1	SecureWater India Longitudinal Study 2000-2004 Policy Research; Institutional and Field Analysis - Poverty Livelihood focus ‘Progressive’ Andhra Pradesh; WSP/UNICEF support to the SRP Water Abundant to Water Scarce 2000-2003 Drought situation
2	From Supply to Demand 8^th Five Year Plan – Water: an economic good 1998 World Bank Sector Review - centralized, closed, unaccountable sector Community participation Χ – Netherlands/UNICEF Need assessment and O&M Χ The need for a Demand-Responsive Approach GoI internal reviews ‘Coverage’ (above 80%) does not translate to assured water – especially in dry seasons/droughts TCS – Poor Capacity Building of the Sector Bilateral programmes / UNICEF - 1990s HRD Cells
3	Demand Responsive SRP GoI/WSP Alliance Sector Reform Programme – 1999, 67 districts across 26 states A demand-driven, integrated approach to rural water supply and sanitation; Partial (10%) capital cost recovery and 100% O&M financing by users; Community participation in project planning, implementation and maintenance; Stronger links to watershed development programmes; Control measures on over-extraction of groundwater.
4	Institutional Challenges Slow start – 2001; Differential forms and pace of change – Maharashtra – State Policy 2001 Varied Institutional Arrangements – Rural Water Supply Department – Khammam, CWSSC/NGOs – Chittoor; Gram Panchayats and/or Habitation Water and Sanitation Committees. The continued dominance of GoI and District level administration Gains over the earlier supply approach: ear-marked funding, reduced political interference? Perverse Incentive encouraged short-cuts and attracted undesirable private participation; focused on capacity to supply/spend rather than capacity to assess and respond to demand Inappropriate monitoring indicators - political bias Losers - genuine attempts to try demand-led processes – Chittoor
5	Practical Challenges Demand Responsive? Household water needs not assessed - 40 lpcd; Standard options offered; communal and private; no restrictions on use Financial/Technical Sustainability? Scheme Over Costing – handpumps to piped water Community contribution often not related to 10% total capital costs or use, Inequity Rigid project cycle - no flexibility for late comers Community participation? Community as a homogenous entity; Rs 500 to join, additional 500 – private connections; Rs 10 and 5 O&M fees for private/communal connections Electricity free What is required to sustain short and long term use and maintenance vs what users are able and willing to pay? Local Caretakers – small repairs
6	"Resource Sustainability – no restrictions..." Resource Sustainability – no restrictions on use, no source protection, competing uses (agriculture) Integrated water management – Χ Equal voice and choice for all HHs? Water use for poor HHs is tolerated but not formally recognised in the scheme design Mr Kotharedappa Reddy Mr Pedanna, Natiobannagaripalli
7	Research findings Heterogeneous Community 40% asset-less poorest, extreme poverty Negative, fluctuating incomes – low ability to pay
8	"Water-Poverty-Livelihood" Water-Poverty-Livelihood Water use lowest amongst the poorest and poor Asset owning (land/livestock) poor – recently poor – inequitable access to water Other non-farm water-dependent livelihoods – pastoralists; potters; weavers – no services The opportunity costs of not having access to basic water needs Water use highest amongst the 24 % richest – assured access to water even in droughts The social and political contexts of water decision making
9	Recommendations The need to analyse and understand differential ability to pay – chronically poor; good and bad periods, late comers Safe Water? Water-livelihood? – to facilitate ability to pay The social and political dimensions of water decision making – Community? Community demand for water? Financial sustainability - Better scheme design and costing IWRM? Competing, conflicting demands for water Capacity Building SRP to Swajaldhara