Improving Water and SanitationService Delivery in IndiaLessons from a National Workshop onService Level Benchmarking

Eighteenth meetingof the UrbanThink Tank

December 14–15, 2009New Delhi, India

Nagari

The Water and Sanitation Program (www.wsp.org)is a multi-donor partnership administered by theWorld Bank to support poor people in obtainingaffordable, safe, and sustainable access to waterand sanitation services

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2

1 Core Health Indicators, 2006, World Health Organization.

BackgroundAccess to infrastructure is increasing inmany Indian cities. This is evidentthrough increased access to water andsanitation services in the country;90 percent of the urban population hasimproved access to drinking watersources, while 52 percent has improvedaccess to sanitation services.1 Despitethis change in the last decade, waterand sanitation services generally are notreliable, sustainable or affordable.

The national Ministry of UrbanDevelopment (MoUD) has implemented

the Service Level Benchmarking (SLB)Program in 2008 since it viewsbenchmarking as an important tool formonitoring and initiating improvementsin service performance. This Nagaricaptures key points from a workshop(Box I) in late 2009 that broughttogether more than 30 city-level serviceproviders from different parts of India toreflect on the program’s progress so far,and disseminate lessons to a wideraudience of urban service providers.

Dr. M. Ramachandran, the thenSecretary in the MoUD, told theworkshop that “...by providing anopportunity for introspection and self-

improvement...benchmarking willimprove service delivery efficiency andquality, strengthen accountability, bringin greater transparency, help in optimalresource allocation, and prioritizing ofactivities…it becomes highly relevant inview of rising customer expectations,demands for more efficientperformance, and ever increasingquality standards.” Mr. A.K. Mehta, theJoint Secretary, added that stategovernments and cities would beexpected to regularly collate andanalyze performance data to supportdecision making and publicaccountability for municipal services.

3

Box I: National Consultations Workshop: Context and objectives

The National Consultations Workshop on Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) was organized in December 2009, jointly bythe Ministry of Urban Development and the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP), for sharing results of the data collectedfrom the SLB pilot cities and for identifying actionable areas for improving performance.

The key objectives of the workshop included:

� Providing cities with an opportunity for presenting their own performance data and cross learning from experiences ofother participating cities.

� Discussing and clarifying issues relating to data quality, indicator definitions, and calculation methodology.

� Introducing participants to key principles of Performance Improvement Planning and Information Systems ImprovementPlanning, including some early lessons.

� Demonstrating international experiences in benchmarking to participants.

� Providing case study experiences on improving water, sanitation, and solid waste services.

� Outlining the institutionalization of SLB, including its scale up to the state level.

Over 150 participants, including water and sanitation (WSS) service providers and utility managers, water sectorspecialists, and city administrators attended the workshop. They represented different institutional contexts andWSS agencies, including state parastatals, municipal departments, municipal corporations, and water companies.A comprehensive list of the participants is presented in Appendix 2.

The workshop provided the cities a chance to reflect on their performance over four service areas, compare themselves toother cities, and identify their shortcomings and possible strategies to overcome them. It provided a further opportunity toclarify and validate the SLB data, and discuss support required to institutionalize benchmarking of performance data on anongoing basis. (The agenda for the workshop is presented in Appendix 1.)

The deliberations were characterized by some important ‘firsts’, namely:

� Data were generated and analyzed using a uniform definitional framework articulated in the MoUD’s Handbook onService Level Benchmarking.2

� The reliability of data was graded, as per the framework provided in the Handbook.

� Cities identified potential Information Systems Improvement Plans (ISIPs) for addressing concerns on data reliability.

� City officials (and not consultants) presented their own performance data, along with a performance gap analysis andimprovement planning.

2 In 2006, a Core Group of senior experts was constituted under the chairmanship of the Joint Secretary, MoUD, for developing a Handbook on the commonbenchmarking framework of standard performance parameters for the WSS sector. The Service Level Benchmarking Handbook, covering 28 performance indicatorsacross four sectors—water, sanitation, storm water drainage, and solid waste management—was disseminated to all states in September 2008. Besides setting outguidelines on how to operationalize the framework in a phased manner, it also provided explanations and clarifications on the indicators, including the methodology tobe used for calculating them. It was expected that cities would adopt the framework for initiating service improvements. For more details refer to Handbook onService Level Benchmarking, MoUD, Government of India, at http://urbanindia.nic.in.

4

The SLBPilot InitiativeEarlier programs in the country onbenchmarking have focused on datacollection only for water supplyservices, and have used the data foranalyzing performance trends inthe sector.3 The SLB program is a firstof its kind, and represents an importantshift in the orientation of decisionmaking at the national, state, and locallevels. It promotes benchmarking aspart of an overall performanceimprovement strategy—through

performance monitoring on asystematic and regular basis fortracking performance, comparing withother similar utilities and sharing bestpractices, identifying performancegaps, and devising plans toimprove performance. The SLBinitiative targeted the operationalizationof the framework outlined in the SLBHandbook on the ground, in 28 pilotcities, representing different operatingenvironments, and spread across14 states and one union territory,including 16 Jawaharlal Nehru NationalUrban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)cities (Table 1).

The cities range from small towns tovery large cities (Figure 1), andrepresent approximately 20 percent ofIndia’s total urban population, locatedin the plains, coastal or hilly regions,with varied climatic conditions andinstitutional arrangements for servicedelivery. The pilot project was initiatedthrough a partnership of developmentagencies including Water andSanitation Program (WSP), JapanInternational Cooperation Agency(JICA), Gesellschaft für TechnisheZusammenarbeit (GTZ), Centre forEnvironmental Planning and Technology(CEPT), and Department forInternational Development (DFID), andtheir respective consultants.

3 A two-phase project for the collection andanalysis of performance data from over 20 citieswas started by the Water and Sanitation Programin 2003–04. Phase I involved the collection andanalysis of performance data for 13 utilities in 23cities and towns, covering a population of almost50 million. Besides collecting benchmarking datafrom 10 JNNURM cities, Phase II (2005–2006)focused particularly on highlighting the importanceof quality information systems for collection ofbenchmarking data.

