Baseline DFRversion AP

Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Department

Government of Andhra Pradesh

The World Bank Assisted

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project

Baseline, Rapid Demand and Impact Assessment of RWS Coverage and Delivery of

Services

Draft Final Report(Revised)

April 2008

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Andhra Pradesh Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project Baseline, Rapid Demand and Impact Assessment of RWS Coverage and Delivery of Services

Table of Contents

1 Introduction......................................................................................................4

1.1 Background........................................................................................................4

1.2 Need for the Present Assessment.......................................................................5

1.3 Objectives of the Assignment............................................................................6

1.4 Methodology......................................................................................................6

2 Status of Rural Water Supply.........................................................................7

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................72.1.1 Sector Reforms Project..................................................................................82.1.2 Swajaldhara..................................................................................................10A. Key Lessons Learnt..........................................................................................10

2.2 Access to Drinking Water Supply....................................................................112.2.1 Coverage of Selected Villages.....................................................................112.2.2 Source of Water Supply...............................................................................122.2.3 Quality of Water...........................................................................................122.2.4 Quantity of Water.........................................................................................132.2.5 Frequency of water Supply..........................................................................142.2.6 Regularity of water supply...........................................................................152.2.7 Distance to Water Source.............................................................................162.2.8 Time taken for collection of water...............................................................162.2.9 Collection of water.......................................................................................17

2.3 Rural School Water Supply..............................................................................18

3 Status of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh............................................19

3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................19

3.2 Total Sanitation Campaign...............................................................................20Lesson Learnt...............................................................................................................203.2.1 NGP..............................................................................................................203.2.2 Shubram Awards..........................................................................................21

3.3 Individual Household Latrine...........................................................................223.3.1 Type of Latrine.............................................................................................223.3.2 Usage............................................................................................................23

3.4 Open Defecation...............................................................................................233.4.1 Site................................................................................................................24

3.5 Environmental Sanitation.................................................................................253.5.1 Solid Waste Disposal...................................................................................253.5.2 Waste Water Disposal..................................................................................253.5.3 Sewage Disposal..........................................................................................263.5.4 Fodder Waste/ Dung Disposal......................................................................26

3.6 Rural School Sanitation....................................................................................273.6.1 School Sanitation in Sample Villages..........................................................28

4 Health and Hygiene........................................................................................29

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................29

CEMT 2


4.2 Status of Water Borne Diseases..........................................................29

4.3 Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled Villages.........29

4.4 Incidence of Water Borne Diseases.................................................................29

4.5 Water Handling Practices.................................................................................30

4.6 Personal Hygiene.......................................................................................30

4.7 Availability of Medical Facilities.....................................................................31

5 Institutional Performance.............................................................................32

5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................32

5.2 Gram Panchayat...............................................................................................33

5.3 Institutional Arrangement................................................................................335.3.1 Compliant Redress System..........................................................................34

5.4 Financial Issues................................................................................................355.4.1 Tariff Collection...........................................................................................355.4.2 Mechanisms for tariff collection..................................................................355.4.3 Vulnerability................................................................................................35

6 Demand and Impact Assessment..................................................................37

6.1 Demand Scenario.............................................................................................376.1.1 Better Water Supply.....................................................................................376.1.2 Water Supply Schemes.................................................................................386.1.3 Household Connection.................................................................................386.1.4 Household Metering.....................................................................................396.1.5 Drains/ UGD/ STP.......................................................................................39

6.2 Willingness to Pay............................................................................................39

6.3 Technological Options.....................................................................................406.3.1 Water Supply................................................................................................40

7 Performance Indicators.................................................................................43

7.1 Selection Of Performance Indicators:..............................................................43

7.2 Monitoring........................................................................................................46

8 Conclusions.....................................................................................................47

Access to Safe Drinking Water Supply........................................................................47Quality of Water.........................................................................................................48

Health & Hygiene.........................................................................................................49

Water Handling Practices.............................................................................................49

Medical Facilities.........................................................................................................49

Annexure.....................................................................................................................52

HH Questionnaire.........................................................................................................52

FDG Checklist..............................................................................................................52

CEMT 3


1 Introduction

1.1 Background

India has achieved reasonable success in providing basic minimum service level for drinking water supply (40 liters per capita per day) to most of its rural population. Public investment in RWSS is about Rs. 45 billion (US$ 1.0 bn) annually, of which about 40% comes from Government of India (GoI). However, for various reasons, RWSS services are yet to achieve operational and financial sustainability. Depleting ground water table and deteriorating ground water quality are threatening source sustainability. Till recently, the RWSS program has been almost totally government run without participation of other stakeholders. Thus, users consider water a free (service) commodity with the government having the entire responsibility for running the operation. Additionally, the level of environmental sanitation in rural areas is extremely low (less than 25% households have latrines). The rural population generally has a poor understanding of the linkages between good sanitation, safe personal and community hygiene practice and low incidence of water borne diseases.

GoI’s Tenth Plan Policy and Strategy:

GoI’s Tenth plan policy objectives for RWSS are to accelerate sanitation coverage, strengthen sustainability of both water supply systems and water sources, provide minimum (basic) service level of safe drinking water to all rural habitations (target 2007), and provide demand based higher water service standards (piped water, house connections) to all rural habitations (target 2015).

The key elements of GoI strategy include: Decentralizing service delivery responsibility to rural local

governments and user groups; Adopting integrated approach to water supply and sanitation and

improving hygiene behaviour; Generating sanitation demand through awareness campaigns; and Eradicating water quality related problems.

For GoI, the main challenge now is to expand the reform approach, both horizontally and vertically. The new centrally sponsored “Swajaldhara” program is a clear indication of this desire to expand and hasten the reform process.

The Proposed World Bank Project

The government of Andhra Pradesh is intending to scale up statewide demand responsive and decentralized service delivery approach for which it is seeking World Bank assistance in implementing its five-year medium term Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) program. The Program’s main components are:

a) Institution Building: sector management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, IEC campaigns, capacity building of program staff and support agencies, technical assistance for reorganization of RWS.

CEMT 4


b) Community Development and RWSS Infrastructure Building:i) Community and village Panchayat Capacity Buildingii) Women’s development programs,iii) Construction/ up-gradation of drinking water supply, drainage and sanitation schemes, including water quality programs and targeted SC development plan. It is proposed that ground water recharge and rainwater harvesting will be integral parts of drinking water source development; and

c) Future Sector Planning: developing long term policies and strategic plans, strengthening sector information management systems and learning and piloting innovative approaches.

The proposed program will be implemented in the rural areas of all the 23 districts of Andhra Pradesh. Villages will be included in the project by adopting a self-selection process, a prerequisite of demand-responsive development. The project is expected to directly benefit many villages of Andhra Pradesh.

In the above context, Government of Andhra Pradesh is currently preparing a Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) Medium Term Sector Programme for implementation during 2009 – 2014. RWSS medium term programme components are: Policies, Institutional Reforms and Capacity Building Investment Monitoring and Evaluation

As a part of the RWSS sector program preparation, the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department (PRED), presently Rural Water Supply (RWS), proposes to carry out a detailed study on Baseline, Raid Demand and Impact Assessment of RWSS Coverage and Delivery of Services for the proposed program.

1.2 Need for the Present Assessment

The present status of the water supply and sanitation sector broadly focus on two areas: i) the impact of government programs, in terms of access, use and sustainability as well as coverage and ii) the status of sector reforms (SRP, TSC and Swajaladhara). This is also to identify and analyze successful approaches and strategies, the information about the present status of the community and its water supply and environmental sanitation conditions and demand for RWSS services. To understand the water supply and sanitation demand and assess the present scenario, and to analyze gaps and bottlenecks, the project intends to conduct rapid assessment of RWSS coverage and service delivery. The prospects and possibilities of participatory planning and implementation strategies for improved health and environment sanitation of the community, also constitutes a part of this assessment.

CEMT 5


1.3 Objectives of the Assignment

The key objectives of the study are to assist Project Support Unit of the Rural Water Supply Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh to:

Assess the Status of the water supply and sanitation sector. This will broadly focus on two areas:

o the impact of government programs, assessed in terms of access, use and sustainability as well as coverage and

o the status of sector reforms (SRP, TSC and Swajaladhara) and key lessons learnt.

Identify areas that need to be reinforced in order to institutionalize sector reform throughout the State. The analysis will focus on gaps and bottlenecks associated with policies, institutions, financial systems, HRD and resources, and will relate to sanitation and hygiene promotion as well as water supply

Identify and analyze successful approaches/ strategies/ resources/ institutional arrangements that have been (or could be) utilized to address the critical areas

Assess demand and supply for RWSS services and to provide a broad overview of the extent to which the demand for RWS services are being met in the state, leading to efficient water demand management system

Assess the needs for a drinking water schemes, prospects and possibilities for a participatory planning, implementation strategies, relevance and appropriateness of health education and sanitation activities in a rapid and dependable manner

1.4 Methodology

The study used participatory methodology extensively. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from multiple sources, using context-specific tools. Data source included a combination of house hold interviews, FGDs, Participatory Mapping. Open Discussions and Unobtrusive Observations, in addition to analysis of secondary data. A judicious mix of these techniques enabled us to dwell into the depth of various issues. A total of 21 villages representing three geographical regions (Andhra, Rayalseema and Telangana) were selected for the study. Of the 21 villages selected, 18 belonged to Single Village Scheme (SVS) category and 3 were from Multi Village Schemes (MVS). With average household surveys of about 90 per village, a total of 1889 households were covered under the study. The data source, tools and instruments used are shown in the matrix below:

Data Source Toots Used

Households Semi structure interview schedule

Mapping

Village Panchayat and

Members

Habitation Profile

Focus Group Discussions

Women Group Member Focus Group Discussions

User Groups at water source Observation at water points


State and District Officials Secondary data collection

CEMT 6



CEMT 7


2 Status of Rural Water Supply

2.1 Introduction

Drinking water supply being a State subject; funds are allocated in the budget of the State and then devolved to the subsequent tiers of local administration. To assist the states in implementing safe drinking water services across the country, the National Drinking Water Mission (NDWM) was introduced in 1986 by the Government of India, which was renamed as Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission in 1991. The objectives of this Mission were multifold including provision for larger coverage of villages, promoting appropriate technology mix and creating awareness on safe drinking water.

Despite substantial investments in the sector, the government is still facing the challenge of under-coverage and poor quality of water and sanitation related services, especially in the rural areas. The root cause of this problem lies in the following factors:

i. Depletion ground water table across the country, leading to the inability of GPs to meet the minimum supply standards.

ii. Over emphasis on new construction and poor attention to maintenance of on-going programs.

iii. Poor peoples’ participation in planning and selecting appropriate schemes and subsequently in operations and maintenance.

