Solid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns · PDF fileSolid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns ... Goa, and Andhra Pradesh ... garbage from trailers to the disposal

The Water and Sanitation Programis an international partnership forimproving water and sanitation sectorpolicies, practices, and capacities toserve poor people

October 2006

Case Study

Solid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns

Lessons and ImplicationsIn recent years, select examples have emerged of initiatives developed and launched by small urban localbodies in India that have transformed service levels and helped improve compliance with the MunicipalSolid Waste Rules. A series of case studies has been compiled for three small towns in West Bengal, Goa,and Andhra Pradesh, focusing on decoding the institutional dynamics at work.

Cover: Cleaned street in Kanchrapara. Old community garbage bin converted into flower pot with the message, ‘Do not use plastic’.

The information and analysis provided in the case studies are based on information provided by municipalities and field assessmentsundertaken in the period April-July 2005.

US$1 = Rs 45; 1,000 million = 1 billion.

Estimates of waste generation in all three cases were provided by municipalities based on per capita waste generation norms(400-500 g) and not any empirical study.

Solid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns

Lessons and Implications

2

The focus of the programs was on primary collection and transportation...[however] the disposal end has remained unaddressed, with opendumping being the norm.

Suryapet: Dumping on roadsides.

Since 1842, with the passing of thefirst Municipal Act, the responsibilityfor municipal solid waste (MSW)management in India has been with urbanlocal bodies (ULBs). This was furtherreiterated under the 74th ConstitutionalAmendment of 1992. In 1995, a plaguein Surat brought the criticality of thisfunction back into focus and led to aseries of reform measures in the sectorsince then. Subsequently, a legislativeframework was provided by theMunicipal Solid Waste (Managementand Handling) Rules 2000 notification.

Given these developments, it was tobe expected that the situation on theground would improve. However, despitethe clear identification of responsibilityand pressures arising from growingpublic awareness, the status of MSWservices in most Indian towns hasremained far from satisfactory.

Yet, in recent years, select exampleshave emerged of initiatives developedand launched by small ULBs that havetransformed service levels and helpedimprove compliance with the MSWRules. It is a matter of interest to explorethe reasons that led to the developmentof these initiatives, the factors thatsupported their implementation, and thelacunae that remain in these programs.

Focus ofthe StudyAccordingly, a series of case studieswere undertaken in April-July 2005,focusing on decoding the institutionaldynamics at work; in particular, thefactors that supported or constrainedthe design and implementation of theinitiatives. Some important lessons thatmay be drawn from these cases includethe (a) need for developing a reformprogram that is firmly grounded in the

Solid Waste ManagementInitiatives in Small Towns:Lessons and Implications

local context; (b) potential that existsfor harnessing local resources andinnovating through a bottom-upapproach; (c) supportive role requiredto be played by state governments,which should guard against adopting atop-down prescriptive approach; and(d) need for more active intervention inwaste treatment and disposal that hastended to get neglected due toconstraints existing at the local level.

Case StudiesThree towns from three differentstates were selected for this study—Kanchrapara (West Bengal), Panaji(Goa), and Suryapet (Andhra Pradesh).The towns are similar in size, withpopulations of approximately 100,000,but with differing economic profiles andpolitical orientations. The programswere similar in scope, but achievedthe end outcomes using substantiallydifferent strategies (see Box 1).Accordingly, while being comparable,these cases represent a diverse set

Kanchrapara ➞ Community partnershipPanaji ➞ Equipment innovation and financial incentivesSuryapet ➞ Stakeholder engagement and advocacy

Box 1: Program Thrust

of small town experiences. All the threeprograms were launched with the aim of‘improving the civic environment’ (asagainst ‘safeguarding public health’).

The focus of the programs thus was onprimary collection and transportation,that is, increased frequency ofcollection, elimination of fixedcommunity bins, and streamlining oftransportation systems. In all the threecases there has also been an attemptat instituting segregation, composting,and recycling. To that extent, theyindicate a fundamental shift in approachfrom basic cleaning services tointegrated sustainable wastemanagement. Despite this, the disposalend has remained unaddressed, withopen dumping being the norm.

Funding for all three programs has beenalmost entirely from municipal finances,with some contributions from localstakeholders (for example, commercialestablishments or business groups);little or no financial assistance was takenfrom higher levels of government.

3

Panaji: Dump site at Curca.

In Kanchrapara, the inadequacy of financial resources with the Municipalitynecessitated the development of a low cost service delivery model thatcould be implemented by the people themselves.

4

Kanchrapara: Door-to-door collection of segregated waste.


Case Study 1Kanchrapara(West Bengal):Community-Based ServiceDeliveryKanchrapara was originally built asa township by Indian Railways.Today it has expanded to include othereconomic activities as well, primarilysmall-scale trade and services. Givenmunicipal status in 1917, the wards inthe non-Railway areas are managed bythe Kanchrapara Municipality (KM).The rapid growth of population in thenon-Railway areas had resulted in sharpincrease in municipal solid waste(MSW) generation in these areas.Secondary storage points for MSW(streetside vats) were cleared only twoor three times a month, resulting inunhygienic conditions on the streetsand in open spaces. The Municipalitywas unable to keep the town clean,given its inadequate MSW infrastructureand resources.

The idea of a participatory approachto solid waste management (SWM)emerged in mid-2002, in the courseof discussions between the ViceChairman, Kanchrapara Municipality,and the then Chief Environment Officer,Government of West Bengal. Theinadequacy of financial resources withthe Municipality necessitated thedevelopment of a low cost servicedelivery model that could beimplemented by the people themselves.

After preliminary discussions andsubsequent approval from MunicipalCouncilors, a provisional roadmap wasdeveloped, based on community

Outputs: Frequency of garbage collection increased from once in 10 to 15 daysto daily collection; fixed community bins eliminated. Attempt at treatment ofbiodegradable waste through composting; open dumping of the rest.

Period of implementation: 2003-2005

Coverage: Town-wide (achieved 80 percent coverage as of March 2005)

User fees: Yes Segregation: Yes

Program champion: Municipal Councilor Implementation phases:Ward-wise

Program cost: Approximately US$66,700 for 15 wards(estimated US$100,000 for full town)

Box 2: Program Summary

5

Figure 1: Institutional Arrangements

Municipal SWMcommittee

Private contractor(proposed)—

compost marketing

Conservancydepartment

Ward SWMcommittee

KanchraparaMunicipality

Sector(150-180 households):

1 supervisor+ 1 worker+ Rickshaw

Location: Municipality town located about 48 km. from Kolkata in North24 Parganas district of West Bengal

Area: 3.07 sq. km. (plus 6 sq. km. under the management of Indian Railways)

No. of wards: 19 (plus 5 under the management of Indian Railways)

Population (2001): 126,000 (of which approximately 84,000 is under theKanchrapara Municipality)

BPL population: Approximately 20 percent

Quantity of solid waste generated: Approximately 40 MT per day

Box 3: Profile of Kanchrapara

involvement, cost sharing, employmentgeneration, gender sensitivity, andintegrated waste management.The main elements of the SWMprogram were:

• Introduction of door-to-doorcollection (DTDC) of garbageagainst payment of a servicecharge.

• Constitution of SWM committees atthe municipal and ward levels tooversee the SWM function.

• Substitution of communitydustbins by mobile trailers.

• Introduction of segregation atsource to enable effective treatmentof waste.

ImplementationStrategyLaunched in December 2002, theprogram was implemented on a ward-wise basis, with the ward of the ViceChairman, Kanchrapara Municipality,serving as the pilot. Towardsend-January 2003, the Municipal Boardadopted the necessary guidelines to runSWM committees at the municipal andward levels. By March 2005, 15 wards(out of 19) had adopted the program.1

To overcome the initial reluctance to payservice charges, the new SWM systemwas operated free of charge for thefirst two months in each ward. No‘willingness to pay’ study, however, wasdone to arrive at the tariff structure.Instead, a brief consultation exerciseusing ‘local wisdom’ led to theformulation of the differentiated ratestructure. The program did not meet

with any resistance from the Municipalitystaff, since there were no retrenchmentsunder the program.