Table 1: List of cities covered under the SLB pilot initiative

City State/Union territory

Ahmedabad, Surat Gujarat

Nashik, Pimpri Chinchwad, Kolhapur Maharashtra

Indore, Ujjain, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

Tiruchirapalli, Udhagamandalam Tamil Nadu

Imphal Manipur

Shimla, Palampur, Dharamshala Himachal Pradesh

Bokaro, Chas Jharkhand

Hyderabad, Guntur Andhra Pradesh

Trivandrum, Kozhikode Kerala

Amritsar, Jalandhar Punjab

Delhi Delhi

Bengaluru Karnataka

Raipur Chhattisgarh

Bhubaneswar, Berhampur Odisha

Chandigarh Chandigarh

Note: Calicut is now known as Kozhikode, Bangalore as Bengalaru, Ooty asUdhagamandalam, and Orissa as Odisha.

5

Heart of the MatterParticipants reflected positively uponthe SLB experience, since the datacollection enabled cities to undertakean honest self appraisal of theirperformance from a service point ofview. On completion of data collection,city functionaries undertook aperformance gap analysis and,based on the analysis, submittedproposals to the MoUD for informationsystem improvements.

To many, the exercise was an “eyeopener”, since the exercise helpedcompare themselves to their peers andat the same time helped “set up goalsto achieve better performance”. Manyconcurred that it was “a soul searchinginitiative for improvement of servicedelivery”, “a knowledge experience interms of getting to know indicatorsversus benchmarks”, and that they had“found the goal to achieve the goal”.

Figure 1: Cities, by population size

Note: PCMC is the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.

move towards the service levelbenchmarks over a period of time.Accordingly, the participating citieswere encouraged to undertakethis exercise on an ongoingbasis to deliver year on yearperformance improvements.

Cities were, however, concerned abouttheir performance, especially since thetarget benchmarks seemed veryambitious. Cities were assured thatwhile the SLB Handbook had setambitious targets, they could setintermediate targets and gradually

6

Data Resultsand AnalysisA summary of the SLB indicators forthe four sectors, along with the averagevalues for the data presented by thecities, is tabulated in Box 2. Overall,the data results indicate that whilecoverage of services has increased,service deficiencies still exist in terms ofaccess, reliability, and quality.

For water supply services:

� In spite of significant investments,

coverage through a direct piped

connection still remains low

(68 percent). No city provides

continuous water supply, indicating

significant gaps in quality of access

to water supply services.

� A low level of continuity of supply(3.3 hours a day), in spite of highlevels of per capita availability,reflects a poorly managed networksystem. Inequities also exist in the

per capita supply and hours ofsupply, indicating that there isscope for improvement innetwork management.

� High levels of nonrevenue water(NRW)4 indicate that there is muchscope for immediate improvementsin network efficiency, through fullmetering of production flow andconsumption, identification andrepair of leaks, elimination of illegalconnections, and improved billing,without necessarily resortingimmediately to significant newinfrastructure investments.

� Consumer level metering stillremains very low, with substantialvariations in metering policies.Capacity building and advocacy isrequired for bringing about anacceptance of consumer meteringat a citywide level.

� Cost recovery levels are currentlyvery low. Improvements could bebrought about through initiativessuch as energy audits, NRWreduction, and improved billingcollection efficiencies. Emphasisshould also be placed on debtmanagement practices andcollection of arrears.

� There is significant room forimprovement in water qualitymonitoring. No standard protocolsexist for water quality monitoring;current systems are irregular, weak,and lack validation through thirdparty checks.

Box 2: Summary of SLB indicator values

4 Nonrevenue water, or NRW, is the extent ofwater that does not earn the utility any money.

Water supply services Sewerage and sanitation services

Coverage 66.6% Toilet coverage 87.9%

Per capita consumption 126.4 lpcd Sewerage network coverage 52.6%

Nonrevenue water 44.1% Wastewater collection efficiency 75.7%

Consumption metering 49.8% Wastewater treatment adequacy 76.5%

Continuity of supply 3.3 hours/day Quality of wastewater treatment 91.3%

Quality of water supply 67.2% Reuse and recycling of 14.8%treated wastewater

Cost recovery 67.2% Cost recovery 65.9%

Collection efficiency 78.8% Collection efficiency 76.5%

Complaints redressal 80.4% Complaints redressal 83.1%

Solid waste management services Storm water drainage

Household level coverage 47.7% Drainage network coverage 21.05%

Collection efficiency of MSW 75.3% Incidence of waterlogging 135.3

Segregation of MSW 19.5%

MSW recovery 31.73%

Scientific disposal of MSW 8%

Cost recovery 17.3%

Collection efficiency 31.4%

Complaints redressal 89.1%

For sanitation and solid waste services:

� Data suggest that toilet coverage ishigh. However, as discussionsrevealed, considerable scope existsfor improvement in access andusage, through appropriateinformation, education, andcommunication (IEC) activities.

� Large portions of the seweragenetwork in cities are lying unutilizedbecause of the missing last mileconnection. Increased consultationswith communities encouraging themto connect, coupled with maybe alower cost to connect, couldincentivize and increase connectionsto sewer networks.5 It is recognizedthat infrastructure investments arerequired to safely treat and disposeof the wastewater coming from thesewer networks.

� The sewerage coverage indicatordoes not take into account alternatearrangements such as septic tanks,soak pits, and so on. Where theseexist, urban local bodies (ULBs)need to pay urgent attention to asound septage management policythat ensures efficient collection andtreatment of waste from thosehouseholds dependent on onsitesanitation arrangements.

� Wastewater collection efficiency isgenerally poor. While some citiesreport nil wastewater collection,there are others that report poorcollection efficiency despite havinghigh sewerage coverage, mostlydue to outflows on to the hill sidesor natural drains.

� Door-to-door solid wastemanagement (SWM) and collection

is not practiced in most cities.Standard models for door-to-doorcollection must be developed andshared, and communityparticipation in such activitiesneeds to be encouraged.

