Treating sewage across Rio’s vast metropolis is an intricate issue entwined with the social and political marginalisation of favelas. Though untreated wastewater affects both people of the hills and people of the asphalt, the impacts of poor sanitation are greater for those in poorer and informal communities. Only a small percentage of water flows are treated for contamination so the chances of Rio’s residents using, or consuming contaminated water is an everyday phenomenon. Soaring cases of cariocas falling ill to bacteria in tap water make up a significant proportion of hospital admissions and should be a wake-up call for authorities to intervene.
It is estimated that 30% of Rio’s population do not have access to adequate sanitary facilities with a connected sewage system (Hosek 2016). Even in formal areas, only half of the wastewater flows are treated as many households do not have septic tanks. Untreated sewage is directed through a drainage networks that leads to the city’s rivers, bays and eventually the ocean. Surface runoff also brings along refuse through the limited drainage network, resulting in rubbish floating in waters where children play.
Surrounded by communities with minimal waste collection services and sanitation facilities, Guanabara Bay is infamous as the eventual dumping ground for sewage in Rio as approximately 84% of Rio’s untreated wastewater flows into the bay. The largest sewage treatment plant in the world, Guandu, is situated by the Paraíba do Sul river and serves 40% of Rio’s water demand. However, the water treated at Guandu plant is continually contaminated by seawater from the Guanabara Bay via a feedback cycle (Lepercq 2016). Subsequently, the water serving households across Rio are found to be dirty and filled with bacteria.
Perhaps this issue was most pronounced during the 2016 Rio Olympics, where the quality of water in Guanabara Bay (which was used for aquatic events), was likened to a pool of faeces by international media (Clarke 2015). As a response to this, municipal authorities stated that rapid improvements would be made to sewage infrastructure across Rio. This response, however, was nullified by the unfulfilled promises of previous governments to initiate new sewage systems through the federal development fund scheme (PAC). According to Hosek (2016), only 7% of 114 PAC sewerage projects were completed, whilst a staggering 60% were discontinued, abandoned or postponed.
Despite efforts to improve facilities in favelas through the Bairro-Favela project, many systems are failing to work because of a lack of maintenance following implementation, causing outrage in marginalised communities. The progressive and inclusive forms of water governance emphasised by CEDAE (the public-private water utilities company serving Rio) is paradoxical as they fail to address the historical inequalities of access to clean water. The cariocas of Pica-Pau, for instance, are fighting CEDAE over a monthly service fee for amenities they pay but are not able to use, a result of infrastructure being incompatible with the type of housing found in favelas (Norris 2016). As such, cariocas are voicing concerns that water is being both commodified and politicised, deepening the split between those who can afford to mitigate consequences of water scarcity and sanitation issues (by buying bottled water) and those who cannot.
Producing new sanitation plans will require a serious deconstruction of wastewater issues and a greater consideration of the socio-political spatiality of implications.
List of references:
Clarke, J. (2015) ‘Sailing through the trash and sewage of Guanabara Bay’ (WWW) The New Yorker: The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/sailing-through-the-trash-and-sewage-of-guanabara-bay: March 5 2020)
Norris, S. (2016) ‘After Years Waiting, Desperately Needed Sewerage May Finally Arrive in Pica-Pau’ (WWW) RioOnWatch: RioOnWatch (https://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=28701: March 5 2020)
Hosek, E. (2016) ‘The Troubling State of Sanitation in Rio’ (WWW) RioOnWatch: RioOnWatch (https://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=10892: March 5 2020)
Lepercq, C. (2016) ‘Rio’s Water Crisis 101: Meeting Provides Critical Context on Water, Sewerage, Environmental Ed’ Rio’ (WWW) RioOnWatch: RioOnWatch (https://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=26753: March 5 2020)
It is interesting to see how the commodification and politicisation of water is increasingly perpetuating inequality among vulnerable populations. These characteristics of water governance must change for the future, and greater attention needs to be paid to the maintenance of systems.
LikeLike
I could not believe how high the % of untreated water was in certain informal settlements! In one way the Olympics is a great spectacle for Rio and probably had financial benefits which trickle down to the informal communities. However, at the same time did it cost the very same communities their basic human rights of sanitation and clean water? It would be interesting to compare the impacts of the London Olympics to Rio’s Olympics in terms of how the poor were impacted.
LikeLiked by 1 person