As part of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015), 195 countries committed to take immediate action to keep the global temperature rise below 2°C of pre-industrial levels. In 2016, India ratified the Paris Agreement and committed under its ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ (NDCs), among others, to reduce the emission intensity of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 33-35% from 2005 level by 2030; to achieve about 40% cumulative electric power installed from non-fossil fuel based energy resources by 2030, and to create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

With much of India’s development dependent on its cities, in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, cities urgently need to plan and implement climate actions in an integrated and inclusive way through the following measures: mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change impacts to foster wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits.

This necessitates the importance of a Climate Action Plan prepared and implemented by the city right away. The Climate Action Plan shall be developed as a comprehensive implementation plan covering all sectors, namely, waste management, integrated water management, mobility and air pollution, energy and green buildings; biodiversity, green cover, disaster risk preparedness, urban planning and others. It documents and proposes actions for both, climate change mitigation and adaptation based on a GHG emissions’ inventory and climate change vulnerability assessment, addressing all sectors listed above.

Way forward for improvement:

The cities must take concerted efforts towards achieving the desired results. The set of measures cities need to take in chronological order are:

• The cities must establish institutional mechanism in terms of constituting ULB level climate coordination cell, coupled with a stakeholders committee for regular consultation ensuring participatory approach.
• Preparation and development of requisite reports & plans like GHG emission inventory, Climate Change Vulnerability assessment, mapping of encroachments, preparation of city heat island maps. Based on GHG inventory and vulnerability assessment, develop a Climate Action Plan for a city, in a participatory manner, addressing all issues of mitigation and adaptation.
• Allocations of required budgetary provisions for implementation of prepared reports/plans.
• Regular monitoring and streamlining of measures must be ensured by putting in place and implementing a Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) system. This must be coupled with regularly updating the Climate Action Plan, besides incorporating relevant features of Climate Action Plan in the master plan to ensure sustainability.

The impact of any kind of disaster (natural or man-made) in cities is extreme - being social, economic or environmental. As the effects of climate variability leading to extreme events are becoming more severe and frequent, the incidents of damage to urban infrastructure are also increasing. Therefore, it is important that all cities, should not only be able to identify their potential hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks but also be prepared for a prompt response during disaster situations. They should also have robust plans in place to “Build Back Better”, including recovery, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.

Way forward for improvement:

The recommended measures that cities are required to take towards achieving resilience and for tackling disasters, both natural and man-made, are:

• Cities must prepare a Disaster Management Plan (DMP), as per the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) Guidelines in a participatory manner. All cities must document economic level loss and damage data for better planning and action.
• Preparation of DMP must be followed by conducting detailed Ward-Level Hazard Risk, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment, including community participation based on NDMA guidelines 2014.
• All cities must establish an institutional setup for carrying out disaster-related activities by way of establishing a Disaster Management Cell/Emergency Operation Centre.
• Main departments of ULBs shall prepare an Emergency Management Plan. A trained task force or volunteers for disaster response must be set in place. The trained taskforce/volunteers should conduct regular annual mock drills. Besides this, the cities must install an early warning system coupled with a full-time functional helpline.
• Cities must ensure that monitoring and updating are mainstreamed for efficiently monitoring and managing emergencies. Early warning system and weather forecasting system should be linked with Command and Control Centres.
• The cities must ensure that the states/city-level building bylaws/development controls/codes are addressing the hazards and vulnerabilities identified for the city. The mainstreaming of disaster risk reduction in departmental plans within the city must be ensured and the Disaster Management Plan should be updated on a yearly basis.

Urban Environment consists of many aspects, including water bodies, open spaces and built-up areas. From climate adaptation and mitigation perspective, all three aspects play a critical role. Rejuvenation of water bodies is significant for combating water crisis. Water bodies are essential as reservoirs for drinking, as retention basins for groundwater recharge, for protection in case of floods, and for maintaining biodiversity. Having local sources of freshwater decreases the dependence on energy for pumping purposes.

Open spaces, namely recreational spaces, organised green, and other common open spaces in any city play a critical role in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation aspects by decreasing local temperature, acting as carbon sinks as well as recharge areas for groundwater. Increase in built-up areas and decrease of water bodies and open spaces lead to an increase in the local temperature within a city.

