city sanitation plan belgaum - municipaladmn.gov.in · city sanitation plan belgaum administrative...

CITY SANITATION PLAN BELGAUM

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE OF INDIA, HYDERABAD 2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF MAPS ........................................................................................................................................ 8

LIST OF INFORMATION BOXES ............................................................................................................ 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 14

CSTF MEMBERS ................................................................................................................................... 15

FOREWORD (by CSTF Chairperson) .................................................................................................. 16

ASCI TEAM MEMBERS ........................................................................................................................ 17

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 18

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 18

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 18

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF CITY-WIDE SANITATION PLAN ..................................................................... 18

1.3 CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................................. 19

1.4 CITY SANITATION PLANNING IN BELGAUM ............................................................................. 21

1.5 PROCESS, DETAILED STEPS AND LIMITATIONS ..................................................................... 24

1.6 VERIFICATION OF MOUD CHECKLIST .......................................................................................... 33

1.7 CHAPTER PLAN ...................................................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 40

STATE URBAN SANITATION POLICIES & PROGRAMMES – A REVIEW ............................................. 40

2.1 NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY (NUSP) ................................................................... 40

2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RULES, 2000 .................................................................................... 43

2.3 KARNATAKA URBAN DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION POLICY, 2002 ............... 44

2.4 KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE

CORPORATION (KUIDFC) ................................................................................................................................. 45

2.5 INTEGRATED LOW COST SANITATION (ILCS) ......................................................................... 47

2.6 ASHA KIRAN MAHITI (AKM) ............................................................................................................ 47

2.7 JNNURM ..................................................................................................................................................... 47

2.8 URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR SMALL & MEDIUM

TOWNS (UIDSSMT) ............................................................................................................................................. 48

2.9 RAJIV AWAS YOJANA ........................................................................................................................... 48

2.10 URBAN STATISTICS FOR HR AND ASSESSMENTS (USHA)” ................................................ 50



2.11 INTEREST SUBSIDY SCHEME FOR HOUSING THE URBAN POOR (ISHUP) ................... 50

2.12 13TH CENTRAL FINANCE COMMISSION (CFC) ........................................................................ 51

2.13 NATIONAL MISSION ON SUSTAINABLE HABITAT .................................................................. 52

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 53

PROFILE OF BELGAUM CITY ................................................................................................................................ 53

3.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 53

3.2 LOCATION AND REGIONAL LINKAGES ........................................................................................ 53

3.3 CLIMATE ................................................................................................................................................... 53

3.4 TOPOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 54

3.5 BRIEF HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 54

3.6 DEMOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................................ 54

3.7 SLUMS AND SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS ..................................................................................... 59

3.8 EXISTING LANDUSE ............................................................................................................................. 64

3.9 MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE ............................................................................................................... 65

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 70

ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION – AN ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 70

4.1 SANITATION SITUATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 70

4.1.1 Household Sanitation ........................................................................................................................... 70

4.1.2 Slum Sanitation ...................................................................................................................................... 72

4.1.3 Open Defecation Areas ........................................................................................................................ 78

4.1.4 Community Toilets ................................................................................................................................ 79

4.1.5 Public Toilets ........................................................................................................................................... 81

4.1.6 School Sanitation ................................................................................................................................... 85

4.1.7 Septage Management ........................................................................................................................... 88

4.1.8 Standardized Service Level Indicators ......................................................................................... 89

4.1.9 Waste Water Projections .................................................................................................................... 90

4.2 STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM .................................................................................................. 91

4.2.1 Existing Drainage Network ............................................................................................................... 91

4.2.2 Coverage .................................................................................................................................................... 92

4.2.3 Outfalls ....................................................................................................................................................... 92

4.2.4 Existing Drainage Conditions ........................................................................................................... 92

4.2.5 Local Flooding Areas ............................................................................................................................ 92

4.2.6 Standardized Service Level Indicators ......................................................................................... 93

4.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 94

4.3.1 Primary collection and coverage .................................................................................................... 94



4.3.2 Street sweeping ...................................................................................................................................... 95

4.3.3 Waste generation, Segregation, quantity and characteristics ............................................. 96

4.3.4 Secondary Collection ............................................................................................................................ 96

4.3.5 Transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 96

4.3.6 Treatment & Disposal .......................................................................................................................... 97

4.3.7 Service level benchmarking indicators ........................................................................................ 98

4.3.8 Future demand and gap ...................................................................................................................... 99

4.4 WATER SUPPLY ........................................................................................................................................ 100

4.4.1 Source of water .................................................................................................................................... 100

4.4.2 Service coverage .................................................................................................................................. 101

4.4.3 Coverage and Supply .......................................................................................................................... 102

4.4.4 Standardized Service Level indicators ....................................................................................... 103

4.4.5 Future Demand and Gap ................................................................................................................... 103

4.4.6 New And Upcoming Project ............................................................................................................ 104

Chapter 5 ........................................................................................................................................... 107

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY AND FINANCE ................................................................................................. 107

5.1 MUNICIPAL FINANCE ............................................................................................................................. 107

Chapter 6 ........................................................................................................................................... 111

SANITATION SITUATION AND RANKING ..................................................................................................... 111

6.1 NATIONAL SANITATION RANKING PARAMETERS ................................................................... 111

Chapter 7 ........................................................................................................................................... 115

CITY-WIDE SANITATION ..................................................................................................................................... 115

7.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 115

7.2. VISION AND CITY- WIDE SANITATION PLANNING ................................................................... 115

7.2.1 Vision Statement .................................................................................................................................. 115

7.2.2 Principles Of Csp .................................................................................................................................. 116

7.2.3 Assumptions, Norms And Units Costs ......................................................................................... 118

7.2.4 Various Occurrence Of Issues Versus Consequences In Belgaum ................................... 119

7.3. SUBSECTOR STRATEGIES ..................................................................................................................... 121

7.3.1 Open Defecation Free Status By Ensuring Access To All (Including Poor And Slum

Dwellers As Well As Visiting Population). ............................................................................................... 121

7.3.2 Excreta Disposal And Waste Water Management .................................................................. 134

7.3.3 Improvement Of Integrated Solid Waste Management ....................................................... 145

7.3.4 Improvement Of Storm Water Management In Belgaum ................................................... 150

7.4. ENABLING AND SUSTAINING STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 151



7.4.1 Awareness Raising, Hygiene Promotion And Community Participation. .................... 151

7.4.2 Finacial Requirements And Financing Mechanisms ............................................................. 162

7.4.3 Institutional Arrangement And Responsibility ....................................................................... 167

7.5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 172

7.5.1 Monitoring And Review .................................................................................................................... 172

7.5.2 Launching Reward Scheme: ............................................................................................................ 173

7.5.3 Incentives And Disincentives By Mc/Nps ................................................................................. 174

GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................................... 175

ANNEXURE ......................................................................................................................................... 178

ANNEXURE1: TECHNOLOGY OPTION IN URBAN SANITATION ......................................................... 178

ANNEXURE 2: GOOD PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................... 183

ANNEXURE 3: REVIEWED POLICIES, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK AND

PROGRAMMES ......................................................................................................................................................... 186

ANNEXURE 4: BUILDING APPLICATION RECEIPT ................................................................................... 190

ANNEXURE 5: CSTF CONSTITUTION IN BELGAUM ................................................................................. 191

ANNEXURE 6: FIRST CSTF WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS, BELGAUM ................................................. 192

ANNEXURE 8: SECONDARY DATA FORMATS – PROFILING OF THE ULBS .................................... 195

ANNEXURE 9: PRIMARY DATA SURVEY FORMATS ................................................................................. 209

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:Broad framework of CSP ............................................................................................................................ 26

Table 2: Research techniques with the tasks identified ................................................................................ 27

Table 3: Surveys and sample numbers ................................................................................................................. 28

Table 4: Chronological details of activities concerning Belgaum CSP ..................................................... 30

Table 5: CSP Content self-assessment ................................................................................................................... 33

Table 6: Guide for self-assessment of CSP CONTENT ..................................................................................... 36

Table 7: CSP Process Self-Assessment .................................................................................................................. 37

Table 8: Guide for self-assessment of CSP PROCESS....................................................................................... 38

Table 9: City Colour Codes: Categories ................................................................................................................. 42

Table 10: Cities and City Color Codes .................................................................................................................... 42

Table 11: Schedule details of MSW rules, 2000 ................................................................................................ 43

Table 12: Future population projections using various methods ............................................................. 55

Table 13: Future population projections ............................................................................................................. 55

Table 14: Wardwise population distribution and growth potential ........................................................ 56



Table 15: Ward density and growth potential .................................................................................................. 57

Table 16f: Details of slum areas, CCB .................................................................................................................... 59

Table 17: Existing land use analysis of Belgaum – 2001 ............................................................................... 65

Table 18 Sanitation arrangement of Belgaum City Corporation ................................................................ 71

Table 19: Details of sanitation in slum areas, CCB .......................................................................................... 73

Table 20: Details of OD areas, CCB ......................................................................................................................... 78

Table 21 Details Of Community Toilets In Residential / Slum Areas ...................................................... 79

Table 22 Details of Public toilets and their usage pattern ............................................................................ 81

Table 23 ward wise Numbers And Percentage Of Floating Population .................................................. 84

Table 24: Type of govt. schools w.r.t categories ............................................................................................... 85

Table 25 Sludge/Septage Equipment And Mangement ................................................................................. 88

Table 26: Sewerage And Sanitation – Service Level Benchmarks, Belgaum City Corporation ..... 89

Table 27: Projections Of Waste Water .................................................................................................................. 90

Table 28 Details of the coverage of storm water drains,CCB ...................................................................... 92

Table 29 HHs in water logging areas, CCB .......................................................................................................... 92

Table 30: Storm Water Drainage System – Service Level Benchmarks, CCB ....................................... 93

Table 31: Road Category And Their Lengths ..................................................................................................... 95

Table 32 Details Of Vehicles Used For To Door To Door Waste Collection ........................................... 97

Table 33 : Solid Waste Management – Service Level Benchmarks,CCB .................................................. 98

Table 34: Projections For Solid Waste Generation In Future ...................................................................... 99

Table 35 Expenditure details of the well .......................................................................................................... 100

Table 36 Ward Wise Connection Details ........................................................................................................... 101

Table 37: Details of the coverage of the Water Supply System (2009) ................................................. 102

Table 38: Water Supply Services, CCB ................................................................................................................ 103

Table 39: Projections For Water Demand ......................................................................................................... 103

Table 40 Cost Details Of The Project ................................................................................................................... 104

Table 41 Ulb Wise Investment For Works (Amount In Rs. Crores) : ..................................................... 104

Table 42 Technical details of 24 / 7 Demo zones of Belgaum .................................................................. 105

Table 43 Raw water pumping details ................................................................................................................. 106

Table 44 Estimate For Revenue Receipts .......................................................................................................... 107

Table 45 Estimate For Revenue Payments ....................................................................................................... 108

Table 46 Estimates for Capital Receipts & Payments ................................................................................... 108

Table 47: Sanitation Ranking for Belgaum City Corporation .................................................................... 112

Table 48: Goals for City-wide Sanitation Planning, Belgaum .................................................................... 115

Table 49: Components of City Wide Sanitation Strategies ......................................................................... 117

Table 50: Norms for Household Sanitation ...................................................................................................... 118



Table 51: Indicative figures in Household Sanitation Arrangements over CSP Implementation

Period ............................................................................................................................................................................... 122

Table 52: Estimation of Proposed Pay and Use complex (Each unit) .................................................... 124

Table 53 Grouping of un-served wards w.r.t. public conveniences, CCB ............................................ 126

Table 54: Addressing access to various categories of uses ....................................................................... 130

Table 55: Management Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 131

Table 56: Intended benefits for the six technology systems. ................................................................... 135

Table 57: Waste water treatment options for Non UGD areas ................................................................. 135

Table 58: sustaining Starters for UGD ............................................................................................................... 136

Table 59: Degree of Treatment Needed for Land Application .................................................................. 139

Table 60: Cost of Construction of the Wastewater Treatment system ................................................. 141

Table 61:Cost of Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................. 142

Table 62: Land Requirement .................................................................................................................................. 142

Table 63: ISWM Action Plan ................................................................................................................................... 146

Table 64 IEC Plan 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 152

Table 65: IEC Plan 2 and Advocacy Plan for Environmental Sanitation .............................................. 154

Table 66: Methods and implementation of awareness activities ............................................................ 156

Table 67: Phase wise distribution of works .................................................................................................... 158

Table 68 Fund Convergence for CSP .................................................................................................................... 163

Table 69 Financial Requirements and Mechanisms...................................................................................... 165

Table 70: Comparison of Standards (issued by CPCB) with effluent values ....................................... 173

Table 71:Recommended sizes of septic tanks ................................................................................................. 179

Table 72: Reviewed Policies, Legal and Administrative Framework and Programmes ................ 186

Table 73: Functions of ULB...................................................................................................................................... 187

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: CSP Implementation Roadmap ............................................................................................................. 23

Figure 2: Process for CSP Data Assimilation ...................................................................................................... 28

Figure 3 Regional Linkages ....................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 4 Trends in population growth ................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 5: Organizational Structure, Belgaum City Corporation ................................................................. 67

Figure 6: Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets ................................................................... 71

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets ................................................................... 72

Figure 8: Functionality of toilets in govt. schools ............................................................................................. 86



Figure 9 % availability of toilets for girls & boys ............................................................................................. 86

Figure 10 water facility availability in schools .................................................................................................. 87

Figure 11 waste water disposal in schools ......................................................................................................... 87

Figure 12 Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t waste disposal ................................................................. 94

Figure 13 Satisfaction with waste collection system ...................................................................................... 95

Figure 14 Collection & generation of solid waste ............................................................................................ 96

Figure 15 Estimate for Revenue Receipts & Revenue Payments ............................................................. 109

Figure 16 Estimate of Capital Receipts & Payments ..................................................................................... 110

Figure 17: Components of CSP strategies .......................................................................................................... 120

Figure 18: Proposed institutional set-up for sanitation .............................................................................. 171

Figure 19: Receipt for building application for ULBs ................................................................................... 190

Figure 20 CSTF constitution notification letter .............................................................................................. 191

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Ward Densities and growth potential .................................................................................................... 58

Map 2 Notified & Non-notified slum location map, CCB ................................................................................ 64

Map 3: Identified Open Defecation Wards in CCB ............................................................................................ 78

Map 4: Location of community and public toilets ............................................................................................ 83

Map 5 proposed Locations for Public Toilets .................................................................................................. 126

LIST OF INFORMATION BOXES

Information Box 1: National Urban Sanitation Policy (Nusp) ..................................................................... 19

Information Box 2: Definitions Of Household Sanitation Arrangements According To Census

2001 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 71

Information Box 3: Guidelines Of Total Sanitation Campaign(Tsc) For School Sanitation............ 86

Information Box 4: Septic Tank Maintenance Norms .................................................................................... 89

Information Box 5: Sewerage And Sanitation – The Key Observations .................................................. 90

Information Box 6: Storm Water Drainage – The Key Observations ....................................................... 93

Information Box 7: Initiatives By The Government For Swm .................................................................... 98

Information Box 11: Solid Waste Management – The Key Observations ............................................... 99

Information Box 9: Water Supply System – The Key Observations ....................................................... 103

Information Box 10: Assumptions For City Sanitation Plan ...................................................................... 118

Information Box 11: Location Needs For Community/Public Toilets ................................................... 125



Information Box 12: Finance Options Models For Community Latrines .............................................. 127

Information Box 13: Proposed Scheme For Mechanical Aid For Cleaning Of Sewers And Septic

Tanks (Smacss) ............................................................................................................................................................. 166

Information Box 16: Tools To Measure 100% Sanitation Milestone Achievements ....................... 172

Information Box 15: The Condominial Sewerage System In Brazil ........................................................ 184



ABBREVIATIONS

ASCI Administrative Staff College of India

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BOT Buy-Own-Operate

BPL Below Poverty Line

BSUP Basic Services to the Urban Poor

CAA Constitution Amendment Act

CD&MA Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization

CSP City Sanitation Plan

CT Community Toilets

CTF City sanitation Task Force

DMA Directorate of Municipal Administration

DMHO District Medical Health Officer

DPR Detailed Project Report

ELSR Elevated Service Reservoir

FGD Focus Group Discussions

FY Financial Year

GIS Geographic Information System

GoK Government of Karnataka

GoI Government of India

HHs Households

HSC House Service Connections

IEC Information, Education, Communication

ILCS Integrated Low Cost Sanitation

JnNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

MAUD Municipal Administration and Urban Development

MSL Mean Sea Level

MSW Municipal Solid Waste

CCB City Corporation Belgaum

NRW Non Revenue Water

NUSP National Urban Sanitation Policy

ODF Open Defecation

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PHED Public Health and Engineering Department

PSP Public Stand Posts

RVM Rajiv Vidya Mission

RWA Residents Welfare Association

SI Sanitary Inspector

SLB Service Level Benchmarking

SJSRY Swarna Jayanti Shehri Rojgar Yojana

SSA Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan

SSHE School Sanitation and Hygiene Education

STP Sewage Treatment Plant



SWM Solid Waste Management

ULB Urban Local Body

UGD Under Ground Drainage

WC Water Closet

Units of Measure

lpcd litres per capita per day

m metre

MLD Million Litres per Day

MT Metric Tons

sq.m square metre

TPD Tonnes per Day



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents City Sanitation Plan (CSP) of Belgaum City Corporation. Belgaum is one

of the 8 cities whose CSPs have been prepared by ASCI in partnership with Directorate of

Municipal Administration (DMA), Government of Karnataka and City Managers’ Association,

Karnataka (CMAK)

The CSP process in Belgaum endeavors to identify the various areas that are affected by various

issues with different sectors of sanitation, (viz. sewerage, solid waste management, storm water

drainage and water supply) and also to provide guidance towards the solutions of the said

issues.

This has been made possible through an extensive participatory approach including field visits,

repeated discussions with various stakeholders, sample surveys, etc. Acquiring and assimilation

of varied secondary information also formed an important part of the process.

The plan preparation process was carried out using methodology requiring wide range of data

in various areas and population groups, to develop robust analysis and produce outputs. The

data collection included both primary and secondary sources and detail analysis of them.

The analysis in turn has paved the way for the preparation of the proposal for various strategies

to alleviate the sanitary conditions of the place, so that Belgaum may well overcome the various

plaguing issues and thereby a healthy sanitized environment prevails for the citizens.

The report has two major sections –

A. The Situational Analysis

B. The Sanitation Strategies.

The former section deals with depicting the city and its present status with regards to

sanitation. The aim is to highlight the existing conditions regarding access and coverage of

sanitary facilities, identify the gaps and striking issues, and understand the behavioral aspects of

various sections of the society. This section is covered from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5.

The latter section thereafter provides strategies and solutions to bridge the identified gaps,

mitigate the existing issues, and provide ways and means to aid the sustenance of the existing

and proposed strategies and projects. There have been presented in Chapter 6.


Chapter 1 gives an introduction to the CSP process, its background, and the objectives behind it.

This is followed by the step-by-step methodology of the CSP process, as well as the status of the

CSP for the particular city. The process of collection of baseline information – both primary and

secondary, has been explained at length. The chapter also presents a review of the policies &

programmes that are prevalent and followed in the state to improve the sanitation conditions in

the urban areas. It gives detailed insight into the NUSP and the sanitation ranking of cities, the

MSW 2000 rules, the ILCS projects, and other such projects which have been taken up for the

improvement of access and coverage of sanitary facilities.



Chapter 2 deals with the City Profile where the various aspects of the city are discussed in

order to get a fair idea about the city itself. Aspects such as location, regional linkages,

demography, economic, landuse and housing profiles, the urban governance, the slums and

squatter settlements are discussed in brief.

Chapter 3 forms the central focus of Section A – i.e. The Situational Analysis. The aim of the

chapter is to present a clear picture of the existing systems of sanitation in the city. It contains

four sectors – Sewerage and sanitation, Storm water system, Solid waste Management and the

Water supply system of the city. Within each sector, the gaps and issues in access and coverage

are identified, the problem areas are clearly demarcated, the performance of each of the sectors

is evaluated through Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) indicators, and projections are also

made for the future years.

Chapter 4 aims to evaluate the institutional capacity and the financial structure, to find out if

the ULB along with the associated organizations is able to cater to the sanitation needs of the

society, with regards to both adequate qualified personnel and adequate financial sources.

Chapter 5 presents the evaluation of the sanitation condition of Belgaum City Corporation on

the basis of the indicators and the scoring methodology used by MoUD for the sanitation

ranking of cities.

B. The Sanitation Strategies

The strategies are presented in Chapter 6. It provides the vision for the CSP and its goals, and

the basic guiding principles on which the strategies are based. Thereafter, strategies have been

provided to improve coverage and access to sanitation facilities, to implement effectively the

various proposals, and options and mechanisms for effectively financing the strategies and

proposals along with proper phasing



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Water is Life and Sanitation is Dignity.”

The above quote well impresses upon one the fact that sanitation is the most important aspect

for a healthy and dignified living.

Often sanitation is considered to be synonymous to solid waste management, especially in the

ULBs. To set right this flawed concept, sanitation ideally can be defined as safe management of

human excreta, including its safe confinement treatment, disposal and associated hygiene-

related practices. With increasing urbanization sanitation is becoming a severe problem in all

cities in our country.

Hence there arises a need for integrated solutions to take account of the various elements of

environmental sanitation, fecal management and disposal, solid waste management; generation

of industrial and other specialized / hazardous wastes; drainage; as also the management of

drinking water supply. This is the main aim and purpose behind the preparation of City

Sanitation Plans.

We take an opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who have helped and

supported us throughout the process which made the completion of the report possible.

Extensive and rigorous discussions with the APMDP and the ULB officials gave a well formed

shape to the effort. Hence, their help and co-operation is very much solicited for the success of

the CSP.

The City Sanitation Plan for the city of Belgaum looks forward to develop effective strategies for

safe disposal of solid and liquid waste generating throughout the city by suggesting

environment friendly low cost technical options for the same.

Prof. Srinivasa Chary Vedala

Dean & Director

Centre for Energy, Environment,Urban Governance & Infrastructure Development

(CEEUG&ID),

Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI)



CSTF MEMBERS

The City Sanitation Task Force (CSTF) plays a very important part in the formulation and

implementation of the CSP in a city. The importance of CSTF and their functions were clearly

portrayed to the authorities at DMA, CMAK and the officials from various ULBs at the State Level

Launch Workshop on 25th November, 2010. Based on the discussions from the workshop, the

ULBs formed the CSTF for their respective cities. The list of CSTF members went through quite a

number of revisions. The final list of CSTF members for Belgaum is as follows.



FOREWORD (by CSTF Chairperson)



ASCI TEAM MEMBERS

The team which has put forth dedicated efforts towards the completion of this CSP report,

consists of the following people.

Prof. Srinivasa Chary Vedala, Dean and Director, Centre for Energy, Environment, Urban

Governance & Infrastructure Development

Mrs. Vasavi Narla, Assistant Professor

Mr. Anil Kumar Palakodeti, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Lakshmy Poorna, Senior Research Associate

Ms. Uzra Sultana, Senior Research Associate

Ms Sneha Kesiraju, Senior Research Associate



Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND

The National Urban sanitation Policy launched during 2008 envisages “All Indian cities and

towns become totally sanitized, healthy and liveable and ensure and sustain good public health

and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special focus on hygienic and

affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.”

The overall goal of National policy is to transform Urban India into community-driven, totally

sanitized, healthy and liveable cities and towns. Specific goals include:

A. Awareness Generation and Behaviour Change,

B. Open Defecation Free Cities,

C. Integrated City-Wide Sanitation,

D. Sanitary and Safe Disposal, and

E. Proper Operation & Maintenance of all Sanitary Installations.

Against this background, and in recognition of its importance to national and state development,

the Integrated City-Wide Sanitation Plan for Belgaum City is prepared to provide city-wide

systematic approach and framework to achieve the goals contemplated under NUSP.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF CITY-WIDE SANITATION PLAN

The City Sanitation Plan (CSP) is aimed at developing and maintaining a clean, safe and pleasant

physical environment in Belgaum city to promote social, economic and physical well-being of all

sections of the population. It encompasses plan of action for achieving 100% sanitation in the

city of Belgaum through demand generation and awareness campaign, sustainable technology

selection, construction and maintenance of sanitary infrastructure, provision of services, O&M

issues, institutional roles and responsibilities, public education, community and individual

action, regulation and legislation.

The principal components of city-wide approach include:

(a) Collection and sanitary disposal of wastes, including solid wastes, liquid wastes, excreta,

industrial wastes, clinical and other hazardous wastes;

(b) Storm water drainage;

(c) Cleansing of thoroughfares, markets and other public spaces;

(d) Environmental sanitation education;

(e) Inspection and enforcement of sanitary regulations;

(f) Monitoring the observance of environmental standards.



INFORMATION BOX 1: NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY (NUSP)

The Vision of the NUSP is:

All Indian cities and towns become totally sanitized, healthy and livable; and ensure and sustain

good public health and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special focus on

hygienic and affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.

To transform Urban India into community-driven, totally sanitized, healthy and livable cities

and towns, the policy sets out the following goals:

A AWARENESS GENERATION AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

B OPEN DEFECATION FREE CITIES

C INTEGRATED CITY-WIDE SANITATION

1. Re-orienting Institutions and Mainstreaming Sanitation

2. Sanitary and safe disposal: 100% of human excreta and liquid wastes must be disposed of

safely

3. Proper Operations and maintenance (O&M) of all sanitary installations

The policy envisages the preparation of State Sanitation Strategies within the overall National

Policy framework. In turn, cities are expected to prepare their city-wide sanitation plans that

need to be prepared in a consultative and participatory manner, and using an incremental

approach to addressing the issue of sanitation in a comprehensive city-wide manner.

Source: NUSP, 2008.

1.3 CONTEXT

Karnataka has been declared as third most urbanized state in India due to rapid economic

growth and urban population increase witnessed in the last two decades. As per 2001 census,

34% of the state population lives in urban areas. Urban Local Bodies are responsible to maintain

water and sanitation services, once the infrastructure is created and handed over by Karnataka

Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWS&DB). In the state, 36 ULBs are provided with

partial underground drainage facilities, covering 24% of the urban population. Others rely on

soak pits, septic tanks and community latrines. In few ULBs, low cost sanitation technology like

DEWATS, eco-sanitation etc. is being explored as pilot project.

As per 2001 census, only 25% of urban households do not have access to toilets while the

remaining 75% of households have accessibility to various types of latrines. About 42 and 39

percent of households have access to closed and open drainage system respectively.

The state needs to renew its focus towards this problem and hence there is dire need for proper

planning, management and execution of sanitation related activities at ULB levels with the

active involvement of stakeholders. In view of the different institutional structure and different



sets of issues involved in the delivery of the services in urban areas, the need for a separate

policy statement for sanitation sector is felt.

In spite of various programmes implemented by the State Government and the Urban Local

Bodies (ULBs) the problem of urban sanitation has not been resolved yet. Therefore, the State

Government, as a decisive step to resolve the problems pertaining to Urban Sanitation, has

initiated the Karnataka State Urban Sanitation Policy (KSUSP) and City Sanitation Plans in

consonance with the NUSP. CSPs are envisaged to be prepared in a consultative manner for

enhancing ownership among stakeholders in the city. The cities selected for the aforesaid

purpose are as follows:

Bellary

BELGAUM

Gulbarga

Hubli-Dharwad

Mangalore

Mysore

Shimoga

Tumkur

Most of these towns also embarked on implementing Under Ground Drainage (UGD) system

with huge capital investments while accessing projects under different schemes. At this juncture

GoK felt the need to review sanitation situation, problems and opportunities to improve

sanitation in these cities/ towns particularly and in the state. This will mandate and guide State

and all ULBs to plan for delivering sanitary outcomes.



1.4 CITY SANITATION PLANNING IN BELGAUM

CSP tries to detail out how the city plan is to deliver the sanitary outcomes defined in NUSP and

state strategy, in coordination with other line departments to ensure a well collaborated

approach engaging all stakeholders including governmental and nongovernmental service

providers. The scope of CSPs broadly encompass following major tasks:

A. COLLECTION OF SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data collection and review of available data from various sources as per demands of

CSP (the officials of City Corporations, Water Boards, or any other parastatal agencies).

B. PREPARATORY WORK (PROFILING OF ULB AND PREPARING CITY REPORT)

As a preparatory work, a preliminary profiling of ULBs will be undertaken using SLB indicators

and City Ratings to highlight the open defecation free (ODF) status, sanitation situation, health

indicators and current projects. This will also guide further investigation through field visits

and primary data collection.

C. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND CITY SANITATION TASK FORCE (CSTF)

CONSTITUTION

As per the requirement of CSP, major role is to be played by the members of institutions,

organizations, individuals, NGOs, academics, journals, local councilors, industry owners,

consultants, representatives of private sector, etc. Constitution of CSTF was facilitated by

drawing members from these groups in consensus with ULBs who will be constantly

supporting the CSP preparation by analyzing the strengths and competencies required to

overcome the current situation and for better sanitation facilities.

D. PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING

Data collection to a limited extent through rapid field surveys, case studies, consultations,

transacts walks, FGDs, etc. to validate and supplement the secondary data(obtained in step 4.1)

The data will be collected as per formats/templates and questionnaires after brief orientation

to the stakeholders. Random stratified sampling in typical cases (slums, schools, wards

commercial places, public latrines, surface drains, solid waste arrangements, industries, health

and educational Institutions etc.) evenly distributed all over the town to cover all

representative types of situations.

E. REVIEW/STUDY OF THE CURRENT PRACTICES

This includes a review of sector strategies in water, sanitation and solid waste management at

state and city level. DPRs prepared on these sectors will be studied in detail and analysed. Also

regional and state urban strategies to know the dynamics of urbanisation pattern will be

looked in to.

F. CONDITION ASSESSMENT

Choices of toilet in the city and their effectiveness along with pictures on super structure,

below ground, design models and materials used for different uses like residential, industries,

public spaces and new areas. Field tests facilitation (soil percolation, waste water effluents,

water bodies’ contamination) in critical points in drains, ground water after a reconnaissance

survey which would also assist in gauging the situation where the information is not adequate.



G. WARD PROFILING AS PER CITY SANITATION RANKING PARAMETERS

City as a number of spatial units will look at indicators pertaining to the practice of open

defecation, access to sanitation (individual, community and public), collection, treatment and

disposal of solid and liquid wastes, proper upkeep and maintenance of the sanitation

infrastructure, clear institutional roles and responsibilities and improvements in health and

environment as per the “City Sanitation Rating”.

H. COMMUNICATION GAP AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT

IEC needs assessment will be carried out and broad communication strategy will be developed

in consultation with the ULB officials and other stakeholders.

I. DEVELOPING A SITUATION ANALYSIS REPORT

The situation analysis, prepared by taking into consideration the ground realities, local

conditions, and assessment of the present sanitation situation. It will include inputs from all

the above activities with the details of existing household sanitation arrangements, public

sanitary conveniences, wastewater disposal, solid waste management and water supply. The

report will also include an analysis of the ULB legal framework and byelaws, financial analysis

of the ULB, data on key public and environmental health, user charges, willingness to pay, etc.

J. FORMULATION OF VISION

This involves understanding the major aspirations with respect to urban development in the

State through consultations and building an overarching vision that may be appropriate to the

articulations. This involves following;

Secondary information, data analysis and report review

Brainstorming with key stakeholders and focus groups

Understanding visions of concerned sectors and other constituents e.g., cities and

development agencies and concerned authorities.

K. DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGY

This involves understanding the major issues of the sector, major priorities laid down and an

assessment of how the current arrangements are working with respect to urban development

in the city. Also, the key strengths, major weaknesses, potential opportunities as well as likely

threats would also be analysed to move towards the identification of the action

areas/intervention areas that form the strategy development. This involves:

Completion of information analysis, even with quick estimates, and review of

current policies and priorities

Consultations with key stakeholders/ focus groups concerning

Detailed discussion with departments/ agencies/ cities/ authorities

L. PREPARATION OF DRAFT CSP

Finalization of CSP along with recommendations based on the situation and solutions for

making city open defecation free and totally sanitized, public toilet and community toilets

models and operational models; proto - type design recommendation for all typical situations,

waste disposal mechanisms, starters for sewerage layouts and estimation of requirement in

terms of capacities, quantity and finances.



M. PREPARATION OF IMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAP

This involves identifying and documenting interventions for the improvement of sanitation.

The cost estimates of such interventions (only ball park figures); the institutional responsibility

as well as broad timelines for implementation will be indicated in the CSP.

Figure 1: CSP Implementation Roadmap



1.5 PROCESS, DETAILED STEPS AND LIMITATIONS

The process detailed below for planning urban sanitation and wastewater management

improvements offers a step-by-step guide for:

As a preparatory work, a preliminary profiling of ULBs using SLB indicators and City Ratings to

highlight the ODF status, sanitation situation, health indicators and current projects was

undertaken.

Residents, establishments and ULB officials. Resident includes all those living within city can be

classified as HIG, MIG, LIG and slum dwellers. In smaller towns a division into higher income

group, middle class and Slum dweller could be sufficient. Shop keepers and commercial

establishments constitute a separate group especially for generation of market waste.

Opinion leaders to be targeted as a high influence group both for FGDs and implementation of

Communications strategies.

•Profiling Of City •Stakeholders Analysis

Step 1 Preparatory Works

•Ulb’s, Water Boards, DUDA, Ngo’s etc Step2 Stakeholder Analysis

•Oranizing •Sensitization/Orientation •Workshop

Step 3 Sensitization/Orientation

•City sanitation task Force •Core Team - Technical

Step 4 Constituting Teams

•Social marketing approaches

•IEC training activities(ULB's, NGO's, volunteers, health institution etc)

Step 5 Initiating IEC activites

•Mapping current status •Identify Gaps

Step 6 Situation Analysis and Mapping current status

•Identifying stress zones •Assessment Of Options

Step 7 Problem Analysis

•Planning For Solutions •Selecting Options, New Facilities , Behavior Change

Step 8 Developing And Consolidating CSP

•Short, Medium & Long Term Goals/Measures To Achieve City Sanitation

Step 9 Formulation Of Action Plans

•Final Stakeholder Workshop Step 10 Finalization Of CSP

Step1: Preparatory works

Step 2: Stakeholder Analysis



Key officials-Commissioners, sanitation inspectors, medical/health officers,

Councilors, Community elders,

City media: newspapers reporters,

RWA office bearers,

NGOs,

Safaikaramcharies union office bearers,

Heads of Commercial establishments and shopkeepers, including public places such as bus

stands

Slum residents

Residents from neighborhoods

School teachers, employees

School children

2. Parameters: three key parameters

Environmental Sanitation SWM: market waste, domestic waste, waste segregation at

source and at collection point, waste disposal measures

ODF: public toilets, individual latrines, toilet maintenance, disposal of human waste,

UGS: awareness, user charges,

Issues on these parameters as explored in primary data will create a basis for topics to

be raised in FDGs

With this background knowledge, a City level orientation workshop at city level involving

identified stakeholders was organised on January 24, 2011. Ms. Uzra Sultana & Ms. Krithika

Sridharan represented the team from ASCI. It was attended by the Commissioner, other ULB

officials from other departments, and the various concerned stakeholders. The purpose of the

workshop was to highlight the need to engage with issues relating to access and arrangement

especially in slums; awareness generation for changed behaviour and practices; community

participation and mobilization to accord sanitation priority at all levels from policy to action on

ground; and a number of technical, institutional and financial issues to be addressed in CSP and

its various steps of preparation.

Welcome speech by Sri. N.B. Nirwani, Mayor, Belgaum

(Extreme left) and Sri. S.G. Patil, Commissioner City

Corporation, Belgaum

Group Activity

Step 3: Sensitization / Orientation Workshop



a. City sanitation Task Force (CTF)

The first step in making the cities 100% sanitized is to elevate the consciousness about

sanitation in the mind of municipal agencies, government agencies and most importantly,

amongst the people of the city. For this purpose, CSTF has to be constituted in the ULB and it has

to organize a multi-stakeholder, multi-party meeting in the preparatory stage, and take a formal

resolution to make the city 100% sanitized. CSTF has been constituted in Belgaum City

Corporation.

The roles and responsibilities of CSTF include:

• Launching the City 100% Sanitation Campaign

• Generating awareness

• Approving materials and progress reports

• Approving the City Sanitation Plan

• Providing overall guidance

• Fixing of responsibilities on a permanent basis.

The objective of well driven IEC has to be demand-driven with social marketing approaches to

increase demand for toilets and ensure hygiene behaviours, promote no subsidies for household

toilets in future and encourage diversity in technology and design. For this purpose ULBs may

utilise suitable player for inter-personal IEC and training from the existing system like; ward

development committees, health institutions, schools, National Service Scheme (NSC)

Volunteers, the private sector (retailers, contractors, suppliers, plumbers, masons),

neighbourhood committees and NGOs, Angan Wadi workers.

The Situation Analysis, prepared by taking into consideration the ground realities, local

conditions, and assessment of the present sanitation situation has been undertaken and broad

framework is indicated below:

Table 1:Broad framework of CSP

Sectors Spatial units Finances Institutional

Service levels and

benchmarks for:

Solid Waste Management

Water Supply Storm Water

Household Sanitation Slums Public Sanitary

Conveniences School Sanitation Institutional

Sanitation Map

Cost Recovery–Policy–Tariffs–Collections–

Budget Transfers.

PPPs. Study of current

Institutional Arrangement – Policies, Plans, implementation, management.

Staffing, Organization &

Step 4: Constituting: City Sanitation Task Force

Core Team – Technical

Step 5: Initiating IEC activities

Step 6: Situation Analysis and Mapping Current Status



Drainage Health Situation –

Statistics and Anecdotal

Comment

Environmental Situation

– Local and Downstream

and Groundwater.

spatially Any town specific

areas.

programmes (SJSRY, ILCS, etc

Competence

Tools Used: Data Templates, Survey Formats, Transect Walks along with schedules of

interviews (Slums, industrial areas, water bodies), FGDs (3-4 nos), Technical Analysis,

Impact, Indicators, Stakeholder Consultations at city level ( 2-3) etc.

Table 2: Research techniques with the tasks identified

Number Tasks Research Tools

1

To assess the current social and

environmental issues in Urban

Belgaum

Literature review Baseline survey Case studies Consultations/FGDs

2

To assess the policies, acts,

operational procedures to address,

mitigate and manage the social and

environmental issues in sanitation.

Literature review Survey FGDs Case studies Discussions Stakeholder consultations

3

To assess the people’s perception on

sanitation, its maintenance and

investment (Analysis of data)

Literature review Secondary information review Case studies Analysis of Rapid survey data FGDs Stakeholder Consultations

4

To assess and recommend on the

existing institutional arrangements

in the urban sector in managing and

mitigating social and environmental

issues.

Literature review Stakeholder Consultations FGDs Survey data analysis

5

To evolve a social and

environmental framework to

mitigate adverse/negative impacts.

Literature review Stakeholder consultations



Process followed for data assimilation:

Figure 2: Process for CSP Data Assimilation

Sample survey results for the basic services

Purpose: The objective of conducting the sample field survey was to assess the services at the

customer level / field level and validate the information given by the officials.

Methodology: A total of 2935 samples were taken across the different parts of the city to

validate the information. Out of the total samples, 2813 samples were household surveys. The

detail of survey samples is as follows.

Areas covered: The survey took spatially from all parts of the city, but the main focus was given

to the following areas.

Table 3: Surveys and sample numbers

Sl.

No.

Type of surveys Sample nos.

1 HH surveys 2813(Non-slums: 98,

Slums:2715,

2 Community toilets 47

3 Public toilets 5

4 Commercial places 30

5 Schools 40



Public toilet, Belgaum

Visit to SWM site

Field visits

Followed by situational analysis problem and challenges have been identified in coverage ,

access, treatment and disposal ,institutional , financial ,social and cultural aspects and capacity

concerns. Also reviewed comprehensive range of sanitation and wastewater management

options, including industrial and municipal sewerage, sewage treatment , conventional and low

cost, centralized and decentralized sewerage, separate and combined and effluent disposal

options, on-site sanitation options, separate programs for schools, public toilets, sanitation in

slums, community-based NGO-supported programs etc.

Purpose of options analysis is to identify plausible technical, financial and institutional

solutions and will consider (i) unit cost per beneficiary, (ii) maximizing both human and

environmental benefits, (iii) sustainability, (iv) a long term plan, (v) government policy

including land use zoning, (vi) piloting new approaches, (vii) beneficiary participation, (viii)

wastewater as a resource, (ix) lessons learned from the past and (x) political commitment.

Having completed above steps, CSP has been formulated to articulate Sanitation Goals, specific

quantifications both in terms of technical, capacities and financials based on stakeholder

consultations and the analysis of choices made depending on costs of capital investments,

operation and maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation.

