waste reached a staggering 57.4 million metric tonnes. To put it into perspective, that’s equivalent to about 4,500 Eiffel Towers or enough to cover the entire land area of Manhattan (59.13km²). This number is expected to rise to 74 million metric tonnes by 2030. The increase in e-waste can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to more people staying at home and relying heavily on consumer electronics.

In 2019, Asia produced the most e-waste at 24.9 million metric tonnes, followed by the Americas (13.1 million), Europe (12 million), and Africa (2.9 million). However, in terms of e-waste per person, Europe generated the highest amount with an average of 16.2 kg per capita. In contrast, Africa’s average was only 2.5 kg per person. Sadly, developing countries, especially in Africa, have become targets for dumping large amounts of e-waste illegally. For example, in 2019, the United Kingdom exported an estimated 209,222 metric tonnes of e-waste, making it the largest exporter. Research suggests that around 1.3 million metric tonnes of e-waste are unlawfully sent from Europe to developing nations, including Ghana, each year. In an attempt to override the e-waste regulatory/governance system (Basel Convention), e-waste shipped to Ghana are often declared as second-hand or charity goods, only to end up being discarded as waste on scrap/dump yards. This calls for effective e-waste regulations and legislation to address such problems.

Legislation on the export of e-waste to the Global South is regulated under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The convention regulates the movement (exports and imports) of e-waste and hazardous wastes by ensuring its proper management and disposal in an environmentally sound manner in direct relation to Target 12.4 of SDG 12. Despite this Convention, e-waste is still exported illegally to the Global South. For instance, Ghana alone imports 150,000 metric tonnes of Electrical Electronic Equipment (EEE) annually from Europe. Sadly, approximately 30-40% of this equipment end up in dump yards. This may be attributed to the lack of proper e-waste legislation and enforcement in Africa, Latin America, and South-East Asia. In 2019, only 78 out of 195 countries had implemented e-waste-specific laws and initiatives. This raises concerns about the other 117 countries without such measures, making them vulnerable to e-waste dumping and its management challenges.

In 2020, only 13 African countries including Ghana had e-waste legislation or regulation in place. In 2016, Ghana instituted a law (Hazardous and Electronic Waste Control and Management Act 917) and regulation (Hazardous and Electronic Waste Control and Management LI 2250) to control and manage the movement and disposal of e-waste and hazardous waste in the country. Yet, the infamous Agbogbloshie dump yard has been globally known as the ‘‘graveyard’’ of Europe’s e-waste until recently when the Ghanaian government forcefully demolished the dump yard which consequently displaced about 8,000 scrap dealers. These scrap dealers are primarily migrants from northern Ghana who move to Accra (southern Ghana) in search of well-paid jobs to support their households back home in the North. In Ghana, e-waste is commonly handled by informal businesses or recyclers (scrap dealers), accompanied by poor working conditions and harmful processing techniques like dismantling, open burning, and acid digestion to extract valued metals from e-waste. Such processing techniques pose health hazards and physical injuries to scrap dealers and are also considered harmful to the environment, especially the soil. Studies confirm that soils at dump yards are highly concentrated with toxic metals like arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), antimony (Sb), and zinc (Zn) which exceed international environmental quality requirements.

Frank Bimpong, a graduate student at the International Institute for Industrial Economics and Environment (IIIE) in Lund University, Sweden, sought to understand and study the relevance of Ghana’s legislation (Hazardous and Electronic Waste Control and Management, Act 917 and Hazardous and Electric Waste Control and Management, LI 2250) in the e-waste industry. Frank executed a post-assessment/evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of Act 917 in his thesis. Frank further explained his decision to study at Lund University, citing Sweden’s reputation as a leader in sustainability and his interest in environmental management and policy. He specifically mentioned the International Institute for Industrial Economics and Environment (IIIEE) at Lund University as a program that aligned with his interests. He reiterated his interest in policy, and future aspirations in the field of sustainability, focusing on policies and regulations. He associated his interests with the emerging concept of Environmental Social, and corporate Governance (ESG), which is tied to the EU taxonomy and EU Green Deal. He explained that ESG involves reporting on industries and organisations’ environmental, social, and governance impacts. He emphasized the importance of considering these three aspects of sustainability when assessing the overall impact of an organisation or industry.

