Why Waste Rules being framed by Environment Ministry and Waste Policy by Urban Development Ministry
Promotes environmental lawlessness & iniquitous & unscientific Waste, Plastic Mgt & Sanitation practices
Legalizes continued dumping and burning of waste as solution, not a problem
Rules look at sub urban & rural areas as dumping grounds for urban waste
At a Round Table on “Politics of Waste Management & Draft Solid
Waste Management Rules, 2015 and Draft Plastic Waste Management Rules,
2015” it was decided that Kachra Intzamia Muhim (Waste Management
Campaign) will jointly submit comments on them and provide an
alternative legal framework to deal with waste crisis. It emerged that
both the Rules farmed by Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change suffer from poverty of environmental imagination. It
fails to underline that Indian solid waste has hazardous
waste characteristics. Its faith in building landfills in the sky
remains unshaken despite repeated failures in waste to energy projects.
It does not factor in the recommendations on Integrated Plant
Nutrient Management which had advanced a progressive argument for
securing soil nutrients from composts from waste incineration
technologies that turns it into pollutants.
The Rules acknowledges that the mandate of waste management lies
with Urban Development Ministry by stating that it should
“formulate National Policy and Strategy on Solid Waste Management in
consultation with stakeholders”. Shouldn’t the Solid Waste Management
Rules be framed by the Urban Development Ministry as well. Why Rules and
Policy should on the same subject of waste management is being framed
by two different ministries namely, Environment Ministry and
Urban Development Ministry. It underlines the lack of holistic approach
in dealing with waste crisis.
Both the Rules fail to aim at reducing plastic use. They fail to provide
mechanism for the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR). Draft Solid Waste Management Rules fails to take lessons from
Suryapet, Telangana and Nammkal in Tamil Nadu where Zero Waste
philosophy has been adopted. It refuses to acknowledge and learn from
admitted failures in Timarpur and Okhla in Delhi. Draft Plastic Waste
Management Rules fails to learn from success in Himachal Pradesh and
Sikkim and failures in Delhi and elsewhere. The provision in the Draft
Solid Waste Management Rules for the segregation of waste into four
categories- bio-degradable or wet waste, non bio-degradable or dry
waste, domestic hazardous wastes and construction and demolition waste
by the waste generator is noteworthy. The Draft Rules has extended its
jurisdiction. It applies “to every urban local body, all statutory
towns, outgrowths in urban agglomerations as declared by the registrar
general & census commissioner of India, notified areas/notified
industrial townships, notified area committees, area under Indian
railways, defense cantonments, special economic zones in the country and
every waste
generator.”
If the idea is to seek sites for landfill and waste
processing facilities beyond municipal limits then this is likely to
have grave political implications. The Rules fails to provide exact
criteria for identification for such facilities. The deafening silence
of framers of the Draft Rules and the foreign funded NGOs who were
involved in it exposes their class bias.
The Rules must make it mandatory for the waste of each district
to remain in that very district so that waste does not shift to
poorer localities by adopting Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome. The
Rules must provide for compulsory six monthly public health audit
of communities living in the vicinity of waste treatment facilities
in general and environmental and occupational health audit of formal
and informal workers involved in the waste management. There were serious questions raised about the need for having two separate Rules
when plastic is at the focal point for both of them. The committee on
whose recommendations these Rules have been framed have revealed itself
to be a supporter of status quo. It disregards public health in general
and environmental and occupational health in particular in its
framing. The Rules continues to promote movement of waste from richer
areas to poorer areas. It pays lip service to waste minimization,
waste segregation, composting but ignores the fact that Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy has already distorted waste management by
making misplaced combustion technology based energy as the driving
concern. It disregards the composition of the Indian waste and promotes
burning and burial of waste.
It provides standards for emissions of heavy metals and
persistent organic pollutants but ignores the fact that Central
Pollution Control Board and most State Pollution Control Boards do not
have functional laboratories to test the emissions and to monitor
compliance.
Members
of All India Kachra Intzamia Muhim Manch examined the Draft
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2015 and Draft Plastic Waste Management
Rules, 2015 noted the role which Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers
is being assigned for supporting composts. Sadly, unmindful of its
distorting effect, MNRE provides Rs 1.5 crore/MW for energy generation
from waste. No such incentive has specifically been provided.
The role of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) in approving
new technologies has been mentioned both under tasks assigned to CPCB
and State Pollution Control Boards, Pollution Control Committees but
it does not factor existing experience in this regard. The case of use
of unapproved technology in Jindal’s Okhla based waste to energy
project is quite germane in this regard.
