Background Note on Solid Waste Management in India

Introduction
Municipal solid waste in India includes commercial and residential wastes generated in municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical wastes.1 Management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) consists of seven equally important steps, namely segregation and storage of waste at source, primary collection, street sweeping, secondary storage, transportation, treatment & recycling and finally disposal of waste. Indias per capita waste generation is relatively low compared to other developed and industrial nations. An average Indian generates 0.4 to 0.6 kg of waste per day whereas an average American generates 2 kg of waste per day.2 In Hong Kong, the situation is even grimmer as the per capita waste generation in Hong Kong is 5.07 kg per person per day. Fig. 1.1 states the per capita waste generation in a select developed and developing countries of the world. The lower level of waste generation is also due to the reason that much of the recyclable items are sold to the recycling units at the household level itself through the network of kabadiwalas, etc. Clearly Indias waste generation is low by world standards but given the huge population and higher rate of urbanization, there is an urgent need to adopt good MSW management practices.

Per Capita Waste Generation - Global Scenario

USA Netherlands Brazil Australia UK China Philippines India 0 Kg per capita 0.5 0.7 0.7 1 1.5 2 0.8 1.3 1.21 1.4 1.4 1.9

Fig. 1.1: Per Capita Waste Generation: A Few Select Countries

The characteristic of waste generated in Indian cities is also different from those of the industrialized and high income countries. Studies have found a direct relationship between a countries income level and the quantity of bio-degradable waste in the total waste generated. Compared to countries in the high income group waste in India has a relatively higher share of bio-degradable and inert items. The waste composition of municipal waste has changed during the last two decades, as evident from Fig. 1.2. The proportion of bio-degradable, metals, glass and plastic has increased significantly. Inert items that comprised around 45 % of the total wastes in 1996 reduced to 25 % by 2005. The changing lifestyle, increased industrial and construction activity along with increasing levels of income has resulted in the changing composition of waste over the years.

Please refer to MSW (Management & Handling) Rules, Ministry of Environment & Forest, GoI (2000). Please refer to What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, World Bank (1999), for further details.

MSW Characteristics (1996)

Metal 0.49% Bio Glass Others Paper 7% 0.6% 4% Plastic 1%

MSW Characteristics (2005)

Others Metal Glass 4% Rags 1% 4% 1% Paper 8% Biodegrad ables 48% Inerts 25% Plastic 9%

degrada bles
42% Inerts 45%

Source: Improving Solid Waste Management in India, D. Zhu, et al., (2008)

Fig. 1.2: MSW Characteristics in India Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management has been a neglected area in most developing and under developed countries and India is no exception. It is only since early 2000s that this sector has attracted focused attention of policy maker, environmentalist and even citizens given the considerable health and environmental hazards posed by the growing quantity of waste generation in urban India. It is noteworthy to state here that although expenditure on waste management in developing countries is not significantly less than that of developed nations, the difference between the quality and efficiency of waste management is substantial.3 Solid waste being a public waste, the responsibility of its management lies with the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). However, several factors for example, lack of awareness among citizens about harmful effects of uncollected and unscientifically disposed waste on health, absence of standard procedures for handling & management of wastes, poor capacity of municipal corporations and other ULBs have contributed to the poor waste management system in the country. The MSW sector has witnessed a variety of engagements ranging from partnerships between ULBs and local community led by NGOs/SHGs to pure public private partnerships. At one of the spectrum, there are private players engaged for either a segment or the entire value chain of solid waste management with little or no community participation while at the other end there are cases where SHGs, NGOs or RWAs partner with ULBs for a more holistic approach to address the waste menace. Such partnerships are at various stages of evolution/development and hence provide inconclusive evidence to guide the way forward. This background note provides a snapshot of the poor state of service delivery in the MSW management sector in the country and attempts to underscore the major issues and the causes therein. The paper however, does not address the issues and challenges faced in the management of industrial and hazardous wastes. An assessment of some novel partnerships, namely Community-Public-Private Partnerships (CPPPs) and Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in this sector is presented at a later stage outlining the key features worth emulation.