In an interview with Frank, he shared his motivation, findings, and recommendations during his evaluation research. This article discusses some aspects of Ghana’s e-waste legislation. Such aspects include the mandate of the legislation, identifiable stakeholders involved in the development and implementation of the legislation, and the impact of the legislation on e-waste management in Ghana. It is important to mention that this issue of e-waste management and legislation is very much relatable to SDGs 3, 8, 11, and 12.

Ghana’s E-waste Legislation (Act 917 and LI 2250) in action

Ghana’s e-waste legislation requires all producers and importers to register with Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pay an eco-tax for all imported electronics. The eco-tax contributes to the formalisation of the e-waste sector by financing the enforcement of the legal framework for e-waste management. Also, the legislation has identified stakeholders and defined value chain actors within the e-waste sector by developing a comprehensive Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework. The EPR is a widely adopted environmental policy which obliges producers to be accountable for the end-of-life processing and collection of their products. Considering the mandate of Ghana’s e-waste legislation, Frank described the legislation as being in ‘‘two-folds’’. ‘‘The Act is in two-folds, it has a management and recycling aspect. The Act introduced something called the Eco-tax which regulates the flow and management of e-waste in the country, and the Extend Producer Responsibility (EPR) which implies that the producer is responsible for recycling. This is a common practice here in Europe where you have the panting of empty cans and bottles, it is part of that principle (EPR)’’, he explained.

In addition to this, Frank highlighted the structural nature of the e-waste legislation. He affirmed that the e-waste legislation properly streamlines all activities and initiatives of stakeholders within the e-waste industry. Identified stakeholders in Frank’s assessment include the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology, and Innovation (MESTI), EPA, German Development Cooperation (GIZ), NGOs, informal and formal recyclers, and the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA). ‘‘Before the passage of the Act, there were several and different initiatives run by stakeholders in the industry with less or no coordination. For example, the construction of a $30 million e-waste recycling facility by MESTI, GIZ coming in with their development-focused e-waste projects, and some NGOs also pushing their e-waste management agenda simultaneously. So, after the Act was passed in 2016, I realised that stakeholders in the industry (e-waste) acknowledged the help it brought. In their view, the legislation streamlined what each one of them was doing. For example, they (stakeholders) have even set up a committee where they have monthly or weekly engagements with each other. Representatives of NGOs meet with formal and informal recyclers to plan and discuss issues in their industry’’ he shared.

One may ask; what has been the impact of Ghana’s e-waste legislation on the sector since its introduction in 2016? Frank’s and other studies indicate that e-waste management problems still exist despite the introduction of an e-waste legislation because of some inefficiencies associated with the implementation of the legislation due to the low publicity of the legislation. For instance, a survey in 2022 revealed that 90% of its respondents who doubled as scrap dealers were not even aware of Ghana’s e-waste legislation. The low level of public awareness continues to stall the desired outcome of the legislation by enabling some stakeholders to continue engaging in unsustainable e-waste management practices like burning which tend to have severe implications on human health and the environment.

Furthermore, Frank noted that Ghana’s e-waste legislation does not fully address the issue of E-waste management because the legislation remains incomplete and is still undergoing implementation. ‘‘The Act exists, it has been passed, but what remains is its full implementation. Currently, I can say it is in its implementation phase’’, he mentioned. He explained that the implementation phase has been divided into various steps. Some steps have been completed, such as establishing the role of a Fund Administrator responsible for managing funds generated from the eco-tax. Additional efforts are being made at the harbours and ports to set up a system that collects fees based on the type of equipment being imported. Once all the steps are completed, the implementation of the legislation shall be more comprehensive. Although the legislation exists, its effectiveness depends on the successful implementation of its various components, which are being carried out in steps. Its successful implementation shall ensure secure and healthy working environments for all workers including formal and informal recyclers (SDG 3). It shall also promote the proper and environmentally-sound management of chemicals per the Basel Convention (SDG 12).

