India: Making Government Funding Work Harder · hygiene education projects in developing countries....

INDIA: MAKING GOVERNMENT FUNDING WORK HARDER

PAGE 1

A WaterAid reportwritten byWilliam Gunyon

India: Making Government

Funding Work Harder


PAGE 2

WaterAidPrince Consort House27-29 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7UB

Telephone: 0171 793 4500Fax: 0171 793 4545Email: [email protected]

Charity Reg No 288701

Published by WaterAid,London. September 1998ISBN 0 9513466 4 4

All rights reserved.

SUMMARY

This report examines the evidence of two case studies from India – community based ruralsanitation, and handpump maintenance – to suggest appropriate ways for the government touse its resources to achieve results in the water and sanitation sector, and assesses theimplications for rural communities and NGOs.

Coverage of safe water and sanitation through cost-effective and sustainable services wouldbe improved by:• Government giving greater emphasis to programmes of education and training, and the

funding of new water projects, than to high capital subsidy of latrines and provision ofhandpump maintenance

• Unlocking the capacity and resources of communities to maintain village waterfacilities

• Offering families an informed and affordable choice of sanitation facilities, coupled withgreater access to micro-credit

• Using the relative strengths of existing local institutions to complement each other’swork.

The case studies also show that:• NGO networks enable members to share experiences and to have a stronger voice

when negotiating with government• Government officials, NGO staff, and community members are strongly influenced by

seeing actual examples of successful work in the field.

This is the third in a series of reportswhich analyse WaterAid’s experiencein integrated water, sanitation, andhygiene education projects indeveloping countries.

The first in the series, WAMMA:Empowerment in Practice, assessesa collaborative partnership betweenthe Tanzanian Government andWaterAid.

The second, Hitosa Water Supply: APeople’s Project, assesses acommunity managed gravity schemeproviding water to more than 60,000people in 31 communities.

Cover Photo: WaterAid/Caroline Penn


PAGE 3

INDIA: MakingGovernmentFunding WorkHarder

Two case studies suggestingmore effective use ofgovernment resources forwater and sanitation.

A WaterAid Report

Written by William Gunyon

Edited by Julie Jarman

September 1998


PAGE 4

Contents

INDIA: Making Government FundingWork HarderTwo case studies suggesting more effective use of governmentresources for water and sanitation.

Introduction 5

1. Sanitation in Tamilnadu 7

2. Handpump maintenance in Andhra Pradesh 13

3. Making government funding work harder 20

4. Implications for coverage 23

Boxes and diagrams:Social indicators 5Decentralisation in rural India 6Government latrine construction:

a building which happens to be a toilet 8WaterAid latrine construction:

a toilet which happens to need walls 8

Hazards of open defecation 9Credit scheme for latrines 10WaterAid’s Country Representative 11

The India Mark ll handpump 14The community mechanic 15Changing roles during transition from governmentto community handpump maintenance 16Borrowing, bathrooms and bananas 21High quality NGOs 24

At the time of writing the Indian Rupee was trading at approximately Rs 65 to the UK poundand Rs 40 to the US dollar.

In this report the term NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation) refers to voluntary organisationsspecialising in social development work in poor communities. NGOs supported by WaterAidare also described as ‘partners’ and are identified in the report by their acronyms rather thanfull titles.


PAGE 5

P

Introduction

WaterAid has been supporting water and sanitation projects in India since 1985.In 1992 it opened a South India Office in Tiruchirapalli in Tamilnadu. An annualbudget of £0.5 million currently supports projects run by over 100 NGOs in fivestates – Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa and Tamilnadu.

roject work reflects WaterAid’s overallstrategy, integrating water supply,

sanitation, and hygiene education, andintroducing appropriate technologies withina framework of community management.These broad principles are applied byWaterAid South India Office (WASIO) in itswork with predominantly poor communitiesin rural areas, and in the particular contextof India where:

• there is a history of pressure on drinkingwater supplies in rural areas stretchingback to the ‘Green Revolution’ ofthe 1970s. A move to safer watersources for drinking water has led todependence on tubewells. The continueddemands of industry and agriculture arenow driving tubewell depths to the limitof handpump operation

• despite the consistent endeavoursof government and multilateralagencies, rural water and sanitationtargets remain elusive

• there is a mature and extensive NGOsector with a good record ofcommunity development

• there is an economy of extremes, in whicha city of post-industrial aspirations suchas Bangalore can co-exist withsubsistence farming villages, somehowbound together by a well-established butevolving democracy.

SOCIAL INDICATORS

In India

918.6m population

300m people are below the poverty line

Under-five child mortality is 115 per 1,000 live births

80 per cent of children suffer from waterborne disease each year

28 per cent of child deaths are caused by diarrhoea and dehydration

In the five states in which WaterAid supports projects:

64 per cent of the rural population do not have access to safe drinkingwater

86 per cent of the rural population do not have access to adequatesanitation

Sources: Government of India 1991 Census; UNICEF 1997 State of theWorld’s Children; WaterAid Country Strategy

320 Miles

600 Kms

TAMILNADU

0 300

0 210N

ANDHRAPRADESH

ORISSA

BANGLADESH

NEPALBHUTAN

Delhi

Bombay

Madras

SR I LANKA

I N D I A

CH INA

PAK ISTAN

KARNATAKA

MAHARASHTRA


PAGE 6

In partnership with NGOs, WaterAid aims toinfluence government and major donors byestablishing sustainable and cost-effectivemodels of operation which, given appropriatesupport, can be reproduced on a wider scale.

The case studies

The case studies in this report – sanitationin Tamilnadu and handpump maintenance inAndhra Pradesh – reflect major themes ofWaterAid-supported programmes in SouthIndia. There are sharp contrasts between thetwo projects. One seeks to change personalbehaviour, the other to change people’sperception of what owning community assetsentails. Both seek to influence governmentpolicy, one by establishing new models and

DECENTRALISATION IN RURAL INDIA

India is a Federal Republic divided into 25 states. States are normally sub-divided into20 to 30 districts each comprising approximately 50 mandals (blocks) of approximately50 villages.

A powerful central administration with authority concentrated in the District Collectorwas a colonial legacy. Despite the influence of Gandhian thought, independent Indiaproved to be in no great hurry to revive traditional village government (Panchayat Raj).

Recently the Government of India has introduced more decentralised structures. A 1993constitutional amendment specified that panchayats must be set up in every villageand have appropriate tax-levying powers. Women must make up 33 per cent of themembership of elected councils, whose many areas of responsibility include drinkingwater and sanitation. Local elections are now held throughout India, and the villagesarpanch (panchayat president) has become an important local figure.

However, major decisions about handover of financial and administrative responsibilitiesare still pending and the tax base in rural areas is minimal. The real strength of thevillage panchayat lies in lobbying mandal and district officials. The structure is nowfirmly in place, and the panchayats have the potential for a degree of self-government.

ways of working, the other by working withgovernment towards handing overresponsibility to communities.

This report identifies the essential factorswhich resulted in change in each project, andthe issues which unify them. Commonelements within two such contrasting projectsprovide useful pointers in developing ideasabout ef fective relationships betweencommunities, NGOs and government. Inparticular, the case studies suggest ways forgovernment funding to focus on supportingcommunity-based initiatives in order toaccelerate coverage of safe water andsanitation, rather than on high capital subsidyof latrines and the provision of handpumpmaintenance services.


