handbook slb moud

8/10/2019 Handbook SLB MOUD

1/100

Ministry of Urban DevelopmentGovernment of India

HANDBOOK ON

SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKING


2/100


3/100

SECTION I: Service Level Benchmarking in the Context of PerformanceManagement of Urban Services 1

1.0. Introduction to Service Level Benchmarking

1.1. Need for Service Level Benchmarking

1.2. Performance Parameters for Basic Urban Services

1.3. Roles of Different Stakeholders1.4. Limitations and Challenges in Implementing Performance Management Systems

Using Service Level Benchmarks

1.5. Standardisation of Service Level Benchmarks

1.6. Structure of the Handbook

SECTION II: Service Level Benchmarks 13

2.0. Service Level Benchmarks

2.1 Water Supply Services

2.1.1 Coverage of Water Supply Connections

2.1.2 Per Capita Supply of Water

2.1.3 Extent of Metering of Water Connections

2.1.4 Extent of Non-Revenue Water

2.1.5 Continuity of Water Supply

2.1.6 Quality of Water Supplied

2.1.7 Efficiency in Redressal of Customer Complaints

2.1.8 Cost Recovery in Water Supply Services

2.1.9 Efficiency in Collection of Water Supply-related Charges

2.2 Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation)

2.2.1 Coverage of Toilets

2.2.2 Coverage of Sewage Network Services

2.2.3 Collection Efficiency of the Sewage Network

2.2.4 Adequacy of Sewage Treatment Capacity

2.2.5 Quality of Sewage Treatment

CONTENTS


4/100

2.2.6 Extent of Reuse and Recycling of Sewage


2.2.8 Extent of Cost Recovery in Sewage Management

2.2.9 Efficiency in Collection of Sewage Charges

2.3 Solid Waste Management

2.3.1 Household Level Coverage of Solid Waste Management Services

2.3.2 Efficiency of Collection of Municipal Solid Waste

2.3.3 Extent of Segregation of Municipal Solid Waste

2.3.4 Extent of Municipal Solid Waste Recovered2.3.5 Extent of Scientific Disposal of Municipal Solid Waste


2.3.7 Extent of Cost Recovery in SWM Services

2.3.8 Efficiency in Collection of SWM Charges

2.4 Storm Water Drainage

2.4.1 Coverage of Storm Water Drainage Network

2.4.2 Incidence of Water Logging/Flooding

SECTION III: Making Service Level Benchmarking Operational 73

3.1. Performance Report Cards

3.1.1 Initiating Performance Reporting

3.1.2 Performance Report Cards

3.2. Sustaining the Performance Management System

ANNEX: Illustrative Performance Report Card 81

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Performance Management System

Table 1: Suggested Frequency and Jurisdiction of Reporting


5/100

HANDBOOK ON SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING

BSUP Basic Services to the Urban Poor

CPHEEO Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation

DMA District Metering Area

FY Financial Year

GIS Geographic Information System

ICAI Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

ILCS Integrated Low Cost Sanitation

JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

MoUD Ministry of Urban Development

NRW Non-Revenue Water

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PROOF Public Record of Operations and Finance

RWA Resident Welfare Association

SLB Service Level Benchmark

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

SWM Solid Waste Management

ULB Urban Local Body

Units of Measure

lpcd litres per capita per day

m metre

km kilometre

Conversions

Crore = 10,000,000

ABBREVIATIONS


6/100


7/100



8/100


9/100


Secretary Ministry of Urban Development

Nirman BhawanNew Delhi

Indias rapid economic growth in the last two decades has been accompanied by increased levels ofurbanisation. Our cities, which are engines of growth, are under great strain to meet the growingdemands and aspirations of their people.

Recognising the growing importance of improving efficiency in delivery of basic services in our cities, theGovernment of India has launched a series of initiatives aimed at enabling urban local bodies to meetthe unprecedented challenges that they face today. These include schemes such as the Jawaharlal NehruNational Urban Renewal Mission, Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and MediumTowns, Capacity Building for Urban Local Bodies, National Urban Transport Policy, National UrbanSanitation Policy, National Mission Mode Project on E-governance and credit rating of selectmunicipal bodies.

As part of the ongoing endeavour to facilitate critical reforms in the urban sector, the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment has now adopted National Benchmarks in four key sectorsWater Supply, Sewerage, Solid

Waste Management and Storm Water Drainage. Investments in urban infrastructure have, however, notalways resulted in corresponding improvements in levels of service delivery. There is, therefore, a needfor a shift in focus towards service delivery. This is especially the case in water supply and sanitation.It is hoped that the Handbook on Service Delivery Benchmarking developed by the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment through a consultative process shall provide a standardised framework for performancemonitoring in respect to water supply, sewerage, solid waste management services and storm waterdrainage, and would enable State level agencies and local level service providers to initiate a process ofperformance monitoring and evaluation against agreed targets, finally resulting in the achievement ofservice level benchmarks identified in the Handbook.

The Ministry of Urban Development would facilitate the adoption of these benchmarks through its variousschemes and would also provide appropriate support to municipalities that move towards the adoption ofthese benchmarks. I encourage all State and local level functionaries to use this Handbook in achievingour shared goal of improved service delivery for our citizens.

Secretary (Urban Development)

Dr. M. Ramachandran

FOREWORD


10/100


11/100


Joint Secretary Ministry of Urban Development

Nirman BhawanNew Delhi

The Ministry of Urban Development initiated an exercise to develop standardised service level benchmarkswith respect to basic municipal services in the year 2006. Subsequently, a core group comprising theInstitute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the Public Record of Operations and Finance (PROOF),the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and Municipal Commissioners of Pune, Bangalore, Jaipur,Hyderabad and Kolkata was constituted by the Ministry of Urban Development, which developed a draftHandbook of Service Level Benchmarking that was circulated among all the States and other key stakeholders. Based on the comments received, the draft was revised and a National Level Workshop washeld in July 2008 for the adoption of benchmarks with respect to basic municipal services related to watersupply, sewerage, solid waste management and storm water drainage.

This Handbook is a result of work done over a period of about two years and is designed to enable thesystematic and sustained monitoring of services using standardised indicators against agreed targets and

benchmarks. It will help effect performance improvements in the identified service sectors by (i) helpinglocal decision-makers identify gaps, plan and prioritise improvement measures; (ii) enabling theidentification and transfer of best practice; (iii) enhancing accountability to customers for service delivery levels; (iv) providing a framework that can underlie contracts/agreements with service providers; and(v) making it possible to link decision-making on financial allocations to service outcomes.

It is expected that State governments and cities would adopt this performance monitoring framework atthe Urban Local Body (ULB)/parastatal level, and undertake to regularly collate and analyse theperformance data to improve the quality of the decision-making process in the sectors identified in thisHandbook. Its adoption by all States shall facilitate uniform measurements and reporting systems, whichwill be of immense help to the management of the service utilities in making the right comparisons aimedat improving the efficiency of the infrastructure. It shall also be of great help in shifting the focus from

infrastructure to service delivery.