This indicator is aimed to establish the extent (of percentage and area) to which the city is rejuvenating and conserving the urban environment (water bodies, green cover and built-up area) and in turn, manages to decrease the heat-island effect. The results obtained indicate that most of the cities have not been able to provide appropriate maps required for obtaining the results.

Way forward for improvement:

• To carry out an assessment of the status of the urban environment (water bodies, green cover, built-up area and unbuilt open spaces), cities must prepare maps to compare data of current status and the status from 10 years ago. The maps must identify the area for open space and water bodies in the current status and 10 years ago to understand the trend and need for intervention.
• A similar assessment of the status of the urban environment (water bodies, green cover, built-up area, and unbuilt open spaces) of cities to be carried out using existing land use map as per last two masterplans. This will also help to understand the trend and need for interventions.
• The cities must develop a strategy document for rejuvenation and conservation of urban environment based on the findings through the maps and documents developed.
• Cities must ensure appropriate allocation of budget for implementation of strategic measures for rejuvenation and conservation of urban environment.

Sufficiently large and protected greenspaces reduce the impact of human activities on climate. The ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces help the city, in general, and its citizens to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and disasters. This indicator of the assessment framework is meant to establish the extent to which the city is developing and increasing its green cover. Green Cover is defined as natural or planted vegetation, covering a certain area of terrain, functioning as protection against soil erosion, protecting the fauna, and balancing the temperature.

Way forward for improvement:

The cities must develop a database to ascertain the extent of Green Cover. Data available on an area of urban greens can be analysed from satellite imagery by procuring most recent imagery from state or National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC). Cities must devise and implement a strategy to develop and increase urban green cover and allocate adequate budget for it.

Native tree species are more resilient to changes in the local environment, as compared to exotic tree species, and therefore have a greater ability to adapt to climatic stress. This resilience also results in low maintenance costs for the local administration. Further, being part of the ecosystem for a longer time, native tree species have highly intricate food webs and ecological network and contribute towards ecosystem stability and resilience. Thus, a high proportion of native tree species means a more stable and resilient ecosystem, which can support higher biodiversity. High species numbers and a high proportion of native tree species in an urban area can serve as a proxy indicator for high biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.

This indicator of the Urban Planning, Green Cover and Biodiversity category is meant to assess to what extent is the city acting towards developing and maintaining its Green Cover using an ecological approach, specifically focusing on native tree species. Native tree species contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as avoidance of erosion, mitigation of air pollution, reduction of water usage, regulation of microclimate, reducing the risk of disasters.

Way forward for improvement:

The cities must compile and consolidate the data for trees with special reference to native tree species. The tree census must be carried out, if not yet conducted. Special measures must be taken to increase the number of native tree species by organising special plantation drives for planting native trees in the cities. Cities must allocate an appropriate budget for increasing tree cover in the city.

Urban biodiversity provides significant ecosystem services contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as carbon sequestration, air and water purification, mitigation of impacts of environmental pollution, noise reduction, and regulation of microclimate. High biodiversity increases the resilience of the city.

This indicator of the category is aimed to establish to what extent is the city acting for protection, conservation and management of urban biodiversity.

Way forward for improvement:

• The cities must establish a city-level Biodiversity Management Committee (as per the Biological Diversity Act, 2002)
• A People’s Biodiversity Register, based on the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, must be prepared. Cities should also prepare an inventory (all forms of technical reports/studies) of urban ecosystems and species (including International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN-listed ones)
• For the promotion of activities related to biodiversity promotion, cities should ensure appropriate allocation of funds/municipal budget. Cities should include measures to increase biodiversity within the master plan/greening plans/rejuvenation plans.
• City Biodiversity Index should be generated by relevant authorities.

