Ganga Action Plan: Ganga Action Plan: A Review of the Technological and A Review of the Technological and Institutional FailuresInstitutional Failures

By

Ajith E (10335005)

Under the guidance of

Prof. N C Narayanan

Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA)

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay

29th November 2010

Quoting former PM Rajiv Gandhi on his Quoting former PM Rajiv Gandhi on his Inaugural speech of GAP at VaranasiInaugural speech of GAP at Varanasi“The felling of trees has caused severe floods, and silt and mud now flow into the Ganga making the river shallow so that boats can not ply in it as they did before. Sewage and pollution from cities, industries and factories and dead animals are also being thrown into the Ganga. From now on, we shall put a stop to this. We shall see that the waters of the Ganga become clean once again.the Ganga become clean once again.

The Ganga Action Plan is not just a government plan. It has not been prepared for the PWD or government officials alone. It is a plan for all the people of India; one in which they can come forward and participate. It is upto us to clean the whole of Ganga and refrain from polluting it.

This programme, starting at Varanasi here today will reach out to every corner of our land and to all our rivers. In the years to come, not only the Ganga, but all our rivers will be clean and pure as they were thousands of years ago.”

2

IndexIndex

� Why do we need to think about Ganga

� Ganga Action Plan

� Tech failures

� Institutional Failures� Institutional Failures

� State wise review

� SWOT

� Conclusions

� References

3

Why do we need to think about GangaWhy do we need to think about Ganga

� Total length of 2,525 km

� About half a million people; over 500 per sq km

� Yamuna, Ramganga, Ghaghara, Gandak, BhuriGandak, Kosi, Gomati, Chambal, Sind, Betwa, Kens, Tons and Sone

� Farakka Barrage

� Delhi, Kolkata, Kanpur, Lucknow, Patna, Agra, Meerut, Varanasi and � Delhi, Kolkata, Kanpur, Lucknow, Patna, Agra, Meerut, Varanasi and Allahabad are situated in this basin

4

� 31% of the waste generated in the country is from the basin

� 1.3 billion liters per day of human waste, and 260 million liters of industrial waste enters the river

� Corpses and cremated ashes make the problem worse

� Most of the urban centers along the river banks lack proper sewage treatment facilities

Pollution

Source: http://reli350.vassar.edu/gosselin/dilemma.html

5

Ganga Action PlanGanga Action Plan� Launched in1985

� Interception, diversion and treatment of 882 MLD out of 1340 MLD of wastewater in 25 class-I towns

� The approved cost for GAP-I was Rs.462.04 crores

� GAP-I was scheduled for completion by March 1990, but it was extended up to 31 March 2000

� GAP-II was initiated in 1993 stages between 1993 and 1996 on the � GAP-II was initiated in 1993 stages between 1993 and 1996 on the tributaries of river Ganga viz. Yamuna, Damodar and Gomati

(Source: PAC Report 2004)

Technical Specifications of the goals of GAP

6

Organizational StructureOrganizational Structure

(Source: CAG Report, 2000)

7

Operational ProfileOperational Profile

� The GAP aimed to tackle 2794 MLD of sewage; 882 MLD under the GAP-I and 1912 MLD under the GAP-II.

� State – Centre sharing� Core and non-core schemes◦ The core sector schemes were designed to tackle ‘point ◦ The core sector schemes were designed to tackle ‘point pollution

◦ It consisted of interception & diversion schemes and sewage treatment plants

◦ Non-core schemes comprised of low cost sanitation schemes, river front development schemes, electric and improved wood crematoria

◦ It tackled non-point, non-measurable pollution, such as dumping of solid waste and open defecation, dumping of unburnt / half-burnt dead bodies etc.

8

Technological Technological failuresfailures

� Inappropriate technologies for STPs◦ Decisions were taken based on the Dutch Technical Mission◦ NEERI recommended coupled aerobic and anaerobic systems which was not taken into consideration

� Inadequate treatment� Inadequate treatment◦ Low efficiency in removal of pathogens◦ Toxic chemicals from the industries were nt removed

� Energy intensive technologies◦ Centralized systems◦ Capital and energy intensive technologies like UASB◦ Biogas could be generated from such sewage treatment plants, such ideas are still on paper

9

Institutional FailuresInstitutional FailuresCore schemes

Delays in the civil works leading to cost escalation, idling of the plants, mismatch with interception & divergence schemes, technical flaws, diversion of resources

10

Non-Core schemesWide scale impairment of assets created at public expense because of neglect lack of maintenance and mostly due to delays in their setting up of infrastructure

Institutional FailuresInstitutional Failures

� Operation and maintenance◦ The state agencies almost neglected the developed infrastructures

◦ In GAP I only about 45% of the polluting industrial units had installed Effluent Treatment Plants. 18 % of those did not function properly, and did not meet the those did not function properly, and did not meet the technical standards. The NRCD had no mechanism to see that the installed plants functioned satisfactorily.

