SIP

A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT REPORT ON
A BENCHMARKING SURVEY OF MUNICIPALITIES OF GUJARAT FOR REDUCTION IN NRW/UFW

Submitted to MARWADI EDUCATION FOUNDATION GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS, RAJKOT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AWARD FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In Gujarat Technological University UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
DR. SERI CHINNAM REDDY

DEAN, MARWADI EDUCATION FOUNDATION GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS Submitted by
SATYA CHHOTALAL MEHTA

(Batch: 2010-12 Enrollment No.:107340592023)
PARSHOTAM SAVJIBHAI SOLANKI

(Batch: 2010-12 Enrollment No.:107340592097)
MARWADI EDUCATION FOUNDATION GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS, RAJKOT MBA PROGRAMME Affiliated to Gujarat Technological University Ahmedabad May, 2012
Students Declaration
SATYA
and
We,
CHHOTALAL PARSHOTAM
hereby
MEHTA SAVJIBHAI
that the
(Enrollment
No.:107340592023) (Enrollment
SOLANKI
project for
No.:107340592097)
declare
Comprehensive Project entitled A BENCHMARKING SURVEY OF
MUNICIPALITIES OF GUJARAT FOR REDUCTION IN NRW/UFW

is a result of our own work and our indebtedness to other work publications, references, if any, have been duly acknowledged.
Place: Rajkot Date:
Satya Chhotalal Mehta Parshotam Savjibhai Solanki
Institutes Certificate
Certified
that
Comprehensive
project
Report
entitled
BENCHMARKING SURVEY OF MUNICIPALITIES OF GUJARAT FOR REDUCTION IN NRW/UFW is the bonafide work of SATYA CHHOTALAL MEHTA
(Enrollment No.:107340592023) and
PARSHOTAM SAVJIBHAI SOLANKI (Enrollment No.:107340592097),

who carried on the research under my supervision. I also certify further, that to the best of my knowledge the work does not form any part of any other project report or dissertation on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on these or any other students.
Dr. S. C. Reddy
Faculty Guide & Dean MARWADI EDUCATION FOUNDATION GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS, Rajkot
Preface
Today world is shrinking at the speed of light. Unknowingly humans are shifting t h em s el v e s t o t h e W O R L D O F S P I R I T S . Laptops, e -books, c l o u d computing, internet is replacing human in every spheres of life. At one side, it is bringing most luxuries ever but at the other end nature resisting the rapid change. Water being one of the major 5 elements of nature is first and foremost for human existence As we are aware that only the total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion km3. The volume of freshwater resources is around 35 million km3, or about 2.5 percent of the total volume. Of these freshwater resources, about 24 million km3 or 70 percent is in the form of ice and permanent snow cover in mountainous regions, the Antarctic and Arctic regions. Around 30 percent of the world's freshwater is stored underground in the form of groundwater (shallow and deep groundwater basins up to 2000 meters, soil moisture, swamp water and permafrost). This constitutes about 97 percent of all the freshwater that is potentially available for human use. This project has made an initiation to share the best practices worldwide to reduce NRW/ UFW in public water supply systems. An effort has been made to bridge the gap of knowledge between Indian local Self-governance bodies and Global standards. Municipal corporations of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Rajkot and Jamnagar were approached for the data and little analysis has been drawn from the data. Also a brief look on Governmental Bodies dealing with water has been looked on. Thus this project will deal with public policy; its working Also will help any common individual to be part of Public system up gradation.
Acknowledgement
Comprehensive project is compulsory and one of the most challenging part of full MBA course. As we were always interested in Public Policy and Marketing, we would like to thank our Dean and project guide Dr. S.C.Reddy Sir who has provided the right and visionary outlook and approach for helping me to choose such a topic
Sincere thanks to our friend, Chandrakant Tank at CEPT who shared his wonderful experience of working on topics of NRW and urban planning
Also would like to thank Bhavik Panchasara Sir, for his valuable guidance in project preparation.
It was our immense pleasure to be with ULBs of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Rajkot and Jamnagar.
At
last
we
would
like to
thank
omnipotent
omnipresent,
Lord
Swaminarayan for giving us energy and mental focus to outrival our project till end with class.
Executive Summary
The project for Comprehensive Project entitled A BENCHMARKING SURVEY OF MUNICIPALITIES OF GUJARAT FOR REDUCTION IN
NRW/UFM was undertaken with an intention to explore the areas of Urban planning, Public Administration with special focus on WATER. The project enlightens areas like Water, its availability in World and especially in India, a brief introduction to SLBs and its fulfillment. Being responsible citizens, we tried out to find out the current status of SLBs in ULBs of Ahmedabad, Baroda, Jamnagar and Rajkot. An area like technology usage, current achievements and ULBs efforts for reduction in NRW\UFM has been analyzed. Project also shows an overview of Governmental Structure of various bodies working at center and state level. This project was the small effort by us under Dr S. C Reddys visionary guidance to fulfill the Individual Social Responsibility.
Table of contents
Chapter No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Particulars Water Scenario Service Level Benchmarks Research Methodology Questionnaire Analysis Findings Suggestions and opinions Bibliography Annexure Page No. 1 8 17 23 36 38 40 42
List of Tables, Charts and Diagrams

Sr No. 1 Particulars Distribution of Earths Water 2 3 4 SLBs MoUD Survey Water Balance in typical Indian City 5 Institutional Framework in Water Supply in Gujarat 5 16 2 3 4 9 11 12 Table\Chart No. 1 Page No. 3
WATER
Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. Its molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at ambient conditions, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice, and gaseous state (water vapor or steam). Water also exists in a liquid crystal state near hydrophilic surfaces.
Water covers 70.9% of the Earth's surface and is vital for all known forms of life. On Earth, it is found mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation. Oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and ponds 0.6%. A very small amount of the E a r t h s w a t e r i s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n biological b o d i e s a n d m a n u f a c t u r e d products.
The collective mass of water found on, under, and over the surface of a planet is called the hydrosphere. Earths approximate water volume (the total water supply of the world) is 1,360,000, 000 km3 (326,000,000 mi3).Groundwater and fresh water are useful or potentially useful to humans as water resources. Liquid water is found in bodies of water, such as an ocean, sea, lake, river, stream, canal, pond, or puddle. The majority of water on Earth is sea water. Water is also present in the atmosphere in solid, liquid, and vapor states. It also exists as groundwaterin aquifers.
Graph 1 source: WHO
WATER IN INDIA
Surface Water Indias average annual surface run-off generated by rainfall and snowmelt is estimated to be about 1869 billion cubic meters (BCM). However, it is
estimated that only about 690 BCM or 37 percent of the surface water resources can actually be mobilized. This is because (i) over 90 per cent of the annual flow of the Himalayas Rivers occurs over a four month period and (ii) potential to capture such resources is complicated by limited suitable storage reservoir sites.
Rainfall The average annual rainfall in India is about 1170 mm. This is considerable variation in rain both temporarily and spatially. Most rain falls in the monsoon season (June-September), necessitating the creation of large storages for maximum utilization of the surface run-off. Within any given year, it is possible to have both situations of drought and of floods in the same region. Regional varieties are also extreme, ranging from a low value of 100 mm in Western Rajasthan to over 11,000 mm in Meghalaya in North-Eastern India. Possible changes in rainfall patterns in the coming decade, global warming and climate change and other predicted or observed long-term trends on water. Availability could affect Indias water resources.
Ground Water Indias rechargeable annual groundwater potential has been assessed at around 431 BCM in aggregate terms. On an all India basis it is estimated that about 30 per cent of the groundwater potential has been tapped for irrigation and domestic use. The regional situation is very much different and large parts of India have already exploited almost all of their dynamic recharge. Haryana and
4
Punjab have exploited about 94 per cent of their groundwater resources. Areas with de pl e t i ng groundwater tables are f ound in Rajast ha n Gujarat, most of western Uttar Pradesh and in all of the Deccan states. Occurrence of water availability at about 1000 cubic meters per capita per annum is a commonly threshold for water indicating scarcity (UNDP).
Investment to capture additional surface run-off will become increasingly more difficult and expensive in the future. groundwater resources, a situation where underutilized and where Over time, both for surface and resources were substantially
considerable development potential existed, has
transformed in little more than a generation to a situation of water scarcity and limited development options. India faces an increasingly urgent situation: its finite and fragile water resources are stressed and depleting while various sectorial demands are growing rapidly. Historically relatively plentiful water resources have been primarily for irrigated agriculture, but with the growth of Indian economy and industrial activities water demands share of water is changing rapidly. In addition increase in population and rapid urbanization
also put an additional demand on water resources. Summing up the various sectorial projections reveals a total annual demand for water increasing from 552 billion cubic meters (BCM) in 1997 to 1050 BCM by 2025
WATER SUPPLY IN INDIA

