Compiled by Nitya Jacob, Resource Person and Sunetra Lala, Research Associate
From Sujoy Majumdar, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi
Posted 21 January 2011
The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (DDWS), Ministry of Rural Development, had initiated the process of preparing a new Strategic Plan for Rural Drinking Water early last year. The plan is to guide DDWS’ work on rural drinking water up to the year 2022. Drinking water has formed part of India ’s development agenda since the First Five Year Plan. The government prioritized it by launching the National Drinking Water Mission to improve access in rural areas in the early 1980s. However, this centralized, demand-driven approach took a uniform approach for the entire country.
We have compiled the draft Strategic Plan and are circulating it to the Water Community for comments before finalizing it. You can read the document at ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-20011101.doc (Word, 1.3 MB). We would like members to read the draft and consider the following points while responding:
1. Current situation and challenges
Source sustainability
Water quality
O&M
Inter-sector coordination
Continuous professional support
Impact of climate change
2. Strategy and implementation
Enable drinking water security planning and implementation
Water quality management
Strengthen decentralized governance
Build professional capacity
Regulation
3. Institutional structure
4. Learning agenda, resources required and key performance indicators as mentioned in the document.
We request members to provide inputs on:
∙ What are the current challenges from the point of view of Source sustainability, quality, operation and maintenance, inter-sector coordination, professional support and climate change (page 6)?
∙ How can DDWS strategise (page 9) and implement solutions (page 19) for drinking water security planning and implementation, improve water quality, build professional capacity and strengthen decentralization?
∙ How can DDWS strengthen regulation (page 28) and institutional structures (page 14)?
∙ What is the learning agenda (page 32), the resources required and key performance indicators (page 34)?
∙ How can the goals and aspirations be achieved especially in the States with very low coverage of piped water supply schemes like UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, MP, Rajasthan, Orissa , Assam and Chhattisgarh?
Your inputs will help to inform the finalization of the Strategic Plan.
Responses were received, with thanks, from
1. Puran Singh Yadav, Haryana Institute of Rural Development, Niloheri, Karnal
2. Lalit Sharma, Institute of Rural Research and Development, Gurgaon
3. Swati Sharma, Saviours, Meerut
4. Ratnakar Gedam, Adviser (Retired), Planning Commission, New Delhi
5. Puneet Srivastava, Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Himachal Pradesh
6. Raju Sharma, Journalist, Meerut
7. Saurabh Singh, Innervoice Foundation, Ballia
8. Bharti Patel, Society for Voluntary action Revitalization and Justice (SVARAJ), Bangalore
9. S D Limaye, Ground Water Institute, Pune
10. S A Hirudia Raj, Consultant–Water, Hyderabad
11. Madan Iyengar, Ozo Nano Sciences, Bangalore
12. Shashikant Kumar, Green Eminent Research Centre, Vadodara
13. Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad
14. Suresh Kumar, National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, Trivandrum
15. Arghyam Team, Bangalore
Summary of Responses
The Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, (DDWS) is finalising its Strategic Plan up to 2022 for providing rural drinking water. As part of the process DDWS asked the Water Community to conduct a set of discussions seeking inputs from members on various aspects of the Plan. Last year many members provided excellent inputs to the earlier discussions. The draft Plan is ready and DDWS wanted a final round of consultations before finalising it. These discussions are aimed at collating the final set of comments on the Plan.
Current challenges.
Pollution, over-use and encroachments affect overall water quality and quantity. Thus, the sustainability of rural water supply schemes has emerged as one of the major challenges. The reasons include financial sustainability of the schemes, since panchayats that are charged with running the schemes lack the expertise and personnel to determine and collect user charges. Another issue is protection of sources; sources for drinking water are not properly demarcated so they can be protected. There are no benchmarks for measuring access especially for the poor and excluded rural groups. There is no regularity in water quality testing and the supply chain for water treatment equipment such as filters is weak. Bacteriological contamination is one of the major reasons for poor water quality.
DDWS needs to work out a workable mechanism with state-level implementation organizations such as the Public Health Engineering Departments (PHEDs) that enables them to use its leverage through Centrally sponsored schemes (such as the National Rural Drinking Water Programme). People responsible for running systems are often underpaid and untrained. There is poor coordination with other departments at the grassroots level. Another challenge is the implementation structure in which engineers are good at setting up water supply systems but lack the expertise for maintenance.
Data is another challenge; the granularity and quality of data is highly variable and this affects decision making. It also impacts the equity aspect of water supply. Unless there is data on access to to water by the marginalised groups, it not possible to plan water supply schemes. The lack of access to safe drinking water is directly related to poverty, inequality and injustice. Climate variability is exacerbating the effects of water shortages especially on the poor.
Solutions.
The 'big ticket' item to improve drinking water security is to make service providers accountable on the one hand, and making people aware of their right to water on the other. One way is to train PHED engineers to be responsive to community needs and mobilisation. Involving people in water supply, conservation and harvesting can improve systems.
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) is another way to improve drinking water security, as can an approach based on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Panchayats need training on calculating and collecting the cost of operation and maintenance (O&M). Service agreements need to have penalty clauses and DDWS can develop model agreements. Monitoring and accountability arrangements need to be improved at district and local level. These can also help improve water quality.
DDWS can separate planning from implementation. Panchayats should be the lowest tier of planning with appropriate financial and technical support. However, this institution building will take time and will need partnerships with NGOs and other organisations at the village level, including the private sector. DDWS could also consider involving experts such as social scientists, social workers, public health workers, etc. The district water and santiation mission should function as a technical committee of the Zila Parishad. Panchayats need a clear mandate with roles and responsibilities. Panchayats should have water and sanitation sub-committees. The existing network of Key Resource Centres (KRCs) can play a major role in the process of institution building as well. The Department can include other local technical institutions to develop learning material and conducting learning sessions. Another suggestion is to insulate the regulator from service providers and policy makers, if necessary through a suitable law.
DDWS can revise water allocation norms with the aim of reaching 100 litres per capita per day (lpcd) by 2022. The current 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) norm is too low; it should be immediately raised to at least 70 lpcd of water provided at home and another 100 lpcd for other uses (this need not be potable water). During disasters, the norm can be 55 lpcd. At least 50 per cent participation of women is crucial in all activities that require community participation.
In addition to quantity, DDWS has to consider issues of equity; for this, it can use a community mapping system that covers gender, caste, age, income, culture, land, access to common, housing patterns/materials, space, position of residence and polluting factors. DDWS can direct mapping of aquifers at the watershed level to prepare aquifer management plans that include operation and maintenance and public-private partnership options.
Learning agenda.
DDWS can promote KRCs and a network of state institutions but also engage with local technical institutions. The inequity in access to water can be addressed through more efficient use of grey water, particularly amongst the wealthier communities. While inequality is the difference in rates of access to water and sanitation, inequity is unfair or unjust differences that lead to these differences. This has implications for resource allocation as well as performance indicators.
