ELDERS

On most Reserves the last few generations have seen many changes. Water supply systems have been built, and septic tanks or sewage systems have replaced outhouses. There is better housing, more cars, different health care, and so on.

ENTHUSIASTS

Most of us prefer not to think about trash and garbage. ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ is what we would like. Why not? We flush our toilets, and then forget about sewage disposal; why not the same for our garbage and trash?

On many Reserves, however, ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ is becoming more and more difficult. We are having to take more and more garbage to the dump each week, and the dump itself is a mess: paper and plastic blowing all over the place, trash lying about everywhere, and the place smells awful.

There is a better way, and it isn't difficult or expensive. Many First Nations are already doing all or most of what is needed. To understand the solution, however, we need to understand the problem, which is in fact several different problems that have to be solved in different ways.

• More and more solid waste. In the old days, First Nations did not produce much waste, and what there was usually came from and decayed back into the local landscape. Those days are long gone, even in remote communities. From disposable diapers to old automobiles, more and more waste is produced. If the system we have for handling waste hasn't changed much from the old days, no wonder it can't cope.
  
  
• The dump is a mess, and it's getting worse. More garbage means more trips. The dump isn't fenced, and everyone just drops their stuff wherever it seems easiest. Paper and plastics blow on the wind: you can see stuff from the dump long before you get there. And it's a dangerous place for the kids.
  
  
• Health and environment risks. Burning wastes — either at the dump or in the old oil barrel at the end of the driveway — releases air pollutants, especially when plastics and other unknown materials are mixed in with the waste. And as the material in the dump decays, it can contaminate the groundwater and nearby streams.
  
  
• Hazardous wastes. The dump contains all sorts of materials that should not be there. Many of them may come from individual homes. Environment Canada lists the following items that should not go into the general waste, but they often do:
  
  

  antifreeze batteries brake fluid chemical strippers chlorine bleach contact cement drain cleaners fire extinguishers flea collars and sprays herbicides

  insect repellent insecticides kerosene lawn chemicals lighter fluid lye mothballs nail polish remover old propane tanks paints

  pesticides pool chemicals prescription drugs solvents spot removers stains and finishes toilet cleaners used motor oil oven cleaners.

  
  
  
• Much of the problem of household hazardous wastes can be solved through remembering one of the 3Rs: reduction. In this case it means buying only the amount that it is needed at any time: the small size instead of the large.
  
  
• Unauthorized dumping. Because our dump is unfenced, and easy to get at, people from off-Reserve are dumping their wastes here because they have to pay at their own town landfill. Or, worse, we think some people are dumping hazardous materials in our dump, because there is no legal and cheap method of getting rid of them elsewhere.

That will depend on the local situation. But most of the following are likely to help considerably.

• Replace ‘haul-your-own’ by centralized garbage collection. This makes life easier for individuals and families, but the main advantage is that the disposal site can be managed properly. It doesn't have to be open to all comers all the time, so it can be fenced. This reduces blowing materials, and also prevents unauthorized dumping. Better still, if all the waste arrives in bulk, it can be dumped in a specific place and then quickly covered with soil.
  
  
• Reduce the amount of waste created. Some of this depends on manufacturers, stores, etc. (and they are reducing the amount of material in glass bottles, drink cans and other containers). But it also depends on individuals and families. The less that goes to the dump, the less nuisance it will cause when it gets there, and the longer the present dump will last.
  
  
• Recycling. Every community needs a recycling program. Separating materials such as paper, cardboard, glass, metal and some plastics is easy in each home, makes a tremendous difference in the amount of garbage, and collecting it can be a source of income for the community.
  
  
• Other special collections. If the First Nation has centralized waste collection, it should be easy to provide for occasional pick-ups of hazardous household wastes, and for pick-up of large items such as old furniture or appliances (maybe twice a year for everyone, or at other times by special arrangement).
  
  
• Stop burning trash. If wastes and recyclables are being collected regularly, there is no reason to burn, and plenty of reasons why it is a bad idea.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHER MANAGERS

Although First Nations have assumed many more responsibilities in recent years, and have increased the range of services provided to their members, solid waste management has seldom been a priority. Typically it has been a mixed responsibility: the Public Works Department (PWD), or other group responsible for community services, establishes and maintains a dump site, but it is the individual's responsibility to get trash to the site.

