inspiring progress: learning from exnora green pammal's solid waste management partnerships in four...

8/12/2019 Inspiring Progress: Learning from Exnora Green Pammal's Solid Waste Management Partnerships in Four Localities

1/17

Inspiring ProgressLearning from Exnora Green Pammals Solid WasteManagement Partnerships in Four Localities


2/17


3/17

4 | | 5

Ac kno wle dgem ent sTe preparation of this document was possible thanks to input and assistance from many people. Werecord our deep sense of gr atitude to the amil Nadu and Haryana State Governments, as well as t heMunicipal Administrations and Local Bodies for wholeheartedly promoting solid waste management inthe respective sites.

In the DAE ownships, rst and foremost we thank Dr. Baldev Raj, Director of the IGCAR. Also,Dr. S.S. Raj, Mr. K. Manoharan, Deputy Director of the GSO; Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Director of Bhavani;and Mr. P. Subramanian, Sanitary Inspector. Te following residents kindly gave their input: Mrs. Valli,Mrs. W. Langlentombi, Mrs. M. Lakshmi, Mr. M. Sharma and Mr. G. Kuppan. In addition, we thankMr. A. Soundararajan. Te following green ambassadors shared their experiences: Mrs. Meena, Mrs. Kala,Mrs. Anandavalli, Mrs. Dhanam, Mrs. A. Kumari, Mrs. C. Shyamala, Mrs. D. Saraswathi and Mr. Sekar,one of our supervisors.

In Panipat, we thank Shri Balbir Palsha, Congress Party MLA; Mr. Vijay Dhiya, IAS, Panipat DC;Dr. Amit Agrawal, IAS, Yamunanagar DC; Mr. N. K. Jindal, Executive Engineer, Rohtak; Mr. Anu GargPlant HR Manager, PepsiCo, and Mr. Mohit Kumar, PepsiCo. We are grateful for all of our partners atExnora Panipat Navnirman Samiti: Smt. Manjri Chadha, Shri Satish Guglani, Smt. Jagdish Kaur,Shri Kuldeep Singh Bedi, Smt. Indra Kurana, Shri Rameshwar Ranjan, Smt. Saroj aluja, Shri SubashNagpal, Dr. Ramesh Chhabra, Shri Deepak Mukhija, Shri Harbans La l Arora, Shri Ar vind Bajaj,Shri Manohar Lal Wadhwa, Shri Madan Lal Wadhwa, Shri Ramesh Kapoor, Shri Harjinder SinghDilawari. Te following residents shared their impressions: Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur, Mr. Madan Lal Kalra,Mrs. Nitu Jha, Mr. Avtar Singh, Mr. Rajiv Sariin, Mr. . N. Pathak, Mr. D. V. Sharma, Mrs. Kamlesh,Mrs. Sudha Nijhann, Mrs. Ranjana Jawa, Mrs. Meena Kumari, Mrs. Puja, Mrs. Sakshi,Mrs. Sri Chand, Mrs. Saroj Rani and Mr. Manohar Lal Mutneja.

In Mangadu, we thank Mr. N. Ravi, EO; Mr. G. Rajendran, Ward 18 Councilman; andMr. M. Murugan, Ward 1 Councilman. Te following residents shared their impressions:Mr. L. B. Suresh, Mrs. Uma Maheshwari, Mr. and Mrs. Ranga Rao, Mrs. Bagil akshmi,Mrs. Gaumathy, Mrs. Sita Kumari, Mrs. Premila in C A Garden, and Mrs. Premila in Pranavadhi St.,Mrs. Vandiya, Mrs. Vasanthi and Mrs. Manimegalai.

In Pammal, we thank Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, Assistant Director in iruvallur; Mr. K. Kalathi, EO inTiruverkadu; and Mr. Ravikumar, EO in Sevi limedu. Te following representatives from the Anna Nagarand VOC Nagar Residents Welfare Associations also contributed their input: Mr. N. Dhandapani,Mr. K. Srinivasan, Mr. Shankar Sharma, Mr. K. C. Sekar, Mr. K. Elangovan and Mr. R. Sivaraman. Alsothanks to Mr. Abhiram Seth, Former Executive Director of PepsiCo, and Mr. P. Devanand, President andCEO, ExNoRa Environmental Certication Corporation.

In each site, project managers facilitated all eldwork for the document. Tanks go to Ms. E. Mariammal,Mr. S. Vijaybasker and Mr. K. Bhanu, Senior echnical Advisor, EGP, in Pammal, Mr. Kannadasan in theDAE ownships, Mr. K. S. Sudhish in Panipat, Mr. Murugan and Mr. Jeyshankar in Mangadu.