Another point for the learning agenda is the legal status of village water and sanitation committees – should they become a sub-committee of the panchayats or remain autonomous. Another agenda item is the need for effective and speedy dispersal of NRDWP and the Strategic Plan to states and stakeholders. This needs more elaboration on the page 32 and should be based on the pedagogies related to adult learning. The issues such as change management and convergence mechanisms with other flagships such as MNREGS and NRHM could be part of the learning agenda. Water should be considered an ecological resource; therefore, priority should be given to drinking water and then water for the environment.
How can goals and aspirations be attained.
Broadly the suggestions agree on community led participatory planning, O&M and collecting user charges as three main steps towards attaining the goals and aspirations in selected states, given the low level of piped household water connections. Another critical component is enhanced financial contributions, directly to panchayats, rather than routing it through state governments. This will ensure the timely release of funds to panchayats for drinking water. A fifth suggestion is to improve the management of water supply schemes.
Mass awareness, that has been ignored for long, is another way to speed up the attainment of goals. The Plan can enunciate a person's right to water, that will change the approach to providing water. Along with this, the Plan can promote, strengthen, enable women and the marginalised to actively participate in decision making on pro-poor policy. Better information dissemination will encourage public participation and improve transparency, monitoring and quality.
An IWRM-based approach that takes into account the state of water resources, including ground water and its temporal and spatial distribution, can speed up the process of providing water security. Old and traditional water management systems can be revived and integrated with modern ones since people are familiar with those and have managed them. The corporate sector can 'adopt' 10-29 villages for a few years, build the capacity of communities and then move onto another set; they can also develop community-based business models for water supply in the villages they leave behind.
Related Resources
Recommended Documentation
Comments on DDWS Strategic plan-2010-2022 based on the Civil Society Consultations on rural drinking water and sanitation for the Approach Paper to Planning Commission’s 12th Five Year Plan (from Arghyam Team, Bangalore)
Paper; by Arghyam, WaterAid and Solution Exchange; Bangalore; January 2011;
Available at ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-21011101.doc (DOC; Size: )
Provides comments on the Strategic Plan based on the inputs received for the 12th Five Year Plan consultations held in various parts of India
From Sunetra Lala, Research Associate
Pani Panchayat in Orissa, India: The Practice of Participatory Water Management Article; by Basanta Kumar Sahu; Palgrave Macmillan; England; March 2008; Available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/dev/2008/00000051/00000001/art00021
Argues the need for strengthening existing local institution such as panchayats, for ensuring equity in water access, which will lead to better development of water resources
Needed, A Paradigm Shift
Article; by Vibhu Nayar and V. Suresh; The Hindu; October 2008;
Available at
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2008/10/26/stories/2008102650130400.htm
Discusses how only new initiatives between state institutions, such as panchayats and the citizen, based on transparency, can ensure fair access to water for everyone
India - Water Resources Management Sector Review : Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Report
Report; by World Bank; January 1998;
Available at
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&entityID=000009265_3980901105844 (PDF; Size: 8.33MB)
Addresses the need to devolve decision-making powers relating to water and sanitation projects to panchayats, who will have the incentive and opportunity to initiate action
Recommended Organizations and Programmes
From Swati Sharma, Saviours, Meerut
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, New Delhi
Ministry of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi 110001; Tel: 91-11-23063581, 23034922; Fax: 91-11-23385466; singhrp@sansad.nic.in; http://nrega.nic.in/guidelines.htm
Provides for 100 days of work to one person from each family below the poverty line, works taken up under the scheme include constructing rainwater harvesting structures
Arghyam, Karnataka
Number 599, 12th Main, HAL 2nd Stage,Indiranagar, Bangalore 560008, Karnataka; Tel: 91-80- 41698941; Fax: 91-80-41698943; info@arghyam.org; http://www.arghyam.org/ASHWAS;
Conducted ASHWAS (survey of household water and sanitation) a participatory survey that covered 28 districts of Karnataka covering more than 17,200 households
Society for Voluntary action Revitalization and Justice, Karnatttaka(from Bharti Patel)
95/2, 6th Main, 15th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560003, Karnataka; Tel: 91-80-23347491; Fax: 91-80-23347504; svaraj.blr@svaraj.in; http://www.svaraj.in/html/whatwedo/present.html;
Conducted a study on the state of water, sanitation and waste management in Doddabalapur, a growing peri-urban town 45 kilometres from Bangalore
Ground Water Network for Best Practices in Ground Water Management in Low Income Countries (GROWNET), Maharashtra(from S D Limaye, Ground Water Institute, Pune)
2050 Sadashiv Peth, Pune 411030, Maharashtra; Tel: 91-22-4331262; limaye@vsnl.com; www.igcp-grownet.org; Contact S.D. Limaye; limaye@vsnl.com; Tel: 91-22-4331262
UNESCO-IUGS-IGCP Project, which includes data on the best practices of sustainable water management
From Sunetra Lala, Research Associate
Aapni Yojana Sanitation Project, Rajasthan
Rural Development and Watershed, KFW Office, New Delhi. 21 Jor Bagh. New Delhi 110003; Tel: 91-11-23641202; Fax: 91-11-2462-1203; iihmrcpu@sancharnet.in;
http://cbhi-hsprod.nic.in/listdetails.asp?roid=87
Addresses the issue of scarcity of water, sanitation and hygiene through community participation, designed to cover 2.6 million people living in 1000 villages and 11 towns
Swajaldhara, New Delhi
9th Floor, Paryavarn Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003; Tel: 91-11-24361043; Fax: 91-11-24364113; jstm@water.nic.in; http://ddws.nic.in/swajaldhara.htm
Programme focuses on decentralised implementation of rural drinking water supply, involving the participation of panchayats and communities
Uttarakhand Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project - Swajal Project Management Unit, Uttarakhand
Mussoorie Diversion Road, Makkawala, Dehradun, Uttarakhand; Tel: 91-135-2744022, 2733380; pmu_uttaranchal@rediffmail.com; http://gov.ua.nic.in/swajal/programme.htm
Implements water and sanitation programmes in the state and facilitates panchayats activities under the Total Sanitation Campaign
Water and Sanitation Management Organization, Gujarat
3rd Floor, Jalsewa Bhavan, Sector 10-A, Gandhinagar 382010, Gujarat; Tel: 91-79-23247170; Fax: 91-79-23247485; wasmo@wasmo.org; http://www.wasmo.org/cms.aspx?content_id=15
Focuses on community-managed drinking water supply, with the involvement of panchayats, coordinates the activities of the Village Water and Sanitation Committees
Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency, Kerala
PTC Towers, S. S. Kovil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala; Tel: 91-471-2337002; Fax: 91-471-2337004; mis@jalanidhi.com; http://www.jalanidhi.com/index.htm
Works through Panchayats for implementation of its water supply schemes. 3699 water supply schemes, managed by 3929 beneficiary groups have been completed so far
Related Consolidated Replies
Preparation of Strategic Plan for Drinking Water by DDWS: Assessing the Current Situation, Bharat Lal, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi (Advice). Water Community, Solution Exchange India,
Issued 25/08/2010. Available at ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/cr-se-wes-01071001.pdf (PDF,Size: 348KB)
Seeks inputs regarding the current status of coverage of safe and adequate drinking water, key stakeholders in the field of rural drinking water and how the Department can engage with them
Preparation of Strategic Plan for Drinking Water by DDWS, Bharat Lal, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi (Advice) . Water Community, Solution Exchange India,
Issued 17/06/2010. Available at ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/cr-se-wes-04061002.pdf (PDF,Size: 429 KB)
Seeks inputs on the required goals and aspirations for the DWS for the preparation of the strategic plan for rural drinking water
Preparation of Strategic Plan for Drinking Water by DDWS, Bharat Lal, Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi (Discussion). Water Community, Solution Exchange India,
Issued 31/08/2010. Available at ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/cr-se-wes-31081001.pdf (PDF,Size: 201KB)
Seeks inputs on the implementation of the strategic plan with regard to management and finance-related issues, institutional issues and service delivery issues
Responses in Full
Puran Singh Yadav, Haryana Institute of Rural Development, Niloheri, Karnal
The main challenge to water supply systems in the rural areas has been the implementation structure. Our engineers are experts in piped water supply systems, be it tube- well based, canal-based, river-based or stream-based, from the existing sources. They believe in quick-fix solutions and lack expertise in sustaining the water supply systems. They are mainly dependent on irrigation department sources of water supply and rarely think of creating new sources and sustaining the existing sources. Therefore, there is strong need for rigorous campaign mode training of PHED engineers. They should be trained in different techniques of sustaining water supply systems, water harvesting and water conservation.
