The views expressed in this paper/presentation are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the

views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors, or the governments they 1
represent. ADB does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any statement,
information, data, finding, interpretation, advice, opinion, or view presented, nor does it make any representation
concerning the same.

Asian Development Bank conference on “Environments

of the Poor” – New Delhi (24-26 November 2010)
Working Paper:
Case for Environmentally Sustainable and Pro-poor
Solid Waste Management in Indian Cities
M.G.Devasahayam
Structure of the Report

A: Introduction, Issues and Imperatives

B: MSWM – Technologies and Methodologies
C: Integrated & Sustainable SWM (ISWM)
D: Zero Waste Management (ZWM) – ISWM in Practice
E: Informal Sector as core of ZWM
F: An environmentally sustainable and pro-poor SWM system–The Chennai Blueprint
G: Institutions, Action plan and Proactive Policies
H: Conclusion

A: Introduction, Issues and Imperatives

1.0 Introduction

Heaps of municipal solid waste (MSW) is among the most obvious impacts of rapidly
increasing urbanization and economic development. Based on estimates, waste
generation in Asia has reached 1 million tons per day. Despite the huge expenditures,
urban areas in most developing countries are still grappling with the challenge of
preventing environmental degradation due to nonsystematic municipal solid-waste
management (MSWM). Apart from the contamination of water resources and severe air
pollution due to the open burning of solid waste, the health hazard it causes, especially
to the poor, is matter of great concern.

Proper management of MSW is critical to the health, well-being and quality of life of
urban residents. In most Asian cities, including India’s, tons of garbage is left uncollected
on the streets, acting as a feeding ground for pests that spread disease, clogging drains
and creating myriad of environmental, health and infrastructural problems. The urban
poor – mostly residing in informal settlements with little or no access to MSW collection
and often in areas that are contiguous with open dumps - are particularly vulnerable.

The root cause for such a chaotic state of affairs is the absence of a clear philosophy
and policy for MSWM. In the event, MSWM efforts often focus on expensive 'end-of-pipe'
technology-centric and non-inclusive methodologies ignoring people-centric and far
more accessible and cost-effective opportunities involving waste reduction programs and
reuse/recycling strategies. Environment and the poor are the resultant casualities.

1.1 What is municipal solid waste?

 2

Definitions of MSW vary between countries, so it is important to establish at the outset

just what is being discussed in this paper. A working definition is: “wastes generated by
households, and wastes of a similar nature generated by hotels, commercial and
industrial premises, construction sites, by institutions such as schools, hospitals, care
homes and prisons, and from public spaces such as streets, markets, slaughter houses,
public toilets, bus stops, parks, and gardens.” Some establishments are likely to produce
both municipal and non-municipal wastes.

1.2 Solid waste in urban India

Urban solid waste generated in India has increased from 6 million tones per year in 1947
to 48 million tones per year in 1997, and currently stands at almost 70 million tones
annually. This volume is likely to double by 2015, and double again by 2025.

India’s MSW management is in a mess. Besides clogging city/town streets and drains,
over thirty million tonnes annually end up on the outskirts of major urban centres, open-
dumped in the territory of surrounding villages or smaller towns, where the waste is burnt
or produces methane as it rots and stinks. Unburnt, it breeds flies, mosquitoes, rodents
and, worst of all, stray dogs that feed and breed on waste. Windblown plastic carry-bags
litter the surroundings, making fields unproductive, as rainwater percolation and seed
germination are affected. Cows feeding on garbage disposed of in plastic bags
sometimes get ill and even die from an accumulation of plastic film in their gut.

It was not always so. City garbage was formerly a valued organic input, collected by
farmers bringing produce to town for composting in their fields. But from the sixties
onwards, escalating subsidies for urea and chemical fertilizers killed the agro-waste
composting practiced since millennia, and increasing quantities of plastic films in city
waste since the 80s made it an unattractive farm input. The cycle of sustainable nutrient
reuse was broken, and now needs to be restored.

1.3 Nature of Indian MSW

Given the historic practice of farmers carrying good organic urban waste back to their
fields until the fifties, the British did not earmark any areas for solid waste processing
and disposal, although they created large fodder farms for sewage treatment and land
application in their larger Cantonments.

What were left at that time for municipalities to manage were mainly inerts (road dust
and diggings, drain silt, debris) and unwanted non-recyclables, and this history continues
to haunt the waste management scene. Collected along with garbage, Indian MSW
average 40% by weight of inerts, which complicates good waste-processing even more
than the lack of “wet-dry” separation at source to date, where food wastes are stored
and collected separately from other domestic and trade wastes as in the West.

India always had, and still has, a vigorous and thriving recycling industry that wasted
almost nothing. Newspapers, bottles and tins, and now all rigid plastics and heavy-
gauge plastic milk- pouches, are purchased at the door by itinerant waste buyers. In the
early days of the plastic era, even thin-film plastic carry-bags were collected off streets
and dumpsites by waste-pickers for recycling. It has become increasingly uneconomical
for waste-pickers to collect these now, as plastic supply exceeds demand with
snowballing production of virgin plastic granules, increased prosperity and packaging,
and the growth of all cities.
 3

Characteristic and composition of MSW varies from city to city and depend on several
factors such as social customs, standard of living, consumption pattern, geographical
location, climate etc. An understanding of this is needed to analyse its suitability for
adopting an environmentally sustainable and pro-poor SWM.

Physical Composition of MSW (Based on survey of 23 cities, 1995) - TERI

MSW has a high composition of organic

matter, has high moisture content (47%),
high C/N ratio (29.25%) and low calorific
value (620-1000 KCal/Kg). High moisture 26%
content increases weight of solid waste
and thus increases cost of its 51% Compostable
transportation. C/N value is important 23%
Recyclable
factor for determining sustainability of
composting. Calorific value being on
Inert
lower side, MSW in India does not suit
incineration / energy generation
technologies.

2.0 MSWM – The Issues

2.1 Facilitating a Green Economy

‘Green Economy’ is defined as ‘a system of economic activities related to the production,
distribution and consumption of goods and services that result in improved human well-
being over the long term while not exposing future generations to significant
environmental risks and ecological scarcities’. With the ongoing rapid urbanization, cities
and towns would be the deciding entities as to whether the world will have a ‘green
economy’ and whether it will sustain. Management of MSW will play a critical role in this.

