Instruction nº 01/, which establishes the criteria for sustainable .. outras providências (Decreto nº , de 23 de dezembro de ). de Residuos Solidos (Lei 12,/), Decreto Regulamentador (Dec. 7,/ ), Responsabilidade Compartilhada, Logistica Reversa. The City currently landfills the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. (MSW). ..
|Country:||Moldova, Republic of|
|Published (Last):||24 August 2018|
|PDF File Size:||18.34 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
decreto federal de pdf – PDF Files
One of the biggest challenges facing modern society is solving excessive generation and the environmentally safe disposal of solid waste. In this context, effective management of municipal waste is required, but local authorities in many countries are constrained by limited finances and inadequate services. The decisions in the area of municipal solid waste management are not only capital intensive, but also tough from the 200 and social points of view.
There is a need to develop and implement a simple, but reliable tool that will help mayors in this process. In this paper, we analyze Public Consortia of Municipalities, a basic instrument of the National Policy for Solid Waste of Brazil, a country with more than municipalities.
Public Consortia is expected to reduce costs due to economies of scale and smaller demand for land. This study identifies the characteristics of Public Consortia, its advantages and disadvantages for urban solid waste management based upon the analysis of 29 Public Consortia in the Northeast, Southeast and South regions of Brazil. Through gathering of information and empirical data our analysis reveals challenges that are not being addressed and that impact in both, the formation of Public Consortia, as well as the urban solid waste management alternatives.
Excessive generation of and scarce environmentally safe disposal sites for solid waste are decteto the biggest challenges facing modern society. The international concern in relation to solid wastes, household solid wastes, has increased due to increase in production and to inadequate management and disposal areas. Since the Rio Conference 92, there has been the incorporation of new priorities for sustainable solid waste management, which has directed the action of Governments, industry and society.
These priorities include the reduction of waste generation, reducing final disposal on the ground, maximizing reuse, the selective collection and recycling, composting and energy recovery. In particular, one of the biggest problems in densely urbanized areas, especially in metropolitan areas, is the lack of appropriate places to have the waste properly disposed. Furthermore, in most landfills, there is no proper treatment for the slurry toxic liquid generated by organic garbage decomposition.
In most countries, local authorities are charged with the responsibility decrwto collecting and disposing of solid and liquid municipal wastes within their areas of jurisdiction municipalities or counties. Most do not meet environmentally safe MSW disposal levels because of a lack of sanitary landfills. This reality of municipal solid waste management MSWM is also present in a large and economic diversified country like Brazil, where municipalities are responsible, by law, for the provision for public 210 of urban cleaning and solid waste management.
In recent years, several norms and the National Policy on Solid Waste 1 -PNRS on its Portuguese acronym have provided a legal framework for the solid waste management sector. The PNRS imposes deadlines for the closure of dumpsites and the implementation of proper waste disposal, providing treatment, recycling, composting, gas recovery from landfills, planning and cost recovery initiatives, putting 201 on governments at all levels, especially the municipal, to comply with the new law.
However, municipalities, the smaller ones, face difficulties for SWM: The first question that drove this study was to establish 20110 the prioritization and the incentive to the access to government resources provided by the PNRS se municipalities, for formation of Public Consortia for regionalized management of USW services, led to an efficient MSWM.
Other supplementary questions also arose in relation to economic, social and territorial factors that influence the efficiency of a 20100 management of solid waste and that would be decisive re encouraging and prioritizing access to resources by Law. To ddcreto a policy instrument is necessary to understand their characteristics and what it entails in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and equity.
However, when the research started, it was found that there was no information available on the main characteristics and problems faced by Public Consortia for MSWM in the country. The informational gap identified led us to expand the purpose of the work, corroborating the vision of Ethridge to expose that the data and the data collection process can affect how one perceives the problem and how one takes conscience of deceto.
It was carried out then a data survey on the sources of funding for MSWM, since the lack of municipal resources is the first justification for encouraging Consortia. We sought to identify the Public Consortia for existing MSWM in Brazil and conduct a case study with 29 Public Consortia, rising, through the answers obtained, the main characteristics 7044 the problems faced by this instrument of the PNRS.
