Gangtok’s Solid Waste Crisis: Can Privatization Clean Up the Mess?

Dr.HBSHARMA

Gangtok, the capital city of Sikkim, generates approximately 49 tons per day (TPD) of waste, constituting nearly 70% of the state’s total urban waste output. In an effort to streamline waste management, the Gangtok Municipal Corporation (GMC) has entrusted the door-to-door collection and transportation of municipal solid waste to a private firm, for an initial period of three years. This move, while aimed at enhancing efficiency, has sparked discussions on whether privatization is the right approach to tackle Gangtok’s persistent waste crisis or if it risks further inefficiencies and inequities.

Figure:Figure: Solid Waste Management in Sikkim’s Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) – Gangtok Municipal Corporation (GMC), Gyalshing Nagar Panchayat (GNP), Mangan Nagar Panchayat (MNP), Namchi Municipal Council (NMC), Rangpo Nagar Panchayat (RNP), Singtam Nagar Panchayat (SNP), and NayabajarJorethang Nagar Panchayat (NJNP) (Data source SPCB 2023-24).

Waste management in the Himalayan region presents unique challenges due to difficult terrain, limited accessibility, and a lack of extensive infrastructure. Philosophically, waste management sits at the intersection of public service and economic efficiency. In classical economic thought, waste disposal is considered a public good, one that should be managed collectively rather than for profit. However, modern neoliberal principles argue that privatization can lead to efficiency through competition and specialization. The question remains: should waste management be treated as a commodity or a fundamental civic right?

Historically, Gangtok’s waste has transitioned from being discarded near Children’s Park to Smile Land (NamleyBhir), and now to Martam, indicating the lack of a long-term strategy for sustainable waste disposal. First, one of the critical concerns surrounding waste management in Gangtok is the rapidly filling Martam landfill site.The Martam landfill site, inaugurated in 2017, was designed with a lifespan of 17 years, as per the Detailed Project Report (DPR). The landfill, originally intended solely for the disposal of waste generated within Gangtok Municipal Corporation (GMC) (which administratively covers 17 municipal wards from Tashi View Point to Ranipool), has now become the dumping ground for waste from across Sikkim. This excessive reliance has accelerated its capacity exhaustion far ahead of schedule, creating severe environmental and logistical challenges.As of 2025, just eight years since its commissioning, the landfill is already overburdened. Given Sikkim’s unique geographical constraints, particularly its lack of flat land for additional landfill sites, it is evident that the current approach is unsustainable. The waste management situation in Sikkim hasalso drawn the attention of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which has issued a notice to the state government, demanding urgent remedial measures. The state government and GMC officials appears poised to take decisive action and have already initiated bio-mining project for legacy waste. Second, Gangtok’s waste collection was previously managed by multiple small outsourcing agencies, leading to frequent coordination failures, accountability gaps, and financial inefficiencies. With landfill sites becoming increasingly overloaded and polluting the environment, policymakers and stakeholders of GMC require accurate and comprehensive data to design and implement effective waste management policies. However, a severe challenge persists due to the lack of reliable and detailed waste management data, which urgently needs addressing. Note: waste management data goes beyond mere numbers, especially when these numbers reveal trends. It plays a vital role in research, communication, advocacy, and informed decision-making. Similarly, waste management data is crucial for developing policies and plans that are tailored to local contexts. To address these challenges, the Gangtok Municipal Corporation (GMC) justified the shift to a single-agency model to streamline processes, optimize collection routes, and introduce scientific waste handling and reliable data generation.

A well-structured privatization model can significantly enhance waste management by ensuring systematic data collection, enabling accurate tracking of waste generation trends, and improving the monitoring of segregation and disposal efficiency. Additionally, it allows for targeted behavioral interventions that encourage waste reduction and better segregation practices. These improvements collectively serve as the foundation for a successful circular economy, where waste is minimized, resources are recovered efficiently, and sustainability is prioritized. Moreover, it also has the potential to reduce political influence in waste contracts, shifting the focus to performance-based outcomes rather than political affiliations.