2.2 Abating Climate Change

The waste sector is an important source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to
recent national estimates this sector produces on average 2.5 per cent of national
greenhouse gas emissions (UNFCCC, 2005). Solid waste disposal and wastewater are
significant sources of methane (CH4). They are estimated to contribute about one fifth of
global anthropogenic methane emissions (IEA, 2005).
 4

Landfills and open dumps are the dominant waste disposal options worldwide. In
managed and unmanaged landfills, anaerobic degradation of organic material occurs,
causing CH4 emissions. Landfill gas is about 50 to 60% methane with the remainder
CO2 and traces of non-methane volatile organics, halogenated organics and other
compounds (IPCC, 2006). Incineration and open burning of waste containing fossil
carbon are the most important sources of CO2 emissions in the waste sector.

Decentralized composting / recycling centered SWM can reduce Co2 emission and
abate climate change. Bangladesh experience shows that a 10 tonne per day
composting plant would reduce about 1500 ton/year carbon emission and would fetch
equivalent CER.

2.3 Public Health concerns

Major portion of MSW is dumped in landfill sites. The uncollected waste usually finds its
way in sewers, some of it is eaten by cattle, some is left to rot in the open, and some is
burnt on roadsides. Dumping of waste on public land and slum settlements is quite
common. All these practices lead to land, air and water pollution, as a result of
emissions of a wide variety of organic compounds such as xylene, cresol, and esters
resulting in serious health problems. Table below summarises the public health risks
relating to poor SWM. Urban poor, who bear the major brunt by way of loss of
productivity and increased health costs, are the worst sufferers

Disease groups where poor SWM plays a role in transmission

 5

2.4 Environmental sustainability

There are several environment issues that need to be addressed in dealing with MSWM.
Increasing public concern and sensitivity to environmental issues is driving this
expanded agenda. These include:
• health and environmental impacts of accumulated uncollected waste and
clandestine disposal sites.
• health and environmental impacts of bad and chaotic management of
designated/authorized dump-sites
• unsustainable technologies and methodologies in managing dump-sites
• health and environmental impacts of solid waste facilities, including transfer,
composting and landfill facilities
• air emissions from waste collection and transfer vehicles
• special handling and disposal of hazardous wastes, including healthcare and
industrial hazardous waste.
• potential smoke from open burning, odors, insects, rodents, gaseous emissions
• landfill leachate and resulting water contamination and pollution.

Urban environmental degradation in developing countries is associated with households

and businesses not served by sewers, drains and solid waste collection facility. Lack of
or improper sewage treatment plant is contributing to the water pollution problem.
 6

Sources of air pollution are uncontrolled emissions from industries and increasing
number of motor vehicles. Slums are often the dumping grounds for municipal waste and
are at the receiving end of all these environmental degradation and undoubtedly poor
are its main victims.

The urban poor are usually the most exposed to weather and thus most affected by
environmental pollution. Again attempts to tackle environmental problems without
addressing poverty are likely to fail, because poverty is the worst form of pollution.
Poverty reduction and effective environmental management is mutually dependent.
Poverty is both cause and effect of environmental degradation.

2.5 Pro-poor dimension

The traditional approach to MSWM focuses on end-of-pipe solutions that are capital
intensive, and are therefore costly to build and operate. Hence many local governments
devote a substantial portion of their annual budgets to collecting, transporting and
disposing solid wastes. Also, the formalization process of MSWM have undermined
waste-pickers and scavengers, traditional safety nets and hijacked informal bonding
(micro-level) social capital to the benefit of institutionalised (macro-level) social capital.

Pro-poor MSWM looks at waste both as a health problem and as a livelihood for the
poor. Pro-poor SWM policies optimize social- environmental- and economic benefits for
the poor. In practice, this mean augmenting employment/ income-generating
opportunities for the poor, creating job-security for informal waste-pickers (scavengers),
establish subsidies to community based recycling schemes and empower local
leadership structures. There is also need to transform waste-picking/scavenging from
‘dirty-to-decent-work’ which the poor can perform with dignity. Along with health,
cleanliness and dignity aspects, creating cash from trash is the foremost incentive for
urban poor communities to participate in a Community-based MSWM project.
Composting and recycling projects would play a key role in pro-poor MSWM.

These projects can create social capital for the poor through community mobilisation and
vertical bridging- and linking networks. Communities need to be given local ownership of
the projects through real decision-making capacities. Pro-poor MSWM policies optimize
social- environmental- and economic benefits for the poor

Poverty is often perceived as a major concern in urban environment. Conversely

environmental degradation needs to be of greater concern as well for further ill-being of
the poor. This is a vicious cycle which can be broken only through environmentally
sustainable and pro-poor urban policies and practices and their sincere implementation.
MSWM is one area for such policy and practice.

3.0 MSWM – The Imperatives: Fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals

The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) range from halving extreme poverty to
halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education - all by the
target date of 2015. They form a blueprint agreed by all the world’s countries and all the
world’s leading development institutions - a set of simple but powerful objectives that
every man and woman in the street, can easily understand and support.
This is what a research report titled ‘Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities-
2010’ brought out by the Nairobi based UN-HABITAT has to say:
 7

“The MDGs were ratified by 189 heads of state at the United Nations Millennium
Summit in September 2000 with the overall objective of halving world poverty by 2015.
Improving solid waste management systems would contribute to achieving many of
them, in spite of the fact that solid waste is never explicitly mentioned in the MDGs.”

All of the 8 MDGs are interconnected. Success or failure on any one, will affect
achievement of the other Goals. Environmental sustainability and poverty abatement
interlink all the goals and would form the bulwark of the success of MDG. More
specifically the following three goals provide the imperative for environmentally
sustainable and pro-poor SWM.

Goal 1 Eradicate extreme poverty – Many of the poorest in our cities survive by
collecting materials discarded by others, or by sorting or processing them in very labour-
intensive ways. Others provide cleaning services on an informal basis. Conventional
waste management services are often unable to serve low-income housing areas, but
small, community based enterprises have demonstrated their ability to provide waste
collection services that even the poor can afford.

Goal 3 Promote gender equality and empower women – Women are universally
concerned with the living conditions in which their children are growing up. Women have
shown their ability in leadership and commercial endeavour through the setting up and
management of small but successful waste management enterprises, which not only
improve their immediate environments contributing to a reduction in child mortality and
other hygiene-related diseases but also generate local employment. Women also play a
vital role in monitoring the performance of contractors, assisting to improve living
conditions in this way also.

