RWSN -Kampala Rural Drinking Water Service Levels and Poverty: A Study of Andhra Pradesh, South India Snehalatha Mekala
Background: drinking water in Andhra Pradesh In Andhra Pradesh out of 72,040 villages 46 %fully covered (FC) 52 %partially covered (PC) 1 % not covered (NC) 1 % no safe source (NSS) Approximate amount spent including rehabilitation and extension from 2004 to 2008 is > US$ 4.16 billion (Rs 200 millions) Groundwater schemes cover about 72 % of the villages while surface water schemes cover about 28 %.
The research: objectives and sample • Assessing the variations in rural drinking water service delivery across agro-climatic regions in Andhra Pradesh; • Analysing variations in service levels across households within the villages especially for the poor Sample : Agroclimatic zones - 9 Districts - 22 Household surveys - 5233 Waterpoint surveys - 1500
Water service levels: a framework for analysis Service level Quantity Accessibility Quality Reliability/Dependability In addition, water quality As ‘improved’ but a system for 0-10 mins to has been tested handling breakdowns exists and it High 80lpcd+ collect water independently using a functions well. per day water quality test kit. Users are aware that Meets basic standards and a system RWSS officials have Improved 60-80 lpcd 10-20 mins for handling breakdowns exists, but certified that there are no the system is not reliable. water quality problems. Network supply according to an agreed schedule and duration. HPs Basic 40-60 lpcd 20-30 mins No complaints by users are dependable. But no system for handling breakdowns exists. Network supply has scheduled times Water is used for drinking Limited and duration and delivery, but supply but users complain of bad (sub- 20-40 lpcd 30-60 mins is still haphazard. Hand pumps are not smell, bad taste or colour standard) dependable because recharge rates or appearance. are low. Network supply is haphazard. Hand Less than Water is unfit for drinking No service 60+ mins pumps are not dependable because 20 lpcd. by humans or animals. ground water is exhausted
Water service levels: main findings Majority households receive basic and sub standard levels 15% households buying bottled water due to water quality issues Households are spending > 60 minutes /day in water fetching Unreliable service despite multiple sources and systems
Inter zonal variations in service delivery High Variations across zones in service delivery Though hydro geological conditions vary, allocations are same Remote villages/Zones have poor services compared to the other zones
Inter village variations in service delivery High Inter village variations in service delivery Higher investments (mainly Capital Expenditure) does not lead to better service delivery Community initiatives and strong leadership contribute to better service delivery Support structures and systems to complement and sustain the community actions
Intra village: poverty and services received Distinct localities for different caste groups Skewed public &private expenditure towards relatively wealthier parts of villages. As result, these parts have better & more reliable & secure services Low participation and less influence in decision making by poor, SC/ST and women in WASH
Intra village: poverty and services received High quantity of water received by High income households and Other Castes (non-poor) Location of low income and lower caste groups towards tail end of system resulting in inequitable distribution The high income groups invest in booster pumps, storage tanks and sumps to improve services but have impact on poor HHs
Conclusions Shifting the focus to service delivery with regular monitoring systems involving users. Grievance procedures must be open and transparent and providers must be held accountable Building the capacities of local/grass root organisations with accountable governance systems including social audits, local media and open monitoring involving all the levels of stake holders Pro-poor strategies with equity and inclusion
Thank you for your time For details visit us www.washcost.info
Recommend
More recommend
