1

VISION AND STRATEGY FOR INTEGRATED

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

IN KERALA STATE

Dr. V. Kurian Baby Government of Kerala

December 2006

Sponsored by WSP Prepared by SEUF

EARLY EXPERINCE WITH RGIONAL APPROACHES

2

BACKDROP

OF THE ASSIGNMENT

At the request of GoK through MoUD,

GoI, WSP-SA has commissioned the

assignment for development of Policy

and Institutional Reform Guidelines for

Integrated Solid Waste Management.

CKM (GoK) and WSP entrusted the

assignment to SEUF

3

WASTE GENERATION IN KERALA,

URBAN+RURAL ( ESTIMATE 2001

CENSUS)

Total

Population

2001

Per capita

Waste

Generation

(g)

Tot Waste

Generation

2001

(MT/day)

Total

Waste

Projected

2006

(MT/day)

5 Corporations 2456618 400 983 3407

53 Municipalities 5810307 300 1743

999 Panchayats 23574449 200 4715 5894

Total Waste Generation in Kerala 7441 9301

Kerala has urban rural continuum and waste generated in rural panchayats are also accounted for planning purposes

4

% of Waste Un-Collected to Total Generation:

Own estimation of Municipalities : 46 %

As per standard norms of 300gm / per capita / day : 65%

In terms of quantity / per day of Uncollected Waste:

Own estimation of Municipalities :1840 tons

As per standard norms of 300gm / per capita / day : 65% : 2215 tons

This is the waste left Unattended !

Per day.

In Your & OUR

NEIGHBOURHOODS

To decay – rot and invade into

our Water, Sanitation and Health

System.

NIMBY ????!!

738 truck loads per day not collected

5

• 671600 to 808475 MT of waste not

collected annually

• In panchayats the situation is stil

worse

DEFICIENCY IN COLLECTION

UNCOLLECTED WASTE - A DIRECT BURDEN ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL UPKEEP

6

PRINCIPAL DEFICIENCIES

IN SWM SERVICES

POOR STORAGE OF WASTE AT SOURCE

7

POOR PRIMARY COLLECTION OF WASTE FROM THE SOURCE OF GENERATION

8

INEFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION

OF WASTE

9

POOR TREATMENT AND UNSCIENTIFIC

DISPOSAL OF WASTE

A few cities have setup windrow and vermi- compost

plants which are functioning with low efficiency

10

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE

OF MSW RULES (ESTIMATED)

Compliance Below National Average

11

COMPOSITION OF SWM

OPERATING EXPENSES Establishment,

84

Vehicle, 9

Uniforms, 2 Contractor, 4Others, 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90P

ercen

t

Total

Salaries of sanitation workers is very high with low productivity.

Hardly any amount is spent on treatment and disposal

12

PROHIBITIVE COST OF

TRANSPORTATION IN ABSENCE OF ELFs

• Rs 1600 per ton is being paid in Calicut for transportation of waste to a neighboring State in the absence of ELF

• This cost is 800% more than the normal cost of transportation

• An ELF within the State will cost Rs.200/ton for construction and Rs.200/ton for operation and maintenance as opposed to spending Rs.1600 per ton just for transportation to other States

13

Willing

Unwilling

Rs. 10 - 40

Rs. 41 - 80

Rs. 81 - 120

Rs. 121 - 160

Rs. 161 - 200

Not Sure

Un willing – 33%

Willing – 67%

Willingness to Pay - Overall

Amount wise break up of those willing

14

STATUS OF MSWM – IN NUTSHELL

• Lack of reliable data

• Huge backlog in collection

• Overall compliance below national average

• Expenditure on SWM much higher than national average

• SWM services poor and systems inefficient

• Willingness to pay is high for improved service

NO SAFE DISPOSAL AT ALL

15

MUNICIPAL MINDSET

WASTE REMOVED IS

WASTE DISPOSED

LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT SAFE DISPOSAL

16

Current Situation

Overflowing dumpsites

Dysfunctional treatment facilities

Uncontrolled health and environmental hazards

17

ADVERSE IMPACTS

• Surface and ground water contamination

• Air quality deterioration

• Green house gas emission

• Breeding of disease vectors, flies, pathogens, rats, rodents

Studies have revealed

that 90% of the open wells

are contaminated and 70%

of the population depends

on open wells for drinking

water in the State.

