The purpose of this entry is to give a quick snapshot on the Deonar garbage dump and events leading to the awarding of the Deonar Project.
The Deonar Project was finally awarded in Aug 2009 at an exorbitant and unreasonable public cost of Rs. 4500 crores and based on a technology, which is being questioned.
There was hardly any public discussion regarding the use of tax payers money. Below are the inconsistencies in the award of the project which was originally projected to be awarded at around one tenth of the current cost in 2005
This post aims to stir greater public dialogue and expects that people will understand the key aspects of the matter and based on that send emails and letters to their Councilors, Municipal Commissioner and the Press asking for the answers.
What is the Deonar Dumping Ground?
Deonar dumping ground is Mumbai’s oldest garbage dump started sometime in 1927 and receives almost 6000 tonnes of garbage everyday. The dump is spread over an area of nearly 130 hectares and is now a hillock of garbage.
Conditions at the Deonar ground
The conditions at the Deonar dumping ground have been among the worst. Technically the garbage dump has outlived its life but for want of alternate space and the every increasing garbage it has to continue being used.
1996- The SARF petition
The residents of Deonar and Chembur have historically been the most affected from the Deonar dumping ground. Regular burning of garbage and the foul and dangerous smoke emerging from the same is transported with the wind and fills up Deonar and Chembur. This has led to the increased incidence of respiratory diseases and cancer in the residents.
In 1996 some residents of Deonar Chembur area led by Dr. Sandip Rane formed the Smoke Affected Residents Forum (SARF) which filed a Public Interest Litigation in Bombay High Court against the Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai asking for relief.
2000 -Barman Committee and Supreme Court 2000 rules
By 2000 the Barman Committee had submitted its report andthe Supreme Court had formulated the Municipal Solid Waste Rules 2000, which clearly called upon the municipal corporations of Class I cities to take note of the problem of fast depleting garbage dumping sites and the need to reduce as much waste generation at source by encouraging segregation and composting and other means.
2000-2005
MCGM carried out successful experiments with bio-remediation of landfill sites at Gorai dumping ground at a far lower cost than the Rs. 37 crore capping project that was subsequently awarded.
2005 – ILFS Report on the garbage dumps in Mumbai
In 2005 the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai appointed ILFS as the consultants to suggest the measures to be take to solve the problems at the existing garbage dumps and the measures to be taken to create new facilities. ILFS submitted a 200 page report by Nov. 2005, which was unfortunately not shared at all in public domain thus keeping the average citizen of Mumbai in the dark and no possibility of a dialogue ( 1. personal note about the situation then by Rishi below this sheet).
The ILFS report suggested different measures for the different dumps and in the case of Deonar suggested the partial closure of around 70 hectares of the 130 hectares. The Report calculated the financial requirements for the closure and came to the costs as Rs. 110 crores to be paid for stabilization of the partial closure site (around 70 hectares). Additionally the report mentioned that for the waste which would continue to be received at Deonar the operator who would finally be awarded the project should be given a tipping(gate) fee of Rs. 40/tonne of waste. The operator would make some revenue from the composting of the waste present there and the rest would be from CDM revenues which would be shared with the MCGM.
2006-08 – Request for Qualification (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP)
After presenting the report ILFS guided the RFQ as well as the RFP process through bids were invited for Gorai, Mulund, Deonar and a new landfill at Kanjur. For Deonar nearly 10 applicants were there of which 3 were shortlisted and finally the project was awarded to United Phosphorus Limited – the same as for Gorai.
May 2009 – Controversy erupts over the outrageously high cost of the Deonar Project at Rs. 5500 crores.
June 11 2009 – National Building Construction Corporation gives a letter to the Municipal Commissioner in response to the controversy offering to do the project at zero tipping fees.
In response to the controversy NBCC which has over the years diversified into waste management projects and is hence qualified to handle such projects wrote a letter suggesting doing the project at zero tipping fees also informing the MCGM that paying tipping fees is not the norm in the rest of the country since the operator makes sufficient revenue from sale of compost and other recyclables. There was no response from MCGM to the letter.
While NBCC was not one of the bidders during the formal tender process but it is a GOI body and in the large public interest of using public funds responsibly should the MCGM not become a slave to procedure?
July 21st 2009, Some activists submit a letter to Justice Chandrachud
During this period activists also met Dr. Rane of SARF and brought to notice how his PIL was being used to award a project which was so costly to the public exchequer.
August 8th 2009 – Presentation by Mr. R A Rajeev to the Bombay High Court, Hon. Justice Chandrachud
In the presentation made to the court there was hardly any discussion on the high cost of the project. The Court just showed appreciation for a good slide show where the correct words were used without realising that in a previous matter, which Justice Chandrachud had himself heard in 2004 the court had shown complete favor for the bio-remediation technique.
December 2008 – Standing Committee meeting – Minutes of Meeting no. 15 (10.11.2008)
[these minutes were made available to some activists by an anonymous courier which was received at their residences around 21st Aug, 2009]
The minutes of this meeting are most essential for public debate. The paper copy is avaiable. If somebody can help scan the 26 page detailed minutes into a PDF then that will be much helpful. The minutes are in Marathi and a translation into Marathi would be much helpful. In fact such important minutes should be posted in all languages on the website of the Municipal Corporation.
This meeting discussed threadbare the Deonar Project and is the one where the figure of Rs. 445/tonne find mention and is frozen. The report ascribes that ILFS in Feb 2007 suggested Rs. 110 crores for the stabilisation and Rs. 445/tonne as the tipping fee. This is the biggest irregularity in the whole process. How come the same ILFS which in its Nov 2005 report suggested a well studied figure of Rs. 40/tonne as the maximum tipping fee go about raising the fee to Rs. 445/tonne?
Key aspects of concern (and on the basis of this note if you agree with the doubts then please raise the same by sending an email to the Press first and the Additional Municipal Commissioner
1. When MCGM had already successfully tested with bio-remediation, a proven and economically and environmentally better option in the first half of the decade then why did it go for a technology (capping), which is unproven and has already led to adverse impacts at Chincholi, Malad.
The capping method additionally involves capital expenditure for covering the site with layers of mud and geo-textiles and creating leachate management systems. Bio-remediation on the other hand avoids initial capital expenditure and releases valuable landfill space to be re-used again.
2. When ILFS in its well studied report had emphatically mentioned that a tipping fee of Rs. 40/tonne should be given to the operator and the concession period should have been 15 years then on what basis did ILFS itself recommend and support the Standing Committee to take the tipping fee to a rate of Rs. 650/tonne which was then finally awarded at Rs. 445/tonne
Response of Municipal Councillors
Speak to most Municipal Councillors and the response you will get is as if nobody of them is aware of what is going on. The standard response is that the Standing Committee decides and votes on such matters. Shouldnt your Councilor be concerned about how public money is being spent on a public project.