Goal 7 Ensure environmental sustainability – Burning waste causes serious air pollution,
and improperly dumped waste pollutes both surface and underground water sources.
Careless dumping degrades land resources. SWM is part of good sanitation (which is
included under this Goal in Indicator 30) and abatement of air and water pollution.
B: MSWM – Technologies and Methodologies
4.0 Technology – Methodology Matrix
SWM has several alternative technologies such as incineration, RDF, pelletization,
composting, and biomethanation, each having its distinct methodologies:

Technology Basic Principle / Methodology Environmental /

Process Economic Impact
Composting -Decomposition of -Organic waste -Decentralised
Anaerobic organic matters -Source segregation. -Creates
Aerobic through microbes -Primary & Secondary entrepreneurial /
-Rich organic manure Collection employment
opportunities
Bio-methenation -Acidification -Organic waste -Decentralised
-Methanation -Source segregation. -useful way to turn
-Generating biogas. -Primary & Secondary waste in to wealth
-Rich organic manure Collection -small entreprises
 8

Technology Basic Principle / Methodology Environmental /

Process Economic Impact
Reuse / Recycle: -What is produced to -Source segregation -Positive and Sustainable
be reused as many -Primary & Secondary -Creates
times as possible. Collection entrepreneurial /
-Recycling non re- -Reduces landfill employment
usable materials. -Adds value to waste opportunities
Gassification / Thermal -Waste with low  Air and Water
Incineration decomposition of moisture content & pollution
organic matter by high calorific value  Disposal of ash and
burning (>1200 kCal/kg) other by-products
- Transportation to  Large amounts of
disposal Site water for cooling
Via Transfer Station  Health, safety, and
odor impacts
 Disincentives for
waste reduction
 Diversion of waste
from composting and
recycling
Refuse-Derived Thermo-Chemical -Combustible Organic (i) is an alternate form of
Fuel (RDF) / decomposition of Waste incineration and have the
Pelletisation organic matter - Transportation to same adverse impacts.
disposal Site (ii) perpetuates the
Via Transfer Station unsegregated waste
collection system
(iii) centralise SWM as
against decentralising.
Sanitary Landfill Scientific disposal of Inert/Mixed - Unburnt, it breeds flies,
waste material by MSW/processing mosquitoes, rodents etc.
filling of designated rejects - Discourages
land with adequate segregation, encourages
environmental centralisation
protection measures - Burning of waste has
adverse effects as that of
Incineration and RDF
4.1 What is being practiced?
 9

5.0 Centralised vs Decentralised MSWM

5.1 Relative merits:

Activity/paramete Decentralised approach Centralised approach

r
Collection -Easily done -Primary and secondary
collection needed
Quantum of Waste -Can be handled effectively in -Landfill and dumpsites required.
terms of eco-friendly methods -Cause environmental
of composting. degradation, polluting surface
and ground water.
Conservancy -Not so hazardous -Hazardous when quantum to be
workers handled is high; health of
workers affected.
Employment -Several: Composting, vermi- - Limited employment in formal
Generation & composting, manual handling sector. Hardly any micro-
Micro-enterprise of waste, recycling. Pro-poor enterprise. Not pro-poor
Community -While waste is handled within -Local body becomes
participation/ community, there is responsible; personal touch and
Civil society community concern absent and people are
interest ownership of efforts indifferent
Ecological -Ecologically-friendly Ecologically damaging
sustainability
 10

Land -Negligible land required -Huge dumpsites or landfills

requirement required.
Financial -Small-scale entrepreneurship -Only large-scale government
sustainability can be developed; service funded/external institutions
provider models may evolve. funded programs work.

5.2 Decentralised SWM is environmentally sustainable and pro-poor

Considering the environmental and pro-poor realities and needs urban India should
prefer decentralized waste management over centralized approach. Though the
centralized waste-to-energy industry and such other lobbies are active, they are not yet
proven. Even if proven as technology they do not meet the environmental and pro-poor
criteria that are essential MDG requirements.

5.3 The decentralized MSWM Process:

i. Source segregation
ii. Primary collection
iii. Secondary transportation
iv. Recovery of recyclable wastes
v. Recycling, value addition and sale of recycled components
vi. Composting of bio-degradable wastes
vii. Disposal of non-compostable and non-recyclable waste

5.4 Multi-stakeholder participation

If decentralized MSWM is to be successful, the multi-stakeholder approach has to be
strengthened and sustained. Local governments, communities, conservancy workers,
CBOs and families have to work in tandem. Coordination at every level is absolutely
essential for ensuring proper collection, processing and disposal of solid waste.
The ideal model is one based on partnership among the government, community
(residents, traders, et al), NGOs & CBOs, micro-entrepreneurs (MEs) / Self Help Groups
(SHGs) and private enterprises, each playing a unique role.

5.5 Decentraised MSWM is Community-based. Its various dimensions are:

(a) Social Mobilization and community involvement
This is an essential component; no development is possible without the active
cooperation and contribution from the community. Involvement of the community can be
achieved through various means such as Information, Education and Communication;
MSWM Participatory card exercise; Door-to-door campaign for segregation of waste and
taking people to successful MSWM project sites.

(b) Source Segregation, Door-to-door garbage collection and payment of nominal

service charges will be essential ingredients of community participation in MSWM.
MSWM must continue to be a priority and fulcrum activity for middle income groups.
More importantly, however, the zeal, enthusiasm and participation of lower income
groups, peri-urban areas and rural areas should be mobilized for participation.
Interventions for lower income group’s participation will need time and concentrated
efforts to convince them and throw up the critical relation between health and SWM.

(c) Technology, should be simple, easy to internalize and apply. Decentralised MSWM
will not be hi-tech. The 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse and Recycle will be the mantra for waste
management: Based on the quantity of waste, composition of waste and local practices
and capacities, reference communities could choose appropriate technologies /
 11

methodologies for waste processing. For example, non-biodegradables could generally

be segregated and sold to the recycling shops. In more progressive communities,
advanced stages of MSWM like small recycling units for plastics and paper could be set
up as micro-enterprises.

Other options available for utilizing biodegradable wastes like dung composting, aerobic
composting using windrows, Nardep model, vermicomposting, well-ring composting,
home composting, and so on could be adopted. The suitable method will be evolved
through a participatory discussion with the reference community, rather than enforced
from outside.

(d) Employment and entrepreneurial opportunities

Recycling would provide additional opportunities for employment and enterprise.
India’s huge informal sector of rag-pickers, kabadiwalas, waste-buyers and recyclers
support 1-2% of city employment. Even if 20 to 25% recyclables and debris / silt are
collected and transported separately, the organic content of the compostable waste goes
up 75-80%. This along with recycling activities offers several entrepreneurial
opportunities in the informal sector.