PAGE 7

B

1. Sanitation in TamilnaduMuch of rural Tamilnadu is semi-arid, creating difficulties for sustaining bothadequate livelihoods and water supplies. Despite the poverty of the area, WaterAidand its partners have succeeded in stimulating widespread demand for safesanitation. In 1995-6 there was little progress with only 460 latrines constructed.Two years on there has been a fifteenfold increase with over 7,100 latrines builtin 1997-8, and partner NGOs are besieging WaterAid for extra funding to meet aspiralling demand. A wide range of latrine designs and costs has successfullychallenged the government stereotype of one standard model. WaterAid’s workhas stimulated some important initiatives by the state government.

• How have WaterAid’s partners made such rapid progress in a difficult fieldof work?

• What has caused the transformation in government attitudes?

ased on the findings of an evaluationconducted in 1996 WaterAid in SouthIndia decided to improve its sanitation

and hygiene education work. Most partnerNGOs had little knowledge of the mainissues, no staff capacity, and no materials.For most poor communities sanitation was aver y low priority, and the ef for ts ofgovernment agencies had unintentionallyfostered a widespread perception of latrinesas luxury items.

Subsidy levels

WaterAid had been promoting latrines with aflat rate subsidy of Rs 650 (as compared tothe usual government subsidy of Rs 2,000),and communities were suspicious that theywere being of fered a cheap second-rateproduct. In an attempt to change thismisconception WaterAid decided to lookat subsidy and design in a totally new way,realising that even poor people vary widelyin their ability and willingness to pay. In suchcircumstances, a flat rate subsidy approachwas inappropriate, and a more innovativeapproach to financing and latrine designwas required.

Persuading partners

Three major factors helped persuade NGOpartners to improve their sanitation work.Firstly, several WaterAid papers stimulateddebate on hygiene education. Once theyrealised the essential facts of diseasetransmission, key individuals becameconvinced that making villagers fully awareof the links between poor hygieneand disease would increase demand forimproved sanitation.

Secondly, in 1996 WaterAid played a majorrole in establishing an informal and inclusivenetwork of organisations in Tamilnaduinterested in rural water supply andsanitation. WaterAid publishes regularnewsletters and initiates workshops andseminars. Some NGOs have become ‘centresof excellence’ in specific areas of work; theyare then able to share information andexperience through the network.

Finally, a year earlier SCOPE had successfullyconstructed six low-cost latrines in the villageof Thaneerpandal; while SEVAI hadresearched the use of pre-fabricated wallpanels, hollow bricks, and ferro-cement. Both


PAGE 8

GOVERNMENT LATRINE CONSTRUCTION: A BUILDING WHICHHAPPENS TO BE A TOILET

To encourage the development of safe sanitation in village communities, theGovernment of India subsidises latrine construction through its Central RuralSanitation Programme (CRSP).

Whatever the village’s geology or water supply situation, only one design isoffered – a pour flush twin pit latrine with brick built superstructure. Materialsand construction are controlled by government and no local labour is involved.For a poor family, the cost of this latrine would break down as:

Family contribution Rs 500

Government subsidy Rs 2,000

Total Cost Rs 2,500 (about £38)

The government promotes the CRSP via state and district administration, orthrough its own national agencies such as CAPART which works through NGOs.Coverage has been disappointing as, due to the high level of subsidy, thegovernment is only able to allot one or two latrines per village. Many of theselatrines are not being used for their original purpose as there is no widespreadhygiene education work, and the main motivating force for their constructionis the high subsidy. Even if more support was forthcoming, extending thissubsidy approach to every household in rural India would cost the governmentan estimated £4.5 billion.

Furthermore, the limited availability of such a high subsidy has tended torestrict beneficiaries to the more prominent members of society. Althoughthe income qualification for subsidy has recently been reduced, the governmentprogramme, with its high specification model, is associated with the middleclasses.

WATERAID LATRINE CONSTRUCTION: A TOILET WHICHHAPPENS TO NEED WALLS

AFFORDABILITY

Technology: there is no standard model or specification, apart from the water-seal principle – a variety of low-cost substructure designs are offered, usuallycosting around Rs 650. The most common model in Tamilnadu is the pourflush single pit, with space reserved for a second pit to be dug at a laterstage. The householder is responsible for ensuring privacy in the form ofwalls, door and perhaps a roof (the superstructure). Design and cost flexibilityat this stage reflects personal choice and circumstances, and can range fromno cost to Rs 2,000.

Financing: WaterAid usually provides a basic subsidy of Rs 650, but withsome variation (for example, in some communities NGOs have experimentedwith a community-led differential subsidy). Various forms of micro credit areincreasingly being made available to individuals. This creative use of bothcredit and affordable latrine design has minimised or in some cases eveneliminated subsidies.

DESIRABILITY

NGOs take responsibility for creating the demand for sanitation facilities inthe community through hygiene education, and also for ensuring the marketingand supply of sanitary wares. The whole village is targeted, in conjunctionwith a project to improve the quality and the quantity of the water supply.

organisations were happy to show their workto others and by April 1996 a consensusbegan to emerge that it should be possibleto bring down the cost of latrines to betweenRs 1,000 to 1,500. Variety in design and costwould be part of the solution.

Persuading communities

The challenge was to devise a strategy forNGOs to stimulate enthusiasm for sanitation,but local feedback was initially discouraging.In most vil lages there was littleunderstanding of the link betweenpoor hygiene and disease. People wereboth shy and superstitious aboutdiscussing matters like open defecation, andNGOs had made few attempts to providepositive hygiene education. Without anexample to see, villagers suspected thatlow-cost latrines were inferior to thegovernment model, perhaps bringing smellsand flies into the home.

Wat

erAi

d/Ca

rolin

e Pe

nnW

ater

Aid/

Caro

line

Penn

Two alternative WaterAid latrine designs.


PAGE 9

NGOs based their work with communities ontheir own ‘conversion’ to the merits ofimproved sanitation:

• Hygiene education was targeted initiallyat the whole village through entertainmentlike the Tamil Kattabommai puppet shows.This was followed by group meetings andhouse visits by health workers or trainedvillage volunteers using visual aids

• Influence by example. The most likely‘customers’ were addressed – villagessituated near an NGO’s field centre, andmembers of water and sanitationcommittees and women’s groups. Oncesuch core people were convinced, peerpressure took over.

Yet many villagers remained unconvinced. InAugust 1996, WaterAid held the first of threehygiene education workshops for NGOleaders and health workers at which morekey messages were identified:

• continual poor health is an economic drainon family resources. Even the pooresthouseholds have little faith in governmenthospitals, opting instead for privatetreatment. This can cost the averagefamily Rs 1,500 a year, taking intoaccount fees, medicines, transport, andlost wages

• open defecation is degrading, especiallyfor women and adolescents

• shor tage of land means there isincreasing pressure for traditionaldefecation fields to be used foragriculture.

WaterAid/Ravinder Reddy

HAZARDS OF OPEN DEFECATION

Hazards are many and varied. Obliged to wait until nightfall for any elementof privacy, villagers encounter anything from insects to vehicles, as theymake their way to unlit defecation fields.

A 12-year-old girl in the village of Kulakudi carried a stick to ward off thepigs attracted by the fresh deposits. One night her stick disturbed a snake.It attacked her and despite the best efforts of the nearest hospital, shedied.