Privatization in waste management carries significant risks despite its perceived benefits, and the experiences of various Indian cities offer valuable lessons. Indore successfully leveraged a public-private partnership (PPP) model, emerging as India’s cleanest city through a combination of strict regulation, accountability, and active citizen participation. The municipal corporation retained strong oversight while private agencies were responsible for collection, transportation, and processing, ensuring efficiency without compromising service quality. Indore’s success highlights the importance of a well-regulated privatization model with clear performance metrics and public engagement. Pune, on the other hand, took a different approach by integrating its informal waste pickers into the formal system through the SWaCH cooperative. This model ensured both efficiency and social equity, allowing waste pickers to continue their livelihood while improving overall waste collection and recycling rates. Pune’s approach demonstrates that privatization does not necessarily mean exclusion of the informal sector but can, instead, empower and formalize it for better outcomes. In contrast, Bangalore’s failed privatization effort serves as a cautionary tale. When private contractors prioritized cost savings over service quality, it led to widespread waste mismanagement. Poor regulatory oversight allowed firms to cut corners on collection frequency, worker wages, and environmental compliance, ultimately worsening the city's waste crisis. This case underscores the risks of privatization without stringent monitoring and accountability mechanisms. One key aspect often overlooked in waste privatization discussions is the informal waste sector. Across India, millions of informal waste pickers play a crucial role in waste collection, recycling, and resource recovery, and Sikkim is no exception. Their contribution to waste management has been acknowledged by GMC officials in the past. However, in many privatized models, these workers are excluded, leading to social and economic displacement. Pune’s SWaCH cooperative offers an example of how integrating informal waste pickers into the formal system can enhance efficiency while safeguarding livelihoods. Gangtok must carefully consider whether its newly entrusted private firm will collaborate with or displace its existing informal waste workforce. The exclusion of these workers could negatively impact waste recovery rates, increase unemployment among an already vulnerable population, and disrupt the socio-economic stability of waste-dependent communities. A thoughtful approach that combines privatization with social inclusion can help Gangtok achieve both efficiency and equity in its waste management system.

The newly entrusted private firmseems to have presented a good framework where data generation, awareness, and accountability form the cornerstone of their operations. Their role in the biomining project for legacy waste management further reinforces their capability in handling complex waste challenges. With the same agency now overseeing both waste collection and transportation, as well as legacy waste remediation, the approach has come full circle, ensuring greater responsibility and comprehensive waste management solutions. To ensure financial sustainability, the agency might introduce a tipping fee model, wherein waste generators contribute to the costs based on the volume of waste produced. A waste tipping fee—the charge levied on waste disposal at landfills or waste processing facilities—can be an effective economic instrument for waste reduction by influencing the behavior of waste generators. Additionally, the agency has presented a model to implement extensive waste awareness programs to encourage segregation at the source, ensuring that collected waste retains higher value for profitable recycling. By enhancing waste segregation, the model aims to maximize material recovery and create economic incentives for a circular economy approach. With structured accountability, performance monitoring, and citizen engagement, privatization could drive long-term improvements in waste management, provided it remains adaptable to local needs and regulatory oversight.

Privatizing waste collection and transportation in Gangtok is a bold gamble—one that could either revolutionize waste management or create new challenges. Its success hinges not just on privatization itself but on transparency, financial oversight, and whether citizens hold both the government and private firms accountable. Will data remain open? Will decisions be driven by facts rather than convenience? What would be the scope of R&D activities to understand dynamics of SWM? Will we, as citizens, demand results instead of just hoping for them? The real question isn’t whether privatization can clean up the mess—it’s whether we will ensure it does. As Carl Jung once said, “You are not what happens to you, you are what you choose to become.” If we want a cleaner, more efficient system, it’s not enough to watch from the sidelines—we must shape it.

(Views are personal. Email: hari.b.sharma23@gmail.com)