Project priorities for sanitation need to consider:

Step 7: Problem Analysis and Assessment of Options

Step 8: Developing and finalization of CSP



i. Serving the Unserved Urban Poor

ii. Serving the Unserved Schools

iii. Serving the Unserved Public Areas

iv. Institutional capacity building for sustainability and environmental monitoring

v. Grant elements for demonstration pilot projects for eco-sanitation (private

vi. developers)

vii. Rehabilitation of existing facilities.

viii. Improvement of existing sanitation (septic tank sludge and effluent treatment).

ix. Extension of existing sewerage and sewage treatment (as a last priority).

ACTIVITY UPDATE ON BELGAUM CSP

Table 4: Chronological details of activities concerning Belgaum CSP

Progress made Activity

1. State launch workshop

held at Bangalore on 25th

November 2010

The launch was aimed to sensitize

elected representatives and

administrative functionaries on

National Urban Sanitation Policy

and City Sanitation Plan. Honorable

Minister for Urban Development,

Government of Karnataka had

participated in the workshop and

delivered key note address. Launch workshop, Bangalore

2. State level technical

workshop

held at office of

Directorate of Municipal

Administration,

Government of

Karnataka on 7th

January 2011

The objective of the state level

technical workshop was focused on

sharing the understanding on the

CSP and its importance to the ULBs.

It was primarily focused on the

present status of solid waste

management practices, sewerage

system, water supply, toilet facilities

in the city. It was also focused on the

methodology for the preparation on

CSP.

Participants at technical

orientation workshop at DMA,

GoK

3. CSTF orientation

workshop

held at Conference Hall

of City Corporation,

Belgaum on January 24,

2011

The workshop was intended to

introduce the CSTF members the

need for the constitution of CSTF

and their role in the preparation of

City Sanitation Plan. This was

followed by the group activity

among the CSTF members to seek

their views on the problems and

solutions in regard to the sanitation

in the city.

Participants at the 2nd round

CSTF meeting



4. Preparation of Inception

Report

Submitted to DMA, GoK

in March 2011

An Inception Report was prepared

with the progress made until the

submission of the same. In included

the mention of the activities since

the State launch workshop till the

first workshop with the CSTF

members of the cities under

preparation of CSP. Also, illustrated

the way forward approach for the

CSP.

Coverpage of the Inception

Report

5. 2nd round of CSTF

meeting held at the

Conference Hall of City

Corporation, Belgaum

The 2nd round meeting was intended

to share the progress made along

with the clarification and

understating of the data to be

validated. It covered the

methodology adopted for the

primary survey, focused group

discussions, situation analysis, etc.,

and the workable suggestions from

CSTF members were taken into

consideration while following the

methodology and drafting CSP.

Participants at the 2nd round

CSTF meeting

6. Collection and review of

secondary data/reports

/documents

A review of reports or supporting

documents available with City

Corporation was done for

understanding of the existing status

and proposed infrastructure of the

city.

7. Preparation of GIS layers

with the available base

maps

The GIS base maps were collected

from the Karnataka Municipal

Reforms Cell, Directorate of

Municipal Administration,

Government of Karnataka. The maps

were used to locate the problematic

areas like open defecation, flood

prone areas, community toilets, etc.

8. Primary survey The primary survey was done to

understand the current situation of

sanitation and verify the secondary

information collected. The primary

survey has given an understanding

of areas of open defecation, flood

prone areas, water deficient areas,

UGD missing lines, etc. in preparing

the CSP.

9. Focused group

discussions

Conducting FGDs have provided to

identify problems at the source. 6



FGDs have been conducted in slum

areas, market, residential areas and

slaughter house. The FGDs have

given an understanding to prepare

the situation assessment of the city’s

infrastructure for CSP.

10. Draft City Sanitation Plan Comprises basic city profile,

demographic details, SWM, water

supply, waste water treatment,

sewerage network in the city,

situation assessment, demand

supply gap assessment, municipal

responsibilities, financial

assessment, etc. The integration of

the available information along with

the outcome of primary survey and

FGDs has been used to prepare the

draft CSP.



1.6 VERIFICATION OF MOUD CHECKLIST

The MoUD has prepared a common checklist for the preparation of CSPs by various

organizations for cities in various parts of India. This Checklist will help cities assess the quality

of the draft version of the CSP. The indicators in the Checklist are drawn to measure whether

the key dimensions of sanitation are addressed in the contents; and ensure that the process

followed in the preparation of the CSP was consultative and has full ownership of the city

stakeholders. This is a self-assessment and needs to be done in-house by the ULB. The results

should indicate the gaps in contents and process that need to be remedied – and thereby ensure

that CSP is ready for submission, and presentation as one of the model CSPs prepared for

implementation under the NUSP.

An attempt has been made by the ASCI team to prepare the CSP under the guidelines of the

MoUD checklist. The Checklist is in two parts: CONTENT and PROCESS. In the city self-

assessment, please fill in YES or NO in the relevant column, and provide remarks in the column.

A. Content Self-Assessment

Table 5: CSP Content self-assessment

No. Item Yes/No Remarks/Status

I

Baseline Data Collection & Situational Analysis in

terms of identification of short term or mid – term

or long term measures

1)

Has the city carried out a baseline data collection

(secondary and primary) and Situation Analysis of

different aspects of sanitation viz:

(Score

overall “Yes”

if at least

nine

indicators

below score

“Yes”, else

“No”)

i. Access to household level sanitation arrangements

in general residential and slum areas Yes

ii. Community and Public Toilets – location and

status Yes

iii.Safe collection and conveyance of human excreta

(on-site and sewerage) – infrastructure and

management (including status of de-sludging

services)

Yes

iv. Treatment and safe disposal of human excreta Yes

v. Solid waste collection, transport and safe disposal Yes

vi. Drainage and flooding Yes



vii. Drinking water quantity, quality and coverage Yes

viii. Institutional arrangements and finances for

capital creation and O&M

management of environmental services

(water, sanitation, solid waste, drainage)

No

Information on

institutional

arrangements not

available for

sanitation, water and

drainage.

Information on

finances and O&M not

available for any

sector.

ix. Current population and socio-economic

categories; and projections by different categories Partial

Projections of

different categories

not done

x. Arrangements and practices of commercial, public

and other institutions in respect of sanitation and

solid wastes

Yes

xi. Maps and physical features of settlements

(wards, slums, etc.) and key city infrastructure

(water, sewerage, drainage, roads, treatment plants,

water and sewage pumping stations, etc.)

Yes

xii. Data on health-related indicators of sanitation

and water supply No

xiii. Other important and locally relevant details

(specify) Yes

2) Has the draft CSP identified specific data gaps and

developed a plan for detailed data collection? Yes

II Institutional Roles and Issues

3)

Has the city identified an institutional home/s for

sanitation planning, implementation, monitoring

and regulation?

Yes

4) Has the draft CSP proposed specific actions to

resolve institutional gaps and overlaps for:

(Score

overall “Yes”

if at least

five

indicators

below score

“Yes”, else

“No”)

a. Planning and financing Yes

b. Creation of physical infrastructure Yes



c. O&M Management Yes

d. Training and Capacity Building Yes

e. Monitoring of Outcomes Yes

f. Communications Yes

g. Regulation Yes

III City-wide Sanitation Campaign

5) Does the draft CSP contain a plan for the launch of a

100% Sanitation Campaign in the city? Yes

IV Technology Options and City-wide design

6)

Has draft CSP detailed and evaluated different

technology options (on or off-site as well for

collection, transport and safe disposal – i.e. full-

cycle) for sanitation?

Yes

7)

Do the proposed sanitation interventions

(rehabilitation, retrofitting or new investments)

consider the whole city? (not just a part thereof)

Yes

V Urban Poor and Unreached

8)

Has the draft CSP identified the locations or

settlements of the urban poor and other unreached

population segments with have no or limited access

to sanitation?

Yes

9)

Does the draft CSP identify actions for assisting

unreached/poor households with individual,

community or public sanitation facilities (in that

order); and efficient disposal from these facilities?

Yes

10)

Has the draft CSP identified or

proposed sources of financing the CSP

(schemes, grants, loans, etc.) for extending access to

sanitation and related behavior change

communication activities?

No

VI Financing and O&M management

11)

Does the draft CSP consider an appropriate time-

frame and spatial and demographic dimensions to

remain relevant (at least for the 12th Five Year Plan

period, even if investment numbers are indicative

or work-in-process)?

Yes

12) Were the different sanitation options

(hardware plus software) evaluated on the basis of Partial Cost benefit analysis



financial viability? (i.e.

Cost Benefit Analysis done)

not done

13)

Whether O&M implications of each of the

investment options evaluated i.e. implications on

tariff increases and willingness to pay for services;

personnel number and capacities etc.?

Yes

14)

Has the draft CSP considered options

for partnering with private sector,

NGOs etc. for implementation or O&M management

of sanitation facilities?

Yes

VII Expedient and Other Actions

15)

Has the draft CSP identified the steps for

implementing improved enforcement of existing

laws and provisions? (e.g. prohibiting hazardous

discharge of untreated sewage, scrutiny

about sanitation arrangements before

issue of building permits)

Yes

16)

Have gaps and overlaps in existing regulations

identified for resolution?

(e.g. provisions in development regulations or

building bye-laws to promote sanitation including

safe disposal)

Yes

17) Does the draft CSP have a plan for improving

septage management? Yes

18) Whether the draft CSP includes an

Implementation Plan and Timeline? Yes

19) Whether the draft CSP has a disaster preparedness

component? Yes

20)

Whether the draft CSP identifies Short

term/Medium Term/Long Term Measures to

achieve identified outcomes?

Yes

21

Does this draft CSP leads to improvement of service

levels with respect of SLB related to MSW/Storm

Water Drainage/Solid Waste Management?

Yes

22) Outline of expected improvements on rating as per

NUSP? Yes

Table 6: Guide for self-assessment of CSP CONTENT

Minimum required score Acquired score

Please ensure that the draft CSP scores:

At least one “yes” in each of the 7 sections in the table And

An overall minimum score of 12 “yes” in the total of 18 indicators.

A total of 21 “yes” out of 22

indicators scored



B. Process Self-Assessment

Table 7: CSP Process Self-Assessment

No Item Yes/No Remarks

I Stakeholder Participation

1) A multi-stakeholder City Sanitation Task Force has been formed and has met at least sufficient consultations have been held?

Yes

2) All agencies working in the City (ULB, State Government, NGOs, private sector involved in planning, implementation, management or regulation of environmental services (water, sanitation, solid waste, drainage), representatives of different community groups, and key waste-generating segments have been consulted in the process of preparation of the draft CSP?

Yes

3) Number of Area Sabhas/Mohallas/RWA’s etc. consulted? Yes

4) Whether sufficient consultations have been held with urban poor groups in the city? Indicate the number.

Yes

II Ownership of the Draft CSP

5)

Has the draft CSP gone through an appropriate process of "appraisal" or "agreement" at the ULB and the City Sanitation Task Force?

Yes

6)

Is the draft CSP aligned to other plans of the city (CDP, Master-plan, Development Plan, etc.) and differences if any, highlighted for resolution in the CSP?

Yes

7) Are there are any current or pending/ proposed projects (under various schemes) that are in conflict with the recommendations and decisions in the CSP? Have these been highlighted for resolution?

Yes

III Communications

8)

Has the CSP process formally recognized the importance of communicating with stakeholders, right from the beginning of the process, and drawn up as a Communications Plan?

Yes

9) Have the basic steps of the communication plan started being implemented?

No

10 Level of awareness in the city about CSP (Indicate Yes/No)?



IV Links with Related Exercises

11) If the city is participating in the Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) exercise, have the relevant indicators been measured and uniformity ensured between that and the CSP?

Yes

Table 8: Guide for self-assessment of CSP PROCESS

Minimum Required Score Acquired score

Please ensure that the draft CSP scores:

At least two “yes” in sections i and ii, and At least one “yes” in sections iii and iv in the table.

A total of 7 “yes” in sections i and ii

A total of 2 “yes” in sections iii and

iv

1.7 CHAPTER PLAN

This section intends to present a brief overview of the CSP report, giving an idea of the content

and the purpose of the various chapters. The report has two major sections –


B. The Sanitation Strategies.

The former section deals with depicting the city and its present status with regards to

sanitation. The aim is to highlight the existing conditions regarding access and coverage of

sanitary facilities, identify the gaps and striking issues, and understand the behavioral aspects of

various sections of the society. This section is covered from Chapter 1 to Chapter 5.

The latter section thereafter provides strategies and solutions to bridge the identified gaps,

mitigate the existing issues, and provide ways and means to aid the sustenance of the existing

and proposed strategies and projects. There have been presented in Chapter 6.

C. The Situational Analysis

Chapter 1 gives an introduction to the CSP process, its background, and the objectives behind it.

This is followed by the step-by-step methodology of the CSP process, as well as the status of the

CSP for the particular city. The process of collection of baseline information – both primary and

secondary, has been explained at length. The CSP process at Belgaum has then been evaluated

on the basis of the CSP checklist as prepared by MoUD, GoI.

Chapter 2 presents a review of the policies & programmes that are prevalent and followed in

the state to improve the sanitation conditions in the urban areas. It gives detailed insight into

the NUSP and the sanitation ranking of cities, the MSW 2000 rules, the ILCS projects, and other

such projects which have been taken up for the improvement of access and coverage of sanitary

facilities.



Chapter 3 deals with the City Profile where the various aspects of the city are discussed in

order to get a fair idea about the city itself. Aspects such as location, regional linkages,

demography, economic, landuse and housing profiles, the urban governance, the slums and

squatter settlements are discussed in brief.

Chapter 4 forms the central focus of Section A – i.e. The Situational Analysis. The aim of the

chapter is to present a clear picture of the existing systems of sanitation in the city. It contains

four sectors – Sewerage and sanitation, Storm water system, Solid waste Management and the

Water supply system of the city. Within each sector, the gaps and issues in access and coverage

are identified, the problem areas are clearly demarcated, the performance of each of the sectors

is evaluated through Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) indicators, and projections are also

made for the future years.

Chapter 5 aims to evaluate the institutional capacity and the financial structure, to find out if

the ULB along with the associated organizations is able to cater to the sanitation needs of the

society, with regards to both adequate qualified personnel and adequate financial sources.

D. The Situational Analysis

The strategies are presented in Chapter 6. It provides the vision for the CSP and its goals, and

the basic guiding principles on which the strategies are based. Thereafter, strategies have been

provided to improve coverage and access to sanitation facilities, to implement effectively the

various proposals, and options and mechanisms for effectively financing the strategies and

proposals along with proper phasing



Chapter 2

State Urban Sanitation Policies & Programmes – A review

2.1 NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY (NUSP)

2.1.1. NUSP – THE BACKGROUND

“All Indian cities and towns become totally sanitized, healthy and liveable and ensure and

sustain good public health and environmental outcomes for all their citizens with a special

focus on hygienic and affordable sanitation facilities for the urban poor and women.”

Keeping this vision in view, the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) has been formulated by

the Government of India in 2008 with a vision to provide appropriate sanitation facilities in all

cities and towns, through policy, institutional, technical and financial interventions. Some of the

areas to address under NUSP include open defecation free towns, providing access to toilets for

poor people, waste water and solid waste treatment and disposal and achieving public health

outcomes and environmental standards.

2.1.2. COMPONENTS OF NATIONAL URBAN SANITATION POLICY

Govt. of India shall support the following components:

Awareness Generation

Institutional Roles

Reaching the Un-Served and Poor Households

Knowledge Development

Capacity Building

Financing

National Monitoring & Evaluation

Coordination at the National Level

2.1.3. NATIONAL AWARD SCHEME FOR SANITATION FOR INDIAN CITIES

Goal

In order to rapidly promote sanitation in urban areas of the country (as provided for in the

National Urban Sanitation Policy and Goals 2008), and to recognize excellent performance in

this area, the Government of India intends to institute an annual award scheme for cities. The

award is based on the premise that improved public health and environmental standards are

the two outcomes that cities must seek to ensure for urban citizens. In doing so, governments in

states and urban areas will need to plan and implement holistic city-wide sanitation plans,

thereby put in place processes that help reach outputs pertaining to safe collection, disposal and

disposal (including conveyance, treatment, and/ or re-use without adverse impacts on the

environment in and around the cities). It may be noted that the awards will not recognize mere

inputs, hardware or expenditure incurred in urban sanitation but assess how these lead to



achievements of intermediate milestones toward the final result of 100 % safe disposal of

wastes from the city on a sustainable basis. Cities will need to raise the awareness of city

stakeholders (households, establishments, industries, municipal functionaries, media, etc.) since

improved sanitation can ensure improved public health and environmental outcomes only if

considerable changes in behaviour and practice take place across the spectrum of society.

Concept of Totally Sanitized Cities

A totally Sanitized City will be one that has achieved the outputs or milestones specified in the

National Urban Sanitation policy, the salient features of which are as follows:

Cities must be open defecation free

Must eliminate the practice of manual scavenging and provide adequate personnel

protection equipment that addresses the safety of sanitation workers.

Municipal wastewater and storm water drainage must be safely managed

Recycle and reuse of treated wastewater for non potable applications should be

implemented wherever possible.

Solid Waste collected and disposed off fully and safely

Services to the Poor and Systems for Sustaining Results

Improved Public Health Outcomes and Environmental Standards

Rating and Categorization of Cities

The rating of cities in regard to their performance in sanitation improvements will be based on

set of objective indicators of outputs, processes and outcomes.

Three Categories of Indicators

The rating exercise will involve three categories of indicators:

1. Output Indicators: pertain to the city having achieved certain results or outputs in

different dimensions of sanitation ranging from behvioural aspects and provision, to safe

collection, treatment and disposal without harm to the city’s environment. There are nine

mainoutput-indicators accounting for 50 points of the total of 100 points.

2. Process Related: indicators pertain to systems and procedures that exist and are practiced

by the city agencies to ensure sustained sanitation. There are seven main process-indicators

accounting for 30 points of the total of 100 points.

3. Outcome Related: indicators include the quality of drinking water and that of water in

water-bodies of city, as also the extent of reduction in sanitation-related and water-borne

diseases in the city over a time period. There are three main outcome-indicators accounting for

20 points of a total of 100 points1.

Ideally, data for the above outputs, processes and outcomes are regularly collected by city

authorities but at present, very few cities will have, at best, partial data available. This rating

exercise will help in highlighting the need for regular data-collection and monitoring of

indicators.

On the basis of the said rating scheme, cities will be placed in different categories as presented

in Table 6. National rating survey data will utilize these categories for publication of results.



Table 9: City Colour Codes: Categories

No. Category Description

1 Red

Less than 33 Marks

Cities on the brink of public health and

environmental “emergency”; needing immediate

remedial action

2 Black

34 – 66 Marks

Needing considerable

Improvements

3 Blue

67 to 90 Marks Recovering but still diseased

4 Green

91 to 100 Marks Healthy and Clean city

On the basis of plans prepared and implemented, cities will be able to measure the results of

their actions, and be able to clearly chart out their improvements over time compared to their

baseline situation.

On achievement of remarkable results, i.e. coming into the Green category (Healthy and Clean

City), cities will typically become eligible for the national award. Other cities showing

remarkable incremental performance or selective achievements may also be given special or

honorary awards. Cities in different size-classes may also be considered for category-wise

awards.

Based on results of the Rating survey and selection of awardees, cities will be invited to

participate in a National Urban Sanitation Award ceremony.

A rating has been done by MoUD, GoI, for 436 Class I cities in India. None of the cities fall in the

green category. The distribution of the 436 cities in the said categories has been presented in

the table as follows.

Table 10: Cities and City Color Codes

No. Category No. of cities

1 Red

Less than 33 Marks 204 cities

2 Black

34 – 66 Marks 228 cities

3 Blue

67 to 90 Marks 4 cities

4 Green

91 to 100 Marks 0 cities



2.2 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RULES, 2000

The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1999 were published under the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In exercise

of the powers conferred by section 3, 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of

1986), the Central Government hereby made the rules to regulate the management and

handling of the municipal solid wastes, 2000.

Municipal Solid Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2000 (MSW Rules) are applicable to

every municipal authority responsible for collection, segregation, storage, transportation,

processing and disposal of municipal solids. The Rules contains four Schedules namely;

Table 11: Schedule details of MSW rules, 2000

Schedule-I Relates to implementation Schedule

Schedule-II Specifications relating to collection, segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW).

Schedule-III Specifications for land filling indicating; site selection, facilities at the site, specifications for and filling, Pollution prevention, water quality monitoring, ambient air quality monitoring, Plantation at landfill site, closure of landfill site and post care.

Schedule-IV Indicate waste processing options including; standards for composting, treated l lactates and incinerations.

The MSW Rules (2000) very categorically state the roles and responsibilities of ULBs, the State

Govt., the Union Territory Administrations and the Pollution Control Boards. The roles of the

ULBs as stated are as follows:

1. Every municipal authority shall, within the territorial area of the municipality, be

responsible for the implementation of the provisions of these rules, and for any

infrastructure development for collection, storage, segregation, transportation,

processing and disposal of municipal solid wastes.

2. The municipal authority or an operator of a facility shall make an application in Form-I,

for grant of authorization for setting up waste processing and disposal facility including

landfills from the State Board or the Committee in order to comply with the

implementation programme laid down in Schedule I.

3. The municipal authority shall comply with these rules as per the implementation

schedule laid down in Schedule I.

4. The municipal authority shall furnish its annual report

a. to the Secretary-in-charge of the Department of Urban Development of the

concerned State or as the case may be of the Union territory, in case of a

metropolitan city; or



b. to the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner concerned in case of all other

towns and cities, with a copy to the State Board or the Committee on or before the

30th day of June every year.

2.3 KARNATAKA URBAN DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION

POLICY, 2002

Good quality reliable drinking water supply and sanitation are essential basic needs of every

citizen. Increasing urbanization has resulted in greater pressure on the existing urban water

supply and sanitation systems leading to increasing demand on the one hand to augment the

source and improve distribution and on the other to increase the coverage of underground

drainage (UGD). At the same time, as stated in the State Water Policy brought out by the

Department of the Water Resources, there is an urgent need to conserve the limited water

resources of the State to ensure sufficient availability of water for various needs as well as for

the future. The Government of Karnataka in partnership with urban local bodies in the State, the

Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board (KUWS&DB) and the Bangalore Water Supply

and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) will continue and strengthen its efforts to provide all residents of

urban areas of the State, piped water supply and sanitation services at or near their dwellings.

The efforts of the Government of Karnataka and its partner agencies will be to:

1. Ensure universal coverage of water and sanitation services that people want and are

willing to pay for and

2. To do so in a manner that preserves the sustainability of the precious water resources of

the State, project and enhances the commercial and economical sustainability of the

operations at the same time

3. Ensure a minimum level of service to all citizens.

The Government of Karnataka will continue to be responsible for:

Ensuring provision of the bulk of the resources required for capacity creation

Regulation, monitoring and evaluation of the efficiency of operations, including

prescribing reporting requirements, procurement procedures, etc.,

Setting minimal service standard

Encouraging the use of public private partnerships as well as private sector

participation to achieve the sector goals

Promotion of the economic and commercial viability of water supply systems and the

exploitation of economies of scale and scope by appropriate aggregation options

Institution of necessary incentives for urban local bodies and other service providers to

implement sector reforms

Ensuring co-ordination and collaboration among the various agencies both at the policy

and operational level through the establishment of appropriate committees and

agencies.



2.4 KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND

FINANCE CORPORATION (KUIDFC)

State Government has appointed Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance

Corporation (KUIDFC) as the State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) under JnNURM to assist Urban

Local Bodies (ULBs), place proposals to SLSC for approval, manages grants, release funds to

ULBs, maintain revolving fund and monitor the physical & financial progress and reforms

implementation as committed in the Memorandum of Agreement.

Funds under the scheme would be released by the Central Government to the Nodal Agency

which in turn would release to the Implementing Agency in the form of loan, soft loan-cum-

grant or grant.

As per the guidelines, at least 25% (for UIG) & 10% ( for BSUP) of the funds released are to be

recovered and ploughed into a Revolving Fund by the nodal agency for financing of further

infrastructure projects and the fund may be upgraded to a state level infrastructure fund.

66 Projects with an investment of Rs. 4602.40 crore have been approved so far. Of this, Central

Government share is Rs. 2002.83 crore and State Government share is Rs. 709.53 crore, against

which the GoI has already released Rs. 1035.50 crore and GoK has contributed its share of Rs.

475.25 crore. Against the total releases of Rs. 1508.75 crore, an amount of Rs. 2503.59 crore has

already been spent (including ULB/IA share). 21 projects have been completed. 50.50% of

approved investment is for Water, Sewerage & Drainage Sector, 0.70% for Solid Waste

Management, 29.70% for Roads and Road related Infrastructure, 0.80% for Heritage & Tourism

and 18.30 % for provision of Basic Services to Urban Poor. For the urban poor, 28,118 dwelling

units will be built in 110 slums which would benefit about 1, 40, 590 people. Till date,

construction of 9548 dwelling units has been completed. 19 DPRs for an estimated investment

of Rs. 1670.07 crore are pending approval of the GoI requiring an ACA of Rs. 962.05 crore.

Further 22 DPRs are under various stages of preparation with an estimated cost of Rs. 4265.57

crore.

PROJECTS

Externally aided projects

Completed

ADB assisted Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Project (KUIDP)

Ongoing

ADB assisted Karnataka Urban Development and Coastal Environmental Management

Project (KUDCEMP)

World Bank assisted Karnataka Urban Water Supply Improvement Project (KUWASIP)

ADB assisted North Karnataka Urban Sector Investment Programme (NKUSIP)

World Bank assisted Karnataka Municipal Reforms Project (KMRP)

Other Projects

Centrally sponsored Mega City Scheme

Greater Bangalore Water and Sanitation Project (GBWASP)



2.1.4. KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PROJECT (KUDCEMP)

The Project will support the Government's priority investment in the urban sector, based on an

urban sector development strategy that focuses on improving the welfare of the urban poor and

the devolution of municipal management responsibility from states to urban local bodies. This

integrated urban development project will help meet basic human needs by developing urban

services for water supply and sanitation, solid waste and wastewater management, and slum

and environmental improvements. The Project will also support street improvements and

traffic management, and strengthen other municipal services required to improve the quality of

life in urban areas. The Project will provide assistance in capacity building and community

participation at the state and local levels and in Project implementation.

COMPONENTS OF KUDCEMP

Part A: Capacity Building, Community Participation and Poverty Alleviation

Training and technical assistance to urban local body staff

Community awareness and participation programme

Slum improvement and sites and services for low income groups

Part B: Water Supply Rehabilitation and Expansion

Rehabilitation of existing water supply systems

Providing new water supply schemes to increase the capacity and supply levels

Leak detection and rectification

Promotion of cost recovery

Part C: Urban Environmental Improvement

Waste water management

Underground drainage

Sanitation

Storm water drainage

Solid waste management

Land fill

Vehicles

Awareness

Community involvement

Traffic Management

Roads

Junction improvement

Rehabilitation of existing markets and other municipal facilities

Part D: Street and Bridge Improvement of existing roads

Construction of new roads

Associated road side drainage works

Part E: Coastal Environmental Management

Preparation of coastal resource management and conservation plans



Industrial pollution control and environmental monitoring programme

Urban water front rehabilitation plan for Belgaum

Coastal erosion prevention through mangrove afforestation

Part F: Implementation Assistance

Support for systematic implementation of the project by appointing consultants for

design, construction, supervision and project management and procuring necessary

equipment and vehicles

KUDCEMP TOWNS

Ankola

Bhatkal

Dandeli

Karwar

Kundapura

Mangalore

Puttur

Sirsi

Udupi

Ullal

2.5 INTEGRATED LOW COST SANITATION (ILCS)

The programme envisages construction of new sanitary latrines in households not having

latrines by adopting the low-cost leach pit system, with an objective to eliminate dry latrines

and manual scavenging. The scheme is being implemented with 63% HUDCO loan, 32%

Government of India (GoI) subsidy and 5% of contribution of beneficiary. Initially during the

year 1992 the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme was taken up in 34 municipalities,

subsequently extended the programme covering all the Urban Local Bodies (ULB) in a phased

programme. The scheme was implemented in all 113 ULB with HUDCO financial assistance.

2.6 ASHA KIRAN MAHITI (AKM)

Asha Kiran Mahiti is a web-based application of the Karnataka Municipal Reforms Cell,

Directorate of Municipal Administration, Govt of Karnataka. It has taken a major step in the

direction of mapping 3,400 notified and non-notified slums all over Karnataka and has the

socio-economic database of six lakh slum households across Karnataka. Based on this, it needs

to generate the social indicators, evolve plans and set targets for improvement in each of them

and measure the audit outcomes periodically.

2.7 JNNURM

The aim of JnNURM is to encourage reforms and fast track planned development of identified

cities. Focuses on efficiency in urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms,

community participation, and accountability of ULBs/ Parastatal agencies towards citizens.



Objectives of JnNURM:

a. Focused attention to integrated development of infrastructure services in cities covered

under the Mission;

b. Establishment of linkages between asset-creation and asset-management through a slew

of reforms for long-term project sustainability;

c. Ensuring adequate funds to meet the deficiencies in urban infrastructural services;

d. Planned development of identified cities including peri-urban areas, outgrowths and

urban corridors leading to dispersed urbanization;

e. Scale-up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal

access to the urban poor;

f. Special focus on urban renewal programme for the old city areas to reduce congestion;

and

g. Provision of basic services to the urban poor including security of tenure at affordable

prices, improved housing, water supply and sanitation, and ensuring delivery of other

existing universal services of the government for education, health and social security.

2.8 URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME FOR SMALL

& MEDIUM TOWNS (UIDSSMT)

UIDSSMT aims at improvement in urban infrastructure in towns and cities in a planned manner.

It shall subsume the existing schemes of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns

(IDSMT) and Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme (AUWSP).

Objectives of UIDSSMT scheme are:

1. Improve infrastructural facilities and help create durable public assets and quality

oriented services in cities & towns

2. Enhance public-private-partnership in infrastructural development and

3. Promote planned integrated development of towns and cities.

2.9 RAJIV AWAS YOJANA

Scheme Objectives

The Government has initiated a new scheme called Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for the slum

dwellers and the urban poor. This scheme aims at providing Central support to States that are

willing to assign property rights to slum dwellers. The Government’s effort would be to create a

Slum-free India through the implementation of RAY.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA) has prepared Guidelines for

Slum Free City Planning to assist the preparatory activities under RAY and this has been

circulated to all States/UTs. RAY calls for a multi-pronged approach focusing on the following

aspects:

• Bringing existing slums within the formal system and enabling them to avail the same

level of basic amenities as the rest of the town/city.

• Redressing the failures of the formal system that lead to the creation of slums; and



• Tackling the shortages of urban land and housing that keep shelter out of reach of the

urban poor and force them to resort to extra-legal solutions in a bid to retain their

sources of livelihood and employment.

Under the Slum Free City Planning guidelines, there is a requirement for the Urban Local Bodies

(ULBs) to build an inventory of existing spatial data available with various agencies. Often ULBs,

other than metropolitan cities, do not have centralized spatial data. Under RAY, it is planned to

have ‘Technical Cell’, which will have responsibilities to coordinate and collect data from state

governments, NRSC/ISRO, Survey of India, National Informatics Centre (NIC) etc. If the city base

map is not available, a base map of the city would be generated using standard guidelines set

forth under the project.

As given in the Slum Free City Planning (SFCP) guidelines, the preparation of Slum-free City Plan

will broadly involve survey of all slums – notified and non-notified; mapping of slums using the

state-of-art technology; integration of geo-spatial and socio-economic data; and identification of

development model proposed for each slum. To achieve these things, a systematic approach is

essential which will be useful for various other developmental planning initiatives for the urban

poor. The present technical manual details the steps to be followed for slum mapping using

satellite data, GPS, Total Station Survey in preparing GIS database, MIS development of non-

spatial data collected and integration of GIS with MIS to enable generating Plan of Action (PoA)

for slum free cities.

Rajiv Awas Yojana envisages that each State would prepare a State Slum-free Plan of Action

(POA). The preparation of legislation for assignment of property rights to slum dwellers would

be the first step for State POA. The POA would need to be in two parts,

Part-1 regarding the upgradation of existing slums and Part-2 regarding the action to prevent

new slums. In Part-1 the State would need to survey and map all exiting slums in selected cities

proposed by the State for coverage under RAY. In Part-2 the Plan would need to assess the rate

of growth of the city with a 20 year perspective, and based on the numbers specify the actions

proposed to be taken to obtain commensurate lands or virtual lands and promote the

construction of affordable EWS houses so as to stay abreast of the demand. This part would

need also to make necessary legislative and administrative changes to enable urban land

expansion, and in town planning regulations to legislate reservations for EWS/LIG housing in all

new developments.

Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for the slum dwellers and the urban poor envisages a ‘Slum-free India’

through encouraging States/Union Territories to tackle the problem of slums in a definitive

manner. It calls for a multi-pronged approach focusing on:

• Bringing existing slums within the formal system and enabling them to avail of the

same level of basic amenities as the rest of the town;

• Redressing the failures of the formal system that lie behind the creation of slums; and

• Tackling the shortages of urban land and housing that keep shelter out of reach of the

urban poor and force them to resort to extra-legal solutions in a bid to retain their

sources of livelihood and employment.



Slum-free City Cell in Urban Local Body headed by the Municipal Commissioner/Executive

Officer will be primarily responsible for the preparation of Slum-free City Plans based on

guidelines provided by the concerned State Government and support extended by the Nodal

Agency for Rajiv Awas Yojana at the State level.

2.10 URBAN STATISTICS FOR HR AND ASSESSMENTS (USHA)”

Scheme Objectives

The Central Sector Scheme of “Urban Statistics for HR and Assessments (USHA)” aims at the

development and maintenance of national a database, MIS and knowledge repository relating to

urban poverty, slums, housing, construction and other urbanization-related statistics. Its key

objective is to support the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation and other Ministries

with an information base and knowledge inputs for the purpose of planning, policy-making,

project design, formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, particularly in the

context of programmes relating to urban poverty, slums and housing. It seeks to specially

support the effective implementation of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission –

Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing & Slum Development

Programme (IHSDP). The four pillars of “USHA” are: database including MIS & sample surveys;

action research; impact assessment; and capacity building/training.

USHA will coordinate applied research and capacity building activities pertaining to urban

poverty, slums, housing, construction and other urbanization-related statistics in collaboration

with reputed research and training institutions at national, regional and state levels and experts.

Scheme Components

The following components are envisaged under the “Urban Statistics for HR and Assessments

(USHA)” Scheme for which funding support will be provided:

Data Centre and MIS on Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing, Building Construction and

related Urbanisation Statistics.

Knowledge Centre/National Resource Centre for Urban Poverty and Slums

Sample Surveys in areas of Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing & Building Construction

Socio-Economic Research Studies in areas of Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing &

Building Construction

Capacity Building & Training in areas of Urban Poverty, Slums, Housing & Building

Construction Statistics

Publicity & Awareness

2.11 INTEREST SUBSIDY SCHEME FOR HOUSING THE URBAN POOR

(ISHUP)

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MH&UPA), Government of India has

designed an Interest Subsidy Scheme as an additional instrument for addressing the housing



needs of the EWS/LIG segments in urban areas. The Scheme envisages the provision of interest

subsidy to EWS and LIG segments to enable them to buy or construct houses.

BROAD FEATURES OF THE SCHEME

2.1 Purpose - The Scheme will provide home loan with Central Government subsidy to

EWS/LIG persons for acquisition of house as also for construction of house to such beneficiary,

who does not own a house in his/her name or in the name of his/her spouse or any dependent

child. Such beneficiaries who own land in any urban area but do not have any pucca house in

their name or in the name of their spouse or any dependent child will also be covered under the

Scheme.

2.2 Eligibility - The economic parameter of EWS is defined as households having an average

monthly income upto Rs.3,300 and the economic parameter of LIG is defined as households

having an average monthly income between Rs.3,301 upto Rs.7,300. This will be subject to

revision by the Steering Committee of the Scheme from time to time.

2.3 Loan amount admissible - The scheme will provide a subsidized loan for 15 – 20 years for

a maximum amount of Rs.1,00,000 for an EWS individual A maximum loan amount of

Rs.1,60,000 for a LIG individual for a house at least of 40 sq.mts will be admissible. However,

subsidy will be given for loan amount upto Rs. 1 lakh only. Additional loans, if needed would be

at unsubsidized rates.

In identifying beneficiaries, the ULB or the local agency identified by the State should as far as

possible identify clusters in which land has been allotted and housing can be supported through

this scheme within such clusters. The Preference under the Scheme (subject to beneficiaries

being from EWS/LIG segments) should be given to the following in accordance with their

proportion in the total population of City / urban agglomerate during the 2001 Census.

i. Scheduled Caste;

ii. Scheduled Tribe;

iii. Minorities;

iv. Persons with disabilities; and

v. Women beneficiaries.

2.12 13TH CENTRAL FINANCE COMMISSION (CFC)

Importantly, the report of 13th CFC released in February 2010 recommended general

performance grants and special area performance grants to be linked to performance of ULBs.

Moreover, allocations to ULBs would now be linked to divisible pool replacing the previous ad-

hoc allocation. It has recommended grants of Rs. 23,111 crores to ULBs during 2010-15, a four-

fold growth over the 12th CFC allocation. The 13th CFC recommends state governments and ULBs

to focus on improved property tax revenues, urban service standards, strengthened local body

framework, improved municipal accounting, introduce system of independent ombudsmen, and

put in place a system of electronic transfer of grants to ULBs among other things.



2.13 NATIONAL MISSION ON SUSTAINABLE HABITAT

One of the eight Missions as part of the Prime Minister action plan for climate change, is on the

National Mission on Sustainable Habitat was assigned to this Ministry. MOUD formulated the

Mission document through several round of consultations and discussions. The document was

finally approved by the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change in June 2010. The objective

of the Mission is to promote sustainability of habitats through improvements in energy

efficiency in buildings, urban planning, improved management of solid and liquid waste

including recycling and power generation, modal shift towards public transport and

conservation. It also seeks to improve ability of habitats to adapt to climate change by

improving resilience of infrastructure, community based disaster management and measures

for improving advance warning systems for extreme weather events.

Under this cities are eligible for implementing demonstration projects in SWM, storm water

management, and Waste water treatment. MoUD is also identifying capacity needs and

earmarked lot of funds for this purpose.



Chapter 3

Profile of Belgaum City

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Belgaum is a city and a municipal corporation in Belgaum district in the state

of Karnataka, India. It is the fourth largest city of the state of Karnataka, the first three

being Bangalore, Mysore, Hubli-Dharwar. Belgaum has now become one of the important place

and now marching with a tag of fast growing, redeveloping district with a population of

Belgaum 4,65,282(Census 2001). Belgaum is exactly at the center between Mumbai and

Bangalore.

3.2 LOCATION AND REGIONAL LINKAGES

Belgaum is also headquarters for Belgaum division. The division comprises the districts

of Bagalkot, Belgaum, Bijapur,Dharwad - Hubli, Gadag, Haveri, and Uttara Kannada. Government

of Karnataka proposed to make Belgaum as second capital of the State of Karnataka with the

recently upcoming second state administrative building Suvarna Vidhan Soudha. The city is

well-connected by road via National Highway 4, now part of the Golden Quadrilateral. It is on

the main Indian railways grid, and is part of Hubli Division.

Figure 3 Regional Linkages

3.3 CLIMATE

Belgaum is well known for its pleasant climate throughout the year. It is at its coldest in winter

(November - February temperatures dropping to 9 degrees Celsius), and experiences

continuous monsoon during July to September. The annual average rainfall is over 200 cm" ,

2000 mm.



3.4 TOPOGRAPHY

Belgaum is located at 15.87°N 74.5°E. It has an average elevation of 751 metres (2463 feet). The

city is situated in the northwestern parts of Karnataka and lies at the border of two states,

Maharashtra and Goa on the western ghats (50 km from Goa state border). It is one of the oldest

towns in the state, lying at a distance of 502 km from Bangalore;515 km from Hyderabad and

500 km from Mumbai. The district comprises 1278 villages with an area of 13,415 km² with a

population of around 48 lakhs or 4.8 million (47,78,439) according to the census 2011. Situated

near the foothills of the Sahyadri mountain range (Western Ghats) at an altitude of about 779m,

100 km from the Arabian Sea with the river Markandeya flowing nearby, Belgaum exhibits swift

and kaleidoscopic changes in topography, vegetation and climate.

3.5 BRIEF HISTORY

Belgaum (earlier known as "Venugrama" or the "Bamboo Village") is one of the oldest, strong,

prominent and well cultured historical place with enviable heritage in the Western Ghats. The

forts and wide choice of temples and churches to visit makes this place good tourist attraction.

The old town area with cotton and silk weavers stands gloriously besides the modern, bustling,

tree-lined British Cantonment. It is the headquarters of Belgaum district, which borders the

states of Maharashtra and Goa .Due to its proximity with the states of Maharashtra and Goa,

Belgaum has acquired the cultural flavour of these states and blended it with the local Kannada

culture to create a rich heritage, which is unique in its manifestation. It is also known as

Malenadu or Rain Country and the vegetation here is verdant green throughout the year.