(e) Recognition of the Informal Sector and its workers

Decentralised MSWM implies that all municipal SW would be sorted for recyclables and
decentralized composting of bio-degradables. A sensitive aspect of technology /
methodology adoption is how to deal with the rag-pickers who are at the bottom of the
informal sector pyramid. While a rag-picker is an individual eking out a livelihood based
on recyclables from MSW, there are preferences and priorities regarding what to collect.
There is no mandate to deal with the entire waste.

C: Integrated & Sustainable SWM (ISWM)

6.0 ISWM Ingredients – The 6Rs
6.1 Reduce: Reducing waste is the most important part of waste management. Waste
reduction avoids the unnecessary use of resources such as materials, energy and water,
which means there is less waste to manage. The aim of waste reduction is to eliminate
waste before it is produced and to reduce both the quantity and toxicity of waste.

6.2 Reuse: The next most cost effective means of minimising waste is to reuse waste
material in its same form. Reusing an item means it doesn't go in the rubbish heap and
end up in the landfill. It also means that you don't have to buy a new product and so you
are saving the energy and resources that would have been used to make the new
product.

6.3 Recover: This is the recovery of materials or energy content of a waste without any
pre-processing.

6.4 Recycle: Recycling involves some form of reprocessing of waste materials to

produce another product. For example, recycling plastic bottles to make buckets.
Recycling reduces the need for landfilling and incineration; prevents pollution caused by
the manufacturing of products from virgin materials; saves energy; decreases emissions
of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change; conserves natural
 12

resources such as timber, water, and minerals and helps sustain the environment for
future generations

6.5 Return nutrients to the soil: Composting or digesting organic wastes (bio-solids) –
plants and animal wastes from kitchen, garden and agricultural production, together with
safely managed and treated human excreta. These are sources of key nutrients for the
agricultural value chain, and their proper utilization is important to food security and
sustainable development.

6.6 Residual Management: This is the final treatment and / or disposal of a waste that
has not been reused, recycled, recovered or returned. Residual management is normally
disposal to a landfill.

This fits in with the European Union’s Waste Hierarchy:

Key message of this ISWM model is that it is decentralized, environmentally

sustainable, pro-poor and not technology-dependant

7.0 The Elements of ISWM

1. Physical

Resource
Environment Management –
Public Health protection during High rates of
through good treatment and organics
waste collection disposal recovery, reuse
and recycling.
 13

2. Governance

Income
Sound
generating;
Inclusivity, Pro- Institutions and
Financial
poor proactive policies
sustainability

7.1 Facilitating ISWM in India – the Legal Framework

The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules (2000) lays down
comprehensive compliance criteria for managing solid waste that facilitates integrated
and sustainable SWM in urban India:

Parameters Compliance Criteria

Collection of 1. Littering of municipal solid waste shall be prohibited. To facilitate
Municipal Solid compliance, municipal authority should take following steps.
Wastes
(i) Organising house to house collection of MSW
(ii) Collection of waste from slums/squatter areas and localities
including hotels/restaurants/office complexes/commercial areas
(iii) Proper usage of biodegradable wastes from slaughter houses,
fruits and vegetable markets.
(iv) Avoid mixing bio-medical wastes and industrial wastes with
MSW. Such wastes shall follow specified rules.
(v) Collected waste from residential and other areas shall be
transferred to community bin by hand-driven containerised carts.
(vi) Horticulture/dairy and construction/demolition wastes/debris to
be separately collected and disposed off following proper norms.
(vii) Waste (garbage, dry leaves) shall not be burnt
(viii) Prevent stray animal’s movement around waste storage.
2. Municipal authority shall notify waste collection schedule and the
likely method to be adopted for public benefit in a city/town.
3. Generator of wastes should avoid littering and ensure delivery of
wastes as per the notified collection and segregation system.
Segregation Of In order to encourage the citizens, municipal authority shall organize
Municipal Solid awareness programs for segregation of wastes and shall promote
Wastes recycling or reuse of segregated materials. The Municipal authority
shall undertake phased program to ensure community participation
in waste segregation.
Storage Of Municipal authorities shall establish and maintain hygienic/sanitary
Municipal Solid storage facilities. Following criteria shall be taken into account while
Wastes establishing and maintaining storage facilities, namely
 14

Parameters Compliance Criteria

(i) Quantities of waste generation in a given area and the pollution
densities. Facilities should be accessible to users.
(ii) To be designed to prevent exposure to open atmosphere and
shall be aesthetically acceptable and user-friendly
(iii) Should be ‘easy to operate’ for handling, transfer and
transportation of waste. Colour coding to identify the waste.
(iv) Manual handling of waste to be prohibited or carried out under
proper precaution with due care for safety of workers.
Transportation Of Vehicles used for transportation of wastes shall be covered. The
MSW following criteria shall be met namely,
(i) Storage facilities should be cleaned daily and bins or containers
wherever placed shall be cleaned before they start overflowing
(ii) To be designed in such a way that multiple handling of wastes,
prior to final disposal, is avoided
Processing Of Municipal authorities shall adopt suitable technology or combination
Municipal Solid of such technologies so as to minimize burden on landfill. Following
Wastes criteria shall be adopted, namely
(i) The biodegradable wastes, shall be processed by composting,
vermi-composting, anaerobic digestion or any other appropriate
biological processing for stabilization of waste. Compost or any
other end product should comply with laid down standards.
(ii) Mixed waste containing recoverable resources shall follow the
route of recycling. Incineration with or without energy recovery
including pelletisation can also be used for processing wastes in
specific cases.
Disposal Of Land filling restricted to non-biodegradable i.e., insert waste and
Municipal Solid other waste that are not suitable either for recycling or for biological
Wastes processing. Land filling to be carried out for residues of waste
processing facilities as well as pre-processing rejects from waste,
processing facilities. Land filling of mixed waste to be avoided
unless same is found unsuitable for waste processing.

D: Zero Waste Management – ISWM in Practice

8.0 ZWM – key to ‘green economy’ and catalyst for inclusive urban agenda

ISWM can be achieved through Zero-Waste Management (ZWM). For this purpose a
micro-entrepreneurial model need to be developed involving the informal sector workers,
Community Groups/Associations, NGOs, private sector and Municipalities.

8.1 What is ZWM?

Our current linear resource flow uses huge amounts of raw materials and generates
huge amounts of waste. This will lead our society to resource depletion. ZWM is about
redesigning this resource flow so that most of what is generated as waste can be reused
as raw material for further production. This resource flow is more sustainable and will
take us closer to ‘zero waste’ to be disposed of. ZWM, which holds the key for facilitating
and sustaining ‘green economy’, involves action both before and after production.
 15

Pre-production
Reducing Production (consumption); Producing and consuming only as much as
needed; Redesigning Production processes; Producing using cleaner processes and
packaging using less material; Production of safe and recyclable materials; Avoiding the
use of toxic and non-recyclable materials, so that maximum resource can be recovered
with least harm to the environment.

