Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 148


State of Kerala has a population of 31.84 million, spread over an area of 38,863 sq. kilometers. People living in urban areas account for 26% of the State population. Out of this urban population, 5.18 million live in 53 municipal councils and five corporation areas which account for 16.26% of the State population. This State is ranked at No.2 among the Indian States as the best State to live in by a study conducted by India Today in 2005. The State has 14 Districts, 5 Municipal Corporations, 53 Municipalities, 1 township and 991 Gram Panchayats. The density of population is 819 persons per sq. km as against 363 for all India and sex ratio is 1058 females to 1,000 males. Per capita income of the State is estimated at Rs. 27,048 at current prices for 2004-05. State of Kerala is known for very high standards of health, education, and other parameters for a good quality of life, but it has been facing significant challenges in the area of municipal solid waste management. For various reasons this area has remained neglected over a period of years and has now become a matter of great concern for maintaining health, sanitation and good quality of life for the citizens. Solid waste management has also a direct impact on tourism industry which is being aggressively promoted by the State for its economic development. The subject of solid waste management has remained neglected in the state, mainly on account of lack of priority to the subject by the municipal authorities. Paucity of funds, lack of technical know how, inadequate human resources, and apathy of citizens to maintain cleanliness in the city have all contributed to reasons of inadequacy in service. Institutional weakness and lack of enforcement have added to the problems of waste management and the situation is becoming critical with the passage of time. Looking to the gravity of the situation in the country, public interest litigation was filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking directions to all States and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to improve the situation expeditiously. The Honble Supreme Court set up an Expert Panel to look into all aspects of municipal solid waste management and based on their recommendations, gave directions to class I cities having population above 100000 to improve the systems of waste management and directed Government of India to frame appropriate rules for the management of municipal solid waste in the country. The Ministry of Environment and Forest of GoI accordingly framed Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 making it mandatory for all Municipal authorities in the country irrespective of size and population to implement the directions contained in the rules by 31st December, 2003. Most of the ULBs in the State have not been in a position to implement the aforesaid rules and situation has continued to remain highly unsatisfactory in spite of instructions given by the State Authorities from time to time.


The Government of Kerala, therefore, decided to play a pro-active role in the development of solid waste management systems in the State and set up a high powered mission called Clean Kerala Mission (CKM) chaired by the Honble Chief Minister. The Mission has the membership of various Ministers of related Departments. The Mission has also formed an Empowered Committee comprised of Senior Officials of Departments concerned, headed by the Chief Secretary and a Working Committee comprising of the Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Urban Affairs Department, Director of Panchayats, Commissioner of Rural development, Director, TSHM, and Chief, Decentralized Planning, SPB, Kerala and chaired by Principal Secretary, LSG (Urban). One among the main objectives of the CKM is as under: "TO IMPLEMENT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE, OPERATIONALLY SUSTAINABLE, FINANCIALLY ORIENTED WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE" TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, VIABLE& ENTREPRENEUR

The Clean Kerala Mission has been trying to play an important role to achieve this objective by providing technical and financial assistance to the LSGs in the State and doing hand-holding to facilitate improvement in solid waste management practices in urban areas but with a very limited success. The mission has been facing several challenges while extending technical assistance to municipal authorities which are briefly mentioned below: The State has high density of population and rural urban continuum making it difficult to plan systems limited to municipal areas only leaving aside other urban and rural areas adjacent to municipal areas. Scarcity of large parcels of suitable waste land. Heavy monsoon spread over six months in an year The water table is high in the coastal zones and some areas of mid land. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to find suitable parcels of land for setting up treatment and disposal facilities. Not in my backyard - NIMBY SYNDROME is very common. People object to setting up any solid waste management facility in their vicinity, making it difficult for the decision makers to zero down on the location to construct treatment and disposal facilities. Municipal authorities lack technical know how and in-house capabilities to manage SWM services.

Looking to the challenges faced by the CKM as stated above and the difficulties being experienced by the mission in implementing MSW Rules 2000, WSP-SA, World Bank, has come forward to assist the mission through a study which may suggest the strategies to make the CKM more effective and in improving the overall situation in SWM in the State of Kerala. SEUF has been assigned with the task to undertake the study.


To find the solutions to the challenges faced by the Clean Kerala Mission, carry out an in-depth study of existing situation and devise strategies to strengthen the CKM and facilitate the improvement in solid waste management systems. The study particularly aims at: (1) Strengthening CKM (2) Increasing the in-house capabilities of the provider agencies and their autonomy in decision making as well as making them accountable to deliver efficient SWM service., (3) Increasing the ability of provider agencies to raise & access finance and effect cost recovery for sustainability of service and debt servicing; (4) Detailed assessment of SWM sector at the sectoral, programmatic and service provider level, (5) Development of guidelines for institutional strengthening and reform of the sector. Approach and Methodology The methodology envisaged was (a) collection and analysis of primary data through intensive field surveys, stakeholder analysis, Key Informant Interviews, cross checking and analysis; (b) collection of secondary data and analysis and (c) employ specific instruments and tools for sector assessment and development of policy guidelines. The detailed methodology given in Table 1 was planned and adopted to accomplish the task in accordance with the ToR.
Table 1 Methodology


Methodology Categorization of ULBs

Explanation All 53 ULBs categorized into 3-4 groups on the basis of key parameters and sample selected from each cluster on a normative basis. Develop a stakeholder model for cooperation (win-win partnership)in the context of rural urban continuum This would be done at the later stage of the study. However, we

Consolidation approach in SWM Willingness to pay for


SWM Provider Assessment Stakeholder Analysis

Technology assessment Demand forecasting and Investment requirements

Analysis of regulatory framework Institutional Analysis

Stakeholder workshops Environmental Impact assessment Multi-Stakeholder Assessment and design cooperative model

FGDs and KIIs

Sustainability Evaluation

Co-operative Model for Regional Facility

have adopted benchmark approach in WTP along with secondary evidences. Role, responsibility, accountability mapping, governance parameters Invetorization of stakeholders, identification of key stakeholders, map stake gainers/stake losers, map perceptions, concerns, incentives and disincentives Inventorise technologies, appropriateness analysis, technology mix and forecasting to develop strategy. Estimate the SW generated, ULBs and for the state, estimate the investment requirement, assess investment pattern, identify gaps and suggest innovative approaches including local resource mobilization Map the existing regulations, rules, institutional actors, enforcement effectiveness, constraints, consensus building tools Institutional mapping, roles and responsibility assessment, SWOT, capacity building needs, governance standards and design model to suit the future challenges. Conduct stakeholder workshops to validate the draft/final reports/guidelines EIA would be done to assess the environmental impact of the current practices and future strategies, quantify the impact through quantitative and qualitative tools. (please see details below) Inventorization of stakeholders, Priorities them according to the perceived/real stake, group them into stake losers and gainers and develop strategy to maximize positive gains and to minimize loss. Also use the system to develop win-win scenarios for conflict resolution and consensus building. FGDs and KIIs would be conducted mainly to assess, the stakeholder perception, awareness standards, key expectations and expert views on the status, prospects and future strategies. Developing a sustainability matrix, assessment would be done in selected ULBs as to the technical, financial, institutional and managerial sustainability of SWM practices. Rural-urban Kerala has very little variation in SWM issues and limitation of land availability. The viability of investments could be best established by developing a co-operative model. In selected ULBs, scope of such experiments would be explored, using stakeholder analysis, conflict resolution models, viability analysis.


Key Outputs The key deliverables from the assignment are given in Table 2.
Table 2 Key Deliverables

Inception Report Intermediate Status Report

Intermediate Status Report II Draft Final Report Final Report

Approach to the study including methodology, study tools, survey forms, out line (content sheet of final report) Summary/presentation of the preliminary findings of the data collection and desk review (Sec 2.1 of ToR) Status assessment. Presentation/summary of the preliminary structure and content of the reform guidelines (section 2.2 of ToR) 5 Hard copies, all findings compiled 10 Hard Copies and Power point presentation

Methodology Adopted for Undertaking the Study 1. Provider Assessment a. Constitution of Survey Team A team of seven members was constituted for the primary survey including environmental experts and social assessment experts. The team was trained thoroughly before the survey commenced. b. Categorisation of ULBs and Primary Survey There are 17 coastal 3 high land and 33 mid land urban local bodies in Kerala. For the survey, 10% sample of each category representing grade I, II, III municipalities and north, south, central regions were selected. The municipalities selected were given in Table 3.
Table 3 Categorisation of ULBs

Alappuzha Quilandy Punalur Aluva Koothuparambu Neyattinkata

Ist Grade 3rd Grade 2nd Grade Ist Grade 3rd Grade 2nd Grade

Coastal Coastal Highland Midland Midland Midland

Central North Central Central North South


c. Focus Group Discussions In order to capture qualitative information FGDs of municipal staff, workers, health officials, Kudumbashree workers, rag pickers, drivers, health officials etc were conducted in selected municipalities as part of the provider assessment. 2. Key Informants Interview A total number of 15 Key Informants were interviewed including Principal Secretary , LSG (Urban), Principal Secretary (LSG Rural), Executive Director, Kudumbashree, Member secretary, SPCB, Director (Tourism), Director of Municipalities, Director CKM, Dr. R.V.G Menon, IRTC, scientists, elected representatives, officials and sector experts. 3. Case Studies A total number of 20 cases were identified according to expert opinion and ten were prioritised. The list of case studies and their focal theme is given in Table 4.
Table 4 List of Case Studies

Municipality / Corporation Mangalpadi grama panchayat, Kasrgod Malappuram Guruvayur Kottayam Vadavathoor Kozhikkode Kochi, Panampalli Nagar Punalur Alappuzha, Thumpoli North Paravur Thrissur

Focal theme Stakeholder cooperation model -single processing unit- 2,3 grama panchayats CKM good model, compost plant etc Pilgrim tourism, failure of treatment unit Health impact, Environmental Impact Assessment Kudumbasree (segregated house hold collection) Organized rag pickers in door to door collection Biogas Decentralised vermin composting Technology municipal level vermi composting Private involvement in transportation

All case studies have been conducted and those completed in all respects are given in this report. 4. Expert Visit to Selected Municipalities The team of consultants visited Malappuram, Chalakkudy, North Paravur, Alappuzha and Kayamkulam Municipalities, attended council meeting, met different stakeholders, conducted field visits to have 1st hand information on storage at source, segregation, primary collection , secondary storage, transportation, processing and disposal of waste. Additionally, the team assessed the Willingness of the citizens to pay for SWM, conducted Stakeholder Analysis,


Technology Assessment, Investment requirement Assessment, Analysis of Regulatory Framework, Institutional Analysis Environmental, Impact Sustainability Evaluation etc. 5. Stakeholder Consultation Workshop A stakeholder consultation workshop was conducted at Trivandrum involving officials, NGOs, experts, regulators, and related institutions. The Principal Secretary, LSG, Urban delivered the key note address, raising the key issues to be deliberated. The feed back of study team regarding the status and compliance of SWM in five municipalities visited and what they captured from key informants interview were presented in the workshop, followed by detailed consultations. The key findings from the stakeholder workshop are given in Annexure 1. 6. Secondary Data Collection and Desk Review Secondary data was collected from different institutions including CKM, Municipal Directorate, Planning Board, Kudumbashree, State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), Centre for Development Studies(CDS), Centre for Earth Science Studies(CESS), School of Environmental Sciences Mahatma Gandhi University etc and various websites were reviewed.


Background As part of the consultancy support to the Clean Kerala Mission of the Government of Kerala to develop policy and institutional reform guidelines for SWM in Kerala a provider assessment study was conducted in selected municipalities. A six member team from Socio Economic Unit Foundation with expertise in Social, Engineering and Financial domain was fielded for this purpose. The team spent a total of 51 days in the field visiting the municipalities and had interaction with the municipal staff, NGOs as well as common person to elicit their opinion on issues pertaining to the present MSWM services. This is a brief report on the major findings of the study. Selection Criteria Based on normative norms and factoring criteria like geographical locations, demographic details, municipal grade etc. six municipalities, representing 11% of the total municipalities in the state were selected. The name of the municipalities, date of formation, grade, and district geo-physical conditions is shown in Table 5 below: Table 5 Geo-Physical Conditions of Assessed Municipalities
Sl.No Name 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Aluva Neyyattinkara Kuthuparambu Alappuzha Koyilandy Punalur Date of Grade formation 1921 1 1913 2 1990 3 1919 1 1993 3 1971 2 District Ernakulam Trivandrum Kannur Alappuzha Kozhikkode Kollam Location Midland Midland Midland Coastal Coastal High land Wards 23 41 25 50 41 32 Sanitary Circle 2 1 1 6 1 1

The area, grade and economic status of the six municipalities are tabulated in Table 6.


Table 6 Economic Status of Assessed Municipalities

Sl.no 1. 2. 3 4. 5 6. Name Aluva Neyyattinkara Kuthuparambu Alappuzha Koyilandy Punalur Area /sq.km 7.17 28.78 16.76 46.71 29.05 34.60 Population 28210 69467 29532 184388 68998 47235 No. of HHs 6251 17363 5789 42413 13088 11261 APL (%) 18324 (76% ) 58296 (83.91%) 25312 (85.71%) 130368 (70%) 63396 (91.88%) 29235 (61%) BPL(% 5184 (21.5%) 11171 (16.08 %) 4220 (14.28%) 51520 (27%) 5602 (8.11%) 18000 (38%) Slum % 602 (2.5%) *NA *NA 2500 (1.35%) 6 nos. *NA

Source: Data from last published Vikasana rekha & Pauravakasa rekha, Lasted updated list of BPL / APL families from CDS office, Data collected from general administrative section of each municipality, * not available with municipality or kudumbasree

Methodology The primary data collection format consisted of two parts. 1) A format for assessing the services offered by municipality on SWM and Financial aspects. 2) Annexure on the tariff and collection efficiency, informal sector, incentives and disincentives, technology, health and environment, and citizens perspectives on the present SWM system. In addition to the formats as mentioned above, data was also collected through key informant interview, personal meetings and informal discussions. Waste Generation None of the municipalities visited had a scientifically based figure of the volume of waste generated. To calculate the overall waste generated, the procedure normally resorted to was by extrapolating the estimate of waste collected by a certain percentage. The other procedure was to apply an average per capita norm. From the figures provided by the municipal authorities in the six municipalities, the average per capita waste generated is found to be 260 gm / day. The quantity of total and per capita waste generated tabulated on the basis of data provided by the municipal officials is shown in Table 7 below:



Table 7 Waste Generation According to Municipal Officials

Grade 1 Particulars Population Waste / Day Tons Per capita waste (g) Grade II Grade III Aluwa Alappuzha Punaloor Neyyattinkara Quilandy Koothuparambu 28210 20 709

184388 56 304

47235 10 212

69467 8.9 128

68998 8 116

29532 8 271

# The figure seems to be very high. There were no records available to substantiate the generation of waste in a disproportionately large quantity. Sources of Waste Generation On an overall basis 30% of the Comparison of Source wise Waste Generation waste generated was from based on Municipal Grade. domestic sources, 38% from commercial institutions 60% (including hotels and restaurant, Domestic Commercial market place and slaughter house) 50% Others Commercial and 32% from other sources 40% Others including constructional debris. It Domestic Commercial 30% was found that there was a direct Others relation with the share of 20% Domestic domestic waste with the grade of 10% the municipality One of the 0% reasons may be that the average Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 households per sq km in Grade II Municipal Grade municipality was 465 as compared to 889 in Grade I municipality, implying greater land holding facilitating at source waste disposal. Physical Composition The physical composition of the waste was provided by the municipal authorities (except Koothuparambu). No records were found where a scientific analysis of the waste composition was carried out in any of the municipalities. Based on the data provided, the average waste composition across the five municipalities were as follows: Organic waste 62%, Paper 6.94%, Plastics 8.69%, Rag 6.73%, Glass 3.25%, Metals 2.2% and other wastes constituted 10.10% of the total waste.



Physical Characterstics of Waste

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Organic Paper Plastic Rag Glass Metal Others Components 6.94% 8.69% 6.73% 10.11% 3.25% 2.20% 62.07%

Component wise the variation from the average <15%>. Major variation was observed in the share of organic waste (Low 8.80%, High 6.57%), Plastic (Low 8.80%, High 6.57%) and others (High 12.69%, Low 7.34%). For the other components the variation was range bound and was observed to be less than 5%. The component wise maximum and minimum variation is shown in Table 8, while municipality wise vacation is plotted in the graph below.

Variation in Physical Characerstics of Waste Across Municipalities


10% P e rc e n t 5% 0% -5%
A a lu w A uz ha a r lo o y Ne y a ra ila y nd





-10% -15%

p la p

n Pu

in k att






Table 8 Component Wise Maximum & Minimum Variation (%) Low High Organic 8.80 6.57 Paper 2.78 2.94 Plastic 8.31 5.19 Rag 4.27 4.33 Glass 1.25 1.25 Metal 0.80 0.82 Others 12.69 7.34

The 27% of recyclable materials indicated by the study in the cities visited is not based on any scientific study but is a rough estimate as claimed by the municipal authorities. Other studies carried reveal a substantially lesser quantity with Kudumbashree claiming 16% of recyclables, study in Calicut revealing 12%. The average recyclable should therefore on an average across the municipalities be around 15%. Waste Storage Practices at Source On an overall basis the households where door to door collection of waste was being practiced worked to 22%. There is a significant variation across the municipalities with one municipality (Aluwa) achieving 90% success where as the next municipality Quilandy and Allepy practicing this in only 20% and 10% of the households. No such system was in place in Punaloor and Neyyatinkara. If Aluwa (a small municipality with an area of only 7 Sq km and highly urban in nature) were to be excluded, the practice of door to door waste collection was practiced by les than 8% of the households.

Storage Practices
120 100 80 60 40 20 0

P e r c e n ta g e

HH storing Waste

HH storing Segregated Waste


lo att or in A l k a ra ap pu z Q u ha Ko ila oth nd y yy


m a ra


The practice of storing segregated waste at source is virtually non-existent. Except for 6 wards in Allepy (representing 5% of the total households of the municipality), the system was not in place








in any of the other municipalities. The overall compliance of segregated waste storage across the six municipalities worked to less than 1% of the total households. Collection The efficiency of removal of total waste generated appears to be very low. The study team had arranged for the weighing of the transported waste in four municipalities namely Punaloor, Neyyatinkara, Allepy and Quilandy. As a ratio of the total waste generated (as claimed by the municipal authorities) the waste removed overall was found to be only 54%. If the Waste Removal Efficency standard norm of 300 gms / capita of 60 waste generation was to be factored, only 50 Waste Actually 35% of the waste thus arrived is actually Transported 40 getting removed in the four municipalities. 30 Amongst the four municipalities, Allepy 20 Generation - as 10 claimed had the best efficiency by collecting 71% 0 of the claimed waste, while in Generation @ Neyattinkara, Quilandy and Punaloor it 250 gm per was 63%, 44% and 37% respectively. If capita the total waste generated were to be computed at the standard rate of 300 gm/day/capita, then Allepy in fact marginally shows a better by removing 72% of the waste, while in case of the other three municipalities there was a substantial drop in the efficiency with Punaloor and Neyyatinkara at 26% and Quilandy achieving only 17%. A graphical representation of the quantity of waste generated and transported in the four municipalities is shown alongside. A brief tabulated detail of community involvement is contained in Annexure 2.
Waste (Tons)

Transportation of Waste In all most all of the municipalities the vehicles engaged for transpiration of waste to the disposal site were uncovered. Even in cases where tarpaulins were there it was found that during most part of the travel these were not used. For 4 municipalities where a test check of the actual waste transported was done, it was found that excepting in one municipality (Aleppy) the utilization of vehicle was on an average 39-66% only when compared to the total waste generated in the city as claimed by the municipal authority. Vehicle availability (as percentage of days per year) is shown in Table 9 below: Table 9 Vehicle Availability (%) Aluwa 95% Allepy 50% Punaloor 80% Neyyatinkara 60% Quilandy 80% Koothaparambu 80%

The vehicles available with the municipality are under utilized. The present capacity of the functioning vehicles was found to be adequate to transport the entire waste generated as claimed

Ne oo yy r at tin ka ra Al ap pu zh a Q ui la nd y

Pu na l



by the authorities if the vehicles could make only 2 trips. On an average the distance to the disposal site is 07-08 Km. If the available functioning vehicles were to make two trips a day, there will be an excess capacity of 8-10 tones in the four municipalities where test check of per day waste transported was held. Assuming a scenario where all the waste (calculated @ 300 gms per day per capita) was to come fully in the Muncipal waste stream, the existing capacity of the transporting vehicles (@ two trips per day revealed that only marginal additions to the existing capacity is required. It is worth mentioning that a scenario where 100% waste @300 gms per capita will come to the municipals stream is highly unlikely. Therefore it can be safely assumed that the present vehicle availability with the municipalities on a general basis is in fact sufficient to transport the waste generated provided a good management practice is implemented. A tabulated data on the available vehicle is given in Annexure 3. The details of functioning vehicle, their installed capacity, present efficiency and excess / shortage of vehicles as per the present waste generated as claimed by the municipality and under the scenario of a 300 gm waste generation per capita are given in Table 10. Table 10 Vehicle Efficiency

Particulars No. of Functioning Vehicles Waste Generation: - As claimed - @ 300 gms/ day/person Waste Transported: - As claimed - As Weighed 1 2

Punaloor 2

Neyyattinkara 4

Alappuzha 16

Quilandy 4

10.00 14.17

8.90 20.84

56.00 55.32

8.00 20.70

3 4

4.00 3.70

4.00 5.60

26.00 39.65

5.25 3.50 9.00 39%

Installed Capacity 9.00 8.50 35.40 5 Single Trip 41% 66% 112% Present Utilization 6 = 4/5 (Actual Weight Transported / Installed Capacity) Shortage / Excess Capacity - On Waste generated as claimed - Tons - One Trip / Day -1.00 -0.40 -20.61 7=1-5




8.00 8.10 14.79 8= (5X2) -1 Shortage / Excess Capacity - If Waste generated @ 300 gm per capita - One Trip / Day - Two Trip / Day 9=5-2 9 =(5X2) -2 -5.17 3.83 -12.34 -3.84 -19.92 15.47

- Two Trip / Day

-11.70 -2.70

Disposal The quantity of waste collected is disposed in the dumping yard in 5 municipalities. In Aluwa the waste is dumped in pits in dumping yard and is daily covering with red earth, but there are complaints from residence in the locality about the process of dumping. The dumping yard of Allepy is quite large, but the whole area is dumped with large quantity of waste along with plastic carry bags, causing serious environmental pollution. In Punaloor the dumping site is a sloping valley and is water logged. Here the waste is disposed in pits and covered with soil from the pits periodically. In Quilandy dumping site, vermi composting with Kudumbashree and biomass process by one individual is carried out. In Koothaparambu, even though land has been purchased there is no processing or treatment and waste is being crudely dumped. The wastes are piled up very near the entrance itself. Many dogs are seen in the yard. At times the rag pickers set fire to the waste to recover metallic things from the waste. In Neyyatinkara, there is no municipal owned dumping yard and waste is dumped mostly in pits formed by clay mining for brick making. Decomposing of waste is delayed in all the disposal sites as the waste is disposed of by the citizens in tied up carry bags. The status of disposal in the municipalities is shown in Table 11:



Table 11 Waste Processing, Disposal and Land Availability

Name Aluwa Allepy Punaloor Neyyatinkara Quilandy Koothaparambu

Waste Collected / tpd 1 Qty of waste disposed / tpd Process of waste disposal Area of disposal site






Dumping with daily cover 2.43 acres located in adjacent panchayth 7km away

Crude dumping

Crude dumping

Crude dumping

13.5 acre located in adjacent panchayath 7km away

3.5 acre located with in municipalit y 7km away

No disposal site

Qty after compostin g not available. Vermi compostin g and Biomass 1.25 acre located within the municipali ty 4 km away

Crude dumping

4.5 acre located within the municipality 3 km away

Engineered Land Fill (ELF) None of the LSGs in Kerala are disposing waste in engineered land fill. In most cases the authorities are not even aware of this regulatory requirement, with the notion that crude dumping would for all practical purposes suffice. The technical competence to design and maintain ELFs are also found to be lacking. The present practice varies form crude dumping to spreading superficial soil coverings over the waste dumped. The MSWM Rule 2000 makes disposal of waste on an engineered landfill a mandatory requirement. Even assuming that the financial and technical competence of the municipalities gets upgraded, most of the municipalities would still have to go for substantial additional procurement of land. Besides the financial implication, availability of large pockets of land within transportable distance for the municipalities would be extremely difficult to locate. Working on a broad assumption of 15 acres of land per 1 lakhs population ( for a 4 m height landfill) and the need for setting the processing plant at one acre for every 20 tons of waste generated, it was found that in the six municipalities additional land would have to be procured. Municipality wise Koothaparambu require an additional 0.57 acres, while Aluva would require 1 acre, Punaloor 4.5 acres, Quilandy 10.5 acres, Neyyatinkara 11.82 acres and Allepy 19 acres. In terms of percentage Koothaparambu would have to go for 13% of extra land, Aluwa 27%, Punaloor 130%, Allepy 154% and Quilandy would have to purchase 878% of extra land than

As claimed by the municipality.



what they presently own.A comparison of the available land with total land required for setting up ELF and processing plant is shown in the graph below:

Land Requirement for ELF & Present Availability

50 40 Acres 30 20 10 0
or dy ka ra wa alo zh an Al u yy at ti n pp u Pu n uil pa r am bu a


Al a


The NIMBY syndrome in Kerala is very strong. Therefore it is difficult to say whether the municipalities in Kerala would be able to setup ELFs in each city and will not be able to operate and maintain the same professionally. Therefore the cities my have to consider the option of regional facility on cost sharing basis. Willingness To Pay (WTP) Of the 300 people interviewed 67% were willing to pay for facilities to be provided for house to house/institutional level collection from door steps. 33% however felt that it was not required/they were not able to pay for such services. Of the 67% who were willing to pay, 44% said that they are ready to pay any amount ranging between 10 to 40 while 22% where ready to pay 40-80 and 11% where ready to pay 81-120, while 4% was ready to pay 100-200. 90% of people were not sure about the amount. A graphical representation of Willingness to Pay is shown below:

Ko o

th u



Willingness to Pay - Overall - -

Un willing 33%


Willing 67%

Amount wise break up of those willing

Rs. 10 - 40
Rs. 41 - 80
Rs. 81 - 120
Rs. 121 - 160
Rs. 161 - 200
Not Sure



Biomedical Waste IMA is providing treatment facility of the biomedical waste. Hospital development committee is taking initiative for this in Kerala. Compared to the number of institutions present and the biomedical treatment facility available, only 20% of the institutions have treatment process which implies that biomedical waste is either getting diverted into the municipal stream or is being disposed of buried without treatment. The facilities available for biomedical waste management are given in Table 12. Table 12 Biomedical Waste Management Facilities
Sl.no Name Biomedical Institutions
Individual Facility Common Facility

Total Institutions qty -tpd 43 / 0.5 and no information about lab 34 /no information on quantity 25 /1.5 24 / 2.036 24/0.335 15/.325

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Aluva Alappuzha Punalur Neyyattinkara Koyilandy Kuthuparambu

8 1 6 2 2 1

8(IMA) 3(IMA) 10(IMA) 1 6 (IMA) 1 (IMA)

Trainings and Capacity Building The training facilitation in Aluwa, Quilandy and Koothaparambu has been done by Clean Kerala Mission. From the inter action it was obvious that the municipal staff have not received any systematic training on SWM. Investments in IEC and capacity building of all stakeholders which is very crucial for MSWM is virtually absent and the participation of public institutions and community is not addressed. Details of the number of trainings provided are given in Table 13: Table 13 Training Programmes Provided
Name Aluwa Allepy Punaloor Neyyatinkara Quilandy Kootha parambu

Trainings and Capacity building






Finance In spite of the team spending substantial time visiting the municipalities, extracting financial information and data proved extremely difficult. Most of the municipalities visited had a heavy backlog in accounts maintenance. The prevalent system does not facilitate easy extraction of SWM related transactions as they are spread over various account heads and also need apportionment based on nature of job, time spent, purpose of use etc. Presently, this has to be culled out from multiple heads of account. The process has not yet been fully completed. The present financial analysis is based on the secondary data obtained by the team as also from the details of municipalities visited by the core team. The final findings shall be updated in the provider assessment report to be annexed with the final report of this study. A draft report on the financial, audit and procurement issue is given below: Audits The most frequent audits at the municipalities are the audit by Director of Local Fund Audit (DLFA) and Performance audit conducted by the office of State Performance Auditor. DLFA audit is the basic watchdog on financial propriety at the Municipalities. The audit compliance by the DLFA remains abysmal with substantial audit arrears. It was found that DLFA had not conducted any audit for the last two years in any of the municipalities visited by the team Procurement & Contract Management Procurement and proper contract administration was found to be very weak in the project administration capabilities of the municipality. This has led to the opening up avenues for intentional pilferage causing revenue loss. The local bodies do not have the technical, legal or administrative capability to draft, negotiate or conclude a procurement contract professionally. The situation is further aggravated on account of lack of any specific guidelines containing at least the broad parameters the municipalities should adhere to while implementing a SWM project. Besides, the monitoring of contracts is also poor. No proper records and registers are being kept to monitor contract performance. Study of the composting unit at Challakudy Municipality throws light on the un-professional monitoring and management of work contract. A brief note on the state of affairs is as follows: The Chalakudi municipality is processing waste using open wind row composting even though facility of vermi composting also exists. The compost plant is run by a society in which the Municipal Chairperson and Secretary are the important office bearers. The society employs 8 staff and one supervisor to do the composting functions. The municipality provided funds to the society by way of grant to meet the monthly operating expenditure. At present, the average expenditure comes to approximately 30 40 thousand per month. The working of the compost plant is summarized in Table 14 below:



Table 14 Working of the Compost Plant, Chalakkudi Particulars Waste Brought (Tons) Compost Generated @ 30% per ton Per Month Compost generation (Tons) Per Month Compost generation (KGs) Sale Price of compost per KG (Rs.) Monthly society Income by sale of Compost (Rs.) Average per month operating expenditure 3 (Rs.) Concerns: 1. The team was told that there was a big demand for the compost and the local persons used to come to the plant and take away the product. In this scenario it is difficult to understand why then is the society contemplating bringing done the price of compost further down to Rs. 1.75 / KG. 2. From the table above it is evident that the average income to the society on account of sale of end product should be in the range of Rs.50,000 to 60,000 per month. If this be the case, then there is no requirement of monthly grant from the municipality to meet the recurring expenditure of the society which the team was told is presently in the range of Rs. 40,000 per month. Eye Estimate As per Weight2 1.50 5.00 0.45 1.50 13.50 45.00 13,500.00 45000.00 2.00 2.00 27,000.00 90,000.00 45,000

Devolution of Plan Funds The trend of total state funds (plan and non-plan) to own funds has been showing a declining trend except in 2003-04 where there was a spike in plan funds from 53% to 60%. On an average over 2000-01 to 2004-05, the ratio of plan funds to own funds has been 55% to 45%. In 2004 05 the plan funds was 52% of the own funds. This shows that the municipalities have been trying to mobilize more Table 15 Plan Funds to Own Funds (Rs. Crores) Plan Funds Own Funds Total Amount % Amount % Amount 8 (58) 6 (42) 14 6 (52) 5 (48) 11 9 (53) 8 (47) 17 12 (60) 8 (40) 20 10 (52) (48) 9 20

Year 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

The team had asked the municipal authorities to take lorry weights used for transportation. Accordingly, it was estimated that on an average 5 tons of weight was being actually transported. 3 The recurring expenditure is calculated as follows: 7 staff @ 120/day, 1 staff @ 140/day, 1 Supervisor @ 5,000 per month, cow dug, miscellaneous expenditure = Rs.5,600. Total monthly expenditure = Rs. 40,000.



revenue from internal resources. A graphical representation of the ratio of plan funds to own funds is shown below:
Plan Funds to Own Funds
15 10
Rs. Crores

Plan Funds Own Funds

5 0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Composition of Own Funds Property tax constitutes 20% of the total own funds. On an average it varied from 16% to 23% across the five years from 2001 to 2005. Other taxes and other income contributed 30% and 32% respectively. Income by way of license fees was 5%, rental income 11% and income by way of fine was 2% of the own funds. The average composition of own funds is graphically represented alongside.