Institutional Framework of MSW in India

The overarching framework for management of solid waste in the urban areas was created by Ministry of Environment & Forest in 2000 with the enactment of MSW (Management & Handling) Rules 2000 that entrusted the ULBs with the management of MSW. The aforementioned rules along with rules pertaining to plastic, bio-medical, hazardous and other wastes that were introduced subsequently aim at instilling
MacFarlane in his study on expenditure pattern on urban waste management by ULBs in major cities of the world found that cities in both developing and industrialized countries did not spend more than 0.5 % of the per capita GDP. Please refer to What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, World Bank (1999), for further details.
3

waste management practices that are safe and environmentally sound. Fig. 1.3 presents an overview of the institutional framework that governs MSW practice in the country. Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) issues policy guidelines from time to time and administers the Sub-Mission for Urban Infrastructure and Governance, which has MSW as one of its thrust areas. Pollution control boards at the central and state level monitor the compliance of service delivery of the ULBs. Multilateral agencies e.g., Asian Development Bank (ADB) are working towards building capacity in this sector and also provide financial assistance to government bodies.

Fig. 1.3: Institutional Framework Municipal Solid Waste The MSW Rules has set responsibilities of ULBs, state governments, Central and State pollution control board for different aspects of MSW management. While the rules make ULBs responsible for implementation of the provision of the MSW Rules and for any infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid wastes, it makes waste generators responsible for avoiding littering of municipal solid waste. The ULBs are required to organise awareness programmes for segregation of wastes and shall promote recycling or reuse of segregated materials. The municipal authority are required to undertake phased programme to ensure community participation in waste segregation and arrange regular meetings at quarterly intervals with representatives of local resident welfare associations and non-governmental organizations. In areas falling under the jurisdiction of development authorities e.g., Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), it shall be the responsibility of such development authorities to identify the landfill sites and hand over the sites to the concerned municipal authority for development, operation and maintenance. Elsewhere, this responsibility shall lie with the concerned municipal authority. The State Board or the Committee would be engaged in monitoring the compliance of the standards regarding ground water, ambient air, leachate quality and the compost quality including incineration standards. The Central Pollution Control Board shall co-ordinate with the State Boards and the Committees with particular reference to implementation and review of standards and guidelines and compilation of monitoring data.

Box 1.1: Salient Features of MSW (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) includes commercial and residential wastes generated in municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes but including treated biomedical wastes. Prohibition on littering of MSW in cities, town, notified urban areas. Bio-Medical and Industrial waste not to be mixed with MSW. Responsibility of waste generators to avoid littering and ensure delivery of waste in accordance with the collection and segregation notified by municipal authorities Municipal Corporations shall undertake awareness campaigns for source segregation of MSW. Prohibition on manual handling of wastes. The storage facilities set up by municipal authorities shall be daily attended for clearing of wastes. Municipal authorities shall adopt suitable technology or combination of such technologies to make use of wastes so as to minimize burden on landfill. (Compositing, incineration, etc.) Land filling shall be restricted to non-biodegradable, inert waste and other waste that are not suitable either for recycling or for biological processing.

The municipal authority shall undertake phased programme to ensure community participation in waste segregation.

MSW: Major Initiatives and Current State Proper management of waste has been a critical aspect in urban areas especially the mega cities. Poor collection & transport system along with environmentally unsustainable modes of processing & disposal of wastes has been a common feature of a large number of urban areas across the country. Though steps for improving service delivery were initiated as early as 1963 with Zakaria Committee setting service norms and standards in urban services, but poor implementation of the recommendations dodged the issue. The deteriorating quality of waste management services evident by the Surat disaster in 1994 acted as a wakeup call for both citizens and government stressing the need for putting in place standard waste management practices. Subsequently, Ministry of Environment & Forest brought MSW (Management & Handling) Rules in 2000 that contained several remarkable features, e.g., door-to-door collection, segregation of waste at source, scientific disposal of wastes, among others. Further, the Supreme Court of India set 2003 as the target year for compliance with the set rules by the ULBs. The reform linked urban investment schemes, viz., JnNURM and UIDSSMT schemes launched by Ministry of Urban Development in 2005 was a major boost towards improvement in coverage and efficiency of municipal services by way of providing funds to ULBs subject to certain conditions. JnNURM in its first phase is expected to extend to 60 cities with a population over 1 million and 20 cities of religious and tourist importance. A provision of around ` 50,000 Crores has been made by the Central Government. Till date 43 projects worth ` 2, 65,245 Lakhs has been sanctioned under the scheme. Another major landmark in the MSW space refers to the setting up of Service Benchmarks in Urban Services by MoUD in 2008. Hundred percent household coverage, waste collection efficiency and segregation of MSW, are some of the key benchmarks stipulated by the government to usher in efficiency in service delivery. A glance at the existing situation of service delivery standards across the ULBs points to the poor performance of both Class I and Class II cities. Despite several policy interventions the outcomes have been largely unsatisfactory barring a few cities. Though the ULBs continue to lag behind in terms of complying with the service benchmarks, there is some indication of improvement in a few performance indicators.