With the gathering of information and the collection of empirical data, it was possible to reveal problems that would otherwise go unnoticed, as the identification of primary issues in the management of solid waste that interfere in encouraging consortiums solutions. Instead of pointing out which factors most influence the efficiency of Consortia, the paper exposes which of them are considered on its formation and the consequences for their efficiency.
In addition, it shows the relevance of the evaluation and makes a proposal on how and what to evaluate in USW management through Public Consortia from the obtained results.
In places without waste management policy, the first step is the implementation of a direct regulation. Thus, despite some limitations, the approval of PNRS in marked a new stage in public policy of SWM in Brazil because it standardizes the processes and duties to be 77404 by individuals, companies and governments nationwide.
The Law of PNRS, in general terms, brings the concepts of shared responsibility, inclusion of waste pickers and hierarchy-not generation, reduction, reuse, recycling, solid waste treatment and environmentally adequate disposal of waste.
It also presents some requirements, such as closing landfills, creating plans, implementation of proper disposal of waste treatment, recycling, composting, gas recovery from landfills, planning and cost recovery initiatives. The Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans 3 is a key issue of the law, and should include diagnostic studies on solid waste generation, identify favorable areas for disposal, regional solutions and opportunities for consortia solutions, operating rules, technical training activities, actions with the participation of interest groups, the costing system, collection forms of service decgeto, identifying environmental liabilities and remedial measures, among others Brazil, a 4.
However, the PNRS has some limitations, such as the inability of municipalities to apply its requirements because of municipal administrative capacity-lack of financial and technical resources, infrastructure or the complexity of the Law. Details of Public Consortia are summarized in Table 1. Since there is no Federal Agency that centralizes this information, we conducted a survey in all 26 Brazilian states and the Federal District.
The survey of existing Public Consortia for SWM was conducted from January to May based upon responses received by email, phone contacts, internet searches, review of academic papers on specific Consortia, municipal laws, reports and State Integrated Plans.
Through these procedures we identified 77 Consortia: Given the nonexistence of data on characteristics. Elaborated by the authors based upon: Therefore, a questionnaire was elaborated with questions about characteristics, purposes and specificities of those 77 identified Consortia in the first survey.
The questionnaire was made available on a website for 30 days from May to June We got reply with completed questionnaire from 29 Consortia 8 from the Northeast, 14 from the Southeast, and 7 from the South.
The data from Chart 1 demonstrates that, for the 29 Consortia, the formation of Public Consortia tends to focus in municipalities with up to 50, inhabitants 6being the majority concentrated in the ranges between 10, to 50, inhabitants.
This means that the study sample tends to represent the dominant characteristics of Brazilian municipalities. In addition, it focuses in small municipalities, which present greater difficulties in the provision of MSWM services-lack of resources, infrastructure and technical capacity.
In this context, these municipalities through regional shared initiatives have sought solutions to meet the requirements of the PNRS, reducing costs and providing shared public services. Why municipalities and states create Consortia for a shared SWM? This is a relevant dwcreto from a public policy making point of view. Chart 2 shows that in the three regions, of Brazil the main objectives are: Size class of municipalities per Brazilian region from the 29 Consortia.
Objectives of the 29 Public Consortia. Elaborated by authors dcereto upon data from this research. There is some evidence that Brazilian municipalities prioritize expenditure on collection and transport due to public health issues. However, only eight 74004 out of the 29 signaled the priority of access to resources as an incentive for the formation of Consortia. Most them are in the Northeast region, the poorest in. Financial, economic and technical issues are the main reasons for municipalities to seek a joint solution for their SWM.
decreto federal 7404 de 2010 pdf
On the other hand, half of the 29 Consortia manifested the need for tax collection as a challenge to cover expenditure on maintaining services. The lack of municipal technical capacity was evident throughout the research, confirmed by the answers of the Consortia. In addition, the absence of Integrated Plans municipal or inter-municipal requires more efforts and resources towards the formation of a Consortia.