Future research

In conclusion, Frank mentioned two potential areas for future research. Firstly, he suggested investigating the lifecycle assessment (LCA) of e-waste, particularly focusing on the recycling process in developing countries like Ghana. He mentioned that some formal recycling companies in Ghana collect e-waste but send it to their European partners for recycling instead of doing it locally. Frank suggested evaluating the environmental impact of transportation and comparing it with the benefits of local recycling.

Lastly, he suggested exploring local business models that can support the informal e-waste sector. He highlighted the importance of considering the “right to repair” concept and other business models that encourage private sector involvement and independence with minimal government intervention. Frank emphasized the need to find alternative models that shift the focus from government-driven initiatives to ones that involve the private sector more prominently.

Joel Agbesinyale holds a Master Degree in Development Studies, Lund University, Sweden Read more on E-waste in Ghana here: https://ddrn.dk/7318/

The Role of Women in Reducing Organic Waste in Chile

Marta Apablaza Riquelme — Mon, 07 Aug 2023 12:35:55 +0000

Climate change is one of the main challenges that humanity faces around the world today. And women being half of the world’s population have been taking this crisis really seriously, especially in Chile, one of the countries that generates the most garbage per person in the South American region.

According to data from the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) of Chile, every Chilean produces 1.26 kilos of waste per day. This metric means that 8.1 million tons per year are discarded in Chilean landfills. “The relationship that we have with the environment has been not only one of use, but also one of abuse”, states Claudio Cerda, an academic at the University of Chile, whose specialty is urban anthropology. He explains that Chilean modern society’s way of consumption involves “magically” getting rid of our waste. “Over the years and with the development of cities, we have become accustomed -particularly in certain more privileged areas- to a kind of consumption behaviour where what we consume, we throw it away assuming that this waste will magically disappear.”

Cerda continues: “Most of the people of Chilean society have developed this type of behaviour. We have not generated a reflection on our relationship with waste. Therefore, everyone that tries to build a different perspective on these habits collides with these big walls of cultural tradition”.

The role of women in the circular economy in Chile

Women in Chile have been experiencing this backlash because, despite our consumption behaviour, there is a “circular economy” ecosystem growing in the last decade mostly composed of women.

“They get involved through practice because they apply their projects and actions in their own local territories. Their actions are directly related to care work and the sustainability of life”, explains Daniela Frias, urban planner and geographer who has worked on the implementation of public policies in this area. “In this scenario, it must be understood that in the current context of the climate crisis, women are the first victims of the damage caused to the environment. So of course women have a perspective on how to act at the moment of some catastrophe or some risk in this climate crisis”, adds Frias.

Something similar thought Pamela Bravo, when years ago she read an article about permaculture. She was fascinated but also concerned about climate change. “As soon as the opportunity arose, I decided to make recycling organic matter the basis of my business,” she remembers. “At that time, I used to live in an old apartment in downtown Santiago, so on a small balcony I began to recycle organic matter”.

Her concern became a service and since 2009, the main mission of Compostera.cl (her business) has been to deliver tools and knowledge to people in order to reduce their carbon footprint. In these fourteen years, Pamela Bravo has created two podcasts (8 seasons), an Instagram account with 19.4 thousand followers, and YouTube channel with a platform where she teaches 4 online courses at affordable prices.

Adding to this labour, she makes talks and consultancies. She also published a book titled “Yo Sustentable”. In this book ”Plá” an 11-year-old girl shows the reader different ways to take care of the planet and lead a more sustainable life. To this year 9,000 copies of this book have been printed and later this year the adventures of “Pla” will arrive in Korea.

“The need for environmental education is so big that it is almost impossible to cover it. I hope everyone can be educated to be sustainable in different areas. When you engage with certain groups especially in sustainable culture you might start to think that there are a lot of people interested in taking care of the planet, but in reality, there are a lot of people that must be educated on these issues”, Pamela points out.

Regarding the role that women play in the circular economy cycle, Pamela states that in her experience, women play an important one: “I have participated in several organisations, volunteering, and I realize that more or less 90% of the sustainability ventures or micro-enterprises belong to women”.

