The Kerala government has officially notified a comprehensive, statewide protocol for managing disaster waste, making it mandatory for all districts and local bodies to follow a uniform and time-bound system. This move aims to address critical gaps exposed during recent calamities, most notably the devastating July 2024 Meppadi landslide in Wayanad.
Filling a Critical Gap in Emergency Response
The new framework, cleared by the local self-government department, was drafted by the Suchitwa Mission. It acknowledges that existing waste management rules, designed for routine conditions, repeatedly proved inadequate during large-scale disasters. This led to confusion, delays, and improvised arrangements even as rescue operations were underway, creating public health and environmental hazards.
The protocol represents a paradigm shift, treating disaster waste as an immediate public health emergency rather than a post-clean-up inconvenience. It provides a detailed classification system for debris, covering everything from collapsed structures and fallen trees to biomedical waste from relief camps, animal carcasses, hazardous chemicals, e-waste, and sewage from damaged septic systems.
A Phased and Accountable Approach
The guideline prescribes a phased response. The first 72 hours are critical, focusing on the rapid clearance of mixed and soiled waste to avoid obstructing life-saving rescue and medical operations. Following this emergency phase, systematic segregation and scientific disposal are mandated during the recovery period.
Institutional accountability is clearly mapped. District administrations and local self-government institutions are tasked with identifying temporary storage sites, mobilising equipment and manpower, and ensuring uninterrupted collection. The use of GPS-tracked vehicles for waste transport is mandated, and detailed records must be maintained for audit. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board is assigned the role of monitoring environmental compliance.
Community-level workers, particularly the Haritha Karma Sena members deployed through the Kudumbashree mission, are assigned a central role in segregation and collection once the immediate emergency stabilises.
Implementation Challenges and Funding Concerns
Despite its exhaustive design, the protocol concedes that the absence of pre-framed plans during past disasters led to "initial chaos." This raises questions about whether the new rules will ensure real-time preparedness or remain reactive.
Several proactive measures outlined—such as GIS-based waste forecasting, pre-identified storage sites, trained personnel, protective gear, and insured sanitation workers—require sustained administrative follow-up and funding well before a disaster strikes. Past experience indicates such preparatory steps are often uneven across districts, especially in those with weaker institutional capacity.
While worker safety is strongly emphasised, with mandates for protective equipment, vaccinations, and insurance, ground reports from previous disasters have shown gaps in gear availability and delayed insurance payouts. This suggests compliance may hinge less on the protocol's existence and more on rigorous enforcement and monitoring during a crisis.
The framework also leans heavily on interdepartmental coordination and empanelled private agencies for processing and disposal—areas historically vulnerable to delays and logistical bottlenecks. Although it specifies who should do what, the protocol stops short of detailing penalties or accountability mechanisms if agencies fail to act within prescribed timelines.
Funding remains a potential fault line. While the government has clarified that disaster waste management will be financed from disaster management funds, the adequacy and speed of fund release to local bodies during emergencies has been a recurring concern. Without timely financial flows, even well-designed systems risk stalling at the implementation stage.
In essence, Kerala's disaster waste management protocol showcases the state's detailed and comprehensive policy-making, informed by past failures. However, whether it marks a genuine shift in disaster response will ultimately depend on how rigorously it is tested, monitored, and enforced when the next calamity hits.