A pilot study undertaken by MoUD in 2009 to assess the performance of 28 select ULBs representing different tiers and states found none of the ULBs being able to achieve all the service level benchmarks. Exhibit 1.1: MoUD Pilot Study Summary Findings S/N Service Parameter Benchmark Score Lowest Score Highest Score No. of Cities achieving Benchmark Levels 1 2 0 3 0 1 2 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

HH Coverage Collection Efficiency MSW Segregation MSW Recovery Scientific Disposal Cost Recovery User Charges Collection Efficiency Complaints Redressal

100 100 100 80 100 100 90 80

2.6 43.2 2.7 3.9 0.8 0.1 30 62.5

100 100 64.9 100 57.6 160 100 100

Source: Compiled from Urban Finance, NIUA (2010).

Exhibit 1.1 reveals the grim situation of the ULBs in adhering to the performance parameters. Of all the eight parameters mentioned above household coverage, MSW segregation, scientific disposal and cost recovery are the areas where the performance is extremely poor. The service standards in the mega cities are poorer than that of the Tier II and Tier III cities. Fig 1.4 shows that of the mega cities and other cities surveyed, mega cities perform better only in terms of scientific disposal and household

Fig. 1.4: Performance Levels of Cities in India

Performance level of Megacities vis-a-vis Other Cities (in percent)
Complaint Redressal Collection Efficiency Revenue Collection Efficiency Scientific Disposal HH Coverage MSW Recovery MSW Segregation Cost Recovery 0 13 20 Class II & III Cities 19 26 30 40 Mega Cities 60 80 100 35 20 50 49 58 56 65 62 71 79 86 93

Source: Compiled from data available in Urban Finance, NIUA (2010).

coverage.4 On average, the cost recovery and MSW segregation is only 13 and 19 percent respectively in the mega cities while these figures stand at 30 and 26 percent respectively in non-mega cities. Box 1.2 MSWM: Service Scenario in India Household coverage ranges from 4.2 % (Delhi) to 76 % (Ahmedabad) in the mega cities; in other cities it ranges from 2.6 % (Berhampur) to 100 % (Bokaro). Less than 25 % of the waste is segregated on average. Cost recovery is less than 15 % on average. Scientific disposal of waste is rarely practiced. Proportion of organic waste to total waste generated is relatively higher compared to other countries Community participation is practiced in only a few urban areas, e.g., Trivandrum, Delhi
New Delhi (India): 80 per cent, Bangalore (India): 72 per cent, Belo Horizonte (Brazil): 66 per cent Kunming (China): 58 per cent, Quezon City (the Philippines): 50 per cent Source: UN HABITAT (2010).

Source: Compiled from various sources

Factors Contributing to the Poor Waste Management Scenario in India ULBs in India are dependent on Central and State governments for grants and budgetary supports for their normal functioning. With increasing population, and changing socio-economic profile of people, there is a growing pressure on the ULBs to deliver quality services to its citizens. However, a host of factors are responsible for the inadequate and inefficient service delivery across the urban areas in the country. Different segments of the MSW value chain are beset by different set of problems that render management of MSW ineffective, inadequate and inefficient. Fig. 1.5 depicts the value chain of the MSW sector.

Fig. 1.5: MSW Value Chain Inadequate involvement of all stakeholders, namely, households, rag-pickers, non-governmental organization, private waste management companies, school children, environmentalists, local leaders by the ULBs in devising possible solutions to the waste menace of the respective localities is an important factor that hinders application of a concerted effort for MSW management. Lack of awareness about the importance good SWM practices especially waste segregation, and absence of any clear mandate fixing responsibility of waste segregation on waste generators results in mixing of all kind wastes by people. Most of the ULBs depend on central and state government grants for funds that are often inadequate as bulk of the funds is absorbed by administrative expenses. Factors contributing to Poor Waste Generation & Segregation System Creating awareness about the importance of proper waste management is an area that has lacked focused attention of the stakeholders. Citizens are not aware about the merits of waste segregation and scientific disposal of wastes. The principle of 3-Rs Reduce, Reuse and Recycle is rarely practiced at the individual
The megacities are cities with over 1 million population and includes the metro cities whereas the other cities refer to cities with population less than 1 million population and includes state capitals and smaller cities like Berhampur, Chas, etc.
4

