A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUSTAINABILITY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SELECTED INDIAN CITIES WITH EMPHASIS ON COST RECOVERY

Transcription

1 NSave Nature to Survive QUARTERLY 4(4) : , A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SUSTAINABILITY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SELECTED INDIAN CITIES WITH EMPHASIS ON COST RECOVERY K. S. RATHORE*, T. I. KHAN 1 AND P. S. VERMA Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan, 1 Indira Gandhi centre for H.E.E.P.S, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur karnisingh49@yahoo.com ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION The Asian continent is a mixture of complex cultures, a mix that is truly reflected in the Municipal solid waste (MSW) systems. Countries like Japan demonstrate a sustainable approach through MSW management. Countries like China strive to meet new demands arising from rapid development. For every nation, solid waste management is a vital, ongoing and significant public service system that needs to be efficiently delivered to the community to maintain aesthetic and public health standards. Municipal agencies must plan and operate the system in keeping with increasing urbanization and population growth. Asian countries have the potential to demonstrate sustainable SWM systems through an integrated approach. A systematic effort is necessary to improve various factors, including policy and legal frameworks, institutional arrangements, financial provisions, technology, operations management, human resource development, and public participation and awareness of ISWM systems (Shekdar, 2009). Sustainable MSW management requires high degree of understanding of waste streams, material balance and flow along with the proper knowledge and willingness of the stakeholders (Jha et al., 2011). In Asian low- and middle-income countries, including India municipal managers still face many common solid waste management problems. Although in some cities, successful innovative ideas and approaches have been implemented on different levels of the solid waste management system (from household storage to disposal), the know-how and experience is seldom communicated and transferred to others with similar responsibilities. Many municipal officers go through the same trial and error phases repeating mistakes made elsewhere before. Research institutions, NGOs, and International agencies are considered as very important actors for enhancing and supporting the dissemination of best practices. It must be recognized, however, that there is not a package solution for solving the solid waste problem. Although the fundamental aspects of the waste management hierarchy remain valid, large flexibility to use different approaches for different local situations and actively involving residents at an early stage in planning and implementation are elements which have shown to be most promising (Zurbrügg, 2002). Solid waste management is critical problem for developing Countries including India. It is estimated that India s current population of 1,210 million will continue to grow at the rate of 3-3.5% per annum. As per solid waste management Manual, 2000 per capita waste generation increase by 1.3 per annum. The yearly increase of waste is around 5% annually. The government is under constant pressure to effectively handle the ever growing amounts of solid waste and make cost effective changes. There are many shortcomings in the existing practices used in managing the MSW. These shortcomings pertain mainly to inadequate manpower, financial Per capita operation and maintenance cost (O andm) for solid waste management in Agara, Amritsar, Haridwar Gwalior, Jaipur, Jalandhar Kanpur, Nanded Ghaziabad and Meerut varies between Rs 187 and Rs 457 and average per capita cost per year is Rs 281. Results of the study revealed that no income is generated by Jaipur Municipal Corporation as solid waste collection charges have not been imposed while property tax has no component of solid waste management. The urban local bodies (ULBs) spent 5-40% of their budget on solid waste management. The total waste generated varies between 36,252 MT per year to 520,968 MT per year in these cities. Population of cities undertaken in this study ranges between to The per capita Solid Waste Generation of Agra and Amritsar is 500 g/day, Haridwar 442 g/day, Gwaliar 222 g/ day, Jaipur 443 g/day, Jhalander 531 g/day, Kanpur 414 g/day, Naned 330 g/day, Thirvanthpuram 283 g/day, Shimla 328 g/day, Dheradun 461 g/day, Gaziabad 328 g/day and Meerut 410 g/day. KEY WORDS Comparison Sustainability Solid waste Received : Revised : Accepted : *Corresponding author 333