� Waste generation numbers need tobe determined more robustlythrough sample surveys orweighbridges at the disposal site,since these numbers helpdetermine the capacity andtechnology of treatment plants.

� Currently treatment plants may notbe working at full capacity, sinceprocessing and recovery requiressegregated waste for theiroperation. Many ULBs reported nilsegregation, which meant that

unsegregated municipal solid waste(MSW) is transported for treatment.ULBs would need to keep this factorin mind while designing treatmentoptions that require segregatedwaste for being feasible.

� ULBs need to ensure scientificdisposal of solid waste to achievethe desired public health andenvironmental outcomes. Even withtreatment of MSW, extensive opendumping still persists because of theabsence of landfills for disposal of allremaining waste including rejectsand residues.

5 Households sometimes do not connect since theyhave already spent significant monies on alternatearrangements such as septic tanks and soak pits.

7

8

While the benchmarking data reflect agrim situation, significant investmentsare being made in the urban watsansector to improve services. The flow ofsectoral investments has only grownover the Plan periods. The 11thFive-Year Plan (2007–2012) foreseesinvestments of Rs. 127,025 crore(US$28.23 billion6), for urban watersupply and sanitation, includinginvestments in storm water drainageand solid waste management. Manycentral government schemes, includingthe Jawaharlal Nehru National UrbanRenewal Mission and the UrbanInfrastructure Development Scheme forSmall and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT),also provide the required impetus for

improvements in the sector. TheJNNURM alone has providedapproximately US$3 billion for the waterand sanitation sector for 63 identifiedlarge cities.

Data ReliabilityBenchmarking of the service indicatorsis hampered by low data availability andreliability. These data inadequaciescould arise from lack of appropriateinfrastructure and systems to measureand record data, the absence ofrequisite procedures for ongoing datamonitoring and analysis, and a lack ofincentives for utility staff to collect dataand maintain a database.

As explained in Box 3, each of theindicators is assigned a data reliabilitygrade. The SLB Handbook defines thereliability scale in terms of availability andaccuracy of measurements, frequencyof collection, and recording of theparameters for each indicator. Thereliability grade has nothing to do with theindicator value itself (whether it is high orlow) but concerns only the reliability of thevalue given. The grading could enabledecision makers to understand the qualityof data as they identify priorities andmeasure progress.

Specific issues and challenges insystems and practices that result in apoor grade for data reliability werehighlighted and included:

� Absence of updated householddatabases for the service areas.

� Low levels of metering at theproduction, intermediate distribution,and consumption points.

� Poor observance of water qualitymonitoring protocol and/or lack ofaccess to accredited laboratories.

� Lack of a separation of accounts,especially for water andsewerage services.

� Absence of data recording andmonitoring systems, includingbilling systems, weighbridges,and customer complaintsmonitoring systems.

As a result, several pilot cities wereunable to provide reliable data on manyindicators, including NRW, per capitasupply, coverage, water quality, customer

Apart from the definition from each of the service level benchmarking indicators,the Handbook specifies a system of grading the reliability of measurements foreach of the indicators. The grading system is:

A – Highest/preferred level of reliability using accurate measurements of values.

B – Intermediate level using estimates of parameter values required.

C – Intermediate level using less accurate estimates of parameter values.

D – Lowest level of reliability using surrogate parameters or leastreliable estimates.

For example, the reliability grade for water supply coverage looks as follows:

Improving the grade of data reliability:

Box 3: Reliability scale for service level indicators

6 US$1 = Rs. 45 (as of September 2010).

ATotal number ofhouseholds servedby a direct serviceconnection, asrevealed inground surveys

BHouseholds coveredunder a directservice connection,as computed fromthe connections’database

CRoad lengthcoverage

DGeographicalcoverage

9

grievance redressal, and solid wastegenerated and treated. As a follow-upaction, cities were urged to developInformation Systems ImprovementPlans that include operational andinfrastructure interventions to improvedata quality. Some of the participatingcities shared their experiences inimproving data systems for capturing afew of the indicators. Surat showcased agood example of a regular Water QualitySurveillance Program (Box 5), whileChandigarh shared its experience ofaccurately capturing continuity of watersupply at the ward level.

Lessons fromInternational GoodPractices onBenchmarkingStrategies for institutionalizingbenchmarking as a tool for monitoringand improving performance could varybetween different countries. Most

In Indonesia, the development of a benchmarking program for water andsanitation services utilities was conceived as part of World Bank support tothe sector. The key local partner for developing this program wasPERPAMSI, the professional association of Water Utilities (called PDAMs) inIndonesia. The benchmarking system, including technical, financial,managerial, and customer orientation indicators, was implemented in2002–2003. It has been used as a management tool for the participatingutilities to monitor performance and compare themselves to peer companies.

In Brazil, the SNIS is a national information system covering water supply,sanitation, and solid waste services. It is managed by the federalgovernment and gathers operational, financial, managerial, accounting, andquality data for these services. It contributes to planning and development ofpublic policy for the WSS sector, guides the allocation of public resources,and supports regulatory practices at the federal and state level. It alsoencourages reform and efficiency improvement of services throughperformance evaluation and benchmarking at the municipal level.

The Water Utility Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa (WUP) waslaunched in 1996 to help the water sector in Africa improve its performanceand achieve economically and environmentally sustainable service delivery.The WUP has started a project, called the Service Providers’ PerformanceIndicators and Benchmarking Network (SPBNET), to provide utilities withsustainable arrangements for compiling and sharing performance data on aregular basis. The program targets the collection of performance data fromutilities and producing a data bank on the performance of utilities in Africa.

South East Asian Water Utilities Network (SEAWUN) was established in2002 with the support of the Asian Development Bank, the objective beingto help member utilities improve their performance in the delivery of watersupply and sanitation services for all. Since then it has had three rounds ofbenchmarking data and the membership of the program has only grown.Besides providing government and respective ministries with a currentstatus, the network seeks to serve as the basis for developing effective andefficient investment projects.