The other very critical area is community involvement. The engineers should be trained in community mobilization techniques to improve the effectiveness of monitoring the quality of water and maintenance and sustenance of supply systems. Even a tube well operator needs to be trained, so he can regulate the water supply systems. For example, a trained tube well operator will not only regulate the water supply and not run the motor more than needed, but can educate the community to avoid wastage of water.
The involvement of communities in water supply, water conservation and water harvesting can improve the system and sustain the water supply systems. The role of WASMO in community mobilization in creating water sources, water conservation and improving rain based water supply is an example in this direction. There are innumerable examples of community based successful efforts in water harvesting.
The Department should issue instructions to the states for introducing compulsory rooftop rain water harvesting by each and every rural household with the technical inputs from PHED. All community buildings like schools, banks, chaupals, dharamshalas, offices and centers should have a compulsory rain roof water harvesting.
Each household should have a (tap) water connection and it should be metered. There should be charges on drawing of water from the pipeline after fixed quantity of free water supply is drawn. The gram panchayat should supervise the rural water supply systems. But the maintenance should rest with the Department. Each and every drop of waste water should be conserved through individual household soak pits and community soak pits.
The goals and aspirations of the states as mentioned can be achieved only with enhanced financial allocation and community involvement. There should be intensive campaign for creating awareness among the masses.
Lalit Sharma, Institute of Rural Research and Development, Gurgaon
Mr. Yadav in his response earlier today has raised very valid points and we need to come up with some provisions giving space for innovation based initiatives.
I have no issue with the engineering capabilities of PHED engineers on the traditional schemes but beyond that, is the policy work conducive to new initiatives? Centralization and decentralization are also major issues and location-specific. Should the policy not be open for variations within these?
Involving engineers in community mobilization may bring good results but the question remains: do they have the time and attitude to do this, as it needs a different mindset and community mobilization is a very slow process.
No doubt rainwater harvesting is a very promising option but so far most of the RWH based systems are decentralized and household-based. At the same time acceptance of such systems needs to take into account social and cultural aspects before trying this option at a national level.
Creating mass awareness has been ignored for long and now it should be taken up on urgent basis.
Swati Sharma, Saviours, Meerut
I would like to respond to the issues raised below.
Aspirations.
I find that the right to water is lacking in this section. While it says all rural households should have enough drinking water through a piped connection, it does not say this is a person’s right. If the Plan makes drinking water a right, it changes the whole argument for providing this service.
Goals.
This section is flexible and gives states a choice of designs for water supply. A word of caution – lowering the bar, as in goal 3, may encourage many states to opt for the lowest service level. Again, enunciating the Right to Water for human consumption, specifically drinking, will create an envelope of options.
Timelines.
It is encouraging the Department has spelt out a clear timeline to provide piped water connections to 90 per cent of people by 2022, along with some goal posts.
Current situation.
I feel there is a lack of a clear definition of adequacy in the current situation to track water availability at different times of the year. Current water supply systems are unreliable. There are no benchmarks for measuring access, that remains poor for people in remote areas, lower castes, tribals and Dalits. People do not understand how polluted water effects their health. Testing water quality is an iffy proposition at best since test kits are dodgy and rather thin on the ground. Water treatment is equally bad as supply chains to replace filters, for example, are extremely tenuous. Most water supply systems are simply unreliable since those responsible for running them are not fit for the job – they are untrained, unmotivated and unpaid or underpaid. So pump operators often leave their job for work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) since this pays better. In villages, there is a marked lack of coordination among even those departments working on water such as the Public Health Engineering Department (or equivalent), irrigation, flood control, groundwater, agriculture and revenue. The education and health departments have little to do with these even though providing children and patients enough safe drinking water is an absolute must. Additionally, they have little to do with MGNREGS even though 70 per cent of money spent under this Scheme goes towards water-related programmes and can be a great way to ensuring enough safe drinking water. In other words, water and other programmes are, at the village level, like ships in the night.
Pollution, over-use and encroachments are like the unholy trinity affecting water quality and availability. State pollution control boards have been quite useless when it comes to checking water pollution. Expanding agriculture and industrial demands have stressed already depleting groundwater, making a precarious drinking water situation worse. While its fashionable to talk of climate change and its interplay with the hydrological cycle, there is little data and no studies on how this phenomenon has affected drinking water.
One huge gap in water supply as in many other programmes is the quality and amount of data. True the Department has an online management information system that provides information on the status of rural water supply, but how accurate is this data? My take is the Department should actively seek non-government organisations working in water supply to cross-check this data on a paid basis; even random and scattered checks from this would be a pointer to the Department’s data. I am sure the Water Community has members from several such organisations. Arghyam’s ASHWAS programme in Karnataka has some state-level information that can be used to verify DDWS data. This triangulation is a must otherwise we will all be essentially shooting in the dark.