Post-production
Reuse: What is produced should be reused as many times as possible. Eg. bottles,
containers, bags, etc. Recycle: Recycling those materials that cannot be reused. Eg.
Organic waste into compost, PET bottles into polyester fibres, glass bottles into glass
panes, cotton rags into paper, etc.

8.2 ZWM is comprehensive

Zero waste strategies rely on a comprehensive approach which takes into account waste
reduction throughout the lifespan of a product, from raw material to assembly line to re-
use. High quality recycled materials can be substituted for mined or harvested
resources. Waste reduction at the production stage includes more efficient use of
feedstocks and changes in design which promote recycling. At the end of the cycle
materials must be sorted, cleaned, and stockpiled for use in the same or similar
products. Closing the production-recycling loop saves both the resource and the energy
used in its extraction from the earth.

8.3 ZWM abates pollution and conserves resources

Air pollution reductions of 20% to 95% are achieved when recycled feedstocks are
substituted for raw materials. And the recycling of steel, aluminum, paper, and glass
reduces water pollution and water use from 35% to 97%. Burning lowers the quality of
recycled feedstocks and diverts them to lower uses, breaking the recycling loop and
increases the need for replacement resources from raw materials.

Composting of solid waste utilizes a natural process to break down the organic fraction
of household garbage. This low-tech method is inexpensive and produces a useful soil
conditioner or mulch which returns organic matter to the earth. As other methods of
waste management such as incineration fall out of favor, composting of municipal waste
continues to grow nationwide. The compostable portion of MSW can constitute 30-60%
of a community's waste stream. Composting programs have been designed for a variety
of organic waste streams, including yard wastes (grass trimmings, leaves, or tree
prunings), food wastes, agricultural wastes, and wastewater treatment sludge.

8.4 Decentralised ZWM – The Vellore Model

8.4.1 Vellore is a town in India located about 135 km west of metropolitan Chennai. Its
present population it is estimated to be around 200,000. Ever since the late nineties, the
town has been practicing a participatory decentralized SWM. It has now evolved in to an
ISWM system with many unique features.

8.4.2 The “Vellore Model” of ZWM has nine different individual processes, which are
interconnected and interdependent leading to “zero waste” in the end. It provides
maximized efficiency and sustainability – both economic and environmental. These
processes or units are separate and well defined, but the inputs and outputs are closely
linked to each other. When all the units are considered together, the only input to the
whole system is “undesirable” waste and the outputs are useful products.
 16

8.4.3 Output of one interlinked unit is an input of one or more other units which is shown
by arrows. For example, vegetable waste from the secondary segregation unit goes to
the cattle shed while cow dung from the cattle shed goes to the composting, vermin-
composting and drying units. We can see the systematic handling of waste from one
process to another, increasing its utility at each stage of processing.

8.5 ZWM – Segregation of MSW for collection, composting, reuse/recycling:

Wa
Colle
 17

8.6 ZWM Case Study- Dollar’s Colony, Ashwathnagar, Bangalore

ZWM – Vellore Model was executed (as a case study) in the middle of a residential area
called Dollar’s Colony, Ashwathnagar, Bangalore. This was the first project to be initiated
in the city of Bangalore, launched on March 1, 2010 and completed on March 21, 2010.
To carry out the ZWM process the garbage was shifted to one part of a park where in an
 18

area of 50x30 ft a temporary shed was built with Casuarinas, chicken mesh, and jute
bags. Composting of dry leaves, dry natural material such as coconut shells, wood/twigs,
tender coconuts, tree branches were carried out separately in an open area of 120x40 ft.

Garbage was collected from 320 families twice a day each paying Rs. 30/- per month in
return for several services that include waste collection at the doorstep. Five compost
beds were made for kitchen waste and seven for dry leaves, garden waste and twigs.
Six trained workers collected garbage from the houses of residents in a tricycle that has
a tank with organic and inorganic partition. Organic waste was handled by chopping any
large pieces into smaller ones so that composting is done effectively. Inorganic waste,
however, was further segregated until it could be sold to dealers / buyers.

E – Informal Sector as core of ZWM

9.0 Informal SWM activities
 19

9.1 Overall Informal workers make up 93% of India's workforce. In the urban context it
ranges between 70 to 75%. About 42% of Indians earn less than 1$ a day. About 76%
earn less than $2.25 a day. Almost all of them are in the informal sector.

Formal MSWM is centralized and technology driven and as such cannot be

environmentally sustainable and pro-poor. Informal MSWM is decentralized and
community/people driven and therefore is environmentally sustainable and pro-poor. As
of now informal sector plays a key role in MSWM and the activities are:
(a) Door-to-door waste collection and depositing waste in transfer points;
(b) purchasing valuable recyclable items from householders and small businesses, thus
reducing the overall burden of waste management and recovering resources; and,
(c)'waste picking': searching and collecting recyclable materials from waste on streets
and at disposal grounds.
(d) Decentralised reuse and composting of waste

9.2 Informal Waste Reusing / Composting

20
21
 22

9.3. Informal Waste Recycling

9.4 The real urban - wastepickers/scavengers – the bottom of the SWM pyramid
In India, recycling has been around for years. Much before the term itself seeped into
everyday vocabulary, women separated newspapers and sold them to weekend buyers
– the kabaris (from kabar, approximately meaning dry waste) who still cycle along on
weekends with a weighing scale and loose change to pay with. Bottles were reused till
they broke and tins just never got thrown away. It happens even today, but its’ been
pruned down by the uncontrolled introduction of the non-recyclable, non-reusable sachet
and metalized plastic packaging. Now, as then, when something is either broken or
entirely unfit, even to store away for a rainy day, it is thrown all mixed up into a dustbin.
That’s when recycling begins.

All recycling in India is undertaken by (and via) the informal sector. This sector includes
ragpickers, small middlemen, transporters, larger middlemen and finally, reprocessors.
In terms of human resources this sector is arranged in a table top pyramid with
ragpickers at the bottom of the pyramid and forming the backbone of waste collection. At
the thinner end of the wedge are the small middlemen, who buy the waste from these
ragpickers and sell it to larger middlemen who deal with specific items and materials.
Above them are factories, who procure supplies from these godowns through
omnipresent agents.