High rate of morbidity

18

ATTRIBUTES OF A WELL FUNCTIONING

MSWM SYSTEM

• Sound vision and conducive State policy in place

• Informed community participation and vibrant citizenry (Ward committees) demanding quality service

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

• ULBs capacitated technically, financially and managerially

• Integrated service delivery ending in safe disposal

• Regulatory frame work in place and enforced

• Sound system of performance rating and monitoring

19

TECHNICAL ATTRIBUTES

• Waste minimisation

• Efficient collection, Transportation

• Decentralised processing

• Engineered Land Fill

Leading to improved health

and environmental out come

20

DECENTRALISED PROCESSING

• Home composting –Vermi/aerobic system

• Bin (Ferro cement )composting

• Vermi-Composting Community level

• Bio-gas plants at Market/slaughter house

• Mechanical Aerobic Windrow composting

21

7 STEPS IN MSWM

• Segregation and storage of waste at source

• Primary collection from the doorstep

• Daily street sweeping

• Abolish open secondary storage bins, provide

covered containers

• Transportation in covered vehicles

• Processing through composting/waste to energy

• Disposal of rejects/ inerts at the engineered LF

THE FIRST 6 STEPS ARE REACHABLE, THE 7th STEP

NEEDS CONSERTED EFFORTS AND GOVT. SUPPORT

22

UNIQUE FEATURES/CHALLENGES

IN KERALA

• High density of population

• Rural urban continuum

• Scarcity of large parcels of suitable waste land

• Heavy monsoon and spread intense over six months in an year

• High water table in the coastal zones

• Thrust on tourism development

23

Source x Pathway x Receptors High standard -High level of -High density of population

of living => groundwater -Proximity of popn, agr’l

higher waste -Heavy rainfall lands to dumpsites

per capita & runoffs -Heavy dependence on

-Tropical climate open wells

=> rapid growth

of bacteria, flies

High impact

of poor SWM

KERALA FACTORS ENHANCING ADVERSE

IMPACTS

24

VISION AND STRATEGY FOR

KERALA

25

THE VISION

“Become a Model State in

achieving high standards of

environment and public health

through sustainable scientific

solid waste management within

a period of five years”

26

KEY ELEMENTS OF PROPOSED STRATEGY

Declare State Policy to achieve the Vision

through a strategy comprising, waste

minimization, decentralized processing

and inert/non degradable waste for

regional engineered landfills for rural

and urban Kerala

27

GOK

Vision & Policy Setting

Financial Support

Facilitation

Monitoring

ULB

Planning

Service delivery

Internal

Monitoring

Enforcement

CKM

Communication

Capacity Building

Manuals, Technical

Support, Facilitation

Monitoring & Evaluation

Pollution Control Board

Monitoring

Regulation

Enforcement

Panel Of Experts

Technical & Managerial

Support

Informal Sector

Collection of recyclables

Recycling

Community

(RWAs & Non domestic Users)

Collective Action for improved performance

Demanding better services

Adherence to Civic Responsibilities

NGO/CBO / Private Sector

Awareness Creation

Community Participation

Partnership in Operation

Secretary, Urban responsible for implementation in Corporations and District Collectors for other ULBS

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

GOK

Vision & Policy Setting

Financial Support

Facilitation

Monitoring

ULB

Planning

Service delivery

Internal

Monitoring

Enforcement

CKM

Communication

Capacity Building

Manuals, Technical

Support, Facilitation

Monitoring & Evaluation

Pollution Control Board

Monitoring

Regulation

Enforcement

Panel Of Experts

Technical & Managerial

Support

Informal Sector

Collection of recyclables

Recycling

Community

(RWAs & Non domestic Users)

Collective Action for improved performance

Demanding better services

Adherence to Civic Responsibilities

NGO/CBO / Private Sector

Awareness Creation

Community Participation

Partnership in Operation

Secretary, Urban responsible for implementation in Corporations and District Collectors for other ULBS