Rural Water Supply Status in Andhra Pradesh

Till recently, the implementation of rural water supply program was the responsibility of the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) and since the beginning of FY 2006-2007, this responsibility was handed over to the Department of Rural Water Supply under the Panchayati Raj. Consequently, the Panchayati Raj institutions are involved in the implementation of schemes, particularly in selecting the location of stand post, spot sources, operation and maintenance, fixing of water tariff etc.

The state of Andhra Pradesh has adopted 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) as the norm for the supply of potable drinking water. Based on a pre-determined criteria, villages are grouped into four specific categories viz. i) Fully covered (FC) ii) Partially Covered (PC) iii) Not Covered (NC) and iv) No Safe Source.

The Department of Rural Water Supply has launched various schemes for providing drinking water supply to the rural population in the state. As tabulated below, out of 72,231 habitations 43 % of are fully covered (FC) with water supply schemes, while 53% were partially covered (PC). This brings the number of habitations either fully covered or partially covered to a total of about 69,342 (96% of total habitations). Approximately less than 1% of the habitations still remain uncovered and less than 3% habitations do not have any safe source. The aim of the department is to cover all rural habitations with water supply schemes, so that all rural citizens have access to safe drinking water.

CEMT 8


S No Category No of Habitation

% Coverage

1 Fully Covered (FC) 31292 43.322 Partially Covered

(PC)38564 53.39

3 Not Covered (NC) 424 0.594 No Safe Source

(NSS)1951 2.70

6 Total 72231 100

The district wise total coverage is given in table below.District Wise Water Supply Coverage

S No District Total FC PC1 PC2 PC3

PC4 NC

NSS

1 Srikakulam 3938 1839 360 615 553 495 0 762 Vizianagaram 2874 1600 269 245 258 353 16 133

3Vishakapatnam 5448 2459 453 780 792 565

389 10

4 Eastgodavari 2901 1082 751 425 375 267 0 15 Westgodavari 2158 1292 167 147 140 336 0 766 Krishna 2491 1248 278 211 340 338 0 767 Guntur 1696 633 89 427 218 148 0 1818 Prakasam 2338 796 87 542 311 193 0 4099 Nellore 3054 1296 42 560 613 468 0 75

10 Chittoor1090

7 7023 666189

2 834 492 0 0

11 Kadapa 4542 1207 596128

4 985 460 0 1012 Ananthapur 3329 1764 44 328 481 549 0 16313 Kurnool 1521 620 11 288 276 306 0 20

14Mahaboobnagar 3421 1443 453 631 524 275 0 95

15 Rangareddy 1685 368 148 461 384 290 0 3416 Medak 2370 666 104 509 687 404 0 017 Nizamabad 1632 552 102 203 382 393 0 018 Adilabad 3610 1140 532 878 743 281 14 2219 Karimnagar 2259 312 125 445 622 611 0 14420 Warangal 3542 1231 297 929 641 442 0 221 Khammam 3205 1233 223 739 558 297 0 15522 Nalgonda 3310 1488 34 335 707 472 5 269

Total7223

131292

5831

12874

11424

8435

424

1951

Source: APRWSSP

2.1.1 Sector Reforms Project

The Sector Reforms Project in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation programme was introduced in April, 1999. The aim of Sector Reforms project was to replace the centralized, supply-driven Rural Water Supply Programme by a people- centered, decentralized, demand-driven and community-based rural water supply programme. The project elements

CEMT 9


include adoption of a demand-driven approach based on empowerment of villagers to ensure their participation in planning and implementation; decision-making in the choice of scheme design and management arrangement. It also focused on village level capacity building and ensuring an integrated service delivery mechanism by streamlining the functions of the agencies involved in project implementation and ten per cent capital cost sharing by users. The Sector Reforms Project has been implemented in 67 districts spread over 26 states of the country.

Sector Reforms in Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh is predominantly rural with 73 percent of the population living in villages. Rural literacy is 55 percent as against all India average of 59 percent. Andhra Pradesh faces widespread water scarcity, partly because of recurring droughts. About 548 mandals in the state have been declared as ‘water stress’ areas since groundwater levels have fallen deeper than 10 metres. As per estimates of the state groundwater department, the present utilization of groundwater in the state is 1.30 m ha m, leaving a balance of 1.76 m ha m for further utilization . It is apparent that in order to sustain further growth and development, limited water resources would have to be utilized more efficiently and water resource conservation measures including groundwater recharge would have to be undertaken.

Despite large investments in providing drinking water supply, a number of habitations that were earlier fully covered have begun to re-emerge as partially covered or not covered habitations due to drying up of sources.

Since 2006, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken some measures to decentralize delivery of RWSS in the state. These include

Responsibility of O&M for SVS transferred to GP’s; ZP to sanction projects costing up to 25 lakh; Signed an MoU with GOI committing to undertake activity mapping;

creation of standing committees at GP level and Panchayat sector budgets;

Proposal for PRED to deploy 50% of staff to PRIs for minor works Funds devolved to PRIs for O&M

Decentralization of service delivery has brought a number of operational and institutional shortcomings to the surface in Andhra Pradesh. The main operational shortcomings include non-availability of spares for handpumps at lower levels. Availability of spares was limited to district headquarters only and this is partly responsible for inefficient discharge of O &M responsibility. The possibility of involving Water and Sanitation Committee as a facilitator by keeping stock of spares and enrolling some pump mechanics with them are being considered as a solution to this problem. Poor availability of consumables for water treatment is another prioblem.

The main institutional constraints pertain to poor electricity supply which made it difficult especially for MVS villages to provide assured water supply. Further, pump operators who are in charge of maintaining of piped water schemes are not given proper training and therefore, unable to carry out their jobs. Another serious institutional problem is non-release or

CEMT 10


delayed release of grants to GPs for installation of hand pumps. As a result GPs have been reluctant to take over O&M of piped schemes. It was also noticed that not enough attention is given preventive maintenance.

CEMT 11


Lessons from Sector Reform Initiatives

The sector reform measures have failed to create any remarkable improvements in service delivery. While O&M of some schemes have been transferred to GPs, assets continue to be created by the state government. Thus the link between investment decisions and O&M requirements are weak. It is also experienced that most funding comes in the form of projects and therefore, most of the functionaries are positioned at the state government level.

There are no tariffs for hand pumps and public stand posts in Andhra Pradesh. For house connections a one time deposit of Rs. 600 and a monthly tariff of Rs. 30. Billing for electricity is rare. GPs are vested with the responsibility of fixing and collecting water tariffs and bill collection is not done regularly.

2.1.2 Swajaldhara

The GOI has launched the Swajaldhara programme (2002) under reforms initiatives with community contribution. The community contribution under the program is envisaged to be by a minimum of 30% of the village population. Emphasizing the need for community ownership, the onus of post-completion maintenance is shifted to the community by collecting water tariff from users. As indicated in the table below, a total of 3,483 schemes have been completed over the past five years, with the highest number of schemes having been implemented in the year 2002-03.

S No Year No of Schemes1 2002 – 03 15922 2003 – 04 4333 2004 – 05 6764 2005 – 06 6295 2006 – 07 153

Total 3483

A. Key Lessons Learnt

Swajaladhra reforms initiative with demand driven community approach has made impact limited to contributing to the scheme. Unlike operation, maintenance and management cost like salary of operators, periodic repair of the water supply schemes are born by Gram Panchyat but not by the concerned Community / User Group / Village Water and Sanitation Committee. The user charge collection hardly collected in few GPs and majority it GP responsibility.The role of Village Water and Sanitation Committee role was limited till scheme designing & commissioning under GP without statuary identity. The role of NGOs/CBOs is to mobilize and conduct Gram Sabha meetings.

CEMT 12


2.2 Access to Drinking Water Supply

This section deals with the accessibility of households to drinking water facilities in the villages based on the sample survey of 21 GPs villages in 10 districts. The data collected through the survey cover three different supply categories i.e. FC, PC and NSS. The break-up of the number of villages covered during the survey is presented in the table below:

S No Category No of Villages1 Partially Covered 1(PC1) 12 Partially Covered 2(PC2) 93 Partially Covered 3(PC3) 34 Partially Covered 4(PC4) 15 No Safe Source (NSS) 7

Total 21

The source of water, the problems faced by the villagers in the accessibility to water supply, quantity and quality of water used, adequacy of water, timings of water availability, time taken for collection of water, water handling practices etc are analysed in the following sections. .

2.2.1 Coverage of Selected Villages

Overall Situation: A total of 21 villages were covered under the survey, of which 18 were SVS and 3 were MVS villages. For 16 (76.19%) villages groundwater was the main source of supply, while the balance 5 villages (23.81%) depend on surface water sources. The surface water is either being drawn from river or canal based schemes.

Type of Water Supply Scheme by Source

SVS MVS Total

Source % (nos)% (nos) % (nos)

Surface16.67(3)

66.67(2)

23.81(5)

Groundwater

83.33(15)

33.33(1)

76.19(16)

Total100(18) 100(3)

100(21)

Detailed Analysis: Of the 16 villages covered by ground water based schemes, only one village is MVS and the balance 15 villages are covered under SVS. Five villages are covered by Surface Water schemes, with 3 of them being SVS and 2 being MVS. Of the three MVS villages (surface and groundwater source taken together), two depend on surface water where and one village is dependent on ground water. This clearly indicates the scale of operation of SVS and the high dependence on groundwater for drinking water schemes in Andhra Pradesh.

CEMT 13


2.2.2 Source of Water Supply

Overall Situation: An analysis of source of water supply vis-à-vis SVS and MVS has been made and the results are presented in the table below. Of the 1889 respondents, more than half (53. 47%) belong to SVS villages and 9.63% belong to MVS villages. The balance 36.9% depend on a variety of sources ranging from privately owned hand pumps and bore wells to sources belonging to the public domain such as public hand pumps and riverlets.

Source of HH Water Supply SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

SVS 62.35 0.0053.4

7101

0

MVS 0.00 67.66 9.63 182Own Handpump 0.31 27.51 4.18 79

Own Dugwell 2.96 1.49 2.75 52Public Handpump 27.90 1.12

24.09 455

Public Dugwell 0.62 0.74 0.64 12

Pvt. Borewell 5.68 1.49 5.08 96

Rivulet 0.19 0.00 0.16 3

Total100

(1620)100

(269) 100188

9

Detailed Analysis: The detailed analysis of responses indicate that, of the 1620 responses under the SVS, about 8.95% (own hand pump, own dug well and private bore well) depend entirely on privately owned sources; where as a large majority (over 90%) depend entirely on public sources other than SVS (public hand pump, public dug well, riverlet) When the same analysis is applied to MVS villages, the pre-dominance of privately owned sources goes as high as 30.49%.

