Decentralised SWM as a way forward
During an interview with the authors, Kathyini Chamraj, independent journalist and executive trustee of CIVIC, an NGO working towards decentralisation, urban governance and citizen participation stated that as per the National Urban Livelihood Mission, Pourakarmikas can be formed into self-help groups and be directed to carry out local processing of waste. “Instead of outsourcing it to contractors with vested interests, the existing PKs can be segregated into groups and be tasked with the collection and processing of waste”, proposes Kathyini. This promotes independence in labour and socio-economic benefits that SHGs bring with them. She notes that there are already existing SHGs in Mahadevapura and RR Nagar, but BBMP insists that they bring their own vehicles. SHGs of women are unable to afford vehicles, and hence remain in the clutches of contractors with vehicles.
Kathyayini also claims that the civic administration is against decentralised waste segregation as it costs them their commission. “They did not want the local processing to happen, otherwise the transportation would stop – the farther BBMP contractors transport waste out of the ward, the more money the councillors get” she said, adding that the councillors seek mixed and unsegregated waste, as it increases the volume or weight of the garbage which is more valuable. This incentivises them to transport more and more waste further away rather than localised management which would solve the problem of landfills. Additionally, transportation of solid waste in open trucks is a climate hazard, something the administration has failed to recognise.
Local processing can help stall Climate Change as not only are we halting transportation, but the biogas that can be created out of the organic compost and community processing of waste creates a scale of efficiency. During an interview with Kathyayini, she also recounts when NGOs encouraging waste segregation in apartment complexes were threatened by the henchmen of these contractors. Elaborating on the ruling of the Safai Karmachari Commission, Kathyayini says the BBMP were warned to not outsource waste management and disposal to external contractors. “Owing to the profitable nature, the civic body does not want to lose out on the nexus between the contractors and councillors” she says. “As per a Karnataka HC order, ward committees were mandated to meet by November 30, 2017 and formulate an action plan for identifying land for local processing of waste and submit it to the BBMP Commissioner and the Court.” She says despite the order, over 75% ward committees failed to meet or prepare action plans that were supposed to be displayed on the civic administration’s website. The Court’s focus since has however shifted to waste management rather than the committees’ role in it.
Flagging the lack of political will and deficiency of the current physical waste infrastructure, BBMP is shifting the onus of waste management and processing on citizens, urging them to start composting at home; but failing to utilize the resources at its disposal. She also talks about the ambiguity of BBMP notices or circulars, for which the PKs pay the price. “They specify that masks, brooms and gloves should be provided to the Pourakarmikas; but it doesn’t specify how often these have to be provided” she says, noting that contractors provide these equipment in the beginning of the contract and will not replace the batch for the next three years. Thus, the PKs are forced to buy them out of their own pocket, or do without it.