I would like to sincerely thank all the persons associated with this exercise, especially all the StateGovernment Secretaries of Urban Development, Municipal Commissioners, WSP, CRISIL, PROOF, ICAI andTechnical Cell (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission [JNNURM]) in the preparation of thisHandbook. I am also grateful for the support received from the Secretary, Urban Development,Dr. M. Ramachandran, who has been the driving force behind this exercise. I indeed hope that thisHandbook would mark a watershed in the urban sector.

Joint Secretary (Urban Development)

A.K. Mehta

PREFACE


12/100

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES


13/100


BENCHMARKS AT A GLANCE

2.1 Water Supply Services

S. No. Proposed Indicator Benchmark

2.1.1 Coverage of water supply connections 100%

2.1.2 Per capita supply of water 135 lpcd

2.1.3 Extent of metering of water connections 100%2.1.4 Extent of non-revenue water (NRW) 20%

2.1.5 Continuity of water supply 24 hours2.1.6 Quality of water supplied 100%

2.1.7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%2.1.8 Cost recovery in water supply services 100%

2.1.9 Efficiency in collection of water supply-related charges 90%

2.2 Sewage Management (Sewerage and Sanitation)


2.2.1 Coverage of toilets 100%

2.2.2 Coverage of sewage network services 100%2.2.3 Collection efficiency of the sewage network 100%

2.2.4 Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 100%

2.2.5 Quality of sewage treatment 100%2.2.6 Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 20%

2.2.7 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%2.2.8 Extent of cost recovery in sewage management 100%

2.2.9 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 90%

2.3 Solid Waste Management


2.3.1 Household level coverage of solid waste management services 100%

2.3.2 Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste 100%

2.3.3 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste 100%2.3.4 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered 80%2.3.5 Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste 100%

2.3.6 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%2.3.7 Extent of cost recovery in SWM services 100%

2.3.8 Efficiency in collection of SWM charges 90%

2.4 Storm Water Drainage


2.4.1 Coverage of storm water drainage network 100%2.4.2 Incidence of water logging/flooding 0


14/100


15/100

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING INTHE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES


16/100



17/100


1.1NEED FOR SERVICELEVEL BENCHMARKING

Every sector has a few key performance indicatorsthat are understood by most stakeholders in thatsector. Similarly, in the urban sector too, there havebeen a number of performance indicators relatedto urban management and service delivery thathave been defined, measured and reported.However, most initiatives in performancemanagement so far have been observed to havesome key limitations:

a Different sets of performance indicators havebeen defined under different initiatives;

a The definition or the assessment method may vary for the same performance indicator, thusinhibiting inter-city or intra-city comparisons;

a Most measurement exercises have beenexternally driven (by agencies external to theagency responsible for delivery against those

performance parameters), leading to the key issueof ownership of performance reports;

a Most performance measurement initiatives havenot been institutionalised, limiting the benefits ofmonitoring trends in performance over time; and

a The process of performance measurementhas not been taken forward into performancemanagement (Figure 1).

These limitations mean that systems for measuringperformance and taking further action on them

have not been institutionalised in urban agencies.It is therefore important that the basic minimumstandard set of performance parameters arecommonly understood and used by allstakeholders. Depending on the specific need,additional performance parameters can bedefined and used.

INTRODUCTION TO SERVICELEVEL BENCHMARKING1.0

3


18/100

FIGURE 1: PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Measuring service levels of civic agencies impliesmeasuring outcomes, and indirectly also reflects oninstitutional capacity, financial performance andother parameters. Service level parameters can bemeasured either from a utility managers/plannersperspective or from a citizens or consumers

perspective. In addition, to facilitate comparisonbetween cities/service delivery jurisdictions, andchanges in performance over time, it is importantthat the performance levels are benchmarked, andmonitored against those benchmarks.

It is in this context, that the Ministry of UrbanDevelopment (MoUD) has initiated an exercise todefine Service Level Benchmarks (SLBs). The MoUDconstituted a Core Group for Service Level

Benchmarking, comprising experts from variousinstitutions to arrive at the SLBs. Drawing on theexperiences of various initiatives in measuringservice level performance, the Core Groupnarrowed down the exercise to four basic urbanservices to begin with, and arrived at sets of

indicators in each. After much deliberation,the indicators, their definitions, means ofmeasurement, frequency and jurisdiction ofmeasurement and reporting, etc., were finalised.

The Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking isa ready reckoner to enable Urban Local Bodies(ULBs) and other city level parastatal agenciesimplement systems for measuring, reporting andmonitoring the SLBs.

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKING IN THE CONTEXT OF PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT OF URBAN SERVICES4


19/100


1.2PERFORMANCE PARAMETERSFOR BASIC URBAN SERVICES

Service level performance parameters have beenidentified 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 theperformance as would be monitored by theleadership/management of ULBs or other civicagencies. These performance measurements willneed to be carried out by the service delivery agencies themselves, reported to higher levels ofmanagement and also disseminated widely.Clear definitions and methodologies are expectedto eliminate bias in measurement and reporting.

Performance from a citizens or consumers point ofview is better measured by capturing theirperception, rather than data from the delivery agency. Measuring citizens perception can besupplemented by reporting by the agenciesthemselves, and can offer interesting insights whencompared with one another.

Performance parameters should be applied acrossall cities and regularly used by all stakeholders.Practical considerations will drive frequency of

measurement and reporting; and the jurisdiction ofmeasurement and reporting, both critical aspects inperformance measurement. Performance will needto be measured at a frequency higher than or atleast equal to the frequency at which it will need to

be reported. Frequency should be determined atsuch an interval at which the variables driving theperformance parameter will undergo visible change,and thereby reflect change in performance overdifferent time periods.

Also, to the extent practical, performance should bemeasured at the smallest geographic jurisdiction aspossible. Typically, performance measurements at

the electoral ward level will be of significant value todecision-makers, especially elected representatives. Administrative jurisdictions for service delivery departments should ideally be co-terminus with wardboundaries. Service delivery performance at wardlevels, when laid out spatially on the city map, may also offer interesting insights. Also from a citizensperspective, ward boundaries are the sub-ULB leveljurisdictions that they can possibly relate to. However,on the other hand, in case of network utilities such aswater supply and sewage, all network managementdata are ideally reported by the Zone/DistrictMetering Area (DMA), which typically representsmajor branches in the network.

It will therefore be relevant to examine networkmanagement-related performance indicators by

Zone/sub-jurisdictions of the network (for example,continuity of water supply), while service delivery asexperienced by the citizen is measured by civic wardsas the smallest jurisdiction (for example, coverage ofwater supply connections).

For purposes of internal management of theULB/utility, performance should be reported at the

lowest level of jurisdiction and at maximumfrequency possible. However, frequency may reduce and city-wide level performance may bereported to the higher levels of government andother external stakeholders.