3.6 DEMOGRAPHY

3.6.1. POPULATION GROWTH AND TRENDS

As of 2001 India census, Belgaum has a population of 4,65,282. Males constitute 51% of the

population and females 49%. Belgaum has an average literacy rate of 78%, higher than the

national average of 65%; with 54% of the males and 46% of females literate. Eleven percent

of the population is under 6 years of age. Here majority of the population

are Kannadigas followed by Marathis and Urdu speaking Muslims[citation needed]. Belgaum

is a cosmopolitan city as people from all over India dwell here.

Figure 4 Trends in population growth

1 2 3 4 5 6

Year 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Population (lacs) 117827 146790 193472 274430 378459 465282

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

po

pu

lati

on

in n

um

be

rs TRENDS IN POPULATION GROWTH

http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Belgaum&params=15.87_N_74.5_E_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(length)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnataka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharashtra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad,_Andhra_Pradesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Ghats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Sea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannadigas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India



The last available official population figures for Belgium city are those from the Census 2001.

The field surveys for the Census 2011 have been completed in Belgium city and the

population figures are currently being finalized. As such these figures have not been officially

announced.

3.6.2. POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Population projections have been made by for Belgaum using various methods based on the

growth rate of past three decades and corresponding results are indicated in Table 13.

Table 12: Future population projections using various methods

Population in

By Geometric Increase method

By Incremental

Increase method

By Arithmetical

Increase method

Average of Three

Methods

2010 676,405 548,383 536,943 587,243

2011 705116 558,285 544,905 602,769

2015 832,682 599,233 576,754 669,556

2020 1,025,065 653,429 616,566 765,020

2025 1,261,897 710,969 656,377 876,414

2030 1,553,447 771,854 696,189 1,007,163

2035 1,912,356 836,085 736,000 1,161,480

2040 2,354,188 903,661 775,812 1,344,554

2045 2,898,102 974,582 815,623 1,562,769

[Source: ASCI]

We see that the population projections done with Arithmetic increase method is quite in line

with past trends. Hence for all purposes, the population projection by Arithmetic increase

method will be considered. This is presented in the table as follows. Belgaum city population is

likely to be 815,623 by the year 2045.

Table 13: Future population projections

Population in By Arithmetical

Increase method

2010 536,943

2011 544,905

2015 576,754

2020 616,566

2025 656,377

2030 696,189

2035 736,000

2040 775,812

2045 815,623



POPULATION DENSITY

The total area of the town is 94.7sq km, with a gross density of 4913 persons per sq km which is

higher than the district population density.

3.6.3. WARDWISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH POTENTIAL

The inner areas are grown and have high densities hence the scope for future growth is limited.

To plan the infrastructure etc. different wards are categorized from low to very high growth

potential zone as indicated in table below.

Table 14: Wardwise population distribution and growth potential

Ward No Population Area

(sq km) Density PPH Growth potential

1 6990 2.7 25.9 Low

2 11656 4.1 28.4 Low

3 7661 2.5 30.6 Low

4 9012 1.5 60.1 Low

5 5870 0.2 293.5 Medium

6 10426 0.7 148.9 Low

7 10482 1.1 95.3 Low

8 7449 0.6 124.2 Low

9 9930 2.6 38.2 Low

10 11414 4.3 26.5 Low

11 7190 0.5 143.8 Low

12 6714 0.2 335.7 Average

13 8673 3.3 26.3 Low

14 9290 0.3 309.7 Average

15 6645 0.4 166.1 Medium

16 6498 0.5 130.0 Low

17 6760 0.9 75.1 Low

18 10859 5.1 21.3 Low

19 8677 0.9 96.4 Low

20 6326 0.2 316.3 Average

21 6694 0.2 334.7 Average

22 9195 1.8 51.1 Low

23 6686 1.4 47.8 Low

24 6304 0.2 315.2 Average

25 5806 0.3 193.5 Medium

26 9042 0.5 180.8 Medium

27 8451 1 84.5 Low

28 7002 0.2 350.1 Average

29 6325 0.1 632.5 Very high

30 6718 0.1 671.8 Very high

31 6190 0.09 687.8 Very high

32 5959 0.4 149.0 Low

33 7386 0.1 738.6 Very high



34 6535 0.1 653.5 Very high

35 7106 0.1 710.6 Very high

36 6436 0.2 321.8 Average

37 6133 0.1 613.3 Very high

38 5445 0.3 181.5 Medium

39 5645 0.9 62.7 Low

40 16482 4.2 39.2 Low

41 7413 0.5 148.3 Low

42 12328 2.1 58.7 Low

43 12656 1.4 90.4 Low

44 4995 1.2 41.6 Low

45 7749 0.3 258.3 Medium

46 7067 0.5 141.3 Low

47 6844 0.9 76.0 Low

48 8808 0.4 220.2 Medium

49 5400 0.2 270.0 Medium

50 12700 5 25.4 Low

51 10491 0.5 209.8 Medium

52 2701 1.1 24.6 Low

53 1699 0.6 28.3 Low

54 18200 4.3 42.3 Low

55 10010 4.8 20.9 Low

56 8154 4.8 17.0 Low

57 6693 5.1 13.1 Low

58 7312 7.3 10.0 Low

TOTAL 465282 85.89 11208.62

[Source: Belgaum city corporation, ASCI]

To assess the growth potential wards have been classified in to the following depending on

existing densities:

Table 15: Ward density and growth potential

Density

Range

Growth

potential Wards

Total No .of wards

0-150 Low

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,16,17,18,19,22,23,2

7,32,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,47,50,52,53,54,5

5,56,57,58

35

150-300 Medium 5,15,25,26,38,45,48,49,51 9

300-450 Average 12,14,20,21,24,28,36 7

450-600 High 0 0

600-750 Very high 29,30,31,33,34,35,37 7

[Source: Belgaum city corporation, ASCI]



Map 1: Ward Densities and growth potential [Source: ASCI]



3.7 SLUMS AND SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS

Slums – Existing Scenario

In Belgaum City Corporation there are 51 slums. Asha Kiran Mahiti (a web-based project on slums of Karnataka prepared by

Municipal Reforms Cell, Karnataka) has identified 21 slum areas – 32 notified and 19 non-notified. The total population living in

the slums is 57214 (year 2010) and accounting to 11% per cent of the city population as per the projected 2010 population. The

total number of slum households is 12082 accounting to nearly 9 per cent of the total households in the city.

Table 16f: Details of slum areas, CCB

Sl. No.

Ward No.

Slum Name Slum Type

Land ownership

Slum

Area Slum Popn

Slum Density

(persons/sq.km)

Slum

HHs

BPL

Popn

BPL

HHs

1 58

Alarwad (Ashrya

colony)

Non-

Notified Local Body 0.06 576 9600 131 568 130

2 6

Ambedkar Nagar,

Anagol. Notified Private 0.009 1404 156000 325 715 161

3 1

Ambedkar Nagar,

Majagaon

Non-

Notified Private 0.014 507 36214 118 477 111

4 41 Beldar Chawani Notified Private 0.005 332 66400 70 293 61

5 6

Bhajantri Galli,

Belgaum Notified

State

Government 0.002 430 215000 106 392 98

6 1

Brahmadev

Nagar, Majagaon

Non-


7 38

Chavat Galli

Dorwada, Notified Private 0.006 880 146667 190 752 166

8 13

Devang Nagar,

Vadagaon

Non-


9 14

Dhor Galli,

Vadagaon Notified Private 0.012 354 29500 74 323 67



10

55

Gandhinagar

(Near to Vaibhav

Nagar Church) Notified Other 0.016 705 44063 145 676 138

11

10

Ganesh Nagar,

Vadagaon (Near

Sambhaji Nagar)

Non-


12 46

Gangwadi

(Waddar colony) Notified Local Body 0.022 1357 61682 287 1348 284

13

32

Ganpat Burud

Galli (Behind

Huns talkies) Notified Private 0.002 174 87000 39 127 29

14 23

Harijan Wada,

Khasbag

Non-


15 6

Harijankeri,

Anagol Notified

State

Government 0.005 426 85200 94 269 58

16 14

Hindwadi

Waddar Chavani Notified Private 0.002 482 241000 109 415 93

17 6

Indira Nagar,

Belgaum Notified Private 0.023 778 33826 182 546 126

18 39

Kaliambrai(Mata

ng colony) Notified Private 0.004 953 238250 201 568 128

19 12

Kallyan Nagar,

Vadagaon Notified Local Body 0.017 742 43647 187 525 132

20

13

Kalmeshwar

Nagar, (Near

Devang Nagar)

Vadagaon

Non-


21 57 Kanabargi Non- Local Body 0.014 1565 111786 392 1501 372



Extention (Sagar

colony)

Notified

22 13

Kanaka Das

Nagar, Vadagaon

Non-


23 33 Kasai Galli Notified Private 0.003 2518 839333 490 2147 430

24

54

Konchi Korawar

Galli (Rukmini

Nagar) Notified Local Body 0.01 904 90400 200 880 193

25

22

Kunti Nagar,

(Near Teachers

colony Khasbag)

Non-


26 6

Kurbar Galli,


27 13

Laxmi Nagar,

Vadagaon Notified Private 0.128 4547 35523 947 3066 659

28

13

Malaprabha

Nagar ,2nd Stage

Belgaum Notified Private 0.004 1001 250250 242 790 188

29

13

Malaprabha

Nagar,Ist Stage

Belgaum Notified

State

Government 0.016 457 28563 94 454 93

30 10

Mangai Nagar,

Vadagaon

Non-

Notified Private 0.011 768 69818.18 176 684 156

31 50

Maruti Nagar,

(Bijapur Road)

Non-

Notified Private 0.015 1289 85933.33 261 874 182

32 4

Nath Pai

Nagar,Anagol. Notified

State

Government 0.009 1267 140778 311 620 154

33 9 Nazar Camp, Notified State 0.012 498 41500 111 254 56



Harijan Wada Government

34 43

Nehru Nagar

(Burud Galli) Notified Other 0.007 440 62857 82 403 76

35 50

New Gandhi

Nagar Notified Private 0.104 8173 78587 1468 6055 1116

36 50

Old Gandhi Nagar

(Deepak Galli)

Non-


37

20

Patil Galli,

Khasbag (Near

Joshi Mala)

Non-


38

10

Patil Galli,

Waddar Chavani

Belgaum. Notified Private 0.006 707 117833 146 689 142

39 2

Rajaram Nagar,

Udyambag Notified Private 0.026 608 23385 132 367 84

40 46

Ramnagar

Waddarwadi Notified Local Body 0.032 2271 70969 460 2225 454

41 10

Ranajunjar

colony, Vadagaon

Non-


42 3

Rohidas Nagar

,4th Railway Gate. Notified

State

Government 0.005 579 115800 137 234 56

43 54

Rukmini Nagar (

Ashray colony)

Non-


44 54

Rukmini Nagar

(Kasai Galli) Notified Other 0.009 638 70889 136 629 134

45

49

Shivaji Nagar

(Panaji Baba

Math)

Non-




46 51

Shrinagar,

Jopadpatti

Non-


47

12

Teggin Galli,

Waddar Chavani

Vadagaon. Notified Private 0.007 402 57429 78 363 74

48 52

Vantumuri

Ashray Colony)

Non-


49 6

Waddar Galli,


50 21

Waddar Galli,

Khasbag. Notified Private 0.063 2240 35556 410 1882 351

51 5

Zatpat Nagar,

Belgaum. Notified Private 0.022 1793 81500 392 1417 311

Total 2.337 57214 5386613 12082 45252 9615

[Source – Asha Kiran Mahiti,2010]



The location of the 51 notified and non-notified slum areas is shown in the map of CCB as follows.

Map 2 Notified & Non-notified slum location map, CCB

3.8 EXISTING LANDUSE

The extent of the Local Planning Area (LPA) is 9470 hectares. Due to non-acquitting of lands and

non-development of areas that the reserved parks, open spaces, playgrounds, some parts of the

city are lacking in these facilities. The total area under parks & open spaces is about 3.37% of

the developed area. The details of the existing land use are indicated in the following table:



Table 17: Existing land use analysis of Belgaum – 2001

Sl.

No.

Land use Area in Hectares % of Land use

1 Parks & open spaces 143.44 3.37

2 Public & Semi Public 204.99 4.8

3 Public Utilities 46.83 1.10

4 Transportation & Communication 984.50 23.10

5 Water Sheet 67.83 1.6

Total

[Source: Belgaum City Corporation]

3.9 MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE

Development of the Belgaum city assumed new dimension by the construction of new roads and

repairs to the old streets and lanes(about 10 miles) in the year 1841 by a citizen committee. The

Belgaum municipality came into existence on the 1st December 1851. The city seems to have

developed from the area. The cantonment on the west, NH4 on the east, between the

commissioner’s office on the north and the railway line on the south. Pune- Bangalore and

vengurla-Belgaum-bagalkot Highways were constructed in 1871. The west deccan railway.

Connecting belgaum to pune and Londa was opened for the public in 1881. Belgaum the classlll

town in 1901 has emerged as classll city in 1931 and class l in 1951.

Legal Framework and functional domain

Elections to the Corporation are held every five years and subsequently a Mayor and a Deputy

Mayor are elected for a term of one year. It comes under portion of 2 Loksabha Constituencies, 4

Legislative assembly constituencies and 1 legislative council constituency.

For its governance, the Belgaum City Corporation is divided into fifty eight wards; each

represented by a Corporator. The Corporators elect the Mayor, who is the administrator of the

city and serves office for a term of one year. The administration of the corporation is vested in

the commissioner, who is designated by the state government.

The term of the council being five years, the ex-officio members of the city council include one

MP, two MLAs and two MLCs representing Belgaum.

The functional domain of local bodies in the state is derived from respective legislations. The

Municipal Acts list the functions under two categories, namely, “obligatory functions” and

“discretionary functions”. The functional domain was expanded in 1994 as per the 12th Schedule

of the 74th Constitution Amendment Act. In Karnataka, the Corporations and Municipalities Acts

provide for a majority of the functions listed in the 12th Schedule (ref Annexure 1) of the

constitution. In 2003, the Government, after a review of functions of urban local bodies,

transferred five more functions to the urban local bodies through government orders. They are:

Planning for economic and social development

Urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects

Urban Poverty Alleviation



Safeguarding the interest of weaker sections including the handicapped and mentally

retarded

Promotion of Cultural and Aesthetic aspects

There is a multiplicity of laws governing the urban areas in the state. These laws may be

classified as follows:

Urban Development Policy and Karnataka is governed by

Planning Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961

2. Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976

3. Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985

4. Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987

Municipal Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964

2. The Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act ,1976

Development Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act , 1966

2. The Karnataka Housing Board Act ,1962

3. The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act , 1973

4. The Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement) and Clearance Act , 1970

5. Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Regulatory Legislation:

1. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act ,1964

2. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

3. Karnataka Registration Act

Apart from the Acts, there are rules and by-laws regulating various activities in urban areas

Institutional Framework

The Belgaum City Corporation is democratically elected by the civic community as per the 74th

CAA. At the head is the Mayor with the Council and the Standing Committee. Next to the Mayor

is the Commissioner, who with the help of the Joint Commissioner heads the various

departments The Organogram of Belgaum City Corporation (Figure 5) gives the details.



Figure 5: Organizational Structure, Belgaum City Corporation

Apart from the local bodies, a number of government institutions are associated with the

governance. They include:

Directorate of Municipal Administration (DMA)

Directorate Town and Country Planning (DTCP)

Karnataka Pollution Control Board (APPCB)

Urban Development Authorities (UDA)

Department of Revenue Headed by the District Collector (DC)

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWSDB)

Karnataka Public Works Department (PWD) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

Functions of Belgaum City Corporation

Basic functions of the Municipalities are to provide civic amenities such as health, education of

local inhabitants and issues incidental to Municipal Administration. Important functions of the

Municipalities are as follows:

1. Maintenance of Public roads, streets, lanes, bridges , culverts and causeways,

2. Construction and maintenance of storm water and sewerage water drains,

3. Supply of protected drinking water,

4. Maintenance of Play Grounds, Recreation Centers and Parks,

5. Maintenance of Libraries,

6. Cleaning of Streets, Drains and Scavenging,

7. Maintenance of Hospitals and Dispensaries,

8. Control of Epidemics and Endemics,



9. Registration of Births and Deaths,

10. Maintenance of Elementary Schools,

11. Housing,

12. Maintenance and Improvement in Slum Areas,

13. Maintenance of Street Lighting,

14. Maintenance of slaughter houses and markets.

Some of the major departments and their functions are presented as follows.

Revenue Section, Accounts Section and Audit Section

The main functions of the revenue section are

Assessment and levy of various taxes such as property tax, Vacant land tax,

Collection and monitoring of the taxes

The main functions of the Accounts Section are

Preparation of the budgets,

Processing of the bills and payment vouchers,

Monitoring of the revenue generation,

Maintenance of the books of account,

Maintenance of the payroll,

general provident fund,

Management of treasury

The main functions of the Audit Section is Conducting a pre-audit of all the receipts and

payments. Based on the verification and approval of the audit section, payments will be released

Town Planning Section

Formulation of building rules, master plan rules and zonal regulation

Implementation of master plans

Road widening programmes

Public spaces, Roads and Junctions improvement

Issuance of permission for buildings and layouts

Regularization and demolition of unauthorized constructions

Removal of encroachments

Health Section

The main functions of the public health / sanitation are

Cleaning of the streets and supervision of sanitation

Lifting of garbage and dumping of the same in dumping yard

Spraying disinfecting materials under anti malaria schemes



Maintenance of vehicles, diesel bunks, vehicle sheds, and work shops

Registration of births and deaths

Regulation of dangerous and offensive trades

Maintenance and management of slaughter houses and certification of animals for

slaughter

Prevention of epidemics

Prevention of food adulteration

Management of dispensaries of Indian Medicine System and allopathic system.

Sanitation is one of the key functions of the ULB and the Health Section of ULB is responsible for

all sanitation work in the limits of the ULB. Maintenance and upkeep of urban infrastructure

such as roads, sewerage drains, preventive measures for control of diseases and epidemics,

solid waste management, etc., are some of the key processes which help in maintaining the

sanitary conditions of the ULBs. The key processes of Sanitation-Solid Waste Management

function involve allocation of employees for sweeping and garbage removal, cleaning of drains,

allocation of the vehicles for garbage transportation and disposal of garbage at the dumping

ground, maintenance of the vehicles, maintenance of the public toilets, and carrying out anti-

malarial operations, etc.

Executive Engineering Section

The main functions of the executive engineering section are:

Preparation of plans and estimates for civil works

Construction and maintenance of roads

Construction of buildings

Execution of civil works

Construction and maintenance of drains



Chapter 4

Environmental Sanitation – an Assessment

4.1 SANITATION SITUATION ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable urban sanitation presents one of the most significant service delivery challenges

related to poverty alleviation and sustainable development of the towns. Environmental

sanitation holds a primordial position in assessing and documenting nature of a town/town in

its status regarding sanitation. This chapter essentially deals with issues pertaining to the core

objective of the town sanitation plan and also covers sanitary installations at different levels of

households, at public places, in institutions and schools. Concentration on open defecation

levels in slums along with complementary sectors like solid waste management, storm water

drains and water supply, an essential component of sanitation is dealt at vast. This also

demarcates service level benchmarking and factors leading to health hazards.

4.1.1 HOUSEHOLD SANITATION

In view of reliable information management pertaining to sanitation, the study heavily

depended on the information provided by CCB as per the data formats given to them. As per the

SLB indicator the, 48% hhs are covered by Sewerage net wotk of 393 KM (raod length is 615

km). This is about 60% of length of roads in Belgaum. Secondary information filled in indicates

that Ward 11,12,13,14, 16 and 22 are totally connected to UGD. Which means 6399 residential

properties are connected to UGD but same data also is showing much less number (5459) of

HHS are connected to UGD. This is implying serious inconsistency in management of data.

Hence this should become priority action point to maintain proper regular updated MIS to

make informed decisions in a transparent manner for maintaining safe sanitation.

In non - slum areas, 92778 HHS are living and 12082 HHs are living in slums. Average non slum

house hold size is 4.67. About 10% Belgaum Households are living in slums which is quite low in

comparison to many other Indian cities. This figures itself indicate that that about 90% HHS are

having safe sanitation arrangements with an assumption that non slums will have access to

toilets. Even the primary survey reiterated that all non-slum households have access to toilets.

With this logic the study made an attempt to estimate various types of sanitation practices. Data

indicates also that there are not any pit latrines in non-slum areas. Here households either have

UGD connection or Septic tank for their toilets. No dry latrines reported in Belgaum.

Primary survey results indicate that majority of households in slum areas (59%) do not have

access to toilets resorting to practice of open defecation and about 100% of non-slum areas

have access to individual household type of toilets. Primary survey results indicate that a small

percentage of HHs (1.8% in slums) use shared type of toilets, and around 5.5% HHs in slums

depend on community toilets.



Figure 6: Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets

[Source: ASCI primary surveys, 2011]

The night soil is collected from toilets by suction tanks and disposed into the STPs. In the

present situation, it is the individual household responsibility to construct toilet along with

septic tank as per the specifications given in building bylaws. Building bye-laws are seriously

lacking clarity on guidelines to construct toilets and maintenance of sanitary installations.

INFORMATION BOX 2: DEFINITIONS OF HOUSEHOLD SANITATION ARRANGEMENTS

ACCORDING TO CENSUS 2001

Water closet latrine (WC): The sanitary water flush latrines are those latrines that have water

closets fitted with flushing cistern. Such latrines that may be connected to a septic tank or an

underground sewerage system will also be recorded as water closet latrines. The fecal matter

from these types of latrines is removed without the need for scavenging or manual handling of

excreta.

Pit latrine: The latrines attached to the pit that is dug into the ground for the reception of night

soil are reckoned as pit latrines.

Other latrine: This category includes service latrines (i.e. those that are cleaned manually);

latrines serviced by animals such as pigs, etc. and all latrines other than the pit and the water

closet types of latrine

Table 18 Sanitation arrangement of Belgaum City Corporation

Slums Non slums Total in % Remarks

Total HHS 12082 105573 117655 100.00

Septic Tank 5,372.00 49,099.00 54471 46% Remaining connected to septic tanks.

PIT 620.00 620 1% Including 38 common Pits.

OD 2393 2393 2%

32.9%

0.0% 5.5% 1.8%

59.7%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Household Public toilet Communitytoilet

Shared Toilet Opendefecation

Slum HHs % Non-Slum HHs %



Community Septic latrines

3697 3697 3%

UGD 56474 56474 48% HHs connected to UGD estimated as per SLB indicatorAs per

Others 0 0%

Not connected 0

Total 12,082.00 1,05,573.00 117655 100%

Source - ASCI

4.1.2 SLUM SANITATION

In Belgaum City Corporation there are 51 slum areas with a total population of 57214 or 12082

HHs. No. of slums are more in 6th and 13th wards. This includes BPL population of 45252 or

9615 HHs. This is indicating slum population also includes 2467 APL HHS. AKM data also

indicates on an average each HH size is 4.7 and is having 94 sq. m area inclusive of all common

amenities and infrastructure which is very low. Considerable HHs (3697 or 30% of slum HHS)

use Community latrines with Septic Tanks. About 38 common Pit latrines are also there.

Majority of the slum HHs have individual septic tanks (60% HHs) indicated access to safe

disposal facilities including public convenience facility while 5% of the household have

unsanitary toilet condition and about 20% in absence of any sanitation facility practice open

defecation. It is also observed that it is more common among children hence behavioral change

through good IEC programme is important. Women especially, are most inconvenienced by the

lack of sanitation facilities. Wastewater is generally disposed into roadside drains by slum

households while the other remaining households dispose it on the roads.

Figure 7: Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t. type of toilets

[Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010]

4%

60%

0%

5%

1%

10%

20%

Slum sanitation

Own Pit

Own Septic tank

Shared Pits

Shared Septic tanks

Public pit

public septic tank

Open defecation



UGD system is also present in slum areas with 49% HHs having toilets connected to it. At Present Corporation has no STP thus all the untreated

sewage water is let into Bellary nalla.

Table 19: Details of sanitation in slum areas, CCB

Sl. No.

Ward No.

Slum Name Slum

Popn

Slum

Density

(persons/s

q.km)

Slum

HHs

% HHs

having

Own Pit

% HHs

having

Own

sanitary

toilets

% HHs

having

Shared

Pits

% HHs

having

Shared

Septic

tanks

% HHs

having

Public

pit

% HHs

having

public

septic

tank

% HHs

having

Open

defecati

on

** %

HHs

having

UGD

connect

ion

1 58

Alarwad

(Ashrya colony) 576 9600 131 0% 11% 0% 0% 1% 0% 88% 0%

2 6

Ambedkar

Nagar, Anagol. 1404 156000 325 14% 37% 0% 0% 3% 4% 42% 17%

3

1

Ambedkar

Nagar,

Majagaon 507 36214 118 0% 14% 0% 7% 0% 0% 80% 1%

4 41 Beldar Chawani 332 66400 70 0% 41% 0% 0% 0% 59% 0% 9%

5 6

Bhajantri Galli,

Belgaum 430 215000 106 0% 87% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 91%

6

1

Brahmadev

Nagar,

Majagaon 1117 21902 249 0% 92% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0%

7 38

Chavat Galli

Dorwada, 880 146667 190 0% 49% 0% 0% 1% 51% 0% 42%

8 13

Devang Nagar,

Vadagaon 1236 2472 274 15% 81% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 91%

9 14

Dhor Galli,

Vadagaon 354 29500 74 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 100%

10 55

Gandhinagar

(Near to 705 44063 145 0% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 99%



Vaibhav Nagar

Church)

11

10

Ganesh Nagar,

Vadagaon (Near

Sambhaji Nagar) 210 42000 41 0% 90% 0% 2% 0% 0% 7% 7%

12

46

Gangwadi

(Waddar

colony) 1357 61682 287 0% 36% 0% 1% 0% 62% 0% 27%

13

32

Ganpat Burud

Galli (Behind

Huns talkies) 174 87000 39 5% 44% 0% 0% 0% 51% 0% 100%

14 23

Harijan Wada,

Khasbag 380 1900 79 6% 39% 8% 1% 1% 19% 25% 94%

15 6

Harijankeri,

Anagol 426 85200 94 0% 76% 0% 0% 0% 7% 17% 85%

16 14

Hindwadi

Waddar Chavani 482 241000 109 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99%

17 6

Indira Nagar,

Belgaum 778 33826 182 0% 52% 0% 47% 0% 1% 0% 98%

18 39

Kaliambrai(Mat

ang colony) 953 238250 201 1% 73% 0% 0% 2% 23% 0% 69%

19 12

Kallyan Nagar,

Vadagaon 742 43647 187 1% 94% 0% 2% 0% 4% 0% 99%

20

13

Kalmeshwar

Nagar, (Near

Devang Nagar)

Vadagaon 189 94500 43 0% 21% 0% 30% 0% 0% 49% 0%

21

57

Kanabargi

Extention

(Sagar colony) 1565 111786 392 1% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 93% 0%

22 13 Kanaka Das 143 20429 28 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 89% 0%



Nagar,

Vadagaon

23 33 Kasai Galli 2518 839333 490 9% 18% 1% 5% 17% 49% 1% 35%

24

54

Konchi Korawar

Galli (Rukmini

Nagar) 904 90400 200 2% 6% 2% 1% 1% 0% 90% 2%

25

22

Kunti Nagar,

(Near Teachers

colony Khasbag) 623 77875 131 27% 58% 0% 1% 0% 0% 14% 0%

26 6

Kurbar Galli,

Anagol. 1813 906500 406 1% 97% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 100%

27 13

Laxmi Nagar,

Vadagaon 4547 35523 947 3% 86% 0% 5% 2% 3% 1% 89%

28

13

Malaprabha

Nagar ,2nd

Stage Belgaum 1001 250250 242 0% 83% 0% 8% 2% 4% 2% 86%

29

13

Malaprabha

Nagar,Ist Stage

Belgaum 457 28563 94 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99%

30 10

Mangai Nagar,

Vadagaon 768 69818.18 176 1% 87% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 90%

31 50

Maruti Nagar,

(Bijapur Road) 1289 85933.33 261 1% 91% 0% 2% 1% 0% 4% 10%

32 4

Nath Pai

Nagar,Anagol. 1267 140778 311 2% 41% 1% 52% 0% 0% 4% 97%

33 9

Nazar Camp,

Harijan Wada 498 41500 111 0% 82% 0% 4% 0% 14% 0% 90%

34 43

Nehru Nagar

(Burud Galli) 440 62857 82 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 91%

35 50

New Gandhi

Nagar 8173 78587 1468 8% 84% 0% 0% 0% 1% 7% 3%



36

50

Old Gandhi

Nagar (Deepak

Galli) 1143 87923 222 2% 57% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 12%

37

20

Patil Galli,

Khasbag (Near

Joshi Mala) 845 19205 178 0% 83% 0% 3% 0% 8% 6% 93%

38

10

Patil Galli,

Waddar Chavani

Belgaum. 707 117833 146 0% 33% 0% 12% 0% 55% 0% 1%

39 2

Rajaram Nagar,

Udyambag 608 23385 132 2% 47% 0% 0% 0% 0% 52% 54%

40 46

Ramnagar

Waddarwadi 2271 70969 460 2% 20% 0% 10% 0% 68% 0% 28%

41

10

Ranajunjar

colony,

Vadagaon 528 26400 122 2% 97% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 95%

42

3

Rohidas Nagar

,4th Railway

Gate. 579 115800 137 0% 69% 0% 0% 0% 0% 31% 33%

43 54

Rukmini Nagar (

Ashray colony) 2734 6076 614 0% 19% 0% 1% 0% 0% 80% 3%

44 54

Rukmini Nagar

(Kasai Galli) 638 70889 136 19% 76% 0% 0% 1% 4% 1% 86%

45

49

Shivaji Nagar

(Panaji Baba

Math) 1084 5420 239 3% 89% 0% 1% 0% 6% 0% 98%

46 51

Shrinagar,

Jopadpatti 310 10333 75 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 5%

47

12

Teggin Galli,

Waddar Chavani

Vadagaon. 402 57429 78 1% 88% 0% 1% 0% 0% 9% 99%



48 52

Vantumuri

Ashray Colony) 1661 16610 363 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 2%

49 6

Waddar Galli,

Anagol. 433 144333 95 0% 49% 1% 45% 0% 3% 1% 99%

50 21

Waddar Galli,

Khasbag. 2240 35556 410 11% 73% 3% 5% 0% 4% 4% 99%

51 5

Zatpat Nagar,

Belgaum. 1793 81500 392 1% 68% 0% 27% 0% 0% 4% 94%

Total 57214 5386613 12082 4% 60% 0% 5% 1% 10% 20% 49%

Note OD colour code legend 0-5% 5-10% 10-15% >15%

[Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010] ** % HHs having UGD connection shows the total percentage of slum households connected to UGD

Poor conditions of toilet facilities resorting to Open Defecation

[Source: ASCI]



4.1.3 OPEN DEFECATION AREAS

Incidences of open defecation are quite high with a percentage of 20% of slum HHs. The slums

are characterized by lack of access to basic sanitation facilities. Ill-maintained public

convenience blocks and inadequate individual unit’s results in unsafe practices like open

defecation.

The details of OD areas are presented in the table as follows.

Table 20: Details of OD areas, CCB

Sl. No. Ranging Ward. No. No.of wards No.of Slums

1 No OD 41,38,13(2*),14(2*),46(2*),32,6(2*),39,12,9,10,49 12 16

2 0-5% 33,13(2*),50,4,43,10,546,21,5 10 11

3 5-10% 1,10,50,20,12 5 5

4 10-15% 6,55,22,10 4 4

5 >15% 58,6(2*),1,23,13(3*),57,54(2*),50,2,51,52, 12 15

*(_)the ward is repeated because of the number of slums in that ward that practice OD

[Source: Asha Kiran Mahiti, 2010 & ASCI primary survey, 2011]

Map 3: Identified Open Defecation Wards in CCB

[Source: ASCI]



4.1.4 COMMUNITY TOILETS

There are 43 community toilets in various wards of Belgaum City Corporation, of which 2 are

maintained by C.C.B worker, 18 by C.C.B contract, 3 are cleaning & contractor and the remaining

by private contractors. Of the 43 toilet complexes, 4 are not working and the remaining are

working but found to be in average conditions. Improper maintenance of the community toilets

is also a major factor that is resorting to Open defecation.

There are in total 335 toilet seats which are being used by 3697 HHs(3%) of the total

households.

The following details are given in the table below.

Table 21 Details Of Community Toilets In Residential / Slum Areas

S.no Ward No

Name of Slum/Area

Location of Community Toilet

Toilet Seats

Number of Househ olds Using

Whether pay and use (Y/N)

Type of Management

Working /Not working

1 1 Majagaon Bedar Galli, Majagaon

2 2 - - Not working

2 2 Majagaon Udyambhag main Road, Beside Bemco

1 3 Yes Contractor -

3 3 Majagaon - - - - - -

4 4 Angol Bable Galli, Angol 4 4 125 Cleaning & Contractor

-

5 Maruti Galli, Angol

4 4 150 Cleaning & Contractor

-

6 Nath pai Nagar, Angol

4 4 135 Cleaning & Contractor

-

7 6 Zeri Galli, Ambebkar Nagar

Zeri Galli 8 110 No Contractor Working

8 9 Patil galli vadhar chavani

vadhar chavani Sambhaji Nagar

3 + 3 146 No CCB pvt Contracter

Working

9 14 Dharwad Road, adagaon, Dhamne Road

--- --- --- CCB Contract

---

10 15 15 chambar wada nath pai nahgar

20 300

11 15 15 sarvoday colony 6 60

12 19 M.F. raod beside ice

8 50 CCB Contract

Working

13 M.F. rd 8 100 CCB Working



Contract

14 Shukrawar peth

1 50 CCB Contract

Working

15 gavali galli 4 100 CCB Contract

Working

16 kalamandir 5 CCB Contract

Working

17 20 PK Quarters near PK Borgala

8+8 100 No CCB Contract

18 PK Quarters near Somaj Mandir

CCB Contract

19 PK Quarters, Yellur Bus stop, Anandwadi,

CCB Contract

20 21 harijan wada gade marg

Harijan wada 4 80 No CCB

21 22 waddar galli khasbag

Maruti galli khasbag

10 205 No CCB

22 23 sambhaji galli BP

sambhaji galli BP 8 20 No CCB

23 24 Harijanwada khasbag

Harijan wada 12 45 No CCB

24 26 No Tambit galli 5+5 275 No C.C.B. Worker

Working

25 27 No Tangdi galli 8+8 305 --- do do

26 28 No Rama Metri Adda 5+5 250 --- do do

27 29 No Patil galli B.P 4+4 150 --- do do

28 30 - Arallikatti D. Galli 6 - Contractor Working

29 - Kalegar Galli 14 - Contractor Working

30 31 - Konwal galli 11 - Contractor Working

31 32 Ganapat Galli

--- 13 39 Yes Contractor Working

32 Burdagalli --- --- --- --- --- ---

33 33 Kasai Galli - 10 425 - Contractor Working

34 33 - Kasai Galli 3 - Yes Contractor Working

35 34 --- Kakar Galli 16 75 --- Contractor Working

36 35 Khnajar galli 10 100 N CCB Working

37 Khanjar galli 11 50 Y nil Working

38 38 Dhor galli Chawat galli 18 190 CCB Working

39 39 kaliambrai kaliambria 18 240 N Workng



40 42 Beldar Chavani Sadashiva Nagar

Sadashiv Nagar 4 + 4 80 Nil C.C.B. Worker

Working

41 46 waddarwadi

govt school side 8 40 No CCB Working

42 Gangawadi Main Road 10 85 No CCB Working

43 54 Rukmini Nagar

--- 2+2 10 No --- Working

Source – Belgaum City Corporation & Surveys

Average to poor conditions of community toilets, CCB

[Source: ASCI Primary Surveys 2011]

4.1.5 PUBLIC TOILETS

There are 10 public toilets in various areas of Belgaum City Corporation out of which 6 are

maintained by contractors, 3 are pay & use the rest are under C.C.B workers charge.

The total number of seats being 78 and the number of persons using it is 4635. The following

table below gives the details of the public toilets.

Table 22 Details of Public toilets and their usage pattern

Ward No

Floating population

Area Location of public toilet

Seats Users Avg Users per seat

Type of O&M model

Additional seats required

2 1250 Udyambhag Udyambhag 4 225 Contractor 20.5

5 70 1.4

6 100 2

7 135 2.7

8 350 7

9 0

10 300 6

11 350 7

12 100 2



13 500 10

14 370 7.4

15 210 4.2

16 150 goaves shopping

goaves shopping

6 100 17 Pay and Use

1

21 250 5

22 800 16

23 600 12

24 200 4

25 1000 20

26 200 S.P.M. Road Near Gandhi Gardan


1.5

27 5500 110

28 150 Shivaji Road Mujawar galli Back

16 200 12.5 C.C.B. Worker

-1

29 2500 50

30 500 10

31 557 Bogarves Area

Bogarves Area

1 150 150 Rama G. Contractor

8.14

32 970 Ganpati Galli Ganapati Galli

5 875 175 Contractor 1.9

1575 M.F. Veg. Market

M.F. Veg. Market

11 1100 100 Contractor 9.5

1225 Huns Talkes Road.

Huns Talkes Road.

13 1250 96 Contractor -0.5

33 2000 CCB Complex

Old PB Road 10 500 50 Bharat Sharma

30

35 1075 21.5

36 500 10

37 2000 40

38 3050 61

39 1000 club road chanamma circle


17.8

42 500 10

43 700 14

45 1000 20

49 300 6

50 200 4

51 800 16

54 50 - - - - - 0

Source – CCB & ASCI



Average to poor conditions of Public toilets, CCB

[Source: ASCI Primary Surveys 2011]

Map 4: Location of community and public toilets

[Source: ASCI]



Belgaum is visited by approx. 33087 floating population per day. The population is served by

only 78 seats in various public toilet complexes scattered all over the city area. The numbers of

seats are inadequate. Hence, some such complexes have to be constructed in these areas to meet

the needs of the visitors in such wards.

The following table gives the ward wise details of the floating population.

Table 23 ward wise Numbers And Percentage Of Floating Population

Ward No No. of People visiting town every day by ward

Areas and localities of visiting

2 1250 Udyambhag

5 70 Sambhaji Chowk main Road & Clinics

6 100 Near Govt. Marathi School, Ragunath Peth

7 135 3rd cross, Bhagynagar, gogate College Road, Vadagaon.

8 350 BigBazar, Bhagi Market

Deshmukh Road, RPD. Circle

9 300 Yallur Road DHO Road & other

10 350 Sombaji Nagar Nozar Comp & Other

11 100 Vishnu galli, Patil galli

12 500 Bazar galli

13 370 bharta nagar

14 210 Laxmi Nagar, Malprabha Nagar

15 150 june belgaon

20 250

21 800 Marketing in khasbag





26 5500 Kapileshwar Temple

27 150 mahadwar Road

28 2500 Shani Temple

29 500 Fort Road, Trunk Road, P.B. Road

30 557 Raviwar Peth, Kalmath Road

31 970 Kelakarbag

32 1575 KhadeBazar, Kadolkar Galli.

33 1225 Khadebazar, Kasai Galli

34 2000 KhadeBazar, Tenginkar Galli

Bendibazar, Dansal Galli

35 1075 Khanjar galli, kacheri rd

36 500 dispensaries

37 2000 Kaktives road veg market



38 3050 Court raod

39 1000 dispensaries civil hospotal

42 500 Marked Yard

43 700 Shahu Nagar Ajab Nagar

45 1000 Ramdev hotel

49 300 Kotikere/Hospital

50 200 Sambra Road

51 800 Fruit Market

54 50 IPP Hospital

Total 33087

Source – Belgaum City Corporation

*Colour code 0-750 750-1500 1500-3000 3000-6000

It is being observed that ward no 26 & 38 receive floating population as high as 5500 and about

5 wards receive population ranging from 1500-3000. Hence, necessary public conveniences

should be provided in the following wards.

4.1.6 SCHOOL SANITATION

Schools are the most important places of learning for children and they have a central place in

the community. Water and sanitation have an impact on the enrolment and attendance of

children in the schools and their health conditions, more important in adolescent girl child. It is

in this regard, the City Sanitation Plan has taken School Sanitation as one of the major

component.

There are 68 govt schools in Belgaum. Government and Govt. aided schools do not have

adequate toilets facilities. Generally they are not changed & maintained properly. Though

toilets are available in the schools the schools are in very bad condition without much lighting

and hygiene.

Table 24: Type of govt. schools w.r.t categories

Sl. No. Category No. of schools

1 UPS 3

2 PS 44

3 PA 1

4 P.S 8

5 L.S 3

6 HS 6

7 DPS 3

TOTAL 68

[Source: CCB, 2011]



TOILET FACILITIES FOR STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS

It has been observed that about 12% of the schools have no toilet facilities. This may be

attributed to lack of adequate maintenance. Such non-functioning toilets need to be looked into

and upgraded, so as to provide adequate toilet facilities to students at the minimal cost of

repairing and maintenance as compared to the cost of construction of new toilets.