The most important quality of thedecisionmaking process was that boththe Chairman and Vice Chairman werekeen to improve the situation and willingto commit municipal funds for thepurpose, with the latter acting as theprogram champion.

Public communication. For each ward,the initial awareness creation was doneprimarily through group meetings in theward. Once the system was introducedin a particular ward, a campaign modewas adopted, using posters, schoolcompetitions, and even the singing ofsongs by schoolchildren.

Institutional Arrangements

Prior to the intervention, the SWMfunction was managed entirely by theconservancy department of KM. Underthe program, SWM committees wereconstituted at the municipal and wardlevels to oversee SWM service deliveryfor the town. These committeesbecame the vehicle for the adoptionof the participatory approach underthe program.

The ward-level SWM committees workwithin the framework provided by the

1 The remaining four were undertaking groundwork (for example,surveys, awareness meetings) to adopt the program.

municipal-level SWM committee. Thelatter in turn is required to provide fullsupport to the ward-level committeesto enable effective functioning of theSWM system.

The municipal-level SWM committee,consisting of municipal councilors andother select nominees, has the overallresponsibility for all aspects of SWM.It defines the operating guidelines forthe ward SWM committees, includingstructure of service charges, wagerates and employment terms for wardworkers, price of compost anddistribution of earnings from it, andalso initiates awareness creation.Operational responsibility is, however,divided between the KM conservancydepartment and ward-levelSWM committees.

The conservancy department isresponsible for street sweeping,drain cleaning, transportation ofgarbage from trailers to the disposalsite, composting operations, andmanaging the dump site.

The ward-level SWM committee(s)consists of 12 or 15 members drawnfrom the ward committee plus selectnominees. It oversees all operationaland maintenance aspects of the DTDCservice, including hiring of workers,

Category Charges (in US$)

Residents 0.22

• Families below poverty line (BPL) 0.10

• Poorest 5 percent families of BPL population Free

Commercial establishments

• Shops 0.10

• Restaurants and hotels 1-2

Table 1: Monthly Service Charges

6

Collated by WSP-SA from data provided by the Municipality.


collection of charges, and maintainingfinancial accounts.

Two market SWM committees havealso been created to coordinate andoversee garbage collection from thetwo main markets in the town.

The funds generated through collectionof service charges remain within theward, and are used only for SWM-related expenses. The ward committeemaintains financial accounts for thesefunds, which are internally audited oncea year, and then disclosed to the wardresidents in the annual general meeting.[Note: SWM charges are the only fundsraised by the ward committees.]

As per the guidelines laid down, wardworkers should be hired from their ownarea from the underprivileged sections,typically for a tenure of one year. Thesupervisors are required to be female,typically from the BPL category. Thereare no rewards or penalties linked toperformance; nevertheless, motivationlevels run high, driven largely by publicgoodwill and a sense of civic pride.

A comprehensive monitoring schedulehas been developed by the

Figure 2: Operating System

KM’s conservancy department• Transportation, treatment, disposal• Street and drain cleaning• All capex costs• O&M costs for storage, transportation,

treatment, and disposal• DTDC costs for first two months

Private contractor(proposed)

Rickshaws Towed by tractor

Dumpsite(~7 acres)

Bagged and sold

Trailer

Ward-level SWM committee• Operational management, hiring workers,

maintaining accounts• Awareness creation• Collection of charges• All O&M costs for DTDC

Composting ofbiodegradable waste

• 9 to 11 am: DTDC in a segregated form.

• By 12 noon: SW deposited in trailers located at specified points in ward.

• 12 noon to 2 pm: Trailers towed by tractor to composting and disposal site. After unloading, trailers returned to original locations.

• Cleaning of main roads done in the morning by a team of sweepers.

Box 4: Operational Flow

Kanchrapara Municipality, and adoptedfor tracking operational aspects ofthe SWM service delivery systems.

Operating System

• Each ward (average population:4,500) is split into four or sixsectors; each sector consists of150-180 Waste Generating Units2

(WGUs). Each sector is assignedone tricycle van accompaniedby one waste collector andone supervisor.

• Every morning, segregated garbageis collected from households anddumped in the trailers stationed at

specified points in the ward. In theafternoon, a tractor tows awaytrailers (up to 10-12 trailers pertractor) to the dump site where thewaste is unloaded (segregatedbiodegradable waste goes directlyinto the compost chambers).

• The waste collector does thephysical work of collection, whilethe supervisor is responsible formonitoring the work (that is,ensuring that all units under hercharge are covered), collectingmonthly charges, maintainingrecords, and encouragingsegregation at source. This systemis operational 365 days a year.

• Every family has been given twobuckets—for storing biodegradable

2 Mainly households, but also including shops, restaurants,and schools.

7

$$

and non-biodegradable waste—bythe ward-level SWM committee.The tricycles have provision fortransporting the waste insegregated form. Trailers are alsoeither partitioned or two trailers areprovided at a spot, to store thebiodegradable waste separately.Mixed waste provided by someWGUs is sorted by the wastecollector on the tricycle van itself.

• Roadside vats used for secondarystorage under the earlier systemhave been done away with, and arebeing gradually beautified intobig flowerpots.

• The Municipality plans to providestands for workers, to facilitate thetransfer of waste from tricycle vansinto trailers.

• Waste generators are required to

inform the ward committee aboutconstruction debris, which then getsit collected for a charge.

• Cleaning of main roads and drainsis managed by the KM conservancydepartment. Streets inside thewards, though cleaned by KMworkers, are managed byward committees.

Treatment and Disposal

The town has a treatment-cum-dumpsite located on the outer edgeof the town. It covers an area ofapproximately seven acres, of whichabout half is allocated for compostingoperations (started in early 2004).A multi-chamber framed structureis provided for compostingsegregated biodegradable waste(approximately three-four tons perday) using an EM (Effective Micro-

organisms) solution.3 The compostingmethod was initially developedand tested with the assistance ofa research candidate fromJadavpur University (Kolkata).

Disposal is clearly the weak link inthe chain. The existing site is just anopen dumping ground with noprovision for leachate control.Moreover, it is surrounded byhabitation. To mitigate the situation,KM proposes to construct a boundarywall and plant trees around the site,which should also address the currentlyprevalent cattle menace.

At current rates of dumping, the sitehas a remaining life of about five toseven years. To address this challenge,a proposal has been mooted toset up a regional disposal facilityin coordination with twoneighboring municipalities.

Marketing of compost and recyclingof waste (currently entirely informal)are some of the areas with remainingambiguities, and require to beaddressed for more effective operation.To this end, the Municipality hassubmitted a proposal to the stategovernment for financing expansionof composting facilities, and extendingthe program to the remainingwards in the town.

Financial Resources

Costs associated with DTDC areshared between the KanchraparaMunicipality and ward-level SWMcommittees (see Box 5), while costsassociated with transportation,treatment, and disposal are borneentirely by the Municipality.

3 A liquid concentrate containing more than 80 strains of naturallyavailable micro-organisms, for example, lactic acid bacteria,photosynthetic bacteria, yeast.

8

Kanchrapara: Tractor with trailers unloading waste at dump site.


Most of the ward-level SWM operationsare financially viable, with servicecharge collections covering all ongoingcosts associated with DTDC. In a fewcases where the ward does not haveadequate resources, KM may providefunds for maintenance and replacementof equipment.

The overall cost of the town’s SWMsystems is approximately US$7 perton (excluding street cleaning). The lowcosts are partly due to the low costequipment deployed and low wagerates for DTDC.4 SWM costs accountfor about 15-16 percent of KM’s totalrevenue expenditure (US$800,000 in2004-05). Service charge collectionsfor the town are roughly US$22,200

per year (equivalent to 20 percent ofKM’s SWM costs).