Panchayats are the best vehicle for providing drinking water but it is common knowledge that they don’t have the expertise or money for this. Since they were resuscitated they have been reduced to contractors for government programmes and in the scramble for the most lucrative contracts, end up doing shoddy work. The framework for training them remains inadequate. This needs more attention in the proposed Plan otherwise Panchayats will continue as now – being increasingly corrupt government contractors.
Ratnakar Gedam, Adviser (Retired), Planning Commission, New Delhi
In addition to what has been stated about PHED I would like to draw your attention to missing points -
Water Resources has been reckoned from the point of view of demand-supply of water for purposes like irrigation, flood control, hydro-power generation, drinking water supply, industrial and various miscellaneous uses. The targets, achievement, resource allocation to ensure wide coverage of villages under Rajiv Gandhi Rural Drinking Water Mission has been traditionally objectives of various Five Year Plans. We need to go beyond the tradition planning confining to large number of projects comprising dams, barrages, hydropower structures, canal networks, etc.,
Advocacy for different elements of Integrated Water Resources Management Policy (IWRM) is missing. Reference need to be to preparatory meeting of Dublin conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE, 1992) in the context of Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro of 1992 known as Dublin’s Four principles:
1. Water is a finite, vulnerable and essential resource which should be managed in an integrated manner.
2. Water resources development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving all relevant stakeholders.
3. Women play a central role in the provision, management and safeguarding of water.
4. Water has an economic value and should be recognised as an economic good, taking into account affordability and equity criteria.
Two contradictory school of thoughts relevant to “water as economic good” are as follows: The first school, called as the market proponents, maintains that water should be priced through the market. Its economic value would arise spontaneously from the actions of willing buyers and willing sellers. This would ensure that the water is allocated to uses that are valued highest. The second school interprets 'water as an economic good' to mean the process of integrated decision making on the allocation of scarce resources, which does not necessarily involve financial transactions (e.g. McNeill, 1998; Perry et al., 1997). Second school of thought advocated by Colin Green (2000) who posits that economics is about “the application of reason to choice”. In other words: making choices about the allocation and use of water resources on the basis of an integrated analysis of all the advantages and disadvantages (costs and benefits in a broad sense) of alternative options. Piped safe drinking water requires water treatment, operations & maintenance (O&M) expenses for water supply & distribution there should be priced for water therefore water consumers must be charged, i.e. policy decision as to compulsory installation of water meter for consumption measurement and collection of dues from all urban / rural population. Also as sanitation requires sewerage treatment plant installation, its O&M, use of chemicals etc. therefore each household must be charged as sanitation charges based on the quantity of discharged per household, industries, commercial users etc.
The concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) stems from the first Dublin principle. It implies four aspects (Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000, pp.15-18):
a) considering all physical aspects of the water resources at different temporal and spatial scales (the integrity of the hydrological cycle and the related quality aspects);
b) applying an inter-sectoral approach, recognising all the interests of different water users (including environmental, social and cultural requirements);
c) giving due attention to the sustainability of water use and the rights of future generations;
d) involving all stakeholders, at all levels in the management process, giving due regard to women
The second important missing point is utilization of experience of Private Water Operators in the country. That is, discussion with different water operating private companies engaged in urban drinking water supply and distribution under PPP with municipalities for exclusively for Management Contract (MC) for Operations and Management (O&M). In the O&M contracts in order to induce private companies’ revenues are over-estimated and under-estimated expenditure on the part of contractor / concessionaire, but in reality those far from reality. Thus, under PPP private companies are treated as source of revenue and obligations for specific performance by the private operator the contracts clauses are written which are unfavourable to O&M company thus making its financial viability unsustainable. In other words, urban municipal corporation admits that they are inefficient in water supply and distribution therefore rely on private sector for managing O&M of drinking water supply but by creating contractual clauses leading eventual failure of any SPV they defeat the whole purpose for which O&M contracts are awarded under PPP. Thus model concession agreement needs to be reviewed.
Third missing point is that importance of “virtual water”. That is, volume of water required to produce a unit quantity of each commodity, the virtual water content (m3 ton−1) of primary crops. International virtual water flows have been calculated by multiplying commodity trade flows by their associated virtual water content:
VWF[ne ,ni ,c]= CT [ne ,ni ,c]× VWC[ne ,c]
In which VWF denotes the virtual water flow (m3yr−1) from exporting country ne to importing country ni; as a result of trade in commodity c; CT the commodity trade (ton yr−1) from the exporting to the importing country; and VWC the virtual water content (m3 ton−1) of the commodity, which is defined as the volume of water required to produce the commodity in the exporting country. That is, commodity trade has flow of virtual water flow, thus redefining agriculture trade.
Forth, India ’s water footprint direction needs to be assessed and policy decisions to reduce water foot print commensurate with ecological foot print. The water footprint (WF) is a consumption-based indicator of water use.
The four major factors determining the water footprint of a country are: volume of consumption (related to the gross national income); consumption pattern (e.g. high versus low meat consumption); climate (growth conditions); and agricultural practice (water use efficiency). The WF of an individual or community is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community. This concept is closely linked to the concept of water footprint is the virtual water. The virtual water content of a product (a commodity, good or service) refers to the volume of water used in its production. International trade in agricultural commodities mainly depends on factors such as availability of land, labour, technology, the costs of engaging in trade, national food policies and international trade agreements, but above all the water use.
Fifth, cost of adapting to or adjusting with climate change by 2030 needs to be addressed. UNFCCC commissioned six studies which provided estimates of the cost of adaptation for climate change by the year 2030, usually assuming a various alternative climate scenario for Agriculture, forestry and fisheries, Water supply, Human health, Coastal zones, Infrastructure, and Ecosystems. Cost of managing (a) Waste water management; (b) water transportation; (c) water distribution network construction; and (d) integrated water and sanitation management.
The Prime Minister’s 8 missions and their implications for water demand as well as fulfilling goals/Millennium Development Goal no. 10 / targets under National Water Mission, National Mission for a Green India, Sustainable Habitat etc.
Puneet Srivastava, Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Himachal Pradesh
The discussions on the strategic plan have been most interesting so far and the draft strategic plans indicate a very ambitious, challenging and yet many heartfelt elements of reforms in management of drinking water by the practitioners in this area across the country. Thanks to Sujoy for sharing the current draft with the members of WESNET community for last round of electronic consultations. Before responding to specific queries, my general comments are as under.
1. The owner of this strategic plan is Department of Drinking Water Supply, MoRD, GoI (DDWS). We expect the respective state PHEDs to become the implementing partners for this strategic plan through the instruments of next five year plan (FYP) and annual plans. Earlier, in the last decade around 2004, DDWS had initiated the process of signing MoUs incorporating the essential elements of reforms based on findings of sector status studies in many states of India and then make these MoUs as basis of financing the RWS in each state. As far as my understanding goes, there was no proactive response on MoU by any state subsequent to those guidelines. Therefore, the question is where do we go from here?
