Snehalatha. MVenkataswamy.M

Sirisha. DAnitha. V

Busenna. P

“Looking Beyond Capital Costs” Life Cycle Costing for Sustainable Service Delivery

A Study of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh, India

ASIA REGIONAL SANITATION AND HYGIENE PRACTITIONERS WORKSHOP, Dhaka 2012

objectives and sample

Differential access to and use of sanitation services by the poor and non poor.

Analysing the expenditure using the life cycle costing approach

Sample : Total Sanitation: 72,000NGP Award: Around 2000Agroclimatic zones - 9 Districts - 22Household surveys - 5233

Service level ISL Access ISL use Reliability Environmental protection

Improved More than one toilet

All the family members use toilet& infant faeces disposed in toilet

Rs1000+ spent on O&M

Drains and dumps are well maintained, In addition solid and liquid re use and re cycle is practiced

Basic One ISL All the members of family using

Rs 500+ spent on O&M

Drains are well maintained. Dumps used for solid disposal

Limited/Sub Standard

Shared Some family members using the toilet

less than Rs500 spent on O&M

Drains are there but poorly designed and maintained. Dumping area for solid waste exists but not used

No service No ISL All Open Defecation

Households did not spend any amount

No Solid or liquid waste management

Service Level Measurement

Household Level Service Levels

Acces Use Reliability Environmental Protection

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

59%66%

73%

57%

3%

22%

24%

33%

38%

12%3%

10%

No Service Limited Basic

Source: WASHCost (India) study 2010

% of households

Access is better but needs more time to reach TSC goal

Usage is alarmingly low

Reliability concerns lowers the usage ( fear of filling the pit, no service providers for emptying, finding replacement of hardware)

No systems for solid/liquid disposal systems

Even award winning villages(NGP) report similar findings

OC BC SC ST OC BC SC STAccess Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

42

62 65

86

46

69 73

924

33

1

36

1819

6

54

35 32

13 18 13 82

Basic Limited No Service

Access and Usage by different caste groups

Broadly divided into three categories, ‘scheduled’(SC/ST), ‘backward(BC)’ and ‘other(OC)’.

Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) are at the lowest social rung and have constitutional provision of reservations in educational institutions, employment, fund allocation in Govt programs

Lower access among Lower caste categories,

Usage is low across all the groups but worst in Lower caste categories

Access and Usage by Households based on their income <

US$

415

US$

415t

o103

5

>US$

1035

< U

S$ 4

15

US$

415t

o103

5

>US$

1035

Access Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

71 6553

75 7260

43

3

2118

25

2532

44

3 10 15

Basic Limited No Service

Access and Usage by Households based on their farm size

Lar

ge fa

rm si

ze

Med

ium

farm

Siz

e

Smal

l far

m si

ze

Land

less

Lar

ge fa

rm si

ze

Med

ium

farm

Siz

e

Smal

l far

m si

ze

Land

less

Access Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3450

59 63

37

5466 703

1

34

38

3122 19

6349

38 3325

15 12 11Basic Limited No Service

Why are the services low?1….2…..3…..4…..5…..6…..N…..

Lets look at where/How the investments were made?

Costs of excavation of pit,lining, slabs, superstructures and drainage pipes etc, drainage systems, solid waste disposal systems,Institutional toilets etc

Day-to-day maintenance, chemicals, cleaning materials, soap for handwashing, minor repairs

To restore the functionality of a system eg: replacing a slab or emptying a septic tank or superstructure etc.

Providing support to VWSCs, Cost of conducting IEC and awareness camps and training programs etc

Macro level planning & policy making, support to decentralised service authorities or local government

Interest rate that Government / houesholds pay on the loans they take to construct a toilet

Life Cycle Costs Components

Capital ex-

penditure

Opera-tional and

minor main-ten-ance ex-

penditure

Capital main-ten-ance ex-

penditure

Ex-pendit-ures on direct

support

Ex-pendit-ures on indirect support

Costs of capital

Investments made on Life Cycle Cost Components

86%

2% 4%

8%

Relative share of Sanitation investments Percapita per

year

CapexHrd CapExSft ExpDs ExpIDS

CapManEx OpEx

Source: WASHCost survey(2010)

Exclusive focus on Hard ware

Social engineering, not a priority to

technical engineers

No/Low direct support indicate lack of

demand generation activities

CapManEx absent indicating low

sustainability

Lack of Institutional structures for

ensuring O&M

What makes households go for a toilet?Personal factors

Privacy

Security for women and Adolescent Girls

Needs of elderly

Self respect and shame to defecate openly

Socio and Economic Factors

Subsidy from Govt

Improved social status in the society

Education levels of the family memebrs

RWSS /contractor Constructed

Seasonal/environmental and Other factors

Convenience during rainy seasons & night times

Pressure from Panchayats to win the NGP Award

Awareness on health benefits

Non availabily of open fields/ difficulty in accessing the agricultural fields

• Monitoring the expenditure using Life Cycle Cost Approach

•Increasing the scale and duration of expenditure on IEC that include different strategies over a longer period looking beyond the capital costs.

•A step wise award system that rewards sustained achievement of sanitation services need to be designed.

•Safeguards should be in place for the poorest of the poor, SC/ST and disadvantaged households to receive the Government subsidies on priority. Involving the SCs and STs and poorest of the poor households require the support of a professional agency / NGOs

• Urgent need for convergence and sequencing the activities of TSC• “demand generation” • “fund disbursal” • “regular monitoring” for sustained sanitation

Way Forward