A 40-year-old woman from the village of Poonampalayam was killed by aspeeding milk van as she defecated. Angry villagers blocked subsequentdeliveries. The strength of feeling aroused in the community helped thelocal NGO to demonstrate the usefulness of the sanitation project.

Traditional puppet shows are used to put across serious hygiene messages in an accessibleand entertaining way.

a low-cost hollow brick or prefabricated panellatrine superstructure. In the event many ofthese families rose to the challengecreatively using the same skills and materialsas for house building: thatch of water reed,coconut, and bamboo, as well as wastematerials like gunny bags and bicycle scrap.

The combination of arguments provedef fective. Soon latrine masons were afamiliar sight in villages. Latrine coverage ofclose to 100 per cent is now common.

An important concern was how to include thepoorest households, unable to afford even


PAGE 10

CREDIT SCHEME FOR LATRINES

SCOPE, based in Musiri, near Tiruchirapalli, operates the following creditscheme:

• WaterAid provides a revolving loan of Rs 100,000 to SCOPE

• SCOPE lends up to Rs 20,000 to individual village sangams(committees) which make regular repayments over 10 months

• the village sangam considers applications from households andadministers loans, taking responsibility for repayment throughpersonal passbooks. Only poor families are eligible. The maximumloan is Rs 650.

Three months after starting this scheme demand proved so great that SCOPEsought a further Rs 60,000 from the local People’s Bank (formed by afederation of 38 self-help groups), which makes limited investments inschemes for special needs. A typical latrine with hollow brick superstructureand bath extension purchased under this scheme would cost:

WaterAid subsidy for substructure Rs 650

Village sangam loan Rs 650 (interest free loan)

Peoples’ Bank loan Rs 100 (commercial loan)

Family contribution Rs 100

Total Cost Rs 1,500

experience of facilities in schools, theavailability of water, and the distance it hadto be carried to use in the pour flush latrines.SCOPE’s findings influenced the efforts ofNGO health workers and WaterAid’s strategyin general. For example, men are now aspecific target audience for hygiene education.

The production line

Success brought the NGOs a new challenge– meeting burgeoning demand. Knowing thefrustrations of bureaucracy and impersonalser vice experienced with the nationalgovernment scheme, they were determinedto localise the production and delivery ofsanitary ware.

Local people are trained as masons and inthe production of low-cost mud blocks, hollowbricks and ferro-cement moulds for pit coversand latrine walls. Production draws whereverpossible on local materials, and is basedeither in small-scale latrine manufacturingbusinesses, or in NGO field centres. A goodexample is SEVAI’s Rural Technology Centrewhich is a ‘centre of excellence’ for training,design, and sanitar y ware production.Opened in 1996 with support from WaterAidand UNICEF, it employs 25 local youths andwomen, and has become self-suppor tingthrough sales of products used in its 10latrine designs.

Local credit schemes for latrine constructionseek to involve familiar financial institutionsin what is an increasingly important featureof sanitation delivery. Innovative schemes arebeing developed, and poor families are keento take out loans to upgrade their originallow-cost ‘thatch’ latrines into permanentstructures. When of fered a choice insuperstructure construction, families initiallyspend only what they can afford, and cancarry out incremental improvements later.

By placing equal emphasis on both demandand supply, NGOs enabled WaterAid tosuppor t latrine construction for 36,000people in 97-98. Average subsidy was Rs650, a third of the government figure.

Using the latrines

As rates of construction increased, WaterAidbegan to ask whether families were usingtheir latrines properly, and whether they weresustaining good hygiene practices. Therewere worrying precedents: in the village ofKadathanpatti where government had builtlatrines as par t of a housing project forharijans*, villagers had ripped out theporcelain latrine pans, and used them to keepthe rain off their cooking stove chimneys.

In March 1997 SCOPE conducted a study offour villages in Musiri which had attained highlatrine coverage. Results were reasonablyencouraging, with almost 100 per cent usageamongst young women and teenage girls, anda good level by women and children ingeneral. But the study revealed significantdifferences between men and women andbetween age groups. Factors related tomen’s low use were that men spend most oftheir time in the fields, and had not beentargeted for hygiene education. Otherimportant factors were people’s previous

* Harijans are also known as

Scheduled Castes and are in the

lowest rung of the Indian caste

system.


PAGE 11

Influencing government

This success presented WaterAid with anopportunity to influence government policyon hygiene education and latrine subsidy.Through the NGO network, meetings wereheld with the Tamilnadu Ministry of RuralDevelopment, CAPART (the governmentagency funding Indian NGOs), UNICEF andUNDP.

Initially government officials were confused:the network was asking for a reduction, ratherthan an increase, in subsidy per latrine.Negotiations took time, but significantchanges have been agreed:

• the Ministry of Rural Development hasagreed to fund different models of latrinesand to vary their subsidy level. Under thecentral rural sanitation programme (CRSP)the state government is offering to pay50 per cent of the costs of a latrine, up toa maximum subsidy of Rs 2,000. Earlysigns are showing a good uptake with manylatrines being constructed for Rs 1,000 –1,400. This means that the governmentshare is Rs 500 – 700, and will enablethree or more times the number of latrinesto be constructed than under the originalgovernment scheme. The ministry has alsoordered latrine use sur veys as animportant element of monitoring

• CAPART has agreed to fund projectsthrough WaterAid’s partner NGOs, and forthem to allocate the Rs 2,000 subsidyper latrine in the following way:

subsidy for latrineconstruction Rs 650

hygiene education andawareness generation Rs 400

environmental sanitation Rs 950

• UNICEF is diver ting funds away fromsubsidy towards supporting skills training,and initiatives like SEVAI’s RuralTechnology Centre.

There has also been progress in hygieneeducation. In Februar y 1997 the stategovernment set up a committee of senior civil

ser vants, UNICEF, NGO, and WaterAidrepresentatives. The committee comparedthe economic benefits of preventive healthcare with the spiralling costs of the state’scurative infrastructure. A month later thegovernment announced major new policies:

For communities: A new Human ResourceDevelopment (HRD) Depar tment with anannual budget of Rs 570 million (£8.7million), to promote community management

WATERAID’S COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVE

For WaterAid’s South India Representative, the sanitation situation hasbeen transformed. Besieged by NGOs seeking more funds for latrineconstruction, hygiene education staff and training materials, he recalls vividlythat until very recently sanitation was low priority:

‘Our NGOs found it terribly difficult to accept the idea of such a low subsidy.It was so different from the government scheme. They felt there were enoughproblems in trying to introduce sanitation without creating what they sawas unnecessary financial obstacles. I was a rather unwelcome visitor totheir meetings in early 1996!

A latrine costing Rs 2,500 has always seemed a nonsense to me. I wasbrought up in a poor village near the coast. People built their houses forless than that. I knew that local skills and materials would come to thefore, if only we could create the demand.

The combination of hygiene education and the willingness of our partnersto engage with new ideas and share experiences has done the trick. Havingfallen well short of our targets for two years, we have now reached ourannual target of latrines in six months. So now I have the opposite problem;when I see NGO representatives coming, I want to hide like a snail fromtheir demands for extra funds!’

Wat

erAi

d/Ra

vinde

r Red

dy

Mr. Paramasivan, WaterAid’s Country Representative (centre).


