Paper 44795 6 Norms for Rural Water Supply in India The World Bank The World Bank Policy Paper extracted from the World Bank Study on Review of Effectiveness of Rural Water Supply Schemes in India, June 2008 June 2008 Norms for Rural Water Supply in India Existing Norms The norm of 40 liters per capita per day for humans is based on the following requirements: The following norms are currently adopted to provide drinking water to rural people under Purpose Quantity (lpcd) the Accelerated Rural Water Supply Program (ARWSP): Drinking 3 · Forty liters per capita per day (lpcd) of safe Cooking 5 drinking water for human beings Bathing 15 · Thirty lpcd additional for cattle in the Desert Development Program areas Washing utensils and house 7 · One handpump or standpost for every Ablution 10 250 persons · Water source within 1.6 km in the plains and within 100 meters elevation in the With normal output of 12 liters per minute, one hilly areas handpump or standpost is estimated for every 250 persons. Drinking water is defined to be safe if it is free from bacteriological and chemical The norms have been established by the contamination. Government of India in order to attain a network of facilities to provide an acceptable level of The above norms may be relaxed in a state to water consumption within a stipulated time provide for 55 lpcd with a source within 0.5 km frame. The term `acceptable level' is crucial and in the plains and 50 meters elevation in the hills, it has a two-fold rationale. First, competing provided the state had attained full coverage, as demand for greater investment in other sectors per the existing norms of 40 lpcd. This is further has left relatively small allocation for the subject to the condition that beneficiaries of the domestic sector. In the face of resource relaxed norms will share a part of the capital cost constraint, the tendency was to impose economy (which should not be less than 10 percent) and measures. Second, the wide inter-state shoulder full responsibilities for subsequent differences in the provision of rural water supply operation and maintenance (O&M). services and infrastructure requires governmental 2 Paper 6 W Norms Table 1 Average Number of Rural Households Sharing an India Mark II/III Handpump or a Standpost ater Average number Andhra Karna- Kerala Maha- Orissa Pun- Tamil Uttar Uttara- West of households Pradesh taka rashtra jab Nadu Pradesh khand Bengal sharing: Supply for Deep-bore public 26 66 35 25 31 20 18 12 26 42 handpump Standpost in a piped water 16 25 12 12 24 16 16 11 11 31 scheme Rural Source: Household survey. in intervention. Thus, standard norms have been may consider the relaxation of norms subject to India fixed for the provision of rural and urban water the condition that the beneficiaries of the relaxed supply service. norms are willing to share a part of the capital cost and shoulder full responsibility of the The current central rural water supply norms subsequent O&M and replacement, so as to meet govern all central programs and are mostly their enhanced service expectations. adhered by state sector programs. However, as mentioned above, once the task of providing This liberalization of norms is a key component every habitation with safe drinking water source in the design of demand-driven programs, where is completed as per the national norms of the consumer is able to give a voice in the service 40 lpcd in the entire state, the state governments level, if s/he is willing to pay. The norms have been established by the Government of India in order to attain a network of facilities to provide an acceptable level of water consumption within a stipulated time frame. The term `acceptable level' is crucial Sharing of Public Sources The number of households sharing a handpump or a standpost is commonly much lower than the norm (250 persons or 50 households) (Table 1). This is revealed by the survey carried out for the 10-state study on the Effectiveness of Rural Water Supply Schemes undertaken by the World Bank at the request of the Government of India. This is particularly noticed for Uttar Pradesh. In Uttar Pradesh, on an average only 11­12 households share a handpump or a standpost; indeed, in some cases (10 percent), four or less households share 3 Figure 1 Distance to Public Standposts (PSP) and Handpumps (HP) Source: Household survey. a handpump. In contrast, in Karnataka, on an handpumps complain of inadequate water average 66 households share a handpump availability. There is also an issue of distance to the (obviously causing considerable inconvenience), source (Figure 1). while on an average 25 households share a standpost. In Kerala and Uttarakhand, 35 The fact that the number of households sharing households and 26 households, respectively, a public source is much lower than the norm share a handpump. The corresponding figures shows that rural people want a far better service are lower for Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, than what a sharing of source according to the Punjab, and Tamil Nadu (26, 25, 20, and norm would imply. The norm of 250 persons 18 households per handpump, respectively). The number of households sharing a standpost in Maharashtra, Kerala, and Uttarakhand is about