border scavenging: a case study of aluminum recycling in laredo, tx and nuevo laredo, mexico

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 23 (1998) 107–126

Border scavenging: a case study of aluminumrecycling in Laredo, TX and Nuevo Laredo,

Mexico

Martin Medina

COLEF, PO Box L, Chula Vista, CA 91912, USA

Accepted 27 April 1998

Abstract

An intensive informal recycling system exists in the neighboring cities of Nuevo Laredo,Mexico and Laredo, TX. Qualitative and quantitative research was conducted in the area. Itwas found that the recovery of aluminum is carried out by three types of individuals:dumpsite scavengers, street scavengers and source-separation at homes and small businesses.Further, scavenging activities can be broken down into full-time and part-time. Theseindividuals recover approximately 75% of the cans consumed by the area’s population.Aluminum recovery in the area shows strong linkages with the formal sector and with theinternational economy. The informal recovery of aluminum in Laredo and Nuevo Laredoillustrates the international economic integration between Mexico and the US on theircommon border. This paper challenges previous characterizations of scavengers as beingpoor and marginal. © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Informal sector; Scavenging; Recycling; Aluminum; Laredo; Nuevo Laredo;United States–Mexico Border

1. Introduction

Laredo, TX and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico constitute one of the ‘twin cities’ thatexist along the border between Mexico and the USA. See Map 1.

0921-3449/98/$19.00 © 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S0921-3449(98)00019-6

M. Medina / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 23 (1998) 107–126108

Map

1

M. Medina / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 23 (1998) 107–126 109

Founded in 1755 by Spanish colonizers, Laredo was part of Mexico until 1848.That year, in the aftermath of the Texas–Mexico War, the town split into two: theRio Grande became the border between Mexico and the USA, the residents of thesouth bank remained Mexican citizens and the town was renamed ‘Nuevo Laredo’(New Laredo), while the people living north of the river became US citizens. Today,the two cities are popularly known as ‘Los Dos Laredos’ (the two Laredos) [1].

Laredo’s strategic location on a direct route between San Antonio, TX, Monter-rey, Mexico, and Mexico City facilitated travel and trade between Texas andMexico. References exist as early as 1791 to smuggling activities through Laredo,particularly liquor [2].

In 1995, Los Dos Laredos had a combined population of 355000 inhabitants,220000 residing in Nuevo Laredo and 135000 in Laredo. The highest rates ofpopulation growth in Nuevo Laredo occurred between 1940–1960, when its popu-lation more than tripled, form 28000 in 1940 to 92000 in 1960. But its growthslowed down markedly between 1970 and 1990. In fact, Nuevo Laredo had thefourth lowest population growth rate among Mexican cities with population over100000 during that period [3–5].

Laredo, TX, on the other hand, has undergone a rapid population growth overthe last few years: Laredo was the second fastest-growing city in the USA in theearly 1990s, only behind Las Vegas, Nevada. International trade between USA andMexico as well as retail sales to Mexicans have stimulated Laredo’s growth: freighttruck and train crossings nearly doubled between 1989 and 1994, and the city getsover one third of the land traffic between the two countries [6].

Even though Laredo had the second lowest per capita income in Texas’ StandardMetropolitan Statistical Areas with $7300 in 1993, it had retail sales per capita of$12300 in the same year, the highest retail sales rate in the USA. And the localDillard’s, Sears and Wal-Mart stores rank among the highest in the country interms of sales per square foot. Mexicans account for approximately 75% of retailsales in Laredo, and visitors from as far as Mexico City shop at Laredo stores[7–9].

2. Methodology

In order to estimate the size of the informal recycling sector and its linkages withthe formal economy, a joint qualitative/quantitative methodology was used. Eachapproach has weaknesses and strengths. Qualitative methods enable the researcherto develop a deeper and fuller understanding of a social situation, it involves theobservation of behavior in a natural setting, and allows high degree of flexibility inthe research design. Qualitative research, however, seldom produces precise, de-scriptive and generalizable statements about a large population, and the findingstend to face problems of reliability [10,11]. Quantitative methods, on the otherhand, can provide useful descriptions, produce results for which the probabilitiesthat the generalizations are beyond random occurrences can be calculated. Amongthe weaknesses of quantitative research are the following: respondents may not


know the answer to a question, they may not remember, they may not understandthe question, they may not want to respond, or may provide socially-desirableanswers [12–15].

Qualitative methods tend to be strong in validity but weak in reliability whilequantitative methods tend to be strong in reliability and weak in validity. Bycombining the use of both methods—social scientists term this approach ‘triangula-tionn’—it is possible to balance the strengths and weaknesses of the two andachieve a higher degree of reliability and validity, compared with the use of onlyone method [10]. Most studies on scavenging conducted so far have been eitherquantitative or qualitative, and, therefore, have limitations in their reliability andvalidity. The present study, by using both quantitative and qualitative methods,seeks to surmount the shortcomings of using only one method.

2.1. Qualitati6e research design

During the qualitative research, interviews were conducted among members ofgovernmental and non-governmental organizations in Laredo and Nuevo Laredo,using a snow-ball sampling method. Official 1990 US and Mexican statistics showthat there were six scrap and waste dealers in Laredo and nine in Nuevo Laredo.The number of scrap and waste materials dealers listed in both cities’ 1994telephone directories corroborated the official figures. Ten scrap dealers agreed totake part in the study and to provide information. Then scavengers collectingmaterials on the streets of both cities and in the Nuevo Laredo dump wereapproached. In-depth interviews were conducted among scavengers and amongscrap dealers. Direct observation of scavenging operations, participant observationand in-depth interviews of the individuals involved directly or indirectly in recyclingwere also carried out in the research area.