2.2.3 Quality of Water

HH Perception on Water Quality

SVS MVS Total

% % % Freq

Good 68.02 85.50 70.51 1332

Bad 31.98 14.50 29.49 557

Total 100 100 100 1889

Overall Situation: Based on the visual and sensory observation of drinking water, the quality of water is classified into two categories: Good (sweet, colour less, odourless) and Bad (salty/sour, coloured, odour, fluoride content). While, close to 71% of the respondents perceived the quality of water to be ‘Good’, about 29% reported it to be ‘Bad’. When this analysis is applied to SVS and MVS villages separately, the perception of ‘Good’ increases significantly under MVS villages (85%).

CEMT 14


Detailed Analysis: Further analysis of the quality of water (MVS and SVS) and the reasons for the perception of ‘Bad’ quality points out issues as detailed out in the table below:

Quality of Water SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Hard Water21.4

328.2

121.9

012

2

Saline12.1

610.2

612.0

3 67

Bad Smell 6.3712.8

2 6.82 38

Muddy Water 3.6730.7

7 5.57 31

Flouride54.6

3 0.0050.8

128

3

Can't Say/ Don't Know 1.7417.9

5 2.87 16

Total 100 100 10055

7

While the problem of high fluoride content is the key issue under SVS villages (54.63%), this problem is completely absent under MVS villages. The next level of quality problems under SVS villages includes hardness (21.43%), salinity (12.16%) and bad smell (6.37%). The major quality problems under MVS villages are reported to be i) muddy water (30.77%) followed by ii) hard water (28.21%) and iii) Bad smell (12.82%). It may be pertinent to note that drinking water quality problems such as hardness and salinity are directly related to the source and difficult to overcome. However, the problems of muddiness and bad smell can be efficiently managed.

2.2.4 Quantity of Water

Overall Situation: The overall analysis of quantity of water supplied per capita per day indicates the following:

i. Only a small fraction of the surveyed households (0.42% and 3.18%) get supply either less than 20 litres per capita per day or more than 50 litres per capita per day, respectively.

ii. A large majority of the households (96.4%) fall in the three middle bands viz. 20-30 litres, 30-40 litres and 40-50 litres per capita per day.

iii. Considering the minimum supply standard of 40 litres of supply per capita per day, the percentage of households falling in the ‘just about sufficient’ (30-40 litres), ‘deficient’ (20-30 litres) and ‘extremely inadequate’ (less than 20 litres) supply ranges works out to be 85.66%.

Households by Quantity of water used (in litres per person per day)

Quantity of water used (per day per person in

SVS MVS Total

CEMT 15


litres)

% % %

Less than 20 3.64 0.37 3.18

20 – 30 35.68 23.79 33.99

30 – 40 46.91 57.99 48.49

40 – 50 13.33 17.47 13.92

More than 50 0.43 0.37 0.42

Total100

(1620)100

(269)100

(1889)

Detailed Analysis: Water is used for multiple domestic purposes. Data from the household survey was analyzed to understand the use of water by households for various purposes, under SVS and MVS. The results are presented in the following table. It is evident from the results presented in the table below that there is no significant variation in the use of water, whether SVS and MVS. While the average total consumption is about 34.46 litres per capita per day, close to one third (11.36 litres) of it is used for washing clothes; followed by 7.60 litres for bathing and washing utensils (6.08 litres) stands third in consumption quantity. Cooking (4.11 litres), drinking (3.11 litres) and toilet use (2.20 litres) constitute the last three in descending order.

Average Quantity of water used for

different purposes (per person in

litre)

SVS MVS

Total

Drinking 3.12 3.05 3.11

Cooking 4.04 4.56 4.11

Washing Utensils 6.07 6.12 6.08

Bathing 7.64 7.33 7.60

Washing Cloths11.0

913.0

211.3

6

Toilets 2.19 2.23 2.20

Total34.1

536.3

034.4

6

2.2.5 Frequency of water Supply

Overall Situation: Although, community members long for uninterrupted water supply through the day, the panchayat authorities find it difficult to meet their expectations, due to various constraints, including operational constraints. The frequency of water supply varies from once daily, once every alternate day and once three days and more and the results of the survey are tabulated below. About 63% of the households receive daily water supply and about 28% on alternate days. About 9% of the households receive water once in three days or more than three days. In some instances, more than three days may mean as sporadic as once a week.

CEMT 16


Freq of Water Supply SVS MVS Total

Frequency % % %Freq

Daily 65.84 48.9063.2

6 754

Alternate Day 24.06 50.5528.1

0 335Once 3 Days & More 10.10 0.55 8.64 103

Total100(10

10)100

(182) 100119

2

Detailed Analysis: There is some significant correlation between the type of scheme and the frequency of water supply. SVS fares better as compared to MVS in terms of frequency of supply. While close to 66% of SVS villages receive daily water supply, the percentage of households receiving the same frequency of supply is far lower (less than 49%) amongst MVS villages. Less than a quarter (24.06%) of SVS households fall in the next range (once every alternate day), where as more than half (50.55%) of the surveyed households under MVS have reported to be falling in that range. Therefore, households covered by MVS schemes suffer the most in terms of infrequent supply.

Further analysis of the duration of water supply (disengaged from the

frequency of supply-whether daily, alternate day or once in three days)

clearly indicates the following:

i. About 22% receive water supply for less than half-an-hour

ii. About 56% receive water supply between half-an-hour and an hour

iii. About 10% receive water supply between one to two hours

iv. Only about 12% receive water supply for more than two hours

Duration of Water Supply (SVS/MVS) SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Less than 1/2 Hour24.1

6 7.1421.5

6 257

1/2 - 1 Hour52.0

876.3

755.7

9 665

1 - 2 Hour 9.2116.4

810.3

2 123

More than 2 Hours14.5

5 0.0012.3

3 147

Total 100 100 100119

2

2.2.6 Regularity of water supply

CEMT 17


Regularity in water supply is one key feature that ensures reliability of service levels. If water is supplied at pre-fixed timings every day, people plan their daily schedule accordingly. Therefore, during the household survey data were collected on the timing of water supply and the results are presented below. The data do not bring out any significant difference between SVS and MVS in the timing of supply. Only about 13% of the households reported that there is a specific timing for water supply, indicating that the supply is based on a specific schedule. However, over 87% reported that the supply is completely unscheduled and unplanned. This creates inconvenience to community members, including demands for sudden adjustments in household chores and other daily tasks.

Timing of Water Supply (SVS/MVS) SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Specific Timing13.3

710.4

412.9

2 154

No Specific Timing86.6

389.5

687.0

8103

8

Total 100 100 100119

2

2.2.7 Distance to Water Source

Overall Situation: The proximity analysis of water source indicates that close to 70% of the households have their water sources within 50 meters, where as only about 1.34% have to travel more than 500 meters to collect water, the rest 29.28% falling in the three in between distance ranges i.e. 50-100 meters (14.26%), 100-200 meters (5.29%) and 200-500 meters (9.73%).

Distance from Source SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Less than 50 mts64.7

595.0

569.3

8 827

50-100 mts15.9

4 4.9514.2

6 170

100-200 mts 6.24 0.00 5.29 63

200-500 mts11.4

9 0.00 9.73 116

More than 500 mts 1.58 0.00 1.34 16

Total 100 100 100119

2

Detailed Analysis: The disaggregated proximity data between SVS and MVS shows a clear distinction between the two. The supply source of MVS is closer to habitations, with 95.05% reporting that the distance is less than 50 meters for them, the balance 5% the households have to cover a distance of about 50-100 meters to collect water. It is also evident that no MVS households are required to travel beyond that distance. Compared to this, SVS households have no clear distance advantage. Only about 64.75% of the households cover a distance of less than 50 meters, where

CEMT 18


as 1.58% has to cover more than 500 meters to collect water; the balance 33.67% of the households fall in the other three distance ranges. This indicates that the drudgery of water collection weighs heavier on SVS households as compared to MVS households.

2.2.8 Time taken for collection of water

Overall Situation: The time taken to collect water includes the travel time, queuing up time and the time taken to fill up the containers. The pressure of water supply at the tap point and the quantity of water to-be collected also determine the total time taken to collect water. The time taken to collect water has been divided into four categories and accordingly data were collected and the analysis is presented below.

Overall, only about 43% of the households have reported to be spending less than 30 minutes to collect water and about 36% spend between 30 minutes to one hour. Significant number (19.04%) of households have reported to be spending between one to two hours, where as 1.17% of the households spend more than two hours.

Time taken for water collection SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Less than 1/2 hr41.4

953.3

043.2

9 516

1/2 - 1 hr35.8

440.1

136.4

9 435

1 - 2 hr21.2

9 6.5919.0

4 227

More than 2 hrs 1.39 0.00 1.17 14

Total 100 100 100119

2

2.2.9Collection of water

Overall Situation: Who collects water is also determined by the distance to the source and quantity of water required. Collection of water is considered essentially a woman’s domain, in nearly 63% of the households interviewed. In about 4% of the households, it is considered as man’s responsibility, the balance 33% reporting it as joint responsibility of men and women.

Member of Involved in Fetching Water SVS MVS Total

% % % Freq

Male 4.36 3.85 4.28 51

Female 66.73 42.86 63.09 752

Both 28.91 53.30 32.63 389

Total 100 100 100 1192

CEMT 19


Detailed Analysis: Water collection as an activity is dependent on various factors such as distance to be traveled, timing of supply, pressure at the point and queuing time. Therefore, it is a common phenomenon that multiple members (men or women) are involved in the task. The data indicates that, single member (only one member, mainly woman) collecting water is more prevalent in the surveyed households, with about 60.91% reporting so. In about 36.07% of the households two members are involved and three or more than three members are involved in the balance 3.02% of the households.

No of Member of Family Involved in Water Collection

No of People SVS MVS Total

% % % Freq

164.9

538.4

660.9

1 726

232.0

858.2

436.0

7 430

3 2.18 0.55 1.93 23

More than 3 0.79 2.75 1.09 13

Total 100 100 100119

2

CEMT 20


2.3 Rural School Water Supply

Overall Situation: Close to 81% of the rural schools have the benefit of water supply in the school premises, where as the balance 19% do not have any such facilities. In the absence of water supply facility within the school, such schools use public taps or other sources available in the neighboring areas.