Earnings from the compost plant areplanned to be distributed equallybetween the wards.

Program Cost and Resource Mobilization

In the first two years of operation, theKanchrapara SWM program has costUS$66,700 and covered 15 of the 19wards. The expenditure has been onproviding free bins for households; O&Mcosts for first two months (for eachward); trailers, tricycles, large bins; com-posting plant; and awareness creation.

KM spends an average of US$4,000per ward for introducing the program,which includes two months of operatingexpenses associated with DTDC, initialawareness creation, plus all equipment

4 US$6.66 (Rs. 300) per month for the supervisor and US$11.11(Rs. 500) per month for the collection worker.

Kanchrapara Municipality SWM ward committee

One-time costs Ongoing costs

• Two bins per family • Wages of workers and supervisors

• Tricycles, bins (large), shovels or spades • Repairs and maintenance of tricycles

• O&M costs for first two months • Replacement of tricycle bins

• Awareness creation • Gloves, raincoats, umbrellas

• Signages and beautification of vats

• Admin. expenses for committee

Box 5: Door-to-Door Collection Costs

Category Amount (in US$ approx.)

Allotment from SFC grants 44,444

Municipal fund 4,444

Grant from Department of Environment 11,044of state government

Plus service charges collected

Table 2: Resource Mobilization


(that is, bins, tricycles, shovels,spades, and trailers).

Apart from a small grant from theDepartment of Environment for carryingout the program on a trial basis in twowards, there has been no additionalfunding for the Municipality. Goingforward, however, it is expected thatadditional funds would be required tosustain the SWM effort.

Program Highlights

• High level of public participation anddecentralization through ward-levelSWM committees.

• Payment of charges by allhouseholds, due to transparencyand accountability. Revenuecollections remain within the wardand are spent only on SWM.

• Segregation at source—approximately 60 percent. Provisionfor segregated transportation.

• Cost recovery: Service chargescover the full cost of DTDC.

• Employment generation for 150workers (50 percent women)from BPL population.

• Negligible increase in KM staffor vehicles.

Issues

• System is dependent on volunteersfrom the community, which can be aconstraint at times.

• Limited engagement of ragpickers.

• No organized attempt at recycling.

• Weak disposal system.

• Lack of coordination with othergovernment authorities, namely theRailways (which manages the otherhalf of the town).

9

The rollout of the solid waste management program in Panaji was partof a multi-pronged campaign aimed at the revitalization of the city, called‘Together for Panjim’.

10

Panaji: Transfer of waste from trolley bins into trucks using a mechanized side loader.


Case Study 2Panaji (Goa):Innovationand IncentivesWork WondersPanaji, the capital of Goa, is a city witha strong cultural heritage. Apart frombeing a popular tourist destination, itis an administrative center and acommercial hub for the state. Till theearly 1990s, the town’s municipalsolid waste (MSW) management wascharacterised by a weak systemwith poor infrastructure, resulting inunhygienic civic conditions. In 1995,with the assistance of the Governmentof India, United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP), and Water andSanitation Program-South Asia(WSP-SA), the Panjim Municipal Council(PMC) undertook the Solid Wasteand Resource Management (SWARM)project. However, despite detailedplanning and infrastructure upgradationundertaken as part of theSWARM project, sanitary conditionsremained unsatisfactory.

In December 2000, with the help ofthe local Garbage ManagementCommittee5 and the NGO ‘People’sMovement for Civic Action’, the PMClaunched its ‘house-to-house garbagecollection scheme’ in Dona Paula (nolonger a part of Panaji). The PMCappointed a contractor for the door-to-door collection (DTDC) and alsoinstituted a service charge of US$0.67per month for each household. Thoughinitially implemented for only 70households, the scheme gained

popularity and in a little over a year’stime spread to approximately 200households. In early 2003, under theleadership of the Chief Officer6 of Panaji,a comprehensive city revitalizationcampaign was launched, which includedMSW management as a critical element.As part of the MSW component,christened ‘Bin Free in 2003’, the DTDC

Outputs: Frequency of garbage collection increased from once in 10 to 15 daysto daily; fixed community bins eliminated. Incentivization of recycling. Attempt attreatment of biodegradable waste through composting; open dumping of the rest.

Period of implementation: 2003 Coverage: Town-wide(nine months)

User fees: Yes (partial coverage) Segregation: No

Champion: Municipal Commissioner Implementation phases: Locality-wise

Program cost: Approximately US$88,900


Location: Corporation town located in North Goa, it lies on the banks of theriver Mandovi

Area: 7.56 sq. km.

Number of wards: 14

Population (2001): 86,000 (plus 25,000 floating population)

BPL population: Less than 1 percent

Quantity of SW generated: 50 MT per day

Box 7: Profile of Panaji

scheme piloted in Dona Paula was rolledout to the entire city of Panaji. The keyelements of the MSW program were (a)DTDC for the entire city of Panaji alongwith the introduction of service charges;(b) substitution of community bins bytrolley bins along with automated truck-loading systems; and (c) program forthe recycling of plastic waste.

Implementation Strategy

The rollout of the SWM program inPanaji was part of a multi-prongedcampaign aimed at the revitalization ofthe city, called ‘Together for Panjim’.The campaign encompassed improvingthe civic infrastructure and conservingthe city’s heritage, thereby fosteringcivic pride among the citizens. It had thesupport of local as well as state-levelpolitical representatives.

SWM Program:‘Bin Free in 2003’

5 Constituted under the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage(Control) Act, 1996. 6 Equivalent to a Municipal Commissioner.

11

Improving the sanitary conditions of thecity was an important element of thiscampaign, reflected in the launch ofthe Bin Free program. Based on thepilot in Dona Paula, the programwas implemented locality-wise.The implementation was manageddirectly by the Corporation of theCity of Panaji (CCP)7 without anyNGO assistance.

As part of the pilot at Dona Paula,initially households kept the bins outsideand a truck collected the waste directly.Later an intermediate stage of transferwas introduced in the form of the trolleybin, which refined the operational flow toits current form. The current trolley bindesign was arrived at after muchexperimentation with bin models from

several countries including Australia,France, and Singapore. The trolley binhas proved to be more functional than atricycle rickshaw, given the undulatingterrain of Panaji. A similar process ofiteration was adopted for arriving at thestreet litter bin design. The hydraulicarm of the garbage trucks was alsolocally modified8 to enable transfer ofwaste from the trolley bin into the truckwithout manual intervention. This localinnovation in truck design resulted insubstantial savings in cost, which mighthave been otherwise incurred had theMunicipality purchased modified trucksfrom the manufacturer. Modificationswere also made in the design of lids forthe bins provided to households. Theseprevented spillage of garbage by strayanimals while being operationally

7 In 2002, Panaji’s municipal status was upgraded from MunicipalCouncil to Corporation and the civic agency, Panaji MunicipalCouncil, was re-christened Corporation of the City of Panaji.

efficient as well. Help was taken from thebin manufacturer to arrive at the finallid design.

A unique feature of the city revitalizationcampaign was the way in which itharnessed local talent, by seekingwidespread involvement from the city’sresidents at various stages of theprogram. For instance, architectsand urban planners assisted in therestoration of heritage buildings,competitions were held to developstreet art, music festivals were held togenerate civic pride, and so on. Forthe MSW program in particular,musicians helped develop jingles forcommunicating the bin-free message,design inputs were sought from localexperts to arrive at the look of thecampaign as well as the SWMinfrastructure (that is, street bins,trucks), and engineers contributed theirinputs to design truck modifications.

The additional function of DTDC wasperformed without any increase inmanpower. Workers earlier responsiblefor only street cleaning, drain cleaning,and removal of waste from communitybins were now given the job of DTDC aswell. Their cooperation was obtained bypaying them a cash incentive from theservice charges collected (details insubsequent sections).