Dr. Suneel Pandey, Dr. om L. Richard and Dr. Paul . Williams provided helpful stud ies andinformation on municipal solid waste management. Te Office of the Publisher at the World Bank kindlygranted permission to reprint images that appeared originally in their publications. Last but certainly notleast, we thank Exnora International, EGP and EPNS members, and Husky Injection Molding SystemsPvt. Ltd., Canada, and PepsiCo, steadfast partners in the campaign to make India a cleaner nation.

Abbreviat io ns ADC Additional Deputy CommissionerDAE Department of Atomic Energy DC Deputy CommissionerEGP Exnora Green PammalEO Executive OfficerEPNS Exnora Panipat Navnirman SamitiExnora Excellent Novel RadicalGA Exnoras Green Ambassadors, who collect and

process waste and sweep streetsIGCAR Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic ResearchMDGs Millennium Development GoalsME Municipal EngineerMSW Municipal Solid WasteNGO Non-governmental OrganisationRWA Residents Welfare AssociationSWM Solid Waste Management WSP Water and Sanitation Program

Contents Abbrevia tions 4 Acknowledgement s 5Executive Summary 6Introduction 7Proles of Partnerships in Four Localities 11Vital Statistics of the Sites 16Lessons Learned 17Te MSW Rules - Fundamentally Sensible, Although Some

Points Require Clarication 19Reections from Officials 21Bottlenecks Impeding Wider Implementation of the Rules 23Recommendations - A Way Forward 23estimonials 26References 28


4/17

6 | | 7

Indias solid waste crisis is undermining thenations efforts to improve public health, protectthe environment and stop climate change. Indiaproduces a staggering amount of municipal solid

waste every day, and the rate of production isexpected to climb steadily as the nation becomesmore populated, urbanized and economicallydeveloped.

In 2000, the Indian government enacted rules forthe management and handling of municipal solidwaste (hereafter referred to as t he rules). Te rulesprescribe a package of practices that emphasizerecycling and composting to signicantly reducewaste, with the objectives of improving publichealth, protecting the environment and easingthe burden on landlls. Te government directedthe authorities of all localities to comply with therules by December 2003. Te government alsoappropriated funding through many grants andschemes for local bodies to construct new wastemanagement facilities and purchase necessaryequipment. However, as of 2010, most localitieshave not fully complied, with the result thatindiscriminate littering and dumping polluteroadsides, street corners and waterways throughoutthe country.

Indias solid waste management (SWM) policy is ata crossroads. Widespread, prolonged noncompliancewith the rules, and rapid, highly-visibleenvironmental degradation have led to calls forchanges to t he nations waste management policy,changes that include the creation of landlls largeenough to hold all of the nations waste.

Such drastic revision of policy would bring aboutconsequences that work against several objectivesof the rules. Terefore, changes to Indias waste

management policy must be considered careful ly,and should be informed by thorough study ofexisting waste management systems, so that policycan be ne tuned to achieve only the changes

that are needed, without unwanted or undesirableoutcomes. Furthermore, all proposals for changemust be accompanied by rigorous disclosure andscrutiny of their associated costs and consequences,and their empirical track record.

Te rules arenot in need of drastic overhaul.Rather, the rules should be rened according tolessons learned by existing efforts to bring localitiesinto compliance. Review and analysis of such effortswill identify bottlenecks and gaps that impedewidespread implementation of the rules, t herebyrevealing points where policy requires attention andaction.

Tis document is a product of such an exercise. Forover 15 years, the leaders of Exnora Green Pammal(EGP), an NGO based in Chennai, have beenimplementing solid waste management projectswith a variety of local bodies in accordance with thegovernments rules. Tis document is the product ofa month-long review of four models of partnershipbetween EGP, local bodies, residents, sociallyresponsible corporations and other stakeholders.Te review was to determine the impact anddistill the lessons of such partnerships and usesuch insights to assess the nations SWM policy. After analyzing EGPs records and conferring withstakeholders, our ndings verify the strengthsand efficacy of t he rules, pinpoint impedimentshampering widespread compliance, and indicatespecic steps to remove these roadblocks and enablelocalities to implement the rules. Tis document points a practical way toward acleaner and healthier nation.

Executive Summar y I think that our cities have the dubious distinction of being the dirtiest cities in the world.Tere is no doubt about it. . . If there is a Nobel Prize for dirt and lth, India will win it handsdown. Tere is no competition for that and we have to do something dramatic on municipalsolid waste. Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Environment and Forests. 20 November 2009

Widespread littering and indiscriminate dumpingof municipal solid waste (MSW ) hamper Indiasefforts to achieve several Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) (Gonzenbach et al. 2007) andcombat climate change. If corrective action isnot taken, the solid waste crisis will increasinglycounteract development efforts as Indias populationgrows and moves to urban areas.