Other Income 32%

Propertey Tax 20%

Fine 2% Rental Income 11% Licence Fee 5%

Other Tax 30%



The overall property tax collection efficiency varied from 88% in 2003-04 to 75% in 2001-02. On an average across the five years the collection efficiency was 82%. The collection efficiency across the five years is shown in the graph below.

Propertey Tax Collection Effeciency

90% 2003-04, 88% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2003-04 2001-02, 75% Total 2000-01, 85% 2002-03, 83% 2003-04, 79%

Composition of SWM Operating Expenses The operating cost in Kerala with out sanitary land fill is very high as compared to average cost of Rs.900/MT in Indian cities and about Rs.1200/MT in mega cities. The per tonne SWM operating cost over a period of three years is given in Table 16 below. Table 16 SWM Per Tonne Operating Cost Municipality Koilandy Punalur Neyaattikara Alappuza Aluva Koothuparambu Average 2002-03 1140 1904 1919 1140 2104 1079 1548 2003-04 1317 1999 2638 1317 1996 1500 1795 2004-05 1289 1860 2000 1289 2460 1650 1758



The average expenditure on establishment was 86% of the total expenditure on SWM with Salary and pension constituting 84% and uniform 2%. The amount utilized for vehicle both for repair and maintenance as well as fuel was 9%. On an average 4% was paid in the municipalities to the contractors basically for operating the processing plant. SWM being a highly labour intensive job it is but natural that the proportion of establishment expenditure would be higher. A graphical representation of the composition of the SWM expenditure is shown alongside.

90 80 70 60 P erce n t 50 40 30 20 10 0

Establishment, 84


Vehicle, 9

Uniforms, 2 Contractor, 4 Others, 1

Provider Assessment Team Internal Assessment & Opinion The team felt that information on SWM practices was hard to be obtained. This applied equally for social, technical and financial information. There appeared to be un-coordinated effort amongst the administrative, finance and the public health section of the municipality with most of them functioning as independent water tight compartments. A common strategy towards an agreed goal was conspicuously missing. A significant observation was that the municipalities were not aware of comprehensive guidelines on implementation of SWM in spite of the Supreme Court committee report and MSWR rules 2000 in force. In most of the municipalities the concerned staffs were found to be woefully inadequately equipped with the current practices and technologies in vogue. For example most of the municipalities were providing / contemplating to provide domestic bin for segregated waste storage. This is not the mandate for the municipalities, especially in scenarios where there exists already a resource crunch. Instead of attempting to leverage resources, most of them were more inclined on spending on non essential items having no plan on their operation sustainability. On a macro level, the whole accounting and financial management practices requires revamping which includes immediate updating of backlog in accounts, standardization of budgeting formats, switch over to double accounting system, rationalization of documentation process and a planned computerization plan which should ultimately result in data availability from LSGs on a real time basis. This should be targeted through proper planning and capacity building interventions. The final report on provider assessment will dwell on these issues in detail after analyzing the final financial data which is in the process of being collected.



Similarly the concept of ELF was found to be universally absent. Most of them (administrative as political) were of the belief that waste once removed from the city hidden means waste issue resolved. The concept of safe disposal is still not an agenda issue. Similarly, the concept of joining hands to address the issue was found to be lacking. The team felt that there is an urgent need of orientation, information dissemination on the seriousness of the issue in terms of legal, social and health angles. The concept of sustainable capital investment with a proper O & M strategy addressing the primary issues of health, finance and environment in the context of solid waste have to be intensively and immediately propagated. A summary of lessons learned and implications in MSWM in Kerala is given in Annexure 4. Case Studies Seven cases of diverse interventions in municipal solid waste management have been studied as part of the sector assessment. The detailed case studies are given in different annexures (Annexures 6,7,8,9,10,15,16) and the lessons learned from these case studies are given in Table 17 .



Table 17 Lessons from Case Studies

ULB/ GP Thrissur Corporation Focus Area Privatization of Transportation Arrangements Lessons learnt Uninterrupted service delivery Satisfactory performance Avoidance of cumbersome vehicle maintenance procedures Poor ownership of compliance responsibility Requirement of increased operational supervision Performance satisfaction linked to contractual transparency Poor compliance to environmental safe guards A municipality owned community operated system Financially viable, management poor Poor participation of stakeholders in planning and implementation Environmental issues reduced Onsite processing facility; saving on transportation Demonstrative effects on resource recovery Low land requirement Easier operational flexibility; minimum skill requirement Poor maintenance leading to anaesthetic premises and poor sustainability Requirement of leachate treatment unattended Local capacity building Common ownership not fully materialized A clear operational and maintenance plan not yet materialised 60 % households started vermi composting Experimented individual waste management system and common system Easy to scale up Good community participation Women empowerment Organic farming successfully demonstrated in 36% of the households IEC campaign resulted in reduction of plastic use Alternatives for plastic carry bags- Local skill development Improved environmental conditions Cost effective SWM technology introduced Wealth from waste demonstrated Reduction in the burden of municipality Segregation at source led to value addition of recyclables


Decentralised Solid Waste Management


Bio gas



Environmental Impact Assessment of the Disposal Site

Poor MSW Compliance Site located in a summit of a ridge along a side slope 70% of the area of the dumping yard filled 100 to 125 households within a distance of 500m All types of waste including infectious waste, sludge from septic tanks are dumped. The site breeds stray dogs Nuisance due to flies and mosquitoes on increase. Birds drop waste in the wells, water bodies and residential premises. No collection and treatment of leachates Leachate water spread and flow over roads makes adverse impact due to skin diseases The groundwater is highly corrosive, contains high concentration of iron and zinc and exhibit high bacterial load Complaints about smell Often catches fire related issues The sanitary workers affected by allergic rashes. No protective measures, except unsafe foot wear. Social isolation Drastic reduction in land values Immediate closure required


The land allotted for the new plant and ELF is insufficient Location of plant at the side slope and ELF on the summit of a ridge. Environmental issues will be continued. No space for green belt and buffer zone Proposed leachate collection and management inadequate No provision for treatment of excess leachate and storm water management Segregation at source not envisaged in the new proposal There will be adverse impact on air environment due to the composting of un segregated MSW The local people are not informed
Ownership by single GP Participation of two GPs Operation, processing and marketing by NGO (PPP) Win Win potential Transparent agreement leads to efficiency Additional income for hosting GP Good demonstration model Local employment opportunity enhanced Land scarcity issues solved through participation Cost effective and simple technology

Inter Panchayat Cooperation Model

Mangalpadi GP



Rag pickers Organised for Primary Collection

Kochi Corporation

Community initiated and managed system Good community motivation and community involvement Collective ownership of the project Good relationship between Corporation and community in the initial stage Existing organisational structure utilised (Residents Association) Good resource pooling demonstrated (Sponsorships etc) Successful completion accelerated scaling up Good networking with social organisations Willingness to pay for primary collection demonstrated Hands on capacity building exercise Transformation in financial and social status of rag pickers Income from recyclables in addition to monthly income No synchronisation between primary collection and transportation leads to over flow of secondary containers

Corporation as a facilitator failed to continue their support Containerized hand carts and mixed waste Failed to establish subsequent processing Serious lag in education and training programmes. Health precautions not considered seriously. No proper coordination between municipal waste workers and the rag pickers.
Quantity increased when primary collection started Waste collection as an entrepreneurship Employment opportunity for 700 women Steady income Better job than a maid servant, status increased

Involvement of Kudumbasree in Door to Door Collection


Reduction in issues of stray dogs, rats, mosquitoes Money saving due to reduced drainage blocks
Enhanced monitoring vigilance of the authority supported the programme Enactment of legal measures enhanced the programme progress Improved SWM enhances political prospects- Active participation of elected members. Secured livelihood for women and their family. Indebtedness reduced. Ignorance of spatial aspects while planning primary collection and transportation affects its viability. Absence of competition affects the quality Estimation of viable number of groups before programme commences is essential for success.



Best Practices A few best practices consolidated from secondary sources is given in Table 18 below Table 18 Best Practices / Innovative Initiatives in Solid Waste Management (Secondary sources )

No 1.

Location & Agencies involved Eramalloor, Cherthala, Aleppy Eramalloor Farmers Society

Focal theme Waste Processing by farmers society

Details of Process / Methodology Promoting vermi composting and bio farming by farmers Providing training and other inputs i.e. tanks, worms etc. from society Collecting excess manure produced by farmers Installed Bio gas plant for treatment of bio wastes Bio gas using for cooking for food at School Canteen Providing food to the children at a lower price. Avoiding the use of plastic cups and plates at the premises Composting the bio wastes and manure is using in the farms Vegetable merchants formed a federation in the market Processing of waste at the source itself

Lessons for Scaling up Farmers clubs/ societies can act as an agency for decentralized SWM Promotion of bio farming creating demand for bio manure. Farmers getting direct incentives by higher productivity and price. Institutions can treat their waste through bio gas unit and hence reduce the waste coming to the common stream. The production of bio gas will save the cost of cooking fuel. Auditorium and community halls can reduce the use of plastic and other non decaying materials and start their own treatment systems. The traders of a market can find solution for the waste management problem Processing of waste at


Navanirman School, Vazhackala, Cochin Navanirman School

Waste Processing


Marancherry, Malappuram Salkara Community Hall (private)

Reduction of plastic & Waste Processing by Private Auditorium Waste Processing by federation of merchants


Pathippalam, Perumbavoor



General Marketing Federation & Dept. of Env. studies, Cochin University


Vizhinjam, Trivandrum Vizhinjam Grama Panchayath & Bio tech

Household level Bio gas units for Waste Processing

Composting Using Bacteria Processing capacity is 7 tones per day & total project cost is 3 lakhs only 2.5 tones Solid Waste and 5750 lit liquid waste treating per day from 575 houses through household bio gas units Yearly producing cooking gas worth approx. Rs. 22 lakhs College is continuing a campaign on SWM, providing technical guidance and working models established in its surroundings. Mosque committee installed a biogas unit (7 lakhs cost) and producing electricity to light 100 CF lamps in the Mosque and nearby market. Colony people segregating and composting solid waste of their and from nearby places without any charges other than the price getting from the sale of compost manure. N.S.S. Volunteers collecting, segregating and composting the Paper and other organic wastes produced at the school

source itself

GPs can adopt the model, through which, getting a considerable volume of cooking gas and a solution for waste problem.


Kalamassery, Cochin Rajagiri College of Social Science

Promotion of Bio gas Units & Generation of electricity from bio gas. Generation of electricity from bio gas.

Educational institutions can a play a vital role in IEC for Solid Waste Management.


Thalipparampu, Kannoor Juma Ath Mosque trust Committee, Jyothi Bio gas, Trivandrum

Private ventures also possible in SWM using the cost recovery methods of SWM


Kodikuthumala OLH Colony, Choornickara, Alwaye

Community level composting in the colony

Every colony or group of families having enough space can adopt the model


Alappuzha Leo XIIIth School and Socio Economic Unit Foundation

Vermi Composting and bio farming in the school

Students can a play a imperative role in the Solid Waste Management. Can be scaled up to launch campaigns like My school and My Premises and



10. Kumbalangi Tourism Department

HH level Bio Gas plants and Nature Friendly plants in 740 houses

The compost being used in the school garden and getting income from sale Producing biogas from 600 biogas plants and 140 nature friendly Latrine-plants

My Future at the district and state level Can be a model for any eco-village / eco tourism initiatives



As stated earlier, Kerala has 5 Municipal Corporations and 53 Municipalities of which 12 are Grade-I, 22 Grade-II and 19 Grade-III. A detailed ULB-wise status report of MWSM is given in Annexure 5. Quantity and Quality of MSW Reliable data on quantity & quality of waste generated is important for developing any system of collection, transportation, and treatment and disposal of waste which is lacking in the state. Analysing available secondary data (Table 19) and the information gathered from Municipalities & CKM, it is observed that the quantity of waste generation is reported either on the basis of the record maintained by them about the quantity of waste transported on a day to day basis, based on the no. of trips made or on approximation based on eye estimates without any authoritative base of weighment of waste or measurement of volume of waste transported.. Even while assessing the quantity of waste collected, no vehicle weighing exercises were done by Municipalities. Thus the data has very little authenticity. The average per capita generation comes to 0.178 kg. The estimation of Municipalities range from very high per capita of 0.707 kg/head (Thalassery) to as low as 0.034 kg (Koothuparambu)Both these figures are not reliable. Almost similar figures are there in a study conducted by CESS for the Greater Kochi region. This is also based on secondary information. Hence it appears that quantification of generation has not been done in any of the Municipalities by source wise sample surveys (direct method ) or by indirect method of assessing collected waste, uncollected quantities and separated for recycling/reuse.



Table 19 Estimated MSW Generation in Municipalities

Sl. No Name of Municipality Populati on, 01 MSW generat ion /day 25 16 Per capita generation in tons Sl. No Name of Municipality Population MSW generation / day in tons Percapi ta generati on in kgs 0.139 0.149 0.119 0.103 0.239 0.224 0.153 0.143 0.212 0.051 0.518 0.105 0.197 0.133 0.079 0.131 0.378 0.094 0.163 0.229 0.101 0.058 0.034 0.074 0.087 0.181 0.178

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Alappuzha Kottayam Chenganassery Aluva Palakkad Kannur Thalassery Thuruvalla Perumbavoor Thirur Vadakara Kasaragod Neyattinkata Attingal Punallor Pathanamthitta Kayamkulam Cherthala Pala Thodupuzha Kothamangalam Muvattupuzha Kunnamkulam North Paravur Thrippunithura Angamaly Chalakudy

177079 60725 51960 24108 130736 63795 99386 56828 26550 53650 75740 52683 69435 35648 47226 37802 65299 45102 22640 46226 37169 29230 51585 30056 59881 33424 48371

0.141 0.263 0.000

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Iringalakuda Kudungallur Shornur Malappuram Manjeri Perinthalmanna Kanchangad Nedumangad Varkala Paravur (South) Adoor Mavelikkara Chengannur Vikom Kalamassery Chavakkad Guruvayoor Cittoorthathaman galam Otapalam Ponnani Kalpatta Payannur Koothuparambu Thaliparambu Quilandy Mattannur Total

28873 33543 42022 58490 83704 44613 65499 56138 42273 38649 28943 28440 25391 22637 63176 38138 21187 31884 49230 87356 29602 68711 29532 67441 68970 44317 2731093

4 5 5 6 20 10 10 8 9 2 15 3 5 3 5 5 8 3 8 20 3 4 1 5 6 8 487

12 30 25 70 6 7 4 10 10 6 8 4 5 7 8 6 5 4 6 10 4 7 5 6

0.498 0.229 0.392 0.704 0.106 0.264 0.075 0.132 0.190 0.086 0.224 0.085 0.132 0.107 0.177 0.265 0.108 0.108 0.205 0.194 0.133 0.117 0.150 0.124

Source: Clean Kerala Mission

Studies done by NEERI in 1996 in Indian cities have revealed that quantum of waste generation varies between 0.21-0.35 kg/capita/day in the urban centres and it goes up to 0.5 kg/capita/day in large cities. Per capita waste quantity for various Municipalities with different population is presented in Table 20.



Table 20 Per Capita Waste Quantity for Various Municipalities with Different Population Range Population range in lakh < 1.0 1-5 5-10 10-20 >50
Source: NEERI- 1996

Average per capita-kg/head/day 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.35 0.50

The waste generation in the Municipalities in Kerala can therefore be taken as minimum 0.21 kg/capita/day (1996). Since the above figures are based on study in 1996, the current generation should be assessed at higher rates considering the increasing trends in waste generation. Study conducted by Urban Development Section Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region of the World Bank considering the relation between GNP and per capita waste generation the rate is estimated to grow at an exponential rate of 1.41 per cent per annum. Hence the present generation can be put around 0.242 kg/head/day. The total generation in the Municipalities as per this assumption is given in Table 21 below.



Table 21 MSW Generation as Per Standard Norms

Sl.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Name of Municipality Alappuzha Kottayam Chenganassery Aluva Palakkad Kannur Thalassery Thuruvalla Perumbavoor Thirur Vadakara Kasaragod Neyattinkata Attingal Punallor Pathanamthitta Kayamkulam Cherthala Pala Thodupuzha Kothamangalam Muvattupuzha Kunnamkulam North Paravur Thrippunithura Angamaly Chalakudy Population 177079 60725 51960 24108 130736 63795 99386 56828 26550 53650 75740 52683 69435 35648 47226 37802 65299 45102 22640 46226 37169 29230 51585 30056 59881 33424 48371 MSW generation /day 43 15 13 6 32 15 24 14 6 13 18 13 17 9 11 9 16 11 5 11 9 7 12 7 14 8 12 Total 51 52 53 Sl.No 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Name of Municipality Iringalakuda Kudungallur Shornur Malappuram Manjeri Perinthalmanna Kanchangad Nedumangad Varkala Paravur (South) Adoor Mavelikkara Chengannur Vikom Kalamassery Chavakkad Guruvayoor Cittoorthathamangal am Otapalam Ponnani Kalpatta Payannur Koothuparambu Thaliparambu Quilandy Mattannur Population 28873 33543 42022 58490 83704 44613 65499 56138 42273 38649 28943 28440 25391 22637 63176 38138 21187 31884 49230 87356 29602 68711 29532 67441 68970 44317 2731093 MSW generation/day 7 8 10 14 20 11 16 14 10 9 7 7 6 5 15 9 5 8 12 21 7 17 7 16 17 11 661

Taking averages based on standard norms or on studies conducted elsewhere need not hold good in some special cases e.g. Guruvayoor, where per capita generation is high, as the large number of pilgrims arriving there adding to the per capita waste generation rate.. Similar situation will arise at Pathanamthitta, Chengannur where generation is high during Sabarimala pilgrim season. During detailed study of current SWM Scenario in Guruvayoor and Aluva, it is revealed that: The generation of waste on normal days in Aluva Municipality is 20 tons /day. this figure of 20 tons seems to be very high as it amounts to 0.709 kg/capita/day.



The current generation in Guruvayoor is reported to be 8 tons which means per capita 0.378.Kg. On an average 35,000 pilgrims visit this temple a day (Source Guruvayoor Dewasom) which goes up to 50,000 during Sabarimala season. Guruvayoor Dewasom (Temple and GD sources) generate 3.30 tons/day while the generation of elephant dung & elephant food waste is 7.80 tons.This adds to the per capita average of the city. Each Municipality need to make its own assessment of the quality of waste generated which is one of the crucial basic data for developing SWM Programme. Municipalities need to update this data from time to time. The quantity of waste generated in Kerala applying the percapita norms arrived from different studies and estimations is given in Table 22.
Table 22 Waste Generation in Kerala in 2006
Population 2001 Percapita waste generation (g) Tot Waste generation (MT/day) 983 1743 4715 7441 Projected population 2006 2543812 6016535 24776983 Projected pc gener ation 429 322 214 Tot waste generation 2006 (MT/d) 1091 1935 5312 8338

5 2456618 400 Corporations 53 5810307 300 Municipalities 999 23574449 200 Panchayats Total Waste Generation in Kerala

Quantity of Waste Reaching Municipal Stream In addition to the data on quantity of generation, Municipalities need to know the waste reaching Municipal stream. When talking about waste quantities one must make a clear distinction between waste generation and waste collection. There is always a gap between the quantity of waste generated and the quantity of waste finally needs to be collected. Quantity of waste reaching Municipal stream = Quantity of waste generated quantity of waste separated for recovery, recycling and source level disposal. There will be further reduction due to separation of waste at intermediately stages of waste collection, transportation and disposal by rag pickers and workers. 10-15 % of waste may not reach the Municipal stream. It is observed that the waste reaching Municipal stream is on the rise where door step collection is introduced as waste generator find it more convenient to hand over the waste to waste collector at the door step and the recyclable waste does not get retrieved by the rag pickers.. Efforts of source segregation, waste minimisation and local processing, can help in waste reduction. With regard to the chemical quality of waste, Municipalities do not have any primary data generated by analyzing the waste arising except the following:



Studies done by different agencies for Kannur, Aluva Kottayam , Kochi and Thriruvanathapuram 1 Analysis done by CESS in Greater Cochin Area as part of the Carrying Capacity Study.

The results of the secondary information collected are summarized in Table 23& 24 given below. There is not much of data available on the properties like density, moisture and chemical properties. The Table 24 is the summary of results of study conducted by CESS as part of the carrying capacity study.
Table 23 Quality of Waste Summarised from Different Studies Component in % Organic Paper Plastic Rags Glass, Ceramic, Leather, Rubber Metals Earth, stone Others

Aluva Kannur Kottayam Trivandrum Cochin Average 70.83 68.73 69.25 69.09 58 67.18 9.72 8.2 6.8 2.25 4.9 6.37 6.94 6.67 4.25 2.79 1.1 4.35 5.55 1.4 2 1.31 2 2.45 2.77 2.18 4.85 2.1 0.3 2.44 1.38 2.77 0.04 1.4 1.49 9.93 2 1.33 9.52 0.21 19.05 3.2 0.7 14 19 1.13 7.72 8.33

Kottayam study has been carried out by ANERT in 2002 , Kannur ( MNES -2002), Thiruvanthapuram ( Capital city Development Project 2003), Aluva (Aluva Municipality -2006) .The study detail of Cochin is not known.

Table 24 Physico Chemical Properties of MSW

Sr. No. Sampling Locartion/area Density (Kg/m )

Moisture Content (%)

Calorific Value


Organic Matter (%)

C (%)

N (%)


P (as P205 %)

K (K2O)

(K.Cal/kg) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Changanasseri Chengannur Muvattupuzha Pala Kottayam Alappuzha Kothamangalam Aluva Study Area (avg.) 613 688 538 420 510 570 472 522 541.63 51.04 60.58 45.08 56.76 58.98 61.61 58.12 53.74 55.74 1331 1670 923 1198 1408 2393 2664 1523 1638.75 8.3 7.7 8.1 6.6 7.4 7 6.8 6.6 7.31 31.95 26.57 30.67 23.73 32.27 31 52.43 41.76 33.80 18.53 15.41 17.79 13.76 18.72 17.98 30.41 24.22 19.60 0.55 0.5 0.37 0.5 0.33 0.53 0.76 0.53 0.51 33.51 30.58 47.95 27.69 56.89 34.25 39.86 46.13 39.61 0.49 0.2 0.37 0.3 0.52 0.72 0.47 0.24 0.41

(%) 0.54 0.61 0.54 0.37 0.46 0.44 0.54 0.51 0.50

Source: CESS Carrying Capacity Studies



The values- density, calorific value, C/N ratio - in this study appears to be on the higher side when compared to values assessed by MoEF Solid Waste Management Manual -2000. The values are given in Table 25. Long spells of monsoon could be one of the main reasons of high density of waste in Kerala.
Table 25 MSW Parameters in Indian Cities
Density 350-500
Source Manual of SWM 2000

C/N ratio 30-35

Calorific Value 800-1000 Kcal/kg

Tables above indicate that around 67% of the waste is compostable, while about 15 % has potential for recycling. In general 60-75 % can be made available for composting through an organized collection and about 15 % can be recycled. Different studies indicate the current separation for recycling is about 8-10%, while through segregation at source it may be possible to recycle around 5-7% more. For conversion of organic fraction to compost, the moisture content and the C/N ratio are found suitable. However the data in Table 25 shows higher values of C/N ratio. Such circumstances, the feed has to be amended with cow dung or other nitrogen rich waste. Suitability of waste for various processing options is discussed in a subsequent section. Since the information is scanty on quantity and quality of waste generated in the Municipalities, and reliable data is crucial for developing SWM projects, it is necessary to get the required data with the assistance of consultants to take up survey and analysis. Clean Kerala Mission may support Municipalities in generating reliable data by conducting studies in representative Municipalities. Principal Deficiencies in SWM systems in the state: 1. No Storage of Waste at Source The general tendency of the citizens is to keep their houses, shop and establishments clean, but there is apathy on their part to keep their surroundings clean. In absence of any system of primary collection of waste from the door step, it is an age old practice to dispose of the waste on the streets, open spaces, drains, water bodies, etc. as and when waste is generated. The system of having domestic, trade, institutional bin for the storage of waste at source has not evolved in the cities and towns across the State. Very few citizens keep domestic bin for the storage of waste at source in the areas where Kudumbashree scheme has been introduced recently. The situation as on 2005 assessed by Clean Kerala Mission, which has been validated by study team in among eighteen representative municipalities, has revealed that only seven towns/cities out of fifty eight have adopted the practice of storage of waste at source, partially. In the rest of the cities/towns the system of storage at source does not generally exist and waste is seen disposed of on the streets or water bodies as could be seen from the photographs below.



2. Partial Segregation of Recyclable Waste at Source On account of socio economic considerations, there is a common practice of segregating certain recyclable/reusable material at source such as newspapers, used bottles, plastic milk bags, etc. which are sold for a price to kabadiwalas (Akri purchasers). However, quite a sizeable proportion of recyclable waste such as paper, plastic, metal, glass, etc. is disposed of by the citizens along with domestic food waste, trade waste, etc., without segregating the same at source. The system of segregation of recyclable waste which is presently mixed with the food waste, is almost non-existent except to some extent in Kozhikkode and Kannur .Recyclable waste thus forms part of municipal solid waste. This waste accounts for about 15% of the total waste generated in the municipal areas. This waste is partially collected by the rag pickers from the streets, bins and dumping grounds as could be seen from the photographs below.

3. No primary Collection of Waste from the Source of Generation The system of primary collection of waste from the door steps was almost non existent in the State till the year 2001 (an exemption is Cochin) as Municipal authorities have never considered collection of waste at source as their primary duty and instead they are collecting the waste through street sweeping. This has resulted in treating the streets as receptacle of waste as could be seen from the photographs below.



Now a very few municipalities in the State have introduced the system of collection of waste from the door step in parts of the city. This system is however picking up under the Kudumbashree scheme of Government of Kerala where quite a good number of urban poor are entering into the field of door to door collection of waste on levying a monthly charge somewhere between Rs.20 and Rs.60 per month. The municipal authorities are however legging behind in pursuing the scheme to cover the entire city/town under the scheme. The involvement of Kudumbashree workers in door to door collection is very promising as it helps in door to door collection of waste without any financial burden on the local body and makes the operation sustainable due to levy of monthly charge directly by the waste collector.

4. Irregular Sweeping of Streets Sweeping of streets is not carried out on a day to day basis in all residential and commercial areas and instead it is generally carried out on main commercial streets and important residential areas. Rest of the areas are generally ignored and cleaned occasionally or not at all. The citizens are expected to put their waste into municipal bins from where the municipal authorities collect the waste from time to time. The street sweeping operations are generally carried out using inefficient tools and equipments. In most of the cities/towns long handle brooms are given for street sweeping but their design in inefficient as the broom only picks up the litter and not the dust from the streets with the result separate efforts are to be made for removing street dust. The sweepers are not given appropriate hand cart for carrying the waste to the waste storage depot. The design of the traditional hand cart necessitates multiple handling of waste and the waste has to be deposited on the ground causing in sanitary conditions. The tools and equipments used in certain cities could be seen from the photographs below.