“There can be many reasons,” she explains. “From the connection with the earth and the care of the planet to the fact that women assume a maternal role. For example, I am currently participating in the “Fundación Basura” where at least 80% of the participants are women. I am a volunteer in an urban garden and sometimes one or two men appear, but the majority are women”.

For Macarena Gajardo, Executive director of Fundación Basura – an NGO aimed at protecting the health of the planet, reducing waste, and mentoring policymakers, women have been historically in charge of care work. “Therefore, we have great power in our hands. From taking care of our own home, keeping it clean, deciding what things we buy, and taking charge of the culture of caring for our family. This also applies on a macro level”, explains.

“There are also ecofeminist movements that link the relationship and empathy that women feel to the “Mother Earth”. So the role of women today is fundamental but step by step, this role is being extended to people in general, since everyone can contribute”, adds Gajardo.

Pamela Bravo from “La Compostera”, also highlights that even though the participation of women is bigger in this area, their efforts are not as visible when it comes to being in the spotlight. “Women recycle organics and produce organic food, but when men get involved, they are ´entrepreneurs and ´CEO´ in the world of recycling”, she criticizes.

Chiloé, the road to a greener island

In the south of Chile, there is a large island called Chiloé known for its green mountains, wetlands and forests. In Chiloé, “the magic island”, it rains the majority of the year, and lots of Chileans visit during the summertime to enjoy the beautiful landscape and unique culture but in 2019, people from Chiloé demonstrated against the poor management of the waste in the island. Since then, a lot of women are working to have a greener island and transform the way they consume and live their everyday lives.

Lorena Bórquez is an example. She lives in Castro, the main city of Chiloé, and she turns cooking oil into soap. She began her business because of her own concern to protect nature and was inspired by the tradition that her mother and grandmother started: “I associate making soap with my childhood because my mother also made soap when I was a child, but with animal fat, as did my grandmother, who learned to make soap in Punta Arenas, the Chilean Patagonia.”

At first, when she first started making soap, Lorena, an agricultural engineer, was going through a career crisis after her maternity leave. This action transformed her life. Years ago, she was watching videos on the internet to make soap. Nowadays she trains and holds free workshops in various indigenous communities in southern Chile.

“I am happy to be able to train and teach people to make soap. I started doing this because as a professional I felt stuck. I wanted to work and feel useful. It’s true, I was at home with my family and all that, but as a professional, you want to be in your business. And this project allowed me to fill myself up and have that contact with people that is fascinating and also protect the environment. I am happy, this craft fills my soul”, she states.

Lorena also has a perspective on the role of women in building a more sustainable culture and her commitment to projects related to recycling. “In my case, I faced a domestic problem, and I didn’t know how to solve it and I think that many women are faced with similar conditions. In addition, we as women are always trying to save money. Somehow, we always end up moving to the domestic sphere no matter how educated or many degrees you have. You are the one who sees yourself facing the decision of what is thrown away in the house, what is useless. You always find yourself figuring out how certain objects can be repaired, among other issues. As a woman, you face these situations every day. It is a cultural thing, good or bad, I don’t know, but this definitely influences why we are more present in the circular economy ecosystem”, she states.

As a feminist and professional who works in the field, Daniela Frias states that in terms of public policies, a key issue to fight the climate crisis is to put care and life at the centre of our actions. “We must understand that care is not only about human beings but also about nature and local territories. This is a fundamental issue in order to build a social and ecological transformation, where women and nature are not relegated”.

She states that all the actions -regarding the climate crisis- that women carry out in their local territories, in their private or public life constitute an emancipatory praxis. She concludes: “Women build freedom and alternative paths to the capitalist system and that must be highlighted. We need to make these actions visible and invite all people: men, women, and people out of the system to get involved in caring for life because ultimately, women do have a leading role in this area but that means a greater burden for them. So a more harmonious relationship with nature as to take place not only in our family or communities but also in our local territories”.