If current trends continue, the amount of solidwaste produced in India in 2047 is likely to reach260 million tonnes, ve times the present levelof production, requiring an area of 1,400 squarekilometres for disposal in landlls that would emit39 million tonnes of methane (Singhal and Pandey2001; Hanrahan, Srivastava and Ramakrishna2006).

Plastic and electronic wastes illustrate the dr amaticrate of increase in waste production. Plastic wastehas increased four-fold since 1999, and is likely toincrease another ten-fold by 2030. Electronic waste,which is now approximately 0.15 million tonnes peryear is expected to increase to 1.6 million tonnesper year by 2012 (Pandey and Saraswat 2009).Te enormity of the waste crisis is difficu lt tocomprehend because most consumers see only thenal products of a very long and dirty supply chain.For each tonne of material discarded by consumers,an additional 71 tonnes of waste were generatedduring that materials production and transport(Platt et al. 2008)In 2000, the Indian government enacted theMunicipal Solid Wastes (Management and

Handling) Rules, 2000 (hereafter referred to asthe rules) to signicantly reduce the volume ofmunicipal solid waste by mandating standardizedpractices that included segregating biodegradablefrom non-biodegradable waste at source, recoveringrecyclable materials and composting biodegradablematter. Te governments prescribed practiceshave the objectives of safeguarding humanhealth, conserving resources, protecting theenvironment and reducing the burden on landlls.Te government directed all local authorities toestablish waste management services that complywith the rules by December 2003, but as of 2010noncompliance is widespread.Indias solid waste management policy is at acrossroads. Widespread, prolonged noncompliancewith the rules, and rapid, highly-visibleenvironmental degradation have generatedfrustration, leading to calls for changes to thenations waste management policy. For example,the World Bank-administered Water and SanitationProgram (WSP) advocates the creation of regionallandlls large enough to receive all municipal solidwaste, inert as well a s biodegradable, from up to 20cities and towns for a minimum of 20 years (Waterand Sanitation Program 2007, 20).Tere are several reasons to question the wisdomof the WSPs proposal. Rather than abatingthe crisis by correcting its cause, such landllswould create additional problems. Te creationof massive, centralized landlls designed to hold

Introduction

Cartoon reprinted with permission fromWhat a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia (Washington, DC: World Bank 1999)

Annual MSW Production in India 2006-2047

0

50

00

50

00

50

00

2006 2015 2025 2047

million t/yr


5/17

8 | | 9Reprinted with permission fromImproving Management of Municipal Solid Waste in India: Overview and Challenges.(Washington, DC: World Bank 2006)

Is Privatization the Answer?Te World Bank promotes privatization as a new concept and approach (Zhu et al. 2008, 74) for municipal waste management in India. We see no novelty in the privatization of solid waste management, and have yesingle example of privatized waste management services in India that are highly appreciated by residents, sireduce burdens on landlls, comply with the MSW rules, cut greenhouse gas emissions and dramatically imthe cleanliness of neighborhoods. Te lack of such examples is understandable because corporations primarilthe interests of their shareholders, not the public interest. Achieving multiple, socially and environmentally objectives requires a holistic approach that doesnt primarily aim to maximize ones prot margin.

Perhaps the greatest drawback of privatizing solid waste management is that such contracts tend to reward pcontractors on the basis of the amount of waste that t hey collect, transport and dump. In such an arrangementhe waste manager has a strong incentive to maximize, rather than minimize waste. In addition to sending thwrong economic signals, privatization also effectively excludes the public from responsible participation in management. In a privatized scenario, residents are regarded as mere consumers, rather than as citizens whoresponsibility to keep their neighborhood and nation clean.

Like the proposal to create massive landl ls to hold all waste, privatization of waste management is an illuspanacea, with a track record far more cautionary than encouraging.

all waste is a stopgap measure that would onlypostpone the profound changes we inevitably mustmake in our relationship with waste. Landllsare an extremely expensive way to buy time,during which their existence would signicantlyundercut the rationale to minimize waste. Afterthe creation of such landlls, many people wouldprobably declare, problem solved, and feel no

enthusiasm for establishing systems to collectrecyclables and produce compost. In addition, aset of social interests is likely to coalesce aroundthe construction and operation of such landlls,establishing a group with vested interests that mayoppose competing waste management systems oragendas, particularly measures to minimize waste.Te costs of constructing and operating landllspresented by the WSP do not acknowledge landl lsconsiderable externalities, meaning the unwantedimpact of landlls on health, the environment andland values (Water and Sanitation Program 2007,18-19). By disregarding the costs t hat landllsexternalize, the WSP deceptively discounts the costsof landlling waste.Landll externalities have been rigorously studiedelsewhere and have been estimated to rangebetween $200 and $280 per tonne of waste in Australia (Partl 2006), $3 to $77 per ton of wastein the USA (Resource Recovery and Recycling Authority of Southwest Oakland County 2007),and between 6 and 44 per tonne of wastelandlled in Europe (European Commission 2000,59). Tese ranges clearly demonstrate that the costof landll externalities is substantial.Finally, landlls are massive sources of methane,especially when they contain biodegradable waste(Platt et al. 2008). Every tonne of wet kitchen wastelandlled generates approximately 0.2 metric tonnesof carbon equivalent as the waste decomposes (Plattet al. 2008, 48, cite US EPA 2006). Methane fromwaste is estimated to account for 31% of methaneemission in India (Ravindranath no date). Althoughsome methane may be captured from landlls, thequantity captured may be as low as 20% of totalmethane generated over the life of the landll