School Water Supply

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region

Telangana Region Total

% % % %Nos

Yes 100 80 7580.9

5 17

No 0 20 2519.0

5 4Total 100(4) 100(5) 100(12) 100 21

Regional Analysis: There is some variation in the water supply availability between the three regions viz. Andhra, Rayalseema and Telangana. While all schools in Andhra region enjoy the facility of having water supply within the school, only 80% and 75% of the schools in Rayalseema and Telngana regions have such facilities.

A visual inspection of the working conditions of the school water supply was done during the field survey. The working condition is judged by factors such as the smooth flow of water, ability to turn-off and turn-on the tap without difficulty, absence of leakage and conditions surrounding the tap point etc. It was observed that close to 95% of the water points were in good working condition. However, the regional break-up indicates that 25% of the school water supply in Andhra regions are in Poor condition, mainly due to lack of proper upkeep. When this inadequacy is factored in, the overall situation of water supply availability in Andhra region is brought down to 75%.

Working Condition of School Water Supply

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Nos

Working 75 100 10094.1

2 16Not Working 25 0 0 5.88 1

Total 100 100 100 100 17

CEMT 21


3 Status of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh

3.1 Introduction

The department of Rural Water and Sanitation (DRWS) has initiated various schemes for rural sanitation programme, including Government of India sponsored Total Sanitation Programme. The present status shows that about 36% of total HH are covered out of which 49% HH are above poverty line and only 25% are below poverty line.

S No Category Households Above Poverty Line (APL)

Households Below Poverty Line (BPL)

Total Households

1 HH with Toilets 2822930 2002742 48256722 HH without Toilets 2845237 5881886 87271233 Total 5668167 7884628 135527954 Percentage

Coverage49.80 25.40 35.61

Source Habitation Survey 2003

The district wise sanitation coverage is given in below table.

Sno. District Name

Total Households

With Toilets

Without Toilets Total

%age Coverag

e

1 ADILABAD 47906 339097 387003 12.38

2 ANANTAPUR 328861 289358 618219 53.19

3 CHITTOOR 163290 533451 696741 23.44

4 CUDDAPAH 26290 503295 529585 4.96

5 EAST GODAVARI 476479 561655 1038134 45.9

6 GUNTUR 204008 666627 870635 23.43

7 KARIMNAGAR 264556 410512 675068 39.19

8 KHAMMAM 301395 181860 483255 62.37

9 KRISHNA 306640 466346 772986 39.67

10 KURNOOL 247732 294068 541800 45.72

11 MAHBUBNAGAR 136462 629714 766176 17.81

12 MEDAK 113513 353869 467382 24.29

13 NALGONDA 240316 371819 612135 39.26

14 NELLORE 269066 311154 580220 46.37

15 NIZAMABAD 177026 253482 430508 41.12

16 PRAKASAM 191938 335867 527805 36.37

17 RANGAREDDI 135852 189746 325598 41.72

18 SRIKAKULAM 102757 486616 589373 17.43

19 VISAKHAPATNAM 252223 378879 631102 39.97

20 VIZIANAGARAM 172891 313074 485965 35.58

21 WARANGAL 372107 333075 705182 52.77

22 WEST GODAVARI 294364 523559 817923 35.99

Total 4825672 87271231355279

5 35.61

Source Habitation Survey 2003

CEMT 22


3.2 Total Sanitation Campaign

Total Sanitation Campaign is a comprehensive programme to ensure sanitation facilities in rural areas with broader goal to eradicate the practice of open defecation. TSC as a part of reform principles was initiated in 1999 when Central Rural Sanitation Programme was restructured making it demand driven and people centered. It follows a principle of “low to no subsidy” where a nominal subsidy in the form of incentive is given to rural poor households for construction of toilets.

Total Sanitation CampaignS No Category Total

1 No of IHHLs BPL37456

76

2 No of IHHLs APL15882

83

3 Total IHHLSs53339

59

4No of Sanitary Complex 874

5 No of School Toilets 64552

Lesson Learnt

Although the TSC was launched in 1999, the pace of progress has been gradual. Though most TSC was included in programmes, financial allocations for sanitation often are not adequate due to lack of priority attached to the programme which often takes a back seat to water which is a more politically important area

The second reason has been less emphasis on Capacity building and IEC activities with inadequate capacity building at the cutting edge level for implementing a demand driven project -giving emphasis on social mobilization and IEC. The implementation machinery at the field level, which is quite familiar with working of the supply driven, target oriented schemes of the government need to be sensitized further to the challenges of this demand driven approach. For this change of attitude and ways of functioning of the persons responsible for the implementation of the scheme is needed. Management of this change in approach requires more attention.

Some of the other challenges are existence of high subsidy schemes, provision of low cost and region specific technological options, Quality of construction, usage and operation and maintenance of the sanitation facilities.

3.2.1 NGP

Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP-Clean Village Award) was instituted by the Government of India on 2nd October 2003 to recognise, encourage and facilitate PRIs and those individuals and

CEMT 23


organisations that work with them to achieve total sanitation. The award was designed based on the success achieved by PRIs in Nandigram II block in East Midnapur district of West Bengal to achieve full sanitation coverage and eliminate the practice of open defecation.

Using innovative financial incentives to ignite positive sanitation and hygiene behavioural changes in rural communities was unheard a strategy prior to the launching of NGP in India, which has certainly revolutionised the means and methods of promoting the rural sanitation on mass scale. This incentive model is showing how an incentive strategy can motivate the PRIs in taking up sanitation promotion activities and shift their priorities from hardware and infrastructure projects.

Eligible Village Panchayats, Blocks, and Districts are those that achieve (a) 100% sanitation coverage of individual households, (b) 100% school sanitation coverage, (c) free from open defecation and (d) maintain environmental cleanliness.Also eligible for the award are individuals and organisations, which have been the driving force for effecting full sanitation coverage in their respective geographical areas.

No of Award Winning GPs in Last 3 Years

S No

Year No of GPs

1 2005 -2 2006 103 2007 143

Source: DDWS, GoI

NGP has succeeded in setting off a healthy competition among GPs. The award has brought about a silent revolution in the sector of sanitation. The pride and honour associated with receiving an award from the President of India is a reason in itself for elected heads of GPs to take a personal interest in covering all households and schools with sanitation facilities under TSC. To meet all the eligibility criteria, they pay attention to eradicating open defecation as well as solid and liquid waste management in villages.

However, sustainability of open defecation free status attained by the GPs is a matter of concern. India has a history of having ‘slipped back habitations’ with respect to water supply. The NGP has created a country wide enthusiasm and a competitive spirit amongst Gram Panchayats. The NGP contributed in accelerating the pace of the TSC which has been operational since 1999.

CEMT 24


3.2.2 Shubram Awards

3.3 Individual Household Latrine

The practice of open defecation is wide spread in almost all the villages. It is carried out either in the open fields or in earmarked corners of the village. In some extreme cases it is carried out in any open space, whether within the village or outside.

Region wise HH Having Latrine

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Yes 45.27 22.39 36.2534.3

6 649

No 54.73 77.61 63.7565.6

4124

0Total 100(296) 100(451) 100(1142) 100

1889

Overall Situation: The phenomenon of owning of individual household latrines (IHL) is rare across the state. Overall, only less than 35% of the households own latrines. The situation is further worsened when we consider the fact that use of latrine is at least partly de-linked from owning one (refer usage). There is enough empirical evidence to indicate that owning a latrine does not necessarily mean putting it to use, because open defecation has a general social sanction.

Regional Analysis: The region-wise break-up of ownership of household toilets present a dismal picture. The percentage of households not owning household toilets range from a minimum of 55% in Andhra region to a maximum of about 78% in Rayalseema region with Telangana region falling somewhere in between (64%). The sanitation situation and public hygiene in all the three regions therefore, is very poor and deserves a high priority attention.

3.3.1 Type of Latrine

Overall Situation: The quality of construction of toilets vary across the state depending on the material availability, space for construction, masonry skills etc. It was observed that most of the households (close to 70%) were using the pour flush type of toilets. Dry pit latrine was the next most popular type with 23% of the households opting for it and the Twin pit type of home latrines was the lowest at about 7%.

CEMT 25


Type of Latrine

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Dry Pit 24.63 2.97 27.0522.8

014

8

Twin Pit 0.75 0.99 11.11 7.40 48Pour Flush 74.63 96.04 61.84

69.80

453

Total 100 100 100 10064

9

Regional Analysis: The regional analysis of type of latrine preferences clearly highlights that: i. Pour Flush toilets are highly popular in Rayalseema with an

overwhelming 96% opting for it. Twin pit toilets are least popular in this region, with only less than 3% opting for it.

ii. Andhra region and Telangana region also a clear preference for Pour Flush toilets with about 75% and 62% opting for it respectively.

3.3.2 Usage

Overall Situation: The usage of latrine is about 25.89% in the state, which is a pointer to the fact that close to 75% of households do not use toilets, despite owning. Typical example is: Valbapur village in Elakathurtthy mandal of Karimnagar district. This village won the NGP award in 2006, but about 20HH (of a total of 300 HH) continue with their open defecation practices.

Latrine Usage

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Yes 9.70 20.79 32.3725.8

916

8

No 90.30 79.21 67.6374.1

148

1

Total 100 100 100 10064

9Regional Analysis: The use of latrine is as low as 9.7% in Andhra where as it is relatively high in Telangana region (32.37%). In Rayalseema region the use of toilets stands at 20.79%. Despite unknown reasons for this wide regional variation in toilet use, significant investments are required to inform and educate community members on the merits of toilet use and the link between water borne diseases and open defecation.

3.4 Open Defecation

HH Members who do not Have Latrine Defecates

CEMT 26


Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Public Latrine 0.62 0.29 0.41 0.40 5

Fields 99.38 99.71 99.5999.6

0123

5

Total 100 100 100 100124

0

Overall Situation: Response was sought to the question, from those who do not own toilets, ‘where do they defecate’ and the results are tabulated above. A very high percentage (99.6%) responded that they do so in the open fields and only about 0.40% choosing public latrine options.