In 2011, 88% of the population in India had access to an improved water sources. In rural areas, where 72% of Indias population lives, the respective shares are 84% for water. In urban areas, 96% had access to an improved water source. Access has improved substantially since 1990 when it was estimated to stand at 72% for water .According to Indian norms, access to improved water supply exists if at least 40 liters/capita/day of safe drinking water are provided within a distance of 1.6 km or 100 meter of elevation difference, to be relaxed as per field conditions. There should be at least one pump per 250 persons.
Challenges
None of the 35 Indian cities with a population of more than one million distribute water for more than a few hours per day, despite generally sufficient infrastructure. Owing to inadequate pressure people struggle to collect water even when it is available. According to the World Bank, none have
performance indicators that compare with average international standards. A 2007 study by the Asian Development Bank showed that in 20 cities the average duration of supply was only 4.3 hours per day. No city had continuous supply. The longest duration of supply was 12 hours per day in Chandigarh, and the lowest was 0.3 hours per day in Rajkot. [3] In Delhi residents receive water only a few hours per day because of inadequate management of the distribution system. This results in contaminated water and forces households
to complement a deficient public water service at prohibitive 'coping' costs; the poor suffer most from this situation. For example, according to a 1996 survey households in Delhi spent an average of 2,182 (US$48.7) per year in time and money to cope with poor service levels. This is more than three times as much as the 2001 water bill of about US$18 per year of a Delhi household that uses 20 cubic meters per month.
6
Achievements:
Jamshedpur, a city in Jharkhand with 573,000 inhabitants, provided 25% of its residents with continuous water supply in 2009. Navi Mumbai, a planned city with more than 1m inhabitants, has achieved continuous supply for about half its population as of January 2009. Badlapur, another city in the
Mumbai Conurbation with a population of 140,000, has achieved continuous supply in 3 out of 10 operating zones, covering 30% of its population Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala state with a population of 745,000 in 2001, is probably the only city to enjoy continuous water supply.
SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

(Issued by MoUD)
Water Supply Sr No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Indicator
Water connection coverage Per capita supply of water NRW extent Metering extent Customer complaint redressal Quality of water supplied Cost recovery Continuity of water supply Efficiency in collection of water charges
Benchmark
100% 135lpcd 15% 100% 80% 100% 100% 24hours 90%
Table 2 source: MoUD
NEED OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS
Every sector has a few key performance indicators that are understood by most stakeholders in that sector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there have been a number of performance indicators related to urban management and service delivery that have been defined, measured and reported. However, most initiatives in performance management so far have been
observed to have some key limitations: Different sets of performance indicators have been defined under different initiatives; the definition or the assessment method may vary for the same performance indicator, thus inhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons; Most measurement exercises have been externally driven (by agencies external to the agency responsible for delivery against those performance parameters), leading to the key issue of ownership of have not
performance reports; Most performance measurement initiatives
been institutionalized, limiting the benefits of monitoring trends in performance over time; and The process of performance measurement has not been taken forward into performance management. These limitations mean that systems for measuring performance and taking further action on them have not been institutionalized in urban agencies. It is therefore important that the basic minimum standard set of performance parameters are commonly understood and used by all stakeholders. Depending on the specific need, additional performance parameters can be defined and used
10
A MoUD SURVEY, JANUARY 2011
Sr No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Indicator Coverage Supply NRW Metering Continuity Efficiency Quality Recovery Collection
Benchmark 100% 135lpcd 15% 100% 24Hrs 80% 100% 100% 90%
Ahmedabad 85.4 12.1 31 No Data 2 99.2 94.8 53.8 60.3
Delhi 71.5 144 52.4 55.3 3 73 99.5 41.6 86.3
Surat 86.6 147 20.4 0.4 3 94.8 100 92.3 94
Chandigarh 87 158 31 73 17.5 100 100 64 89
Table 3 source: MoUD
11
WATER BALANCE IN TYPICAL INDIA CITY
Graph 4 source: CEPT
12
GOVERNMENT BODIES WORKING ON WATER

(Centre and State)
CENTRE
Ministries Ministry of Water Resources Ministry of Urban Development
Attached Offices Central Soil And Materials Research Station Central Soil and Materials Research Station (CSMRS) Central Water Commission (CWC)
Subordinate Offices Central Water and Power Research Station (CWPRS) Ganga Flood Control Commission (GFCC), Patna Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee (SSCAC) Upper Yamuna River Board
Autonomous Bodies, Boards & Corporations National Institute of Hydrology (NIH), Roorkee Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation National Water Development Agency (NWDA)
Boards / Undertakings Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) Central Ground Water Board North Western Region Chandigarh National Projects Construction Corporation Limited (NPCC) National Water Academy, Central Water Commission, Pune, Maharashtra Water and Power Consultancy Services (India) Limited (WAPCOS) Water Quality Assessment Authority
13
Statutory Bodies, Commissions & Councils, Statutory / Constitutional Bodies Central Ground Water Board, Kerala Region, Trivandrum Central Ground Water Board, Middle East Region, Patna Central Ground Water Board, North Central Region, Bhopal Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region, Lucknow Central Ground Water Board, South Western Region, Bangalore Central Ground Water Board, Western Region, Ahmedabad Central Ground Water Board, Western Region, Jaipur Task Force on Interlinking of Rivers
Public Sector Undertakings Water and Power Consultancy Services Ltd (WAPCOS) Introduction National Projects Construction Corporation Limited Narmada Control Authority Betwa River Board Tungabhadra Board Brahmaputra Board
14
GUJARAT STATE
Ministries Ministry, Water Supply and Water Resources Attached Offices Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, Gujarat Autonomous Bodies, Boards & Corporations GWSSB GMFB GUDM GWRDC Boards / Undertakings WALMI (Water and Land Management Institute) WASMO Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee (SSCAC)
15
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN WATER SUPPLY IN GUJARAT
Capital Works GWSSB, Municipal Body Operations & Maintenance: Municipality Revenue Function Municipal body
Table 5 source: GWSSB
16
17
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
A survey of Indian Municipal Corporation as an Initiative to share the best practices worldwide to reduce NRW / UFW in public water supply systems Tries to find out current benchmark status in Indian Municipalities Exposure of ULBs policy makers with global standards Type of awareness and efforts for fulfilling SLBs Technological Savviest approach of Indian municipalities
18
RESEARCH DESIGN
Target population Municipal Corporation wards corporators Water Departments of municipality
Sample Size 45 (15 from Ahmedabad, 15 from Rajkot, 12 from Jamnagar, 3 from Vadodara)
Sampling technique A combination of Convenient and Judgment Sampling. (Samples were selected such as, 4 per cities; each city includes 5 administration personnel 5 engineers and 5 corporators from each city. Sample size for each city was small as firstly, it was a pilot study and secondary almost every feedback from each city would be similar as they belong to same Organizational structure. As due to busy schedule, only 3 feedbacks was available from Vadodara)
Sources of Data Survey via questionnaire (contact method) containing 12 different questions
Statistical Tool Online survey portal: www.esurveypro.com Personal Project Management through Microsoft Excel 2010 Analysis and data interpretation through generated with help of esurveypro and various charts and graphs using Microsoft Excel and Word
19
LITERATURE REVIEW
SEAWUN Water Supply Benchmark Survey, (2003)
Within the World water supply service provider community, there have been many benchmark surveys undertaken including within individual water supply companies over a period of years, between sister water supply companies in relatively close proximity, a number of regional initiatives and on a more global scale such as the recent IBNET initiative. Benchmarking is a recognized method of explicitly documenting performance of individual companies and promoting not only comparative awareness between
companies but also indirect competition as companies seek to improve their service delivery, their financial viability and achieve sustainable management of their resources and infrastructure. As the regional association for water supply and wastewater organizations in South East Asia, SEAWUN is information, experiences and
committed to encouraging sharing of
development of its member companies and organizations. Benchmarking of water supply companies is seen as a key aspect of this mutual support. The attached survey is SEAWUNs first survey of a selection of water supply companies in South East Asia. A key objective of the SEAWUN benchmark survey is to give useful results back to the participants as well generally raise the awareness in South East Asia of the usefulness of benchmarking water supply companies and encouraging others to participate in coming years.
20
National City Water Survey, Washington D.C (2005)
Traditional water meters remain the most
common
conservation technique,
employed by 72.5 percent of the survey cities. However, 68.8 percent of the cities indicated they would consider modernizing with automated water meters if they could save water or money. While the number of cities altering water rate structures is fairly constant over the three population size categories, the proportion of cities employing the technique is clearly related to increasing population size. Almost half of the larger cities use the technique, while only about 40 percent of medium size cities and about 30 percent of smaller size cities do. Urban Water Council (UWC) is a Task Force of The U.S. Conference of Mayors. It is open to all Mayors, and its purpose is to
provide a forum for discussion of issues impacting how cities provide and protect community water and wastewater services. Some of the issues that the UWC focuses on include: development and rehabilitation of surface and subsurface water infrastructure; water infrastructure financing; watershed management; construction water and supply planning; programs; water and conservation; water system wetlands program
education
management and asset management. Additionally, the UWC serves as an educational clearinghouse for cities by compiling and disseminating water resources Best Practices.
Mayors were asked to identify which of 24 water resources issues is either a current or future problem for their cities. The list of 24 water resources issues was derived from discussions with Mayors and their staffs, as well as consultation with federal agencies. The list was not intended to be comprehensive. An other response category was included to allow cities to identify issues that were not on the pre-selected list. Mayors were also asked to rank the five most pressing water resources issues on the list. This convention was intended to distinguish priorities among the problem issues, providing invaluable information for federal policy discussions.
21
LIMITATIONS
Lack of Secondary Data, as it was the first ever project of such type in Indian Municipalities. Budget constraint, data collection among 4 cities from authorities was extremely costly, including appointments, conveyance, boarding and lodging leading, Convenient and Judgment sampling, and sampling size of 45 in total from 4 cities.
22
23
ANALYSIS The pattern of water supply (Hours/ day) in my area is as follows.
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Less than 1-2 hour 2-4 hour 4-6 hour 6 hour or 1hour more No of Respondents
Almost all the 4 cities receive water between 1-3 hours daily maximum.
24
The pattern of water supply (No of times / Day) in my area is
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 time 2 times 3 times more than 3 times
Respondents
None of the cities receives water more than 2 times a day; majorly responded for once a day against 24hours of SLB.
25
The pattern of water supply (No of days / week) in my area is
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Respondents
Here almost everyone agreed and responded of 7days a week supply of water in all the 4 cities except a few.
26
The following problems occur because of leakage in water pipelines. (Multiple Choice)
Unavailability of water supply Water loss Increased operations and maintenance cost Water logging Road collapsing Traffic Jams Accidents
5% 8% 10% 8% 24%
32%
13%
Water logging and water loss were the 2 main problems occurred due to leakages in pipelines.
27
The following leak detection techniques are used (Multiple choices)
By observing water logging Digging the entire network to detect leakage Pressure management of pipeline Geographic Information System Real time measurement Use of Noise Logging Technology By regular audit approach
15% 27%
0%
4% 8% 0% 46%
Still conventional approaches of digging full network and audits were used for leak detection.
28
The measures taken to reduce Non Revenue Water. (Multiple choice)
Preventive network inspection Preventive maintenance of distribution network Reducing illegal connections and water theft Real time monitoring of network Carrying on water audits Use of Noise Logging Technology 0% 18% 32%
14%
22%
14%
Network inspection was the prime action at ULBs list for reduction in NRW.
29
We are planning to fulfil the following service level benchmarks issued by government of India. (Multiple choice)
100% coverage of water supply connections 100% metering of all water connections 24 hours continuous water supply 80% efficiency in addressing customer complaints
30% 47%
10% 13%
100% coverage of water supply connection topped the list followed by customer complaints redressal in SLB fulfillment priority.
30
The following steps can lead me to fulfil the service level benchmarks (Multiple choice)
Increasing efficiency in addressing customer Monitoring the performance indicators Carrying on water audit Continuous monitoring of water distribution network Using advanced leak detection technique
23%
20%
6%
17% 34%
In respondents opinion continuous monitoring of network could primarily lead to fulfillment of SLBs
31
A continuous water supply (24 by 7) will require the following. (Multiple choice)
Huge amount of water Metering of all connections Advanced leak detection technology Real time monitoring of water distribution network Using advanced leak detection technique 5% 14% 22% 28% 31%
Advance leak detection technology and metering of all connections will be 2 prime solutions for 24 by 7 water supply.
32
I have attended the following water programs.
World water week World water day Water and sanitation program Other
7% 13%
53% 27%
All the respondents majorly had attended local water programs and seminars while only few had exposure to international programs like world water day and world water week.
33
I understand that getting access to the best practices with respect to managing the public water utilities via international programs world facilitate to effectively implement the following.
Continuous ( 2 4 by 7 ) water supply 100 % coverage of water supply connections 100% metered water connections Advanced leak detection technology Real time monitoring of water distribution network 100% efficiency in collection of revenues 2% 14% 31% 19%
17% 17%
Maximum emphasis was on 24 by 7 water supply followed by 100% connections and metering by enhancement of knowledge if given chance to go for International programs.
34
DATA SHEET Options Q. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 36 0 9 12 27 42 21 15 3 39 18 9 0 27 36 12 12 6 30 6 21 9 0 0 15 0 18 9 18 33 12 21 3 0 0 36 6 12 27 36 24 24 24 18 3 24 6 0 9 3 15 12 12 0 0 33 6 21 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
35
36
FINDINGS
Water supply is intermittent in nature. Still conventional approaches for solving water leakages are used. 24*7 water supply, still a distant dream due to, no 100% metering, no 100% connections. Need of technological up gradation in ULBs Policy makers and implementers need global exposure to know best international water management practises.
37
38
SUGGESTIONS AND OPINIONS