(Platt et al. 2008, 7). Te remainder is likely toescape and warm the atmosphere. Landllingrecyclable material indirectly generates greenhousegases in the sense that far less energy is requiredto recycle aluminum, copper, iron, steel, paperand plastic than to extract and rene virgin rawmaterials (Platt et al. 2008, 19). So when recyclablesare landlled, we must extract and use virginresources at far greater energetic cost to make newproducts. Recycling a tonne of mixed recyclablematerials saves 0.87 tonne of carbon equivalent thatwould be generated if the materials were landlled(Friends of the Earth 2000, 4).Proposed changes to t he nations waste managementpolicy must be accompanied by complete disclosureof the associated costs, as well as thoroughconsideration of the biophysical and socioeconomic

impacts. When all costs and consequences areconsidered, it becomes clear that landlling isneither a sensible nor an efficient way of managingresources. Rather than creating landlls to hold allwaste, solid waste management policy should aimto minimize the amount of waste landlled.Rather than regarding the waste crisis as a businessopportunity, the governments rules correctlyappreciate that solid waste management is animportant instrument to combat climate change,create employment, generate revenue, recovervaluable resources, protect t he environment andsafeguard public health. In short, minimizingwaste by recycling and composting yields multiplebenets, whereas landlling waste unleashesa legacy of enduring l iabilities. India needs toconstruct sanitary landlls, but their size and useshould be minimized by measures that prevent andreduce waste.

Several landlls can comeup in the coming years . . . provided of course that wehave the land.

Solid waste management should satisfy residents,safeguard public health, minimize wasteto landlls, protect t he environment, avoidgreenhouse gas generation, and recover valuableresources. Achieving all of these outcomes will notbe inexpensive, but the value of their benets willshow that these outcomes are far less costly thanthe damage done by pollution.For over 15 years, the leaders of Exnora GreenPammal have been promoting and providingsolid waste management services that reduceand responsibly manage waste by educatingand involving the public, recovering recyclablematerials and composting biodegradable matter, in

accordance with the governments rules.Tis document is t he outcome of a month-longreview of four models of pa rtnership by which EGPcollaborates with localities to bring their wastemanagement systems into compliance with thegovernments rules. An objective of the review wasto use EGPs experience to assess the impact andfeasibility of the governments rules. During visitsto each of the four localities, we conferred withlocal authorities, residents and staff to identify thestrengths, achievements and shortcomings of themodels.Based on EGPs records and the feedback gatheredduring the review, this document;

presents the background, structure and impactof each model of partnership

distills officials reections on their experiencewith the MSW rules

identies aspects of the rules requiringclarication

pinpoints bottlenecks impeding widerimplementation of the r ules, and

recommends steps for a way forward

We hope that this document will inform assessmentof the nations SWM policy, and show a way to acleaner future.


6/17

| 11

Profiles of Exnora Green PammalsPartnerships in Pammal, Panipat,the Department of Atomic Energy ownships and Mangadu

Exnora Green Pammals experience demonstrates t hat successful implementation of the governments ruldepends upon determined local leadership, public awareness, involvement and cooperation, qualied staattentive human resource management, proper physical facilities and on-going nancial support. ogethersuch elements can achieve major improvements in the cleanliness of neighborhoods, as well as a signicreduction in the amount of waste.

In these four localities, Exnora Green Pammal and its partners serve over 200,000 residents and emploover 400 people. Every day, nearly nine tonnes of recyclable material and nearly 25 tonnes of biodegradamatter are removed from the waste stream, reducing the waste stream by as much as 80%.

Pammal

Pammal is a third g rade municipality with 21 wardsand a population of approximately 100,000, located17 km from Chennai. Te area of Pammal is 14 sq.km. Tere are 538 streets (length - 72 km), 1,028business establishments and 228 factories.

BackgroundIn 1994, Mrs. Mangalam Balasubramanian anda group of women formed a Mahalir Mandram(womens association) to address the challenge ofwaste management in Pammal. Te Mandrambegan by hiring a few workers, buying a tricycle,and collecting waste from 264 houses in SriSankara Nagar. Tis waste was deposited in theneighborhood bins. Awareness-raising street playswere held to educate residents about pollution andthe benets of waste management. In July 1994, theMandram began collecting a user fee of Rs 10 perhousehold, which was used to pay employees.