Detailed Analysis: As indicated in the table below, the open fields are generally fall in the catchment areas of tanks, rivers, ponds and/or on the road side. In many villages these are very close to the drinking water source, thus posing a high risk of drinking water contamination. 3.4.1 Site

Site of Open Defecation

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Near Water Source 9.26 25.14 33.93

28.23 350

Slope Ground 61.11 27.43 45.1942.2

6 524

Catchments 3.70 42.29 11.5419.1

9 238

On Road Side 25.93 5.14 9.3410.3

2 128

Total 100 100 100 100124

0

CEMT 27


3.5 Environmental Sanitation

Solid Waste Disposal

Overall Situation: Indiscriminate disposal of garbage are observed in all the surveyed villages. Drainage maintenance is poor; they remain clogged at many places due to careless dumping of solid wastes into the drains. Only about 12.28% of the households use compost pit options, with a large majority dumping the waste either on roads (44.10%) or filing it in bins (12.02%).

Solid Waste Disposal

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

In Bins 42.23 13.30 3.6812.0

2 227Outside on Road 48.99 56.98 37.74

44.10 833

In Front of House 8.45 13.97 44.57

31.60 597

In Compost Pit 0.34 15.74 14.0112.2

8 232

Total 100 100 100 100188

9

Regional Analysis: Information regarding various methods of garbage disposal was sought from the surveyed households and based on the current practices they were categorized into four major types viz. i) bins ii) outside on the road iii) in front of the house and iv) in compost pits. Once again, large regional variation has been observed as summarized below:

i. Dumping the waste in bins is observed by about 42% of the households in Andhra region, where as the same practice is relatively low in Rayalseema (13.30%) and Telangana region (3.68%).

ii. Disposing off waste outside the road is common in Rayalseema (56.98%) and Andhra regions (48.99%), where as in Telangana this practice is lower with about 38% of the households practicing it. Dumping the waste infront of the house is practiced by about 45%, 14% and 9% in Telangana, Rayalseema and Andhra regions respectively. The unhygienic practice of disposing off waste in the open (outside the road or in front of the house) is widely practiced in all the regions.

iii. Compost pit option is used by a very few number of households in all the three regions (0.34% in Andhra 15.74% in Rayalseema and 14.01% in Telangana).

3.5.1 Waste Water Disposal

HH Waste Water Disposal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Total

CEMT 28


Region Region Region

% % % %Freq

Drain 67.91 2.22 40.9835.9

4 679Soak Pit 25.34 93.13 31.61

45.31 856

Open 6.76 4.66 27.4118.7

4 354

Total 100 100 100 100188

9

Overall Situation: At an aggregate level, 45% of the households use soak pit for waste water disposal, followed by 36% opting for drains. About 19% leave the waste water in the open.

Regional Analysis: The region-wise analysis offers a different trend. While in Andhra region, disposing off the waste water in drains is the most frequently used option (68%), in the Rayalseema, soak pits take a precedent with an overwhelming majority (93%) choosing that option. In the Telagana region, it is roughly an even three way spilt between Drains (41%), Soak pits (32%) and Open Disposal (27%).

3.5.2 Sewage Disposal

HH Sewage Disposal

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Pit/ Own Septic Tank 96.27 87.13 92.27

92.30

599

Let in Open Ground 2.24 6.93 2.90 3.39 22

Others (Drains) 1.49 5.94 4.83 4.31 28

Total 100 100 100 10064

9 It is interesting to note that 92% of HH which have ISL are connected to own septic tank. Only 3% HH let out the sewage in open ground and rest 5% chose other options, including letting it off in the drains.

3.5.3 Fodder Waste/ Dung Disposal

Disposal of Fodder Waste/ Dung

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

House Back Yard 85.71 44.38 51.91

52.77

276

Outside Village 12.24 53.13 41.0842.0

722

0

CEMT 29


Compost Pit 2.04 2.50 7.01 5.16 27

Total 100 100 100 10052

3

Overall Situation: Live stock related waste is another major challenge faced by most villages. State-wide analysis indicates that about 53% of HH dispose it off in the house backyard and about 42% leave it outside the village. Only about 5% use compost pit option. This high percentage of unhygienic practice of livestock waste disposal turns out to be a breeding ground for flies, mosquitoes and other insects.

Regional Analysis: Region-wise figures as shown in the table above indicate a high incidence of unhygienic practices of fodder waste/dung disposal (back yard of the house and/or outside the village) across three regions.

3.6 Rural School Sanitation

School Sanitation Status

S No Category Total

1 Total No Schools796

54

2 Schools with Toilets308

03

3Schools without Toilets

48834

4 % age Coverage38.6

8

Out of 79654 schools (both Government & Pvt.) in rural area about 39% school have sanitation facilities. And there is separate facility available for girl students in higher Secondary Schools. The district wise sanitation situation is given below.

S No DistrictNo. of

SchoolsWith

Toilets

Without

Toilets

%age Covera

ge

1 Adilabad 4028 3345 666 83.4

2 Anantapur 3936 3553 383 90.27

3 Chittoor 4086 106 3980 2.59

4 Cuddapah 7066 333 6733 4.71

5 East Godavari 3561 1428 2133 40.1

6 Guntur 3828 721 3107 18.83

7 Karimnagar 3013 911 2102 30.24

8 Khammam 3932 773 3159 19.66

9 Krishna 3478 1890 1588 54.34

10 Kurnool 3020 1844 1176 61.06

11 Mahbubnagar 3860 999 2861 25.88

12 Medak 3120 1965 1155 62.98

13 Nalgonda 3897 2191 1706 56.22

14 Nellore 3612 391 3221 10.83

15 Nizamabad 1740 1082 658 62.18

CEMT 30


16 Prakasam 5783 1648 4135 28.5

17 Rangareddi 3095 870 2225 28.11

18 Srikakulam 0 0 0 0

19 Visakhapatnam 4981 3689 1292 74.06

20 Vizianagaram 2214 264 1950 11.92

21 Warangal 4114 1044 3070 25.38

22 West Godavari 3290 1756 1534 53.37

Total 79654 30803 48834 38.68

Source Baseline Survey Data 2003

3.6.1 School Sanitation in Sample Villages

Overall Situation: The school sanitation facilities in the state appears to be reasonably good with about 76% of the schools having sanitation facilities.

School Sanitation

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema

Region

Telangana

Region Total

% % % % Nos

Yes 25 100 83.33 76.19 16

No 75 0 16.67 23.81 5

Total 100(4) 100(5) 100(12) 100 21

Girl Sanitation Facilities in Schools

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Nos

Yes 100 60 9081.2

5 13

No 0 40 1018.7

5 3

Total 100 100 100 100 16

Regional Analysis: The region-wise analysis of school sanitation was conducted from two distinct perspectives: i) existence of the facility in the schools and ii) provision for sanitation facilities exclusively for girls. From the perspective of having the facility, Rayalseema region stands out with 100%, where as from the perspective of provision exclusively for girls, it is the Andhra region that stands out with an equal percentage.

Field observations during the survey indicated that maintenance of sanitation facilities in the schools is very poor; many of them have been abandoned. Proper disposal of waste is absent and in almost all schools it is let out in open. The general condition of latrines in Andhra region is reasonably good and 100% of the latrines are in working condition; in Rayalseema and Telangana regions only about 80% and 70% are in working condition.

CEMT 31


Condition of School latrines

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema

RegionTelangana Region Total

% % % % Nos

Working 100 80 70 75 12Not Working 0 20 30 25 4

Total 100 100 100 100 16

CEMT 32


4 Health and Hygiene

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Status of Water Borne Diseases

The Department of Health, has identified the Acute Diarrhoeal (including GE & Cholera), Viral Hepatitis and Enteric Fever three water born diseases.

Cases of Water Borne Diseases in Last 5 Years

S NoYear

Acute Diarrhoeal (Including GE &

Cholera)

Viral Hepatiti

sEnteric Fever

12003 1637915 23065

151882

22004 1361790 29590

148827

32005 1619537 29293

172549

42006 1331818 22990

129177

52007 1516818 10302

124414

4.3 Awareness of Water Borne Diseases in Sampled Villages

Overall Situation: Around 63% of HH in the state have reported that they have some knowledge about water borne diseases. However, deeper explorations revealed that their knowledge is limited to knowing about the occurrence diarrhea and other stomach related infections.

Knowledge About Water Borne Diseases

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Yes 72.30 73.61 57.0963.4

2119

8

No 27.70 26.39 42.9136.5

8 691

Total 100 100 100 100188

9

Regional Analysis: The Regional analysis of knowledge levels indicate that the awreness is relatively high (over 70%) in Andhra and Rayalseema regions, where as Telangana region ranks low with only about 57%.

CEMT 33


4.4 Incidence of Water Borne Diseases

Using recall method, responses were sought from the community members as to ‘how many people suffered from diseases in the last six months?’. The responses are tabulated below. High incidence of Typhoid was reported with Rayalseema region bearing the brunt of it (39.73% as compared to 4.39% in Andhra and 4.75% in Telangana region). Typhoid was followed by Malaria and the incidence of diarrhea was far lower across three regions.

Incidence of Diseases in Last 6 Months

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Typhoid 4.39 39.73 4.7513.0

224

5

Malaria 2.70 14.35 4.04 6.2711

8

Diarrhea 0.68 0.89 0.09 0.37 7

GE 0.34 0.44 1.05 0.79 15

Cholera 1.01 1.33 0.18 0.58 11

JE 0.00 0.44 1.05 0.74 14

N=1889

4.5 Water Handling Practices

Various practices are used in handling water at the household level. In more than 85% of the households water is consumed directly without any treatment, even in fluoride affected regions. About 11% HH filter the drinking water using cloth and those who boil and use candle filter are 2% of the households. Less than 2% of the households treat water using by mixing alum or herbs. Using safe practices like taking water with laddle from the container is very rare (6.56%), but protecting water container with cover or lid is widely practiced (69.35%). Customized tanks or tanks with taps are used in about 25% of the households.

Water Treatment Methods SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

No Further Treatment83.8

982.1

683.6

4158

0

Boiling 2.47 1.49 2.33 44

Filtering by Cloth11.8

515.9

912.4

4 235

Use Candle Filters 0.25 0.37 0.26 5

Mixing Alum/Herbs 1.54 0.00 1.32 25

Total 100 100 100188

9

Drinking Water Handling

CEMT 34


SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Use Laddle 7.35 1.86 6.56 124

Cover or Lid64.6

397.7

769.3

5131

0Customized Pot/Tank with Tap

28.02 0.37

24.09 455

Total 100 100 100188

9

4.6 Personal Hygiene

A series of questions were asked to understand the personal hygiene practices of respondents and the results are tabulated below. From the data it can be inferred that good personal hygiene practices exist in all the three regions with a high percentage of households washing hands before and after eating and also after defecation.