This is what ‘The Economist’ has to say: “No one knows how many ragpickers there are
in India. In Delhi alone, there are more than 300,000. They earn 100-150 rupees ($2.50-
3.75) for eight hours' work. They save the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) an
estimated 600,000 rupees (approx $ 12000) in daily waste-disposal costs, reckons
Chintan, a charity that campaigns for their welfare.” Mumbai also has an equal number,
if not more. Chennai is estimated to have over a 100,000. All the Cities and towns put
 23

together their numbers would be in millions. Majority of them are women and children,
the most vulnerable among the poor.
 24

9.5 Climate Change impact

A recent study estimates that informal recycling sector in Delhi alone accounts for
estimated net greenhouse gas reductions of 962,133 metric tones of carbon dioxide
equivalent (TCO2e) each year. This equates roughly to removing 176,215 passenger
vehicles from the roads annually or providing electricity to about 133,444 homes for one
year (US estimates).

9.6 It has been established that these ‘urban poor’ play a significant though informal role
in the management of urban solid waste by contributing to:
• resource recovery
• environment conservation
• reduction in Municipal Costs
• the reprocessing Industry.

Secondary collection i.e. collection form street containers is the most common practice
in the informal sector. The policy framework of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management
and Handling) Rules 2000 requires that the municipalities extend themselves into the
primary collection of garbage (door to door collection). Waste segregation, which is
mandatory is largely being undertaken by wastepickers. They therefore need to be
strengthened, acknowledged and encouraged in multiple ways.

9.6 The message is: Environmentally sustainable and pro-poor dimensions of MSWM
are in consonance and not in conflict and such a system needs to be anchored in the
informal sector. SWM practices thus evolved could bring forth several benefits:
• From being ‘victims’ of shoddy MSWM and environmental degradation,
the poor
could become beneficiaries of clean and sustainable environment;
• Several income and livelihood opportunities can open up for the poor
• Such an MSWM system would significantly reduce health risks of the
poor

9.7 Micro-enterprise Development and private sector participation

 25

Informal SWM sector is entrepreneurship in practice. Based on these practices

community / micro-enterprise models with private sector participation could be
developed and promoted in all the processes associated with decentralized SWM -
Source segregation; Primary collection; Secondary transportation; Recovery of
recyclable wastes; Sale of recycled components; Composting of bio-degradable wastes.
This could be part of promoting urban green industry. The present mismatch between
the requirements of Green Industry and the skill levels available in the market offer huge
scope for training and placing large numbers of young people in wage and self-
employment in SWM.

9.8 Such an initiative could transform the life and livelihood of the lowly rag-pickers and
give them a place in the sun by transforming their ‘dirty’ work to a decent and dignified
profession as the Matrix below would explain:

Ragpickers stand-alone entity Ragpickers as part of Micro-enterprise /

Individuals from unorganized sector
Selective in waste handling
Biodegradable waste untouched
Collection of waste from streets , road-side
bins and dump sites
No dignity of labour
Exposed to serious health hazards
No assured income
community-based SWM
Organised and employed by local CBO or
micro-enterprise
Holistic approach to waste Collection
Biodegradable collected for composting
Door-to-door collection of segregated
waste as per MSWM Rules
Dignity of labour with uniforms, protective
equipments etc
Less exposed to health hazards. Regular
health check-ups and immunisation
Assured income and added incentives

F: An environmentally sustainable and pro-poor SWM system

10.0 The Chennai Blueprint

This is based on SWM solution evolved in 2002 by a group of concerned Citizens,

NGOs, SWM experts, researchers and officials of Corporation of Chennai after broad
consultations to review the existing MSWM practices and the extent of compliance with
the MSWM Rule 2000. Author of this paper was part of these consultations and
deliberations. The Group had factored in the MDGs and the need for their compliance.
The blueprint highlights the environmental, economic, financial and social benefits of an
integrated ZWM. The system holds good for other cities and towns also.

10.1 The learning curve

Based on the working knowledge and experience acquired over a decade these experts
and organizations in Chennai came to the conclusion that:
• the size of the city makes the centralisation of the MSWM service unrealistic;
• if educated, trained and motivated, citizens can get involved in the process;
• decentralised collection, source segregation, composting and recycling are
achievable and cost-effective;
• people participation has to be sustained by understanding their psychology;
 26

• citizen’s participation in terms of energy, time and money in source segregation

and collection is feasible.

10.2 ZWM: The System

 Setting up of Zero Waste centre (ZWC) / storage facilities in each of the 155
wards of Chennai. Additions as the city grows. Organic waste to be composted
in-situ and the recyclable waste is to be handed over to waste recyclers.
 Drastically reduces dumpyard sites and make them sanitary Land Fill Sites.
 Overall the system would maximize waste collection, segregation, reuse,
composting and recycling, enhance employment and entrepreneurial
opportunities while minimizing transportation and landfill requirements.
 Promotes an environmentally sustainable and pro-poor MSWM practice;
alleviates poverty, enables citizens to take part in the management of their city
and enables good quality of life while facilitating growth of the city for future
generations.
 27

10.3 The objectives

• Educating the citizens on source segregation and other environmental issues,
• Encouraging citizens to form community groups and organize door-to-door
collection of source segregated waste and delivery of the waste to the ZWC.
• Creating sustainable livelihood for the rag pickers through safe waste handling
and recycling practices
• Implementing city wide decentralised zero waste management strategy
• Ensuring a reliable, cost effective and efficient service

10.4 Source-segregation through Raising public awareness; Educating at school;

Training sensitisers and facilitators in each area; Communication through media and
Incentives and disincentives.
 28

10.5 Composting
The technology proposed is a 2-step low technology and low cost process.
 1st step: pre-composting. The wastes are daily spread in windrow and sprayed
with cow-dung or other microbial inoculums. This technique avoids anaerobic
conditions i.e. absence of oxygen to happen. This first step should last 45 days.
 2nd step: vermicomposting. The pre-compost collected is stabilised through
vermicomposting

Land requirement: Roughly 15 m2 (13,000 square feet) would be needed to compost 10

tonnes of organic matter per day. In order to reduce land requirement as the city grows
and waste increases, it will be necessary to use technologies that require less space
(vertical compost) and to foster home composting in the residential areas.

10.6 Recycling
• Recycling requires a good source segregation system, especially for papers that
can quickly be invaluable if in contact with any wet matter.
• Market streams exist for the wide variety of recycled products including plastics
and appropriate technologies have also evolved.
• Solutions can easily be found inspired by experiences in other countries and
adopting best practices.