5


20/100

1.3ROLES OFDIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

For the service level performance parameters to beaccepted as a standard, all stakeholders willneed to play their parts. The roles of differentstakeholders and the next steps they will need topursue are:

a Central Government: MoUD, Government ofIndia, will take the lead in disseminating theseservice level performance parameters and

building wider acceptance. SLBs will also beinstitutionalised through the Jawaharlal NehruNational Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)and other programmes initiated by MoUD:

SLBs will be an integral part of City Development Planning processes, both forassessment of the current situation, and forsetting targets under their plans;

Wherever appropriate, SLBs will bedovetailed with the commitment on reforms,and the subsequent process of appraisalof reforms;

The relevant SLBs should be part of DetailedProject Reports for concerned sectors,indicating both the current situation andchanges the project will bring about.Subsequent processes of implementationmonitoring of the project will also evaluatethese SLBs; and

Under the JNNURM, support may beextended to enable ULBs and other civicagencies to establish systems in theirrespective institutions for periodicmeasurement, reporting and analysisof SLBs.

a State Governments and their Agencies:State governments and their nodal agencies inthe urban sector have a critical role indriving the performance of ULBs and city level

civic agencies. State governments will need toperiodically evaluate the SLBs as an inputfor its decisions related to policy, resourceallocations, providing incentives andpenalties, channelising technical andmanpower support, and regulatory considerations, among others. TheDirectorate of Local Bodies/Department ofMunicipal Administration will need to play a

key role in this process through constantinter-city comparisons. These departmentsshould leverage the power of informationtechnology to build and operate systems thatperiodically capture and report on SLBs.

Web-based technologies should be leveragedto manage information flow. For other nodalState level agencies, the SLBs will providespecific inputs for their programmes andinterface with the ULBs and other civicagencies. SLBs will also be an important inputto the State Finance Commissions in the

course of their work.

a Urban Local Bodies: ULBs are the mostimportant stakeholders for the institutionali-sation of Service Level Benchmarking.

As service delivery institutions , ULBs willfind it useful to institutionalise systems forperformance management using SLBs.Performance data at the sub-ULB level(Zone or ward level) are particularly useful for the ULB for making appropriatedecisions and monitoring performance ofthe various field units. Benchmarkingwith other cities within the State, orwith similar cities, facilitates a healthy competitive environment for continuousimprovement; and

As the principal elected institution for self-governance in the city , ULBs will needto examine performance of other



21/100


parastatal civic agencies, even if the ULBs arenot directly responsible for service delivery inthose areas.

Performance management data using SLBs shouldbe included in the set of information disseminatedunder mandatory public disclosure, as required by the reforms mandate under JNNURM.

The key next steps for ULBs are to generateperformance reports on SLBs periodically beginningfinancial year (FY) 2008-09. Data can be captured

either regularly through systems on the ground (forexample, weighbridges at the composting plant orlandfill site, water meters capturing flow atdesignated points, demand collection registers forwater charges, etc.), or through specific surveyscarried out at defined intervals. In parallel, the ULBswill also need to institutionalise systems for the entirecycle of performance management, as depicted inFigure 1. This would imply:

Systems for capturing data: Design andimplement data collection systems for data to

be captured at the most disaggregated level.Such data will typically be from field level staffsuch as sanitary supervisors, water pumpoperators, accounts clerks, etc. Simple data

formats should be designed and providedto them to capture the data and report itupwards within the organisation forcollation and determination of the servicelevel performance;

Systems for collation and analysis of performance indicators: Specific personsshould be designated with the mandate tocollate the data received from the field andgenerate the performance reports.

Working directly under supervision and

guidance from officers at the head ofdepartment level, young professionals withgood analytical skills and moderate levelsof technical skills should be able to executethese tasks;

Systems for assessment and evaluationof performance: In most cases, multipleindicators need to be examined to obtain aholistic picture of service levels in aparticular sector. Performance indicatorsreported by the department level should be

closely examined at the management levelof the ULB. Such reviews by the Mayor/Municipal Commissioner should take placeat a defined frequency, say monthly;

7


22/100

Systems for decision-making: All ULBs dohave systems for decision-making; however,many decisions end up being considered inthe absence of quality data. To address suchgaps, systems such as periodically tablingthe performance reports in the Council/tothe Standing Committees should beinstituted. Typically, reporting ward levelperformance parameters, whereverapplicable, will be useful;

Systems for operational decisions and

plans: Decisions and plans will need to beperiodically reviewed in light of theperformance achieved and follow-ondecisions taken up. Additional capital orrevenue expenditure may be needed,contracting decisions made, and remedialaction taken with respect to deployment ofstaff, etc. A process of monthly review andfollow-up decisions will need to beinstituted; and

Systems to take corrective action for

performance improvement: To enable theoperational staff implement corrective actionon the ground, they will need to beadequately empowered to implement thedecisions taken without lengthy approvalprocesses. For networked infrastructureservices, as in most urban services,significant efficiency improvements can bebrought about through operationalimprovements without significantcapital investment.

A system of incentives and penalties must beinstituted to attain targeted performancelevels. This is critical for the field functiona-ries to respond in making quick operationalimprovements. Similarly, the system ofpenalties for errant staff that has lead topoor performance should be institutionalised.

a Other Parastatal Agencies: The significanceof Service Level Benchmarking and the next

steps parastatal agencies need to undertake arevery similar to that for ULBs. Parastatal agenciestoo need to put systems in place for performancemanagement as mentioned above. The need forperiodic reporting of SLBs to ULBs concerned andits public disclosure is further highlighted in thiscase, thereby bringing in higher intensity ofaccountability of parastatal agencies to electedbodies and the public at large.

a Bi-lateral/Multi-lateral Aid Agencies andOther Stakeholders: Various urban governance

and infrastructure improvement programmesinitiated by bi-lateral and multi-lateral aidagencies can dovetail with and further strengthenthis initiative, mainly in two ways:

Enabling State governments and cities indesign and implementation of performancemanagement systems, with a focus on theSLBs defined; and

Extensively using the SLBs defined in thedesign, implementation and monitoring of the

urban programmes supported by them.Benchmarking service levels and achievingtargets for each of these SLBs can be built intothe design of these programmes.

Organisations such as City Managers Associations,public administration training institutions, the Officeof the Comptroller and Auditor General, otherexternal and internal audit agencies, financialinstitutions and a whole range of externalstakeholders should examine these SLBs in thecourse of their interactions with the ULBs.

a Citizens and Civil Society: While the SLBs havenot been defined from the citizens perspective assuch, the parameters considered providereasonable indication of performance ofthe ULB/civic agency. Citizens should engagewith ULBs through Area Sabhas, Resident

Welfare Associations (RWAs) and other such civilsociety organisations, in examining theSLBs and suggesting remedial actions.



23/100


1.4LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES INIMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USINGSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

It is recognised that this initiative to implementperformance management systems using SLBs hasa number of limitations. Performance managementin ULBs is being catalysed by the CentralGovernment; however, it is acceptance andcapacity at the State and city levels that will sustainthis initiative. While this Handbook has attempted

to address issues of definition and methodology forService Level Benchmarking, it is anticipated that anumber of complexities will arise in the course ofactual implementation. Field level experience inimplementing service delivery performancemanagement systems may also throw up the needfor monitoring additional parameters. Thisexperience should then provide feedback forimproving the SLBs and preparing the secondversion of this Handbook.

