You are on page 1of 9

Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200 www.elsevier.

com/locate/wasman

Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste management in Mumbai, India
Sarika Rathi
International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, 61 Rt. 9W, Monell, Palisades, NY 10964, USA Accepted 27 September 2005 Available online 8 November 2005

Abstract Waste is an unavoidable by product of human activities. Economic development, urbanization and improving living standards in cities, have led to an increase in the quantity and complexity of generated waste. Rapid growth of population and industrialization degrades the urban environment and places serious stress on natural resources, which undermines equitable and sustainable development. Inefcient management and disposal of solid waste is an obvious cause of degradation of the environment in most cities of the developing world. Municipal corporations of the developing countries are not able to handle increasing quantities of waste, which results in uncollected waste on roads and in other public places. There is a need to work towards a sustainable waste management system, which requires environmental, institutional, nancial, economic and social sustainability. This study explores alternative approaches to municipal solid waste (MSW) management and estimates the cost of waste management in Mumbai, India. Two alternatives considered in the paper are community participation and public private partnership in waste management. Data for the present study are from various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and from the private sector involved in waste management in Mumbai. Mathematical models are used to estimate the cost per ton of waste management for both of the alternatives, which are compared with the cost of waste management by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). It is found that the cost per ton of waste management is Rs. 1518 (US$35) with community participation; Rs. 1797 (US$41) with public private partnership (PPP); and Rs. 1908 (US$44) when only MCGM handles the waste. Hence, community participation in waste management is the least cost option and there is a strong case for comprehensively involving community participation in waste management. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Cities in the world are facing a high level of pollution; the situation in developing countries is more acute, partly caused by inadequate provision of basic services like water supply, sanitation facilities, transport infrastructure and waste collection (UNCHS (Habitat), 2001). There is a tremendous increase in the amount of solid waste generated in the cities due to a more auent lifestyle. Municipal corporations in developing countries are not able to handle increasing quantities of waste, which results in uncollected waste on roads and in other public places. There is a need to work towards a sustainable waste management system,

E-mail address: sarika@iri.columbia.edu. 0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.006

which requires environmental, institutional, nancial, economic and social sustainability. There is an emerging global consensus to develop local level solutions and to involve community participation for better waste management (United Nations, 1992). The trend of involving the private sector and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Mumbai has started in the recent past with involvement of private industries like Excel Industry Limited (1999) and NGOs like Stree Mukti Sangathan (SMS). There are a number of successful case studies of community and private sector participation in MSW management in developing countries (Anand, 1999; Poerbo, 1991; Ogu, 2000). A study done for waste management in urban Tanzania has advocated for a community based waste management approach (Kironde and Yhdego,

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

1193

1997). However, these kinds of studies are missing in the Indian context and, therefore, this study will be a valuable addition to MSW management literature. The present study explores alternative approaches to MSW management and estimates the cost of waste management in Mumbai. The alternatives considered are as follows:  Community participation in waste management: a case of cooperation among community based organizations (CBOs), NGOs and local government.  Public private partnership (PPP) in waste management: a case of cooperation between the private sector and local government.

3.2. Functional model The ALM model works as follows: The locality participating under this scheme forms a committee, which is responsible for planning, implementing and inspecting various aspects of locality development. It also coordinates between MCGM and local residents for smooth functioning of civic services. MCGM carries out various educational programs to create awareness among citizens. Moreover, MCGM gives priority in solving the civic problems of the communities involved in waste management programs. MCGM appoints an ocer at the ward level to look into citizens complaints and to coordinate with the local committee. Various stages of waste management under ALM are shown in Fig. 1. All residents who fall under the ALM scheme have to segregate their waste into wet and dry fractions, corresponding to biodegradable and recyclable materials. Rag pickers, organized and trained by NGOs, collect these wastes and process the biodegradable waste and sell the recyclable material. MCGM helps to establish composting pits in these areas and also gives priority attention to such areas for other civic services. In this scheme, NGOs also play a very important role by organizing the rag pickers and giving them necessary training for collecting and composting waste. There are 360 ALM groups which have been formed, covering 0.2 million people generating 69 tons/day of waste. In addition, 283 composting centers are working under this scheme. Table 1 explains the division of responsibilities among CBOs, NGOs and MCGM for management of waste with under the community participation approach. 3.3. Financial viability Residents make monetary contribution towards the salaries of the rag pickers. MCGM contribute towards the initial set up cost. 3.4. Costs and benets of converting waste into manure Under this scheme, residents segregate their waste in two categories wet and dry wastes. Trained rag pickers collect these wastes and sort them out further. Organic waste is fed into composting pits and processed. These schemes mostly use vermicomposting or aerobic composting techniques for composting waste. There are a number of social and environmental benets associated with this approach, shown in Fig. 2. In this study intangible benets associated with better living standard for rag pickers and clean and healthy surroundings are not estimated. This paper focuses on estimating tangible costs and benets associated with this approach. 3.5. Case studies of community participation There are a number of successful case studies on community participation in waste management. NIUA (1999)

