Date post: | 16-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Environment |
Upload: | veettal-kurian |
View: | 310 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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
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