2.2. Sur6ey design

Upon completion of the qualitative phase, a questionnaire was developed, whichcomprised 101 questions. A pretest of ten questionnaires was conducted amongscavengers. The individuals included in the pretest were selected non-randomly. Thepretest intended to find out how long it would take to complete a questionnaire, therespondents’ ability and willingness to answer the questions, and thus its effect onthe response rate. The pretest showed that the questionnaire required some modifi-cations. The order of the questions was altered so that questions related to thescavenging operations were asked first and the demographic variables were askedlast. This change intended to engage scavengers in the interview from the beginning,by asking them relevant questions about their work, and, in the end, increase theresponse rate. This strategy seemed to have worked, since only four individualsdeclined to be interviewed. The other change referred to the use of the word‘reciclaje’ (recycling in Spanish). Scavengers included in the pretest did not seemedto understand what I meant by reciclaje, so the use of this word was restricted.Since an overwhelming majority of scavengers that I encountered during the first


stages spoke only Spanish in both towns, the questionnaire was administered inthat language. The questionnaire was administered at each of the scrap dealers’warehouses that agreed to co-operate in this study. Individuals included in thesample were selected by using a systematic sampling method: every third personarriving to sell the aluminum cans collected was asked to be interviewed after theyhad sold their pickings to the scrap dealer. In this manner, 80 questionnaires wereapplied during May and June, 1994. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate analysesof the survey data were conducted.

3. Solid waste management on the USA–Mexico border

The US economy is about twenty times larger than its Mexican counterpart, andthe Mexican per capita income is less than 10% of that of the USA [16]. The vastdisparity in levels of economic development between Mexico and the USA isparticularly noticeable on the living conditions, urban infrastructure, and physicalcharacteristics of the cities along the common border. That disparity is alsoreflected in the resources allocated to waste management services. As a result, thesanitary conditions, regulations and problems regarding waste collection, handlingand disposal that each country faces show marked differences. For example,communities across the US must deal with increasing amounts of solid waste,declining landfill capacity, public opposition to the siting of all types of wastemanagement facilities, concerns about the risks associated with waste management,more stringent regulations as well as rising costs [17].

Mexico, on the other hand, faces serious problems with the collection anddisposal of wastes. The World Bank [18] estimates that between 50–70% of themunicipal solid wastes generated in Mexico are collected. And only 15% of thewastes receive proper disposal in sanitary landfills, since the most common disposalmethod is by way of open dumping [19].

Mexican border towns suffer severe pollution problems, one of which is theimproper management of solid wastes. Many low-income Nuevo Laredo neighbor-hoods are without electricity, tap water, sewers and solid waste collection. NuevoLaredo collects less than 85% of the estimated total refuse generated in the city: 320tons per day. The uncollected waste is illegally dumped in vacant lots scatteredthroughout the city or in creeks that feed the Rio Grande [20,21].

Residents of neighborhoods not served by municipal collection often burn theirrefuse in their backyards, in front of their homes, or in the nearest open space.Waste collection in served areas takes place once a week, which residents considerinsufficient to their needs [22,23]. An informal collection system exists in neighbor-hoods that lack municipal collection. In this, informal collectors charge a fee forpicking up the residents’ garbage, which they transport in horse carts [24].

The wastes collected in Nuevo Laredo are disposed of at the local dump, whichreceives all types of wastes generated in the city, including household refuse,hospital and industrial wastes. No screening exists at the dump to prevent thedisposal of hazardous wastes. The dump lacks liners, leachate and methane


collection systems. Wastes are covered with a layer of earth every day [24]. Acrossthe river, in Laredo, TX, the collection and disposal of wastes is considerablybetter. Virtually all wastes generated in the city are collected and disposed of at thelocal landfill, which meets US federal regulations. Substandard settlements, how-ever, known as ‘colonias’ have developed along the Texas side of the border withMexico. Colonias are basically rural slums with substandard housing, unpavedstreets and lacking sewers and refuse collection. Estimates on the number ofcolonias on the Texas–Mexico border range from 1000 to 1400 and the number ofinhabitants from 300000 to 340000 [25]. Approximately 50 colonias exist in therural area around Laredo, most of which lack waste collection [26].

4. Informal recycling of aluminum and scavenging patterns

The interplay of factors such as migration form the rural areas in Mexico to theborder, the existence of s surplus population unable to find employment in theformal economy, the geographical proximity of Los Dos Laredos, the wastematerials generated by the local economies, and the demand for materials haveshaped the present scavenging patterns in the area. Scavengers collect variousmaterials in Los Dos Laredos, such as cardboard, discarded appliances andfurniture, used clothing and construction materials. This paper examines only therecovery of aluminum.

Laredo, TX and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico have had their economies intertwinedsince the 1850s, through an intense movement of people and goods in bothdirections. Scavenging of materials from waste in the area has existed at least sincethe end of the nineteenth century [27]. The recovery of aluminum, however, isrelatively recent. Aluminum beverage cans constitute the most important source ofaluminum for scavengers. Aluminum cans were introduced to the US market in1959 and their use has steadily increased so that in 1994 aluminum cans accountedfor 75% of all soft-drink packaging [28,29].

As previously stated, Laredo is an important trade and retailing center thatattracts many Mexican shoppers, and Nuevo Laredo offers various Mexican goodsand handicrafts that cater to US visitors. The downtown commercial areas of bothcities are adjacent to each other, and divided only by the Rio Grande. Threeinternational bridges connect both areas: one railroad bridge, one for motorvehicles and pedestrians, and one exclusively for motor vehicles. Walking betweendowntown Laredo and downtown Nuevo Laredo takes only a few minutes.

