COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF RURAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS (Community Water Plus)

Dr. V. Kurian Baby, India Country Director, IRC

National Stakeholder workshop

New Delhi 20 September 2013

Key phases in the evolutionof rural water sector policy

GLOBALLY POSITIVE PICTURE – WE ARE GETTING THERE

70% functional

Service delivery model options Ethiopia

Mozambqu

Burkina

Uganda

Ghana

Benin

India

Honduras

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Colombia

South Africa

USA

Rural coverage (%); JMP, 210 29 26 72 64 74 69 84 77 88 98 73 78 94Community-based management P P P P P P P P P P P P PPrivate contracting (includes to NGOs or CBOs) P P P P P P P P

Local govt. /municipal Provider P P P PSelf supply P P P P P P P PAssociation of community or user associations P P

Urban utility (public, private or mixed) P P P P

CBM Dominate RWSS Model Globally

Rural areas lag far behind urban areas

• 84% of the world

population without

improved drinking-water

source lives in rural areas

• i.e. 743 million rural

people against 131

million living in urban

area (JMP 2010 Progress report)

• 75% of the world poor

still live in rural areas (2008

WDR)

Increasing coverage is not the whole story

Breakdowns, failures, non-functionality, slippage ........... a

tipping point which is now a threat to achieving the MDGs?

Build on current progress, but shift from infrastructure to service delivery

Sustainability a Big Issue…..30 to 50 % of facilities are no longer functioning after a few years

Service Level (access, quantity, quality…)

1 2 3 4 5 Years

Causes : Poor design, no ownership, inadequate service/technology , lack of capacity/ incentives, no O&M, lack of spare parts, water quality, source drying up, no back support,

Capital investment/Project approach Adapted from IRC

Waste of hundreds of millions of USD per country

Recent Evidences

• CBM emerged as a dominant rural

service delivery model enhancing

coverage globally

• Large Number of best practice CBM

models across the world and in India

• However sustainability is a serious

concern - critical post construction (PCS)

gaps in service delivery8

Whither CBM or Emerge CBM +?

• Sceptics argue against CBM as a means to

attain sustainable service delivery

• Others argue for a community plus model for

improving sustainability where

– Governments to continue a critical role in

providing predictable post construction

support and professionalize CBM

9

RWSS in India: Why CBM Critical ?

10

India Community rural water supply sytems are orphans left out by partially implemented decentralisation and demand responsive sector reforms

RWSS in India: Why CBM Critical ?

• CBM has emerged as a dominant model of RWSS

service delivery in India

• XII plan target 60% of RWSS operated and managed by

LSGs and communities with at least 50% cost recovery

• Wash is constitutional mandate of PRIs (73rd and 74th

amendment)

• Monolithic water boards and departments plan, design

and construct schemes and hand over to PRIs/VWSCs

de jure responsible yet de facto NOT-empowered

• CBM is critical for equity and subsidiarity

11

12

1951

–56

1956

–61

1961

–66

1969

–74

1974

–79

1980

–85

1985

–90

1992

–97

1997

–02

200

2–07

2007

–12

2012

-17*

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000Investments in Rural Drinking Water – India

Five Year Plan; 1951-2017 (Rs. Million)

CentralStatesCumulative

Five Year Plan

Investments in Rural Drinking Water – India (INR. Million)

Five Year Plan Central States Total

Cumulative

1951–56 0 30 30

1956–61 0 300 300 330

1961–66 0 480 480 780

1969–74 340 2080 2420 2900

1974–79 1570 3480 5050 7470

1980–85 8950 15300 24250 29300

1985–90 19060 24710 43770 68020

1992–97 41400 50840 92240 136010

1997–02 84550 107730 192280 284520

2002–07 162540 151020 313560 505840

2007–12 401500 490000 891500 1195670

2012-17* 1225700 1498070 2723770 3605880

(*) XII Plan estimated outlay

Challenge of Financing – Into a leaking bucket?

