Garbage anywhere is unsightly. In cities, such small heaps (called GVPs – garbage vulnerable points) are not uncommon. They are however, usually ‘hidden’ off in less frequented areas, slums or in the periphery of the city. Rag pickers (usually women and children) at these heaps risk not just the weather and dogs, but their health and dignity. Animals and scavenger birds are other visitors, risking their lives due to plastic. The rest of us either tend to stay away from these areas, or get used to them, cursing the municipalities.

This is a common situation in most cities, wherein there is an existing mechanism to collect and remove maximum garbage generated in the city to dumping ground(s) – out of sight, out of mind – or to a processing plant, but a very small percentage of garbage remains uncollected and finds its way on to these small and scattered heaps. However, what would happen, if suddenly one day there is no place to remove hundreds of metric tonnes (MT) of garbage that a city generates? It would be a ‘crisis’, a ‘disaster, waiting to happen’. Right?

 

Such a crisis was triggered in the Aurangabad city of Maharashtra on 16th February, 2018, when the High Court of Mumbai (Aurangabad Bench) ordered closure of ‘dumping ground’ at Naregaon, where the city had been dumping 450 MT of daily generated garbage for decades. (Of course, the High Court had been warning the city administration for taking necessary measures earlier in tune with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, that prohibits amongst other things open dumping of unprocessed mixed garbage).

The city had no place to even remove garbage to; processing was out of question. Soon, heaps of garbage began to occupy the mainstream city, road dividers, main market places and congested residential areas. The issue rocked the state/ national media and was raised vociferously in the State Legislature. The State Government chipped in and approved in March, 2018, ₹91.79 crore for various projects, including a garbage processing plant. Over the next two months, four sites in four corners of the city were selected for processing – so that no one particular area would feel discriminated against. However, local people at all these four sites staged massive agitation against bringing kachra there. Attempts were made to somehow ‘hide’ the kachra, remove it clandestinely somewhere, or even ‘bury’ it in hastily dug pits. Citizen groups took initiatives for clean-up. At few places, an existing decentralised model of composting and dry waste sorting shielded those areas from ‘crisis’. However, barring those examples, scale of problem was too large. Mistrust between people and civic body grew and was at its worst. This was May, 2018. Rains were around the corner, and it was a sure-shot recipe for a major epidemic.

 At this stage, the administration decided to address the issue head-on. A twin approach of ‘participation’ and ‘professionalism’ was brought in. An informal group of citizens, people’s representatives, media and professionals within the city was created and solutions discussed. Social media – WhatsApp group named ‘Difficult but not Impossible’ -was effectively used to broaden discussion base. Successful CSR initiatives of decentralised dry waste management centre engaging rag-pickers were encouraged. Professional agencies skilled in behaviour change were roped in and people were encouraged for decentralised home-based composting and taking ownership for a clean city. This started with Zone level workshops with key opinion makers of that Zone. In these workshops, the participants were themselves made to segregate mixed waste to induce sensitivity towards the issue. This was followed by mohalla level meetings, ‘triggering’ of school students, ‘gandhigiri’with shopkeepers and engagement with councillors for behaviour change. Separate meetings with women were held – and they remained at the forefront in igniting the flame. Religious leaders were also engaged and calls for cleanliness issued from mandirs and masjids. In Pragati colony, women converted the dump area into a compost pit and distributed days-in-a-week to collect wet waste. In Jalaal colony, children formed a gang ‘aata mazi satakli‘ to check people from littering. In Ganesh colony, local mosque played an important role in awareness. Youth of Pir bazaar and Shatabdi nagar cleared age-old dumps and checked open daefecation. Many citizens of CIDCO area (planned part) adopted innovative home-composting technologies. Ward-wise competitions were announced to make areas OGF (open garbage-free). ‘Majha kachra, majhi jabaabdaari‘ (my waste, my responsibility) became the mantra this city began to adopt heartily.

Simultaneously, ‘professionalism’ was stoked in. It was planned to start three processing plants, each with a capacity of around 150 MT per day, to take care of daily garbage generation. In addition, a bio-methanation plant with capacity of 30 MT was planned at the fourth site, to process the green waste from markets. Also, nine decentralised plants, one in each administrative zone of the city were planned to be rolled out in phases. Processes for construction of composting / bio-methanation plant at these site(s)were quickly initiated and local people convinced of these measures. Their fear that these places would also be converted to dumping grounds was allayed by showing them the relevant plans. The kachra accumulated in the city was then removed to these designated places.