Scavengers recover aluminum cans at the Nuevo Laredo dump; street scavengerscollect them from waste bins or from the streets in Nuevo Laredo, by NuevoLaredo families and businesses that accumulate the cans from their own consump-tion and then sell them to obtain extra cash, and by street scavengers that pick upthe cans from creeks, waste containers, and dumpsters in Laredo’s hotel, commer-cial and residential areas.

The city of Laredo, in its efforts to comply with Texas Senate Bill 1340—whichmandated all municipalities in the state of Texas to reduce the amount of solid


wastes disposed of at landfills by 40% by the end of 1994—launched a recyclingprogram on January 1st, 1994. Residents are asked to separate their aluminumcans, soda plastic bottles (PET), milk jugs (HDPE), newspapers and put them in ablue bag, which is collected weekly. However, a persistent problem for the Laredorecycling program has been the theft of aluminum cans by scavengers, who simplygather the cans from the blue bags before the collection crews arrive [24].

4.1. Regulations affecting sca6enging

Los Dos Laredos are subject to specific regulations due to their status asfree-trade zones. Nuevo Laredo is part of the franja fronteriza (border area) and itsresidents and businesses enjoy lower taxes on certain activities and lower tariffs—which can be zero for some goods—for the export and import of merchandise.There are some restrictions, however, in the movement of goods between NuevoLaredo and the rest of Mexico. The aluminum collected there and transportedelsewhere in Mexico for recycling is treated as an import and must pay a 10% tariff[24].

Laredo, on the other hand, constitutes part of US free-trade zone number 94.Unlike the restrictions between Nuevo Laredo and the rest of Mexico, fewerrestrictions exist for trade between Laredo and the rest of the USA. US quotarestrictions do not apply in free-trade zones. When foreign products are transferredinto the rest of the country, the goods must be entered at the custom house.Nevertheless, aluminum waste and scrap—including beverage cans—can be im-ported duty-free under US Customs 7602.00.00 [30,31].

Laredo government officials are aware of the operations of Mexican scavengersin their city. No formal recognition or agreement exists between scavengers and thecity. But Mexican residents have been collecting waste materials for so many yearsthat the local officials interviewed considered them part of the cityscape, and theiractivities are tolerated. Laredo ordinances prohibit the sorting of trash in publicplaces. Scavengers could be cited for scattering trash on the streets. However, thismatter is subject to the police officer’s discretion, and no one has been cited overthe last 11 years. Also, there have been no complaints from store owners/managersor from Laredo residents about scavengers’ activities during the same period.Laredo officials interviewed consider that scavenging by Mexicans in their city ismutually-beneficial: it reduces litter and the amount of wastes that need to betransported and disposed of while provides a steady income to ‘poor’ Mexicans[24].

Scavengers face a more hostile environment on the Mexican side of the border.Nuevo Laredo ordinances prohibit scavenging on the streets and impose fines up tothe equivalent of one week’s minimum wage. Although the ordinances aim at theelimination of street scavenging, in actuality have caused the scavengers to modifytheir activities and to adapt. Many aluminum can collectors now collect them lateat night or early in the morning, in order to avoid being harassed by police. One ofthe main reasons for enacting the ban on street scavenging was to prevent givingMexican and US tourists a ‘bad impression’. Thus, by working in the wee hours of


the morning, scavengers avoid being seen by tourists, and are less likely to beharassed by police [24].

4.2. Sca6enging patterns

The recovery of aluminum cans takes place throughout Los Dos Laredos, but theLaredo and Nuevo Laredo downtown area is particularly active. Considering theplace where they gather cans and the market they face, scavengers can be classifiedinto three groups: dumpsite scavengers, street collectors and individuals whoseparate the cans at the source of generation. Table 1 shows a comparison ofvarious socioeconomic characteristics of dumpsite scavengers and street can collec-tors, who gather aluminum cans on a full-time basis.

4.2.1. Dumpsite sca6engersAll of the members belonging to this group recover materials from mixed wastes

arriving at the Nuevo Laredo dump. Thus, dumpsite scavengers are in daily contactwith all kinds of wastes, including industrial and hospital wastes disposed of at thesite, which poses risks to their health. The dump operates on private land, and thelandowners charge a tipping fee to the municipal trucks arriving at the dump. Theyalso charge an ‘admission fee’ of 10 Mexican pesos (approximately US $2.85 at thedollar–peso exchange rate prevalent at the time) a day to the scavengers who wishto recover any items from the garbage deposited there. The typical working day fora dumpsite scavenger includes getting up early in order to arrive at the dump by08:00, time at which the municipal refuse collection vehicles start to show up tounload the collected waste. As soon as the trucks empty their contents, dumping the

Table 1Categories of full-time scavengers

Variable or statistic Street can collectors (n=20)Dumpsite scavengers(n=20)

Males (%) 62.5 85.7Education (years) x=3.4x=1.6Literacy (%) 78.637.5

x=3.9x=4.6Time collecting (years)Collect materials in Laredo, TX (%) 57.10

n/aHave a fixed route (%) 85.7x=0.8x=4Number of scavenger relatives

56.3Migrants (%) 64.356.3Previous work experience (%) 1000Have other source of income (%) 35.7

Have US visa/crossing card (%) 0 44.4Amount collected (kg/day) x=24.6 x=6.9Market Monopsonistic Competitive

207 58.5Weekly median income (Mex. Pesos)

Source: Medina M., 1997; [24].


mixed wastes on the ground, scavengers begin searching through the refuse using ametal hook they call ‘gancho’. By using a gancho, they avoid direct contact with thewaste materials, which may include broken glass, objects with sharp edges orsyringes. When they spot aluminum cans, they retrieve the cans, crush them withtheir feet, so that they take less space, and put them in jute baskets, cloth sacks orin plastic bags.