It has been observed that about 7% of toilets are unavailable for boys and 9 % of toilets

unavailable for girls resorting to open defecation.

Toilet Facilities for Girls & Boys in School

As per the norms, one urinal space may be provided for every 20-40 boys/girls and one toilet

seat may be provided for every 80-120 boys/girls. At the very outset, the number of toilets

available is scarce and the number of toilets functioning is far less by half. The number of toilets

available for the girl students is barely sufficient. This also reflects on the standards of the

school sanitation along with the importance given for sanitation related activities. The practice

of open defecation in schools is reinforced by traditional behavior patterns and lack of

awareness about the health threats posed by it coupled with non-availability of toilets in the

school premises. The school authorities have not been sensitive to the issues causing health

hazards due to open defecation. The sole reason spelt out quite often is the operation and

maintenance cost of the toilets. All the teachers were of the opinion that providing

infrastructure remains to be the last priority as compared to construction of more school rooms,

etc.

INFORMATION BOX 3: GUIDELINES OF TOTAL SANITATION CAMPAIGN(TSC) FOR SCHOOL

SANITATION

Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) guidelines at present stipulate that toilets in all types of Govt.

schools i.e. Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary and Anganwadis should

be constructed. The Dept. of Drinking Water Supply is supporting the construction of toilets and

urinals in schools under TSC.

The guidelines say that separate toilets for girls and boys should be provided in co-educational

schools which are to be treated as two separate units and each unit is entitled to Central

assistance. The unit cost of each school toilet units is Rs. 20,000 of which 70% i.e. Rs. 14,000 is

Figure 8: Functionality of toilets in govt. schools

[Source:CCB] Figure 9 % availability of toilets for girls & boys

[Source:CCB]

88%

12%

School Sanitation

Having toilets

Not havingtoilets

7% 9%

84%

School Sanitation

% Toiletsunavailable forboys

% Toiletsunavailable forgirls

% Toiletsavailable forboth



given as Central share, the rest being the State share. Each unit consists of one toilet and three or

four urinals. It is evident that the number of toilet units to be built should be linked to the

number of students to be catered to by each unit. Hence, the following clarification is issued:

“One Urinal space may be provided for every 20 to 40 boys or girls separately and one toilet seat

may be provided for every 80 to 120 boys or girls separately. One school toilet unit should

consist of one lavatory and three to four urinals. Construction should be in multiples of units

depending on the strength of the school, on whether students are allowed to go to urinals during

classes, on whether schools have staggered breaks, space available in the school premises,

expected growth in the enrolment and other regional conditions. States are given the flexibility

to define their norms within this range depending on existing State norms and the other factors

mentioned above. School-wise requirement of toilet units should be worked out based on these

factors.”

CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF SCHOOL TOILETS

Sanitation de-linked with water supply loses its very purpose. Children’s ability to learn may be

affected by inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene conditions in several ways. They include

helminthes infections, long-term exposure to chemical contaminants in water (e.g. lead and

arsenic), diarrheal diseases and malaria infections, all of which force many school children to be

absent from school. About 24% of toilets in schools do not have water supply facilities.

Figure 10 water facility availability in schools

[Source – CCB]

Figure 11 waste water disposal in schools

[Source – CCB]

WASTE WATER DISPOSAL IN SCHOOL TOILETS

Majority of the toilets (83%) in the govt. schools of CCB are connected to UGD. 17% toilets are

connected to the septic tanks and the remaining 8% of schools have no sanitation facility.

School Saniation, [survey ASCI]

76%

24%

Water Facility Availability

water facilityavailable

water facilityunavailable

83%

17%

Waste Water Disposal

connected toUGD

connected toseptic tank



4.1.7 SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT

At present, Belgaum city is partly covered by underground sewerage system. The system is still

under construction. Corporation is having one sucker machine for cleaning the septic tanks. At

Present Corporation has no sewage treatment plant thus all the sewage water –untreated, is let

into Bellary nalla. The government has sanctioned 186 crores for entire remodeling of the UGD

system and construction of the sewage treatment plant for the entire city.

Table 25 Sludge/Septage Equipment And Mangement

No. Indicator Municipality Owned

A Equipment Available ---

1 No of Sludge Suction trucks/equipment One

2 Annual No of tanks cleaned - last year's estimate 194

B Cleaned using mechanical equipment

3 Estimated Volume (ML) cleaned last year 582000 litres

4 Method of Conveyance and Disposal: Untreated UGD main line

5 Amount Disposed Untreated (ML) - last year's estimate 582000 litres

6 Location of disposal - untreated UGD main line

7 Method of Conveyance and Disposal: Treated No treatment

8 Amount Disposed Treated (ML) - last year's estimate Nill

9 Location of disposal - Treated Nill

10 Cost per tank cleaning Rs. 1000/- /3000 litres of tank capait

Source - CCB

From the field survey, it was observed that most of the houses get their septic tanks cleaned

after large intervals of about 1 – 7 years. This is a point of concern, because when cleared after

such intervals, the septic tanks may not function to the full extent in treating the septage.

The individual houses or the communities approach private agencies which clear the septage

through Cess Pool Vehicles. The houses pay a onetime charge of Rs. 1000 – Rs. 3000. No

information about the average volume of faecal sludge generated and disposed annually was

available. The private agencies dispose of the collected sludge in low lying areas outside the

municipal boundary.

Untreated waste water is let into Bellary nalla as there is no treatment facility



INFORMATION BOX 4: SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE NORMS

Service agents and councils are not fully

aware of the maintenance recommendations.

Annual servicing should include assessment

of the sludge and scum levels, and checking of

the outlet and inlet square junctions for

blockages. Septic tanks ideally should be de-

sludged at a minimum of every three years

and other criteria given below are not

followed in septic tank maintenance.

The scum layer is within 100 mm of the bottom of the inlet square junction, or the sludge

layer is within 200 mm of the bottom of the outlet square junction.

the sludge occupies the basic allowance (1550 L) of the septic tank, or

The total depth of sludge and scum is equal to one-third of the depth of the tank.

De-sludging procedure should ensure that 400 - 500 mm of liquid is retained in the tank,

and that the tank is immediately refilled with water to the outlet level to prevent the tank

from being lifted by soil hydrostatic pressure.

Periodical IEC programme can only address these issues. Considering the volume of the sludge

disposed in an unhygienic manner pose great health hazards to people of Belgaum and UGD

which is under implementation should be able to provide solution to much of the problem.

4.1.8 STANDARDIZED SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS

Table 26: Sewerage And Sanitation – Service Level Benchmarks, Belgaum City Corporation

Sl. No Indicators Benchmarks Status

1 Coverage of toilets 100% 70%

2 Coverage of sewage network services 100% 48%

3 Collection efficiency of the sewage networks 100% 48%

4 Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 100% 0%

5 Quality of sewage treatment 100% 0%

6 Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 20% 0%

7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80% 60%



8 Extent of cost recovery in sewage management 100% 0%

9 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 90% 0%

[Source –SLB notifications of Karnataka ULB’s 2011]

4.1.9 WASTE WATER PROJECTIONS

Assessment for the amount of sewerage that may be produced by the future population growth

has been made on the basis of the projected population, and the present per capita water

supply. By 2045, 71.77 MLD of waste water will be produced by the city’s population.

Table 27: Projections Of Waste Water

Year Avg per capita Population (Arithmetic Increase method)

Waste Water in MLD

2010 110 536,943 47.25

2015 110 576,754 50.75

2020 110 616,566 54.26

2025 110 656,377 57.76

2030 110 696,189 61.26

2035 110 736,000 64.77

2040 110 775,812 68.27

2045 110 815,623 71.77

[Source – ASCI]

INFORMATION BOX 5: SEWERAGE AND SANITATION – THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

20% of slum HHs defecate in open – immediate mitigation necessary.

There is a need for improving the information database about sanitation on the part of the

Municipality.

12% of schools do not have toilet facilities necessary up gradation is required.

There is a need for construction of more number of community toilets in the slums within

the Municipality area.

At Present Belgaum Corporation has no sewage treatment plant thus all the sewage water –

untreated, is let into Bellary nalla.

Clearing of the sludge from the septic tanks is done majorly by human agencies.



4.2 STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

The drainage system consists of open drains for Kitchens and bathroom wastes. There is a need

to undertake a comprehensive study of storm water drainage system and take up its

implementation in a scientific manner.

4.2.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE NETWORK

The bellary nala once a perennial stream carrying fresh water has now turned into a sewer

drain all along its course of about 30kms. This Nala passes through a highly fertile black cotton

soil which is underlain by a very good acquifer probably by now this fresh water aquifer might

have been contaminated with the influx of sewage. The farmers along this nala pump out the

sewage water for irrigating sugarcane, paddy, vegetable etc. thereby passing the toxic

contaminants into the food chain. Farmers themselves get affected physically while irrigating

with sewage water charged with heavy contaminants and disease causing bacteria. Besides

contaminating rural and urban water sources the aesthetic beauty of the countryside which was

once being a land with perennial sources of fresh water has been severely affected. The cattle

drink and bath in the same water, the rural children play and bathe in this water out of their

ignorance of its after effects and the entire nala stinks. The outlet of this nala is constrained due

to hilly terrain and gentle slopes of the ground. After the growth of the Belgaum city and spread

of its utilities the contribution of surface runoff to this nala is decreased many fold and every

year the vast stretch of fertile land on either side is flooded for several weeks during rainy

seasons. This causes enormous damages to the standing crops on the fertile land therby

depriving the farmers of their labour and investment.

Conditions of storm water drains in Belgaum

[Source- ASCI]



4.2.2 COVERAGE

The total length of primary and secondary drains in Belgaum city is 349 kms along the roadside

which works out to 45.45 per cent of the total road length (615km) of the city which is far less

than the norm of 150 per cent coverage of the present road length. This indicates the necessity

of extension of road side drains in unserved and under-served areas.

Table 28 Details of the coverage of storm water drains,CCB

Length Kms

Length of pucca drains(Km) 56

Length of kutcha Drains (Km) 293

Total length of drains(Km) 349

Total Length of Road Network (Km) 615

4.2.3 OUTFALLS

There is no sewage treatment plant and recycling facilities within the area. The entire sewage is

directed to Bellary nala which is linked through gutters and sewer lines. The most damaging

waste in the Belgaum City is in the form of sewage.

4.2.4 EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

Majority of the drains in the city area are lined due to regular yearly maintenance silt deposition

is less in the most of the existing natural drains. Some of the secondary drains and tertiary

drains are choked-up due to improper maintenance. Road sides drains consist of box shaped

drenches on one or both sides of the road and are covered by slabs. Most of the drains are found

to carry both sewage and sullage flow, thereby increasing the flow quantity in drains. This is due

to the absence of branch and trunk sewers.

4.2.5 LOCAL FLOODING AREAS

The primary survey analyses

show that 18 % HHs in slums and

19% HHs in non-slums reside in

areas with water logging

problems. Such areas experience

flooding during the monsoons.

And about 11% of slums HHs

especially during rains.

Table 29 HHs in water logging areas, CCB

Whether the area is prone to flooding

during rains

Slum HHs

Non-Slum HHs

During rains 11% 0%

Once in a while 4% 0%

Total HHs in areas with flooding

18% 0%

No flooding 67% 100%

Total 100% 100%

[Source: ASCI Primary Surveys, 2011]



INFORMATION BOX 6: STORM WATER DRAINAGE – THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

No comprehensive plan for improvement of storm water drains.

Water logging and flood prone areas are observed.

Inadequate capacity of drains due to silting and weeding of drains.

The farmers along this nala pump out the sewage water for irrigating sugarcane, paddy,

vegetable etc. thereby passing the toxic contaminants into the food chain.

Partial/ haphazard lining of drains.

The entire sewage is directed to Bellary nala which is linked through gutters and sewer

lines.

Flow of sewage and disposal of solid wastes into drains.

Silting, weeding and blockage of drains due to dumping of construction spoils and other

wastes.

Lack of adequate maintenance of drain channel and associated structures.

Cleaning of drains manually without any safety equipment.

4.2.6 STANDARDIZED SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS

As per the standard service level indicators following benchmarks have been assessed:

Table 30: Storm Water Drainage System – Service Level Benchmarks, CCB

Sl. No Indicators Benchmarks Status

1 Coverage of storm water drainage system 100% 53%

2 Incidences of water logging/flooding 0 3




4.3 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

As per the definition provided by the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules,

2000 of Government of India, municipal solid waste (MSW) includes commercial and residential

wastes generated in municipal or notified areas in either solid or semi-solid form excluding

industrial hazardous wastes but including treated bio-medical wastes. The present section

elucidates the status of municipal solid waste management in the city of Belgaum.

The various aspects of solid waste management as per MSW rules 2000 in Belgaum City are

taken care of by the Environmental Engineer and his department. The daily waste generated in

Belgaum is about 158TPD with a daily collection 149.6 TPD.

4.3.1 Primary collection and coverage

The total number of households with D2D collection in CCB area is 57376 (49%). Manually

driven tricycles are used for door-to-door collection. All the household wastes, bulk generator

wastes and street sweeping wastes is disposed of in community bins. Municipal solid waste is

not mixed with hospital and industrial waste.

Primary surveys show that D2D collection system is more prevalent in non-slum areas of the

city. Only about 5% of slum HHs having D2D collection. The slum dwellers majorly (approx.

68%) practice disposal of waste in the roadside bins and it has been observed that about 50% of

Non-slum HHs majorly dispose it in roadside bins. There are about 3% slum HHs who dispose of

their waste in open drains.

Figure 12 Percentage distribution of HHs w.r.t waste disposal


The ULB carries and clears the waste either through D2D collection, or from roadside bins and

designated dumping spots. But this clearing is not quite efficient as waste still remains after

clearance. This creates unclean and unhealthy environs.

68%

25%

3% 5%

50%

0% 0%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Disposed inroadside Bin

Disposed atdesignated

open dumpingspot

Disposed indrain

Door-to-doorcollection

Slum HHs

Non slum HHs



SATISFACTION WITH SWM SYSTEM

Primary surveys indicate that

majority of both slum and non-slum

HHs rate the collection system as bad.

This clearly states the inefficient

methods of SWM practices about 23%

of slum HHs and 50% of non –slum

HHs rate the system as ‘Average’.

Only a very minor percentage of the

remaining HHs rate the system as

‘Good’.

Figure 13 Satisfaction with waste collection system


Illicit dumping of SWM


4.3.2 Street sweeping

The street sweeping waste is collected in small heaps and gets disposed off to community bins.

The City Corporation collects the waste using tippers, tractors and dumper placers. The street

sweeping happens in the night time as well as early mornings in the town.

The following table shows the length of the roads for the street sweeping and the waste

collected from it.

Table 31: Road Category And Their Lengths

Road category Units

CC Roads 50kms

BT Roads 520kms

Residential Roads 68kms

Total street sweeping waste generated 76MT

Total street waste collected 21MT

[Source – CCB]

0% 1%

23%

76%

0% 0%

50% 50%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Slum HHs

Non slum HHs



Street sweeping and open drains cleaning and other cleaning related activities are being

managed by corporation pourakarmikas as well as private sanitation contractors.

4.3.3 Waste generation, Segregation, quantity and characteristics

About 158 tons of waste is generated per day in Belgaum City. Belgaum city corportation

collects about 149.6 tons (95 %), of the total waste, through its solid waste collection system.

The per capita waste generation in the town is about 339.5 gm per day that is higher than the

normative estimate of 210 gm per capita per day by CPHEEO for the similar size of city.

Segregation of waste is not being practiced in CCB. The following graph gives the details of

category wise waste generated and collected.

Figure 14 Collection & generation of solid waste

[Source: CCB]

The solid waste that is collected is segregated into wet, dry/ recyclable waste. Physical

composition survey indicates components such as Paper, Plastics, Glass, Metals, Dust & Ash

Clothes, Rags & Rubber and hazardous are yet to be analyzed.

4.3.4 Secondary Collection

The waste from primary collection is transferred to secondary collection metal containers. The

primary collection is done with the help of 40 SHG’s and 20 RWA. 50% area is covered under

collection of waste from DTD and corporation has given 11 auto tippers, 30 tricycles and 128

push carts for various SHG’s & RWA’s. At present Belgaum City Corporation 292 pourakarmikas

for sanitation work. As the number of PK’s in the city corporation are not sufficient to manage

the sanitation of 58 wards. This subject was discussed in the council meeting and it has been

decided to give the work of maintenance of sanitation work of 43 wards to private sanitation

contractors following due procedure.

4.3.5 Transportation

The entire garbage is transported to the landfill site with the help of 8 twin dumper placer, 12

tippers, 8 tractors.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Residential &commercial

waste

Streetsweeping

Market waste

Category Of Waste Generation & Collection

Quantity of wastegenerated (MT/Month)

Quatity of wastecollected(MT/Month)



Table 32 Details Of Vehicles Used For To Door To Door Waste Collection

Ward No. Vehicle Type

No. of Vehicle

Capacity of each vehicle

No. of

Trips

Total waste collected

1,2,3,4 Auto Tipper 3 0.5 tone 3 4.5

Push Cart 3 90 kg 5 1.5

5,6,7,8 Auto Tipper 2 0.5 tone 4 4

Push Car 6 90 5 2.7

9,10, 11,12

Auto Tipper 1 0.5 tone 2 1

Push Cart 20 90 3 5

13,15 Auto Tipper 2 0.5 tone 6 3

14 & 20 Auto Tipper 1 0.5 tone 1 1

Push Cart 3 0.5 tone 3 3

21,22,23,24,25 Push cart 15 90 KG 3 4

30,31,33 Auto Tipper 6 540 kg 6 6.5

Push Cart - - - -

32 & 34 Pursh Cart 15 30 kg 2 1.0

35,37,38 Pursh Cart 3 90 10 3

49,50 ,51,54

Auto Tipper 1 0.6 5 3

whed Borrows

12 90 kg 4 3.6

52 & 53 Auto Tipper 1 0.5 Tone 5 2.5

Push Car 4 90 kg / Push Car

4 1.5

56,57,58 Auto Tipper nill --- --- ---

Push Car nill --- --- ---

Source - CCB

4.3.6 Treatment & Disposal

The entire waste transported to MSW land fill site which is situated at Turmuri village, 14kms

away from the city. M/S Ramky Enviro Engineers PVT limted has been entrusted for final

processing, treatment, inertisation and disposal of Municipal Solid waste on BOT waste for a

period of 25 years. They have already established the plant for treating the waste scientifically

and converting the waste into manure. The manure generated is marketed through Nagarjuna

fertilizers on behalf of Ramky Enviro Engineers limited.



SWM disposal site, CCB Ramky Enviro treatment SWM yet to

function

INFORMATION BOX 7: INITIATIVES BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SWM

The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, have emphasized the need to collect and dispose ‘rubbish and filth’ in a defined manner, so as to keep public places clean. However, there is no reference to scientific collection and disposal of the same. Hence, rules have been laid down fixing the responsibility of management of solid waste disposal and various standards for disposal solid waste.

The rules that regulate the management and handling of solid waste in Belgaum are:

Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000;

Karnataka State Policy on Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM);

Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998;

Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1989, 2000, 2003;

Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001; and

Recycled Plastics (Manufacture and Usage) Rules, 1999.

Guidelines for managing E-waste, 2002

4.3.7 Service level benchmarking indicators

The following service indicators shows the performance of SWM in Belgaum

Table 33 : Solid Waste Management – Service Level Benchmarks,CCB

Sl. No Indicators Benchmark

s Status

1 Household level coverage of Solid Waste Management

services 100% 90%

2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 100% 80%

3 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste 0% 0%

4 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered/recycled 60% 60%

5 Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste 100% 100%

6 Extent of cost recovery in solid waste management

services 100% 0%

7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80% 99%



8 Efficiency in collection of user charges 90% 70%


4.3.8 Future demand and gap

The following table shows the projections for SWM considering the average per capita as 0.33kg.

Table 34: Projections For Solid Waste Generation In Future

YEAR Avg per capita (kg)

Population (Arithmetic Increase method)

Projection of solid waste generated (TPD)

2010 0.33 536,943 177.19

2015 0.33 576,754 190.33

2020 0.33 616,566 203.47

2025 0.33 656,377 216.60

2030 0.33 696,189 229.74

2035 0.33 736,000 242.88

2040 0.33 775,812 256.02

2045 0.33 815,623 269.16

[Source –ASCI]

INFORMATION BOX 8: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT – THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

It was observed that DTD collection of SWM is very inefficient and only 49% of households

have coverage.

Staff requires proper training on solid waste handling and collection the solid waste.

Crude dumping of solid waste on the roadsides, open drains and vacant lands was

observed which creates unhygienic surroundings.

Segregation of waste is not practiced in Belgaum city.



4.4 WATER SUPPLY

INTRODUCTION

Before the commencement of Rakaskop Water Supply Scheme in 1964, Belgaum city was

dependent on open wells. The wells have an average diameter of 30'–35’ with an average water

column of 60'–70’, even during summer. These wells were abandoned after the introduction of

tap water. However, in 1995, the reservoir that supplied water to the city dried up due to

variations in the monsoon. Until 1995, the Rakaskop reservoir was the only source of potable

water for Belgaum city. Wells and open wells were misused as garbage dumping sites, or for

religious rituals like Ganesh immersion. Because of their misuse, many of the wells were

covered with concrete slabs and people had forgotten about their existence. In 1995, with the

delayed monsoons, the reservoir dried up, creating a water crisis in Belgaum city. At this

juncture, the Belgaum City Corporation (BCC), after studying the viability of revival of the open

wells, initiated the process of utilisation of groundwater from open wells to augment surface

water supply. In the process, it also protected the water-table and environment.

The survey, it was realised that Belgaum has an aquifer beneath the laterite stones, and that

most of the old wells are situated there.

Subsequently, 15 high-yield open wells were identified within the corporation limits. Identified

wells were cleaned up, de-silted and de-watered with the involvement of local people, NGOs,

social workers and citizen clubs.

Mini filters with an average design capacity of

50,000 l/hr along with an alum dozer,

chlorinator, and pumps, were fixed to the wells.

The quality of water was tested and supplied to

citizens through the existing distribution

network. Each open well has an average yield of

4 lakh liters of water per day.

The cost of the project worked out to Rs. 5, 00,000 per well. The operating cost of each plant

with 50,000 LPH filtration capacity and 8 hours pumping was around Rs. 307 per day. The

details are given in the table:

4.4.1 Source of water

The purified water supply of the Belgaum city is done by Karnataka urban water and sewerage

board (KUWSSB) from 2 different sources i.e Markendaya river-Ra kaskoppa and ghataprabha

river-Hidkal dam and every day 15MGD of water is supplied to the city. Recently 24/7 water

supply system is implemented in 10 wards of Belgaum City. The billing is done on monthly basis

and the people are paying the bills regularly.

In view of the success of 24hr continuous water supply in these 10 wards people have

expressed their willingness for the similar facility in their wards. Hence a proposal was

submitted for implementation of 24hrs supply of water in the entire city. The same is accepted

by the Govt. of Karnataka and this facility will be extended to the entire city.

Table 35 Expenditure details of the well

Expenditure Area Cost per Day

Electricity 152

Chemicals 55

Labour 100

Total 307

Source - CCB



4.4.2 Service coverage

The service coverage of water supply is covering 39801 HHs (about approx. 34%). There are

about 30 % metered connections in Belgaum. Following are the ward wise details of various

categories of connections.

Table 36 Ward Wise Connection Details

Ward No HHs Connected To Piped Water

No. Of Hours Per Day Other Commercial Properties Connected To Piped Water System

1 329 3 hours / day

2 2474 3 hours / day 19

3 3 hours / day

4 3 hours / day

5 3 hours / day

6 3 hours / day

7 896 3 hours / day 25

8 849 3 hours / day 1

9 827 3 hours / day 2

10 621 3 hours / day

11 844 3 hours / day 12

12 856 3 hours / day 1

13 703 3 hours / day 3

14 637 3 hours / day 3

15 854 3 hours / day 22

16 900 3 hours / day 2

17 944 3 hours / day 15

18 417 3 hours / day 3

19 572 3 hours / day 11

20 511 3 hours / day 4

21 610 3 hours / day 3

22 627 3 hours / day 14

23 585 3 hours / day 3


25 1054 3 hours / day 10

26 446 3 hours / day 2

27 421 3 hours / day 4

28 505 3 hours / day 18


30 469 3 hours / day 21

31 638 3 hours / day 19

32 532 3 hours / day 27

33 561 3 hours / day 36

34 633 3 hours / day 12

35 484 3 hours / day 5



36 519 3 hours / day 23

37 388 3 hours / day 2

38 459 3 hours / day 12

39 614 3 hours / day 2

40 654 3 hours / day 6

41 501 3 hours / day 7

42 380 3 hours / day 14

43 2172 3 hours / day 17

44 429 3 hours / day 10


46 1111 3 hours / day

47 1324 3 hours / day 3

48 107 3 hours / day 10

49 881 3 hours / day 19

50 803 3 hours / day 3

51 496 3 hours / day 2

52 1658 3 hours / day 5

53 2305 3 hours / day 6

54 1719 3 hours / day 7

55 74 3 hours / day 0

56 207 3 hours / day 3

57 165 3 hours / day 0

58 599 3 hours / day 0

Total 39801 0 448

Source - CCB

There are about 448 other commercial properties connected to piped water system.

4.4.3 Coverage and Supply

The following table shows the coverage of water supply system and number of connections.

Table 37: Details of the coverage of the Water Supply System (2009)

Sl. No. Particulars Units

1. Population 465282

2. Current Per Capita water consumption (in LPCD) 110

3. Per capita supply as per CPHEEO Norm (in LPCD) 135

4 Population covered under piped Water Supply 34%

5. Quantity of drinking water supply per day 15 MGD

6. Source of water

1st stage started Rakkaskoppa

2nd stage started Hidkal dam

7. No. Overhead tanks 5

8. No. of Bore wells 16

Source - CCB



4.4.4 Standardized Service Level indicators

Table 38: Water Supply Services, CCB

Sl. No. Indicators Benchmarks Present Status

1 Coverage of water supply connections

100% 62%

2 Per capita water supply 135 lpcd 110 lpcd

3 Extent of metering of connections 100% 30%

4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW)

15% 25%

5 Continuity of water supply 24 hrs 0 hrs

6 Quality of water supply 100% 100%

7 Efficiency of redressal of customer complaints

80% 80%

8 Cost recovery in water supply services

100% 43.6%

9 Efficiency in collection of water supply related charges

90% 85%


4.4.5 Future Demand and Gap

Assessment of the future water supply requirements has been made on the basis of the

projected population and the present per capita water supply. By 2045, the city would require

about 120 MLD of water supply.

Table 39: Projections For Water Demand

YEAR Avg per capita (lpcd)

Population (Arithmetic Increase method)

Water Supply requirements (MLD)

2010 110 536,943 59.06

2015 110 576,754 63.44

2020 110 616,566 67.82

2025 110 656,377 72.20

2030 110 696,189 76.58

2035 110 736,000 80.96

2040 110 775,812 85.34

2045 110 815,623 89.72

[Source – ASCI]

INFORMATION BOX 9: WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM – THE KEY OBSERVATIONS

Unaccounted for Water (UFW): In the old system, nearly 25 per cent of water loss due to

leakages & unauthorized connections was indicated by CCB officials. The distribution losses

are accounting more than designed losses.

Disparity in water supply rates and pressure is observed in certain areas due to lack of



proper distribution of storage tanks, leakages in pipelines, contour, etc.

Only small percentage of households is connected to the water supply system indicating a

sizeable gap between the total number of properties and the number of house service

connections.

4.4.6 New And Upcoming Project

24x7 Water Supply Project

The Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Develpoment And Finance

Corporation.

The World Bank assisted Karnataka Urban water Sector Improvement Project (KUWASIP) is a

key project being implemented by KUIDFC,KUWS and City Corporation Belgaum. This is the first

phase of a long-term programme to improve and bring in reforms in the water and sanitation

sector in Karnataka.It is a path-breaking project in the water supply and distribution sector in

India. For the first time, the expertise of the private sector is being harnessed to improve the

system of water supply and also increase the efficiency in operations of water distribution in

small areas of select project cities in the state.

1. Government of Karnataka with assistance from the World Bank has launched the Karnataka

Urban Water Sector Improvement Project (KUWASIP) to bring initial Improvements in water

supply in three Urban Local Bodies (ULB) i.e. Gulbarga, Belgaum and the twin cities of Hubli-

Dharwad. The cost details of the project is as follows:

Table 40 Cost Details Of The Project

World Bank Aid. Rs. 181.70 Crores

Govt. of Karnataka Investment

Rs. 55.34 Crores

Total Project cost Rs. 237.04 Crores

Source - CCB

Table 41 Ulb Wise Investment For Works (Amount In Rs. Crores) :

ULB For PI Works For Demo zone works Total Investment

Belgaum 36.05 6.32 42.37

Gulbarga 45.37 4.46 49.83

Hubli-Dharwad 38.52 8.62 47.14

Total Amount 119.94 19.40 139.34

Source - CCB



Urban Local Bodies (Corporation of the city of Belgaum): The Corporation is the owner of all the properties and information given at the beginning of the takeover of Demonstration area to the Operator and also that which is generated by the Operator, at the end of the O & M period, of 24/7 system operation. KUWS&DB (Priority Investment works): Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWS&DB) has carried out the priority Investment works to improve the bulk water supply to the three cities, by means of selected replacements or improvements to Bulk water supply infrastructure, principally directed at reducing leakage from transmission systems. CGE – Operator (Demonstration zone works): Compagnie Generale Des Eaux (C.G.E) and Seureca, the operator appointed to carryout the improvements in distribution system in selected parts of the three cities, with the key objective of demonstrating that continuous, pressured, supply of water is possible. Fichtner (Technical Auditor) : KUIDFC has procured the services of Technical Auditor, Fichtner Consulting Engineers India Private Limited. The Technical Auditor will independently review and monitor the PI & Demonstration project.

Table 42 Technical details of 24 / 7 Demo zones of Belgaum

S.No Details North South Total Reference

No. of properties 4017 3501 7518 Survey data

Authorized house service connections

4004 4309 8313 B&C database

Frequency of supply 24 hrs. 24 hrs. 24 hrs. Flow data & Baseline parameters

Estimated quantity of water (MLD)

4.842 5.138 9.98 FIP

Volume of water supplied (Mld)

4.375 3.716 8.091 Baseline parameters

Physical losses 12% 4.50% Flow data & other documents

System pressures (m) 6 to 20 6 to 20 from Pressure data in present system

24 hrs Customer care center

1 unit 1 unit 2 units Complaint data from customer care center.

Complaint redressal frame frame 100% within time frame

Database of CCM

Water meter test bench

1 unit 1 unit

Billing 100% Monthly

volumetric

100% Monthly

volumetric

100% Monthly

volumetric

B & C statement

Revenue collection >90% >90% >90% DCB statement

Average per capita consumption(lpcd)

90 to 100 80 to 90 Flow data in demo zones

Source - CCB



Table 43 Raw water pumping details

Number of Raw water source ( Rakaskoppa & Hidkal ) 2

Total quantity of Bulk water pumped from source – Rakaskoppa 12 MGD

Total quantity of Bulk water pumped from source – Hidkal 12 MGD

Quantity of raw water directed to beneficiaries 6MGD

Quantity of raw water reaching water treatment plant 18 MGD

Source - CCB



Chapter 5

Institutional capacity and finance

5.1 MUNICIPAL FINANCE

The Belgaum City Corporation has the responsibility of making provision for basic civic

amenities and maintenance of core services in the city viz., maintenance of streetlights;

provision (maintenance) of drainage and sewer facilities, solid waste management, maintenance

of parks, gardens and play grounds; sanitation and maintenance of city roads. In addition, it also

provides for primary education and medical needs, markets, cremation and burial grounds,

slaughter houses, and regulating advertisements. The CCB receives however the bulk of its

revenue in the form of intergovernmental transfers through grants.

The financial analysis of CCB has been done on the basis of income and expenditure data

provided by the CCB, through budget documents from 2006 to 2008 data. On the income side,

under the revenue account, the resources are generated through levying of various taxes/duties

and rental income from municipal properties. The capital and suspense accounts deal with the

transfers (grants and contribution) from government. The expenditure of CCB is also divided

into three major similar headings viz., revenue expenditure, capital expenditure and suspense

account. The following table shows the budget details from the year 2006-2008.

Table 44 Estimate For Revenue Receipts

Particulars 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

General Administration 1526.42 2454.5 1960.42

Accounts and Finance 29.99 96 75

Audit Wing 0 12 15.5

Council 10.27 25.75 29.75

General Administration -Estate 55.56 105 105

Town Planning 217.87 459.5 538.5

Planning and Regulations-Trade Licence / Regulation

39.61 75.5 99

Public Works 96.47 308.5 337.5

Roads, Pavements, Footpaths and road side drains

0 475 125

Street Ligting 0 1834.56 1752

Health General 37.6 63 191.93

Health -Medical 0 39 53

Solid Waste Management 701.52 700 701.65

Civic Emenities -General 7.16 0 2.2

Water Supply 42.78 1400 1748

Civic Amenities-Sewerage 0.5 15 16.5

Urban Forestry 0 58 64.1

Welfare of SC,ST and OBC 0 0 0



Slum improvement 1.91 2 2

Revenue-General 734.82 993.5 1147.08

Estimate of Revenue Receipts 3502.48 9116.81 8964.13

Source - CCB

The following table shows the estimate for Revenue Payments.

Table 45 Estimate For Revenue Payments

Particulars 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

General Administration 657.82 765.3 863.9

Legal Cell. 3.36 11.05 6.85

I T Cell 3.4 35.95 39.05

Accounts and Finance 16.39 30.25 39.95

Audit Wing 7.03 13.65 20.65

Town Planning. 11.18 20.9 32.7

Public Works General. 141.92 398.2 351.7

Roads, Pavements, Footpaths & road side drains 388 1440 745

Street Lighting. 136.17 1902.96 1953.3

Health -General. 60.24 175 238.5

Health -Medical. 62.82 61.1 85.5

Burial and Cremation 14.36 65.5 16.25

Solid Waste Management 957.56 1164.1 1306.35

Civic Amenities 0 2 2

Water Supply. 116.45 1420 1405

Sewerage. 53.54 150 101

Urban Forestry. 69.77 111.75 139.7

Urban Poverty Alleviation. 90.66 95 102.8

Slum improvement 0 0 0.25

Education. 0 8.25 15.5

Revenue. 83.72 524.5 560.25

Estimate of Revenue Payments 2894.26 8433.66 8115.55

Source - CCB

The following table shows the estimate for Capital receipts & payments.

Table 46 Estimates for Capital Receipts & Payments

Particulars 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

General Administration 454.6 1200 1000

Public WorksRoads,pavements &footpaths 0 0 100

Public Works-footovers,bridges and subways 0 0 0

Public Works-Street Lighting 0 75 10



Public Works-Storm water drains, Open drains, Culverts and causeways

0 0 0

Public Health 0 0 0

Solid Waste Management 0 0 0

Civic amenities -Sewerage 0 10 10

Urban Forestry Parks,Garden

Welfare of SC,ST and OBCs 0 0 0

Education 0 0 0

Total Estimate of Capital Receipts 454.6 1285 1120

ESTIMATES FOR CAPITAL PAYMENTS

General Administration 228.18 655 460

I T Cell 7.11 7 35

Roads, Pavements,Footpaths and road side drains 192.47 1075 320

Public Works -Bridges,Flyover 0.48 0 0

Street Lighting 82.05 171 251

Health Medical 0 0 0

Solid waste management 2.28 30 85

Civic Amenities 2.58 0 2

Water Supply 37.17 5 5

Sewerage 66.25 88 105

Urban forestry 3.04 85 135

Welfare activities of SC,ST and OBC 0 82 68.53

Total Estimate of Capital Payments 621.61 2198 1466.53

Source - CCB

Figure 15 Estimate for Revenue Receipts & Revenue Payments

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2006-07 200708 2008-09

Estimate of Revenue Receipts & Revenue Payments

Estimate of RevenueReceipts

Estimate of RevenuePayments



Figure 16 Estimate of Capital Receipts & Payments

The following graph shows that the Revenue & Capital have decreased in 2008-09.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2006-07 200708 2008-09

Estimate of Capital Receipts & Payments

Estimate of CapitalReceipts

Estimate of CapitalPayments


Chapter 6

Sanitation Situation and Ranking

6.1 NATIONAL SANITATION RANKING PARAMETERS

The Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) has identified a set of output, process and outcome

indicators to assess the existing sanitation conditions in the town. The list of indicators pertain

to the practice of open defecation, access to sanitation (individual, community and public),

collection, treatment and disposal of solid and liquid wastes, proper upkeep and maintenance of

the sanitation infrastructure, clear institutional roles and responsibilities and improvements in

health and environment (cf. Annex 1). A total of 19 indicators have been detailed, of which nine

are output-related ( six are direct indicators identified under service level bench marking by

GoUD, GOI) , seven are process-related and three are outcome-related. Sanitation parameters

such as access to community toilets, safe management of human excreta and solid waste

collection and treatment.

Output Indicators: 50/100 ( 9 main output indicators and out of which 6 are SLB indicators)

Behavioural aspects and provision to safe collection, treatment and disposal without harming

city’s environment.

Process Related: 30/100 ( 7 main process-indicators )

Indicators pertain to systems and procedures - exist and practiced by city agencies to ensure

sustained sanitation.

Outcome Related: 20/100 (3 main outcome-indicators)

Indicators include: quality of drinking water & water in water-bodies, reduction in sanitation-

related and water-borne diseases over a time period.

Diseases by faeco-orally transmitted enteric pathogens - 10% of total burden of disease in India.

Intestinal group of diseases claim about 5 million lives and about 50 million people suffer every

year.

Findings of a survey commissioned by the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) that rate

Indian cities on safe sanitation practices of 423 Class-I cities (with a population of more than

100,000 ). Four color codes have been assigned to the cities based on the points they obtained

in the rating; red means the cities need 'immediate remedial action', black means 'need

considerable improvement', blue means ‘recovering,’ green means ‘healthy and clean.’

community-driven Nirmal Shahars, or totally sanitized, healthy, and livable cities and towns.

As per national Rankings, Belgaum has been ranked at 91 out of 423 Class I cities, scoring 40.51

marks out of 100 and in Black category. This means performance of Belgaum in regard to safe

sanitation has a good scope for improvement on various indicators. A complete profiling of

Belgaum against 19 parameters has been done indicating present status and identifying few

targets which can be achieved immediately, in a short term and in long term. The goal of

Belgaum is to strive for 100 percent access to sanitation facilities in next two years and 100

percent safe disposal of all town generated waste in long term.



Table 47: Sanitation Ranking for Belgaum City Corporation

Sl. No. Indicators Total

Marks Marks

awarded Remarks

1. OUTPUT RELATED INDICATORS

1.a. No Open Defecation

1.a.i.

Access and use of toilets by urban poor and other u-served households by individual and community sanitation facilities

4 0

Field assessment also validated on OD status and agrees with Ranking markings. Short Term Goal - two year (Ref management options on Access.) 1 st year – eliminate OD

1.a.ii. Access and use of toilets by floating and institutional population

4 2 Medium - long Term 60% of public toilets are not properly maintained.

1.a.iii. No open defecation visible

4 0.83 Short to long term MIS, punitive measures and incentives through IEC.

1.a.iv. Manual Scavenging eliminated in the city

4 4

Overestimated - No protection to sanitary workers. Sustaining efforts throughout CSP process and even after that

1.b.

Proportion of total human excreta generation that is safely collected

6 4 Short to Medium – UGD is under construction. Proposal for DEWATS systems in parts of the city.

1.c.

Proportion of total black waste water generation that is treated safely and disposed off

6 0 Damages in UGD system – black water mixes with storm water and drains off into the river.

1.d.

Proportion of total grey wastewater generation that treated and safely disposed of

3 0

Medium – to long term Nil now 30-40% - 2012 40-100% 2010 onwards Next year – 1 mark

1.e. Proportion of treated wastewater that is re-cycled and re-used

3 0

Medium – to long term Nil now. 1- 10% 2012 10- 20% 2012 -2014 20% and more 2014 onwards.

1.f.

Proportion of total storm-water and drainage that is efficiently and safely managed

3 2

Short – to long 40 – 60% : 2012 60- 80 2012 : 2014 100% 2014 onwards

1.g. Proportion of total solid waste generation that is regularly collected

4 1

Short to medium 25%-60% D2D collection improvement by 2012 60 – 100% 2012 onwards Sustenance of system – 2012 onwards

1.h. Proportion of total solid 4 2 Long Term



waste generation that is treated and safely disposed of

1.i.

City wastes cause no adverse impacts on surrounding areas outside city limits

5 1

Long Term Storm water drains clogged with dumped solid waste – in monsoons all the waste gets washed into the river and seas.