Box 4: Benchmarking for efficient investment projects andimproved performance

programs have had some reform focusthat includes linking benchmarking toimproving performance and, in some

cases, also to accessing finance (Box 4).

In the Philippines, the benchmarking

program capacitated a large number ofsmall service providers to achieveperformance improvements and access

10

finance.7 The benchmarking programwas launched in 2004 with theobjective of building institutionalcapacity, and has so fardemonstrated that performance isnot related to size. In fact, manysmaller service providers haveperformed better than bigger ones.Being integrated with the SmallWater Utilities Improvement Project,the program has been effectivelyutilized as a tool for performanceimprovement, and is also beingleveraged for provision of financingto service providers.

A similar exercise in Bangladeshcollected benchmarking data for17 towns, with the water serviceindicators covering financial,accounting, service level, andtechnical aspects. The interestingoutcome of the exercise here wasthe development of a utilities networkwithin the country, comprising16 utilities that organize exchangesof performance improvementinitiatives within themselves for quickpeer-level learning.

Lessons fromGood Practices inService Provision

Benchmarking also helps share bestpractices among member serviceproviders. In India, while the SLBprogram is institutionalized and utilitiesbecome ready to share best practiceexperiences, they could take advantageof the Peer Evaluation and ReflectiveLearning (PEARL) program of theNational Institute of Urban Affairs.The program focuses on sharing bestpractices on various urban initiatives andeffective service delivery models. Citiescould also compare their performance

with international utilities by becomingpart of a larger global virtualbenchmarking network, theInternational Benchmarking Network forWater and Sanitation Utilities (IBNET).With data of more than 2,000 utilitiesfrom 80 countries, the IBNET targetsbridging the gaps in information onperformance levels in the WSS sector.

The pilot cities of Trivandrum, Surat,and Chandigarh have implementedinnovative and low-cost or no-costperformance improvement options.Surat has developed a good practice inwater quality monitoring, Chandigarhan effective metering practice, andTrivandrum software to improve billingand collection practices (Box 5).Chhattisgarh has improved connectivityby reducing its water supply connectioncosts. Improved billing practices viaspot billing are being undertaken by theBangalore Water Board.8

Cities interested in implementing 24x7water supply projects could learn fromVeolia Water, which has undertaken acontinuous water supply project on apilot basis for the Government ofKarnataka, in the three cities ofHubli-Dharwad, Belgaum, andGulbarga. Besides 24x7 supply, theproject also has important lessons forcities implementing a holistic NRWmanagement program. The mainobjective of the project was toundertake capital maintenance on thedistribution network to prove 24x7continuous clean water is achievable inthe Indian context. The project alsoproves that such supply is affordable,sustainable over time, and does notrequire additional water resources tokeep the pipes pressurized. Thecontinuous water supply project is nowbeing scaled up on a citywide basis.

7 Of the 2,000 services providers in the Philippines,90 percent are small size providers, with less than5,000 connections. These small providers caterto 50 percent of the population.8 Spot billing refers to a system where bills aregenerated on the spot and handed over to theconsumer once meter readings are entered in thedata loggers. This helps utilities streamline andimplement effective billing systems, improvecash flows, and make the processes morecustomer-centric.

Box 5: Good practices in Surat, Trivandrum, and Chandigarh

Surat Municipal Corporation’s (SMC) Hydraulic Department has

established a decentralized water-quality monitoring system for ensuring

superior water quality. Appropriate technologies, instruments, equipment, and

so on, were installed in accordance with ISO 10500 standards, for effective

sampling and monitoring of water quality. To check and measure parameters

such as pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen, chlorine, and

ammoniacal nitrogen, online meters including a multi-parameter deployable

river-monitoring instrument, a digital turbidity meter, and a digital residual

chlorine analyzer were installed. In-house chemical and bacteriological tests

and fogging activities were undertaken on a regular basis. Uniform procedures

were followed for record-keeping at all the workstations. Continuous

education and capacity-building programs were also organized for staff for

ensuring that these procedures were systematically followed.

Trivandrum has a good practice in billing and collection practices. The city

has implemented an Advanced Billing and Collection Utility System

(ABACUS)—a computerized billing and revenue monitoring system that helps

it achieve a 100 percent revenue target. Besides supporting bi-monthly spot

billing, the system enables faster consumer services and a computerized

complaints redressal system. The system allows for consumer bill generation

including its issuance, generating reading sheets for meter readers, posting

meter readings from the reading sheet to the system, and generating a

demand and collection statement. It helps track collection efficiency and other

services including meter replacement, disconnection and reconnection, and

new connections.

Chandigarh is one of the few cities in India whose water service provider, the

Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh (MCC), has relatively high levels of

consumption metering. Multi-jet meters are used for the water connections.

Of the total 143,966 connections, 121,444 connections are metered. About

87 percent of these meters are in working condition. The MCC has a good

meter maintenance policy including a quick meter repair policy; a 15-day

turnaround timeline is mandated for meter testing and replacing/redressing

the faulty/leaking meter. Meter reading and bill generation is undertaken on a

bi-monthly basis on specific dates. Consumers are also provided the

convenience of paying their bills at any one of the existing 11 Sampark

Centers. It also has a clear and simple connection policy, including a

two-week timeline for the sanction of a new water connection.

11

Implications GoingForward and Linkingto PIPs and ISIPsThe SLB exercise highlightedperformance gaps in various servicesvis-à-vis the performance benchmarks.Cities were encouraged to developPerformance Improvement Plans(PIPs) and ISIPs using the informationgenerated by the SLB exercise. ThePIPs were distinct from the routineplanning processes driven by budgetaryconsiderations, and targeted serviceoutcomes. The ISIPs were designedto strengthen data collection andmonitoring systems with particular focuson improving reliability.

