| Terms of Reference and Composition |
The National Commission on Population vide their order
No. 11011/25/2000 - NCP dated 4th October 2000 inter alia constituted
a Sub-Group on "Strategies to Address Unmet Needs for Public Health.
Drinking Water, Sanitation and Nutrition" under the chairmanship
of Dr. B.B. Sundaresan, Ex. Vice Chancellor Madras University as
one of the Sub-Groups under the Working Group on "Strategies to
Address Unmet Needs". The Terms of Reference and composition of
the Sub-Group are as under:
|
|
Terms
of Reference
|
|
a)
|
To
identify gaps |
|
b)
|
To examine
and suggest alternative strategies, inter alia recent developments
and innovations with due regard to cost effectiveness and optimization
of resources, with the objective of contributing to the fulfillment
of the objectives of the National Population Policy.
|
|
c)
|
To consider
any other matter related with or incidental to the above terms
of reference.
|
|
|
|
|
Composition
|
|
1.
|
Dr. B.B. Sundaresan - Chairman
Ex - Vice Chancellor (Madras University),
46, Cowley Brown Road,
R.S. Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002.
|
|
2.
|
Prof. K.J. Nath, Director -Professor of Env. Sanitation
&
Head of Sanitary Engg.
All India Institute of Hygiene & Public Health.
110, Chittarajan Avenue, Calcutta, West Bengal.
|
|
3.
|
Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak
Founder,
Sulabh International Social Service Organization.
Sulabh Bhavan, RZ-83 Mahavir Enclave,
Dabri Road, Palam, New Delhi.
|
|
4.
|
Shri L.R. Thanga, D.I.G.F
Ministry of Environment & Forest,
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
New Delhi.
|
|
5.
|
Shri V. B. Rama Prasad, Adviser (PHE), CPHEEO,
Deptt. of Urban Development,
"A" Wing, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
|
|
6.
|
Shri V. Asokan, Director
National Commission on Population,
Yojana Bhavan, New Delhi
|
|
7.
|
Ms. P.V. Valsala G. Kutty, Director (TM)
Deptt. of Drinking Water Supply
Paryravaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
|
|
8.
|
Shri A.K. Singh, Director (Sanitation)
Ministry of Rural Development,
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
|
|
9.
|
Dr. (Smt.) Prema Ramachandran, Adviser
Health, FW & Nutrition Division
Planning Commision, New Delhi
|
|
10.
|
Shri Gautam Basu, Jt. Secretary
Deptt. of Family Welfare
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
|
|
11.
|
Dr. Rekha Bhargava, Jt. Secretary
Deptt. Of Women & Child Development
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
|
|
12.
|
Ms. Sujatha Rao, Jt. Secretary
Department of Health,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
|
|
13.
|
Ms. Imrana Qadir, Professor (Population Studies),
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi
|
|
14.
|
Dr. B.K. Tiwari, Nutrition Adviser
Directorate General of Health Services,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi.
|
|
15.
|
Dr. R.C. Kalra, Dy. Director General (RHS)
Directorate General of Health Services
Directorate General of Health Services
|
|
16.
|
Shri K.P. Katailiha, Convenor
Dy. Adviser (WS)
Planning Commission,
New Delhi
|
|
|
|
This
report is presented in two parts, one discussing the unmet needs on
Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation (Rural and Urban) and the second
on Public Health and Nutrition. On the whole, the report focuses on
main issues, which is useful for policy formulation. Emphasis has
been given on convergence of programmes at the grassroots level (habitation/village)
to bring about impact on the family to control and stabilize population
by 2045.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
Left
to Right: Shri V. B. Rama Prasad, Adviser, Deptt. of Urban Development,
Shri K.P. Katailiha, Convenor, Dr. B.B. Sundaresan, Ex - Vice Chancellor
(Madras University).
|
| |
|
|
The
population growth has yet to stabilize itself which increased from
250 million in the first decade of the 20th Century to 1000 million
(four-fold) in the last decade at the century. Though the death rate
has gone down drastically from 42/1000 to 10/1000 during this period,
along with the birth rate from 50/1000 to 25/1000, there is a large
gap between the birth rate and the death rate.
|
|
The urban population
has been growing at a much faster rate and that of urban slums at
still faster rate due to growing industrialization and urbanization.
Total urban population and slum population (class-wise) in 1991 is
indicated in Table-l. The urban slum population has gone up from about
25 million to 62 million in two decades. Urban squatter settlements
have sprung up with poor or no civic amenities. Coverage of civic
services is very low. India currently faces the dual nutrition burden
of under nutrition (including micro-nutrient deficiencies) and over-nutrition;
however the focus was on efforts to reduce under-nutrition and associated
high IMR and under-five mortality rates and achieve the goals set
in the NPP 2000. The fact that the mild and moderate degrees at under-nutrition
in childhood and infant and child mortality have not shown substantial
decline in the nineties is a matter of concern. In order to achieve
the rapid decline in both under-nutrition and mortality in childhood,
the Ninth Plan advocated that there should be universal screening
of the children for health and nutritional problems and appropriate
intervention. In addition to initiatives in nutrition and health sectors,
the focus is to be on improving inter-sectoral coordination and convergence
of services between ICDS and health workers.
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Population in cities/towns and identified/estimated Slum Population
in 1991
|
|
|
(Population
in Lakhs)
|
|
| Size-class
category of Cities/Towns |
No. of Cities/Towns |
TotalPopulation |
Slum population |
Percentage
to total population |
Percentage
of total slum population |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
> 10 lakh
population |
23 |
709.966 |
188.659 |
26.6 |
41.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5-10 lakh population |
31 |
214.500 |
42.555 |
19.8 |
9.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-5 lakh population |
39 |
151.239 |
28.596 |
18.9 |
6.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-3 lakh population |
207 |
325.139 |
54.493 |
16.8 |
11.9 |
|
|
Total Class
- I |
300 |
1400.844 |
314.303 |
22.4 |
68.8 |
|
|
50,000 to 99,999
Pop. |
345 |
236.288 |
47.151 |
20.0 |
10.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<50,000
Pop. |
3052 |
520.581 |
95.232 |
18.3 |
20.9 |
|
|
Total |
3697*
|
2157.713*
|
456.686* |
21.2 |
100.0 |
|
|
*Excluding Jammu & Kashmir.
Source: TCP |
|
PART
I - DRINKING WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION (RURAL AND URBAN)
|
|
|
|
Still
a very large population is deprived of safe water facility. The sanitation
coverage continues to be extremly low. About 70-80% diseases are water
and sanitation related. As per an estimate, 1.5 million children below
the age of 5 die and 200 million human days are lost every year due
to water related diseases. Most deaths occur due to water related
diseases. Most deaths occur due to diarrhoea and jaundice and unless
cases of these two diseases are reduced, the IMR and morbidity rate
cannot be reduced. One of the basic requirements is therefore to have
a large conglomeration approach to address adequately the unmet needs
of basic services/goods such as primary health care, nutrition, safe
drinking water and proper hygiene and sanitation, so as to achieve
population stabilisation to a level, which will provide a decent quality
of life to all citizens, rather than a small percentage of urban elite.
