Cities, Consumption, and the Generation of Waste

By Jutta Gutberlet University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada Global Environmental Change and Urban Growth
Rapid urban growth induces global environmental change, particularly when it comes to production, consumption, and the generation of waste. According to the United Nations, most of the world's population will be living in cities by the year 2030. In developing countries, urban agglomerations are growing at twice the rate of overall population growth. Each day, approximately 160,000 people migrate from rural to urban areas. The estimated urban growth rate for more developed regions is 0.5%, compared to 2.7% in less developed regions, and 4.5% in least developed regions. One of the consequences of this urban explosion is the generation of an enormous amount of waste. Despite the many social, environmental, and economic differences between large cities, there are some obvious similarities in terms of environmental quality. Cities worldwide produce much more garbage and other waste than they can manage. Often, solid waste is transported over long distances, transferred into other regions, or not collected at all. Many cities in developing countries fail to collect significant proportions of the cities' household waste. In most South American cities, 20 to 50% of the household waste is not collected (Ferguson & Maurer, 1996: 120). Similar figures are reported from other parts of the world. In Calcutta, about 82% of the waste is collected, while other municipalities within the metropolitan area of Calcutta only collect between 20 and 50% of the waste generated (Hasan and Khan, 1999: 104). The overall efficiency of waste collection in India is reported to be 72.5% (Gupta et al., 1998: 139). The steady increase in per capita consumption makes it difficult to keep up with the growing volume of waste. Adequate solid waste management is still lacking in most city administrations even though waste has direct impacts on human well-being. It can bring about serious threats to human health through the lack of waste collection, incineration, or leachate from waste dumps. Often, land use conflicts arise when the government decides on new locations for sanitary landfills or for the operation of incinerators. In most cases, the local population is opposed to having sanitary landfills in their neighborhoods. Environmental awareness and social mobilization is a growing issue, particularly in the South. The environmental justice movement specifically addresses the unequal distribution of environmental burdens from waste management in the community. Bullard (1994), Pulido (1996), Markham and Rufa (1997), among others, highlight the decisive role of race, class, and poverty levels as determinants for hazardous waste site locations. This article discusses urbanization and the generation of solid waste under the perspective of global environmental change and its link to human security in developing countries. It examines, in more detail, the case of So Paulo, Brazil, a city of extremes in population size and the production of goods and services, but also in terms of socio-economic disparities. So Paulo is experiencing severe

environmental health problems with water and soil contamination, air pollution, floods and landslides during the rainy season, and increasing generation and irregular dumping of garbage. Despite being the largest production centre in Brazil, So Paulo has extremely unequal living conditions.

Figure 1. Growth in Total Consumption Expenditures, 1970 to 1995

Source: The State of World Population 2001 http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2001/english/ch03.html

It has a large and growing number of socially excluded people. Nevertheless, So Paulo is experiencing social mobilization. The irregular squatting movement is the most visible and effective, demanding solutions for the lack of housing, public services, and basic infrastructure. Recently, segments of the no or low-income population, such as the informal recycling sector, have become more organized. This article discusses a current proposal for alternative waste management in So Paulo, incorporating the socially excluded who are already in charge of informal waste recovery. All over the world we find examples of waste recycling generating income. This creates opportunities for change and provides a possibility for advances in our global environmental agenda with a redirection of current unsustainable trends.

Consequences of Consumption in an Uneven World

Urbanization adds to global environmental change because it is based on energy intensive production and lifestyles, resulting in significant environmental and health impacts. The generation of waste has become an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. So far, very little has been done to reduce waste generation or to stimulate waste recovery. Since the 1950s, mass consumption on a global scale has increased significantly. Western consumption patterns have been transferred to the developing world as symbols of progress. Worldwide private and public consumption has grown from US $10.2 trillion in 1970 to US $17 trillion in 1995 (see Figure 1).