PAGE 12

of water and sanitation, with training atdistrict, mandal, and village levels. Eachdistrict will have an ‘HRD Cell’ with NGOrepresentatives. The new department hasstar ted hygiene education and sanitationtraining for panchayat leaders, governmentschoolteachers and selected members ofcommunity and women’s groups.

For schools:• Headteachers are being encouraged to

include hygiene education in thecur riculum, by using local primar yhealthcare staff, or engaging NGOs totrain teachers.

• A programme to provide schools withhygiene education, training, safe water,urinals and latrines, funded as part of thenew HRD budget.

These initiatives are already working. InTiruchirapalli District SCOPE is launching aproject with 20 primary and middle schools:urinals and latrine blocks will be provided,and two health educators will teach a syllabusof 14 lessons in hygiene practice.

Sanitation: key instruments ofchange

The following factors have been instrumentalin leading to the positive changes outlinedin the case study.

NGO networking• The NGO network enabled the enthusiasm

and positive field experience of a fewmembers to grow into a generalmovement and provided a forum fordebate and experience exchange

• The network provided a strong unifiedvoice for negotiation with government andother agencies

• WaterAid and the NGOs were prepared toput time into developing it

• The informal structure helped make itinclusive

• The sharing of experiences andsuccesses instilled confidence in newNGOs and encouraged them to star tsimilar work.

Hygiene education• Hygiene education was the main catalyst

for change in persuading NGO leaders ofthe impor tance of sanitation, and increating demand in the villages for latrineconstruction

• The hygiene education work of the NGOsis based on specific realities andproblems identified by individualcommunities

• From its former status as an afterthought inWaterAid-funded projects, hygiene educationhas become the entry point for community-based, integrated water projects.

Affordability• NGOs built on existing small-scale credit

institutions to gradually develop creditsystems for sanitation

• Experimentation reduced the cost oflatrines to affordable levels.

Marketing• The commercial marketing technique of

providing informed and affordable choicehelped trigger latrine construction. Projectactivities could be labelled in conventionalretail marketing terms: design, pricing,promotion, production, deliver y andcredit.

• Supplying safe sanitation has become athriving cottage industry. Training localinstitutions and people to exploit thisbusiness oppor tunity provided theefficient delivery of goods, and expandedlocal employment opportunities

• By contrast, earlier government attemptsto promote sanitation involvedimpersonal, unreliable and expensiveoutside interventions.

Changes in government attitudeFactors which helped to create changes inattitude were:• Showing key government staff work in the

field. This had a big impact• Providing cheaper, alternative models,

which still met high standards, helpedconvince officials of the need for change

• The reputation of the NGOs in the networkwas sufficiently strong and respected togain access to government policy makers.


PAGE 13

uring the 1980s, the UN DrinkingWater and Sanitation Decade, the

Government of India providedtubewells and handpumps throughoutVisakhapatnam. The handpump chosen, theIndia Mark II, needs regular maintenance andfrom the beginning of the decade UNICEFestablished a maintenance scheme. Onegovernment mechanic was employed permandal, responsible for around 120handpumps. A supporting infrastructure oftoolkits, spare parts, and back-up vehicleswas put in place. The whole scheme wasfunded by the state government; but by theearly 1990s it had ceased to deliver evenbasic service standards.

The initial budget was never increased tocope with the rapidly expanding number oftubewells, and mechanics found themselvestrying, and failing, to maintain 300 – 400

handpumps each. These problems wereaggravated by misuse of vehicles, spares andtools. As a result:

• regular, preventive maintenance was notcarried out

• broken handpumps remained idle for anaverage of three months, and sometimesup to 12 months

• government mechanics were abusing theirposition by soliciting payments

• the poorest and most isolated villageswere completely neglected

• women were forced to revert to collectingwater from distant and dirty traditionalsources, despite access often leading todisputes with landowners.

2. Handpump Maintenancein Andhra Pradesh

The district of Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh contains some of SouthernIndia’s poorest rural areas. Government services do not easily penetrate thislandscape of single room mud-brick and thatch dwellings, with tribal villagesconnected to the outside world only by footpaths. This is a region of dauntingsocial problems, many linked to water shortage.

Yet in one area of 14 mandals (approximately 700 villages) over 660,000 peoplenow benefit from a life-saving service: all drinking water handpumps are properlymaintained and average breakdown time has been reduced from three monthsto three days. This service was developed through a collaboration betweengovernment, NGOs and communities. It signals acceptance by district governmentof the potential for community-based handpump maintenance.

• How has this level of service been achieved?

• How does the collaboration with district government work?

• How have communities come to accept maintenance responsibilities?

• Is the system sustainable in the long run?

D


PAGE 14

Origins of the handpumpmaintenance project

Visakhapatnam district has an unusuallystrong and close-knit network of 43 NGOs,called Viswasamakya*. The network wasformed in 1989 to strengthen relationshipswith local government and other bodies, andimprove development programmes by sharingexperience and training.

In 1992 women’s groups from villages withtubewells alerted Oxfam (India) Trust to whatwere fast becoming serious drinking-waterproblems. Oxfam engaged the Hyderabad-based Training and Development Centre (TDC),and following a series of meetings 15 membersof Viswasamakya each agreed to takeresponsibility for one mandal (with one of the14 mandals covered by two NGOs), reflectingthe government maintenance structure.

It quickly became clear that the immediateneed was for a properly functioninginfrastructure for handpump maintenance,and that the main agent in this process was

to be the ‘community mechanic’, a localperson will ing to learn handpumpmaintenance skills and to ser ve theneighbourhood for little financial reward. Bymid-1993, initial candidates had beenselected, and TDC was conducting trainingin Hyderabad.

In many parts of India government staff arehostile to community mechanics havingaccess to village handpumps, fearing theywill provide poor quality repairs. It wasessential therefore to get governmentpermission. Progress was painfully slow, butby the end of 1994 a basic understandingwas reached with district officials:

• community mechanics were allowedaccess to handpumps and, to gainexperience, were permitted to accompanygovernment mechanics in their daily work

• each community mechanic was equippedwith a toolkit, purchased by Oxfam andthe government

• the spare par ts required would besupplied free from government stores.

Longer-term organisation

At the outset both district of ficials andViswasamakya assumed that, in the long-term, government and communitymaintenance would be kept str ict lyseparate. There was little precedent forcloser collaboration and the NGOs took theview that communities should maintain andmanage the handpumps independently.Viswasamakya decided, however, that a fulloperational par tnership with governmentwas the only way to restore all handpumpsin the district within a reasonable timeframe,given their poor overal l condit ion. Acombined team of TDC, Oxfam andViswasamakya therefore drew up a radicalcollaborative model for all 14 mandals underwhich community mechanics would beintegrated into the government system fora transitional period until communities wereready to pay them directly.

THE INDIA MARK II HANDPUMP

The India Mark II is a robust and reliable lever-action deep-well pump whichmust be installed correctly and used properly. If nuts and bolts are nottightened regularly, the chain greased, and the washers checked, it becomesawkward to use, and expensive parts are damaged. Replacing valves orpipes necessitates the heavy work of lifting out the main cylinder. Somechanics must be properly trained, equipped with a good toolkit (costingabout Rs 6,500), and have access to genuine spare parts.

* In this report ‘Viswasamakya’ is

used to describe the drinking

water network of 15 NGOs; strictly

speaking the term covers the full

membership of 43 NGOs.

