Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Brazilian Cities According to the Updated Waste Management Condition Index –ICGRA

Introduction

Problems related to the inadequate management of solid waste have always been present in human societis and have become more complex with the evolution of social organizations and modes of production. According to Worrell W, et al. [1], until the Industrial Revolution little importance was given to the sanitary conditions of cities as far as solid waste is concerned. But with the intense growth of cities during the Industrial Revolution, waste began to gain importance, mainly due to public health issues.

Deficiencies in waste management systems generate damage to the environment and public health, which is particularly evident in developing and underdeveloped countries. From 1900 to 2015, humanity extracted from the planet a total of 3400 Gigatons (Gt) of Biomass, fossil fuels, ores, and minerals. From this number of natural resources, 73% were returned to the environment in the form of waste (solid, liquid, or gaseous) [2].

According to Marshall RE, et al. [3], developing countries such as Brazil need to invest in scientific, theoretical and practical improvements in solid waste management, allowing the creation of participatory, contextual and adaptive strategies that allow real progress towards strengthening the country’s infrastructure.

A large part of the waste generated in the world has the potential for reuse or recycling. In 2016, more than 0.45 Gigatons (Gt) of Electronic Waste were produced worldwide, with less than 20% being reused through efficient and environmentally safe methods [4, 5]. Municipal waste in low- and middle- income countries is predominantly food waste, while in high-income countries, waste is predominantly dry, such as plastics, paper, metal, and glasses [6]. Both organic matter and dry residues have high recycling potential.

The problems of waste management in developing countries include small coverage area, deficiencies in the collection, open dumps - and informal management, among others [7].

While in developed countries there is an increasing trend to reduce the amount of waste destined for landfills, increasing the rate of percentage of treatment such as recycling, composting, anaerobic digestion and incineration with energy use, Brazil has been unsuccessful in eradicating landfills and open dumps.

Federal Law 12.305 of 2010 established the National Solid Waste Policy (PNRS), aftrer nearly 20 years of debate in Congress, reflecting great difficulties and bureaucratic barriers that had to be overcome. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of this law is largely unknown [8]. According to Fernandes V, et al. [9], in a survey carried out in 2014 among 5.570 Brazilian municipalities, only 844 sent waste to sanitary landfills, 1.775 admitted that waste was disposed of incorrectly and 2.951 did not even respond to the survey.

Fernandes V, et al. [9] also pointed out that only 36.3% of the municipalities surveyed in 2014 had established the Basic Municipal Sanitation Plan required by the law and only about 37% performed some type of selective collection. Godoy MRB, et al. [10] pointed out that at the end of August 2012, only 10% of municipalities had developed solid waste plans. A bill approved by the Senate (PLS 425/2014) would extend the deadline for municipalities to eradicate dumps, but the bill has not yet been approved by the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of Brazil’s Congress). The real problem is twofold: the shortage of revenue to put the PNRS into action and the lack of follow-on regulations establishing penalties for failure of municipal governments and officials to comply. In general, the effectiveness of MSW management has been assessed by the amount sent for final disposal in landfills. One of the main methods for evaluation of MSW landfills is the Landfill Quality Index (IQR), developed in a pioneering way by CETESB, the São Paulo state environmental agency, in 1997 [11]. This index ony requires evaluating the conditions of the disposal of MSW in landfills. It does not demonstrate the overall conditions of environmental management of MSW. Based on this premise, Dantas KMC, et al. [12] proposed a new evaluation methodo for urban solid waste management, through an index composed of indicators to evaluate the management as a whole, called the Waste Management Condition Index (ICGR in the Portuguese initials).

Although the ICGR is in line with the current situation, the requirements brought about by the National Solid Waste Policy in Brazil, as well as the evolution of treatment of residues through energy recovery technologies and other modern techniques, require the adaptation of the index through insertion of some new indicators, to update the method to evaluat the environmental performance of municipal solid waste management.

The ICGRA, was thought and developed as an evolution of the ICGR proposed by Dantas KMC, et al. [12]. Both indices are valid and can be applied separately or together. The ICGRA was developed in 2016 and applied in ten municipalities in the State of Rio de Janeiro.

The difference between the indexes is that the ICGRA has twenty-two indicators, in addition to those already used in the ICGR and the indicators of the ICGRA aims to evaluate modern aspects of solid waste management, not evaluated by the ICGR.

Through a critical analysis of the National Waste Policy we can raise some misconceptions. Second Ribeiro SG, et al. [13], the PNRS for some was the salvation of the country, but, in fact, does not want to change anything except, perhaps, the construction of some sanitary landfills rather than dumps, which is very little. A of the PNRS misconceptions presented by Ribeiro SG, et al. [13] was not to include the energy use of the residues in the hierarchy of management actions. Other misconceptions of the PNRS that we can cite are the following:

• The lack of encouragement for solutions other than the landfill, the definition of landfill as well as not attacking the bio-waste problem.
• Does not establish that the energy recovery of waste is higher than landfill in the hierarchy of actions, by the high percentage of non-recyclable plastics.
• Does not establish incentives for the sale of energy from waste heat treatment plants, which could make them viable.
• Does not cite the separation at source as the basis for recycling and composting.
• Through the PNRS, recycling in Brazil is incipient and stimulated by poverty.
• The recycling chain may have the participation of scavengers, but it has to be managed in a professional way, by the difficulty of organization of the collectors who in general, are of very low educational level.