HH Member Practices Hand Wash

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Before & After Eating 14.53 3.10 3.85 5.35 101After Defecation 11.82 3.33 1.93 3.81 72

Both 73.65 93.57 94.2290.8

4171

6

Total 100 100 100 100188

9

Agent for Wash Hands

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Soap 83.11 87.80 92.8290.1

0170

2

Mud 5.74 2.66 1.05 2.17 41

Ash 3.04 6.87 1.40 2.96 56Only with Water 8.11 2.66 4.73 4.76 90

Total 100 100 100 100188

9

Soap is commonly used cleaning agent for washing hands followed by ash and mud. Only less than 5% of households wash hand with water alone.

4.7 Availability of Medical Facilities

Availability of Medical Facilities in Sampled Villages

CEMT 35


Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region

Telangana Region

Total

Primary Health Center 50 60 2538.1

0

Sub Center 0 40 5038.1

0Pvt. Medical Practitioner 50 60 66.67

61.90

Overall Situation: The availability of medical infrastructure in the sample villages were analyzed as shown in the table above and it is found that PHCs exist in about 38% of the villages and sub-centres also exist in an equal number of villages. Private Medical Practitioners are reported to be available in about 62% of the villages.

Regional Analysis: The status of health infrastructure varies significantly across three regions. Availability of PHC is the highest in Rayalseema (60%) and lowest in Telangana (25%). While the villages surveyed in Andhra region have reported no sub-centres such facilities are available in about 40% and 50% of the villages in Rayalseema and Telangana regions respectively. However, what is interesting to note that despite the availability of reasonable levels of sub-centre infrastructure, private medical practitioners thrive (66.67%) in Telangana region.

CEMT 36

Technical assistance to Gram Panchayats

Implementation and review of works


5 Institutional Performance

5.1 Introduction

The Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Department has a multi-tier organizational set up i.e. State, District, Mandal and GP. The department is headed by the Secretary, RWS&S and technically supported by Engineer-in-Chief. Institutionally, the Project Director of the State Water & Sanitation Mission is responsible for deciding policy guidelines and approval of schemes. At the District level, District Water Supply & Sanitation Mission has been operationalized with clear responsibilities for review and implementation of schemes. ZP Chairperson heads this Mission. Finalizing district plans and deciding on district IEC plans are also the responsibilities of this Mission. The District Mission is supported by District Water Supply & Sanitation Committee, headed by the District Collector.

Mandal Water Supply & Sanitation Committee, headed by the Mandal Parishad President and Village Water Supply & Sanitation Committee headed by GP President are the two grass root level institutional mechanisms to ensure planning, review and co-ordination of implementation at their respective levels.

The human resource strength at each of the levels along with their designations are presented in the following table.

Designation Level NumbersEngineer-in-Chief State 1Chief Engineers State 3Superintending Engineers State 2Joint Director (Geology) State 1Senior Geologists State 6Superintending Engineers District 20Junior Geologists District 41Executive Engineers Sub-divisional 52Deputy Executive Engineers Mandal 315Assistant Executive Engineers / Assistant Engineers

Mandal 1,831

Supporting staff * At various tiers 6,400Work charged employees * At various tiers 7,850Total 16,522

CEMT 37Assistant Executive Engineers

Assistant Engineers(1,831 nos.)


5.2 Gram Panchayat

Water supply and sanitation (WSS) schemes form an important part of the civic responsibilities of the Gram Panchayat (GP) as per 73rd constitutional amendment. The entire gamut of activities associated with drinking WSS – planning, implementation and operation and maintenance – lies with the GP and its functional committees. The Act mentions following responsibilities for Gram Panchayath:

Maintenance of water supply works on its own or by annual contract by generating adequate resources.

Construction, repairs and maintenance of drinking water wells tanks and ponds

Prevention and control of water pollution Providing sanitary latrines to households to ensure full coverage as

early as possible and adequate number of community latrines Providing sanitation and proper drainage Filling up unsanitary depressions and reclaiming unhealthy localities Earmarking places away from dwellings for dumping refuse and

manure Maintenance of general sanitation Cleaning of public roads, drains, tanks, wells and other public

spaces Construction and maintenance of public latrines Managing and control of washing and bathing places Maintenance and regulation of burning and burial grounds Disposal of unclaimed corpses and carcasses

Across the districts, people identify that the key responsibility for managing water supply and sanitation with the Gram Panchayath and Gram Panchayat staff and elected representatives are fully aware of this. However in discharging responsibilities their level of involvement varies. Few of the Gram Panchayaths are very dynamic and take keen interest in the WSS issues while others fail to live up to their minimum expected level.

5.3 Institutional Arrangement

The GPs are vested with the management responsibilities of the local drinking water and sanitation systems. However, grass root level experience indicates that the GPs are unable to efficiently manage the requirements of all the households within its jurisdiction. This inability stems from two basic problems i.e. i) large geographical spread of many village clusters within a GP and ii) lack of drinking water project management experience and poor skill sets of staff. For ease of project management, in many instances, small, easily manageable people owned institutions such as Village Water Supply and Sanitation Committees (VWSSCs) have been created. Such community based organizations (CBOs) have been successfully functioning as extended operational arms of GPs. This was tried out in sector reforms / Swajaladhara programs. VWSSCs have been formed in sector reform supported villages of Prakasham and Chittoor districts. O &M of schemes is found to be better in these villages. Timely repairs and quick and effective mobilization of tariff has been some of the achievements of VWSSCs. Marella village in

CEMT 38


Prakasam district is a case in example, where with formation of Habitation Water Supply and Sanitation Committee the operation and maintenance was quick and tariff collection was timely.

5.3.1 Compliant Redress System

There is no noticeable variation in the complaints regarding water supply between SVS and MVS. A total of 23.56% (445 numbers) of the households have reported to have registered their complaints, either with respective GP institutions or with individuals within the institutional framework. The break-up of 445 such complaints is tabulated in the table. Among SVS villages over 52% of the complaints have been registered with the GP, where as in MVS villages this percentage is placed at about 29%. The primary reason for high percentage of complaints being registered with the GP institutions in SVS villages is the close identity of the scheme with the GPs.

HH Lodging Complaints Regarding Water Supply

SVS MVS Total

% % % Freq

Yes 24.44 18.22 23.56 445

No 75.56 81.78 76.44 1444

Total 100 100 100 1889

Complaints are Lodged with

SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Village Sarpanch32.3

267.3

536.1

816

1

Ward Member10.6

1 0.00 9.44 42

Water men 0.76 0.00 0.67 3

Junior Engineer 3.54 0.00 3.15 14

Village Secratary 0.51 4.08 0.90 4

Gram Panchayat52.2

728.5

749.6

622

1

Total 100 100 10044

5

The nature of complaints of 445 households and the time taken to solve was further analyzed and presented in the two tables below. The table reveals that inadequate water supply ranks as the most important complaint (37.53%), followed by erratic timing of supply (30.56%). All other complaints such as insufficient pressure, impurities in water, bursting of water lines etc does not seem to be most bothersome complaints from users’ perspective.

About 30% of the grievances reported to have not been solved at all, while only about 4.72% of the grievances were attended to within a day. GP

CEMT 39


institutions have taken varied durations to solve rest of the grievances. While it is fully understandable that time taken to solve problems entirely depends on the nature and complexity of problems, 30% of the problems being not resolved at all amplifies the major institutional weakness.

Nature of Complaint Lodged SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Inadequate Water Supply

40.66

12.24

37.53

167

Timing of Water Supply31.0

626.5

330.5

613

6

No Sufficient Pressure 4.2910.2

0 4.94 22

Impurities in Water 7.3216.3

3 8.31 37

Bursting of Water Lines11.1

1 8.1610.7

9 48

Others 5.5626.5

3 7.87 35

Total 100 100 10044

5

Time Taken to Solve

SVS MVS Total

% % %Freq

Within a day 2.7820.4

1 4.72 21

Within 3 Days31.8

232.6

531.9

114

2

Within a Week17.1

7 2.0415.5

1 69

Within Two Weeks 7.0712.2

4 7.64 34

Within 1 Month 9.34 2.04 8.54 38

More than 1 Month 1.77 2.04 1.80 8

Never30.0

528.5

729.8

913

3

Total 100 100 10044

5

5.4 Financial Issues

It is obligatory for the GP/VWSSC to locally mobilize the resources required for the maintenance of the WSS facilities. The financial status of Panchayats varies considerably. However, it was uniformly found from the study that the Panchayats do not have adequate financial resources to meet their expenses. The income they generate is much below the anticipated expenditure. While Panchayats are responsible for O&M of

CEMT 40


schemes, they are unable to meet the requirements of O&M due to poor managerial skills and financial constraints.

5.4.1 Tariff Collection

5.4.2 Mechanisms for tariff collection

No standardized system has been adopted for determining and collecting tariff. In many cases waterman is taking the responsibility of collecting water tariff. While some districts fare better in tariff collection (e.g. Nalgonda) many lag behind and lack of concerted efforts are observed. The rate of tariff collection varies from 0% to a maximum of 25%. Not a single village has reported 100% mobilization of tariff.

5.4.3 Vulnerability

Across all villages, it is reported that resource poor households (SCs, STs) and other economically weaker sections have expressed their inability to pay. In Mahaboobnagar it is reported by some daily wage earners expressed their apprehension that there would be a steep increase in water tariff as a consequence of reforms. However, they find themselves in a highly vulnerable position because of their inability to pay, even at the current tariff levels.

CEMT 41


6 Demand and Impact Assessment

6.1 Demand Scenario

Attempts were made to gain insights on the demand scenario for improved water supply services (better water supply, expected frequency of supply, expected duration of supply, desire to obtain household connection etc) by asking a series of direct questions to the respondents. The main purpose of these questions was to understand the expectations of existing users as well as potential users from the GPs. The results are tabulated under five separate ‘demand clusters’ as presented below.

6.1.1 Better Water Supply

Close to three fourth (75.28%) of the respondents articulated the need to have improved water supply. This willingness for better supply situation is almost uniformly spread under both SVS and MVS villages. The improvements were sought in terms of i) higher frequency of supply and ii) increased duration of supply.

HH Willingness to Have Better Water Supply

SVS MVS Total % % % FreqYes 73.27 87.36 75.28 1422No 26.73 12.64 24.72 467Total 100 100 100 1889

Overall Situation: The data presented in the table below shows that community members expect a great deal of improvement in the services as compared to the present level of services currently provided (refer frequency of water supply in section 2.2.5). More than 95 % of the respondents across the state expect the frequency of supply to be increased to daily, indicating a clear cut demand for improved service delivery. Only about 5% of the respondents articulated that they would be content with water supply every alternate day. There is no great deal of region-wise variation in this demand.