This arrangement also served tocounter resistance to payment ofcharges, based on the argument thatthe money collected was “not to makethe Corporation richer, but as anincentive for the worker doingthe DTDC”.

To gain public goodwill and credibility,a quick response vehicle was alsointroduced with a 24-hour helplinenumber, to clear garbage leftuncollected due to any reason.

8 These were originally designed for picking up the SWARM bins ofthe earlier system.

12

Panaji: Door-to-door collection using trolley bin.


The program was started in early 2003and completed within nine months,by November 2003.

Public CommunicationStrategies

SWM by itself had little potential forengaging public interest. The subject,however, drew a lot more attention andcooperation when publicized in thecontext of overall civic revival under the‘Together for Panjim’ campaign. As partof the campaign, cultural programs suchas music festivals, fairs, and carnivalswere held in which the message of civichygiene was reiterated.

For locality-level communication, theChief Officer of CCP and the WasteManagement Officer visited houses,along with women volunteers, toconvey the details of the scheme andgarner the cooperation of residents.


Within the CCP, the solid waste functionis managed by the solid waste

management cell. It is headed bythe Accounts/Taxation Officer, whoalso has the dual charge of theWaste Management Officer (in theabsence of any alternate official withthe requisite expertise). This officerrepresents the continuity factor ofPanaji’s SWM services, having handledthis charge for over a decade. Giventhis, as well as the limited communityinvolvement, the system appears tobe excessively dependent on thisone individual.

Field services are headed by a MunicipalInspector and a Sanitary Inspector,under whose charge are 15supervisors, to oversee the collectionand transportation work for each zone.

Service charges are collected bysupervisors, who also deal withcustomer complaints, and manage

Category Charges (in US$)

Residents, shops 0.67

Hotels or restaurants (depending on size 3-13of establishment)

Table 3: Monthly Service Charges


workers accordingly. Out of thecollections made, the supervisors paycash incentives (Table 5) to thecollection and transportation workers,maintain accounts for these funds, anddeposit the surplus amount with theCCP. The cash incentives serve as aninformal contractual arrangementbetween the workers and users,enhancing worker accountability forproper service delivery.

Use of Financial Incentives for Recycling

• A collection center for PET bottleshas been established (with supportfrom Pepsi Co.). Ragpickers depositplastic bottles there, for whichthey are paid US$0.55 per 100bottles. Bottles are transported toa crushing unit near Vasco (set upby Coca-Cola), from where thecrushed plastic is sold to recyclers.

Figure 3: InstitutionalArrangements

Private contractor—hotels

Private contractor(proposed)—

Treatment & Disposal

Ragpicker

Zone: One supervisor+

10-15 workers+

Trolley bins, trucks

Morning shift: Street sweeping

• Sweepers clean roads and leave waste in trolley bins by the roadside.

• Vehicles load waste and then transport it to the dump site.

Afternoon shift: DTDC

• 2 to 5 pm: DTDC done using trolley bins. On getting filled, these are leftby the roadside.

• 3 pm onwards: Vehicles start moving along fixed routes, collecting garbagefrom trolley bins left by the roadside. On completing their route these vehiclestransport the waste to the dump site.

Night shift (by contractors): Collection from hotels and restaurants.


13

CCP

SWM cell

• People can return washed emptyplastic milk bags of Goa Dairy at thebooths, for which they are paid atthe rate of US$0.17 per 100 bags(approximately 250 gram).

Privatization

The SWM function is managed entirelyby the CCP, with the exception of afew service areas that have been,or are being, outsourced to privatecontractors, namely (a) collection ofwaste from the 250-odd hotels andrestaurants; and (b) management ofthe treatment-cum-disposal facility inCurca. In both cases, the CCP hasretained ownership of the underlyingassets, having outsourced only theoperational aspects (Box 9).

Operating System

The city is divided into zones9 foroperational purposes, with each zone


Ragpickers

Hydraulic truck

Bagged and soldHotels/

RestaurantsGoa Dairy(milk bags)

CCP’s SWM cell• Operational management• Maintaining accounts• Collection of charges• All capex and operational costs, except

for DTDC, from hotels

Private contractor• Service contract

Ragpickers• Cost-free collection of recyclables from

shops and offices• PET bottles collection center

Private contractor(proposed)• Management contract

Dump site(~3.6 acres)

Vermi-compostingof biodegradable

waste

managed by a supervisor. Thesupervisor manages the collectionas well as transportation for his zone,using 10-15 workers consisting ofa mix of permanent and temporarystaff. The same workers do streetsweeping in the morning and DTDC inthe afternoon.

• Each collection worker coversapproximately 250 households.The worker takes garbage fromhousehold bins (capacity: 20 liters)and transfers it into the trolley bin(capacity: 240 liters). Later, thegarbage trucks travel along a fixedroute and transfer garbage from thetrolley bins left by the roadside intothe closed truck. After completingtheir DTDC beat, workers placeempty trolley bins back insidefixed enclosures.

• Waste from slum-like areas isreceived through commonstorage bins.

• After being swept, street waste iscollected in the trolley bins, fromwhich it is transferred into garbagetrucks, as in the case of DTDC.

• This system is operational 365 daysa year.

Transportation of waste is done usingtrucks (capacity: approximatelyseven tons) that are fully closed, someof which have provision for hydraulicloading (thus eliminating manual handlingof waste). Each vehicle makes twotrips—once in the morning for streetwaste and the other in the evening forDTDC waste.

Market waste is received directly in atruck parked at the location from whereit is cleared more frequently in thecourse of the day, thus minimizing anyaccumulation of waste. With theelimination of community bins, streetlitter bins have been installed all acrossthe city. The CCP has not yet institutedany fines for street littering.9 Not necessarily based on ward boundaries.

14

Trolley bin

$$$$

$$

Hotel or restaurant wasteScope: Collection of segregated waste from hotels or restaurants, between 7 pm and 1 am, for a service charge (fixed by CCP).

Resources: CCP provides vehicle. Contractor hires CCP Payment: Contractor pays CCP US$200 per month for vehicle.staff and pays them as per norms defined by CCP. Retains surplus revenue.

Treatment-cum-disposal facility (proposed)Scope: (a) treatment of mixed waste with effective micro-organism technology, followed by aerobic composting; assistanceto CCP in marketing the compost and recyclables; (b) reclamation of old waste dumped on site; (c) improvement of sitethrough tree plantation, roads, and drainage.

Resources: CCP to provide machinery and equipment. Tenure: Five years.

Payment: CCP pays fixed fees of US$1,222 per month and 7.5 percent of actual cost of civil andmechanical work.

Box 9: Contractual Arrangements

Construction waste is being used aslandfill cover. Residents are encouragedto phone in to get construction debriscollected, for which separate chargesare levied.

While segregation is being done atmost commercial establishments suchas hotels or restaurants (biodegradablewaste) and offices (recyclables), notmuch headway has been made onsegregation at the household level.Segregated biodegradable waste istreated at the composting facility, whilerecyclables are re-processed with theinvolvement of ragpickers. Apart fromthe incentive schemes for PET bottlesand milk bags (described earlier),the CCP has informally organizedragpickers to collect recyclable wastedirectly from offices and shops—aservice it provides free of charge. Forthe residential areas, it sometimescoordinates with the DTDC workersand extract recyclables directly fromthe waste in the trolley bin.


The town’s treatment-cum-dump siteat Curca is located nine km. from Panaji

(outside municipal limits), in what usedto be a stone quarry. Started in 1994,it covers an area of 3.61 acres, andincorporates a vermi-compostingfacility. The site still lacks basic amenitiessuch as a proper boundary wall(resulting in cattle menace), electricityor a water connection.


15

Apart from the obvious inadequaciesof the facility, matters were furthercompounded by a nearby Municipality,Mapusa, directing its waste to Curca.The extra dumping continued for almosttwo years, till as late as March 2005,when it stopped after aggressiveprotests by Panaji representatives.