2. Data collection Data and information were collected from various NGOs, the private sector and research organizations working on various aspects of MSW management, including SMS, Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute, Excel Industry, Exnora, Pakruti, etc. Data were collected on waste generation, cost of collection, transportation and disposal. Personal interviews were carried out with concerned resource personnel in these organizations to obtain the necessary information and data for the present study. Data were collected for the year 20012002. 3. Alternative approach I: Community based waste management Community participation is a crucial element in solid waste management (Anschutz, 1996). Case studies from dierent countries have documented the success of community and private sector participation in waste management (UNESCAP, 2002). Community participation in waste management has been initiated in Mumbai as a result of a good urban governance campaign, which started as a joint project between the Government of India and MCGM, in collaboration with United Nations Center for Human Settlements. This model of decentralized waste management system is called Advanced Locality Management (ALM). ALM is a community based approach for eective management of civic services at the grass root level. The concept of ALM was introduced in 1997 and was implemented in 1998. 3.1. Main goal of community participation ALM is based on the principle of cooperation and partnership amongst CBOs, NGOs and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for managing civic services at the local level. The main objective behind this scheme is to ensure segregation of waste at the source into biodegradable and recyclable material, where the biodegradable waste is processed locally and the recyclable materials are sold.

1194

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

House to House Collection

Organic

NonOrganic

Composting Sorting by workers Compost Recyclable Other

Sold Sold Transported

Dumpsite

Fig. 1. ALM (community participation in waste management). Table 1 Division of responsibilities among CBOs, NGOs and MCGM CBOs Collection of waste from households Composting of organic waste Payment of salary of rag pickers NGOs Training rag pickers Coordinating between CBOs and MCGM MCGM Collection and transportation of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials Disposal of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials Looking after the complaints of communities participating in waste management programme

explains successful case studies of community participation in waste management in a number of Indian cities. Memon (2002) had studied community participation in
Community participation

Costs borne by CBOs Cost of labour and supervision Cost of land Cost of equipments

Benefits to CBOs and society Value of recyclable materials Value of compost Reduced burden on disposal sites Better standard of living for rag pickers Clean and healthy surroundings

Costs borne by MCGM Collection cost Transportation cost Disposal cost of inert materials

Benefits to MCGM Decline in cost of waste management Lower burden on disposal sites

Fig. 2. Dierent costs and benets associated with community compost plant.

Dhaka. A research based NGO, Waste Concern, initiated a pilot community compost plant in 1995 in Dhaka. It introduced door-to-door collection of waste for which households paid TK 1560 (US$0.230.91) per month. On the demand side, Waste Concern conducted a survey, which revealed that there is a good demand for compost in Dhaka and the adjoining area, as 94% of farmers indicated they were willing to buy compost. Waste Concern signed an agreement with Map Agro Ltd., a fertilizer marketing company and Proshika, one of the largest NGOs in Bangladesh, to market compost. Community participation in Dhaka was highly successful (Memon, 2002). Inchon city, Republic of Korea, introduced a volume based collection fee system for solid waste. This program was successful because it not only generated revenue for the corporation but also led to a reduction in the amount of waste generated (UNESCAP, 2002). In Nonthaburi, Thailand, a pilot project was implemented in 20012002 to motivate households to segregate waste at the source in order to increase recycling. It was highly successful. This model of community government partnership shows that public awareness is the most vital component in promoting separation of waste at the source.

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

1195

3.6. Economic valuation of waste management system based on community participation The economic valuation of the community participation scenario has been conducted using a mathematical model for each activity of MSW management. The economic valuation for community participation can be divided into two parts:  Costs and benets associated with CBOs and NGOs.  Costs borne by MCGM. The cost of waste management under the community participation scenario is calculated as follows: Labor and supervision cost per ton (Rs./ton) = C1. Cost of land per ton of waste (Rs./ton) = R1. Total benets of waste management per ton (Rs./ ton) = B1. Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste (Rs.) = C1M. Fraction of biodegradable waste = f. Cost per ton of waste management with community participation (Rs./ton) (CCM) CCM = C1 + R1 f + C1M B1.