5. Unhygienic Secondary Storage of Waste In most of the cities and towns, the municipal authorities have identified hundreds of locations on the road side for secondary storage of waste. Most of these sites are open and very unhygienic. At few sites, round concrete bins or open metal bins are kept which are small, and ill-designed. The secondary facilities are not capable to contain the waste reaching at the waste storage depot resulting in to overflow of waste. Waste generally does not get collected on a day to day basis from the open waste storage sites; it emits fowl smell and creates unhealthy conditions around the bin and serious resentment from the neighbourhood. The pathetic condition of waste storage depots could be seen from the photographs below.

Very few municipal authorities have of late introduced neat mobile containers in lieu of open dust bin sites which have, to some extent, improved the situation in those towns. 6. Inefficient Transportation of Waste The system of transportation of waste adopted in most of the cities is inefficient as it necessitates manual and multiple handling of waste. Generally open trucks and tractors are used for transportation of waste and a team of four to six labours accompany each vehicle. They pick up the waste from the waste storage depots manually in small baskets and deposit the same into the trucks/tractors by throwing the baskets up to be caught by the sanitary workers standing inside the truck and once the truck is full they transport the waste to the treatment facility/disposal site. The transportation efficiency is also very low. As per Economic Review



2005, about 2500 metric tones of waste is generated in the cities of Kerala, out of which hardly 50% is collected on each day and the remaining waste is left to decompose on road margins, drains, canals, water bodies and open spaces. The system of transportation, besides being inefficient, is injurious to the health of the workers. The system entails throwing the waste at a height of about 7-8 feet which results in contaminated dust particles spreading in the atmosphere which are in-hailed by the work force and cause respiratory infections and problems of health for the sanitation workers. The inefficient system of transportation could be seen from the photographs below.

It is however observed that several municipal vehicles have been provided tarpaulins or plastic sheets to cover the truck during transportation and they are used while transporting the waste to the disposal sites. While the state is facing a serious problem of transportation of waste as stated in economic review 2005, there are some examples where municipalities have done well by involving private sector in transportation of waste. A case study on Privatization of Transportation in Solid Waste
Management in Thrissur Municipal Corporation is given in Annexure 6.

7. No Treatment of Waste By and large no treatment of waste is carried out by the municipal authorities in the State. Most of the municipalities take the waste to the dumping ground for disposal without any pretreatment. Of late, Trivandrum, Kochi, Thrissur, and Kozhikkode Municipal Corporations and Changanacherry, Vadakara, Neyyattikara, North Paravur, Chalakudy, Guruvayoor, Payyannur, Thaliparamba and Malappuram Municipalitis have set up vermi composing or wind row composting plants for treatment of part of municipal solid waste. Most of them are small plants working with low efficiency. Some bio gas plants that have come up in the State could be seen from the photographs below. Bio gas plants are most suited for vegetable and animal waste. They could be set up near the vegetable market or fish or meat market. A case study of bio gas plant set up in a town named Punalur is given in Annexure 7. Eight such plants have already come up in the states and five more plants are in progress.



Decentralized Option of Treatment of Waste through Composting

There are a few cities / towns in the State which have resorted to composting as a method of treatment of waste and in the process they have reduced the quantity of waste going to landfills. Decentralized composting is also attempted successfully in a few areas which reduce the need of transportation of waste to a central facility and enable a location solution of the waste generated. A case study of Thumpoli in Alappuzha town is given in Annexure 8, which demonstrates the viability and desirability of decentralized composting. 8. Unscientific Disposal of Waste The disposal of waste is being carried out by all the Municipal Corporations and Municipalities in the State in a very unscientific and unhygienic manner. There is not a single engineered/sanitary land fill in the State. The waste is disposed of in open grounds/low lying areas situated in close proximity to residential areas where waste is neither spread nor covered causing alarming in sanitary conditions and problems of air, land and water pollution. Most of the municipalities have some land available with them for treatment and disposal of waste as can be seen in Annexure 5. The availability of land for treatment and disposal is not adequate with any Municipality as per the normal yardstick of 2 acres land per 10,000 populations if 4 metre filling at the land fill is adopted. The requirement of land could be reduced to half if the land filling could go up to 10 metres. The availability of land is thus very inadequate to set up both treatment and disposal facilities at these sites. The pathetic condition of existing dump yards could be seen from the photographs.



SEUF carried out a case study of Kottayam municipality to ascertain the overall situation of managing municipal solid waste, following the seven essential steps and carried out the environmental assessment of the disposal site. The details of which are given in Annexure 9.

MSW Flow Present Scenario


On Plot disposal (30%)Open/pit /crude composting / burning

Disposal in community facility/open throwing (70 %)

Uncollected 22 %

Collection by ULB 44 %

Segregation of recyclables (8%)

Processing (4%)

Crude Landfill (40%)



Creation of Common Facilities for Treatment and Disposal of Waste

Looking to the problems encountered by the municipalities in findings suitable parcel of lands for treatment and disposal of waste and high cost of maintaining a treatment or disposal facility for a small town, a participatory approach is emerging and municipalities are coming together to set up a common facility or develop a model of inter municipal / inter panchayat cooperation in treatment and disposal of waste. A case study of such a model in Kasaragod district is given in Annexure 10. 9. Week Institutional Arrangements The institutional arrangement for the management of municipal solid waste is ineffective in most of the municipalities. Waste management is a subject of environmental engineering or public health engineering; but it is being handled in all small urban local bodies by persons of the level of Sanitary Inspector or below and in larger municipalities or Corporation by Health Officers. The engineering inputs are by and large lacking. Absence of engineering inputs has led to open dumping grounds and absence of engineered land fills in the State. Many municipalities do not have even qualified Sanitary Inspectors to manage the solid waste management services. The existing staffs also do not have adequate training to scientifically plan and provide SWM services. Some efforts have been made by the Clean Kerala Mission to provide training to staff and officials at various levels, but it appears that municipalities need hand holding to put appropriate systems in place and have adequate qualified staff as recommended by the Supreme Court Committee on Solid Waste Management or in the National Manual on Solid Waste Management. 10. Poor Financial Health The municipal authorities in the State do not have a strong financial base. They are heavily dependent on State Government grants and funds for carrying out their day to day activities including solid waste management. The levy of taxes is inadequate and levy of user charges is almost non-existent except in some towns where Kudumbashree schemes have been implemented partially. In North Paravur municipality they get better return from vermi compost as the composting process is directly done by the municipality by involving a women group. On account of paucity of funds, municipal authorities have not been in a position to implement of all the essential steps of solid waste management nor have they created a mechanism of cost recovery to sustain their efforts to improve solid waste management services. 11. Lack of Community, NGO/Private Sector Participation Though the subject of solid waste management requires active community participation in storage of waste at source and its primary collection from the door step, the community participation is substantially lacking in the State on account of lack of efforts on the part of the municipal authorities. NGO and private sector participation is also minimal in managing municipal solid waste as municipal authorities have all along felt that they are the provider of service and that they are capable to do so. The concept of NGO and Public/Private Partnership is



not fully appreciated. Only a few municipalities have ventured to involve private sector in treatment of municipal solid waste and have involved private sector in setting up compost plants. Gradual involvement of informal sector in door to door collection of waste under the Kudumbashree scheme is taking place introducing the element of community/public/private partnerships in solid waste management.



Inadequacy of Implementation of Municipal Laws The Municipal authorities in the State of Kerala are governed by the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. All municipal authorities in the State are under an obligation to provide solid waste management services as per Sections 326 to 345 contained in Chapter 16 of the Act. The aforesaid provisions of the municipal law are quite adequate to meet the expectations of keeping the cities clean and meet the standards of health and sanitation, but they are not implemented seriously by the Urban Local Bodies in the State with the result the level of service continues to be far from satisfactory. The MSW Rules envisage municipal authorities to take following seven essential steps to improve the systems of solid waste management. Prohibit littering of waste on the streets ensure storage of waste at source in a segregated manner Primary collection of waste from the doorstep Daily street sweeping Abolish open waste storage sites provide covered containers Transportation of waste in covered vehicles Processing of waste by composting or power generation Disposal of non-biodegradable waste at the engineered landfills The aforesaid seven steps were required to be complied by the cities/towns before the end of December, 2003. However, for various reasons, the compliance of all the seven steps has not been done by most of the Municipalities in the country including Kerala State. Partial compliance has been done by several cities in respect of one or more steps mentioned above. The consolidated position of compliance of MSW Rules 2000 in 128 Class I cities of India is given in Chart 1.



Chart 1 The Consolidated Position of Compliance of MSW Rules 2000 in 128 Class I Cities of India

100 90


80 70 60

72% 52% 41% 33% 38% 29%

50 40 30 20 10 0

Storage atsource Segregation ofrecycables Primary collection Storage Street Sweeping Depot Transportation Processing ofwaste



The reasons of non-compliance, as reported by several cities across the country, have been as under.

Constraints in ensuring storage of waste at source, segregation of recyclables, primary collection from the doorstep, secondary storage and transportation of waste Lack of public awareness, motivation, education Lack of wide publicity through electronic and print media Lack of finances to create awareness Resistance to change Difficult to educate slum dwellers Non cooperation from households, trade and commerce Citizens not willing to spend for separate bin for recyclables Lack of sufficient knowledge on benefits of segregation Lack of litter bins in the city Non availability of primary collection vehicle and equipments Lack of powers to levy spot fines Lack of financial resources for procurement of bins and modern vehicles



Status of Compliance in Kerala State Information in respect of compliance of MSW Rules by all the cities is not adequately available but from whatever data is available is compiled by the Clean Kerala Mission in 2005 reveals the compliance status as given in the Table 26.
Table 26 Compliance Status Compiled by Clean Kerala Mission

Segregated storage at source (partial) Partial collection from source Partial composting Partial biogas (market/laughter house waste) Sanitary land filling

4/58 9/58 12/58 3/58 0/58

It is observed from the above data that the level of compliance is still far from satisfactory and concerted measures are required to step up the compliance by the municipalities adopting out of box solutions for the implementation of MSW Rules, 2000. A comparative study of the provisions in the KMC Act, 1994 and MSW Rules 2000 has been carried out and the present status of the implementation of these laws / rules have been studied and tabulated as under:
Table 27 Comparative Status of KMC Act, 1994 and MSW Rules 2000 MSW Rules 2000 Storage at source Section 327(1) :All premises to Storage at source is getting provide receptacle of size increasingly accepted. specified by Secretary for the purpose of storage at source Municipal intervention by supplying bins and organizing door step collection has improved the situation. A continued effort by way of undertaking a phased programme for creating awareness is lacking Segregation of waste at source Schedule II (2) Municipal authority shall organize awareness programme for segregation of waste Schedule II (1-3) Section 327(2A )The secretary by public notice direct owner or occupier of any premises to segregate waste for easy collection and disposal of such Municipalities have initiated the process by motivating community with supply of two bins for segregating organic waste & other fractions. KMC Act -1994 and amendments Present status



It shall be the responsibility of waste generator of waste to ensure delivery of waste in accordance with collection and segregation system notified by Municipal Authority . Primary collection of Municipal solid wastes Schedule II (i to vi ) Arrange Section : 329 The secretary may Primary collection of waste from with the sanction of council the doorstep using containerized introduce door step collection handcarts, or small vehicles, etc., either by municipal employees or at pre-informed timing using bell by contract ringing system

Primary collection of waste from door step has been initiated in xxx Municipalities Coverage varies from 10% to 90%. Vehicles used are hand cart with or with out containers /three wheeler

Street Sweeping Section 326 (a) Regular Need based schedule is absent in sweeping ,cleaning of streets and Municipalities. Sweepings are removal of sweepings there from openly heaped and removal of sweepings not being done simultaneously Secondary storage of Waste Schedule II (3) Storage facilities are to be set up and shall be so designed that waste stored are not exposed open and shall be aesthetically acceptable and user friendly. Facility should take in to account of waste generated in a given area. Abolish all open waste storage sites/bins and provide closed containers for the storage of waste so that waste is not exposed to open atmosphere Manual Handling of waste shall be prohibited Transportation Schedule II (4) Vehicle used for transportation of waste shall be covered. Storage facilities set up are to be attended daily and cleaned before overflowing. Transport vehicle are to be designed that multiple handling of waste is avoided. Ensure Section 326 (d-i & iv) Municipality to make adequate arrangements-depots ,receptacles and places for temporary deposit of waste Three major Municipalities have partly introduced container (dumper) for secondary collection. All other Municipalities still have open collection /open metal or Cylindrical concrete sections. Absence of adequate storage facility is generally absent . Manual handling is still a common practice

Section 326 (d-ii ) Municipality to make adequate arrangements for covered vehicles for removal of waste

Transportation vehicles are mainly trucks and tractors, seldom covered. Manual loading and multiple handling is common



transportation of waste in closed vehicles on a day to day basis synchronizing with secondary storage system and avoiding multiple and manual handling of waste. Processing of waste Schedule II (5) The biodegradable wastes shall be processed by composting, vermicomposting anaerobic digestion or another appropriate bio-logical processing for stabilization of waste. Incineration with or without energy recovery including pelletisation can also be used for processing waste in special cases.

Section 332 The Municipality may for the purpose of recycling, treating, processing or converting such waste in to compost or any other matter construct, acquire or operate and manage any establishment and run it on a commercial basis or may contract out such facility Section 331 (3 ) Municipality to make arrangements for preparation of compost and the disposal of it by sale

Municipalities resorted to composting /biogas generation with varying degrees of success. The process adopted vary from windrow composting, vermincomposting , power intensive shredder attached composting units , biogas plant in slaughter house /market.

Disposal of Waste Schedule II (6) Landfilling shall be restricted to nonbiodegradable, inert waste and other waste that are not suitable either for recycling or for biological processing.

Section-331 Every Municipality No Municipality has initiated shall identify and notify suitable sanitary landfilling and still lands within or outside municipal resort to crude dumping area for the purpose of final disposal of waste

Prohibition of littering & Penalty for littering Schedule II(1). Prohibit littering Section 340 : No person shall put of waste in urban areas or cause to be put any rubbish or filth or debris in to any public place not intended for deposit of waste Section 340 (2) The Secretary or an officer authorized for the purpose shall , on being satisfied that any person shall put or cause to be put any rubbish or filth or debris in to any public place not intended for deposit of waste impose a fine on the spot that may not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees . Secretary shall initiate prosecution against the person if he fails to pay the fine imposed.

Imposition of penalty is marginal. Official are reluctant in imposing penalties as there is no political support to impose penalties.



Information in respect of compliance of MSW Rules by all the cities is not adequately available but sample data has been gathered from selected Municipalities in a qualitative manner. The compliance to various provisions of the MSW Rules 2000 has been evaluated based on a questionnaire compiled from the salient aspects of the rule. The questionnaire is given as Annexure 11. The answers to the questionnaire are translated into a scale of 100% for full compliance of the rule. The compliance has been assessed based on the definition as provided in the glossary. In the absence of actual figures for various questions, qualitative categorization of the level of service in terms of minimal, moderate, appreciable, significant and extreme and attribution of values by dividing the scale from 1 to 20, 21 to 40, 41 to 60, 61 to 80 and 81 to 100 respectively has been done. These values are substituted in a matrix framework to assess the level of compliance for each component of MSW management. The evaluation matrix is given as Table 28. The compliance at the National level as indicated above is also given in Table 28 for comparison.
Table 28 Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 as on May 2006 Name of Municipality Malappuram Chalakkudi N.Parur Alappuzha Kayamkulam Kottayam Kerala National
Segregation Primary Storage Primary collectio n Secon Sweeping Transpo dary rtation storage Proces sing Disposal Overall Score

10 0 0 15 0 0 4 33

30 35 35 20 25 50 33 41

18 15 25 20 15 35 21 38

0 0 0 40 0 20 10 29

40 40 40 40 30 50 40 72

55 65 50 54 35 60 53 52

55 65 40 15 0 0 29 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4

26 28 24 26 13 27 24 34

It is observed from the above data that the level of compliance is still far from satisfactory. The evaluation indicates that primary storage, sweeping and transportation activities are appreciable whereas processing is moderate. The level of segregation at source and secondary storage are significantly low. The collection, sweeping and transportation can be further improved by appropriate scheduling, providing protective measures and enforcing its use, covering the transportation vehicles. The segregation of waste is one of the most important aspects for environmental up gradation and improvement of processing and disposal efficiency. However, it exhibit the least compliance which can be improved only by taking significant efforts for awareness creation, action plan on plastic wastes etc. There is requirement of consistent and focused effort for improving source segregation. The secondary storage system is deplorable in the municipalities as the waste is either dumped in the open at public places or stored in open



bins, the conditions of which generally is extremely poor. The number and capacity of the open storage bins are also inadequate as they are placed in an adhoc manner without considering the population density of the area and distance to be covered for dumping waste in the containers. This results in an extremely un aesthetic scenario in municipalities. Though some of the municipalities have installed processing plants and the technology used is composting, there is requirement of upgradation and streamlining. The lack of engineered landfill in any municipality is a serious concern as it has lead to open dumping in thickly populated and environmentally fragile regions causing considerable problems due to pollution. There are three reasons for the lack of initiatives for developing engineered landfill. There is a lack of technical support, land availability and weak environmental monitoring. The level of compliance also varies in different municipalities. The main reasons attributable are lack of priority to the subject by the elected representatives, lack of trained man power and the lack of coordination between the administrative, engineering and health wings. The inadequacy of technical support, reviews and enforcement also are causative factors for the poor performance level of the Municipalities. Evaluation of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms The prime responsibility of providing solid waste management services in the state is entrusted to the Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI) both in the urban and rural areas. The provisions with respect to the Solid Waste Management are detailed in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (KMA, 1994) and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (KPRA, 1994). Further, the Government of India has brought out the Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986and has set the minimum standards and measures that are required to be taken by the municipal authorities to protect the environment. . As per these Rules and Acts, the LSGIs, State Pollution Control Board, District Collector, Secretary in charge of Urban Development and Central Pollution Control Board are the key agencies entrusted with specific responsibilities, roles and functions The responsibility mapping of these agencies is given in Annexure 12. The analysis of roles, responsibility, functions and the level of performance indicates lack of involvement of some key agencies, lack of integration of institutional potential etc. As a result, the progress in the field solid waste management is extremely poor. There has not been any attempt to establish interrelationships between these agencies (even departments with in a Municipality) and carry forward the programme in an integrated manner.. Some of the salient aspects noted from the lack of inter-relationships are as follows. The Collectors (DMs) of the respective districts are not actively involved in ensuring the compliance of the rules. The state agencies are not actively involved in allotment of suitable lands for treatment and disposal of waste. The monitoring and review of implementation has been very poor. The enforcement agencies have almost been inattentive to the requirement of compliance to the rules and acts by the Municipal authorities. There has not been any effective follow up from the State and Central enforcement agencies for reviewing the compliance.



The mission constituted for facilitating and integrating the activities are administratively and technically ill-equipped. Though there is adequate regulatory framework, its enforcement mechanism is very poor. The Government has taken innovative steps and created special purpose vehicle (SPV) for spearheading the implementation of SWM activities but the progress is very slow and incoherent. Environmental Regulatory Standards Solid waste management systems if not properly handled , may reduces only one form of pollution and during this process, other form of pollution may takes place. Since the main objective of solid waste management system is environmental sustainability, it is important to ensure that the technologies and methods used for solid waste management is the least impacting ones in the context of baseline environmental scenario of the place where the SWM system is installed. In order to ensure this, environmental regulatory standards have to be fixed considering the baseline conditions, impacts due to interventions for solid waste management, environmental management possibilities, environmental monitoring and the monitoring standards stipulated in the MSW Rules 2000. This requires the assessment of baseline conditions, impact of various technologies and ongoing practices, environmental mitigation possibilities and monitoring requirements. Environmental Impact Assessment of Technologies There are several technologies in vogue for the treatment and disposal of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The treatment of MSW is essentially carried out for reducing its volume for minimizing the burden on disposal after recovery of utilizable resources as far as possible. There are essentially two treatment processes, one based on biological conversion exclusively for biodegradable waste and the other based on thermal conversion for mixed wastes. The biological method includes composting (Anaerobic, Aerobic and Vermi) and biomethanation. The thermal method includes pelletisation, incineration, pyrolisis, gasification and plasma technology. The selection of a technology by a Municipal authority is generally based on the suitability of the waste in terms of its physical and chemical composition, capital and recurring costs, cost recovery and technical feasibility including land availability. The practice of assessing the environmental feasibility of technology is virtually absent. Therefore, assessment of impacts has been carried out for various technologies and given in Annexure 13. It indicates that composting is the technology that has minimum environmental impact. Environmental Impact Assessment of Current Practices In order to identify the persistent environmental quality consequent to the ongoing solid waste management practices, impact assessment has been carried out for various activities linked to the current practices. The activities and the manner in which they are performed in Kerala at present are given in earlier chapter. The impact assessment is carried out in two stages, first by identifying the impacts and second by assessing the potential of impacts. The identification of impacts has been



carried out using cause-effect relationship by identifying the impacting activities from the ongoing practices. Accordingly, the potential impacts identified and their qualitative nature is given in Table 29.
Table 29 Type and Nature of Impact of Current Practices of Solid Waste Management

Environmental attributes

Impacting activities/stresses

Type of impact

Nature of Impact


Irregular collection Improper storage Composting practices Open dumping of MSW Air quality Irregular collection Poor segregation Improper storage Poor fleet operation Composting practices Open dumping of MSW Water quality Irregular collection Improper storage Inadequate sweeping Composting practices Maintenance of plant Open dumping of MSW Covering of refuse with soil Aesthetics Irregular collection Improper storage Inadequate sweeping Poor fleet operation Composting practices Maintenance of plant Open dumping of MSW Health Irregular collection Improper storage Inadequate sweeping Poor fleet operation Composting practices Open dumping of MSW Covering of refuse with soil Accidents Improper storage Composting practices Open dumping of MSW Covering of refuse with soil Employ-ment Irregular collection Improper storage Inadequate sweeping

Littering and improper land use Soil contamination Possibility of soil conditioning Inefficient use of land and pollution Emission of methane, hydrogen sulphide Foul odour due to putrefaction Emission of methane, hydrogen sulphide Emission of particulate matter Foul odour due to improper practices Emission of green house gases Contamination due to clogging of drains Contamination due to leachate discharge Clogging of drains Leachate discharge due to poor management Leachate discharge due to poor capture Contamination due to discharge & seepage Seepage of leachate to groundwater Eye sore due to littering Unhygienic places Eye sore due to littering Dust, littering and spillage of leachate Foul odour Foul odour Unhygienic dump yard, foul odour Nuisance of flies and vectors Spread of worms and flies Spread of vectors due to clogging of drains Dust and smoke Occupational diseases Respiratory/allergic diseases due to burning Contamination of water Fire accidents Wounds due to improper handling Animal menace Gas accumulation and explosion Reduced opportunity Poor efficiency of labour Poor efficiency of labour





Composting practices Maintenance of plant Open dumping of MSW Covering of refuse with soil Irregular collection Poor segregation Improper storage Inadequate sweeping Poor fleet operation Composting practices Maintenance of plant Open dumping of MSW Covering of refuse with soil

Reduced opportunity Loss of man days Reduced opportunity, loss of man days Enhanced employment Loss of income Quality deterioration and reduced income Loss of income Loss of income Inefficient expenses Quality deterioration & reduced income Loss due poor efficiency Loss of resource Loss of resource

MiA- Minimally adverse; MA- Moderately adverse; AA- Appreciably adverse; SA- Significantly adverse; EAExtremely adverse; MiB- Minimally beneficial; MB- Moderately beneficial; AB- Appreciably beneficial; SBSignificantly beneficial; EB-Extremely beneficial

The assessment of the impact potential has been carried out using Leopold Matrix analysis. For this, the various cause-effect relationships between and among different activities and environmental attributes are evaluated in terms of their importance and magnitude. In order to evaluate the magnitude, the weighting scheme approach is used. The term magnitude is used in the sense of degree of extensiveness or scale of act in the overall importance of the impact. It would vary according to the relative merits or degree of importance between and among the environmental attributes. In the case of solid waste management, importance rating of environmental attributes is taken as Health (5), Aesthetics (5), Air quality (4), Water quality (4), Land (3), Accidents (1), Employment (2), Expenditure (1); the values in the parenthesis indicating the rate of importance in an arbitrary scale of 1 to 5. It indicates the relative importance of an environmental attribute on the overall environmental scenario of the impact zone. Similarly, the magnitude of impact due to the activities is also considered in the scale of 1 to 5 indicating the magnitude of impact of a particular activity on the concerned environmental component of the project. The impact assessment is carried out by assigning the activities on the x-axis and environmental attributes likely to be affected by the activities on the y-axis. Each cell of the matrix represents a subjective evaluation of the impact of a particular activity on a particular attribute in terms of magnitude and importance. A blank cell indicates no impact. In the matrix no sign (positive number) indicates beneficial impact and negative sign indicates adverse impact. The importance and magnitude of the impact are given on a scale of 1 to 5 in each cell. This numbers indicate the relative importance of an environmental attribute on the overall environmental scenario of the impact zone and. The magnitude and importance are multiplied to get a score for each cell of the matrix. The scores of individual cells in each row are added to determine the total impact of all project activities on each component. Similarly, the scores in individual cells in each column are added to determine the total impact of each action on all the environmental components likely to be affected. The total score in each cell therefore vary between 25 to +25 representing extremely adverse impact to extremely beneficial impact. Accordingly, the impact potential assessed is given in Table 30.



Table 30 Impact Assessment Matrix for Current Solid Waste Management Practices

Activities Maintenance of plant Covering of refuse with soil Open dumping of MSW Composting practices Poor segregation Inadequate sweeping Improper storage Poor fleet operation Irregular collection

Land Air quality Water quality Aesthetics Health Accidents Employment Expense Total

-6 -4 -8 -15 -10 --4 -2 -49

--4 ------3 -7

-6 -8 -4 -15 -15 -1 -4 -3 -56

---8 -10 -15 --4 -1 -38

--8 --15 -5 ---2 -30

6 -8 -8 -15 -5 -1 -8 -4 -43

---4 -5 ---2 -1 -12

-9 -12 -12 -25 -15 -3 -4 -4 -84

---8 --10 -1 2 -1

-15 -44 -52 -100 -75 -6 -24 -21

-18 -337

The current practice of waste management has serious implications on aesthetics, health, water quality and air quality. Therefore, considerable effort required by way of evolving appropriate environmental management plan and its implementation to upgrade the current practices to the environmental regulatory standards. The environmental management plan so evolved need to give thrust on improving the current practices, especially with respect to open dumping, storage, primary collection, composting practices, street sweeping and fleet operation.

Measures Initiated by Central and State Government to set up Compliance

The Ministry of Urban Development which is the line Ministry for the Municipal authorities in the country, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Nonconventional Energy Sources have taken certain measures to help the States and the Municipal authorities to comply with the rules expeditiously which are briefly described as under. 1. Preparation of a National Manual on Solid Waste Management Ministry of Urban Development, GoI, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO) formed an Expert Committee to prepare a National manual on Solid Waste Management. A comprehensive manual has been prepared covering all aspects of solid waste management. The manual has been circulated to all States and large ULBs and the same





has been put on sale in all government book depots. This manual can be used by the Municipal authorities in designing their own systems of waste management. 2. Creation of Technology Advisory Group With a view to help ULBs to arriving at an appropriate decision in regard to choice of technology, look at financial options and for capacity building in the area of solid waste management, Government of India constituted a Technology Advisory Group to study various technological options and identify appropriate technologies suitable under the Indian condition, prepare a framework for training and capacity building and a compendium of various schemes extending financial support to local bodies for improving solid waste management services. The Report of the Technology Advisory Group has recently been published and made available to the States and ULBs by Government of India for their guidance. 3. Training and Capacity Building Programmes The Ministry of Urban Development has taken up training programmes in various States through State level training institutions to provide training to Municipal officials at various levels to enable them to design systems of solid waste management. Ministry of Environment and Forest has also conducted several workshops and training programmes in the country or has financially supported training and capacity building programmes for ULBs. 4. Financial Support The Ministry of Urban Development has successfully managed an allocation of Rs.2500 crore to the ULBs in the country for solid waste management from the 12th Finance Commission Grants of Govt. of India. All the States have been allocated funds as per their population and certain other considerations. 5. Model Projects The Ministry of Environment and Forest has taken up a scheme of having one model project in each State with 50% financial support of the Ministry for putting the entire system in place in one city if the State Government and the city concerned mobilize the balance funds. 5 to 6 States have already benefited from the project with more states likely to get similar support shortly. 6. Publication of Guidelines Ministry of Environment and Forest and CPCB has published guidelines on various aspects of solid waste management to assist the municipal authorities in the country. 7. Financial Support to Compost Plants The Ministry of Agriculture has introduced a scheme to give financial support to municipal authorities for setting up compost plants to the extent of Rs.50 lakh per plant.



8. Financial Support to Waste to Energy Plants The Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources has come out with a comprehensive scheme of supporting waste to energy projects in the country and also help research and development in this sector. Measures Initiated by Government of Kerala Clean Kerala Mission In the context of the poor performance of ULBs, in discharging their mandate in SWM across the state, need for adherence to the MSW rules 2000, in the wake of the Supreme Court directions, to provide technical support, empower, facilitate and co-ordinate the ULBs in effective SWM in the State and too ensure standardization and quality assurance, the Clean Kerala Mission (CKM) was set up by GoK in the year 2003. In 2005, the GoK has issued directions to the ULBs to obtain mandatory technical sanction from CKM for any capital investments, irrespective of own/plan/borrowed funds.



