In My Backyard!: An Alternate Model of Solid Waste Management

1. In My Backyard!: An Alternate Model of Solid Waste Management Angelique Chettiparamb Mary Chakkalakkal Rajan Chedambath

2. The Presentation • Context of Cochin • The Case: SWM in Pachalam • Wider Debates in SWM • The Contribution of the Case

3. Cochin: Extent of CoC: 94.88 sq kms (CDP, 2006) Population: 596,473 (2001census) Warm humid climate Ecologically sensitive Commercial capital of the state High land value Little vacant land High densities Cochin

4. SWM in Cochin • SWM has ‘hit a blind alley’ (The Hindu, 12th September, 2007) • Late July, 2007 – Waste everywhere. • Unbearable stench • Closure of schools and government offices • Court intervention – under blanket permission District Collector had to intervene. • Impacts on drainage, water logging, environmental pollution and mosquitoes and poverty • 33% of total revenue spent on SWM, average O&M costs are more than most Indian cities (Rs 1787/ton).

5. SWM in Cochin • Storage of waste – Limited (35% of domestic sources, 50% of hotels and 20% of non-domestic sources) • Community Bins - 40-45% deposited in community bins and designated collection points (Metallic/concrete rings – overflowing, cattle, rats) • Source segregation – One division consisting of 3,158 upper middle class households • Sweeping – Around 750 kms of the 1030kms not cared for at all. • Primary Transportation – • Waste scooped onto the ground and then filled in baskets (Multiple handling) • Baskets are thrown and caught by workers standing inside trucks (spread of contaminated dust particles)

6. SWM at present • Transportation efficiency - very low - 2 truck trips/day transports 50% of waste generated, irregular operation, none on Sundays and holidays, few mechanical trucks • Transfer station – Unorganised, informal segregation to retrieve recyclables – manual and multiple handling • Landfill – Temporary landfill site at present. Very difficult to find land – Cost and NIMBY’s syndrome. • CoC has acquired a site 15.4 ha, 20kms away from the city. • Plans to establish a 200 tons/day windrow composting unit and a 50 tons/day vermi-composting unit • Current waste generation is 400tons/day

7. SWM: Pachalam • Pachalam Division: Area: 0.83 sq kms, population: 7869, BPL families: 360 • Project (2005) • Initiation by Division Councillor • Learning exercise • Approached Rajagiri college for assistance • Household survey for identification of interested families • Public meeting with interested families to discuss project options – composting/disposal in garden/biogas generation • Residents more comfortable with biogas generation • Less space • Potential for gas and slurry (fertiliser)

8. SWM-Pachalam • Mobilisation using existing Resident Associations and students (23 street level programmes,15 ADS meetings, 3 meetings in schools, meetings with party members, trade unions,3 co-ordination committee meetings) • 6 Resident Associations increased to 16. • institutional forums for collective decision making, information sharing and direct citizen participation and engagement • maintenance of close vigil

9. Pilot scheme 100 families registered Initially - Part subsidy from College and part BC. Efforts to contact other NGOs. Identified Bio-Oasis SWM in Pachalam

10. SWM in Pachalam Funding/plant –Rs 4850 • CoC subsidy -Rs 1000 • MLA –Rs 1000 • BC – Rs 1500 • Bio-Oasis – Rs 1350 • Plant supply + Installation + after sales • Tank capacity 200 litres • 5 member family – 1-2 hrs of gas in the morning and 0.5 -1 hr in the evening

11. SWM in Pachalam • 2500 households • 500 could dispose waste in their backyard • 1000 willing to install biogas • For the remaining ~1000 families – collection system • Attached to communal biogas units - markets, wedding halls and Corporation land • First one at the market - tank capacity 40 m3, feeding capacity 800kg/day, construction cost of Rs 900,000

12. SWM in Pachalam • A group of 5 men • Waste segregation at source • Collected from buckets kept outside • Rs 30/household and Rs 70/flat • Typically each worker earns Rs 140/day after expenses (7.30am to 3.30pm)

13. SWM in Pachalam • Recycling • Collected clean from households by ragpickers • Households are paid for this waste • Non-recyclables are also collected, with no payment • Residual recyclables retrieved by collection group Rs 50 - Rs 70/day • Slurry • Most household use it in their gardens • Some drain it into the Corporation drainage system • Schemes to encourage and promote kitchen/medicinal gardens through awards schemes • Forest department to be contacted for street planting

14. SWM in Pachalam • Done away with waste lying around • Bin–free ward – Earlier 26 collection points, now just 2 unauthorized points • Generally satisfied citizens – impact on • Drainage • Mosquitoes • Poor families • Cottage industries • General environmental quality • Forwarding looking attitude

15. SWM in Pachalam • Success Factors • Motive : Criticality of the problem • Ideology : Possibility of Zero-waste practices reported from elsewhere and promoted by State Govt and NGOs • Knowledge and Assistance: Availability of locally knowledgeable NGOs • Agency: Division Councillor • Specific form: Evolved through collective planning and decision-making though informed evaluation

16. Waste hierarchy In developing countries Reduce, re-use and recycle generally takes place Recovery and disposing dimensions not very well developed Incineration - non-starter due to composition of waste Composting and biogas emerging as viable solutions Models in SWM

17. Debates in SWM • Technical solutions – Aimed at centralised effective system • How to find resources? • Privatisation • Efficiency argument. However marginalisation and lack of interest in negative externalities • Privatisation involving private sector NGOs and CBOs. • Model of subsidiarity soon evolved (appropriateness and efficiency) • Households- reuse, segregation, recycling (preparation of waste for the system) • CBOs and NGOs in a coordinating/mobilising role (facilitation of this preparation) • Local Governments in an enabler/facilitator role (frameworks)

18. Debates in SWM • Segregation at household level, • Primary collection and limited amount of recovery through composting at neighbourhood level, • Secondary collection and disposal at city level • Model that is linear through scale

19. Problems with Linear model • User Engagement: Difficulties in sustaining citizen engagement • Space Limitations: In urban contexts • Loss of energy recovery opportunities:In landfill sites • Environmental Problems: India - landfill sites (50-60%methane) are the third largest contributor to global warming • Lack of Economies of Scale: There are no economies of scale in SWM.

20. The Alternate Model

21. Advantages of the Alternate Model • Inherently more stable: Failure is localised • Resource friendly as all stages in the waste hierarchy is exercised in all scales resulting in an almost complete resource recovery • Easily manageable as at each level, (both local and city level) there is less pollution entering the system • Financially viable as at Division level, the system operates through user charges that are publicly accepted • People sensitive as the processes are democratically mediated • Operationally sustainable as the benefits of the system reaches the generator • Environmentally sustainable as waste is treated almost simultaneously with its generation/or entry into the particular scale.

22. Thank you ChettiparambA@cf.ac.uk Chakkalakkalmary@gmail.com Chedambath@rediffmail.com