Price of paper (Rs./ton) = Ppa. Price of plastic (Rs./ton) = Ppl. Price of metal (Rs./ton) = PM. Price of glass (Rs./ton) = PG. Amount of paper recovered (ton) (APa) = WALM 0.0790. Amount of plastic recovered (ton) (APl) = WALM 0.0446. Amount of metal recovered (ton) (AM) = WALM 0.0097. Amount of glass recovered (ton) (AG) = WALM 0.0188. Total revenue from recyclable material (Rs.) (RR) = Apa Ppa + Apl Ppl + AM PM + AG PG. Benets of waste management under ALM (B1) (Rs./ W ALM f RR ton) = p0:25W . ALM 3.6.2. Costs borne by MCGM All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material is handled by MCGM under the community participation alternative. Considering C1M as the cost borne by MCGM for management of 1 ton of waste with community participation, below is a mathematical formulation for C1M: Cost of collection per ton of waste (Rs.) = Cc. Cost of transportation per ton of waste (Rs.) = Ct. Cost of disposal per ton of waste (Rs.) = Cd. Cost of personnel and other exp per ton of waste (Rs.) = Cm. Amount of waste handled under MCGM = fnbnr, where fnbnr is fraction of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material. Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management with community participation (Rs.) = C1M = (Cc + Ct + Cd + Cm) fnbnr.

3.6.1. Costs and benets associated with CBOs and NGOs 3.6.1.1. Labor and supervision cost. Labor and supervision costs are calculated as follows: Waste handled by ALM per day (ton) = WALM. Fraction of biodegradable waste = f. Waste composted per day under ALM (ton) = WALM f. Wage of ALM workers (Rs./day) = W. Productivity of ALM workers (ton/worker) = w. Miscellaneous expenditure per day (Rs./day) = 20% of f salary of workers = W ALM W 0:20. w Labor and supervision cost per day under ALM (C1) (Rs./ton) =
W ALM f W 1:20 w

4. Alternative approach II: PPP for waste management Public private partnerships in providing basic environmental services like waste management and wastewater management are gaining importance in many Asian cities. This aspect of waste management has been successfully demonstrated by various private sector companies participating in waste management; Excel Industry in Mumbai is one such case of demonstration. In the present study, the advantages of applying public private partnerships in waste management are demonstrated by considering the case of a partnership between Excel Industry and MCGM (see Table 2). 4.1. Mathematical model of PPP

W ALM

3.6.1.2. Land cost. Data on land requirement for composting a ton of waste per day is collected from Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute, and is calculated as follows: Area required for a ton of waste (ft2) (L) = (w + s) l 4. Rent per ft2 (Rs.) = r. Rent on land per ton of waste (R1) (Rs./ton) = r L.

3.6.1.3. Benets per ton of waste management. Compost produced by weight = 25% of input (survey data). Price of compost (Rs./ton) = p. Revenue from compost (Rs.) = p 0.25 (WALM f).

Excel Industry Limited was found in 1941 and is one of the Indias larger agro chemical companies. The company converts the organic component of MSW into manure through mechanical aerobic composting. It processes

1196

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200 Table 4 Types of equipment used and investment for mechanical aerobic composting Types Capital cost in million Rs. (million US$) 12.0 (0.3) 3.5 (0.1) 22.5 (0.5) Operation and maintenance cost in million Rs. per year (US$ per year) 0.28 (6437) 0.39 (8966) Life period (year) 10 5 25

Table 2 Division of responsibility between MCGM and private sector for waste management under PPP MCGM Collection of waste from community bins Transportation of waste to private sector compound Disposal of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials Private sector Capital investment for processing of organic waste Conversion of organic waste in to compost Marketability of compost

