Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Sector Reforms

Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Sector Reforms

Strategic Plan

Background:

The Government of India received a loan from the IBRD towards the cost of Uttar Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Environment Sanitation (UPRWSES), The Swajal Project. The project is being implemented in 357 villages of 7 districts of Bundelkhand region of the state. A Project Management Unit (PMU), registered under Societies Registration Act 1860, is responsible for managing the project.

The project has two main objectives. The first objective is to deliver sustainable health and hygiene benefits to the rural population through improvements in water supply and environmental sanitation services, and the second objective is to promote the long- term sustainability of the rural water supply and sanitation sector by providing assistance to GOUP to identify and implement an appropriate policy framework and Strategic Action Plan for implementation of reforms. This was to be done through sector and special studies to improve the capacity of the sector to deliver sustainable services. Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation Sector Study was carried towards the attainment of second objective of the project.

1.1 Objectives of the Sector Study: - The main objectives of the sector study were:

(a)  to identify key policy and institutional reforms needed to ensure delivery of sustainable rural water supply and sanitation services in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh; and

(b)  to develop a strategic plan for phased implementation of the reform policy.

Study mainly is based on the following key principles guiding reform:

(a)  Creating an enabling policy environment:

§  promoting a demand responsive approach where communities make informed choices regarding their participation, service level, and service delivery mechanism;

§  promoting institutional reform based on clear roles for key stakeholders where communities own their facilities, the private sector provides goods and services, and government facilitates the process; reorienting public sector institutions to support decentralization reforms, and ensure an appropriate legal framework for ownership and management by the users;

(b) Implementing cost recovery reforms

(c) Promoting more options for service delivery

(d) Integrating water supply with sanitation, environment management and hygiene

education

(e) Promoting participatory processes

(f) Targeting the poor

(g) Supporting integrated water resource management

1.2 Scope of Study:- The study was carried out in three distinct phases.

Phase 1: Assessment of Current Situation

(a) An in-depth participatory review of the current sector status and performances which included, and was not limited to: governmental policies and programme, institutional arrangements and services delivery systems, service levels and coverage in UP and regional variations, RWSES sector performances, water resources constraints, use and availability of technology; operational and financial performance of sector, financing and sustainability of investments.

(b) Review of Indian and other international best practices: A review of best practices/ experiences from India in RWSES (including the UPRWSES Project) and other sectors (particularly power) as well as other relevant international experience were undertaken to identify lessons for sector reform, reorganization and institutional restructuring.

(c) Based on the current situation assessment and review of the above aspects, the crucial issues that needed to be addressed in improving sector performance in rural UP, were identified.

Phase 2: Consultative Formulation of a Common Vision for the Sector Reforms:

In the context of the study objectives, a widely – accepted, long- term vision for RWSES sector development in UP containing the critical high-level ideas and reforms to which the sector would aspire and would provide inspiration for implementing the steps necessary to its realization, has been formulated.

Phase 3: Development of Phased Strategic Plan:

The Plan was detailed out the critical and strategic actions required to move the sector from its current situation towards the future vision, including identifying required institutional and policy reforms and guidance on their implementation. Rolling back from the vision, the plan has identified the key plan targets in manageable timeframes, say 15 years, 10 years, 5 years and starting point targets, which are necessary to achieve the plan’s overall targets.

1.3 Study Assignment

The Terms Of Reference (TOR) to the study are placed at Annexure-1. An International Firm M/s DHV Consultants B.V The Netherlands, in association with M/s M.D.P and M/s JPS Associates, did the assignment of the study. The assignment started in June 2000 and was completed in July 2001. The study was closely reviewed and managed by the Director Project Management Unit (Swajal Project) and each report submitted by the Consultants was reviewed by the Review Committee chaired by Secretary Rural Development GOUP and also the study was guided by the Steering Committee, chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary and Agriculture Production Commissioner U.P. The composition of Review and management structure is as follows: -

Steering Committee:

Agriculture Production Commissioner Chairperson

Chairman, Jal Nigam Member

Secretary, Rural Development Member Secretary

Commissioner, Rural Development Member

Commissioner, Garhwal Division Member

Commissioner, Kumaon Division Member

Commissioner, Jhansi Division Member

Principal Secretary, Urban Development Member

Secretary, Panchayati Raj Member

Principal Secretary, Irrigation Member

Secretary, Minor Irrigation Member

Principal Secretary, Hills Member

Principal Secretary, Finance Member

Principal Secretary, Planning Member

Director, RGN Drinking Water Mission, New Delhi Member

AVM Sahni of DA (NGO Representative) Member

K. Lal, Chirag Member

Representative of IIM, Lucknow Member

Director, Swajal Project Member

Review Committee:

Secretary, Rural Development Chairperson

Commissioner, Rural Development Member

Managing Director, UPJN Member

Secretary, Panchayati Raj Member

Secretary, Urban Development Member

Secretary, Finance Member

Secretary, Uttaranchal Vikas Member

Technical Advisor (consultant to PMU) Member

Representative of the consumers Member

(to be appointed by Secretary, Rural Development.

Director, Swajal Member Secretary

Study Consultant submitted an Inception Report highlighting issues methodology, procedures and the time frame for conducting the study, which was accepted by the steering Committee. The Consultant submitted the following reports after completion of each phase of the study

Draft 1st Interim Report

Report on State Level Workshop with key stakeholders.

Final Draft of 1st Interim Report

Draft of 2nd Interim Report

Report on second phase regional workshops with key Stakeholders

Final Draft of 2nd Interim Report

3rd Interim Report

Report on 3rd Phase State level Workshop with key Stakeholders

Draft Final Report

Final Report

2. Sector Study Findings

The State of UP is in the happy position of having virtually reached the saturation level for rural water supply in terms of minimum needs, though rural sanitation coverage is as low as 12% only. The State has also taken initiatives in involving communities in developing and managing their water supply system, first through the recently terminated Indo-Dutch Project, currently through the World Bank funded Swajal Project and GOI's sector reform program (Jal Nidhi). These programes indicate the general direction in which the sector is moving to ensure sustainable development of drinking water supply and sanitation services in the rural areas of the state.

The basic need of water supply is met, with the exception of a few chemically affected areas. More than 1 million handpumps have been installed for a rural population of approx. 160 million. Thus average of one handpumps for 160 persons is well within the minimum need criterion of 1:250 set by the Government of India. In these circumstances, the government should now change its role and its objectives. Its role should become that of a facilitator, and the objective should be to encourage communities to enhance the water supply beyond basic need level by taking up piped water supply with 50%-70% private connections in all villages where basic minimum need has been met.

On the sanitation side the present levels of coverage under sanitary latrines (12% only) needs to be raised. In this process, Public sector investments in infrastructure will not be needed because affordable technologies are available for all income-level households GOI's Total Sanitation Programme with low subsidy is also in line with this objective. The government's role would be in awareness and advocacy campaigns and collaboration with manufacturers and suppliers for social marketing of the needed hardware and services.

The main obstacles in moving towards universal piped water supply schemes in a self-sustaining manner are the traditional political pricing of water at levels far below cost, coupled with uneconomic levels of investment in water supply schemes (focusing heavily on public standpipes). It is often argued, that there is no need to increase tariffs as long as collection at the presently low rates remains poor. While collection effectiveness much depends on the willingness of users to pay, and they will not pay for poor service. The users interpret the Improve service as greater convenience (i.e. private connections) and reliability. As such the issues that have a crucial bearing on sector reform are as below:

·  JN and JS could not work on self-sustaining basis as was envisaged in the WSS Act under which these were set up. Due to lac of needed operational autonomy in the matter of tariff fixation or of undertaking only viable schemes.

·  Public appreciation for the agencies involved in the sector is low. Panchayats are seen as the most reliable vehicle, but even in that case the appreciation is not more than 50%.

·  Multi-village schemes remain costly and often unsustainable. Yet in some areas they cannot be avoided. Operation of such schemes will require a dependable organization of proven technical capability.

·  The planning and implementation process remains engineering-oriented and does not involve communities in basic decision making regarding type and level of service to be provided.

·  Stronger bottom-up approaches have been experimented with in the Indo-Dutch Cooperation Program and Swajal experiment. While they used different delivery structures. The results of both approaches indicate that community participation is a realistic option.

·  The scaling up of the Swajal approach will require strengthening of administrative and management skills of local coordinating units under the PRIs. Interventions through incentives require more skill and effort than interventions through investment.