OUTPUT RELATED INDICATORS TOTAL

50 16.83

2. PROCESS RELATED INDICATORS

2.a.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Systems in place to track incidences of Open Defecation (OD)

4 0 Short Term Adhering all

2.b. All sewerage systems working properly and no ex-filtration

5 3 Medium to long term

2.c.

All septage / sludge cleaned and safely transported and disposed after treatment, from on-site systems

5 5

2.d. Storm-water drainage systems functioning and maintained

4 2 Frame work plan for maintenance

2.e.

Solid waste management (collection and treatment) efficient (MSW Rules, 2000)

5 1.48 Medium to long term

2.f.

Documented Operational system and clear institutional responsibility assigned for each of the above

4 1

2.g.

Sanctions for deviance on part of polluters and institutions clearly laid out and followed

3 0 Short Term Frame rules

PROCESS RELATED INDICATORS TOTAL

30 12.48

3. OUTCOME RELATED INDICATORS

3.a. Quality of drinking water in city

7 7 Long Term Proposals/strategies for sustenance

3.b. Water quality in water bodies in and around

7 4.2 Overestimated. Several water bodies affected with



city– illicit solid waste dumping. Short – medium term strategies to be adopted

3.c.

Reduction in (sanitation-attributable and) water-borne disease incidence amongst city population

6 0

OUTCOME RELATED INDICATORS TOTAL

20 11.2

GRAND TOTAL 100 40.51



Chapter 7

City-wide Sanitation

7.1. INTRODUCTION

From the situational analysis it is evident that urban sanitation is not only lacking investment it

is also lack of systematic plan for environmental sanitation1. NUSP (2008) mandates ULBs for

universal access, safe management of human excreta, including its safe confinement, treatment

and disposal and associated hygienic related practices. Hence City - wide strategies are

important as they prioritize investment needs and can directly fund to where they are most

needed. In keeping with the above, sanitation vision and following cross cutting strategies are

addressed in CSP of Belgaum. In this section brief outline of Vision statement and specific

strategies are dealt.

7.2. VISION AND CITY- WIDE SANITATION PLANNING

7.2.1 VISION STATEMENT

“Belgaum to be environmentally safe and totally sanitized city so as to ensure good public

health standards, human dignity, and privacy for all citizens”

This covers – collection, transportation, treatment and disposal to prevent disease,

pollution and safeguard dignity.

Keeping these visions in mind, goals have been proposed to be achieved in the Immediate of

Short Term Period (2012-2013), Medium Term Period (2014-2016), and Long Term Period

(2016 onwards). The goals as proposed have been presented as follows:

Table 48: Goals for City-wide Sanitation Planning, Belgaum

Period Goals

Immediate

(2012 -13)

–Elimination of open defecation

–Improvement of sanitation situation in slums

–Universal access to safe sanitation

–School Sanitation

–Up gradation of unsanitary to sanitary toilets

– Credible Information (MIS &GIS) and integrating with RAY programme

––City-wide education and awareness campaign

–Decentralized technology options for pockets not covered under UGD.

–100% Door to door collection of MSW

–Source segregation of waste

–Framing of laws for deviance on the part of polluters and institutions

1Environmental Sanitation (WHO,1987) includes aspects of excreta and waste water disposal, together with wider environmental factors that impact on health, such as community water supplies, refuse collection and disposal, disease vectors ,housing, food supplies and handling, atmospheric conditions and working conditions.



–System for maintenance of water bodies

–Reduction in no. of cases of water borne diseases, especially malaria

Medium

term

(2014-

2016)

– Sanitary and safe disposal of human excreta and liquid waste (continuing

process)

– Regulation of septic tanks and septage management

– Litter free areas

– Sustenance of SWM system

–Systems in place for good O & M (individual, community level toilets and

disposal systems) through behavior change and good management practices.

– Institutional arrangements and capacity building

–Safe transportation and disposal of MSW

Long term

(2016

onwards )

– Water recycle and reuse

–Controlling adverse effects of city wastes on surrounding areas

– Monitoring and evaluation

– Environmental and financial sustainability.

7.2.2 PRINCIPLES OF CSP

CSP not only emphasis on the physical infrastructure but also focus on behaviour change

outcomes, proper usage, institutional reorientation, regular upkeep and maintenance,

increased accountability and service delivery by ULBs and their partners. Accordingly the

strategies have been developed on the basis of following principles:

1. Right to sanitation and mobilization of community for demand creation: Access to

sanitation facilities shall be universalized (100%) without any barrier of cost/ fee, land

tenure etc. , but also bearing the associated responsibility as well. Household sanitation is

first and foremost the responsibility of a household. Hence, sanitation will be promoted

based on demand i.e. communities and households will be encouraged to priorities by

contributing to a significant portion of the costs involved in providing and running a

sanitation system. Improve sanitation by institutionalizing rewards for good performance

and sanctions against harmful actions and IEC programs to improve sanitation. ULB /

Utility may provide free consultations, designs and drawings and quality control for onsite

sanitation.

2. Focus on sound finances and maintenance: Sanitation system should be sustainable. The

users should pay against use to maintain sustainability. Similarly, polluters should pay for

the cost of cleaning up the impact of their pollution on the environment. Choice and

maintenance of facilities have to be well thought of in advance to make service affordable

and sustainable. Need to ensure last mile connectivity to water supply system and sewerage

system in network coverage area. Door to collection should be 100%.

3. Integrated institutional engagement: Sanitation cannot be maintained without proper

water supply, solid waste management and development is not possible in isolation.

Coordination is necessary between different departments, all tiers of Government and other

stakeholders with clear roles and responsibilities. Need to ensure last mile connectivity to

water supply system and sewerage system in network coverage area. Door to collection

should be 100%.



4. Environmental integrity and health benefits: Sanitation services, which have

unacceptable impacts on the environment, should not be considered to be adequate.

Environmentally acceptable solutions to local problems that do not cause deterioration of

the wider environment must be considered in all development activities. Appropriate

protection of the environment should be applied, including if necessary prosecution under

the law is required. Sanitation, environment and health are all interlinked and process of

improvements which should be accompanied by promotional activities as well as health and

hygiene education.

Strategic planning likely to be constrained by the lack of a supportive context – the policies,

rules, attitudes and procedures with in which planning takes place. Hence, the following

components of sanitation strategies are examined in CSP as per parameters of sanitation rating

systems.

Table 49: Components of City Wide Sanitation Strategies

Components of City Wide Sanitation Strategies

Proposals ( Capital, O &M,

IEC and Rehabilitation

projects)

A. Sub- Sector

strategy

(Output -related )

1. Open defecation free status by

ensuring access to all (including

poor and slum dwellers as well

as visiting population).

2. Excreta Disposal and Waste

Water Management by early

commission of ongoing UGD and

sustaining its O&M on

continuous basis.

3. Integrated Solid Waste

Management.

To provide safe access to HH sanitation and cover entire population by toilets.

For safe disposal of waste water storm water and solid waste.

To meet the national

standards for safe

disposal of liquid and

solid waste.

B. Enabling and

Sustaining

Strategies

(Process –

related)

Issues to be addressed in preparing

the implementation plan;

4. Awareness raising and hygiene

promotion and community

participation.

5. Institutional Strengthening and

Capacity building for Sanitation

Management in achieving better

service standards,

6. Financial Management of the

Sanitation Sector and resource

mobilization.

7. Private sector and NGO

Participation in Sanitation

development.

C. Monitoring Strategy for Monitoring and



and

Evaluation

evaluation

Implementation plan to propose

monitoring systems.

7.2.3 ASSUMPTIONS, NORMS AND UNITS COSTS

Formulation of CSP is based on few assumptions and certain available norms as detailed below;

INFORMATION BOX 10: ASSUMPTIONS FOR CITY SANITATION PLAN

• Generally all Households will be connected to UGD by the year 2030.

• Zero OD status to be achieved by 2012

• No. of HHs using community toilets would reduce over time as they would be provided

with individual household type toilets

• Floating population: 7,000 in 2011 and it is expected to grow to 45000 in 2036 (From

discussions with Officials).

In order to maintain desired sanitation levels and achieve improved health and environmental

indicators certain standard of service have to be maintained. The basis for the maintenance of

service levels is Standardized Service Level Benchmarks. They are assessed in Belgaum as per

MoUD framework and certain other norms and standards followed as indicated in the table

below for estimation of deficiency in sanitation. This would enable to estimate infrastructure

gaps and investment requirements for future.

Table 50: Norms for Household Sanitation

Unit

A Household sanitation infrastructure

1 Latrine connected to septic tank 1 per household

2 Grit and grease trap 1 per household

B Public and Community Sanitary Conveniences

Public Toilet

1 Users per Latrine Seat 60 users/ seat

Community Toilet

2 Users per Latrine Seat One seat toilet can cater for 20 HHs

C Septage Clearance, Treatment and Disposal

1 No of septic tanks cleared per vehicle per day 3 tanks per day per vehicle

2 Frequency of septage clearance from septic tank Once in 2 years

3 Septage volume removed per tank 2 cum

4 No of operational days per annum 300 days

Sludge Drying Beds

5 Area per drying bed(average) 225 m

6 Dimensions of drying bed 15m x 15 m

8 Thickness of liquid sludge layer in drying bed 0.20 m



9 Septage Sludge Drying Cycle 10 days

10 Sludge volume per bed 45 cum

D Wastewater Conveyance

1 Street Collector Sewers 1.50 m / household

2 Branch Sewers 0.75 m / household

3 Trunk Sewers 0.40m /household

E Waste Water Treatment and Disposal

1 Reuse for irrigation/ garden/ parks Tertiary

2 Disposal into river secondary

F Solid Waster Management

Road Length per Sweeper 400 –600 m

Sweepers per 1000 population 3

Garbage Collection Points 1 for 15 HHs. (75 Persons.

Norms for Road sweeping A Type – Daily sweeping - 20%

B Type – Sweeping twice in a week -

30% to 40%

C Type – Sweeping once in a week -

40% to 50%

One Tractor trailer For every 25 Kms of sweeping road

length, 3 loaders / vehicle.

One Tipper Truck For every 40 Kms of sweeping road

length, 4 loaders / vehicle.

Water Supply Posts 1 for 15 HHs.(75 Persons) @ 45

Ipcd to 1 for 10 HHs. (50 Persons) 1 Tap

for 75 Persons.

Markets/Slaughter house

1 worker / 400 m2 area, for two time

cleaning everyday.

[Source: Hoshangabad CSP]

7.2.4 VARIOUS OCCURRENCE OF ISSUES VERSUS CONSEQUENCES IN BELGAUM

Some of the prominent issues faced by Belgaum to maintain safe sanitation are put in a matrix

to show their low to high occurrence versus low to high consequences so as to prioritize

solutions in CSP.



CO

NS

EQ

UE

NC

ES

VE

RY

HIG

H

Illicit dumping of

solid waste in

storm water

drainages, water

bodies and sea

Breakages in UGD

system – sewage

flowing into

storm water

drainage network

Inefficiency of

MIS H

IGH

Door to door

collection

coverage

Open defecation

ME

DIU

M

Inadequate public

awareness Regulation

LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

OCCURRENCES

The following sections present the strategies for the various related sub-sectors related to

sanitation for CCB area. The Sub-Sector Strategies are followed by guidelines for the Enabling

and Sustaining the aforesaid strategies through IEC, proper suitable financing mechanisms,

and guidelines for improvement of Institutional Arrangements and Responsibilities. This is

followed by suggestions for proper and adequate Monitoring and Evaluation of the existing

and the proposed systems.

Figure 17: Components of CSP strategies



7.3. SUBSECTOR STRATEGIES

This CSP aims guiding through next steps in achieving the goal of city wide sanitation for

Belgaum. Broad strategies identified will try to lay down road map for achieving total sanitation

and hence detailed out. Also in this section along with strategies, infrastructure gaps estimated

as per practiced norms mentioned in previous section. Also both management and technical

options and financial requirement to bridge the gap have been assessed.

7.3.1 OPEN DEFECATION FREE STATUS BY ENSURING ACCESS TO ALL (INCLUDING POOR

AND SLUM DWELLERS AS WELL AS VISITING POPULATION).

Open defecation, though in very minor percentages, is prevalent in Belgaum. This mainly

pertains to the behaviour of children and few old people and the migrant labour class

population in the city. This has to be addressed in immediate term with concerted efforts to

make OD free as it is easily doable.

To achieve OD free status socially inclusiveness approaches that can be promoted are:

Promoting access to households with safe sanitation facilities (including proper disposal

arrangements);

Demand driven approach for access and promoting community-planned and managed

toilets wherever necessary, for groups of households who have issues of space, tenure

or economic constraints in gaining access to individual facilities;

• Triggering social action by intensive IEC to prevent OD

• Promotion of no cost/ low costs technologies of right kind for super structure.

• Adequate availability and 100% upkeep and management of Public Sanitation facilities

in all busy areas and floating population affected areas

• Promoting partnerships to construct community and public toilets - Public Conveyance

blocks

• Increased access of the poor to water for hygiene

• Norms for sanitation provisions in buildings (including non-residential) and spaces

where public congregate, through bye-laws

• Municipal fund creation for neighbourhood project



A. HOUSEHOLD SANITATION ARRANGEMENTS

As of now, UGD system is available in almost 50% area. . This can be extended further. Still about 50% HHs will be served with onsite arrangements

(Septic tanks and DEWATS ).

Important milestones for Belgaum:

1. No more open defecation by Year: 2012 - 13 (achieve OD free status by intensive IEC). 2. At least 75 % households connected to UGD by 2012 -13. 3. Increase the utilisation rates of municipal sewerage services by 2016

Table 51: Indicative figures in Household Sanitation Arrangements over CSP Implementation Period

Sanitation Arrangement

Baseline Survey

Pre-CSP Year CSP Implementation Period

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Remarks

WC Connected to Conventional Sewer. 70469 72332 85077 95278 105970 117172 128909

Extend UGD and ensure last mile connectivity in served areas. In % 48 48 55 60 65 70 75

WCs connected to Septic Tanks

63128 64798 57234 55579 44018 33478 25782

Slowly reduce dependency on Septic Tanks

In % 43 43 37 35 27 20 15

Community Toilet User Households 4404 4521 4641 3176 4891 5022 5156

No. of HHs would reduce over time being provided with individual household toilets in % 3 3 3 2 3 3 3

Open defecation 7341 7535 3094 0 0 0 0 Zero OD status to be

achieved by 2013 in % 5 5 2 0 0 0 0



DEWATs and other types no of HHs

1468 1507 4641 4764 8152 8369 8594

There are now few PIT type Latrines.DEWATS should be proposed in areas which is not served by UGD about 6 DEWATS units with a capacity of 150 HHs in each unit should be proposed.

In %

1 1 3 3 5 5 5

Total Households 146810 150692 154686 158797 163030 167389 171879

From 2011 as per population projections

Source - ASCI



B. SLUM SANITATION IMPROVEMENT

Creating demand responsive participatory approach to provision of community blocks

wherever individual toilets are not possible will be important aspect in creating access. This can

be done by giving incentives for private contractors, NGOs, community organizers to work

together to jointly deliver community toilet blocks. Partnerships can be led either by contractor

or NGO with each other. There need be high technical standards, high quality service levels and

provisions for children.

Considering Belgaum situation, series of options need to be worked in slums as follows:

Sewerage for individual household latrines (IHHL)

Delinking tenure ship for slum residents to build toilets.

Management arrangements to be worked. Eg. CBO members operate and manage toilet

block on their own, or CBO employs the staff like caretaker to operate and manage the

toilet block or CBO contracts a caretaker (individual or family) to manage and operate

the toilet block on its behalf.

There are adequate community toilets for the poor in Belgaum city at present. The proper O&M

is very necessary for the sustenance of such toilets. Hence, the City Corporation will act as

facilitator and sign an MOA with local residents who are going to use it for O &M which is going

to be the responsibility of Community.

C. PUBLIC SANITATION FACILITIES

There are various optionsto be explored for financing communal and public toilet services.

Public toilets serving relatively large numbers of people may be sufficiently profitable to attract

private investment; in contrast, communal facilities serving small groups of households (as

generally preferred by users) will generally require at least partial government support. One

option is for capital costs to be financed by a combination of sunk subsidy and concessionary

loan: so for example, 50% of the cost is borne by sunk subsidy from the national and/or

municipal government, while the remaining 50% is covered by a concessionary loan to the

municipality. Debt service and capital replacement costs (CapManEx) may then be covered by

householder tariffs, by some other source of revenue (e.g. a national or municipal-level

surcharge on water bills), or by a combination of the two.

Estimation of public toilet facilities Table 52: Estimation of Proposed Pay and Use complex (Each unit)

S. No Component Estimated Cost in Rs

1 No. of Seats 12 Nos

2 No. of users for maximum extent -Morning &

Evening. 3 hours + 3 hours

3 One seat can accommodate 60 persons per day

4 Total capacity 12 nos X 60 persons /day

7 Revenue per month (720 persons * 1 per person =

720 x 30 days ) Rs. 21,600/-

8 Revenue by Ad per month ( one wall) 500

9 Total revenue 22100



10 Cleaning articles Rs 50 x 12 toilets 600

11 Sweepers 2 nos 4000

12 Civic maintenance and other contingencies 1000

13 Caretaker 4000

14 UGD user charges 360

15 Total Expenditure 9960

16 Estimated Private Operator Income

12140

In this regard estimation is done for number of toilets and urinals needed under various

categories to make the city fully sanitized. The planning for public toilets has taken

consideration the following user groups: floating population, population during weekly markets,

population that comes into cities for special occasions like fairs, religious activities etc,

population at public place like bus stands, railway stations etc. Such facilities can be managed

through community groups, NGOs, CBOs and private operators on a self-sustaining basis.

The existing no. of seats are 306 catering to 3697 at the rate of 12 people per seat. Utilisation of

these toilets can be greatly enhanced to make optimal use of them. i.e at the rate of 25-40

persons per seat. In public and community toilets in Belgaum are more than adequate to serve

the needs of the floating population at present. But spatially, there are several wards where

there is an influx of floating population, but there are either inadequate or no public

conveniences in those areas. The following table shows the un-served wards and the floating

population influx per day.

INFORMATION BOX 11: LOCATION NEEDS FOR COMMUNITY/PUBLIC TOILETS

Land availability for communal/public toilet construction of course varies from one

location to another. Problems may arise because people living adjacent to an available plot

may not want a sanitation facility constructed next to their property.

A suitable plot of land should be Close to the area of demand: users should not have to walk

more than 200 m at very most, and will typically prefer a much shorter distance (probably

about 30 m), In a location with safe after-dark access: this is critical for women’s security,

In a location that is acceptable to people living nearby, Reachable by small truck, to allow

septic tank emptying, Within reach of a sustainable water supply.

Determination of ideal locations for proposed public toilets

There are about 78 seats available in public toilets catering to 4635 that is at the rate of 59

people per seat which is higher than the norm of 40-50 people per seat. But in ward 31,32 and

33 the load on the public toilets is huge and more number of sets are required.



Table 53 Grouping of un-served wards w.r.t. public conveniences, CCB

Group Ward. Nos. Floating population influx/day

No. of seats required

Group 1 5,6,7, 8 650 2 public toilet complexes with 7 seats each

Group 2 10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1880 5 public toilet complex with 7 seats

Group 3 21,22,23,24,25 2850 7 public toilet complex with 8 seats

Group 4

26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 42,43,45

11000

Additional 157 seats . Another ten Public toilet complexes of 16 seats each. 44 seats. 5 Toilet complexes of 9 seats each.

Source - ASCI

Such wards can be spatially grouped to be served by common public conveniences. The

proposed grouping is as follows.The proposed locations of the public toilets are shown in the

map as follows.

Map 5 proposed Locations for Public Toilets

[Source –ASCI]



INFORMATION BOX 12: FINANCE OPTIONS MODELS FOR COMMUNITY LATRINES

1. Municipal fund for neighbourhood projects (Indonesia) Blitar, a small town in East

Java, is special for its community development fund. It has twenty neighbourhoods, of which

three are poor. The budget of the town was Rp. 6.14 billion (US$ 646,000) in 2004, double

the amount of 2002. Under its community block grant programme the city disburses 2% of

its income directly to the neighbourhoods for small projects, including an obligatory 13% for

low cost housing. The neighbourhoods themselves contribute 13-22% of the project funds in

kind or cash. The purpose of the fund is to increase public participation and self-

management and allow local officials and communities to exercise their autonomy. Village

Community Empowerment Institutions (LPMSKs) take care of mobilization. Women

participate in the mandated community assemblies in which these projects are planned.

Since 2003 project selection criteria include the number of poor beneficiaries. Most local

grants go to improvement of infrastructure. From 2005 on, use of funds for hardware is

restricted to 60%. Learning from mistakes is an accepted part of the approach.

3. Slum Sanitation pogramme of Mumbai: A key feature was the involvement of slum

communities in project implementation right from the planning stage. The mobilization

process facilitated collaborations between NGOs, contractors and CBOs. In each slum a

CBO was formed and registered as a trust or a society (under the Bombay Public trust

Act. To express its “demand” each family in the target slum area was asked to pay

contribution Rs.100 per adult (maximum of Rs 500 per family) as a membership fee. The

amount was deposited in a joint bank account. After construction of the toilet block the

CBO typically certifies it’s satisfactory completion and signs a MOU with the municipal

Corporation. The responsibility of maintaining the toilet block is then handed over to the

CBO. MOU specifies that CBO will operate and maintain the toilet block.

4. After the reforms in TSC programme, priority was given for setting up sanitary

complexes in a place acceptable for both men and women. The prescribed unit cost is up

to Rs 2 lakh, shared by GOI, State Government and the community in the ratio of

60:20:20. However, the community contribution can be made by the local governance

from its budget (GOI, CSRS 2002). This approach directly provides subsidy to

communities rather than individuals. Though many households are inclined positively to

have IHL, the scarcity of space, the traditional taboos have become a constraint for

construction of IHL. To overcome such constraints, the integrated Community Latrines

Complex (ICLC) becomes a substitute. The maintenance cost of the community sanitary

complexes has to be met by the Panchayats/voluntary organisations/charitable

trusts/Self Help Groups and not the committee set up by local government.

D. SCHOOL SANITATION PROVISION

In Belgaum like any other city, school latrines and water points become dirty and run down as

detailed in the situational analysis report. As a result, they are not used and create a health

hazard. School water supply, sanitation and hygiene education are very important for the

following main reasons:

Promotes health and hygiene behaviour at an early stage of childhood.

Improves the health of children and results in a lower dropout rate, especially among

girl children.



Huge network of schools offers a ready-made infrastructure to influence the students,

teachers, parents and hence the community.

Children are the change agents; hence, it ensures generational change in the adoption of

the health and hygiene behaviour.

location of the schools in low lying areas also create a serious threat

A good cleaning and maintenance system requires funds, spare parts, people and equipment,

and a clear division of roles and responsibilities among the actors involved. A number of

organizational options for maintenance suggested: through a cleaning committee, by classes

on a rotation basis, with or without a rewarding mechanism, or by individual students.

The children should be encouraged to help to maintain their own school environment and

facilities. The following models are recommended for school sanitation.

a. Health Clubs School health and hygiene clubs are usually involved in helping children for maintenance tasks.

School health clubs (or similar groups with other names) can be very useful for:

stimulating safe hygiene behaviour among children;

monitoring SSHE programme;

reaching out into the community;

Prepare an annual action plan for the School health club;

Organise school activities in planning, teaching, monitoring, and maintenance;

Conduct community activities with the help of headmaster and teachers;

Different actors should be engaged and all work together to promote and implement gender-

responsive sanitation, health and hygiene solutions. This includes:

1. Schools – (parents, PTAs, school councils, teachers,

2. students)

3. NGOs and CBOs

4. Women’s groups

5. Youth organizations

6. Governments – including Ministries of Education, Health, Water

7. Health providers

8. Researchers

b. School committee Often school committees are found very effective and can be established in schools to plan and

implement school sanitation programmes. These Committees may usually consist of students,

teachers, and parents with following roles :

Take a lead in co-ordinating and preparing action plan of SSHE programme.

Involve other actors in mobilizing local resources and support special activities like fund

raising, construction, maintenance and repair;

Organise various activities periodically to collect funds for various programmes;

Budget, allocate and supervise funds.

Include Special programme for Schools as indicated below:

Quiz completion for std. 8th and 9th

1. Four groups each of three students should be made

2. Naming the groups



3. There should be at forty questions in the quiz

1. Winning group and runners group will get the prizes

I. Winning group prize Rs. /-

II. Runners up Rs. /-

Elocution Competition for std. 7th

1. Each student should be allowed three minutes only

2. Topic should be related only to water and sanitation themes ex. My village is

clean/purification of water

1. Prize first Rs. /-

2. Second Rs. /-

3. Third Rs. /-

Esssay competition for std. 6th

1. Each student should be allowed three minutes only

2. Topic should be related only to water and sanitation themes ex. My School/ ward/Para

clean/ hygiene practices

1. Prize first Rs. /-

2. Second Rs. /-

3. Third Rs. /-

On the spot painting competition for std. 5th

Materials needed can be estimated and be given by school as indicated below:

Wax colour caryon box 50* = /-

Pencils 50* = /-

Eraser 50* = /-

Paper (15 inch by 11 inch) 50* = /-

Prize Rs. /-

First Prize Rs. /-

Second Prize Rs. /-

Third Prize Rs. /-

E. PROVISION OF SANITATION IN OTHER AREAS FOR ACHIEVING CITYWIDE

SANITATION

National Building Code (NBC 2005) of India is basis for all Building Regulations and adopted by

respective states in the country, which clearly specifies that any building meant for human

occupancy or use should have adequate sanitation and disposal facilities irrespective of

availability of sewerage.

Detailed norms are available in the code depending on occupancy saying in no case less than

one water closet should be provided. Wherever disposal facilities are not available they shall be

provided as part of the building design for ensuring highest standards of sanitation condition.

Part 9 on Plumbing services Section 1 of Water Supply Drainage and Sanitation clearly details

the requirements under safe sanitation provision. But authorities are failed in implementation

of NBC and Building regulation to check building plan approvals. CSTF should intervene in this

and two members should be identified from CSTF to ratify building plans for adequate

sanitation provision. Clear rules need to be amended on responsibility of toilet provision in the

premises of any human occupation or use. Various uses generally found in any given city and

options for sanitation provision to achieve citywide sanitation are indicated below:



Table 54: Addressing access to various categories of uses

Residential Institutional Recreational Commercial Transport Schools Others

Slums : Notified and non

notified.

Non Slums: Old areas, New

upcoming areas, DTCP

approved colonies, Govt

quarters.

Central Govt offices,

State Govt offices and

private offices.

Public Places,

Shopping areas,

malls, markets,

Agricultural

markets, Fair areas

etc

Railway station,

Bus stations

All

government

and non

government

schools.

Industries

Individual/ Community

toilets Independent toilets.

Public toilets on BOT basis (ref management options). These

properties have to provide land within their premises.

Individual

toilets Independent toilets.

It is the responsibility of

private individual to

construct and maintain toilet

as per NBC and Municipal act

norms. A mechanism to build

social pressure to maintain

design standards needs to be

worked.

Strict implementation of building bye laws like no building permitted for construction and occupation without toilet and all Govt

buildings need to take approval of ULB for building construction. Monitoring is the responsibility of ULB.

Note: Wherever UGD is available toilets will be connected to UGD. Otherwise a decentralized concept for black water treatment by Biogas facility and duck weed

based technology for grey water treatment should be implemented and it is individual responsibility.

The strategies mentioned below provide management options for various problem areas

The study of the sanitation situation and projection of demand to address environmental sanitation have highlighted deficiency in respect of

sanitation. NUSP, National rating award scheme, Standardized Service level Bench Marking framework of Government of India all provide a

good structure for defining steps to be taken for CSP and its implementation. Though KMC will have overall responsibility in implementing

CSP, it will also require concerted efforts of many stakeholders to achieve various goals. For this partnership arrangements with relevant

government agencies, private sector, civil society, Non-government organizations (NGO) need to established and institutionalized for

successful implementation of CSPs. It is observed that different models will work in different situations and some of the options to be tested



and implemented by KMC are as follows:

Table 55: Management Strategies

Option A Option B Option C Option D

1. Improving Access

HHs Individual toilets with

subsidy.

Up gradation with technical

support for alternatives.

Up gradation with financial

support for alternatives.

Guidance notes to APL on

different types of toilets with

technical support.

Schools Designing, field testing and

propagating child – friendly,

gender friendly and disabled

friendly toilets by ULB as

part of IEC.

Mobilizing business houses,

companies etc. to donate or

adopt toilets with ad rights.

Promoting PPPs for O&M Education dept. bears capital

and O &M by outsourcing.

Public/Institutional

toilets

Create public-private

partnerships between

service providers and

government agencies.

Mobilizing business houses,

companies etc. to donate or

adopt toilets with ad rights.

Generators of huge visitors

(railways, KSRTC, Court,

shopping complex, market

areas, theaters and Govt

offices) to give land for pay

and use toilets on BOT mode.

Consolidate IEC money of all

govt. programs for O&M and

use Toilet walls.

2. Black soil and Waste water Treatment

Septage Management Update and amend

regulations on tariffs for

septage management.

Considering subsidizing of

emptying fees to poor.

Frequency of septic tank

emptying regulated by

authorities to every three

years.

Public awareness campaign for

enhanced frequency of septic

tank emptying and develop

annual septage symposium.



Sludge Treatment and

disposal

Improving on public utility’s

collection and

transportation Capacity.

Regulations for and licensing

of private entrepreneur

involvement in sludge

collection and

transportation.

ULB manage contractors for

scheduled desludging.

Clear policies and guidelines

for developers.

Promotion of no cost/ low

costs technologies like soak

pits to septic tanks (Areas

where UGD is not covered)

UGD Scheme Ref Starters

ISWM Promotion of RWAs, local

committees in 100% door to

door collection.

Making segregated wastes

available at disposal /

treatment facilities.

- 20% (2011 -2012)

- 60% (2012 -14)

- 100% (2014 onwards)

Recycling waste

- 50% (2010 -2012)

- 60% (2012 -14)

- 80% (2014 onwards)

Scientific treatment and

disposal by developing pilot

initiatives and testing by 2014

and scaling up afterwards.

3. M& E and awareness

Regulation A strong regulatory

framework to be put in place

by amending the Municipal

Act, Building regulations

with rules on following:

Guidelines on

penalties/fines to be

imposed on

littering,

obstruction of

natural and artificial

drainage, faecal and

septic effluent

discharge in to

drains.

Public awareness

campaign

Triggering social

mechanisms to prevent OD,

behaviour change, disuse of

toilets. Raise public

awareness through

multimedia campaigns,

targeting children in

Expose NGOs and media to

importance of sanitation to

gain their support.

Build political support with

exposure visits, technical

trainings, reports, and

workshops.

Manuals on guidelines,

regulations, O& M of toilets

and extensive dissemination.



particular.

Monitoring and

evaluation

1. Gather information and

develop databases and

regular updation.

- SWM, Drainage, sanitation,

track O&D

2. Adoption of “Protocol” on

monthly collection of data

from each ward/slum and

publish in public forum.

Framing rules and

specifications and effective

monitoring especially to

make sewerage systems

work without any ex

filtration in the future.

Continuing O&M

practices(cleaning toilets,

emptying pits/septic tanks,

maintaining waste water

disposal systems)

Technical evaluation and

finalization: Appraising models

for toilets, solid/liquid waste

management, school

sanitation, vulnerable and

special needs populations,

menstrual hygiene.

Sustaining usage O&M

and governance

Impact monitoring: periodic

and regular monitoring of

socio economic, health,

ground water and soil

impact indicators.

Institutional processes:

Community monitoring of

construction, usage etc,

social pressure on usage and

O&M etc.

Establishing linkages for funds

defining allocations/sharing

costs, determining community

Contributions.

Documented operational

systems and institutional

responsibility assigned for

each sector by preparing

written manual.



7.3.2 EXCRETA DISPOSAL AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT

Sewerage system need not be the only sanitation system for liquid waste. Onsite sanitation

systems to treat grey and black water or a combination depending on the user choice shall be

adopted for less dense settlements and other uncovered areas. Need to ensure 100% treatment

of both black and grey water. For onsite sanitation, periodic cleaning shall be ensured. ULB may

provide the equipment at a fee and also final disposal, depending on the type of onsite

treatment involved. The proposals for Belgaum consider safe containment, treatment and

disposal of human excreta and community liquid waste. This will be achieved by:

Ensuring that all human wastes are collected, treated and disposed off safely;

Promoting proper disposal and treatment of sludge from on-site installations (septic

tanks, pit latrines, etc.);

Promoting proper functioning of network-based sewerage systems and ensuring

connections of households to them;

Encourage recycle and reuse of treated waste water for non-potable applications,

wherever possible.

A. TECHNICAL OPTIONS FOR FECAL TREATMENT AND WASTE WATER TREATMENT

100 % of human excreta and liquid wastes from all sanitation facilities must be disposed-off

safely. Rudimentary latrines (discharging into drains and nalas) widely spread in Belgaum, are

the first step to manage excreta. The next step in the sanitation ladder is any form of improved

latrines that ensure more hygienic separation of excreta and the final step is a flush latrine

connected to a septic tank or a sewer network. Each successive step of the ladder represents a

higher unit cost but is assumed to give a correspondingly lower level of health risk (Morella

2008). Different types of sanitation systems (indicated in the table) below and decentralized

wastewater treatment plants can be suggested i.e. septic tanks, biogas toilets and Decentralized

Wastewater Treatment System (DEWATS).

The six technologies represent different levels of sanitation services. Whereas the septic tank

aims only at providing better hygienic conditions, the ecosan and biogas systems provide

additional benefits (reuse of nutrients, biogas). The decentralized systems aim at reusing the

treated wastewater for irrigation.



Table 56: Intended benefits for the six technology systems.

Basic Sanitation Waste Water Treatment

Intended

benefit

Septic

tank

Biogas Ecosan SIBF** MSF*** DEWAT

S****

Type Individu

al

Individual /

Communal

Individual /

Communal

Commun

al

Commun

al

Commun

al

Better Hygienic

Conditions

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Reuse of

Nutrients and

Biogas

NA Yes Yes NA* NA* NA*

Reuse of

treated waste

water for

irrigation

NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes

**Solid Immobilised Biofilter (SIBF)

***Multiple Stage Filtration (MSF)

****Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System (DEWATS)

Following options are suggested for Non UGD areas;

Table 57: Waste water treatment options for Non UGD areas

Sl. No. Area Preference 1

(Offsite)

Preference 2

(onsite)

Option 3

(onsite)

1 New upcoming areas

(high income)

UGD DEWATS Septic tanks

2 New upcoming areas (

Low income)

UGD DEWATS Two pits

3 Slums of narrow lanes UGD Communal septic

tanks

Biogas tanks

All systems provide water for irrigation with which users get in contact so regular monitoring is

required to keep the hygienic risks low. Hence education on appropriate hygiene practices as

well as the use of the systems as a way to improve aspects, such as smell and breeding insects,

should be provided on ongoing basis.

The biogas and Ecosan system pose medium risk to the person who is emptying the systems,

whereas the SIBF and the DEWATS feature only low risk as users do not get in direct contact

with the system. The risk here is dependent on the reuse of water for irrigation practices, type

of crops and how well the prior treatment has worked. One factor of success of the

decentralized systems is the well-organized operation and maintenance, which is either

conducted by a private company or a community committee. Those decentralized systems also

require less energy (and have therefore lower costs) than conventional treatment systems.



Considering the small pockets in new upcoming areas Belgaum ideally should have following

options for preference in sludge treatment:

B. SUSTAINING STARTERS FOR SEWERAGE FACILITY

There are two options for Belgaum to expand its sewerage service to another areas or have

DEWATS in unserved areas for sewerage. Major challenge lies in ensuring cent percent

connectivity to ongoing UGD. There is no IEC programme taken up so far to motivate people in

raising connection costs, benefits of UGD and its operation and maintenance. It is highly

important that scheme has to be explained in detail about benefits of having sewerage access,

need of maintaining STP as per CPCB norms and huge O&M costs involved. Hence an intensive

communication programme through local cable TV network, newspapers etc. should be ideally a

starting point. Concerns of the stakeholders provide strength and motivation to the Belgaum

City Corporation to overcome the problem that may occur and can do midterm corrections. For

effective functioning of UGD following immediate actions are suggested;

Table 58: sustaining Starters for UGD

Recommendation Possible Constraints Actions

Ensuring 95% UGD

Coverage

- Mobilizing connections (last

mile connectivity)

- Collection of connection cost

in time

- Bringing more properties in

to PT net ( no of PT

assessments proportionately

increase UGD connections)

- Building positive image of MC

in general public.

- Develop robust MIS in three months (

intensive field verifications, cross checking)

- Widening PT net

- Pro poor policy on UGD connection cost and

IEC. - Modifying building bye-laws to have UGD

connection compulsory

- Establishing coordination between

engineering and revenue sections.

Adopt policy on IEC and Public Awareness

Campaign in mission mode( Sewerage

connection cost Vs Septic tank etc. Need for

safe sanitation)

Operational Strategy

How to connect to main sewer

trunk.(technical

specifications)

Availability of technicians.

Making corpus available for

O&M of STPs. (ref table 37 on

O&M costs )

- Display of technical drawing with

specifications in all wards and information

dissemination through pamphlets.

- Training local masons on UGD connection

process.

- Managing material flow for hard ware

arrangements.

- Transparent measures - simplification of

procedures for sanction of water supply and

sewerage connections, customer charter, fully

automated bill payment.

Private sector

involvement for O &

M

Codified procedures for sewerage, septage,

drainage and SWM. (preparation of protocol

manual and monitoring by local communities

on location of samples to be tested, periodicity

and parameters to be tested.)



C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

A sewerage system as it is known collects wastewater from residences, industries, hospitals and

commercial institutions for conveyance to STPs for treatment and safe disposal. Any obstruction

or overloading of the collection system can have dramatic consequences on public health and

the environment.

It is the responsibility of the City Corporation, to ensure that the performance of the sewerage

system is not compromised in any manner by adopting proper practices of operation and

maintenance of the system. Effective O&M of an underground sewerage scheme is critical and

the direct responsibility rests with the Belgaum City Corporation. For ease of operation and

maintenance, the sewerage system has to be cost effective.

The primary aim of sewage treatment plant‘s (STP) operation and maintenance (O&M), is the

running and maintenance the plant, efficiently and economically, so that the effluent from the

plant meets the prescribed standards in terms of BOD,SS and fecal coliforms laid down by the

local body or the pollution control board while discharging the effluent on land or into water

body.

The basic requirements of successful O&M of STP are:

1. A thorough knowledge of plant and machinery and equipment provided in the STP

and their functions,

2. A thorough knowledge of the processes,

3. Proper and adequate tools,

4. Adequate stock of spare parts and chemical,

5. Assignment of specific responsibilities to operating staff,

6. Schedule of daily preventive maintenance,

7.Systematic and period inspection,

8.Training of all operating staff in operating procedures and maintenance practices,

9.Maintaining records of key activities and operating logs of equipment, and

10. Good housekeeping.

Finance and

administration

Consumers get interest free loans to connect and pay back as part of the tariff;

Introduction of weighed tariffs reflecting the principle ‘the polluter pays’.

Use of local indicators, e.g. type of housing, to determine the category of

payment.

Different loan terms for different groups, e.g. installments.

Timely payments are rewarded, e.g. by a % reduction for the next year.



D. REQUIREMENTS OF MAINTENANCE OF SEWER

As huge investment are generally made for the implementation of the sewerage system, it is

appropriate to operate and maintain the system effectively in order to derive maximum benefit

of the investment. Maintenance of sewer system depends not only on proper design and

construction but also on the availability of competent staff for their operation.

The requirements of the maintenance of the sewerage system are:

1. Protect the sewerage system against damaging materials, which may be discharged

by the public, commercial and industrial institution.

2. Prevent the sewerage system from clogging due to deposition of solids as a result of

inadequate flow

3. Prevent the accumulation of foul gases in the sewerage system due to the anaerobic

decomposition of the deposited solids

4. Save the workers involved in the sewer cleaning from death due to obnoxious gases.

The preventive maintenance methods to achieve the above requirement are:

Ensure self-cleaning velocity in all section of the sewerage system at least once in a day for

prevention of clogging in the sewerage system. The sewer section where it is not possible to

obtain the self-cleansing velocities due to flatness of the gradient especially in the head reaches

of the sewer network, flushing is necessary.

The O&M of the created infrastructure includes manning and maintenance of the STPs, power

charges for the pumping stations, manning for the maintenance of the network, maintenance

and repairs of the sewer cleaning machinery and equipment, administrative expenditure

involved in billing and collection of sewerage cess etc. Also the sewer lines between two

successive manholes should be periodically inspected using intrusive equipments &

arrangement for silting and blockages. The revenue from the sewerage sector is mainly from the

charges being collected while giving new sewerage connection and drainage cess collected along

with house tax.

E. REUSE OF RECYCLED WATER

Decentralized wastewater systems collect, treat, and reuse or dispose of wastewater at or near

its point of generation. It includes systems that treat wastewater from individual homes or

buildings as well as cluster systems that treat wastewater from groups of two or more houses.