Processing machines Automobiles Civil works

3040 tons of waste per day, which is supplied for free from MCGM to Excel Industry. The entire process requires 2 ha of land. The annual costs for land rental and electricity are Rs. 0.50 lakh (US$1142) and Rs. 1.6 lakh (US$3646), respectively. Detailed information on costs associated with composting is given in Tables 46. Under this partnership, waste is collected and transported by MCGM, and Excel Industry processes the organic waste by aerobic composting. All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material separated by the company is transported to dump sites. Fig. 3 presents the ow chart of activities carried out under this partnership. Table 2 explains the division of responsibilities between MCGM and the private sector for waste management under PPP. 4.2. Case studies of PPP NIUA (1999) provides an account of a case study in Rajkot, India, where private sector participation in waste collection has resulted in lower cost. Kathmandu Municipal Corporation, Nepal, introduced the participation of private sector for door-to-door collection, street sweeping and waste transfer, without providing any subsidy to the private sector (Manandhar, 2002). In this case, households were charged by the private sector for providing the services. After 1 year, it was seen that private sector was making a prot and was willing to continue and expand services. However, in this publicprivate cooperation, the role of local government in management and inspection was important. Some of the other places where private sector participation is encouraged in delivery of waste services are Sao Paulo, Brazil and Malaysia (Bartone et al., 1991).
Table 3 Expenditure statements by SMS for composting of waste Date Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Expenditure on salary of workers in Rs. (US$) 13,040 12,600 13,425 13,500 13,687 13,275 13,875 13,275 13,950 13,380 12,352 (300) (290) (309) (310) (315) (305) (319) (305) (321) (308) (284) Amount paid to supervisors in Rs. (US$) 5241 4529 5119 6003 5836 5448 4337 5502 5634 4736 4448 (121) (104) (118) (138) (134) (125) (100) (127) (130) (109) (102)

Table 5 Salary of sta and other expenditure by Excel Industry Types of worker Managerial Skilled Unskilled Miscellaneous (water, electrical and others) Number 3 5 15 Expenditure in million Rs. (US$) 0.288 0.350 0.900 2.500 (6621) (8046) (20,690) (57,471)

Table 6 Distribution of cost of waste management under dierent headings MCGM Community participation Rs. per ton (US$ per ton) Cost of collection Cost of transportation and disposal Personnel cost Cost of land Cost of capital Operation and maintenance cost 950 (22) 390 (9) 428 (9.8) 178 (4) 950 (22) 394 (9) PPP

319 (7) 380 (8.7)

144 (3) 730 (17) 562 (13)

361 451 147 18

(8) (10) (3.4) (0.4)

4.3. Economic valuation of waste management system with PPP This section presents mathematical models for each activity of MSW management for case study two. The various costs and benets associated with waste management with public private sector participation are as shown in

Misc. cost in Rs. (US$) 466 (11) 398 (9) 3676 (85) 1426 (33) 1719 (40) 265 (6) 371 (9) 17,183 (395) 1369 (32) 40 (0.9) 60 (1.4)

Cost of lter of manure in Rs. (US$)) 900 (21) 2525 (58) 220 (5)

Total cost in Rs. (US$) 21,747 24,027 25,270 24,028 24,342 21,988 21,858 41,385 24,053 21,476 19,661 (500) (552) (581) (552) (560) (506) (503) (951) (553) (494) (452)

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

1197

Households carry waste

The cost of waste management under the public private partnership scenario is calculated as follows: Operation and maintenance cost per ton (Rs./ton) = C2. Annualized capital cost per ton of waste (Rs./ton) = A. Value of land per ton (Rs./ton) = R2. Fraction of biodegradable waste = f. Total benets of waste management per ton (Rs./ ton) = B2. Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management (Rs.) = C2M. Cost per ton of waste management (Rs./ton) = CPM, CPM = C2 + A + R2 f + C2M B2.

Municipal bins

Transported by MCGM to Excel site

Sorting by Excel

Organic

Recyclable

Other

4.3.1. Costs and benets associated with PPP 4.3.1.1. Operation and maintenance cost. Salary of workers per ton of waste (Rs.) = S. Total miscellaneous expenditure per ton of waste (Rs.) = M. Total expense per ton of waste (Rs.) (C2) = S + M. 4.3.1.2. Annualized cost of land. Investment in equipment (Rs.) = Ie. Life of equipment (year) = n. Rate of discount = r. e r Annualized cost of equipment (Rs.) = A 1I1 . r n 4.3.1.3. Cost of land. The data on land requirement for composting a ton of waste per day is collected from Excel Industry. Let us consider: Land required for one ton of waste (ft2) = La. Rent per ft2 (Rs.) = r. Rent on land for a ton of waste (R2) (Rs.) = La r.

