Upload
ankit-chatri
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
1/17
Background Note on Solid Waste Management in India
Introduction
Municipal solid waste in India includes commercial and residential wastes generated in municipal ornotified 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 itselfthrough 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.
Fig. 1.1: Per Capita Waste Generation: A FewSelect Countries
The characteristic of waste generated in Indian cities is also different from those of the industrialized andhigh 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.
1 Please refer to MSW (Management & Handling) Rules, Ministry of Environment & Forest, GoI (2000).2Please refer to What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, World Bank (1999), for further details.
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.21
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.9
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
India
Philippines
China
UK
Australia
Brazil
Netherlands
USA
Per Capita Waste Generation - Global Scenario
Kg per capita
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
2/17
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.3Solid 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 haswitnessed 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
3 MacFarlane in his study on expenditure pattern on urban waste management by ULBs in major cities of the world found thatcities in both developing and industrialized countries did not spend more than 0.5 % of the per capita GDP. Please refer toWhat a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, World Bank (1999), for further details.
Metal
0.49%Glass
0.6%
Others
7%Paper
4%
Plastic
1%
Inerts
45%
Bio
degrada
bles42%
MSW Characteristics (1996)
Metal
1%Glass
1%
Others
4%Rags
4%
Paper
8%
Plastic
9%
Inerts
25%
Biodegrad
ables
48%
MSW Characteristics (2005)
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
3/17
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 alsoprovide financial assistance to government bodies.
Fig. 1.3: Institutional FrameworkMunicipal 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 UrbanDevelopment 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.
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
4/17
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 tothe 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.
Box 1.1: Salient Features of MSW (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) includes commercial and residential wastes generated in municipal or notifiedareas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical 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 eitherfor recycling or for biological processing.
The municipal authority shall undertake phased programme to ensure community participationin waste segregation.
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
5/17
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 StudySummary Findings
S/N Service Parameter Benchmark
Score
Lowest
Score
Highest
Score
No. of Citiesachieving
BenchmarkLevels
1 HH Coverage 100 2.6 100 1
2 Collection Efficiency 100 43.2 100 2
3 MSW Segregation 100 2.7 64.9 0
4 MSW Recovery 80 3.9 100 3
5 Scientific Disposal 100 0.8 57.6 0
6 Cost Recovery 100 0.1 160 1
7 User ChargesCollection Efficiency
90 30 100 2
8 Complaints Redressal 80 62.5 100 23
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
Source: Compiled from data available in Urban Finance, NIUA (2010).
13
19
35
56
58
62
71
86
30
26
49
50
2065
79
93
0 20 40 60 80 100
Cost Recovery
MSW Segregation
MSW Recovery
HH Coverage
Scientific Disposal
Revenue Collection Efficiency
Collection Efficiency
Complaint Redressal
Performance level of Megacities vis-a-vis Other Cities (in percent)
Class II & III Cities Mega Cities
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
6/17
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.
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 theimportance 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-RsReduce, Reuse and Recycle is rarely practiced at the individual
4The megacities are cities with over 1 million population and includes the metro cities whereas the other cities refer to ci tieswith population less than 1 million population and includes state capitals and smaller cities like Berhampur, Chas, etc.
Box 1.2 MSWM: Service Scenario in India
Household coverage ranges from 4.2 % (Delhi) to 76 % (Ahmedabad) in the megacities; 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, DelhiNew Delhi (India): 80 per cent, Bangalore (India): 72 per cent, Belo Horizonte (Brazil): 66 per centKunming (China): 58 per cent, Quezon City (the Philippines): 50 per centSource: UN HABITAT 2010 .
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
7/17
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 wastefrom 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 un-
segregated 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
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
8/17
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.
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 1.3: Waste to Energy PlantMunicipal 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.
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 channelsthereby 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).
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
9/17
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.
5 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).
The annual waste generation has been observed to increase in proportion to the rise in population andurbanization - 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)
0.6
0.8
1.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Low Income Middle Income High Income
Source: The Growing Complexities and Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries, SandraCointreau, The World Bank (2007).
Box 1.6 Levels of Income & Waste GenerationKg/capita/day
India
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 cityDevelopment Plan: Appraisal Report, JnNURM.
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
10/17
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 toamplify the waste generation problem.
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 hazardhealth 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 sixtimes 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.
6 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.7Please see, Successful Innovations in Solid Waste Management Systems: Examples from Five Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu,UNICEF, (2009)8Please refer to Solid Waste management in the World Cities, UN Habitat (2010).
31.16
41.4
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
2010 2030
Percent of Urban Population1.3 times
53.6
377
0
100
200
300
400
2010 2030
Waste Generation (MT)
7 times
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
11/17
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 1400-1500 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 peripheralareas 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 areunderway by different ULBs. Given the diverse profile of cities and towns with varying socio-political-
economic 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-to-
door 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-todoor 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.
9Please See, Looking Back to Track Change: Green India 2047, The Energy & Resource Institute, 2006.10Please refer to Community-Based Solid Waste Management, UNESC(2006).
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
12/17
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 sophisticatedtechnologies 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 wasteinto organic waste at the household level. At least five technologies, namely, incineration,pelletisation, pyrolysis/gasification, landfill and bio-methanation are available today to generateenergy out of waste. The principle of waste generation from municipal solid waste is very similar to acoal-based power plant. At first the waste is converted into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) which islater used to fuel the boiler. Some important benefits of power generation from MSW are asfollows:
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)
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
13/17
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 managementframework 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 suitableimplementing 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 anddecentralized waste management approaches.
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
14/17
Exhibit 1.2: Centralized and Decentralized Waste Management Systems at a Glance
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 relativelynew 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.
Centralized Waste Management System Decentralized Waste Management System
Pros
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 forprimary collection of wastes
Promotes source segregation Effective monitoring by communityAllows integrations of informal waste workersApplicable in cities with strong social factors Savings in transport cost and landfill requirements. Relatively low investment cost
Cons
Not suitable for waste with high organic wastecontent
It is not cost effectiveIntegration of informal waste workers is difficultTechnology is unprovenRequires source segregation of wasteHigh investment costRetrenchment 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 severalCommunity Based Organizations (CBOs).
Cannot function without strong public participation
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
15/17
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 thanprivate 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.
11Please see, MGI: Indias urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth, (2010).
1
1
1
1
2
3
33
4
5
7
0 2 4 6 8
Assam
Chandigarh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
West Bengal
Andhra Pradesh
DelhiUttrakhand
Tamil Nadu
Rajasthan
Karnataka
SWM Projects in India
NUMBER OF PROJECTS
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
16/17
Source: Based on data available in Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure & Services, MoUD (2011)
Fig. 1.10: Investment Requirement in SWM in India2031
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 MSWmanagement 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.
7/31/2019 Background Note on SWM in India-Updated Version
17/17
Source: Frost & Sullivan (2009)
Fig. 1.11: MSW Management Services Market: Revenue Forecast (2008-09)
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.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013INR Mn
Collection &
Transportation79%
Treatment &Disposal
6%
Recycling15%