Global waste volumes are set to rise dramatically in the coming decades, absent notable changes, according to a recent UN Environment Programme report. The International Solid Waste Association played a lead role in that document and is calling for the waste industry to adjust its model accordingly.

UNEP’s updated Global Waste Management Outlook estimates that global MSW generation could reach 3.8 billion metric tons by 2050, up from 2.1 billion in 2023. Managing this waste, when also accounting for “the hidden costs of pollution, poor health and climate change from poor waste disposal practices” cost an estimated $361 billion in 2020. The report anticipates this could reach $640.3 billion by 2050 without corrective action.

“Waste generation is intrinsically tied to GDP, and many fast-growing economies are struggling under the burden of rapid waste growth,” said UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen in a statement.

The report — which was financially supported by Japan and Sweden — also took a detailed look at the possibilities and limitations of different circular models, the pressing issue of food waste and much more. 

ISWA has been increasingly vocal about what this shift could look like at a time when waste issues are gaining traction on the global scale. Last year, the UN recognized the first International Zero Waste Day and ISWA hosted the first-ever waste and resources pavilion at COP28. ISWA has also been part of ongoing international plastics discussions and recently released a report on the issue.

Carlos Silva Filho, president of ISWA and former leader of the Brazilian Association of Waste Management Companies, has been active on these issues for years. Waste Dive spoke with Silva Filho in early April about takeaways from the report, what it means for North America and how he thinks the waste industry can adapt to meet the moment.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

WASTE DIVE: Waste has been underestimated as a climate issue in the past, but it’s starting to get more international attention. How have you seen this recognition evolve in the last few years?

CARLOS SILVA FILHO: We always felt that waste was underestimated in many discussions. The climate aspect was one, also the health aspect and even the pollution one. Waste was always considered as a minor issue that wouldn't be able to change positively the situation.

I would say the Global Waste Management Outlook 2024, and the research to prepare it, was fundamental. Because we were always trying to convince people [that] better waste management is useful, is necessary, but without consistency. When we realized that we have data available to support this message it seems that it turned the perception. So when we have countries realizing that it's not enough to tackle CO2 emissions but you need to tackle methane emissions, and then you have many opportunities and possibilities to tackle methane from waste, it changes the perception.

And in terms of pollution it's the same thing. We still have, according to the Global Waste Management Outlook, 38% of the total waste in the world going to dump sites or other inadequate disposal. But we have numbers now to say it costs more than if you have the adequate infrastructure available.

I know closing dumpsites has been a priority for ISWA, but it’s a challenging issue. Have you seen any notable progress in recent years?

Unfortunately no, not too much progress. When we were researching for GWMO 2 we looked at more than 150 countries. Most of them have national laws prohibiting dump sites, prohibiting open burning. And in fact, what happens is that the law is not enforced. We’ve had the national waste law in Brazil since 2010. The law prohibited open dumps. The deadline is Aug. 2, 2024 and according to the most recent research the country still hosts 1,300 open dump sites.

I would say the excuses for that are many, and almost the same in the countries where you have the dump sites.

First of all, there is no money available to move to upgrade the system. Second, there aren’t alternatives. It takes time. Municipal authorities, local authorities are not really paying attention to this situation of the dump site. Even the citizens don't care about it, because they just want to get rid of the waste from the front of their houses. And if it goes to a dump site or to another place for them it's not a problem because it's out of sight. We are now raising this flag that we need an innovative approach to fund the upgrade of the systems.

It stood out that North America has the highest per capita waste generation rate. The report discusses EPR for packaging systems, which are in the early stages in the U.S. In areas that have more established EPR programs, have you seen research showing that they can eventually reduce waste volumes?

We have two separate worlds, what we call the Global North and the Global South. The Global North, they don't have inadequate disposal sites anymore but they do keep generating more and more waste over time and this puts pressure into the whole system.