Residents living near the waste bins soon objectedto the accumulation of mixed waste, so theMandram was forced to innovate. At that point, theMandram began segregating the waste and makingvermicompost from the biodegradable material.Te successful production of compost inspired theSankara Eye Hospital to allocate space on a portionof their land in Sankara Dhyana Mandapam for theMandrams vermicompost production.

In 1995, the Mandram registered itself as a selfhelp group and obtained a loan, which was used toconstruct a vermicomposting shed. Te impact oftheir work attracted the attention of many officialsand impressed Pammal municipalitys executiveofficer.

In 2004, representatives of PepsiCo visited theproject and subsequently suggested that theactivities be expanded to cover a larger a rea. With PepsiCos sponsorship of Rs 32 lakhs, thework expanded to seven wards, employing 52people. In 2005, using PepsiCos support, a largershed with 108, one-tonne vermicompost tankswas constructed on 1.1 acres provided by themunicipality. o help cover the running costs, theuser fee was increased to Rs 15 per household inmore affluent areas.

Te municipality then invited Mrs. Ba lasubramanian to expand the service to cover all 21 wards inPammal. Te Mandram registered itself as anNGO named Exnora Green Pammal and signeda contract with Pammal municipality. Temunicipality provided 70 tricycles, and PepsiCoprovided 80 tricycles. Te collection of a u ser feefrom the households was discontinued, and insteadthe municipality paid Exnora Green Pammal 95paise per house per day.


7/17


8/17

14 | | 15

Tere is a quantum improvement in the way thetownship looks in respect to cleanliness.Dr. Baldev Raj, Director, IGCAR, Kalpakkam

Exnoras project is a good model. It is a way ofthe future and is worth emulating. Mr. Vijay Dhiya, IAS, DC, Panipat

Where Exnora people are working, the resultsare excellent. Tey come, take waste, and thereis no problem that people are throwing waste onthe road. No blockage in sewage. Wherever theyare working, they are working well.Shri Balbir Palsha, MLA, Panipat

Panipat is a good model. Te result is good.Dr. Amit K. Agrawal, IAS, DC, Yamunanagar

six office buildings, three marriage halls, two hotels,15 shops and tea stalls, and the bus stand. EGP isalso responsible for keeping the entire open area ofthe townships free of litter.

Department of Atomic Energyownships: Kalpakkam, Anupuram andBhavani

Te Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)townships of Kalpakkam, Anupuram and Bhavanihave approximately 30,000 residents who work inatomic energy production and research facilitiesoperated by the Indian government. Te townshipsoccupy 870 acres, approximately 60 k ilometerssouth of Chennai.

BackgroundMrs. Balasubramanian was invited by the IndiraGandhi Council for Atomic Research (IGCAR)to initiate solid waste management in Kalpakkam, Anupuram and Bhavani after she delivered a lectureat Kalpakkam in 2006. Finalizing the contractand preparations took several months. Staff wererecruited primarily from neighboring shingcommunities.

Previously, waste management services in thetownships were contracted to private partiesthat collected waste from community bins andtransported it to a dumpsite. According to residents,the previous services were performed irregularly,leaving neighborhoods very dirty.

Now the townships waste is transported to ExnoraGreen Pammals 3,000 square-foot vermicompostshed situated at Natham Kariacheri Village, eightkm from Kalpakkam, and to a dumpsite leased byEGP. In addition to collecting waste from 6,000residences, EGP also collects waste from six schools,

EPNS collects user fees, pays green ambassadorsand encourages residents to sort their waste

Residents pay the prescribed monthly user fee ofbetween Rs 20 and Rs 40 per house, according toincome level, and segregate their waste. Shops payRs 50 per month. Small hospitals pay Rs 100 permonth. Large hospitals pay Rs 200 per month, andschools pay Rs 500 per month.

Challenges in PanipatTe area covered and number of homes servedby EPNS in Panipat are growing rapidly. Teprimary problem encountered in Panipat is that afew households in areas served by EPNS stil l hireprivate collectors to remove their domestic waste,yet EPNS is responsible for cleaning the street in

front of such houses. Some private waste collectorslitter the streets, creating additional work for theExnora green ambassadors and complicating qualitycontrol. Panipat needs to create a proper landll.Many residents do not segregate their waste. Partnership Structure: Roles and

Responsibilities

EGP responsible for all aspects of solid wastemanagement in the townships

Te DAE townships pay the fees according to acontract with EGP and monitor EGPs performance

PepsiCo provided a bank guarantee so that EGPcould get an advance from the IGCAR to start

Residents segregate their waste

Challenges in Kalpakkam, Anupuram and BhavaniTe townships do not have a proper landll. Manyresidents do not segregate their waste.