This indicator seeks to assess the extent to which the city under consideration shows preparedness towards low carbon mobility during various stages of strategy development, planning, and funding. Low Carbon Mobility Plans (LCMPs) or Comprehensive Mobility Plans (CMPs) are much needed for growing cities to reduce transport sector emissions and control air pollution levels. These plans are expected to provide a long-term vision for sustainable mobility of people and goods within cities. Such plans typically advocate an integrated approach of combining land use and transport planning, social inclusion and combination of safety, environment and CO2 mitigation measures. Cities must plan, initiate, and implement low carbon mobility actions based on the Comprehensive or Low Carbon Mobility Plan (CMP/LCMP) or Comprehensive Traffic and Transportation Studies (CTTS). These can be prepared by using the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) toolkits.

Way forward for improvement

• Cities need to emphasise on the implementation of the city development plan, city mobility plans, master plan or Smart City Proposal that include clear evidence of mobility or transport network assessment at the city level. Relevant sections from any of these documents can be identified and uploaded as evidence.
• For cities which have still not prepared CMP/LCMP/CTTS, cities may expedite the preparation of any of these plans by using toolkits provided by MoHUA. Such plans will contain robust city-wide mobility assessment and specific schemes or projects to improve mobility.
• Dedicated allocation of budgets for implementing programs and schemes identified under the mobility plans will make an impact on the ground. Citizen participation in implementing and monitoring these actions through City Task Force will expedite the implementation.

Conventional fossil fuel-based vehicles, in particular, public transport buses, release toxic emissions into the atmosphere. These emissions contribute to climate change and worsen air quality. Hence, cities must put in efforts to introduce public transport fleet based on low carbon or cleaner fuels. Public transportation fleet incorporates all buses under the control of state/city level government (either direct or under any contractual framework). This indicator determines the level cities will attain based on the percentage of low carbon buses (CNG, LPG, Hybrid, Biofuels, Electric) out of the total public transport bus fleet.

Way forward for improvement

• The levels attained by cities depends upon the percentage share of low carbon fleet. To score Level 2, cities need to include low carbon or clean fuel-based buses in the public transport fleet within their city limits. For this, cities can prepare and submit proposals under AMRUT to secure funding for procuring CNG buses and FAME fund for electric buses.
• As the percentage of CNG, LPG, Hybrid, Biofuels and Electric buses in public transport fleet increases, cities will be able to move from Level 2 to higher levels up to Level 5.

Under the Smart City Mission, most of the selected cities are planning for a well-organised public transport system. Increase in public transport ridership is a key factor in evaluating the modal shift from private to public transport, which in turn helps in controlling transport sector emissions. Greater use of public transport networks and reduced usage of private vehicles will also potentially improve air quality in the cities. Total average daily ridership in buses, ferries, metro, tram, etc. is estimated by adding up daily tickets issued for passengers as well as the number of concessional pass holders. In the case where the assessment of trips made by concessional pass holders is not possible, it should be done by multiplying with a factor of “2.5” with several passes in circulation. Public transport ridership index is calculated as the number of daily riders per 1000 people in the city. Current year population estimates are to be used for this index.

Way forward for improvement and recommendations to move to the next level:

• Few cities have crossed ridership index above 100 to attain Level 2 and beyond. Moving to the next levels involves increasing ridership in public transport networks.
• Cities also need to upload appropriate supporting document to be considered for scores under different levels. Population figures can be estimated for the current year based on past trends reflected in the census documents.

Developing the Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) network in a city addresses the issues related to the high consumption of non-renewable energies as well as GHG emissions and air pollution. NMT network promotes aspects like health, traffic safety, less traffic congestion and equal mobility options for all income brackets. This indicator assesses the network length for a dedicated cycle and pedestrian lanes or footpaths in the city as a percentage of the total road network (all arterial, sub-arterial roads and public transport corridors). Equal weight is given to both pedestrian and dedicated bicycle network.

Way forward for improvement:

• The supporting documents need to be obtained from relevant departments to be considered for scoring under any given level. Cities can approach transport authority, road department of the Urban Local Body (ULB) or the public works department.
• Calculation of total footpath length should also be reported keeping in mind the actual length considering both the sides.

Cities should take the onus of providing healthy air quality to their citizens. Clean Air Action Plans mandated by the National Clean Air Programme of Government of India integrate the cumulative city-level actions for better air quality. For a city to be climate-smart, it should be able to address the issues of reducing air pollutants from both air and climate pollutants that arise from similar sources, e.g, vehicular emissions. Addressing one will have the direct or co-benefit to the other.

