Methodology off the mark
An official assessment like Swachh Survekshan needs to dive deeper and evaluate cities beyond visible cleanliness
Swachh Sarvekshan is grading cities on only visible cleanliness rather than effective waste management
SWACHH Survekshan, the Centre’s annual rankings of cities on sanitation and municipal solid waste management (swm), became a lot bigger this year in their third edition, with 4,203 cities including 61 cantonment boards participating as compared to 434 cities last year. But, did it also become better?
The rankings—for the first time done separately for cities with a population of 0.1 million or more (national rankings) and for those below 0.1 million (state and zonal rankings)— declared Indore as the cleanest city, followed by Bhopal and Chandigarh. Among states, Jharkhand was ranked the best performing state, while Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh bagged the second and third positions.
An analysis conducted by Delhibased non-profit Centre for Science and Environment (cse) shows that the rankings ignored swm practices and focused on merely the visible cleanliness of the cities. The Survekshan has surely induced a “perceptible positive change” in public’s mindset towards cleanliness, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, but the rankings put a question mark on the model the survey, conducted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, is trying to propagate (see “Sweeping verdict” on p58).
Awards and anomalies
Most of the top 50 cities in the rankings are visibly clean, but do not have appropriate systems for processing and disposal of waste, which they continue to collect and dump in poorly managed lanfills and dumpsites. In Chandigarh, North Delhi Municipal Council (ndmc), South Delhi Municipal Council (sdmc), Varanasi, Ghaziabad, Jaipur, Greater Hyderabad, Jabalpur and Ahmedabad, there is no collection system of segregated waste at source but they are still ranked highly. At some places, however, mixed waste is sorted into different fractions.
Eleven of the top 50 cities are from Madhya Pradesh. “Though collection of waste has drastically improved in these cities, segregation at source, processing and disposal is still a concern,” says Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general, cse.
Indore has indeed created systems for segregation (achieving 90 per cent success within a year), collection, processing and disposal. But, its model is highly capital-intensive as it is based on centralised processing. “Many cities cannot afford to manage their waste with such a capital-intensive waste system,” says Laxmi Karhadkar, mayor of Panchgani, which received the award for one of the cleanest small towns in the west zone.
Kota, that bagged the best award in citizen feedback, does not seg-
regate its waste, says Princy Pal, a software engineer and a resident. “The city has a huge issue of littering, waste collection is irregular and processing is out of question. How can it get the award when it has not invested in setting up systems for sanitation and solid waste!” adds Pal. Chandigarh, too, has no effective system for segregation at source. The city has received a lot of flak recently from its residents for ineffective waste collection and transportation. Its processing plant, managed by the Jaypee group in Dadu Majra, has been under legal turmoil.
In ndmc (ranked 4) and sdmc (ranked 32), garbage disposal has been mechanised by using waste compactors. However, 80 per cent of the waste is processed through waste-to-energy plants. The Okhla plant under sdmc has been under intense scrutiny for causing pollution. Jaipur (ranked 39) has a centralised composting plant— that uses mixed waste—managed by Infra-structure Leasing & Financial Services (il&fs), and a dumpyard where all the garbage is disposed. Tirupati, Aligarh and Ghaziabad have no proper processing and disposal mechanisms.
Among states, Jharkhand has no systems for processing waste, and littering is a major issue, says a ward councillor in Chaibasa on anonymity. Chaibasa has been awarded as the best city in solid waste management in the east zone, though it “does not follow waste segregation and processing”, the councillor says, adding: “Waste is just being collected and dumped. I am shocked that we got the award.”
“This year, there was a clear improvement in the rating methodology as more focus was on segregation of waste at source and adoption of sustainable waste processing and disposal practices (see “Problematic endorsement”) . However, the rankings fail to reflect this. The Survekshan continues to assess cities on their door-to-door waste collection, though some cities which do not practice this are the cleanest. They adopt household-level treatment of wet waste and collection of dry waste by the local body,” says Shibu K Nair, director of Kerala-based non-profit Thanal. “Most of the waste in these cities (for instance, in Kerala) is converted into compost or biogas at the household- or community-level. Inorganic waste like plastic, glass, metals and paper is sent for recycling. The cities make money from solid waste rather than spending crores of rupees in collecting and transporting waste to landfills,” Nair adds.
“Cities are constantly pushed to put up hoardings and flex (made up of non-recyclable plastic) for awareness campaigns and are even rated under the Survekshan for doing so. However, most of the cities in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are against this. Kerala has banned flex and banners under its Green Protocol,” says V K Ramakanth, swm expert, Bruhut Bengaluru Municipal Corporation.
Upset with Alappuzha’s national ranking of 219 out of 471 cities in the Survekshan, municipal chairman Thomas Joseph retorts: “Does this mean that we switch to centralised (systems)? The rankings are a disincentive to cities in Kerala, which is propagating a decentralised model. Our cities need to be pushed as the best performers as it has taken years of effort to reach very close to the target of zero waste.” “We should propagate models that support segregation at source with maximum recycling and reuse. Zero landfill should be the goal of swm,” says Bhushan.