The workshop also set the expectationfor ULBs and utilities to integrate theSLB framework into their internaldecision processes that would helpimprove the quality of planning andproject development. One of the statewater departments—the Housing andUrban Development Department,Government of Odisha—sharedexperiences in developing PIPs andISIPs in two pilot cities of Bhubaneswarand Berhampur. Extensive consultationswere undertaken with the concernedofficials, including those of the PublicHealth Engineering Department, forarriving at a consensus on indicators,and measures for improving servicesincluding data reliability. Some of theinitiatives that are being undertakeninclude improving data reliability forNRW, reform of the connection policy forimproving coverage, and institutionalizingthe SLB initiative in the pilot cities. TheSLB framework is now being extendedto all the UIDSSMT-supported towns andcities in the state.

12

� Making disclosure of performance as per the SLB framework mandatoryfor a city as part of the Public Disclosure Law (PDL).

� Incentivizing cities to adopt SLB practices through measures such asawards and recognition.

� Providing assistance to ULBs in the development of software to enablethem measure performance parameters for SLB.

� Supporting capacity building and assistance in implementation of ISIPsand PIPs.

Box 6: The MoUD’s strategy towards institutionalizing theSLB framework

The Way ForwardThe consultations provided usefulinsights for the water and sanitationsector, in particular highlighting keypolicy and operational improvementareas that need to be addressed forsustainable service improvements. Thedeliberations received recognition fromDr. Arun Maira, Advisor, PlanningCommission, who felt that theworkshop ended with a “big bang” andhopes to see the SLB framework setstandards for achieving betteroutcomes. Mr. Mehta, Joint Secretary,MoUD, stated that the Ministry wouldremain committed to the SLB initiativeand would find ways to continue thecapacity building and training supportrequired to institutionalize theframework in many more cities andstates in the country (Box 6).

Participating cities concurred that theworkshop provided an excellentopportunity for presenting performancedata using a uniform definitionalframework, including performancehighlights and weaknesses, and

proposed action plans forimprovement. The workshop alsoreflected that the SLB initiative hadgathered the support of many citiesand states, further strengthened byinteractions with other participatingcities. The demonstration effect alsoencouraged the late entrants (cities andstates) into the initiative to adopt the

SLB framework in their context, bywitnessing some of the quick winperformance improvement initiativesthat cities were adopting based onthe SLB performance assessment.

Some state governments alsodemonstrated greater keenness forscaling the program to more citiesand for using it as a tool formonitoring performance at the statelevel. Some states, such asKarnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat,Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh, arealready in the process of scaling upthe benchmarking exercise to covera larger number of cities. These canfurther serve as a demonstration forother states to adopt similar scaleup strategies.

Cities expressed the need forinformation on the SLB program andperformance status to be madeavailable in local languages to ensurewider coverage. They also felt thatmunicipal councilors and otherpolitical representatives needed tobe inducted into the SLB exercise.Some cities highlighted the need forsetting targets for themselves at theorganizational and individual zone/officer level. Participating cities leftwith great enthusiasm for“internalizing and institutionalizing”the framework, particularly forstrengthening the informationsystems required for capturing theservice level benchmarkingindicators. They also indicated thatthey would set standards forthemselves, besides improving onthe service level benchmarkingindicators, including data reliability,within a set timeframe.

13

End NoteThe principle of accountability fordelivering certain service levels is nowgaining broad-based acceptance at alllevels in the country. The SLB initiativehas made an important contribution tolending further momentum to thisprocess. The MoUD is now using thebenchmarking program to monitor andevaluate delivery of improved urbanwater and sanitation services, no longeras ad hoc performance reviews, butthrough a Government of India-led,structured monitoring program that islinked with the MoUD’s reform agenda. Itis keen on incorporating this principle inall its programs and initiatives includingthe JNNURM, UIDSSMT, as well asbilateral and multilateral programs.

The MoUD is also committed toproviding necessary support to statesand cities that make an effort toinstitutionalize the SLB framework intheir context. It has provided cities withfunding support to implement follow-upactions under their ISIPs. Already, 13 ofthe 28 pilot cities have submitted theirISIP proposals, and Rs. 46 crore(US$10.22 million) has been approvedby the MoUD for information systemsimprovements. Some of the commonproposals across the cities includehousehold surveys to update customerdatabases, installation of bulk flowmeters and pressure gauge systems,installation of weighbridges, hydraulicmodeling on a pilot basis, and thedevelopment of a protocol on waterquality monitoring.

Last but not the least, the principle ofbenchmarking has been endorsed by

the 13th Finance Commission, whichhas included SLB as one of theconditionalities for the allocation ofperformance-based grants to ULBs,amounting to approximatelyRs. 8,000 crore (US$1.78 billion) over

the period 2010–15. It is hencehoped that state governments willembrace the principle of serviceaccountability and take the lead inusing the SLB framework to deliverimproved services for their citizens.

14

Day 1: December 14, 2009

Schedule Theme Resource Person

1000–1030 Registration

Opening Session: Introducing Service Level Benchmarking in the Indian Context

1030–1230 Welcome remarks E.P. Nivedita, Director (WS & LSG)

GoI’s Service Level Benchmarking initiative: Links with Performance A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary, MoUDImprovement Planning and the urban reform agenda

Key data findings from the SLB pilot initiative Nabaroon Bhattacharjee, WSP

Linking benchmarking to UWSS service reform: Leila Elvas, WSPExperience from the Philippines

Views from the states and cities State urban secretaries,city functionaries

Keynote address Dr. Ramachandran, Secretary, MoUD

Benchmarking for improved planning of urban services Arun Maira, Planning Commission

Vote of thanks National Coordinator, SLB

Session I: Performance Results from the SLB Pilot Initiative and Integrating for Urban Governance

1330–1630 SLB experiences from pilot towns: Parallel sessions for pilot cities; Representatives from pilot citiesdetailed results for a specific city; findings of performance analysis;learnings and challenges faced

Group A

Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, A.K. Mehta—Group ABhubaneswar, Raipur, Shimla, Bokaro, Chas Ramesh Ramanathan—Group B

(Observers: Vandana Bhatnagar, Srinivas Chary, and Nabaroon Bhattacharjee—Group CVedala V.K. Chaurasia) Feedback by: Centers of

