City representatives revealed that many urban local bodies lack comprehensive data inventories due to factors such as resource constraints in conducting waste characterization or quantification studies, outdated data, a lack of standardization in data collection, and a lack of hard and soft infrastructure, like weighbridges and digital databases. For instance, some municipalities expressed issues with inconsistent practices, technological limitations, and a lack of appropriate infrastructure, resulting in issues with collecting detailed data at the ward or household levels and little to no characterization of wet and dry waste.

• Adopt a standardized template for data collection that includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for data on waste generation rate, composition, collection, treatment, recycling, and disposal.
• Conduct regular waste surveys to collect data.
• Outline responsibilities among municipal stakeholders regarding waste data to collect and coordinate across various departments.
• Equip recycling, processing, and disposal facilities with weighbridges to allow precise data on waste quantity.
• Utilize digital tools such as QR codes at households’ entrances to track collection dates, payments, and the amount and types of waste collected.

City representatives discussed how private waste collectors sometimes overlook waste collection for disadvantaged communities that cannot afford the collection fees, which leads to improper disposal practices and waste accumulation. This can also occur due to a lack of adequate waste collection infrastructure like compartmentalized vehicles and efficient vehicle routing systems. Additionally, a lack of awareness among waste generators of the importance of source segregation of waste for recycling and organic waste treatment is another major challenge faced by cities. Some cities indicated that a reason for this lack of awareness could be the ineffectiveness of Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) programs in promoting adequate monitoring and compliance in source segregation and waste collection. Other challenges include road access for waste collection vehicles in densely populated areas with narrow roads.

• Tailor waste collection infrastructure to the city’s waste generation characteristics and patterns.
• Optimize waste collection by collecting wet waste every day and dry waste every three to four days.
• Adopt a graded user fee to ensure waste management services are affordable and accessible to all communities.
• Conduct extensive IEC campaigns that are tailored for a variety of audiences and disseminated through various media channels.

Cities expressed challenges in planning waste treatment facilities due to inadequate data on waste quantification and characterization. Additionally, unskilled personnel, financial constraints, and the absence of segregated waste led to dysfunctional organic waste treatment plants, complicated waste processing, and compromised the quality and, thus, marketability of end products. These markets are also not adequately promoted. The lack of clean feedstock prevents private contractors from efficiently processing organic waste, which results in subpar services and end-products for which municipalities must still pay. It was also discussed that many bulk waste generators lack the processing facilities to comply with national mandates on organic waste management, which increases a municipality’s financial burden for waste treatment.

• Conduct periodic waste characterization studies to plan for appropriate processing facilities.
• Implement awareness and training programs to ensure clean feedstock for organic waste treatment, and adequately skilled personnel to support successful facility operation.
• Tailor treatment options to the types of organic waste (flowers, coconuts, horticulture, cow dung, etc.) generated.
• Train and work with bulk waste generators struggling to comply with mandates and set up decentralized composting and biogas facilities to increase organic waste processing capacity or explore large centralized organic waste processing facilities.

During discussions, municipalities expressed issues of mixed waste disposal in landfills, in part due to a lack of incentive for diversion practices. Additionally, contamination issues hinder the marketability of recovered recyclables and soil for compost from the biomining/bioremediation of legacy waste. Cities discussed the challenge of limited land availability for waste processing and disposal. Additionally, while the SWM Rules, 2016 mandate the enforcement of landfill gas capture and leachate treatment systems, municipalities expressed that resource constraints, weak enforcement mechanisms, and inadequate monitoring often limit their ability to effectively implement and maintain the necessary infrastructure to comply with this, as well as other regulatory rules. A lack of technical expertise among personnel at landfill sites also prevents compliance.

• Use advanced monitoring technologies, conduct regular inspections, and enforce clear penalties when evaluating compliance.
• Support waste diversion practices to promote resource recovery and reduce the volume of waste at final disposal sites.
• Use a volume-based tipping fee to incentivize resource recovery efforts.
• Employ trained landfill engineers and offer capacity building for on-ground personnel on landfill management and safety measures. Ensure a technical point of contact from the municipal body oversees this training.
• Promote biomining as a low-cost option compared to landfill capping. Combustible material can be processed into refuse derived fuel (RDF) and supplied for co-processing in the cement facilities, metal and glass can be recycled, and soil toxicity can be tested for composting or used as earth filling.