Challenges involved in implementing performance

management systems using SLBs will be many. They will include:

a Systems for capturing key data elementsidentified for Service Level Benchmarking are notpresent in many cases at the field level. Ideally data are always captured at the lowest level.Interpreting and understanding performance isalways easier at an aggregate level; this is notpossible at the disaggregated level, if data havenot been captured at that level. Also the data atcity/ULB level can be credible and reasonably

accurate, only if they have been captured atthe lower levels, such as the ward level. Forexample, if ward level data are captured on

hours of water supply, they can be aggregated ata ULB level. However, if the number of hours isonly assessed and reported at the city level,ward-wise variances cannot be examined;

a To measure input parameters for a performanceindicator, there may be a tendency to measure

through ad hoc systems, which can be a one-offexercise. However, to generate data from thefield level on a regular basis to sustain periodicperformance measurement, sustainable systemsneed to be put in place;

a In some cases, there may be resistance of fieldstaff or other stakeholders to collect and reportcorrect information, as vested interests may beinvolved. Such vested interests may also wantto prevent transparent disclosure of theperformance measured. Such hurdles will need

to be overcome;

a As mentioned earlier, definition andmeasurement methodology issues will continueto exist, though they will be refined withexperience. Also, some other indicators may seem important or more SLBs may seem to benecessary for interpreting performance; and

a Performance management will be sustainableonly if disclosure, reporting, monitoring andperformance management feedback, incentives

and disincentives are also brought into the cycle.Else the system of measurement and disclosureof SLBs may not sustain itself.

9


24/100

1.5STANDARDISATION OFSERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS

Each indicator has been detailed out in astandardised template in the following pages topresent the definition and computationmethodology of the selected SLBs (performanceindicators). For each selected indicator, thefollowing 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 definitionfor the indicator is provided;

a Data requirements: The specific elements ofdata that need to be captured are identified,along with the corresponding unit ofmeasurement. Each data element is described,and point and frequency of data capture arementioned. The specific formulae that should beused to arrive at the performance indicatorare mentioned;

aRationale for the indicator: For eachperformance indicator, the overall significanceand rationale for assessing and monitoring theperformance indicator have been provided.The benchmark value has been specified inmost cases;

a Reliability of measurement: The performancemeasurement is only as reliable for meaningfulmanagement decisions as the systems thatgenerate the data to compute the performance.Typically, four levels of reliability of data systemshave been specified: A, B, C, and D, with Abeing of highest reliability and D being lowest.

Reliability of measurement highlights a hithertoignored aspect in performance management ofurban servicesthe need to design, implementand institutionalise robust systems and processesthat will provide data of high reliability, on arepeat basis, and in a consistent manner. ULBs/urban utilities are advised to institute systems

corresponding to the level A specified. Such atransition will not happen in a short time period.Thus, while performance levels are improvedover time, so should the data systems throughwhich data are captured. The goal, therefore, isto reach the benchmark performance level of Alevel reliability of measurement;

a Frequency of measurement: Frequency of

measurement of the performance indicatorrefers to the frequency at which the performancelevel will be assessed and not the frequency atwhich the data elements will be measured. Foreach indicator, the minimum frequency at whichthe performance should be measured ismentioned. It can then be reported at the samefrequency or a lower frequency. The frequency at which performance is measured iscritical since:

There should ideally be visible change or

potential for changing the performance levelbetween two consecutive time periods. (Forexample, it may not be possible to changethe availability of treatment plant capacity ina few months; therefore it should bemeasured and reported on an annual basis.However, hours of water supply may vary with seasons and can be improved duringthe year, therefore it should be reported at aquarterly and an annual frequency.);

If the time period is set too long, theperformance measured cannot effectively feed back into making operationalimprovements;

If the time period is set too short, significanttime will be lost in only measuring andreporting performance; and

Performance cannot be reported at afrequency higher than at which it hasbeen measured.



25/100


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 theStanding Committees and Municipal Councils atmonthly or quarterly frequencies. However, they may be reported at annual frequency to State andCentral governments; and

a Jurisdiction of measurement: This refers tothe geographic jurisdiction for whichperformance should be measured, and not the

point of data collection. Typically, measuringurban service delivery performance at a sub-city level makes more sense for city levelstakeholders, than only city level performanceindicators. For instance, for an urban citizen ormunicipal councillor, it would be useful to knowthe performance of a particular service in thatward, especially in relation to other wards.

Also measuring performance only at the city level will disguise huge differences in servicelevels that exist between different localities inone city, a phenomenon common in most

Indian cities.

Similarly, for stakeholders at the State andCentral level, it is useful to have city levelperformance indicators, as they would beuseful to compare and contrast cities. Suchinformation will then be useful for theformulation of State level and nationalstrategies and policy responses.

Measuring performance at a lower leveljurisdiction enables aggregation of the data toindicate performance at a larger jurisdiction.Thus, if ward level performance is known forall wards, ULB level performance can alsobe reported.

Please note that, with respect to geographicjurisdictions for the performance indicators,the terms ULB and city have been usedinter-changeably. This has been done since, inlarger cities/urban agglomerations, there aremultiple ULBs within the city while in smallercities, the ULBs typically cover the entire urbanboundaries. In many cities, certain servicessuch as water supply and waste watermanagement may be provided and/ormanaged by a parastatal utility for a larger

urban jurisdiction, rather than the limits of theULB/s. In such cases, the data andperformance indicators may pertain to thejurisdictions of the parastatal utility. Therefore,the unit of ULB/city should be interpreted asappropriate to the given context.

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE HANDBOOK

Section II of the Handbook provides detailsregarding each selected SLB. The list of indicatorshas been chosen after taking into accountexperiences in pilot initiatives in implementingService Level Benchmarking across ULBs/utilities.The quality of available data, effort requiredin data collection and the significance of theindicator has been considered in arriving at thisset of indicators.

Section III of the Handbook provides guidance onhow Service Level Benchmarking can be

operationalised. Samples of performance reportsof SLBs that ULBs/civic agencies can use to setand track their performance improvementare provided.

11


26/100



27/100

SERVICE LEVELBENCHMARKS


28/100

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS


29/100


30/100

2.3.6 Efficiency in redressal ofcustomer complaints

2.3.7 Extent of cost recovery in SWM services

2.3.8 Efficiency in collection ofSWM charges

a 2.4 Storm Water Drainage: Extent of thenetwork and effectiveness of the network are

emphasised to assess storm water drainagesystem performance. As this service doesnot yield any direct revenues, financialsustainability is not considered. Indicatorsselected are:

2.4.1 Coverage of storm waterdrainage network

2.4.2 Incidence of water logging/flooding

16 SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS


31/100


WATER SUPPLY SERVICES2.1

2.1.1 COVERAGE OFWATER SUPPLY CONNECTIONS

Performance Indicator Unit

%

Number

Number

%

Definition

Total number of households in the service areathat are connected to the water supply networkwith direct service connections, as a percentage ofthe total number of households in that servicearea. Service area implies a specific jurisdiction inwhich service is required to be provided.

