Mounting waste, shrinking solutions. India’s MSW systems are collapsing under poor planning, weak finance, and little local participation.
Image Source: Getty
World Environment Day 2025 calls for a joint global initiative against the rising menace of pollution caused by plastic waste. While countries work toward an international treaty to end plastic pollution, India faces a more urgent and foundational problem: managing municipal solid waste (MSW) in its cities, a challenge spiralling out of control.. It’s not that principles of urban circular economy are unknown, or that waste management methods and technologies do not exist or are unavailable. All these are accessible and can be implemented relatively easily in a conducive, local environment. However, it is difficult to deny that MSW management is floundering in most Indian cities. Of the 65 million tonnes of waste generated annually, only about three-fourths gets collected, and less than 30 percent is processed or treated. The rest ends up in dump yards.
The growing Indian economy also plays a role, with per capita waste generation revealing an upward trend, albeit marginally. As a result, MSW generation is expected to touch 165 million tonnes by 2031 and 436 million tonnes by 2050.
This situation is becoming more daunting due to a series of developments that add to the complexity. First, urbanising India continues to grow its number of urban settlements from 5,161 in 2001 to 7,936 in 2011, and now, by rough estimates, to around 12,000. Urban demographic has also surged from 377 million in 2011 to an estimated 519.5 million in 2023 and is projected to reach 675 million in 2035. Urban density is rising, meaning more people live in every square kilometre than before, leading to more waste generation per square kilometre.
The growing Indian economy also plays a role, with per capita waste generation revealing an upward trend, albeit marginally. As a result, MSW generation is expected to touch 165 million tonnes by 2031 and 436 million tonnes by 2050.
The nature of municipal waste is also metamorphosing, with online shopping becoming the preferred choice across cities—Tier 1 to Tier 4 cities. However, this increaases more packaging waste, which is to be handled by Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). Owing to the growth of customer services placing a premium on ultra-fast delivery, the problem of voluminous packaging has aggravated the situation, preventing the consolidated package delivery. Individually packed deliveries have fewer items, but their multiplication heavily burdens the city in terms of waste generation. Furthermore, e-commerce packaging comprises plastic, paper, bubble wrap, air packets, tape, and cardboard cartons. While these materials are recyclable, the toxic chemicals used in their packaging can be hazardous to human health if not handled properly. It is clear that in light of the previously cited developments, none of the challenges plaguing MSW have improved.
Over time, the additional waste categories that emerged and demanded targeted solutions were covered. As of 2025, we have a slew of regulations governing the areas of solid waste, hazardous waste, bio-medical waste, plastic waste, e-waste, batteries, and construction waste.
Despite growing complexities, MSW management has lacked substantial national attention. Serious efforts have been underway to set it right since the 1990s. A set of nationwide regulations on MSW resulted from a writ petition in the Supreme Court and its order in January 1998. A committee was established to assess MSW management and was also charged with suggesting recommendations. This led to the 2000 MSW Rules, which were mandated for all municipal authorities. Over time, the additional waste categories that emerged and demanded targeted solutions were covered. As of 2025, we have a slew of regulations governing the areas of solid waste, hazardous waste, bio-medical waste, plastic waste, e-waste, batteries, and construction waste.
The most recent initiative came from India’s Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, who launched the Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0 on 1 October 2021, aiming to make Indian cities garbage-free. However, Indian states and cities have been found wanting in fulfilling/implementing the objectives of the mission effectively. The collection is not at a hundred percent, segregation remains low, technology adoption is inadequate, and private sector participation is severely limited.
These deficits not only highlight the failures of MSW management but also point to deeper structural issues—namely, that the fundamentals of urban planning, governance, and municipal finance are out of joint. As a result, every municipal-level initiative is expected to succeed not because of a supportive urban system, but in spite of it. This article explores some of those underlying challenges.
First, in most of the city planning process in the country, spatial provisions for MSW are absent, barring a piece of land marked out for central waste dumping. The MSW Management Manual of the Government of India, prepared in 2016, prescribes suitable land allocation for regional MSW projects. It also addresses decentralised MSW systems within the city. It states, “The city master plan and town planning or spatial planning maps should identify and reserve such land for MSWM facilities.” Nonetheless, most state governments and ULBs are remiss in not integrating these stipulations into the regional and city planning process, despite land being a foundational requirement to carry out MSW operations.
Cities are finding it extremely difficult to deal with the fundamental spatial aspect of solid waste. Locating decentralised facilities across open spaces not originally earmarked for MSW purposes ab initio runs into vociferous opposition from local residents who do not want such facilities in their backyard. Likewise, large regional sites in rapidly expanding cities must go beyond their physical limits to locate them, as none are available. However, similar local opposition awaits city governments from villagers, who are up in arms against any such project in their backyard—clearly telling municipal corporations to manage the problem within their own geographical limits. Cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Pimpri Chinchwad, and Bengaluru have all faced the villagers’ ire. City officials are often at a loss for what to do, and state governments remain wary of antagonising voters.
Cities are finding it extremely difficult to deal with the fundamental spatial aspect of solid waste. Locating decentralised facilities across open spaces not originally earmarked for MSW purposes ab initio runs into vociferous opposition from local residents who do not want such facilities in their backyard.
Second, private sector participation (PSP) in MSW management is a widely recommended model. However, PSP in these areas remains severely constrained by financial viability, quality of waste that ULBs can offer, high risk due to institutional complexities, and fractured mandates at the city level. Only a few large cities have managed to progress in this area; the rest lack the capacity and the resources. PSP may remain a far-fetched dream unless cities get their governance architecture in order.
Third, it is now universally agreed that Indian ULBs are financially emaciated owing to the impact of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) and the RFCTLARR (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation) Act, 2013. While many smaller ULBs struggle to pay the salaries of their staff, others falter on maintenance and cannot keep pace with the all-around requirements of city infrastructure. If all investment and operational requirements of ULBs in MSW are considered, most Indian cities would fail to meet those financial targets. In effect, MSW management is an unfunded mandate.
Finally, MSW management—arguably one of the most basic municipal responsibilities—cannot succeed without a ‘whole-of-city’ approach. This means coordinated efforts from state governments, city-level, ward-level, area-level administrations, the entire gamut of civic organisations, the private sector, and every citizen. Alas, this collaborative philosophy appears conspicuously absent.
Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Ramanath Jha is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai. He works on urbanisation — urban sustainability, urban governance and urban planning. Dr. Jha belongs ...
Read More +
PREV
.jpg)