The first step in solving any problem is recognising that there is a problem. A problem needs to be acknowledged and understood before finding solutions for the same. Waste is a huge challenge that is hanging over our head like the Sword of Damocles. Since we can see waste littered all around us everywhere, there is hardly a need to substantiate the problem with any data to make it more credible. Himachal Pradesh is no exception to this menace. Whichever part of the state you might go to, higher up in the mountains or near rivers, inside a pristine forest or at a high-altitude mountain pass, garbage can be seen dumped everywhere.
As per the information available in public domain there has never been a waste audit in the state. There is no credible information regarding per annum waste generation or its composition in the state.
It should however be noted that the Urban Local bodies (ULBs) do provide data regarding waste generation in their respective areas to the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB). It is not clear whether ULBs have a standard operating procedure that they follow to arrive at the quantum of waste or they weigh the waste coming into the Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) every day, if they have one, to arrive at a data point. In Himachal Pradesh since more than 80 per cent people live in rural areas, the waste generated in the jurisdiction of the PRIs should be a significant portion of the total waste generated in the state. There is no data available regarding this on the websites of the Department of Rural Development or Panchayati Raj or State Pollution Control Board in the state.
Resolution of environmental problems relies on engagement of all the stakeholders, most importantly people. This is true especially of waste management where each one of us is a part of the problem as waste is generated by each one of us. In Himachal Pradesh there are 68 ULBs and approximately 3,708 Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). There are 50 MRFs working for ULBs as per official data and no data is available for PRIs that could be accessed in this online research. The state has all the policies and strategies as mandated by the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Guidelines. What is not present is the infrastructure on the ground to implement these and there doesn’t seem to be any discussion around that. The courts also seem to be interested only on outcomes and not on the availability or adequacy of infrastructure or resources for waste management. SWM Rules fixed a time frame for creating necessary infrastructure for implementation of various activities envisaged under these Rules, but nothing has happened in most places. The report regarding implementation of SWM and PWM claims high degree of success at collection and segregation of waste all across the state ULBs. If that was true, all the towns where these ULBs work should have been cleaner places than they currently are.
As of today, collection is not universal even in urban areas, a lot of waste escapes the system. Waste is not segregated at source. Most MRFs, wherever they exist, are not adequately equipped to deal with the waste coming in and most of the waste coming in is mixed. The rag pickers are either allowed or employed by ULBs to sort out the recyclable material from the mixed waste at MRFs. This material is sold by the rag pickers to the waste aggregators who in turn sell the same to all kinds of recyclers including the dubious ones. The rag pickers also sort out materials that can be sold from scattered litter but there is no ownership for the rest of the waste lying around. There is no EPR working in the state and its waste processing capability is not geared up to meet the challenge.
We need to face this reality, own it and put our energies and money towards turning this state of affairs around. The SWM/PWM Rules created a system for its review so that feedback from the ground regarding its implementation could be incorporated into the Rules from time to time. This feedback system does not seem to have brought to light the abysmal development of waste management infrastructure in the state, and if it has then the question arises that what is the state doing to ramp up the required infrastructure.
It is possible to make the system work bit by bit if we start systematically and scientifically at the grassroot level in every village, in every hamlet, in every Gram Panchayat. We need to collect waste from every house, every shop, every hotel, every restaurant and every establishment that generates waste in every village, town and city. Each one of us will have to take responsibility and make sure our waste reaches where our local body wants us to deposit it.
We need to ask some basic questions and find answers to them;
· Is every resident/citizen collecting and segregating the waste he/ she generates? What do they do with it?
· Does every village have a waste collection service? Are all waste generators connected with the service? If not, why and how can they avail of the service
· What is the process for selecting a waste service provider?
· Who provides them with waste collection vehicles? Is there any provision to provide PRIs and ULBs with waste collection vehicles?
· Is everyone willing to pay the collection fee? If not, what is the way out? Can we have collection points where segregated waste can be deposited by these people? Can we incentivise or penalise people to fall in line?
· Where do we take this waste? Do we have MRFs?
· What is the status of MRFs? Are they adequately equipped to manage the quantum and type of waste coming in?
· What composting techniques can be used for the wet waste?
This list of questions is not exhaustive but just an illustrative list that every PRI and ULB needs answers for. The point being made is that we need to collect all waste and separate it into different categories or streams. For this to happen, we need to mobilise the people of the state. We need to motivate them, educate them, incentivise them and if need be, penalise them for not complying.
ULBs and PRIs have to collect, segregate and store the waste before it can be sent for processing. They have the power to establish a system to recognise organisations of waste pickers or informal waste collectors. They can also promote and establish a system for integration of these authorised waste-pickers and waste collectors to facilitate their participation in solid waste management, including door to door collection of waste.
Waste from everywhere need to come to an MRF. The state has to work on a war footing to ensure that each ULB and PRI is assigned a specific MRF which is capable of handing the waste coming in, both in terms of expertise and manpower. To begin with, MRFs need to be constructed on a war footing may be for clusters of Gram Panchayats where possible. Compacters, shredders and other equipment also need to be provided to run a successful MRF in a scientific manner, as per the standards laid down by CPCB or similar organisations, in order to reduce the volume of the waste so that transportation can be easier.
