UN Debate

From doing this exercise I have learnt that the so called ‘developed’ countries such as USA and China are not as sustainable as they like to think they are. They are apparently the richer countries but when compared to countries such as Denmark they really are doing little to improve sustainable development in their country.

It was quite hard to find information about the Solomon Islands as they do not actually have a National Sustainable Development Plan. However the other policies such as the National Health Policy was quite easy to find as it was already in place and the country view this policy as quite important and we found this coming up quite a bit in internet searches. It was also quite difficult to find many plans and policies because the Solomon Islands are small and with a population of only half a million they are going to be harder to find than say Denmark. Also with the Islands only just coming out of conflict in 2003 they are only just starting to build their country back up which means that any plans or policies that the country wants to develop are going to be new and probably basic.

It was surprised as all countries have completely different approaches to the idea of sustainable development. For instance the USA wanted the money to help its army and navy but to also try to help Africa whilst countries such as Malawi who have barely any national exports want to use it to try and help their national people. I got the impression that the poorer countries had much more genuine ideas of what to use the money for. Why should the USA be given money to improve its army whilst countries in Africa have to sustain droughts and frequent starvation just so the USA can attack a few more countries?

I think our presentation went ok however I lost the plot half way through which didn’t help. However we said everything that we needed to say and got our point across within the time limit set. I think we highlighted well the policy and plans currently in place and clearly defined what the money would be used for. If we were to do the exercise again I think practice would be key as I think if we were more confident with what we were to say then perhaps it would have come across a bit better and the nervousness wouldn’t show so much in the presentation.

I did enjoy this exercise and I think I have learnt more from it than I would have done if it were done in a normal lecture. I think by having a debate it makes you think more widely around the subject as you want to ask the other countries questions to find out more (and to see them squirm).

Overall I think we worked well as a team and found that we got on and was able to research and present our findings.

Northamptonshire Waste Strategy

Right let’s talk some rubbish about rubbish... Get it?

There was a previous waste strategy in 2002 and it highlighted that there is a need for Northamptonshire to seriously think about the way that it collects and manages its waste. To which the majority of this waste was being land filled instead of using other methods to prevent it from getting to this stage.

Over the next twenty or so years there is going to be an estimated 108,000 extra households built in Northampton equating to several hundreds of thousands of extra people. The strategy suggested this will be a 39% increase in households. This will ultimately create huge amounts of extra waste that if not seriously thought about will end up just going into land fill sites. To give Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) some credit with the introduction of this strategy they are beginning to seriously think about the environment around us and ways of increasing recycling and other methods and not just dumping everything into the ground.

In this blog post I intend to explain the variations in recycling rates amongst county and borough Councils in Northamptonshire in particular I will be comparing Corby Borough Council (CBC) and Daventry District Council (DDC).

When we look at this data we can see that at the beginning in 2001/2002 CBC had the worst household waste recycling of 3.5% compared to DDC which had the highest rate of household recycling with 44%. I think the difference in these numbers is absurd. How can one be doing that much better than another? However if we then look at the changes that have occurred up until the latest figures of 2006/2007 we can try to evaluate the amount of household waste being recycled. If we look at CBC in 2006/2007 they actually recycled 28% of their waste. This may still be lower than others but is still a drastic improvement of 24.5% when compared to DDC. Although they started off with 44% they only had recycling rates of 47% in 2006/2007 so an overall growth of only 3%. These reasons can be explained more by looking at table 4 of the strategy

If we compare both CBC and DDC we can see that there are small but subtle differences. CBC only has their recyclables collected fortnightly whilst DDC is weekly. Also another difference is what is collected as recyclables. DDC accept a wide range of recyclables including glass and textiles which CBC does not. This could explain the lower figures of CBC in terms of how much household waste is recycled. Those living within DDC have the option of recycling items which they may not have otherwise done had they not been able to do this again could increase that total figure.

Right finally what can be done to improve recycling?

One method that could possibly be used to improve recycling is that of community involvement. I have no idea to what the community involvement is in like in Northampton obviously with being on campus. However certain areas of the community may not know about the recycling schemes or what can be recycled. These areas need to be targeted such as perhaps leaflets in different languages, in Braille or on audio tape. Also sessions could be put on for groups such as the elderly and perhaps even demonstrations in schools to promote recycling to children. These social groups are often left behind in society but for us to get the most out of our resources and to be “sustainable” the message needs to be spread to everyone. We need to be inventive in how we involve whole communities it’s alright to put fliers through the door but not everyone can understand it in that form and other methods need to be thought of alongside it.

Also communities need to be involved in decisions on what happens to their waste. This can be small things such as a change in the day of collection or be invited to meetings to discuss alternatives to where the next land fill site is located. In my opinion if people are included in things they will want to take a more proactive approach and to try their best if they are fully informed. If county councils and boroughs want their communities to take responsibility for their role in managing waste then they need to do their upmost to involve communities because at the end of the day one persons waste is everyone’s waste!

http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy.htm (January 2008)