the same as in Uttar Pradesh. In Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu the average is higher, though lower than the number of households sharing a standpost in Karnataka. In 7 out of the 10 states studied, the average number of households sharing a standpost is in the range of 11 to 16, which is much less than the norm. It is evident from this that Karnataka is an exception regarding the sharing of public handpumps. However, this has serious repercussions on the quantity of water each household is able to access from the source, since a higher proportion of households using 4 Paper 6 W Norms ater Supply for Rural in India per standpost is based on the assumption of The fact that the number of households output of 12 liters per minute. But, a majority sharing a public source is much lower of standpost users covered in the survey than the norm shows that rural people reported that the water pressure is low and the want a far better service than what a time taken to fill a 10 liter bucket is usually sharing of source according to the three minutes or more. With such low pressure norm would imply and limited hours of supply (say, one to three hours in a day), it would not be possible for rural households to get 40 lpcd (or even get 20 lpcd) if 50 households have to share a standpost. There is a similar problem with Traveling Distance handpump schemes. A handpump needs to be operated continuously for 10 hours in a day if Compared to African countries, India allows far 50 households dependent on it have to collect greater traveling distance to the public water 40 liters per person. It is unrealistic to assume sources. The existing norm of 1.6 km in the that a handpump will be accessed for 10 hours plains and within 100 meter elevation in the hilly in a day, and that it will be used continuously areas is on the high side. As observed in many for those hours.1 studies, it is very difficult for women to carry water over long distances. The survey data reveal Evidently, questions may be raised about the that the distance to public sources are commonly norms governing the handpump schemes. It is very small (Figure 1), as the public source is no surprise that, in most cases, handpumps are commonly available within 100 meters. It is only shared by 30 or fewer households rather than 1 the norm of 50 households or 250 persons. India: Water Supply and Sanitation: Bridging the Gap between Infrastructure and Services, World Bank, 2006, Background Paper, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, Page 35. 5 in Karnataka that the distance is somewhat connections in piped water schemes. In several higher. But even in this state, the public sources states, the actual number of private connections are available within 300 meters in most cases. exceeds the design by a substantial margin. In a Some households of Karnataka using public number of schemes surveyed, the actual number handpumps have to travel a distance of over of private connections is found to be about three 700 meters to collect water. The Rajiv Gandhi times the design, which shows that many new National Drinking Water Mission (RGNDWM) is private connections have materialized after the considering a revision in the distance norm and scheme came into existence. reducing it to 500 meters. This would corroborate with the existing situation. The willingness to pay for improved services is about Rs 60 per month among private connection Piped Water Supply Schemes users. The handpump users of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and West For piped water supply schemes, a norm of Bengal are willing to pay in the range of Rs 30 40 lpcd implies that the service will be provided to Rs 44 per month for using a private piped mostly or entirely through standposts. This is not water connection. consistent with what the rural households want. And, this inconsistency will become greater as the Evidently, there is a strong demand for private incomes rise in the rural areas. piped water connection in the rural areas, and this is in conflict with the prevailing norms of rural The findings of the survey indicate that a large water supply. section of the rural people would like the convenience of a piped water supply connection In the relatively more developed states, difficulties in the house. This may be seen from a comparison would be found in implementing piped water of design and actual number of private schemes if the norm of 40 lpcd has to be strictly 6 Paper 6 W Norms ater Supply for Rural in India adhered to. In the course of studying good In the course of studying good practice practice cases of rural water supply in India, cases of rural water supply in India, several examples were found where there was a several examples were found where there conscious attempt by the community that the was a conscious attempt by the community service level should be a `private tap' and not a that the service level should be a `private `standpost'. It was felt that if service is provided tap' and not a `standpost' at standpost level, then the offtake by different households cannot be accounted for, and the leakage/wastage cannot be controlled. However, the distribution needs to be fair. Thus, Revision of Norms in one of the