There have been some efforts made on the self-triggered / self-realised efforts to introduce change management for sector reforms in the functioning of PHEDS/Boards/ Pradhikarans by many states in terms of answering the challenges involved in mainstreaming the elements of sector reform in drinking water management and policy e.g., Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, etc. Some thinking and the way forward on this issue is required to be spelt out in the strategic plan to make it countrywide Strategic Plan. The leverage that Government of India holds is NRDWP over the state governments to influence the sector policy in each state. It should be used very judiciously to live up the expectations and aspirations of the rural population for safe and reliable drinking water supply and as spelt out nicely in the current draft strategic plan across the country.
2. The answer to many of the questions involved in achieving the provisions of strategic plan is hidden in the jigsaw puzzle of resolving the institutional structures governing the sector for the best results. We have PHEDs / Boards and Corporation in states for responding to infrastructural needs for drinking water supply and to which they have responded very impressively so far i.e., in expanding coverage. The experience has been that introduced model of sector reforms which envisages the DWSM and SWSM model alongside the model of PHEDs (formed more or less on the principals of engineering/ technical departments and their control structures like CPWD, etc., consisting of zones, circles, divisions and sub divisions) has failed to deliver both ways so far as per the objectives. Therefore, a lot of thinking needs to be invested in streamlining the institutions involved in carrying out the agenda of draft strategic plan into action. e.g., the model of decentralised water governance can only succeed if there is proactive partnership between PHEDs and PRIs and the departments governing them e.g., HP. The response to these challenges needs to be spelt out in the strategic plan itself.
Now coming back to specific queries, my response on the issues are as under.
∙ What are the current challenges from the point of view of Source sustainability, quality, operation and maintenance, inter-sector coordination, professional support and climate change (page 6)?
The challenges are well drafted. No comments.
∙ How can DDWS strategise (page 9) and implement solutions (page 19) for drinking water security planning and implementation, improve water quality, build professional capacity and strengthen decentralization?
In the strategy part, there is a need to differentiate between different units of planning and implementation for drinking water security and drinking water quality. The lowest administrative unit of planning, implementation and O&M should be Gram Panchayat. It should be left to Gram Panchayat to decide whether they want one standing committee as Pani Samiti representing each ward or they want to set separate users committee (Village water (and Sanitation??) committees) for management of drinking water under component 3 of decentralised water governance. But to appreciate and define these lowest units is absolutely critical in terms of achievement on the decentralised water governance. Also, the financing to these PRIs needs to be streamlined in terms of allocated functions and need to engage human resources by them. This can again be taken up through structured process of Activity Mapping (Functional Assignment as is known internationally) as has been carried out by Irrigation and Public Health Department , GoHP, even before the NRDWP guidelines emerged on the horizon under the Indo German Bilateral Cooperation Project titled Capacity Building of Panchayat Raj Institutions in HP. In the arrangement of transfer of funds, function and functionaries, adequate safeguards needs to be taken that we transfer solutions and not the problems to the Gram Panchayats.
∙ How can DDWS strengthen regulation (page 28) and institutional structures (page 14)?
The list of regulatory functions is quite comprehensive and impressive. It is important that the regulatory body has been duly insulated by the service departments and policy makers. The regulation has to be carefully planned (understanding what we do not want to regulate to begin with) and the differentiation has to be maintained between regulatory functions and monitoring and audit functions. The focus of monitoring should be on the state departments and the public-public partnerships between various states as declared in Chennai conference including process and performance benchmarking whereas the focus of regulatory functions has to be with regulatory institutions.
∙ What is the learning agenda (page 32), the resources required and key performance indicators (page 34)?
This is perhaps the most crucial aspect with regards to effective and speedy percolation of the provisions of NRDWP and strategic plan in respective states and stakeholders. This needs more elaboration on the page 32 and should be based more on the pedagogies related to adult learning. The issues such as change management and convergence mechanisms with other flagships such as MNREGS and NRHM could be part of the learning agenda.
∙ How can the goals and aspirations be achieved especially in the States with very low coverage of piped water supply schemes like UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, MP, Rajasthan, Orissa , Assam and Chhattisgarh?
This issue is more related to state of water resources including ground water and its temporal and spatial distribution. Given the policy movements in RWS, there has to be more focus on smaller schemes with local sources as far as possible feeding on surface, ground or rain harvested water sources that are reliable and some investments to ensure their sustainability. We have our old and ancient drinking water management which was largely local and locally managed as a testimonial to wisdom engrained in communities in those times.
Hope these comments are useful in finalising the strategic plan.
Raju Sharma, Journalist, Meerut
Thanks to the Department for giving us another opportunity to react to the Strategic Plan.
I feel source protection is crucial since mosgt drinking water schemes fail when the source dries up. DDWS can try to do this by demarcating protection zones – in Europe tubewells for drinking water have clearly demarcated zones around them where other activity is prohibited or several restricted. It can develop material to share information about the potential and limitation of drinking water resources. Rainwater harvesting can help increase water availability locally. It should study traditional water sources and management that can in many situations meet local needs. DDWS can guide the development of micro-water protection plans and norms for quality. It can provide a menu of technical options and institutions to help implement them. It should create an overarching legal framework for source protection. This requires suitable institutions and information especially at the village. DDWS should train a cadre of para-professionals at the village level such as barefoot engineers to assist in the National Rural Drinking Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance Programme as well as run village drinking schemes. I am suggesting this approach since attempts at convergence with schemes such as the National Rural Health Mission do not seem to be really going forward. Along with this we need a local method to handle conflicts. The source protection work needs money and this can be leveraged through the rural employment guarantee scheme or other local development work, as well as directly provided from the Centre to the panchayats.
Households across the country feel the pinch of scarcity of water for domestic use. We cannot upscale the WASMO model since it relies on a massive inter-basin transfer of water from the Narmada river and this process eliminates the role of local communities. The current 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) norm is too low; it should be immediately raised to at least 70 lpcd of water provided at home and another 100 lpcd for other uses (this need not be potable water). During disasters, 55 lpcd should be the norm. State governments should plan for 100 lpcd of domestic water supply in the medium term (say by 2020). Gram sabhas should make their own water security plans and take help from an NGO if needed; DDWS can help by providing a database of technically qualified NGOs and consultants for this work. Water should be priced but from the perspective of valuing a natural resource and not for making a profit. Those in charge of providing water must respond to complaints within a fixed time period, or be fined.
On the institutional structure, gram sabhas and panchayats should be centres of development. The district water and santiation mission should function as a technical committee of the Zila Parishad. Panchayats need a clear mandate with roles and responsibilities. They should anchor the bottom-up planning and decision making process. The line department staff at the village level have to be made accountable to the panchayats for DDWS can issue suitable rules. Funds for domestic water supply should be sent directly to panchayats as is done in Sikkim . The government should disburse funds only against a village water security plan; this calls for strengthening the human resource base of DDWS. There are several steps that can make water governance, at the moment one of the most corrupt in the country, more transparent – social audits, mandatory disclosure of project costs, citizens’ charters, local data collection and involving community based organisations.