Greater focus need to be given to the district/areas, where the morbidity
and mortality rates are high. Convergence of services at grassroot
level will bring forth effective family welfare and hence need to
be focussed at policy level.
|
| Drinking
Water Supply and Sanitation |
|
The primary responsibility
of providing safe drinking water and sanitation facilities rests with
the State Governments and the local bodies. The magnitude and urgency
of the problem of drinking water in rural areas had, however, prompted
the Central Government to support the programme of provision at rural
drinking water supply. The Central Government besides giving technical
assistance, has been supplementing the efforts of the State Governments
by providing financial assistance to the State Governments through
the Centrally Sponsored Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP)
since 1977-78. In 1986, the "National Drinking Water Mission" (currently
known as "Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission") was launched
as apart of ARWSP with a view to provide cost-effective technology
inputs to rural water supply programme through an integrated and inter-disciplinary
approach. In order to pay focussed attention to rural drinking water
supply and sanitation programme, a separate Department. viz., Department
of Drinking Water Supply has been created in October 1999. Under this
Centrally Sponsored Scheme, increasingly larger assistances have been
provided from Plan to Plan. The Ninth Plan outlay for the Scheme is
as high as Rs. 8150 crore and the BE 2001-02 Rs. 2010 crore.
|
|
A new Centrally
Sponsored Scheme of Rural Sanitation was initiated in 1986, although
with limited financial input. Due to resource constraint and other
competing demands, no such efforts could, however, be possible in
the case of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation till the end of the
Seventh Plan, except a few support programmes like PHE training, R&D,
MIS etc. The Eighth Plan under the Central Plan, initiated 2 Centrally
Sponsored Schemes viz., Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme for
Small Towns with Population less than 20,000 (as per 1991 census)"
and "Low Cost Sanitation Scheme for Liberation of Scavengers" and
accommodated small amounts of Rs. 50 crore and Rs.150 crore for them
respectively.
|
|
In the State Sector,
the Basic minimum Services (BMS) was included from the year 1996-97
in place of MNP and Additional Central Assistance (ACA) was provided
to the States. Water Supply (Rural and Urban) and Rural Sanitation
were included under the BMS. Subsequently, in 2000-01, Prime Minister's
Gramodaya Yojana (PMGY) was initiated in place of the BMS. The PMGY
includes Rural Water Supply as one of the 5 components viz., Primary
Education, Primary Health, Rural Shelter, Rural Drinking Water and
Nutrition, for which Rs.2500 crore as ACA has been provided in the
year 2000-01.
|
|
Annexure-2 indicates
the outlays provided for water supply and sanitation sector in the
successive Five Year Plans at current prices and their proportions
in the corresponding total Public Sector Plans. The Table-2 indicates
the outlay provided under the State and Central Plans tor Rural and
Urban Sub-Sectors during the Ninth Plan vis-a-vis the Eighth Plan.
It shows that the outlay for the Ninth Plan in nominal terms (current
price) has been increased from Rs. 16,711 to Rs. 39,538 crores. Average
per capita input has risen from Rs. 167/- to Rs. 395/-.
|
|
Table-2
(Rs. Crore)
|
|
|
Eighth
Plan (1992-97)
|
Ninth
Plan (1997-02)
|
| Sub-Sector |
State/UT
|
Central
|
State/UT
|
Central
|
|
Plan
|
Plan
|
Plan
|
Plan
|
|
| a) Rural
Water Supply |
4955
|
5100
}
|
|
8150
|
|
|
}
|
12264
|
|
| b) Rural
Sanitation |
294
|
380
}
|
|
500
|
|
| Total
(a+b): |
5249
|
5480
|
12264
|
8650
|
|
| c) Urban
Water Supply |
}
|
338
}
|
|
644
|
|
5494
}
|
}
|
17760
|
|
| d) Urban
Sanitation |
}
|
150
}
|
|
220
|
| Total
(c+d): |
5494
|
488*
|
17760
|
864**
|
|
| GRAND TOTAL
(a to d) |
10743
|
5968
|
30024
|
9514
|
|
(16711)
|
(39538)
|
|
|
*
Including IEBR of HUDCO
** Excluding IEBR of HUDCO. |
|
The Eleventh Finance
Commission has allocated a sum of Rs.500 crore for augmenting traditional
water sources. Similarly, it has also allocated Rs.1600 crores as
assistance to local bodies (PRIs) annually, part of which can also
be used for water supply schemes.
|
| Rural
Water Supply |
|
With the massive
investment made during the various Five Year Plans by the State and
Central Governments, the results achieved have also been apparently
quite impressive. Table-3 shows that a large number of 'Villages were
identified as "Problem Villages" * in the survey conducted in 1972,
1980 and 1985 and most of them were subsequently covered. The survey,
conducted in 1985, identified 1.62 lakh "problem Villages", of which
all except 3,000 were covered with at least one safe source of water
supply till the beginning of the Eighth Plan.
|
|
Table-3
Progressive Coverage of Problem Villages (PVs)
|
|
|
No.
of PVs
|
|
|
Identified
|
Covered
|
| 1972 |
|
152000 |
|
| 1980 |
Upto Start
of VI Plan |
|
94000 |
| 1980 |
|
321000@ |
|
| 1980-85 |
During VI
Plan |
|
192000 |
| 1985 |
|
162000@ |
|
|
Coverage
during VII |
|
159000 |
|
Plan + 2
Annual Plans |
|
|
| 1992-97 |
|
3000 |
|
| @
Including spill over from preceding Plan. |
| |
|
* Where
there was no dependable source of water within a resonable distance,
say 1.6 km walking distance or 100 mtr elevation difference
in hilly areas, or the available source of water was endemic
to water borne diseases; or the water contained excessive chemical
contamination.
|
|
|
While the 1985
List of "problem villages" was almost to be exhausted, the survey,
conducted by the State Governments during 1991-93 and revalidated
in 1994 with the help of reputed NGOs and Research Organisations has
given a new dimension to the problem of rural water supply. The survey
showed that a very large number of "no-source" villages and habitations
have emerged due to the depletion of water tables, use of improper
technology, socio-cultural factors, malfunctioning of water supply
systems etc. Revenue villages as a unit, to indicate full coverage
was found to be deceptive, as one source did not provide services
to several habitations, within a revenue village. Deep rooted social
cleavage prevented use of one source by deprived sections of society.