However, there is a large disparity between the consumption levels in rich and in poor countries. The following figure highlights the existing differences in access to energy resources and specific consumer goods between the wealthiest and the poorest. Consumption rates are still highest in industrial countries and the population in developing countries generates only 24% of the total private consumption expenditure. In 70 countries with almost a billion persons, per capita GDP is lower than it was 25 years ago (see Figure 2). High consumption levels generally correlate with intense resource use and waste production. A person in regions considered of High Human Development generates up to 2 kg of waste per day. Among the largest waste producers are industrialized nations, in particular the United States and Canada, with respectively 2 and 1.7 kg per person per day, approximately double that generated among the urban population in Latin America (1 kg/person/day), Hong Kong (1.01 kg/person/day), or Guangzhou, China (1.09 kg/person/day) (Chung and Poo, 1998: 207). According to Cotton et al. (1999), cities in low-income countries generate on average between 300 and 600 grams of waste per person per day. Over the past 10 to 15 years, per capita solid waste generation has increased in almost every city around the world. Household waste can be quite different in moisture content and biodegradability. Waste in high-income countries usually has a moisture content of 20 to 40%, whereas in low-income countries it varies between 40 and 80% (Cotton et al., 1999: 3). In Brazil, approximately 38% of the total weight of the garbage generated can be recycled (on average, the garbage composition is 25% paper, 4% metal, 3% glass, and 6 to 7% plastics) (Grimberg and Blauth, 1998). Changing lifestyle and consumer attitude, however, are responsible for an increase in the percentage of recyclable waste in developing countries. In India, for example, the proportion of recyclables in household waste has increased from 9.6% in the early 1970s to 17.2% in 1995 (Gupta et al., 1998: 141).

Figure 2. Comparing Consumption Levels

Source: The State of World Population 2001

As a consequence, particularly in large cities in the South, waste scavenging and recycling activities are increasing. A case study in Guangzhou, China indicates a yearly increase of between 8 and 10% in the generation of municipal solid waste. With economic globalization, consumption patterns in the South are becoming increasingly similar to those in the North. One-way, non-biodegradable packaging of food and beverages are on the rise. The disposal of packaging adds to the city's waste accumulation, to the depletion of non-renewable resources (oil, gas, and minerals), and to the exhaustion of the renewable resource base due to soil erosion, air, and water pollution. Environmentally friendly packaging could definitely reduce these environmental impacts.

Waste Generation and Health Threats

Waste can be disposed of in different forms: open dumping, landfilling, or incineration. All of these forms cause direct threats to human health through air, water, and/or soil contamination. Other management alternatives are recycling, composting, and waste minimization. Currently, the most widespread waste disposal form is curbside dumping, with sanitary landfills prevailing in the North and open garbage dumps in the South. Landfills create a number of environmental problems and costs. Besides using up space, they release carbon dioxide and methane gas, which contribute to the greenhouse effect. In India, for example, landfill emissions are the third largest contributors to global warming (Gupta et al., 1998). Garbage dumps, particularly if uncontrolled, are also associated with environmental hazards due to toxic leachate and contamination of drinking water sources. Furthermore, space is usually rare and expensive in large cities. As a result, garbage is transported over large distances to waste dumps which are often located in less populated municipalities. Incineration is also a common procedure to reduce waste, despite strong opposition from local communities in response to pollution and potential health risks. Local politicians, particularly in mega-cities, often see incinerators as an attractive alternative to space intensive landfills. However, incineration causes severe impacts, such as the generation of toxic ashes and air pollution, and is also a waste of resources. Incineration of plastics (Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC and Polyethylene Terephthalate, PET) releases dioxins, furanes, and heavy metals, among others, which are linked to the development of cancer and damage to the human immune system. Further, developing countries usually have to opt for less expensive incineration facilities, which usually means less environmentally friendly technology. Finally, neither incineration nor landfilling is a labor-intensive process. They do not create employment, but rather eliminate jobs from the recycling sector by burning the resources that could be recovered. Irregular garbage dumping is a growing problem in developing countries. It reflects a situation where a significant percentage of households do not have access to adequate, basic infrastructure (sewage collection, drinking water) and services (waste collection, street cleaning). Often the municipal budget is insufficient to cope with rapid population growth and increasing costs for waste collection and disposal. Irregular housing conditions and urban squatting are widespread. According to a United Nations prognosis, half the population of most Asian cities is now living in slums or squatter settlements. In some African cities, up to 90% of the urban population lives under inadequate and risky conditions. In Dar-es-Salam, for example, 70% of city residents live in unplanned areas, most of which are not regularly serviced with basic infrastructure and garbage collection (Halla and Majani, 1999).