household level. Citizens are not aware of the problem caused by mixing of organic, un-organic waste with hazardous biomedical and electronic waste at the subsequent segments of the MSW management. Information, Education and Communication (IEC) campaigns have not been made by ULBs in participation with all stakeholders on the criticality of MSW management. It is expected that with absence of legal punishment for furnishing un-segregated wastes along with absence of monetary or other incentives for waste segregation would not instill good SWM practice in the citizens. Though the MSW (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 did not fix the responsibility of waste segregation on the waste generators, the Committee on National Sustainable Habitat Standards for the Municipal Solid Waste Management has recommended fixing the responsibility on premise occupiers for storage of segregated waste. The Committee has also recommended penalizing municipal corporations for non-compliance of MSW Rules. It is expected that these features would be incorporated in the MSW Rules 2000 whose amendment is under contemplation by the central government in consultation with state government and ULBs. Factors contributing to Poor Collection & Transportation System A large number of cities and towns in India have developed in an unplanned way. The width of roads, lanes vary significantly within cities which makes planning of C&T system of waste a difficult task. It is therefore required to have different systems for C&T of waste for different types of localities. However, most of the ULBs practice uniform C&T system for entire city/town rendering collection of waste from inaccessible and marginal areas not served. Inadequate vehicles and equipments at the disposal of ULBs primarily due to lack of financial resources rendered service delivery in a poor state. For instance, in Jalandhar only 2 public health workers are available per 1000 population. The waste characteristic in India is different from that of industrial countries and hence vehicles and systems that operate with low-density waste in industrial countries are not suitable or reliable for heavy waste. Faulty designs for C&T system of wastes in terms of inappropriate size and placement of garbage bins, transfer stations etc. has aggravated the problem of overflowing waste and insufficient removal of waste from sites. The informal workers e.g., rags pickers, waste collecting communities etc. play a vital role in the collection, transportation & disposal of wastes and compensate to some extent the inadequacy of service provided by ULBs. Failure to integrate these workers in the MSW management mainstream contributes to the poor service delivery. These workers are highly vulnerable and entirely dependent on proceeds of the collected waste for their livelihood. The waste pickers often rummage waste bins and cause waste to scatter around the bins. Items like plastic, metals and glass collected by waste pickers reduces potential value of wastes and also makes production of energy from waste unfeasible as plastic is an important ingredient of refuse derived fuel used for generating electricity. These factors play a decisive role if a ULB decides to set a waste-to-energy plant, compost plant etc for reducing the amount of refuse that goes to the landfill. Factors contributing to Poor Processing & Disposal (P&D) System Open dumping of waste is the easiest way out to dispose waste. Before the MSW (Management & Handling) Rules 2000 were in force, ULBs were under no pressure to adopt scientific waste management practices. The practice of open dumping is still rampant in the country with only a handful of ULBs have sanitary landfill facility in place. The problems encountered in the C&T segment of the MSW management are reflected in the P&D segments as well as they are inter-twined. Collection of unsegregated waste from source renders derivation of value costly or economically unfeasible in most cases. Further, a large share of the value embedded in waste is extracted at the household level by sale of recyclables to kabadiwalas. Some of the ULBs for instance Municipal Corporation of Delhi, did experiment with scientific methods to process and dispose waste but encountered problems due to

various reasons. Controversies in the scientific and environmental arena for a particular technology have made ULBs apprehensive about going ahead with a particular technology. Wastes to energy/compost plants require availability of minimum waste quantity of specified composition and characteristics for smooth operation of plants. ULBs that sought private sector participation for processing & disposal of wastes have been marred by lack of co-operation among the stakeholders and hence make such ventures vulnerable. Box 1.3: Waste to Energy Plant Municipal Corporation of Delhi The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) established a 3.75 MW waste-to-energy (wte) plant with assistance from Government of Denmark in 1987 to address the twin problems of waste disposal and electricity shortage faced by the city. The capacity of the plant was 300 TPD of solid waste and was set up at a cost of Rs. 25 Cr. by Volund Miljotecknik A/S of Denmark that also supplied the incineration technology. The plant started operation on a pilot basis but was shut down three years later due to poor quality of unscreened/unsegregated incoming waste as the plant was design for screened waste. Subsequently a screening plant was set up with a capacity of 100 TPD but still the waste was not adequate to operate the plant.