The first of these plants at Chikalthana with capacity of 150 MT per day got commissioned on the 17th of June, 2019 in less than a year from start stage. It has begun to process 1/3 garbage of the city and the city is well on its way to join league of select few cities in India that process their garbage fully. Work of similar plant at another site, Padegaon is ongoing. The bio-methanation plant is likely to be commissioned by the Independence Day this year.

Meanwhile, as a stop-gap arrangement, till all the processing plants are functional, bioculture and biocatalyst is being sprayed on garbage at these sites with the help of local Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) college, whose Clean India has the requisite expertise. In fact, this partnership with MGM proved extremely useful in dealing with a huge dump of mixed garbage (close to 4000 MT) that had accumulated right in the heart of the city at Central Naka during the crisis period. Green waste had started rotting here, with generation of obnoxious gases. People staying in the area had to cross this dump – studded with animal carcasses and millions of flies – with their noses covered. In a phased intervention facilitated by Knowledge Links, our behavioural change partner, and technically supported by MGM, bioculture was reached to the bottom of this 20 feet high dump by perforated pipes and fire-brigade vehicles, to make the place odour-free and fly-free within a month. In the second phase extending over few months, the green waste was converted into harmless manure. It is now planned to convert the place into a ‘Bio-park’, in tune with the disaster management principle of ‘build back better’ as a Smart City project.

Taking cue from Indore, 100% door to door collection of garbage was also initiated, and service is being professionalised by introducing measures such as GPS tracking, biometric attendance and grievance redressal through a call-centre. A decision to collect user-charge for this door-step service has also been taken.

Besides garbage, there were two more things that were adding to ‘ugly’ look of the city. One was the posters and banners put unauthorisedly across the city. Second was scrap vehicles parked on roads over the years. Regular drive was taken to remove these so that city could take a fresh breath. Citizens were also engaged in beautifying the dividers, traffic junctions, under-bridges as a philanthropic activity as part of ‘aao sheher sundar banayein’ campaign. 39 such sites have been adopted by citizens for beautification. Parallely, ex-Servicemen were deployed as marshalls to check errant civic behaviour.

The ‘crisis’ has been contained. Many of the measures taken are likely to be sustainable, being institutionalised through policy decisions. However, much remains to be done. The new collection system needs to be streamlined with fool-proof deployment plans, remaining processing plants commissioned, mechanism for user-charges put in place, dust-bins installed in market areas, and mechanism put in place for e-waste handling. The city needs to envision and work towards zero-garbage – and not merely a clean city. This will require reduction of garbage generation, and decentralised handling with focus on reuse. Importantly, people’s participation, trust, hope and engagement must continue to be strengthened.

A few key lessons emerge from this story. First is that cities need to be trusted and empowered to find and implement their own solutions. The role of the State and Centre needs to be that of an ‘enabler’ at most – solving obstacles if any. They can lay the broad approach and nudge cities towards that approach, but not more. Solutions must be pivoted and driven by the cities themselves. Each city has potential with all the required resources available within the city itself, which needs to be unlocked.

Second, people’s participation and behavioural change of people have to be at the centre of solution framework. No city can become/remain clean if littering is a norm. And no city can remain unclean if people look at garbage as an issue meant to be resolved collectively. This behavioural change, jansahbhag, has to be carried out skillfully with the help of professional agencies/NGOs skilled to do this job. This involves interventions beyond the conventional ‘awareness’ drives – and edges around sustained facilitative interaction with communities, triggering them to get to the roots of the issue and work out possible solutions. The dream of a clean city has to be seen and effected by all.

Three, the real challenge is not in constructing a few plants, professionalizing service or even obtaining jansahbhag. The real challenge is in maneuvering these changes through the decision-making systems of a local body. The structural changes in urban local bodies – cadreisation of municipal staff making their postings transferable, and clear delineation of power and responsibilities of political body vis-à-vis administration need be expedited.

Four, change management is critical. Any change rocks some vested interests and unless the teething problems of a new system are addressed, they can be easily portrayed by status-quoists as ‘worse’ than the existing mechanisms. A new system will therefore require nurturing and hand-holding till it works at its best potential and becomes acceptable as a better solution. Once stabilized, it will be difficult to reverse.

Five, while rolling out a slew of measures, it is critical to phase them out carefully, handling the ‘urgent’ but also simultaneously working on the ‘important’. The right solutions have to be kept in focus. This is important, because, especially in a crisis, there is a lot of noise, and some undeserving solutions may be pushed by vested interests. ‘Everybody loves a good drought’, after all!

Lastly, it may be a lot easier to implement these changes before any emergency arises. In a ‘crisis’ your grit may be tested immensely due to various factors such as close monitoring by Courts, need for quick political support for bold decisions and looming risks of imminent epidemic. Cities need not wait for ‘crisis’ to improve garbage management.