Excellence and sector experts

Group B

Berhampur, Kolhapur, Guntur, Trivandrum, Kozhikode, Tiruchirapalli, Rapporteuring by: SLB consultantsUdhagamandalam, Imphal, Dharamshala (ICLEI, AIILSG, UMC,

(Observers: Vishal Jain, R. Sethuraman, and J.B. Ravindran) CRISIL, DENEB, ASCI)

Group C

Surat, Nashik, PCMC, Bhopal, Indore, Ujjain, Amritsar, Jalandhar,

Palampur (Observers: E.P. Nivedita, M. Sankaranarayanan,and M. Dheenadhayalan)

Appendix 1: Agenda

December 14–15, 2009, New DelhiProgram

15

Day 1: December 14, 2009

1630–1730 Institutionalizing benchmarking for urban governance and sustainability

Panel: Dr. Ramachandran (Chairperson), A.K. Mehta, Nabaroon Bhattacharjee, Sanjay Srivastava, RameshRamanathan, Vishal Jain, M.P. Singh, Soumen Bagchi

Day 2: December 15, 2009

Session II: Using Benchmarking for Performance Improvement Planning

0930–1000 Summary of Day 1Feedback from parallel sessions

1000–1100 Performance Improvement Plans and Information WSPSystems Improvement Plans ASCI

� Why prepare them, and what are these?

� Sample PIPs and ISIPs from pilot cities

� Early experiences from the SLB Pilot Initiative

� Low-cost, no-cost options for PIPs and ISIPs

1100–1215 Good practice experiences Case study presenters

� Surat (water quality)

� Chandigarh (metering practices)

� Trivandrum (billing and collection)

� Veolia Water (NRW, continuous supply)

Session III: International Experiences in Benchmarking and Knowledge Networks

1215–1330 Introduction to IBNET and global knowledge sharing Alexander Danilenko (World Bank)

Experiences from knowledge networks: Md. Akhtaruzamman (WSP)� Bangladesh’s experience Chetan Vaidya, NIUA� PEARL ECO–Asia� Water links

1330–1400 Distribution of mementos Arun Maira, Planning CommissionClosing remarks and Way forward A.K. Mehta, Joint Secretary, MoUD

Organization Name of Participant Designation

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Capt. Dilip Mahajan Deputy CommissionerAhmedabad Municipal Corporation Tarun City EngineerAhmedabad Municipal Corporation S. Gar Deputy Municipal CommissionerAhmedabad Municipal Corporation T.M. Ladi City EngineerAIILSG, Maharashtra N.H. Kusnur Principal Project OfficerAIILSG, Maharashtra J.J. Chekwala AdvisorAIILSG, PMU–MoUD R.K. Malik General ManagerAIILSG, PMU–MoUD Ashish Jaiswal ManagerAIILSG, PMU–MoUD Dipti Panda ManagerAll India Radio Pooja Shali ReporterAmrita TV Manoj Amrita CameramanAmrita TV Deepu Revathy Staff ReporterASCI, Hyderabad N.C. Rachnakar Senior Research AssociateASCI, Hyderabad Purushottam Kesar Senior Research AssistantASCI, Hyderabad T. Murali Mohan FacultyASCI, Hyderabad Swadha Mishra ConsultantASCI, Hyderabad Vijaya V. FacultyAsianet News Deeju Sivadas Senior ReporterAsianet News Madhu Menon CameramanBangalore Water Supply, Karnakata T. Venkata Raju Chief EngineerBeshampur Municipal Corporation R.N. Mallik Executive EngineerBhopal Municipal Corporation Manish Singh Municipal CommissionerBhopal Municipal Corporation Mayank Verma Nodal OfficerBhopal Municipal Corporation Andleeb Warsi Computer ProgrammerBhopal Municipal Corporation Arvind Kumar Dubey Additional CommissionerBhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Deoranjan Kumar Singh CommissionerBhubaneswar Municipal Corporation M. Maheshwar Rao Special CommissionerBhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Berhampur B. Manseth Municipal CommissionerCalicut Corporation S. Vijayakumar SecretaryCEPT University, Ahmedabad M. Mehta Professor EmeritusCEPT University, Ahmedabad Chandan Chawla ProfessorCEPT University, Ahmedabad Dinesh Mehta ProfessorCNEB News Vipin Chaubey CorrespondentCNEB News Suraj Bali CameramanCPHEEO, MoUD M. Dheenadhayalan Deputy AdvisorCPHEEO, MoUD R. Sethuraman ConsultantCPHEEO, MoUD M. Sankaranarayanan Deputy AdvisorCPHEEO, MoUD J.B. Ravinder Assistant AdvisorDD News Anil Kumar Camera AssistantDelhi Jal Board Santosh Vaidya Additional CEODharamshala Er. J.S. Rana Municipal Engineer (Urban)Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru C.G. Suprasanna Joint DirectorDirectorate of Municipal Administration, Chennai P. Thankamany General ManagerGovernment of India Gaurav Dwivedi Senior Deputy DirectorGovernment of India H.M. Mishra ProfessorGovernment of Kerala Dr. Sharmila Mary Joseph DUA & PD, KSUDPGovernment of Madhya Pradesh Raghav Chandra Principal SecretaryGovernment of Manipur N. Gitkumar Singh Chief Town PlannerGovernment of Manipur S. Sunderlal Singh Commissioner