Waste that is not collected produces serious and expensive environmental health impacts. It contaminates water and intensifies the effects of flooding and slope instability, as well as propagating insects, rodents, and fungus, which transmit infectious diseases. Many dwellers regularly burn their uncollected waste, which further adds to air contamination. Inadequate open dumping is a common problem in many developing countries and is derived from the lack of other alternatives, the scarcity of human resources and public funds, and a general lack of environmental awareness. It creates contamination, often in fragile environments such as mangroves, dune systems, drinking water catchments, and floodplains, posing a threat to human health.

Opportunities to Improve Human Security

There are innovative pilot recycling programs from which some lessons can be learned. The municipality of Quito, Ecuador, for example, has extended the garbage collection in previously unserviced neighborhoods through small-scale enterprises created by the residents who are in charge of garbage collection. The revenues from the sale of the recyclables go to a fund supporting improvements in the neighborhood (Hernndez et al., 1999). The pilot program has contributed to income generation for the poor and improves public health. Within the Clean and Green Madras City Project, an alliance between the public sector, an NGO, and the community in Chennai, India has provided the opportunity to rehabilitate 250 street kids through their participation in a recycling scheme (Baud et al., 2001). Curitiba, in South Brazil, has introduced the "Purchase of Garbage Program," running since the early 1990s and involving more than 22,000 families from low-income households. Participants sell their bags of garbage in return for bus tickets and agricultural and dairy products. Through this program the city has become cleaner. In Brazil, as in many other countries in the South, for many decades the informal sector has recovered resources such as metal, paper, cardboard, and glass from the domestic waste stream. Recently, the rise in unemployment and the lack of financial resources have driven more and more socially excluded people into activities related to recycling. On the other hand, a nation-wide initiative from the private sector (CEMPRE Compromisso Empresarial para Reciclagem) is promoting the recycling industry. They provide specific credit lines, incentives, and technical support to businesses interested in the sector. Large companies already perceive the attractive economic gains from this activity. Rhodia-Ster, for example, produces PET bottles and also capitalizes on the recycling of these bottles. The number of recycling firms in the formal sector in Brazil has increased from 95 in 1996 to 232 establishments in the year 2000, with 5,398 persons directly involved in the formal recycling sector by the end of 2000 (IBGE, 2002). The number of municipalities implementing resource recovery programs is also on the rise, while attempts to reduce the generation of waste in the first place are almost nonexistent. The challenges to find environmentally sound solutions for our solid waste problem still remain as urgent as ever. The prevailing economic and social systems are inherently based on inequity and unequal development. Social exclusion is an essential component of our society and economy where wealth is, to a large extent, based on the exploitation of others. The term explains a situation that actually goes beyond poverty and consists of the separation of individuals or groups from the rest of society through economic deprivation as well as social and cultural segregation. Social exclusion was first described in Great Britain during the 1970s, when growing unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment,