WaterAid/Ravinder Reddy


PAGE 15

THE COMMUNITY MECHANIC

Mr. A. V. Ramana is 38 and married with two children. Unable to progress inhis formal education because of his family’s poverty, he worked for six yearsas a fitter in a sugar factory. In 1987 an NGO called SVDS started workingin his village, forming sangams and thrift groups. He became a volunteeradult education teacher, and SVDS paid him Rs 100 a month.

‘In 1993, SVDS told me about a training camp on handpump maintenanceto be held at TDC. I went along and became very interested in the work, asmechanics really help provide water to the poor. I started repairing pumpsin 1994 alongside the government mechanic, and became a full-timemechanic the year after.

I am happy working as a mechanic because, by carrying out repairsimmediately, I am helping my community. I am respected wherever I go, andthe community views me as a specialist who does not demand extra money.

In the first year I worked all day every day. During the second year, the onlypumps needing repairs were those I had not already dealt with, and I workedfor between 22 and 26 days a month. At the moment, the number of repairshas fallen again and I work about 16-18 days a month.’

Mr Ramana (far right) carries out repairs to a handpump assisted by another trainedmechanic and a local villager.

Wat

erAi

d/Ra

vinde

r Red

dy

Implementing this initiative greatly increasedthe suppor t required, and in April 1995WaterAid agreed to help by providing extratechnical suppor t, and by advising onorganisational structures (such as villagecommittees) and on the negotiation ofinstitutional arrangements with the districtgovernment. Additional financial support wasalso given by WaterAid and Oxfam. In 1995,a three-year budget of Rs 3.54 million(£54,500) was set. Save the Children Fundmade a single donation to the project in1996. TDC were appointed to manage theproject and to act as the point ofaccountability between donors andViswasamakya members.

TDC faced an immediate problem that manygovernment employees were unenthusiasticabout working with the community mechanics.Concerns about job security and demarcationarose. Loss of unofficial payments that wouldresult from developing a comprehensiveservice was also a serious cause of discontent.TDC encouraged community mechanics to putas much effort into establishing good workingrelationships as into the maintenance itself,and this proved invaluable – not least in wardingoff confrontation with one of India’s manystrong engineering unions. In the eventgovernment mechanics raised their ownstandards and gained job satisfaction fromproviding a service which users appreciaterather than resent.

Agreement with government

Viswasamakya wanted a written agreementwith the district government to give formalsupport to the collaborative model drawn upby the NGOs. The network drafted adocument and so began a period of patientlyand persistently trying to persuade seniordistrict officials – the Collector, the ChiefExecutive Of ficer, the SuperintendentEngineer, and the Project Director of the RuralDevelopment Administration – that the newstructure had many benefits. After initialcaution, all four key of ficials becameextremely suppor tive of Viswasamakya’sproposals.


PAGE 16

CHAN

GING

ROL

ES D

URIN

G TR

ANSI

TION

FRO

M G

OVER

NMEN

T TO

COM

MUN

ITY

HAND

PUM

P M

AINT

ENAN

CE

•O

rgan

ise

wat

er a

nd s

anita

tion

(WAS

AN)

com

mitt

ees

•Co

llect

hou

seho

ld c

ontr

ibut

ions

•Se

lect

vol

unte

er p

ump

care

take

rs•

Liai

se w

ith p

anch

ayat

s•

Mon

itor

hand

pum

p co

nditi

on a

nd r

epor

t fa

ults

to N

GO

s•

WAS

AN c

omm

ittee

s us

e an

d m

anag

e co

mm

unity

spar

es b

ank

•As

a n

etw

ork

nego

tiate

with

dis

tric

t go

vern

men

t•

Liai

se w

ith m

anda

l gov

ernm

ent

dept

s•

Mob

ilise

com

mun

ities

to

part

icip

ate

inre

pres

entin

g th

eir

need

s an

d in

form

ulat

ing

plan

s•

Empl

oy a

nd t

rain

com

mun

ity m

echa

nics

•Tr

ain

volu

ntar

y ha

ndpu

mp

care

take

rs•

Trai

n W

ASAN

com

mitt

ees

in u

sing

and

man

agin

gco

mm

unity

spa

res

bank

s•

Repo

rt m

onth

ly t

o go

vern

men

t de

pts

•G

over

nmen

t m

echa

nics

wor

k w

ith c

omm

unity

mec

hani

cs•

Fund

par

t of

com

mun

ity m

echa

nics

’ wag

es v

iath

e N

GO

s•

Esta

blis

h a

syst

em o

f com

mun

ity s

pare

s ba

nks

•Re

plac

e sp

ares

use

d fro

m t

he c

omm

unity

spar

es b

anks

— •Fu

nd p

roje

ct m

anag

emen

t, tr

aini

ng, a

ndte

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e vi

a TD

C ( th

e N

GO

act

ing

aspr

ojec

t m

anag

er)

•Re

port

han

dpum

pfa

ults

to

gove

rnm

ent

— •To

tally

res

pons

ible

for

mai

nten

ance

•Em

ploy

mec

hani

cs•

Prov

ide

spar

es•

Mai

ntai

n an

d re

pair

hand

pum

ps

— —

•Th

e vi

llage

com

mun

ity fo

r mal

ly b

ecom

es r

espo

nsib

lefo

r th

e m

anag

emen

t of

the

han

dpum

ps•

WAS

AN c

omm

ittee

s m

anag

e on

a d

ay t

o da

y ba

sis

•Re

port

faul

ts t

o se

lf-em

ploy

ed c

omm

unity

mec

hani

cs•

Pay

mec

hani

cs t

o re

pair

hand

pum

p•

Man

age

com

mun

ity s

pare

s ba

nk e

nsur

ing

gove

rnm

ent

repl

aces

spa

res

— •G

over

nmen

t bu

dget

for

hand

pum

p m

aint

enan

ce fu

llytr

ansf

erre

d to

the

vill

age

com

mitt

ee•

Prov

ide

spar

es t

o co

mm

unity

spa

res

bank

s•

Trai

n ha

ndpu

mp

care

take

rs

•Se

lf em

ploy

ed c

omm

unity

mec

hani

cs r

epai

rha

ndpu

mps

, pai

d by

the

job

by w

ater

and

san

itatio

nco

mm

ittee

s

—

Com

mun

itie

s

NG

Os

Dis

tric

t/S

tate

Gov

ernm

ent

Sm

all s

cale

priv

ate

sect

or

Don

ors

(Oxf

am a

ndW

ater

Ai d

)

Befo

re t

he p

roje

ctD

urin

g th

e pr

ojec

tAf

ter

the

proj

ect


PAGE 17

A pilot agreement was reached in December1995 which included the essentials of anintegrated operation for 1996, with renewalenvisaged in early 1997:

• two community mechanics to supplementthe work of the government mechanic ineach mandal – reducing the averagenumber of handpumps per mechanic toaround 120

• each NGO setting up a bank of spare partsin its mandal to cover temporar yshortages of government supplies, withdonors paying for initial stocks. Sparesused to be replaced by government freeof charge

• community mechanics paid a nominalwage of Rs 700 per month (governmentmechanics receive between Rs 2,000and 5,000 per month), reflecting theirrole somewhere between vi l lagevolunteer and employee, and theexpectation that this would be on top ofincome earned in other ways.