Each family accumulates its pickings on a pile until the end of the working day,when a middleman arrives in the late afternoon to purchase all the salvagedaluminum. Dumpsite scavengers face a monopsonistic market (market in whichonly one buyer exists, as opposed to a monopoly, where there is only one seller),and thus get lower prices than in the competitive market in town. The dump islocated about 7 miles from the Nuevo Laredo downtown and no public transporta-tion exists to get there. Therefore, scavengers can not transport the salvaged cansto town in order to obtain a higher price. The price the middleman paid foraluminum cans was 25% lower than the price prevalent in town.

This group includes nearly 40% women, a higher figure than street scavengers.This high female participation is due to the fact that they do not have to movearound to recover materials, which allows mothers to work and take care of theirchildren at the same time. The kids can play and learn the basics of the scavengingoperations, or if they are old enough, retrieve recyclables. In this way, severalfamilies scavenge at the dump. Dumpsite scavengers are known throughout Mexicoas ‘pepenadores’.

The pepenadores working at the Nuevo Laredo dump have the lowest literacyrates and the lowest average number of years of formal education of the threescavenger groups. None of them collect materials in Laredo because they lack USvisas/border crossing cards. Most of them have work experience in occupationsother than scavenging and most of them were born elsewhere in Mexico andmigrated to Nuevo Laredo. When asked whether they liked their job, 75% repliedthat they did, and 69% said that they did not want to get another job, if given thechoice. Due to the remote location of the dump, they lack opportunities to increasetheir income with non-scavenging activities. The totality of scavengers interviewedreported that they obtained all of their earnings at the dump.

The majority (85%) of the scavengers interviewed at the dump recover onlyaluminum cans at an average of 24.6 kg/person per day, and earning 207 Mexicanpesos a week (approximately US $59.14). This amount represents 225% theminimum wage that formal sector employees and factory workers earn. The rest ofthe pepenadores collect cardboard, copper, iron and steel scrap.

In addition to the pepenadores working at the dump, at least four informalcollectors pick up garbage generated by residents in areas not served by municipalwaste collection. The collectors, locally known as ‘carretoneros’ charge a pick upand disposal fee of 5 pesos for the refuse contained in a 206-l drum. They transportthe refuse in a horse cart to the dump. Prior to the disposal at the dump, theyrecover all the aluminum cans contained in the garbage (about 20 kg/day).Carretoneros earn 60 pesos a day from the sale of aluminum and the pick up fees,the equivalent of one week’s remuneration for a formal sector worker earning the


minimum wage. In other words, carretoneros make in one day what factoryworkers or employees earn in one week.

4.2.2. Street sca6engersThis group of scavengers includes individuals who salvage aluminum cans from

dumpsters located in public spaces, waste bins on the streets, residential refuseplaced curbside for collection, at illegal dumping areas, or simply gather the canslittered on the streets. These collectors are locally known as ‘buscabotes’ (cansearchers). They are mostly males in their late thirties and have the lowest averagenumber of years they have been scavenging among the three scavenger groups.Most of the buscabotes have a fixed route that they usually follow. The majority ofthem cross the border to Laredo in order to gather cans there. The Laredodowntown is a bustling commercial area, in which shoppers consume soft drinksand discard the cans in street containers or simply litter them. The buscabotes pickup the cans wherever they find them, including the several creeks that empty intothe Rio Grande, in hotel and residential areas. One collector included in the surveyventured his threewheeled vehicle as far as 8 km away, to the colonias off highway59 in order to gather aluminum cans from the uncollected refuse. Consequently, theMexican buscabotes help clean up Laredo, TX at no cost to the city.

About one third of the buscabotes reported to have another source of income,and all of them have previous work experience in occupations other than scaveng-ing. This group had the lowest median income among the scavengers interviewed:the equivalent of only 64% of the minimum wage. Further, the average buscabotehas been collecting cans for less than four years, a shorter time than the pepe-nadores. Thus, this is a poorly-paid activity, hardly enough to support a family.This suggests that street scavenging constitutes a source of extra income, atransitional activity, and that when the buscabotes discover that is not lucrative,they switch to some other pursuit.

Most street collectors must roam through several neighborhoods on foot, carry-ing a sack or plastic bag containing the cans. They spend a considerable amount oftime walking in their search for aluminum cans, which lowers their productivity(compared to the dumpsite scavengers, who do not have to walk long distancessearching for cans), and ultimately, their earnings. Furthermore, street scavenginghas been banned in Nuevo Laredo, which, if strictly enforced, could result in thebuscabotes being fined. In Nuevo Laredo 10% of buscabotes reported that theyhave had problems with the local police, in some cases demanding bribes from themto let them go and recover cans. Still another risk that collectors face, particularlythose who work late at night, is the presence of street gangs, which have beaten upseveral buscabotes.