In order to make the system run in a transparent and an accountable manner each PRI and ULB should be asked to upload their compliance of depositing the waste from their jurisdiction to the assigned MRF on daily real time basis. MRFs can periodically upload details of the waste collected at the facility. This can be done either leveraging existing portals or on a dedicated waste management portal (WMP). Waste generators outside of ULBs and PRIs jurisdiction i.e. religious places, tourist places, hotels, resorts etc. could also be mandated to do the same. This way we will have a fair idea of both the quantum and the quality of waste being generated in the state.
Now comes the more challenging part. There would be different kinds of waste needing different treatment. Wet waste needs to be composted using the most appropriate technology for given climatic conditions. This has to be finetuned at PRI level keeping in mind the climatic conditions and quantum and quality of wet waste. The waste that needs incineration i.e. sanitary waste for disposal, either has to be done locally or in a centralised facility. Incineration has to be done using the best available technology to prevent dioxins and other harmful gases getting released into the environment. The waste that is recyclable needs to go to the registered recyclers who use the most appropriate technology for processing and recycling the said waste. How does one ensure that? The WMP should have all the recyclers listed on the website so that MRFs can send their recyclable waste to them. The EPR waste from here needs to be picked up by the producers Importers and Brand owners (PIBOs) to their processing facilities. In India we have EPR laws for plastic waste (2016), e-waste in (for computers, mobile phones, TVs, and refrigerators, battery waste (lead-acid batteries, including those used in vehicles and inverters except batteries used in security instruments, military, and space equipment), tyre waste and waste oil. Landfills should get only inert waste that has no other use. Secretary Urban development and rural development has the responsibility or rather the legal obligation along with the collectors of the districts for identification of common/regional landfills.The SWM Rules state that landfills should not be made in the hill areas. There should be waste transfer stations and suitable land should be identified in the plain areas down the hill within 25 kilometres for setting up sanitary landfill.
As per the PWM Rule 2016 the modalities for waste collection system based on EPR were supposed to be worked out within six months of these Rules coming into force. State Urban Development Departments, either individually or collectively, through producers own distribution channel or through the local body concerned, were to have this system in place. Even nine years later we do not have much on the ground.
There is a centralised portal of EPR for plastic waste maintained by the CPCB. PIBOs operating in more than three states are registered at CPCB portal. However, there is no way to figure out from the data available on the portal as to how much of plastic is being introduced by these PIBOs in each state. One can also access state wise EPR targets on the portal but the state wise summary only enumerates PIBOs that are operational in up to three states. The EPR targets when they came into being were geographically neutral meaning thereby that PIBOs were at liberty to meet the target from any territory without having to collect waste in each state. From FY 2023-24 PIBOs have a liability to collect all the plastic that they introduce in the market. This understanding is based upon the assumption that 100 per cent targets for EPR take in to account all the plastic that PIBOs introduce in the market. From FY 2023-24 geographic neutrality of EPR targets cannot be used to hide behind by PIBOs for not collecting the waste from hard to go places or unlucrative markets like Himachal Pradesh as the EPR obligation for PIBOs is 100 per cent from this financial year onwards.
EPR as a concept is a proven strategy all across the world to deal with end- of-life disposal of many types of waste but it has not worked in India due to lack of unambiguous, robust mandate and accountability in the system.
EPR has been successfully operational in South Korea and Japan since 2003. In Japan, there is law for the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling Containers and Packaging. This law establishes a system in which waste plastic containers and packaging, glass and paper containers discarded from homes are collected through sorted collection by municipalities and retailers, which are then handed over to the Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association. The association then consigns reproduction companies to recycle them into new products.
In South Korea in 1982, over 96 per cent of municipal solid waste was disposed of in landfill and the recycling rate was almost zero. Thanks to a combination of a consistent, long-term policy and adept implementation, the proportion of household waste going to landfill reduced to 13.5 per cent by 2017. Recycling, incineration, and other treatment options of municipal solid waste and industrial waste also became much more common over this period. The deposit refund system that existed before 2003 was discontinued in 2003 and replaced by the EPR system. In South Korea, producers and importers are required to pay an Advance Disposal Fee for products that are hard to recycle.
We also need to have system of upfront payment of EPR fees based upon the amount of plastics and packaging PIBOs put in the market, which can easily be calculated on the basis of their production capacity and supply sent all across the country. The payment of these fees should be graded, as in more for packaging products which are not recyclable or reusable and less for recyclable or reusable packaging products, so as to incentivise designing of recyclable and reusable packaging. EPR intends to contribute to a more ecologically sound and cleaner future by motivating manufacturers to adopt eco-friendly practices and assume responsibility for the environmental impact of their products. This however holds true only if the operationalisation of EPR is effective and universal.
Annual EPR Obligation fees should be calculated based upon the material being put in the market. These fees should be able to cover the recycling cost of these materials. The question of how this fee should be shared between different stakeholders is of critical importance and it should be borne by producers, retailers and end users. A person buying a certain product which needs collection, treatment, processing and recycling at the end of its life, should be charged that fee upfront by including it in the cost of the product.
Like in Japan, we need a system of EPR wherein responsibility is shared between all stakeholders in the entire value chain including the national government, municipalities, businesses, and consumers in achieving the sustainable consumption of resources.
The starting point or the backbone of waste management system is segregation at source. We need active participation, cooperation and support of the people without which the system of waste management cannot function efficiently.
We need to focus on creating appropriate infrastructure for waste management.
EPR needs to be operationalised by making a change in the law. Upfront payment of EPR fees should be made a norm and PIBOs responsible for EPR should be made to set up infrastructure to deal with the waste they are responsible for generating and processing.
Archana Vaidya is a Natural Resource Management & Environment Law Consultant
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth