Introduction
The SuSanA India Chapter along with IRC, ISC, WaterAid and Water for People held a panel discussion on 19^th January, 2022, to elicit the views of bureaucrats, technocrats and civil society representatives on “Institutional Mechanisms for the Delivery of Rural Wash Services – Key Gaps/Challenges, Possible Solutions”.

The main issues raised by speakers were ensuring community participation, providing guidance on technology and funds, administrative support, the role of community organisations in implementing and social mobilisation, and the role of NGOs in mobilisation, technical support and training. About 110 people attended the webinar.

Rural WASH services in districts are delivered by three ‘verticals’: the administration, the technical wing comprising the engineers, and the locally elected representatives of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). They are supported by Implementation Support Agencies (ISAs), usually NGOs, in capacity building and community mobilisation.

The panellists spoke about the role of the three verticals and ISAs in delivering Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) – Phase 2 and Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM). The webinar also explored additional roles of ISAs apart from capacity building and community mobilisation at village level.

The panel discussed primarily three topics:

1. Providing a vision of professional approaches to managing water supply as envisaged under JJM that could be specific to states  
2. Required capacities in Panchayati raj institutions at the village, blocks and district levels as well how do line departments support the PRIs 
3. The line departments moving to a systems approach instead of providing spot services and the change required 

The speakers suggested that all three verticals needed to take a systems approach rather than a project-based approach and focus on long-term outcomes. PRIs need extensive support to take over and sustainably maintain rural drinking water systems. Moreover, they also need continuous support on capacity building, technical and management aspects. Capacity building must be localised and outcome-based. 

They identified three broad challenges for implementation of these two schemes:

Source sustainability of water schemes. Surface or groundwater sources needed to be protected and planning for their sustainability year-round. Water from the same source was used by agriculture, drinking and others. Communities needed to be educated about setting different priorities so they could give precedence to drinking water. This required a long-term approach to maintenance, rejuvenation and eventually, augmentation.

Access, maintenance and repairs of water supply schemes. External agencies such as the government could not be expected to maintain all rural water supply systems (RWSS). The solution, the speakers said, was to hand over this task to panchayats after setting up and testing them. PRIs should be able to manage RWSS for which training and support needs to be provided. For example, PRIs in Birbhum found they were unable to manage multi-village schemes but they could select which schemes they would manage, and which would be outsourced.

Clarifying the role of ISAs. The speakers said there were certain gaps in the understanding of the role ISAs played even though the guidelines recommended they could be involved in capacity building and community mobilisation. Their contribution to other aspects such as operation and management and capacity-building could be explored.

Speakers outlined the strategies that had been adopted to address these challenges.
1.     Community engagement. There were many community-based organizations to enhance community engagement.
a.     Village Water and Sanitation Committees (VWSCs): These had been mandated to manage infrastructure and behaviour change after the 90-day installation and testing period of a RWSS project. VWSCs were to collect user fees and engage local youth in the task. Local people such as electricians and plumbers were to be trained to provide services.
b.     SHGs: They were engaged to collect user fees, highlighting the importance of engaging with women. The speakers said this had improved fee collection and had those households which were reluctant to pay for tap water, to comply. In Bihar, SHGs were involved in collecting user fees.
c.      WIMCs: Rural wards were a cohesive unit and certain activities such as fee collection were relatively easy. In Bihar, speakers described a scheme at the ward level to foster local ownership and long-term maintenance. Finances came from the 15^thFinance Commission.

2.  Identifying water sources. This considered local preferences and agro-climatic factors. For instance, in Madhya Pradesh, the Gonds preferred spring water to use as compared to bore-wells. In Ganjam district, Odisha, as groundwater was not suitable for drinking, surface water sources were used in pipe water systems. In the drought-prone area of Birbhum, as groundwater is not a suitable source, river water is preferred in a multi village scheme. To identify a suitable source, different groups such as PRIs and self-help groups worked together. Incertain blocks water was provided from reservoirs of irrigation dams. The Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) monitored water quality.
 
In Shajapur district of MP, as part of the Catch the Rain initiative, rainwater harvesting systems had been set up in government buildings and any new buildings. Agencies such as VIMAL used indigenous designs for rainwater harvesting. PRIs were involved in the revival and repair of existing structures such as ponds, check dams. Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) and the horticulture department were promoting water conservation through drip irrigation. 

3.  Guidance to PRIs. Speakers said that PRIs needed support in executing schemes even though they understood how to plan and finance them. The district administration had to provide this support that included identifying sources, planning, execution
and monitoring, and revival of existing water sources

4. The Need for Collaboration. Different agencies had specific roles to play but needed to work together for sustainable RWS. The technical and social visions appeared to be disjointed. PHED provided the technical inputs, NGOs the social connect, administration the finance and managerial support, and PRIs, the long-term community support. Within this role matrix, there were many overlaps.