While identifying the solution to the problem of management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) following requirements have been considered as paramount: 1. Comprehensive Solution: The solution should address the problem of entire waste generation offering a credible roadmap for ultimate sustainable MSW management in the long run. The solution therefore should have a phased strategy that provides for scientific management of waste all through the project development and implementation. 2. Reliable and Cost Effective Solution. There is a need to evolve a credible solution that (i) is suitable for local waste characteristics, (ii) is cost effective, (iii) can be applied for MSW in the range of 5- 70 tons, (iv) meets the regulatory requirements and (v) makes optimal use of available sites and their capacity. Screening of Technologies Technologies for Processing/ Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste The main technological options available for processing \ treatment of municipal solid waste, are the following. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Composting Vermi-composting Anaerobic Biomethanation Incineration Gasification & Pyrolysis Plasma Pyrolysis Production of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)/ Pellatization

The Technology Advisory Group of Govt. of India has looked at the above options as under. Advantages/ Opportunities and Limitations / Barriers of Different Technologies for Their Applicability in India Composting Composting of MSW is currently the most important biological route for recycling matter and nutrients from the organic fraction of MSW. Full scale composting technology for (i) source separated MSW (ii) mechanically separated MSW, (iii) mixed MSW is already commercially



available and in use, and its further application is limited only by process economics and the availability of markets for the composted MSW, which include applications like use as manure, soil conditioner for parks, gardens, agricultural lands, landfill cover, etc., depending upon its composition/quality.

Age old established concept for recycling of matter nutrients to soil. Simple and straight forward for adoption, for source separated MSW. Does not require large capital investment, compared to other waste treatment options. Suitable for organic biodegradable fraction of MSW, yard (or garden) waste, waste containing high proportion of lignocelluloses materials which do not readily degrade under anaerobic conditions, waste from slaughterhouse and dairy waste. Can be done from a small scale to a large scale.

Limitations/ Barriers

Suitable for only organic biodegradable fraction of MSW; not very suitable for wastes which may be too wet. Problems relating to the complexity of the raw waste, which need to be addressed. Around 30-35 kWh energy is consumed per tone of waste input in full-scale plants during sieving and turning of waste pile for supply of oxygen. Emissions of environmental concern from open compost plants if not managed properly. Operations get hampered during heavy rains for a few days at the open compost plants. Open compost plants if not managed well could emit bad odour and create fly menace. Risk of production of contaminated compost from MSW if entry of biomedical waste, hazardous industrial waste arid other toxic material is not restricted at the compost plant site. The requirement of land is relatively more for open compost plants. In case of vermi composting source segregation of organic biodegradable waste is essential. Worms are likely to die if any toxic material enters the stream of compostable matter. This also requires more land than microbial composting.

The quality of compost produced from source segregated organic waste is generally better than that of compost produced from mechanically separated MSW, and of that produced from mixed MSW (without any separation). Grinding of MSW should be avoided as it can mask the presence of hazardous material and make it impossible for their removal after the composting is done. In the absence of waste segregation at source, there is possibility of the produced compost being contaminated by heavy metals and toxic/ hazardous substances, etc. It is critical that compost so produced be environmentally safe and, if the compost is marketed for agriculture, it is ensured through proper testing and certification that it is free from heavy metals, toxic materials, sharp objects, glass, etc. The MSW Management & Handling Rules 2000 have laid certain limits for heavy metals content in compost produced from MSW that these standards are adequate and address parameters for



safe agricultural use. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the standards laid down are met and a mechanism is put in place to ensure that the same are strictly implemented. Pending the same, agricultural use of compost derived from MSW calls for caution. Anaerobic Digestion/ Biomethanation Biomethanation is an age old established technology for disinfections, deodorization and stabilization of sewage sludge, farmyard manures animal slurries and also for industrial sludge. Its application for organic fraction of MSW is, however, more recent and less extensive. As it leads to bio-gas/ power generation in addition to production of compost (residual sludge), it provides a value addition to the aerobic (composting) process and also offers certain other clear advantages over composting in terms of energy production/consumption, compost quality and net environmental gains.
Advantages/ Opportunities

Suitable for kitchen wastes and, other putrescible wastes, this may be too wet and lacking in structure for aerobic composting. A net energy-producing process (100-150 kWh per tonne of waste input). Totally enclosed system enables all the gas produced to be collected for use. The net environmental gains are positive. Modular construction of plant and closed treatment needs less land area. Can be done at small scale. Free from bad odour, rodent and fly menace, visible pollution and social resistance. Potential for improvement of economics with increase in energy price and or buy-back power tariff in future. Potential for co-disposal with other organic waste streams from industry agriculture.

Limitations/ Barriers

Suitable for only organic biodegradable fraction of MSW; does not degrade any complex organics or oils, grease, or ligno-cellulosic materials such as yard waste. Heat released is less, resulting in lower and less effective destruction of pathogenic organisms than in aerobic composting. (If temperature is increased it will kill micro organism). Problems relating to complexity of input waste need to be addressed, as in case of aerobic composting process. Requires waste segregation for improving digestion efficiency (biogas yield) and improving quality of residual sludge. While the liquid sludge can be used as rich organic manure, either directly or after drying, its quality needs to be ensured to meet statutory standards. No grinding of waste material should take place. Disposal of process waste -water requires treatment to meet statutory standards. Biogas leakage, posing environmental and fire hazards. Generally more capital intensive than aerobic composting.



Application in India

Recently a 5 MW power plant based on biomethanation technology for power generation at Lucknow was constructed and operationalized but unfortunately has been closed down for various reasons, one among them being non-supply of appropriate quality of MSW to the plant. The organic content in the waste supplied to the plant is reported to be as low as 15%. Lack of due diligence on the part of the investor is also one among the chief reasons. Biomethanation technology on a small scale is functioning at Vijayawada and at other places in the country for the treatment of very special organic waste collected from canteens, etc. Production of RDF / Pellets It is basically a processing method for mixed MSW, which can be very effective in preparing an enriched fuel feed for thermal processes like incineration or for use in industrial furnaces.
Advantages / Opportunities

The RDF pellets can be conveniently stored and transported. Can effectively take care of imbalances in input waste feed to power plant.

As it involves significant MSW sorting operations, it provides a greater opportunity to remove environmentally harmful materials from the incoming waste prior to combustion.
Limitations/ barriers

Energy intensive Not suitable for too wet MSW during rainy season. Distinct possibility of contamination of RDF fluff / Pellets, by toxic/hazardous materials, which can not be removed completely from mixed MSW by sorting; not safe for burning in the open, for domestic use. Plant for production of RDF fluff will be useless until a dedicated power plant with necessary pollution control systems to meet statutory limits for air emissions, other discharges, already exists/ is planned to be set up simultaneously, to consume the pellets.



Application in India

The Department of Science and Technology of Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) New Delhi had initially perfected the technology of processing municipal solid waste to separate combustible fraction and densification into fuel pellets to a scale of 2 tons per hour in a demonstration plant at Deonor dump yard of Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Fuel pellets produced in the demo plants were found to have calorific value in excess of 3000 K Cal / Kg consistently and the fuel was test marketed around Ks. 1000 per tonne in and around Mumbai. Thereafter, the DST technology of processing MSW into fuel pellets was transferred to M/s. Selco International Limited, Hyderabad for scaling up and commercial operation. The Technology Development Board of DST and TIFAC is assisted Selco to set up a 6.6 MW power plant to incinerate MSW derived fuel and generate electricity. DST has also transferred the technology to M/s Sriram Energy Systems Ltd to set up a similar plant at Vijayawada. Both these plants are operational since November, 2003. However serious doubts have been raised about the suitability of this plant for the treatment of MSW. It is alleged that agro waste is being used in a very large proportion to raise the calorific value and very little MSW is used. Incineration This technology is used in developed countries only where there is a shortage of land for waste treatment and disposal and/or the waste has high calorific value on account of large component of paper, plastic; packaging material, etc. It is an important method of waste disposal volume reduction and conversion to innocuous material, with energy recovery. When the waste is dry, it may not need any auxiciliary fuel except for start-up but when and the input waste is mixed MSW rich in inert and moisture co, supplementary fuel may be needed to sustain combustion, adversely affecting net energy recovery.
Application in India

An Incineration plant for 3.75 MW power generation from 300 tpd MSW was installed at Timarpur, Delhi in the year 1987 could not operate successfully due low Net Calorific Value MSW.

Advantages/ Opportunities

Most suitable for high Ca Value waste, pathological wastes, etc. Can reduce waste volumes by over 90 % and convert waste to innocuous material. Units with continuous feed and high through put can be set up. Thermal energy recovery for direct heating or, power generation. Relatively noiseless and odourless Low land area requirement. Can be located within city limits, reducing the cost of waste transportation. Hygienic.



Limitations/ barriers

Least suitable for disposal of aqueous/ high moisture content/ low Calorific Value and chlorinated waste. Excessive moisture and inert content affects net energy recovery. High capital and O &M cost. Skilled personnel required for plant operation and maintenance. Concern for emission of particulates, SO; NOx, chlorinated compounds, ranging from I to Dioxins Concern for toxic metals in particulates that may concentrate in ash; need for care in their removal and disposal. Presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons like PVC, in the waste is a matter of great concern. It is claimed that maintaining very high temperatures during the combustion process can eliminate virtually all dioxins produced. Also those fabric filtration systems can remove up to 99 percent of other contaminants in the form of particulates and alkaline scrubbers can remove sox. Activated carbon reactor and catalytic rectors are used for advanced processing. However, dioxins are most controversial issues, and the mechanism of their production are not yet completely clarified and their removal methods are not yet completely established. Pyrolysis /Gasification Plasma Pyrolysis Vitrification (PPV) / Plasma Arc Process Pyrolysis Gasification processes are established for homogenous organic matter like wood, pulp etc. while Plasma Pyrolysis is a relatively new technology for disposal of particularly hazardous wastes, radioactive wastes, etc. These are now being reorganized as an attractive option for disposal of MSW also. In all these processes, besides net energy recovery, proper destruction of the waste is also ensured. These processes, therefore, have an edge over incineration.
Advantages/ Opportunities

Production of fuel gas, fuel oil, which replace fossil fuels. Compared to incineration, control of atmospheric pollution can be dealt with in a superior way, in techno-economic sense. NO and SO gases emissions do not occur in normal operation due to the lack of oxygen in the system. Plasma Pyrolysis Vitrification attractive for disposal of mixed hazardous wastes. Toxic materials get encapsulated in vitreous mass, which is relatively much safer to handle than incinerator/ Gasifier ash.
Limitations and Barriers

Capital intensive. Net energy recovery may suffer in case of wastes with excessive moisture and inert content. High viscosity of pyrolysis oil may be problematic for its transportation & burning.



Concentration of toxic/ hazardous matter in Gasifier ash, which will need care in handling and disposal.
Application in India

No such plants have so far come up in India or else where for the disposal of MSW. It is an emerging technology for MSW and yet to be successfully demonstrated for large scale application. Choice of Technology The decision to implement any particular technology for processing treatment of MSW depends on a number of factors as under. The origin/quality of the waste Presence of hazardous/ toxic waste Availability of outlets for the energy produced Market for compost/anaerobic digestion sludge Energy prices/buyback tariff for energy purchase Cost of alternatives Level of capital and labour cost Land price In general, the decision needs to be based on techno-economic viability of any option at the specific site keeping in view the local conditions and the available physical and financial resources. The urban local bodies should follow their own standard procedure of inviting bids and evaluating different options on merits. Due importance needs to be given to options which are techno economically most viable/ sustainable in long run, environmentally most friendly and are suited to local needs, besides to the capability and experience of the technology provider in the area of solid waste management. The above aspects are further brought in to the matrix in Table 31, bringing in, operational, financial aspects and suitability in Municipalities.
Table 31 Matrix of Processing Technologies
Parameters Biological Method Compost Basic Principle Degradation by aerobic microorganisms Anaerobic Digestion Degradation by anaerobic microorganisms Incineration Combustion Thermal Method Pelletisation Refining of MSW to form fluff Pyrolysis/ Gasification Anaerobic Thermo-chemical Conversion/Them o-chemical conversion



Primary Product


Secondary Products

Suitability to Municipal Waste


Bio Gas (CH4 and CO2) and Compost Heat, Power, Fuels, Chemicals, Soil amendment Good

Synthetic Gas


RDF Pellets (High calorific fluff) Fines for composting

Fuel and Synthesis Gas Electricity, chemicals, some marketable fuels

Low (High moisture content and low calorific value of MSW) No

Suitability of Treating Mixed Waste Waste segregation



Medium (considering high moisture content and low calorific value of the MSW) Yes

Low (High moisture content and low calorific value of MSW)


Principally, source separated biodegradable waste since matter and nutrients are to be recovered with minimal contamination.

Acceptance of Wet Organic Fraction (kitchen wastes)


Principally source separated biodegradable waste since matter and nutrients are to be recovered with minimal contamination Yes

All waste except plastic (since plastics cannot be burnt as per MSW Rules, 2000).

In particular suitable for segregated MSW having low moisture and high calorific value

Most suitable for well defined dry organic waste fractions and low moisture

Yes- but will require auxiliary fueliing


Acceptance of Garden and Park Wastes Acceptance of Organic Waste from Hotels and Restaurants Aceptance of Paper and Board Excluded waste fractions


Not Usually



Technically possible (usually not applied especially given low calorific value) Possible





Possible but normally no

Small amounts of paper possible Debris, Metal, Plastic, Glass, and Mixed Municipal Waste as far as possible





Debris, Metal, Plastic, Glass

Debris, Metal

Debris, Metal

Wet household waste, Debris, Metals



Important Waste Parameters and Desired Range 1

Moisture content > 50% Organic/Volatile matter > 40% C/N ratio : 25 - 30

Moisture content > 50% Organic/Volati le matter > 40% C/N ratio : 25 - 30

Nutrient recovery

Yes*: 2-4 kg N/ton 1-2 kg P/ton 1-2 kg K/ton

Products for recycling or recovery, (weight - % of waste input) Residuals for other waste treatment or for land filling (weight -% of waste input) Resource Recovery Potential Energy Recovery Waste Volume Reduction Ease in Operation Proven technology

18-25% compost

Yes*: 4.0 -4.5 kg N per ton 0.5 - 1 kg P per ton 2.5 - 3 kg K pr ton 30% fibres, 50-65% fluids

Moisture content < 45% Organic/Volati le matter > 40% Fixed Carbon < 15% Total Inerts < 35% Calorific Value > 1,200 kcal/kg No

Moisture Content < 10-15% Organic/Volati le matter > 40%

Moisture Content < 45% Organic/Volatile matter > 40% Fixed Carbon < 15% Total Inert < 35% Calorific Value > 1,200 kcal/kg



2-20% overflow sieving (plastic, metal, glass, stones)

2-20% overflow sieving (plastic, metal, glass, stones) Yes

15-25% bottom ash (including clinker, grit, glass), 3% metals 3% fly ash (including flue gas residues)

Fines for composting and other recyclable products like plastics

15-25% vitrified bottom ash (including clinker grit, glass, char) 3% metal 3% fly ash (including flue gas and gas cleaning residues)





No Medium

Yes Medium

Yes High

Yes High

Yes High

Yes; Very Common


Scale of Operation in India

Small to medium


Yes in US and EU (In India, incineration is being used for destruction of Biomedical and Industrial Hazardous Waste) Small


No/Yes (Relatively few plants in Europe and US with long periods of continous operation)


Small with selected waste



Commercial Scale Operation in India Land Requirement Cost of Treatment Capital Investment Cost Labour requirement Level of skill O&M Cost Decentralization application Capacity of Minicipalities to Administrate/M onitor Marketability of End Products Environmental impact



No- except small plants Low Low to medium High Low Medium high Medium Poor



Medium - High Low to medium Low to medium Low Low Low High Average

Medium Medium to high Medium to high Medium Medium-High Medium Medium Poor

Low Low to medium High Medium High Medium Medium Poor

Low High to very high High Low High High Medium Poor

Low to medium Very low

Medium to high Low

Medium to high High

Low to medium High

Low to Medium Medium

It is observed from the matrix that when the waste suitability and environmental acceptability criteria are applied independently or in combination, following two technologies qualify as technologies that can be considered for treatment of MSW in municipalities. Composting Bio-methanation

Composting seems to be the most suitable option of the two. Out of the different technologies of composting ordinary windrow composting is the simplest operation. Bio-methanation has some limitations compared to composting especially in the feed stock. Segregation of waste has to be relatively high degree. Hence this option is best suited to waste arising from slaughter houses, fish, meat markets & easily degradable vegetable waste from markets. Composting and biomethanation are discussed in detail in the subsequent section. Composting Composting process is one of the commonly used treatment and disposal techniques in Indian towns/cities. The end product is a stable material called 'compost' and the compost may be used as low-grade manure and soil conditioner depending on quality. Composting Technologies Composting is a slow natural process were mixed bacteria, fungi, insects and worms consume plant and animal waste and slowly convert them into a soil-like substance, which is nutrient rich for plant growth. Compost provides energy, minerals, nutrients and micronutrients, useful



microbes and water-retaining humus to the soil. Both aerobic and anaerobic processes can be adopted for composting purposes. The aerobic windrow process may be completed in 45-60 days including time required for maturation with available technologies, on any scale, even with mixed non-toxic waste, by repeated turning and aeration. Vermi composting is a process in which earthworms consume decayed plant and animal waste with the help of bacteria in their gut, to excrete fine-grained soil-like vermi-castings rich in minerals and microbes. The compost produced is very beneficial to plants and free of germs. The following processes are well suited to small-scale segregated biodegradable waste at decentralized locations. Turned windrow- Aeration by turning Static windrow Forced aeration In vessel -in closed vessel with aeration and forced air circulation Anaeroibic composting Vermi composting Various waste composting projects in India is summarised in Box 1.
Box 1 Waste Composting Projects in India

Aerobic composting: In broad terms, microbial decomposition of the organic fraction of solid waste is known as composting. Decomposition of organic solid waste can be accomplished either aerobically (in the presence of oxygen) or anaerobically (in the absence of oxygen). Approximately, 35 composting projects with designed treatment capacity is generally between 200 and 300 MT per day have emerged / finalized in the country over the past five years. Most of the compost plants are in the States of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala (Two nos). The largest operating plant is located in Calcutta and has a treatment capacity of 700 MT per day, while Trivandrum has commissioned the first fully covered plant covering an area of 12,000 sq. feet. Kozhikode is modernizing the plant by providing facility for full covering. The capital investment requirement for such projects is typically in the range of Rs.30-75 million (100-700 MT per day capacity) and the project financing has predominantly been driven by promoter equity. Composting with earthworms (vermi composting): It might be mentioned that every good aerobic compost heap harbours earthworms, but vermi composting is set up in such a way that the worms can multiply optimally and do thorough processing of all compostable matter. The end product is a compost of ideal constitution and structure. A vermi compost unit has to be set up in such a way that the worms are protected against birds, rodents and ants. It also has to be protected against heavy rains and /or be extremely well-drained. Daily attention is a must, as a drop in ideal water content interferes with the optimal activity of the worms. Various earthworm species are being propagated as ideal candidates for vermi compost, but it is always possible to use the species which are locally available. Another useful and valuable product of vermi compost is vermi wash, which is said to have growth-promoting and pestrepelling properties. In order to harvest vermi wash, the vermi culture is handled slightly differently. Vermi composting is done in Municipalities in Kerala as decentralized processing option.



Vessel composting process is faster compared to open aerobic systems, but require segregated waste, composting containers, forced aeration systems. There is not much of in country experience especially with MSW as feed stock. However the in vessel systems occupy less space (40% of windrow system) and the process is odour free and aesthetically acceptable. Capital & operating costs are high. Anaerobic composting processes are very slow because it takes up to 180 days to produce compost in airless pits or underground trenches in the ground, and generate methane, an environmentally harmful greenhouse gas. Anaerobic composting can be accelerated in biogas digesters, where the harvested methane becomes a useful fuel and the slurry produced is useful organic manure. As temperatures inside biogas digesters are not high, some of the pathogens are not killed. It is useful for cooked food waste in de-centralized operations.

Factors Affecting the Composting Process

a) Organisms: Aerobic composting is a dynamic system wherein bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and other biological forms are actively involved. The relative predominance of one species over another depends upon the constantly changing food supply, temperature and substrate conditions. Facultative and obligate forms of bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi are the most active in this process. In the initial stages, mesophilic forms predominate and thermophilic bacteria and fungi take over in the final stages of composting. Thermophilic actinomycetes and fungi are known to grow well in the temperature range of 45oC to 60oC. b) Moisture: The moisture tends to occupy the free air space between the particles. Hence, when the moisture content is very high, anaerobic conditions set in and the optimum moisture content is known to be 50% -60 %. Higher moisture content may be required while composting straw and strong fibrous materials, which soften the fibre and fills the large pore spaces. In anaerobic composting, the moisture content used will depend upon the method of handling. c) Temperature: The aerobic decomposition of a germ mole of glucose releases 484 to 674 kcal energy under controlled conditions, while only 26 kcal are released when it is decomposed anaerobically. Municipal solid waste is known to have good insulation properties and hence the released heat results in increase in temperature of the decomposing mass. As some of the heat loss occurs from the exposed surface, the actual rise in temperature is slightly less. When the decomposing mass is disturbed, the resultant heat loss results in drop in temperature. Under properly controlled conditions, temperature is known to rise beyond 70oC in aerobic composting and a further rise in anaerobic conditions. This increased rate of biological activity results in faster stabilization of materials. On the other hand, very high rise in temperature would result in inactivation of enzymes and organisms. Studies carried out have shown that the activity of cellulose enzyme reduces above 70oC and the optimum temperature range for nitrification is 30o to 50oC beyond which nitrogen loss is known to occur. The temperature range of 50o to 60oC is thus optimum for nitrification and cellulose degradation.



d) Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) Ratio: The organisms involved in stabilization of organic matter utilize about 30 parts of Carbon for each part of Nitrogen and hence the initial C/N ratio of 1:30 is most favourable for composting. Research workers have reported that the optimum value range is between 26-31 depending upon the other environmental conditions. However, whenever the C/N ratio is less than optimum, carbon source such as straw, sawdust, paper are added while if the ratio is too high, sewage sludge, slaughter house waste etc., are added as the source of nitrogen.
Particle Size & Use of Culture/ Inoculums

The particle size of the material being composted is critical. Because smaller particles usually have more surface per unit of weight, they facilitate more microbial activity on their surfaces, which leads to rapid decomposition. However, if all of the particles are ground up, they pack closely together and allow few open spaces for air to circulate. This is especially important when the material being composted has high moisture content. As composting progresses, there is a natural process of size reduction. The optimum particle size has enough surface area for rapid microbial activity, but also enough void space to allow air to circulate for microbial respiration. The feedstock composition can be manipulated to create the desired mix of particle size and void space. The size reduction will be required only for garden waste, banana stem and similar large sized vegetable matter. Hence simple chopping of large size vegetable matter is only required. Further size reduction is sometimes done after the composting process is completed to improve the aesthetic appeal of finished composts destined for specific markets. Hence generally no grinding of total waste is required and such facilities can only add to capital and operating costs leading unaffordable production costs. During the development of composting process, various innovators have come forward with inoculum, enzymes, etc. claimed to hasten the composting process but investigations carried out have shown that they are not necessary. The required forms of bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi are indigenous to the municipal solid waste and under proper environmental conditions, the indigenous bacteria adapted to municipal solid waste rapidly multiply as compared to the added cultures. However sanitization and accelerated composting by adding suitable inoculums may be done for decentralized operations done close to habitation.



Compost Production from Municipal Solid Waste A. Compost from crude mixed waste Assuming waste reaching at site has 50% of organic content One ton of waste will have 500 kgs of compostable fraction Deduct 25 % of moisture loss in the process 150 kgs Deduct loss of volatiles during decomposition @ 15% = 45 kgs Qty of compost = 305kgs of compost Assuming an extraction efficiency of 80%, the compost produced is 244 kgs (This qty may vary from 200 kgs to 250 kgs depending on organic and moisture content in the waste) B. From segregated Municipal Organic Waste Assuming 25 %loss of moisture content - deduct 250 kg Volatile losses @15% -deduct 75 kg Qty of compost - 675 kg Assuming extraction efficiency of 80% qty of compost will be 540 kgs The quantity of compost may vary between 400 and 550 Kg depending on the organic and moisture content. Key Risks in Waste Composting Projects in India
Compost Quality

One of the key risks associated with compost produced from municipal solid waste is quality of the end product. In the absence of waste segregation at source there is possibility of the end product being contaminated. It is critical that compost so produced be environmentally safe and the farmer be assured of its quality. Standardization of compost quality would also have a bearing on its demand. Solid Waste Management rules issued by Ministry of Environment and Forests, GOI attempts to address the risk and include standards, which are to be met. However, it needs to be established that these standards are adequate and address all parameters. Further it is imperative that these be strictly implemented. It would also be useful to test the raw material coming to these composting facilities to ensure that it excludes hazardous and medical waste. Waste segregation at source must also be aggressively promoted.
Market for Compost

Demand for compost will ultimately drive the price of the end product, which in turn will dictate the sustainability of such operations. It is important that there exist a market for the product. Creating a market would require the Government to set and maintain stringent standards regarding the quality of end product educate users about the benefits of compost and draw up a marketing plan. The following factors can affect the demand for the product:



The type of agriculture or horticulture in the region. Interestingly, Excel Industries Ltd. reports that approximately 95% of their compost is purchased by farmers for growing sugarcane, grapes, bananas, etc and has resulted in a 25% decrease in use of chemical fertilizers among these farmers. Further, their compost did receive good responses from the farmers in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Farmers preferences: Farmers need to be made aware of the benefits of using compost in conjunction with chemical fertilizers; and Marketing Plan: It is important that a proper marketing plan be drawn up. This should include a broad assessment of the total production capacity and demand for such product. The distance that compost must be transported has a direct bearing on cost, and potentially demand. Further, compost is bulkier compared to chemical fertilizers and this may sometimes act as a detriment to farmers while considering its use. It is therefore preferential that the compost finds application in local neighbouring areas. It must also be noted that as compost product increases, pricing will be affected. Price is an important issue. Surveys show that farmers appear comfortable with a price of around Rs.2, 000 to Rs.2, 500 per MT, when the following two parameters regarding the product are held as a constant: (i) the product is of an assured and consistent quality; and (ii) it is delivered at the closest point of their purchase of other agricultural inputs. Higher price range is there for vemi compost. Studies recommend a production cost of Rs 1200- 1500 for windrow compost to run the plants commercially viable. A comparative analysis of aerobic composting technologies is done in Table 32 to screen most appropriate system.



Table 32 Aerobic Composting Systems

System Turned windrows Advantages No electric power required.- except for mechanical sieving Existing farm machinery (Tractor mounted attachments) can be used. Choice of pre-treatment of MSW possible.(With out initial segregation) Turning mixes and reduces the need for grinding. Mechanical breakdown of particles process occurs more rapidly. Closer process control. Better pathogen destruction. Easily automated. Shorter process. Less land is needed as piles can be bigger. Reduced labor. No weather problems. Odour control. Better process control. Fast composting. Less land required. Consistent product quality. Contained system to reduce potential for contamination. No power required except for sieving, Odour free, High quality end product. Vemi wash is rich in plant nutrient. Disadvantages Labour intensive. Extensive land required. Loss of nitrogen occurs. No odor control. Weather influenced.(When roofing is required for windrow yard , the civil cost is high)

Aerated static piles

In vessel systems

Electric power required. Labour peaks at formation and breakdown of piles. Limited choice of amendments. Material must be well mixed and sized from the start. High capital cost. Operating and maintenance Expertise required.

Vermi composting

Labour intensive, Feed stock not contain spicy food waste, careful monitoring of temperature and moisture. The pits have to be protected from ants, rats.

Of the aerated composting systems, options are Tuned windrows and Vermi composting. The process has flexibility in terms of scale and ease of operation. Vermi composting though requires careful monitoring, the end product quality is high and hence good market demand. The final recommendations are: Aerobic windrow composting: Vermi composting Bio-methanation

Since Vermi composting require segregation of spicy/oily food waste, the process should be restricted to market and other vegetable waste. Biomethnation also requires segregated waste consisting of vegetable fruit, meat, fish waste and hence it will be ideal market and slaughter house waste.