Panaji: Transfer of waste from trolley bins into trucks using a mechanized side loader.

16

This overloading has brought the facilityclose to saturation levels, and alsodisrupted the vermi-compostingoperations. The vermi-compostingfacility (set up in November 2001)consists of 14 vermi-beds and is usedfor composting primarily hotel andmarket waste. When operational, thevermi-compost generated is usedmainly for the city’s horticulturerequirements. The CCP now proposesto upgrade the facility, using a privatecontractor, who will also subsequentlymanage disposal-cum-treatmentoperations at the site (Box 9).

Attempts have also been made atdecentralized vermi-composting inselect residential complexes, in partner-ship with local NGOs. These have,however, remained isolated initiatives.

Financial Resources

Panaji’s SWM model offers the followingrevenue-generating opportunities:

• Service charges from wastegenerating units (WGUs).

• Fixed payment from contractorsfor collection of hotel orrestaurant waste.

• Sale of compost (currentlynegligible).

These do not offset SWM costs to anysignificant extent.

The operating cost (estimated) of thetown’s SWM systems is US$31 perton.11 This accounts for about 35-40percent of the CCP’s total revenueexpenditure. Service charge collectionsfor the town are roughly US$26,700per year (equivalent to just aboutthree percent of the CCP’s SWM costs).

Currently the share of WGUs payingservice charges is relatively small (about20 percent). The CCP has refrainedfrom aggressively pushing for increasedcollections, since its primary objective atthis stage is to ensure participation ofWGUs in the SWM system and notcost recovery. Nevertheless, collectionshave been steadily rising on a yearlybasis since the start of the scheme(see Table 4), from US$2,918in 2002-03 to a budgeted US$33,333for 2005-06.

Not all service charge collectionstranslate into revenue for the CCPsince a share of these service chargesis paid as cash incentives to theworkers. While these incentives aredefined by the CCP, their disbursalis managed at the supervisory level;the remaining surplus is depositedwith the CCP.

To further increase willingness topay, the CCP has started a schemefor annual payment of SWM servicecharges along with the propertytax at a discounted rate ofUS$6.67 instead of US$8.11.

Year Amount (in US$)

2002-03 2,918

2003-04 19,360

2004-05 (estimate) 26,700

2005-06 (budget) 33,333

Table 4: Service Charge Collections from SWM Scheme10


10 Net of cash incentives paid to workers, and also excludingcollections from hotels or restaurants.11 Breakup (per ton): Collection cost: US$19; transportation cost:US$11.50; disposal cost: US$0.50.Panaji: Garbage truck parked at the vegetable market.

17


The CCP has spent roughly US$88,900on the program, which includes theacquisition of trolley bins, large bins,street litter bins, modification ofhydraulic trucks,12 augmenting offacilities at treatment-cum-disposal site,and awareness creation (a substantialpart of this activity was covered underthe larger civic revival campaign,well supported by local stakeholderssuch as corporates, NGOs, and clubs).The CCP’s expenditure on the solidwaste program has been funded entirelyfrom its own sources, with no externalfunding for the Municipality.

Program Highlights

• Rapid implementation (nine months).

• Dovetailing with multi-prongedcampaign resulting in effectiveoutreach.

• Levy of service charges, resulting inpart cost sharing for DTDC.

• Payment of cash incentives toworkers (~ 30 percent) fromcollections. Results in (a) workeraccountability; and (b) increasedproductivity without additionalexpenditure by the CCP.

• Improved recycling efficiencythrough market creation for PETbottles and plastic milk bags.

• Equipment choice and adaptationto suit local conditions.

• Minimal manual handling of waste.

• No increase in vehicles or manpower.

Issues

• No segregation at source inhouseholds.

• Low level of user-fee collection.

• Poor downward allocation ofoperational responsibility.

• Low public engagement inoperations and monitoring.

• Inadequate cost information to

decide pricing under contractualarrangements.

• Weak disposal system (inter-municipal ‘conflict’!) due to strongNIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’)sentiment in region.

Staff Incentive per No. of Totalworker (fixed) workers amount

(in US$) (in US$)

Supervisor 11.11 1 11.11

Sweepers 3.33 8 26.67

Daily workers 3.33 7 23.33

Driver 8.90 2 17.78

Operators 4.44 6 26.67

Total cash incentives paid 105.56

Service charge collections 333.33

Net surplus deposited with CCP 227.77

Table 5: Sample Monthly Accounts for a Supervisor


12 No additional vehicles were acquired under the program.

Panaji: Vermi-composting facility in a residential apartment complex.

Though the Suryapet initiative was spearheaded by the MunicipalCommissioner, it received strong backing from the political decisionmakers,namely the elected councilors.

18

Suryapet: Cleaned streets in a residential area.


Case Study 3Suryapet(Andhra Pradesh):EngagingStakeholdersto AchieveService DeliveryOutcomesSuryapet was assigned municipal statusin 1952. Its population has since grownby over 10 times. Its main economicactivities are agriculture and business.The town also has an industrial estatethat includes industries such as PVC,HDPE pipes, rice mills, pharmaceuticals,and stone polishing.

Prior to 2003, the town suffered frompoor sanitary standards. The frequencyof garbage collection was low, resultingin waste spillage around bins. Incidenceof disease in the town’s populace washigh. In an effort to clean up the city, theMunicipal Commissioner launched a‘Zero-Based Solid Waste Management’initiative13 in early 2003, which wasimplemented on a phased basis. Thekey elements of the initiative were:

• Introduction of door-to-door (DTDC)collection of garbage.

• Eradication of community dustbins.

• Introduction of segregation at source.

• Installation of treatment andrecycling facilities to minimize wastedisposal requirements.

The first phase had won the goodwillof the citizens by displaying theMunicipality’s commitment to improvingliving conditions. This facilitated theinvolvement of households in theimplementation of the second phase,that is, in doing segregation at source.Both these phases were accompaniedby an aggressive public outreachprogram (further details below) forcreating awareness among the citizensand ensuring their cooperation.

Though the initiative was spearheadedby the Municipal Commissioner, itreceived strong backing from thepolitical decisionmakers, namely theelected councilors. This allowed theprogram to be implemented without

19

Outputs: Focus on primary collection and transportation; frequency ofgarbage collection increased from once in 10 to 15 days to daily collection;fixed community bins eliminated. Treatment of biodegradable waste throughcomposting, recycling of dry waste, and open dumping of the rest.

Period of implementation: 2003 Coverage: Town-wide

User fees: No Segregation: Yes

Program champion: Municipal Commissioner

Implementation phases: Operationally phased. Phase I: Bin-free with dailyclearance; Phase II: Segregation at source

Program cost: US$275,500 (from municipal finances and contributions fromlocal stakeholders)


Location: Municipality town located about 137 km. from Hyderabadin Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh.

Area: 34.54 sq. km.

No. of wards: 28

Population (2001): 103,000 (plus 30,000 floating population)

Slums: 44 slum areas

Quantity of MSW generated: Approximately 32 MT per day

Box 11: Profile of Suryapet

13 A similar initiative had been attempted by the MunicipalCommissioner in his previous assignment as MunicipalCommissioner of Mandapeta (Andhra Pradesh). He drew from hisprevious experience for the design and implementation of theSuryapet SWM program.

Implementation Strategy

The project was launched in twophases, both of which wereimplemented for the entire town:

• In January 2003, the municipalcouncil started DTDC, andeliminated community dustbins(approximately 360 bins). Thisresulted in significant improvementof the town’s civic environment.