Linking Factors with Performance The Pilot study on assessing the ULBs in terms of their adherence to MSW Rules 2000 and the service level benchmark set by the Ministry of Urban Development in 2008 found a dismal state of affairs in almost all ULBs. The ULBs with poor performance usually have poor financial strength and inadequate staff and equipments for efficient management of MSW in the localities. Box 1.4 and 1.5 attempt to states the factors underlying the inadequate and inefficient SWM service in Berhampur. Box 1.4 Solid Waste Management in Berhampur (Odisha) Solid waste management service in Berhampur, a Class I Town in Odisha is poor relative to the desired levels. The pilot study on status of SWM service in 28 cities and towns found that the household coverage and collection efficiency of wastes was 2.6 and 81.2 percent respectively against benchmark levels of 100 percent for each service. Lack of human resource and equipment capacity in the Berhampur Municipal Corporation (BMC) is possible one of the important reason for the poor performance in these two aspects of service delivery. Of the total sanctioned strength of 840 staff, BMC has only 253 positions lying vacant of which 107 are sweepers and the Corporation is burdened with different loans and payment of loans and gratuity to its retired staff. Waste is disposed in open dumping grounds as well as open channels thereby creating chokage and stagnation problems.a Door to door collection is absent and waste collection is not practiced on a daily basis. BMC is dependent on government funds and grants substantially (around 44 %) and receipts from rates and taxes form about only 6 % of the total receipts. The city does not levy any user charge in lieu of MSW service. Sources: a) Town Level Background Paper on Berhampur Town (Odisha) for The Urban India Reforms Facility, KIIT (2011).

Box 1.5: Solid Waste Management in Nashik (Maharashtra) The Report card of Nashik Municipal Corporation (NMC) in terms of the service level benchmarks is better relative to other ULBs. Household coverage and collection efficiency of NMC are 86.9 and 87 percent respectively while the extent of MSW segregation and recovery were found to be 34.5 percent and 100 percent respectively in the pilot study by Ministry of Urban Development in 2009. The network of Ghanta Gadis as the garbage collection tractors are called colloquially in the area have resulted in significant improvement in the level of service post MSW rules enforcement. The city has 124 tipper trucks each manned with one driver and 2 garbage collectors. Though the practice of source segregation is not widely practiced, the garbage collectors in the ghanta gadis segregate the non-biodegradable waste. NMC has constructed a 300 TPD compost plant and also disposes refuse in sanitary landfill sites. Around Rs. 52.3 Crores has been allocated for provisioning of MSW services in the city. Sources: City CDP of Nashik Municipal Corporation under JnNURM, NMC (2010). Nashik city Development Plan: Appraisal Report, JnNURM.

Issues with the present MSW Management Scenario Future Implications Unlike past, India cannot afford to have an inadequate and inefficient waste management system given the rapid changes in the socio-economic profile of her people. India aspires to become a developed nation in the coming years and hence the quantity and characteristic of consumption of an average Indian would change significantly.5 Studies have found that with an increase in income level, the per capita waste generation increases while the composition of waste also changes with an increase in the quantity of recyclables like metals and plastics.

Kg/capita/day 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Box 1.6 Levels of Income & Waste Generation

1.4

India
0.6

0.8

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Source: The Growing Complexities and Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries, Sandra Cointreau, The World Bank (2007).

The annual waste generation has been observed to increase in proportion to the rise in population and urbanization - Idris et al., (2004) Waste quantities are inextricably linked to economic activity and resource consumption World Bank (1999) Studies have indicated that for every Indian Rs. 1000 increase in income the solid waste generation increases by one kilogram per month Visvanathan et al., (2003)

The per capita waste generation in OECD countries is around 1.4 kg per day against 0.2 to 0.6 kg per day in India, CPHEEO (2005).
5

India generates around 50 Million tonnes (MT) of waste annually.6 It has been estimated that by 2030 the quantity of waste generated would increase 7 fold to around 377 MT. This means that 1500 Sq. Km. of land would be required to dump the waste annually.7 Though the urban populated is slated to increase at 2.7 percent annually, the higher annual rate of growth of per capita waste generation is expected to amplify the waste generation problem.
Percent of Urban Population

Waste Generation (MT)