For example, in Europe, they are exporting their waste/recyclables to other countries. When China brought the ban, the Green Sword, [European countries] started exporting to Turkey, they started exporting to other Eastern European countries. So they are still not able to deal with the amount of waste they are producing, even though they have good extended producer responsibility schemes.

And this is another discussion we wanted to bring. For example, we are discussing the circular economy for 20 to 25 years now. What real examples of circular economy can we find in place in practice, at the commercial scale, to really put the system into a closed loop? There are several pilots. They are very good ones, they are very successful ones, but I don't see it expanding. 

That’s been a notable point of discussion lately, how in areas with EPR for packaging the overall waste generation rate hasn’t necessarily shifted.

Many people came to me and said, “Look, but we could reduce the waste generation here and there.” Yes, but it's very tiny movements. If you're looking to the graphs and the data from the last edition — the previous edition in 2015 of the Global Waste Management Outlook — and this one, the waste generation has grown in every region in every continent, in every country I almost dare to say. 

And we do have legislation in place, we do have directives, but it's not really being implemented. So we are not dealing with this topic as we should. Because we are not changing the paradigm. We are still seeing waste as trash, as garbage.

There are efforts to make packaging more recyclable and use more recycled content, but it's still single-use packaging. Reuse-refill is gaining more attention, but it’s harder to do at scale. How have you seen that trend evolve?

There are many initiatives for refilling, for dry shampoos because you don't need packaging. But most commercial brands, are they turning to this approach? I don't see it.

The big brands and those who really drive the market forward into changing the whole production system, [they say] we are using recycled content in our new packages. They are creating a market for the waste that is being produced from the previous cycle. But again, as you say, it's still single-use packaging. There is a length in this cycle that you can use recycled content, because the fibers get stressed, they cannot be recycled infinitely.

Turning to food waste, another big topic in the report, how should we think about the priority of focusing on that upstream versus downstream? Here in the U.S., downstream collection is gaining more traction but it’s not as widespread as other areas.

At ISWA we've been approached a lot with this question. I truly believe that we need to shift our focus to upstream measures, because the time of the end-of-pipe industry is over. We cannot be the ones that are really there just waiting to receive what the society discards.

We are part of the transformation industry. Transformation, not only in terms of materials, turning waste into resource, but also in terms of transforming the society. So trying to be the ones who lead this agenda.

So in terms of food waste, it's a huge concern because [recently], there was this food waste index report launched by the United Nations with impressive numbers. One billion meals are wasted every day. And in a world that we still see some regions suffering from hunger, we really need to approach this problem in a different way. And not only saying we can transform food waste into a fertilizer or into a gas. But really, how do we improve the process so that we don't have that much food waste at the end?

What we are advocating for is the waste sector, the waste industry, [to be] the ones who can assist the whole value chain in order to improve the process. 

Part of the waste industry’s financial model is built around waste volumes continuing to go up. What is ISWA’s message to for-profit companies about how they can be part of your goals while still having a good business?

This is one of the obstacles to really change the system, because we do have consistent and professional players in the market who rely on the current waste management system. So the more the better, the more waste we have the better for us for our profits. But it cannot be that way anymore.

Our vision is a world where waste doesn't exist. Because you don't need to make profit out of waste, you can make much more profit out of resource, out of the transformation. So what I mentioned during the launch of GWMO 2 was the era of this linear waste management approach — discard, collect, dispose — is over. We really need to change into a new system where the intelligence of the sector will make more profit from the materials that are discarded. 

We need to change from the previous three-R approach to a three-D approach — decarbonize, decouple and detoxify. So having the waste sector not only recycling, not only promoting recovery, but really promoting what the new world, the new century expects from us — a decarbonized, a low carbon economy. 

According to one of the articles we presented at COP28, despite the waste sector representing only 3% of the total emissions, we can mitigate up to 20% of the global emissions. So this is something that can be monetized, that can be explored. We can be the ones who assist the whole cycle to decouple economic growth from waste generation.