2 K. S. RATHORE et al., resources, implements, and machinery required for effectively carrying out various activities for MSWM (Kumar et al., 2009). A majority of ULBs spend 5-40% of their budget on solid waste management. For municipality having population 5-10 lacs, 48% is spent on collection of the waste, 25% on transportation. Municipal Bodies population between lacs spent on collection, 25% on transportation and 10% on disposal. In the present study an attempt as been made to compare the trend of operation and maintenance (O and M) of Solid Waste Management in selected 14 cities of India i.e. Agra, Amritsar, Haridwar, Gwalior, Jaipur, Jalnadhar, Kanpur, Nanded, Thiruvanthapuram, Vizag, Shimla, Dehradun, Gaziabad and Meerut. MATERIALS AND METHODS In the present study the relevant data from 14 cities have been collected by taking care of these constraints for example information for Waste Generation, Population, Revenue and Expenditure were collected. The major activities performed included field investigations to assess the present MSW scenario by organizing Workshops and analysis as per MSW rules 2000, collection of secondary data from the municipal authorities using a predesigned questionnaire and personal discussion with the authorities of Central Government, different State Government, District and Stakeholders. RESULTS Observations have been collected on Population, Solid Waste Generation, Operation and Maintenance Cost (O and M), Revenue of ULBs and User Charges (Cost recovery)in the selected 14 cities i.e. Agra, Amritsar, Haridwar, Gwalior, Jaipur, Jalnadhar, Kanpur, Nanded, Thiruvanthapuram, Vizag, Shimla, Dehradun, Ghaziabad and Meerut. Population and Solid Waste Generation The selected 14 cities are growing at a rapid rate ranging between 3 to 3.5% with a population ranging from to These cities are generating high amounts of solid waste which is increasing annually with the respective population growth. The number of households also plays an important role in generation and collection of the solid waste. The quantity of solid waste generation is mostly associated with the economic status of a society. The countries in which GDP is higher, the waste generation rates and composition is also higher. It has been observed that waste generation rates are lower for developing economies that have lower GDP. The increase in population, the rapid economic growth and the rise in community living standards accelerate municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in developing cities. According to the current population growth trend, the solid waste quantity generated will continue to increase with the city s development. Solid waste generation differs from place to place to a great extent; its production and composition are influenced by consumption pattern, climate, season, cultural practice, etc. Growth of population, increasing urbanization, rising standards of living due to technological innovations have contributed to an increase both in the quantity and variety of solid wastes generated by industrial, mining, domestic and agricultural activities. Per capita Solid Waste Generation of Agra and Amiritsar is 500g/day; Haridwar 442 g/day; Gwaliar 222g/day; Jaipur 443g/day; Jhalander 531g/day; Kanpur 414 g/day; Naned 330 g/day; Thirvanthpuram 283g/day; Shimla 328 g/day; Dheradun 461g/day; Gaziabad 328g/day; Meerut 410g/day (Table 1). Most of the cities do not maintaine the records for quantity of waste per day. All types of wastes are collected and mixed together at community bin. This method does not give correct picture of a waste generation areas. It is very difficult to keep a record of quantity of waste generation from each source. Hence, there should be reliable information on solid waste quantification and characterization, which is the prime requirement of the system. Because of the no availability of daily records of quantification, one cannot assess the total expenditure involved for disposal of the solid waste. Revenue generation in ULBs Most of ULBs are depending upon the grants given by the state government. The Following are the major sources of revenue of ULBs: Grant from State Government Property tax Revenue from Hoardings Entry Tax (in few ULBs) Revenue from License Fees. Revenue from different leases. Revenue from Sale of Land Revenue from User Fees of the services provided by ULBs. Other revenue. The data collected on revenue show that financial position of the ULBs is not sound/predictable. The detail analysis of Jaipur Municipal Corporation has been made regarding the yearly revenue and trend in increase in revenue. In JMC percentage increase in revenue for the year is 46%, is 26%, from is 19%, from is 35% and a decrease of 1.6% in revenue in year The reason for the same can be associated with abolishment of house tax on political ground and new infrastructure tax being imposed in which around 80% properties are being exempted from tax similarly the user charges on Sewerage and Solid Waste Management are not being collected. The increase trend of revenue is also deceptive as some of the funds obtained are for capital investment and not for O and M work. It has been observed that there is no fixed trend in revenue generation of ULBs. The revenue of ULBs is spent mostly on the salary of the employees and funds are not available for capital work and O and M services provided by the ULBs. Estimation of O and M cost of solid waste management service The total annual operating expenses towards SWM services include costs related to O and M expenses all directly attributable administrative and establishment expenditure (including salaries, wages, contract labour hire charges etc). Operating expenses should also include payments to 334