50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

1.3 times

41.4

400 300 200 100 0

7 times

377

31.16

53.6 2010 2030

2010

2030

Fig. 1.6a Urban Population

Fig. 1.6b Waste Generation

Fig. 1.6a and 1.6b refer to the increasing rate of urbanization along with the increasing generation of waste in the country during the next couple of decades. While the urban population would be 1.3 times the present population by 2030, the waste generated would be over 7 times the current level of waste generation. Following are some of the adverse consequences that India may face if good MSW management is not undertaken at the earliest. 1. Poor Service Delivery Inadequate coverage of households especially those located in the, inaccessible, marginal & low income urban areas and with poor collection efficiency would continue to result in accumulation of waste heaps in the locality. The decomposition of waste would continue to contribute to spread of contagious diseases apart from causing foul odor in the atmosphere and unsightliness. The adverse impact in one area pervades surrounding areas. It would also continue rummaging of waste by the rag pickers and make waste collection even more cumbersome by the health workers. 2. Health hazard health workers, rag pickers. A large percentage of health workers engaged in handing & management of municipal wastes and also individuals inhabiting areas in proximity to disposal sites are infected with gastrointestinal parasites, worms and related organisms. Several studies on health of solid waste management workers found that relative risk of infections and parasites is three to six times higher for in solid waste workers than for control baseline populations, while acute diarrhoea occurs ten times more often.8 3. Unscientific disposal of waste poses risks for health of individuals and environments. For instance, anaerobic degradation of waste in landfill produces methane a gas that is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Disposal of bio-degradable wastes in open dump yards that are built without engineering principals results in formation of leachate that pollutes surface as well as ground water.
India generated around 42 MT of waste in 2005. With waste quantity growing annually at the rate of 5 percent [Asnani (2005)], the waste generated in 2010 was 53.6 MT. 7 Please see, Successful Innovations in Solid Waste Management Systems: Examples from Five Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu, UNICEF, (2009) 8 Please refer to Solid Waste management in the World Cities, UN Habitat (2010).
6

Scientific disposal of wastes by using alternative waste management technologies can help produce green energy, organic compost, and recycled products, among others. This would result in generating value out of waste and also reduce land requirements for waste disposal in a land scarce India. 4. Land is a scarce in India and with the current rate of urbanization and wastes generation around 14001500 Sq. Kms of land would be required by 2047 to dispose the wastes.9 5. Open dumping of wastes also results in mere transfer of wastes from the urban areas to the peripheral areas making the inhabitants in the latter regions vulnerable to health risks. The present practice is not sustainable as such attempts are met with protest from people as evident in the Tirupur waste processing plant case. Thus there is a need to move away from centralized to decentralized waste disposal systems with the emphasis on minimizing the quantity of refuse reaching the dump sites. Possible Solutions: Decentralized and Centralized Waste Management Systems A glance at the current MSW management system in India shows that various forms of partnerships are underway by different ULBs. Given the diverse profile of cities and towns with varying socio-politicaleconomic set ups, it would be inappropriate to have uniform MSW management practice in the country. Decentralized and centralized solid waste management systems are competing approaches that can be adopted by waste managers for timely and safe disposal of wastes. The decentralized approach promoted by the United Nations, argues that given the nature of waste generated and the cost involved incineration technologies are not feasible for cities and towns in developing countries.10 The decentralized waste management approach looks at the life-cycle of waste namely, generation, collection and disposal and requires that wastes are minimized at all the three stages by applying the principle of 3-R i.e., reduce, reuse and recycle. In India, integrated solid waste management in Guwahati is an example where centralized waste processing & disposal system has been appropriately integrated with community in primary collection of waste. Decentralized MSW Management: an example of Community based SWM in Sri Lanka & Vietnam Waste Concern, a social business enterprise in Dhaka, operates a decentralized waste management system in partnership with the community and the government. Its experience in Dhaka was leverage by UNESC to start a pilot project in Matale (Sri Lanka) and Quy Nhon (Vietnam). The system is based on a door-todoor waste collection practice and provides training to households in segregation of wastes. The idea was to set up Resource Recovery Centres (RRC) with each RRC serving to around 1000 households and a treatment capacity of 2 to 3 tonnes of waste. The RRCs are profit making enterprises that employ informal health workers for waste collection and processing services. Each RRC provides daily door-to door collection services using cycle-carts operated by a team of two former informal waste workers in uniforms and with safety equipments like hand gloves, boots and masks. The collected wastes are transported to RRC where it is manually segregated and organic waste is composted using aerated box method. Sieved compost is enriched with nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium to make organic manure. The organic waste comprises around 80 percent of the total waste. The recyclables forming around 15 percent is sold to recycling units while the refuse constituting 5 percent is collected by the municipal corporation every 2 or 3 weeks and dumped in landfills. Fig. 1.7 provides a graphical representation of the decentralized system.

10

Please See, Looking Back to Track Change: Green India 2047, The Energy & Resource Institute, 2006. Please refer to Community-Based Solid Waste Management, UNESC(2006).