In order to better reflect service satisfaction, habitation as a unit
was adopted in 1994-95, in place of revenue village. This would cover
several habitations within a village. The present status as updated
in 1996-97 and taking into account the subsequent coverage during
1997 -98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and further updated in 1999-2000,
is indicated in Table-4.
|
|
Table-4
|
|
|
|
|
(No.
of habitations) |
|
As on 1.4.94 |
As on 1.4.97 |
As on 1.4.2000 |
Target |
|
|
(Revised)
|
|
2000-01 |
|
| Not Covered
(NC) |
1.41 lakh |
0.88 lakh |
0.26 lakh |
0.14 lakh |
| Partially
Covered (PC) |
4.30 lakh |
3.91 lakh |
2.13 lakh |
0.71 lakh |
| Fully Covered
(FC) |
7.47 lakh |
9.51 lakh |
11.83 lakh |
|
|
| Total |
13.18 lakh |
14.30 lakh |
14.22 lakh |
0.85 lakh |
| of which
Quality |
1.51 lakh |
1.40 lakh
|
2.17 lakh
|
NR |
| Problem habitations |
|
|
|
|
| with excess
fluoride, |
|
|
|
|
| arsenic,
salinity and |
|
|
|
|
| iron. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The disaggregated
achievements widely differed in the case of some States. For example,
as on 1.4.2000, while at the all India level, the number of "NC" villages/habitations
was only 1.84%, in the States like Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan,
the same were 15.24%, 21.00% and 8.37% respectively. Similarly, while
at the all India level, the number of "PC" villages/habitations was
15.00% in the States like Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,
Rajasthan, West Bengal and Assam, the same were about 71,41, 33,31,30
and 34 per cent respectively.
|
| |
|
The National Agenda
for Governance seeks to provide safe drinking water to all habitations
within five years i.e.. by March 2004.
|
| Issues
|
| Three
focussed issues emerged for serious consideration: |
| -
Access and coverage |
| -
Sustainability of the installed systems |
| -
Reliability of water source. |
| a.
Access/Coverage |
| -
Large number of partially covered villages/habitations |
| -
Emerging problem villages and habitations -no-source and acute quality
problem due to over exploitation of ground water, scanty rain fall and
frequent droughts. |
| -
Remaining areas - more difficult and inaccessible. |
| -
Inter-State & Inter-regional imbalances in coverage. |
| -
Increasing cost of new water supply schemes. |
| b.
Sustainability |
| |
| -
Heavy emphasis on new construction and little attention to maintenance.
|
| -
Poor quality of construction. |
| -
Non-involvement of people in Planning, design as well as operations
and maintenance. |
| -
Poor Operation and maintenance is the result of |
|
- Using
inappropriate technology, which is not sustainable and cost-effective.
|
|
- Insignificant
delegation of responsibilities and power to Panchayat/community,
lack of communication and social mobilisation efforts, lack
of involvement of community/women/ NGOs.
|
|
- Lack of
sense of ownership.
|
|
- Absence
of operational WATSAN Committees.
|
|
- Lack of
awareness, health education, advocacy.
|
|
- Lack of
skilled human power at grass root level. Inadequate training
of various functionaries.
|
|
- Inadequate
funds.
|
|
- Insufficient
resource-generation/cost-sharing. No recovery even where rates
fixed.
|
|
- Inadequate
MIS and Evaluation
|
|
- Absence
of O&M manual in local languages.
|
| |
|
| c.
Reliability of Water Sources |
| |
| -
Unscientific drawl of ground water results in fast depletion of groundwater
level, which also increases incidence of quality problems of Arsenic,
Salinity and Fluoride. |
| -
Sources go dry and defunct due to deforestation and lack of protection.
|
| -
No recharging efforts undertaken particularly due to lack of inter-
departmental coordination. |
| -
Neglect of traditional water management strategies |
|
Critical review
of these issues at the end of each Five Year Plan would have helped
rectify the situation and mid-course corrections indicated to States.
Mere increase in allocation has not resulted in citizens' satisfaction
at grass-root level. Holistic approach for people's control of water
supply will lead not only to effective management of the system, but
identify deficiencies promptly. Rural water supply systems are small
which the local community can manage effectively provided they are
empowered. Several success stories have emerged in different States,
which need be replicated.
|
| -
Local community must be involved right from the beginning to |
| -
Identify the source; |
| -
Preparation of cost estimates; |
| -
Location of supply points; |
| -
Cost sharing of the scheme; |
| -
O&M; |
| -
Local technical input; |
| -
System fully owned, operated and maintained by the community, under
the Panchayati Raj dispensation; |
| -
Central Government support must go directly to the Village Panchayat
for effective utilization of funds; |
| -
Micro water-shed Protection and Promotion for reliability of source;
|
| -
Ground Water, Forest and Revenue Departments support to be provided
to the community at Habitation level; |
| -
Technology screening; |
| -
Expert groups at Block/District level to screen and monitor habitation
level water supply systems. |
| Rural
Sanitation
|
|
Status of rural
sanitation in India is basically different from that of water due
to socio-cultural habits in widely spread out rural India. While in
the case of water, a target of 100 per cent coverage of population
could be set and achieved within the next five years, it may not be
so in the case of sanitation in rural areas. Present coverage of population
with sanitary latrines is hardly 20%. Approach strategy and target
to be set has to be different for rural sanitation as the population
is thinly spread out. However, the problem of sanitation is more acute
in densely populated urban squatter settlements. Rural sanitation
is neither perceived by the majority as a basic need nor provided
as a public good. It was only in 1986, that the Government of India
formulated the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) and Rural
Sanitation Programme came under the State Sector Minimum Needs Programme
(MNP) in 1987.
|
| Issues
|
| Socio-cultural
|
| -
Verifying perception of people and community at local level regarding
personal hygiene and public health. eg: Cleanliness and Hygiene among
rural communities, Kerala -Bihar. |
| -
Limited knowledge on sanitation related diseases. Particularly among
school going children. |
| -
Literacy levels and community hygiene. |
| -
Low emphasis on IEC. |
| -
High density vs low density population. |
| Technology
Issues |
| -
Latrines and related activities: |
| -
Individual vs community types. |
| -
Types of latrines and acceptability |
| -
Double-pit pour-flush |
| -
Septic tanks |
| -
Dry and wet types |
| -
Technology upgradation |
| -
Vacuum-pumps fitted in carts in high density areas. |
| -
Cost sharing in construction and O&M. |
| |
| Policy
Issues |
| -
Sharing of costs |
| -
State vs Centre |
| -
Community vs Government. |
| -
O&M costs sharing. |
| -
Linkage with related programmes, such as water supply, sanitation, public
health, nutrition to commence from school going children upwards. |
| -
Unit for implementation -Habitatiorn / Village / Panchayat / Block /
District. |
| |
|
The restructured
CRSP (w.e.f. 1.4.1999) proposes to move away from the principle of
State-wise allocations, primarily based on poverty criteria to a demand-driven
approach and the States would be required to formulate "Total Sanitation
Campaign" (TSC) in selected districts in order to claim Central assistance.
To allow time for proper grounding of the new approach, it has been
decided to also continue with the existing "allocation- based" programme.
The latter would however be progressively phased out within a couple
of years and TSCs would be supported both by the GOI and the State
Governments as per the funding pattern. The physical implementation
would have to be oriented towards felt-need using "vertical up- gradations"
concept, herein beneficiaries, individual or institutions get to choose
from a menu of options, that allow for subsequent up gradation depending
upon their requirement and financial position. The main features of
the restructured Rural Sanitation programme are as under:
|
|
- Shift from high
subsidy to low-subsidy regime. from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 500/- per latrine
(inclusive of both Central subsidy as well as State subsidy)
|
|
-
Greater household involvement
|
|
-
Group toilets/Pay & use toilets in high density" areas.
|
|
- Technology options
as per choice of beneficiaries.
|
|
- Stress on software
programme (IEC).
|
|
- Emphasis on
School Sanitation.
|
|
- Tie up with
various Rural Development programmes.
|
|
- Involvement
of NGOs/VOs and local groups.
|
|
- Seek institutional
finance (NABARD etc).
|
| |
| Urban
Water Supply and Sanitation |
|
Urban water supply
and sanitation have remained an important area of concern and allocation
of funds have been made since the First Five Year Plan. The Plan outlay
for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation, which was Rs. 43 crore in the
beginning, increased to Rs. 550 crore by the Fifth Five Year Plan.