The community mechanics’ wages were tobe funded in full by donors and governmentin the first year, 50 per cent in the secondyear, and phased out altogether thereafter.The balance was to be met progressively bycommunities, either by a salary or on a piecerate basis. Under the agreement thegovernment undertook in seven of the 14mandals, to pay NGOs Rs 20,000 per mandalin 1996, to reimburse the wages andoverheads for the community mechanicsduring the transition to communitymanagement.

Introducing communitymanagement

With the agreement in place, TDC was ableto establish community management,primarily by setting up village water andsanitation committees. Their principalresponsibilities were:

• to select volunteer pump caretakers tocarry out preventive maintenance and

make sure villagers used the handpumpscorrectly

• to create a sound financial base, throughregular household contributions, to enablethe committee to take full responsibilityfor maintenance in the long-term.

A real dif ficulty was tr ying to persuadecommunities that it was in their own interestto accept responsibility for maintaining theirhandpumps, even though they had beenfinanced, constructed, and theoreticallymaintained by state government and UNagencies. The best approach was to tap intothe growing culture of self-help stimulatedby NGO thrift and credit schemes, in whichwomen were the predominant participants.In establishing the water and sanitationcommittees, NGOs drew on existingorganisations and recently elected panchayatrepresentatives. Clear evidence of improvedmaintenance standards also helped andtraining sessions for volunteer pumpcaretakers were set up.

Wat

erAi

d/Ca

rolin

e Pe

nn

Sirumbayer (left) volunteered to be trained as a handpump caretaker. She now has all thenecessary training and tools to carry out maintenance and repairs to ensure water keepsflowing from the village handpump.


PAGE 18

Persuading committees to establish their ownfunding base proved more of a challenge.Many NGOs gave this responsibility to aspecific member of staff, who pointed out tovillagers that community maintenance wouldbe more efficient than the previous unreliablegovernment service, and cheaper becauseit involved no unofficial payments. The levelsof contribution were kept very low so that allcould afford to pay. A common approach wasto seek a monthly contribution of Rs 10 perfamily, falling to Rs 2 when the balance heldby the committee exceeded Rs 3,000.

Consolidation

The project gained momentum. By the endof 1996 administrative procedures were inplace in all 14 mandals, communitymechanics had been trained and star tedwork, and all the spares banks werefunctioning well. Standards of maintenancequickly rose, strengthening efforts to developwater and sanitation committees.

The progress of village communities appearsunstoppable. There are nearly 400 water andsanitation committees, many of which benefitfrom strong relationships with panchayats.Over 50 have raised more than Rs 1,000. In1996 and 1997 an average of 2,000handpumps a year received attention.

The wages of community mechanics areprogressively being met by communities ona piece rate basis. Mechanics chargecommunities a set rate of Rs 25 for eachabove ground repair, and Rs 75 for a belowground one. The project has worked with thecommunity mechanics in three batches, andsince January 1998 the first batch haveearned around Rs 800 a month (theirupdated nominal wage) in payments directfrom the community; the second batch haveearned roughly half this amount, with the

donors funding the other half; and the finalbatch are still receiving all their wage fromthe donors (the government no longer paysa contribution towards these costs). It isnow expected that direct community paymentof mechanics will replace all wages within18 months.

Although the original formal agreement hasnot been renewed, the government is verypositive about the project. Collaborationwith government mechanics continues, andthe government continues to providereplacement spare par ts to communityspares banks.

Summary

The project has made deep inroads intoimproving Visakhapatnam’s handpumps, andrigorous repor ting of repairs carried outhas transformed the district government’sknowledge of its tubewells in the 14mandals covered.

The government now accepts that thecommunity has a major role to play inhandpump maintenance. Relationshipsbetween government, NGO staf f,and communities are much closer, forexample, government of ficials attendcaretaker training sessions and use NGOmanuals and visual aids.

The project has successfully demonstratedthe establishment of an effective communitymanagement infrastructure, and afunctioning maintenance system forhandpumps with good service standards.

WaterAid believes that the experience inVisakhapatnam highlights the usefulness ofan NGO role in the transition from agovernment-led to a community-ledhandpump maintenance service.


PAGE 19

Handpump maintenance: keyinstruments of change

The following factors have been instrumentalin leading to the positive changes outlinedin the case study.

NGO networking

• The structure of Viswasamakya wasappropriate for integration into localgovernment administration. In particular:

– each NGO covered one mandal– common procedures applied across

the network

• Wide coverage (14 mandals) added weightto negotiations with district officials

• Par ticular characteristics ofViswasamakya which contributed tosuccess include:

– strong mutual support in respondingto difficulties

– clarity of shared vision– group stability: in contrast to high

turnover of government officials therehas been no change in groupmembership, or in NGO leaders

• The independent project manager (fromTDC) facilitated tasks acknowledged asnot being well suited to a group, such as:

– coordinating a group of strong NGOsover a lengthy period

– financial accountability– building relationships with

government mechanics.

Quality of maintenance

• The quality of work and speed of responseby community mechanics were majorfactors in improving maintenance

• Mechanics are rigorously selected,trained and monitored. Typically, 30 percent of candidates attending the initialHyderabad course are rejected, whilethose selected undergo constantassessment by the NGOs. By contrast,government mechanics are employed onthe basis of casual piecework experience,and have no formal training

• Proper tools and spares have provedessential. At a crucial juncture of rapidexpansion in 1996, for instance, WaterAidfinanced 21 extra toolkits.

Training in the community

• During 1996-7, 2,870 caretakers weretrained

• Despite pressure for new tubewells, thisproject has adhered strictly to itsmaintenance agenda. Raising awarenessin the community through training can domore to change attitudes than funding ofcapital projects.

Changes in government attitude

• Senior government staff acknowledgedthe reality of the maintenance problem,and were keen to improve the standardof service

• From the beginning, the project put inconsiderable time and effor t to establishgood working relationships withgovernment mechanics

• One of the benefits of the project hasbeen that the day-to-day co-operation ofNGO and government staff has led togreater mutual understanding

• High ser vice standards pre-emptedgovernment criticism; indeed, governmentofficials are unanimous in their praise ofthe community mechanics.


PAGE 20

C

3. Making government funding workharder: the developing model

Both the case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of the familiar building-blocks of community management: affordable technologies, local skills andmaterials, village-level committees. They also suggest that poor communities inIndia can fund their own sanitation facilities and the operation and maintenanceof their water systems.

• What are the implications for the best use of government funding?

ommunity management is firmlyestablished as the foundation ofef for ts to improve the quality of

people’s lives in the developing world. Itsslogans have entered the language ofdevelopment, and its principles have beenadopted by governments and multilateralagencies. In its eighth Five-Year Plan, theGovernment of India talks of ‘harnessingcommunity-development efforts to enablepeople themselves to bring about the solutionof their own problems.’

The experiences described in this repor thighlight a recurrent limitation of communitymanagement. However effective its capacityto plan, implement and manage its ownprojects, a community often needs to dependon government financial support throughgrant, subsidy, or maintenance funding. Thecase studies suggest how this dependencecould be reduced, and government resourcesused more effectively.