3 SUSTAINABILITY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Table 1: O and M expenditure and waste generation Name of Total waste Expenditure on Population of cost per MT cost per per- cost per house the city generated MT/y O and M/Rs in Lac the city* son per year hold per year Agara 287,280 4, Amritsar 216,000 3, Haridwar Gwaliar Jaipur 499,680 14, Jalamdhar 172,800 2, Kanpur 520,968 7, Nanded 66,600 1, Thirvanthpuram 82,800 1, Vizag 377,640 4, Shimla 36, Deharadun 105,489 1, Gaziabad 281, Meerut 199, Average contractors for activities outsourced by the ULB, should exclude interest payments and principal payment. A municipality s Operation and Maintenance Expenditure on solid waste can be analyzed most simply by its average costs. Average cost requires that the cost of a service be divided by some metric, usually tons or number of persons. In the present study average O and M cost has been done per ton, per person and per family (Table 1). Present study reveals that there is a wide variation in the figures of Average O andm Cost of different Cities. The analysis reveals that Per capita O and M Cost in above cities ranges from Rs 187 to 454 and average Per capita O and M Cost is Rs In cities which are center of tourist attraction or are having religious places like Amritsar, Haridwar, Jaipur, Shimla Per capita O and M Cost is more than average and cities like Agara, Meerut, Gaziabad expenditure on SWM is as per average. Further the Most of the expenditure is on the labour charges and wages due to employment of Staff without any rational. A majority of ULBs spend 5-40% of their budget on solid waste management. (as per Manual on municipal solid waste management, 2000 published by MOUD). Cost recovery In India, system of solid waste management are becoming increasable expensive and complex because of continues and unplanned growth of the urban centre. The difficulties in Figure 1: Revenue Revenue providing the desired level of public service through them are often attributed to poor financial status of managing Municipal Corporation. It is necessary for improvement of solid waste management system that the financial position of the ULBs should be sound for that it is suggested that an amount equal to O and M cost should be recovered from the users. DISCUSSION The increase in population, the rapid economic growth and the rise in community living standards accelerate municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in developing cities. According to the current population growth trend, the solid waste quantity generated will continue to increase with the city s development (Minghua et al., 2009). Population growth and solid waste generation in India has varying trend and correlation between population and solid waste generation of specific city is not necessary to be applicable (Rajput et al., 2009). It has been observed that waste generation rates are lower for developing economies that have lower GDP (Shekdar, 2009). During different industrial, mining, agricultural and domestic activities, India produces annually about 960 MT of solid wastes as byproducts, which pose major environmental and ecological problems besides occupying a large area of land for their storage/disposal (Pappu et al., 2007). The sustainability of the waste management in the cities attributed to the continuous improvement strategy framework adopted by the city based on the principles of integrated waste management. It is perceived that adopting a strategic framework based on the principles of integrated waste management with a strong political and social will, can transform the current waste management in cities in developing countries in the bid for finding lasting solutions to the problems that have plagued the waste management system in cities (Asase et al., 2009). A sustainable waste management system is based on sound guiding principles, strong service delivery values with as many locally based solutions as possible and moving at a fiscally responsive pace. Any substantial change in the MSW management in cities will require close cooperation between government, private sector and citizens (Asase et al., 2009). There should be private participation in managing wastes in the developing nation. Since the largest percentage of wastes in developing countries is mainly organic, composting of 335