The total number of households (not properties) inthe service area should be calculated. The servicearea refers to either the ward or ULB limits.Cadastre maps supplemented through actualground level surveys (carried out once in four tofive years) should provide these data. Exclusivesurveys need not be carried out, and data can becollected during other surveys carried out forproperty tax, or other such purposes.

This will include households which receivemunicipal water supply at one common point,from where it is stored and distributed to allhouseholds (for example, as in apartmentcomplexes). Households supplied water throughpublic standposts or tankers should be excluded.Households completely dependent on other watersources such as borewells, open wells, etc., shouldnot be included.

Coverage = [(b/a)*100]

Data Requirements

Indicator

Household level coverage of directwater supply connections

a. Total number of households in theservice area

b. Total number of households withdirect water supply connection

Household coverage for water supply connections

Data required for calculating Unit Remarksthe indicator

17


32/100

Minimum frequency of measurement Smallest geographical jurisdiction for of performance indicator measurement of performance

Measurement Quarterly Measurement Zone/DMA level

Rationale for the Indicator

The minimum level acceptable standard for water supply service should be a household level watersupply connection, that is, a direct piped connection for water supply within the household. Waterprovision to households (urban poor or otherwise), at common public standposts cannot beconsidered as an acceptable/long-term permanent service provision standard. The social costs of nothaving access to a piped water connection at the household level are significant. Innovative servicedelivery options may be adopted for delivery of piped water connections to properties withinappropriate tenure rights (as in many urban slums). It is therefore important to measure thisperformance indicator, the benchmark value for which should be 100 percent.

Reliability of Measurement

Reliability scale Description of method

Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation of households covered on the basis of geographical areaof the city covered with the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicatorfor water supply coverage.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation of households covered on the basis of road length in thecity covered by the pipeline network, as a surrogate indicator forwater supply coverage.

Intermediate level (B) Estimation of households covered computed as the total number ofconnections (for which data are maintained) as a percentage of theestimated number of households on the basis of population (totalpopulation divided by average household size).

Highest/preferred level Calculation based on the actual number of households with directof reliability (A) 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 unitsapproved, and new household level water connections provided.

SERVICE LEVEL BENCHMARKS18


33/100


34/100


This frequently used performance indicator provides an overall indication of the adequacy of thewater 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 topotable standards and supply it into the distribution system. Therefore, this indicator should beperiodically measured and monitored. Monitoring this on a monthly basis will reveal seasonalvariations. The benchmark value for this indicator is 135 lpcd. However, the additional information inrespect 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 revealintra-city variations.


Reliability scale Description of metho d

Lowest level of reliability (D) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumedpump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours ofoperation. The population served is calculated on the basis of pastcensus figures, extrapolated to current levels.

Intermediate level (C) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis ofmeasurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at allbulk production points. The population served is calculated on thebasis of past census figures, extrapolated to current levels.

Intermediate level (B) Not applicable.

Highest/preferred level of The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis ofreliability (A) measurement by bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant

and/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of bulk industrialconsumption is periodically monitored. The population served isknown with reasonable accuracy. Any expansion of municipal limitsand other significant factors are measured and factored into thecurrent population computation.





35/100


2.1.3EXTENT OF METERING OFWATER CONNECTIONS

Performance Indicator

Unit

%

Number

Number

Number

Number

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of metering ofwater connections

a. Total number of directservice connections

b. Total number of

public standposts

c. Number of metered directservice connections

d. Number of meteredpublic standposts

Extent of metering of

water connections


Definition

The total number of functional metered waterconnections expressed as a percentage of the totalnumber of water supply connections. Publicstandpost connections should also be included.

This will include households and establishmentswhich receive municipal water supply at onecommon point, from where it may be stored anddistributed for all households (for example, as inapartment complexes). Households completely dependent on other water sources such as borewells, 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 ofconnections which have functional meters, andmetered quantities is the basis for billing ofwater charges.

Typically, public standposts are not metered.However, if some are metered, they shouldbe included.

Extent of metered connections =

[(c + d)/ (a + b)]*100

21


36/100


While water is a basic need, the supply of potable water to citizens at their doorstep involvessignificant 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 thatall the water supplied to all categories of consumers should be metered. Metering will also induceefficiency in use of water, reveal physical and administrative leakages in the system, and enablehigh-end consumers to be charged for consuming more. Therefore, to introduce a volumetric-basedtariff structure for water charges, metering all connections is essential. It is, therefore, important tomonitor this indicator, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) A few meters have been installed. All installed meters are assumed tobe functional and used as the basis for billing water charges.

Intermediate level (C) Meters are installed for only certain categories of consumers. It isassumed all consumers of these categories have meters installedwhich are functional and used as the basis for billing. Recordsdo not reveal the exact number of connections which are metered.

Water is charged on the basis of average readings for the consumercategory or on the basis of past trends in most cases.

Intermediate level (B) Databases/records reveal the list of consumers that have metersinstalled in their water connections. However, there are no clear dataon functioning of meters, and no linkage with the billing system thatmay or may not use metered quantity as the basis for billing.

Highest/preferred Billing records and databases clearly identify consumers with meterslevel of reliability (A) (against specific meter serial number). Billing processes reveal regular

reading of meters and meter readings are the basis for chargingconsumers. Records on standposts are available. Databases of waterconnections and meters are complete, and spatially referenced with ageographic information system (GIS) database. There is a mechanismin place to repair meters if found faulty. Processes for installation ofnew water connections, installation of meters and generation of waterbills based on this are interlinked, and the data systems enable suchcontinuity of data flow regarding these.





37/100


38/100


Measurement Quarterly Measurement ULB level


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 thereforemonitoring NRW can trigger such corrective measures. The reduction of real losses can be used tomeet 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 theeconomic and environmental benefits point of view. The benchmark value for NRW may beconsidered 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 thecity, age of the network, length of the network per connection and water use per capita.



Lowest level of reliability (D) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis of assumedpump capacity and efficiencies, and the number of hours ofoperation. A few meters have been installed in the distribution systemand at the consumer end. The quantity of water sold to the category of consumers to whom bills are raised is estimated on the basis ofassumed average consumption in that category and the number ofconsumers in that category.

Intermediate level (C) The quantity of water produced is estimated on the basis ofmeasurement of periodic sample surveys of production flows at allbulk production points. Meters are installed for a select category ofconsumers, such as commercial and bulk consumers. For othercategories of consumers, such as domestic consumers, the number ofsuch consumers and the average consumption per consumer areconsidered, to arrive at the quantum of water sold.

Intermediate level (B) The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis ofmeasurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plantand/or at all bulk production points. The quantum of water sold isbased on the metered quantity for bulk and commercial consumers.For households, ferrule size (the size of the distribution pipe outlet atthe consumer end) of each consumer connection as well as the hoursof supply are known, to compute the quantum of water sold.

Highest/preferred level of The quantity of water produced is computed on the basis ofreliability (A) measurement at bulk flow meters at the outlet of the treatment plant

and/or at all bulk production points. Metering is undertaken at allkey distribution nodes (entry to DMAs) and at the consumers end forall categories of consumers. Billing records and databases clearly reveal regular reading of meters and, therefore, the total quantum ofwater billed to consumers in the given time period (month/bi-monthly).