16

Appendix 2: List of Participants

Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi Vijay Singh Joint Secretary (UD)GTZ Sanjay Kumar Srivastava AdvisorGTZ Sanchita Deb Roy Programme OfficerGTZ–ASEM Vaishali Nandan Senior Technical ExpertGuntur Municipal Corporation Dr. Ilambarithi K. Municipal CommissionerH&UD Department, Government of Odisha Deepak Mohanty Additional SecretaryH&UD Department, Government of Odisha M.R. Nanda Executive Engineer (PHED)H&UD Department, Government of Odisha D.S. Mohapatra Executive Engineer (PHED)H&UD Department, Government of Odisha S.K. Das Executive Engineer (PMU Cell)Hyderabad Neetu Prasad Additional CommissionerHyderabad Water Supply & Sewerage Board Ashok Reddy Executive DirectorICLEI–SA Soumiya C. ConsultantICLEI–SA Ashish R. Ghorpade ConsultantICLEI–SA Bedoshruti Sadhu Khan ConsultantIndia Urban Space Shriniwas Kowligi Chief Executive OfficerIndiavision News P.B. Anoop ReporterIndore Municipal Corporation Anil Jain City EngineerInside Story Kumari Manisha Junior ReporterInside Story Aruna ReporterIntegrated Research Action & Development Vidya Kaumudini Research AssociateJai Hind TV Mahesh V.K. CameramanJai Hind TV Sanil Philip ReporterJain TV Rahul Mishra Senior CorrespondentJain TV Mahendra Singh Senior CameramanJanagraha Ramesh Ramanathan Co-founderJICA India M.P. Singh Principal Development SpecialistKairali TV T.K. Hareesh ReporterKairali TV Jayesh CameramanKerala Water Authority Kishan Chandu V. Assistant EngineerKerala Water Authority Susan Jacob Managing DirectorKolhapur Municipal Corporation, Maharashtra R.J. Tade Executive EngineerKolhapur Municipal, Maharashtra Vijay Singhal Municipal CommissionerKozhikode Corporation Ramesh K.P. Assistant Executive EngineerMA & UD Department, A.P. P.K. Jha Special SecretaryManorama News Binu Aravind CorrespondentMcKinsey & Co. Badal Malick Management ConsultantMinistry of Urban Development M. Ramachandran SecretaryMinistry of Urban Development A.K. Mehta Joint SecretaryMinistry of Urban Development E.P. Nivedita DirectorMinistry of Urban Development Sudha Krishnan JS & FAMinistry of Urban Development Nikita PSMinistry of Urban Development Seema PAMinistry of Urban Development M. Umamaheshwaran PS to JS (UD)Ministry of Urban Development Raj Kumar AssistantMinistry of Urban Development Shekhar AssistantMinistry of Urban Development Balbir Singh DaftariMinistry of Urban Development V.K. Chhikara LDCMinistry of Urban Development Manoj Kumar LDCMinistry of Urban Development M.K. Mandal Assistant

Organization Name of Participant Designation

17

Organization Name of Participant Designation

Ministry of Urban Development Nisha Sangal StenographerMinistry of Urban Development R.S. Kunwar Section OfficerMinistry of Urban Development M.M. Sharma PAMinistry of Urban Development D.S. Rawat PSMinistry of Urban Development Sahdev Mehta PeonMPUSP, Bhopal M.J.S. Tulsi Deputy Director (Engg)Municipal Administration, Housing & W. Bharktaraj Singh Executive EngineerUrban Development Department, ManipurMunicipal Corporation of Delhi Sunil Kumar SE (DEMS)Municipal Corporation, Amritsar D.P.S. Kharbanda CommissionerMunicipal Corporation, Amritsar Pardhuman Singh Executive EngineerMunicipal Corporation, Amritsar Sunny Makkar System ManagerMunicipal Corporation, Chandigarh S.K. Bansal Chief EngineerMunicipal Corporation, Chandigarh R.S. Ahluwalia Executive EngineerMunicipal Corporation, Chandigarh Dr. Roshan Sunkaria Municipal CommissionerMunicipal Corporation, Jalandhar Narinder Singh Executive EngineerMunicipal Corporation, Shimla K.K. Sharma, HAS Assistant CommissionerMunicipal Council Dharamshala, HP J.S. Rana Municipal EngineerNashik Municipal Corporation U.B. Pawar Executive EngineerNashik Municipal Corporation P.M. Gaikwad Executive EngineerNashik Municipal Corporation S.S. Magare Executive EngineerNashik Municipal Corporation S.R. Vanjari Deputy EngineerNew Delhi Municipal Council Amit Prasad DirectorNew Delhi Municipal Council K. Murugan Deputy DirectorNew Delhi Municipal Council Gyanesh Bharti SecretaryNew Delhi Municipal Council Ramesh Raina Chief EngineerNews 24 Puneet CorrespondentNews 24 Manoj Kumar Gupta CameramanNIUA, New Delhi Chetan Vaidya DirectorNIUA, New Delhi Nilanjana Dasgupta Sur Research FellowNVR Sanjay Dey AnalystPalampur Water Supply T.C. Bhatt Junior EngineerPCMC, Pune Asheesh Sharma Municipal CommissionerPress Information Bureau Tasneem F. Khan Information OfficerPROOF Sanjeev Ranjan National Coordinator–SLBPROOF Vishal Jain TrusteePRUDA-AIILSG, New Delhi Akshay Anand Associate ProjectPune, Maharashtra Ashok Sharma Municipal CommissionerPunjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board K.L. Swara Director (P & D)RAID A.A. Khan EditorRaipur Municipal Corporation Alok Chandravanshi Deputy CommissionerRaipur Municipal Corporation K.K. Singh Executive EngineerSahara TV Suman Kumar Principal CorrespondentSahara TV Pradeep Pandey CoordinationSENES Mainak Hazra DirectorSkoch Consultancy Agransh Anand Team AssociateSkoch Consultancy Sameet Kochhar Chief Executive OfficerSkoch Consultancy Gursharan Dhanjal Chief Operating OfficerSurat Municipal Corporation Nilesh Patel Executive EngineerSurat Municipal Corporation K. Khetwani Executive EngineerSurat Municipal Corporation E.H. Patham Solid Waste Manager

18

Appendix 2: List of Participants (Continued)