However, despite a rapid increase in the urban population there was
a gradual shift in priority from Urban to Rural Sector from the Sixth
Plan onwards. The percentage share of the sector's outlay out of the
total public sector outlay only showed marginal increase from 1.28%
to 1.38% between the First Plan and the Eighth Plan. In the Ninth
Plan, this however, dramatically improved to 2.17%
|
|
There was no Central
or Centrally Sponsored Scheme for urban water supply till the end
of Seventh Plan. In the year 1993, a new Centrally Sponsored Scheme
viz., Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme for Small Towns with
Population less than 20,000 (as per 1991 census) was initiated with
50:50 funding pattern between the Centre and the States. The Ninth
Plan includes Rs.370 crore under the Central Plan. So far projects
for 575 towns covering a population of 68.38 lakh (as per 1991 census)
have been approved at an estimated cost of Rs. 708.57 crore. Assistance
of Rs. 265.57 crore has already been released by the Centre to the
States by the end of 2000-01. 145 project have already been completed/commissioned.
|
|
In the absence
of any regular/periodical monitoring arrangement, it has not been
possible to ascertain, with accuracy the factual position of population
coverage with regard to drinking water supply and sanitation facilities
in urban areas. By the end of Seventh Plan, the reported coverage
with regard to potable drinking water and sanitation was at the level
of 84% and 48% respectively, which has risen to 89% and 60% at the
end of March 2000. However, these figures are tentative, as some States
are yet to furnish the latest data. The State-wise position of coverage
is indicated in Annexure-III. However, the service levels of water
supply in most of the cities and towns are far below the desired norm,
in some cases particularly the smaller towns, even below the rural
norms. The coverage figures are based on average supply level and
therefore, does not truly reflect the inter - state and regional disparities
within the States. In a city/town, there are pockets of affluence
and over-supply of water, depriving the poor, particularly those living
in slums and squatter settlements. Many such locations within a city/town
do not receive any supply at all during dry seasons. Annexure -IV
indicates the water supply population in a few selected cities/towns.
Similarly in the case of urban sanitation, though about 60% of the
population has provision of sanitary excreta disposal facilities,
only 30% had sewerage system and the balance 30% had only low cost
sanitation facility. Even where sewered, the same are partial and
without adequate or any treatment facilities in most of the cases.
There were around 69 lakh houses without any latrine facility. In
the case of solid waste, on an average the collection efficiency ranges
from 70% to 90% of the generated waste in metro cities and is less
than 50% in several smaller towns. Of this, only 50% is disposed sanitarily.
Separate arrangements are generally non-existent for safe disposal
of industrial, hospital and other toxic and hazardous wastes.
|
| |
|
General
Problems of UWS&S
|
| |
India's
UWSS Sector faces many problems and is currently bound by a
vicious circle of circumstances. Notably:
|
| |
Many UWSS
providers are not financially viable and are unable to maintain
services without extensive subsidies, eg: percentage of revenue
generation to O&M cost in cities of Calcutta, Nagpur, Pune,
Ludhiana Lucknow and Kanpur (in March 1998) was 14,48,49,40,50
and 78 respectively.
|
| |
Several
low income areas within a city/town have not been provided basic
water supply and sanitation services. Even where provided, often
complain of low quality due to insufficient funding of O&M.
|
| |
Sanitation
services in particular, are generally inadequate and access
to acceptable services are extremely limited in urban squatter
settlements/slums.
|
| |
Affluent
sections within a city/town are not only covered, but better
served
|
| |
Environmental
degradation continues due to multiplicity of factors.
|
| |
UWSS needs
competent professionals in water treatment, distribution, sewage
treatment, solid waste management and urban sanitation.
|
| |
UWSS managers
lack management skills, autonomy and accountability for their
performance. Following elements of strategy on improving urban
water supply and sanitation need to be adopted.
|
| -
|
Support
for training of' professionals in special areas of' water treatment,
distribution, urban sewerage, solid waste management.
|
| -
|
Updating
skills of operating/field level professionals. |
| -
|
Competent
professionals are required in large numbers to improve UWSS services.
However, the Government of India shall provide the financial assistance
to introduce professional courses and training of large number
of professionals in UWSS. Unless a competent cadre of professionals
are in place, services will continue to be poor. |
| -
|
Democratic
Decentralization through municipalisation of responsibility for
Urban Water Supply & Sanitation services. |
| - |
Tariff structure should be such that while recovering full O&M
cost, it promotes equitable distribution of treated water to all
sections of society. |
| -
|
Transparent
subsidization by local authorities, where necessary. |
| -
|
Rehabilitation
and modernization of existing water supply utilities through updated
technology, manned by competent professionals. |
|
|
Specific
Issues Relating to Urban Sanitation
|
|
The issues are
technical, financial and more importantly institutional and behavioural.
|
|
| a)
Technical: |
|
-
|
Lack
of specially trained professionals to manage UWSS. |
|
|
-
|
Out
moded and inappropriate technology. |
|
|
-
|
Under
utilization of facilities in technological institutions to train
professionals at top, middle and field level professionals. |
|
|
-
|
Supply
and demand of professionals for UWSS do not match. |
|
|
-
|
Incentives
for UWSS professionals for the services to be attractive. |
|
|
-
|
Old
densely built urban centres pose technological challenges for
which appropriate technology is needed. |
|
|
-
|
Lack
of faith in UWSS professionals, who are appointed on ad-hoc basis
rather than on expertise. |
|
|
| b)
Financial: |
|
-
|
High
cost of urban sewerage systems. |
|
|
-
|
Low allocation
for cities/towns : Allocation to sewerage only around 10% of
funds for water supply.
|
|
|
-
|
No Central/Centrally
Sponsored Scheme to assist State Government/Local Bodies except
low cost sanitation scheme, that too with grossly inadequate
funds. NRCP confined to only a few cities/towns on the banks
of selected rivers.
|
|
|
-
|
Insufficient revenue generation for running the system. |
|
|
| c)
Socio-Cultural: |
|
-
|
Inadequate motivation/generation of felt-need for having sanitary
latrines. |
|
|
-
|
Inconvenient location of public toilets due to social cleavage.
|
|
|
-
|
Lack of public health and hygiene education among poor sections
of society. |
|
|
-
|
Deep divisions among urban poor and the affluent. |
|
|
-
|
Elitist groups enjoy more benefits at the cost of urban poor.
|
|
|
| d)
Management: |
|
-
|
Lack of MIS |
|
|
-
|
Lack of
integrated Environmental Sanitation approach and linkage with
water supply and health efforts in particular.
|
|
|
-
|
Technical professionals lack management skills. |
|
|
-
|
Insufficient efforts for sensitizing Decision Makers / Administrators
/Planners. |
|
|
|
Recommendations:
Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
|
|
|
District
should be treated as a Unit for collection, collation and monitoring
of programmes - both water supply and sanitation. ln the case
of bigger districts, where population is several lakhs, blocks
should be treated as a unit.