‘Out of sight; out of mind’: that has been the general attitude to waste disposal. And maybe it is a good test of success. If the individual does not have to worry about solid wastes, any more than he or she worries about sewage after flushing the toilet, the First Nation has probably got a system that works.

In recent years, however, ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ has been difficult to achieve, for several reasons:

• Dump sites have overflowed with increasing volumes of the wastes from modern society;
  
  
• Some of these wastes, from PCBs to old tires, have proved to be environmental and health hazards;
  
  
• Neighbourhoods near the dump object to plastics, paper and other materials littering the ground, blown on the wind, and polluting nearby water areas and groundwater;
  
  
• What used to be a harmless or even helpful habit, such as burning household wastes in an old oil barrel at the end of the driveway, has become a significant source of air pollution and a health risk, as plastics, chemicals and other materials appear in the materials that are burned;
  
  
• Some First Nations find that their dump sites are increasingly used by others, perhaps because the dump is easily accessible at no charge, whereas the local municipality charges a fee. Or, more ominously, people may be coming on to the Reserve to dump hazardous wastes that they cannot legally dispose of cheaply or easily elsewhere.

It should be possible for most First Nations to get back to ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ for solid wastes, and to do this fairly easily and cheaply. But it will require more organization than was needed in the past. It will need the First Nation to think of solid waste management as a system, just as water supply, sewage disposal, fire protection and other needs have come to be managed systematically.

The three main elements of the system are:

• Waste creation;
• Waste collection;
• Waste disposal.

The main aims in designing a better system are:

• less responsibility (and more convenience) for individuals, families, offices and other sources of waste;
• protection of the environment and human health;
• keeping costs down (e.g. extend life of disposal site, get cash for recyclables).

The key requirement of a better system for most First Nations is likely to be:

• centralized collection of wastes, by the PWD or a contractor.

One reason why centralized waste collection is crucial is because it makes it possible to manage the final disposal site — dump or sanitary landfill — more efficiently.

First, some definitions. A sanitary landfill is ‘A method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety’. Anything else is a dump.

Unfortunately, there are few sanitary landfills, but many dumps. Environment Canada has listed 10 criteria, all of which need to be satisfied if a disposal site is to qualify as a sanitary landfill.

• No solid waste should be burned at the sanitary landfill.
  
  

  ‘Open burning of solid waste creates odours, air pollution, fire and safety hazards. It also adversely affects public acceptance of the operation and proper location of future sanitary landfill sites. Open burning for any reason converts the operation to that of the open dump.’

  
  
  
• Access to a sanitary landfill should be limited to those times when an attendant is on duty and/or only to those authorized to dispose of solid wastes.
  
  

  ‘If public access is permitted when no attendant is on duty, scavenging, burning, and indiscriminate dumping commonly occur. Furthermore by selectively authorizing use of the disposal site traffic is reduced and operational hazards are minimized.’

  
  
  
• A uniform compacted layer of at least 0.15 metres (6 inches) of suitable earth cover should be placed on all exposed waste by the end of each working day, or at such more frequent intervals as may be necessary.
  
  

  Daily or more frequent covering is necessary to prevent insect and rodent infestation, blowing litter, fire hazards, an unsightly appearance, and to help control gas and water movement.

  
  
  
• Blowing litter should be controlled by fencing placed near the working area or by the use of earth banks or natural barriers. The entire site should be policed at least daily and litter clean-up operations performed as required to prevent unsightly conditions. Unloading methods should minimize the scattering of solid waste.

Many sites — both on Reserves and elsewhere in Canada — fail one or more of these four tests, and are therefore to be considered dumps. The remaining criteria can be listed more briefly:

• The location and operation must have the approval of the appropriate governmental agency;
  
  
• Solid waste should be spread in uniform layers;
  
  
• Salvaging should not be permitted at the working face of the sanitary landfill;
  
  
• Provisions should be made for all-weather access roads leading to the disposal site;
  
  
• Toxic, pathogenic, corrosive, flammable, explosive, and other hazardous wastes should receive special handling;
  
  
• A uniform layer of earth cover compacted to a minimum depth of 0.6 metres (2 feet) should be placed over the entire covered section of the fill area, not later than one week after filling the section has been completed.