Organization Name of Participant Designation

Surat Municipal Corporation H.S. Suthar Deputy EngineerTCS Ltd. Mritunjay Kumar ConsultantTiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli P. Chandrasekaran Assistant Executive EngineerTiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli S. Ragooraman Junior EngineerTiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli R. Chandran Executive EngineerTiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli T.T. Balsamy CommissionerTiruchirapalli City Corporation, Tiruchirapalli J. Ragooraman Junior EngineerTrivandrum Corporation Radha Krishna Kurup C. Additional SecretaryUdhagamandalam Municipal Council L.S. Girija CommissionerUdhagamandalam Municipality B. Vishwanaathan AssistantUdhagamandalam Municipality K. Balraj AssistantUjjain Municipal Corporation Pradeep Saxena Nodal OfficerUjjain Municipal Corporation Dilip Naghane Sub EngineerUrban Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh Sanjay Shukla CommissionerUrban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand Gajanand Ram Associate Town PlannerUrban Management Center, Ahmedabad Arvind Kumar Singh Program ManagerUtkal News L.K. Arora CorrespondentVADD, Bhopal Kamal Shrivastava Chief EngineerVeolia Water India Babu S.V.K. General ManagerVoyans Solutions Himanshu Tilwankar AVPVoyanta Partnering Vision B.S. Mahiya Project EngineerVoyanta Partnering Vision G.M. Rathore Project EngineerVSPL S.H.A. Zaidi Senior Task ManagerWater and Sanitation Program Chris Heymans Regional Team LeaderWater and Sanitation Program Somnath Sen ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Alexander Danilenko ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Rajat Jain ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Abhay Kantak ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Vandana Bhatnagar Financial SpecialistWater and Sanitation Program Heidrun Zeug Junior Professional OfficerWater and Sanitation Program Pronita Chakrabarti EconomistWater and Sanitation Program Vandana Mehra Regional Communications SpecialistWater and Sanitation Program Bibhas Mahapatra ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Suseel Samuel W & S SpecialistWater and Sanitation Program Cesar E. Yniguez ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Anand Jalakam NTAWater and Sanitation Program Nabaroon Bhattacherjee Team Leader IndiaWater and Sanitation Program Ajith Kumar Water and Sanitation SpecialistWater and Sanitation Program M. Kullappa Water and Sanitation SpecialistWater and Sanitation Program Sanjay Gupta ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Suneetha D. Kacker Urban Specialist, SWMWater and Sanitation Program Akhtaruzzaman Team Leader BangladeshWater and Sanitation Program Nitika Surie Program AssistantWater and Sanitation Program G.N. Raiken ConsultantWater and Sanitation Program Vivek Raman Research AnalystWater and Sanitation Program Rakesh Bhati Database CoordinatorWaterAid Chandra Ganapathy ManagerWebVarts Mohammad Parman CorrespondentWorld Bank Srinivas Rao Podipireddy Senior Water SpecialistWSP Philippines Leila Elvas Regional Team Leader

19

WSP MISSION:WSP’s mission is to support poor people inobtaining affordable, safe, and sustainable accessto water and sanitation services.

WSP FUNDING PARTNERS:The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) is amulti-donor partnership created in 1978 andadministered by the World Bank to support poorpeople in obtaining affordable, safe, andsustainable access to water and sanitationservices. WSP provides technical assistance,facilitates knowledge exchange, and promotesevidence-based advancements in sector dialogue.WSP has offices in 25 countries across Africa, EastAsia and the Pacific, Latin America and theCaribbean, South Asia, and in Washington, DC.WSP’s donors include Australia, Austria, Canada,Denmark, Finland, France, the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation, Ireland, Luxembourg,Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UnitedKingdom, United States, and the World Bank.For more information, please visit www.wsp.org.

AusAID provides WSP programmatic support.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:Text prepared by: Pronita Chakrabarti Agrawal, with peer reviewcomments provided by Chris Heymans, Cesar Yniguez,Vandana Bhatnagar, and Vandana MehraEdited by: Anjali Sen GuptaPhotographs by: WSPCreated by: Write MediaPrinted by: PS Press Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Urban Think Tank

The Urban Think Tank is a participatoryforum which enables experts andpractitioners to address issues relatedto the service delivery of water supplyand sanitation services to the poorestsectors of the community. The ThinkTank is also intended to spark policy-level debate and provide a forum wherethe issues and concerns of municipalmanagers can be brought forward.Regular meetings have been hosted bythe Water and Sanitation Program(WSP) since December 1994.

The 18th Urban Think Tank was held inNew Delhi on December 14–15, 2009,and discussed the issue of ‘ImprovingWater and Sanitation Service Deliveryin India: Lessons from a NationalWorkshop on Service LevelBenchmarking for Urban India’.Over 150 participants, including waterand sanitation service providersand utility managers, water sectorspecialists, and city administratorsattended the workshop. Theyrepresented different institutionalcontexts and WSS agencies, includingstate parastatals, municipal

departments, municipal corporations andwater companies. The workshop providedthe cities a chance to reflect on theirperformance over four service areas,compare themselves to other cities, andidentify their shortcomings and possiblestrategies to overcome them. It provided afurther opportunity to clarify and validateService Level Benchmarking data, anddiscuss support required to institutionalizebenchmarking of performance data on anongoing basis.

Through Nagari, the proceedings and keyissues of meetings are disseminated tomunicipalities all over India. The purpose ofthis information note is to share lessonslearnt, highlight emerging issues, illustrateexample of best practice, and provide alink between municipalities and otherstakeholders to foster a better operatingenvironment in the sector of water supplyand sanitation services. We welcome yourideas on any of the issues discussed, andfeedback forms are enclosed for thispurpose. Please also write to us with anycomments and suggestions on topics thatyou feel are important for managers of localurban bodies.

Water and Sanitation ProgramWorld Bank55 Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003India

Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: wspsa@worldbank.orgWeb site: www.wsp.org

PARTNERSHIPS: This Think Tank was organized by the Water and Sanitation Program. The purpose was to provide opportunities for water supplyagencies in South Asia to learn from the experiences of water supply agencies that have succeeded in sustainably reducing their NRW levels. Theworkshop objectives were to locate billing and collection within the broader framework of NRW, introduce all participants to successful practices from otherutilities in the region and globally, and catalyze further initiatives to reduce NRW among participating water utilities. (See Box I: National ConsultationsWorkshop: Context and objectives, for more details.)