Aerobic composting

Sold

Transported to dumpsite

Compost

Sold

Fig. 3. Waste management by private sector participation.

Fig. 4. Based on this model, the cost per ton of waste management for PPP is estimated. Economic valuation for PPP can be divided into two parts:  Costs and benets associated with private sector.  Costs borne by MCGM.

Public Private Partnership

Costs borne Industry

by

Excel

Cost of labour Cost of capital Cost of land Cost borne by MCGM Cost of collection and transportation Cost of disposal of inert materials

Benefits to Excel Industry Value of recyclable material Value of compost Benefits to MCGM Reduced burden on disposal sites Reduced cost of waste management

Fig. 4. Dierent costs and benets associated with PPP.

4.3.1.4. Benets per ton of waste management. Compost produced by weight = 25% of input (Excel Industry). Price of compost (Rs./ton) = p. Revenue from compost per day (Rs.) = p 0.25 WEx f. Price of paper (Rs./ton) = Ppa. Price of plastic (Rs./ton) = Ppl. Price of metal (Rs./ton) = PM. Price of glass (Rs./ton) = PG. Amount of paper recovered (ton) (APa) = WEx 0.0790. Amount of plastic recovered (ton) (APl) = WEx 0.0446. Amount of metal recovered (ton) (AM) = WEx 0.0097. Amount of glass recovered (ton) (AG) = WEx 0.0188. Total revenue from recyclable material (Rs.) (RR) = Apa Ppa + Apl Ppl + AM PM + AG PG. Benets of waste management under Excel (B2) W Ex f RR (Rs./ton). = p0:25W . Ex

1198

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

4.3.1.5. Cost borne by MCGM. All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material is handled by MCGM. In this section a mathematical formulation is derived for costs borne by MCGM for management of 1 ton of waste with public private partnership that is C2M. Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management with public private partnership (Rs./ton) C2M = (Cc + Ct + Cm) + Cd fnbnr. Here all the notations have same meaning as given in Section 3.6.2. 5. Results Various costs and benets associated with community participation and public private participation in waste management are calculated using the mathematical formulation outlined above. Following is the estimation of costs and benets associated with both of the alternatives studied. 5.1. Estimation of unit cost of waste management with community participation Labor and supervision cost (C1) of waste management with community participation is estimated from Table 3 to be Rs. 561.5 (US$13) per ton. The land requirement for composting pits diers depending upon the technology used. Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute has estimated a land requirement of 2153 ft2 (200 m2) for processing 1 ton of organic waste per day. It implies that 840 ft2 (78 m2) of land are required for 1 ton of waste generated, since the wase has only 39% wet waste. Considering a rental rate of Rs. 20 (US$0.4) per ft2 per mo (Accommodation Times, 2003), the cost of land (R1) per ton of waste per day comes out to be Rs. 559.2 (US$12.9). The benets per ton of waste with community participation (B1) = Rs. 524 (US$12). The costs per ton of waste management by MCGM are estimated from data collected through personal interviews. Collection cost per ton of waste management under MCGM (CC) = Rs. 950 (US$22). Cost of transportation per ton of waste under MCGM (CT) = Rs. 389.65 (US$9). Cost of personnel per ton of waste management under MCGM (CM) = Rs. 318.9 (US$7). Cost of disposal per ton of waste under MCGM (CD) = Rs. 8.8 (US$0.2). Cost of land per ton of waste under MCGM (CL) = Rs. 380 (US$9). Fraction of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material per ton of waste generated (fnbnr) = 0.45. Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management with community participation C1M = (950 + 389.65 + 318.9 + 8.8 + 380) 0.45 = Rs. 921.30 (US$21).

Net cost per ton of waste management with community participation CCM = 561.5 + 559.2 + 921.30524 = Rs. 1518 (US$35).Some of the other advantages of community participation in waste management are as follows:  Lessened requirement for community bins, which in turn implies cleaner, better and healthier surroundings.  Decline in transportation cost.  Reduced burden on land for waste disposal, resulting in extended landll life.  Reduced use of burning of waste to a large extent.  Reduction in environmental pollution.  Better living standard for rag pickers.