Sanitation: Retargetinggovernment subsidy

The bureaucratic and unimaginative use ofgovernment subsidy created thepreconceptions about latrines which provedsuch major obstacles to NGOs in the earlystages of their sanitation work in Tamilnadu.The government’s high subsidy for latrineconstruction has not led to good latrinecoverage. The subsidy – rather than a genuine

wish for a latrine – was often the mainmotivation for building, and therefore somegovernment-funded latrines are not beingused for their original purpose.

Taking into account the costs of hygieneeducation and sanitation promotion WaterAidhas demonstrated a model that would halvethe costs of a latrine to government, and thusdouble potential coverage rates:

Cost to government of single latrine underthe CRSP programme

Construction subsidy Rs 2,000Awareness training Rs 50Overheads and admin Rs 1,580

TOTAL Rs 3,630

Cost to WaterAid of a typical single latrineConstruction subsidy Rs 650Hygiene education Rs 1,014General promotion work Rs 220

TOTAL Rs 1,884

Subsidy is an essential element whentargeting the very poorest (possibly throughcommunities themselves determiningeligibility). But for a large proportion of therural population subsidy of constructioncosts could be reduced and viewed as asecondary rather than a primary source offinance, enabling government funding to beredirected towards hygiene education andsanitation promotion. Evidence that this willwork includes:


PAGE 21

• the popularity of recent NGO offers ofmicro-credit for sanitation, and theresourceful methods of loan repaymentdemonstrated by borrowers.

• the interest expressed even by thepoorest families in upgrading original low-cost latrines through loans, whichsuggests that the original constructioncould have used a greater loan componentand a reduced subsidy.

In Tamilnadu the state government haschanged its policies and resource allocationto reflect these ideas; early indications arepositive, with good uptake of the new cost-sharing latrine subsidy.

For better of f rural households theconstruction of latrines and other sanitationfacilities can be sustained without subsidy.Evidence for this is provided by the successof Rural Sanitary Marts (RSM), developed byUNICEF in 1991. These not-for-profit retailoperations bring sanitary wares closer tousers at af fordable prices. The threeRSMs established by SEVAI in Tamilnadu,with the support of WaterAid and UNICEF,are now financially self-suppor ting anddemonstrate that:

• people from outside project areas arepurchasing latrines, materials andservices without subsidy

• the market forces which underpin thesebusiness operations are stronger thanforces generated by offers of subsidies.

BORROWING, BATHROOMS, AND BANANAS

Nearly all the households in the village of Katukulam decided to construct latrines witha bath extension which, at a cost of about Rs 1,500, necessitated taking out loans. Theidea of using dirty bath-water on small kitchen-gardens has proved a blessing in moreways than one. One villager sold enough pumpkins to repay her loan within a year. Moretypically, families sell bananas and keep other vegetables for their own use. The benefitsare multiple – economic, nutritional, and sustainable.

Wat

erAi

d/Ca

rolin

e Pe

nn

Bananas grown from wastewater being auctioned.


PAGE 22

Handpump maintenance:Retargeting government funding

In Visakhapatnam, the government was usingscarce resources to fund an inef ficientser vice which was unable to deliver anacceptable level of handpump maintenance.The case study has shown that there is goodpotential for handpump maintenance to befunded and organised at village level.

An issue here is whether handpumpmaintenance costs can be contained at alevel which the community can af ford.Although the budget set by the state hasproved inadequate, it does not follow that ahigher budget is necessary. Management bywater and sanitation committees exer tsdownward pressure on costs through:

• regular preventive maintenance

• high quality repair work

• correct operation by users

• cheaper distribution of spares from localstores.

The statement of the community mechanicprovides typical evidence that the conditionof handpumps in the Viswasamakya area isgradually improving through highermaintenance standards. WaterAid estimatesthat the average annual maintenance costper handpump will fall to as little as Rs 200(the state budget in Andhra Pradesh is Rs600), including all spares and labour costs.Assuming an average of 20 families perpump, the cost to each family would be Rs10 per annum.

Another method of containing costs is toincrease the scale of voluntary work that localpeople are prepared to carry out. This couldbe achieved by upgrading caretakers’ skills;their duties would remain voluntar y,motivated by earning the respect of theirneighbours. Only the most complex repairswould require paid assistance from self-employed mechanics.

Such an approach is already proving feasible.A third of the community mechanics arealready receiving the equivalent of theirnominal wage, directly from the village waterand sanitation committees, another third arereceiving half. Indications are that self-employed community mechanics will be paidsolely by the communities within around 18months. In this model the role of governmentmechanics increasingly may be supervision,stores management and repor ting. Theycould also receive additional training inmasonr y, pipe-laying and electric pumpmaintenance.

It is difficult to move immediately from asituation where government hasresponsibility for handpump maintenanceand communities are not allowed to beinvolved at all, to one in which communitiestake total responsibility. Such a shift requiresboth time and training. WaterAid’s experiencein Visakhapatnam is an example of a possibletransitional model.

Once villages are organising and financingmaintenance themselves, government fundscould be channelled increasingly towardsthe considerable requirement for trainingvillage caretakers and into the capital costsof new projects.


PAGE 23

Government

he experiences analysed in these casestudies demonstrate that governmentfunding, when appropriately targeted,

can be very effective in improving access tosafe water and sanitation. But somegovernment funding in the rural water andsanitation sector in India is inappropriatelytargeted and, therefore, largely ineffective.

WaterAid’s work in Tamilnadu demonstratesthat the large government subsidies offeredfor the capital cost of latrines areunnecessary, and can be counterproductive.Except for the very poorest rural dwellers,subsidy of construction costs could bereduced substantially as in the new initiativesof the Tamilnadu state government. The newinitiatives also mark the acceptance bygovernment that a single model of latrine isinappropriate, and that a variety of modelsand technologies should be available.

Whilst NGOs are best suited to householdand village-level mobilisation and hygieneeducation, government resources would bebest used in large scale campaigns such asradio promotion of latrines. Spending ontraining, education, and communication hasthe potential to reach every person in a givenarea, whereas direct works reach only chosenbeneficiaries. Decreasing per capita costs ofcommunication technologies creates thepotential for universal coverage of safesanitation messages.

Funding is required to promote hygienebehaviour change and to suppor t localmarketing of a variety of latrines; and this iswhere government could be the catalyst forwidespread change. Government couldcontribute directly, as they are doing inestablishing the new Tamilnadu state HumanResource Development Depar tment, orindirectly by funding NGOs to under takehygiene education and promote latrines.

In Andhra Pradesh WaterAid’s workdemonstrates that, given training,communities can organise and managehandpump maintenance effectively, and meetthe labour costs of that maintenance. Incontrast, government has been unable toprovide an adequate maintenance service,and the very patchy service it does provideis significantly more expensive thancommunity-managed services. Government-funded handpump maintenance is not onlyinef fective, but probably unnecessar y.Government needs to accept thatcommunities have both the right and theability to maintain village handpumps, withthe accompanying implications for communityownership of a government-funded resource.

Government resources, both financial andhuman, would be better directed in the short-term at facilitating the transition fromgovernment to community management byfunding training for pump mechanics, villagecaretakers and water committees, along theline of the Viswasamakya model. The long-

4. Implications for coverageThis final chapter examines the lessons of the case studies for acceleratingprogress towards national targets for safe water and sanitation.

• What are the implications for the roles of the various actors?

• To what extent do these roles reflect their comparative advantages?

• What shifts in attitude will be needed?