• From May 2003, a two-bin systemwas introduced. Nearly 52,000green and red plastic bins weredistributed free of cost to allresidential houses to enablesegregation at source.

any political hindrances. Considerableeffort was devoted to engaging all thestakeholders—chairperson, councilors,staff, union leaders, and specificuser groups (for example, tradeassociations, industry groups, schools,and colleges). Senior citizens were alsoinvolved for collecting suggestions.Moreover, an integrated approach wasadopted for implementation. To thisend, the involvement of decisionmakersfrom the Engineering, Town Planning,and Revenue sections was mademandatory for the purposes of projectmonitoring and implementation.

Training was imparted to the localgovernment staff and public healthworkers under the leadership ofthe Municipal Commissioner. TheMunicipality even arranged formeditation sessions and yogaprograms to correct behavioralattitudes to hygiene and improveworker interaction with citizens. Specialefforts were made to recognize andreward workers for their hard work.No involvement was sought from anyprivate or non-governmental entity inthe change process. The entire exercise

was designed and implemented solelyby the Municipality.

Public CommunicationStrategies

The Municipal Council undertookaggressive efforts to generate publicawareness and engage the community.The nature of communication differedfor each phase of the project.

In the first phase, the message was apart of overall civic awareness. Streetmeetings were conducted to createawareness on personal hygiene, alongwith other elements of civic well-being,for example, family planning, literacy,developmental schemes, and reasonsfor the spread of communicablediseases. The aim was to sensitizepeople to the importance of maintaininghygiene, and thereby create a favorablemindset for their participation.Households were persuaded to storethe garbage in their homes (as againstdumping on roadsides) and hand it overto the collection staff.

In the second phase, the campaignfocused on segregation. Various

communication channels—distribution ofleaflets, publicity in print and electronicmedia, street plays, pasting of stickerson the doors of houses, house visits bywomen volunteers (since the targetaudience was the female members ofhouseholds)—were deployed.

As part of the community engagementeffort, the Municipality also heldmeetings with trade bodies, andorganized campaigns in schoolsand colleges.


The entire SWM program and itsoperations are managed by theMunicipal Commissioner. Theengineering and sanitary departmentsfunction under him, and togetherprovide the SWM services for the town.

The smooth functioning of the systemappears to depend heavily on theinitiative of the Municipal Commissionerhimself. It is unclear how well the systemwill continue to function once he is nolonger with the Suryapet Municipality.

The change process was self-initiated,without any diktat from central or stategovernment agencies. This possiblyaccounts for the commitment and

20

Figure 5: InstitutionalArrangements

SuryapatMunicipality

Sanitarydepartment

Zone—Workers +Tractor-trailer

Suryapet: Segregated dry waste stored at recycling facility.

innovativeness displayed by theMunicipality in implementing thechange process.

The public goodwill generated as aresult of the SWM initiative has had aspin-off benefit in the form of improvedtax collections by the Municipality.

The success with segregation hascreated improved opportunities forrecycling, which has in turn facilitated thedevelopment of micro enterprises andother income generation opportunitiesfor the informal recycling sector.

Half of the area dedicated tocomposting and recycling operations isinhabited by low-income groups andslums. The improved solid wasteoperations have provided poor peoplethe twin benefits of (a) improved hygieneresulting in improved health andproductivity (in turn reflected in raisedlevels of savings); and (b) increased selfand wage employment opportunitiesfor them.

Operating System

The town has been divided into sevenzones (of approximately 4,000-5,000households), with one tractor and30-35 sanitary personnel assigned toeach zone for DTDC. Collection is donedirectly by tractor-trailers; no tricyclesare used. There is, therefore, minimalmanual handling of wastes.

Community dustbins (approximately360) have been entirely eliminated. Toprevent street littering, pole bins havebeen installed along footpaths.


The treatment and disposal site hascomposting sheds, beds, and abore well pump. A shed has alsobeen constructed for furthersegregation of dry waste.

• By 10 am: DTDC using tractors with trailers. On entering each lane at apre-set time, the tractor driver blows a whistle to inform the residents to handover their dustbins to the municipal staff.

• 10 am to 12 noon: Collection of waste from shops, business establishments,and hospitals.

• 2 pm to 5 pm: Lifting of drainage silt and collection of waste from meat shops.

• Waste is transported by tractors to a recycling and treatment facility.

• Sweeping of main roads is done at night.



Tractor-cum-trailer

Suryapet Municipality’s conservancy department• Full operational responsibility• Full capex + O&M costs

Dump site

Packed and soldRecycling shed

Vermi-compostingof biodegradable

wasteBagged and sold

The disposal site has an electricalconnection for lighting purposes.During treatment and disposal (a) drywaste is further segregated at arecycling shed, and recyclables arepacked and weighed. These are soldto paper and other industries locatedin the vicinity; (b) organic waste isvermi-composted and sold to farmersor used for horticulture purposes;and (c) rejects, debris, and other finalwaste is used for leveling purposes.Due to the success with segregation,landfill diversion rates are very high.Performance levels achieved tillnow reflect this—60 percent oforganic waste is composted,14

and 90 percent recyclable waste issold or reused. Nevertheless,despite the high diversion ratessome amount of waste remainsuntreated or unused, and this is thendumped on roadsides or otherlow-lying areas.

No user charges are being leviedfor collection and disposal of waste;the service is currently free of costfor the people.

However, the Municipal Council haspassed a resolution authorizing aUS$2.20 fine on defaulters. Thefine, along with regular monitoringfor defaulters and on-the-spotaction, has ensured a high level ofcompliance among the public.

14 The Municipality is unable to do more due to inadequatecomposting infrastructure at present.


21

Category Before program After program

No. of workers for DTDC 217 226

Workers for road cleaning n.a. 12

Tractors 9 10

Community bins 360 Nil

Table 6: Operational Infrastructure

*Male: 98; Female: 128; n.a.: not available.Collated by WSP-SA from data provided by the Municipality.

In 2003, the Municipality earnedUS$575 by selling recyclables.Currently, the Municipality earnsapproximately US$1,770 per monththrough the sale of recyclables andcompost (which it sells at the rate ofUS$0.06 per kg).

Program Highlights

• Achieved high levels of segregationat source.

• Accomplished high landfill diversionrates (60 percent biodegradablewaste; 90 percent recyclables).

• Led to income generation fromsale of recyclables and compost~ US$1,770 per month.

• Generated financial support fromlocal trade and civic groups.

• Resulted in increased tax collectionsdue to public goodwill generatedby program.

• Achieved engagement of allstakeholder groups, therebyensuring smooth implementation.

• Resulted in income generationand improved living conditionsfor slum population.

• Led to minimal increase in vehiclesand manpower.

Issues

• No user fees or worker incentivesresulting in an absence ofcontractual arrangement with user.

• Inadequate decentralization ofoperational responsibility.

• Low public engagement inoperations and monitoring.

• No provision for proper disposalof remaining waste stream.

22

*

Financial Resources

The Suryapet Municipality spentabout US$275,555 on cleaningup the town. The money was spentprimarily on equipping the residentswith two separate dustbins, constructingthe vermi-compost and recyclingsheds, and implementing trainingand awareness programs. Therewas negligible increase in, andhence minimal expenditure on,operational infrastructure.

Apart from its own finances, theMunicipality raised money from different

sources such as the Lions Club,industrial houses, and tradeassociations. The Municipalityimplemented the program without anysupport from the central or stategovernment. It has, however, submitteda proposal for funds to augment thetransportation and composting andrecycling infrastructure for the town.Operating cost is roughly US$5.80per ton. On the other hand, the SWMsystem is currently generating incomethrough the sale of recyclables for theproduction of paper and pulp, and alsothrough selling compost to farmers.

Suryapet: SWM department workers near a tractor-trailer.


