A FEW days ago, we observed World Environment Day under the theme: “Seven Billion, One Dreams, Consume with Care”. It is very clear that the rate of consumption of the earth’s resources is worryingly unsustainable. Presently, the human race consumes resources equivalent to one and a half planets. It is believed that by 2030 we will need two planets to sustain our life styles if the current consumption and production trends remain the same. A very troubling thought indeed.

This year’s theme sought to raise awareness about the challenges involved in striking a good balance between sustainable economic development, consumption and environmental impacts.

In so far as reducing environmental impact is concerned, we need to take a closer look at the way we are managing our solid waste nationally, but especially in the City of Georgetown, because it is the hub of government, commercial and other activities. We need to transcend the ad hoc arrangement of garbage collection and disposal to embrace, perhaps, an integrated solid waste management system.

Looking specifically at solid waste management in developing countries, there is no doubt that for many reasons, poor waste management practices and related public health issues continue to be very problematic in many developing countries a century and a half after the European sanitary revolution, despite increasing globalisation. Developing and poor countries are seriously affected by the twin problem of the combined effects of the diseases of affluence and communicable diseases. In such countries, people are so preoccupied with survival that waste management is not particularly a priority. When SWM is on the public agenda in poor countries, it is driven by public health; the main push is still getting the waste out from the immediate surroundings. .

Nevertheless, there are a number of drivers that propel solid waste management in developing countries. These include climate change, and the cultural and economic aspect of local communities.

Climate change has acted as an environmental driver since the early 1990s, leading to a move away from landfilling biodegradable waste, which is a major source of methane emissions, and a stronger focus on the recovery of energy from waste.

This driver was encouraged by the global concern about climate change issues, which led to pressure and advocacy around the world. This led to a policy stage focused on waste prevention and target achievements, and characterised by a series of preventative policy measures, including laws and targets for compost and recycling goals, diversion from landfill, extended producer responsibility, and landfill bans for recyclable materials.
Cultural and economic aspects of local communities: The structure and functioning of SWM systems are predicated upon the behaviour trends and underlying attitudes of the general population – factors that are influenced by the local cultural and social circumstance.

Also governance. All over the world, in urban areas, any form of environmental management is a political task, because different interests compete for the best locations, for the ownership or use of resources, and for publicly provided infrastructure and services. Many of these conflicting interests contribute to the degradation of essential resources and urban environmental health if good environmental management is absent. However, as these factors have gained recognition, there has been a shift in the urban development literature from government, which focuses on the role, responsibilities and performance of government bodies, to governance, and good governance, which additionally considers the relationship between government and civil society.

Good governance facilitates the active participation and collaboration of all stakeholders, including government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community groups and the private sector. The four main elements of good governance are accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency. Good governance allows low-income groups to influence policy and resource allocation, and therefore it is important for equitable, effective, and efficient SWM. Also, good governance is concerned with the degree of decentralisation, i.e. distribution of authority, functions, and responsibilities between central and local governmental institutions; the structure of institutional systems responsible for SWM and how they interact with other urban management sectors; organisational procedures, for planning and management; the capacity of responsible institutions; and involvement of other sectors, including the private sector and community groups.

Focusing on Georgetown, and the struggles we continue to face with solid waste, it is worth it for the authorities to give some consideration to using the integrated solid waste management system

Integrated solid waste management (ISWM), the current SWM paradigm that has been widely accepted throughout the developed world, emerged from the policy shift away from landfilling and the push for a broader perspective that began in the 1990s. However, ISWM encourages a good balance between three dimensions of waste management: environmental effectiveness, social acceptability, and economic affordability. It is concerned with the integration of the many linkages, processes and units that make up a waste management system.

ROYSTON KING
Mayor and City Council
Georgetown