Messy local governance and garbage collection

We need to empower and resource those we depend on to clear our cities

It is not just lack of enforcement that ails Public policy in India. Policy making is often flawed and the resultant policy is many times not in sync with the realities of India. The garbage problem in Delhi specifically and India in general is one such example.

The Supreme Court recently set up a committee to find ‘implementable’ solutions to the uncontrollable waste problem of Delhi and indeed of the whole country. This was necessitated by the non-implementation of the lofty Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules. The first SWM rules were notified in 2000 and again in 2016 with modifications. The latter extended the scope to include the responsibility of segregation on the consumers and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and Market Associations (MAs) at the lowest tier and required local bodies to provide the logistical chain to evacuate the garbage.

The implementation of the 2016 rules has been close to zero across the country and this is public knowledge.  A look at this para from the much touted SWM 2016 rules Para (4, 6, 7, and 8) indicate the cause of the problem.  

“All resident welfare and market associations shall, … in partnership with the local body ensure segregation of waste at source by the generators as prescribed in these rules, facilitate collection of segregated waste in separate streams, handover recyclable material to either the authorised waste pickers or the authorised recyclers. The bio-degradable waste shall be processed, treated and disposed off through composting or bio-methanation within the premises as far as possible. The residual waste shall be given to the waste collectors or agency as directed by the local body”.

As per the Municipal Act, waste belongs to the MCD after it leaves a person’s house; the land belongs to the DDA, the MCD, or other Government agencies. The Resident Welfare Associations (RWA) are registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, and have no ownership of common areas and parks and have no power or provision to coerce the resident into following any law. In other words, the entity made responsible (RWA or MA) does not have any control over the garbage (assigned by law to the MCD) or the land (owned by the government), neither do they have any coercive power (being simply registered societies). All of this is common knowledge, and the framers of SWM 2016 would have been well aware of this obvious fact. In other words, the rules were framed to fail.

The city manager tends to support strategies such as capping of dumps and acquisition of more land for ‘engineered landfills’ rather than recycling and suchlike. These are much easier to implement in a top down manner and do not require dealing with the multitude of stakeholders. Objectives such as segregation are beyond their consideration set and it is best to shift the ‘responsibility’ on RWAs who can later be blamed for non-performance.

Quality garbage management requires great resources to implement be it on a large or small scale. Take bio-methanation for instance, apart from the day to day maintenance, the concomitant fire-hazards require constant real time monitoring with frequent corrective actions. Choice of land for smelly composting is also not a linear process and requires much engagement with residents and local political representatives. There is also the reality of a well-organised waste mafia which holds significant local political power.  Imposing fines on residents for non-segregation requires a team of well empowered local inspectors and punishing RWAs for non-compliance will also require a different kind of RWAs than are currently operating. In other words, such rules are impossible to implement unless the local governance institutions are overhauled.

What is the solution? The answer depends on the model India decides to take up. If a decentralised garbage management solution is the preferred route, a sequence of steps will need to be taken. It requires us to empower the RWAs and provide them with coercive powers, adequately resource them either through collection of taxes or user charges by either the RWA, local or state government. Constant monitoring by the NGOs or city managers and incentivising the RWAs in rather than the hollow moral-suasion or virtue signalling is required.

A centralised mechanism on the other hand would require far greater allocation of resources to local governments, and the monitoring function can then be done by entities such as the RWAs or NGOs. However, in this case as well, city managers will need to be made answerable either up the government hierarchy or down to the citizens.  

Whether it is a centralised or decentralised model, we need to synchronise the roles and responsibilities, and suitably empower and resource those we depend on to clear our cities. That would be good policy formulation.

Bhandari is director, Indicus Foundation and Dikshit is CEO, URJA.  

Views are personal