Unlike centralized urban wastewater treatment systems, decentralized systems treat

wastewater close to the source, typically using small pipes for collecting small volumes of

domestic wastewater. They are most cost-effective option especially in peri urban and hilly

terrain existing in Belgaum. Following guidelines need to be followed for application of sewage

water.



Table 59: Degree of Treatment Needed for Land Application

Treatment Device Type Land Application System

Primary

Septic tank

Grey water Tank

Waterless composting toilet

Combustion toilet

Soil absorption systems

Burial (for compost)

Secondary

AWTS

Grey water treatment

Septic tank and re circulating sand

filter

Subsurface Irrigation

Tertiary (disinfection)

AWTS


Septic tank and re circulating sand

filter

Subsurface irrigation

Surface Irrigation (non –

aerosal)

Grey water tertiary

(Excluding Kitchen

wastes)


Subsurface irrigation

Surface Irrigation (non –

aerosol)

Toilet flushing

F. DEWATS : SEWAGE TREATMENT (300 PERSON EQUIVALENT OR 60-65 HHS

EQUIVALENT)

The sewage treatment unit consists of anaerobic up flow reactor as a primary treatment and

Root Zone Treatment (RTZ) System as secondary treatment system. A maturation pond is also

in place for tertiary treatment. The treated wastewater is finally supplied to the houses for

inferior domestic uses like toilet flushing and garden irrigation.

Description of Wastewater treatment units

The wastewater treatment system consists of Up-flow Anaerobic Reactor as primary treatment

unit. This system was designed & implemented for 300 person equivalent. The cross section of

this reactor is trapezoidal section in the bottom and rectangular in the top. The waste water

from final receiving chamber is allowed to enter in this reactor at the bottom through a pipe and

water rises up at a very low velocity. The treated waste water is collected through gutter along

longitudinal walls and enters the secondary treatment system.

Primary Treatment Unit

Type of Primary treatment: Up flow anaerobic reactor.

Design capacity: 300 Persons.

Type of Structure: Reinforced Cement Concrete

Size of unit: 10m x 3m x 4m

Design Load Characteristics

Hydraulic load : 1600 lts/m2/day

Organic load: 0.512 Kg/m2/day



Actual Load Characteristics

Hydraulic load: 160 lts/m2/day (As per Standards)

Hydraulic load: 177 lts/m2/day (As per Actual measurement before commissioning of

recycling system)

Hydraulic load: 81 lts/m2/day (As per Actual measurement after commissioning of

recycling system)

Organic Load (Maximum): 0.037 Kg/m2/day (As per Actual measurement before

commissioning of recycling system)

Organic Load (Maximum): 0.011 Kg/m2/day (As per Actual measurement after

commissioning of recycling system)

1. Volume: 114 m3

2. Cross sectional area: 12m2

3. Longitudinal Sectional area at the centre: 40m2

Secondary Treatment Unit

The wastewater treatment systems consists of Horizontal root zone system as secondary

treatment which receives partly treated wastewater from primary treatment unit.

Horizontal Root Zone Treatment Unit

The secondary treatment units are implemented in Phase level hence the first level is designed

for 50 persons. In the root zone treatment, wastewater passes through filter bed by uniform

horizontal flow. Root zone treatment are sealed filter beds consisting of sand, gravel and soil

system, occasionally with a cohesive element, planted with vegetation which can grow in

wetlands. The wastewater passes through the filter bed where biodegradation of the

wastewater takes place.

Root Zone Treatment system

Type of treatment system: Horizontal Root Zone treatment.

Type of Structure: Reinforced Concrete floor with Brick walls.

Size of Unit: 10m X 5m X 1.2m

Design Load Characteristics

1. Hydraulic load: 160 lts/m2/day

2. Organic load: 0.024 Kg/m2/day

Actual Load Characteristics

Hydraulic load: 106 lts /m2/day (As per Actual measurement before commissioning of

recycling system)

Hydraulic load: 49 lts /m2/day (As per Actual measurement after commissioning of

recycling system)

Organic load: 0.0030 kg /m2/day (As per Actual measurement before commissioning of

recycling system)



Organic load: 0.0021 kg /m2/day (As per Actual measurement after commissioning of

recycling system)

Type of plant species: Arundo donax

Plan area of filter bed: 50sq.m

Tertiary Treatment Unit

Maturation Pond : In this treatment unit, Maturation pond act as tertiary treatment, effluent

from Root zone treatment unit enters in the Maturation pond. The important function of

maturation pond is the removal of excreted pathogens to achieve an effluent quality which is

suitable for its downstream reuse.

Design of Maturation Pond

Type of Structure: Reinforced Concrete floor with Brick walls

Size of Unit: 5.75m X 5mX 1m

Cross sectional area: 5m2

Longitude Sectional area: 5.75m2

Plan area: 28.75 m2

Capacity of unit: 28.75 m3

Hydraulic Retention time: 4.5 days (as per actual daily sewage inflow)

Hence total cost required for the construction of wastewater treatment system is Rs 4000.00

per person.

Table 60: Cost of Construction of the Wastewater Treatment system

Sl

No

Description Total Cost in Rs For Person

Equivalent

Cost/

Person

1. Primary treatment unit (Upflow

Anaerobic Reactor)

2,75,000.00 300 916.00

2. Secondary treatment unit (Root

Zone Treatment)

1,00,000.00 50 2000.00

3. Tertiary treatment unit

(Maturation Pond)

25,000.00 50 500.00

TOTAL COST Rs 4,00,000.00 3416.00



Table 61:Cost of Operation and Maintenance

Sl No Description of work Amount (Rs)

1 Monitoring

Wastewater Analysis cost

26,500.00

2. Maintenance

Operation and maintenance (Since commissioning till date)

30,000.00

3. Onsite Laboratory

4 Cost of Equipment and chemicals 12,000.00

5 Total (two years) 68, 500.00

6 O&M cost year Rs 35000

Table 62: Land Requirement

Sl No Description Total Area

(Sq. m)

Person

Equivalent

Area / Person

(Sq.m)

1. Primary treatment unit ((Up-flow

Anaerobic Reactor)

34 300

0.11

2. Secondary treatment unit (Root

Zone treatment)

62 50 1.24

3. Tertiary treatment unit

(Maturation Pond)

33 50 0.7

TOTAL 129 300 2.4

Area requirement per person for the treatment of wastewater is nearly 2.4m2/person



G. COST & IMPACT MATRIX

The following matrix represents the cost & impacts scenario for OD free status and achieving

environmental sanitation.

IMP

AC

T

VE

RY

HIG

H Intensive IEC

programme to

prevent OD,

behavior change,

disuse of toilets.

Improving

efficiency in DTD

collection and

segregation for

SWM practices.

Ensuring good

maintennace of

STPs

Last mile

connectivity to

UGD with clear

technical

guidelines.

HIG

H

Framing Rules

,specifications and

effective

monitoring.

Incentivisationand

rewarding.

Pro poor policy on

connections to UGD

and Delinking

tenure ship

Capacity

building by

exposure visits,

technical

training and

workshops

School Sanitation

ME

DIU

M

Institutional

responsibility

clearly assigned.

Building

authentic MIS

and updation

Community

toilets

(transferring

O&M to

community)

LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH

COST

Septage management

The system for citywide septage collection from all septic tanks – connected either to private,

public, community latrines or to decentralized simplified sewerage systems, etc. – can be

organized around a group of service providers with vacuum tankers with appropriate

regulations. When implemented effectively, this solution will help in ensuring safe collection,

transport, treatment and disposal of septage, thereby improving sanitary conditions across the

city.

Treatment and safe disposal of septage

Treatment and disposal of septage is the most neglected area in the sanitation cycle. There is a

need to regulate the current indiscriminate practice on the following lines:

The Municipal Corporation will designate a safe location for treatment and disposal of

septage and will arrange to create/construct and operate such treatment facilities and

disposal works as may be deemed appropriate and suitable under the given

circumstances.

The service provider(s)/operator(s) will be required to deliver/dispose of septage only

at such designated sites.

Disposal at any other sites/locations such as in open drains, water bodies, on low lying

areas, waste lands, at community waste depots, etc. pose a serious threat to the



environment and public health and will be considered unlawful and the operator will be

liable to punishment under the provisions of the municipal bylaws.



7.3.3 IMPROVEMENT OF INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

A summary of the current position of the solid waste management has been dealt in previous

chapters. Field surveys and discussions with stakeholders also identified key issues and

problems in Belgaum. To assess the magnitude of the problem to be tackled in future

estimations of waste generation has been done based on population projections done for

Belgaum taking considering CPHEEO norms (average per capita waste generation is 350 gms).

Since growth is expected to be moderate, the future generation trends will be governed by

population changes and will be mainly from domestic sources.There need to be considerable

focus required to address solid waste management complying to MSW 2000 rules. The Health

Department of Belgaum is headed by a Health Officer and is responsible for all activities of

collection, street sweeping, transportation, and disposal of solid waste. The Engineering

Department is responsible for procurement and maintenance of equipment and vehicles. For

operational purposes, the entire area is divided into 5 zones. Each zone comprises of electoral

wards and is headed by a Health Inspector.



A systematic action plan for maintaining solid waste management while achieving each recommendation as outlined below:

Table 63: ISWM Action Plan

Recommendation Strategy to be adopted Actions Possible Constraints

1 Achieving benchmark

cleanliness (following

SLB indicators and

parameter in Sanitation

rankings in phases )

Establish work norms (per

worker) for roads (both

congested and wide), open

spaces.

Regularize sanitary worker

attendance by biometric system.

Encourage successes of visible

clean areas.

Involve Corporators and a few

other who will support such

efforts in their Wards.

Promote clean wards/slums/Colony etc. by

well-planned door to door collection.

Increased involvement of NGOs/Private

operators etc.

Good working conditions and recognition

mechanisms for workforce.

Increasing efficiency

and productivity of

existing staff.

Possible protest from

employees.

2 Source segregation of

waste into specified

types

Maximum recycling and

maximum local composting of

bio-degradable waste.

Provide separate collection

mechanism for Bulk Waste

Producers, Construction waste /

Debris, Garden/ Green Waste.

Overall training and capacity

building of MSW personnel in

order to achieve segregation of

solid waste at source.

Good communication and

awareness programme.

Promote source segregation by keeping

“wet” & “dry” wastes separately, doorstep

collection of “wet” waste for bulk waste

producers with extra rates, to compost all

bio – degradable and recycle dry wastes.

Associate with trade & industry associations

for better marketing to segregate recyclable

material

Give priority to the source segregation of

recyclable waste by shops and

establishments and later concentrate on

segregation at the 3household level.

Targeting behaviour

change of households.

Increased public health

and hygiene levels



3 Minimizing ,primary

collection, transport

and handling costs per

ton

Encourage PPP and out sourcing. Reduce expenditure on collection per

household by imposing user charges @

Rs.one per day), encourage source

segregation and reduce waste reduction to

at least 15%.Planning and optimizing vehicle

routing with robust MIS and waste

generation data base.

Introduction of GPS and monitoring of MSW

vehicles in a centralized locality.

4 Management

Information Systems

Regular reporting and data

updating.

Appropriate division of roles

and responsibilities.

Developing information base on :

Daily/weekly/monthly reports at

town/ward/zone level.

Spatial and seasonal waste generation

quantities and nature (Ward-wise waste),

collection points linking to GIS, asset

inventory, category wise waste generation,

number of workers in each ward for

collection, transportation and disposal.

Recording weigh-bridge on-site

Number of staff and expected clearance

frequencies.

Funds and leadership

5 Levy user charges Polluter pays principle and a

policy on SWM user charges.

Simple procedures and strict

enforcement of regulations.

Share MSW information with the

Public.

Display boards with details of MSW in

specific area including Contractor’s phone

number on the dustbins to be cleared by

them and specify how residents can

handover waste to municipal body.

Charges for business or trade, eating-houses

or hostels, health-care facilities, shops,

offices, street-food, fairs and exhibitions and

Lack of political will.



ceremonies.

Avoid NIMBY by sanitizing all wastes near

point of collection until composting

commence.

6 Advanced locality

Management (ALM)

Strong citizen’s group to work

closely with ULB to develop

strategy and improve ISWM as well

as other civic amenities in their

local area.

Organize citizen meeting in neighbourhood and

explain concept of ALM through public

meetings.

Select ALM committee from all representative

building, lanes etc.

7 Promoting Public

Private Participation

(PPP)

Performance improvement criteria

based contracting system.

Enhancing the strength of ULBs and ability

of engaged contractors to perform.

Take up pilot in newly developed areas,

under-served areas and particularly in the

areas where local bodies have not been

providing service through their own labour

force.

PPP can be considered in:

- D2D collection of household waste,

commercial waste, hospital waste, hotel

waste, construction waste and market

waste.

- Setting-up, operation and maintenance

of waste disposal facility, operation and

maintenance of waste treatment or

processing plants.

- Supplying refuse collection vehicles on

lease, repairs and maintenance of

vehicles at a private garage,

transportation of waste on contractual

Lack of credible

information

Inadequate internal

capacities to monitor

private operator



basis, etc.

8 Selection of treatment

technologies.

Developing environmentally

sustainable models especially in

disposal e.g. scientific landfills

(SLFs).

Setup expert committee. Coordination and Internal

capacities issues.



7.3.4 IMPROVEMENT OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IN BELGAUM

The existing situation of the storm water drainage network has already been discussed at length

in Section 4.2. There are a couple of areas wherein there are instances of water logging during

the rainy seasons. These areas get quite seriously affected during such times. Following are

some strategies that may be adopted to improve these areas by a large extent.

Suggested strategies for storm water management

Identifying the water logged areas and their frequency of water logging. As a short term

plan rehabilitation of drains in those areas can be taken on priority.

Considering the existing problems of water logging in rainy seasons, the use of the

debris generating from civil works like road constructions and construction sites can be

utilized as infilling in the low lying areas where water accumulates during rainy seasons,

however, proper treatment of compaction and execution is essential on such sites. These

works can be taken up as short term measures.

There should be immediate provision made in order to stop mixing of solid waste into

open drains so as to prevent choking of drains

Augmenting the existing drainage network by converting existing Kachha drains into

pucca drains by providing proper cross sections along the running length of the roads.

Construction of new drainage channels (covered) along the roads where there is no

provision of drainage system should be taken up based on detail surveys

Disposing the collected water safely into identified areas. The existing lakes can be

considered for discharging the surface water and storm water. Development of

collection and conveyance system for storm water is suggested as a midterm which will

discharge the water into existing lakes or water bodies and will help recharging and

rejuvenating the existing lakes which at present are drying due to climatic changes.

Considering options for Rain water harvesting suitable to city context. It can be

recommended in the building regulations and bye-laws for newly developing areas,

residential colonies and institutional campuses to develop rain water harvesting system.



7.4. ENABLING AND SUSTAINING STRATEGIES

7.4.1 AWARENESS RAISING, HYGIENE PROMOTION AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.

The first step in making cities 100% sanitized is to elevate the consciousness about sanitation

in the mind of municipal agencies, government agencies and most importantly, amongst the

people of the city. The policy also aims to transform cities into totally sanitized, healthy and

livable cities and towns. This can be achieved only by:

Generating awareness amongst households and institutions about sanitation and its

linkages with public and environmental health;

Promoting mechanisms to bring about and sustain behavioral changes aimed at

adoption of healthy sanitation practices;

There needs to be considerable engagement with households and communities on changing

mindsets, and understanding incentives to change behavior and practices. A communication

strategy has been drafted to create support for and facilitate effective implementation of city-

wide, demand-based sanitation programs; and for generating awareness amongst urban

households on sanitation and its linkages with health, economic productivity and the

environment along with facilitating behavior change towards adoption of safe sanitation

practices among households.

One reason for the low support to sanitation is that opinion leaders, policy makers and

managers do not see the links between sanitation, public health and economics. The first step in

making cities 100% sanitized is to elevate the consciousness about sanitation in the mind of

municipal agencies, government agencies and most importantly, amongst the people of the city.

ULBs are in the frontline of implementation and have a key role in ensuring sanitation and

should focus on demand responsive approach. To meet this challenge a systematic

“Communication Need Assessment (CNA)” for different Target Groups has been taken up as part

of CSP and objective of well driven IEC is for sanitation to be demand-driven with social

marketing approaches to increase demand for toilets and ensure hygiene behaviors, promote no

subsidies for household toilets in future and encourage diversity in technology and design.

ULBs are in the frontline of implementation and have a key role in ensuring sanitation and

should focus on demand responsive approach. State government should ensure support to ULBs

in providing enabling environment in all respects and provide communication and awareness

strategy. The following table details out IEC and advocacy plan in achieving desired goals of

environmental sanitation:

Enabling environment is understood at two levels. Firstly, at the macro level it refers to mobilization of political and administrative will and creation of an environment to support program implementation. Secondly, at the grassroots level, it is the inclination generated towards behavior change in ending open defecation and achieving total sanitation. Key features of the campaigning should include:

A community-led approach with focus on collective achievement of total sanitation; Focus on Information, Education and Communication (IEC) to mobilise and motivate communities towards safe sanitation; Minimum capital incentives to be disbursed post construction and usage;



Provision of revolving funds Flexible menu of technology options; Development of a supply chain through alternate delivery mechanism to meet the

demand stimulated at the community level; Priority to School (and anganwadi) Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) and Community sanitary complexes for landless/public places Fiscal incentive in the form of a cash prize –National Urban Sanitation Rankings.

Table 64 IEC Plan 1

Purpose Audience Communication/elements medium

1 To highlight the points

of contamination of

drinking water due to

unsanitary practices.

Primary

Target:

Women

Secondary

target:

Children and

Men

Issue based film and Radio

spot – safe drinking water

Television/

Radio

2 To create awareness

about diseases caused

by consumption of

contaminated water and

unsanitary situation

Primary

Target:

Women

Secondary

target:

Children and

Men


spot – safe drinking habits

Television/

leaflets/

Signboards

3 To highlight the need for

washing hands before

meals and after

defecation. How health

is the best way to

prosperity

Primary

Target:

Women

Secondary

target:

Children and

Men


spot – Hygiene -1

Radio

4 To highlight the need

and relevance of

sanitary toilets

construction and

maintenance

Primary

Target: Men

Secondary

target: Women

and Children


spot – sanitation -1

Television/

Radio

5 To highlight the fact that

the construction of a

sanitary toilet at home is

Primary

Target: Men

Secondary



Television/

Radio



affordable. target: Women

and Children

6 To inform about

technically correct

toilets – options and

costs

Households/

ULB officials



Leaflets/

Information

booklet

7 Information regarding

modes of contamination



Table 65: IEC Plan 2 and Advocacy Plan for Environmental Sanitation

Target Audience Messages/Themes Channels of Communication

Councillors, Commissioner,

Engineers

What are current habits and how the toilets should be

designed for social acceptance.

Promoting two pit latrines in slums

mentsHow to ensure compliance from people

Rewards/Punish

Better implementation of sanitation projects

Safe handling of garbage by Sanitation workers

Safe deposition of garbage by Contractors

Council meeting, CSP workshops,

News paper Advertisements calling

for meeting

Press Conference-sharing the goals

and plan of action for CSP with press

persons

Councillors, office bearers of

Sanghabandams and Slum Level

Federations representing slums

Consultations on preventing open defecation

Toilet size

Toilet options two pit, septic tank

Safe disposal of Human Excreta

Contamination due to Fecal Matter

Health and hygiene

Diarrhea, GE, Malaria, Scabies

Consultation on problems with current toilets

Consultation of water supply situation

Consultation on Environmental sanitation

Consultation on expectations form Municipal Corporation

SLF Meeting

Door to door campaign

News paper Advertisements calling

for meeting

Press Conference

Councillors, office bearers of

Sanghabandams and Slum Level

Federations representing slums in

Town Outskirts

Health Risks due to open defecation

Toilet size

Toilet options two pit, septic tank

Contamination due to Fecal Matter

Safe disposal of Human Excreta

SLF Meeting

Door to door campaign

Newspaper Advertisement calling for

meeting

Press Conference



Health and hygiene

Diarrhea, GE, Malaria, Scabies


Consultation of water scarcity



Office bearers of Residents Welfare

Association middleclass localities


Consultation on septic tank cleaning


Consultation of water supply situation

Consultation of willingness to pay for tricycles etc


Meetings, Door to door campaigning

Newspaper Advertisement calling for

meeting

Press Conference

Water and sanitation officials

Display numbers of responsible officials like Sanitation

Inspectors prominently in their Zones

Restart Call Center Facility, establish grievance redressal

mechanism.

Appreciation of what people desire

Print pamphlets given with

newspapers, news paper

advertisements, painting on

Elevated/underground reservoirs

Print the phone numbers of

responsible officials on the tractors

Water and Sanitation Workers Importance of safe handling of waste

Contractors Do not dump Garbage on roads leading to dump yard

Do not burn garbage

Segregate waste at the dump yard.

Print the phone numbers of

responsible officials on the tractors

Shopkeepers Do not dump garbage in by lanes

If you need to dispose hazardous waste call the Municipal

Corporation and ask for a tractor.

Town Wide Keep house and neighbourhood Clean Road Side Billboards



Boil/Filter the Water before drinking

Wash your hands before and after eating/drinking

Don’t allow mosquitoes to breed in your neighbourhood

Immunize Children

Don’t share clothes of persons infected with skin diseases

News Paper Ads

Town Cable

Sanitation, despite being a basic human need and a critical need for improved quality of life, has not got the necessary attention in the past. Also, the

different aspects of sanitation starting from collection of human feces to the safe disposal (the whole process cycle) have seen different stakeholders.

Table 66: Methods and implementation of awareness activities

Stakeholder Group Message Intent Example of Messages that could be used

Households (urban poor / slum

dwellers) that lack toilets / access to

sanitation

Motivate citizens to take

action and adopt safe,

hygienic sanitation practices

Clean households leads to healthy, strong and successful families

Choose dignity for your wives and daughters! Having toilets at home

adds to the comfort, security and privacy of the women.

Improved sanitation facilities, (e.g. use individual or community

toilets) will reduce health expenditure of your family.

Service providers – includes

• Officials of ULBs

• Officials from different arms

of the city administration,

primarily from ULBs, PHED,

OWSSB, etc.

Reinforce that:

Sanitation also includes

management of human

excreta and liquid wastes in

addition to solid waste

management.

Leverage investments in sanitation and public health and give the

residents and their future generations a chance to a healthy and happy

future.

Service providers – includes

• Officials from different arms

of the city administration,

Proper waste management is

not solely the responsibility of

the state. Citizens have an

Proper management of household waste + proper confinement,

disposal and treatment of human excreta = Clean Cities. Winning the

Nirmal Shaher Puraskar isn’t so difficult. Little effort will result in big



primarily from ULBs, PHED,

OWSSB, etc.

equal and important role to

play in helping the state

achieve the state’s urban

sanitation goals.

gains (for ULB officials)

Politicians

Helping provide basic needs

like sanitation will strengthen

your popularity with your

constituents and could

further improve political

mandate

Improve the quality of life of your constituents by influencing them to

adopt good sanitation practices

There are three important components to the communication strategy

1. Inter-personal communications: Using opinion leaders

2. Engaging media and NGOs as partners in promoting sanitation consciousness

3. Adapting and developing multimedia IEC materials for sanitation campaigns

Interpersonal means are known to be very effective in behavior change communications. These are tedious processes to carry out but offer better

returns. It is important to understand the needs of the local community and select opinion leaders who could influence the community to further

sanitation consciousness. These opinion leaders could be local NGOs, cooperators, school teachers or any other respected elder. A newspaper ad or a

public service message on TV without ground level work through opinion leaders will fail to be sustainable in the long run.

For better targeting a need based IEC actions to be implemented categorized into following phases.



Table 67: Phase wise distribution of works

Phase 1 (1-2 months)

Awareness Raising Phase

Phase 2 (3 months)

Educational Phase:

Phase 3 ( Continuous) Continuing Education

- Action Promotion Phase

Aimed at generating high awareness and a sense

of alarm or concern about the OD, problem

situation and UGD promotion. Consists of easy to

grasp messages (e.g. disease incidences from

contaminated water are rising).

Technical guidance to proper UGD laying.

Short advertisements in various media or

communication channels.

To deepen the knowledge and appreciation

of the target audience. Information and

educational approaches to stress properly

designed septic tanks and periodic septic

tank inspections and desludging every 2- 3

years.

Promotional phase with short campaigns at

least once a year.

Action to dominate.

To trigger the actual adoption of the practices

being marketed.

Organise interactive programmes for effective

implementation of UGD. Organise walks by

children, meeting/workshop with

stakeholders eg. shopkeepers, RWA, NGOs,

communities etc.

Institutionalize regular discussion between

various departments for increased co-

ordination to further goals of CSP.

Seeking feedback from Councilors to help

effective implementation.

Media options:

Local Cable TV ads (30 secs)

Local newspaper ads

Billboards

Tarpaulin posters mounted on mobile

vans

Leaflets for those attending meetings

Organize interactive programmes for

effective implementation of UGD.

Organize walks by children,

meeting/workshop with stakeholders

e.g. shopkeepers, RWA, NGOs,

communities etc.

Institutionalize regular discussion

between various departments for

increased co-ordination to further

goals of CSP.

Seeking feedback from Councilors to

help effective implementation.

Media options:

Local Cable TV ads (30 secs)

Local newspaper ads

Billboards

Tarpaulin posters mounted on

Organize interactive programmes for

effective implementation of UGD. Organize

walks by children, meeting/workshop with

stakeholders eg. shopkeepers, RWA, NGOs,

communities etc.

Institutionalize regular discussion between

various departments for increased co-

ordination to further goals of CSP.

Seeking feedback from Councilors to help

effective implementation.

Media options:

Continuing radio, TV, print ads

Continuing house to house

visits

Continuing short film showing

in theaters

Continuing billboards



News releases in print, radio

and TV

Discussions on radio

mobile vans

Leaflets for those attending

meetings

News releases in print, radio

and TV

Discussions on radio

Continuing but less frequent

assemblies, SLF meetings

Continuing news releases on all

platforms

Continuing feature articles

Media: TV, Radio, Door to door, billboards,

leaflets. Mass announcements Budget: 3 – 3.5 lakhs / year

Measurable Parameters of Communication Plan:

Increase awareness

Willingness to psy the costs as contribution and self financing for creation of facilities

Reduce mortality rates due to waterborne disease and unsanitary /unhygienic living habita

Maintenance in the hands of villages/ village committee user group

Reduce tendency for not using facilities by community and laxity in maintenance

Cleanliness in the Wards

Proportion of families adopting household sanitary toilets

Improvement in hygienic behavior, adoption and use of sanitation facilities by children at school and anganwadi level.

Proportion of families practicing hand washing before feeding cooking and after defecation

Reduction in incidences in diarrhea and other water borne diseases.

Proportion of wards contributing towards maintenance charges of common facilities through village committee.

Grouping wards in size of population. Area and social development index for effective training, supervision, media tools, and monitoring.

Eg:

1. Low density : wall paintings, signboards, slogans, Group meetings, Puppet show,

2. Moderate density: wall paintings, signboards, slogans, Group meetings, Puppet show

3. High density : Wall paintings, signboards, slogans, Group meetings/ Roadshows, Mela, School programes

4. Very high density : Wall paintings, signboards, slogans, Group meetings/ Roadshows/ Mela, School programes



b. Slogans: In each ward 8 for low density 10 slogans for high density will be written.

Different land uses (Residential, commercial, slums, institutional) should have

different slogans.

Subjects of IEC:

Hygiene:

Personal hygiene include hand washing

WARD/ House/ City cleanliness

Need of toilets, sanitation and requirement of soak pits

Cleanliness of water sources- well, tap etc.

Solid and liquid waste management

Cleanliness of toilets

Handling of water

Health:

Disease due to unsanitary conditions, preventions and cure

Diaherrea, vomiting, water borne diseases.

Malaria, Jaundice, skin disease

Typhoid

Cholera

Dos and donts:

While implementing IEC programme following dos and donts need to be followed for

equitability, affectivity and sustainability of the programme.

Dos:

1. Training at all level is a must

2. Clarity of concept & spirit

3. People involvement in the programme

4. Approprite media and quality of programme.

5. Preparation for activities before execution.

6. Proper planning

7. Selection of subject & matters for discussions

8. Selection of media

9. Local time and palce

10. Gathering and involvement of people

11. Transport if needed

12. Feedback mechanisms

13. Monitoring IEC activities

Timely reporting at all levels is a mus( including HO)

Facilitate people actions

Let people identify solutions to issues and problems

Donts:

Influenced by political or religious pressures

Surrendering the programe to any particular group committed to subjective learning

Negative approach & unnecessary discussions on generic problems

Making false promise to the peple

Tokenism in the name of people participation

A lose unstructured approach to IEC activities



IEC media tools, Methodology and financial norms

Slogans:

Places for writing slogans:

Ward office

Gatherings at water sources, toilets

School/ anganwadi

Community hall

Milk diary

Centre Temple

Shopping center / hatt/ Commercial areas

Bus stand/ Hospital/ PHC Center

Themes:

Sanitation

Health

People participation

Water supply pattern

Template for estimate of slogan writing :

Word @ Rs 20/-

Cost for printing

Bucket

Brush

Color

Group meetings ( with minimum 30-35 people):

Need of HH level access/ community toilet

School sanitation

Sanittaion: Importance of sanitation perception, attitude, personal and surrounding

hygiene, available govt schemes, responsibilities and contribution.

Health: Water related disases, prevention and precaution.

Media to be used:

Falsh card

Video/ slides

Games

Feedback from the group in the form of :

Charts made by them, questionnaire



7.4.2 FINACIAL REQUIREMENTS AND FINANCING MECHANISMS

Funds from central government schemes provide majority of funding for these schemes. These funds may be inadequate to achieve the goals of providing 'improved' sanitation envisioned as per the City sanitation Vision. To fill the gap in financing of sanitation infrastructure, One way is to find funds in government plan and Budget allocations, the other is to look for public and private financing, including public and private international funds. These are complementary and non-competing sources. Research in economics has shown over past several decades that in many situations, especially in infrastructure and 'facilitating' investments, public investments can crowd-in and increase private investments. Sanitation has both public good and private good aspects to it. It should be funded by both public and private finances. A model where public funds provide the back-end and private funds provide the front-end can fill the gap in sanitation financing. Government-Business-Consumer, model can be used. This may include plan and budgetary funds, state funds, municipal and local government funds, and private funds to build sewers and sewage treatment infrastructure of high quality. This may be done on a build-operate-transfer (BOT) basis, or on a lease-hire-to-businesses basis - like telecom, electricity or transport infrastructure in some places. Linking into existing schemes Business operators could raise their own finances to deliver services, and government and democratic institutions can play a regulatory role to ensure these 'natural' monopolies provide good service at reasonable price to consumers. These businesses may also help households find long-term financing for access to toilets and sustainable sewage treatment systems that have long durability andhigh quality. For different aspects of sanitation fund convergence is very important. Links between the plans and ongoing schemes and programmes will only happen if local stakeholders take control of programmes and schemes, review their effectiveness and improve them where necessary. Many government-funded schemes for infrastructure development in low-income areas focus more on the disbursement of funds than the quality of work, but their effectiveness and sustenance should be ensured by:

Supervising and monitoring them closely Including them in the overall strategy for sanitation in the town, and improving their

Links to other services and programmes Ensuring that resources are deployed where they are most needed Consulting beneficiaries and responding to what they actually want Ensuring that they include any necessary ‘software’ components such as hygiene education (this is especially important for latrine-building schemes).

For this purpose, it may be necessary to bring in an NGO or other agency to work alongside the main implementing agency. BCC has to have some stakeholder meetings led by its commissioner and can identify the quantum of the money available under various possible schemes for furthering sanitation Goals and can be utilized in a very systematic manner as indicated below.



Table 68 Fund Convergence for CSP

Components Capaci

ty

buildin

g

undue

NUSP

RA

Y

13t

h

FC

Privat

e

Secto

r/

NGO

etc

BRG

F

MLA

/

MP

Fun

d

SSA

/

ICD

S

National

Sustaina

ble

Habitat

National

Livelihoo

ds

Mission

JNURM/UIDS

MT

BPL Toilet

(HH level)

APL Toilet

(HH Level)

School

Toilet

Anganwadi

toilet

Community

Complex

Public

Toilets

Technical

support

Liquid

Waste –

treatment

and disposal

Solid waste

– treatment

and disposal

IEC

Capacity

building

MSW D2D

collection

MSW

Transportati

on

Water

bodies O

&M



Storm

drains

For the effective implementation of the city sanitation plan, it is anticipated that funds will be sourced from following channels:

The Central Grants (via ministry of Urban Development and Ministry of HUPA, GOI. Individual and institutional contributions. State’s own budget. Connection cost of UGD to be collected and deposited for O&M of STPs and should be

managed by CSTF. Promote public-private partnership for key activities identified in the city sanitation

plan. PPP in public and community toilets, CSR funds and mobilize private people in maintaining school toilets.

Funding projects wherever possible from existing schemes such as JNNURM and UIDSSMT.

Funding from Bilateral and multilateral agencies can also be explored. Providing assistance for the preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) as per city

sanitation plan as soon as requests for funding are received; SJSRY/ NULM Affordable housing in partnership Interest subsidy scheme for the urban poor - BPL USHA- Urban statistics and HR assessment ILCS Other Health and education programs for IEC Schemes for Minority population MoUD have created a Community Participation Fund (CPF) under which a community

can conceive a project on municipal solid waste and submit it through the local municipality to the Union Government. Funds to the tune of Rs. 9.5 lakh can be granted with community contributing 5%, in case of slums and 10% in case of others. However, fifty-one per cent of voters living in the locality there will have to sign a document indicating their interest and support to the project. Urban Local Bodies could forward such proposals to GOI.



The financial requirements have been estimated in terms of the need of sanitation situation in

Belgaum.

Table 69 Financial Requirements and Mechanisms

S. No.

Existing situation

Proposed action / budget head

Number of units (seats) for CSP implementation period (2012-2016)

cost per unit

Total cost

1 No of places of open defecation

Construction of Sulabh toilets

2 Construction of Individual toilets

*3 Construction of Urinals for schools

Amount in Crores

4 No proper disposal of effluent from toilets

*(a) connection to sewer line or drain

5 disposal of effluent from septic tanks

*(b)connection to sewer line

6 Recycling and reuse of wastewater

At least 30% wastewater is recycled and reused(61.13MLD)

Solid waste Management in (Quantity) Total quantity Quantity that needs to be

considered

1 DTD collection 100%

2 Composting At least 20% waste should be composted

3 Generation of fuel or electricity by waste recycling

at least 5% waste is processed and is used as a fuel

4 Recycling and reuse of dry waste

Recycling and reuse of all related waste through rag pickers or through

agencies or NGO

Environment & Awareness

1 Water resources that are polluted Study of water pollution levels and suggestive measure to arrest pollution

25 lakh per

Zone(approx.)



2 NGOs working with peoples participatory approach

Encouragement to such NGOs and assistance if required.

12 lack per

Zone(approx.)

3 NGOs or agencies working towards citizen education

Additional financial assistance if required to few

3 lakh per

Zone

(approx.)

Note : Subject to changes with regard to the approval of CSTF & ULB members

Note :- Cumulative figure will be considered after the discussion with CSTF members and

the final figures will be ascertained in the final draft CSP

INFORMATION BOX 13: PROPOSED SCHEME FOR MECHANICAL AID FOR CLEANING OF

SEWERS AND SEPTIC TANKS (SMACSS)

a. The National Advisory Council (NAC) has observed that the shameful practice of manual

scavenging persists in India, despite being outlawed. The NAC has identified the need for a

special focus to liberate our society from the norms on social exclusion and discrimination

along with an action plan with full ownership of participation of the persons involved in manual

scavenging. The Government of India has enacted the Employment of Manual Scavengers and

Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. It serves as a primary instrument in the

liberation of a broken people enslaved to a life of indignity enforced through ideologies of

descent based work and caste. The Act defines a manual scavenger as “a person engaged in or

employed in manual carriage of human excreta”.

b. However, the existing definition of manual scavenging as per the Act, 1993 does not cover

manual cleaning of septic tanks and sewers cleaning. It is essential that such cleaning

operations be included in the definition of manual scavenging since there they involve similar

issues of dignity as well as health related risks. Therefore, the definition of manual scavenging

may be modified as “a person engaged or employed, whether by an individual or an urban local

body or any other public or private agency, for manual cleaning, carrying or disposing

untreated human excreta, including a latrine, a tank, in a drain or a sewer line”.

There are established technologies that convert human excreta in to manure in a scientific manner.

Such decomposed material and its carriage may not be covered in the definition of scavenging.

c. Accordingly, the MoUD intends to formulate a scheme for facilitating the state government and

ULBs in ensuring cleaning of sewers and septic tanks/any latrines mechanically. The scheme

will facilitate funding for the procurement of suction machines for cleaning of septic tanks and

suction-cum-jetting machines for cleaning of sewers in all cities/towns in the Country. The

scheme is envisaged on ‘All Town’ basis. All 5161 cities and towns as per 2001 census will

qualify for assistance under the proposed scheme.

d. FINANCING PATTERN

i. Funds would be provided to the SLNA through State Governments / UTs in the form of

100% grant for capital investment for the procurement of the equipment and machinery. No

funds would be provided for operation and maintenance of sewerage and onsite sanitation

systems including maintenance of these machines which shall be borne by the ULBs/State

Govts.



ii. The operation and maintenance of sewerage and onsite sanitation system (septic tanks,

dry latrines etc) including running and maintenance of machinery shall be the responsibility

of the ULB/Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Agencies/Boards. If necessary, these

activities may be outsourced by the ULBs/ WSS Agencies/Boards to private service

providers/ entrepreneurs over a specified period as per the agreement to be executed

between ULBs & private entrepreneurs. The O&M cost including desilting, cleaning of sewers

& manholes, de-sludging of septic tanks and maintenance of vehicles would be borne by the

ULBs.

iii. The requirement of funds for the purchase of suction machines and suction-cumjetting

machines for cleaning of sewers and septic tanks for all 5161 towns have been assessed as

Rs. 4949 Crores.

iv. Funding will be available for the procurement of new machines only.

CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZATION OF TOWNS

Priority would be given to towns with the following characteristics.

1. State capitals irrespective of the population

2. Pilgrim centre/heritage towns

3. Culturally important towns

4. ULBs in which the practice of manual scavenging is pre-dominant

5. ULBs where there are no machines for sewer and septic tank cleaning operations.

MONITORING MECHANISM

Independent Evaluation and Monitoring Agencies should be appointed by the State Govt. at State

level/city level in line with the monitoring mechanism envisaged under JNNURM. The Independent

Evaluation and Monitoring Agencies will monitor the status Of the procurement of the machines,

cleaning operations of the sewer and septic tanks and the status of the action taken on the

eradication of manual scavenging by the ULBs and report to the to the Municipal

Administration/State Govts which will forward the same to SLNAs. The SLNA will forward the status

of the implementation of the scheme to the Ministry of Urban Development.

The concerned ULB/Head of Water Supply and Sanitation Agencies, who are responsible for O&M of

sewerage and onsite sanitation facilities shall furnish an action plan each year to the Ministry of

Urban Development through Directorate of Municipal Administration and SLNA regarding action

taken/action to be taken for elimination of manual scavenging and the number of employees

engaged in manual cleaning and mechanical cleaning of sewers and septic tanks in the next 2 years

from the date of purchase of machines.

7.4.3 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY

The ULBs are responsible for managing the cycle of sanitation and public health within their

cities, in coordination with various departments. Already there are number of provisions to

practice and implement in achieving sanitation goals and some additional recommendations are

as follows:



Using existing provisions in municipal and other acts to promote compliance;

Amending municipal acts, framing of bye-laws and regulations (E.g. Building and

construction bye-laws) to promote sanitation by public and private agencies,

prohibit discharge of untreated sewage into open areas (Pollution control acts);

Re-orienting policies to ensure that urban poor households obtain access to

improved sanitation facilities;

Ear-marking land for community and public sanitation facilities;

Promoting partnerships with public, private and non-governmental agencies for

improved service delivery, maintenance and management of sanitation facilities;

The existing multilevel institutional arrangement should be reoriented with clear assignment of

specific roles and responsibilities to the institutions. The setup of institutions needs to be

addressed at the state, district, and the ULB level. The details of the institutional setup at ULB

level has been described as follows:

ROLE OF DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS

URBAN LOCAL BODY LEVEL INSTITUTIONAL SET UP:

1. A multi-stakeholder “City Sanitation Task Force (CSTF)” comprising representatives from

multidisciplinary fields for overall guidance and oversee sanitation related activities has to

be constituted in Belgaum. It is thereafter important for the CSTF to conduct meetings once

in a month to implement and monitor planned activities.

2. In view of high level of Open defecation, Ward Level Sanitation Action Committees (WASCs)

should be formed involving SHGs and Community organizer. They will also ensure

continuous vigilance and surveillance and effective monitoring, it is suggested to form a

ward level Committee in each ward and Municipal level committee (CSTF) to review and

monitor the action taken to prevent and control the incidence of the disease. The ward level

committee will be headed by the ward member, and the members of the committee are the

habitation officers (convener), concerned Asst. Engineer / Work Inspector, Sanitary

Inspector / Health Assistant, NHC president. This committee shall meet once in a week and

as frequently as possible during the epidemic period.