This indicator assesses the extent to which the city has made efforts to improve the air quality, to generate/collate data on the key pollutants through enhanced monitoring mechanisms to identify sources through scientific methods and subsequently develop and implement sectoral strategies and projects that are components of the clean air action plan. This needs to be done in close coordination with the state-level monitoring authorities and other stakeholder departments. The clean air action plan needs to be reviewed and monitored to assess improvements in air quality.

Way forward for improvement:

• Cities must report the number of different types of basic pollutant monitoring stations to attain Level 2. Cities which currently do not have a monitoring mechanism needed to set up such monitoring stations through their respective State Pollution Control Boards.
• The information regarding the existing number of monitoring stations can be obtained from the State Pollution Control Board. Most SPCBs now upload this information on their websites.
• To attain Level 3, cities need the Clean Air Action Plan. Most of the non-attainment cities recognized under the National Clean Air Programme are in process for preparing the Clean Air Action Plans.
• The city can attain Level 4 if the implementation of at least 2 measures specified under the clean air action plan is undertaken by the respective ULB. Further, scientific CPCB/SPCB-led source apportionment study and emission inventory also need to be undertaken. The steps to carry apportionment study and emission inventory have been shown in a study conducted by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI).
• To attain level 5, Air Quality Monitoring Mechanism needs to be linked with the Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC). The draft version of the toolkit to unlock the potential of ICCC is available on the portal of National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA). Another step required to complete Level 5 is the impact assessment study to assess how the implementation of the Clean Air Action Plan has achieved reductions in air pollution concentrations.

Under this indicator, the city is encouraged to assess to what extent it has achieved national air quality standards. The National Clean Air Programme sets a target of 20-30% reduction of air pollution levels with 2017 as the base year. A city-level air-quality monitoring grid is important to generate holistic data, assess the risks, implement control measures, and assess other climate-smart strategies adopted by the city. This indicator assesses the city-level air quality monitoring mechanism, its strengthening requirements, and availability of air quality data in the public domain. The city will be further assessed on its additional pollutants monitoring, pollution reduction strategies, implementation and compliance with NAAQS and WHO guideline values. Cities are encouraged to adopt affordable technologies by acquiring low-cost air-quality sensors and linking them to the Integrated Command and Control Centres. This approach can complement the Pollution Control Board’s existing monitoring mechanism to provide further data on localised areas, hot spots and generate real-time information for cities to take corrective action as well as record improvements.

Way forward for improvement

• Cities need to provide 24-hour average records for basic pollutants for the past three months to attain Level 2. These records will be available with the State Pollution Control Board.
• Cities must report daily averages of CO and O3 data and available records of VOCs for the past three months for Level 3. CO and O3 are measured as 8 hours or 1-hour average daily as per the NAAQS. These records are available on the websites of SPCBs or CPCB.
• To attain Level 4, cities need to demonstrate a reduction in air pollution levels achieved as per the National Clean Air Programme targets to meet with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The guidance document for compliance of targets as per NCAP is created by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

Climate change is expected to impact the water resources and subsequently the water availability. It is, therefore, important to take stock of the water availability and demand equation in the context of climate change so that adequate action can be taken if required. This indicator is to assess whether any city is on course to meet its future water demand or not. The indicator requires an assessment of both current and future water availability; and corresponding current and future water demand. Given that many cities depend significantly on groundwater resources to manage piped water supply, it is expected that both surface and groundwater assessments would have been conducted. The water resource assessment should look at both surface and groundwater, wherever required, and quantify both availability and demand using scientific techniques.

Way forward for improvement and recommendations to move to the next level:

• Cities shall conduct the study to assess the stock of existing water resources, its uses for various sectors (domestic, agriculture and industrial); projected future water demand and water availability (for domestic, agriculture and industrial demand) for at least five years using reference standards and other formulae.
• Cities shall consider climate change scenarios in estimating future water availability, such as rise in temperature, rain pattern etc.
• Cities shall prepare the source improvement plan including, short, medium and long-term action as required.
• Cities shall demonstrate that the actions, identified in source improvement plan, are implemented and/or are proposed/scheduled for implementation.