How can First Nations make their waste disposal sites more like sanitary landfills than dumps? Partly through using Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) funding provisions, and partly by action in the individual community. Funding from INAC for new waste disposal sites is based on provincial or similar standards, and is usually aimed at creating ‘modified sanitary landfills’. Funding for operation and maintenance (O&M) through the Capital Assets Management System takes into account the higher costs of operating a sanitary landfill, as compared to a dump.

In the individual community, the first requirement is that solid waste management is given the priority it needs, for health, safety and environmental reasons. Many First Nations have neglected this in the past, and have diverted money intended for waste management O&M to other priorities.

The Public Works Department is likely to be the key factor in ensuring that solid waste management is taken seriously by the community. The PWD knows the importance of having a system, and it runs other systems water supply, sewage disposal, roads, etc. so that the rest of the community does not have to worry about them. The PWD is the logical body to take on the main requirement in good solid waste management: centralized collection and disposal.

Even if most disposal sites are dumps rather than sanitary landfills, clearly the more of these requirements a dump can meet, the better. If we focus on the first four requirements — no burning, controlled access, daily covering of wastes, and fencing — it becomes easier to see why centralized collection can lead to significant improvements.

In situations where everyone is expected to haul their own garbage to the dump, the site manager will usually find it difficult to control access to the site and also the specific location on the site where wastes are deposited. If the site is unfenced, people can access it day or night. If the site is fenced, and the gate padlocked outside specific hours, some people will be liable to dump their trash outside the fence. Even if the management does have a staff person on-site during permitted hours, he or she may lack the authority to insist that people deposit ‘here, but not there’.

Contrast this with what may be possible with centralized collection. The site can be fenced, and access provided only when garbage trucks need it. The site can be worked in an orderly manner, using trench, area, or bank methods as appropriate, because the truck operators can place all the waste in a limited area, go, and the material can then be quickly covered. Problems of unauthorized or out-of-hours dumping, at least from on-Reserve sources, are much reduced, since most people would rather put out material for collection, instead of hauling their own to the site.

Centralized collection also offers more opportunities for other improvements, including separation and collection of wastes of different types, or participation by the First Nation in regional waste disposal schemes.

Recyclables. Collecting and disposing of recyclables separately from other wastes is clearly a good thing to do as a way of protecting the environment and conserving resources. For those responsible for waste management it has two other potential advantages: sale of reusable or recyclable materials may be a source of income, and there is a substantial reduction in the amount of material that must go to the dump or landfill, so extending its life considerably. This last consideration may be enough in itself to justify a recyclables program, even if the local market for the materials is weak.

Someone has said that ‘No recyclable program has ever failed for lack of enthusiasm’. That may be a slight exaggeration, but experience does show that most individuals and families are willing to separate recyclables from other wastes, provided that they can be assured that there will be regular and frequent collection, or that convenient drop off centres or bins are available. In the early days, some programs failed because there was only a very limited market for recycled materials, but that situation is constantly changing: the types of materials for which a market exists are increasing, and the prices that are paid are tending to rise. Clearly, management needs to explore the market before a regular program is initiated and it may be necessary to start with only a few items (e.g. paper, cardboard, glass, metal cans) adding other types later.

Large items. Many communities arrange for special collections of major items (old appliances, furniture, automobiles) once or twice a year. In a small community, such as a First Nation, it may also be feasible to provide such special pick-ups on request at other times of the year. Disposal may neither be easy nor profitable for management, but the advantage to the safety and appearance of the community is real.

Hazardous household wastes. Many individuals and families do not realize that many of the items they use regularly should be separated from other wastes for careful disposal. Even if they are aware, they may not know what to do with such wastes. Environment Canada suggests special handling for the following items, among others:

From the point of the individual with such wastes, the essential requirement is again regularity of collection. Maybe a special hazardous waste pick-up is only worthwhile every three or six months, but people are likely to separate and retain such materials if they can be sure that pick-up will happen. Some families with small children, however, may be unwilling to hold hazardous wastes for any length of time. The PWD or other waste manager way want to provide pick-up on request, pick-up (in clearly marked bags) with other wastes, or a drop-off facility for hazardous wastes.