3. Within the ULB, there is a need to identify “Sanitation Implementation Unit” in-house

from the existing staff for all practical implementation purposes. The unit shall be

responsible for preparation and implementation of the city sanitation plan. Commissioner/

CMOH shall be the head of the unit and may appoint suitable officer as the in-charge officer.

Commissioner/CMOH may also nominate other suitable officers as members of the unit.

This unit should be supported by additional staff like Sanitary Inspector depending on the

population of ULBs. This unit can monitor the progress every month, develop and update

database on sanitation in ULB. The unit will pinpoint problem areas to address, prioritize

projects for implementation, and monitor quality checks. They will identify actions and

related spatial and non-spatial interventions. For day to day implementations existing

institutional mechanism at ULB level like Ward Committees, Ward Development

Committees, Task Force needs to be strengthened with orientation trainings and capacity

building training.



4. The Municipal level committee shall be headed by the Chairperson with the members being

the Municipal Commissioner (Convener), CMHO, ME, CDS President, Local NGO, DM&HO or

his deputee. This committee shall meet once in every fifteen days and as frequently and as

possible during the epidemic period

The functions of the unit will be:

To conduct a baseline survey on city sanitation and update regularly (once in two

years)

To prioritize projects for implementation, monitor quality checks identified under

CSP and identify actions and related spatial and non-spatial interventions.

To develop city wide communication strategy and conduct city wide total sanitation

campaign.

To ensure intra departmental coordination of ULB for sanitation promotion

To develop network with several government departments and other agencies for

promoting healthy & environmentally sound sanitation.

To manage all the process like procurement, contracting etc. for sanitation projects

and be responsible for implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the

programme. Develop local sanitation and hygiene regulations in consultation with

stakeholders; establish standards and norms; inform citizens of their rights and

duties under existing sanitation legislation/regulations; and set up mechanisms for

monitoring and enforcing their implementation.

Clarify Roles and improve agency coordination

Streamlining policies so as to develop and adopt local septage ordinance, Institute

regular desludging mechanism, PPP promotion and regulation, ULB introduce User

charges, Update and amend regulation in building bye laws.

Mobilize Govt support Capital but local groups to manage O &M.

Build political support through exposure visits workshops.

Engaging civil societies to end OD.

For day to day implementations existing institutional mechanism at ULB level like Ward

Committees, Ward Development Committees, Task Force needs to be strengthened with

orientation trainings and capacity building training.

Poverty wing of ULB should be responsible to design, implement, and monitor the sanitation

promotion programmes, converging the source of funds and preparing the budget. ULB should

also plan and budget for the operation and maintenance of sanitation systems. It is also

responsible for assisting households to provide their own sanitation and to build their own

toilet facilities. Specific responsibilities include –

To design integrated planning and communication strategy for City sanitation

promotion.

To provide access to sanitation to all urban population

To make communities aware of the importance of sanitation in terms of health.

To launch together with the communities, health and hygiene promotion

programmes.



To monitor the health of communities.

Establish and improve septage management requirements and guidelines

Providing technical support, guidance and training .

To assist households to operate and maintain sanitation facilities

To assist Ward Education Committee for the improvement of school

infrastructure, including sanitation and for implementing School health promotion

programmes to create safe and healthy school.

To coordinate all the internal departments like PWD, Sanitation, Health and

Education, and also involving the Community Based Organizations, Welfare

Associations, youth clubs, market committees etc. for Total Sanitation Approach

and Campaign in the ULB, and make the city open defecation free.

To develop and design ward wise, & slum wise incentive schemes for reaching the

ultimate goal of Nirmal Sahar

STATE URBAN SANITATION CELL (SUSC)

DMA needs to be strengthened for the purpose of functioning as a Sanitation Nodal Agency with

a dedicated Sanitation Cell. The Cell will have a complete office set up with the following

constitution, terms of reference. (To elaborate on Roles and responsibilities, on investment

flows, Policy and standards setting, Asset Creation, Financing of Capital Investments, Planning

and implementation, Operation and maintenance, Environmental Regulation, Monitoring and

Evaluation, Land Use / Building regulations, Ongoing programs, Implementation, Execution,

Legal Regulatory Responsibility, Capacity Building and IEC).

Constitution of State Urban Sanitation Cell (SUSC):

Creation of a strategic urban sanitation cell at DMA, GoK, to be headed by a “Director”

equivalent officer with a fixed tenure of five of mission period for better coordination

and integrated development.

SUSC is expected to provide overall direction and strategic support to ULBs and

coordinate with state level organizations in achieving the strategy objectives in a time-

bound manner.

SUSC will support cities in preparing CSPs by giving overall direction, frame work etc

with in the first year of mission period.

It will have three strategic wings (Ref: fig no 23) with specific and designated expertise

to offer and support in achieving the mission objectives. Each wing will have two expert

staff in required field with the support from “Sanitation Fund”.

SUSC will be central coordinating body and need to coordinate with State, Districts and

ULBs. IEC wing should work closely with State Health Department, Education

Department and design awareness programmes for convergence. Engineering wing and

MIS wings should coordinate regularly with Town and Country Planning Department to

ensure all convergence and effective planning.



Proposed Institutional Set up for Sanitation:

Figure 18: Proposed institutional set-up for sanitation

The responsibilities of the State Urban Sanitation Cell (SUSC) are:

Monitor integrated planning for sanitation promotion.

Guide the ULBs in conceptualizing, planning and implementing the sanitation

programmes while preparing CSPs.

Will initiate sector reforms so as to invite more investment from lateral and bilateral

funding agencies in the sector.

Channelize the financial and technical support to the ULBs and coordinate with other

state departments and agencies engaged in sanitation promotion.

Design & arrange capacity building programmes for ULB staffs and concerned other line

Departments. Develop initiatives to promote and facilitate the process of community

development.

Work out standard designs and specifications including construction practices and O&M

aspects and bring out a “Sanitation Guidance Manual” to facilitate the target groups in

identifying and recommending appropriate technology options for on-site sanitation

considering (1) affordability and acceptability by the end users, (2) soil, groundwater

and climatic conditions of a location, (3) associated environmental, ecological and health

aspects, and (4) availability of water and long term sustainability of the system.

Monitor the sanitation arrangement and public health & hygiene

To take up sector studies and strategy papers, to facilitate partnerships



7.5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

7.5.1 MONITORING AND REVIEW

Monitoring is imperative to verify whether objectives of sanitation plan have been achieved.

Elements of this plan will be monitored and reported and will rely on the provision of a range of

quantitative and qualitative information. Monitoring and evaluation of sanitation progamme is

of higher relevance and importance as Urban development Ministry, Government of India ranks

cities on sanitation and gives Nirmal Shahar Puraskar based on the cities performance. The City

Sanitation Task Force should be made be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the

implementation of the CSP.

At ULB level, City Sanitation Task Force will monitor the programme in support of Standing

Committees (Health, Sanitation, Public Works, and Water supply) based on Implementation

Agency data, citizens’ groups feedback, and primary Field Visits. Periodic verification of following

Impact and Monitoring indicators at ULB level are suggested.

INFORMATION BOX 14: TOOLS TO MEASURE 100% SANITATION MILESTONE

ACHIEVEMENTS

To measure 100% Sanitation Milestone achievements, a number of tools apart from 19

indicators of City Sanitation Ranking can be considered:

a. Impact Indicators

Reduction in incidence of diseases, e.g. - percentage children less than 36 months of

age with diarrhea in last two weeks

Quantity of water used per capita per day

% of child caregivers, food prepares with appropriate hand-washing behavior.

Use of safe methods for disposal of infant excreta

Knowledge of danger of unsafe excreta disposal and hand washing practice

Demand for new toilets within towns and from neighboring communities

% of toilets upgraded with own funds by households after monsoon/filling up of pit

b. Monitoring indicators

% of households with access to sanitary latrines: public and personal separately

% constructed water supply facilities maintained by the communities served

% households using safe drinking water regularly (public and personal separately)

Use of toilets by household members (esp. men, aged, disabled, children under 5)

Range of available affordable options for toilets.

In case of sewage effluent, following standards need to be met and a mechanism to monitor

internally by CSTF by way of protocol adoption.



Table 70: Comparison of Standards (issued by CPCB) with effluent values

Standard for

discharge

into inland

surface

water.

Standard for

reuse of

effluent for

irrigation

SIBF

(effluent)

MSF

effluent

DEWATS

Effluent

BOD (mg/l) 30 100 6 197 17

COD (mg/l) 250 NA 20 688 50

The review period of the proposed action plan for CSP is five years from the formal adoption

date. Progress monitoring and reporting will be conducted by the council monthly, by the

taskforce quarterly and by the state Government bi-annually. As a result of the review, some

revisions to the targets may be required in order to:

a) Update or remove those targets that have proven to be unclear, unable to be adequately

measured, unworkable, or out of date in their allocation of responsibility for action.

b) Reflect changes in the wider wastewater management/sanitation service provision

landscape.

c) Better reflect progress against the targets and, where necessary, set new targets.

d) Better reflect the current state of knowledge of wastewater management/sanitation

facilities.

e) GIS is also very powerful tool to make robust sanitation related information and

updating with regular pictures for centralized monitoring. RAY programme can be

utilize fir this purpose.

7.5.2 LAUNCHING REWARD SCHEME:

Periodic rating of wards in respect of Sanitation, and recognition of best performers by

instituting Awards.

Open Defecation Free

a. Totally free from open defecation;

b. Sanitary collection of 100 percent human excreta and wastes

c. Proper removal and treatment of all wastewater

Wastewater and Drainage safely managed

a. All grey water collected and disposed off safely;

b. All storm water is properly managed

Solid Waste collected and disposed off fully and safely

a. 100 percent of solid waste is collected regularly;

b. Solid wastes are disposed off safely (including treatment and re-use)



7.5.3 INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES BY MC/NPS

The incentives within the City Sanitation Plans could provide infrastructure funding to those

communities that successfully meet reward scheme or by way of incentives that may include:

The provision of collective ‘in kind’ rewards to motivators that successfully support

wards and neighbourhoods meeting reward scheme.

Publicly recognizing those wards and neighbourhoods that achieve ‘excreta free’, ‘litter

free’ or ‘foul water free’ status.

Placing a signboard to this effect at the entrance to the neighbourhood / ward.

The disincentives the ULBs may consider within the CSP include:

Exercising all provisions within the Municipal Act/ Water Act to levy fines, bills for costs

incurred and instigate court proceedings for encroachments, releases of industrial waste

or effluent, illegal slaughter houses, markets, burial grounds, and the provision of

essential water/sewerage/drainage connections.

The provision of ‘fine’ for all individuals that dispose excreta, litter or foul water in an

unhygienic manner in public spaces (Polluter pay principle).

Sanctions against harmful actions and/or failure to act - for instance, a ban, supported

by fines on the use of untreated sewage to irrigate crops/water bodies.



GLOSSARY

1. Activated sludge: An aerobic treatment process in which oxygen and micro-organism

concentrations in wastewater are artificially elevated to facilitate rapid digestion of

biodegradable organic matter.

2. Aerated pond or lagoon: A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in which

mechanical or diffused air aeration is used to supplement the natural reoxygenation

processes.

3. Aerobic treatment: Treatment of wastewater with the help of micro-organisms that

rely on oxygen.

4. Anaerobic digestion: Decomposition of organic material by anaerobic bacteria in the

absence of air.

5. Anaerobic lagoon: A system for treatment of high-strength wastewater and sludge that

involves retention under anaerobic conditions.

6. Biochemical oxygen demand: A measure of the organic pollutant strength of

wastewater.

7. Biosolids: See Sewage sludge.

8. Blackwater: Wastewater discharge from toilets.

9. Bucket latrine: A traditional but unhygienic form of sanitation in which feces is

deposited into a bucket which is collected regularly (usually at night) and taken away

(usually by ‘sweepers’).

10. Composting latrine: A latrine designed to receive both feces and waste vegetable

matter with the aim of reducing moisture content and achieving a carbon-to-nitrogen

ratio that promotes rapid that promotes rapid decomposition.

11. Dry latrines: All forms of latrines that do not require water for flushing.

12. Desludging: Removal of sludge or settled solid matter from treatment tanks such as

septic/Imhoff tank, interceptor tank or sedimentation tanks.

13. Disposal: Discharge, deposition or dumping of any liquid or solid waste onto land or

water so that it may enter the environment.

14. Domestic sewage: All forms of wastewater derived from residential properties, as well

as blackwater and greywater from commercial and institutions buildings.

15. Dry sanitation: Disposal of human excreta without the use of water for flushing or anal

cleansing.

16. Ecological sanitation (ecosan): A form of dry sanitation that involves separation of

feces and urine in order to facilitate recycling of nutrients in local agricultural systems.

17. Effluent: Any form of wastewater or liquid waste that flows from an operation or

activity.

18. Excreta: Feces and urine.

19. Fecal sludge: The undigested sludge that is collected from pit latrines and leach pits.

20. Greywater (also known as sullage): Wastewater produced by washing and bathing

activities.

21. Lagoon: See technology data sheet on ‘Wastewater and Fecal Sludge Treatment: Waste

Stabilization Ponds’ (page 104).

22. Leachfield: A trench filled with sand, soil, gravel and brickbats for disposal of septic

tank overflow into the surrounding soil.



23. Leach pit (sometimes known as a cesspit): An underground tank that is used where

there is no sewer and household wastewaters are drained into them to permit leaching

of the liquid into the surrounding soil.

24. Night soil: Human excreta, with or without anal cleansing material, which are deposited

into a bucket or other receptacle for manual removal.

25. On-plot sanitation: A sanitation system that is wholly contained within the plot

occupied by a private dwelling and its immediate surroundings. Commonly, on-plot

sanitation is equivalent to ‘household latrine’, but may also include facilities shared by

several households living together on the same plot.

26. On-plot facilities: The components of a sanitation system located within a

householder’s plot.

27. Off-site sanitation: A system of sanitation that involves collection and transportation of

waste (wastewater either by sewerage or septage/fecal sludge by vacuum truck) to a

location away from the immediate locality.

28. Pathogens: Micro-organisms such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa that cause disease.

29. Percolation rate: The rate at which liquids move through soil.

30. Pit latrine: A form of on-plot sanitation with a pit for accumulation and decomposition

of excreta from which liquid infiltrates into the surrounding soil.

31. Pour flush toilet: A type of latrine where a water seal trap is used to prevent smells and

to reduce insects.

32. Sanitation: Interventions (usually construction of facilities such as latrines) that

improve the management of excreta and promote sanitary (healthy) conditions.

33. Septage: Mixture of wastewater and sludge removed from a septic tank during cleaning

operations.

34. Septic tank: A form of on-plot sanitation for the anaerobic treatment of

sewage/blackwater.

35. Sewage: A mixture of wastewater from all urban activates from residential, commercial

properties. It may also contain a component of industrial wastewater.

36. Sewer: A conduit, usually a pipe, which is used to collect and convey wastewater away

from its point of production to its point of disposal.

37. Sewage sludge (sometimes referred to as biosoilds): A semisolid residue generated

during the treatment of domestic sewage including both solids removed by

sedimentation and biological sludge produced by biological treatment.

38. Sewerage: A network of interconnected sewers in an area, district or town.

39. Soak pit/Soakaway: A pit, typically after a septic tank from where wastewater slowly

seeps into the ground through perforated sides and bottom.

40. Sullage (also known as greywater): Wastewater from bathing, laundry, preparation of

food, cooking, and other personal and domestic activates.

41. Superstructure: Screen or building enclosing a latrine to provide privacy and

protection for users.

42. Suction truck: A vehicle used for mechanized sludge removal from septic tanks and

lined latrine pits.

43. Ventilated improved pit latrine (VIP): A dry latrine system, with a dark interior and a

screened vent pipe to reduce odor and fly problems.

44. Vent pipe: A pipe that facilitates the escape of gases and odors from a latrine or septic

tank.



45. Wastewater: Liquid waste from households or commercial or industrial operations,

along with any surface water/storm water.

46. Wastewater treatment: A combination of physical, chemical and biological processes

to remove suspended solids, dissolved pollutants, and pathogens and render the water

harmless to the environment.

47. Water closet: A pan, incorporating a water seal, in which excreta are deposited before

being flushed away using water.

48. Water seal: Water held in a U-shaped pipe or hemispherical bowl connecting a pan to a

pipe, channel or pit to prevent the escape of gases and insects from the sewer or pit.



ANNEXURE

Annexure1: Technology Option in Urban Sanitation

All sanitation technologies are either ‘’Wet’’ or ’’ Dry’’.

Wet technologies require water as the name indicates flush out the feces and they drain in to a

leach pit, septic tank or sewer- common practice.

Dry technology: Does not require water as the name indicates. This is our age old pit latrine,

ventilated improved pits etc. This is our usually adopted in hilly area where the water table is

pretty deep.

To feel clean water is a must, so wet latrines are preferred by common man.

‘ON SITE’ AND ‘OFF SITE’ SYSTEMS

On site: Retaining waste in a pit or tank.

Off site: Removing waste to a distant place for treatment and disposal or disposal alone. Even in

‘On site’ system periodical removal of sludge/septage is necessary

The conventional offsite disposal system involves collection of the sewage through pipes and

conveying to a sewage treatment plant, treatment and disposal. This is an expensive option,

requires extensive land etc. So the communities were forced to think of alternative low cost

onsite disposal methods of which the most widely used options are ‘Septic tank’ and Twin pit

pour flush latrines.

SEPTIC TANK

A septic tank is a combined sedimentation and digestion tank where sewage is held for one or

two days. During the period, the suspended solids settle down to the bottom. This is

accompanied by anaerobic digestion of settled solids (sludge) and liquid resulting in reduction

in the volume of sludge, reduction in bio degradable organic matter and release of gases like

Carbon dioxide, methane etc. The effluent although clarified to a large extent still contains

appreciable amount of dissolved and suspended organic solids and pathogens. So the effluent is

to be disposed in a very careful way. Because of this unsatisfactory condition of the effluent and

also difficulty in providing proper effluent disposal system, septic tanks are limited to individual

houses, institutions whose contributory population does not exceed so as to reduce the volume

of effluent and thereby reduce the difficulty in treatment. The septic tanks are normally

rectangular in shape and can either be a single tank or double tank. In case of double tank, the

solid concentration is considerably lower and the first compartment is usually twice the size of

the second. The liquid depth is 1-2 m and the length to breadth 2 to 1. Recommend sizes of

septic tanks up to 2 users and for 300 users are given below.



Table 71:Recommended sizes of septic tanks

No: users Length in m Breadth in m Liquid depth in m cleaning

interval of 2-3years

5 1.5 0.75 1.00-1.05

10 2 0.90 1.00-1.40

15 2 0.90 1.30-2.00

20 2.3 1.10 1.30-1.80

50 5.00 2.00 1.00-1.24

100 7.50 2.65 1.00-1.24

150 10.00 3.00 1.00-1.24

200 12.00 3.30 1.00-1.24

300 15.00 4.00 1.00-1.24

Notes: a) The capacities are recommended on the assumption that discharges from water

closet alone are connected to septic tank.

b) A provision of 300 mm should be provided as freeboard.1.00 m + 0.30 m, 1.05 m +

0.30 m etc

c) For population over 100 mm the tank may be divided into independent parallel

chambers for easy maintenance and cleaning.

The Functions

1. Septic tank receives black water and excreta from the toilets.

2. Heavier solids settle to the bottom of the septic tank where they are decomposed by

anaerobic bacteria

3. The digested sludge is store at bottom

4. The lighter solids such as hair, soap and grease float to the surface forming scum.

5. The gases like carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen sulphide are produced during

anaerobic decomposition and released to the atmosphere through vent.

6. To start with septic tank is filled with water for a depth of about 100 mm and seated

with

Cow dung or sludge from other septic tank

7. Septic tanks are to be cleaned once in 2 to 3 years to remove the accumulated digested

sludge.

Disposal of effluent from the septic tank: Land disposal methods such as soak pits and

dispersion trenches: The land disposal methods largely upon porosity and percolation

characteristics of the soil as the land disposal methods are designed percolation or seepage into

the soil. This also depends on the depth of water table. Soak pits or dispersion trenches shall be

constructed in soils where the percolation rate is between 12 to 25 minutes per cm [Time taken

for percolation of 1 cm depth of water between 12 to 25 minutes] and the depth of water table

is 2.00 m or more from ground level. [The depth we get water when the ground is dug] . If the

water table is high, the dispersion trenches shall be partially or fully above ground level or in a

mound. Dispersion trenches should be 20.00m away from any source of drinking water and also

it should be at least 7.00m away from any house. For soils which have percolation rate more

than 25cm other methods shall be adopted for disposal of effluents.



SOAK PITS

The soak pits may be of any regular shape and filled with rubble or brick bats. Soak pits need be

prepared only when the water table is sufficiently below or when a porous layer underlies an in

previous layer at top. Minimum dimension of the soak pit shall be 1.00m and the depth below

the invert level or inlet pipe surrounding land to avoid flooding.

SOAK PIT OR SEEPAGE PIT

All seepage pits shall have a diameter of 1.00m.

All seepage pits shall be designed as any of the following two types

1. Hollow and lined with acceptable material.

2. Filled with coarse stone or similar material that range from fines, sand, clay or

organic material.

Pits filled with coarse stone are prepared over hollow lined pits

Lining of brick, stone, block or similar materials shall have a minimum thickness of 100

mm and shall be laid with overlapping, tight-butted joints

Below the inlet level, mortar shall be used in the horizontal joints only. Above the inlet,

all joints shall be filled fully with mortar.

For hollow- lined pits, the inlet pipe should extend horizontally at least 300 mm into

the pit with a tee to divert flow downward and prevent washing and eroding the side

wall

A minimum annular space of 150 mm between the lining and excavation wall shall be

filled with crushed rock or gravel varying in diameter from 20 mm to 65 mm and free

from fines, sand, clay, or organic material. The maximum fines in the gravel shall be 2

percent by weight passing through a Standard 10mesh (2.0 millimeter) sieve. Clean

coarse gravel or rock at least 150 mm deep shall be placed in the bottom of each pit.

A structurally sound and otherwise suitable top shall be provided that will prevent

entrance of surface water, dirt or other foreign material, and be capable of supporting

the overburden of earth and any reasonable load to which it is subjected

Access to each hollow –lined pit shall be provided by means of a manhole, not less than

450 mm in minimum horizontal dimension, or by means of an easily removable cover.

The top of the pit shall be covered with a minimum of 150 mm of backfill.

In pits filled with coarse stone, the perforated distribution pipe shall run across each pit.

A layer of crushed rock or gravel shall be used for leveling the distribution pipe.

DISPERSION TRENCHES

Narrow and shallow trenches about 0.5m to 1.00m deep and 0.3m to 1.00m wide excavated to a

slight slope. Open jointed stone ware or concrete pipes 80 to 100 mm diameter are laid in the

trenches over a bed of 15 to 25 cm of washed gravel or crushed stone. The top of pipes shall be

covered by coarse gravel and crushed stone to a minimum depth of 15 cm. The balance portion

may be filled with earth and finished in the form of a mound above the ground to avoid flooding

of trenches during rain.

Width of trench:300 to 600 mm wide

Depth :500to 600 mm



Dispersion pipe: 100 mm diameter open jointed S.W. pipes/ 75mm to 90mm OD

perforated PVC pipes

Maximum length of each trench: 30 m

Spacing of the trench : 1.8 m

Slope of the pipe :1 in 400

Media: 20 to 65 mm size broken stones for a thickness of 150 mm below the pipe.

Separation distance of trees and rooted plants;

Trees and other large rooted plants shall not be allowed to grow near to dispersion

trenches

It is desirable to cover the area over onsite soil absorption systems with lawn grass or

other shallow –rooted plants

Soil absorption systems should not be located under vegetable gardens.

The separation distance of trenches must be at least equal to 3 times the deepest

effective depth of trench with a minimum separation of 370 mm between trenches

POUR FLUSH WATER SEAL LATRINES

Pour flush latrines as the nature indicates, the excreta is hand flushed by pouring about 1.6 to 2

lit of water. The pour flush latrines are with a single leach pit and squatting pan over it. When

the pit in use gets filled up another pit is dug and the squatting platform and the slab is placed

on it.

The first pit is covered with earth and allowed to decay. After one or two years, the digested

excreta is used as a manure. The disadvantage of this system is that desludging has to be done

almost immediately after the pit has been filled up which involved handling of fresh and

undigested excreta. So this is appropriate only if it is desludged mechanically. To tide over this

situation a twin pit design was introduced. When one pit is full, the excreta is diverted into the

second pit. The filled up pit can be conveniently implied after 1⅟₂ to 2 years when most of the

pathogens die off. The sludge can be used as manure.

LEACH PIT

Leach pits serve a dual function of

a) Storage and digestion of excreted solids and

b) Infilteration of waste liquids.

Leach pits are designed based on the following parameters.

1) Solid accumulation rate.

2) Long term infilteration rate.

3) Hydraulic loading.

4) Minimum period required for effective pathogen destruction

5) Optimal pit emptying frequency.

The pits are lined with honey come brick work, open jointed or with perforated burnt clay or

concrete rings. The pits are circular and used alternatively and designed for 3 years filling

period. When one pit is filled it is stopped, the excreta being diverted to second pit. The contents



become lich organic humus, innocuous and free from pathogens as well as smell. When

convenient, it is emptied and contents used as organic manure.

The size of leach pits depends on a number of factors mentioned above. The effective volume

under dry conditions should be at least 0.135 m³ percapita of the house hold for a period of 3

years. In the case of wet pit where water table is high the volume shall be 0.210 m³ per capita of

the house hold for a period of 3 years. Leach pit configuration can be varied to suit site

conditions while the least cost design in a twin circular pits.

Design of pits under different conditions

a) In water logged area: The pit top should be raised by 300 mm above likely level of water

above ground level at the time of water logging. Earth should then be filled will

compacted all round the pits up to 1.00 m distance from the pit up to its top. The raising

of the pit will necessitate raising of the latrine floor also.

b) In high sub soil water level: Where the sub soil water level rises to less than 300 mm

above the likely sub soil water level and earth should be filled all round the pits and

latrine floor raised.

c) In rock strata: In rocky strata with soil layer in between, the leach pits should be

designed as for ordinary leach pit construction with low subsoil water level.

d) Where space is a constraint: Where circular pits of standard sizes cannot be constructed

due to space constraints, deeper pit with smell diameter (not less than 750 mm) or

combined oval square or rectangular pits divided into two equal compartments by a

partition wall may be provided. In case combined pits the partition wall should not have

holes. The partition wall should go 250 mm deeper than the pit lining and plastered on

both sides with cement mortar.

AQUA PRIVY

This is a simplified form of septic tank. This consists of a masonry tank filled with water, a

squatting pan or a platform placed above the tank and ventilation pipe. A long chute or pipe

from the squatting is submerged in the tank water. The excreta falls through this chute or pipe

into the tank and undergoes anaerobic digestion as in a septic tank. The accumulated sludge

(digested) from the tank is to be removed periodically. To compensate for evaporation and

leakage losses and to maintain the water seal. I.e. submergence of chute in the water, water is

added every time after its use.



Annexure 2: Good practices

1. Tiruchirapally (Trichy to most people), the famous temple town of the South, is the fourth-

largest city in Tamil Nadu, and is located on the banks of the Cauvery with a population of just

over a million — of which 25 per cent live in slums. Trichy has 211 “approved” slums and as

many as 75 “unapproved” slums which are located on railway land, Government of India land,

and land belonging to the Waqf Board and other private owners. Until the end of the 1990s the

slums of Trichy, with their sanitation and toilet facilities in an appalling state, were no different

from the rest of the country. But things began to change about 10 years ago, and Trichy has not

looked back since. The city was ranked 6th in India in the sanitation ranking of Indian cities by

the ministry of urban development in 2009-10.

It all started with a major initiative launched by the NGO Gramalaya in 2000, mobilising women

in the slums in self-help groups (SHGs) and launching an awareness campaign on sanitation

through training. They were able to get the support of Water-Aid, a UK-based NGO, to fund the

building/renovation of 25 community toilets and child-friendly toilets in the slums, which

would be managed by the women of the community on a pay-and-use basis. Sanitation health

education teams were set up by the SHGs to propagate the message of sanitation, monitor the

behaviour of residents, and supervise the maintenance of the toilets.

A community toilet complex typically has 10-12 seats for women and 10-12 for men. Child-

friendly toilets are separately provided in an adjacent area, for children up to the age of eight.

Each toilet has a tap which supplies 24×7 water. Some have graduated to “sanitary complexes”

with room for bathing and washing. Each facility receives its water supply from the Trichy City

Corporation (TCC), and a bore well is also provided by the corporation. Each has a provision of

underground storage of water and an overhead tank to which water is pumped. TCC has

ensured that water is made available also in summer months through tankers. The corporation

waives the electricity charge for the pumping of water for the first few years of operating the

toilets. Afterwards, the tariff for community toilets is levied at the lower domestic rate and not

commercial rate.

The cost of a typical community toilet was around Rs 3 lakh in the initial years that Water-Aid

built such complexes. Today, the cost is around Rs 12 lakh. The success of the women in

managing and maintaining the community toilets encouraged the TCC to build more of them, so

that all the 211 approved slums now have community toilets. Out of a total of 347 such toilets

(some slums have more than one), 284 are connected to the sewerage system and 63 function

through a septic tank. About 100 toilets are being managed on a pay and use basis by SHGs with

Gramalaya, and another 40 by other NGOs. For the rest, the TCC and/or ward councillors take

the responsibility for managing the toilets.

The Kamala Nehru Nagar slum where the toilet was inside the slum area. In West Devathanam,

another complex where the toilet is located between the slum and a public road and caters to

the needs of the slum as well as the floating population surrounding the slum. At the community

toilets run by SHGs, sanitary health education team members take turns to sit at a table placed

outside the toilet complex with tokens to sell as people come to use the toilet. They engage

cleaners who clean the complex two to three times a day. I found that the toilets were cleaner

than what we may typically find in cinema halls in Delhi.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=10.805,78.6856&spn=1.0,1.0&q=10.805,78.6856+(Tiruchirappalli)&t=h



It is clear from the systems they have put in place to manage and maintain these toilets that

these women understand the economics of it all. The collection from user charges is used to pay

their electricity bills, the cleaner, the guard who keeps the watch, and expenses of minor repairs.

The typical user charge varies from 50 paise to Re 1 per use, while children, the elderly and the

physically challenged have free access. The accounts are meticulously-kept and are audited by

the TCC.

All teams make a small subscription to come together under Women’s Action for Village

Empowerment (WAVE) which is a registered society. Monthly meetings of WAVE allow them to

discuss their problems and learn from each other in finding solutions. A member of the TCC is

also invited to these meetings. They are now extending their sphere to cover solid waste

management and better delivery of other public services.

After initial resistance to their cause, men wanted to have a part of the action when the women

seemed to be succeeding in making their slums clean. The women obliged by creating AWASH

(Association for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) so that men could also contribute to improving

the water and sanitation scenario of their joint habitat. Men also find a role through WATSAN

(water and sanitation) committees in monitoring the progress of the overall sanitation status of

the slums in the city. The municipal commissioner, T. T. Balsamy, was very appreciative of the

role played by the NGOs and the communities in bringing about the much overdue

transformation. As Geetha Jegan, executive director of Gramalaya put it: “Together, the city

corporation, the NGOs and the communities from the slums of Trichy have transformed the

sanitation scenario in Trichy.”

Trichy has shown the way. Other cities in India must follow to completely get rid of open

defecation and work for better sanitary conditions.

INFORMATION BOX 15: THE CONDOMINIAL SEWERAGE SYSTEM IN BRAZIL

The "condominial" system is the brainchild of Jose Carlos de Melo, a socially committed

engineer from Recife. The name condominial was given for two reasons. First, a block of houses

was treated like a horizontal apartment building (or condominial in Portuguese) (see figure).

Second, "Condominial" was a popular Brazilian soap opera and associated with the best in

urban life. As is evident in the figure, the result is a radically different layout, with a shorter grid

of smaller and shallower "feeder" sewers running through the backyards and with the effects of

shallower connections to the mains rippling through the system. These innovations cut

construction costs to between 20 and 30 per cent of those of a conventional system. The more

fundamental and radical innovation, however, is the active involvement of the population in

choosing their level of service, and in operating and maintaining the "feeder" infrastructure. The

key elements are that families can choose to continue with their current sanitation system, to

connect to a conventional waterborne system or to connect to a condominial system. If a family

chooses to connect to a condominial system, it has to pay a connection charge, which can be

financed by the water company, and a monthly tariff. If on the other hand, the family wants a

conventional connection, it has to pay an initial cost and a monthly tariff (both of which are

about three times higher) reflecting the different capital and operating costs. Families are free

to continue with their current system, which usually means a holding tank discharging into an

open street drain.



In most cases, however, those families

who, initially, chose not to connect

eventually end up connecting. Either they

succumb to heavy pressure from their

neighbours or they find the build-up of

wastewater in and around their houses

intolerable once the (connected)

neighbours fill in the rest of the open

drain. Individual households are

responsible for maintaining the feeder sewers, with the formal agency maintaining only the

trunk mains. This increases the communities' sense of responsibility for the system. Also, the

misuse of any portion of the feeder system, for example by putting solid waste down the toilet,

soon shows up in a blockage in the neighbour's portion of the sewer. The rapid, direct and

informed feedback to the misuser virtually eliminates the need to educate the users of the

system in the "acceptable and unacceptable" and results in fewer blockages than in

conventional systems. Finally, because of the greatly reduced responsibility of the wastewater

utility, its operating costs are sharply reduced. The condominial system is now providing

service to hundreds of thousands of urban people in northeast Brazil and is being replicated on

a large scale throughout the country. The danger, however, is that the clever engineering is seen

as "the system". Where the community and organisational aspects have been missing, the

technology has worked poorly (as in Joinville, Santa Catarina) or not at all (as in the Baixada

Fluminense in Rio de Janeiro). Source: Briscoe, 1993; de Melo, 1985.



Annexure 3: Reviewed Policies, Legal and Administrative Framework and Programmes

Table 72: Reviewed Policies, Legal and Administrative Framework and Programmes

Policies Legal and Administrative

Framework Programmes

Social Section

Vision 2020 of

Government of

Karnataka

Vision 2021 of

Government of India

Draft National Slum

Policy

Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976

Karnataka Town Planning

Act, 1961

The 74th Constitutional

Amendment Act

The Twelfth Schedule of the

Constitution (Article 243W)

Karnataka Urban

Development Authorities

Act, 1987

Environmental Improvement of

Urban Slums (EIUS)

Nehru Rozgar Yojana (NRY)

Prime Minister’s Integrated

Urban Poverty Eradication

Programme (PMIUPEP)

Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar

Yojana (SJSRY)

Integrated Development for

Small and Medium Towns

(IDSMT)

Integrated Low Cost Sanitation

(ILCS)

Basis Services for the Urban

Poor (BSUP)

Environmental Section

Policy statement for

abatement of

pollution –MoEF

1992

National

Conservation

Strategy And Policy

Statement On

Environment and

Development, 1992

The Environment Protection

Act, 1986

Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Cess

Act, 1977, including Rules

Water (Prevention and

Control of Pollution) Act,

1974 as amended in 1978

and 1988

Water, Land and Tree Act

2002

The Municipal Solid Wastes

(Management and Handling)

Rules, 2000

The Bio Medical Waste

management

The Hazardous Wastes

(Management and Handling)

Rules, 1989 and 2003

amendment (inclusion of list

of municipal solid wastes to

hazardous wastes).

State Environmental Action

Programme



Karnataka Urban Water

Supply and Drainage Board

Act, 1974

Table 73: Functions of ULB

S. no. Function Wholly Partly Never

1

A) Urban Planning

B) Town Planning

2

a) Regulation of Land-use

b) Regulation of building activity.

3

a) Planning economic development

b) Planning social development.

4

a) Roads

b) Bridges.

5

Water supply-

a) Industrial,

b) Commercial

c) Domestic

6

a) Public health,

b) Sanitation,

c) Conservancy

d) Solid waste management

7 Fire services

8

a) Urban forestry,

b) Protection of environment

c) Promotion of ecological aspects

9 Safeguarding the interests of



a) Weaker sections,

b) Physically handicapped

c) Mentally retarded.

10 Slum improvement and up-gradation.

11 Urban poverty alleviation.

12

Provision of urban amenities

a) Parks,

b) Gardens,

c) Playgrounds and others

13.

Promotion of

a) Education,

b) Aesthetics and others

14

a) Burial grounds,

b) Cremations grounds

c) Electric crematoria

15

a) Cattle ponds

b) Prevention of cruelty to animals

16

a) Vital statistics,

b) Registration of births and deaths.

17

a) Public amenities

b) Street lighting,

c) Parking lots,

d) Bus shelters,

e) Public conveniences and others

18 Regulation of



a) Slaughterhouses

b) Tanneries



Annexure 4: Building Application Receipt

Figure 19: Receipt for building application for ULBs



Annexure 5: CSTF constitution in Belgaum

Figure 20 CSTF constitution notification letter



Annexure 6: First CSTF Workshop Proceedings, Belgaum

Venue: Council Hall, City Corporation Office, Belgaum

Date and Time: 24th January 2011 | 3:00 PM

The workshop started with a welcome speech by Sri. N.B. Nirwani, Mayor, Belgaum, Sri. S. G.

Patil, Commissioner City Corporation, Belgaum, and Sri. Dhanraj Gavali, Deputy Mayor, Belagum.

The agenda listed the need for the constitution of CSTF members and their role in the

preparation of City Sanitation Plan followed by the group activity among the CSTF members to

seek their views on the problems and solutions in regard to the sanitation in their respective

city, as given below. There were around 80 participants for the workshop which includes Mayor,

Deputy Mayor, Commissioner, DMA, Health Officers, Corporators, Community Affairs Officers,

Counsellors, PWD Chairman, Regional Officer-KSPCB, NGOs, Environmental Engineers, NGO

Bhageertah, Health Inspector, ASCI’s team and CMAK. The discussions on the various issues

were noted and relevant inference was drawn. The session concluded with the closing remarks

by Sri. S.G. Patil, Commissioner City Corporation, Belgaum and ASCI team thanked the CSTF

members for their interactive collaboration during the workshop.

GROUP ACTIVITY

GROUP I: Open defecation free city

Issues

1. Slum creations in urban areas

2. Poverty and lack of knowledge

3. Lack of space for construction and community toilets in slum areas

4. Lack of water facility in slums

5. Lack of UGD networking

Solutions

1. Individual toilet construction through government and subsidy programs

2. Financial help for poor for construction of toilets

3. Provide spaces through ULB for construction of toilets

4. Utilize local self help groups for maintenance of toilets

5. Provide UGD facility and water facility in slum and low income group areas

6. Create awareness among public

7. Make city 100% toilet facility, UGD connections and slum free city

8. To arrange public meetings in backward areas

9. Free usage of toilet facilities in poor areas with water facilities for 24x7 and

maintenance charges of Rs. 15-20 per family per month can be taken

10. Awareness to the public specially slum areas and poor people who are mostly prone to

open defecation.

GROUP II: Waste water treatment

1. Every household should have UGD connection.

2. Bad condition pipes need to be repaired immediately with out any delay.

3. The waste water should be collected in one common nala and then sent to the treatment

plant. Waste water should be scientifically treatment.



4. Strong pipes should be used for carrying the waste water.

5. As most of the waste water from households are not connected to the UGD, the waste

water escapes and deposits in the nearby areas causing problems.

6. Either single house toilet or community toilets needs to be built in the areas having no

toilet facilities.

GROUP III: Sanitary facilities for the poor

1. Construction of community toilets and individual toilets with sufficient water facility i.e.,

two pit latrine facilities in remote areas.

2. Government housing scheme especially for poor should be associated with individual

toilets with individual waste water connection.

3. Toilets should be connected with the UGD system.

4. Proper education to the poor public required for proper waste management and

community health.

5. Low cost toilet model should be brought to the notice with subsidised cost and method

of construction should be brought to their notice and trained.

GROUP IV: Door to door waste collection, treatment and disposal

1. Every house hold should give their domestic waste to person and not throw in gutter

and roads

2. Awareness programme to be created with ward meetings, cinemas, shows, etc.

3. 2 times door to door collection of solid waste and 2 times picking by primary collection

of containers

4. Supply of bags, buckets at concession rates to be given to public by the corporators.

5. Providing more number of containers depending on the area of wards.

6. Ban on plastic bags and bottles

7. Construction of platform to keep containers

8. Door to door collection charges to be followed

9. Violation of door to door policy to be fined

10. Boards or sign boards to use dustbins and containers

11. Disinfectant spray to be regularised

12. Separate collection of dead animals and building materials

13. NGOs should take interest in management of solid waste.

GROUP V: Regarding IEC for solid waste management

1. Information visualize through theatres with slide films

2. Through pamphlets, posters, banners and giving advertisement in newspapers

3. To conduct the awareness programmes

4. To conduct road side activities like dramas, poetries, etc.

5. Awareness through mobile SMS, emails, telephonic messages, etc.

6. Personnel visits by the Commissioner, health committee chairman, health officers and

corporators, sanitary inspectors, etc., to the slum areas

7. To conduct slide shows in the city so that students will educate their parents

8. Sanitation literacy though NGOs

9. Residential welfare associations can be formed in different parts of the city so that they

can look after the awareness regarding educational activities.