39/100


40/100


Almost no Indian city has a continuous (24x7) water supply system, the norm for all cities in thedeveloped 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, andother resultant inconveniences. Water utilities in most Indian cities provide intermittent and limitednumber of hours of supply, as a means to manage inadequate supply. A number of studies havedemonstrated 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 benchmarkvalue of 24 hours.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation of the number of hours based on feedback from field levelengineers. Zone-wise data are not available.

Intermediate level (C) Not applicable.

Intermediate level (B) The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of thevalve operating points. Pressure availability at the consumers end isassumed to be adequate and meeting the stated norms.

Highest/preferred level of The calculation is based on detailed operational records at each of thereliability (A) valve operating points. Pressure adequacy and the number

of hours of supply at the consumers end are assessed on thebasis of a statistically valid sample survey, across all zones in the city.



Measurement Monthly Measurement Zone/DMA level

26


41/100


2.1.6QUALITY OF WATER SUPPLIED


Unit

%

Numberper month

Number

per month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Quality of water supplied

a. Total number of water supply-related complaints receivedper month

b. Number of samples that meet

the specified potable waterstandards in the month

Quality of water supply

Data required for calculating Unit Remarks the indicator

Definition

The percentage of water samples that meet orexceed the specified potable water standards, asdefined by the Central Public Health andEnvironmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO).The sampling regimen should meet standards and

norms laid down.

The actual number of water samples that are takenfor testing in the month. Samples should be drawnat both pointsoutlet of the treatment plant and atthe consumer end. The sampling regimen shouldmeet laid down standards and norms.

Of the total number of samples drawn in the month,

the number of samples that have met or exceededthe specified potable water standards. Allparameters of the quality standards should be met.Even if one standard is not met, the sample cannotbe assumed to have met the standards.

Quality of water supply = [(b/a)*100]

27


42/100


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 quitecommon in Indian cities, particularly among the urban poor. Although, in most cases, the source ofwater 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.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Sampling is done only at treatment plant outlets. There is absence ofa sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, and only very basic tests are carried out.

Intermediate level (C) Sampling is done at production and intermediate points along thedistribution network, but only for residual chlorine. There is absenceof a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment, andtests are intermittently carried out through a third party.

Intermediate level (B) Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet andconsumption points. Consumption points are spatially spread acrossthe city. The sampling regimen is well documented andpracticed. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriologicaltests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and

regular access to accredited testing centres.

Highest/preferred level Regular sampling is done at the treatment plant outlet andof reliability (A) consumption points. The sampling regimen is well documented and

practiced. Tests include residual chlorine as well as bacteriologicaltests. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy andregular access to accredited testing centres. A periodic, independentaudit of water quality is carried out.


Measurement Monthly Measurement ULB level



43/100


2.1.7EFFICIENCY IN REDRESSAL OFCUSTOMER COMPLAINTS


Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in redressal of customercomplaints

a. Total number of water supply-related complaints receivedper month

b. Total number of complaintsredressed within the month

Efficiency in redressal of complaints


Definition

The total number of water supply-related complaintsredressed within 24 hours of receipt of complaint, asa percentage of the total number of water supply-related complaints received in the given time period.

The total number of all supply-related complaintsfrom consumers received during the month. Systemsfor receiving and logging in complaints should beeffective and easily accessible to the citizens. Pointsof customer contact will include common phonenumbers, written complaints at ward offices,collection centres, drop boxes, online complaints onthe website, etc.

The total number of water supply-related complaintsthat are satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours orthe next working day, within that particular month.Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should beendorsed by the person making the complaint inwriting, as a part of any format/proforma thatis used to track complaints.

Efficiency in redressal of complaints =[(b/a)*100]

29


44/100




It is important that, in essential services such as water supply, the ULB/water utility has effectivesystems to capture customer complaints/grievances, escalate them internally for remedial action andresolve them. While many ULBs/utilities have put in place systems to capture complaints, much morework needs to be done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactory resolution of thosecomplaints on time. As water supply is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is24 hours or the next working day. It is, therefore, important to monitor this indicator. The benchmarkvalue for this indicator will depend on a number of factors such as the size of the city, age of thenetwork, etc. The benchmark value for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.


Reliability scale Description of methodLowest level of reliability (D) Complaints data are not maintained either at the ward or city level.

Intermediate level (C) There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers canregister their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writingor e-mail. All complaints received are assumed to be resolved quickly.

Intermediate level (B) There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers canregister their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writingor e-mail. However, systems do not exist for aggregating, sorting andtracking the complaints. Data available for some months have beenused as a trend to report the figures for some other months.

Highest/preferred level There are multiple mechanisms by which consumers can register theirof reliability (A) complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail.Complaints are segregated into different categories. They are collatedthrough the computer network or other systems, and tracked on adaily basis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained.Consumers endorse complaints being addressed on themunicipal proforma.



45/100


46/100


47/100


2.1.9EFFICIENCY IN COLLECTION OFWATER SUPPLY-RELATED CHARGES


Unit

%

Rs lakhsper annum

Rs lakhsper annum

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in collection of water-related charges

a. Current revenues collected inthe given year

b. Total operating revenues billedduring the given year

Collection efficiency


Definition

Efficiency in collection is defined as current yearrevenues collected, expressed as a percentage of thetotal operating revenues, for the correspondingtime period

Revenues collected for bills raised during the year.This should exclude collection of arrears as inclusionof arrears will skew the performance reflected.Collection efficiency is in fact an indicator of howmany arrears are being built up, and therefore only current revenues should be considered.

The total quantum of revenues related to watersupply services that is billed during the year. This

should include revenues from all sources related towater such as taxes, charges, cess, surcharges, saleof bulk water, etc.

Collection efficiency = [(a/b)*100]

33


48/100


Measurement Annually Measurement Zone/DMA level


For a water utility, it is not just enough to have an appropriate tariff structure that enables costrecovery objectives but also efficient collection of revenues that are due to the utility. It is alsoimportant that the revenues are collected in the same financial year, without allowing for dues to getaccumulated as arrears. It is, therefore, critical to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value forcollection efficiency may be considered at 90 percent, since it is possible that about 10 percent of thedues may be delayed to the next year.




Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of arrears versus current year revenuecollection. A cash basis of accounting is followed. The accountingcode structure does not enable clear segregation of water revenues.


Intermediate level (B) There is clear segregation of current year revenues collection versusarrears collection. However, revenue collection is not matched againstthe specific bill issued. Overall accrual principles of accounting arefollowed, and therefore deposits and advances are not included inincome and expenditure, respectively.

Highest/preferred level of Collection records are maintained for each billing cycle. Collectionsreliability (A) are clearly identified against the specific bill which has been issued.

Overall accrual principles of accounting are followed, and thereforedeposits and advances are not included in income and expenditure,respectively. The accounting code structure also enables monitoring ofbilling and collections for each ward within the ULB.