|
|
|
In view
of achieving targets, focussing on convergence of services and
coverage of habitation shall be treated as the unit, within
a revenue village and reported district-wise. Per capita cost
of hand pumps, piped water supply will vary considerably due
to agro-climatic conditions from district to district and State
to State. District-wise costing will be more appropriate and
to be adopted.
|
|
|
Coordination
at the Block level shall be encouraged for effective convergence
of various programmes at habitation level.
|
|
|
Vertical
and sectoral approach by participating departments should be
discouraged at Block level.
|
|
|
Emphasis
must be laid on stake-holders participation at all levels, from
planning, design, location implementation and management.
|
|
|
Data collection
shall be 100% at Village Block and District levels for effective
monitoring. Once collected and put on computerised data base,
shall be updated periodically.
|
|
|
In view
of increasing water quality problem and health hazards there
from, it is necessary to institutionalise water quality monitoring
and surveillance systems. Central assistance under the Centrally
Sponsored Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme (ARWSP) shall
be utilized for setting up stationary as well as mobile water
testing laboratories in all the district headquarters.
|
|
|
All districts
having no water testing facility shall utilize Rajiv Gandhi
National Drinking Water Mission funds for establishing such
facility.
|
|
|
The community
has to be made quality conscious through health education and
awareness campaign and water testing kits shall be made available
to them.
|
|
|
The habitations,
which are covered with water supply facility, but the water
available is unsafe for consumption due to excess of arsenic
fluoride, TDS iron and other toxic matters, should not be treated
as covered.
|
|
|
All possible
measures for rain water harvesting and ground water recharging
must be taken. There should be continuous monitoring of the
sources, so that the habitations once covered do not fall back
in the category of uncovered for which interdepartmental coordination
at Block level need be activated.
|
|
|
Technology
choice, in case of water quality related schemes (Fluoride,
Iron, Arsenic, TDS), shall be District/Block specific.
|
|
|
Highest
priority shall be given to operation & maintenance and evolve
suitable institutions and funding arrangements through community
participation. If required, Plan and non-Plan funding may be
enhanced.
|
|
|
Major repairs
and replacement / rehabilitation may be allowed as Plan schemes.
|
|
|
Decentralize
the operation and maintenance by making the beneficiaries and
Panchayats stake-holders in the system and responsibility to
rest with the Panchayats.
|
|
|
Government
of' India has introduced reforms in the rural water supply sector
w.e.f. 1.4.1999, with a view to institutionalize community participation
in Rural Water Supply Programme, which must be pursued.
|
|
|
Traditional
sources shall be identified, strengthened and developed with
community involvement.
|
|
|
| -- |
Recycling
of waste water should be developed as a part of habit.
Waste water should be recycled/ used for recharging ground
water sources through soakage-pits.
|
| -- |
Total
Sanitation Campaign (TSC) approach of the Restructured
Centrally Sponsored Sanitation programme (w.e.f. 1.4.1999),
which is based on the successful model of' Midnapur (West
Bengal), may be considered for adoption in other districts
of the country with appropriate changes to suit the local
conditions and perception.
|
| -- |
School
Sanitation (toilet facility) should be given highest priority
to inculcate safe hygienic habits among school children.
|
|
|
| Urban
Water Supply & Sanitation |
|
|
MIS Cell
shall be created with adequate Staff at the Central and State
level. They may be accountable for data collection, compilation
and dissemination.
|
|
|
|
Adequate
financial support shall be provided under plan schemes.
|
|
|
|
MIS Cell
at the State level should collect, compile the data and disseminate
to the Centre through NIC network.
|
|
|
|
Per capita
water supply cost norm as per the Manual on "Water Supply and
Treatment" published by the Ministry of' UD&PA may be followed.
|
|
|
|
Repayment
of both O&M and Capital cost shall be through participatory
approach.
|
|
|
|
Municipal
solid waste management systems need be strengthened through
adequately trained professionals and restructuring existing
systems.
|
|
|
|
Engineering
colleges, Institutions should be supported to start solid waste
management courses for municipal services. Financial assistance
need be provided for conducting such courses.
|
|
|
|
As the availability
of Plan funds are too inadequate as compared to the requirement
of the sector, it is necessary that the principle of full cost
recovery should be adopted.
|
|
|
|
As the safe
drinking water supply has a direct bearing on the health of
the people and can reduce the morbidity and mortality rate to
a great extent, the Government may consider enlarging the scope
of the ongoing Accelerated Urban Water Supply Programme to cover
bigger towns also by providing larger outlay
|
|
|
|
The slums
have high rate of morbidity, IMR and fertility and therefore,
need greater attention in provision of the basic services. A
reasonable level of services has to be ensured.
|
|
|
|
Proper legislation
followed by effective implementation is urgently needed to control
and regulate ground water extraction, particularly in all such
urban areas which are facing acute shortage of drinking water
throughout the year.
|
|
|
|
Reuse of
sewage after the desired degree of treatment for horticulture
flushing of sewers and toilets, air conditioning, cooling and
several other industrial uses must be introduced extensively
to conserve fresh water and reduce pollution in the receiving
water bodies.
|
|
|
|
Industries
and commercial establishments must be persuaded to adopt reuse
of treated sewage and recycle their treated trade effluents
to the maximum extent possible to cut down their fresh water
demand. Incentives in the term of rebate on water cess and other
taxes should be considered for the quantum of fresh water conserved
by adopting reuse and recycling process.
|
|
|
|
Toxic and
hazardous industrial and hospital wastes should be collected
separately and disposed of in a hygienic manner, the cost of
which shall be paid by solid waste generators.
|
|
|
|
The unaccounted
for water (UFW) in some metro cities is quite substantial and
therefore needs urgent attention. Action plans in this regard
should be drawn up by the concerned agencies for implementation
on a priority basis.
|
|
|
|
Human Resource
Development (HRD) in the sector needs due attention. Specialized
programmes in solid waste management shall be supported for
the in-service engineers, the local bodies and water supply
agencies at technological institutions.
|
|
|
|
Development
of a strong data base for the sector is very essential. Computerized
MIS will serve as a useful tool in decision making , planning,
evaluation and O&M.
|
|
|
|
Privatization
of water supply and sanitation sector is a felt need and as
such it may be introduced in phases.
|
|
|
|
Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) studies should be carried out before
implementing major projects to control environmental degradation.
|
|
|
|
Vacuum pumps
mounted on small trucks/carts are being used in some places
which are densely populated and have septic tanks in the houses.