It is advisable that above the suggested studies shall be conducted through a specialized agency, that is well versed and experienced in the subject. 80 cities have secured Level 1 in this indicator which indicates that these cities are yet to initiate any action regarding water resource assessment.

Reducing Non-Revenue Water (NRW) is a powerful demand management instrument that decreases the stress on existing water resources. Given that climate change is expected to create additional pressure on the existing water resources, reducing NRW is considered as a robust climate-smart solution. Reduction in NRW will enhance resilience by reducing both the water losses as well as demand for electricity required for pumping, thereby mitigating GHG emissions.

This indicator highlights the extent of water produced which does not earn the utility any revenue. NRW comprises a) Consumption which is authorized but not billed, such as public stand posts; b) Apparent losses such as illegal water connections, water theft and metering inaccuracies; c) Real losses which are leakages in the transmission and distribution networks. NRW is computed as the difference between the total water produced (ex-treatment plant) and the total water sold, expressed as a percentage of total water produced.

Way forward for improvement:

Cities shall conduct the NRW study through specialized and experienced agencies/experts to find out its NRW situation and plan for its reduction for movement to the next level. 63 cities have secured Level 1 in this indicator which indicates that these cities are yet to initiate any action regarding NRW reduction.

With increased urbanization and high population densities, cities are inherently vulnerable to flooding events, and climate change will only intensify the problem. A flood risk assessment is the first step in developing robust flood management strategies and plans. This indicator assesses the preparedness of the city to address the flooding risk if it exists. There are generally two types of flood risk assessment. First is a rapid flood risk assessment that uses simple techniques to determine the likely impacts of a flooding event. Second is a comprehensive flood risk assessment that is expressed as a function of vulnerability and hazard.

Way forward for improvement:

In this indicator, cities shall demonstrate that it has well documented and well-developed flood management plan and implementation strategy to reduce the risk of different category. To improve from one level to another level, the city shall ensure that the following activities are completed:

• Rapid Risk Assessment. This shall be based on previous flood records and its causes such as whether it occurred due to breach of dams, embankments or any other man-made reasons such as encroachment of flood channels, water bodies, major drains etc.
• Comprehensive flood risk assessment incorporating vulnerability, hazard, exposure with different climate change scenarios, such as a change in rainfall pattern in the region.
• A strategic plan is prepared to mitigate the risk.
• Status/progress of implementation of the strategic plan.

Recycling and reuse of wastewater reduce the stress on the existing water resources, which are expected to be impacted by climate change. Wastewater recycling is a process of converting wastewater into water that can be reused for other purposes by adequate secondary and tertiary treatment. Reuse may be in diverse avenues such as non-potable domestic use; horticulture, agricultural, power plants, industries among others. This indicator highlights what percentage of the wastewater generated is being recycled and reused. The wastewater treatment must meet the approved CPCB standards.

Way forward for improvement:

Quantum of water pumped in distribution system and re-used waste water shall be scientifically measured and quantified. Further avenues for treated wastewater use need to be explored within or nearby the city.

Energy-efficient equipment for wastewater pumping in the city leads to a reduction in Green House Gas emissions (CO2 emissions) per kWh of electricity consumed, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation. There are many equipments that use energy in a wastewater management system. However, wastewater pumps account for the maximum usage of energy. Therefore, energy-efficient pumps have been considered here to be a representative of energy-efficient equipment.

Energy-efficient pumps are defined as pumps that have BEE rating ≥ 3 stars. This indicator aims to quantify the percentage of the total volume of wastewater that is pumped through pumps with BEE rating ≥ 3 stars.

Energy-efficient equipment for water supply in the city will lead to a reduction in Green House Gas emissions (CO2 emissions) per kWh of electricity consumed, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation. There are several equipments that use energy in a water supply management system, however, water pumps account for the maximum usage. Therefore, energy-efficient pumps have been considered here to be a representative of energy-efficient equipment. An energy-efficient pump is defined as pumps that have BEE rating of ≥ 3 stars.