started to become a serious threat to the functioning of society. In less developed countries, a significant proportion of the population is socially excluded, which translates into: disadvantage in accessing education, professional training, information, and quality health care; low or no income; exposure to high risks due to precariousness and illegality of living conditions (e.g., occupation of steep slopes or floodplains); low quality or lack of public infrastructure and services (including the nonexistence of leisure and recreational infrastructure); high crime and violence rates; and domination through paternalistic and populist political measures, reinforcing the state of exclusion. The most excluded citizens make their living through recycling leftovers of consumption from the affluent society. There are many different forms in which children, women, and men work with domestic solid waste. In countries with less strict environmental regulations and large income disparities, families often live on the garbage dump. Recyclables are also separated in the street, once the garbage is placed for collection. Most valuable resources, such as aluminum cans, glass, and paper are removed from the bin. This activity involves health risks, creates littering in the streets, and consequently increases public spending. A third alternative for waste scavengers is organized informal recycling through small-scale business, neighborhood associations, and co-operatives. Recycling is often the only remaining possibility to provide subsistence for the most impoverished. However, few governments take the opportunity to create employment and mitigate environmental problems through recycling. Particularly in under-serviced, marginal residential areas this could significantly contribute to improve the livelihood of the poor.

New Perspectives in Solid Waste Management: The Case of So Paulo

The city of So Paulo (1,525 km2) is located in the southeast of Brazil. Its population increased from 6 million in 1970 to approximately 10.4 million in 2000 and it is the core of the world's third largest metropolitan agglomeration. Arguably, So Paulo is a global city, the most important finance and service centre in South America that is surrounded by other major industrial production centres. According to the 2000 census, 870,000 people were living in 612 slums (favelas), 182,000 in multi-family housing without proper sanitation (cortios), and another 8,704 were homeless in So Paulo. Besides these figures, there are another 4,600 illegal settlements with inadequate sanitary conditions and lack of services in So Paulo (IBGE, 2000). Although the numbers are much smaller than during the 1970s and 1980s, So Paulo still attracts landless and homeless people who can no longer sustain their livelihood through agriculture. In the city, most jobs available to them are in the informal service sector. Automation in industry is further excluding workers from employment. The number of street vendors and scavengers has increased significantly over the past 15 years. The number of dependents on informal activities in So Paulo has grown by 34% during the 1990s, with 48.8% of the total labor force being in the informal sector in 1999 (Martins and Dombrovski, 2001).

Figure 3. Map of So Paulo, Brazil

The negative social and environmental impacts from rapid urbanization are considerable in So Paulo where infrastructure has not accompanied the fast growth rate of the past decades. A significant proportion of its population is unattended in terms of access to basic infrastructure and public services, including waste collection. The population living in irregular housing, more frequently found in the periphery of the city, improvise in order to satisfy their basic needs, often at the expense of the environment. Untreated sewage discharge and waste disposal are major problems in So Paulo, specifically in the outskirts where recently population has expanded south of the city into the drinking water catchment of Lake Billings and Lake Guarapiranga, undermining the city's drinking water supply. There are already water shortages during the dry season.

Figure 4: Recycling Centre in Pedra sobre Pedra

Figure 5: Manual press engineered by members of the community

As in other countries, consumption has changed drastically during the past decade. Today, the metropolitan region of So Paulo (17.3 million inhabitants, including the municipality of So Paulo) produces an average of 20,150 tons of waste/day (IBGE, 2000). On a per person basis, waste generation has grown from 0.89kg/person/day in 1991, to 0.99kg/person/day in 1994, to a high of 1.16kg/person/day in 2001. The amount of packaging has grown dramatically. In particular, one-way packaging has increased, with most beverages also being bottled in PET or aluminum containers, or plastic and aluminum-foiled cartons. The number of people consuming processed kaged food is quickly expanding. These products tend to be cheaper and more attractive than environmentally-friendly ones. As a result, the percentage of non-biodegradable waste is increasing. Landfills are the major final destination (77%) for solid waste produced in So Paulo. There is now only one controlled dumping site in use (Aterro Bandeirantes), in the far northeast of the city. This means that collected garbage travels large distances before being deposited. The existing incinerator was closed in April 2002, due to inefficient technology and increasing pressure from the local population and environmental groups. Since the 1990s, incineration had been considered an attractive alternative in addressing the increasing waste dilemma. Public opposition and cost have kept public administrators from investing further in this technology. Today, 21% of the collected waste is