10. Group discussion ward wise about sanitation with SHGs, and ward wise corporators and

RWOs.

Other suggestions and views expressed by the CSTF members

1. Only one sewage treatment plant is proposed in the detailed project reports (DPR) but

more STPs need to be installed keeping in mind the growing city.

2. Rain water harvesting can be thought of

3. How can Alandur example be implemented in Belgaum?

4. Waste water from bathrooms and kitchen should go into the UGD

5. Every door to door collection system should have an alarm/bell system in the vehicle.

Pictures of the workshop

Welcome speech by Sri. N.B. Nirwani, Mayor, Belgaum

(Extreme left) and Sri. S.G. Patil, Commissioner City

Corporation, Belgaum (extreme right)

Participants at the workshop

Group activity

Group activity



Annexure 8: Secondary Data Formats – Profiling of the ULBs

TABLE 1: DETAILS OF ULB

Name of the ULB

Address

Area

Population

No. of Wards

Please attach organizational structure of the ULB

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF GROWTH TRENDS

Sl.

No

Year Total

Population

Total

households

Area of the

city

Total BPL

population

Total

population

in slums

Total

Households

in Slums

Area of slums

(nos.) (nos.) (sq.km) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (sq.km)

1 1961

2 1971

3 1981

4 1991

5 2001

6 2011

Note: The figures for 2011 will be estimated figures, while the 1961- 2001 figures should be taken from the Census

Note: Remarks column could indicate any explanation for figures not keeping in line with trends (e.g. jurisdictional changes),migration ,floating

population rates.

Source



TABLE 3: WARDWISE DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS

Ward No. Area

(sq.km)

Population

(nos.)

Households

(nos.)

1

2

3

4

5

TABLE 4: WARDWISE DETAILS OF TYPES OF PROPERTIES

Sl. No. Ward No.

Residential properties

Commercial properties

Institutional properties

Govt. Schools

Govt. Hospitals

Other Govt. health institutions

Slaughter houses

Industries

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.)

1

2

3

4

5

TABLE 5: WARDWISE SLUM DETAILS



Ward No Name of the slum Slum area Type of slum Slum population Slum households

(sq.km) (notified, non-notified, identified)

(nos.) (nos.)

BASE MAPS

1. Map showing ward boundaries, Population density 2. Map showing zone wise boundaries 3. Map with location of notified and non-notified slums 4. Master plan (old and new) 5. Transportation network map 6. Map showing location of different types of areas by activities/Landuse (industries, commercial activity, recreational activity) 7. Map showing location of public and community toilets 8. Map showing open defecation areas / Septage disposal sites. 9. Map of DTD routing and Location of solid waste dumping grounds and compost yards 10. Location of Sewerage network, STPs and outfall points 11. Maps showing water supply network, 12. Map of Storm water drainage network / drain out falls 13. Map showing location of water bodies 14. Location of slaughter houses 15. Maps showing low lying and water logging areas

TABLE 6: LIST OF Secondary Data /REPOrts

CDP

Master Plan

DPR’s Water Supply

Solid Waste Management



Storm Water Drains

Sewerage

Poverty Alleviation Programmes Ex: SJSRY, , IHSDP, BSUP, State level

programmes (Kanshi Ram Awas

Yojana, Indiramma)

Various ongoing schemes and its current status Ex: JnNURM, UIDSSMT, ILCS, RAY, etc

OTHER REPORTS

• Municipal finance details • Pollution Control board, • Environment Status report • Data of water bodies and extent of pollution • Census, NSSO, • Human Development Report • District handbook • Manual and codified procedures for sewerage, septage, drainage and SWM • Status of State/ULB Act provisions for punishments/fines for littering and letting out waste and excreta in the open • Implementation of above rules in practice • Instances of fines in the last one year • Reports on water borne diseases, annual occurrences, mortality and morbidity, and other diseases • Reports of IEC work done by the ULB or any other agency



TABLE 7: WARDWISE DETAILS OF TOILETS FOR NON-SLUM AREAS

Ward

No

Non slum

Population

Non

slum

HHS

Own septic

tank/Flush

Latrine

Own Dry

Latrine

Shared

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Shared

Dry

Latrine

Community

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Community

Dry Latrine

Open

Defecation

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.)

1

2

3

4

TABLE 8: WARDWISE DETAILS OF TOILETS FOR SLUM AREAS

Ward

No

Slum

Name

Slum

type

Population HH Own septic

tank/Flush

Latrine

Own

Dry

Latrine

Shared

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Shared

Dry

Latrine

Community

Septic

Tank/Flush

Latrine

Community

Dry Latrine

Open

Defecation

(Notified

/Non

Notified)

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.)

1

2



3

4

TABLE 9: WARDWISE DETAILS OF type of TOILETS outlets

Ward No. Toilets

connected to

septic tanks

with soak pits

Toilets

connected to

septic tanks

without soak

pits

Toilets

connected to

open Nalas

Toilets

connected to

UGD

Length of UGD Area covered

by UGD

Properties

covered by

UGD

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (km) (%) (%)

TABLE 11: FINANCIAL DETAILS OF SEWERAGE SYSTEM

Sl. no Particulars Value Remarks

1 No of customers being charged for sewerage services (no)

2 Connection Fee (one-time) to Connect to System (Rs.)

3 Average Monthly Tariff (Rs. Per Connection)

4 Annual Demand for Sewerage Tariff (Rs.) - last year data

5 Annual Collection for Sewerage Tariff (Rs.) - last year data

6 Personnel expenditure charged to Sewerage System (O&M, Rs.)



7 Other Expenditure charged to Sewerage System (O&M, Rs.) - last year Data

8 Percentage of total water and sanitation budget spent on Sewerage System (O&M, Rs.)

TABLE 12: WARDWISE NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGE OF FLOATING POPULATION

Ward No Ward Population No. of People

visiting town

every day by

ward

Percentage To

Ward

Population

Areas and

localities of

visiting

Reasons for

Visiting

Remarks

(nos.) (nos.) (%)

1

2

3

4

TABLE 13: ACCESS TO PUBLIC TOILETS IN COMMERCIAL AREAS AND PUBLIC PLACES

Ward

No

Name of Area Location of

Public Toilet

Toilet Seats Number of

Persons Using

Type of

Management

Remarks

Ladies

(nos.)

Gents

(nos.)

(nos.)



TABLE 14: DETAILS OF COMMUNITY TOILETS IN RESIDENTIAL / SLUM AREAS

War

d No

Name of

Slum/Are

a

Location of

Communit

y Toilet

Toilet Seats Number of

Household

s Using

Whethe

r pay

and use

Price

per

use

urinal

s

Price per

use

defecatio

n

Pric

e per

use

bath

Type of

Managemen

t

Workin

g /Not

working

Ladie

s

(nos.)

Gent

s

(nos.)

Childre

n

(nos.)

(nos.) (Y/N) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)

TABLE 15: WARDWISE DETAILS OF SEPTIC TANKS, PITS AND THEIR CLEANING PROCEDURES

War

d No.

No. of

septi

c

tanks

Clearing Procedure Interval

of

cleanin

g

Quantit

y of

sludge

Monitorin

g present

No. of

Pits

(specif

y -

Single

or

double

)

Clearing Procedure Interval

of

cleanin

g

Quantit

y of

sludge

Monitorin

g present

(nos.) a) Manual b) Motorized

(litres) (Yes/No) (nos.) a) Manual b) Motorized

(litres) (Yes/No)



TABLE 16: SLUDGE/SEPTAGE EQUIPMENT AND MANAGEMENT

No. Indicator Municipality Owned Private

Agencies

Remarks

A Equipment Available

1 No of Sludge Suction trucks/equipment

2 Annual No of tanks cleaned - last year's estimate

B Cleaned using mechanical equipment

3 Estimated Volume (ML) cleaned last year

4 Method of Conveyance and Disposal: Untreated

5 Amount Disposed Untreated (ML) - last year's estimate

6 Location of disposal - untreated

7 Method of Conveyance and Disposal: Treated

8 Amount Disposed Treated (ML) - last year's estimate

9 Location of disposal - treated

10 Cost per tank cleaning

C Manual Cleaning of Tanks and Pits

11 Estimate Annual No of Tanks cleaned - last year's average

12 Cost per tank cleaning



13 Method of disposal of sludge cleaned

14 Who are the persons cleaning tanks?

ML = Million Litres

TABLE 17: WARDWISE DETAILS OF GOVT. SCHOOLS AND THEIR SANITATION FACILITIES

Ward No. Name of

the

school

Category No. of toilets No. of toilets

working

Is water

supply

present

in

toilets?

Toilet outlets

Girls Boys Girls Boys Sewerage

system

Septic

tanks

Open

nallas

(PS. UPS,HS) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (Y/N)

Please find attached questionnaire of school sanitation surveys

TABLE 18: WARDWISE DETAILS OF ANGANWADIS AND THEIR SANITATION FACILITIES

Ward No. Name of

the

Anganwadi

centre

No. of toilets No. of toilets working Is water

supply

present in

toilets?

Toilet outlets

Girls Boys Girls Boys Sewerage

system

Septic

tanks

Open nallas

(nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (nos.) (Y/N)



INFORMATION REQUIRED ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES IN THE ULB

• Waste segregation, process, quantities, • Bio-hazardous/ industrial waste quantity, treatment procedure • Treatment facilities, capacities, identification of dumpsites, area, no. of years of operation, present status • Technology of waste processing and recycling, proportion of waste that is processed and recycled • Category wise numbers of public health workers (cadre, contractual, permanent), provision of safety equipment for them • Complaints redressal system, efficiency • SWM tariff structure • Future SWM projects and proposals

TABLE 19: WARDWISE SWM DETAILS

Ward No SWM generated

Quantity

SWM Collection

Quantity

Door-to-

Door collection HHs

Segregation

practiced

No. of local open

dumpsites

(MT) (MT) (nos.) (Yes/No) (nos.)

1

2

3

4

TABLE 20: DETAILS OF VEHICLES USED FOR DOOR TO DOOR WASTE COLLECTION



Vehicle Type No .of vehicles Capacity of each vehicle

(Tons)

No. of trips Total waste collected

(Tons)

TABLE 21: DETAILS OF VEHICLES USED FOR SECONDARY WASTE TRANSPORTATION

Vehicle Type No. of vehicles Capacity of each vehicle

(Tons)

No. of trips Total waste collected

(Tons)

TABLE 21: DETAILS OF WASTE ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

Category of waste Quantity of waste

generated

(MT/Month)

Quantity of

waste collected

(MT/Month)

Category of waste Quantity of waste

generated

(MT/Month)

Quantity of waste

collected

(MT/Month)

Residential Slaughter Houses

Commercial Industries

Street sweeping Construction waste

Market waste Any other (please

specify)



INFORMATION REQUIRED ON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IN THE ULB

• Source, treatment facilities, • Capacity, present production • Length of distribution network, coverage • Water quality • Complaints redressal system, efficiency • Water tariff structure • Future water supply projects and proposals

TABLE 22: WARDWISE DETAILS OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Ward

No.

HHS connected

to Piped Water

(nos.)

No. of

hours per

day

HHS

connected to

stand posts

(nos.)

No. of

hours per

day

HHS connected

to Tube

wells/own

sources and

others

(nos.)

Bulk

connections

(nos.)

Other

properties

connected to

piped water

system

(nos.)

1

2

3

4

5

INFORMATION REQUIRED ON STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN THE ULB

• Outfall points,



• Water recycling, re-use and their technology • Areas of flooding and water logging and no. of instances annually. • Complaints redressal system, efficiency • Future drainage projects and proposals

TABLE 23: WARDWISE DETAILS OF DRAINAGE NETWORK

Ward

No.

Length of Drainage

System

(Pucca/semi

pucca/kachha)

(km)

Length Roads

(Pucca/semi

Pucca/kachha)

(km)

%

Area

covered

Volume of

grey

water

generated

(MLD)

%

Treated

Identification

of problem

areas

Functional

Status

Remarks

1

2

3

4

5



ANNEXURE 9: Primary data survey formats

SURVEY FORMAT 1 – HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

16. If water closet connected to Septic Tank

Month and Year of last cleaning: Is it constructed as per approved plan:

Cleaned by:

a. Municipality

c. Cost of cleaning toilet

b. Private Sweepers:

Is the building plan approved by Municipality

Frequency of cleaning a. Less than 6 months b. Once in 6 months c. Once in a year d. Once in two year

Where do you dispose the septic tank waste

Is septic tank constructed as per building plan approval

Whether the soakpit is working in all seasons a. Yes b. No

If not, what are the problems they face

Whether soak pit is connected to the open drain

a. Yes b. No

17. In case of Dry Pit Latrine/unimproved pit latrine

Year of construction: Month and Year of last cleaning:

Do you experience overflowing

a. Yes b. No

Other problems faced by dry pit latrine a. Odour, b. Fly nuisance c. hygienic issues d. cleanliness

Reason for not upgrading:

18. Water supply to toilet

a. Stand post: b. Own Arrangement:

c. Municipal Supply d. Hand pump

19. If Municipal Supply

a. Adequate: b. Not Adequate:



20. If, Community/Public, Who in family uses it?

a. All members b. Only Adult Men

c. Only Adult Women d. All Adults

21. No. of people using the community toilet

a. 10-20 b. 20-30

c. 30-40

d. 40-50

e. 50 and above

22. No. of seats

a. Less than 10 b. 10-15 c. 15-20 d. 20-30 e. 30 & above

23. Condition of the toilets

a. Good b. Average c. unusable d. Not in use

24. Payment Arrangements for community toilets

a. Pay and use (Every use) b. Monthly family pass

c. Free of cost

25. Charges a. 50 paise b. Rs 1-2 c. Rs. 2-3 d. Rs 3 and above e. monthly pass 1. less than 20 2. 20-30 3. 30-40

26.Are you satisfied with present arrangement

a. Yes b. No

27. If No state reasons* (tick all possible options)

a. poor maintenance b. corruption c. lack of facilities d. Other, Specify

28.Why you have not constructed toilet (Applicable if Q 14-15 are answered)

a. Affordability to construct toilet b .Affordability of connecting to sewer network

c. Uncertainty over land and tenure d. Space Constraints

e. Low priority given to sanitation (awareness) f. Lack of water

g. Lack of know how h. Any other

29.What facility would a. Household latrine (types): b. Pour flush twin



you prefer over open defecation (Applicable if Q 14-15 are answered)

c. pit/Septic tank with soak pit/ others d. Public

e. Community Toilet

30.In case of Public/Community Toilet; willing to pay for use

a. Yes

b. No

31. If Yes, How much? (Rs) a. 50 paise b. Rs 1-2 c. Rs. 2-3

d. Rs. 3 and above e) Monthly Pass 1. less than 20 2. 20-30 3. 30-40

32.Disposal of household waste water ( from kitchen, bath and wash other than latrine)

a. Discharged to river/pond/nalas b. Reuse in the garden after passing through soak pit

c. Directly to public drain d. Both a & b

33. Were you affected by any diseases in last six months

a. Yes (specify when) b. No

34. What type of disease a. Amoebic dysentery

b. Cholera

c. Diarrhea

e. Malaria f. Skin disease g.

35. Expenditure towards health (Monthly)

36. Do you know that good sanitation is linked to health

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

37. Where is household solid waste disposed? a. Disposed in Roadside Bin b. Disposed at designated open dumping spot

c. Disposed in drain d. Door-to-door collection



38. Distance to Disposal Spot (Feet)

a. Less than 50 b. 50 to 100

c. 100 to 200 d. 200 to 500

e. More than 500

39. Does municipality carry the waste dumped in your locality?

a. Yes

b. No

40. Do you have door to door collection?

a. Yes

b. No

41. Frequency of collection? a. Daily twice

b. Daily once

c. Once in 2 days

d. Once in three days

e. Three days & Above

42. Is the waste segregated at the source?

a. Yes

b. No

43. Do you pay for the waste collected from the municipality?

a. Yes

b. No

44.How much do you pay

(Rs per month)

a. 0-10 b. 10-20 c. 20-25 d. 25-30 e. 30-35 e. 35 and above

45.Are you satisfied with the service a. Very good b. Good c. Average d. Bad

46. Frequency of road sweeping a. Daily once b. Once in two days

c. Twice weekly

d. Once in a week e. Irregular

47.Frequency of cleaning drains a. Daily once b. Once in two days

c. once in 3 days

d. once in a week e. Irregular

Housing

48. Structure a) Pucca b) semi-Pucca c) Kutcha

Flooding



49. Whether the area is prone to flooding during rains? a) Yes b) No

50. Frequency of flooding/Water Logging a) During rainy season b) Once in a while

Sewerage

51. Do you have sewer connection? a) Yes b) No

52. If yes, How much do you pay? a) 20-50 b) 50-80 c) 80-100 d) 100-130 e) 130-150 f) 150-180

g) 180 & above

Grievance redressal mechanism

53. whom do you approach to give your complaint Regarding sanitation and water supply?

a) Sanitary Supervisor

b) Corporator c) MLA

d) NGO e) RWA f) others (Specify)

54. How do you make complaints? a) Direct (By word)

b) Letter

c) Phone d) Internet

55.Time taken to solve the problem

1) Water leakage a) 0-5 Hours b) 5-10 Hours c)10-15 Hours d)Within 24 Hours

2) Solid Waste Management

a) 0-5 Hours b) 5-10 Hours c) 10-24 Hours e) More than a day

3) Sanitation a) 0-24 Hours

b) Two Day c) Three days d) More than 3 days

56. Are you satisfied with present system a) Highly Satisfied b) Satisfied c) Partially d) Bad e)worse

57. Are you informed about City Sanitation if yes how?

YES/ No How: News paper Advertisement Wall poster

Suggestions:

1. Open Defecation 2. Disposal of Sludge 3. Disposal of Liquid waste (Black and grey)



SURVEY FORMAT - 02

COMMUNICATION NEED ASSESSMENT: FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD)

The key idea is to carry out a needs assessment within the existing infrastructure as well as the strategy to go with expansion of infrastructure. Following steps identified before visiting the field.

1. Identifying stakeholder groups and available channels of communication categorize them

2. Focus Group Discussions, Interviews, Transect Walks. 3. Topic Guides were prepared for each stakeholder group. 4. Data Collection. Field assessment of communications needs was carried out.

Stakeholders: FGDs will target the stakeholder groups eg. Residents, establishments and ULB officials. Opinion leaders also needs to be targeted as a high influence group both for interviews and implementation of communications strategies. Following are the key personnel to be interviewed:

• Key officials-Commissioners, sanitation inspectors, medical/health officers, • Councilors, Community elders, • City media: newspapers reporters, • RWA office bearers, • NGOs, • Safaikaramcharies union office bearers, • Heads of Commercial establishments and shopkeepers, including public places such as bus - stands • Random Samples of Residents from Rich neighborhoods. • Slum residents • School teachers, employees • School children Hospital employees and doctors

IEC Probes for field trip

As per the City Sanitation Rankings the OUPUT, PROCESS and OUTCOME indicators cover a whole range of issues such as, Quality of water supply (also in non-slum areas), Practices of SWM, dumping, segregation at source, collection (also in non-slum areas), ODF, types of latrines, problems and gaps. We conduct FGDs with reference to how city fared on each of these indicators.

1. Residents in Slum

• Awareness regarding Health and Hygiene: The current level of awareness regarding ill-effects of lack of sanitation, ODF, Hand washing, SWM etc

• Awareness regarding Govt. policies for improving water and sanitation: NUSP, Sources and channels of such knowledge and communication

• Awareness regarding technical options such as Toilet options

• Willingness to upgrade financial and behavioral constraints

• Participation in any public awareness campaign regarding sanitation, Agencies that carried the campaign and learning’s from the campaign

• Activities of local SHG's and other community organization, areas of engagement

• In non-slum areas - check for RWAs



• Media consumption patterns reading newspapers, Cable TV etc (also in non-slum areas)

• Information regarding demography of the slum (To be gathered from surveys)

• Complaint resolution system: complaints and mechanisms of resolution, how do they deal with water and sanitation crisis, Approaching local corporator, Complain to Municipality, Agitate

2. Municipal officials (including Safaikaramcharies)

• Role envisaged for communication for implementing NUSP.

• Channels of communication are at ULB’s disposal, Extent to which these channels are being exploited.

• Technological options, geographic and infrastructural issues involved in implementing Water and Sanitation schemes.

• M&E, feedback, support, rewards: Maintenance of citizen grievance records, discernible patterns in complaints, efficiency of complaint redressal.

• Details of any specific communication campaign being take up, Content, Channels used, budget allocated, awareness regarding multiplying message through media.

• Kinds of training and tools are given to Safaikaramcharies for safe disposal of waste etc and their satisfaction at what has been provided.

3. Commercial establishment and Public places

• Observation regarding sanitation is these places

• Practices involved in disposal of commercial waste such as segregation, shopkeeper participation

• O&M, regular upkeep of public places

4. School Sanitation

Status of school sanitation Health Problems issues-drop out rates/ enrollment rates, girl children, status of SSA , O&M problems, Health problems.

5. Hospitals

Examine Disposal of hazardous waste, specifically if effluents are being left into open drains

Disease burden of the town, data from District Medical/Health Officer, information on campaigns to mitigate, budget allocated

Disease burden, Diarrhea, GET, Cholera, Malaria, Skin problems Communication efforts with reference to diarrhea, malaria etc.

6. Media Persons

Main Sanitation issues in the city Sanitation news stories Municipality PR. Who answers media enquiries? Municipal Advertisements in dailies.



Checklists

1. Messages: Behavior change communication for residents, sustaining behavior and attitude change, attitudes of officials. Creating awareness about health and hygiene, environmental sanitation, helping officials be good listeners, improving management within existing constraints through better communication. Developing content for manuals for best communication practices, posters etc.

2. Channels of communication: these include grievance redressal mechanism of the MC, MC’s interaction with people- feedback seeking mechanisms, postures, hoardings, exhibitions, school activities, cable TV, FM Radio, Handbills, Newspapers, Street Plays, Meetings/seminars, workshops, presentations and interpersonal means.

Interpersonal means include interactive group education and door to door motivational programmes. Here the role of NGO’s is important.

3. Parameters: OUTPUT, PROCESS, OUTCOME as per NUSP

• Environmental Sanitation

SWM: market waste, domestic waste, waste segregation at source and at collection point, waste disposal measures

Treatment of solid waste and dump Deviance on part of polluters and institutions such as hospitals Proportion of solid waste, grey water, black water generated that is treated and

disposed safely ODF: public toilets, individual latrines, toilet maintenance, disposal of human waste, M&E to Track OD Check if Sewage systems are working properly Disposal of septage UGS: awareness, usercharges, problems Water, Quality of water in the city, in the water bodies in and around city, Reduction in water borne diseases amongst city-population



SURVEY FORMAT 03: INSTITUTIONS

V1. Institution name:

V2. Complete address:

V3. Number of Staff: 1. 1 to 5

2. 6 to 10

3. 11 to 15

4. 15 to 25

5. 25 and above

V4. CONDITONS OF TOILETS (Observation)

1. Good 2. Average 3. Bad 4. Worst

V5. Toilet facility is provided to staff 1. Yes

2. No

V6. Toilets are provided separately for Male &

Female?

1. Yes

2. No

V7. No. of toilets provided to Male staff of the

Institute

1. 1 to 3

2. 4 to 6

3. 7 to 9

4. Above 9

V8. No. of toilets provided to Female staff of

the Institute

1. 1 to 3

2. 4 to 6

3. 7 to 9

4. Above 9

V9. No. of seats available in the toilet for both

the gender.

1. 1 to 5

2. 6 to 10

3. 11 to 15

4. Above 16

V10. Does the toilets have minimum

infrastructure.

1 Yes

2 No

V11. If yes, What type of facilities are available

1. Water Supply

2. Doors with Bolts

3. Buckets

4. Lights

5. Tiled Bathrooms

6. Sinks are available

7. Soaps

8. Hand wash

9. Anything else



V12. If Water supply is there then what is the

source

1. Overhead Tank water

2. Piped water

3. Ground water

4. Surface Water

V13. Are they

maintained well

1. Yes

2. No

(Note: Take a photograph of the toilets)

V14. Do you need to improve the

toilet condition:

1. Yes

2. No

V15. type of improvement Required

1. Cleaning

2. Continuous water Supply

3. Maintenance

4. Change design

5. Upgrade infrastructure

6. Others

INTERVIEW WITH HEADS

V16. Monthly / Annual Budget for O&M of toilets

V17. Who is responsible for operation and maintenance?

V18. Who maintains the toilets?

V19. Are there any user charges collected 1. Yes 2. No

V20. Other suggestions



SURVEY FORMAT 04 COMMUNITY TOILETS

1. Town/city

2. Location

3. Maintained by/ service provider

4. Number of toilets a. Urinals b. Bath c. Washbasins

5. Male : 6. Female: 7. Children:

8. Pay per Use (In Rs) a. Defecation: b. Urinal: c. Bathing:

9. Number of people visiting per day

10. Condition a. Very good b. good c. average d. bad e. worse

11. Cleaning (Times per day):

12. Type of latrine

13. Feacal Sludge Management

a) Sewer

b) Manually Lifted

c) Onsite treatment

d) Other

14. Effluent Discharge(where does it go)

15. O & M Arrangement



SURVEY FORMAT 05 PUBLIC TOILETS

1. Town/city

2. Location

3. Maintained by/ service provider

4. Number of toilets Urinals Bath Washbasins

5. Male : 6. Female: 7. Children:

8. Pay per Use (In Rs) d. Defecation: e. Urinal: f. Bathing:

9. Number of people visiting per day

10. Condition f. Very good g. g

o

o

d

h. Average i. Bad j. Worse

11. Cleaning (Times per day):

12. Type of latrine Pit / WC

13. Fecal Sludge Management

e) Sewer

f) Onsite treatment

g) Other

14. Onsite treatment Waste water

a. Sewer drain

b. Septic tank

c. Septic tank

d. Other

15. O & M

Arrangement

PPP NGO



SURVEY FORMAT 06 HOSPITALS

1. Name of the Hospital

2. Location

3. Capacity (Beds)

4. Services Provided

5. Quantity of Solid waste produced by hospital (Kg)

6. Quantity of liquid waste produced by hospital (Liters)

7. Is colour coding done for the waste produced

Yes No

8. What is the arrangement for disposal of Bio Medical Waste

Municipality Private Own Arrangement

9. If it is private, how much do you pay?

10. Is there a system of segregating biodegradable and non biodegradable wastes

Yes No

11. Is the system of disposing Bio-medical waste Is in accordance with

Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) rules, 1998 and amendments

Yes

No

12. Frequency of collection and disposal BMW (Hours)

13. How is the liquid BMW is disposed, Such as Blood, Mucus, Secretion and urine

14. Is there a mechanism for management of sludge from hospital cesspools?

Yes No

15. If yes, Please explain

16. Is there any decentralized waste water treatment

Yes No

If yes, give details

a. Capacity of plant

b. What type of treatment

c. Discharge after treatment (COD

level after treatment)



SURVEY FORMAT 07 SCHOOLS

2

Strength No. of Students

(a) No. of Students Girls Boys

(b) No. of Teachers Female Male

(c) No. of other Staff

Female Male

3(a Students

No. of Urinals No. of WCs

Total requirement

Presently existed Balance to be constructed

Total requirement

Presently existing

Balance to be constructed o.k Under repairs

F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

3(b) Teachers


Total required


Total requirement

Presently existing



3(b) Other staff


Total required


Total requirement

Presently existing



4 Does the school have a waste water disposal (Other than WC water) Yes

No

5 Toilets Connected to: Septic Tank □ Sewerage □ Open drains □ Not connected □

6 Is the toilet properly ventilated? Yes No 7 Is the toilet tiled? Yes No

8 Does the toilet has electricity connection? Yes No

8(a) If yes, is it working? Yes No

9 Does the school have water connection? Yes No

10 Are there other sources of Water Supply? Borewell □ Tankers □ Others (specify) :

a. Basic Information

Name of the Respondent: Male/Female

Student □ Teacher □ Principal □ Others □

Name of the School

I.

II.

III.

Ownership of School Building:

Own □ Rent □

Address and location

Landmark



10 (a) Is there a facility for water storage? Yes/No Overhead Tank □ Sump □ Filled into Barrels/Drums □

11 Is there flowing water in the toilets? Yes No

12 Is the toilet in working condition? (No Blockades, Usable) Yes No

12(a) If no, Reasons: No Water □ Damaged Door □ Bolt broken inside the toilet □ Others(Specify) :

13 Is Toilet cleaned regularly? Yes No

13(a) If so, what is the interval? a) Twice in a day b) Once in a day c) Once in 2 days d) Others(specify):

15 Who is in-charge of O&M of Toilets? Contractor □ Out sourced □ School Employees □ Others(specify):

16 Budget allocated for O&M of Toilets Rs………………….

16(a) Source of Budget Funding SSA □ Parents □ State Government □ No specific allocation □ Others(Specify) :

17 Generally, how much is spent on O &M of Toilets, Rs………………. /year

18 Is there sanitary and hygiene education in this school? Yes No

18(a) If yes, Special Classes□ Topics in Curriculum□ Others(specify):

19 Drop-out ratio of students

Drop-out rate

Diseases reported

Enrollment rate

Drop-out rate

Diseases reported

Enrollment rate

Boys Girls

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Note: No. of Drop outs on a record basis (or) Strength of the students in the respective years.

20 Any improvements made to the toilets during the last three years. Details:

21 When is the potable water stored tank cleaned? Monthly□ 2-6 Months□ Biannually□ Annually□ Others(Specify):

21(b) Is the school constructed after taking building plan approval? Yes / No

22 Where is solid waste in the school disposed? At Roadside bin□ Open site□ In drains□ D-D collection □ Others(Specify) :



b. Perception Survey:

Principal:

1 Do you use toilets? Yes No

a If no, Where do you go by? a) Your home is nearby□ b) to neighbor’s home □ c) don’t drink water □ d) open defecate □ d) others (specify):

2 Are students allowed to leave in the mid of the classes to use the urinals?

Yes No

3 Are students of different classes having breaks at the same time/intervals?

Yes No

4 Do you feel any students having dropped out or frequently fallen sick & away from school days due to poor sanitation?

Yes No

5 Other Concerns/issues in maintenance of toilets?

Teachers:

1 Do You use the toilets? Yes No

a If no, Where do you go by? a) Your home is nearby□ b) to neighbor’s home □ c) don’t drink water □ d) open defecate □ d) others (specify):

2 Do you feel any students having dropped out or frequently fallen sick & away from school days due to poor sanitation?

Yes No

3 Have you seen any teacher transferred to another school due to poor sanitation?

Yes No


Students:

1 Do You use the toilets? Yes No

a If no, Where do you go by? a) Your home is nearby□ b) to neighbor’s home □ c) don’t drink water d) open defecate e) others (specify):

2 Do they wash their hands after they go to toilets? Yes No

3 Are you allowed to leave in the mid of the classes to use the urinals? Yes No

4 Are different classes having breaks at the same time/intervals? Yes No

5 Have you seen any of your friends having dropped out or frequently fallen sick & away from school days due to poor sanitation?

Yes No


Girl Students:

1 Is there arrangement for dustbin in the toilets? Yes No

2 Do you attend school during menstrual period? Yes No

3 Any special menstrual hygiene classes? Yes No



SURVEY FORMAT 08

SLAUGHTER HOUSE

1. Name of the city/town:

2. Location of the slaughter house:

3. Year of construction

4. Condition of the slaughter house (to be written by observation)

5. Is the slaughter house managed by municipality/corporation:

6. Is there a veterinary doctor to look after the slaughter house?

7. How many animals are slaughtered per day

8. Does the veterinary doctor examine the animals regularly?

9. Is there a Karmachari/worker to regularly clean the blood and other waste in the

slaughter house?

10. How frequent is the cleaning done?

11. Waste disposal arrangement-Liquid waste

A) Open drain B) Sewerage C) Open Place D) other (Specify)

12. Waste disposal arrangement-Solid waste

A) Open drain B) Sewerage C) Open Place D) other (Specify)

13. Institutional Arrangement for maintenance of Slaughter House

14. Did approval of the plan taken from municipality



SURVEY FORMAT 09

COMMERCIAL PLACES

1. Name of the Commercial place

2. Name of Respondent

3. Gender a. Male b. Female

4. Duration of work

5. Number of workers in the shop

Male : Female:

a. 1-2 b. 1- 5 c. 5-10

d. 10-20 e. 20-30 f. 30 & above

6. Toilets Availability in the Shop/complex a. Yes b. No

7. Number of seats a. 1 to 5 b. 6 to 10 c. Above10

d. Only Urinals

8. Are the workers allowed to use a. Yes b. No

9. Awareness about a Public toilet in the premises a. Yes b. No

10. In case of necessity, usage pattern a. Complex toilets b. Public toilets

c. open defecation d. wait for an opportunity

11. Willingness to have pay and use toilets

(in case of no provision)

a. Yes b. No

12. Specific amount they can afford (Rs.) a. Up to 1 b.1 to 2 c. 2-3 d. Monthly pass

1. less than

20

2. 20-30 3. 30-40

13. Where do you throw your waste a. On the road b. Nearby bin

c. Nalas d. Other

14. How much do you pay for Garbage collection?

Per Month

a. 100-300 b. 301-700 c. 701-1500

d. 1501-3000 e. 3000 Above

15. Is the garbage collected regularly? a. Yes b. No

16. How regularly the garbage is being collected a. Daily twice b. once daily c. once in two days

d. once in 3 days e. 3 days and above



17. Levels of satisfaction in waste management a. very good b. good c. Average d. Bad

18. Suggestion on existing sanitation arrangements

19. Is the building constructed as per plan approval Yes/No

SCHEDULE FOR COMMERCIAL PLACES (Individuals)

1. Name of the Commercial place

2. Name of the Respondent

3. Gender a. Male b. Female

4. Frequency of visit to the commercial place

5. Average time spent in market

6. Aware about toilet provision in the premises a. Yes b. No

7. In case of necessity, usage pattern a. Toilet available in shops b. Public toilet

c. Open Defecation d. Wait for opportunity

8. Difficulties faced in open defecation

9. Willingness to have pay and use toilets a. Yes b. No

10. Specific amount they can afford to pay (in Rs.) a. Less than 1 b. 1-2 c. 2-3 d. 3 and above

Waste Management

11. Problems of garbage in Market

12. Satisfaction about present garbage management a. Very good b. Good c. Average d. Bad

13. Suggestions to improve sanitation situation



SURVEY FORMAT 10

INDUSTRIES

1. Name of the Town/City

2. Name of the industry

3. Type of industry

4. Location of the city

a) Residential Area

b) Institution area

c) Market area

d) Industrial area

e) Other (Specify)

5. Size of the industry

a) Small scale,

b) medium scale

c) large scale

6. Amount of Solid Waste generated per day?

7. How is the Solid Waste managed?

a) By industry itself

b) By municipality

c) Private agency

d) Other (Specify)

8. If it is municipality, how much do you pay per month?

Specify the amount

9. If it is private agency, how much do you pay per month?(Specify the amount)

10. Is source segregation done at industry?

11. Amount of Liquid waste generated per day?

12. How is the liquid waste managed?

1. Treated in PTP (primary treatment plant) in the industry and left to Nalla

2. Directly left to sewerage

3. Directly left to Nalla

4. Led to open place

5. Led to a water body

13. Is there a primary treatment plant in the industry?

14. What is the O&M cost for maintaining PTP in the industry?

Specify the amount

15. Is the industry in conformity with the state and Central Pollution Control Board set

parameters?



SURVEY FORMAT 11

WATER BODIES

1. Type of water body : Canal / River / Pond/ Stream

2. Map Location in city/ town:

3. Size of the water body (Area):

4. Outfall of the water body (show in the map):

5. Uses of the water body: Recreational/ functional/ bathing/ drain receiving point/

drinking water/ any other use.

6. OD practice near water body: Yes or No If Yes, How many people (approx).

7. Toilet discharge : yes or no (estimate no of toilets discharged)

8. Water flow: Clogged / smooth flow

9. Cleaning mechanism and periodicity:

10. Water quality and pollution levels:

- Thermo-tolerant coli forms (TTC) - Residual chlorine - Turbidity - BOD - COD - DO

11. Who maintains and monitors:

12. No. of people using the water body per day:

13. Flooding in nearby areas: Yes / No if yes, what is frequency

14. Any back siphoning reported in toilets nearby



SURVEY FORMAT 12

A. CHECK LIST

I Base Maps 1. Map showing ward boundaries with population

2. Map showing zone wise boundaries with population

3. Map with location of notified and non-notified slums

4. Map showing location of different types of areas by activities (industries, commercial activity, recreational activity

5. Map showing location of public and community toilets

6. Map showing open defecation areas / Septage disposal sites.

7. Maps showing water supply network, sewerage network, storm water drainage network and SWM facilities

8. Map showing location of water bodies / drain out falls

II Secondary Information

1. District census handbook

2. Data on access to services from census and NSSO studies

3. CDP for the city

4. Master plan for the city

5. DPRs for water supply, sewerage including STPs, sanitation, storm water drainage, SWM, environment including water bodies and slum development

6. Environment status report

7. Data on number of water bodies and extent of pollution

8. Quality of water in water bodies

9. Data on extent of grey water generation, collection and treatment and a comparative assessment with sewage waste

10. Data on number of STPs, volume of waste generated and treated, extent of reuse and recycle of waste water

11. Arrangements for septage treatment

12. Data on access to toilets by type (connected to sewerage, septic tanks, pits) and by wards – in terms of households and properties

13. Data on number of notified and non-notified slums by wards along with population and access to services

14. Data on community toilets by wards and by slums

15. Data on public toilets by wards and by type of areas (residential, industrial, commercial etc.)



16. Data on manual scavenging practices and areas

17. Data on length of sewerage network and percentage of area and population covered by sewerage network by wards

18. Data on length of drainage network , types of drains, location of drainage outfalls and impact areas

19. Type of existing technological choices and feasibility of the same

20. Number of government and private primary, secondary and higher secondary schools and the sanitation status for both boys and girls in terms of number and type of toilet facilities

21. Details of hazardous, industrial, health and other types of wastes

22. Mapping of key institutions along with roles and responsibilities with a specific focus on sanitation

23. Organogram for each key institution

24. Data on programmes and schemes implemented by various institutions with special focus on ULB schemes and sanitation schemes

25. Existing regulatory arrangements for sanitation

26. Number of workers engaged in sanitation

27. Extent of cost recovery and user charges in sewerage and SWM

28. Type of O&M system

29. Monitoring and evaluation arrangements for sanitation and to track open defecation

30. Monthly collection of data on open defecation

31. Reportage on open defecation in a public forum

32. Incentives and awards for preventing open defecation

33. Complaint registration and grievance redressal mechanisms

34. Special focus on historical monuments and major recreation areas

35. Data on health indicators with a special focus on water and sanitation related diseases and incidence of diarrheal diseases reported in the city over the last three financial years

36. Data on drinking water quality

37. Roles of NGOs

38. Collection of existing IEC materials including news paper clippings

39. Number and percentage of floating population

40. Number of flooding and waterlogging incidences

41. Percentage of households/properties openly depositing human excreta into nalas and drains



42. Proportion of storm water that is efficiently and safely managed – 100% pacca drains and flooding and water logging incidences

43. Protective gear and safety equipment to sewerage and STP workers

44. Mechanical, CCTV, systems are being used for monitoring and cleaning sewers

45. Whether workers are provided insurance/provident fund/gratuity

46. Whether there is functioning grievance redressal mechanism for complaints related to sewerage and septage

47. Whether septage/sullage (cleaners) workers use protective gear and safety equipment

48. Whether mechanical (non-manual) systems are being used for cleaning tanks and pits

49. Whether the cleaning and disposal of sludge from tanks and pits is monitored

50. Centralized data base, maps exist for drainage system

51. Pre-monsoon and one other season cleaning, repairs and maintenance of drains undertaken

52. Coverage of households and establishments by daily door-to-door collection

53. Proportion of city streets effectively covered by regular street sweeping, at least once a day

54. Proportion of waste that is processes and recycled

55. Cost recovery for SWM services

56. Availability of written manual and codified procedures for sewerage, septage, drainage and SWM

57. Status of State/ULB Acti provisions for punishments/fines for littering and letting out untreated excreta in the open

58. Implementation of above rules in practice

59. Instances of fines in the last one year for littering and letting out in open

60. Conditions at dumping site and treatment plant

city sanitation plan belgaum - municipaladmn.gov.in · city sanitation plan belgaum administrative...

Documents