·  The absence of an integrated delivery structure results in uncoordinated planning and implementation of sanitation and water supply systems.

2.1 Availability and Exploitation of Water Sources:-

In most of the State there is ready access to groundwater as a source for drinking water and since demand for this is a small fraction of replenish-able quantity, the source is sustainable. In areas with huge irrigation demand the exploitation levels tend to crowd out the use of ground water for drinking and domestic purposes. In this connection, the Government has banned further exploitation of groundwater in over exploited blocks of the state. The region wise status of availability of ground water is given in table-1 and 2 below.

Table-1
Region-wise availability and exploitation of ground water
Region / BCM avail-able / Population in millions / Drinking water requirement per annum / Over-ex-ploited / Critical / Semi-critical / Safe
2001 / 2025 / % growth in share of source
2001 / 2025 / BCM p.a. / % of source / BCM p.a. / % of source / 2001 / 2001 / 2001 / 2001
Western / 14.8 / 44.6 / 71.4 / .7 / 4.7 / 1.0 / 6.7 / 42.5 / 37 / 77 / 20 / 131
Central / 8.5 / 22.7 / 36.4 / .3 / 3.5 / .5 / 5.9 / 68.6 / 3 / 34 / 9 / 99
Eastern / 16 / 58.6 / 93.8 / .9 / 5.6 / 1.4 / 8.9 / 58.9 / 4 / 54 / 24 / 263
Bundelkhand / 2.5 / 6.6 / 10.6 / .1 / 4.0 / .2 / 8.0 / 100.0 / 0 / 6 / 1 / 40
All UP / 41.8 / 132.5 / 212.2 / 2 / 4.8 / 3.1 / 7.4 / 54.2 / 44 / 171 / 54 / 533
Source: / 1. Ground Water Yearbook 1997-98 of C.G. W.B.
2. State Water Policy (1999)
3. UP Jal Nigam
Region-Wise Rise and Fall in the Water Table Decadal Mean (May 1988-May 1997)

Table-2

Region / Situation of Water Level in Observation Wells of CGWB
Rising / Falling
<4 m / ≥4 m / < 4 m / ≥4m
Western / 80 / 5 / 175 / 19
Central / 52 / 2 / 171 / 7
Eastern / 114 / 1 / 242 / 7
Bundelkhand / 54 / 4 / 54 / 2

All UP

/ 300 / 12 / 642 / 35
Source: Ground Water YearBook 1997-98 of C.G. W.B.

Also, some areas are designated as "chemically affected", i.e., groundwater is not safe for consumption. It is estimated that there are 10,925 habitations in chemically affected areas. Jal Nigam has identified 3,117 of these habitations upto March 2000.

2.2 Finances for Sector Development

Assuming current norms for per capita cost and starting from current coverage and with population growth continuing at 20% per decade, universal piped water supply with 50% private connections would cost approx. Rs 400 billion. Given the current expenditure level in the sector (Rs 3 billion in 2001-02), this could only be achieved in 133 years. Alternative calculations by the Sector Study and the Regional Planning Project under Swajal have shown that it is possible to do more for less: universal piped water supply with 70% private connections for around Rs.284 billion.

Even this reduced investment cannot be managed by the Government with present levels of expenditure within the lifetime of UP's current inhabitants. However, on a per capita basis the required investment will be manageable with significant cost sharing by the community and arranging finances from large donor agencies.

2.3 Cost Recovery

An important factor for cost recovery is the motivation of users to contribute to the cost of water supply. While the government approaches water supply from a public health perspective (the safe water-sanitation-health triangle), the user’s main interest is in convenience (having a private source). International experience bears this out, showing that even poor communities do not always choose the least cost option if given a choice of convenience and good service delivery.

Swajal Project applies basic norms for cost sharing: communities must bear 10% of capital cost and 100% of O&M cost. That willingness to pay exists in principle is indicated by investment on private sources. The willingness to increase personal expenditure for water supply was also revealed in the field survey conducted under the Sector Study: However, this willingness comes with two important caveats: should they share in the cost, users want to be involved in decision-making, and the system should deliver adequate supply. In general users are not as unwilling to contribute to the cost of good service delivery as is often presumed.