10.7 Economics of Composting

Though such costing has not been worked out for Chennai specifically, ‘Waste
Concern’s’ Bangladesh estimates could be a safe indicator:
• Plant capacity: 10 TPD (capacity suitable for one ZWC)
• Total investment: US $ 110,700
• Operational cost: $ 33,000
• Selling price of compost: 85 $/tonne
• Compost produced: 720 tonnes/year
• Income: 61,200 $/year
• CERs produced: 1497 tonnes/year
• Income from CERs: 27,620 $/year
• Total Income is: 88, 820 $/year
• Carbon credit: 31% of total income
• Around 20 new jobs – direct and indirect
Recycling adds substantial value to the waste and generate enterprise and self-
employment opportunities.
Extrapolating this for Chennai Metropolitan Area that generates about 5000 TPD of
MSW per day the income derived, employment generated and climate-change benefits
would be really impressive even if 50% of the waste is reused, composted and recycled.
Micro-enterprise opportunities would be in hundreds and self-employment as well as
wage-employment opportunities in several thousands.

10.11 Joint Implementation Matrix

Stakeholder / Agency Task / Responsibility

District / State Administration Overall coordination
Local Government Basic infrastructure like sheds, tricycles, dustbins,
tools, electricity, water supply etc.
 29

Community Association (Public) Source segregation, handing over waste directly to

Environment NGO
Pollution Control Board
District Health Department
Women’s Self-Help Groups
Private Sector/Entrepreneurs
Banks / Financial Institutions
waste collectors, paying monthly subscription fee,
project management
Providing technical support, training, awareness
generation, monitoring, evaluating, documenting, etc.
Enforcing SWM Rules and bye laws
Creating awareness on various waste-borne diseases,
enforcing SWM bye laws
Field tasks and implementation
Setting up and managing Micro-enterprises
Appropriate funding / support packages

10.12 Centralised SWM in Chennai Metropolis

Instead of building on the citizen-evolved, decentralized and pro-poor MSWM blueprint
and the ZWM model in neighbouring Vellore, Corporation of Chennai (CoC) with
population exceeding 5 million - is pursuing a centralized dump-site based MSWM.

Perungudi
A private firm has been contracted to process 1,400 tonnes of garbage that the
Perungudi dump-yard receives from South Chennai zones daily. The firm would set up
the facility to make compost, recycle plastics, to make refuse derived fuel pellets and
eco bricks. The project cost is a high $ 65 million and the private developer would be
adopting the following technologies for processing of the MSW: Composting; RDF;
Power Generation; Recycling; Brick Manufacturing and Sanitary Landfill.

Kodungaiyur
Another contractor has been identified to set up a centralized landfill project Kodungaiyur
for aerobic composting, vermi-composting, reuse of refuse-derived fuel, rapid
biomethanation, manufacturing eco-bricks, developing sanitary landfill and recycling
plastic for 1,800 tonnes of unsegregated waste from the North Chennai zones everyday.
 30

Environmental approvals are awaited.

This centralized, dump-site based MSWM has several negative features:

• Will perpetuate the unsegregated waste collection system
• No due-diligence or analysis done regarding loss of informal sector jobs
• Community will be kept away from MSWM. Opposed by the public
• Raw and stinking waste will be transported in open vehicles from all over the city
which is a health/environmental hazard
• These sites are marshes. Leachate will severely pollute underground water
• The sites are very close to human habitation who will suffer from smoke and
unbearable stench and smell.
• Will deprive the poor of employment opportunities in waste-picking, composting
and recycling.
• Perungudi project stayed by the National Environment Appellate Authority.

10.13 Success of any SWM system depends very much on public participation. CoC has
failed in this. Chennai’s Second Master Plan brings this out clearly: “SWM is one area
where citizens and private sector participation is crucial to ensure health and safety in
cities…….Residents Associations and NGOs have attempted to reduce the burden on
the local bodies through local segregation of solid waste, composting and recycling but
these have not made any sustained impact due to several reasons including little
encouragement from municipalities and local bodies.”

Case for an environmentally sustainable and pro-poor SWM system is made out.

G: Institutions, Action plan and Proactive Policies

11.0 Institutions

11.1 ISWM tests the full range of governance skills for ‘managing waste’: priority setting,
strategic planning, consultation, decision making, law-making, delegation, contracting,
human resources management, financial management, enforcement and conflict
resolution.

The Indian situation is best described in the following passage from the Report: “SWM in
the World’s Cities UN-HABITAT:
 31

“The Indian Civil Service is characterised by very short terms of office and high
turnover for city Commissioners, who are the city chief executives. While the
professional staff of the city is charged with implementation, their hands are tied during
the process of changing commissioners, the policies get seldom implements and there is
no official functioning institutional memory. Apart from this the system also becomes
paralysed if there is a change in the party of the elected councillors. Priorities of one
political party are not often the same as the previous regime and this discontinuity does
not aloe long-term plans to be fully implemented. Enforcing service also is not a priority
among elected councillors, as it is a populist measure – the party, which claims to
remove such charges, is anticipated to win elections rather than who put forward a
viable financial model…..This made it virtually impossible to make progress on waste
management.”

It is in this context the governance in urban India need to be looked at from the basic
imperative that municipalities and urban local bodies should be capable of performing
the tasks assigned in the 12th Schedule (Article 243W) of the Constitution accompanying
74th Amendment that decentralises urban governance. The institutional framework
should be structured accordingly and capacities built up.

'Sustainability' is primarily about creating partnerships, building capacities and promoting

inter-organisational and inter- institutional relationship and co-operation on a long-term
basis. Such relationship and partnership are best built through an institution that
promotes and nourishes a participatory process. Suitable formal institutional structure
needs to be evolved through discussions and interactions with civil society to:
• Facilitate public, private and informal cooperation
• Define stakeholders and their role
• Provide for stakeholder’s accountability for providing a service and
adherence to regulations by formalizing / regulating the roles.
• Assure extension of service delivery to all - accessing households and
expanding collection coverage.

11.2 Action Plan

An ISWM Toolkit should be developed to structure and promote ZWM as the
Environmentally Sustainable and Pro-poor SWM option in Indian Cities. This can be
carried forward in urban India in the following manner:
i. Identify and promote local ZWM champions in each Municipality with capacity to
closely interact and work with the Municipality / local body
ii. Local Champions (LCs) should make themselves conversant with the
environmental laws in the country, especially relating to SWM, the extent of
compliance of environmental / municipal laws, the organizational hierarchy and
flow of information, technology suitability for a sustainable environmental system,
and the benefits of ZWM.
iii. LCs and the municipalities should interact with each other, either through special
programs, so that both can understand the problems and seek solutions for
achieving the green and pro-poor agenda in SWM
iv. LCs should work as a bridge between the state/municipalities and the funding
agencies for structuring and delivering funding/assistance packages
v. LCs should identify efficient and cost-effective technology relating to ZWM,
keeping local conditions in mind.
vi. LCs should have knowledge of time-and-motion studies, route planning,
 32

processing and disposal technologies, and the data relating to landfill gasses
vii. LCs should assist the state/municipalities to develop a master plan for next 20
years for each city, along with a strategy and implementation plan.
viii. Country experts should be involved to help implementation by state/municipal
corporations through special audits from time to time.