T


PAGE 24

term aim would be to redirect governmentfunds into the creation of new water sources,an area where government has a successfulrecord of achievement.

Communities

If government resources were retargeted inthe ways suggested, most of the burden offinancing sanitation and maintaining waterfacilities would be carried at household andvillage level. Much has been achieved ininvolving communities with projectmanagement, but would this financialcommitment be a step too far? It wouldnecessitate:

• competent village water and sanitationcommittees

• sustainable community water funds to payfor operation and maintenance

• willingness of both families and localinstitutions to extend the use of micro-credit to household sanitationimprovements.

The case studies demonstrate thatcommunities can achieve these aims whenoffered support in:

• promoting a sense of communityownership of local water resources

• managing community water funds:collection methods; the accumulation ofsignificant balances; sanctions againstdefaulting households

• interaction with local institutions,especially co-operative banks and micro-credit schemes

• developing good relationships withpanchayats

• training in management and technicalskills

• subsidies for the poorest families, for

whom even sympathetic micro-credit maybe difficult.

The suggested change in the role ofcommunities makes new and heavy demandson them: to make cash contributions; takeout loans; provide labour and materials;spend time and effor t on management; andprovide and reward community volunteers.Communities need to accept responsibilityfor areas of work that they have previouslyseen as belonging to government. But of allthe actors involved, communities have themost to gain from change.

NGOs

NGOs played a pivotal role in areas criticalto the success of the case study projects.Their ability to promote new ideas tocommunities was based on trust built upthrough close and long-term links at familyand village level. Developing new approachescan be too radical or risky for government,but NGOs are well placed to experiment andto identify innovative and effective solutionssuch as the transition from government tocommunity-led handpump maintenance.

HIGH QUALITY NGOS

The success of the projects in AndhraPradesh and Tamilnadu depended onclose relationships between NGOs andvillage communities, built up over manyyears. This was a crucial factor instimulating change. The quality of NGOpartners is fostered by WaterAid’scareful selection criteria, which requireevidence of successful communityorganisation. Typical characteristicsinclude:

• a strong ethic of hard work,social concern and moralprinciples

• a relatively high concentrationof staff active in a small area

• charismatic leaders who aretrusted and significant figuresin the community.


PAGE 25

In both case studies, the NGO networksplayed an important role. They facilitated thesharing of ideas and experience, and alsoprovided a powerful platform from which tonegotiate with government. In effect, NGOstook the role of representing vil lagecommunities and negotiating on their behalf.

NGOs have also changed their attitudes inthe course of the projects. They acceptedthat it was possible to reduce the cost oflatrines whilst retaining an adequatestandard, and that a much lower level oflatrine subsidy need not be a barrier topromoting safe sanitation. Hygiene educationand sanitation became the starting point forcommunity-based integrated water projects,and were acknowledged to be as importantas water supply in achieving improvementsin health.

Small scale private sector

The case studies suggest new and expandedroles for the small scale private sector. Ithas the dynamism and flexibility to respondto growing demand for latrines and the localproduction of sanitary ware.

Self-employed mechanics, paid by piece rate,will increasingly be needed for community-led handpump maintenance.

Donors

Donors need to be prepared to fund thenetworking costs of NGOs, and to helpfacilitate NGOs to research and developnew methods and techniques. They also needto fund activities with qualitative targets,rather than always expecting to monitoroutputs quantitatively.

Donors should support work involving a varietyof par tners and actors, and explore thepotential of micro-credit for communitydevelopment projects. Most importantly, theyshould accept that community development isa dynamic, not a static, model which will differfrom place to place, and change over time.

WaterAid/Caroline Penn

At the Sevai Rural Technology Centre in Sirugamani, a latrine wall is built using a cementpanel incorporating waste materials like coconut shells and bottles which let light intothe latrine.


PAGE 26

Conclusion

Government’s strengths lie in creatingpolicies to enable universal water andsanitation coverage. Such policies need tobe consistently applied across governmentdepartments and throughout the differentlayers of government. Evidence from the casestudies suggests that if Government shiftsits resources away from funding the highcapital subsidy of latrines and the provisionof handpump maintenance services, towardssupporting a community based one, thenthere is potential for a vast improvement inwater and sanitation ser vices. Availableresources should be used to facilitatecommunities to maintain their water systems,fund new water systems, promote sanitationthrough education and communicationcampaigns, and offer flexible subsidy and agreater variety of latrines.

Government needs to liaise closely withNGOs, and where possible fund them tomobilise communities and undertake hygieneeducation. This will maximise the contributionthat NGOs make through their close workingrelationships with communities. A broaderenvironment of awareness will strengthen thepossibility of replication into neighbouringareas through peer pressure.

The case studies demonstrate thecomparative advantages of the variousactors. Through rationalising their roles, theirstrengths would complement each other,making the most ef fective use of theresources available to the sector, with theaccompanying positive implications forcoverage.

Through its well developed NGO sector,distinctive village communities, and the sheerscale of the task, India is well-placed toexplore whether vast numbers of small, lowincome communities will inevitably remaindependent on massive agencies ofgovernment, or whether the imaginative useof government funds can enable communitiesto secure their own development.


PAGE 27

Acknowledgements Staff of WaterAid and itsmany partner organisations have providedextensive assistance in the preparation of thisreport . Special thanks are due to WaterAid’sCountry Representative, Mr. S. Paramasivan, Mr.Y. Narasimhaiah, Principal of the Training andDevelopment Centre, Hyderabad, the memberNGOs of the Viswasamakya network, WASIO’spartners in Tamilnadu, and all the communitiesinvolved in this work.

WaterAid is a charity which works withcommunities in Africa and Asia helping people toplan, build and maintain their own safe water andsanitation systems. WaterAid provides financialsupport and technical advice, but it is local peoplewho undertake the construction work andcontinue to service and manage their systemson completion. All projects use technologies thatare low in cost, practical and easy to operate.Coupled with hygiene education, real and lastingimprovements can be made to the quality ofpeople’s lives.

Oxfam (India) Trust is the Indian office of thewell-known UK charity. It has a long history ofdevelopment work with poor communities in thesub-continent. The regional office working withWaterAid on the Visakhapatnam project is basedin Hyderabad.

WaterAidPrince Consort House27–29 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7UB

Tel: 0171 793 4500Fax: 0171 793 4545

Email: [email protected]

Charity Reg No 288701

INDIA: Making Government Funding WorkHarder is the third in a series of reports whichanalyse WaterAid’s experience in integratedwater, sanitation and hygiene educationprojects in developing countries.

The 1997 celebrations of the 50th anniversaryof India’s independence were tempered byanxieties over the ever-widening dividebetween a booming urban middle class and theseemingly entrenched poverty of its ruralcommunities.

Such concerns reflect the mixed performanceof social programmes: significant progress inareas such as immunisation and lifeexpectancy is offset by difficulties in bringingsafe water and sanitation to rural areas.

This report examines the evidence of two casestudies to suggest the most appropriate wayfor government to use its resources to achieveresults in the rural water and sanitation sector,and assesses the implications for communitiesand NGOs.

William Gunyon is a volunteer for WaterAid andother development agencies and has abackground in the financial services industry.

ISBN: 0 9513466 4 4

India: Making Government Funding Work Harder · hygiene education projects in developing countries....

Documents

Transcript of India: Making Government Funding Work Harder · hygiene education projects in developing countries....