WATER SERVICES THAT LAST …13

Capital expenditure dominates

Recurrent expenditure and support effort dominates

Coverage rates

Sector effort and costs

25% 50% 75% 100%

Danger zone: as basic infrastructure is

provided, coverage risks stagnating at around 60 – 80%

Capital maintenance expenditure dominates

Challenge of last mile coverage + asset management

Challenge of ‘Slippage’ – High Investment –low outcome trap: India

Information presented at IRC Slippage roundtable Briefing, Delhi, June 2009

>30%

Challenge of Technology – increasing complexity

15

• Strategic Plan 2011-’22 aim 80% piped water supply cover by 2022

• Increasing complexity add fresh challenge to CBM

• Consumers demand better service level as income rises – XII Plan target 55 lpcd 1991 2001 2011

- 5.00

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00

32.30 36.70

43.50

30.00

41.20 42.00

32.20

18.20

11.00

Technology Options: Drinking Wa-ter- India Census 2011

Tap Hand pump/ BoreholeWell

Major PCS

challenge

Bihar

Jhar

khan

d

Assam

Odisha

Chatti

sgar

h

Mad

hya

Prade

sh

Wes

t Ben

gal

Uttar P

rade

sh

Kerala

Tripur

a

Rajast

han

Meg

halay

a

Man

ipurIn

dia

Laks

hwad

eep

Punjab

Mizo

ram

D & N

Hav

eli

Mah

aras

htra

Nagala

nd

Jam

mu

& Kas

hmir

Gujara

t

Karna

taka

Aruna

chal

Prade

shDelh

i

Andhr

a Pra

desh

Harya

na

Uttara

khan

d

A & N

Islan

ds Goa

Tamil N

adu

Sikkim

Daman

& D

iu

Himac

hal P

rade

sh

Puduc

herry

Chand

igarh

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

2.60 3.70 6.

80

7.50 8.80 9.90 11

.40

20.2

0 24.5

0

25.2

0

26.9

0

28.7

0

29.5

0

30.8

0

31.0

0

34.9

0 41.4

0

42.5

0

50.2

0

51.8

0

55.7

0

55.8

0

56.4

0

59.3

0

59.4

0

63.4

0

63.6

0

63.9

0

77.5

0

77.8

0

79.3

0

82.6

0

84.8

0

88.7

0 95.0

0

95.2

0

Challenge of service levels - Tap Connec-tion(Census 2011)

India has many CBM success stories….

• CBM best practices across India – (Maharashtra,

Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat, Punjab, UP etc.)

• Many non-documented models even in low performing

states – however;

• Replicability and scaling up a are critical limitations

• There are critical post construction support gaps

• Cracks are seen in CBM questioning rationale/

sustainability

• We need to identify the limiting factors and evolve context

specific modalities for sustainable CBM in India

17

Community Management Plus

• Support agency functions --- water quality, technical advice , capital

maintenance, risk financing, tariff setting, training, monitoring etc.

• Service authority– adequate fulfilment of function

• Water security and source sustainability

• Adequate financing of different costs - Life cycle costs

• Transparency, governance and provider accountability

• External agency on-going support to community + enabling

environment

• CBM + is Professionalization or professionalised support of

community management

18

Research Objectives

• Investigate functioning, successful, community

managed rural water supply programmes in

India

• Determine the extent of support required to

sustain services while retaining a valid level of

community engagement.

• Analyse and categorize the different levels of

support required for different types of rural water

supply

19

Research Approach

• Research best practice/ successful 18

community based RWSS systems in India

• Assess how the level of community

management impacts on indicators such as

service levels, service provider performance and

equity

• Collaborative - Consultative and Participatory -

Engage with policy makers at national and State

level for strategic guidance, validation and

policies20

Research Outputs• Series of working papers and 18 case studies with

• Report on the successful models for management and

support to rural water supply in India

• Policy briefs with the highlight findings of the research

• Guideline document with proposed categories of

management models and support entities fit to different

contexts in India

• Evidences for most applicable trajectories for

development of CBM

21

Partners

• Consortium lead: Cranfield University, United Kingdom

• Members:

– IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre (from the

Netherlands),

– Administrative Staff College of India (based in Hyderabad),

– Centre for Excellence in Change (based in Chennai)

– Malawya National Institute of Technology (based in Jaipur)

– ??

• Work closely with national and State government agencies.

22

23

Thank You