The Chilean poet and Nobel Prize in Literature Gabriela Mistral wrote a beautiful poem named “The Pleasure of Serving” where she reminds us that serving others is not only a duty but also a source of immense happiness.

Through this poem, she encourages people to take on tasks that others may avoid and to find joy in small acts of service. Lots of women in Chile are taking actions that a lot of people avoid in order to promote a circular economy and reduce organic waste through various initiatives and businesses. This is their service. By doing so, they are not only helping to protect the environment but also creating economic opportunities and promoting social justice. Overall, women’s involvement in waste reduction and circular economy initiatives is crucial for achieving a more sustainable and equitable future in Chile. And as in the poem of Mistral, these actions, and the role they play in the circular economy left us wondering as Chilean society if we render our service today. “To whom? To a tree, to your friend, to your mother?”.

Marta Apablaza Riquelme is a freelance science journalist based in Santiago, Chile

EU: Towards a More Sustainable Corporate Development?

Federica Sasdelli — Fri, 09 Jun 2023 13:17:40 +0000

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) published in December 2022 is the most recent step towards a more sustainable development at a European Union level. In detail, it aims to ensure that companies provide adequate information regarding the way they operate and the impact they have on the environment. The implementation of this new piece of legislation will not only have an impact on our continent, but globally, as the European market is one of the central hubs of world trade.

The CSRD amends other pieces of legislation, specifically the Accounting Directive (Directive 2013/34/EU), the Transparency Directive (Directive 2004/109/EC), the Audit Directive (Directive 2006/43/EC) and the Audit Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 537/2014/), besides replacing the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (Directive 2014/95/EU). The implementation of such measures is essential to build a greener society and for the fight against climate change. The development of this directive represents an essential progress in the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals that need to be achieved within 2030. In particular, it focuses on the 13^th goal, which is to say ‘climate action’. As a matter of fact, the European market is the most important in the world when dealing with global trade and its attitude and policies have consequences all around the world. This is why the implementation and the correct application of the CSRD is particularly relevant not only for the Member States of the EU, but also outside our continent, in particular for developing countries that are strongly connected to the European market. Its application will push a more sustainable development at a global level and consequently facilitate the achievement of the 2030 goals.

The CSRD has significantly increased the number of companies required to publish ESG (environmental, social and governance ) information and has defined more comprehensive and detailed guidelines compared to preceding NFRD (Non-Financial Reporting Directive) based legislation. One of the core points of the European Commission NFRD (Art. 19a. 1) was that public entities with more than 500 employees shall include non-financial information in their annual reports, this set the basis for further development carried out by the CSRD. Then the CSRD goes beyond, stating the five most crucial policies for tackling climate change, in detail: the development of clean energy infrastructure, the building of efficiency retrofits, the education and training for workers, natural capital investments and clean R&D (Research and Development). As we can observe, there is no mention to corporate ESG reporting which is particularly problematic, as no guidelines are provided to companies. Consequently, the work for the firms involved is not as easy as it should have been, and reaching the Green Deal goals within 2050 is essential, but at the same time challenging.

Specifically, the European Green Deal (EGD) is based on sustainable principles and is a series of measures that allow the reduction of carbon and air pollutants in the atmosphere while balancing economic development, safety and European citizens’ quality of life. One of the crucial points is the implementation of the European climate law, which targets achieving climate neutrality by 2050. In this context, corporations play a fundamental role since a significant portion of the emissions stems from their activities.

What does the CSRD imply for corporations and the environment and how did we reach it?

The CSRD represents a significant improvement regarding the drafting of reports in companies and organizations, as it provides several requirements that companies need to meet, in order to achieve the European Green Deal and the Union’s climate-neutrality goal for 2050. For this reason, the setting of reporting standards is essential, with the purpose of empowering the European Commission to adopt them. In addition, in the directive relevance is given to the ‘double materiality principle’: companies are required to provide information both on how sustainability issues affect their work and development (the ‘outside-in’ perspective) and on their impact on people and the environment (the ‘inside-out’ perspective). The goal is to standardize the sustainable reports of the companies located in the countries involved, despite the differences they present among them. According to CSRD’s provisions, a company needs to develop a dedicated section of its management providing the information necessary to understand its impact on sustainability matters.