Mangadu

Mangadu town panchayat is famous for its largeKamatchi Amman temple, which is a pilgrimagedestination. Mangadu is approximately 20 km fromChennai, near Poonamallee. Te towns populationis approximately 40,000.

BackgroundIn January 2009, Mr. Ravikumar, a resident ofPammal, was posted as the executive officer inMangadu town panchayat. Impressed by the workof EGP around his own home in Pammal,Mr. Ravikumar invited EGP to manage solid waste

in Mangadu. Meetings were held to work out apartnership between EGP and Mangadu townpanchayat, and a resident awareness campaigncommenced.

Collection services were launched in February2009. Initially, door-to-door collection coveredthree wards. Coverage increased to seven wards bythe end of 2009. Te present EO of Mangadu,Mr. N. Ravi, expects that all 18 wards of the townwill be covered by EGP by June 2010.

In Mangadu, the costs of waste managementservices are shared between the panchayat,residents and PepsiCo. Residents pay a monthlyuser fee of Rs 20 per house. Te panchayat hasused grants to construct a storage shed and a

vermicomposting facility with 10 tanks.Partnership Structure: Roles andResponsibilities

EGP provides labour, technical guidance,monitoring, shed maintenance and managerial staff

Mangadu own Panchayat provides tricycles, atruck, facilities, a pump for t he compost shed, andan executive order for EGP to operate

PepsiCo contributed Rs 150,000 to supportprocessing costs, the awareness campaign,supervisors salary and monitoring

Residents pay a monthly user fee of Rs 20 perhouse and segregate their waste

Challenges in MangaduIn Mangadu, the road from the town to thedumpsite and vermicompost shed is in very badcondition, accelerating wear and tear on tricyclesand slowing the pace of work considerably. Tetown has yet to create a proper landl l.


9/17

16 | | 17

Site Vital Statistics Using November 2009 DataPammal Panipat DAE ownships Mangadu

date service launched 1994 Nov 2007 Feb 2008 Feb 2009# houses served initially 264 3,000 5,500 300# houses served November 2009 26,000 10,000 5,500 4,250total population 100,000 300,000 30,000 40,000population covered as of November 2009 100,000 60,000 30,000 21,250ave. total waste (kg per day) 20,911 9,009 11,050 3,759ave. biodegradable (kg per day) 13,170 5,598 6,558 964ave. recyclables (kg per day) 3,560 1,823 2,723 327ave. compost produced (kg per day) 1,100 586 678 262ave. waste dumped (kg per day) 4,181 1,588 1,769 2,468ave. waste averted (kg per day) 16,730 7,421 9,281 1,291% of total waste stream not landlled 80.01% 82.37% 83.99% 34.34%per capita waste (kg per day) 0.21 0.15 0.37 0.18# of GAs 159 73 128 17# of supervisors 6 7 9 2other employed 2 10 2

total employed 165 82 147 21ratio of residents per employee 606 732 204 1,012ratio of GAs per supervisor 26.5 10 14 9ave. cost (Rs per day) 13,917 11,667 24,267 2,566.67ave. cost (Rs per house per day) 0.54 1.17 4.41 0.60ave. cost (Rs per tonne of waste per day) 493.50 1,169.00 4,146.73 747.65revenue from compost (Rs per day) 1,000.00 133.33 283.33 91.67revenue from recyclables (Rs per day) 3,133.33 2,000.00 550.00 280.00revenue from user fees (Rs per day) 0.00 4,166.67 0.00 400.00revenue (Rs per day) 4,133.33 6,300.00 833.33 771.67daily revenue as a percentage of cost 29.70% 54.00% 3.43% 30.06%

Te success of solid waste management depends upon peoplesparticipation. Te rate of recovery of recyclables is not as highas it could be, largely because some residents do not segregatetheir waste. When residents dont segregate their waste, theworkload of green ambassadors is increased because t heyhave to segregate the residents waste, the value of recyclablematerial is reduced because the recyclables become dirty, thequality of biodegradable material is reduced, and the amountof landlled material increases. A much more intensiveand sustained awareness campaign is needed to encouragemore residents to segregate their waste. If more residentssegregate their waste properly, the recovery rate of recyclablematerials will increase, and the amount of landlled waste

will be lower. Raising awareness to achieve widespreadpublic cooperation in terms of segregation of waste requirescontinuous effort and is likely to take several years. Changingpeoples habits is a g radual process.

Solid waste management requires money for startup and foroperation. Services cannot be sustained f rom one-time grants.Te revenue earned by the sale of compost and rec yclablematerials and the collection of a user fee covers less thanhalf of the operating costs in three of the four locations. Inthe fourth location, Panipat, such revenue covers only 54%of operating costs. Te government should signicantlyincrease spending on SWM and recognize that SWM is asocial service, not a business. Te cost of SWM to the localbody can be reduced i f private parties provide sponsorship, asPepsiCo is doing in nine localities.