4 K. S. RATHORE et al., wastes should be encouraged. The government required to assist the grassroots in proper waste management (Awomeso et al., 2010). The private sector participation in SWM, as in most area, is a difficult and contentious issue. It is a strong case for moving away from the traditional polarization between champions of privatization on the one side and those advocating complete state responsibility on the other, towards a more fruitful partnership. At the same time the overall context liberalization, privatization, globalization and the changing, in some cases diminishing, nature of state intervention in which these partnerships are emerging, gives rise to concerns regarding the accountability of both the public and private sectors. It is observed that the public sector, on its own, has not been able to respond effectively to the SWM challenge. On the other hand, it also clearly shows that private and civil society participation also poses several challenges especially in terms of equity and accountability. Further, it also emerges that the nature and efficacy of civil society responses to SWM problems is shaped by a host of local conditions and variables, quality of volunteers and leadership, and most importantly the response of the ULB (Srinivasan, 2006). Financial planning in solid waste management (SWM) is a very important issue that needs to be carefully considered. The failure to insure an adequate budget for operational expenses may have negative impact on the whole SWM system. However, the dynamics of solid waste make decision making difficult for preparing financial planning (Kum et al., 2004). Because of the no availability of daily records of quantification, one cannot assess the total expenditure involved for disposal of the solid waste (Gawaikar and Deshpande, 2006). Funds for SWM are typically assigned as part of the annual municipal general budget (Zhu et al., 2008). Municipalities receive income from various sources, central government, various NGOs, local taxes, with little income directly tied to SWM. They (municipalities) have to manage a number of civic services apart from SWM, the number of services increasing with the size of city. It has been observed that in smaller towns, where SWM is the main municipal service, municipalities spend up to 70% of their total budget on SWM. It is noted that metropolitan cities on the other hand, due to wider resources base and responsibility to provide larger number of services such as water supply, sewerage, sanitation etc, spend only around 10% of their total budget on SWM. The provision of funds for solid waste management in ULBs is commonly observed to be made on an adhoc basis, and not allotted on the basis of any cost estimate which is one of the biggest reasons for mismanagement of resources. The expenditure on solid waste disposal in most municipalities is a very small percentage of the solid waste management budget. The Twelfth Finance Commission has allocated 50 per cent of its grants to urban local bodies for SWM alone. The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission will also provide infrastructure grants (which include SWM) to 63 cities. ULBs can also consider other options such as public-private partnerships, user charges, loans and other financing options for managing solid wastes and generating revenue that could defray atleast operation and maintenance costs of SWM. Urban local bodies have to estimate both the capital and operating costs of meeting the MSW Rules (2000) and come up with a financing plan (Appasamy and Nelliyat, 2007). One of the objectives of ULBs should be to ensure sustainable delivery of urban services. The difficulties in providing the desired level of public service through them are often attributed to poor financial status of managing Municipal Corporation (Shekdar et al., 1992). This requires effective linkage between asset creation and maintenance of urban infrastructure. Towards this end, the levy of reasonable user charges by urban local bodies (ULBs) and parastatals with the objective that the full cost of operation and maintenance (O and M) or recurring cost. Economics provides three principles for assessing user fees for municipal services: allocative efficiency, rationing efficiency, and cost efficiency. These principles should be used for pricing services that do not involve substantial externalities. User fees for municipal services may generate revenue for municipalities and their utility commissions, but they are equally important as prices for those services. Pricing services at marginal cost can lead to efficient production and consumption of the service and efficient allocation of the service when