5. Capacity building. The speakers said PRIs, ISAs and community organizations required capacity building both in technical and management aspects. ISAs required capacity-building on technical aspects and PHED on community outreach. Three Ms were critical for implementation: manpower, machinery and money. The government provided machinery and money while ISAs provided manpower. ISAs were to provide technical support to VWSCs to develop village action plans, source mapping and sensitisation for equitable and sustainable delivery of services.

6. Metering water supply. For fixing accountability of the service providers and fee collection, speakers suggested that a household metering system was needed. On the one hand, this would make agencies such as PHED and the electricity department accountable for technical faults. On the other, it would help with fee collection and the intelligent use of piped water. In Shajapur, the government had implemented water budgeting that had educated communities on the judicious use of water.

7. Collection and dissemination of good practices. The panelists said a national platform was needed that would be a repository of good practices for planning, collaboration, implementing and monitoring from villages, districts and states. This information could be disseminated through multiple channels.

The links to the webinar are available here:
,
,
and


Panelists

Name		Designation	Country
Mr. Arvind Kumar Chaudhary		Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, Bihar	India
Ms. Misha SIngh		CEO, Zila Parishad, Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh	India
Mr. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra		Executive Engineer, Ganjam, Odisha	India
Mr. Gopen Paul		Executive Engineer, Birbhum, West Bengal	India
Mr. Bishwadeep Ghosh		Country Director, Water for People	India
Mr. Nitya Jacob		Coordinator, SuSanA India Chapter	India
Mr. V Raman		Head of Policy, WaterAid India	India

Dear members,

SDG 6 envisions universal, sustainable, and equitable access to safe
drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, as well as the elimination of
open defecation by 2030, with emphasis on the needs of women, girls and
other vulnerable groups.  

The Jal Jeevan Mission and the Atal Bhujal Yojna recognize the importance
of managing water resources to ensure the source sustainability of
drinking water and accelerate efforts to achieve universal sanitation coverage. The JJM currently
executing the second phase of the Swachh Bharat Mission that focuses on
ODF+, including interventions on ODF sustainability, and solid and
liquid waste in management. This builds on the gains of the first phase
of SBM. 

The erstwhile Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation (now the
Department) had set up institutional arrangements at various levels to
implement JJM and SBM (G). A four-tier institutional mechanism was set
up at National, State, District and Village levels. These involved the
bureaucracy, technical (engineering) wing and the elected
representatives. Organizations called implementation support agencies
(ISAs) provided operational support. But despite having a well-designed
and established institutional arrangement, the government faced the
challenges in the provision of equitable and sustainable services.
Additionally, JJM and SBM are executed by two different agencies; this
necessitates better coordination. 

The Webinar 

IRC, Water for People and the India Chapter of SuSanA are organizing a webinar on “Institutional Mechanism – For The Delivery Of Rural Wash Services – Key Gaps/Challenges, Possible Solutions” to understand that institutional mechanisms exist at the various levels of implementation, and the challenges they face.  
Please register at Register in advance for this webinar: 
us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_N2EzY1adT3aQVEfLo8aGbA  
The panellists at the webinar will discuss the following: 

1. Provide a vision of professional approaches to managing water supply as envisaged under JJM that could be specific to states  
2. What the capacities would be required in Panchayati raj institutions at the
   village, blocks and district levels? How do line departments support the
   PRIs? 
3. Have line departments moved to a systems approach instead of providing spot services? Where is the change required? 

In March 2021, we had organized a webinar and thematic discussion the support that district water and sanitation
missions require to implement the two programmes. The main points from
those interactions were focus on outcomes with a long-term mindset, support panchayats to take over
and manage piped water systems working as equal partners with the
government and engineers, Panchayats need to work as equal partners with
bureaucrats and technocrats. Panchayats could take on some of the work
while outsourcing other aspects. For this they need capacity building
that is localised, contextual, intensive and long-term. A clear
demarcation of roles is needed between different stakeholders –
bureaucrats, technocrats, ISAs and PRI members. 

Draft Agenda

S#	Speaker
1	Mr. Arvind Kr Chaudhary, Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department and Rural Development Department
2	Mr. Mohapatra, Executive Engineer, Odisha
3	Ms. Misha Singh, CEO, Shajapur, MP
4	Mr. Vimal, NIWCYD, Dindori, Jabalpur, MP
5	Mr. Gopen Paul, Executive Engineer PHED, Birbhum, West Bengal

 

S#	SCHEDULE	TIME	MODERATOR/ PRESENTOR
1	Introduction and context setting	03:00 – 03:10 PM	Nitya Jacob, SuSanA
2	Panel Discussion	03:10 – 03:50 PM	Nitya Jacob and V R Raman, WaterAid
3	Q&A	03:50 – 04:20 PM
4	Summing up	04:20 – 04:30 PM	Bishwadeep Ghose, Water for People

We hope you can attend!