The public health impacts and environmental risks involved in solid waste management activities are serious, but often ignored in the background of the states low mortality and high morbidity syndrome. But the threat due to frequent outbreak of typhoid, gastro enteritis, emergence of diseases like leptospirosis (weils disease), and mosquito related diseases like dengue fever, japanese encephalitis etc which are directly linked to water, sanitation and solid waste management are on the increase in Kerala. The increasing trend of incidences of communicable diseases in Kerala exemplifies this (Table 33; Figure 1). The figure indicates that eventhough the morbidity has come down considerably, the disease incidences continues to increase. It underlines the fact that the causative factors are not adequately addressed. It is perceived that in the State, illness such as infectious diseases, allergies, respiratory damage, cancers and diseases involving direct or indirect ingestion of infectious micro-organisms are on the increase. The recent out break of chikungunya in the coastal areas of Kerala is reported to be linked to vector breeds in fresh water and hence to garbage accumulation and poor environmental hygiene. Similar is the case with occupational injuries and accidents. The solid waste management is also linked to emission of greenhouse gases, toxic fumes and fine particulates, discharge of different physico-chemical pollutants to water and soil, water contamination including that due to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) and various socio-environmental issues. Therefore, it is worthwhile to attempt an examination as to the major health and environmental risks involved with respect to various activities linked in solid waste management. Table 33 Incidence of Communicable Diseases in Kerala
No Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Diarrhoea Cases Death 636934 47 601734 33 625196 28 668582 15 706421 21 Dengue fever Cases Death 0 0 74 0 163 1 3866 35 839 7 Leptospirosis Cases Death 1174 87 2582 129 2928 199 2162 98 1449 76 Japanese encephalitis Cases Death 11 1 2 0 1 0 14 0 11 0

(Source: Hand Book on Statistics of Communicable Diseases, Department of Health Services, 2005)



Figure 1 Incidences of Communicable Disease and Morbidity



700000 200






Cases Death

640000 100


50 600000

580000 1999






0 2005

MSW Handling Practices and General Health and Environmental Issues Some of the major factors that lead to health impacts and environmental risks are: Toxic, allergenic and infectious substances emanated in situ based on the nature and composition of raw waste Gases, dusts, leachates, particle sizes emitted/discharged during the decomposition of the waste Injuries and accidents while handling waste, especially while working in traffic, shovelling, lifting, equipment vibrations etc Odour, noise, vibration, accidents, air and water emissions, residuals, explosions, fires etc caused during processing

The processes that give rise to these factors includes all the functional components of MSW management system such as source storage, segregation, primary collection, street sweeping,



secondary storage, secondary collection, processing and disposal. In general, the scenario with respect to these functional elements in the ULBs of Kerala indicates the following: The practice of storing the solid waste generated at source is not widespread in the state The segregation of waste at source is almost negligible as only about 6% of urban households practices it as per the inference from six ULBs The primary collection of waste from the door steps is almost non existent in the state except in a very few ULBs through the Kudumbasree Clean Kerala Business units. Sweeping of streets is not carried out regularly in all residential and commercial areas; the tools and equipment used are inefficient ULBs promote secondary storages on the road sides, ending up treating the streets as receptacle of waste. Generally, the storage sites are neither provided with appropriately sized and designed bins nor maintained hygienically The transportation system adopted in most of the cities is inefficient as it mostly uses open trucks and necessitates manual and multiple handling of waste. The system entails throwing the waste at a height of about 7-8 feet which results in contaminated dust particles spreading in the atmosphere By and large, treatment of waste is practiced only by a very few ULBs. The systems established are largely inappropriate, incompatible, and inefficient and poorly operated The final disposal of waste is through open dumping as no ULBs own an engineered/sanitary landfill.

The public health and environmental issues due to various functions of MSW management are brought out in Table 34. Table 34 MSW Components, Practices and Public Health Issues Components of MSW Management Storage at source Practices & Public health issues Poor storage/ no storage at source leading to: Spread of litters in the premises Un aesthetic public places Increased menace of rodents, flies Increased potential for infectious diseases Lack of source segregation leading to: Foreclosing the use of biodegradable at source Foreclosing the recycling options




Primary collection

Street sweeping

Secondary collection




Increasing the quantity of waste to municipal stream Reducing the processing & disposal efficiency Release of toxic substances to recovery stream Lack of primary collection leading to: Increasing NIMBY syndrome Accumulation of waste on roads and roadside drains Unaesthetic public places Increased mosquitoes and flies Possibility for communicable diseases Inadequate cleaning leading to: Significantly littered streets Increased dust nuisances Increased incidence of allergic diseases Inadequate/ in appropriate secondary collection leading to: Accumulation of faecal matter, blood, body fluids, animal flesh, hazardous chemicals & heavy metals Emanation of volatile organic and greenhouse gases Accretion of waste in roadside drains Clogging of drains and channels causing floods Habitats for insect breeding Spread of potentially toxic materials and infectious micro organisms Increased potential for infectious diseases among sanitary workers Improper loading and inefficient transportation leads to: Spillage enroute due to open trucks Undesirable loading procedure and injury to workers Spreading of contaminated dust particles and its inhalation by workers Respiratory infections and skin diseases for the workers Nuisance to public due to exhaust fumes and dust Absence/ inadequate processing leads to: Emission of sulphurous gases and volatile organics in case of improper digestion Down gradient leachate flow in the absence of leachate recycling, water contamination High bio aerosol and particulates in the premises causing respiratory illness Emission of chlorinated and brominated dioxins , furans, volatilized heavy metals etc on incineration Flies and bird menace Crude dumping leads to: Possible emanation of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, methylene chloride, dichloro methane, carbon tetrachloride from dump sites Nuisance due to smell and allergic infections due airborne particulates



Injuries due dog and rodent bites and puncture wounds Flies and bird menace Fire incidences and sliding of waste due to waste dump protection Headaches and nausea due to emission of methane, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emission Lead poisoning due to hazardous content in waste Emission of volatilized heavy metals on burning open dumps Down gradient flow of leachate and water contamination

The ongoing practices as briefed above, lead to both occupational health risks to workers and environmental health risks to residents and workers. Since worker exposure times are shorter than resident exposure times, some risks may be less for workers than for residents. On the other hand, contaminant levels to which workers are exposed can be significantly higher than those that reach residents, thus leading to increased risks for workers over residents. Residents include infants, young children, women of child-bearing age, and seniors. Children are particularly vulnerable to toxins because they ingest more water, food, and air per unit of body weight; their metabolic pathways are less developed to detoxify and excrete toxins; and any disruption during their growth years can easily disrupt development of their organ, nervous, immune, endocrine and reproductive systems (Landrigan, 1998). MSW Linked Health Risks in the Country The detailed studies on various public health aspects linked to solid waste management practices are very limited in the country. Certain indicator studies, exemplifying the gravity of health risks involved with the MSW workers and residents in the neighbourhood of processing plant, dumping yard, are compiled in Table 35. It is recorded that 33 Indian cities showed the presence of Trichuris trichiura (a human whipworm) and Ascaris lumbricoides (a human roundworm) in solid waste samples as early as in 1970. This was based on the analysis of about 1500 solid waste samples. The stool samples of solid waste collectors and a control group of similar socioeconomic background revealed that 98% of the solid waste collectors were positive for parasites, while only 33% of the control group was positive.



Table 35 Occupational Health Issues of SWM Activities in Major Cities of India

Affected Group Type Total Affected tested % 180 CalcuttaChronic cough Waste 40 scattered pickers at Jaundice 37 dumps open Diarrhea 85 dump Fever & cold 72 Eye disease 63 Skin infection 15 29 Injuries Calcutta Respiratory diseases Waste 400 71 Dhapa dump Diarrhoea pickers at 55 dump site Parasite infection 32 Place/ Location Health Issues Affected Control Group-% -------34% 28% 12% Remarks

Based on year long observation in 1995


Respiratory diseases Waste pickers at Diarrhoea dump site Skin infection Eye disease Injuries Chronic chest infection


73 51 40 90 22 17.5


Control groupnearby farmer population of 50 who uses solid waste as fertilizer Based on clinical examination & disease records

(Source: Huisman, M. 1994. The position of waste pickers in SWM: Modes, Assessment, Appraisal, and Linkages in Bangalore, New Delhi. Pp.46-104; Van Esrd. M. 1995. Gender related labour market fragmentation in the informal recycling sector. A study in Bangalore, India. M.Sc. Thesis. Univ. of Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Pp- 31-2. Nath. K.J. et al., 1995. Socioeconomic and Health aspects of recycling of urban solid wastes through scavenging, Calcutta. All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health. Sponsored by the World Health organization, Regional Office., New Delhi)

The injuries mainly include dog bites, pinprick, rat bites and eye injury. Puncture wound was found to be very common to dumpsite waste pickers and waste recyclers. The clinical examination indicated that 90% of waste workers had decreased visual acuity and they complain of eye burning, diminished vision, redness, itching, watering etc. Most of the waste pickers at Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and Bangalore complained of chronic backache and joint pains. The most commonly experienced diseases among waste pickers in Bangalore and New Delhi are tuberculosis, bronchitis, asthma, pneumonia, dysentery, parasites, and malnutrition. About 38% of the women pickers have lost one child and 10% have lost 3 or more, the causative factor being quoted by these women were diarrhoea, tetanus, small pox, bronchitis and virus infections. The blood tests of waste pickers in Delhi, India showed that eosinophils were elevated in 59% of children, 42% of women, and 61% of men. Elevated eosinophil levels indicate parasitic infection, and may also indicate allergic diseases. It is reported that the morbidity data from dumpsite waste pickers in India indicate that waste picking children have 2.5 times more potential of morbidity that non-waste picking children from the same housing areas. The occupational health issues are reported to be very grave in many of the small cities as well, but poorly documented.



MSW Linked Health Risks Elsewhere in the World The public health related issues linked to MSW management are better documented for many cities both in developing and developed countries. There was clear indication of the linkage between disease incidences and waste handling. Solid waste workers and waste pickers at open dumps suffer from dust created by traffic, as well as smoke derived from open burning and underground fires. The occupational health data generated on waste handlers and control groups from 168 Romanian cities by the Romanian Institute of Hygiene and Public Health indicated that the incidence of acute diarrhoea was consistently higher among waste handlers than for the general population, by a relative risk factor over 10 times in general and 25 times in the capital city. The data also indicated that the waste handlers had 1.7 times more relative risk with respect to ophthalmologic diseases and 1.3 times more relative risk with regard to physical injuries. It was also noticed that the disease incidence were higher for the workers after they became waste pickers. The Table 36 indicates that waste picking is a high-risk work with regard to health aspects. Table 36 Incidences of Diseases Before and After Became Waste Pickers No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Diseases Diarrhoea Parasitic diseases Dysentery Stomach trouble Colds Eye trouble Headache Incidences Before (%) 20 18 11 33 48 6 3 Incidences After (%) 32 45 27 68 86 18 23

The health risks associated with various practices involved in solid waste management including waste picking, handling, transportation, composting, incineration, landfilling, open dumping etc are given in Table 37. Table 37 Environmental and Health Issues Linked to Various Components of SWM
SWM Practices Pollutant/ Contaminant Type Magnitude Picking & Suspended 4600 g/m3 (25 times higher Handling particulate matter than standard) Methane emission 20 mg/m3 (Background level- 0.3mg/m3 Health issues Skin diseases, Respiratory ailment Chronic cough Wheezing, Short breathing Pulmonary problems Asthma Allergy Infection Diarrhea Affected population Type % affected Pickers 40% 70% Children 23% 25% 19% 53% --Remarks Studied 750 workers in Metro Manila in 1981 Clinical exam on 194 children in Metro Manila


Diesel fumes Bio aerosol

-104-105 cfu/m3 106-107 cfu/m3

Waste collectors Waste loading workers

-Geneva Denmark

WSP - SWM SECTOR ASSESSMENT REPORT VOC- 92 types Composting Neurological problems Airborne micro103 cfu/m3 Infection organism Diarrhea Gram negative 100 times higher Infection bacteria (A.niger) than background Airborne bacteria & 2-10 times Infection Fungi (Aspergillus higher than fumigtus) background Heavy metals (Mercuri, Lead, Cadium, Arsenic) Lead concentration2500 g/m3 (WHO stdard 1 g/m3) VOC (Dioxins, 4 time higher Furans, than background Hydrocarbons) level Emission of 0.085 0.193 Hydrogen sulphide, tonne of Methane, Carbon methane per monoxide tonne of solid waste *VOC2 lakh tonne Dichloromethane, Benzene, Vinyl chloride, Benzene Emission of Carbon 55 mg/m3 monoxide Neuro toxity 0.9-8.1 mg/m3 --Plant workers Plant workers -----

Denmark 3 German studies in 1994


Shredding & --turning workers upto 500m of the site Workers, 100% workers generally cleaners

Helsinki, Finland; various studies in UK, USA, Canada 3 incinerators at New York in 1992


Land filling

Neurological impairment, Narcotic effect Combustion Cancer Kidney disease Leukemia Headache, wheezing, narcotic symptoms Cancer Kidney disease Leukemia

Workers & nearby population Workers & nearby population

Residents upto 1- USA, UK 2 km of the incinerator Onsite workers Metro Manila & residents upto 1 km perimeter

Workers & nearby population Workers & nearby population

Onsite workers Oveall emission & residents upto estimated for 1 km perimeter USA landfills Onsite workers Metro Manila & residents upto 1 km perimeter Bangkoks open dump site

Open dumping

VOC- toluene, Ethyle benzene, Methyl chloride, Methyl chloroform Parasite infection

Toluene700g/m3; Ethyl benzene- 120 g/m3 Hook work Protozoa

Onsite workers --

Various types of Workers & their 65% children skin infections children 98% children 97% waste pickers Diarrhea, Cholera, Workers & down gradient people ---

Bangkok Metro Manila Olinda, Brazil Conakry, Guinea (1990),

Discharge of leachate with high organic content

>20000 mg/l of COD; >10000 mg/l of BOD (5 days); Heavy methals; fecal bacteria Vibrio cholera Insect breeding Rodent breeding & (46%) Escherichia feeding coli(76%) Salmonella (12%), Shigella (5%)

Dengue fever Cholera Plague Leptospirosis


6400 per lakh of Venezuela, population El Bolson, 2000 cases (Argentina) Tamwe (Mynamar)

(Source: Sandra Cointreau. 2006. Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management. Special emphasis on Middle and Lower Income Countries, Urban Sector Board, The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. p.57 ) *VOC-Volatile Organic Compounds

The Table 37 indicates the serious public health issues involved with all the functional components of solid waste management elsewhere in the world. There are cases of higher blood lead levels (16 g/dl) in incineration workers who had most often cleaned the precipitators. The



blood lead levels were further high (28.7 g /dl) for workers who did not regularly wear his protective device. The particulates containing heavy metals, associated with the bottom and fly ash from incinerator, pollute air with carcinogenic risk. Most of the incinerators, especially in developing countries, have short stacks and no particulate control and hence accentuate the pollution risk. A study carried out in the USA during 1990 on the mutagencity of a solid waste incinerator and two medical waste incinerators indicated that the completeness of combustion and the effectiveness of pollution control equipment affect mutagenic potency significantly, than the nature of the material burned. A study carried out in Great Britain since 1974 indicated that there was decline in cancer incidence of over fourteen million people living within 7.5 km of 72 solid waste incinerators, over a period of over ten years, with increasing distance from the incinerators. There is also a case of high infant mortality rate among waste picking community, such as 240 deaths per 1000 live births compared to national rate of 98 per 1000 (Cairo, 1981). The major causative diseases for increased infant death rate were neo-natal tetanus, diarrhoea, respiratory infection and measles. The causative factor was linked to poor public health management as evident from the reduction in infant mortality rate (117 deaths per 1000 live births) after improving working conditions, basic sanitation, education, and birthing assistance by 1991. In landfill sites and open dumps, there is possibility of reduction in oxygen content from the normal value of 21% to below 17% causing asphyxiation. This happens if the landfill gas accumulates to a ratio of 1:4 in air. The possibility of production of carbon dioxide (CO2) is also high in such areas. CO2 is heavier, and can thus concentrate in a landfill valley. The air containing 4-5% carbon dioxide can induce unconsciousness and a concentration over 9% can cause death. Similarly, accumulation of methane to concentrations of 5-15% by volume of air, can lead to combustion or explosion at the instance of sparks. Environmental protective measures have been found to reduce the health impacts due to solid waste management activities. Certain Scandinavian studies indicated that the exposure to organic dusts reduced significantly when the loading height of the truck was raised from 1 m to 4 m above ground and bins were mechanically raised to this higher elevation for emptying. Similarly, pest control measures in uncollected solid waste and at open dumps reduce the possibility of rodents breed and feed. Injuries and Accidents Linked to Solid Waste Management The cases of injuries are common during collection, transportation and disposal phases of solid waste management. The number of occupational accidents in the Danish waste collection activity was 95 per 1000 workers per year, compared to only 17 per 1000 nationally for all workers during 1989 1992. The U.S. Department of Labor considers solid waste collection as the seventh most dangerous job in the USA since 1998. They reported that the relative risk of waste collectors being killed was 10 times greater than other workers risk, and that 81% of mortalities resulted from vehicular accidents. Waste collectors had a fatality rate of 48.8 per 100,000, based on 1996 nationwide statistics. Between 1992 and 1996, 111 waste collectors were killed in the USA. Most injuries among New York solid waste workers were experienced during waste loading (60%) and driving (30%), with over 60% of all injuries occurring during the later



part of the work shift suggesting a fatigue factor. A Brazilian study reported accident levels of about 700 per 1000 waste collectors per year. A survey of disposal sites throughout the UK indicated that there were 51 incidents of biogas explosions at disposal sites from 1963 to 1981 out of which 47 occurred the transition from open dumps to sanitary landfills. This was due to the greater generation and containment of methane, due to compaction and soil cover and increased anaerobic conditions within the deposited mass of waste. Consequent to the elimination of open burning, more organic material was available to generate methane. By 1989, a total of 2 deaths and 9 injuries were directly attributable to inadequate control over landfill gases. There are intentional fires in dumpsites for minimizing the nuisance of flies, odours, and rodents. The waste pickers sometimes burn piles of waste with cans, in order to remove their coatings or paper wrappers. These fires, at times, get out of control and spread as has happened in a construction debris landfill in North Carolina, USA in 1999, where the entire landfill of about four hectares got fire and took 6 weeks to put out the fire with the use of bulldozers and excavators. There was also a fire in 1999 at an Oklahoma, USA sanitary landfill that produced 15-foot (5 m) flames and thick smoke, partially fuelled by shredded tires in the landfill. The blaze could not be extinguished and, ultimately, could only be contained by digging trenches around it. There are also accidents reported from open dumps due to sliding of steep and unstable accumulation of waste. A man was killed and 250 residents evacuated in OPortino, Spain in 1994 when 100,000 tonnes of solid waste slid toward a coastal village. Inadequate drainage and steep slopes were reputedly the cause. A large slide of solid waste buried 2 children at an open dump in Calcutta, India, in July 1992; and a similar accident occurred in Tangra (Calcutta), India 5 years earlier. A huge slide of about a million tonnes of solid waste occurred from the sanitary landfill in Bogota, Colombia in 1997. Fire in the underground cavities is also common due to the generation of methane gases. Unprecedented fire also caused large displacement of the waste mass (about 1.2 million cubic meters), engulfing eleven homes and killing 39 people at Umraniye- Hekimbasi, Istanbul in 1993. The accumulation of methane and its explosion in the underground cavities was considered as the trigger for the landslide. MSW Management and Public Health Issues in Kerala The scenario in India and elsewhere indicates that the public health issues, injuries and accidents linked to solid waste management is severe in India and at many places elsewhere. The situation in the state is more sever due to the poor compliance to various functional components of MSW management in the state, especially in source segregation, processing and sanitary disposal (Interim Report, July 06, pp.--). Combined together, these factors have led to accumulation of wastes on road sides and public places, delayed collection of putrefied waste, waste clogged open drains, treatment of biodegradable without adhering to specific protocols, indiscriminate dumping of waste in small parcel of land in areas with high density of population etc. This, in turn, has high significance on the public health scenario of the state marred by malaria, typhoid, dengue fever, amoebic and bacillary dysentery, gastroenteritis, salmonellosis, cholera and many new generation diseases, accidents and injuries. But, lack of good quality data on health and



environmental aspects hinders the establishment of direct correlation between solid waste management and health incidences. However, indicative information available from various solid waste dumping sites of Kerala urgently necessitates the requirement for full compliance to all the functional components of integrated solid waste management system, especially the requirement of avoiding the open dumping practices. The environmental and health issues of three open dumps in the state, namely, Kozhikkode, Thiruvanandapuram and Kottayam are given in Table 38. Table 38 Environmental and Public Health Issues Linked to the Selected SW Open Dump Sites of Kerala
Place Kozhikkode SWM Practices & Environmental Issues Poor layout of 18.5 acre land designated for SWM and inappropriate land use there. Waste accumulation since 1936- volume of waste dump now is about 23 x 105 m3 Height of the dump is dangerously poised causing slides 160-180 tpd of waste disposed at the yard Inadequate & improper waste treatment Poor upkeep of 300 tpd compost plant Movement of waste to a portion of the yard to make covered space, disturbance to nearby population Fire & smoke at the dump yard during summer. A severe one in Feb-06. Surface water drains of the yard got clogged due to non-degradable, causing several cesspools Flooding of the yard during rains Incessant leachate outflow including dirt from the yard to the neighbourhood Leachate reaching nearby fresh water drains and Kallai river- flooded water from the drains reaching residential compounds and fresh water wells Stray dog menace and birds nuisance Foul smell and contamination of wells Health, Social and Economic issues Further, fire & severe smoke in the dump yard led to suffocation and respiratory problems to many people nearby Necessitated shifting of about 32 families (about 200 people) to nearby TMM LPS for two days; many people admitted to nearby hospitals. Clearance of the yard to make space for constructing 3 covered sheds, led to shifting 18 families (82 persons) among the 40 families within 50 m proximity of the yard to a relief camp (Community hall, Beypoor Panchayath) on 18th July 2005. Involved an expenditure of Rs. 3.02 lakh for 2005-06 to provide food, water supply, medical assistance, accommodation, electricity, etc., excluding school bus Provided free water supply connections to the families whose wells were damaged due to leachate flow from dumping yard Supplying 96000 lpd of water (12 trips of tanker trucks) daily to the affected areas Dismal situation at the relief camp- small under prepared cubicles made of tin sheets, each accommodating upto 12 members of a family. Among the 47 affected, 13 of them had skin diseases, 5 had respiratory problems, 4 had vomiting and nausea and one had jaundice. Nearby area is subjected to devaluation of landNo land transaction in the vicinity of the yard during the last 10 years. Adjacent community experiences social exclusion and feeling of inferiority Youngsters from the locality has difficulty in getting marriage proposals Students from the locality get teased and sidelined by school/college mates Nearby residents of the yard often gets isolated in public places and buses.





Modern aerobic composting facility, claims to be of 300 tpd capacity Composting protocols often ignored - heap of waste in the plant causing anaerobic conditions, smell & flies Inadequate leachate storage facility& reuseleachate being discharged to nearby perennial stream Absence of ELF- caused a huge dump of semi and un-composted waste on a valley Absence of surface water drainage causing percolation of large quantity of rain water in valley dump- outflow of leachate and dirt Air pollution at composting plant and dumping yard- High levels of SPM (156-202 g/m3) above permissible level of 140 g/m3; RPM, SO2 and NOx are within the permissible levels; Trace of H2S, methane Nearby stream water polluted- TDS (1560 mg/l), BOD (230 mg/l), COD (735 mg/l), Lead (0.88 mg/l), Cadmium (0.06 mg/l) Total coliforms (>1100 per 100 ml) are above the permissible levels. E-Coli and Fecal coliforms (460 per 100 ml) in down gradient groundwater Soil data exhibit high heavy metal concentration (Lead- 36 mg/kg; Zinc- 101 mg/kg; Arsenic- 1.9 mg/kg and Copper- 55.9 mg/kg) All types of waste including infectious waste, sludge from septic tanks in the dump Dump yard of 14000 m2 located on slope without drainage system- indiscriminate flow of rain water to down gradient valley Stagnation of water on adjacent roads, valley floors and pits in the yard Accumulation and stagnation of polluted water in the valley floor- contaminates nearby aquifer zones and paddy fields Highly corrosive groundwater with high concentration of iron & zinc and high bacterial load (zinc concentration may be due to high usage of fungicide) Incidence of fire and smoke is common in summer- severe adverse impact of smoke & foul smell for many days Air quality within a radius of 500m of the dump site is appreciably adverse

One family on the down gradient location near the open dump has skin and allergic diseasessuch health issues are less severe for up gradient population Data from Vilappil PHC indicates that the incidences of respiratory diseases have increased since the year 2000. Requirement of Rs.1.52 crore for sanitary closure or land filling of the open dump Negligence of composting protocols to increase bio-aerosol concentration within the plant and its premises (as evident from high SPM) affecting the health of workers Down gradient pollution of water and soil due to the discharge of organic and heavy metal rich leachate to public stream. Possibility of health impact to down gradient population

Incidences of dog bites of people and killing domesticated animals Nuisance due to flies and mosquitoes Birds of different types frequent the site, feed on the remnants and pick up pieces and drops them in the wells, water bodies and residential premises Increase in incidences of allergic diseases Sanitary workers in the dump yard are affected by allergic rashes Social isolation including reported incidences like relatives and friends often backing out from visits fearing the flies, water pollution and communicable diseases. Drastic reduction in land values in adjacent areas

ELF- Engineered Landfill; SPM- Suspended Particulate Matter; RPM- Respirable Particulate Matter;

The situation as found at Kozhikkode, Thiruvanandapuram and Kottayam are representative of almost all the dump site in the state. The Kozhikkode Corporation is one of the first local bodies who initiated a programme for solid waste management by establishing and operating an aerobic



composting plant. However, the performance efficiency of the plant was poor due to unsegregated waste being provided, lack of operational protocols, poor leachate management system and absence of sanitary landfill facilities for compost rejects and inert waste. This is true with the Trivandrum as well. Though the two Corporations have launched Integrated Waste Management System by introducing source segregation, primary collection and transportation with the involvement of informal sector, the environmental conditions at the processing and disposal yard is extremely poor causing posing serious health concerns. The indicative data given in Table 39 on health status of the sanitary workers and people residing near the dumping yards corroborate this. It highlights the necessity of establishing facility for final disposal of rejects in the form of Engineered Land Fill (ELF) and integration between the various component of the ISWM system ensuring appropriate forward and backward linkages and compatibility.
Table 39 Health Status of Refuse Workers in Trivandrum Disease Anemia Gastrointestinal diseases Respiratory diseases Skin diseases History of Jaundice Trachoma No of samples Refuse workers No of incidence 12 19 31 16 21 11 50 Control Group No of incidence 11 18 17 10 4 -70

% 24 38 62 32 42 23

% 16 26 24 14 6 --

(National Environment Research Institute (NEERI), 1971) The air quality comparison of three locations, a village near the Trivandrum compost plant, the compost plant and Trivandrum city is given in Table 40. Table 40 Ambient Air Quality in and around the Processing and Disposal Site of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation (2003)
Location Parameter SPM g/m3 RPM g/m3 SO2 g/m3 NOXg/m3 CH4g/m3 H2Sg/m3 Thinavila village Near to compost plant Max Min Mean 167.4 148.6 156.3 33.4 22.4 18.6 121 7 28.6 17.1 15.2 105 5 30.5 20.0 17.2 112.8 6 Vilappilsala compost plant & dumping yard Max Min Mean 215.6 185.7 202.3 46.1 22.4 24.8 193 10 38.5 17.1 19.6 142 6 42.3 20.0 22.6 168.5 7.9 Trivandrum city Max Min Mean 160.4 148.5 156.5 43.4 14.9 18.5 --35.2 12.5 15.2 --38.6 14.0 16.8 --Standard for 24 hrs 140 60 60 60 NS NS

(Source: Project Feasibility Report on Engineered Landfill at Vilappilsala, Thiruvananthapuram. IDFC and Wilbur Smith Associates. 2003. )

The secondary data on water quality from the processing and disposal yard, as available at the three locations Kozhikkode, Trivandrum and Kottayam are given in Tables 41, 42, 43 and 44.