4.2.3. Source-separation and part-time sca6engersThe previous discussion refers to individuals who recover aluminum cans on a

fulltime basis. However, 40 individuals in the sample can not be consideredfull-time scavengers. Instead, these people spend as little as a few minutes a day andup to 5 h a week collecting aluminum cans. Of these part-time scavengers 61% have


Table 2Characteristics of full-time and part-time scavengers

Full-time scavengers (n=40) Part-time scavengers (n=40)Variable or statistic

x=38Age (years) x=3963.4Males (%) 84

x=3.2Education (years) x=764 85Literacy (%)x=8.4 yearsTime collecting x=3.6 months

44Collect materials in Laredo, TX (%) 5460Have a fixed route (%) 39x=1.6 x=0.78Number of scavenger relatives

35Migrants (%) 6480Previous work experience (%) 85.316 61Have other source of income (%)58 81Have US visa/crossing card (%)

7Weekly median income (Mex. Pesos) 208

Source: Medina M., 1997; [24].

a regular job, and the rest are students, retired persons and housewives who do nothold a job. Of these part-time collectors 83% offered the extra income obtained asthe motivation behind their collecting cans.

Table 2 presents comparative statistics for full-time and part-time scavengers.This table illustrates the important differences between the two categories. Part-time scavengers are better educated, have regular jobs, have been collectingaluminum cans for a relatively short time, and most of them were born in town, asopposed to fulltime scavengers, who are mostly migrants.

The following constitute examples of part-time collectors:� Housewives that spend a few minutes a day separating the cans from the family’s

consumption of soft drinks and beer� Children who collect cans at their schools from the soft drinks consumed there� Persons who attend soccer and baseball games on weekends that pick up the beer

and soda cans usually left there after the games� Office employees who collect the cans from the consumption that takes place at

their offices� Small-business owners, such as car repair shops and hotels, gather the beer and

soda cans consumed in their premises� Nuevo Laredo residents who go grocery shopping to Laredo and pick up the

cans they find on the streets and in waste bins� Street vendors in Nuevo Laredo and Laredo that sell sodas often pick up the

cans that have been littered or left around their stalls� Retired Nuevo Laredo and Laredo residents who walk as a form of exercise,

recover the cans they find during their walks� Children gather cans on the streets after school and on weekends to obtain some

extra cash


4.3. Flow of aluminum can reco6ery in the area

Fig. 1 shows the flow of aluminum cans recovered in Los Dos Laredos. Laredoand Nuevo Laredo households consume beer and soft drinks. Since Nuevo Laredodoes not have a recycling program, its residents may separate the aluminum cans athome or at work and sell them to the middlemen, or simply discard them in theirrefuse. Then the buscabotes recover the cans on the streets or the pepenadores atthe Nuevo Laredo dump. Table 3 shows the prices paid along the recovery route.

All aluminum cans recovered in Nuevo Laredo are sold to scrap dealers inLaredo due to the following reasons. First, as previously mentioned, Nuevo Laredo

Fig. 1. Flow chart of aluminum recovered in Los Dos Laredos.


Table 3Prices paid along the recovery route (Mexican Pesos)

Selling priceAluminum

Scavengers2.00–2.50/kgto

Middlemen3.75/kgto

Dealerto 4.97/kgIndustry

Source: Medina M., 1997 [24].

is part of a freetrade zone that enjoy lower tariffs than the rest of Mexico, but thatimposes tariff regulations on the goods transported from there to the rest of thecountry. In order to transport aluminum cans from Nuevo Laredo to Monterrey—where the closest aluminum smelter is located—would be considered an importoperation, a tariff of 10% would have to be paid and be conducted by a MexicanCustoms Broker. Second, in order to make the transport of aluminum canseconomically viable, they must be baled, which requires investment in equipment.Nuevo Laredo middlemen lack balers. Third, US regulations allow the tariff-freeimportation of discarded aluminum cans collected in Mexico. Nuevo Laredomiddlemen, faced with these obstacles, simply buy the cans from scavengers andfrom individuals who separated them at the source of generation, transport themacross the border and sell them to scrap dealers in Laredo.

There are also three possible pathways for the recovery of aluminum cans inLaredo. The Laredo recycling program collects source-separated cans—some ofwhich are stolen by street scavengers—and the rest sold to scrap dealers. Streetscavengers salvage cans on the streets, and source-separation of cans occurs athomes. Most Mexican buscabotes who recover cans in Laredo transport the cansacross the border due to the lack of buy-back centers in the downtown area. Laredozoning regulations forbid the location of recycling facilities in the downtowncommercial area. Consequently, Mexican scavengers collect cans in Laredo, TX,sell them in Nuevo Laredo and then the middlemen transport them back to Laredo.The cans are recycled in San Antonio by Golden Recycle, which makes cans for theAdolph Coors Brewery.

5. Economic and environmental impact of scavenging

Based on the survey carried out, Table 4 presents an estimate of the size andimportance of the informal recycling of aluminum in Los Dos Laredos. Theestimated total number of aluminum can collectors is nearly 3325 individuals,divided into 125 full-time and 3200 part-time scavengers. In addition to providinga source of income to the individuals engaged in collecting cans, informal recycling


provides work opportunities for 74 employees who handle and process recyclablesat middlemen and scrap dealers’ warehouses.

Approximately 275 t of aluminum were recovered each month in the area in mid1994. The informal recycling carried out in Los Dos Laredos contributed over US$386000 a month to the local economies by way of middlemen’s profits, employees’wages, truck drivers’ fees, scavengers’ income, and bridge tolls.

Scavenging activities reduce the amount of wastes that need to be collected,transported and disposed of by the Sanitation departments of Laredo and NuevoLaredo. That translates into savings for both cities: can collectors save the twocities approximately US $2750 per month in avoided collection, transport anddisposal costs.