23

Kanchrapara Panaji Suryapet(West Bengal) (Goa) (Andhra Pradesh)

DTDC scope 100% 100% 100%

Covered storage Approximately 30% 100% No storage

Daily clearance Yes Yes Yes

Collection from bulk Yes Yes Yesgenerators

Covered transportation Approximately 30-40% 100% Partial

Treatment (percent of Centralized composting Centralized and decentralized Centralized compostingbiodegradable waste) (less than 30%) vermi-composting (minimal) (approximately 60%)

Recycling (percent of Ragpickers scavenging from Ragpickers coordinated with Centralized recyclingnon-biodegradable trailers or dump sites DTDC. Organized scheme center (approximatelywaste) (approximately 10-30%) for plastic bottles 90%)

(approximately 40%)

Disposal Open dumping Open dumping Open dumping

Emancipation of Employment generation Reduced health hazards for Employment generation forinformal sector for DTDC ragpickers; financial incentives treatment and recycling;

reduced health hazards

Community participation Very high (through ward Average Averagecommittees) ••••• Compliance ••••• Compliance

••••• Compliance ••••• User charges ••••• Segregation at source

••••• Segregation at source

••••• User charges

••••• Operational control

Financial summary (Figures not fully comparable due to differing accounting practices)

Operating expenditure on 2003-04: 2003-04: 2003-04:SWM (percent of total US$113,333 (16%) US$688,890 (34%) US$348,890 (14%)revenue expenditure) 2004-05: 2004-05: 2004-05:

US$117,778 (15%) US$800,000 (40%) US$175,556 (10%)

Operating cost (per ton) Approximately US$8-10 Approximately US$40 Approximately US$15

Revenue generation Approximately Approximately Approximately(percent of cost recovery) US$22,200 p.a. US$26,700 p.a. and rising US$22,200 p.a. (sale of

(100% of DTDC costs; 20% (3-4% of total SWM costs) compost and recyclables)of total SWM costs) (13% of total SWM costs)

Program cost Approximately Approximately ApproximatelyUS$66,700 for 15 wards US$88,900 US$275,500(estimate for full townUS$100,000)

Summary of Program Outputs

Note: DTDC: Door-to-door collection; p.a.: per annum.Collated by WSP-SA from data provided by the Municipality.

24

Lessons andChallengesProgram Outcomes

• Significant improvement in civicenvironment, though final healthoutcomes has not been achieveddue to absence of systems forsafe and sanitary disposal.

• Reduced incidence of health hazardsassociated with ragpicking(especially in Suryapet and Panaji).

• Increased compliance with MunicipalSolid Waste (MSW) Rules 2000(except disposal norms, which havenot been met).

• Improved system productivity asindicated by the negligible increasein staff or vehicles despite improvedservice levels.

• Income-generating opportunities forpopulation living below the povertyline and ragpickers.

• Improved citizen confidence in cityadministration, in some casesresulting in improved tax collections.

Lessons

Why did the programs get initiated inthese towns?

None of these programs weredriven by external pressures, suchas a diktat from the stategovernment or the State PollutionControl Boards (SPCBs); theirgenesis lay in local drivers. In eachof the three towns, one of the keydecisionmakers in the Municipalityrecognized the need for reform in theMSW management services, andperceived public discontent with theprevailing state of affairs. In all three,these decisionmakers had been

exposed to alternative strategies forSWM services—at Kanchraparathrough a workshop as well as inter-action with a sector expert; at Panajithrough a pilot undertaken in a specificlocality by a local NGO; and at Suryapetthrough a similar initiative attempted in aprevious work assignment.

This enabled the concerneddecisionmakers to proceed with theirprograms with a greater degree ofconfidence. They further leveraged theiralready favorable relationship withpolitical stakeholders in the town to gainassurance of political support for theirprograms. They were thus able toeffectively translate public discontentinto public cooperation for the program.

Success Factors

Program design has to be firmlygrounded in the local context. All theprograms drew heavily from localknowledge of town layout, communitybehavior, functionality of equipment,

labor profile, and technical infrastructurefor maintenance of equipment; and bydoing so, designed programs that werelocally appropriate. This, however, didnot prevent them from drawing onexternal expertise where necessary, asin the case of (a) Kanchrapara where aresearcher from a nearby leadinguniversity assisted them in designingtheir composting process; or (b) inPanaji where assistance was obtainedfrom the product supplier forre-designing the household bins.

Extent of community engagementvaries depending on the localcontext. A community-based approachshould be encouraged since it facilitatesgreater public participation in the MSWmanagement process. However, theextent of community involvement needsto be evaluated against the prevailinglocal context, that is, communitystructures, past history of cooperation,and growth patterns. For instance,broad-based community engagement

Kanchrapara: Door-to-door collection of segregated waste.


25

was effected in Kanchrapara in theform of a community-based servicedelivery system; largely facilitated byits extant system of ward committees.In Panaji, however, efforts at engagingthe community for the SWM programhave been less successful, possiblydue to the absence of local platformsfor community engagement, or thepoor past track record of civicpartnerships with the Municipality.

Whatever the extent of communityinvolvement, it needs to be wellsynchronized with Municipalityoperations since the primaryresponsibility for MSW managementremains with the latter. This hasbeen done effectively in the case ofKanchrapara where a clear frameworkof mutual cooperation has been put inplace between the ward committeesand the Municipality for ensuringsmooth ongoing operations. Functionaland financial responsibilities are clearlydelineated, guidelines for community-based operations are articulated toensure consistency across the town,and a system of information sharing hasbeen instituted to enable effectiveplanning and monitoring at theMunicipality level.

Any program needs a programchampion, preferably a localentity. The program championwould be someone who takesresponsibility for carrying the programforward. In each of the three cases,success depended on the initiativetaken by a single champion whoconceived the program and propelledthe required activities.

Moreover, ownership for the programswas enhanced by the fact that in allthree cases the program was initiatedby a local functionary.

It is necessary to ensure the buy-inof all the key stakeholders,especially political representatives.In all the programs, considerable effortwas made to ensure involvement of allstakeholder groups, namely, politicalrepresentatives, workers, departmentofficials, commercial establishments,schools, and so on. This helpedminimize the incidence of unexpecteddisruptions by any particular interestgroup. In particular, political support andgoodwill was crucial to the ultimatesuccess of the programs.

Public cooperation follows fromprogram credibility. In order to elicitpublic cooperation for segregation atsource, or payment of a service charge,it is necessary to first demonstratecredibility of intent. To do this, differentstrategies were adopted in the threecases, such as phased implementationto demonstrate the efficacy of theprogram, free service for initial fewmonths or distribution of free bins.In the end, however, it is visible and

sustained improvements in servicequality that ensured continued publiccooperation for the program.

Program outreach needs to be partof a larger message, and conveyedby an appropriate ‘messenger’. Todraw the attention of the citizens, theprogram communication in all caseswas made part of a larger messagesuch as health, child welfare, upliftmentof women or civic pride. The targetaudience, especially in the door-to-doorvisits, was the female members ofhouseholds (the prime users of MSWmanagement services). To facilitate thisinteraction, female volunteers weredeployed to participate in the door-to-door visits.

Reform programs for collection andtransportation can be implementedand largely sustained using localfinances. All the programs werefinanced by locally generated resources.These cases illustrate that, at least forthe collection and transportation

Suryapet: Vermi-composting facility.

stages, service upgradation does notnecessarily entail a huge financialcommitment (roughly US$1.11-2.22per head in the three cases), and to thatextent need not depend on handouts bythe state government. Moreover,operational viability may be achieved toquite an extent by levying user charges,which in turn would ensure long-termsustainability of the program. Asillustrated by Kanchrapara, it is possibleto levy charges even on low-incomehouseholds. Willingness to pay can beincreased by enhancing transparencyand accountability in the way the usercharge collections are deployed.

Private sector participation (PSP) isnot the only way to improve servicedelivery. The decision on whether ornot to use PSP, or the extent to whichit would be utilized, needs to be takenafter evaluating the local circumstances,exploring alternatives available forimproving service delivery and efficiencylevels. For instance, productivity ofexisting workers can be increasedeven without PSP, as in Panaji, byestablishing a contractual arrangement

between the user and service providerin the form of user charge collection, apart of which is used to pay financialincentives to the workers.