A point for the learning agenda is positioning village water and sanitation committees; should they become a sub-committee of the panchayat or remain a parallel institution. If they opt for the former, they gain legitimacy but become susceptible to political manipulation. In the latter case, they lack legitimacy but may retain some operational freedom.
I would like to make some other points that may not be part of the Strategic Plan as yet, but in my opinion should find place. Water has to be considered an ecological resource; therefore, priority should be given to water for domestic use followed by water for the environment. A corollary is that before embarking on any major project, the agency or government has to study and suggest ways to minimize impact on water resources. If it is found that this is unavoidable, the project should be reworked or relocated.
Saurabh Singh, Innervoice Foundation, Ballia
What we have felt is that engineers (in the Water departments) are somewhat reluctant to listen to any kind of opinion coming from the community in the beginning. So, there is need to address this issue first. My views are derived from our work in UP & Bihar. We do say that here it’s not question of their capabilities or skills. But somehow they do not seem to support community initiatives, so, there is need to work on this issue as well.
But there are no dearth of instances where engineers have failed, that too miserably only because they never bother to listen to the community regarding the mitigation works they were erecting. In a rapidly changing scenario in quality affected villages of arsenic-contaminated districts of Ballia and Bhojpur, nowhere has the community been taken into confidence. The result is a huge wastage of money as all works are lying defunct. At the outset we mentioned that people must be part of the entire project lifecycle.
There are a basketful of solutions that can be implemented with the active help of community instead of erecting huge, costly, centralised and expensive projects. Rainwater harvesting is one of them. In rural areas, there are water bodies, which if revived, can supply water to the entire community. This can save lots of money that can be spent elsewhere. Regarding centralisation aand decentralisation we have to say that there is no need for large scale, centralised projects. But these are more popular with the project proponents. But the question is have they delivered? The answer is ''No'' Not in a majority of cases.
However this needs a perceptible change in attitude. Also there is a need to bring this kind of initiative on priority list in the draft policy.
If communities can be fully empowered, and we are ready to transfer technology to them and take their help in planning, execution and O & M as WASMO has shown, we can save large amounts of money every year. But are we ready for it?
Bharti Patel, Society for Voluntary action Revitalization and Justice (SVARAJ), Bangalore
My comments are based on evidence from Svaraj’s in-depth study of our field interventions in rural Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and the state of water, sanitation and waste management in Doddabalapur – a growing peri-urban town 45 Km from Bangalore . In this response to the strategic plan, I will focus on the issue of inequity, inequality and injustice on access to water and sanitation.
The lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation is directly related to poverty, inequality and injustice, coupled with the inability of governments to finance and govern satisfactorily water and sanitation systems – from socio-cultural and ecological perspectives. Despite attempts and financial investments, there continues to be wide disparities in provisions of basic facilities and health concerns between the slum and non slum community, and between castes with Dalit, and SC and ST communities still being denied access to potable water, sanitation and their role in governance is periphery.
In Svaraj’s Watsan study: Slum dwellers were twice as likely not to have access to domestic connections as non-slum dwellers Less than half (42%) slum households have access to private toilets, and 1 in 3 use open space or community toilets, with a real and growing reluctance to use community toilets due to poor maintenance and lack of availability of water Caste inequality was all too visible Nearly half (46 %) of the SC/ST community do not have toilets and the key reasons given included – lack of place/space and money Lack of interest in having toilets was the case with less than 2 %.
The problem is acute. Working out how to ensure fair and just rights of all citizens to water and sanitation in the next five years with more than half of the rural population lacking access to toilets and sanitation services and over 170 million without access to safe water, will be even more challenging with the growing threat of water scarcity, rapid and unchecked industrialisation, changes in land use patterns, affecting the rural eco-systems including natural resources. The poor and marginalized will continue to bear the brunt.
Finding a way to address it that does not exacerbate current inequality is arguably a collective challenge that we all face in India . And actions and strategies need to find ways of redressing the historical injustices in access to land, water, and sanitation, common as a priority. Unless these positive steps are considered the challenges to achieve the former will remain.
The current situation and the need for multiple actions at multiple levels and the challenges of devising a system which ensures affordable, equitable and sustainable solution to water and sanitation for all in India is detailed. The document rightly identifies the need to protect sources of water, from catchments to storage to use and finally from polluting elements; the need for adequate regulations and of political and economic governance of the water and sanitation. The stress on mapping availability and accessibility to water and sanitation and community participation in the design of projects to meet local needs is indeed welcomed.
It however, lacks an answer to the enduring difficulty posed by the power politics and lobbies for the rapid change in land use patterns, industrialization and the continued inequality and inequity in availability, accessibility, and affordability of water and sanitation. Water and free market in terms of exploitation of natural resources can be uneasy bedfellows in the absence of social safety nets, responsible governance and responsible citizens, strong institutions built with the clear and strong role and capacity of local community and in-particular the vulnerable communities.
The draft rightly points out that “Exclusion of particular groups (caste, gender, geography) happens, and ways must be found around this, for e.g., through mapping of exclusion.
Whilst this is key to first understanding the issues with evidence, and the need to address the continuing inequality and injustice experienced by poor and marginalised communities, there is an urgent need to understand the where, how and why “exclusion… happens” in modern India? The mapping exercise needs to be bold and very forward thinking in the collection of data, analysis and recommendation – and should include:
1. Community mapping methodology with adequate orientation and sensitisation of the people involved in mapping 2. Cross cutting issues such as gender, caste, age, income, culture, land, access to common, housing patterns/materials, space, position of residence, polluting factors etc.
The mapping if well designed should allow citizens, communities, as well as public authorities to understand the historical context of caste and gender discrimination in India . It would show up the myths/taboos that surround caste/gender roles/systems including religious beliefs, custom and practices in relations to water and sanitation, the political powers, government policies and its impact on water resource. The mapping would help reach a common understanding and to create trust between different actors – public, private, officials, supports, NGO’s and CBI’s; Enable citizens to hold the service providers accountable for equitable, fair and just delivering of water supply and sanitation services to all citizens.
The draft mentions how water tankers in many rural areas and water trains in some parts of the country, highlight the precarious state of water availability and issues of inequity and injustice in securing claim on water, specially by women, and the socio-politically and economically marginalised communities.