5.2. Estimation of unit cost of waste management under PPP Table 4 shows the investment costs for a mechanical aerobic composting plant. Assuming a discount rate of 10% per year and a plant capacity of 100 tons per day, using data from Table 4, the annualized capital cost (A) of the processing equipment is estimated to be Rs. 1.95 million (US$44,828) and the annualized capital cost of the automobiles is estimated to be Rs. 0.92 million (US$21,149). This works out to be a capital cost of Rs. 79 (US$2) per ton of waste. Operation and maintenance costs (C2) are estimated to be Rs. 18 ($0.4) per ton. Further, assuming the life of civil works to be 30 years and a discount rate of 10% per year, the annualized cost of buildings is estimated to be Rs. 2.48 million (US$57,012), which is Rs. 68 rupees ($1.6) per ton of waste. The expenditure of Excel Industry on worker salaries is shown in Table 5. The expenditure on salaries per ton of waste is estimated to be Rs. 42 (US$1) per ton of waste. The land requirement to process 100 tons of wet waste per day is 2 ha (215,278 ft2) of land (data collected from Excel Industry). The land required to process 1 ton of waste = (215,2780.39)/100 = 839.58 ft2 (where 0.39 is the fraction of organic waste in 1 ton of waste generated). The average rental rate is Rs. 20 (US$0.46) per ft2 per month (Accommodation Times, 2003). However, since the composting plant is located near the dumpsite, land value will be much lower. Hence, a discount factor of 0.5 is applied to the rental prices. Rent on land for processing per ton of waste per day (R2) = Rs. 280 (US$6.4). The cost borne by MCGM for 1 ton of waste management with PPP is: C2M = 950 + 389.65 + 318.9 + (8.8 + 380) 0.45 = Rs. 1833.51 (US$42). Benets per ton of waste with PPP (B2) = Rs. 524 (US$12). Net cost of waste management with PPP: C2M = 18 + 79 + 68 + 42 + 280 + 1833.51 524 = Rs. 1797 (US$41) per ton.

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

1199

6. Analysis Fig. 5 shows the net cost of waste management for three approaches: (1) waste is handled only by MCGM; (2) waste is handled with community participation; and (3) private sector participation in waste management. The cost per ton of waste management with community participation is Rs. 1518 (US$35), with PPP it is Rs. 1797 (US$41) and when waste is handled solely by MCGM it is Rs. 1908 (US$44). (When waste is handled only by MCGM, the value for recyclable materials is lower because recyclable materials are retrieved from rag pickers from community bins and disposal sites, which reduces the quality of recyclable materials and hence results in a lower price.) The cost per ton of waste management is least with community participation, which is substantially lower than with PPP. Fig. 6 shows the cost sharing among MCGM, CBOs and the private sector for waste management under dierent alternatives. In case of community participation, a larger proportion of the cost, that is

Rs. 1121 (US$26) per ton, is borne by CBOs and Rs. 921 (US$21) is borne by MCGM, whereas in the case of PPP a larger proportion of cost, that is Rs. 1834 (US$42), per ton is borne by MCGM and Rs. 487 (US$11) is borne by the private sector. It is clear from Fig. 6 that the cost of waste management borne by MCGM is reduced in both the cases, i.e., with community participation and with PPP. Further, in the case of community participation, the cost is borne by waste generators whereas in the case of PPP there is no mechanism to recover cost from waste generators. Table 6 presents a distribution of the cost of waste management with community participation and PPP under dierent headings. The cost of collection and transportation of waste management is much lower with community participation than with PPP because in the case of community participation waste is separated at the source and only non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials are transported to dumpsites. It reduces the requirement for community bins and transportation of waste. From the above analysis, it is clear that the community participation approach to waste management out performs private sector participation in terms of the net cost of waste management. 6.1. Barrier and implementation analysis Although community participation is the least cost option, there are certain bottlenecks associated with it. Some of the bottlenecks in the community participation alternative, which were identied during the data collection and eld survey, are as follows:  CBOs and NGOs faced the problem of non-participation from some people in the community.  Problem with the revenue recovery from compost.

Fig. 5. Comparison of net cost of waste management under three approaches.

Fig. 6. Cost sharing among MCGM, CBOs and private sector for waste management.

CBOs frequently face a lack of cooperation in the community. This problem arises because it is the general perception that it is the duty of MCGM to pick up the garbage. Hence, there is a need to work towards changing the perception of people. There is a need to sensitize the public to the need for public cleanliness and to the problem of limited resources of municipal corporations, which will help to increase community participation in waste management. Moreover, MCGM can make ALM schemes more attractive by providing incentives in the form of municipal tax reductions. There is also a problem with selling the compost generated from waste. A small proportion of compost can be used by city dwellers, whereas a large proportion of compost needs to be sold to farmers. However, farmers have not shown much interest in compost produced from MSW. It has been demonstrated in Dhaka that if a proper marketing network is developed and the quality of the compost is controlled, there will not be any problem with revenue recovery from compost (Memon, 2002).