composted and an insignificant percentage (1.6%) is officially recycled. There are no figures to account for the amount of waste that is recycled by the informal sector. Recently, a Recycling Forum (Frum Recicla So Paulo) has been created in So Paulo, with more than 45 active recycling groups (see Figure 3). Among these groups are community associations and co-operatives such as COOPAMARE, which already number 200 associated street collectors. In some neighborhoods they collect the material from door to door at residences, apartment buildings, offices, and small-scale businesses. On average, the co-operative recovers more than four metric tons of resources every day. The Forum stimulates co-operation among collectors and facilitates the collection, separation, and trade of recyclables. All material that is collected, separated, and compressed is sold to dealers and wholesalers in town or from other cities. The Recycling Forum aims at improving working conditions and providing new employment as well as at expanding environmental education activities. So far, major achievements of the Forum lie in increasing community empowerment, citizenship awareness, and improving environmental health. The city of So Paulo has signalled a commitment to supporting the informal recycling sector with the construction of nine recycling centres. The administration is aiming at a recycling rate of 4% of all garbage generated in the city during 2003. Nevertheless, since negotiations started in mid 2001, most advances have been of a rhetorical nature rather than practical actions. So far, several seminars to discuss waste management have been organized but little support has been given to structure, educate, and train the sector. Most of the advances in 'informal' resource recovery have been made through voluntary work. The scarce resources from NGOs and small-scale credits have further contributed to expand the activities of individual groups. Among the 45 mentioned recycling initiatives is the project from the neighborhood association Pedra sobre Pedra. They began with door-to-door collection in their unserviced community, then expanded into collecting and separating recyclables from small enterprises, schools, and housing complexes, and, through perseverance, the group has achieved improvements in infrastructure allowing larger amounts of waste to be recycled by a growing number of participants, mainly women (Gutberlet and Takahashi, 2002) (see Figures 4 and 5). Pedra sobre Pedra is now one of the driving forces for the promotion of the Recycling Forum and its involvement in the city's new waste management plan. The Recycling Forum has made some progress in terms of strengthening the recycling activity and building up capacity to organize the sector. The network is also increasing its political power and, accordingly, is putting pressure on the local government to act more effectively. It is a major challenge to the city's administration to implement a rather innovative plan for participatory waste management based on resource recovery.

Conclusion
There is a strong relation between rapid urban growth and global environmental change. With the urban lifestyle comes an ever-growing generation of solid waste, which, in many large cities, is already undermining human security. Most domestic waste is deposited in sanitary landfills or, in the case of

poor countries, at irregular dumping sites. The lack of space for new landfills is an imminent problem for most municipalities. Increasingly, public initiatives urge local governments to seriously address the issue. The environmental justice movement is just one indicator of this trend. Recycling is an alternative form of waste management and a strategy to diminish unemployment. It is receiving growing attention in Brazilian cities, for example in Porto Alegre, Curitiba, Santo Andr, Diadema, and So Paulo. However, the potential for resource recovery is still neglected and few cities embrace innovative alternative waste management based on reduction, reutilization, and recycling. True commitment to urban sustainability should consider in practice the following: Enhancing human security: by stimulating the generation of employment (e.g., with labor intense practices, re-use, and recycling), eliminating health risks through the introduction of sound technology, and adopting political accountability and participatory, integrated decision-making strategies (e.g., participatory budgeting). Minimizing the impacts of global environmental change: by promoting less resource-intense lifestyles and values (questioning the right to waste resources and promoting values that respect the environment and value the bioregion), stimulating reduction, re-use, and recycling (e.g., with Eco-taxes), and by supporting the development of biodegradable products and cutting over-consumption. Solving the waste problem requires political solutions. The case study of So Paulo highlights some important changes brought about by social movements demanding alternative solutions.