Engagement of the informal sectoris necessary for long-termsustainability of the program. Theinformal sector is integral to any MSWmanagement system, and all the threeprograms internalized this basicpremise in the program design. Theform of engagement of the informalsector varied in the three cases, butnevertheless ensured that improvedservice levels were accompanied bybetter working conditions for theseworkers. For instance, in Panaji andSuryapet, streamlined processing ofrecyclables reduced the need forscavenging from open dumps andthereby reduced associated healthrisks for ragpickers, ensuring greatersecurity of earnings. In Kanchrapara,workers for the door-to-door collectionwere drawn from the population livingbelow the poverty line, often formerragpickers. By thus synergizing theinterests of the informal sector with the

program objectives, the livelihoods ofthis vulnerable section of society weresafeguarded and the long-termsustainability of the program enhanced.

Challenges andInterventions Required

Despite the success of these programs,they suffer from some drawbacksthat may hamper their long-termsustainability and efficacy. Interventionsare required (at the state and nationallevel) to address these and develop anenabling environment that encouragesreform of the MSW sector.

Downward delegation and clearallocation of responsibilities neededfor institutional continuity. Goingforward, one of the importantchallenges facing all these programsis ensuring continuity. While a programmay be launched and implementedsuccessfully, service quality often tendsto deteriorate once the programchampion moves away. This risk maybe mitigated if efforts are made toinstitutionalize the program into routinemunicipal service operations.Institutional continuity in any system ismaintained by operational personnel.To this end, it is vital that responsibilityis delegated downwards as far aspossible, thereby reducing dependenceon any one individual. This needsto be accompanied by constantupgradation of skills through capacity-building efforts. Additionally,streamlining of institutional structuresis required for appropriate responsibilityallocation. Ad hoc structures, suchas the one in Panaji where the AccountsOfficer also manages the solid wastefunction, need to be avoided. Clarityin roles and responsibilities would leadto greater transparency andaccountability, and facilitate serviceimprovements in the sector.

26

Kanchrapara: Bagged products at a composting facility.

Strengthening of local decision-making processes required. Whilelocal bodies are knowledgeable aboutthe local operating environment, theylack information on solid wastetechnologies or equipment optionsavailable. This constrains them frommaking appropriate choices or elsecompels them to invest considerabletime and resources on searching forrelevant information (as in Panaji). Toaddress this drawback, commoninformation resources—which urbanlocal bodies (ULBs) can access duringtheir decisionmaking processes—needto be created.

Similarly, decisionmaking on pricingand contractual terms is often ad hoc.It is not supported by costing orperformance data (as was evidentfrom the Panaji experience withcontracting). Capacity building isrequired for information systems andaccounting processes to enablemore economically and operationallyefficient decisionmaking.

Local planning processes need tobe improved. Currently, there are nosystems to plan for future growth,and hence the MSW managementrequirements, of the town. Thisundermines the long-term sustainabilityof the system.

Measures required for fosteringcommunity engagement. Differinglevels of community engagementdisplayed in the three cases reflect thediffering socio-political environmentsprevailing in those towns. The threeULBs adapted their program design tosuit the prevailing context. Nevertheless,levels of engagement can be improvedby fostering community organizationssuch as ward committees or ResidentWelfare Associations, which canthen serve as a platform for public

participation in service delivery. Policymeasures should be considered tosupport this process.

Introduction of service chargesneeds to be encouraged, with theaim of increasing accountability, aswell as financial viability, of theseservices. State government supportmay be required to help overcomepolitical reticence at the local level (as inthe case of Suryapet).

Balance between locally initiatedreforms versus a top-down stategovernment-led approach. All threecases revealed a willingness and abilityto address reforms in primary collectionand transportation aspects of MSWmanagement. However, critical gapsremained in treatment and disposal dueto (a) a diluted focus on public healthobjectives of MSW management; and(b) resource constraints faced byULBs in addressing the complexitiesof designing and implementing aviable and effective treatment anddisposal system. State governmentscould consider incorporating a dualapproach in their sector reform strategy.

• For primary collection andtransportation the reform shouldideally be initiated and designed bythe ULB itself. To this end, the stategovernment should focus on serviceoutcomes by ULBs, and not onprocess specifications.

To motivate ULBs (or championstherein) to initiate reforms, triggersmay be designed using strategiessuch as reward programs orstate recognition.

• For treatment and disposalsystems, greater intervention iswarranted from state and nationalagencies. In particular, they couldassist in developing regional modelsfor integrated waste managementfacilities. While facilitating thisprocess, however, caution shouldbe exercised—the design andimplementation of these facilitiesshould be undertaken with thefull involvement of ULBs. Their senseof ownership for these aspects ofMSW management, which remaintheir firm responsibility, should notbe diluted.


27

Kanchrapara: Ragpickers on dump site.

In all the programs, considerable effort was made to ensure involvementof all stakeholder groups—political representatives, workers, departmentofficials, commercial establishments, schools, and social organizations.

28

Panaji: Waste stored in a household bin.

Water and Sanitation Program-South AsiaWorld Bank55 Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003India

Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

October 2006

WSP MISSION:To help the poor gain sustained access towater and sanitation services.

WSP FUNDING PARTNERS:The Governments of Australia, Austria,Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UnitedKingdom, the United States of America; theUnited Nations Development Programme,The World Bank, and the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation.

AusAID provides WSP-SAprogrammatic support.

TASK MANAGER:Shubhagato Dasgupta

PEER REVIEWERS:Deepak Sanan, Shafiul Azam Ahmed

PREPARED BY:Vandana Bhatnagar

Editor: Anjali Sen GuptaPictures by: Vandana Bhatnagar and Asit NeemaCreated by: Write MediaPrinted at: Thomson Press (India) Ltd

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed are entirely those of the authorand should not be attributed in any manner to The World Bank, to its affiliated organizations,or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the companies they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Theboundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown in this work do not implyany judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory orthe endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

1. Is the format of this study easy to read? � Yes � No

2. Is the study a comfortable length to read? � Yes � No

3. If no, would you prefer � more details/data � less details/data

4. Do you find the information contained in this study relevant to your work? � Yes � No

If no, give reasons why(Use extra sheets of paper if required)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

If yes, how would you use this information in your work? (Use extra sheets of paper if required)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

What impact, if any, does this information have on:

•You: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

•Your organization: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

•Your colleagues: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

What are the main lesson(s) you have learnt from the information contained in this study?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Would you like to share any study/research similar to the information in this study?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Solid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns:Lessons and Implications

FEEDBACK FORM

5. Give up to three subjects/issues in the Water Supply and Sanitation sector that interest you and you would like toknow more about:

i) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

ii) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

iii) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. Do you know anyone else who might benefit from receiving our publications?If yes, provide the following details (optional)

Name: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Designation: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Organization: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Address: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Phone Numbers: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

E-mail: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Area of work: Government / NGO / Private Sector / Academia / Consultant / Bilateral Agency / Dev Bank / any other

7. Please provide your particulars:

Name: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Designation: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Organization: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Address: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Phone Numbers: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

E-mail: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Area of work: Government / NGO / Private Sector / Academia / Consultant / Bilateral Agency / Dev Bank / any other

8. Indicate your area of interest:

� Water

� Sanitation

� Rural

� Urban

Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia

E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.wsp.org

E 32 Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla NagarDhaka 1207, BangladeshPhone: (880-2) 8159001-14Fax: (880-2) 8159029-30

20 A Shahrah-e-JamhuriatRamna 5, G-5/1Islamabad, PakistanPhone: (92-51) 2279641-46Fax: (92-51) 2826362

55 Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003, IndiaPhone: (91-11) 24690488-89Fax: (91-11) 24628250

Documents

Solid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns · PDF fileSolid Waste Management Initiatives in Small Towns ... Goa, and Andhra Pradesh ... garbage from trailers to the disposal