Medical wastes. The opinion among waste management professionals in Canada seems to be that the dangers from improper disposal of medical wastes have, with some exceptions, been exaggerated. Health services and other principal sources of medical wastes usually have a well-organized system for collecting, protecting and disposing of medical wastes. However, ‘waste sharps’ (needles, syringes, blades, glass) are liable to accumulate in private homes and elsewhere (e.g. from regular use by diabetics). The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) recommends that these need special treatment if they are to be disposed of in dumps or landfills; the CCME also publishes a leaflet on Biomedical Waste and more detailed Guidelines for the Management of Biomedical Waste in Canada, available from federal, provincial and territorial Environment Departments.

In addition to disposal in dumps or landfills, wastes are often burned, usually either at relatively low temperatures by individuals or families, or at much higher temperatures (1000+ C) in large-volume municipal incinerators.

The CCME has published Operating and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. These emphasize that systems which do not meet these high standards should be banned. Probably no First Nation generates wastes in volumes which would justify the cost of building and operating a system that could meet such standards, though some First Nations may contribute their wastes to regional incinerators of an acceptable standard. Another exception may be in the use of high- quality but small scale incinerators in northern Canada, where permafrost or the danger to water resources make incineration preferable to disposal on land areas.

In any case, there is general agreement that individual burning of wastes (typically in the old oil barrel at the end of the driveway) is a significant health hazard and should be strongly discouraged. Because such burning is so widespread and long-established, and because the damage it causes is not immediately obvious, bringing it to an end may not be easy. A poster or similar education campaign (e.g. emphasizing the toxic nature of smoke from many plastics in household use) may be helpful. However, once again, centralized collection of wastes may be the best disincentive, since it is an easy alternative for the individual.

In the long run, the trend in Canada seems to be for solid waste disposal to move not merely from being an individual responsibility to a community service, but towards region-wide management systems that include a number of communities. Partly this is a matter of the economies of scale, expressed in such items as the cost of collection and disposal equipment, labour requirements at disposal sites, etc. Partly also it is a matter of available disposal sites. Many First Nations occupy relatively small Reserves and have better uses for the land than as waste sites; some, by contrast, may have potential sites that could safely serve a much larger population and provide a significant source of income from tipping fees or collection contracts.

One of the advantages of regional cooperation is that it does not need to wait for a comprehensive approach. It can begin very simply with an agreement to share an existing or new collection and compaction truck. Many administrative units, First Nations included, may need the equipment on only one or two days each week: why not share the costs with another authority with similar requirements? More generally, partnerships of this kind can help to reduce the costs of creating and maintaining disposal sites, and can help to ensure that the volume of recyclable material collected is sufficient to find a ready market.

There is a vast amount of information available on solid waste management, from highly technical standards and requirements to simple information guides for individuals and community groups. The regional offices of INAC have much of the technical information, and federal, provincial and territorial governments (especially environment ministries) have more general material.

TODAY'S GENERATION RESTORING OLD WAYS

In the past, our people lived in harmony with the Earth and used as much of her gifts as possible, leaving very little waste. That is what was taught - take care of the land, water, air and animals for future generations. Careless dumping or burning of garbage, especially with the amounts we make today, goes against those teachings. Here we focus on the children who will inherit our Earth, and who can ensure that, in the future as in the past, we respect its gifts and its needs.

Coping with present and future problems of solid waste management — handling the increasing amounts of trash, garbage, litter and so on — involves a three part system:

• waste creation (or, more positively, waste reduction);
• waste collection;
• waste disposal.

We have tended to worry only about the last of these: mainly about the state of the dump sites. But waste management experts stress instead that:

• Waste reduction is the most important part of the system. If the volume of material that has to be collected and disposed of can be reduced, everything else — including protection of the environment and human health — becomes much easier;
  
  
• Waste reduction involves changes in people's habits: in the home, at work, and everywhere that waste materials are generated. Children are the key to such changes: if they understand the need for waste reduction, they will be enthusiastic waste reducers, and they will also educate their parents.