GOK

Vision & Policy Setting

Financial Support

Facilitation

Monitoring

ULB

Planning

Service delivery

Internal

Monitoring

Enforcement

CKM

Communication

Capacity Building

Manuals, Technical

Support, Facilitation

Monitoring & Evaluation

Pollution Control Board

Monitoring

Regulation

Enforcement

Panel Of Experts

Technical & Managerial

Support

Informal Sector

Collection of recyclables

Recycling

Community

(RWAs & Non domestic Users)

Collective Action for improved performance

Demanding better services

Adherence to Civic Responsibilities

NGO/CBO / Private Sector

Awareness Creation

Community Participation

Partnership in Operation

Secretary, Urban responsible for implementation in Corporations and District Collectors for other ULBS

28

KEY ELEMENTS

OF STRATEGY..

There is a need to educate all stakeholders on

the need for ISWM including safe disposal and

perform their respective roles

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

•Focused interaction with key opinion makers

•Awareness campaigns

•Regular publication of performance status report

•Introducing reward schemes for best performance

•Propagating enforcement mechanism

29

CAPACITY BUILDING OF

ULBS THROUGH…

• Training at all levels through a well

designed training plan

• Induction of professionals

• Technical assistance

• Manuals and guidelines

• Handholding by CLEAN KERALA MISSION

• Public Private Partnership

• Enforcement

KEY ELEMENTS

OF STRATEGY..

30

KEY ELEMENTS

OF STRATEGY..

Improving accounting system

Double entry accounting system

Budgeting and accounting separately for SWM

Improving own revenues

Tax recoveries and charges

Introducing user fees

IMPROVING MUNICIPAL

FINANCES

31

RECONSTITUTED CKM AS THE NODAL

AGENCY FOR IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY

• Prepare communication strategy and

oversee its implementation

• Prepare capacity building and training

plans and over see their implementation

• Set technical standards and specifications

• Strengthen MIS, evaluate performance

and link to incentives/ awards

32

ADOPT THE CONCEPT OF

REGIONAL LAND FILLS

• Low cost due to economy of scale and sharing of costs by partner cities

• High efficiency on account of professional inputs

33

ADVANTAGES OF REGIONAL LAND FILL

We require Less Land

Individual LF Regional LF

2316 Ha 957 Ha

Land Cost will be low 0.40 Cr / Ha 0.18 Cr / Ha

Savings on Land Cost

Operational Cost / Ton Rs. 555 Rs. 388

Savings / Annum on Operational Cost

754 Cr

13 Cr

34

STRATEGY FOR KERALA STATE

• Group the LSGs in to six regions

• Have one regional facility for each

region covering all cities towns and

panchayats

• Reduce NIMBY syndrome from 1057

local bodies to just 6

35

STRATEGY FOR KERALA STATE..2

• Reduce the requirement of land and

operational cost drastically

• Suitably compensate the host local

body

36

37

REGIONAL LF

38

Choice

of

Locatio

n

Type

of

Land

Farthest

distance

from city

area (Km)

Distance

From

Corporation

Area (Km)

Area of

Land

in

Ha

Thickness

of soil

Distance

from

Nearest

Water

body)

Distance

from

settlement

1 Plantation 50

(Kalpatta) 14 434.64

Very

Deep 6.88 8.2

2 Waste

Land

42

(Kalpatta)

30 151.49

Very

Deep 6 7.4

3 Waste

Land

70

(Vadakara) 25 91.14

Moderately

Shallow 2.4 1.6

KOZHIKKODE AND WAYANAD

39

ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (Compliance-

KERALA)

Total Capital Cost Rs. Crores

Street Sweeping 16.04

Secondary Storage 23.24

Transportation 71.15

Processing 148.03

Disposal 128.15

Land 173.00

Total 559.61

40

OPERATING OPTIONS

Activity Financing & Cost Reduction Options

Door to Door

Collection Outsource / User Fees

Street Sweeping

Manpower Rationalization /

Municipal Revenue

Secondary Storage Municipal Revenue

Transportation

Municipal Revenue / Improved

Efficiency / Out Sourcing / Use

of vehicle in two Shifts.

Processing O & M Contracting / No Outflows

Disposal

Pay Tipping Fees from Municipal

Revenue

41