Use of this will be an alternative system to eliminating manual
scavenging system.
|
|
|
|
The local
bodies may entrust maintenance of community toilets to voluntary
organisations. Maintenance of community toilets in slums could
be cross subsidized from income from those located in important
public places.
|
|
|
|
Information,
Education and Communication (IEC) constitute an important element
in the implementation of the sanitation programmes particularly
that for conversion of dry latrines into low cost sanitary latrines.
|
|
|
|
Voluntary
organizations should be engaged right from the beginning till
the end, i.e. motivation, implementation and follow up, as it
would be desirable to give them at least 15% as implementation
charges.
|
|
|
|
IEC, implementation
and follow up may be entrusted to a single agency.
|
|
|
|
The government
should be facilitator rather than executor in all water supply
and sanitation programmes (both rural and urban). The role of
Government should be limited to resource mobilisation, monitoring
and evaluation of the programme.
|
|
|
|
Some important
suggestions are given in Annexure I
|
| Annexure
I |
|
IMPORTANT
SUGGESTIONS
|
| |
As
per Article 243G of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State
may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority
as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions
of self - government and such law may contain provisions for
the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats
at the appropriate level. subject to such conditions as may
be specified therein with respect to
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
The preparation of plans for economic development and
social justice.
|
|
|
(b)
|
The implementation of schemes for economic development
and social justice as may be entrusted to them including
those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh
Schedule, which inter alia, includes Drinking Water and
Maintenance of community assets. As such PRIs should be
the key institutions for convergence of drinking water
supply programme at the ground level.
|
|
|
|
| |
The critical
need for an effective interface and high degree of functional
coordination between the development policy making and planning
and implementation institutions is ever increasing.
|
|
| |
Inter-sectoral
coordination should identify mutually functional understanding
and reciprocity amongst different development sectors. However,
at the operational level, such ideal conditions do not seem
to exist in any significant manner.
|
|
| |
The supervisors
and heads of development departments who have hitherto either
been indifferent or were not trained to appreciate the nuances
and mechanism of the intra-sectional as well as inter-sectoral
coordination should begin to play the roles of "team-managers"
so as to promote well directed and sustained team work for effective
inter- sectoral coordination.
|
|
| |
NGOs are
found to be particularly good at out reach. NGOs have the advantage
of being able to sharply focus on, concentrate on and penetrate
deeply into communities with whom they have bonds of trust.
|
|
| |
To reduce
the evaporation losses which is at times 30% of the total storages,
open storage should be avoided and closed contour trenches should
be developed as a water harvesting structures.
|
|
| |
The cropping
pattern in drought prone areas should be sensitive to local
availability. Affluent farmers shall be discouraged from water
intensive cash crops. Agriculture bore-wells should not be allowed
to be deeper than drinking water bore-wells. Blocking of nallahs
for agriculture needs only be discouraged.
|
|
| |
Joint planning
by different agencies of the Government and convergent delivery
of the services has to be desired. There should be inter-sectoral
facilitating team comprising of frontline functionaries of different
line departments, which may expect to bring about the convergence
at the village level /Panchayat level/Block level.
|
|
| |
Institutions
of local self-governance should be strengthened and entrusted
with all activities in water supply, sanitation, hygiene and
nutrition. Various development functions may be handled by the
single Institution of the Gram Panchayat thus increasing the
possibility of convergent planning and delivery of services.
The financial and administrative authority has not been devolved
to them to the extent needed.
|
|
| |
Different
development programmes of any sector in the rural areas are
reached through the village level functionaries like Panchayat
secretary, Anganwadi workers, midwifes etc. These village level
functionaries are important tools to elicit useful information
related to health, hygiene, sanitation etc. in a suitable understandable
language in the village. Hence habitation/village level groups
should cut across sectoral agencies and encouraged to play coordinating
role for effective convergence at grass-roots level.
|
|
| |
Resources
for IEC/HRD now given for different sectors should be pooled
together at District/State level.
|
|
| |
Funds for
implementation of work should flow from Centre to the District
Committees to Panchayats/beneficiaries.
|
|
| |
There are
more than 3.5 million hand pumps and over one lakh piped water
supply schemes installed in the country under the Rural Water
Supply Programme. The total estimated cost for operation and
maintenance of the above at the present value would be around
Rs. 2000 crore per year (10-15% of capital cost). A large portion
of installed schemes remain non-functional and many of them
go permanently defunct due to lack of proper maintenance and
repairs for want of funds. It is, therefore, necessary to give
highest priority to operation and maintenance and evolve suitable
institutions and funding arrangements through community participation
to bring them back to functional levels.
|
|
| |
Rehabilitating
the existing village tanks, creating detention basins by storing
rain water in local depressions, abandoned mines/ quarries etc.
for water harvesting for the development of water resources
need be encouraged. Small dams should be encourage because micro
water - shed area is more efficient for water conservation.
To avoid the evaporation losses from such small storages, the
underground syphon should be used which would conserve the water
and recharge the aquifer.
|
|
| |
Water is
to be managed as an economic asset rather than a free commodity.
It should be treated as a resource in its totality and regeneration
of sources shall be the responsibility of every user agency,
whether drinking, irrigation or other uses. The comprehensive
development of the water resources should be opted as a strategy
and the village should be considered the focal point for water
development. Top to bottom arrangement is necessary to stop
wastage.
|
|
| |
The technology
which is being adopted for the construction of the check dams
is sometimes faulty as there is no recharging because recharging
takes place according to aquifer condition.
|
|
| |
Micro
water-shed and catchment development shall be the primary focus
at Block/District level rather than State level.
|
|
| |
Awareness
programmes on water conservation, water quality, personal hygiene,
collection, storing and disposal of solid waste may be designed
and implemented with the help of Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs), Voluntary Organizations and Neighbourhood Committees.
|
|
| |
Measures
like prioritisation and adopting the norms of water- uses efficiency
should be taken at habitation level. Water rationing is also
a useful instrument to control the water use but this requires
the community participation. The rationing of water for different
uses on per capita basis should be followed. Social equity and
minimum provision to all sections of society need be ensured.
|
|
| |
Rural
sanitation is neither perceived by the majority as a basic need
nor provided as a public good. In view of its direct relationship
with the health of the people behaviuoral change is essential
by changing the mind set of the people through strong IEC campaign.
Each water supply programme should also have a soft-ware component
of hygiene sanitation and education.
|
|
| |
In
the case of rural sanitation, demand-driven approach should
be adopted rather than supply-driven approach in a decentralized
manner with community participation at grassroots level and
monitored at block level.
|
|
| |
Hygiene
promotion needs to be more demand-responsive. Local initiatives
should be encouraged, models promoted (eg. Midnapur) for replication.
|
|
| |
Designing
and implementing effective, multi-level, multi- disciplinary,
experiential and field-based training strategies for hygiene
promotion capacity at delivering level, so as to strengthen
the capacity.
|
|
| |
School
Sanitation has been neglected badly in all earlier plans for
which corrective action is urgently needed. Children of today
are citizens of tomorrow. `Catch them young' shall be the philosophy
in Water Supply, Sanitation and Nutrition Sectors. In this process
the key person is the teacher. The primary and upper-primary
school-teachers should be trained and their capacity should
be enhanced to enable them to transform their mind set and aptitude
in such a way so that this message could be reached to the rural
household. He may also work as a motivator in his vicinity.