This was confirmed by the responses of the 29 Consortia analyzed. Twelve of them reported not having any plan; only seven have a Municipal Integrated Plan and four the Inter-municipal. Six of them did not answer the question. As far as the formation of a Consortia 74404 concerned, lack of Integrated Solid Waste Management Plans will require more efforts in training of human resources, since several initial steps that should be part of the creation of Consortia requires, for example, under taking economic and financial feasibility studies.
Any policy df becomes apprehensive in analyzing these results. Roura argues that a first phase of a public policy sets recognition, analysis, design, and consultation steps, as set out in the first column of Table 2. Although these steps decreeto essential for the implementation of an instrument such as the Public Consortia, answers obtained in our cecreto suggest that deceeto components of each step of cecreto first phase are very below the level desirable for each step.
Considering that the decretp goal of the 29 Consortia is the final disposal of solid waste and, consequently, the construction of landfills, it is motive of concern the low proportion of studies on territorial characteristics, land use occupation and distance between the municipalities in the answers of the 29 Consortia.
This would not be a problem if the municipalities had already completed an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan that presumably contains these previous studies. However, considering the low percentage of those who reported having one of the Plans, it is assumed that this is not the case. Data from the IBGE a confirms that the absence of such analyzes is a dominant reality in Brazilian municipalities, given that decfeto This may make it impossible to plan the construction of decerto and shared landfills.
Public Policy steps-first phase-desirable components e observed results on the 29 Consortia. Taking as an example from our sample the Consortia that are not yet in operation, and considering by the answers that most began elaborate the Protocol of Intentions between the years and If these Consortia come into operation inthey took four to five years from the first phase of discussion and to the second phase of execution.
The Consortia indicated some reasons for the non-operation: Public policy steps-second phase-desirable application e results observed on the 29 Consortia.
For doing so, we applied traditional evaluation criteria of public policy available in the specialized literature see Baumol and Oates, Based upon the results of our sample of 29 Public Consortia in Brazil it is possible to evaluate this instrument, as a PNRS instrument. In Table 4 we summarize a proposal of what should be considered in each criterion for evaluating SWM through Public Consortia based upon the Brazilian experience.
We point out its expected results and the main obstacles faced to achieve them. We also suggest how to evaluate whether each criterion was accomplished and, finally, we make a connection with the lessons learned from results analysis for each criterion. Criteria for evaluating public policy: Elaborated by authors based upon data from: Depending on common interests and needs of municipalities, Consortia can meet different objectives or sectors in a single contract, which can reduce administrative costs and increase regional cooperation.
However, this incentive does not ensure the efficiency of Consortia because other variables are involved and there are new possible restrictions on the access to financial resources.
Nevertheless, the absence of Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan at municipal and inter-municipal level is an example of one of those restrictions and was attested throughout the survey, confirming data from IBGE b showing that This shows the lack of planning in the creation of Consortia, preventing them from having access to government resources and information of the reality of the sector, its features and the real demand for this type of service. Thus, it is recommended that studies and evaluations are conducted to check if and how these Plans have been drawn up, the qualifications of its developers, the representation of the local reality, and if it could potentially generate effectiveness, efficiency and equity.
Therefore, prioritizing public resources by forming Consortia established in the PNRS is not necessarily associated with effective management; it can potentially induce ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the SWM policy, among other relevant issues.
It is identified a policy failure in the case of not considering that if there is a lack of Plans and technical capacity, the objectives of the Law in predicting this priority in access to resources would be not achieved. In this context, transversely policies among ministries and government agencies are essential.
In applying criteria for public policy evaluation upon SWM for Public Consortia in Brazil we had some useful insights into Consortia implementation issues.
They pointed out some advantages and disadvantages of municipalities deciding to create Consortia for SWM. The results indicate that the following items must be considered in implementing SWM through Public Consortia: Municipal Solid Waste Management: Public Consortia as an Alternative Scale-Efficient?