Fig.1.7: Community-Based SWM Centralized MSW Management: Integrated Solid Waste Management in Guwahati In India, the concept of an integrated waste management project is relatively new and currently integrated MSW management projects are under implementation at Guwahati and Hyderabad. The integrated approach to waste management binds all the different aspects of the waste value chain right from waste generation to disposal. The approach is essentially technology driven and makes use of sophisticated technologies available in recent times. The aim is to involve all the stakeholders in the waste management so that waste is disposed off without adversely affecting any of the stakeholders. The ULBs of Guwahati and Hyderabad have partnered with a private entity for collection, transportation, segregation, processing as well as development and management of sanitary landfill. In order to have a holistic approach towards waste management, effort has been made to involve the local community for the primary collection of wastes. Box 1.7 Harnessing Waste through Technology In recent times, a large number of sophisticated technological alternatives are available to derive value out of waste. In the compost segment, the technology is available for converting kitchen waste into organic waste at the household level. At least five technologies, namely, incineration, pelletisation, pyrolysis/gasification, landfill and bio-methanation are available today to generate energy out of waste. The principle of waste generation from municipal solid waste is very similar to a coal-based power plant. At first the waste is converted into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) which is later used to fuel the boiler. Some important benefits of power generation from MSW are as follows: Reduction in quantity of waste required to be disposed daily Address power shortage at local level Reduced landfill requirement

Source: Renewable Energy Source Annual Review, CRISIL (2009)

In Guwahati, the Guwahati Municipal Corporation partnered with a private entity (REEL) to manage the 400 TPD of waste generated in the city. By 2025, the city is expected to generate around 1800 TPD of MSW. GMC being unable to provide complete coverage, regular service, scientific processing and disposal services, it decided to adopt an integrated SWM project at a cost of about 102 Crores with financial assistance from JnNURM. Guwahati Municipal Waste Management Company Ltd., (GWMCL) a SPV was formed to develop the project. In order to have a holistic and integrated MSW management framework GMC also formed a society named Guwahati Waste Management Society (GWMS) constituting informal workers given the vast job opportunities for rag-pickers and community workers. The investment, construction and O&M risks are borne by the private entity while the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) bears the policy risk and has the obligation of paying the tipping fee. GMC has also undertaken the responsibility to facilitate the formation of GWMS and participation during the functioning of the society. The GHMS has representation from resident welfare associations (RWAs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community based organizations (CBOs), ward councilors, and any other agency/individual interested in addressing MSWM issues in consultation with the municipal corporation. The GWMS is responsible for supervising the activities of the implementing agencies so as to ensure overall cleanliness in the city. It would also assist the GWMCL in the selection of suitable implementing agencies, if required. The society would also play an important role in resolving any dispute that arises among GWMCL, RWAs, GMC, NGOs and other stakeholders. Fig. 1.6 maps the various stakeholders involved in the project. Fig. 1.8 attempts to provide the relative merits and issues involved in centralized and decentralized approaches to waste management. The choice of a particular approach depends on several institutional and socio-economic set-ups of the urban areas and needs to be adopted in consultation with all the stakeholders.

Fig. 1.8: Stakeholder Map of Integrated SWM project at Guwahati Both centralized and decentralized approaches to waste management have their relative advantages and issues. The choice of a particular approach depends upon the political and socio-economic profile of the concerned urban locality and should be undertaken in proper consultations with all the concerned stakeholders. Exhibit 1.2 attempts to put down the relative advantages and issues with the centralized and decentralized waste management approaches.

Exhibit 1.2: Centralized and Decentralized Waste Management Systems at a Glance Centralized Waste Management System
Suitable for high income countries/cities Reduces manual handling of wastes Waste can be used for producing compost and energy Has potential for integrating community for primary collection of wastes

Decentralized Waste Management System

Promotes source segregation Effective monitoring by community Allows integrations of informal waste workers Applicable in cities with strong social factors Savings in transport cost and landfill requirements. Relatively low investment cost

Pros

Cons

Not suitable for waste with high organic waste content It is not cost effective Integration of informal waste workers is difficult Technology is unproven Requires source segregation of waste High investment cost Retrenchment of existing workers

Does not address the issue of manual handling of waste. Requires space for each resource recovery centre in vicinity of households. Issue of co-ordination between ULB and several Community Based Organizations (CBOs). Cannot function without strong public participation

Potential for PPPs in MSW Management At present a handful of cities have ventured into public-private participation for addressing the need for proper management of waste. The partnerships range from partnerships for collection & transportation of wastes, processing & disposal of wastes and for management of sanitary landfills. Some ULBs depending upon their need have partnered only for C&T segments, some for processing and disposal, and a few for only disposal of wastes. The concept of integrated solid waste management being relatively new in the country a few cities have developed such projects as well. The concern for efficient and safe disposal of waste is growing in recent times with citizens being more aware of the need and importance of such waste management systems. The ULBs are under tremendous pressure to adopt good waste management practices and PPPs is seen as one of the options given the several ULBs lack capacity and technical expertise to manage the growing waste quantities in their areas. Fig. 1.9 states the number of long term projects undertaken by the ULBs in a few states. Karnataka and Rajasthan lead in terms of the number of PPP projects. The type of PPP includes BOT (toll) BOT (annuity) as well as DBFOT. 31 projects worth around Rs. 2,600 Crores are under different stages of implementation. The list is not exhaustive as PPP India database on solid waste management has not provided information on O&M contracts though several PPPs in O&M are underway in this sector.