Funds for SWM should be raised by local bodies by imposinga Green ax on all residents. Collecting a user fee is not anideal way to generate revenue for solid waste managementbecause payment is irregular, and collecting the fee is aconsiderable burden for the service provider. Althoughcollection of a user fee strengthens rapport between theservice provider and residents, such collection becomes avery costly task because collecting the fee consumes anenormous amount of the service providers time. Te cost ofdoor-to-door waste col lection, transportation and processinghas been estimated to be between Rs 115 and Rs 120 perhousehold per month (Pandey and Saraswat 2009, 188). Tisis approximately the rate paid to EGP by the DAE townships.

Nearly all localities lack a proper facility for safe and sanitarydisposal of solid waste. Sanitary landlls urgently need to beconstructed for disposal of waste that cannot be recycled orcomposted.

Lessons Learned


10/17

18 | | 19

Composting biodegradable waste also preventssuch waste from generating methane in landlls.Methane produced by waste is estimated toaccount for 31% of methane emission in India(Ravindranath no date).

According to scientists at Cornell University,Source separation composts have the lowestcontaminant levels, . . while delaying separationuntil after composting normally results in thehighest levels of meta l contamination.

Tose metals of greatest concern in compostcadmium, mercury, and lead can be harmfulto animals and humans at relatively lowconcentrations and tend to accumulate in soil,plants, and animals.

Batteries, consumer electronics, ceramics, lightbulbs, house dust and paint chips, lead foils .. . , used motor oils, plastics, and some glassand inks can all introduce metal contaminantsinto the solid waste stream. . . . Plastics areestimated to contribute approximately 30% ofthe cadmium as well as signicant amounts ofnickel and lead.

Richard and Woodbury 1993

Localities should prohibit multiple SWMservice providers from operating in the sameneighborhood. In areas of Panipat served byExnora Panipat Navnirman Samiti, somehouseholds hire private waste collectors. Someof these private collectors litter the area servedby EPNS, while also reducing the revenueavailable for EPNS, yet EPNS is responsible for

cleaning the area where private collectors work.Tis collision effect complicates quality control.

Contracting solid waste management services toNGOs or SHGs is unlikely to solve a signicantshare of the nations waste crisis. Generally, suchgroups lack the professional expertise requiredto anticipate and satisfy a contracts legal andnancial obligations. Few NGOs or SHGs areable to pay the compulsory caution deposit,afford start-up costs and secure bank guaranteesrequired by standard contracts. Furthermore,contractors are seldom appreciated or respectedby residents and local authorities. Contractsestablish a business-oriented relationshipbetween residents, officials and the service

Based on the principles of Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, t he governments rules prescribe sensible, economand appropriate waste management practices. For a country with a large population, nancial constraintand scarcity of land, it is imperative to minimize landlling by removing and reusing as much material possible from the waste stream. House-to-house collection of segregated solid waste is an ideal method collecting uncontaminated biodegradable matter for composting, maximizing the recovery and value recyclables and preventing methane generations in landlls.

European studies have found that compost made from source-segregated waste contains on average on

fourth the heavy metal contamination of compost made from mixed municipal waste (Brinton 2000, 9)Heavy metal contamination of compost made from mixed municipal waste was so high that GermanySwitzerland, France and Austria have stopped producing compost from mixed waste.

It is important to minimize heavy metal levels in compost that might be used in horticulture or agriculturbecause some crops, including brinjal ( opcuoglu and Onal 2007), mushrooms (Woodbury 1993), rice(Bhattacharyya et al. 2008) and spinach (Brinton 2000, 10), have been found to take up such metalsIndias Central Pollution Control Board tested compost made from mixed municipal waste and found thait contained 108-203 mg of lead per kg of compost, a range that exceeds the 100 mg per kg safety standafor lead levels in compost, established in Schedule IV of the rules (CPCB no date). Analysis of three sampof EGPs EXORCO compost detected lead levels of 11, 33 and 16 mg per kg.

he MSW Rules FundamentallySensible, A lthough Some PointsRequire Clarification

provider, which sets all parties in a competitive,rather than a collaborative relationship. Solid Waste Management is a science that should notbe treated as a casual cleaning assignment.

Frequent turnover of government staff isdetrimental to the continuity of SWM.ransfers of local and district officials make it

additionally challenging to initiate and establishnew solid waste management services.

Removal of street bins, together with punctual,daily door-to-door collection of waste resultin a dramatic improvement of neighborhoodcleanliness. After residents experience thebenets of daily waste collection at theirdoorstep, they will not go back to the street bincollection system.