Table 41

The Physico-Chemical Quality of Water Samples from Kozhikkode (2005) Parameters Sample 1 Sample 2 Standard for Discharge to (ppm) (ppm) Water bodies (ppm) Chloride 258 58 1000 Sulphates 400 200 200 Dissolved solids 880 357 2100 Hardness 392 164 300
(Source: Personal communication from Corporation of Calicut)

Table 42 Surface Water Quality in and around Dumping Yard and Compost Plant, Vilappilsala, Trivandrum (2003)
S.No Parameter Unit Chowallur Chowallur thodu- u/s of thodu- d/s of plant plant 7.7 8.0 1 1335 29.2 29.8 345 2480 78 482 48 640 29.2 170 19 286 6.1 6 215 1560 12 21 4.1 0.17 3.8 72.7 0.2 0.14 0.2 13.2 <0.01 1.5 <1 1 5.6 230 12 735 <0.001 <0.001 >1100 >1100 460 1100 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.88 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.2 Karamana Limits as per river d/s of IS:2296 Class confluence C 7.3 6.5-8.5 3 10 31.3 NS 46 NS 12 600 8 NS 29 NS 1 NS 6.5 >4 25 1500 14 NS 0.35 NS 1.2 400 0.2 1.5 0.06 750 <0.01 NS <1 NS 3.2 3 10 NS <0.001 <0.001 1100 <5000 460 0 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 NS <0.01 1.5 0.02 15 <0.01 0.1 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

pH Colour Temperature Conductivity Chloride Hardness Sodium Potassium Dissolved Oxygen Total Dissolved Solids Total suspended Solids Total Nitrogen (as N) Sulphates Fluorides Iron as Fe Manganese Oil & Grease BOD COD Phenolic compounds Total coliform Fecal coliform Pesticides Mercury Copper Zinc Lead Cadmium Chromium

Hazen C S/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l /100 ml /100 ml mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

(Source: (Source: Project Feasibility Report on Engineered Landfill at Vilappilsala, Thiruvananthapuram. IDFC and Wilbur Smith Associates. 2003. )



Table 43 Groundwater Quality in and around Dumping Yard and Compost Plant, Vilappilsala , Trivandrum (2003)
S.No Parameter Unit Open wellu/s of plant 7.6 172 28.3 60 9.5 4.7 5.6 105 16 6.8 4 0.2 0.78 <0.01 <1 <0.001 210 Nil Abs <0.001 0.01 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 Open well within the plant yard 8.2 226 22 76 8.8 2.3 5.2 140 13 4.8 19.3 0.17 <0.01 0.04 <1 <0.001 Nil Nil Abs <0.001 <0.01 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Open well d/s Limits as per of plant yard IS:2296 Class C 8.1 6.5-8.5 323 NS 71 250 60 300 39.3 NS 3.0 NS 5.5 NS 200 500 17 NS 0.35 NS 4.1 NS 0.2 1.0 <0.01 0.3 <0.01 NS <1 NS <0.001 0.001 >1100 Absent 460 Absent Abs 0.01 <0.001 0.001 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 5 0.02 0.1 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

pH Conductivity Chloride Hardness (as CaCO3) Sodium (Na) Potassium (K) Dissolved Oxygen Total Dissolved Solids Total suspended Solids Nitrogen (as N) Sulphates (SO4) Fluorides Iron as Fe Manganese as Mn Oil & Grease Phenolic compounds Total coliform Fecal coliform Pesticides Mercury Copper Zinc Lead Cadmium Chromium

S/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l /100 ml /100 ml mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

(Source: (Source: Project Feasibility Report on Engineered Landfill at Vilappilsala, Thiruvananthapuram. IDFC and Wilbur Smith Associates. 2003. )



Table 44 Chemical and Biological Parameters of Groundwater in Surrounding Zones of Dumping Yard, Vadavathoor, Kottayam
S. Parameter No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Total hardness Total Alkalanity Acidity Chloride Sulphate Nitrate Phosphate Calcium Magnesium Iron Zinc Manganese Copper Sodium Potassium Dissolved Oxygen BOD COD Total coliform Unit Most critical values in the zones surrounding the Maximum dumping yard desirable 0-100m 101-200m 201-300m 301-400m 401-500m value 59 44 30 15 7 100 40 32 17.9 12.2 7.2 -22.3 32 30.5 29.9 24.3 -49.8 28.2 33.2 19.2 14.9 200 13 18.2 10.3 4.5 3.2 150 12.4 8.8 10.2 8.8 2.8 45 2.1 1.2 0.31 0.21 0.09 -42 32 15.8 12 3.2 75 8.3 6.3 5.2 3.8 1.9 30 5.9 4.8 5.2 1.7 1.6 0.3 36.7 24.8 27.8 15.4 11.3 3.0 0.06 0.8 0.11 0.97 0.012 0.1 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.1 17.4 19.8 11.8 4.5 2.8 -8.9 6.2 2.3 1.3 0.81 -3.9 3.3 4.8 4.0 3.7 -1.48 3.05 1.90 3.32 1.42 -44 30 32 30 30 -1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 0

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN

(Source: Shailaja P.S. 2003. Assessment of groundwater quality around the solid waste dumping site of Kottayam municipality. M.Phil Thesis. School of Environmental Sciences. Mahatma Gandhi University. Kottayam. P.69. )



MSWM Governance Status in Kerala Though GoK has been a pioneer State in the process of decentralization, the State is still reeling under the institutional development dilemma of co-existing departmental structures parallel with the LSGs. One of the crucial decisions taken by the GoK in this regard is the merger of Rural development with Local Self Government Department, which would go a long way in effective co-ordination and integration. Despite many proactive measures by GoK, equipping the LSGs with financial resources, facilitating investment through the Clean Kerala Mission and enabling the processes with supportive orders and guidelines (priority allocation to SWM), the current status of SWM in the State is extremely poor. Obviously, LSGs have not accorded priority to the sector, in allocation and management. Overall adherence to the 7 steps by 53 ULBs is minimal .It is very low with respect to segregation at source and treatment and deposal in sanitary land fill is nil. According to the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 solid waste management has been the mandatory responsibility of the ULB. Section 326 to 345 deals exclusively with the MSW management including storage, segregation, collection, transportation, processing disposal and penal provisions. The Act is very proactive in providing for contracting out /out sourcing whole or part of the functions, vesting the responsibility of waste segregation with the waste generators etc. Institutional Structure in SWM in Kerala The institutional actors in USWM in the State are (a) GoK Local Self Government (Urban), having the overall mandate of allocation of financial resources,; (b) Director of Municipalities, release of financial resources and coordination and monitoring; (iii) the Clean Kerala Mission, which is the nodal agency for facilitation and technical support; (iv) LSG (Municipalities and Corporations) with the constitutional mandate of SWM and service provision and (v) Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), having the mandate for regulation. A brief assessment/discussion on these institutions is given below: Government of Kerala: Local self Government (Urban) Functionally, the Secretary to the Department of Local Self Government has the overall responsibility of enforcement of the provisions of the MSW rules in the metropolitan cities and the District Collectors are responsible for enforcement with in territorial limits of their jurisdiction. The GoK has taken many positive steps by empowering the PRIs by way of comprehensive decentralization, vesting with powers, functions, and responsibilities and financial resources. GoK has constituted the CKM under the chairmanship of the CM, issued a



number of guidelines for investment and management under the decentralized planning process. For Corporations, GoK has negotiated and finalized support from ADB and constituted the Infrastructure cell in the Directorate of Urban Affairs. The KUDFC has also been given the mandate of financing investments in SWM. The Chief Secretary is filing the compliance report before the Supreme Court from time to time. Directorate of Urban Affairs Director of Urban Affairs is the head of the Department with his headquarters at Trivandrum. The Director is assisted in the discharge of his duties by the Joint Director (General), Joint Director (Health), Law Officer, Finance Officer etc. The Joint Director (Health) is expected to supervise the health and sanitation activities of the ULBs, renders advises to the Director as regards the improvements and innovations to be made in the fields of public health, sanitation, prevention of food adulteration and urban basic service activities in the urban bodies in the State. The department has Regional Offices located at Kollam, Kochi and Kozhikode. Functions of the Department The key functions of the department, specifically related to SWM is as under: To act as a nodal channel for transfer of plan funds to the ULBs Guide ULBs in the augmenting their financial resources Watching the utilization of funds Monitoring the implementation of Food Adulteration Act Periodical reviews are being made by the department in the implementation of the various programmes. The revenue collection made by the ULBs was being reviewed by the department and necessary instructions imparted to the officers concerned whenever necessary. Infrastructure Development Cell (IDC) GoK has set up an IDC with the Directorate to help the ULBs in the state to prepare economically viable projects. The Principal Secretary, LSG (urban) chairs the cell, which comprises of the Chief Town Planner, MD, KUDFC, KSPCB, ED, Kudumbashree as members and the Director is the convener.





Joint Director

Joint Director

Sr. Finance P.O. P.F.O.




D. Section S.S J.S C1 Section. C2 Section.

H. Section




SS B3 Section

C4 Section. C5 Section.

B6 Section. B7 Section.

C1 Section. B4 Section C5 Section. B5 Section

A1 Section.



C3 Section.

B1 Section

A2 Section.

B8 Section

B2 Section

A3 Section

A4 Section

A5 Section

The Directorate, as it stands now does not have any significant contribution to the sector of SWM in general. The Department co-exists as a monument of the bygone era of centralized administration. The role of the Directorate has also not been redefined to take up the new challenges in the context of decentralized governance. There is very weak coordination, monitoring and review.



Clean Kerala Mission Clean Kerala Mission (CKM) was set up by GoK in the year 2003 with the following objectives: To implement socially acceptable, technically feasible, operationally sustainable, financially viable & entrepreneur oriented waste management services To enable the disposal of biomedical wastes through common facility approach To improve the environmental conditions of the state through integration of various waste management activities - solid waste, sewage, waste water etc. To support the enforcement machinery & entrepreneurs- drive for cleaner production and environmental management To unleash the creativity & energy of communities, businesses and institutions to protect and improve the natural environment and to make environmental consciousness a preoccupation and cleanliness acts a habit to reverse any chance of ecological collapse Over the years, CKM has been successful in generating awareness about the gravity and need for comprehensive approaches in SWM, ensuring a certain level of technical standards in investments, building capacities of ULBs in conceptualizing and designing integrated SWM proposals and triggered investments through a sort of incentive funds allocated to CKM by GoK under the planning process. The CKM has been instrumental in encouraging 43 out of 53 ULBs to come up with integrated proposals for SWM. Over the years they have sanctioned and released Rs 10.81 Crores for setting up facilities in 38 ULBs in the State. Of the approved total investment to the tune of Rs. 31.48 Crores, the share of CKM stood at 35%.However allsaid and done, the improvement in SWM on the field is much below expectations and lacks professionalism. CKM has made good start in certifying and authorizing service providers in solid waste management through a process of normative selection, to help the ULBs in procurement and hiring of services. However, the system needs to be made totally normative and published in the web with provision for public delisting/blacklisting, in the event of unethical practices and in competency. Integrated proposals prepared by ULBs are at times crude with many technical flaws. Most of the proposals lack comprehensive and integrated approach, as the major focus is on primary collection by supply of domestic bins and some form of composting. The much needed thrust on secondary storage, improved transportation systems and long terms secured land fills are very few. Project appraisal and technical evaluation of the proposal by CKM needs further improvement. There is little tracking and monitoring of the implementation of the approved projects, even when there are violations. The annual allocation to CKM from GoK is showing a declining trend, from Rs. 1000 lakhs in 2004-05 to Rs. 500 lakhs in 2005-06 and Rs. 386 lakhs in 2006-07. Though every LSG is expected to provide a annual report to CKM on the ststus of MWSM in a prescribed format, it is not being enforced, compiled and analyzed. The monitoring system is weak. As such, the SWM practices are unscientific; ULBs do not provide adequate allocation to the sector, and significant wastage of financial resources through wrong investments. Though CKM has made a good beginning, looking from the baseline status in 2002, their performance needs to be substantially



strengthened to meet the challenges of ensuring adherence to the statutory stipulations under the MSW rules, facilitating capital investments through innovative approaches, empowering ULBs in ensuring financially and technically sustainable SWM systems, ensuring standardization and quality assurance in procurement procedures, building capacities of key stakeholders and to create public awareness. CKM Staffing and Manpower The Organogram of CKM is given below.

Cabinet sub Committee

Empowered Committee


Mission Director

Sr. Consultant (HR & IEC

Sr. Consultant (Technology & Design)

Sr. Consultant (Technology & Design)

Administrative Officer

IEC, Awareness Campaign, Training Capacitation, Incentives Networking NGOs, ReviewMonitoring

Technology, System design Implementation Support Capacitating, Rules & Regulation, Biomedical Sanitation,Studies

Administration, Finance Accounts, Audit, Budget Liaison with Govt. Dept &Agencies

As an institution CKM needs substantial strengthening to take up the emerging challenges. Kerala State Pollution Control Board The KSPCB was constituted in 1974 (originally the Kerala State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, renamed as KSPCB in 1984. The Board is implementing the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and related Rules and Notifications. The Board is working under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, having regional and district offices. The Board is constituted by the Government of Kerala. It consists of up to 17 members. The term of office of all members, except that of the Member Secretary, is three years. The Board has



representation from the Government (Directors of Factories and Boilers, Industries and Commerce, Science Technology and environment, Joint Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Dept, and Joint Secretary, Finance Department. The LSGs are also represented along with public sector companies and the private sector. The organgram of the KSPCB is given below. It has key functions under the Water Act, (prevention, control or abatement of pollution of water bodies), Water Cess Act, Air Act, functions under the Public liability Insurance Act, under the Environment Act, Hazardous Waste (management and Handling) Rules, etc. Specifically, the Board also implements the following sector related rules. (i) Bio-medical Waste (Management and Handling Rules) to receive from institutions generating, collecting, receiving, storing, transporting, treating, disposing and/or handling biomedical wastes applications for authorization, to process the same and issue/ refuse/ renewing/ cancel/ suspend authorization; to compile and furnish to the Central Pollution Control Board annual reports from occupiers /operators; to inspect and verify facilities and records; to receive and act upon reports of accidents. (ii) Recycled Plastics Manufacture and Usage Rules to receive and process applications for permit to manufacture or recycle plastic carry bags and containers and to issue/refuse/renew/cancel permits. (iii) Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, to monitor compliance with standards on ground water, ambient air, leachate quality, compost quality and incineration; to receive and process application for authorisation for setting up waste processing and disposal facility and to issue/refuse/renew/cancel authorisation; to furnish annual reports to the Central Pollution Control Board.



The Organogram of KSPCB

Chairman 15 Members Member Head Office

Central Laboratory

Regional Office Thiruvananthapuram

Regional Office

Regional Office

Administrative Wing Water Quality

Account s Wing

Technical Wing

District Offices: Thiruvanantha puram, Kollam, P th thitta

District Offices: Ernakulam, Alappuzha Kottayam Thrissur

District Offices: Kozhikode, Palakkad, Wayanad, Malappuram

Clearance Air Quality Hazardou s Wastes

BioMedical & Municipal

Public awareness &





Coordina tion

District Planning Committee The constitution of District Planning Committees (DPCs) is mandatory under article 243ZD of the Constitution and is a common item for both Panchayats and Municipalities. The District Planning Committees are to take up integrated planning for urban and rural areas in the district. The draft development plan to be prepared by District Planning Committees has to address critical matters of common interest. Article 243ZD of the Constitution stipulates that four-fifths of the total number of members of DPC will be chosen from the elected members of the Panchayat at the district level and of the Municipalities in the district. Their numbers will be in proportion to the ratio between the population of the rural areas and of the urban areas in the district. The rest are to be nominated. The primary task of the DPC should be to prepare the draft development plan (It should not be dependent on individual plans of the Panchayats and the Municipalities). The District Panchayat can facilitate the Panchayats and Municipalities in the process.



The DPCs can play a key role to formulate environmental management plan with focus on ISWM for the district and can guide the local bodies for the same. Experts in the sector should have to be nominated in the committee and have to be capacitated to meet the requirements. Municipal Authorities The Municipal authorities are vested with the primary responsibility of service provision. They collect taxes for facilitation of solid waste management service. Over all, they are responsible for the functions as envisaged in the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 and the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2000. They are to seek authorization from the State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) for setting up waste processing and disposal facility, including landfills, furnish annual reports and complying with the schedule I, II, III and IV of the Rules. The following figure depicts the organization structure of solid waste management in a Municipality. According to grade and requirements, the staffing varies, particularly those with respect to the lower level sanitary workers. Municipal Solid Waste Management - Organogram

Municipal Council

Municipal Secretary Engineering Wing Health Officer** *Health Inspector Grade 1 *Health Inspector Grade 2 *Junior Health Inspector Grade 1 Finance Wing

*Junior Health Inspector Grade


*Sanitary Workers



**HO post sanctioned for 1st grade municipalities, HI only for 2nd & 3rd grade municipalities *The no of various categories of workers may varies according to the grade of the municipality.

Roles & Responsibilities According to the information collected, the following are, inter alia, the key responsibilities associated with solid waste management, in the ULBs. Standing Committee on Health and Education Budget preparation / allocation of funds Sanction of funds for payments, Procurement of equipments etc During emergency needs power to sanction up to a maximum of 50,000 rupees.

Secretary Overall responsibility of Solid Waste Management Co ordination of Health, Engineering & Finance departments Administrative Head of staff Notification of SWM system with in the municipality Enforce penal provisions Liaison with Council

Health Officer / Health Supervisor In charge of Solid Waste Management Supervision of all SWM activities Sanction of licensees to Dangerous and offensive trades Enquire and take action against public nuisances / complaints Functioning of clinics under municipal health wing

Health Inspector Supervisory role of waste management In charge of Health/ waste management of a Circle. Inspection to hotels, slaughter houses, fish meat markets etc Enquiry & reports for HO

Junior Health Inspector Field work In charge of Health/ waste management of wards. Inspection to hotels, slaughter houses, fish meat markets etc Enquiry & reports for HO



Sanitation Workers Sweeping of roads and footpaths Collection of domestic, trade, institutional wastes Transportation of wastes Other cleaning works specified by HI or JHI

Role of Engineering Wing/ Municipal Engineer Sanitary land filling process Maintenance of vehicles Estimation or valuation Construction works if any

Every municipality is apparently understaffed as reported by them and visible incentives for recruitment is not matched by efforts to improve productivity. In many of the municipalities, additional staff recruited on different pretexts is seen working. It has been reported that productivity and discipline of the casual workers are better than the permanent workers and absenteeism and leave among the former are very high. There are also reported issues of lack of co-ordination among the heath and engineering departments leading to delays. Pro-active Secretary/Chairperson often plays crucial resolving such issues. In general the following functional deficiencies have been noticed across. The adherence to the MSW rules is found to be less than 10% on an average. Though some efforts are being made in door to door collection and improved transportation in covered vehicles, the processing and disposal practices are weak, with practically not a single scientific/engineered landfill. Poor SWM has generated serious credibility crisis across the state among the people, and as they have never seen improved management, there is a huge burst of resistance against land acquisition for the purpose. Not even a single processing/disposal is having valid authorization as of now in the State. Very little efforts in cost recovery and exploiting internal resource mobilization potential. The overall productivity of the workers is low, mainly on account of lack of and discipline clarity of roles and responsibilities and accountability. Drastic overhaul is necessary for improving management. The enforcement of rules and punishment for volitions is minimal. Even the data of cases reported, notice issued, punished and prosecuted is not consolidated. The standing committee of health, which is in charge of the SWM function, needs significant orientation and capacity building as their focus on the SWM functions is not to the desirable level. Significant capacity building of all the staff and elected representatives are essential.



In short, the ULBs are very weak in effective management of solid waste, maintenance of assets created, and recovery of costs and enforcement of penal provisions. At least in some occasions, officials have been asking for hands off policy from the elected representative in intervening when actions are initiated against violations. Assessment of Capabilities of ULBs in MSWM 1. Man Power Assessment Most of the municipalities in the State have inadequate manpower and lack of technically qualified staff to effectively provide solid waste management services. The Table 45 shows the area, population, waste generation, labour strength to manage the waste and supervisory staff deployed giving an idea of inadequacy or otherwise of appropriate manpower for managing municipal solid waste.
Table 45 Man Power Assessment Sl. No Name of the Town Population Area (sq.kilometers) of Quantity waste generated per day 15 MT 8 MT 20 MT 7 MT 10 MT 10 MT -Existing labour strength 54 37 102 32 23 24 207 + 93 Existing supervisory staff 1 HS, 2 HI, 3 JHI 1 HS, 3 HI, 4 JHI 1 HS, 2HI, 5JHI 1 HS, 2 HI 4JHI 1 HI, 4 JHI 1 HS, 2 JHI 1 HO,1 HS 6 HI,10 JHI

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Attingal. Cherthala. Changanacherry Kothamangalam Quilandy. Pathanamthitta Palakkad.

36000 45102 51960 37169 66515 37802 130736

16.87 16.188 13.5 40.04 29 23.5 26.6

The above table shows some municipalities such as at Sl.No.2, 4, 5, 6 have less manpower than required whereas municipalities at Sl.No. 3 and 7 have much more manpower. The supervisory staff is also not distributed uniformly among the municipalities as per their population. In cities below 2 lakh population, 1 HS per 1 lakh population, 1 HI per 50,000 population, 1 JHI per 25,000 population could be considered adequate. They must however be qualified Sanitary Inspector. The cities could also have lower level supervisors from among the sanitation workers at the rate of 1 supervisor per 12,500 population.



Implementation Readiness of SWM Rules 2000 Overall there is a demonstrated evidence of implementation readiness. The fact that GoK has constituted the CKM, supported strongly the decentralised devolution of resources, issued specific guidelines are indicative of the commitment towards finding a scientific solution to the issue. The KMA 1994, Supreme Court directives, the MSW Rules 2000 and the XII Finance Commission award specifically focussed on MSW component are all supportive to accelerate the process. However, there is a strong need for standardisation and quality assurance, as the local bodies are often taken for a ride by the market forces by selling technological options that may not be appropriate and optimal. The technical evaluation system is not very effective. Institutional Arrangements: Key Roles and Responsibilities The institutional arrangements and their key roles and responsibilities are given in Table 46.
Table 46 Institutional Arrangements: Key Roles and Responsibilities

Institution Political Leadership Sector Ministry/LSG Urban

Roles and Responsibilities Vision setting, policy formulation, planning Co-ordination, financial allocation, polices and guidelines, monitoring

Remarks and Suggestions Visions are set. However, SWM has to be taken up as a priority M&E system needs to be strengthened. Expenditure and financial tracking of plan funds are not properly done No specific roles related to MSW No Task Forces have been constituted specifically for SWM and the priority so far assigned to this sector is very little. Monitoring system not effective both private and government facilities. Not effectively done. Annual returns are not submitted and consolidated. No analysis of compliance standards made and recommendations given to the Government. Weak in coordination Weak in implementation Overall management weak and poor. Cost recovery practically little and a significant component of the maintenance is being subsidised

Finance & Budget Allocation and monitoring Department Planning Formulation of V Year plans, annual Department plans, constitution of task forces and recommendations to GoK Health Compliance of Biomedical Waste Department (Management and Handling ) Rules 1998 State Pollution Regulation, monitoring compliance Control Board of MSW rules, authorisation of process sites, consolidation of annual return on SWM from ULB Directorate of Coordination, fund flow and Municipalities monitoring CKM Nodal agency facilitating the implementation of MW Rules, 2000 ULBs Service provision and maintenance of systems. Enforcement of MSW rules and KMA under its jurisdiction. Seek authorisation from KSPCB and file annual report.




KILA Kudumbashree


Private Sector

Mostly action research in technology options, like composting. Some documentation done however, no single place of consolidation. Very little focus on SWM, curriculum is being developed by CKM Poverty reduction mission Entry into the Door to Door collection through cost recovery as part of employment and income generation actives mostly by women SHGs. Need to be scaled up scientifically in muni. Areas with regulation of cost and std. of service. Focussed on action research Basically they are not networked and and their capabilities in awareness creation, demand generation, social marketing, capacity biding is yet to be harnessed to the benefit of the sector. Service support in transportation, Not in a significant way, however, once the processing and disposal climate is ready sector is capable of making a big entry. Regulation and disciplining the sector is an essential condition for success, which is the responsibility of the Government. Not much institutional focus in the State except KAU, IRTC, Environmental Science Departments of Universities, CDS, SEUF Capacity building for LSGs

Organizational and Implementation Capacities In so far as the functional roles and responsibilities are concerned, the implementation capacities of the key institutional actors are to be significantly strengthened. The situation that despite the well laid down Acts, rules and responsibilities, the citizenry has to approach the judiciary for improved services is not a healthy sign. As a regulator, the KSPCB has very little capacity to discipline the ULBs, CKM therefore needs substantial capacity building to make it effective, ULBs are very poor in service provision standards. Wastage of resources has occurred in the absence of in house capacity, awareness, MIS, and streamlining the functions. Key Stakeholders: Training & Capacity Building Needs Table 47 provides the key stakeholders and their capacity building needs.
Table 47 The Key Stakeholders and Capacity Building Needs

Institution Political Leadership state leval

Roles and Responsibilities Capacity Building Needs Vision setting, policy Awareness of importance of SWM, at formulation, planning, approvals financial needs, exposure visit, knowledge of health & environmental implications of poor SWM,, innovative




Capacity Building Needs financing, role of informal sector., need of PSP., concept of regionalisation etc Sector Do , financial allocation, State polices and guidelines, Ministry/LSG monitoring, enforcement Urban Finance & Allocation and monitoring Innovative financing, awareness and Budget orientation, financial sustainability Department Formulation of V Year plans, Need of land and finance on Priority for Planning annual plans, constitution of task SWM, Impact of poor SWM on health Department/ forces and recommendations to and environment , innovative financing SPB GoK and resource mobilization, M&E Health Compliance of Biomedical Waste Impact of SWM on Public health, Department (Management and Handling ) preventive measures Rules 1998 State Pollution Regulation, monitoring Regulatory framework , enforcement Control Board compliance of MSW rules, mechanism, technology options, authorisation of process sites, monitoring standards ,constraints of consolidation of annual return on ULBs SWM from ULB Directorate of Coordination, fund flow and Monitoring and evaluation Municipalities monitoring CKM Nodal agency facilitating the Project evaluation, technology options, implementation of MW Rules, training and capacity building, 2000 networking, standardisation and programme/project management, innovative financing,PSP and NGO participation, demand generation and social marketing, IEC and awareness creation, M&E,expo. visits ULBs Service provision and Management techniques, technology maintenance of systems. options, scheduling and training, Enforcement of MSW rules and decentralisation, delegation, allocation of KMA under its jurisdiction. Seek roles and responsibilities, exposure visit, authorisation from KSPCB and best practices, documentation, file annual report. accounting system, cost effective analysis.community,NGO and PSP, cost recovery R&D Not much institutional focus in Action research, appropriate the State except KAU, IRTC, technologies, technology forecasting, Environment Science environmental evaluation Departments of Universities, CDS, PDS, CESS, SEUF KILA Capacity building for LSGs Capacity building, Curriculum setting,

Roles and Responsibilities



Institution Kudumbasree


Private Sector


Capacity Building Needs networking, Poverty Reduction Mission Deficiency in service, Door to door collection, community composting, Demand generation, quality assurance, awareness and capacity building, IEC, occupational health Focussed on action research Action research, MSW rules implementation, demand generation, net working, IEC, Community composting Service support in transportation, Role of PSP in SWM,Corporate social processing and disposal responsibility, ethical standards, quality assurance, contracting mechnism. Compliance, payment of taxes Awareness of MSW rules, role of and levies, demanding quality citizens in improveing SWM services, service, social monitoring participatory planning and management, social audit, rating of services

Roles and Responsibilities

Training and Capacity Building Proper implementation and operation of SWM in tune with the Municipal Solid Waste (Management& Handling) Rules 2000 is possible only if proper training and capacity building is imparted to Municipal managers, staff, and workers. The ultimate delivery of services will depend up on efficiency of the service providers target groups for training are: Senior level officers-Decision makers Middle level officers-Managers and technical staff/supervisory staff Junior Level Technical staff Elected members NGOs Workers Service providers Senior level officers need to know the mandatory needs of SWM and the cost effective ways to meet them on time, best technological options and various financing options, and effective PSP models etc. Middle level , lower level staff and workers being the cutting edge functionaries, appropriate training programmes have to be organized for them on the new concepts of SWM, health, environmental, legal implications and functional aspects. Audio visual aids and exposure of new systems through visits to other local bodies should form a part of the training programme. Refresher courses for all levels of staff should be organized every five years for updating the knowledge to improve the services. The senior level officers should be frequently exposed to



developments taking place in various parts of the state and country by sending them out on city visits and for attending workshops, seminars, training courses etc. Target group 1 -Municipal Sanitary Workers Topics Personal & Social Hygiene, Health & Safety aspects of the present system Audio Visual presentation on present deficiencies in SWM service Audio Visual presentation on impact of poor SWM on health and environment Salient features of Sanitary Provisions in the Municipal Waste (Management & Handling Rules) Audio visual presentation of clean localities, best practices in other parts of the Country Brief presentation of the SWM upgrading Project Health benefits of the upgraded system with focus on elimination of manual handling. Use of different equipments in SWM Public Participation in SWM Dos and Donts in SWM Working norms in the proposed system Target group 2 - Municipal Health &Engineering staff Training Objective To enable the participants to make informed decisions about the up gradation of SWM services within the frame work of Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules 2000. Learning Outcome 1. To know the system deficiencies, key features of the environmental, health, institutional, financial &legal aspects of SWM and technological options and understand the relative costs and benefits of such options Topics Solid waste management-background issues, health and environmental aspects, need for up gradation. Sources and types of solid waste, waste generation rates, density, composition. Waste reduction-through RRR, material recovery, rag picker activity and the role of informal sectors, The role of Municipalities, sound practices in other municipalities. Storage & segregation at source- why segregation& storage, primary collection systems, role of community and their participation, Role of sweepers, planning an efficient sweeping and collection system. Tools and equipments-brooms, containers, primary collection vehicles.



Secondary collection-synchronization with primary collection, transfer stations, container placement, number, type size. Transportation- vehicle selection, alternatives for collection vehicles, vehicle routing, maintenance, workshop facilities. Processing of waste-processing options, composting, market for compost, local level processing. Sanitary land filling options for meeting statutory and environmental requirements, site selection and procurement, site development, operation, monitoring and closure of sites. Institutional issues-management information system, capacity building, decentralization, regulatory frame work, Financial aspects, cost recovery, cost reduction. Community, NGO, private participation-need of participation, organizing participation. Developing an SWM plan, formulation of action plan. Delivery method will be presentations, brain storming, group discussion, group exercise, felid trips. There has to be visits to other local bodies to get exposed to best systems developed in the country. Ward Committees There is a Ward Committee for every Ward in Kerala. The elected councilor of the ward concerned is the Chairman of the Ward Committee. The Committee consists of not more than 50 persons nominated by the Chairperson of the Municipality in consultation with the councilor. The members of the Ward Committee are drawn from various categories such as residents associations, doctors, teachers, etc., and these categories are mentioned in the Act. The Ward Committee will meet at least once in three months. The current responsibilities of the Committee are that of prepare and supervise the development schemes for the ward, encourage harmony and unity among various groups, mobilise voluntary labour for social welfare programmes, give assistance for identifying beneficiaries for the implementation of welfare and development schemes. This is besides assisting in timely collection of taxes, fees and rents. The duration of the Wards Committee is for five years. If properly capacitated the Ward Committee can play a key role in awareness creation, participatory planning, networking and harnessing ward level CBOs, pool in ward level resources and in participatory monitoring.