He may be involved in the communication strategy for behaviuor
change. Total Sanitation and Hygiene Education strategy to achieve
health and nutrition goods.
|
|
| |
As
a follow up of 74th Constitution Amendment, most of the State
Governments are likely to entrust the responsibility of operation
and maintenance of urban water supply and sanitation systems
to local bodies and therefore, it would be necessary for the
State Finance Commission to explicitly indicate the norms and
other financial implications and make a realistic assessment
of requirement of funds and also to make suitable recommendations
for provision of finances by different categories of towns.
|
|
| |
Most
of the cities/towns are not able to borrow institutional funding
due to commercial rate of interest. Government may also consider
providing interest differential subsidy to make available the
funds at the concessional rate of interest.
|
|
| |
Water
supply and sanitation agencies including the local bodies should
be given full autonomy in determining the tariffs with the provision
for automatic annual increase to cover the increase in costs.
|
|
| |
Separate
account should be maintained by urban water supply and sanitation
agencies where such separation does not exist. To ensure debt
servicing at affordable limits, lending agencies should prescribe
repayment on annuity basis over long repayment period and with
financial moratorium. The State Governments should confer greater
autonomy to the water sector agencies with relation to financial
management and operational issues.
|
|
| |
Mobilization
of adequate finds for the sector through Central and State Governments'
Budget allocations, open market borrowings, institutional financing
and assistance from External Support Agencies.
|
|
| |
For
small and medium towns where resource base is very weak, adequate
grant-in-aid from the Central and State Governments on priority.
|
|
| |
Prioritization
of different demands, such as commercial, industrial and domestic
shall be block/district specific.
|
|
| |
City
level water management plans need to be prepared keeping in
view the various development activities for the next 20 years
or so. In order to operationalise and implement the national
Water Policy in an effective manner at the State level, intern-sectoral
Committees comprising of Members from various water using sectors
may be constituted to decide on allocation of water for different
purposes.
|
|
| |
City
level consumer fora and voluntary agencies should be encouraged
to keep a vigil on water sources to prevent their possible contamination
and make periodical reporting to the concerned water supply
agencies for appropriate action well in advance.
|
|
| |
Improved
arrangements for monitoring of water quality at treatment plants
and distribution systems.
|
|
| |
Timely
rehabilitation of systems to enhance their useful life and postpone
replacement costs.
|
|
| |
At
public places, high rise buildings, housing colonies, it will
be useful to have biogas digesters along with the toilets. Public-
toilets along with biogas digesters should also be constructed
at important places like railway stations, bus stands, cinema
halls, markets, dispensaries and other public places where people
gather in large number.
|
|
| |
Adequate
focus on resource-recovery from sewage.
|
|
| |
The
required door to door contacts with the house owners persuading
them to agree to the conversion of dry latrines into water-seal
pour-flush latrines as well construction of new toilets can
best be done by NGOs rather than Govt. agencies.
|
|
| |
In
respect of persons who are not in a position to mobilise their
own resources, the Government may arrange institutional loans
to them at reasonable rate of interest. The Government may also
grant subsidy to poor persons, particularly those from the economically
weaker sections of society.
|
|
|
CPHEXO,
Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation Status of
Urban Water Supply and Sanitation - India Statewise Status of Urban
Population havnig Access to WaterSupply. Sewerage & Sanitation
Facilities as of 31.03.2000.
|
|
|
|
(Population
in '000')
|
(Tentative)
|
|
S.
No.
|
Name
of State/UT
|
Estimated
Population as of
|
Population
Provided with Water Supply through
|
Population
Provided with Severage & Sanitation Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.3.2000
|
H.S.C
|
P.S.P.
|
Total
|
%
|
Sewer
|
L.C.S
|
Total
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
|
|
1
|
ANDHRA
PR-PHED |
15738 |
6767 |
4006 |
10775 |
66 |
826 |
7702 |
8527 |
54 |
|
|
ANDHRA
PR-HMWSSBd. |
3600 |
2640 |
500 |
3140 |
90 |
2275 |
210 |
2485 |
71 |
|
|
ANDHRA
PR-TOTAL |
19238 |
9407 |
4506 |
13915 |
72 |
3100 |
7912 |
11012 |
67 |
|
2
|
ARUNANCHAL
PRADESH |
231 |
117 |
25 |
142 |
61 |
0 |
134 |
134 |
56 |
|
3
|
ASSAM@ |
3100 |
800 |
200 |
800 |
28 |
15 |
268 |
273 |
9 |
|
4
|
BIHAR** |
11862 |
4187 |
5327 |
9514 |
80 |
560 |
6364 |
5914 |
58 |
|
5
|
DELHI |
13300 |
9560 |
3740 |
13300 |
100 |
6585 |
730 |
7315 |
55 |
|
6
|
GOA |
557 |
438 |
118 |
557 |
100 |
80 |
348 |
408 |
73 |
|
7
|
GUJARAT** |
16810 |
13227 |
3307 |
16534 |
98 |
10671 |
348 |
11219 |
67 |
|
8
|
HARYANA |
3705 |
2106 |
402 |
2510 |
68 |
1972 |
348 |
2320 |
63 |
|
9
|
HIMACHAL
PRADESH** |
546 |
328 |
216 |
548 |
100 |
126 |
110 |
236 |
43 |
|
10
|
J&K(KASHMIR) |
1378 |
1240 |
50 |
1290 |
94 |
579 |
56 |
545 |
47 |
|
11
|
KARNATAKA
UWS&DBd |
11000 |
5720 |
2420 |
8140 |
74 |
2530 |
5170 |
7700 |
76 |
|
|
KARNATAKA
SWSSBd |
5750 |
3625 |
1175 |
4700 |
82 |
3290 |
940 |
4230 |
74 |
|
|
KARNATAKA
- TOTAL |
16750 |
9245 |
3685 |
12840 |
77 |
5620 |
6110 |
11930 |
71 |
|
12
|
KERALA |
7890 |
3250 |
2764 |
8024 |
78 |
290 |
5470 |
5780 |
75 |
|
13
|
MADHYA
PRADESH |
25000 |
16200 |
5800 |
25000 |
100 |
2500 |
17500 |
20000 |
80 |
|
|
MAHARASHTRA
MAHARASHTRA-MJP
MAHARASHTRA - MMC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
MAHARASHTRA-TOTAL** |
34309 |
23744 |
10175 |
33920 |
99 |
17020 |
4983 |
22003 |
64 |
|
15
|
MANIPUR |
969 |
481 |
178 |
657 |
68 |
196 |
0 |
196 |