good practice examples, the household could connect to the scheme through A working committee has been set up by the a single tap connection in front of the house, and RGNDWM in 2002 to review the urban and was not allowed to take pipe connections inside rural water supply norms. The RGNDWM has the house and avail water from multiple taps. raised the issue of liberalizing norms with the Nor are households allowed to connect supply state governments, and discussions are water to a storage tank. ongoing. These include consideration of the following: (a) once the coverage is achieved as These measures ensure that the households do per present norms, these would be liberalized to not tap more water than the scheme is designed to provide 55 lpcd of safe drinking water for provide. This is again an evidence of the desire of human beings; (b) one source will be provided rural households to avail a higher level of services for every 150 persons, there being no specific than implied by the prevailing norms. limit in the case of isolated SC/ST habitations, 7 so as to ensure one safe source for the The study shows a clear preference vulnerable section of the society, for domestic connections and irrespective of their population in the willingness to pay for piped water. habitation; (c) the new norm of Hence the rural communities should providing one source within 0.5 km in be offered a higher level of service, the plains and 50 meters elevation in the subject to availability of water and hills; and (d) in case of higher service level, the cost sharing principles need to willingness to contribute be determined. The 10-state study on the Effectiveness of Rural Water Supply Schemes underscores the need to move towards `flexible norms' for 1.6 km distance and 100 meter elevation) could service delivery. The `fully' covered, `partially' still be used to measure achievement towards covered, `not' covered classification tends to the `fully covered', but often do not correspond encourage inadequate O&M as `slippages' from to what rural households desire and are willing `fully' to `partially' covered status often lead to to pay for. The study shows a clear preference the construction of a new system to replace for domestic connections and willingness to pay the poorly maintained existing system. The for piped water. Hence the rural communities perverse incentive that the present system should be offered a higher level of service, creates could be checked by adopting flexible subject to availability of water and willingness to norms for service delivery. The existing contribute through user charges that recover the Government of India norms (40 lpcd within a O&M and partial capital costs. This Report has been prepared by Smita Misra (Sr. Economist, SASDU, World Bank), the Task Manager of this study. The study was carried out under the overall guidance of Sonia Hammam, Sector Manager, Water and Urban, SASSD, World Bank. Data analysis has been undertaken by Professor B.N. Goldar and his research team at the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi and the consumer survey was carried out by the ORG Centre for Social Research (a division of A.C. Nielsen ORG MARG Pvt Ltd). Comments and inputs at various stages of preparation from the following World Bank persons are gratefully acknowledged: Michael Carter, Rachid Benmessaoud, Clive G. Harris, Alain R. Locussol, Francis Ato Brown, Alexander E. Bakalian, Oscar E. Alvarado, G.V. Abhyankar, R.R. Mohan, S. Satish, N.V.V. Raghava, and Policy Papers Catherine J. Revels (WSP-SA). Special thanks are due to the Department This is one of the six policy papers that have been prepared on the basis of the of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, the Department of Drinking Water World Bank study on Review of Effectiveness of Rural Water Supply Schemes in Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, and the Rajiv Gandhi National India (June 2008). These policy papers, published along with the Report, are on the Drinking Water Mission for their interest and collaboration in the study. following themes: Comments and data inputs during the preparation of the Report are Paper 1: Willingness of Households to Pay for Improved Services and Affordability gratefully acknowledged from R.P. Singh and M. Nagaraju (DEA), Paper 2: Inefficiency of Rural Water Supply Schemes in India Bharat Lal and R.K. Sinha (RGNDWM) and their team, and the Paper 3: Multi Village Water Supply Schemes in India respective State Government officials. Paper 4: Operation and Maintenance Expenditure and Cost Recovery Paper 5: System of Monitoring and Evaluation The Report has been discussed with the Government of India but does not Paper 6: Norms for Rural Water Supply in India necessarily bear their approval for all its contents, especially where the Bank has stated its judgements/opinions/policy recommendations. Author and Task Manager: Smita Misra (Sr. Economist, SASDU, World Bank The World Bank Pictures by: Guy Stubbs/Water and Sanitation Program­South Asia June 2008 Created by: Write Media Printed at: PS Press Services Pvt. Ltd. The World Bank, New Delhi Office, 70 Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110 003, India Tel: (91-11) 24617241, 24619491