SWM Projects in India

Karnataka Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttrakhand Delhi Andhra Pradesh West Bengal Maharashtra Gujarat Chandigarh Assam 0 7 5 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 8

NUMBER OF PROJECTS

Fig. 1.9: SWM Projects at State Level Among the major states, Tamil Nadu is the most urbanized state in India followed by Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab and Karnataka. Punjab and Maharashtra have greater potential for PPPs in the MSW management sector as well given their success record in such partnerships in the commercial infrastructure sector. India has over 4000 cities and towns classified broadly as urban areas. The number of metropolitan cities with population over 1 million increased from 37 in 2001 to 50 in 2011 and is expected to increase to 87 by 2031. With increasing urbanization and corresponding high levels of waste quantity that would be generated the potential for PPPs is tremendous. However, the rationale for PPPs in social sectors is primarily to leverage the efficiency, technical and professional expertise of private sector rather than private investment as funds are expected to flow from the government. A recent study pegged the total capital expenditure need of Indian cities to be around $.12 trillion over the next 20 years or roughly $134 per capita per annum.11 The annual per capita capital expenditure on solid waste management services is stated to be $15. With a population of over 1.2 billion people the total capital expenditure even at $15 per capita annually translates into a huge investment requirement. The High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) on infrastructure sector calls for increasing investment in urban infrastructure from 0.7 % of the GDP in 2011-12 to 1.1 % of the GDP by 2031. In addition, the 13th Finance Commission has already recommended release of Rs. 23,111 Crores to ULBs for the period 2010-15. Thus finance is not an issue in this sector. The HPEC has recommended expanding the JnNURM in the future and expand the reach of the mission to all cities and towns of the country. The mission would be re-christened as New Improved JnNURM (NIJnNURM) and its scale would be to invest around 0.25 of the GDP annually in urban infrastructure. One of the recommendations of the HPEC with reference to financing of urban infrastructure is the provision for creation of a special window for projects that would be financed or executed via PPP route or by leveraging private sources of funding. Fig. 1.10 provides a glance at the quantum of investment required in creation of solid waste management infrastructure in the Indian states.

11

Please see, MGI: Indias urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth, (2010).

Source: Based on data available in Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure & Services, MoUD (2011)

Fig. 1.10: Investment Requirement in SWM in India 2031 It can be seen that southern and western states of India would require relatively larger investment requirement compared to states in the central and north-western region due to high levels of urbanization. West Bengal and Maharashtra are the two states which require substantial investment primarily due to high level of population and population density. Of the three segments of the MSW management value chain, treatment of waste would require most of the investment. There is a need for garnering private sector participation to harness for enhanced efficiency in the entire waste management system. With a growing emphasis on recovering O&M expenditure through own means, ULBs are in the process of levying user charges from the waste generators. Several such examples for exist, for example, Trivandrum, Guwahati, among others. Such an endeavor would reduce dependency of ULBs on external funds and grants and make ULBs financially self-sufficient and enhance sustainability of MSW projects. A recent study by Frost & Sullivan on the MSW management services indicates at an expanding market in this segment. The service covers all aspects of waste management and includes PPP projects for collection, transportation, treatment and disposal as well as recycling of wastes.

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 INR Mn 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: Frost & Sullivan (2009)

Fig. 1.11: MSW Management Services Market: Revenue Forecast (2008-09)

Treatment & Disposal 6%

Recycling 15%

Collection & Transportation

79%

Source: Frost & Sullivan (2009)

Fig. 1.12 MSW Management Services Market Revenue Breakup Value Chain Wise

Fig. 1.11 and Fig. 1.12 show the expected growth and the breakup value chain wise of the MSW management services market. Buoyed by active private sector participation the sector is expected to grow on average at a CAGR of around 22.4 percent for the period 2008-13. Further, the collection and transportation segment of the value chain has the highest potential with a market share of around 79 % followed by recycling and processing & disposal. In an evolving PPP market like India, initial experiments in collection & transportation segments can pave the way for integrated MSW management services at the market matures with time.