The objective of Indicator 5 and Indicator 6 is to estimate the trend in reduction of energy consumption in operating the sewerage and water supply system of the city by using energy-efficient pumps and/or by any other means. Energy-efficient pumps were defined as pumps that have BEE rating of ≥ 3 stars. This caused confusion in the city data collection team as large pumps are not BEE rated. Therefore, in the first round of submission, many cities did not attempt these indicators. During the revised submission phase, to meet the objective of these indicators, cities were asked to submit the energy consumption details of the last three years to know the trend in reduction and/or increase in the energy consumption. However, only three cities attempted to submit revised information/data. Hence both these indicators have majorly impacted the assessment of the cities.

Way forward for improvement and recommendations to move to the next level:

Both Indicator 5 and Indicator 6 will need to be revised in Phase-II with more clarity and guidelines to the cities. Suggested level under these indicators, for Phase-II, could be as follows:

• For movement from Level 1 to 2: 2-5% (average) reduction in energy consumption in the last three years.
• For movement from Level 2 to 3: 6-10% (average) reduction in energy consumption in the last three years.
• For movement from Level 3 to 4: 11 to 20% (average) reduction in energy consumption in the last three years.
• For movement from level 4 to 5: >20% (average) reduction in energy consumption in the last three years.

GHGs can be avoided through scientific management of waste. The first principle of integrated waste management hierarchy is the reduction of waste at source. This indicator intends to encourage cities to take actions to manage problems associated with increased waste generation. As generation and consumption patterns of waste vary across cities, all cities are encouraged to conduct regular waste audit programmes for assessing their generation/consumption patterns and characteristics and evolve city-specific actions to reduce increasing loads to the existing SWM infrastructure.

Under this category of the indicator, most of the cities remained non-responsive or non-compliant, in terms of data submission and validation. The main reasons were – the evidence was not produced or irrelevant document produced, and reports submitted by the cities do not bear the source reference or authorized by the competent authority. Therefore, in this indicator, cases of only those cities are being analysed which had demonstrated their figures with valid documentation. From the analysis, it has been observed that few cities have successfully reduced their per capita waste generation factor. However, in the case of most cities, the waste generation factor has been increased. This is mostly due to the absence of source segregation and subsequent non-practising of recycling of waste at the source. Out of responsive cities which have reduced the waste generation factors, most of them have attained Level 2 and Level 3.

Way forward for improvement:

To improve the waste generation factor, i.e. reduction of waste generation per population of a city, source segregation practices cities may be made mandatory. Source segregation might ensure the recycling of dry waste at the source of generation, thereby reducing the quantum of waste to be collected from the source. Domestic level initiative of wet waste composting may also lead to reduction of waste generation substantially. Rigorous Information Education Communication (IEC) activities and stakeholders’ consultation should be initiated at city-level by the ULBs to ensure the source recycling and in-situ treatment of waste to reduce the overall waste generation factor of the city.

Cities are encouraged to evolve and adopt such approaches and with the implementation of waste reduction-oriented actions. These actions may be aligned to the National Policies and programmes. The indicator highlights the importance of such interventions to halt or demonstrate a decline in the increasing rate of waste generation per-capita through identified methods and incentives to reduce the waste generation at source.

This indicator highlights the city’s commitment towards a circular economy and adherence to Integrated Solid Waste Management principles. The indicator intends that Material Recovery Facilities (MRF), with the provision for sorting recyclables and facility for producing SCF/RDF, is available and operational in cities as per SWM Rules, 2016. The indicator addresses the GHGs mitigation aspects due to resource efficiency.

Reuse and Recycle are the next levels of waste management hierarchy after Reduce and cumulatively known as 3R’s. This indicator envisages that Smart Cities take scientific and formalized actions for resource recovery and promotes waste recycling. Waste recovery and recycling systems are yet to be 100% formalized by all Smart Cities authorities and in most of the cities, the informal sector takes care of the resource recovery from the SWM value chain and its recycling operations. The indicator promotes the integration of the informal system and encourages scientific recycling of resources recovered. For example, in an environmental point of view, the city efforts on SCF/RDF production are wasted if SCF/RDF derived from municipal waste is utilized in brick kilns with no pollution control instead of a cement kiln or stacked on-site without a clear utilization plan.