34


49/100


SEWAGE MANAGEMENT(SEWERAGE AND SANITATION)2.2

2.2.1 COVERAGE OF TOILETS


Unit

%

Number

Number

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Coverage of toilets

a. Total number of properties withaccess to individual or community toilets within walking distance inthe service area

b. Total number of propertieswithout individual or community

toilets within walking distance

Coverage of toilets


Definition

This indicator denotes the extent to which citizenshave access to a toilet (whether individual orcommunity) in a service area. The toilets wouldinclude those in the category of residential,commercial, industrial and institutional properties.The service area implies a specific jurisdiction inwhich the service is required to be provided.

The total number of toilets (as against households)should be assessed. A property may have multipletenants. A property is considered unique if it isrecorded as a unique property in the municipalrecords. Municipal records should be up-to-date,and preferably backed up by a cadastre map.

Only the total number of properties without access toindividual or community toilets should be assessed.

Coverage of toilets = [a/a+b]*100

35


50/100


Last mile access to toilets is key to improvement in service levels of sanitation facilities. In many Indiancities, there is inadequate access to toilet facilities. Therefore, it is important to measure thisparameter. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent. Substantial investment in this areais being taken up under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) component of JNNURM as wellas the Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS) scheme.



Measurement Quarterly Measurement Ward level


Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation based on the geographical area of the ULB covered withand without toilet facilities as a percentage of the total ULB area, asan indicator of service coverage.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation based on the total number of properties with toilets on thepremises or with access to a community toilet at walking distance andwithout such facilities as a percentage of the estimated number ofproperties, to arrive at the indicator of service coverage.

Intermediate level (B) None.

Highest/preferred level Calculation based on the actual number of properties and the countof reliability (A) of properties with or without toilet facilities, measured through a field

survey. These data should be periodically updated on the basis of dataregarding provision of toilet facilities and new properties being

developed (from the building plan approval department). Fieldsurveys throughout the city should be carried out at least once infive years.



51/100


52/100


Last mile access to sewage networks is key to improvement in service levels of sewage management.In many Indian cities, sewage also flows through open drains/storm water drains, posing seriouspublic health hazards. Also, the coverage of sewage network services is very low across most Indiancities. With substantial investments in this area being taken up in programmes such as JNNURM, itwould be important to monitor this indicator to observe the impact being made on the ground.Therefore, it is important to measure this parameter. Its benchmark value is 100 percent.

This benchmark, however, does not imply that sewerage is the only option for safe liquid wastemanagement. An appropriate mix of options including sanitary on-site facilities (e.g. septic tanks, pitlatrines) may be considered depending on the citys context.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Estimation based on the geographical area of the ULB covered withthe sewage pipeline network, as a percentage of the total ULB area,as an indicator of service coverage.

Intermediate level (C) Estimation based on the road length in the city covered by the pipelinenetwork, as a percentage of the total road length, as an indicator ofservice coverage.

Intermediate level (B) Estimation based on the total number of connections as a percentageof the estimated number of properties, to arrive at the indicator ofservice coverage.

Highest/preferred level Calculation based on the actual number of properties and the countof reliability (A) of properties with a direct connection, measured through a field

survey. These data should be periodically updated on the basis of newsewage connections taken (from the sewage department), and newproperties being developed (from the building plan approvaldepartment). Field surveys throughout the city should be carried out atleast once in five years.


Measurement Quarterly Measurement Ward level



53/100


2.2.3COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF THESEWAGE NETWORK


Unit

%

Millionlitres perday (or)month



%

Number

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in collection of sewage

a. Total water supplied

b. Estimated water use fromother sources

c. Wastewater collected

Wastewater collection efficiency

d. Additional information onseptage collection


Definition

This indicator is measured as the quantum ofwastewater collected as a percentage of normativesewage generation in the ULB. Wastewater generation islinked to the quantum of water supplied through pipedsystems, and other sources such as bore wells, when

they are very extensively used.Data should be collected daily for an entire month, soas to measure the quantities per month. While daily variations may be normalised, monthly variations may exist on account of seasonal variations. Data should beaggregated from multiple points across the ULB.

Data on the total quantum of water supplied to thedistribution system (ex-treatment plant and includingpurchased water, if any), less physical losses of water inthe transmission and distribution system throughleakages. In the absence of a reliable estimate of losses,a factor of at least 25% should be used for calculationpurposes. In case municipal water is supplied throughdecentralised distribution networks or sourcing waterfrom deep bore wells, it should be included.

An estimate of water drawn from other sources such asprivate bore wells. Data that will drive this estimateinclude the number of properties with access to borewells or other sources of water, spatially spread acrossthe city, and the quantity of water supplied in thoseareas. Alternately, data may also be collected fromsample surveys.

The quantum of wastewater measured at the inlet oftreatment plants. The quantum of untreated sewage atoutfalls, leading into rivers, lakes or other waterbodies should not be included in the quantum ofsewage collected.

Collection efficiency of sewage networks =[c/ ((a+b)*0.8)]x100

Number of vehicles licenced for septage collection,e.g. vacuum trucks.

39


54/100


While the performance indicator for coverage provides an idea of infrastructure available for accessto sewage networks, the effectiveness of the system in capturing the sewage may not be adequate.Therefore, the performance indicator related to collection efficiency signifies the effectiveness of thenetwork in capturing and conveying it to the treatment plants. Thus, it is not just adequate to have aneffective network that collects sewage, but also one that treats the sewage at the end of the network.The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Water production is based on D category systems for measuringNRW. There are no meters at sewage treatment plants (STPs), intake isestimated on the basis of flow or treatment plant capacity. Noestimates are available for water consumed from other sources.

Intermediate level (C) Water production is based on C category systems for measuringNRW. Sewage intake is estimated on the basis of flow or treatmentplant capacity. No estimates are available for water consumed fromother sources.

Intermediate level (B) Water production is based on B category systems for measuringNRW. Periodic measurement of wastewater collection is based on flowassessment methods at the STPs. There are no estimates for waterconsumed from other sources.

Highest/preferred level Water production is based on A category measurement systems forof reliability (A) measuring NRW. Estimates are available for water consumed from

other sources. Measurement of wastewater collection occurs at allinlets of STPs by flow assessment methods. Process control automationprovides accurate data, for both water production and distribution andfor sewage intake and treatment.





55/100


56/100


Most Indian cities have inadequate capacity for treatment of sewage that is generated in their cities.Significant investments are under way in creating such capacities through programmes such asJNNURM. This indicator will highlight the adequacy of available and operational sewage treatmentcapacity. The benchmark value for this indicator is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Water consumption is based on D category systems for measuringNRW. There is no estimate of wastewater treatment capacity that isactually functional and in operation, nor for water consumed fromother sources.

Intermediate level (C) Water consumption is based on C category systems for NRW. Thereis no estimate of wastewater treatment capacity that is actually functional and in operation, nor for water consumed fromother sources.

Intermediate level (B) Water consumption is based on B category systems for NRW. Soundengineering estimates of functional wastewater treatment capacity areavailable, on the basis of reliable operational data that aremaintained. There are no estimates for water consumed fromother sources.

Highest/preferred level of Water consumption is based on A category measurement systems forreliability (A) NRW. Reliable estimates are available for the quantity of water

consumed from non-municipal sources. STP system capacity isassessed through rigorous testing and commissioning procedures(after which there have been no modifications to the plant). In caseany modifications to the STP have been carried out, system capacity isreassessed through measuring peak throughput.