According to Tchobanoglous G, et al. [14], integrated solid waste management is the selection and appropriate application of techniques, technologies and management programs to achieve the specific goals and objectives of a waste management plan. The authors mentioned also point out that the integrated management is adopted to apply the different federal and state legislations that were created on the subject, however, the strategies may be different in each region.

Tchobanoglous G, et al. [14] cited the case of the State of California in the USA as an example. The Environmental Protection Agency has defined the hierarchy of actions in waste management as follows: (1) reduction at source (2) recycling and composting (3) energy recovery / heat treatment (4) disposal in landfills. However, the State of California has replaced energy recovery from waste processing and, according to the authors cited, the Indicator differentiated interpretation of the hierarchy of actions for integrated waste management should remain variable in other American States.

Results and Discussion

The way in which the ICGRA evaluation worksheet is set up allows the generation of two evaluation indexes. The ICGR - Waste Management Condition index used in the evaluation performed by Dantas KMC, et al. [11] and the ICGRA - updated Waste Management Condition index, generated after insertion of the 22 indicators presented in Table 1. This method allowed evaluating, by the differences between the two indexes, the quantitative effect on the final score of including the new indicators.

Comparing the two indexes reached by each municipality evaluated, it can be seen that all had an updated index value (ICGRA) below the ICGR value. This shows that when assessing the aspects of the PNRS and new techniques, all the municipalities leave much to be desired, as shown in Table 2.

Source: author. Table 2: Results of the evaluation of waste management in the municipalities of the state of Rio de Janeiro in 2016 comparing ICGR with ICGRA. Source: The authors.

By comparing the 10 municipalities studied, considering that they were evaluated in 2008. It was possible to analyze the positive or negative evolution in the solid waste management systems, as shown in Table 3.

The indicators in Figure 1 were evaluated according to the level of service of each of them, reaching the final value, calculated through the weighted average of the indicators with their respective weights.

The differentiation of worse or better. Refers to the indices served in 2008 compared to the indices served in 2016. The same municipalities were evaluated in 2 different periods (2008 and 2016)

Source: author Table 3: Comparison of the ICGR in 2008 and 2016 of the 10 municipalities evaluated. Source: The authors.

According to the data presented in Table 3, between 2008 and 2016, the waste management of six municipalities deteriorated according to the ICGR while four improved, but in all cases this evolution was modest. With the exception of Cachoeiras de Macacu, which improved by 62% in the ICGR, the other three municipalities that presented improvement evolved by an average of 11% in the ICGR.

The mean ICGR deteriorartion of the six was almost 30%. Therefore, in addition to the larger number of municipalities obtaining worse scores (6 out of 10), the average percentage of deterioration was higher than the improvement percentage of the other four municipalities.

The differentiation of worse or better. Refers to the indices served in 2008 compared to the indices served in 2016. The same municipalities were evaluated in 2 different periods (2008 and 2016). Those that obtained the ICGR better in 2016 when compared to 2008 have improved.

According to the results, we can conclude that the PNRS has not been effective for the following reason: the indicators used in the ICGR assessment index contain elements predicted in the PNRS, such as reverse logistics, waste disposal, selective collection and others. In 6 of the 10 municipalities evaluated, the indices surveyed in 2016 were worse than those presented in 2008. Even in the municipalities that improved the indices, there were several problems in the field management in the waste management.

Conclusions

The ICGRA (Updated Waste Management Condition Index) is an evaluation metric that is practical, inexpensive and easy to apply. The scores showed that very few municipalities have evolved positively in relation to solid waste management.

Even after the first six years of the National Solid Waste Policy in Brazil (PNRS), there was little improvement and in the majority (60%) of the municipalities there was deterioration. The only effect of this policy, verified at the time of the research, was the relative reduction of waste disposal in leaks and dumps, at least in an indiscriminate manner, yet the enclosed leaks were neither remedied nor recovered. The research proved that the PNRS did not present effective results until the present.

Municipal governments do not give proper priority to solid waste management and are unable to effectively carry out waste management activities.

There is still a great difficulty in obtaining data on waste management in cities, which proves that transparency and access to information are not yet present in municipal public administrations, at least as they should be.

Another finding was the great difficulty of all the municipal governments surveyed to improve the forms of collection. Some do not charge garbage collection fees and none of systems are financially self-sufficient.

The government officals claim that one of the obstacles to good service delivery is the cost issue, but they do not carry out financial control of the system, they do not perform cost-benefit or opportunity cost analyses of investing in other sectors.

In the municipalities studied, waste management is still not seen as requiring an integrated system, there is no integration of policies, projects or actions. In addition, the correct regulation and inspection of the services performed, either by the city governments themselves or by outsourced companies, was not verified.

It was verified from the verified results that the cities evaluated in 2008 and 2016 did not evolve satisfactorily in solid waste management.

Acknowledgements

We thank the city officials of the municipalities evaluated in this study, as well as the managers of public and private companies that manage solid waste in the cities studied. The authors would like to thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, FAPERJ.