Advance leak detection technology usage should be considerably increased in ULBs Water management consultancy should be taken by ULBs, dignifying ample fund received from Centre and State for system up gradation. People are the part of Local self-governance; henceforth they should be invoked and involved in managing water. More awareness among people via campaigns should be propagated regarding SLBs. SHGs should be formed among societies and cooperatives that take care of water and its usage in respective areas. PPP propaganda should be on top of ULBs agenda in area of water management system. Water programs at local level for common citizen should be held. Policy implementers should be given chance to gain access and experience Internationally reputed and acclaimed Municipalities for knowledge sharing and technical know-how of various aspects of managing public water utilities. Programs even on rain water, storm water and re-processing of water should be carried out at a peak level, as OCED reports of water scarcity in Indian subcontinent by 2030.
39
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bhattacharyya D K, Research methodology, first edition (2003). pp.56-70 Luck David J. & Ronald S. Rubin, Marketing Research. Seventh Edition, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi (1998). pp. 31-253
Malhotra Naresh, Marketing Research. Fifth Edition, Pearson Education (2007). pp.64-416 Kotler Philip, Keller Kevin Lane, Koshy Abraham, Zha Mithileshwar, Marketing Management, Thirteenth Edition, Pearson Education Ltd (2009)
Official websites of: 1. Ministry of Urban Development. 2. National Portal of India 3. State Portal of Gujarat 4. CEPT University 5. Google 6. Wikipedia 7. Municipal Corporations of Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Rajkot, Jamnagar. 8. Esurveypro 9. Gujarat Technological University 10. WHO
41
42
INITIATIVE TO SHARE THE BEST PRACTICES WORLDWIDE TO REDUCE NRW/ UFW IN PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
nitiativ An initiative to save water, save life!

Dear sir/madam, Though 70% of earths surface is covered by water, the usable water on earth is only 0.1%. The cost of converting saline water into usable water is extremely high. Reducing the amount of water loss and unaccounted for water in municipal water use has been identified as an opportunity for conservation of usable water. We the students of GTU have initiated programme to share the best practices in world to reduce NRW/ UFW in public water supply systems. Kindly spare some time from your busy schedule and share your views about this initiative with us.
NAME:
DESIGNATION _
WARD NUMBER:
CITY
PHONE NUMBER: (M) _
(R)
LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!
Its only good till the last drop, then What?
Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!
1) The pattern of water supply (Hours/ day) in my area is as follows. <1 1-2 2-4 4-6 >6 Hours / Day 1 No of times a day 7 No of days / Week 2) The following problems occur because of leakage in water pipelines. ( Tick one or more options) Unavailability of water supply Water loss Increased operations and maintenance cost Water logging Road collapsing Traffic Jams Accidents 6 4-5 3 <3 2 3 4 >4
Do one thing each day that will save water,
Even if savings are small, every drop counts!

