is the demand responsive approach in rural water supply...
TRANSCRIPT
www.worldbank.org/water | www.blogs.worldbank.org/water | @WorldBankWater
Is The Demand Responsive Approach
in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
More Sustainable?
The case of Kerala, India
Luis A. ANDRES
Lead Economist
July 13, 2016
• Heavy rainfall – average 3000mm a year
• 100% water supply coverage through piped water & private wells in 2008
• 38% of habitations slipped back to become ‘partially covered’ – quantity &
quality issues
• Acute water scarcity during summer – widespread source failures and near
drought conditions in midlands & highlands
• Major water quality problems:
– Bacteriological contamination of open wells
– Near universal presence of excess iron
– Presence of fluoride, salinity (coastal areas), excess nitrate, low pH value &
excess turbidity in ground water
• Limited scope for large projects in rural hinterlands – dispersed settlement
• Poor efficiency of public water supply projects
Water Scenario in Kerala
A decentralized bottom-up RWSS project financed by the World Bank – a paradigm shift
from traditional top-down approach:
– RWSS service responsibility transferred to local governments and beneficiary groups
(BGs)
– Demand Responsive Approach (DRA) – capital cost contribution from beneficiaries
and GPs & full O&M cost recovery from user fees
– Mostly groundwater-based small water supply schemes with a pumping unit,
disinfection unit, water tank, distribution piped network and metered water supply
connections to each household
– Community contracting, ownership and management – community & women
empowerment
• Jalanidhi-I (2000-08): Implemented 3712 water supply schemes (mostly small) in 112
GPs - 1.3M beneficiaries
• Jalanidhi-II (2013-17): ~4K water supply schemes, in 200 GPs - ~1.5M beneficiaries
• 20+ years of experience in India: 10 projects ($511M) in 7 states; +17K schemes built,
benefiting +24M people (1991-2010)
• +3 recent projects, including one P4R (Maharashtra) and the Low Income States ($1B
project!)
Jalanidhi: A Community-Based Demand Responsive Approach to RWSS
• Sustainability of project benefits – technical & social audits
– Performance of physical infrastructure and sustainability of
project benefits including institutional and financial
sustainability
• Relative performance of the Demand Responsive Approach
vis-a-vis other approaches
– Comparison of bottom-up Jalanidhi schemes with top-down
water supply schemes (and other bottom-up approaches)
based on various dimensions of ‘functionality’
Evaluation Questions
• Comparing percent of ‘functional’ top-down & bottom-up schemes based on
age of the schemes
• ‘Functional’ defined against design criteria or approved benchmark
Relative Performance of Bottom-up & Top-down Schemes: A Different Approach
% o
f fu
nc
tio
na
l s
ch
em
es
Age of Schemes (years since construction)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Bottom-up
Top-Down
Failure rate?
• Comparing percent of ‘functional’ top-down & bottom-up schemes based on
age of the schemes
• ‘Functional’ defined against design criteria or approved benchmark
What is this paper about?
% o
f fu
nc
tio
na
l s
ch
em
es
Age of Schemes (years since construction)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Bottom-up
Top-Down
Define
Sustainability
Compare
apples with
apples
Measure the relative
performance of water schemes
• Matching based on essential scheme level characteristics – major
determinants of performance of water supply schemes
• DRA schemes matched to Top-Down schemes based on:
– Location – same district/block: control for hydro-geological factors
– Year of commissioning – control for age of the scheme
– Size of the scheme – number of people served by the scheme
– Water source
Data for this matching:
– Data for the Jalanidhi-I project;
– Inventory of water schemes undertaken for the Jalanidhi-II project; and
– KWA’s annual reports (since 2000)
Selection of Control Group
• Reliability and Accessibility of the service
– Quantity of water availability per capita per day
– Hours of water availability per day
– Adequacy of water supply
– Time spent in collecting and carrying water
– Regularity of Supply (# of days water not available/not available in sufficient quantity)
– Timeliness of supply
– Dependence on other sources of water
• Household Perception
– Household satisfaction with quantity, quality & reliability of service
• Operation & Maintenance
– Disruptions in supply (number of shifts/days) due to source, system & power failure
– Frequency of disinfecting practices (chlorination, cleaning of reservoir, etc.)
– Frequency of water quality testing
Definition of Functionality
• Household Costs of Service
– Average tariff per household
– Time spent in collecting & carrying water
– Labor charges per hour
– Household coping costs due to inadequate water supply
• Cost recovery:
– Extent of the O&M costs that is recovered through user tariffs
– Percent of beneficiary households defaulting on O&M payments
• Institutional Sustainability
– Water users committees maintain the records
– Participation of women and vulnerable groups in these committees
– Institutional cost of water supply including the payments and provisions to employees,
office expenses, and administrative expenses
• Overall Functionality and Sustainability
– This indicator is an aggregate result of the previous six indexes to provide an overall score
Definition of Functionality (contd.)
• Check list for technical audits
• Water tests
• Household surveys
• In-depth interviews with key respondents at BG level
• In-depth interviews with key respondents at GP level
• Focal groups
Data: Technical and Social Audits
• Check list for technical audits
• Water tests
• Household survey
• In-depth interviews with key respondents at BG level
• In-depth interviews with key respondents at GP level
• Focal groups
Data: Technical and Social Audits
Scheme Identified Out of Built
Jalanidhi-I 90 2,380 2001 & 2009
KWA-BM 44 395 2004 & 2005
KWA-BT 46 221 2003 & 2008
Other Bottom-Up 20 529 1999 & 2010
Total 200 3,525
Results: Demand Responsive Approaches vs Traditional Approaches
Results: Demand Responsive Approaches vs Traditional Approaches
31.5 28.8
10.3
-41.4
25.1
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
A & R. HH Satisf. O&M HH Cost ofSer.
Overall
Perc
en
tag
e
Results: Jalanidhi Approach vs Other Demand Approaches
Results: Jalanidhi Approach vs Other Demand Approaches
2.3 5.9
-14.0
-3.6
23.9
18.112.9
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
A & R HHSatisf.
O&M HH Cost Cost Rec. Inst Sust. Overall
Perc
en
tag
e
• Contributions:
– We defined sustainability of RWS schemes
– We implemented field instruments for measuring their sustainability
– We used ‘Matching Techniques’ for assuring the comparability between groups
– We used IE techniques for assessing the results
• The findings suggest that the DRA schemes perform (much!) better than
the traditional supply driven approach
• The findings also suggest that the DRA schemes perform better than other
alternative demand driven options
• The contributions of this evaluation are applicable not just to the state of
Kerala and to India…
…but they also offer important conclusions for other countries
struggling to have functioning rural water systems by identifying the conditions
contributing to the sustainability of the systems
Final Remarks
www.worldbank.org/water | www.blogs.worldbank.org/water | @WorldBankWater
Thanks!