The indicator assesses the efficiency of the city’s waste management systems under two aspects - (i) the extent of recyclables recovered from the total city waste and further processed by authorized recycling industries/units. (ii) utilization of non-recyclable inorganic waste having calorific value more than 1500 Kcal/kg in the form of SCF/RDF sent to cement kiln or any industry authorised by CPCB as per the Guidelines on Utilisation of Refused Derived Fuel in Various Industries, 2018.

Way forward for improvement:

• In this category, the bottom-line recommendation should be to practice the domestic-level recycling (i.e. recycling at the source of generation) as much as possible. The cities with Level 1 should start practising source segregation and from the dry waste, the reusable material should be handed over/reuse at the source of generation itself. This will reduce the future load on the MRF facility, which may be installed in the city. Thus, Level 1 cities could reach Level 2.
• For Level 2 or Level 3 cities, local-level intermediate secondary waste segregation centre may enhance the efficiency of total recycling of the cities. Cities may need to identify more rigorously the demand market for RDFs and may make an alliance with others, where there is a constant demand for combustible, such as cement or other industries.
• Cities are encouraged to refer to Guidelines on Usage of Refuse Derived Fuel in Various Industries issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in 2018.

The Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste is a major component of all the waste generated by the construction boom. To reduce the pressure on the exploitation of natural resources, cities need to focus on finding greener ways to produce concrete, encouraging the reuse of recycled materials to replace virgin materials. Scientific evidence exists about the reduction of GHG by reuse of recycled materials. The framework encourages scientific processing of C&D waste as per C&D Waste Management Rules (2016) and BIS Standard IS 383. 100% utilisation of Recycled Aggregates (RA) and Recycled Concrete Aggregates (RCA) can be achieved through state/city-level policies and bylaws.

In this category of indicators, cities have mixed responses. Some of the cities have dedicated storage area of C&D waste & allocated vehicles, but do not have any formal notification on user charges. Most of the cities are managing C&D waste from their respective fund. Many of the cities are recycling the C&D waste but there is no formal record or inventory of products which are made from recycled waste. In most of the cases, contract copy, or agreement of C&D waste treatment & processing agencies is not available.

Way forward for improvement:

• The primary recommendation to improve the levels in this indicator is to introduce bylaws or notification for C&D waste in the city. The notification should mandate the following parameters:
  • Formulation and issue of C&D waste bylaws for the city, in accordance with C&D Waste Rule 2016.
  • Identification/enrolment/registration of C&D waste generators.
  • Identification and notification of the storage area for C&D waste.
  • Generators' obligation to store and transport the C&D waste to the common treatment facilities.
  • Users' charge (for generator).
  • Penalties in non-deposit of users' charge as well as non-complying of C&D waste city-specific bylaws and 2016 rules etc.
• Another recommendation to improve the indicator would be issuing building bylaws, encouraging the use of recycled building construction materials for any new residential or commercial developments in the city.
• Cities which do not have any C&D plant in place may be recommended to first identify the potential C&D generators in the city, and subsequently to assess a tentative quantity of C&D waste, being generated in the city. Thereafter a pilot plant could be set up, with an expansion option in future, subject to an increase of quantum of waste.
• Cities which already have plants in place should identify the market of recycled building material, and may tie-up with them. The value chain of the C&D waste from a generator, recyclers, and end-users should be mapped by the Smart City cell, and implementation will be taken forward, in accordance with the prevailing laws and notifications.

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emission can be avoided with scientifically-operated and managed waste processing facilities in cities as per the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. This indicator assesses the avoided GHG emissions, as a result of the waste processing in the city.

In this particular indicator, all cities could not fill in the requisite data sets required for an accurate calculation by the tool inbuilt in the portal. The indicator has been designed with detailed waste characterization data and a complete mass balance of the value chain, which all the cities have failed to provide in the portal. Considering the city responses, the matter was discussed with the expert committee and a logical decision was taken to find the percentage of the waste treated/recycled, with respect to the waste collected and thereby consider this percentage to understand the % of GHG emission reduction (or contribution). This has given a fair idea of the performance of the cities, in relation to the reduction of emission from GHG.