Co-ordination among Institutional Agencies It is observed that there is a total lack of coordination and synergy between the directorate of urban affairs, the CKM, the State Pollution Control Board and Municipal Authorities. Everyone acts independent of each other. There is lack of coordination and inter departmental support mechanism. The directorate of urban affairs now feels that the CKM which is responsible to implement MSW Rules and the role of the Directorate is only to pass on the funds earmarked for the municipalities for SWM. They hardly monitored the performance of the municipalities in



implementation of MSW Rules 2000. It is unfortunate that the directorate which is supposed to be the controlling authority on the municipalities has washed off its hand from regulating them in implementing SWM Rules. The authority which controls the finances of the municipalities and which regulates them on a day to day basis should remain in the loop and in ensuring implementation of the rules with the technical assistance of CKM. The State Pollution Control Board which is a regulatory agency also feels helpless in ensuring compliance by the municipal authorities for various reasons. There is a need for the pollution control board to take proactive role in guiding the mission as well as the municipal authorities in implementing MSW Rules and simultaneously putting pressure on them to perform. The CKM need to have a strong coordination mechanism with the directorate of urban affairs and the pollution control board to ensure expeditious implementation of MSW rules in the State. Each of these three authorities should remain connected and support each other towards achieving the goal. A few representatives of municipalities of different grades should also be in the coordination committee so that all issues of the municipalities could also be resolved appropriately.



Perspective Consequent on the 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature enacted the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act 13 of 1994) and the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (act 20 of 1994). Government transferred responsibilities, institutions and schemes relating to matters enlisted in the Schedules of the respective Acts to the Panchayats and Municipalities, with effect from 2 October 1995. Fiscal Devolution On an average, the State has been transferring around 30% of the plan outlay, (renamed as Kerala Development Plan in 2002-03), to the LSGs. The year wise transfer from 1997-98 to 2004-05 is shown in Table 48. Table 48
Plan Outlay and Release to LSGs (Rs. Crores) State Release to State Plan Budgeted Outlay Revised LSG State LSG % 2855.00 749.00 26.23 2698.66 745.20 3100.00 3250.00 3535.00 3015.00 4026.00 4430.25 4800.00 950.00 1020.00 1045.00 850.00 1342.00 1317.00 1350.00 30.65 31.38 29.56 28.19 33.33 29.73 28.13 3039.09 3107.45 2493.25 2260.00 3425.00 3796.23 3913.57 910.33 830.50 761.38 657.05 1058.26 1438.15 1163.72 Percentage 27.61 29.95 26.73 30.54 29.07 30.90 37.88 29.74 30.30

YEAR 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Average Transfer per year

2004-05 release includes Rs.335 crore re-allocated to LSGs consequent to the closure of PD accounts as on 09.07.2003. Source: Outlay - State Planning Board Release - IKM (1997-98 to 2003-04) DPOs ( 2004-05)

Plan Cuts Over the years on account of the overall cut in the budgeted plan size, the release to the LSGIs have been substantially less than what was originally budgeted. In fact except in 2004-05 (where in the release to LSGIs included a sum of Rs.335 Crores which was re-allocated to LSGs



consequent to the closure of PD accounts), the plan cuts have been significant. In 1999-00 the cut was 18.58%, while in 1999-00 it was 27%. The next two years show a near equal cut of 22.70% and 21.14%. In the year 2004-05, provisional figures reveal a plan cut of 13.80%. The plan cut over the period 1997-98 to 2004-05 is shown in the graph below:

Cut in Plan outlays to LSGIs

400 300
Rs. (Crores)

200 100 0 -100 -200 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 200405 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 Year

Source Data: Economic Review 2005.

Devolution of Funds to LSGIs Out of the total devolution of plan funds to LSGIs, the share of Municipalities was 9% in 200304 and 8.89% in 2004.05. Basically, there has not been much change in the percentage wise allocation across various LSGs in the two years. The LSGs wise devolution of funds during the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 is shown in Table 49.
Table 49
LSGs Wise Devolution of Funds(crore)

LSGs 1. Grama Panchayats 2. Block Panchayats 3. District Panchayats 4. Municipalities 5. Corporations Total Source: Economic Review 2005

2003-04 2004-05 Amount Released % Amount Released % 813.03 56.53% 657.28 56.48% 189.96 13.21% 158.01 13.58% 200.93 13.97% 162.5 13.96% 129.87 9.03% 103.47 8.89% 104.36 7.26% 82.46 7.09% 1438.15 100.00% 1163.72 100.00%

Fund Utilization



Of the funds released to LSGs in 2004-05, the average utilization rate was 79.97% with Municipalities spending 81.32% of the amount released as compared to Gram Panchayts which spent 83.35% of amount received. Amongst the LSGs the lowest utilization was by corporations which spent only 68.75% of the funds. Significantly there was a lesser utilization by the LSGs across the board in 2004-05 (79.97%) as compared to 2003-04 (93.58%). The comparative utilization of funds released to LSGs in the two years is shown in the Table 50.
Table 50 Fund Utilisation

LSGs Gram Panchayts Bloc Panchayats District Panchayats Municipalities Corporations Total
Source: Economic Review 2005.

% Utilization of funds released(crore) 2003-04 2004-05 98.95 83.35 95.91 81.32 77.66 69.81 93.56 81.32 78.22 68.75 93.58 79.97

The reasons cited in the economic survey for the drop in utilization in 2004-05 was firstly on account of the introduction of bill system and secondly because of the new disbursement policy in respect of plan funds where in the total outlay was now being transferred in monthly instalments.

Sectoral Spending From the sectoral point of view, between 2003-04 and 2004-05 the expenditure for all tiers of LSGIs cumulatively in the infrastructure sector was lower by 7.9%, while in Municipalities the drop was by 8.54%. Across the LSGs the expenditure incurred in the service sector and for nonclassified projects rose significantly. Sectoral variation in the expenditure for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 is shown in the Table 51.

Table 51



Variations in Sector wise expenditure between 2003-04 and 2004-05 Production Village Panchayat Block Panchayat District Panchayat Municipality Corporation Total Source: Economic Review 2005 2.2 -7.34 -9.64 0.89 4.91 -0.5 Service -0.56 4.69 6.9 4.22 -8.23 0.3 Infrastructure -8.66 -8.33 1.84 -8.54 -5.96 -7.09 Non Classified Project 6.99 10.99 0.89 3.44 9.88 6.29

An area of concern is the under investment by the LSGs in the productive sector which has been significantly less when compared with the investments by the state. As against the state average of 17.18%, the expenditure in productive sector for Municipalities stood at 6.69% in 2003-04 and 7.58% in 2004.05. For the same period the figures for the corporations was 2.6% and 7.51%. In fact none of the LSGs have spent the minimum stipulated expenditure in the productive sector. Source of Funds to Municipalities The classification of funds which is available to the Municipalities is as follows: 1. Category A: Development Expenditure Fund: - These are Development Funds provided to Local Self Government Institutions as per 3rd S.F.C recommendations for the implementation of schemes prepared by them under the Decentralised Planning Programme. 2. Category B: These funds consist of both Plan and Non-Plan funds for the implementation of transferred schemes/functions. 3. Category C: Funds for Maintenance Expenditure: - Funds for Maintenance expenditure for Road Assets and Non-Road Assets such as schools, hospitals, agricultural farms, water supply schemes, etc. 4. Category D: General Purpose Fund (GPF):- Funds earmarked for general expenditure including traditional functions of Local Self Government Institutions. These funds can also be used for any other expenditure viz. salary, honorarium, wages, rent, electricity and water charges, telephone charges, printing etc. 5. Category E: These consist of a) Funds received from Government of India through DRDA/District Collector, Director of Urban Affairs, Kudumbasree etc. for the implementation of Centrally



Sponsored Rural and Urban Sector Schemes like SGRY, SGSY, IAY, Total Sanitation, IHSDP, NREGS etc. b) Funds received from World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UNDP, etc, through the State Government. c) Funds received from District Collector for Drought Relief/Flood Relief, Funds from Literacy Mission etc. 6. Category F: consists of beneficiary contribution, own funds of the Local Self Government Institutions consisting of tax and Non-tax revenue, EMD, Security Deposit, Retention Money etc. 7. Category G: This category consists of other funds received by LSGIs like loan from KURDFC, HUDCO etc. not coming under any of the other categories. Assessment of Municipal Resources Plan Funds The municipalities in the state are heavily dependant on state for resources, especially to meet capital expenditure. During 2000-01 to 2003-04, ratio of Plan funds to total income of the municipalities4 varied from 42% to 50%. The provisional figures of 2004-05 however indicate a correction with the ratio coming down to 37%. Even though the quantum of plan funds in absolute terms has shown an increasing trend, the plan fund to total receipts have been declining. Excepting one municipality, the ratio over the course of the last 5 years has shown a declining trend. The year wise ratio of plan funds to total income for the four municipalities is shown in Table 52.
Table 52 Ratio of Plan funds to Total Income Municipality Allepy Attingal Chalakudi Mallapuram Total 2000-01 64.20% 36.90% 46.86% 34.46% 45.60% 2001-02 46.63% 44.18% 41.89% 34.67% 41.84% 2002-03 53.92% 35.18% 37.39% 43.80% 42.57% 2003-04 69.18% 39.49% 42.50% 51.49% 50.66% 2004-05 46.46% 27.95% 33.91% 40.48% 37.20%

Source: Preliminary primary data collection by the team.

Provisional data processed for 4 municipalities namely Allepy (Grade I), Attingal (Grade II), Chalakudi (Grade II) and Mallapuram (Grade II). Confirmation on data accuracy shall be officially obtained. Figures subsequently with respect to Municipal resources are based on these data.



LSGIs have been demanding an increase in the share of plan allocation. The 12th Finance commission and the 3rd State Finance Commission have also dwelt on the issue and recommended a reassessment of the devolution process. An area of immediate concern that needs to be resolved is the deductions at source by way of adjustments from the maintenance grant made by the Directorate of Municipalities on account of amount payable to KWA. This deduction is done without any consideration to the service level provided by the KWA in the concerned municipalities. Own Resources The main source of own income (tax and non tax) for the municipalities is by way of Property tax, Professional Tax, License fees etc. In most cases income from own sources of the municipalities hardly suffice to meet the salary commitments. Income by way of property tax on an average is between 9.5% to 11% of the total receipt of the municipalities5. In 50% of the municipalities, the collection showed a declining trend in 2004-05 (Year to Year basis). On an overall basis the sample data revels a slight downtrend (9.93% to 9.67%). The Municipal authorities need to improve in the property tax system both from the demand and collection point. The 3rd State finance commission as well as the TFC has made recommendations on the issue of property tax. The ratio of property tax to total income for the four municipalities is shown in Table 53.

Municipality Allepy Attingal Chalakudi Mallapuram


Table 53 Ratio Property Tax to Total Income 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
8.72% 15.60% 6.20% 8.65% 9.79% 10.14% 15.79% 9.07% 9.48% 11.12% 7.10% 15.07% 11.91% 9.20% 10.82% 8.03% 11.16% 11.65% 8.89% 9.93%

9.51% 12.91% 9.27% 7.00% 9.67%

With both plan assistance and property tax showing a declining trend, this to a certain extent can be viewed as a positive indicator as it implies that the Municipalities have explored other sources apart from the conventional property tax to boost their resources. The trend of total state funds (plan and non-plan) to total income for the four municipalities is contained in Table 54 below. For the period 2000-01 to 2002-03, it has been steadily declining. The increase in 2003-04 can be attributed to the increased flow of funds from the state on account of the closure of PD accounts. There however has been a sharp increase in 2004-05,



where in from the average of 50.32% in 2000-01 the figure has gone up to 56.39%. This is a matter of concern as it implies poor counterpart resource generation from municipalities. The issue needs to be analyzed further bearing in that the 2004-05 figures are provisional and the computation is done from a very small database of four municipalities. The figures shall be reassessed in the next report.
Table 54 Total Funds Received from State to Total Income Municipality Allepy Attingal Chalakudi Mallapuram

65.31% 47.13% 48.16% 40.70% 50.32%

59.90% 52.47% 47.84% 40.22% 50.11%

55.76% 51.56% 44.30% 52.83% 51.11%

70.28% 60.37% 49.57% 58.48% 59.68%

64.74% 52.65% 51.77% 56.41% 56.39%

Municipal Finance & SWM Accounting, Financial and Procurement Management in Municipalities Accounting In order to facilitate better accounting standards, Municipalities were to switch over to double accounting system from April 2006. As of June 2006, the municipalities continue to follow single entry, cash basis of accounting. In most of the LSGIs there is heavy back log in finalization of accounts. Of the 1215 LSGIs in the state accounts finalization is pending6 from 18.37% for FY 1995-96 to as high as 99.75% for FY 2003-04. Many of the municipalities have hired the services of retired hands to update their accounts and it is expected that situation will improve shortly. The prevalent system does not facilitate easy extraction of SWM related transactions. Presently, this has to be culled out from multiple heads of account. There is an urgent need to rationalize SWM related accounting. Asset Accounting The Government had transferred assets and liabilities of the institutions relating to the transferred subjects to the LSGIs in the process of decentralization. In spite of the taking special efforts to update the asset details, the work remains pending especially with regard to SWM assets.

Source CAG Report as on 31st March 2004



Budgeting Budget preparation exercise in most of LSGIs is a mechanical process. Generally previous years figures are included with slight cosmetical adjustments.However huge variations in budgeting estimate both in receipt and expenditure side are observed in some cases. There were cases where shortfall of over 50% on receipt side and saving of 90% on expenditure side was observed. Audits There is a plethora of financial checks inbuilt in the system, which includes: a. b. c. d. Inspections from Finance wing. Audits by Director of Local Fund Audit (DLFA) Supplementary audit wherever entrusted by CAG. Performance audit including provision for special performance audits.

Rules permit that performance audit under section 5, audit under section 295 , and departmental inspection under rule 26, even though being independent can be inter related and the inference of one report may be depended for the purpose of another report. The most frequent audits at the municipalities are the audit by DLFA and Performance audit conducted by the office of State Performance Auditor. DLFA audit is the basic watchdog on financial propriety at the Municipalities. The audit compliance by the DLFA remains abysmal with substantial audit arrears. Reporting All municipalities are supposed to send a Monthly Progress Report by the 5th of the following month to the Regional Office. An extract of the balance in the PD accounts as of the end of the previous month is also to be sent to the Finance Officer, Muncipal directorate and also to the State Performance Audit Officer. The Municipal Directorate reveals that collection of figures from Municipalities is a tedious process with most of the municipalities not complying with the requirements. Procurement & Contract Management Procurement and proper contract administration is perhaps the weakest link in the project administration capabilities of the municipality. The local bodies do not have the technical, legal or administrative capability to draft, negotiate or conclude a procurement contract professionally. The situation is further aggravated on account of lack of any specific guidelines containing at least the broad parameters the municipalities should adhere to while implementing a SWM project.



The case of Kayamkulam Municipality is a classic example of comprehensive contract mis-management with mistakes in the technological, procurement and managerial aspects. In this instance the municipality had in response to a tender for the supply and erection of an incinerator (wrong technology), ignored the lowest offer from a State Government undertaking (mis-procurement) and paid as advance a sum of Rs.21.50 lakh. The firm did not supply the plant even though the contract for supply and erection expired in June 2003.(wrong contract administration).

The situation is no better in the award of work contracts with municipalities either paying a lot more for the services rendered or getting sub standard service for the amount paid. The costing of the operations is not scientifically done which results in accepting substantially high charges by the private operators. While finalizing waste processing contracts the estimation of waste transported has a significant bearing in the fixation of contract value. In most of the cases the municipal authorities resort to eye estimation resulting in huge under or over estimation. For instance at Chalukkudi as per eye estimation the weight was calculated as 1.5 tons but actual weighing revealed the quantity brought at nearly 5 tons. More serious issue is the situation where assets created out of tax payers' money is run by third parties without any contractual framework. (Attingal Municipality). These situations are more dangerous as they may result in erosion of the asset base itself. There is an urgent need for framing practical contracting and procurement procedures in the municipalities especially for sectors where technical, legal and managerial inputs are critical. An assessment of different contracts / agreements established /signed by 7 ULBs with private parties is given in Annexure 14. Conclusion On a more macro level, the whole accounting and financial management practices requires revamping which includes immediate updating of backlog in accounts, switch over to double accounting system, rationalization of documentation process and a planned computerization plan which should ultimately result in data availability from LSGs on a real time basis. This should be targeted through proper planning and capacity building interventions. One issue that the state government may dwell upon is the forming of a common accounting service pool for the state service. Financial Issues in SWM SWM is generally considered to be dirty and costly business. The basic questions to be answered in this context are:



1. Whether funds at the disposal of the municipality are adequate to discharge their mandate on services to be provided in respect of activities transferred under the decentralization process. 2. Whether funds available give the Municipalities discretion to prioritize SWM. 3. Whether the funds invested have been worthwhile 4. Whether the Municipalities have the funds to sustain investments made The issue of resource adequacy has to be looked into bearing in mind the activities that need to be performed to have an efficient SWM system. The activities can be broadly divided into two main heads i.e. setting up the essential infrastructure for SWM, procurement of tools, equipment and vehicles and day to day operations and maintenance of the SWM services. Capital and revenue expenditure is required to be incurred to carry out the aforesaid activities. The capital and revenue expenditure can be further classified into the following sub activities: 1. Capital Expenditure a. Procurement of Land for treatment and disposal facilities. b. Creating Infrastructure for treatment & disposal facility. c. Procurement of tools,Vehicles & Equipment for collection, secondary storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste. 2. Revenue Expenditure 1. 2. 3. 4. Salary to staff Operation & maintenance of Vehicles and equipment Operation and Maintenance of treatment and disposal facilities Uniform

State Governments Initiatives In this context the approach of the state government is quite clear. In the guidelines issued by government for preparation of annual plans under the tenth five year plan by local governments, its specifically stresses on formulating Stand Alone Commercially Viable Projects where the revenue stream can by itself meet the repayment requirements and also generate enough resources for smooth maintenance of the assets and higher future investment. However, in its effort to assist municipalities in the implementation of SWM programs, the State Government has provided funds over and above the plan funds through Clean Kerala Mission which provides financial support as per the criteria mentioned below: a) 100% for remediation of existing dump yard to a clean SWM yard with a ceiling of Rs. 5 lakh b) 100% for Awareness and IEC campaign for effective popularization of 'Segregated Waste Collection', principles of 'No Waste on Ground', 'Reduce,



Reuse, Recycle, Recover and Replace waste', 'Decentralized Waste Management' etc. with a ceiling of Rs.5 lakh c) 100% assistance for introducing segregated storage and collection system from source with a ceiling of Rs.10 lakh d) 25% assistance for improving transportation system and setting up or modernizing processing plant with a ceiling of Rs.30 lakh. e) 100% assistance for setting up a model engineered landfill for one year with a ceiling of Rs.10 lakh. 12th Finance Commission The 12th Finance Commission has recommended an amount of Rs.25,000 Crores for LSGs across the country for the period 2005-10. It recommended sharing of the resources between Panchayats and Municipalities in the ratio of 80:20. The state share from the Rs. 20,000 Crores meant for Panchayats comes to Rs. 985 Crores (4.93%) and for the Municipalities it comes to Rs. 149 Crores (2.98%). Further the TFC has recommended that at least 50 per cent of the grants provided to each state for the Urban Local bodies should be earmarked for the scheme of solid waste management through public-private partnership. The state government has neither passed on the grant thus received nor has it issued any directions making it mandatory for the ULBs to set aside equivalent fund from the plan assistance for MSWM as recommended by the commission. Assessing Municipal Capacity in Discharging SWM Mandate To comment upon municipalitys ability to discharge SWM functions as contained in the SWM rule 2001 is dicey as Unutilized Opportunities by the municipality needs to be properly assessed before deciding on the adequacy of resources. This assumes significance in the scenario where on an average the municipalities are utilizing only 80% of the plan assistance released by the state. In 2003-04 unspent amount by Municipalities itself is around 20 Crores. Capital Requirements In order to finance the capital requirements for providing SWM services the CKM provides funds which are over and above the plan assistance received by the LSGIs. On an average CKM finances approximately 35% of the project cost. Most of the municipalities already have land which should be at least sufficient for processing needs. The requirement of land for disposal needs to be assessed separately and is discussed later under this section. Municipalities are further enabled wherein the government has allowed municipalities to prioritize SWM by allowing disbursement of general purpose grant only after deducting outlay including municipalitys counter part contribution for total sanitation projects under CKM. Under sectoral classifications also the productive sector includes provision for compost generation from solid waste management. It is quite obvious that if proper planning is done at the municipality level, the capital requirement for setting up SWM facility should not be a constraint.



Recurring Expenditure The municipalities have been spending 4% to 16% of their total expenditure on SWM. The ratio of SWM expenditure by Municipalities to Total funds is shown in Table 55.

Table 55 Ratio of SWM Expenditure to Total Funds Municipality

Funds From State Govt. Own Funds Funds from CKM Total Funds Operating Expenditure for SWM % Expenditure for SWM to Total Funds

Attingal Chalakudi Allepy Malappuram

22,459,551 31,841,768 91,877,600 34,304,270

15,875,366 21,640,000 50,034,000 26,503,392

4,327,000 3,900,000

42,661,917 57,381,768 141,911,600 60,807,662

4,731,323 2,363,500 22,712,281 3,013,752

11.09% 4.12% 16.00% 4.96%

An analysis of recurring expenditure on SWM in the 4 municipalities reveals that 86.34% of the operational expenditure incurred by the Municipalities is on account of Salary, Wages and pensions. Only 8.2% expenditure is incurred for vehicle maintenance and fuel expenditure. As percentage of total expenditure, the figure varies with Allepy and Attingal spending 11.41% and 10.53% while Mallapuram and Attingal spent 5.11% and 3.41% of the total expenditure on SWM operations. Details of the spending pattern of the four municipalities are shown in Table 56.
Table 56 Anyalisis of Recurring Expenditure on SWM - 2004-05 Municipality Staff Payment to Contractors Vehicle Maintenance 3.16% 2.93% 10.58% 0.91% 4.40% Uniform Fuel Others Total

Allepy Attingal Chalakudi Malappuram Total

95.17% 91.27% 63.25% 95.64% 86.33%

12.69% 3.17%

1.67% 2.93% 0.78% 0.86% 1.56%

2.86% 12.69% 2.58% 3.82%


100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

In terms of per capita expenditure, expenditure per HH and expenditure per sq. km again Attingal and Allepy show to spend substantially higher than the other two municipalities. While this may be because of special localized issues, the huge variation amongst the municipalities and the substantially high administrative cost requires a re-look at the service delivery



mechanism in itself. The per capita, per household and per sq km cost of SWM service is given in Table 57.
Table 57 Anyalisis of Recurring Expenditure on SWM
SWM Recurring Expenditure Sq KM Population HH

Municipality Allepy Attingal Chalakudi Malappuram Total


Area (Sq KM)



22,712,281 4,731,323 2,363,500 3,013,752


46.77 14.76 25.23 53.70


177,079 35,648 48,371 58,490


32,203 6,674 8,626 7,973


485,616 320,550 93,678 56,122


128 133 49 52

705 709 274 378


In the given context under business as usual scenario the options before the Municipality is to: a. Continue with the current systems and practice. b. Prioritize SWM service at the cost of other deliverables c. Find ways and means to make the service self financing. The Kerala Muncipal Act mentions that Municipality by a resolution determines to levy property tax, and it may comprise of a tax for general purposes and a service tax and the service tax may comprise of a sanitary tax to provide for expenses connected with the general sanitation of the municipal area and the removal of rubbish, filth and carcasses of animals from the private premises. The TFC also has also recommended the user charge to be made obligatory by Municipalities. Apart from the option of levying sanitary tax, Municipalities have the option of levying User charges for providing specialized services and Penal charges for offending sanitary rules. As against the constraints in imposition of fines, administrative charges can be levied by the municipality from the offenders on the strength of council decision. The Kerala Economic Review has dwelled on the issue of cost recovery and mentions that the return from social services where in government is making huge investment has been abysmally poor. This has primarily resulted because of the policy of successive governments of imposing low user charges at the time of implementation and then again not revising them in light of changing economic scenario even when the per capita income and wages/salary levels have increased in the State. It is seen that the expenditure on SWM is very low as compared to the importance of the service. Besides, hardly any expenditure is incurred by the Municipalities on door to door collection, transportation and disposal of waste. There is a need to increase the allocation of funds for SWM



to improve the quality of service or levy of user charges to increase the revenue to meet the additional cost. Way Ahead It is imperative for the municipalities to explore new avenues and take bold decisions in terms of improving cost recovery to improve the quality of public services and make them sustainable. There is an urgent need to streamline solid waste management systems, including door to door collection, secondary storage, transportation and more significantly waste treatment and disposal systems. The amount now being spent for SWM is meant for cosmetically removing the waste from the front of our eyes and dumping it elsewhere. The amount spent for treatment & disposal is less than 5% of the total expenditure on SWM. The allocation of funds has to increase to cover all the essential steps of SWM appropriately which can be done by levy of user fees and or raising sanitary tax. Models exist in state, where municipalities have through the help of CBOs (Kudumbashree) initiated door to door collection activities by charging a small user fees. The study by IL&FS Ecosmart Limited submitted to WSP on Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management Services conducted at Kottayam reveals that the residents were ready to pay for improved services provided by private sector operators either through added tax or through user charges to the service provider. Preliminary working reveals that if the model were to be scaled up the amount thus collected would not only be able to sustain the whole gambit of present SWM activities of the municipality but would also be able to finance to a large extent the capital expenditure requirements. For keeping the cost low, land fill activity should be regionalized. It has been proved that having common landfill brings down the cost substantially. The service provision should clearly look into the financial costs of an integrated service. Besides if all the 900 Panchayats, 53 municipality and 5 corporations functioned as water tight institutions, it would mean that there would have to be 1000 landfill sites in the state. Not only is it financially unviable, there will be no technical people who can manage them besides appropriate land would not be available within transportable distance. For economical, technical & managerial angle, this activity should be regionalized by the state government. This should not be viewed as an encroachment on municipal rights by the ULBs but considered as a help to them. To meet the cost of treatment facilities areas where economies of scale could be leveraged and cross linkages amongst various institutions are possible should be explored. Typically, various state institutions could be linked to ensure purchase and use of the manure produced in the city processing plants. This would in itself make the processing units a financially profitable venture besides generating substantial job opportunities. This will also attract private sector to set up treatment facilities without putting any burden on the municipal authorities.



Definition of Informal Sector There are quite a number of definitions for informal sector. International Labour Organisation (ILO) in its book The Dilemma of the Informal Sector defines informal sector as any small scale initiatives with the following features. They produce and distribute a wide range of goods and services They consist largely of independent, self employed producers, sometimes employing family labour and / or a few hired workers or apprentices They operate with very little capital, or none at all They utilise low levels of skills and technology, and therefore operate at low levels of productivity They generally earn very low and irregular incomes They are usually unregistered and unrecorded in official statistics They have little or no access to organised markets, credit institutions, formal education and/or training institutions They are not recognised, supported or regulated by governments They are almost invariably beyond the pale of social protection, labour legislation, and protective measures in the work place They are generally unorganised and in most cases beyond the scope of action of trade unions and employers organisations

Status and Contribution of Informal Sector Informal sector activity in solid waste management is significant in any urban centre in India. The sector itself is part of a business chain, driven by market forces, comprising a wide variety of stakeholders with diverse financial backgrounds, handling millions of tons of waste and millions of rupees daily, with a lesser investment compared to other businesses. The contribution of informal sector to Solid Waste Management (SWM) is remarkable but never acknowledged. The increase in number of rag pickers is considered as one of the indications of urban poverty. Majority of the rag pickers are women or children who live in extreme poverty. Rag Pickers The total urban population of India is around 300 million as of 2006. This population generates 115,000 tons of waste per day; that is 42 million tons a year. Out of this waste around 10 % of waste is retrieved by rag pickers and passed on for reuse or to the recycling industry through the middlemen. It is estimated around 4 million tones of recyclable waste is retrieved by around 575,000 rag pickers a year. The average daily collection of a rag picker is estimated as



approximately 20 kg and average daily income as Rs.50/-. The estimated turn over of the rag pickers business in India has been estimated at about Rs12280 million with almost no investment. Rag pickers form the most vulnerable group among the various stakeholders of the informal sector. They are mainly immigrants from the nearby states and live in extreme poverty. Unlike in other states, rag pickers are seen in Kerala without any urban-rural difference. They engage in work using a sack for collecting materials. Quite often the entire family is engaged in rag picking. They collect what people throw in their back yards, roadsides, drains etc. They pick up recyclables disposed of at the collection points, community bins, dumping sites etc., after households hand over saleable material to waste purchasers and rest to primary collectors or municipal workers. Rag pickers mainly get paper, small bottles, broken bottles, tins, pet bottles, plastic covers, iron pieces, packing materials, food packing materials etc. Typically, no capital investment is involved in rag picking other than a hand cart or tricycle, that too only in some cases, and these are often assembled using the scraps they get. They get a daily haul of 15 - 30 kg of recyclable waste depending upon the facility they have, the location they have selected, and also the season. The daily income of a rag picker ranges between Rs.30/- and 80/-. Many rag pickers said that the business is the best in summer not only in terms of quantity but in terms of value as well. According to Census 2001, Kerala has an urban population 8.27 million which generates 2359 tons of waste per day. Different studies show that the percapita waste generation in corporations in 2001 is 400g and in municipalities it is 300g. Since the urban growth rate in Kerala is 0.7% and the yearly waste increase is about 1.4 % the total urban waste generation in 2006 is estimated as 3026 tons per day. Since the current recyclable waste retrieval rate is about 10 % by rag pickers, about 303 tons of waste is retrieved everyday. If this quantity is not retrieved by the rag pickers this would come to the municipal stream and would add the burden of urban local bodies. The study conducted by SEUF in six municipalities and one corporation shows that the daily collection by a rag picker varies between 15 and 30 kg. By taking an average of 22.5 kg per rag picker per day it is estimated that about 13500 rag pickers are currently engaged in waste picking in urban areas. If a rag picker gets three rupees per kg on average, a yearly turn over of rag pickers in urban Kerala alone is about Rs 330 million. In addition to the livelihood of about 13500 rag pickers the urban local bodies (ULBs) also gain from this situation. The provider assessment done in six municipalities shows that the current solid waste management cost per ton of municipal waste ranges between Rs.1600.00 to 2000.00. The methods are not scientific and do not comply with the MSW Rules. Thus total savings of the municipality for a year just because of the rag pickers is Rs.176 million to 221 million. The contribution of the rag pickers to the waste management system is sizeable. What the rag pickers collect is what others throw. The Kudumbashree experience in Trivandrum Corporation shows that after initiating segregation of solid waste, they get 16% recyclables. When Calicut Corporation started segregated collection their daily quantity reduced to 160 tones from 180 tones. (The non biodegradable waste collected separately twice a week by a plastic manufacturing company with Rs.2 per kg.) This indicates that percentage of recyclable waste is



11%. This of course is in addition to a certain quantity collected by rag pickers. Therefore, it could be concluded that if household level segregation and storage is promoted, the retrieval rate of recyclables could be increased to 15% or even more. The waste pickers collect waste from streets, community bins and dump sites without any health precautions. They are unaware of the potential health hazards of their occupation. Though the bio medical waste is supposed to be managed by Indian Medical Association (IMA), there are incidences of bio medical waste in municipal solid waste. Majority of the rag pickers walk bare footed and work with uncovered hands while collecting recyclables from heaps of waste.