11.3 Policy Interventions

a. Adopt ZWM as state policy mainstreaming it into the Informal Sector
b. Establish a nodal agency / MSW Management Authority at state level for
coordination of financial and administrative support, access appropriate waste
processing/disposal technologies and function as a State Resource Centre.
c. MSWM policies should be futuristic and emerge from a knowledge base on
waste characteristics, technology advancements and best practices with a well
defined framework for implementation
d. "Minimum performance standards" instead of general compliance standards and
strict monitoring.
e. Life cycle assessment for sustainability of waste management systems. Separate
collection and disposal of inert waste from construction, demolition and road
sweeping.
f. Functional coordination between concerned agencies as priority. Pilot plants to
recycle the building waste and establish feasibility and replicate.
g. Waste-management infrastructure (composting and storage of recyclables)
should be a strictly-enforced pre-condition while according sanction for new
developmental/housing activities.
h. Management of MSW should remain a primary obligation of the local government
and disowning of this should be discouraged.
i. Waste processing facility at each local body and for rejects common landfills
should be established. Local bodies hosting such MSWM facilities need to be
sufficiently compensated.
j. Municipal bodies should collaborate with academic/research institutes working on
MSWM to establish field level demonstration units to disseminate the research
findings.
k. Evolve suitable institutional structure for public-private-participation and give
legal sanctity in the Urban Local Bodies legislation.
l. In such legislation incorporate the concept of Local Champion as described
above to function as co-catalyst for an environmentally sustainable and pro-poor
MSWM system.
m. At the International level incorporate an appropriate MDG ‘Indicator’ that
could facilitate adoption of decentralized, environmentally sustainable and
pro-poor SWM in cities and towns as state policy..

12.0 Role of development banks and others in solving the MSWM challenge

1. Adopt Environmentally Sustainable and Pro-poor SWM as the guiding policy and
Philosophy and ZWM as the solution
2. Declare ISWM as the methodology for achieving the above and develop a toolkit.
3. Promote ZWM as the tool for implementing ISWM and develop business-models for
funding and implementing them.
4. Support above institutional and policy initiatives as well as the action plan
5. Develop and deliver appropriate funding/financing packages for ISWM with Informal
 33

Sector as the core.

6. Provide technical assistance for ISWM to accelerate and take-off.
7. ZWM being a community-based SWM alternative, evolve methods to support
CBOs/NGOs to organize themselves and function as Local Champions.
8. Take up PPP and micro-enterprise development in ZWM as a full-fledged activity.
9. Strongly factor in the views of the project-affected people and civil society before
supporting or funding centralized land-fill based SWM
10. Promote institutional development and capacity building initiatives in civil society and
Municipalities to facilitate adoption and implementation of ISWM and ZWM.
11. Assist in structuring and promoting Chennai blueprint as a workable model and pilot
for implementation and replication

H. The Conclusion
Waste generation and collection are highly decentralized and distributed activities.
Centralising its transportation and disposal using unproven ‘technologies’ is untenable
even as a management proposition, leave alone its environmental sustainability. The
resultant chaos and confusion in MSWM and streets littered with filth and garbage is
hugely telling upon public health and quality of life in Indian cities - big and small -
dreaming to become global knowledge/growth centres. Besides, centralized SWM is
further alienating the poor and the disadvantaged who are already suffering the pangs of
non-inclusive wealth-driven urban re-development.

For a decentralized activity like MSW, the management also should be decentralized.
Choice therefore is obvious and the case for environmentally sustainable and pro-poor
MSWM, with focus on Zero-Waste is clearly made out. This is the urban imperative in
the Indian sub-continent for achieving key Millennium Development Goals, abate
climate change and pursue a ‘green economy’ agenda.
______________________________________________________________________

REFERENNCES
1. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities: UN-HABITAT 2010
2. Solid-Waste Management: Issues and Challenges in Asia – Asian Productivity Organisation,
Tokyo 2007
3. SWM Perungudi Project Executive Summary - M/S Hydroair Techtonics (PCD) Ltd. Mumbai
4. http://www.zerowastemanagement.org/
5. Project Report: Pre-Feasibility Study support for Waterways Rehabilitation and Solid Waste
Management in Chennai - DHV B.V. Netherlands in association with DHV India Pvt. Ltd
6. Solid Waste Management in Class 1 Cities in India: Report of the Committee constituted by the
Hon. Supreme Court of India - March 1999
7. The Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules (2000) - Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India
8. Dr.T.Swaminathan, Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras and specialist in Solid Waste Management
9. “Perungudi facility may get the nod”: THE HINDU, Chennai: 03 July 2010
10. “TNPCB nod for proposal on Perungudi dump yard”: THE HINDU, 15 July 2010
11. Micro-enterprise Development for Primary Collection of Solid Waste:
www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/swm-confpaper.html
12. Chennai City Development Plan 2009 – Main Report: City Development Plan Investment
Program Review and Institutional Development Support – CDIA/GHK Consultants
13. Resolving Landfill Conflicts through Waste Reduction: Mrs. Almitra H Patel, Member,
Supreme Court Committee on Solid Waste Management
 34

14. United Nations Millennium Development Goals

15. Report of Experts Committee constituted by the Madras High Court:
16. Waste Concern Approach, Bangladesh, Presentation at the Regional Exposure Workshop on
Pro-poor and Sustainable Solid Waste Management for Secondary Cities and Small Towns –
February, 2010
17. The Energy Research Institute-The TEAM process for biomethanation of organic solid wastes
18. Waste management in Madras revisited, Environment and Urbanisation vol 11 no 2 Oct. 1999
19. Chennai Second Master Plan-2026
20. CHINTAN Environmental Action and Research Group, New Delhi
21. THE ECONOMIST Nov 15th 2007
22. SWACHH: Alliance of Wastepickers in India
23 NEW YORK TIMES; NEW DELHI JOURNAL; September 27, 2007
24. RECYCLING, India’s Slumdog Ragpickers, July 6, 2010
25. Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, National Action Plan on Climate Change
26. Times of India, Chennai edition – 5th December, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________