Most of us are aware of the poor quality of water and access to relatively good quality of water is a privilege for the few. Svaraj’s study showed the major source of water now is tanker water, (with ground water levels having fallen to over 1,000 ft in some areas). The quality of tanker water is relatively better than municipal supply which has nearly 4 times more TDS that tanker water. Given that the poor are twice more likely to be dependent on municipal water supply then the non – poor, their access to safe water is significantly reduced. And whilst rainwater, harvested and stored through roof top rain water harvesting systems is safe, this will not address the problems of accessibility to safe DW for the poor and marginalised – many of whom will not have roof tops to catch enough water and space for sumps in the grounds.
Solutions to be considered should include:
Decent housing - There is an urgent need to consider land and decent houses for the poor to enable them to harvest rain water for their daily needs, or a community space for collective harvesting and accessibility;
Water testing with mapping point and non–point sources of pollution and polluting factors and ensuring effective pollution controls at all levels, including decentralised treatment of sewage to ensure the municipal water supply is potable;
Integrated Pollution Prevention Control regulations - even those with toilets in peri-urban and rural areas, untreated sewage is let into the open drains leading into local surface water bodies.
Water and Sanitation
The largest daily user of water in the home is the toilet. The western toilets with flush found in the homes of the wealthier and modern houses, uses more than 3 gallons (12 litres per flush). One person can consume as much as 60 litres per day. A family of 4 then will need 240 litres per day just for flushing toilets. Whilst lack of water and space is given as a reason for inadequate supply and unsanitary conditions of toilets for the poor and marginalised.
This inequity and disparity needs to be addressed through policies and regulations on use of grey water, technologies such as reducing the amount of water that is flushed away, educating, encouraging and promoting Indian toilets which uses much less water and is better for health is needed in particular amongst the financially wealthier communities.
Inequity, inequality and injustice –There is a need to address both inequality and inequity:
Inequality is the difference in rates of access to water and sanitation amongst segments of the population
Inequity - unfair and unjust differences (practices leading to differences) in this fundamental basic right to water and sanitation.
Concerns about inequitable service provision in water and sanitation is clear from the data on those without access to safe water and sanitation and those who have systems and practices which over exploit water.
To address this, it will be about making a value judgment in the case of water and sanitation inequity. There is a need to ground our thinking in the human right to safe and adequate water and sanitation and to treat each and every inequality/disparity as unfair and unjust until proven otherwise. Understanding the reasons behind inequalities, is important to help target access to water and sanitation and to create equity and move toward a society where equality in the aggregate is a true indicator of justice
Community participation and Sensitisation - in the design of accessing and the affordability of water and sanitation systems is important and the inclusion of 50% women is crucial – it is important to note that for any participation to be active and results based, should be supported by clear orientation, sensitisation and capacity building programmes on the whole gamut of the right to water and sanitation – to include socio-political, health, environment, caste, gender and class, budgets and financial allocations, community monitoring and evaluation of the operations and management. In addition the participatory exercises should be open to learning from traditional community wisdom on source protection, the cultural aspects particular rituals and taboos.
Consistent gender, caste and class data sensitive research by independent teams and effective evaluation of disparities- reduction programs can help understand progress being made and help to design a more equitable Watsan programme, including targeted approaches to close the inequality and inequity gap.
Collaboration with capable and committed voluntary organisation can help achieve this.
Governance
Decentralisation under 73rd Amendment to India ’s Constitution has not translated into inclusive local democratic practices. Weakness in local capacity, transparency and political will to meet basic public needs, coupled with women and citizens from the SC/ST class, overtly and covertly denied basic privileges - including their role in local decision making on their development planning, accessing rights and challenging wrongs, has alienated many from active participation in local governance, ultimately affecting their right to basic services.
Orientation, sensitisation and capacity building of citizens, community organisations, Panchayat Raj Institute, government representatives on values of good governance and participatory pro-poor development planning and for basic public services is vital: Strategy and investments to include:
Promote, strengthen, enable women and marginalised to actively participate in decision making on pro-poor policy, programme development and leadership in finding solutions to better public services Increase awareness on the value and role of citizens in good governance and equitable practices in water and sanitation Facilitate peoples’ participation/focus groups/public hearing on policies, programmes and decision making on water and sanitation Promote Public, Private, community Participation (PPCP) in co-management of this basic public services Need for more focus and investment in the protection of source of water to include ridge hills, adjacent bio-topes conservation and management.
S D Limaye, Ground Water Institute, Pune
With reference to the discussion initiated by Mr Sujoy Majumdar's e-mail, I suggest that the website of UNESCO-IUGS-IGCP Project 523 "GROWNET" gives valuable inputs on the topic.
Please go to the website www.igcp-grownet.org and click on "Best Practices". Go to the "Best Practice" dealing with 'sustainable drinking water supply'.
S A Hirudia Raj, Consultant –Water, Hyderabad
Of all the water quality issues, the major water quality issue is the bacteriological contamination. Chemical issues most of the times not in the hands of human beings (most of the times they are Geogenic) except of industrial pollution. Whereas bacteriological contamination lies within the perview of the community, which by a minimum effort can we can overcome the issue. If a source is bacteriologically contaminated the simple step would be to protect the source by improving the sanitary condition of the the source and disinfection. By doing this atleast 75 -80 % of the drinking water issue will be solved.
Regarding Institution building, an exclusive Water and Sanitation should be formed which will become a sub-committee of the Gram Panchayat. There can be as many sub-committees as required under the Gram Panchayat. Hence Water sanitation committees at village level is very essential to address the issue of drinking water in rural areas.
Madan Iyengar, Ozo Nano Sciences, Bangalore
I agree with Hirudia Raj and if I may suggest one more step that apart from rain water harvesting if wastewater is treated at source and diverted to catchment areas in urban areas this could improve the ground water table levels considerably and reduce city requirements whereby the uptake from rivers to urban areas could be diverted to villages and other areas. The main objective is to manage water and its source. Most of the time is lack of proper management that there is shortage. Personally I feel there is no shortage but needs proper management. Most of the cities in the country have loads of wastewater discharge polluting rivers and other drinking water bodies / sources, if wastewater is treated at source and let into main stream there would be lesser load for city requirements and the excess intake could be diverted to villages and gram panchayats.
Shashikant Kumar, Green Eminent Research Centre, Vadodara
I would like to point out following missing aspects in Rural Drinking Water
(a) Rural areas have vast human as well as animal (domestic) populations, who require drinking water. The current plans targets human requirements in most of the cases, whereas the rural folks give priority to feed animals from the DW supply they get. Since most of the dry and semi-arid zones have severe water shortage the plan should incorporate this aspect as well.
(b) Call for increase in per capita consumption given the Sanitation programs initiated by the government plans is desirable. In any case less than 70 lpcd is not advisable.
(c) The Resource Reliability question should be addressed first and local resource regeneration plans should be enforced or emphasized given the uncertainty of canal water supply.
(d) De-link Urban, Industrial and Rural water supply from source allocation itself. Otherwise prioratisation of the resource allocation would be not proper during implementation and operationalisation of schemes.