Solid waste management should bedecentralized. Every local body should createfacilities to process and dispose of t heir wastewithin their vicinity. Waste should not travelmore than ve kilometres from its source.


11/17


12/17


13/17


14/17

26 | | 27

Mrs. Anandavalli, Green Ambassador, KalpakkamBefore becoming a greenambassador, I sold sh fromhouse to house. Tat incomewas irregular. Sometimes, Ilost money. Tis job is betterbecause it gives my familyassured income.

Mrs. A. Kumari, Green Ambassador, AnupuramIm happy because I feel that weare performing a social service.

Mr. A. Soundararajan, farmer,KalpakkamBy using Exorco compost onmy paddy crop, Ive seen animprovement in crop health andyield.

Mrs. W. Langlentombi, KalpakkamOur street bins used to beemptied irregularly, so wastesmelled and attracted insectsand dogs. It is much better thatour waste is collected daily atour front door.

Mr. L.B. Suresh CTA Garden, MangaduBefore, our money went todoctors because we became illfrom pollution. Now moneyis saved because disease isprevented. Tey should do thiseverywhere.

Mr. G. Rajendran, Ward 18Councilor, MangaduDoor-to-door collection hasmade our area much cleaner. And we want to make it evenbetter.

Mrs. Ranjana Jawa, principal,Bal Vikas School, Model Town,Panipat Tis system has made a markeddifference in the town. We mustwork to make it even better.

Mr. Madan Lal Kalra, RWAPresident, Shanti Nagar, Panipat Previously, private collectorsdumped waste from our homeson the street corners. Now,door to door collection hasmade a difference in the life ofthe residents. We live in a neatand clean place now. Pests andinsects are reduced.

Mrs. Raj Kumari, DivanNagar, Panipat Earlier, we deposited our wasteon the street corners. Nowthe green ambassador comesto our home each morningand removes our waste. Histremendous service providesmore and more benets for us.

Mr. Satish Guglani, 576 ModelTown, Panipat Our waste used to be dumpedin low areas and people threw

garbage in our park. Nowour quality of life has beenimproved, we are more hea lthy,and our park is clean andbeautiful. Now people aresmiling.

estimonialsMr. N.K. Jindal, former

Municipal Engineer, Panipat Before we introduced this, therewas waste everywhere, andanimals came and fed on thewaste. Tere were many areaswhere there was not sanitaryworker. Now the areas are clean.

Mrs. Saroj Rani, 664 NewDivan Nagar, Panipat Te previous system of wastecollection was not good. Te

collectors troubled us, and cameirregularly. Now the door-to-door collection by greenambassadors keeps our streetclean. Tere are many benetsfor us.

Mrs. Sakshi, New Divan Nagar,Panipat Before, the road was very dirtyand the drains were clogged.

Now everything is always clean.Te green ambassador has agood attitude and collects ourwaste from our gate even if weare not at home.

Mr. Rajiv Sariin, 328L ModelTown, Panipat Door-to-door collec tion ofwaste has made our street veryclean. I purchase and use thecompost that is made from ourkitchen waste, and it beautiesmy houseplants. We also use thecompost in our neighborhoodpark.

Mr. Harjinder Singh Dilawari, 326 Model Town, Panipat Now residents are morehealthy, so we have less medicalexpenses. Te residents arevery happy and appreciate thisgreatly.

Mrs. Nitu Jha, 290 A. ShantiNagar, Panipat Door-to-door collection of wastefrom our home is punctual. Tecollectors dont take leave, andnow the street is very clean.

Mrs. C. Shyamala, Green Ambassador, AnupuramNow we can stand on our ownlegs because we earn our ownincome.

Mr. M. Murugan, Ward 1Councilor, Mangadu Were very happy that wasteis collected door to door, andwere preparing a campaign toincrease residents awareness.

Mr. N. Dhandapani, JointSecretary, VOC Nagar RWA,Pammal Previously, the municipalityoccasionally collected wastefrom overowing street bins. Animals scattered our waste.EGPs service is a boon toPammals residents.

Mr. Sekar, Supervisor, KalpakkamBefore becoming a supervisorfor Exnora, I worked for aprivate contractor who collectedthe waste. Te contractor paidme very poorly. Now I earnwell, and we are keeping thetownship much cleaner.


15/17


16/17

30 | | 31

Notes Notes


17/17

Prepared byBrooks AndersonLayout & design byLAvenir dAuroville Graphics

Photo credits:Brooks Anderson and Exnora Green Pammal archives

Exnora Green Pammal4, 22nd Street Sri Sankara NagarPammalChennaiamil Nadu 600 075044 2248 5955

[email protected]@gmail.com

www.greenpammal.in

inspiring progress: learning from exnora green pammal's solid waste management partnerships in four...

Documents