(See previous post for article title/author/editors.)

Chapter three goes into great depth about the MCH’s VGDS program (Voluntary Garbage Disposal Scheme) and also mentions the ‘Clean and Green Andhra Pradesh Campaign’  (1998). Most of the chapter is an outline of the various departments within MCH and their (intended) function but also examines the effectiveness of various SWM strategies (Up until publication, 2004).  I learned about the gaps in the public system and how many of them are filled by private contractors.

The article details the process of waste management from the source(s) (Households, industries, hospitals etc)from beginning to end and describes how the process of collection at each location varies. This was interesting for the purposes of comparison – not just within India but also for when I eventually begin work on researching my own municipality’s procedures.

I also learned about Selco International Limited – a company that turns 200 tonnes of waste a day into pellets that are used as a coal substitute. It doesn’t go into much detail but I’d like to learn more about the environmental effects of burning those pellets, so I have earmarked it for later.

Two parts of the chapter I found most interesting addressed the pros and cons of the contract system vs. the public system including in what ways the private system fails it’s employees in both safety standards, job security and pay. Despite this, the study reviewed for the chapter reports that by-and-large employees in the private sector are satisfied with their jobs – which to me just says a lot about how bad it was before. The public system pays more, and employees get more benefits, but there is little monitoring (due to lack of funds) and residents reported that service through the public system was not as efficient or reliable. Oddly, on the other hand, MCH goes to great lengths to monitor the private contractors and they have the power to deal out consequences and cancel contracts if anything goes wrong. I find it odd that the public system is willing to monitor contractors but not their own. Perhaps this is related to the fear that private companies (being for-profit) might be more likely to take advantage of residence? I don’t know. Another interesting part of the public/private dynamic is that contracts with the city are set up in such a way that it limits a contracting company’s ability to invest in new equipment like trucks or new cleaning technologies to make things more cost effective. With 10 month contracts, there it’s not worth the financial risk to buy new trucks and invest in workers, since contracts can be canceled too quickly.

In many ways, the system in Hyderabad works well. It appears to be better managed than the municipalities in Delhi or Mumbai, at least from what I have read so far. Still, a troubling trend remains. Slums and people living in unregistered parts of the city still receive very poor SWM services. So poor, in fact that much of the work that is done there is funded by …of all things, the British Government (working through local welfare organizations)

The main problem that seems to be plaguing the MCH is that outside the small fee collected for the VGDS program, there is no cost recovery for the SWM services. Suggesting a tax raise is too politically dangerous so it isn’t addressed. And so the MCH does what it can with funds from the national government of India the state government and their own pockets.