Measurement Annually Measurement ULB level



57/100


2.2.5QUALITY OFSEWAGE TREATMENT


Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Quality of treatment

a. Total number of wastewatersamples tested in a month

b. Number of samples thatpass the specified secondary treatment standards

Quality of treatment


Definition

Quality of treatment is measured as a percentage ofwastewater samples that pass the specifiedsecondary treatment standards, that is, treatedwater samples from the outlet of STPs are equal toor better than the standards laid down by the

Government of India agencies for secondary treatment of sewage. While the samples arecollected at the STP outlet and results should becomputed per STP, this indicator should be reportedat city/ULB level.

Sampling (quantity, periodicity, point of samplecollection, etc.) should be taken as per goodindustry practices and laid down norms by

environmental agencies, such as pollution controlboards of respective States.

Within the total valid samples, the number ofsamples that pass the specified secondary treatment standards, along all key parameters.

Quality of treatment capacity =[(b/a)*100]

43


58/100


For sustainable sewage management, it is not just enough to have the infrastructure to collect andconvey the sewage, or the installed capacity to treat it. It is important that the treated water that isdischarged back into water bodies, or used for other purposes such as irrigation, meets the laiddown environmental standards. It is therefore important to monitor this indicator. Its benchmarkvalue is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is an absence of a sampling regimen and of required laboratory equipment. Irregular tests are carried out. Not all parameters are tested.


Intermediate level (B) The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced on mostoccasions. The ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy andregular access to accredited testing centres. Only a few key parametersare assessed.

Highest/preferred level of The sampling regimen is well documented and practiced completely. Thereliability (A) ULB/utility has its own laboratory equipment or easy and regular access

to accredited testing centres. There is periodic independent audit ofwastewater quality. All parameters are assessed.





59/100


2.2.6EXTENT OF REUSE ANDRECYCLING OF SEWAGE


Unit

%

millionlitres perday (or)month

millionlitres perday (or)month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Extent of recycling or reuseof sewage

a. Wastewater received at STPs

b. Wastewater recycled or reusedafter appropriate treatment

Wastewater recycled or reused


Definition

The percentage of wastewater received at thetreatment plant that is recycled or reused afterappropriate treatment for various purposes. Thisshould only consider water that is directly conveyedfor recycling or reuse, such as use in gardens and

parks, use for irrigation, etc. Water that is dischargedinto water bodies, which is subsequently used for avariety of purposes, should not be included inthis quantum.

While measurements are done at STP inlets andoutlets, the indicator should be reported at thecity/ULB level as a whole.

This should be based on the actual flowmeasurement, the quantum for which should bemeasured daily. Daily quantities should beaggregated to arrive at monthly quantum.

This should be based on the actual flowmeasurement by functional flow meters, thequantum for which should be measured daily. Daily quantities should be aggregated to arrive at themonthly quantum.

Extent of sewage recycled or reused =[(b/a)*100]

45


60/100



Lowest level of reliability (D) There are no meters at STP inlets or points of supply of recycledwater. Estimates are based on observation and STP capacity.


Intermediate level (B) Not applicable.

Highest/preferred level of Based on data from flow measurement at STP inlets and outletsreliability (A) (that is, points of supply of recycled water). Data should

be measured daily, and aggregated for monthly totals.


For sustainable water management, it is desirable that sewage is recycled or reused afterappropriate treatment. Effluent water can be directly reused in a number of areas such as used inparks and gardens, supplied for irrigation purposes for farmland on the city periphery, etc. Tomaximise this reuse, it is important that this indicator is measured and monitored. Its benchmarkcould be 20 percent.





61/100


2.2.7EFFICIENCY IN REDRESSAL OFCUSTOMER COMPLAINTS


Unit

%

Numberper month

Numberper month

%

Data Requirements

Indicator

Efficiency in redressal ofcustomer complaints

a. Total number of sewage-relatedcomplaints received per month

b. Total number of complaintsredressed within the month

Efficiency in redressalof complaints


Definition

The total number of sewage-related complaintsredressed within 24 hours of receipt of complaints,as a percentage of the total number of sewage-related complaints received in the given time period.

The total number of all sewage-related complaintsfrom consumers received during the month.Systems for receiving and logging in complaintsshould be effective and easily accessible to thecitizens. Points of customer contact will includecommon phone numbers, written complaints atward offices, collection centres, drop boxes, onlinecomplaints on the website, etc.

The total number of sewage-related complaints thatare satisfactorily redressed within 24 hours or thenext working day, within that particular month.Satisfactory resolution of the complaint should beendorsed by the person making the complaint inwriting, as part of any format/proforma that is usedto track complaints.

Efficiency in redressal of complaints =[(b/a)*100]

47


62/100


It is important that in essential services such as sewage, the utility has effective systems to capturecustomer 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 tobe done to put in place back-end systems for satisfactorily resolving those complaints on time. Assewage treatment is an essential service, the benchmark time for redressal is 24 hours or the nextworking day. It is therefore important to monitor this indicator. The benchmark value for this indicatorwill depend on a number of factors such as the size of the city, age of the network, etc. Thebenchmark value for this indicator may be set at 80 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) Complaints data are not maintained either at ward or city level.

Intermediate level (C) There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers canregister their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writingor e-mail. All complaints received are assumed to be resolved quickly.

Intermediate level (B) There are multiple mechanisms/means by which consumers canregister their complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writingor e-mail. However, systems do not exist for aggregating, sorting andtracking the complaints. Data available for some months have beenused as a trend to report the figures for some other months.

Highest/preferred level There are multiple mechanisms by which consumers can register theirof reliability (A) complaints such as by telephone, in person or by writing or e-mail.Complaints are segregated into different categories, and are collatedthrough a computer network or other systems, and tracked on a daily basis. The status of redressal of complaints is maintained. Consumersendorse complaints being addressed on the municipal proforma.





63/100


64/100




Financial sustainability is a critical factor for all basic urban services. In services such as seweragemanagement, some benefits are received directly by the consumers, and some benefits accrueindirectly through a sustainable environment and public health benefits. Therefore, through acombination of user charges, fees and taxes, all operating costs may be recovered. Therefore, theindicator is critical for measuring overall cost recovery, the benchmark value for which is 100 percent.



Lowest level of reliability (D) There is no segregation of budget heads related to wastewater from

the rest of the functions of the agency. A cash-based accountingsystem is practiced. There are no clear systems for reporting unpaidexpenditure. Disclosures and reporting are not timely. Audits have atime lag and are not regular.


Intermediate level (B) Budget heads related to wastewater are segregated. Key costs relatedto wastewater are identifiable, although complete segregation is notpracticed. Key income and expenditure are recognised, based onaccrual principles. Disclosures are complete and on time.

Highest/preferred level In case of multi-function agencies such as municipal corporations,of reliability (A) the budget heads related to wastewater are clearly separated.

Cost allocation standards for common costs are in place. Anaccrual-based double entry accounting system is practice

handbook slb moud

Documents