Successful implementation of Mission Ganga project requires Ganga Management System

It had already been found that the principal sources of pollution of the Ganga river can be characterised as follows:

• Domestic and industrial wastes

• Solid garbage thrown directly into the river.

• Non-point sources of pollution from agricultural run-off containing residues of harmful

pesticides and fertilisers.

• Animal carcasses and half-burned and unburned human corpses thrown into the river.

• Defecation on the banks by the low-income people.

• Mass bathing and ritualistic practices

Extensive research activities had already been carried out. The Plan-I studies had revealed (WHO/UNEP)-

• 75 per cent of the pollution load was from untreated municipal sewage.

• 88 per cent of the municipal sewage was from the 25 Class I towns on the main river.

• Only a few of these cities had sewage treatment facilities (these were very inadequate

and were often not functional).

• All the industries accounted for only 25 per cent of the total pollution

However, it had already been admitted that the mission to clean Ganga has failed. It says undue investment on technical aspects like creating sewage treatment plants to prevent the pollution in river Ganga without involving people living on the banks of the river are the reasons for it (Down to Earth, 18 May 2012). But this may not be the only reason behind the failure of  the mission. It can be said that although multi-pronged objectives were taken both as short term objectives (e.g. controlling municipal and industrial wastes) and long term objectives (e.g. to improve the environmental conditions along the river by suitably reducing all the polluting influences at source), the mission was started mostly as ‘cleanliness drive’ and this same character continued. The final result is that Ganga is still polluted.

Hence a sustainable approach is in need which shall not be limited only within ‘cleanliness drive’ but to maintain the cleanliness for long time along with maintenance of physical, environmental and socio-economic character of Ganga river system.

A comprehensive structured management system is required to be formulated at the very beginning for successful implementation of this project. Under this management system multi-directional and mutually compatible SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) shall needed to be developed based on which implementation activities will be carried out. 

Now, assuming Ganga as an organization, applying ISO 14001: 2015 management system standard (which is the  most recent standard in environmental management system) may result into building of the foundation of successful implementation of the mission. This management system model with following division of works shall cover all the requirements of implementation activities to be covered-

• Context of  the organization i.e. Ganga with its river basin (understanding  Ganga as an organization, needs expectations of interested parties i.e. stakeholder management, determining scope of Ganga Management System)
• Leadership (roles, responsibilities, authorities and commitment of project workers)
• Planning (environmental aspect and impact  findings, compliance management,  environmental objectives and targets determination with  specified time frame etc.)
• Support (resource, competence, awareness, communication etc.)
• Operation (operational planning and control, emergency preparedness and response etc.)
• Performance evaluation ( monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation, internal audit, annual or bi-annual management review meeting)

The scope will include not just the river but a holistic approach of Ganga river basin.

5 Answers

1. It is true that industrial wastewater and run off are two major factors in this case but they are not the source of all pollutants. Dumping of solid waste is also a source of pollution in Ganga. There are environmental laws to monitor and control industrial pollution but truly, as you said, 'Polluter pay' principle should really work in this case.  To implement that polluter pay principle, a robust  and effective infrastructure is required which is lacking in case of Ganga. Pollution monitoring is required not only  for industries but also for agricultural sector and municipal activities as well as awareness shall be raised in urban and rural areas to keep Ganga free from pollutants. 

   It is also true that cost is a factor in case of waste treatment. But if the waste material can be recycled or reuse to generate any utility product which will earn revenue, it will work as an incentive to treat waste material. For example, solid waste can be used to generate electricity. May be wastewater can be used in any such way. 

2. I must wonder how the percentage of pollution is being measured. If it is in biochemical oxygen demand, then it may appear as if the industries are contributing only 25% because many industrial effluents contain pollutants that inhibit the effective natural removal systems and microbial activity and/or oxygen which must be supported. Industrial discharges may contain heavy metals and volatile organics which cannot be measured by the BOD test because they cannot be readily broken down by the microorganisms. Non-point sorce pollution from runoff and inappropriate domestic contributions to the water body do contribute significant pollutant loadings which add nutrients resulting in excess algae and potentially very serious drops in dissolved oxygen! However, the point source contributions of industrial discharges, particularly if not pretreated prior to discharge, can hamper all natural systems in the river basin from the ability to purify the water and also cripple the ability of an installed and properly operating sewage treatment system! The industrial discharges must be within a certain pH range and temperature. They must not contribute inappropriate loadings of BOD to the river. They must contain very low amounts of the priority pollutants. Testing of industrial effluent must involve flow measurement, metals analysis and organic analysis using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy. The publication Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater lists the pollutants and their analytical methods. Standard Operating Procedures are available and I have drawn up many myself. The two places to limit pollutants are the industries and the runnoff. I cannot stress the importance of industrial discharge pretreatment enough. The Code of Federal Regulations published by the US government (CFR Part 403) lists industries by category and also lists limits for the parameters typically discharged by each type of industry. HOWEVER, these limits are too lenient and local limits must be determined by experimentation and analysis because a receiving body of water cannot handle loadings of this level if several industries are discharging to the same water body or the same wastewater treatment facility. It is usually hard to look at the industrial piece of this puzzle because of potential costs and loss of revenue, but this is not acceptable is pollution is to be controlled. I have seen electroplaters turn around from killing entire wastewater treatment facilities to reclaiming nearly all of the copper in their effluent, and turning it into pure copper sheets to be reclaimed by the industrial sector. Industries may not comply with pollution control efforts if it is cost effective for them to continue to pollute, so they may need to be charged for the pollutants they discharge and be published as significant water polluters. The government must make the conscious decision to choose water quality over industrial privilege. Once polluting is unpopular or costly it will be the beginning of success and reduction in waste of usable resources and the ability of the water body to recover. All sanitary sewage must go through an effectively operating wastewater treatment facility. Temporary package plants can be helpful, but are not a permanent or cost effective solution for high population areas, but some form of treatment is necessary to reduce the pathogens and the risk of waterborne disease. Best wishes for success in this important project!