It emphasizes the general difficulties encountered to set a precedent in terms of addressing social and environmental problems from an integrated perspective. The desired changes regarding reduced resource use, minimization of waste and emissions, and increased human security and sustainability altogether depend on political change. Technical knowledge and financial resources are no longer the major limiting factors to promote urban sustainability. Human and financial resources from the public and private sector must be efficiently used to build sustainable societies. Major problems are of a political nature and essentially require a different perspective fostering horizontal and vertical co-operation among government agencies as well as between the community, the public, and the private sector. Most needed is a strongly committed approach to socially and environmentally sound urban development in order to diminish the polarizing threats of deprivation and over-consumption.

References
Baud, I., Grafakos, S., Hordijk, M., and Post, J. (2001). Quality of life and alliances in solid waste management. Contributions to urban sustainable development. Cities, 18(1), 3-12. Bullard, R.D. (1994). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cotton, A., Snel, M., and Ali, M. (1999). The challenges ahead - Solid waste management in the next millennium. Waterlines, 17(3), 2-5.

Chung, S., and Poo, C. (1998). A comparison of waste management in Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 22, 203-216. Ferguson, B., and Maurer, C. (1996). Urban management for environmental quality in South America. Third World Planning Review, 18 (2), 117-154. Grimberg, E., and Blauth, P. (1998). Coleta seletiva: Reciclando materiais, recilcando valores. Publicao Plis, 31. So Paulo, Instituto Plis. Gupta, S., Mohan, K., Prasad, R., Gupta, S., and Kansal, A. (1998). Solid waste management in India: Options and op-portunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 24, 137-154. Gutberlet, J., and Takahashi, R. (2002). Le gestion et le recyclage des ordures dans le bidonvilles. Exprience de Pedra sobre Pedra So Paulo, Brsil. In H. Botta, C. Berdier, et J.M. Deleuil (Eds.), Enjeux de la propret urbaine (pp. 103-121). Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Halla, F., and Majani, B. (1999). Innovative ways for solid waste management in Dar-Es-Salaam: Toward stakeholder partnerships. Habitat International, 23 (3), 351-361. Hasan, S., and Khan, M. A. (1999). Community-based envi-ronmental management in a megacity. Cities, 16(2), 103-110. Hernndez, O., Rawlins, B., and Schwarts, R. (1999). Voluntary recycling in Quito: Factors associated with participation in a pilot programme. Environment and Urbanisation, (11)2, 145-159. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica) (2000). Industrial census data: Pesquisa Industrial Annual 2002 (http://www.ibge.gov.br). Markham, W.T., and Rufa, E. (1997). Class, race, and the dis-posal of urban waste locations of landfills, incinerators, and sewage treatment plants. Sociological Spectrum, 17, 235-248. Martins, R., and Dombrowski, O. (2001). Mapa do trabalho informal da cidade de So Paulo. In K. Jakobsen, R. Martins, and O. Dobrowski (Org.), Mapa do trabalho informal (pp. 24-39). So Paulo, Fundao Perseu Abramo. Nunan, F., and Satterthwaitte, D. (2001). The influence of governance on the provision of urban environmental infrastructure and services for low-income groups. International Planning Studies, 6(4), 409-426. Pulido, L. (1996). Environmentalism and economic justice. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. UNDP United Nations Development Program (1998). Human Development Report. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Web Sites of Interest

The World Bank Group. Urban Waste Management. www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/swm_body.htm

United Nations Economic and Social Development. www.un.org/esa Oneworld International portal of NGOs. www.oneworld.net WASTE Advisers on urban environment and development. www.waste.nl

Source: http://www.gechs.org/aviso/11/index.html#cities Accessed on 06/11/2009