6. Scavenging and the aluminum industry

The recovery of aluminum from post-consumer wastes by scavengers is arelatively recent phenomenon. Aluminum beverage cans constitute the most impor-tant source of aluminum for scavengers. Introduced to the US market in 1959,aluminum cans now account for three-quarters of all soft drink packaging. In 1993,over 60% of all used aluminum beverage cans were recovered and recycled [32].

Even though aluminum is one of the world’s most plentiful metals, its productionrequires large amounts of electricity. In fact, the cost of electricity represents themost significant single component in the total cost of producing aluminum, whichtypically amounts to 60% of production costs [33].

Recycling aluminum cans uses 95% less energy than producing them from virginmaterials. The energy savings from recycling translates into economic savings.Plants that process aluminum scrap can be built for a fraction of the cost and timeit takes to build a conventional mining/smelting facility [34,28]. Consequently,aluminum recycling makes economic sense.

Table 4Economic magnitude of informal recycling in Los Dos Laredos

Aluminum

Employment125Full-time scavengers3200Part-time collectors64aWarehouse employees

Materials recovered275 tb/monthAmount recovered1 354 500 Mex. Pesos/monthMonetary value

Source: Medina M., 1997 [24].a Includes employees handling various types of waste materials in Laredo, TX.b Metric tons.


Aluminum production in Mexico is relatively recent and small-scale: the firstaluminum smelter started operations in 1963 and the total production of alu-minum in the country was 43000 metric tons in 1987 [35,34].

All the aluminum cans collected by scavengers in Los Dos Laredos during theresearch period were shipped to a Coors Brewery subsidiary, the Golden RecycleCompany, in San Antonio, TX. This plant recycles old cans into new ones to beused as beer containers. The cans salvaged in both cities were sent to SanAntonio because of a stronger demand on the US side of the border, Mexicanduties imposed on aluminum imports as well as cumbersome importation proce-dures. Moreover, Nuevo Laredo middlemen lack baling equipment, and trans-porting unbaled cans would make transport within Mexico considerably costlier[24].

Coors has undertaken a process of backward vertical integration with scav-engers via middlemen and scrap dealers. The reason is primarily economic: recy-cling represents lower operating and capital costs to the Coors Brewery. OnJanuary 1 1995, US aluminum companies raised the price of aluminum sheet by50%, which includes a per-pound fee for converting the ingot into sheet [36].Aluminum can manufacturers, by recycling discarded aluminum cans recoveredby scavengers instead of buying aluminum sheet can avoid this fee and savemoney. Therefore, it can be argued that scavengers play an important role inimproving the competitiveness of the aluminum industry [24].

Global structures and processes of change affect aluminum can collectors inLos Dos Laredos. Any event that alters the world aluminum market has anaffect on the price that scavengers are paid for the cans. For instance, thecollapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 caused high unemployment and recessionthere. As a result of the recession, domestic demand for aluminum dropped.Before the collapse, the Soviet Union was the second largest producer of alu-minum in the world, accounting for 15% of the world’s total production of themetal. Russian aluminum makers, faced with a declining demand at home, beganexporting their surplus output and the world prices dropped sharply. In 1991alone, the former Soviet republics dumped one million metric tons of aluminuminto world markets [37,34].

The US spot price for aluminum follows that of the London Metal Exchangeprice [33]. As the price declined sharply in 1991 and subsequent years because ofthe dumping of Russian aluminum, scavengers in Los Dos Laredos were paid alower price as well for the cans they retrieved. However, by mid-1994 the worldaluminum prices went up because of falling European interest rates and steadyconsumption in the US and Japan [38]. In turn, scavengers in Los Dos Laredosreceived an increase of 22% in the price of the aluminum cans collected. Thus,scavengers in the area are directly linked with and dependent on the internationaleconomy, and events half a world away can either increase or decrease theirearnings. The interplay of factors that affect the global supply and demand foraluminum sets the London Metal Exchange price, which in turn determinesscavengers’ income.


7. Theoretical implications

Chris Birkbeck [39,40] carried out research on scavenging in Cali, Colombia inthe mid-1970s. He found that Cali scavengers were poor but by no means marginal,showing strong linkages with the Colombian paper industry. He argued thatscavengers actually worked for the paper mills but that they were not employed bythe factories. Birkbeck, thus, considered scavengers to be part of mainstreameconomy but exploited and poor. He characterized scavengers as ‘self-employedproletarians’.

Daniel Sicular [41], on the other hand, criticizes Birkbeck and argues that thereexist internal contradictions in Birkbeck’s characterization: self-employed individu-als can not be considered proletarians, because proletarians work for capitalists.Sicular based his arguments on field research in Indonesia in the mid-1980s, arguingthat scavenging is not part of capitalism, but it is dependent on it. This view isshared by others, namely Lomnitz [42] and Souza [43], who considered Mexicanand Brazilian scavengers, respectively, as marginal groups, arguing that scavengingshows weak or non-existent linkages with the formal sector. According to Sicular,scavenging is a pre-capitalist form of production and scavengers should be charac-terized as ‘pockets of peasants engaged in hunting and gathering’.

The following critique of Birbeck’s and Sicular’s methods and arguments can bemade. First, both of them used qualitative methods in their field research. Aspreviously discussed, qualitative methods, in general, are strong in validity butweak in reliability. Birkbeck and Sicular may have drawn their conclusions fromindividuals included in their samples that were not representative of their respectivescavenging populations. Thus, their findings may not be generalizable to an entirepopulation. Both of their analyses show weaknesses. Birkbeck [39], for instance,based his analysis on only 13 interviews and used the sample mean (average) todescribe scavengers’ income. The median provides a better measurement of incomeof a sample than the mean, because the former is less susceptible to extreme valuesthan the latter. And Birkbeck made no effort to interview a representative sampleof the scavenging population nor to use a standardized questionnaire. Sicularhimself admits that the data on which he based his dissertation research werecollected with ‘little attempt...to collect statistically significant quantitative data’[41].