(e) Restrict Zoning and Land use plan around the water source and regional planning should be empasised for at least the water management (include drinking as well as irrigation).
(f) Automated monitoring in O &M of the supply system and dedicated technical force at block level to rectify the errors and malfunctions in the water distribution (use IT and Mapping Techniques).
(g) Checks for transit losses, theft and diversion of the water resources on regular basis.
(h) Proper estimation of the demands and taking socio-economic characteristics of the areas into account. Head count based allocation has failed given the varied socio-economic characteristics of the regions concerned.
(i) Information dissemination and public participation in the decision making for the projects is must for transparency, monitoring and quality checks.
Ramakrishna Nallathiga, Centre for Good Governance, Hyderabad
The Strategic Plan goes quite into depth in terms of coverage, delving into issues, laying down an approach and setting actions, responsibility, measurement and timeframe. However, it becomes larger in its scope and therefore difficult for the nodal departments and agencies difficult to go through. The Strategic Plan apparently also gets into some details that normally come in an Action Plan to be followed by it, which needs to be developed at Central level and adapted/modified by the States. It may also be useful for the above and other user agencies to keep the Strategic Plan as compact as it can, and follow-up it with detailed action plan and guidelines. The following are my observations/inputs on the same.
What are the current challenges from the point of view of Source sustainability, quality, operation and maintenance, inter-sector coordination, professional support and climate change (page 6)?
The major problems of sustainability is not only that it is quantity issue but also the finance issue. The rural bodies (panchayats) do not run in a professional manner by providing service and recovering costs - they are used to grant support and negligence of service and asset results from it. Bringing more accountability to service not only from provision but also making the people aware of their right would require making the people aware of their rights through campaigns that become integral to campaign. Also, O&M cost recovery through tariffs is required and the panchayats need to do this arithmetic - or at least they need to be trained on how to do it. Service agreements are important but they need to have clauses of penalty and model agreements need to be developed and given - rather than inventing again and again. The staffing structures and deployment are one aspect and their actual performance on field is another. Monitoring and accountability arrangements need to be improved at district and local level. Coping with climate change would not only involve additional drawing of water from sources but providing adequate (optimal) based on the monitoring of consumption and withdrawal at reservoirs. Also, buffering of water storage is another option that needs to be looked in, which is adopted in drought prone areas commonly.
How can DDWS strategise (page 9) and implement solutions (page 19) for drinking water security planning and implementation, improve water quality, build professional capacity and strengthen decentralization?
The strategic options for achieving the objectives are well laid down but the way these are achieved (not the process but mechanisms) is not clear. Institution building itself is going to take time - even just right staffing takes time - and getting the public institutions to take the whole task would quickly put the goals well beyond the timelines. It requires partnership with other players - non-government organizations, voluntary organizations, organizations of village level servicing population, private voluntary sector, private profit sector and even firms that are interested in this activity. NGOs can play a major role in O&M, community mobilisation, accountability and quality monitoring; private voluntary sector can bring/develop models that can provide service delivery of water through service agreement; private profit sector can support in water treatment, storage, conveyance/distribution and measurement (metering); firms can act as suppliers of various parts, technology and even operate them at cost.
How can DDWS strengthen regulation (page 28) and institutional structures (page 14)?
Regulation is also extensive and it combines the systems to be in place and checking/ monitoring whether they are working effectively. As far as possible, it should focus on economic and environmental (including public health) regulation, and resource regulation to some extent. It is important to have monitoring/reporting systems in place (or use existing systems - as in quality monitoring by other agencies) to be able to regulate. But it is also important to provide periodic guidelines (also kept online/web) of reporting formats, allowed/guiding charges, method of assessment, evaluation.
Institutional structures are well laid down and well-connected in design, at least on paper. How it works would only be known after it is put to trial for some time. But, it appears to have some plans with regard to the engineers (their number and service) but not other staff, which actually play a major role. A good number of social scientists, social workers, public health/health workers, operators and other skilled people need to be trained and put on contract to deliver the goods. The institutions mentioned above need to accommodate more of this kind of people than engineers whose pay is manifold to them.
What is the learning agenda (page 32), the resources required and key performance indicators (page 34)?
Key resource centres and network of state institutions is a right approach, but it is also useful to engage the local technical institutions to be associated with them or partner with them for the better development of leaning material. Also, the monitoring of performance is centred on process or metric benchmarking to be able to develop the catch up, but it is also useful to compare among them or report as critically performing (as in ground water - dark or brown areas) so that attention is paid on them. Performance benchmarking of urban bodies is being attempted for urban bodies now.
How can the goals and aspirations be achieved especially in the States with very low coverage of piped water supply schemes like UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, MP, Rajasthan, Orissa , Assam and Chhattisgarh?
Sure, this is a big challenge where the systems and institutions are not well developed. That is why the community, community organization, NGOs, voluntary agencies, private sector, business firms – all can play a role. Corporate sector also can play a role as is done in Gujarat, where corporate firm owns up 10 or 20 villages/habitations and takes responsibility of all the functions related to water supply and other aspects in a village for one or three or five years and makes community to reach manageable level. Similar models may be adopted in these states. There are some firms that have business models to provide safe drinking water on sustainable basis under corporate social responsibility if government lends support and community adopts them.
Suresh Kumar, National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology, Trivandrum
The Planning Commission is reportedly developing schemes in collaboration with the concerned ministries to scale up reforms in the water sector that show improvements in both recoveries and water use. The National Water Mission that takes into account the effects of climate change needs to prioritize documentation and modelling of water sources to benefit users in each of the resource sectors on a river basin based approach.
A comprehensive map of aquifers at a watershed level can be prepared to facilitate rural drinking water supply to be directed thruough such aquifer management plans which can incorporate operation and maintenance, public-private partnership options, etc.
Arghyam Team, Bangalore
The inputs provided here by the Arghyam team are based on the civil society consultations that were organized in November-December 2010 to inform the Approach Paper to the 12th Five Year Plan on WATSAN. For more details please read
ftp://ftp.solutionexchange.net.in/public/wes/cr/res-21011101.doc (DOC; Size: 1.11MB). The inputs for the Strategic Plan for Rural Drinking Water are marked in yellow in the document.
Many thanks to all who contributed to this query!
Disclaimer: In posting messages or incorporating these messages into synthesized responses, the UN accepts no responsibility for their veracity or authenticity. Members intending to use or transmit the information contained in these messages should be aware that they are relying on their own judgment.
Copyrighted under Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5”. Re-users of this material must cite as their source Solution Exchange as well as the item’s recommender, if relevant, and must share any derivative work with the Solution Exchange Community.
Solution Exchange was a UN initiative for development practitioners in India. For more information please visit http://in.one.un.org/page/un-solution-exchange/ Please note that some of the links in these discussions may be defunct.