Suneetha Dasappa-Kacker

Anuradha Joshi

Presentation for STEPS conference on Liquid Dynamics II

Pipe Dreams: Observations on the Governance of Water Supply in New Delhi

Structure Current debates

Key Issue: getting from the existing situation to the desired situation

Case material from Delhi

Implications and Conclusions

Debates on Urban Water SupplyVibrant discourse on the importance and role of

non-state providers and the MDG’sFocus on reaching the poor Already a part of provision, reach the poor,

Key Issues have beenLevels of service and terms Institutionalisation of arrangements

The Vicious Cycle

UTILITY

NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATIONS

UTILITIES

POLITICIAN

NON-STATE PROVIDERS

The Virtuous Cycle

UTILITYUTILITIES

POLITICIAN

NON-STATE PROVIDERS

NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATIONS

The Gap

Little understanding, or empirical research on how to transition from A to B.

Drivers of change — understanding the politics and political economy

Delhi: context of water supplyDelhi draws 635 MGD of treated water from surface

sources; and about 100 MGD of ground water

The Delhi Jal Board (DJB), constituted in 1998 is responsible for administering WSS in the city

The DJB, governed by a Board, is responsible for both provisioning and regulatory functions

The DJB is under pressure to reform both it’s operational and financial performance

Sangam Vihar

Sangam Vihar, an illegal settlement at the southern edge of outer Delhi, houses between 0.4 – 0.6 mil. Inhabitants

The inhabitants belong to the lower and low-middle income group

Sangam Vihar was provided with hand pumps for water supply

Bore wells were initially installed for personal use, but were soon expanded to serve a neighbourhood - private provisioning prevalent since 1985, at least

Private providers

Typically, entrepreneurs are well linked to land owners or local politicians

A bore well, pump and distribution network are established. Typically, this serves 150 HH’sManaged by an operatorMultiple providers in the same space / territory

HH’s are responsible for end connectivityCapital investment varies between USD 2,200 - 3,300 HH’s pay a connection charge, and a monthly flat rate Typically, investment is recovered within 2 years

Private providersLittle competition, in spite of several operators

Poor quality of service HH must bear cost of connection again

No incentives to improve quality of serviceLack of alternatives – little recourse for customersHigh risks of illegal operations – short term perspective

Pressures to increase customer baseCustomers pay by the month, rather than for water consumed Reduced availability of water; and erratic timings of supply

Customers at mercy of operatorsNo accountabilityExpress need for regulation and monitoring

Demanding waterNeighbourhood associations start petitioning for public

supply in 2001, through representations to the DJB, and to local politicians

In related events In 1994, water and electricity supply permitted to unauthorised areas Restrictions on ground water extraction gradually being enforced

Cause taken up by local politicians (opposing party), who pressure the DJB for provision of tube wells in settlements 2005 – supply of electricity arranged 2006 – first tube-well installed by DJB in B block

Residents organise to establish distribution networks and management structures. Costs to residents decrease drastically.

The Current Cycle

UTILITYUTILITIES

POLITICIAN

NON-STATE PROVIDERS

NEIGHBOURHOOD ASSOCIATIONS

Implications of current situationResidents establish access to public water supply

through politicians, but are free from further dependence Direct oversight & management of operations

DJB gains a positive entry point into the system – sees the rationale of further involvement for cost recovery Bears costs for power consumed Bears O & M costs of tube-well

Politicians credited with providing access to water – clientelist relationship / arrangement eroded, new basis for support established

Marked improvement in service levels and accountability Technical limitations of the arrangement realised

What next?Semi formal system in place:

Tube well is legalResidents running distribution system – which is not illegal. Potential towards full formalization

Interest aligning towards cost recoveryMLA funds are limited

DJB willing to work with non state providers to extend service to the HHCan obtain payments for water extracted; and O & M of tube well. Can regulate operations in a formal arrangement

People happy to pay reasonable cost for good service.

Take AwaysIn order to have impact on ground, need to focus on

drivers that will trigger a transition from the vicious to the virtuous cycle. These will differ in different contexts.

In this case drivers that were important were:Political factors:

Opposition political party was seeking to consolidateAwareness and rights:

residents became aware that they had a right to water. Experience of private operators – the need for regulation value of a formal arrangement . Not clear that they realise that

the current arrangement is a potential path to full fledged formalization.

The current arrangement provides an opportunity for reformist public officials to formalise the system (with relatively less opposition)

THANK YOU