In people’s perception these aspects have acquired significant importance since COVID-19 pandemic has brought the climate change agenda forward, as we all now have to understand if its impact will be the same as the pandemic or even worse. For this reason, it is essential to increase the development of sustainable initiatives, such as developing clean energy infrastructure, building efficiency retrofits, educating and training workers, investing in natural capital and promoting clean R&D. It is also important that the EU itself supports the economy and supports the path towards the Green Deal 2050 with ad-hoc policies and laws. Several studies have been carried out focusing on different areas of Europe, aiming at understanding the main characteristics of corporate sustainability and highlighting the steps forward that need to be taken. Specifically, such research has been developed aiming at understanding the impact of the CSRD on several areas and sectors and in which ways it can benefit the sustainable development of corporations.

In particular, two main studies can be considered relevant in this sense, we are going to compare the effect of the above-mentioned policies on some European countries with particularly dissimilar backgrounds as regards this field: Sweden and Czech Republic.

The Swedish case: pioneers of corporate sustainability

It is a well-known fact that Sweden has always been one of the global leaders in corporate sustainability. Since the past century, this country has been one of the pioneers as regards testing different innovative reporting practices. An interesting research carried out by Professors Susanne Arvidsson and John Dumay has shown the changes that are affecting Swedish corporations from a sustainable point of view. First of all, some of the most topical environmental themes in which Swedish companies are more active include reducing CO2 and other emissions, recycling and disposing of other waste sustainably, minimizing the consumption of water, energy and other resources, using renewable energy, fostering biodiversity and implementing ISO14001. A decade ago, Swedish companies were ranked fourth in the world for integrating ESG information into corporate reports. However, today the EU Directive reports made available by the Alliance for Corporate Transparency have shown that things have changed and Swedish companies are no longer in the lead. In this case it does not seem that the EU Directive has improved their performance. In addition, today’s regulatory climate and increased ESG interest among Swedish investors have affected Swedish ESG reporting and these issues have become relevant in corporate reporting and performance.

Because of this change of situation, it is essential to understand what Swedish policymakers can do to improve corporate transparency and rebuild trust among investors and stakeholders. In particular, at the moment they are encouraging mapping and reporting climate-related risks, in order to implement the climate transition of the economy and to reduce the risk of a future financial crisis due to climate change. Both the EU Green Deal and financial market actors point out the need for enhanced ESG information quality when assessing corporate ESG performance and to redirect financial flows towards investments to mitigate the climate crises. However, because of their association with the EU, Swedish policymakers must first implement any policy changes at the EU level before considering Swedish measures. If they continue to transpose the European reporting directives into law, they will mainly adapt Sweden’s ESG reporting development to the wishes of the European Commission. Nevertheless, the provisions of the European regulation do not prevent Swedish policymakers from introducing proactive policies for improving ESG performance and especially practices aimed at tackling climate change. For example, the NFRD has been transposed into national law in European countries. As we have seen, it requires all large firms, with 500 employees or more, to map and report on climate-related risks. In Sweden, the limit was lowered to 250 employees. In addition, Sweden is currently working towards a green economy by 2045, 5 years ahead of the EU’s Green Deal goal. The country is implementing several environmental policies, such as expanding renewable energy resources, turning wood into textiles, promoting sustainable development, creating climate-smart cities and changing consumer behavior to help build a circular economy.

All in all, the results of Arvidsson and Dumay’s work show that larger firms are keener on reporting on climate-related risks than smaller companies. However, we have to say that external reporting is often general and lacks details. Without improved (and detailed) guidelines from policy-makers on how to integrate these issues into the decision-making processes of firms, it is unlikely that the EU’s new policies, such as the CSRD, will achieve their aim to strongly impact on firms’ behavior and financial investment decisions. It is also essential to consider that the Swedish case is quite controversial (as it is a country that already had a good starting point) and probably national policies may be the solution, in order to be perfectly suited and adapted to the Swedish context.