1200

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 11921200

A number of case studies have demonstrated that if PPP is designed properly, it can be ecient and cost eective (Bartone et al., 1991; NIUA, 1999). However, in the present study it has been analyzed that PPP as practiced currently in Mumbai is more expensive than community participation because the design of PPP is inecient. In the current design, the private sector is involved only in the processing of waste whereas collection and transportation of waste is handled by MCGM. This in turn does not improve the collection and transportation of waste and results a higher cost of waste management. Hence, there is a need to remove ineciencies associated with collection and transportation of waste in order to reduce the cost of PPP. There is a need to investigate the role of private sector participation in collection and transportation of waste. 7. Conclusions In the current study two alternative approaches to MSW management are explored. The rst approach is community participation and the second is private sector participation. Data for the present study is from various NGOs and the private sector. Mathematical models are developed to estimate the cost per ton of waste management for both of the alternative approaches and to compare those costs with the cost of waste management by MCGM alone. It is found that the cost per ton of waste management is Rs. 1518 (US$35) with community participation; Rs. 1797 (US$41) with PPP; and Rs. 1908 (US$44) when only MCGM handles the waste. Hence, community participation in waste management is the least cost option. A substantial reduction in the cost of waste management with community participation is achieved due to separation of waste at source, which in turn leads to a reduction in the requirement for community bins and transportation of waste. However, the PPP system focuses on processing of waste without improving the collection and transportation activities, which leads to a higher cost per ton of waste management. There is a strong case for community participation in waste management. However, there has to be concerted eorts from urban local bodies and NGOs to build up an informed community and overcome the bottlenecks for community participation in waste management. Moreover, there is a need to further analyze the role of PPP in waste management.

Acknowledgements I thank my supervisors, Sudhakar Yedla and reviewers for their valuable comments on this paper. I gratefully acknowledge the scholarship received from IGIDR for completing this work. References
Accommodation Times, 2003. 1st15th April 2003, vol. 17, no. 21, Mumbai. Anand, P.B., 1999. Waste management in Madras revisited. Environment and Urbanization 11 (2), 161176. Anschutz, J., 1996. Community Based Solid Waste Management and Water Supply Project: Problems and Solutions compared a survey of the literature, UWEP working paper document 2, Gouda, WASTE. Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T., Schertenleib, R., 1991. Private sector participation in municipal solid waste service: Experiences in Latin America. Waste Management and Research 9 (6), 495509. Excel Industries limited, 1999. Excel Environmental, Capability document, Bombay, India. Kironde, J.M. Lusugga, Yhdego, Michael, 1997. The Governance of waste management in urban Tanzania: towards a community based approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 213226. Manandhar, Rajesh, 2002. Private Sector Participation in Solid Waste Management in Kathmandu, Directory: Successful and transferable practice, Kitakyushu Initiative Network. Available from: http:// host3.iges.or.jp/kitakyushu/Successful%20Practices/SP%20(Analyzed)/ Solid%20Waste/3%20Kathmandu%20%20(Paper).pdf accessed on 16th August 2004. Memon, Mushtaw Ahmed, 2002. Innovation in Community Driven Composting, Kitakyushu Initiative Network. Available from: http:// host-3.iges.or.jp/kitakyushu/practices_database.htm accessed on 23rd July 2004. NIUA (National Institute of Urban Aairs), 1999. Solid Waste Management: Improvement Initiatives in Selected Cities of India, Research study series no. 75, New Delhi. Ogu, Vincent Ifeanyi, 2000. Private sector participation and municipal waste management in Benin city, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization 12 (2), 103117. Poerbo, Hasan, 1991. Urban solid waste management in Bandung: towards an integrated resource recovery system. Environment and Urbanization 3 (1), 6069. UNCHS (Habitat), 2001. The State of the Worlds Cities 2001, Nairobi, Kenya. UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacic), 2002. Best practice/case study portfolio Environment and Natural Resources Development Division, UNESCAP. United Nations, 1992. Environmentally Sound Management of Solid Wastes and Sewage Related Issues, chapter 21 of Agenda 21, United Nations. Available from: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=69 accessed, 13th March 2004.