Way forward for improvement:

• To discuss the recommendation for cities to improve, it is foremost important to first consider the cities which have no treatment of disposal facilities. The processing facility should be first developed so that the disposal site would receive minimum quantum of waste, primarily in the form of rejects or inert.
• The city should start with a decentralized system of waste treatment so that the load on the centralized facility shall be reduced and also the C&T cost (which would indirectly reduce the consumption of fossil fuel, thereby reducing GHG emission). Cities may refer to the Advisory on On-Site and Decentralized Composting of Municipal Organic Waste issued by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
• The segregation will be one of the important aspects of this. The segregated wet waste may be treated in the site through some organic waste converters for large residential complexes, newly constructed housing societies, and even at the food courts and big hotels at their premises. Waste from bulk generators such as fruit & vegetable markets, vending zones etc may be treated on-site through decentralized bio methanation plant. Thus, it would reduce the chances of emission of GHG at the disposal site. Cities may refer the guidance note on ‘Bulk Solid Waste Generators’, issued by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
• Cities which have processing & treatment plants already in place should ensure the full utilization of the capacity by enhancing their collection and treatment efficiency, ensuring no unaccounted disposal of waste within the city. All Smart Cities should take up the IEC activities with high importance, in order to ensure source segregation of waste, thereby increasing the treatment and processing efficiency of the system.

The Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emission can be avoided if the waste disposal facility is scientifically operated and managed as per the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The scientific landfill should comply to the SWM Rules, 2016 and guidance given in the Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) Manual, 2016 and any other updated criteria published by CPCB/State PCB for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities.

In India, waste disposal to a Sanitary Landfill Facility (SLF) or an engineered landfill is not very common. Availability of land, complying to the site selection criteria, is the most predominating challenge for any city. As a result, most of the cities dispose of their waste unscientifically to any disposal site or low-lying area. In this assessment also, the city’s responsiveness to this indicator is less than 30%. Most of the cities neither have an engineered landfill nor have any identified land to construct future landfill. Few cities have produced evidence for the concession agreement which has been signed between them and private parties for the construction of SLF. However, in most of the cases, cities are disposing their waste into some disposal sites within the city in an unscientific way.

Way forward for improvement and recommendations to move to the next level:

As a recommendation to cities for having a scientific landfill, identification of land is very important. As a way forward, every city should first identify some land within the city limit, which would be considered as “candidate sites”. In each of such identified sites, the site selection criteria as per Clause No. 1.4.5.11 of Manual of MSW Management shall be applied and the site shall be evaluated.

The scientific closure and post-closure maintenance of engineered landfills and dumpsites avoid significant GHG emissions. Bio-mining of dumped waste and/or making windrows over dumpsites do not mitigate GHG emission and hence have not been considered under this indicator. Landfill Gas (LFG) has 28 to 36 times more potential than CO2 for trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period; hence it is important to mitigate landfill gases. Methane recovered from landfills can either be flared or used as an energy resource.

In India, there are very few limited cases (except Gorai, Nagpur, Bhopal and few others), where scientific closure has been done for any SLF or disposal site. In this assessment exercise, no evidence of closure has been received from cities who undergone scientific closure of SLF or a disposal site which led to low scoring in this indicator. In some cases, plans have been furnished, but no proper technical design or layout has been produced.

Way forward for improvement:

• Cities in Level 1, while designing the SLF, should properly formulate the mechanism of closure with passive gas collection system, leachate collection & treatment mechanism, post-closure environmental monitoring framework etc. The cells of the newly constructed landfill should be designed for 5 years and the technical design & drawing for closure after 5 years, shall be clearly documented.
• For unscientific disposal sites, opportunities to be explored for gas recovery.
• For engineered landfill, active recovery of Landfill Gas (LFG) through vacuum pump and converting the same into fuel (CNG) or simple flaring of the LFG could be recommended.
• As already mentioned in the recommendation for Indicator 5, reclamation of the land by process of Biomining is one of the ways of closure of landfill. Shifting of waste, consolidating by compaction, and then cover it with green vegetative layer would turn the landfill into a space for recreation, part etc.