Expected Frequency of Supply

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

Daily 95.24 95.37 96.4796.1

3136

7Alternate Day 4.76 4.63 3.53 3.87 55

Total 100 100 100 100142

2

CEMT 42


Overall Situation: In terms of expected hour of supply, the data indicates that a large majority (87.86%) would be happy if the supply is set at one hour a day (44.44%) and between one to two hours a day (43.32%). Only a minority expressed their demand to be set at two to three hours a day (6.19%) and more than three hours a day (6.05%).

Regional Analysis: When this demand is examined regionally, stark region-wise variations emerge, as indicated below. In Andhra region, a little more than one third (34.92%) of the respondents demand supply for more than three hours, where is in Rayalseema (14.71%) and Telangana ( 1.01%) regions the demand for more than three hours supply is far lower. However, it is clear that the predominant demand across regions is for about two hours supply daily.

Expected Hours of Supply

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Freq

1 Hr 22.22 5.72 60.1844.4

4 632

1 - 2 Hr 41.27 62.13 36.4943.3

2 6162 - 3 Hr 1.59 17.44 2.32 6.19 88More Than 3 Hr 34.92 14.71 1.01 6.05 86

Total 100 100 100 100142

2

6.1.2 Water Supply Schemes

Overall Situation: By and large, the data clearly indicates that there is a demand for improvement in supply, irrespective of the source of supply (groundwater or surface water). There is almost equal two-way split between the demand for ground water source and surface water source.

Demand for Source Based Water Scheme

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Nos

Ground Water 75 40 41.67

47.62 10

Surface Water 25 60 58.33

52.38 11

Total 100(4) 100(5) 100(12) 100 21

Regional Analysis: There is a great deal of demand (75%) for groundwater based schemes as compared to surface water based schemes (25%) amongst the people in Andhra region. The same preference is about 40% and 60% in Rayalseema and Telangana regions. The higher preference for groundwater based schemes in Andhra stems from the fact that, Andhra region being located in the water surplus zone,

CEMT 43


groundwater availability is abundant. In addition, there is also a general perception in the region that ground water is relatively less polluted as compared to surface water.

6.1.3 Household Connection

House Service Connection

Andhr

aRayalasee

ma Telanga

na %

Avg.House Service Connection 45.0 62.0 61.7 58.6Public Standpost 55.0 38.0 38.3 41.4Total 100 100 100 100

While the state-wide analysis indicates that an overwhelming majority of households (61.7%) prefer house service connections to public stand posts. Similar trend exists in two regions viz. Rayalseema and Telangana. However in Andhra region, the demand for public stand posts is more (55%) as compared to house service connections (45%). 6.1.4 Household Metering

Choice for HH Metering

Andhra 30Rayalaseema 38Telangana 41.67% Avg. 38.57

Household metering is a contentious issue. Most households are aware of the merits of metering. However, less than 40% of the households have expressed their choice for metering at the household level. This choice is highest in Telangana (41.67%) and lower in Rayalseema region (38%) and lowest in Andhra region (30%).

6.1.5 Drains/ UGD/ STP

Sanitation Options

Andhra

Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % %Nos

Open Drains 75 80 83.3380.9

5 17Under Ground Drains 25 20 16.67

19.05 4

Total 100 100 100 100 21

CEMT 44


On sanitation options (Open Drains or UGDs), the preference of the community is definitely for open drains, uniformly across regions. In all the three regions, a large number of households (75% and above) opted for open drains against under ground drainage systems, primarily because of the cost factor.

6.2 Willingness to Pay

Overall situation: On the question payment for better quality of services, the willingness of households varied on a large band commencing from a minimum of Rs 5 per month to Rs 100 per month. However, a large majority (82.09%) of the households expressed their desire to pay ranging from Rs 10 per month to Rs 30 per month. Since the overall economic levels of the surveyed households are on the lower rung of the scale, this willingness appears to be directly linked to their ability to pay.

Regional Analysis: The region-wise distribution of the willingness to pay shows the following pattern.

i. In Andhra region, only about 25% of the households are willing to pay up to Rs 30 per month and about 46% of them preferred not to express their willingness to pay in quantitative terms (can’t say)

ii. In Rayalseema region, about 65.94% are willing to pay between Rs 10 to 15 per month and about 11.44% are willing to pay Rs 30 per month. Only a fraction (2.18%) remained uncommitted.

iii. Telangana region differs significantly from the other two regions. The distribution of households is more even in all the slabs, starting from Rs 10 per month up to Rs 30 per month. However, what is more revealing is that about 11.40% of the households expressed that they were willing to pay up to Rs 50 per month. Unlike Andhra region, only a negligible percentage of 2.02% households stay uncommitted.

Willingness to Pay for Better Water Supply In Rs Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Total

% % % %Freq

5 0.00 4.09 0.61 1.48 21

10 6.56 43.87 6.1615.9

3 22615 0.00 22.07 4.54 8.88 126

20 13.11 11.17 19.5817.1

2 243

25 4.92 2.72 16.7512.6

1 179

30 24.59 11.44 33.7027.5

5 39135 1.64 0.00 1.82 1.34 1940 0.00 0.00 1.82 1.27 1845 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.21 350 3.28 2.45 11.40 8.74 124

100 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.92 13Can't 45.90 2.18 2.02 3.95 56

CEMT 45


Say

Total 100 100 100 100141

9

6.3 Technological Options

6.3.1 Water Supply

Overall Situation: Since community members are not fully aware of various technology options available for water treatment, the question was not easy for them to fathom. People generally consume water directly in ‘as is’ condition (refer water consumption data in section---). Visual appeal (not muddy) and taste (not saline or hard) are the two primary factors that they consider as quality parameters. Therefore, they do not place much emphasis on water treatment, except in extreme cases. The results of the survey as tabulated below, indicate that filtration with chlorination is preferred by almost two third (71.43%) of the households, followed by simple chlorination (23.81%). De-fluoridation is opted only by less than 5% of the households.

Technology Options - Water Supply

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema

RegionTelangana Region Total

% % % %Nos

Simple Chlorination 25 0 33.3323.8

1 5Filtration with Chlorination 75 80 66.67

71.43 15

De-fluoridation 0 20 0.00 4.76 1

Total 100 100 100 100 21

Regional Analysis: No surveyed households in Andhra region and Telangana region chose de-fluoridation as their need. The main reason for this being villages in these two regions do not suffer significantly from high fluoride problems. Using simple filtration and chlorination techniques would serve their purpose. Therefore, a majority of the households (75% and 67% respectively) have opted for this choice. In Rayalseema however, the problem of high fluoride content in water exists and in some villages this problem is wide spread and associated health problems are highly visible. Therefore, 20% of the households opting for de-fluoridation technology is entirely out of place. 6.3.2 Sanitation – Open Drains

Technology Options - Open Drains

Andhra Region

Rayalaseema Region


% % % % Nos

CEMT 46


Masonry 25 40 41.67 38.10 8

Concrete 75 60 58.33 61.90 13

Total 100 100 100 100 21 Concrete technology is preferred by a large majority of households (about 62%) in the state. There is very little inter-regional deviation in this regard.

CEMT 47


S No

Name of the Habitation

Options for Water Supply

Demand for HSC

Choice for Meter

Demand for

Sanitation

Technological Options

Water SupplyOpen Drains

GW- Ground WaterSW – Surface Water

A– 0-20%B– 20-30%C– 40- 60%D– 60-80%E– 80-100%

A– 0-20%B– 20-30%C– 40- 60%D– 60-80%E– 80-100%

A – Open DrainsB- Under Ground Drains

A- ChlorinationB- Filtration with ChlorinationC- De-fluoridation

A – MasonryB- ConcreteC- Prefabricated

1. DusiSW D A A B A

2. Kothachinnaiahpalle GW C D A B C

3. KandrigaSW C B A A C

4. NethivaripalliGW E C A B A

5. Y. KotaGW C B A B A

6. SettiguntaGW C A A A A

7. ValbhapurGW E B A C A

8. MallialSW C C B B B

9. PudurSW E B B B B

10. KistaramGW D C A C A

11. AmbatapurGW A A A A C

12. GudibandaGW C A A A A

13. MalkapurGW C C A A A

14. Adavi VenkatapurGW C D A A B

15. S. KondaSW D B A B A

16. DisrasavanchaGW B B A A A

17. PolavaramSW C C A A A

18. BasavapurGW D B A B A

19. BibinagarSW D D B B B

20. FakeerugudemSW D C A B A

21. KattangurSW C C A B B

CEMT 48

7 Performance Indicators

7.1 Selection Of Performance Indicators:

Based on the study, a few important performance indicators are being suggested which may be used to track the impact of the various initiatives of DWSS on the situation in the villages. These are given below:

S. No Performance indicator Unit State SVS MVS1

Quantity of water usage

1- Less Than 40 lpcd2- 40 lpcd3- More than 40 lpcd

2Quality of water supply

1- Not Potable 2- Potable

3

Accessibility in terms distance

1- Less than 50 mts2- 50-100 mts3- 100-200 mts4- 200-500 mts5- More than 500mts6- HH Connection

4

Reliability of water supply (Hours of Supply)

1- One Hour2- 1-2 Hour3- 2-3 Hour4- More than 3 Hour

5 Reliability of water supply (No of Day)

1- Alternate Day2- Daily

6

House Service Connection

1- 0-25% HH 2- 25-50% HH3- 50-75% HH4- 75-100 HH

7 Status of Standpost (Taps) 1- Without Tap2- With Tap

8 Water Treatment 1- Slow Sand Filtration


2- Chlorination3- Chlorination with Filtration4- De-fluoridation

9 Cleaning of OHTs 1- Not Cleaning Regularly2- Regular Cleaning

10 School Water Supply 1- Not Available2- Available

114

No of Households with ISLs

1- 0-25% HH 2- 25-50% HH3- 50-75% HH4- 75-100 HH

125

Usage of ISLs by Villagers 1- Used by None2- Partially Used3- Used by All

136

Prevalence of Open defecation 1- Near Water Source2- Near Residential Ares3- Not Near Water Source4- Not Near Residential Area

147

Presence of Drains 1- 0-25% 2- 25-50% 3- 50-75% 4- 75-100

15 Water Point Surrounding 1- Stagnant water2- Bathing/washing clothes and stagnant

water 3- No bathing/washing/defecation 4- Kept neat and with platform 5- Kept neat ,with platform and with safe

mode of disposal of waste water 16 Presence of Pavements 1- No Roads

2- Main Habitation Roads3- Internal Roads4- Both Main & Internal Roads

17 Proper Solid Waste Disposal 1- Outside & In Front of House2- In Bins

CEMT 50


3- In Bins with Proper Disposal4- In Compost Pit

18 School Toilets Usage 1- Used by None2- Used by Staff3- Used by Staff & Students

CEMT 51

7.2 Monitoring

Periodicity of monitoring:

Monitoring of the key performance indicators may be done once in six months and changes be tracked. For this purpose an abridged questionnaire can be prepared, which can be administered by an independent agency. A more detailed monitoring, wherein the household questionnaire as developed by us for the baseline survey is repeated and findings collated against the baseline results. This will allow a more comprehensive understanding of the changes taking place on a yearly basis.