• 1. Because children are the key to many desirable changes — in First Nations and throughout Canada — schools are constantly asked to add items to the curriculum, or to find other ways to ‘get the message across’. What follows are facts, ideas and suggestions that are intended as a resource for teachers and school administrators. They are the people who know what is possible and desirable in their specific situations.
  
  
• 2. Some of the ideas and suggestions depend on changes elsewhere in the waste management system. Recycling is a very good example: there is no point in encouraging children to separate and collect paper, cans, bottles and other recyclable material if the school or First Nation has no way of getting these materials to places where they can be reused or recycled.

• More and more waste materials. In the past, indigenous people lived in a close relationship with nature. Their food, clothing, housing, fuel and other needs all came from the land and water around them. Little of it was wasted, and when it was no longer needed, the materials quickly decayed and were recycled naturally. Those days are long gone. Like other Canadians, indigenous people have more and more things, and produce more and more wastes. And this happens from the day we are born to the day we die: one of the biggest waste disposal problems for some First Nations is the so-called ‘disposable’ diaper. There are lots of them, and they are not very ‘disposable’, one child may use several thousand, and the child is likely to be middle-aged before the diapers have finally decomposed in the dump or landfill!
  
  
• Different types of waste. One way of looking at waste is to ask What is it made of? Paper, plastic, uneaten food, old clothes, old or broken equipment. The list is endless.

A better way of thinking about waste is What should be done with it?

• Can it be reused?
• Can it be recycled?
• Does it need special handling because it may harm people or the environment?

If people ask questions like those, and then follow up with the right actions, the amount of ‘real’ waste will be much reduced, and what does go to the dump will be much safer.

If we think of three parts to the system: waste creation/reduction, waste collection, and waste disposal, what are we trying to do at each stage?

• Waste creation/reduction: keep the amount of wastes we create as small as possible.

  Canadians as a whole are not good at this. The average Canadian produces about 1.7 kg of waste a day. The average person in Sweden produces about half that amount. The amount of waste produced in Ontario increased by 25% in ten years (1980-1990). Indigenous people may produce a smaller amount of waste per person than other Canadians, but the amount of waste on Reserves is increasing rapidly.

  
  
  
• Waste collection: sort wastes according to their type and future destination.
  
  Four main groups to be considered:
  
  

  (a) Recyclables. If there is a system for collecting recyclables, a quarter or more of household and office wastes may be saved for recycling;
  
  

• (b) Hazardous wastes. A surprising number of items require special handling if they are to be safe for the environment and human health after disposal (see below);
  
  
• (c) Big items. Old cars, furniture, appliances, etc. These are liable to stay around as eyesores, but they are difficult to include in ordinary garbage. They may have some value as scrap or recyclables if collected in quantity during ‘spring clean-up’ and similar occasions;
  
  
• (d) Residual wastes. This is what is left to go to the dump or landfill: the aim is to keep this as small as possible by sorting out recyclables, reusables, etc.
  
• Waste disposal. The aim is to keep the disposal site from becoming a danger to human health or the environment, and from being an unpleasant eyesore in the community. Traditional ‘haul-your-own-and-dump’ by individuals and families makes this difficult. Best if collection and disposal is run by the Public Works Department or other professional managers.

• The best way to solve the solid waste disposal problem is not to create the waste in the first place.
  
• Many items can be reused for the same or similar purposes (bottles, boxes and other containers, etc.). Many more are composed of materials that can be recycled (paper, metal cans, some plastics, etc.). Some materials can be composted and used locally.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When the Walpole Island Heritage Centre and Chreod Ltd. were invited to prepare a waste management manual that might be useful to other First Nations, it was obvious that such a model needed to take into account environmental settings, and existing knowledge bases, very different from those encountered in southwestern Ontario at Walpole Island. We are therefore grateful for the co-operation of numerous individuals across Canada. We are grateful also for assistance provided by officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Despite this valuable help, the present manual could undoubtedly be improved through the knowledge and experience of others. The authors welcome comments, criticisms and suggestions; these may be addressed to either of the following locations: