Kochi fire: Fumes of centralised waste and decentralised trauma

What needs to be understood is the difference between adopting decentralised waste-management system and leaving decision-making to a decentralised local entity

Decentralised governance, which often manifests as an ideology by itself, seeks to promote decision-making at the local level, and advocates devolution of powers to local bodies. It is seen by many as a means of enhancing democracy, promoting local participation, and improving the effectiveness of service delivery. The recent fire at Brahmapuram waste dump, in Kochi, Kerala, and the discharge of poisonous gases as a consequence of it across Kochi city (and now to neighbouring districts), raises the counter-argument of how it is dangerous when decentralisation becomes a dogma.

While decentralisation can be an effective strategy for promoting local governance and community participation, blindly believing in it without considering the specific context, its potential risks and downsides, its complexity, available evidence and data, and alternative perspectives and approaches, can lead to inappropriate policies and negative outcomes.

Who is responsible?

The Brahmapuram waste dump has witnessed fires in the past as well, but it was never so huge, and out of control. This not being a one-off accident, raises more concern. It manifests as a systemic issue that can’t be course-corrected with a one-time intervention invoking CrPC 133 or provisions of the Disaster Management Act by the District Collector or by an occasional intervention of the high court.

Also Read: Vulnerable sections advised to remain indoors in Kochi due to toxic fumes

Who can be held responsible? In the past fires was responsibility fixed? Will anyone be held responsible for the latest disaster?

Unlike other states, Kerala has devolved decision-making powers directly to the elected politicians of local self-government bodies — the Mayor, Municipal Chairpersons, Panchayat Presidents, and the councillors. Instead of a Municipal Commissioner who functions as the CEO of the local body, there is a secretary to the corporation/municipality who is bound by the directions of the Mayor/Chairperson.

So, while city corporations like Chennai have six IAS officers to administer different departments under a very senior IAS officer who is the Corporation Commissioner, City Corporations in Kerala where the CEO has no original power, do not get even a single IAS officer. Bengaluru City corporation takes the services of eight IAS officers. In Kerala, though the Corporation Secretary who is from the municipal cadre cannot function independently, they are the ones who have been designated under Section 49 of the Act to be held answerable in the court of law!

Broadly this mimics the administrative set up of a state government, where the Chief Secretary represents the State, but the power is wielded by the Chief Minister and the council of ministers. The key difference, however, is that there are no ‘rules of business’ or delegations whatsoever in a local body. The transient political executive — most probably an absolute amateur in administration, procurement, and tendering — decides, but they are not held accountable. The elected politicians come and go, and the audit objections, vigilance enquiries, and contempt cases keep piling against the local body secretary. The counter-argument that electoral scrutiny is the biggest mode of fixing accountability is more of a romantic notion than reality.

Responsibility-authority-accountability

It is common sense that without fixing accountability, there can be no consequence for any of the lapses. It is also a basic administrative rule that accountability must match responsibility, and should be commensurate with the power devolved. The Responsibility-Authority-Accountability matrix is fundamental to designing any vibrant organisation.

Also Read: Kerala issues heat stroke alert as mercury breaches 50 degrees

Besides, the transient political leadership in the corporations and municipalities may not have the necessary resources, expertise, or technical know-how to effectively manage complex issues such as waste management, which leads to poor decision-making, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of enforcement — resulting in serious health and environmental consequences. The fact is that there are no urban planning experts, procurement experts, environment engineers, community health experts or chartered accountants on the payroll of any of the city corporations of Kerala.

Mission-mode projects such as Smart City have the freedom to engage experts temporarily, but they do not report to or advise the Mayor in council. The corporation continues to function through standing committees composed of councillors who are not experts. Whereas this may not cause much of a problem in a small panchayath, in big cities the lack of professionalism can wreak havoc.

A flawed structure

The decentralisation of decision-making regarding waste management within the local bodies — where individual councillors take an upper hand — has resulted in a fragmented system that lacks co-ordination and integration. The opposition of local councillors to the establishment of waste management plants in their respective wards is usual. This has led to a proliferation of unauthorised dumpsites, illegal burning of waste, and the spread of diseases caused by the improper disposal of waste. The need for a more co-ordinated and integrated approach to waste management cannot be overemphasised.

Assigning procurement-tendering and technical decisions directly to a locally-elected political leadership that lacks capacity has several potential defects including lack of expertise, potential for local corruption, lack of transparency, local vested interests, lack of media interest in local tenders leading to lesser scrutiny, inefficient use of resources, poor technology, and limited competition. Internationally, policymakers consider these risks while designing procurement processes, and appropriate safeguards are put in by escalating certain procurement functions to higher forums, the state government in this case.

Decentralisation is tailored to the specific needs of each community, issues at hand and context, considering potential risks and downsides, incorporating evidence and data into decision-making processes, and is open to alternative perspectives and approaches to ensure the best possible outcomes. Decentralisation of administration is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

Drawbacks of centralised system

Most cities where large amounts of waste are generated have centralised waste management systems where waste collection, transportation, and disposal are managed by a central authority, typically at the city/regional level. Waste is typically collected by trucks and transported to the central facility, such as a landfill or incinerator. The central facility may also be responsible for recycling and composting, depending on the specific system in place. Brahmapuram is a typical centralised waste management facility that never really took off due to procurement issues and differences with the contractor. Instead of a waste-processing unit, it degenerated to a dumping yard.

The drawbacks to a centralised waste management system are well documented. It is potentially less responsive to the needs and preferences of local communities, who may have different priorities or values regarding waste management. Additionally, centralised systems can be more susceptible to corruption and mismanagement, particularly in cities with weak governance and regulatory systems.

Centralised-decentralised

In recent years, there has been growing interest in decentralised waste management systems, which involve greater community participation and involvement in waste management processes. It can offer more flexibility and adaptability to local needs, and can promote greater awareness and engagement around waste reduction and sustainability.

Community-based composting, decentralised waste-to-energy systems, and informal waste management systems come under this. What needs to be understood with clarity is the difference between adopting a decentralised waste-management system and leaving decision-making to a decentralised local entity. Decentralised decision-making or leadership in waste management refers to the distribution of decision-making power and authority from a central authority/agency to local/community-level leaders. In this model, local leaders have greater autonomy to make decisions about waste management policies, programmes, and initiatives that are tailored to the needs and preferences of their communities. The efficacy of such an approach depends a lot on the capacity and maturity of local leadership to visualise a larger picture.

Conclusion

While these two concepts are related, they are not the same. Decentralised decision-making can be used to support decentralised approaches to waste management, by giving local leaders the authority and resources to implement community-level waste management initiatives along with a logical accountability matrix. Centralised decision-making can also be used to support decentralised approaches to waste management, by providing technical expertise and resources to support community-level waste management initiatives.

The Brahmapuram fiasco is unfortunate, but it offers an opportunity to improve the system and make course-correction with the benefit of invaluable learnings in decentralisation gathered over the decades. An administrative expert might easily opine that to manage urban waste in a sustainable way, centralised decision making with decentralised waste management is most appropriate in the given circumstances of low implementation capacity, and expertise — but only after fixing a proper accountability matrix.

(Prasanth Nair is Special Secretary to Government, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe & Other Backward Communities Development Departments, Kerala)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)