3) The following leak detection techniques are used (Tick one or more options.) By observing water logging Digging the entire network to detect leakage Pressure management of pipeline Geographic Information System Real time measurement Use of Noise Logging Technology By regular audit approach
4) The measures taken to reduce Non Revenue Water (tick one or more options) Preventive network inspection Preventive maintenance of distribution network Reducing illegal connections and water theft Real time monitoring of network Carrying on water audits Use of Noise Logging Technology Others
Use water economically today,
To get economic water tomorrow!
5) We are planning to fulfil the following service level benchmarks issued by government of India (tick one or more options) 100% coverage of water supply connections 100% metering of all water connections 24 hours continuous water supply 80% efficiency n addressing customer complaints
6) The following steps can lead me to fulfil the service level benchmarks Increasing efficiency in addressing customer complaints Monitoring the performance indicators Carrying on water audit Continuous monitoring of water distribution network Using advanced leak detection technique
Save water,
Noting can replace it!
7) A continuous water supply (24 by 7) will require the following (Tick one or more options)
Huge amount of water Metering of all connections Advanced leak detection technology Real time monitoring of water distribution network Using advanced leak detection technique
8) I have attended the following international programs. World water week World water day Water and sanitation program Other Please specify
9) I understand that getting access to the best practices with respect to managing the public water utilities via international programs world facilitate to effectively implement the following. Continuous ( 2 4 by 7 ) water supply 100 % coverage of water supply connections 100% metered water connections Advanced leak detection technology Real time monitoring of water distribution network 100% efficiency in collection of revenues Other Please specify
10) I wish to attend an international program to experience Management of continuous ( 24 by 7 ) Water supply Reduction in leak time using advanced technology Real time monitoring of water supply networks Other Please specify
11) Experiencing the technology and management of worlds best municipalities will help me in improving efficiency of my area. Definitely Probably May be
12) Experiencing leak detection technology in motion in countries where it is practiced will enable the evolution of water distribution networks handled by the municipalities. Definitely Probably May be
Thank you for spending your valuable time and sharing your views with. We ensure you that the above information will be strictly used for educational purpose. Place: Sign: Date: /07 / 2011
Ministry of Urban Development Government of India
SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING
HANDBOOK ON
HANDBOOK ON SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING
ABBREVIATIONS
BSUP CPHEEO DMA FY GIS ICAI ILCS JNNURM MoUD NRW O&M PROOF RWA SLB STP SWM ULB Basic Services to the Urban Poor Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation District Metering Area Financial Year Geographic Information System Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Ministry of Urban Development Non-Revenue Water Operations and Maintenance Public Record of Operations and Finance Resident Welfare Association Service Level Benchmark Sewage Treatment Plant Solid Waste Management Urban Local Body
Units of Measure lpcd m km litres per capita per day metre kilometre
Conversions Crore = 10,000,000
BENCHMARKS AT A GLANCE
2.1 S. No. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 2.1.9 2.2 S. No. 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.2.9 2.3 S. No. 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8 2.4 S. No. 2.4.1 2.4.2 Water Supply Services Proposed Indicator Coverage of water supply connections Per capita supply of water Extent of metering of water connections Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) Continuity of water supply Quality of water supplied Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Cost recovery in water supply services Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation) Proposed Indicator Coverage of toilets Coverage of sewage network services Collection efficiency of the sewage network Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity Quality of sewage treatment Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in sewage management Efficiency in collection of sewage charges Solid Waste Management Proposed Indicator Household level coverage of solid waste management services Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste Extent of municipal solid waste recovered Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in SWM services Efficiency in collection of SWM charges Storm Water Drainage Proposed Indicator Coverage of storm water drainage network Incidence of water logging/flooding Benchmark 100% 0 Benchmark 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 80% 100% 90% Benchmark 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 80% 100% 90% Benchmark 100% 135 lpcd 100% 20% 24 hours 100% 80% 100% 90%
SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES
1.0
1.1 NEED FOR SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING
INTRODUCTION TO SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING
Every sector has a few key performance indicators that are understood by most stakeholders in that sector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there have been a number of performance indicators related to urban management and service delivery that have been defined, measured and reported. However, most initiatives in performance management so far have been observed to have some key limitations: a Different sets of performance indicators have been defined under different initiatives; a The definition or the assessment method may vary for the same performance indicator, thus inhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons; a Most measurement exercises have been externally driven (by agencies external to the agency responsible for delivery against those
performance parameters), leading to the key issue of ownership of performance reports; a Most performance measurement initiatives have not been institutionalised, limiting the benefits of monitoring trends in performance over time; and a The process of performance measurement has not been taken forward into performance management (Figure 1). These limitations mean that systems for measuring performance and taking further action on them have not been institutionalised in urban agencies. It is therefore important that the basic minimum standard set of performance parameters are commonly understood and used by all stakeholders. Depending on the specific need, additional performance parameters can be defined and used.
FIGURE 1: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Measuring service levels of civic agencies implies measuring outcomes, and indirectly also reflects on institutional capacity, financial performance and other parameters. Service level parameters can be measured either from a utility managers/planners perspective or from a citizens or consumers perspective. In addition, to facilitate comparison between cities/service delivery jurisdictions, and changes in performance over time, it is important that the performance levels are benchmarked, and monitored against those benchmarks. It is in this context, that the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) has initiated an exercise to define Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs). The MoUD constituted a Core Group for Service Level
Benchmarking, comprising experts from various institutions to arrive at the SLBs. Drawing on the experiences of various initiatives in measuring service level performance, the Core Group narrowed down the exercise to four basic urban services to begin with, and arrived at sets of indicators in each. After much deliberation, the indicators, their definitions, means of measurement, frequency and jurisdiction of measurement and reporting, etc., were finalised. The Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking is a ready reckoner to enable Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and other city level parastatal agencies implement systems for measuring, reporting and monitoring the SLBs.
1.2 PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR BASIC URBAN SERVICES

Service level performance parameters have been identified for four basic urban services: a Water Supply; a Sewage; a Solid Waste Management (SWM); and a Storm Water Drainage These parameters have been defined primarily from a utility managers/planners perspective. In other words, the parameters highlight the performance as would be monitored by the leadership/management of ULBs or other civic agencies. These performance measurements will need to be carried out by the service delivery agencies themselves, reported to higher levels of management and also disseminated widely. Clear definitions and methodologies are expected to eliminate bias in measurement and reporting. Performance from a citizens or consumers point of view is better measured by capturing their perception, rather than data from the delivery agency. Measuring citizens perception can be supplemented by reporting by the agencies themselves, and can offer interesting insights when compared with one another. Performance parameters should be applied across all cities and regularly used by all stakeholders. Practical considerations will drive frequency of measurement and reporting; and the jurisdiction of measurement and reporting, both critical aspects in performance measurement. Performance will need to be measured at a frequency higher than or at least equal to the frequency at which it will need to be reported. Frequency should be determined at such an interval at which the variables driving the performance parameter will undergo visible change, and thereby reflect change in performance over different time periods. Also, to the extent practical, performance should be measured at the smallest geographic jurisdiction as possible. Typically, performance measurements at the electoral ward level will be of significant value to decision-makers, especially elected representatives. Administrative jurisdictions for service delivery departments should ideally be co-terminus with ward boundaries. Service delivery performance at ward levels, when laid out spatially on the city map, may also offer interesting insights. Also from a citizens perspective, ward boundaries are the sub-ULB level jurisdictions that they can possibly relate to. However, on the other hand, in case of network utilities such as water supply and sewage, all network management data are ideally reported by the Zone/District Metering Area (DMA), which typically represents major branches in the network. It will therefore be relevant to examine network management-related performance indicators by Zone/sub-jurisdictions of the network (for example, continuity of water supply), while service delivery as experienced by the citizen is measured by civic wards as the smallest jurisdiction (for example, coverage of water supply connections). For purposes of internal management of the ULB/utility, performance should be reported at the lowest level of jurisdiction and at maximum frequency possible. However, frequency may reduce and city-wide level performance may be reported to the higher levels of government and other external stakeholders.
1.3 ROLES OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