Both Sicular’s and Birkbeck’s characterizations contain internal contradictions.Sicular correctly pointed out Birkbeck’s conflicting argument. Sicular himself,however, brought in contradictions into his own argument of considering scav-engers as ‘peasants engaged in hunting and gathering’. Social theorists generallyagree that hunting and gathering societies are fundamentally different from agrar-ian societies [44,45]. Research carried out in various Third World cities, as well asthis study, demonstrate that scavenging populations do not exhibit the attributesthat typify hunting and gathering societies; that is, nomadism, small size of group,limited contact with other societies, limited division of labor and lack of territorial-ity [46,24].


Table 5Comparison of socioeconomic characteristics of dumpsite scavengers and the general population ofNuevo Laredo

Dumpsite scavengers General populationVariable or statistic(n=20)

56.3Migrants (%) 41.07.462.5Iliterate (%)

73.5Completed at least elementary school (%) 12.581.8Home connected to sewer system (%) 87.5

87.5Home connected to water system (%) 92.581.3 95.1Home connected to electric grid (%)

27.9aWorkers not covered by social security (%) 10040.8a48.2Hours worked per week

4.6Household size 5.8173Weekly median income (Mex. Pesos) 207

a Refers to Nuevo Laredo’s labor force and not to the general population.Source: Medina M., 1997 [24].

The present study supports Birkbeck’s view that scavenging has strong linkageswith the formal sector. The recovery of beverage cans by scavengers plays animportant role in securing inexpensive aluminum for the beer and soft drinkindustries. Consequently, scavengers in Los Dos Laredos can not be consideredmarginal. Given the higher cost of virgin aluminum, industry has undertakenefforts to achieve backward vertical integration with scavengers who recover cans.As for Birkbeck’s consideration of scavengers as ‘poor’, the findings of this studyshow that street scavengers can arguably be considered ‘poor’, given their lowincomes, lower than the Mexican minimum wage. Dumpsite collectors and thecarretoneros, however, earn a median weekly income of at least twice the minimumwage, which puts them in the top 5% of income earners in the city of NuevoLaredo. As Table 5 demonstrates, there is no significant difference between theaccess to urban services that dumpsite scavengers and carretoneros have as opposedto the general population of the city. Further, scavengers and carretoneros do notconsider themselves poor, enjoy a relatively stable occupation, an activity that theylike and living conditions they rate as ‘fair’. Thus, objectively and subjectively,dumpsite scavengers and carretoneros can not be regarded as poor [24].

The results of this research do not support Sicular’s proposed categorization ofscavengers as a pre-capitalist form of production. Even though most scavengers inthe research area migrated from rural areas, and may retain some traditions typicalof the countryside, their scavenging activities are fundamentally different frompeasant production. The fact that scavengers sometimes collect materials and foodfor their own consumption without involving a monetary transaction—an activityoutside the market economy—does not lead to the conclusion that scavengersfunction in a pre-capitalist form of production. Scavengers in the area do occasion-ally operate outside the market, but they satisfy most of their needs by sellingmaterials to industry for recycling. In conclusion, Birkbeck’s and Sicular’s catego-rizations need to be modified to better reflect reality.


8. Conclusions

Most studies on scavenging use either quantitative or qualitative methodologies.Using only one method tends to result in problems of reliability or validity. Thispaper argues that employing quantitative and qualitative methods in the study ofscavengers generates a deeper understanding of them as well as statistics that can begeneralized to entire scavenging populations. Employing quantitative and qualita-tive methods tends to produce valid and reliable data. Studies of scavenging thatmay result in policy recommendations should, whenever possible, use both researchmethods.

An intensive recovery of aluminum cans has developed in Nuevo Laredo andLaredo. The area constitutes an important commercial center, which generates alarge amount of cans. The economic disparity between Mexico and the USA, thegeographical proximity of the two cities and the strong demand for aluminum inthe USA encourage the recovery of aluminum cans in the area. The informalrecovery of aluminum cans is carried out by full-time and part-time scavengers.Individuals make a living by salvaging cans on a full-time basis at the NuevoLaredo dump and on the streets of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo. Many of them areMexican citizens who recover cans in Laredo, TX. A still larger number ofindividuals collect cans on a part-time basis in order to earn some extra cash.

The recovery of aluminum cans in the area responds to industrial demand for thematerial. The majority of scavengers reported reacting to economic, rather thanenvironmental, considerations in their recovery activities. The results of this studydemonstrate that even in absence of recycling programs and environmental regula-tions (such as the ‘bottle bills’ that require the payment of a cash refund whenconsumers turn in their used beverage cans and bottles to be recycled), a highrecycling rate is attainable if the price paid for the material is attractive enough forpeople to recover it.

Scavenging in the research area was found to have strong forward and backwardlinkages with the formal sector as well as with the international economy. Thispaper challenges previous characterizations of scavengers as poor and marginal,and argues that scavenging plays an important role in improving the competitive-ness of the aluminum industry. Scavenging renders social, economic and environ-mental benefits. Such benefits should be taken into account in the design of MSWMplans and policies towards scavengers, particularly in developing countries.

References

[1] Hinojosa G. A Borderlands Town in Transition: Laredo, 1755–1870. College Station, TX: A&MUniversity Press, 1983:73–83.

