by Emilio M. Eigenherr

Domestic waste is becoming one of the most pressing problems in Brazil's cities, especially the major ones. Inadequate and inappropriate waste disposal leads to the spread of disease, environmental degradation and floods, to mention just a few of the hazards.

On the other hand, the solutions traditionally adopted for the collection and disposal of refuse (almost always in landfills) are nowadays becoming increasingly difficult to implement, owing to high transport costs, community reaction and shortage of tip land. Furthermore, with a population that at all levels is unaware of environmental problems and a public administration that is always inefficient, combined with a total lack of planning, the situation can only get worse.

It was against this background that, in 1985, the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro/PATAE (with support from GTZ and subsequently from FINEP and the Canadian Government) initiated the first systematic, long-term experiment in selective waste collection in Brazil.

The basic idea was to develop, with community participation and in conjunction with public bodies, decentralized, self-financing and self managed schemes for separating recyclable materials at domestic level; or rather to try and focus the problem of waste disposal on the sources, within an educational framework.

Starting with this project, which is currently still operating, others were

established in collection centres in low-income areas, prisons, military establishments, schools, large buiIdings etc., to obtain accurate data on the feasibility of general introduction of selective waste collection in urban areas.

Over the last few years, despite the difficulties encountered, positive signs that such a system is feasible have emerged, and selective collection is now an accepted topic for discussion in technical and community circles. It is even being used as a management objective in many cities, the most important current example being the municipality of São Paulo. The present article, however, is confined to a discussion of the pioneering work done in São Francisco.

The São Francisco example

The experiment in São Francisco, a middle-class district in the city of Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro state, was starlet in April 1985. It originally covered 100 houses and has since been expanded to include some 410 houses.

The residents receive a 30-litre capacity container and a cardboard box. Glass, plastics and metals are deposited in the former, and paper, cardboard etc. in the latter. Once a week this separated material is collected by people contracted by the local community association. These workers are residents of a neighboring low-income district called Grota do Surucucu. The organic waste and other unseparated materials are normally collected by the district council and taken to a refuse tip( an attempt to encourage domestic composting is now being made).

Initially, handcarts were used for this special collection. Two years ago a small tractor provided by GTZ was put into service. The collected material is taken to a treatment center situated between Sáo Francisco and Grota do Surucucu. The center covers an area of approx.100 m², and there the materials are re graded: paper, cardboard, newspapers, journals and mixed paper material; clear and dark glass; light and heavy plastics; different types of metals, etc.

These materials are subsequently sold to scrap merchants or, in the case of glass, to industry. The money obtained from the sale is used to support the project and, if there is a surplus, for community activities. At present, due to the grave economic situation in the country, the project is scarcely able to support itself.

All the work is done by three workers permanently employed by the community association, and extra part-time workers are taken on if there is a backlog and during holidays.

It should be pointed out that while the Prefecture of Niteroi pays a private firm US$ 17 per ton to collect refuse and take it to the tip, it has not so far been prepared to pay the community, even in part, for the tons of materials that the project collects and sends to be recycled. This example illustrates clearly the difficulties involved in waste collection in Brazil. The country prefers to pay a lot to dispose of its rubbish instead of paying much less for education and recycling.

If the project were to receive at least something for the tons of material that it collects, as the contracted firm does, this would be an advantage, given the country's current economic plight.

Fortunately this is beginning to be understood, and the Prefecture of São Paulo has promised to pay the communities that are starting up selective waste programmes 80 per cent of what is paid to the refuse collection companies. The Prefecture of Niteroi has already expressed an interest in doing the same.

The project in figures

In the first year data were gathered extremely carefully, but subsequently a great deal of information was lost due to lack of staff. The principal indicator of the project was its degree of financial self-sufficiency. In December 1988, with the help of two trainees from the ASACDG programme, data-gathering was resumed. The main figures are presented in Tables 1 to 4.

• energy savings in industry,

• facilitating composting,

Table 1: Project participation and waste generated

Number of houses involved in project	401
Average number of persons per house	5
Number of residents remaining in project since initiation (%)	70
Average qty. of waste generated per resident and day (kg)	0.8 - 1

Table 2: Average figures for materials collected between March 1988 and January 1989, in kg

Paper	3347.5
Light plastics	138.3
Heavy plastics	228.8
Glass	2588.8
Tin cans	420.5
Iron	295.5
Resold newspapers	21.6
Lead	1.4

Also collected: sacks, paper bags and egg-boxes (used by small traders), and furniture electric domestic appliances and building materials (given to the poor).

Table 3: Basis running costs Staff (3), per month 600 DM Fuel 35 DM General maintenance 100 DM

Staff(3) , per month	600 DM
Fuel	35 DM
General maintenance	100 DM
Total	735 DM

Table 4: Basic setting-up costs

Construction	30,000 DM
Handcarts (3)	1,000 DM
Tractor and container	14,000 DM
Miscellaneous	2,000 DM
Total	47,000 DM

With the present equipment double the number of houses could be served and the treatment center could be used by adjacent districts, since it is merely a transfer centre, there being no need to store large amounts of material.

Conclusion

In addition to the known advantages of selective waste collection, i. e. :