For the service level performance parameters to be accepted as a standard, all stakeholders will need to play their parts. The roles of different stakeholders and the next steps they will need to pursue are: a Central Government: MoUD, Government of India, will take the lead in disseminating these service level performance parameters and building wider acceptance. SLBs will also be institutionalised through the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and other programmes initiated by MoUD: SLBs will be an integral part of City Development Planning processes, both for assessment of the current situation, and for setting targets under their plans; Wherever appropriate, SLBs will be dovetailed with the commitment on reforms, and the subsequent process of appraisal of reforms; The relevant SLBs should be part of Detailed Project Reports for concerned sectors, indicating both the current situation and changes the project will bring about. Subsequent processes of implementation monitoring of the project will also evaluate these SLBs; and Under the JNNURM, support may be extended to enable ULBs and other civic agencies to establish systems in their respective institutions for periodic measurement, reporting and analysis of SLBs. a State Governments and their Agencies: State governments and their nodal agencies in the urban sector have a critical role in driving the performance of ULBs and city level civic agencies. State governments will need to periodically evaluate the SLBs as an input for its decisions related to policy, resource allocations, providing incentives and penalties, channelising technical and manpower support, and regulatory considerations, among others. The Directorate of Local Bodies/Department of Municipal Administration will need to play a key role in this process through constant inter-city comparisons. These departments should leverage the power of information technology to build and operate systems that periodically capture and report on SLBs. Web-based technologies should be leveraged to manage information flow. For other nodal State level agencies, the SLBs will provide specific inputs for their programmes and interface with the ULBs and other civic agencies. SLBs will also be an important input to the State Finance Commissions in the course of their work. a Urban Local Bodies: ULBs are the most important stakeholders for the institutionalisation of Service Level Benchmarking. As service delivery institutions, ULBs will find it useful to institutionalise systems for performance management using SLBs. Performance data at the sub-ULB level (Zone or ward level) are particularly useful for the ULB for making appropriate decisions and monitoring performance of the various field units. Benchmarking with other cities within the State, or with similar cities, facilitates a healthy competitive environment for continuous improvement; and As the principal elected institution for self-governance in the city, ULBs will need to examine performance of other
parastatal civic agencies, even if the ULBs are not directly responsible for service delivery in those areas. Performance management data using SLBs should be included in the set of information disseminated under mandatory public disclosure, as required by the reforms mandate under JNNURM. The key next steps for ULBs are to generate performance reports on SLBs periodically beginning financial year (FY) 2008-09. Data can be captured either regularly through systems on the ground (for example, weighbridges at the composting plant or landfill site, water meters capturing flow at designated points, demand collection registers for water charges, etc.), or through specific surveys carried out at defined intervals. In parallel, the ULBs will also need to institutionalise systems for the entire cycle of performance management, as depicted in Figure 1. This would imply: Systems for capturing data: Design and implement data collection systems for data to be captured at the most disaggregated level. Such data will typically be from field level staff such as sanitary supervisors, water pump operators, accounts clerks, etc. Simple data
formats should be designed and provided to them to capture the data and report it upwards within the organisation for collation and determination of the service level performance; Systems for collation and analysis of performance indicators: Specific persons should be designated with the mandate to collate the data received from the field and generate the performance reports. Working directly under supervision and guidance from officers at the head of department level, young professionals with good analytical skills and moderate levels of technical skills should be able to execute these tasks; Systems for assessment and evaluation of performance: In most cases, multiple indicators need to be examined to obtain a holistic picture of service levels in a particular sector. Performance indicators reported by the department level should be closely examined at the management level of the ULB. Such reviews by the Mayor/ Municipal Commissioner should take place at a defined frequency, say monthly;
Systems for decision-making: All ULBs do have systems for decision-making; however, many decisions end up being considered in the absence of quality data. To address such gaps, systems such as periodically tabling the performance reports in the Council/to the Standing Committees should be instituted. Typically, reporting ward level performance parameters, wherever applicable, will be useful; Systems for operational decisions and plans: Decisions and plans will need to be periodically reviewed in light of the performance achieved and follow-on decisions taken up. Additional capital or revenue expenditure may be needed, contracting decisions made, and remedial action taken with respect to deployment of staff, etc. A process of monthly review and follow-up decisions will need to be instituted; and Systems to take corrective action for performance improvement: To enable the operational staff implement corrective action on the ground, they will need to be adequately empowered to implement the decisions taken without lengthy approval processes. For networked infrastructure services, as in most urban services, significant efficiency improvements can be brought about through operational improvements without significant capital investment. A system of incentives and penalties must be instituted to attain targeted performance levels. This is critical for the field functionaries to respond in making quick operational improvements. Similarly, the system of penalties for errant staff that has lead to poor performance should be institutionalised. a Other Parastatal Agencies: The significance of Service Level Benchmarking and the next
steps parastatal agencies need to undertake are very similar to that for ULBs. Parastatal agencies too need to put systems in place for performance management as mentioned above. The need for periodic reporting of SLBs to ULBs concerned and its public disclosure is further highlighted in this case, thereby bringing in higher intensity of accountability of parastatal agencies to elected bodies and the public at large. a Bi-lateral/Multi-lateral Aid Agencies and Other Stakeholders: Various urban governance and infrastructure improvement programmes initiated by bi-lateral and multi-lateral aid agencies can dovetail with and further strengthen this initiative, mainly in two ways: Enabling State governments and cities in design and implementation of performance management systems, with a focus on the SLBs defined; and Extensively using the SLBs defined in the design, implementation and monitoring of the urban programmes supported by them. Benchmarking service levels and achieving targets for each of these SLBs can be built into the design of these programmes. Organisations such as City Managers Associations, public administration training institutions, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, other external and internal audit agencies, financial institutions and a whole range of external stakeholders should examine these SLBs in the course of their interactions with the ULBs. a Citizens and Civil Society: While the SLBs have not been defined from the citizens perspective as such, the parameters considered provide reasonable indication of performance of the ULB/civic agency. Citizens should engage with ULBs through Area Sabhas, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and other such civil society organisations, in examining the SLBs and suggesting remedial actions.
1.4 LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS
It is recognised that this initiative to implement performance management systems using SLBs has a number of limitations. Performance management in ULBs is being catalysed by the Central Government; however, it is acceptance and capacity at the State and city levels that will sustain this initiative. While this Handbook has attempted to address issues of definition and methodology for Service Level Benchmarking, it is anticipated that a number of complexities will arise in the course of actual implementation. Field level experience in implementing service delivery performance management systems may also throw up the need for monitoring additional parameters. This experience should then provide feedback for improving the SLBs and preparing the second version of this Handbook. Challenges involved in implementing performance management systems using SLBs will be many. They will include: a Systems for capturing key data elements identified for Service Level Benchmarking are not present in many cases at the field level. Ideally data are always captured at the lowest level. Interpreting and understanding performance is always easier at an aggregate level; this is not possible at the disaggregated level, if data have not been captured at that level. Also the data at city/ULB level can be credible and reasonably accurate, only if they have been captured at the lower levels, such as the ward level. For example, if ward level data are captured on hours of water supply, they can be aggregated at a ULB level. However, if the number of hours is only assessed and reported at the city level, ward-wise variances cannot be examined; a To measure input parameters for a performance indicator, there may be a tendency to measure through ad hoc systems, which can be a one-off exercise. However, to generate data from the field level on a regular basis to sustain periodic performance measurement, sustainable systems need to be put in place; a In some cases, there may be resistance of field staff or other stakeholders to collect and report correct information, as vested interests may be involved. Such vested interests may also want to prevent transparent disclosure of the performance measured. Such hurdles will need to be overcome; a As mentioned earlier, definition and measurement methodology issues will continue to exist, though they will be refined with experience. Also, some other indicators may seem important or more SLBs may seem to be necessary for interpreting performance; and a Performance management will be sustainable only if disclosure, reporting, monitoring and performance management feedback, incentives and disincentives are also brought into the cycle. Else the system of measurement and disclosure of SLBs may not sustain itself.
10
1.5 STANDARDISATION OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

Each indicator has been detailed out in a standardised template in the following pages to present the definition and computation methodology of the selected SLBs (performance indicators). For each selected indicator, the following details have been provided: a Title, units and definition: The specific name, the unit of measurement in which the performance is to be measured, and definition for the indicator is provided; a Data requirements: The specific elements of data that need to be captured are identified, along with the corresponding unit of measurement. Each data element is described, and point and frequency of data capture are mentioned. The specific formulae that should be used to arrive at the performance indicator are mentioned; a Rationale for the indicator: For each performance indicator, the overall significance and rationale for assessing and monitoring the performance indicator have been provided. The benchmark value has been specified in most cases; a Reliability of measurement: The performance measurement is only as reliable for meaningful management decisions as the systems that generate the data to compute the performance. Typically, four levels of reliability of data systems have been specified: A, B, C, and D, with A being of highest reliability and D being lowest. Reliability of measurement highlights a hitherto ignored aspect in performance management of urban servicesthe need to design, implement and institutionalise robust systems and processes that will provide data of high reliability, on a repeat basis, and in a consistent manner. ULBs/ urban utilities are advised to institute systems corresponding to the level A specified. Such a transition will not happen in a short time period. Thus, while performance levels are improved over time, so should the data systems through which data are captured. The goal, therefore, is to reach the benchmark performance level of A level reliability of measurement; a Frequency of measurement: Frequency of measurement of the performance indicator refers to the frequency at which the performance level will be assessed and not the frequency at which the data elements will be measured. For each indicator, the minimum frequency at which the performance should be measured is mentioned. It can then be reported at the same frequency or a lower frequency. The frequency at which performance is measured is critical since: There should ideally be visible change or potential for changing the performance level between two consecutive time periods. (For example, it may not be possible to change the availability of treatment plant capacity in a few months; therefore it should be measured and reported on an annual basis. However, hours of water supply may vary with seasons and can be improved during the year, therefore it should be reported at a quarterly and an annual frequency.); If the time period is set too long, the performance measured cannot effectively feed back into making operational improvements; If the time period is set too short, significant time will be lost in only measuring and reporting performance; and Performance cannot be reported at a frequency higher than at which it has been measured.
11
Performance should be reported more frequently within the organisation, and at a lower frequency to higher levels of government, for example, performance reports should be tabled to the Standing Committees and Municipal Councils at monthly or quarterly frequencies. However, they may be reported at annual frequency to State and Central governments; and a Jurisdiction of measurement: This refers to the geographic jurisdiction for which performance should be measured, and not the point of data collection. Typically, measuring urban service delivery performance at a sub-city level makes more sense for city level stakeholders, than only city level performance indicators. For instance, for an urban citizen or municipal councillor, it would be useful to know the performance of a particular service in that ward, especially in relation to other wards. Also measuring performance only at the city level will disguise huge differences in service levels that exist between different localities in one city, a phenomenon common in most Indian cities. Similarly, for stakeholders at the State and Central level, it is useful to have city level performance indicators, as they would be useful to compare and contrast cities. Such information will then be useful for the formulation of State level and national strategies and policy responses. Measuring performance at a lower level jurisdiction enables aggregation of the data to indicate performance at a larger jurisdiction. Thus, if ward level performance is known for all wards, ULB level performance can also be reported.
Please note that, with respect to geographic jurisdictions for the performance indicators, the terms ULB and city have been used inter-changeably. This has been done since, in larger cities/urban agglomerations, there are multiple ULBs within the city while in smaller cities, the ULBs typically cover the entire urban boundaries. In many cities, certain services such as water supply and waste water management may be provided and/or managed by a parastatal utility for a larger urban jurisdiction, rather than the limits of the ULB/s. In such cases, the data and performance indicators may pertain to the jurisdictions of the parastatal utility. Therefore, the unit of ULB/city should be interpreted as appropriate to the given context.
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK

Section II of the Handbook provides details regarding each selected SLB. The list of indicators has been chosen after taking into account experiences in pilot initiatives in implementing Service Level Benchmarking across ULBs/utilities. The quality of available data, effort required in data collection and the significance of the indicator has been considered in arriving at this set of indicators. Section III of the Handbook provides guidance on how Service Level Benchmarking can be operationalised. Samples of performance reports of SLBs that ULBs/civic agencies can use to set and track their performance improvement are provided.
MAKING SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING OPERATIONAL
75
3.O
3.1 PERFORMANCE REPORT CARDS
Section I of this Handbook outlines the framework and provides guidance on instituting performance management systems, with the SLBs as the basis for monitoring and managing the performance of urban service delivery. Section II of this Handbook defines each of the SLBs, and outlines the most desirable system that should be applied for measuring the SLBs.
robust management information systems, it is important to take gradual steps; a Leadership should champion the initiative: The Municipal Commissioner/ Chief Executive Officer of the ULB/utility should lead this initiative of making Service Level Benchmarking operational. All heads of departments will need to play an active role in this. The involvement of the Mayor/ Chairperson and other key elected representatives from the Standing Committees at the early stages is important to bring in the perspective of the elected leadership; and a Training and orientation: Staff at all levels will need to undergo training and orientations on Service Level Benchmarking, to enable them to play their respective roles in the overall performance management system. Officers at the heads of department level should take the lead in orienting their respective staff.
3.1.1 INITIATING PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Section III provides brief guidelines on how Service Level Benchmarking can be operationalised. While each ULB/utility will need to define and institutionalise the systems mentioned in Section I, a few common guidance points are mentioned here for reference. a Keep systems simple: Data formats and other processes defined for performance measurement should be kept very simple to start with. For ULBs/utilities that have not had
77
TABLE 1: SUGGESTED FREQUENCY AND JURISDICTION OF REPORTING

SLB No. Urban Service Frequency Frequency of Measure- of Reportment by ing within ULB/Utility ULB/Utility Frequency of Reporting to State/ Central Govt. Jurisdiction for Measurement by ULB/Utility Jurisdiction Jurisdiction for Report- for Reporting within ing to State/ ULB/Utility Central Govt.
1. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 2.1.9 2. 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8
WATER SUPPLY Coverage of water supply connections Per capita supply of water Extent of metering of water connections Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) Continuity of water supply Quality of water supplied Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Cost recovery in water supply services Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Quarterly Annually Quarterly Monthly Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Quarterly Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Zone/DMA Zone/DMA Zone/DMA ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Zone/DMA Ward Ward Ward ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Ward ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB
SEWAGE MANAGEMENT (SEWERAGE AND SANITATION) Coverage of toilets Coverage of sewage network services Collection efficiency of sewage network Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity Quality of sewage treatment Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in sewage management Efficiency in collection of sewage-related charges Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Annually Monthly Annually Monthly Annually Quarterly Quarterly Monthly Annually Monthly Annually Monthly Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ward Ward ULB ULB ULB ULB Zone/ DMA ULB Ward Ward ULB ULB ULB ULB Zone/ DMA ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB
2.2.9
Annually
Annually
Annually
Zone/DMA
Ward
ULB
78
SLB No.
Urban Service
Frequency of Measurement by ULB/Utility
Frequency of Reporting within ULB/Utility
Frequency of Reporting to State/ Central Govt.
Jurisdiction for Measurement by ULB/Utility
Jurisdiction for Reporting within ULB/Utility
Jurisdiction for Reporting to State/ Central Govt.
3. 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8 4. 2.4.1 2.4.2
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Household level coverage of SWM services Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste Extent of municipal solid waste recovered Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Extent of cost recovery in SWM services Efficiency in collection of SWM-related charges STORM WATER DRAINAGE Coverage of storm water drainage network Incidence of water logging/flooding Annually Quarterly Annually Quarterly Annually Annually Ward Ward Ward Ward ULB ULB Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Annually Annually Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ward Ward ULB ULB ULB Ward ULB Ward Ward Ward ULB ULB ULB Ward ULB Ward ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB ULB
a Targeted performance levels for subsequent time On the basis of this framework, ULBs should prepare periods (typically four to six time periods). For indicators Performance Report Cards, which would form the basis that are reviewed monthly or quarterly, targets should for reporting and monitoring performance. be set for the next four to six months/quarters. Only The Report Cards should necessarily contain the then can tangible targets be set and monitored; following information: a The measure of reliability of the systems, on the basis of a The time period for which performance is which the indicator has been measured (either A or B or being reported; C or D); and a The specific urban service and SLB for which performance is being reported; a Current baseline and actual accomplishment of performance as time passes; a A brief plan of action for achieving the targeted performance level for each of the forthcoming time periods. Two sample report cards are illustrated in the Annex.
17
2.1
2.1.1 COVERAGE OF WATER SUPPLY CONNECTIONS
Performance Indicator
Indicator Household level coverage of direct water supply connections Unit % Definition
WATER SUPPLY SERVICES
Total number of households in the service area that are connected to the water supply network with direct service connections, as a percentage of the total number of households in that service area. Service area implies a specific jurisdiction in which service is required to be provided. Remarks The total number of households (not properties) in the service area should be calculated. The service area refers to either the ward or ULB limits. Cadastre maps supplemented through actual ground level surveys (carried out once in four to five years) should provide these data. Exclusive surveys need not be carried out, and data can be collected during other surveys carried out for property tax, or other such purposes. This will include households which receive municipal water supply at one common point, from where it is stored and distributed to all households (for example, as in apartment complexes). Households supplied water through public standposts or tankers should be excluded. Households completely dependent on other water sources such as borewells, open wells, etc., should not be included. Coverage = [(b/a)*100]
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of households in the service area Unit Number
b. Total number of households with direct water supply connection
Number
Household coverage for water supply connections
18
Rationale for the Indicator

The minimum level acceptable standard for water supply service should be a household level water supply connection, that is, a direct piped connection for water supply within the household. Water provision to households (urban poor or otherwise), at common public standposts cannot be considered as an acceptable/long-term permanent service provision standard. The social costs of not having access to a piped water connection at the household level are significant. Innovative service delivery options may be adopted for delivery of piped water connections to properties with inappropriate tenure rights (as in many urban slums). It is therefore important to measure this performance indicator, the benchmark value for which should be 100 percent.
Reliability of Measurement
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Estimation of households covered on the basis of geographical area of the city covered with the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator for water supply coverage. Estimation of households covered on the basis of road length in the city covered by the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator for water supply coverage. Estimation of households covered computed as the total number of connections (for which data are maintained) as a percentage of the estimated number of households on the basis of population (total population divided by average household size). Calculation based on the actual number of households with direct service connections (for which data are maintained); and the total number of households as revealed in ground level surveys. Data are periodically updated on the basis of building units approved, and new household level water connections provided. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level
Intermediate level (C)
Intermediate level (B)
Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)
Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Quarterly
19
2.1.2 PER CAPITA SUPPLY OF WATER
Indicator Per capita quantum of water supplied Unit Definition
Litres per Total water supplied to consumers expressed by capita per population served per day. day (lpcd)
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Water supplied to the distribution system Unit Litres per month Remarks Daily quantities should be measured through metering, and records maintained. The total supply for the month should be based on an aggregate of daily quantum. Only treated water input into the distribution system should be measured. If water is distributed from multiple points, the aggregate of that quantity should be considered. Water purchased directly from other sources (e.g. neighbouring ULBs, Cantonment Boards) and put into the distribution system should be included. Also, water supplied in bulk to large water intensive industries/industrial estates should be excluded. The quantity should exclude bulk water transmission and distribution losses. In the absence of a reliable estimate of losses, a factor of at least 25% should be used for calculation purposes. The utility is encouraged to carry out a water audit to assess the losses to their realistic level. The number of people in the service area. The number of days in the specific month. Per capita water supplied = [(a/c) /b] The daily quantity supplied at the production level (ex-treatment) should also be recorded. The total supply for the month should be based on an aggregate of the daily quantum.
b. Population served c. Number of days in the month Water supplied d. Additional information on water supplied at the production level
Number Number lpcd Litres per month
e. Additional information on population receiving water at a rate less than 70 lpcd may also be reported
Litres per The number of people in these service areas. The capita per quantity of water supplied to these areas measured day (lpcd) through bulk meters or by scientific calculation using flow velocity and head.
20

This frequently used performance indicator provides an overall indication of the adequacy of the water supply to meet the needs of the citizens in the city. Per capita water supplied, expressed in lpcd, indicates the adequacy of the municipal water supply system in being able to source, treat water to potable standards and supply it into the distribution system. Therefore, this indicator should be periodically measured and monitored. Monitoring this on a monthly basis will reveal seasonal variations. The benchmark value for this indicator is 135 lpcd. However, the additional information in respect of the areas where water is supplied at the rate of 70 lpcd should also be indicated. The key limitation of this indicator is that it provides information on a city-wide basis, and does not reveal intra-city variations.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumed pump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours of operation. The population served is calculated on the basis of past census figures, extrapolated to current levels. The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of measurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at all bulk production points. The population served is calculated on the basis of past census figures, extrapolated to current levels. Not applicable. The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement by bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant and/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of bulk industrial consumption is periodically monitored. The population served is known with reasonable accuracy. Any expansion of municipal limits and other significant factors are measured and factored into the current population computation. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level
Intermediate level (B) Highest/preferred level of reliability (A)
21
2.1.3 EXTENT OF METERING OF WATER CONNECTIONS