The Czech case: how government can contribute in corporate sustainability

The second relevant European case to take into account regards the Czech Republic and more extensively a lot of Eastern European countries. As a matter of fact, several nations located in this geographical area still need to improve for what concerns corporate sustainability and the development of sustainable policies and laws. In contrast to Sweden, where high-quality and sustainable reporting is widespread, the Czech Republic begins from a dissimilar standpoint, where such reporting is still rare.

As stated in Balogh, Srivastava and Tyll’s work, in the past years Central and Eastern Europe have made significant progress in sustainability. Nevertheless, this is not sufficient to keep up with the demands. In addition, in the CEE region companies are strongly linked with the government and consequently have a more difficult self-development (it will be more complicated for them to develop their own strategies and plans, because of the strong connection to the government and the less freedom they enjoy regarding decision-making). This highlights the importance of an international and larger board structure that enhances the evolution of ESG disclosure and its consequently implementation. This is because foreign board members are usually more aware of environmental issues and improving disclosure quality among others. They also bring to the firm foreign practices, being aware of international standards, and by doing this are able to improve the existing situation. This leadership may lead to the attraction of investments both at a local and at an international level, however, Czech Republic’s firms are still quite behind in entering into the international market. This happens because many firms tend to focus more on what is considered important for the national market, not considering other matters, such as environmental disclosures, which are more relevant for the international market. This is an important point, as it shows that in this country considerable efforts still need to be made in order to increase corporate awareness regarding this topic. Another evident lack in Czech Republic corporations is the presence of female directors. This represents a problem regarding both gender equality and environmental awareness, as in general, women are more sensitive towards ethical and environmental issues. Another key point is that ESG disclosures can also be used as a sustainable competitive advantage to boost the sales and profit of these firms. It has been demonstrated that the propensity to incorporate CSR concepts is strongly influenced by the size of the firm: in 2014 Czech Republic implemented the EU Directive on non-financial reporting measures (2014/95/EU) and in 2017, it was made mandatory for companies which had more than 500 employees to report non-financial measures. Consequently, SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) in the CEE region remain excluded from these provisions and usually they do not have a plain understanding and are not able to use this type of communication in the most proper way.

Despite these difficulties, when dealing with sustainable corporations in the Czech Republic we have to mention that the national government made a step forward with regards to the form presentation of CSR reports by the firms. As a matter of fact, Czech companies have to file their reports with the Commercial Register to be e-published and so made digitally and freely available to the public. By the operation of EU law, these data are further sent to the EU central system BRIS on the e-Justice Portal. However, neither EU law nor Czech law provides specific mandatory criteria about the organization of the information. So, it is up to these companies regarding how much and to what extent they will provide CSR information.

All things considered, the CSRD has improved the situation in the Czech Republic and especially during the last few years several steps forward have already been taken, nevertheless, the sustainable process is still quite behind compared to other European Member States and it is necessary to increase the pace and efforts to achieve the international goals set for 2050.

Possible improvements

Today, sustainability plays a primary plan role both in climate change and in the market. It represents one of the main investors’ concerns, customers tend to choose sustainable products and employees prefer to work for companies involved in environmentally friendly activities. In the EU, member states have started a sustainable and inclusive growth, they have aligned with the EU law provisions and respect CSR ethics, both informing and being informed about it. In this sense, the inclusion of CSR information in freely available digital annual reports may represent a great opportunity offered by our digital era for all stakeholders (and not only to them). Despite the positive initiatives and intentions, significant progress is still required to achieve the EGD 2050 goals. Among the steps that need to be taken are the need to reduce emissions produced by companies and the necessity to adopt more environmentally sustainable policies (e.g., the introduction of cost-saving practices or a more conscious use of resources). The CSRD represents a relevant step in this direction, but it’s not enough. The Swedish and the Czech cases have shown that the gaps to be filled are still a lot and more practical measures and further policies need to be implemented both at a European and at a national level. This is essential in order to provide more concrete support to the companies involved and to have a positive impact on developing countries, possibly involving them in these sustainable changes too.

Federica Sasdelli is a M.Sc. student, University Modena and Reggio Emilia, DDRN University Intern