3. Talk, talk, talk! Cleaning up the Ganga won't be achieved by yet more bureaucracy. It just generates yet more talk. If you really want results, then you have to motivate the people themselves. If they're accustomed to using the rivers as toilets, then eight years of blather won't make the slightest difference - even if you have municipal sewerage, that in itself won't dissuade people working in the fields to travel to the nearest municipal toilet - they'll just do what they've always done.

   For rural people, just as just as much as the office worker or factory mechanic,  time is money. If this social imperative cannot be overcome (and it won't be, for a long time) and they use the river for such purposes, then find ways to encourage them to make low-cost, easily maintained and environmentally safe earth closets in the appropriate locations out in the fields and near - but not TOO near, the river banks. Solve the real-life problem, and not your invented problem of inadequate bureaucracy!

   Yes, you have to deal with municipal problems through municipal projects, but for rural dwellers, you have to motivate them to recognize that it's to their advantage to help clean up the river. A river with a sound and functional ecosystem produces more fish, and reduces water borne and parasitic disease in the family. So find ways to persuade the rural people to change their habits so that they reap the benefits of modified actions. Show them that they're not being targeted selectively, and that the hoards of people living in the cities are doing their bit to support effluent reduction, through municipal sewerage schemes. Both sides must understand that everyone, rich or poor, is working towards this goal, and that it's not just the poor country folk being targeted by yet another discriminatory government scheme against the rural communities.

   When all the talk is about expanding the bureaucracy, instead of working with the people themselves, you will get nowhere. People are an integral part of the environment that you wish to change - bureaucracies are not!  So start thinking ecologically, instead of like rule-bound officials!

   1 Comment

   1. Yes, that's true. That is actually  part of effective stakeholder management  and it is purely management issue associated with socio-economic perspectives which I had mentioned earlier.

4. The idea of rejuvenation of the project may sound like day dreaming but this is the only option if  Govt. of India is serious about mission Ganga to be accomplished. It was said because all the activities-  "STPs, Common ETPs, Garland Sewersc and Interception of Nullahs and Drains, Management of Solid Wastes, Starting initiatives of Organic Farming.... etc" appears to be seeing legs and trunk of the elephant separately. To see the whole body of the elephant , a holistic view is required and that's why it was said to assume Ganga as organisation. It is because unless the project can be viewed in holistic manner and not to have any centralised monitoring system (not for short term basis but for long term sustainable development), the project will take unlimited time to be accomplished , let alone 7-8 years. All the activities mentioned -""STPs, Common ETPs, Garland Sewers...." have been going on for last 30 years and still there is no sign of success of this project.  Only technology cannot solve this problem. Integrating proper management system, stakeholder engagement with  socio-economic perspectives are very much in need to solve this problem. 

   Developing an organisation and providing legal authorisation to them will not be big issue for Govt. of India (seriousness matters off course). It is true, a huge fund is required but accumulation of fund will not be a problem in today's India. PPP model can be adopted but the whole work should be carried out under one dedicated authority.

   interconnection of river is a separate issue. Connecting this issue with mission Ganga will make the mission more complex.  

   1 Comment

   1. Multiplicity of authority and Responsibility only makes heads, ears, trunk , legs and tails. Singular Legal Authority and responsibility for the river system means that diverse project activities with multi-disciplinary approach can be planned and implemented in a seamless manner as responsibility and accountability is also with the same Authority. Otherwise, it is difficult and time consuming to resolve centre state and inter as well intra state issues. Have you ever heard of excuses from Defence Forces , just as an example.

      1 Comment reply

      1. Yes, That is what I wanted to say.

5. Some matter of fact acknowledgement of failures.. Please don't day dream to treat the Ganges as an organisation. The mission to rejuvenate the Ganges River System needs legal Authorisation for a well structured Organisation which has to be fully empowered and authorised and funded to implement various remedial measures and be wholly and fully accountable for  rejuvenation of River Systems as its work agenda. Government and multiple organs of it should remain responsive only and should not obstruct the work activity snatched from them due to their inefficiency.. Under PPP mode, D&B with O&M, Private sector should be given the responsibility under the legal protection by such an authority -- STPs, Common ETPs, Garland Sewersc and Interception of Nullahs and Drains, Management of Solid Wastes, Starting initiatives of Organic Farming under Co-operative structure along the banks of Rivers, Deployment of Innovative technologies to create positive impacts, etc.  can be accomplished in next 7 to 8 years to set the river system of the Ganges right..and then, work agenda can be to make other rivers alive.

   Inter-connection of Rivers and creating additional storage capacity for surface waters is also need of the hour.No state shall do it as real benefits can be for a bunch of states. Interlinking of Rivers and reservoirs can also be under the same authority.