Indicator Extent of metering of water connections Unit % Definition The total number of functional metered water connections expressed as a percentage of the total number of water supply connections. Public standpost connections should also be included.
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of direct service connections Unit Remarks
Number
This will include households and establishments which receive municipal water supply at one common point, from where it may be stored and distributed for all households (for example, as in apartment complexes). Households completely dependent on other water sources such as bore wells, open wells, etc., should not be included. The total number of public standpost connections, which are currently in use, should be considered. Of the total number of direct service connections (to all categories of consumers), the number of connections which have functional meters, and metered quantities is the basis for billing of water charges. Typically, public standposts are not metered. However, if some are metered, they should be included. Extent of metered connections = [(c + d)/ (a + b)]*100
b. Total number of public standposts c. Number of metered direct service connections
Number
Number
d. Number of metered public standposts
Number
Extent of metering of water connections
22

While water is a basic need, the supply of potable water to citizens at their doorstep involves significant costs in building, operating and maintaining a system to do so. In a water supply system, the quantum of service provided to citizens is directly measurable, and therefore it is necessary that all the water supplied to all categories of consumers should be metered. Metering will also induce efficiency in use of water, reveal physical and administrative leakages in the system, and enable high-end consumers to be charged for consuming more. Therefore, to introduce a volumetric-based tariff structure for water charges, metering all connections is essential. It is, therefore, important to monitor this indicator, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method A few meters have been installed. All installed meters are assumed to be functional and used as the basis for billing water charges. Meters are installed for only certain categories of consumers. It is assumed all consumers of these categories have meters installed which are functional and used as the basis for billing. Records do not reveal the exact number of connections which are metered. Water is charged on the basis of average readings for the consumer category or on the basis of past trends in most cases. Databases/records reveal the list of consumers that have meters installed in their water connections. However, there are no clear data on functioning of meters, and no linkage with the billing system that may or may not use metered quantity as the basis for billing. Billing records and databases clearly identify consumers with meters (against specific meter serial number). Billing processes reveal regular reading of meters and meter readings are the basis for charging consumers. Records on standposts are available. Databases of water connections and meters are complete, and spatially referenced with a geographic information system (GIS) database. There is a mechanism in place to repair meters if found faulty. Processes for installation of new water connections, installation of meters and generation of water bills based on this are interlinked, and the data systems enable such continuity of data flow regarding these. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level
23
2.1.4 EXTENT OF NON-REVENUE WATER (NRW)

Indicator Extent of NRW Unit % Definition This indicator highlights the extent of water produced which does not earn the utility any revenue. This is computed as the difference between the total water produced (ex-treatment plant) and the total water sold expressed as a percentage of the total water produced. NRW comprises: a) Consumption which is authorised but not billed, such as public standposts; b) Apparent losses such as illegal water connections, water theft and metering inaccuracies; and c) Real losses which are leakages in the transmission and distribution networks.
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total water produced and put into the transmission and distribution system Unit Remarks
million litres per day (or) month
Daily quantities should be measured through metering, and records on the transmission and distribution system should be maintained. The total supply for the month should be based on the aggregate of the daily quantum. Only treated water input into the distribution system should be measured. If water is distributed from multiple points, the aggregate of that quantity should be considered. This quantum should include water purchased directly from any other sources and put into the distribution system, if any. Water may have been purchased from neighbouring ULBs, Cantonment Boards, etc. The actual volume of water supplied to customers who are billed for the water provided. Ideally, this should be the aggregate volume of water consumed as per which consumers have been billed. However, in the absence of a complete and functionally effective metering regimen, alternate methods of measurement need to be evolved, with lower but acceptable levels of reliability. NRW = [((a - b)/a)*100]
b. Total water sold
million litres per day (or) month
NRW
24

The reduction in NRW to acceptable levels is vital for the financial sustainability of the water utility. NRW can be reduced through appropriate technical and managerial actions, and therefore monitoring NRW can trigger such corrective measures. The reduction of real losses can be used to meet currently unsatisfied demand or to defer future capital expenditures to provide additional supply capacity. The reduction of NRW is desirable not just from a financial standpoint, but also from the economic and environmental benefits point of view. The benchmark value for NRW may be considered at 20 percent, the levels achieved by most well-performing utilities in developed countries. NRW is also influenced by factors outside the control of the water utility such as the topography of the city, age of the network, length of the network per connection and water use per capita.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumed pump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours of operation. A few meters have been installed in the distribution system and at the consumer end. The quantity of water sold to the category of consumers to whom bills are raised is estimated on the basis of assumed average consumption in that category and the number of consumers in that category. The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of measurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at all bulk production points. Meters are installed for a select category of consumers, such as commercial and bulk consumers. For other categories of consumers, such as domestic consumers, the number of such consumers and the average consumption per consumer are considered, to arrive at the quantum of water sold. The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant and/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of water sold is based on the metered quantity for bulk and commercial consumers. For households, ferrule size (the size of the distribution pipe outlet at the consumer end) of each consumer connection as well as the hours of supply are known, to compute the quantum of water sold. The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis of measurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant and/or at all bulk production points. Metering is undertaken at all key distribution nodes (entry to DMAs) and at the consumers end for all categories of consumers. Billing records and databases clearly reveal regular reading of meters and, therefore, the total quantum of water billed to consumers in the given time period (month/bi-monthly). Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level
25
2.1.5 CONTINUITY OF WATER SUPPLY

Indicator Continuity of water supply Unit Hours per day Definition Continuity of supply is measured as the average number of hours of pressurised water supply per day. Water pressure should be equal to or more than a head of 7 metre (m) at the ferrule point/meter point for the connection (7 m head corresponds to the ability to supply to a single-storey building).
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator Average hours of pressurised supply per day Unit Remarks
Hours
The number of hours of supply in each operational zone (or DMA) should be measured continuously for a period of seven days. The average of the seven days should be considered for that month. Measurement should exclude hours of supply where the pressure is less than the minimum standards for piped water supply. In case supply is not daily (e.g. thrice a week) use total hours of supply in a week divided by seven (days).
26

Almost no Indian city has a continuous (24x7) water supply system, the norm for all cities in the developed world. From a citizens perspective, it is desirable to have round-the-clock water supply daily, as it eliminates the need to provide and manage household/establishment level storage, and other resultant inconveniences. Water utilities in most Indian cities provide intermittent and limited number of hours of supply, as a means to manage inadequate supply. A number of studies have demonstrated the negative fallouts of designing and operating a system for intermittent water supply. A number of cities are undertaking substantial investments to improve this service level. It is, therefore, critical to monitor this indicator on a city-wide basis and move towards the benchmark value of 24 hours.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Estimation of the number of hours based on feedback from field level engineers. Zone-wise data are not available. Not applicable. The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of the valve operating points. Pressure availability at the consumers end is assumed to be adequate and meeting the stated norms. The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of the valve operating points. Pressure adequacy and the number of hours of supply at the consumers end are assessed on the basis of a statistically valid sample survey, across all zones in the city. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level
Intermediate level (C) Intermediate level (B)
Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Monthly
27
2.1.6 QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIED
Indicator Quality of water supplied Unit % Definition The percentage of water samples that meet or exceed the specified potable water standards, as defined by the Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO). The sampling regimen should meet standards and norms laid down.
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of water supplyrelated complaints received per month Unit Remarks
Number The actual number of water samples that are taken per month for testing in the month. Samples should be drawn at both pointsoutlet of the treatment plant and at the consumer end. The sampling regimen should meet laid down standards and norms. Number Of the total number of samples drawn in the month, per month the number of samples that have met or exceeded the specified potable water standards. All parameters of the quality standards should be met. Even if one standard is not met, the sample cannot be assumed to have met the standards. % Quality of water supply = [(b/a)*100]
b. Number of samples that meet the specified potable water standards in the month
Quality of water supply
28

The quality of water supplied is as important a performance indicator as other service delivery indicators. Poor water quality can pose serious public health hazards. Water-borne diseases are quite common in Indian cities, particularly among the urban poor. Although, in most cases, the source of water that causes such diseases/epidemics is not the municipal piped water supply, it is very important to monitor the supply. Therefore, this performance indicator must be regularly monitored, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method Sampling is done only at treatment plant outlets. There is absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, and only very basic tests are carried out. Sampling is done at production and intermediate points along the distribution network, but only for residual chlorine. There is absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, and tests are intermittently carried out through a third party. Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet and consumption points. Consumption points are spatially spread across the city. The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriological tests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access to accredited testing centres. Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet and consumption points. The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriological tests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access to accredited testing centres. A periodic, independent audit of water quality is carried out. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level
29
2.1.7 EFFICIENCY IN REDRESSAL OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS

Indicator Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints Unit % Definition The total number of water supply-related complaints redressed within 24 hours of receipt of complaint, as a percentage of the total number of water supplyrelated complaints received in the given time period.
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total number of water supplyrelated complaints received per month Unit Remarks
Number The total number of all supply-related complaints per month from consumers received during the month. Systems for receiving and logging in complaints should be effective and easily accessible to the citizens. Points of customer contact will include common phone numbers, written complaints at ward offices, collection centres, drop boxes, online complaints on the website, etc. Number The total number of water supply-related complaints per month that are satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours or the next working day, within that particular month. Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should be endorsed by the person making the complaint in writing, as a part of any format/proforma that is used to track complaints. % Efficiency in redressal of complaints = [(b/a)*100]
b. Total number of complaints redressed within the month
Efficiency in redressal of complaints
30

It is important that, in essential services such as water supply, the ULB/water utility has effective systems to capture customer complaints/grievances, escalate them internally for remedial action and resolve them. While many ULBs/utilities have put in place systems to capture complaints, much more work needs to be done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactory resolution of those complaints on time. As water supply is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is 24 hours or the next working day. It is, therefore, important to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for this indicator will depend on a number of factors such as the size of the city, age of the network, etc. The benchmark value for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Intermediate level (C) Description of method Complaints data are not maintained either at the ward or city level. There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers can register their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail. All complaints received are assumed to be resolved quickly. There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers can register their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail. However, systems do not exist for aggregating, sorting and tracking the complaints. Data available for some months have been used as a trend to report the figures for some other months. There are multiple mechanisms by which consumers can register their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail. Complaints are segregated into different categories. They are collated through the computer network or other systems, and tracked on a daily basis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained. Consumers endorse complaints being addressed on the municipal proforma. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level
31
2.1.8 COST RECOVERY IN WATER SUPPLY SERVICES

Indicator Cost recovery in water supply services Unit % Definition The total operating revenues expressed as a percentage of the total operating expenses incurred in the corresponding time period. Only income and expenditure of the revenue account must be considered, and income and expenditure from the capital account should be excluded.
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Total annual operating expenses Unit Remarks
Rs lakhs
Should include all operating expenses (for the year) such as electricity, chemicals, staff, outsourced operations/staff related to water supply, bulk water purchase costs and other operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Should exclude interest payments, principal repayments and other capital expenses. Should include all water supply-related revenues (billed) during the corresponding time period, including taxes/cess/surcharges, user charges, connection charges, sale of bulk water, etc. This should exclude capital income such as grants, loans, etc. Cost recovery = [(b/a)*100]
b. Total annual operating revenues
Rs lakhs
Cost recovery in water supply services
32

Financial sustainability is critical for all basic urban services. In services such as water supply, benefits received by the consumers are more direct and can be quantified. Therefore, through a combination of user charges, fees and taxes, all operating costs may be recovered. Therefore, this indicator is critical for measuring overall cost recovery, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent. Cost recovery objectives provide a basis for tariff fixation, enable setting targets for revenue mobilisation and cost control in the delivery of water supply services.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method There is no segregation of budget heads related to water supply services and sanitation from the rest of the functions of the agency. A cash-based accounting system is practiced. There are no clear systems for reporting unpaid expenditure, or revenues that are due. Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have a time lag and are not regular. Not applicable. Budget heads related to water and sanitation are segregated. Key costs related to water and sanitation are identifiable, although complete segregation is not practiced (for example, electricity costs for water supply services are not segregated from overall electricity costs of the ULB). Key income and expenditure are recognised based on accrual principles. Disclosures are complete and are timely. In case of multi-function agencies such as municipal corporations, the budget heads related to water and sanitation are clearly separated. Cost allocation standards for common costs are in place. An accrualbased double entry accounting system is practiced. Accounting standards are comparable to commercial accounting standards with clear guidelines for recognition of income and expenditure. Accounting and budgeting manuals are in place and are adhered to. Financial statements have full disclosure and are audited regularly and on time. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement ULB level
33
2.1.9 EFFICIENCY IN COLLECTION OF WATER SUPPLY-RELATED CHARGES

Indicator Efficiency in collection of waterrelated charges Unit % Definition Efficiency in collection is defined as current year revenues collected, expressed as a percentage of the total operating revenues, for the corresponding time period
Data Requirements
Data required for calculating the indicator a. Current revenues collected in the given year Unit Remarks
Rs lakhs Revenues collected for bills raised during the year. per annum This should exclude collection of arrears as inclusion of arrears will skew the performance reflected. Collection efficiency is in fact an indicator of how many arrears are being built up, and therefore only current revenues should be considered. Rs lakhs The total quantum of revenues related to water per annum supply services that is billed during the year. This should include revenues from all sources related to water such as taxes, charges, cess, surcharges, sale of bulk water, etc. % Collection efficiency = [(a/b)*100]
b. Total operating revenues billed during the given year
Collection efficiency
34

For a water utility, it is not just enough to have an appropriate tariff structure that enables cost recovery objectives but also efficient collection of revenues that are due to the utility. It is also important that the revenues are collected in the same financial year, without allowing for dues to get accumulated as arrears. It is, therefore, critical to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for collection efficiency may be considered at 90 percent, since it is possible that about 10 percent of the dues may be delayed to the next year.
Reliability scale Lowest level of reliability (D) Description of method There is no segregation of arrears versus current year revenue collection. A cash basis of accounting is followed. The accounting code structure does not enable clear segregation of water revenues. Not applicable. There is clear segregation of current year revenues collection versus arrears collection. However, revenue collection is not matched against the specific bill issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting are followed, and therefore deposits and advances are not included in income and expenditure, respectively. Collection records are maintained for each billing cycle. Collections are clearly identified against the specific bill which has been issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting are followed, and therefore deposits and advances are not included in income and expenditure, respectively. The accounting code structure also enables monitoring of billing and collections for each ward within the ULB. Smallest geographical jurisdiction for measurement of performance Measurement Zone/DMA level
Minimum frequency of measurement of performance indicator Measurement Annually

SIP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT REPORT ON

A BENCHMARKING SURVEY OF MUNICIPALITIES OF GUJARAT FOR REDUCTION IN NRW/UFW

DR. SERI CHINNAM REDDY

SATYA CHHOTALAL MEHTA

PARSHOTAM SAVJIBHAI SOLANKI

Comprehensive Project entitled A BENCHMARKING SURVEY OF

MUNICIPALITIES OF GUJARAT FOR REDUCTION IN NRW/UFW

Place: Rajkot Date:

Satya Chhotalal Mehta Parshotam Savjibhai Solanki

PARSHOTAM SAVJIBHAI SOLANKI (Enrollment No.:107340592097),

List of Tables, Charts and Diagrams

Graph 1 source: WHO

considerable development potential existed, has

WATER SUPPLY IN INDIA

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

Water Supply Sr No.

Table 2 source: MoUD

NEED OF SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

performance reports; Most performance measurement initiatives

A MoUD SURVEY, JANUARY 2011

Ahmedabad 85.4 12.1 31 No Data 2 99.2 94.8 53.8 60.3

Delhi 71.5 144 52.4 55.3 3 73 99.5 41.6 86.3

Surat 86.6 147 20.4 0.4 3 94.8 100 92.3 94

Chandigarh 87 158 31 73 17.5 100 100 64 89

Table 3 source: MoUD

WATER BALANCE IN TYPICAL INDIA CITY

Graph 4 source: CEPT

GOVERNMENT BODIES WORKING ON WATER

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN WATER SUPPLY IN GUJARAT

Table 5 source: GWSSB

committed to encouraging sharing of

National City Water Survey, Washington D.C (2005)

Traditional water meters remain the most

ANALYSIS The pattern of water supply (Hours/ day) in my area is as follows.

The pattern of water supply (No of times / Day) in my area is

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 time 2 times 3 times more than 3 times

The pattern of water supply (No of days / week) in my area is

The following leak detection techniques are used (Multiple choices)

The measures taken to reduce Non Revenue Water. (Multiple choice)

I have attended the following water programs.

DATA SHEET Options Q. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 36 0 9 12 27 42 21 15 3 39 18 9 0 27 36 12 12 6 30 6 21 9 0 0 15 0 18 9 18 33 12 21 3 0 0 36 6 12 27 36 24 24 24 18 3 24 6 0 9 3 15 12 12 0 0 33 6 21 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

SUGGESTIONS AND OPINIONS

nitiativ An initiative to save water, save life!

PHONE NUMBER: (M) _

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Its only good till the last drop, then What?

Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Do one thing each day that will save water,

Even if savings are small, every drop counts!

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Use water economically today,

To get economic water tomorrow!

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Noting can replace it!

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Its only good till the last drop, then What?

Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Its only good till the last drop, then What?

Conserve now, Use Water Smartly!

LETS MAKE EVERY DROP OF WATER COUNT!

Ministry of Urban Development Government of India