[2] Sanchez R. Frontier Odyssey: early life in a Texas Spanish town. Austin, TX: San Felipe Press,1981:87–100.

[3] Patrick J. A preliminary assessment of NAFTA’s impact on the Texas border economy. J BorderlStud 1996;2:23–50.


[4] Arreola D, Curtis J. The Mexican Border Cities: Landscape, Anatomy and Place Personality.Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1993.

[5] Ruiz C. El Desarrollo del Mexico Urbano: Cambio de Protagonista. Mexico City: ComercioExterior, 1993:716.

[6] Palmeri C. Laredo’s Giant Sucking Sound. Forbes 1994:78–81.[7] Althaus D. NAFTA May Lead to Decline of Border Towns. Mexico City: The News, 1993:26–33.[8] Cutler B. Welcome to the borderlands. Am Demograph 1991;23:44–7.[9] Ramirez G. Rechazo Total a la Propuesta de Clinton de Cobrar Cuotas por Cruzar Hacia EU: M.

Conchas. Mexico City: Excelsior, 1995:1, 3 Edos.[10] Babbie E. The Practice of Social Research. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1986.[11] Lofland J. Analyzing Social Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1971:46–68.[12] Fowler F. Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984:74–126.[13] Kling J. Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.[14] De Maio. A review of the social desirability measures in surveys. In: Turner Ch, Martin E, editors.

Survey Measurement of Subjective Phenomena. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences,1984.

[15] Bradburn N, Sudman S, Blair E. Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design: ResponseEffects to Threatening Questions in Survey Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979:163–174.

[16] Lang F, Ohr R, International Economic Integration. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer–Verlag,1995:257.

[17] US Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Facing America’s Trash: What Next for MunicipalSolid Waste. Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1989;3–45:186–187.

[18] World Bank. World Development Report 1990. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990:179.[19] Mintz L. The US–Mexico Border and NAFTA. Mexico City: The News, 1994;1:15.[20] Guillen R. La basura sigue siendo un problema. El manana de Nuevo Laredo. February 24, 1994.[21] Anon. Acuerdos Paralelos del Tratado de Libre Comercio. Mexico City: Comercio Exterior,

1993:857–858.[22] Monge G. Persister Basureros Clandestinos. Nuevo Laredo, Mexico: El Manana, 1993:B-4.[23] Anon. De Viva Voz. Nuevo Laredo, Mexico: El Manana, 1994c:B-9.[24] Medina M. Scavenging on the Border: A Study of the Informal Recycling Sector in Laredo, Texas

and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico: Yale University, 1997.[25] Myerson A. North of the Border, Peso’s Drop is Hurting Stores. New York: The New York Times,

1995;A1:C6.[26] Simonson S. Garbage Pickup OK’d at Colonias. Laredo, TX: Laredo Morning Times,

1994;1A:14A.[27] Thompson J. Warm Weather and Bad Whiskey: The 1886 Laredo Election Riot. El Paso, TX:

Western Press, 1991:28–29;3463, 103.[28] Conny B. Coors: A Catalyst for Change. Golden, CO: Adolph Coors, 1990:75–100.[29] Anon. El Rıo Bravo es el mas Contaminado de America del Norte. Nuevo Laredo, Mexico: El

Manana, 1994:B-2.[30] Salas-Porras A. Nuestra Frontera Norte. Mexico City: Nuestro Tiempo, 1989:7–42.[31] US Custom House Guide. United States Custom House Guide. Philadelphia: North American

Publishing, 1994;C-233:F-760.[32] Buckholz D. Aluminum Cans. In: Lund H, editor. The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1993:12.1–12.24.[33] Peck M. The World Aluminum Industry in a Changing Energy Era. Washington DC: Resources for

the Future, 1988:22.[34] Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review for 1987. Washington DC: Aluminum

Association, 1988:5–45.[35] Graham R. The Aluminum Industry and the Third World: multinational corporations and

underdevelopment. London: Zed Press 1983;31:86–89.[36] Sorrentino A. Strong recovery to continue through 1995, standard and Poor’s industry surveys.

Nonferrous Met 1995;2:M80.


[37] Milbank D. Aluminum Firms Glut Problems Mount. New York: The Wall Street Journal,1992:2–A.

[38] Behrmann N. Aluminum Soars to Four-Year High in London as Strong Demand, Weak SupplyPropel Market. New York: The Wall Street Journal, 1994:14C.

[39] Birkbeck C. Self-Employed proletarians in an informal factory: the case of Cali’s garbage dump.World Dev 1978;9-10:1173–85.

[40] Birkbeck Ch. Garbage, Industry and the vultures of Cali, Colombia. In: Bromley R, Gerry Ch,editors. Casual Work and Poverty in Third World Cities. New York: John Wiley, 1979:161–183.

[41] Sicular D. Scavengers, Recyclers and Solutions for Solid Waste in Indonesia. Berkeley: Universityof California at Berkeley’s Center for Southeast Asia Studies, 1992.

[42] Lomnitz L. Networks of Marginality: Life in a Mexican Shantytown. New York: Academic Press,1977.

[43] Souza P. Emprego, Salario e Pobreza. Sao Paulo, Brazil: HUCI-TECFUNCAMP, 1980:22–25.[44] Lenski R, Nolan P. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. 6th ed. New York:

McGraw–Hill, 1991:93–117.[45] Burch S, Ellana L. Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research. Oxford, England: Berg Publishers,

1994:1–9.[46] Kelly R. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer lifeways. Washington DC: Smithso-

nian Institution Press, 1995:1–30.

.

border scavenging: a case study of aluminum recycling in laredo, tx and nuevo laredo, mexico

Documents