capacity limits are reached; and it can help to guide investment on an efficient basis. Marginal costs should never be lower than operating costs and may be much higher in certain situations. It is important to include opportunity costs and environmental costs in the calculation of marginal costs. These principles are illustrated with respect to waste management and water supply services (Dewees, 2002). The ULBs / parastatals managing the delivery of urban services are required to levy and collect user charges in such a way that income from user charges of a particular service meets the full cost of O and M of the service. This is applicable for all services including solid waste management. Solid waste management is one the primary functions of the ULBs. This would involve collection, transportation, treatment and disposal of wastes. This is very important and is very critical for achieving self-sustainability of services and for improving the financial strength of ULBs. Thus, for cost recovery the ULBs are required to recover all annual operating expenses related to SWM services from annual operating revenues of sources related exclusively to SWM. During the study the per ton cost was calculated indicated at table above and it is observed that per ton cost in 14 cities ranges 2926 to 1178 Rs and average per ton cost is Rs per ton. Similarly average per capita and per household expenditure on Solid Waste Management are 281 and 1409 Rs. respectively. An analysis of information also indicates that separate user charges on solid waste management are not collected in most cities. The expenditure towards SWM is met from the general funds of the ULB. Typically, the component of consolidated property tax relates to conservancy which includes solid waste management. This is normally indicated in the relevant Municipal Acts or Rules under the Act. Some local bodies, in recent years, have introduced levy of a fixed conservancy charge on bulk generators like hotels and commercial establishments to meet the O and M expenditure of collection and disposal of solid waste. Similarly, several local bodies have introduced the practice of door to door collection of waste through RWAs, NGOs, SHGs and other agencies. These agencies collect a monthly charge of Rs 20 to Rs 50 or more from the households to meet their costs. REFERENCES Appasamy, P. P. and Nelliyat, P Financing Solid Waste 336

5 SUSTAINABILITY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Management: Issues and Options, International Conference on Sustainable. Solid Waste Management: Asase, M., Yanful, E. K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J. and Amponsah, S Comparison of municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Waste Management. 29: Awomeso, J. A., Taiwo, A. M., Gbadebo, A. M. and Arimoro, A. O Waste Disposal and Pollution Management in Urban Areas: A Workable Remedy for the Environment in Developing Countries. American J. Environmental Sciences. 6(1): Dewees, D. N Pricing Municipal Services: The Economics of User FeesCanadian tax. Journal / Revenue Fiscale Canadienne. 50(2): Gawaikar, A. and Deshpande, V. P Source Specific Quantification and Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste - a Review, IE (I) Journal-EN. 86: Jha, A. K., Sinkh, S. K., Singh, G. P. and Gupta, P. K Sustainable municipal solid waste.management in low income group of cities: a review. Tropical Ecology. 52(1): Kum, V., Sharp, A. and Harnpornchai, N A System Dynamic Approach for Financial Planning in Solid Waste Management: A Case Study in Phnom Penh city, ThammasaInt t. J. Sc.Tech. 9(2): Kumar, S., Bhattacharyya, J. K., Vaidya, A. N., Chakrabarti, T. and Akolkar, A. B Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities, state capitals, class I cities, and class II towns in India: An insight.waste Management Minghua, Z., Xiumin, F., Rovetta, A., Qichang, H., Vicentini, F., Bingkai, L., Giusti, A. and Yi d, L Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Management. 29: Pappu, A., Saxena, M. and Asolekar, S. R Solid wastes generation in India and their recycling potential in building materials. Building and Environment. 42: Rajput, R., Prasad, G. and Chopra, A. K Scenario of solid waste management in present Indian context Caspian. J. Env. Sci. 7(1): Shekdar, A. V Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach for Asian countries Waste Management. 29: Shekdar, A. V., Krishnaswamy, K. N., Tikekar, V. G. and Bhide, A. D Indian Urban Solid Waste Management Systems Jaded Systems in need of Resource Augmentation. Waste Management. 12: Srinivasan, K Economic and Political Weekly: Zurbrügg, C Urban Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries of Asia How to Cope with the Garbage Crisis. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Urban Solid Waste Management Review Session, Durban, South Africa. 337

6 338