8 Conclusions

This chapter summarises conclusions arrived at based on the study results. The conclusions are grouped into 14 sub-sections and they are summarized below.

Status of Rural Water Supply

Panchayati Raj institutions in Andhra Pradesh are involved in the planning and implementation of rural water supply schemes. The state has adopted 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd) as the norm for the supply of potable drinking water. The Department of Rural Water Supply has launched various schemes for providing drinking water supply to the rural population in the state. Out of 72,231 habitations 43 % of are fully covered (FC) with water supply schemes, while 53% were partially covered (PC), thus bringing the number of habitations either fully covered or partially covered to a total of about 69,342. Approximately less than 1% of the habitations still remain uncovered and about 3% habitations do not have any safe source.

Sector Reforms

The supply situation of water is extremely stressed in the state. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken many measures to decentralize delivery of RWSS through sector reforms initiatives, which have shown some positive results. They include improved coverage, improvements in supply, willingness of people to pay in exchange for better services, better awareness about O&M requirements etc. However, a number of operational and institutional shortcomings such as poor attention to O&M, lack of peoples’ participation, erratic electric supply (especially for MVS) continue to pose as major challenges.

Despite substantial investments in augmenting drinking water supply, a number of habitations that were earlier fully covered have begun to re-emerge as partially covered or not covered habitations due to drying up of sources. Therefore, for sustainable development, it is critical to optimize efficient utilization of available resource and measures will have to be initiated to conserve water including groundwater recharge, awareness creation on efficient use of water, and how each household can contribute to minimize wastage of water etc.

Access to Safe Drinking Water Supply

For a large majority of the villages groundwater is the main source of supply. Villages which depend on surface water draw water either from river or canal based schemes. In many cases privately owned hand pumps and bore wells make up for the short supply. MVS villages depend more on private sources to augment supply. High dependence on SVS for drinking water supply in the entire state is clearly visible.

Adequacy of Water Supply

CEMT 53


Water supply situation both in terms of volume adequacy and frequency (timing) is far below the set standards and barely meet the expectations of community members. Considering the minimum supply standard of 40 lpcd, a large percentage of households fall in three categories i.e. ‘just about sufficient’ ‘deficient’ and ‘extremely inadequate’ (less than 20 litres). This requires priority attention and urgent correction.

There is definitely a demand for uninterrupted water supply through out the day, or at least at pre-fixed timings during the day but GPs are unable to meet this demand. SVS villages fare better as compared to MVS in terms of frequency of supply. MVS households suffer the most in terms of infrequent supply. House hold level survey data highlights four distinct supply situation: i) those who receive supply for less than half-an-hour ii) those who receive supply between half-an-hour and one hour; iii) those who receive supply between one to two hours and iv) those who receive water supply for more than two hours.

Quality of Water

On the perception of quality of drinking water by community members Andhra Pradesh is reasonably well placed, in comparison to many other states, except for a few isolated pockets. The general perception on water quality positively favors MVS villages as compared to SVS villages.

The problem of poor quality of water includes high fluoride content, hardness, salinity and bad smell under SVS villages, where as under MVS villages they are reported to be i) muddy water, hard water and bad smell. It is also important to note that most of the perceived quality problems can be easily addressed by GPs.

Water Supply in Schools

A large majority of rural schools have the benefit of water supply in their school premises. Therefore, the water supply situation in schools is considered to be good. However, there is a regional variation, with Andhra region faring far better than the other two regions, although the upkeep of taps in this needs better attention. In the absence of water supply facility within the school premises, schools use public taps or other available sources in the neighboring areas.

Status of Rural Sanitation

Situation Analysis of rural sanitation in Andhra Pradesh indicates that close to 50% of APL families and about 25% of BPL families have access to individual household latrines. Overall, about 35% of the households have toilet facilities either within the house or in the immediate premises owned by them. Field level reality check indicates that despite having access to toilets, its actual use is very poor. The usage of toilets in the state is placed at 28%, meaning that 72% of the toilets are not put to use. As a consequence of open defecation is a common phenomenon which puts community hygiene at high risk. The overall sanitation situation and public

CEMT 54


hygiene in all the three regions is very poor and deserves a high priority attention.

It was observed that most of the households use pour flush type of toilets. Dry pit latrine is also popular with 23% of the households opting for it and the use twin pit type of home latrines rank the lowest at about 7%. Region-wise figures indicate that use of latrine is lower than 10% in Andhra region where as it is relatively high in Telangana region (32.37%). In Rayalseema region it stands at 20.79%. Therefore, significant investments are required to inform, educate and create awareness amongst community members on the merits of toilet use and to promote positive behavioral changes.

Indiscriminate disposal of garbage are observed in all the surveyed villages. Drainage maintenance is poor; they remain clogged at many places due to careless dumping of solid wastes into the drains. Only about 12.28% of the households use compost pit options, with a large majority dumping the waste either on roads (44.10%) or filing it in bins (12.02%).

Improper waste water disposal also poses a public health challenge. Less than 50% of the households use soak pit for waste water disposal, followed by one-third opting for drains. Leaving waste water in the open is also observed in about 19% of the households.

Live stock related waste is another major challenge faced by most villages. State-wide analysis indicates that about 53% of HH dispose it off in the house backyard and about 42% leave it outside the village. Only about 5% use compost pit option. This high percentage of unhygienic practice of livestock waste disposal turns out to be a breeding ground for flies, mosquitoes and other disease carriers.

School Sanitation

Out of 79654 schools (both Government & Pvt.) in rural area about 39% school have sanitation facilities. And there is separate facility available for girl students in higher Secondary Schools. Field observations during the survey indicated that maintenance of sanitation facilities in the schools is very poor and many of them have been abandoned. Proper disposal of waste is absent and in almost all schools it is let out in open.

Health & Hygiene

High incidence of Typhoid was reported in all the three regions with Rayalseema region suffering the most from it. Typhoid was followed by Malaria and the incidence of diarrhea was far lower across three regions. Good personal hygiene practices exist in all the three regions with a high percentage of households washing hands before and after eating and also after defecation. Soap is commonly used cleaning agent for washing hands followed by ash and mud.

Water Handling Practices

In majority of the households (85%) no treatment is done prior to consumption of water.. Using safe practices like taking water with laddle from the container is very rare , but protecting water container with cover

CEMT 55


or lid is widely practiced. Customized tanks or tanks with taps are also used in some households.

Medical Facilities

The status of health infrastructure varies significantly across three regions. Availability of PHC is the highest in Rayalseema and lowest in Telangana. However, what is interesting to note that despite the availability of reasonable levels of health infrastructure, private medical practitioners thrive mainly in Telangana region.

Institutional Arrangements

Across the state, people recognize that role of GPs in managing water supply and sanitation. The institutional level performance varies substantially across regions. Few of the Gram Panchayaths are very dynamic and take keen interest in the WSS issues while others fail to live up to their minimum expected level. Lack of transparency in administration prevails in most of the Panchayats.

Filed level reality check indicates that the inability of GPs to efficiently manage WSS stems from two basic problems i.e. i) large geographical spread of many village clusters within a GP and ii) lack of drinking water project management experience and poor skill sets of staff. Village Water Supply and Sanitation Committees (VWSSCs) are active in some places and O &M of schemes is found to be better in these villages. Timely repairs and quick and effective mobilization of tariff has been some of the achievements of VWSSCs.

System of grievances redress is weak. Survey data highlights the fact that almost 30% of the complaints raised by the community members remain unresolved. PRIs take varied durations to solve public grievances. While it is fully understandable that time taken to solve problems entirely depends on the nature and complexity of problems, 30% of the problems being not resolved at all amplifies the inherent institutional weakness. No serious efforts have been made to address water equity issues and vulnerability of marginalized households.

Demand Assessment

Close to three fourth of the households articulated the need for improvements in water supply. This demand for better supply situation is almost uniformly spread across SVS and MVS villages. The improvements were sought in terms of i) higher frequency of supply and ii) increased duration of supply. An overwhelming majority of more than 95 % of the households across the state expect the frequency of supply to be increased to daily, indicating a clear cut demand for improved service delivery. No significant regional variation has been noticed in this demand. There is a great deal of demand for groundwater based schemes as compared to surface water based schemes, especially amongst the people in Andhra region. The higher preference for groundwater based schemes in Andhra region stems from the fact that groundwater availability is abundant or at least perceived to be abundant. In addition, there is also a

CEMT 56


general perception in the region that ground water is relatively less polluted as compared to surface water.

Most households in Rayalseema and Telangana regions prefer house service connections to public stand posts. However in Andhra region, the demand for public stand posts is more as compared to house service connections. People are fully aware of the merits of metering. However, less than 40% of the households have expressed their choice for metering at the household level. This choice is highest in Telangana (42%) and lower in Rayalseema region (38%) and lowest in Andhra region (30%).

On sanitation options (Open Drains or UGDs), the preference of the community is definitely for open drains, uniformly across regions. In all the three regions, a large number of households opted for open drains vis-a-vis UGDs, primarily because of the cost factor.

Willingness to Pay

On the question payment for better quality of services, the willingness of households varies on a large band commencing from a minimum of Rs 5 per month to Rs 100 per month. However, a large majority of the households expressed their desire to pay ranging from Rs 10 per month to Rs 30 per month. Since the overall economic levels of the surveyed households are on the lower rung of the scale, this willingness to pay appears to be directly linked to their ability to pay.

CEMT 57


Annexure

HH Questionnaire

FDG Checklist

CEMT 58

Technical assistance to Gram Panchayats

Implementation and review of works


CEMT 59Assistant Executive Engineers

Assistant Engineers(1,831 nos.)

Date post:	02-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rahul-k-awade
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Baseline DFRversion AP

Documents