The Draft Solid Waste Rules reads: “In case of new technologies,
where no standards have been prescribed by the Central Pollution
Control Board, State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control
Committee, as the case may be, shall approach Central Pollution Control
Board for getting standards specified.” The fact is that although a new
Chinese technology is being used at Okhla, Delhi Pollution Control
Committee is yet to approach CPCB in this regard.
The
Draft Rules provides that CPCB should “review the proposals of state
pollution control boards or pollution control committees on use of any
new technologies for processing, recycling and treatment of solid waste
and prescribe performance standards, emission norms for the same”. The
fact is that CPCB has admittedly failed to review the Chinese
technology in question and “prescribe performance standards, emission
norms for the same” with no legal consequences. The participants also
objected to reference to waste workers as waste pickers in both the
Rules. Although several years have passed waste workers have not been
provided legal status despite National Environmental Policy 2006 promise
to provide legal status to waste workers. Waste workers provide
invaluable environmental service by ensuring resource and material
recovery. In such a situation of environmental lawlessness and social
injustice, the proposed Rules do not inspire even an iota of
confidence.
The Draft Rules mention Metal Recovery Facility (MRF). It ought to have
made provision for handing MRF to co-operatives of waste workers. The
Rules refer to user fee without clarifying whether it would be based on
the quantity or type of waste generated by waste producers. The Rules
pay lip-service to incentives for decentralised waste treatment
facilities. Its continued reliance on incineration Refuse Derived Fuel
Technologies shows that ministry’s love affair with costly centralised
facilities for treating and disposing municipal wastes is far from
over.
The Round Table was organized by All India Kachra Intzamia Muhim Manch.
For Details: Dharmendar Yadav, Lokadhikar, Mb: 9899044249, E-mail:lokadhikar.org@gmail.
P.S: TWA has consistently demanded closure of Jindal's incineration based waste to energy plant in Okhla and is opposed to its mere relocation. The issue is closure of the municipal waste incinerator in the residential and ecologically area in this specific case. It is quite parochial to argue in terms of location alone. It cannot agree with relocation approach especially with regard to municipal waste incinerators. TWA had expressed it even when it was first articulated when RWA in question had filed its writ petition in 2009. We have been demanding closure of the Okhla incinerator since March
2005. It is myopic to articulate the demand in terms of shifting a POPs & heavy metals emitting municipal waste incinerator plant. The Draft Solid Waste Management Rules, 2015 promotes status quo. RWA in question must pay heed to the proposed Rules before articulating its stance on incineration based WTE plants. Scientific literature on POPs & heavy metals has established that they
are long distance travellers and they do not require passport to travel. Its a sad commentary on how RWAs conceptualize municipal waste management. How can waste of Okhla, South Delhi district be shifted elsewhere in poorer localities as a a sane waste management practice. In fact in one particular meeting at Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC), the RWA's position on shifting of location of this plant in question was demolished by one MoEFCC official at a meeting convened on the orders of Jairam Ramesh, the then Environment Minister by referring to Master Plan documents of Delhi. In order to respond to him, TWA was asked by RWA representatives to advance arguments against the incinerator technology at that meeting. Such position has led to setbacks for RWA before Delhi High Court and now the NGT. But tactically TWA agrees to disagree and still work to ensure closure of waste incinerator.
P.S: TWA has consistently demanded closure of Jindal's incineration based waste to energy plant in Okhla and is opposed to its mere relocation. The issue is closure of the municipal waste incinerator in the residential and ecologically area in this specific case. It is quite parochial to argue in terms of location alone. It cannot agree with relocation approach especially with regard to municipal waste incinerators. TWA had expressed it even when it was first articulated when RWA in question had filed its writ petition in 2009. We have been demanding closure of the Okhla incinerator since March
2005. It is myopic to articulate the demand in terms of shifting a POPs & heavy metals emitting municipal waste incinerator plant. The Draft Solid Waste Management Rules, 2015 promotes status quo. RWA in question must pay heed to the proposed Rules before articulating its stance on incineration based WTE plants. Scientific literature on POPs & heavy metals has established that they
are long distance travellers and they do not require passport to travel. Its a sad commentary on how RWAs conceptualize municipal waste management. How can waste of Okhla, South Delhi district be shifted elsewhere in poorer localities as a a sane waste management practice. In fact in one particular meeting at Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC), the RWA's position on shifting of location of this plant in question was demolished by one MoEFCC official at a meeting convened on the orders of Jairam Ramesh, the then Environment Minister by referring to Master Plan documents of Delhi. In order to respond to him, TWA was asked by RWA representatives to advance arguments against the incinerator technology at that meeting. Such position has led to setbacks for RWA before Delhi High Court and now the NGT. But tactically TWA agrees to disagree and still work to ensure closure of waste incinerator.
Post a Comment