Rag pickers are mainly squatters or pavement dwellers. The main stream communities keep them away not because of the nature of their occupation and their untidy looks but also because of fear of theft. In order to resolve the theft problem, Kerala Police has started issuing identity cards to the rag pickers in many areas. There is a need to initiate measures to strengthen this sector and also to upgrade the current occupation of rag pickers. Rag pickers form an exploited lot, with major chunks of their revenue going to the middlemen A cooperative organisation of rag pickers could be thought of, which would purchase the materials from rag pickers and pass it on to the industry. A model of community initiated and managed (Panampally Nagar Residents Association) primary collection using rag pickers is given in Annexure 15. Waste/Rag Buyers and Dealers There are two systems to collect recyclable waste from the waste generator. One set of people called "kabadiwalas" i. e. waste buyers who purchase recyclable waste such as news papers, bottles, tins, plastic materials etc. and sell that material to the dealer who passes on the same in a bulk quantity to the recycling industry. Another set of people are rag pickers who are poorest among the poor. They pick up discarded recyclable material from the streets, bins and dump yards.



The chain of transactions in the rag picking business starts from rag pickers at the lowest end and extends to include rag buyers, sub dealers, main dealers, recyclers etc. The economic and social status of the stakeholders also enhance as they go up the value chain from rag pickers to the other end. The waste purchased by waste purchasers cannot be treated as municipal solid waste. What they collect are the valuable materials that the households retain temporarily for while disposing the other waste. No estimate of the number of waste buyers is available so far. Typically, the small amounts of working capital that the waste buyers need for buying the materials from households is often provided by waste dealers. Over the years the waste buyers establish informal bond with the waste dealers; who even give advance to buy recyclable material which varies from Rs.100 to Rs.500 depending on the capacity of the waste buyer. In many urban centres the dealers also provide hand carts or tricycles to enhance collection. In Thrissur Corporation, there are waste dealers who own 3 to 30 hand carts and they assign as many number of waste buyers for collection. A waste buyer collects 30- 70 kg waste per day. The daily income of a rag buyer generally varies between Rs.75 and 250. The rag pickers without any investments pick up recyclable waste, segregate the same and sell the same to the middle man or sub dealer or a rag buyer. The average quantity of waste and the average daily income of a waste buyer are given in Table 58 below.

Table 58 Daily Collection of a Waste/Rag Buyer

Sl No Items Collecting price Rs/kg Selling price Rs/kg Margin Rs/kg Average daily collection kg Average income Rs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Paper Book paper Iron Tin Plastic Bottles Packing Total

3 4 5 2.50 4 1/piece 1.50

4 7 8.50 4 8 1.60/piece 2.50

1 3 3.50 1.50 4 .60 1.00 49.5

15 12* 8 3.5 3 8 nos 8 109.05

15 36 28 5.25 12 4.80 8

Source: Shanthi, a rag buyer in Pathanamthitta Municipality (May 2006) * Mainly in April May months

The rag pickers/buyers sell the materials to small depots. These depots either sell it to buyers from outside or directly to recyclers. This is a self-contained business that runs on very little investment. Since no specific skills are required and the working capital requirement is low, it is an avenue for livelihood for numerous poor people from within the state and outside. There are people who collect recyclables from



various sources using bicycles, tricycles, auto-rikshaws, pick up vans etc. The system has got its own merits and is better left undisturbed. Recycling Waste Channel

Waste generators

Backyards, Secondary Collection, Disposal sites

Rag pickers / Municipal workers

Rag buyers

Sub dealers


Main dealers

The recycling waste channel is not an easily visible one and therefore the market factors that determine its performance are yet to be analysed. There are 32 depots for recyclables in Kottayam Municipality (2004). The quantity of waste received by them is shown in Table 59 below.
Table 59 Quantity of Waste Received by Waste Depots in Kottayam Municipality Category of Depots Small depots- 16 Medium depots- 12 Large depots-4 Total
Source: Ecosmart 2004

Quantity Received /day 50kg/day 200 kg/day 500 kg/day

Total in kg 800 2400 2000 5200kg/day

The average waste collection in Kottayam Municipality (KM) is 17 tons per day excluding waste disposed off by the households in their premises, whereas the total quantity of waste generation is about 39 tons per day (Ecosmart, 2004). The waste depots deal with 12% of the total waste generated, but this may include what the rag buyers/ pickers collect from nearby rural panchayats. The waste reaching the recycling market could be improved through source level segregation.



The study conducted among the waste dealers in Thrissur Corporation reveals the fraction of recyclable/ reusable waste. The major fraction of the recyclable/reusable waste is news paper, card board packing, bottles (Beer and liquor bottles), metal scrap, and plastic items. A lot of people earn their livelihoods by engaging in rag dealing. There are about 30 people from Pattambi and Ongallur panchayats who are involved in rag dealing business in various cities of the State. Recycling Centres in Ongallur Grama Panchayat There are 15 bottle dealing units in Ongallur that procure used bottles from recyclable dealers spread in various cities. They also buy bottles directly from liquor shops and bars. After an initial cleaning process at the bottle dealing unit, the bottles are transported to different companies for re use. Altogether they handle 20 truck loads of glass bottles a day. More than 200 varieties of bottles are handled in these units; the cost of each varies according to the type. Certain varieties such as beer bottles and pint bottles have got a regular demand while others are kept in the go-down till there is a boost in their demand, which is occasional. Around 150 women are employed here to clean the bottles. 80% of the bottles are reused in Kerala and 20% goes to Tamil Nadu. The major customers in this sector are distilleries. There is a 20% breakage in handling the bottles. White broken glass pieces are sent to Excel Glass Factory in Alappuzha. Green bottles and their pieces do not fetch reasonable price in the market. The caps of the bottles are separated at the units and are sent to a separate market. Medicine bottles that reach here are sent to Tamil Nadu. A couple of small scale pellet making units also operate in Ongallur panchayat. Investment and Return As mentioned earlier in this report, the investment in informal sector is very low. The primary role of the dealers is to collect waste and pass it on to the industry without making much investment. The business is labour intensive with people working in collection, segregation, packaging, loading, and transporting waste materials to the industry. The wages given to the persons involved in the entire process of collection, segregation and transportation are extremely low compared to other sectors. Even though the business involves reasonably high profits, it cannot be considered a lucrative business as the profit owes it to the low wages paid to the labour involved at various points in the value chain. The net monthly profit gained by the dealer ranges between Rs.2185 to about Rs 17450 per person who engaged full time in this work. The wide range in profits shows that there is enough room for improvement. Table 60 shows the investment and return in 4 shops in Thrissur.



Table 60 Investment and Return

No of business partners Monthly Profit (Rs.) Annual ROI Net Profit to Monthly Expenses (%) Break Even Period (Days)

Shop 1 1 17,450 741% 436% 49

Shop 2 1 2,185 807% 437% 45

Shop 3 2 12,150 391% 213% 92

Shop 4 2 29,350 548% 309% 66

The dealers face a lot of problems while transporting waste materials to the recycling industry in other districts or states. Majority of the small scale dealers do not have sales tax registration and therefore end up selling the materials to major dealers who may have registration. This helps major dealers gain larger margins. Since these materials are used and thrown and are already taxed during its initial sale, many dealers expressed their disappointment in bringing it in the purview of value added tax (VAT). Management of recyclable waste after collection is as important as collection itself. Tax reduction and exemption could be considered in order to promote this industry. Kudumbashree Kudumbashree, an entrepreneurship based poverty alleviation programme of the Government of Kerala is the most important player in collection of waste from the doorsteps. They entered into solid waste management as an economic opportunity (Clean Kerala Business) to eliminate poverty. Kudumbashree is the State Poverty Eradication Mission launched by the Government of Kerala with the active support of Government of India and the national bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). Kudumbashree aims at eradicating absolute poverty by 10 years under the leadership of Local Self Governments. Grass Root Level Community Based Organisations (CBO) Women are organised into Neighbourhood Groups, (NHGs). Each NHG consist of 20-40 women with five functional volunteers- Community Health Volunteer, Income Generation Volunteer, Infrastructure Volunteer, Secretary, and President. These groups are coordinated at the ward level through Area Development Society (ADS), by federating eight to ten NHGs. The coordinating apex body at panchayat level is the Community Development Society (CDS), which is a registered body under Charitable Societies Registration Act.



Functioning of the CBOs The NHG members meet once in a week to discuss various issues and also to deal matters related to the management of their small saving scheme. The aspirations and demands voiced out in the NHG meetings essentially form the micro-plans, which are scrutinised and prioritised to form a mini-plan at the level of ADS. After consolidating the mini-plans by judicious prioritisation process at the level of CDS, the CDS Plan is formed which is also the Anti-Poverty Sub-Plan of the Local Self Government.

Evolution of Clean Kerala Business On identifying the gap in existing SWM system, Kudumbashree entered in to it looking at it as an economic opportunity.


Absence of Primary collection

Kudumbashree's intervention

Conversion of this opportunity into an enterprise

Initially there was some reluctance to get into waste collection. This was overcome through orientation and training programmes organised by Kudumbashree. The name Clean Kerala Business (CKB) was given to enable women to engage in the business with dignity and to recognise it as an enterprise. CKB workers are provided with uniforms, badges, gloves etc which enhance their self esteem and also provide them with protection against hazardous materials and also. Kudumbashree identified a number of management experts from different universities for providing training to women. This emerged as a mutually rewarding exercise. While the experts got an opportunity to translate their academic knowledge into practices applicable at the local level, the women gained from the training programmes. Pilot Programme in Trivandrum Corporation Trivandrum Corporation, like other similar civic bodies has been facing severe problems in solid waste management. Kudumbashree pilot programme was launched in Trivandrum in Year 2000, and covered five divisions of the Corporation. Fifteen members from Community Development Societies (CDS) were selected and three groups of four members were formed, while three members were retained as substitutes. In the initial phase each group planned to cover 400 households for door step collection at a user fee of Rs.25/household/month to get a minimum income of Rs.2000/person/month. The total income expected at this stage is given in Table 61.



Table 61 Trivandrum CKB Income Estimation for Pilot Programme

1. 2. 3.

Income for sub groups 3 x(400x25) From hotels / shops / Marriage Auditoriums From the sale of recycling wastes Total Income

Rs. 30,000 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 5,000 Rs. 45,000

Initially there was some resistance from the Corporation workers as they saw the presence of women in waste collection as an invasion to their occupational territory. However, the resistance subsided subsequently as the women went ahead with their business. Now the number of households has been increased and a Kudumbashree CKB worker gets an average of Rs. 3500 per month. There are women who earn as much as Rs 7800/- per month. Now the Corporation has come forward and started segregated primary collection in 25 wards with Kudumbashree CKB workers.

Scope of Clean Kerala Business Considering the wide grass root level net work of Kudumbashree and the prevailing level of unemployment in the State, waste collection and management is a good opportunity for employment generation. Certain compliance criteria as per Schedule 2 (1) of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000, that provide openings in this regard is given in Table 62 .



Table 62 Compliance Criteria Provide Openings in Primary Collection and Processing

Section 2(1), Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000
Parameters Collection of municipal solid waste Compliance Criteria 1. Littering of solid waste shall be prohibited in cities, towns and in urban areas notified by the State Governments. To prohibit littering and facilitate compliance the following steps shall be taken by the municipal authority namely: i) Organising house to house collection of municipal solid wastes through any of the methods like community bin collection (central bin), house to house collection, collection on regular pre informed timings and scheduling by using bell ringing of musical vehicle (with out exceeding permissible noise levels); ii) Devising collection of waste from slums and squatter areas or localities including hotels, restaurants, office complexes and commercial areas; iii) Waste from slaughter houses, meat and fish markets, which are bio degradable in nature, shall be managed to make use of such wastes; iv) Collected waste from residential and other areas shall be transferred to community bin by hand driven containerised carts or other small vehicles; v) Waste (garbage and dry leaves) shall not be burnt 3. It shall be the responsibility of generator of wastes to avoid littering and ensure delivery of in accordance with the collection and segregation system to be notified by the municipal authority as per para 1(2) of this schedule. Processing municipal wastes of Municipal authorities shall adopt suitable technology or combination of such solid technologies to make use of wastes so as to minimise burden on landfill. Following criteria shall be adopted, namely: i) The biodegradable wastes shall be processed by composting, vermincomposting, anaerobic digestion or any other appropriate biological processing for stabilisation of wastes. It shall be ensured that compost or any other end product shall comply with standards as specified in Schedule-IV; Mixed waste containing recoverable resources shall follow the route of recycling. Incineration with or without energy recovery including pelletisation can also be used for processing wastes in specific cases. Municipal authority or the operator of a facility wishing to use other state-of-the-art technologies shall approach the Central Pollution Control Board to get the standards laid down before applying for grant of authorisation.


As the Rules insist on house to house collection there is ample opportunity before Kudumbashree as they are the pioneers in door step collection in Kerala. At present Kudumbashree is mainly involved in door-step collection. However, in certain municipalities their involvement goes up to transportation to the dump site and also in processing. Many groups own a small vehicle and a



hand cart and they get a satisfactory income. There are excellent examples for composting done by womens groups, North Paravur is a case in point. This option could be further explored. A Consistent and Sustainable Income In Malappuram out of the twelve micro entrepreneur groups (Self Help Groups SHGs) four are in Clean Kerala Business. The four CKB groups together include 40 women. For door step collection they charge Rs.30 per household and Rs.50 per shop. One municipal vehicle with a driver is provided exclusively for CKB business. For loading and unloading purposes one member from each group travels in the vehicle on rotation basis. In order to reduce their work load, CKB members have planned to purchase four Ace vehicles. The present status of CKB in Malappuram Municipality provided in Table 63.
Table 63 The Present Status of CKB in Malappuram Municipality Group I II III IV Total No of Households Covered 316 250 350 376 No of Shops Wards Covered Covered 30 14, 15 22 17,18 27 19,20 24 21,22 Monthly Income In Rs 10980 8600 11850 12480 43910

A CKB worker thus gets an average income of Rs.1391 per month for five to six hours work a day in addition to what they get from recyclables. As per municipality guesstimate CKB workers handle three tons of waste daily. In Kozhikkode Corporation the Kudumbasree CKB covers 54.27% of the households (39,545) for which 649 women are involved. In the first phase primary collection started in 7 wards and later extended to the remaining. Of the total 12000 shops and other establishments, the CKB workers cover about 3000, which is about 25%. The approximate percentage pattern of income and expenditure of one of the CKB groups in Kozhikkode is given in the two charts below



Income from Houses

Income from Trade Houses


Income from sale of scrap w astes Income from Other Sources



Fuel Expense (Diesel) Wages paid to Driver Other Expenses

10% 9% 9% 54% 15% 3%

Loan Remittance Reserve Funds Payment to workers

Additional Income from Recyclables Approximate quantity of recyclables that a CKB group in Alappuzha collect in a month by covering 100 houses and related shops is given in Table 64
Table 64 Quantity of Recyclables Collected by a CKB Group in Alappuzha Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 Particulars Plastic Packing cardboards etc Metal Milk cover Glass Total Quantity Collected Per Month 25kg 50kg 25 kg 20kg 50 kg 170kg



Daily collection of recyclables is thus five to six kilograms per 100 households. At a price of Rs.3/- per kilogram a group makes a minimum of Rs.15-18 a day by covering 100 houses and shops in the vicinity of the houses. This translates into an additional income of Rs.450 /- to 550 /per month for the group. This is more than 30% of what they make by collecting other waste materials that are not recyclable. The pilot Kudumbashree experience in Trivandrum shows that there is an additional 16% income from selling recyclables. Clean Destination Unit (CDU) in Alappuzha Tourism Department/ District Tourism Promotion Council (DTPC) selected women from different Kudumbashree units as part of the Clean Destination Unit programme in Alappuzha. Twenty nine women are engaged in the activity in four different groups. The details of CDU are shown in Table 65.
Table 65 Details of Clean Destination Unit (CDU) 1. 2. 3. 4. Beach, Alappuzha Railway station Boat Jetty Punnamada 10 women 4 10 5 Assigned by Tourism department Assigned by Tourism department Assigned by Tourism department Assigned by DTPC

One person gets a salary of 2500/- per month. The salary is given by the department or the Council that has assigned the women. Except those who work at the Boat Jetty, these women do not have access to basic amenities required at the work place. A sizeable percentage of women working in these groups are widows. Initially men were against these women getting into waste handling business. However, the problem was resolved subsequently as the women stayed in the business and gained community support and acceptance. Kudumbashree Kozhikkode model A well functioning primary collection system supported by the Corporation is given in Annexure 16. Issues in Fixation of User Charges Typically, user charge for households and institutions is fixed jointly by Kudumbashree and the Municipality. Prevailing average rates are Rs 30/- per household and Rs 50/- per institution. There are exceptions such as a household being charged Rs 60/- per month. This however, depends on the quantity of waste and the willingness of the household to pay for the services. Exceptions are there in the user charges levied up on institutions as well. For instance, there are shops in Alappuzha that pay a user charge of Rs 450/- per month and some hospitals in North Paravur pay as much as Rs 600/- per month. Compared to the arduousness of the task involved,



these cannot be considered high rates. However, there is an argument against differential pricing that those who pay less may eventually be left out thus affecting the sustainability of the programme. There are further complications involved in charging for the various types of services. In North Paravur, bins are provided at shops and a user fee of Rs 10 is charged per bin per day. The shops, in their attempt to reduce the number of bins, stuff more waste into a bin than what it could actually take. This leads to two problems. First, it could lead to accidents. For instance in North Paravur, Ms Thankamani, a member of Shreyas group faced two accidents related to overstuffing of bins. She had to spent Rs 20,000 on treatment, which is a huge amount given the fact that she does not have any other source of income. Second, over-stuffing of bins deprives women of their legitimate remuneration from the business. It is important here that a system is in place to fix the user charges on a normative basis thus eliminating the possibility of bargaining and related tensions. Health Issues Six years is probably too short a period to assess waste induced health hazards on people who handle solid waste. Even though usage of gloves and boots are insisted up on, these are not used in practice. The main reason cited for lack of use is inconvenience. In order to pre-empt the emergence of serious health problems in future, it is important that best practices are put in place. There should be periodic educational and monitoring programmes. One of the main problems faced by the women working in plants is absence of the very basic amenities. Safe drinking water is available, and there are no latrines or urinals. Lack of such essential amenities at the work place could lead to serious health problems. In North Parvur, there is no urinal in the vermin-compost plant where seven women are working. In Alappuzha members of the Clean Destination Unit are facing the same problem. There are even incidences of sexual harassment in isolated plants. CKB groups collect non biomedical waste from many hospitals. Though biomedical waste is sent separately to Image, Palakkad, the facility of IMA, needles and other infected materials are often found in the waste collected by the CKB group. There are a lot of hospitals that do not send biomedical waste to IMA. Several medical laboratories normally resort to open dumping of infected waste. Rag Pickers vis--vis Kudumabshree Wherever Kudumbashree units have started primary collection of solid waste, the income of rag pickers has been adversely affected. This hampers the subsistence of rag pickers and therefore is a humanitarian issue. The need of the hour is a system that could accommodate both Kudumbashree units as well as rag pickers. Rag pickers should be integrated into Kudumbashree systems and could be deployed by the municipality through informal sector in door to collection of food waste as well as recyclable waste. If this integration is not possible for any reason, their role diversification could be another option. For instance, in the urban local bodies rag pickers



could be entrusted with primary collection while Kudumbashree could take up further value addition in terms of processing, transporting, recycling etc. This would not only ensure that the rag pickers are able to pursue this livelihoods option but would help them get out of the clutches of middlemen as well. Such a system would enhance their earnings. Kudumbashree could help enrol the rag pickers and formulate and conduct training programmes for them. Kudumbashrees strengths in organising such training programmes by drawing in expertise from academic and management institutions would come handy here. Training programmes should include those for adopting best practices in waste collection and handling, use of hand gloves, boots etc., along with special programmes to improve their self esteem and quality of life. Even programmes to improve their literacy and numerical skills could be thought of. If registration and identity cards are made a practice for rag pickers, then formal association with Kudumbashree could help overcome the social stigma attached to them at present. This would take them a long way in leading a life with dignity. Capacity Building for Alternative Routes Another option could be to follow what the Panampalli Nagar Residents Association has done in Kochi. There are certain complaints about dwindling quality of services as Kudumbashree monopolises waste collection. There are apparently two problems. The quality of service suffers and rag pickers are deprived of their livelihood option. This is an outcome of the present system in which Kudumbashree gets into an arrangement with the urban local body for door-to-door collection. Such an agreement invariably tends to be exclusive. The best option is to involve resident welfare association, voluntary organization or NGO to take up the work of door-to-do collection and engage Kudumbshree workers or rag pickers for doorto-door collection on a monthly charge payable to them for four hours part-time work. This amount may be recovered from the beneficiaries in the form of user fees by the RWA/Association/NGO as the case may be. Municipality may prescribe the user fee and authorise the informal sector to provide service and recover the prescribed user fee directly. The user fee may vary between Rs. 10 and Rs. 30 per household per month depending on the cost recovery municipality desires to have. Door-to-door collection alone could be done by charging Rs. 10 to Rs. 15 per month from the households and Rs. 20 to Rs. 30 per month from shops and establishments. A higher charge up to Rs. 30 from households and Rs. 50 to Rs. 60 per month from shops and establishments could be levied to cover even the cost of transportation and disposal. The waste collector could be assigned 150 to 200 households/shops etc. and paid around Rs. 2000 per month for part-time work and remaining money could be collected by the municipality to meet the other cost of services to make the SWM system sustainable. This will protect the interest of rag pickers as well as Kudumbashree workers, give them employment opportunity and make the municipal services sustainable. The rag pickers will have an added advantage of taking away the separately collected recyclables and make an extra income from the sale of the same to the waste dealers simultaneously reducing the quantity of waste to be handled by the municipality.



Sound vision and conducive state policy in place Though CKM was created to give focus on a longterm vision for a waste free, unpolluted, hygienic and clean Kerala, and to evolve a new healthy citizenship believing in zero waste concept, that of reduction, reuse, recycle and recover at least 80% of the waste generated and a society inclined to create wealth from waste, there was no focus on scientific disposal of solid waste. As of today there is no state vision or policy for integrated solid waste management. Awareness and demand are the basic drives behind any improved services and its sustainability. Lack of awareness among decision makers, PRIs, and community regarding integrated solid waste management is a crucial issue today. The public health and environmental impacts of unsafe disposal is not considered seriously. Active and demanding community and a platform for their participation like ward committees are virtually absent. The current SWM is very poor and there is high willingness to pay for improved services. There are multiple state agencies (DUA, CKM, SPCB etc) and their functions are overlapping. The coordination between these agencies is very poor. Their roles and responsibilities like training, communication, monitoring, enforcement etc are not properly shouldered. The capacity of these institutions to provide technical expertise, standards, contracting etc is seemed to be weak. The district planning structure under democratic decentralisation is not effectively utilised for regional integrated solid waste management planning process. The diffused responsibility for solid waste management within ULB results in poor service delivery. The technical and managerial capacity of the ULBs to discharge their SWM obligations is very poor. There is no ring forced budgeting for integrated

Informed community participation and vibrant citizenry

Appropriate institutional arrangements in place to support/ facilitate ULBs in discharging their obligations

ULBs capacitated technically, financially and managerially



SWM and levy of user charges is in a nascent stage. Integrated service delivery ending in safe disposal The storage at source and primary collection are very low. Though there is reasonable coverage regarding transportation the efficiency is poor and cost is high. The coverage of treatment of municipal solid waste little but it is commercially vulnerable. Safe disposal of waste is totally absent in the state of Kerala. The poor SWM status is not because of the absence of proper regulatory frame work. The Kerala Municipalities Act and MSW Rules are sufficient enough but the enforcement mechanism is weak. There is no system of monitoring of performance and no ULBs having the authorisation to enforce MSW Rules. There is no reliable information regarding SWM status either with GoK, ULBs or with the general public. SWM indicators and benchmark are totally absent. A performance rating system is not established and the monitoring responsibility is not allocated to any agency.

Regulatory frame work in place and enforced

Sound system of performance rating and monitoring




Chikungunya hits Kerala; 20,000 ill

CNN-IBN Tuesday , October 03, 2006

Chikungunya hits Kerala's tourism

CNN-IBN, Saturday , October 07, 2006


A DIFFERENT CASUALTY: Tourism, Kerala's economic lifeline, has taken a big hit due to Chikungunya.
Cherthala (Kerala): The mosquito onslaught in Kerala has virtually brought daily life of people in Alappuzha district to a standstill. The tourism industry across the backwater district have been hit the hardest. The Cherthala bus stand - one of the busiest transit points for buses plying across the state has been almost deserted lately. Says District Transport Officer, Cherthala, A Suresh, "Some ten per cent of our employees are affected by Chikungunya. The fever is spreading all over Kerala and we are facing almost 20 per cent of service cancellations due to the fear of the epidemic. And that's not the only casualty. Tourism, the economic lifeline of the state, has taken a big hit too. Houseboats are no longer in demand, with tourists prefering to stay away from the backwaters. With the industry taking a beating, the livelihood of many is on the line. Says a houseboat owner Vignesh, "We are facing so many cancellations due to

Sanitation drive begins in city Special Correspondent 13-102006

Thiruvananthapuram:Mass organisations and institutions launched public campaigns and cleaned up various places across the city, ahead of the State-wide sanitation and vector control programme to be inaugurated by Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan on Friday morning. Prisoners at the Central Jail cleaned up the premises on Thursday morning. Students and teachers of Vidyadhiraja higher secondary school joined hands with residents of Udarasiromani Road to observe sanitation day. At a function organised at Vellayambalam, they lighted candles and took a pledge to keep the city clean. A State-level monitoring committee headed by the Chief Secretary and district-level committees have also been constituted. A public outreach programme has already been held and a door-todoor awareness campaign is on.



Chikungunya. People no longer want to book houseboats, holiday packages or anything near to the water in popular holiday spots.

Will chikungunya spare Kerala's tourism industry?

George Iype in Alappuzha, Kerala
October 11, 2006 hindu

And even though tourism boomed in Kerala in the last few years, attracting international attention, nothing substantial has been done in cleaning up the backwaters, ponds and villages surrounding them. Kerala Tourism -- as the state tourism department is known -- registered a 34 per cent increase in foreign tourist arrivals in the first half of 2006. Domestic and foreign tourist arrivals to the state have grown over the past few years, rising from just over 50 lakh (5 million) in 2000 to nearly 70 lakh (7 million) in 2005. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, Kerala will register the world's highest growth in the field of tourism. As a matter of fact, destinations in Kerala has been virtually 'sold out' till next March. Today, the question that lurks in everybody's mind is: Will chikungunya kill Kerala's tourism industry? Director of Kerala Tourism B Suman admitted that the disease has created anxiety in the market.

Hundreds of houseboats are lined up across

the serene backwaters of Alappuzha these days. And if chikungunya, the deadly viral fever that has hit Kerala is not contained soon, many more such boats used extensively by foreign and domestic tourists for joyride would also be empty. Peak tourism season begins in God's Own Country from the middle of October. After the successful Kerala Tourism Mart last month, the state's waterways, villages and resorts were all set to get peak bookings. But chikungunya, the relatively rare form of viral fever transmitted to humans by infected mosquitoes, could spoil this year's tourism party in Kerala, warn tour and travel industry operators. Says E M Najeeb, chairman, Indian Association of Tour Operators, Kerala Chapter: "Chikungunya has already led to some cancellations. Many domestic tourists and foreigners have postponed their journey. The industry will be badly hit if the disease is not checked immediately." Health experts say small canals, inlets and muddy pools located on the banks of the Vembanad Lake that are carpeted with African weed are mainly responsible for the mosquitoe menace.