� Financial management◦ Many instances of financial mismanagement; such as, funds diversion to unauthorized activities (Rs 36.07 crore), incorrect reporting (Rs 6.75 crore), and parking of funds (Rs 1.17 crore), and unutilized funds with the implementing agencies (Rs 72.62 crore), etc

11

Institutional FailuresInstitutional Failures

� Monitoring mechanism◦ The apex body headed by the Prime Minister to monitor the plan, viz. the National River Conservation Authority, met only twice, in 1994 and 1997. and 1997.

◦ The States were asked to set up Citizen Monitoring Committees which was supposed to get public participation in the schemes. But most of them ignored that plan.

� Public participation◦ No mechanism to tackle the pollution issues raised by the pilgrims

◦ Lack of social mobilization 12

State wise reviewState wise review

Interception & Diversion Schemes

70

80

90

100

25

30

35

SewageTreatment Plants

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

UP WB Bihar Haryana Delhi0

5

10

15

20

25

UP WB Bihar Haryana Delhi

State wise reviewState wise review

Sewage Capacity (MLD)

50

60

70

80

1000

1200

1400

1600Non core schemes

14

0

10

20

30

40

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Bihar Haryana Delhi0

200

400

600

800

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Bihar Haryana Delhi

State wise reviewState wise review� The scheme was implemented in a sluggish manner which caused the performance failure

� UP and West Bengal ◦ Delays and mismanagements

◦ Financial overrun.

◦ Misuse of funds◦ Misuse of funds

� Bihar ◦ Failed to achieve most of the set targets

◦ Many of them were achieved as late as 2000

◦ Parking of funds

� Haryana ◦ STPs did not meet the required mandates

◦ State showed inflated expense reports.

15

SWOTSWOT� Strengths◦ It had a comprehensive vision.

◦ Complete support of the governing bodies.

◦ A strong institutional framework consisting of both state and central controls.

� Weakness◦ Ambitions of the vision were not properly backed by technical and institutional setups.

◦ Lack of appropriate monitoring action from the governing body.◦ Lack of appropriate monitoring action from the governing body.

◦ Lack of support from the people.

� Opportunities◦ Bring Ganga back to purity.

◦ A test model to handle various other water pollution problems of the country.

◦ A working model for state-centre partnership in large projects

� Threats◦ Loss of huge investments.

◦ Chances for more corruption and imposition of vested interests.

◦ Skewed project activities hamper the life of local stakeholders.16

ConclusionsConclusions

� The Ganga is still in poor shape.

� The Scheme turned out to be a big failure.

� The institutional bodies for implementation of such projects needs to be more accountable and responsible.accountable and responsible.

� We need better laws and mechanisms for pollution control.

� Public mobilization is a key factor.

� Future◦ “Mission Clean Ganga”

17

ReferencesReferences� Alley, K., “Ganga and Gandagi: Interpretations of Pollution and Waste in

Benaras”, Ethnology ., pp 127-145. (1994).

� Divan, S., “Cleaning the Ganga”, Economic and Political Weekly., pp 1557-1558. (1995).

� “Ganga Action Plan”, Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.,(2000)

� Jaiswal, R., Ganga Action Plan-A critical analysis., (2007).

� Lacy, S., “Modeling the Efficacy of the Ganga Action Plan’s Restoration of � Lacy, S., “Modeling the Efficacy of the Ganga Action Plan’s Restoration of the Ganga River, India”, Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan., (2006).

� Menon, U., “Technology and Development Aid: The Case of Ganga Action Plan”, Economic and Political Weekly., pp 1693-1701.(1988).

� “Status Paper on River Ganga: State of Environment and Water Quality”, National River Conservation Directorate, MoEF, (2009).

� “Sixty Second Report Public Accounts Committee – Ganga Action Plan”, MoEF. (2004).

� Tare,V. and Bose, P., “Compendium of Sewage Treatment Technologies”, National River Conservation Directorate., (2009).

� Tripathi, P., “Captive Ganga”, Frontline , 3, pp 41-45. (2009).

18