20 |
|
16
|
MEGHALAYA
@ |
457 |
221 |
201 |
422 |
92 |
20 |
108 |
128 |
28 |
|
17
|
MIZORAM |
256 |
83 |
30 |
93 |
28 |
0 |
181 |
181 |
70 |
|
18
|
NAGALAND |
296 |
232 |
0 |
232 |
78 |
0 |
178 |
178 |
60 |
|
19
|
ORISSA |
4877 |
859 |
2221 |
3080 |
83 |
422 |
0 |
422 |
9 |
|
20
|
PUNJAB |
8496 |
5212 |
317 |
5629 |
66 |
3745 |
1407 |
5152 |
81 |
|
21
|
RAJASTHAN |
12897 |
10318 |
2579 |
12897 |
100 |
995 |
9194 |
10189 |
79 |
|
22
|
SIKKIM |
195 |
95 |
25 |
120 |
82 |
35 |
62 |
103 |
53 |
|
23
|
TAMIL
NADU-TWAD Bd |
19515 |
9107 |
8734 |
10841 |
86 |
1772 |
10040 |
11812 |
61 |
|
|
TAMIL
NADU-TWAD Bd |
6010 |
5729 |
117 |
5848 |
97 |
5708 |
301 |
8010 |
100 |
|
|
TAMIL
NADU-CMWSSBd |
25525 |
13836 |
3651 |
22067 |
80 |
7481 |
10341 |
17822 |
70 |
|
24
|
TRIPURA
@ |
553 |
136 |
327 |
483 |
84 |
0 |
200 |
200 |
38 |
|
25
|
UTTAR
PRADESH$ |
33000 |
15100 |
10500 |
32800 |
90 |
12200 |
0 |
12200 |
37 |
|
26
|
WEST
BENGAL-CMDA WEST BENGAL-PHEDWEST BENGAL-TO TAL** |
18495 |
6261 |
3605 |
16786 |
86 |
3332 |
5050 |
9282 |
50 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
STATES |
290414 |
147478 |
83052 |
231438 |
96 |
77914 |
78388 |
156222 |
80 |
|
|
|
|
UNION
TERETORIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
A &
N ISLANDS |
109 |
95 |
9 |
107 |
|
0 |
108 |
108 |
90 |
|
2
|
CHANDIGARH |
762 |
620 |
152 |
782 |
100 |
762 |
0 |
782 |
100 |
|
3
|
D&N
HAVELI |
15 |
5 |
5 |
14 |
83 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
4
|
DAMAN
& DIU |
47 |
5 |
1 |
7 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
5
|
LAKSHADWEEP |
30 |
0 |
20 |
20 |
87 |
0 |
25 |
25 |
83 |
|
6
|
PONDICHERRY |
678 |
596 |
|
678 |
100 |
94 |
584 |
678 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
UT'S |
1641 |
1321 |
267 |
1588 |
97 |
356 |
717 |
1573 |
96 |
|
|
|
|
GRAND
TOTAL |
262155 |
143797 |
84299 |
233026 |
89 |
78778 |
79025 |
157795 |
60 |
|
|
|
REMARKS
|
|
| |
|
| H.S.C. |
House Service
Connection P.S.P. - Public Stand Post L.C.S. - Low Cost Sanitation |
| - |
Septic Tank
etc. |
*
|
Indicates
accessibility only adiequacy and equitable distribution of water
supply is not as per the prescribed norms of Govt. of India.
|
**
|
The figures
indicates as of 31-3-1997 since the respective states have not
furnished the information as of 31-3-2000.
|
@
|
The figure
indicatee the sanitation coverage as of 31-3-1997 since the
respective state have not furnished the information as of 31-3-2000.
|
| $ |
In case of
U.P. the data on L.C.S. id yet to be received. |
|
Annexure
- II
Water Supply & Sanitation Sector
Plan-Wise Plan Investment at Current Prices
|
|
|
S.
No.
|
Plan
Period
|
Total
Public Sector Plan Outlay/Expdr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Rs.
Crores) |
|
Total
Plan Outlay/Expdr. Under Water Supply & Sanitation
Sector
|
|
Plan
Outlay/Expdr. for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation
|
|
Plan
Outlay/Expdr. for Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
% to Public Sector Outlay
|
|
Amount
% to Public Sector Only
|
|
Amount
% to Public Sector Only
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Col.
3
|
x 100 |
|
Col.
5
|
x
100 |
Col.
7
|
x
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Col.
2
|
Col.
2
|
Col.
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. |
I
Plan Outlay |
3360.00 |
49.00 |
1.46 |
|
43.00 |
1.28 |
|
6.00 |
0.18 |
|
|
(1951-56)
Expdr. |
1960.00 |
11.00 |
0.56 |
|
8.00 |
0.41 |
|
3.00 |
0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
II
Plan Outlay |
6750.00 |
72.00 |
1.07 |
|
44.00 |
0.65 |
|
28.00 |
0.41 |
|
|
(1956-61)
Expdr. |
4672.00 |
74.00 |
1.58 |
|
44.00 |
0.94 |
|
30.00 |
0.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3. |
III
Plan Outlay |
8573.00 |
105.70 |
1.23 |
|
89.37 |
1.04 |
|
16.33 |
0.19 |
|
|
(1961-66)
Expdr. |
8576.00 |
110.17 |
1.28 |
|
91.34 |
1.07 |
|
18.83 |
0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4. |
3
Annual Plans Outlay |
6664.97 |
106.42 |
1.60
|
|
N.A. |
N.A. |
|
N.A. |
N.A. |
|
|
(1966-69)
Expdr. |
6625.00 |
102.70 |
1.55 |
|
73.53 |
1011 |
|
29.17 |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. |
IV
Plan Outlay |
15902.00 |
437.00 |
2.75 |
|
282.00 |
1.77 |
|
155.00 |
0.97 |
|
|
(1969-74)
Expdr. |
15778.00 |
458.90 |
2.91 |
|
250.90 |
1.59 |
|
208.00 |
1.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6. |
V
Plan Outlay |
39303.49 |
1030.68 |
2.62 |
|
549.51 |
1.40 |
|
481.24 |
1.22 |
|
|
(1974-79)
Expdr. |
39420.00 |
1091.60 |
2.77 |
|
539.51 |
1.37 |
|
552.09 |
1.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7. |
Annual
Plan Outlay |
12549.63 |
430.22 |
3.43 |
|
197.93 |
1.58 |
|
232.29 |
1.85 |
|
|
(1979-80)
Expdr. |
12176.50 |
395.28 |
3.25 |
|
148.89 |
1.22 |
|
240.39 |
1.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8. |
VI
Plan Outlay |
97500.00 |
4047.00 |
4.15 |
|
1766.68 |
1.81 |
|
2280.32 |
2.34 |
|
|
(1980-85)
Expdr. |
109291.70 |
3997.78 |
3.66 |
|
2334.53 |
2.14 |
|
1663.45 |
1.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9. |
VII
Plan Outlay |
180000.00 |
6522.47 |
3.62 |
|
2965.75 |
1.65 |
|
3556.72 |
1.98 |
|
|
(1985-90)
Expdr. |
219029.00 |
7093.13 |
3.24 |
|
2557.81 |
1.17 |
|
4535.32 |
2.07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10. |
2
Plans Outlay |
137033.15 |
4427.29 |
3.23 |
|
1721.37 |
1.26 |
|
2705.92 |
1.97 |
|
|
(1990-92)
Expdr. |
123120.55 |
4086.12 |
3.32 |
|
1725.17 |
1.40 |
|
2360.95 |
1.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11. |
VIII
Plan Outlay |
434100.00 |
16711.03 |
3.85 |
|
5982.28 |
1.38 |
|
10728.79 |
2.47 |
|
|
(1992-97)
Expdr. |
391000.00 |
16932.00 |
4.33 |
|
7316.00 |
1.87 |
|
9666.00 |
2.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12. |
IX
Plan Outlay
(1997-2002) |
859200.00 |
39538.00 |
4.46 |
|
18624.00 |
2.16 |
|
20914.00 |
2.43 |
|
|
|
C.P.H.E.E.O
File: Citywsp WK1 |
Annexure
III
Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation City Profile
(Cities with popularion > 5 Lakhs per 1991 census)
|
Statement:
WSP
(Status as of 31/03)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|