Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Please cite as: Dutta, V. (2004) A conceptual inquiry into sustainability criteria for urban water systems, Urban India, Journal of National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), New Delhi, XXIV, No. 2 (2004): pp. 89 – 131 -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
A conceptual inquiry into sustainability criteria for urban water systems Venkatesh Dutta
Abstract The provision of sustainable water systems forms a vital underpinning to urban development. Despite this importance, the manner by which water infrastructure services are provided has been largely taken for granted and has attracted relatively little interest from urban studies and policy- making communities. There is a need to reconnect sustainable urban policy to infrastructure management by highlighting how the adoption of supply-led or more demand-responsive modes of infrastructure provision critically shapes the sustainability of the system in contemporary cities. Substantial deficiencies still remain in cities and towns in the provision of water supply services even after decades of development. These deficiencies are likely to increase because of rapidly increasing population, resource depletion and degradation causing a ‘scarcity scenario’. This scarcity scenario has led to urban water research with a view to improve services keeping in mind the conceptual triangle of sustainability – economic efficiency, social equity and environmental protection. The growing literature has identified water conservation, resource development and improvement of natural water quality, wastewater reclamation and reuse and rational pricing as the vehicles to attain urban water sustainability. All these pay testament to the underlying, still unresolved, question – how to frame a vision for the management of municipal water systems in line with the principles of sustainability and then translate this vision into more operational policy directions. The paper reviews the state of art to define urban water sustainability indicators to meet demand, quality, equity, efficiency and affordability criteria. The review brings out the need to design demand side management tools such as regulatory and pricing arrangements that take care of social equity and economic efficiency in the delivery of urban water services. It then identifies major policy issues such as the need to take a holistic view of water and wastewater as a part of hydrological cycle, demand side infrastructure planning with decentralised management and regulatory reform. Policy-making research communities must begin to strengthen regulatory frameworks that encourage infrastructure providers to develop demand side management strategies as a means of minimising resource-use. Such an approach would powerfully reconnect policy-makers to environmentally sensitive development decision-making and significantly accelerate the spread of the demand-side logic, within and across sectors. Key words Urban water cycle, non-potable water, water demand, equity, efficiency, Unaccounted-for-water, dualpiping system
Centre for Regulatory & Policy Research, TERI School of Advanced Studies, India Habitat Centre, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003, E-mail:
[email protected]
Urban India, Vol. XXIV(2): 89 – 131
1
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
1. Introduction Water is a vital element for all kinds of life, in and out of the city, and its reliable and safe supply in an environmentally sensitive manner is crucial for the urban and economic development. Substantial deficiencies still remain in cities and towns in the provision of water supply services even after decades of development. These deficiencies mostly relate to poor water delivery infrastructure and wastewater treatment facilities. As economic development proceeds with parallel growth in population, well planned sustainable urban water systems integrating hydrological, environmental, social and economic aspects assume great importance (Graff et al., 1997; Balkema, 1998; Jeppsson et al., 1998; Hellstorm et al., 1999; Ludin, 1999; Jean-Luc et al., 2000; Foxon et al, 2000; Balkema et al., 2001; Kallis and Coccoccis, 2001; Clarke et al., 2002; Foxon et al., 2002). There is a compelling need to develop a clearer understanding of the sustainability implications for urban water systems and to develop pathways towards achieving identified and widely supported goals of sustainability – economic efficiency, social equity and environmental protection. Past analyses on urban water problems have emphasised techno-managerial solutions in the lines of a “twin-track” approach (combined supply-side and demand-side interventions) or a simplifying logic of economic efficiency (METRON, 2001). Acting both on supply-side and demand-side interventions, urban water reforms aimed to fully-price water and privatise services have raised several concerns of sustainability such as price affordability, social equity and natural water quality. This has posed an underlying, still unresolved question – how to frame a judicious vision for the management of urban water systems in line with the principles of sustainability and how to translate this vision into more operational policy directions. This paper is divided into five parts. In part one, the urban water cycle and its components are described briefly to set the first level of reference. In part two, concept of sustainability in urban water is discussed with reference to the previous analysis of the literature and a synthesis. Then, the framework to assess and analyse urban water sustainability is attempted in part four through indicators covering equity and efficiency criteria. Finally, in part five, strategies for sustainable urban water systems are discussed with policy recommendations and conclusions. 2. Cities and urban water cycle The supply of water in cities is a part of an integrated cycle. The complete system consists of a number of elements. A typical system, which is illustrated in a simplified way in the Figure 1, usually consists of the following main elements: •
Raw water piping system between abstraction and primary treatment plant
•
Piping and components within the water treatment works
•
Transmission mains and supply storage reservoirs
2
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
•
Local distribution supply mains
•
Connection pipes to the consumers premises
•
Piping in the consumers premises after the point of final metering
All these elements are part of the urban hydrological cycle. The urban hydrological cycle is a subsystem in the basic urban system which is the sum total of people, environment and infrastructure. It comprises water supply, wastewater disposal, and stormwater runoff systems, making up the total urban water system. The water supply system and the storm water system are largely independent but interaction between them is common. Every element (box) and flow (arrow) in the figure could be considered as a system in itself having scope for performance improvement. For example, improvements in efficiency are possible within the process of the distribution of water and the producing support processes. Each needs to be effectively managed and controlled if the overall supply cycle is to remain within tight control. Figure 1: A simplified conceptual diagram depicting urban water cycle The urban water system fundamentally can be described in two categories depending upon the destination of the wastewater – sequential system and nodal system (Bowers and Young, 2000). In a sequential system, wastewater is available for reprocessing as clean water. Abstraction of raw water for clean water supply and wastewater discharges are done to the same water body so that wastewater automatically contaminates the clean water supply. In many parts of the world urban hydrological cycle operates in a sequential system and water is reused many times. The alternative nodal system is one where the discharges are wholly outside the supply system and cannot contaminate it. This system is desirable from a sustainability point of view. A holistic view of urban water resources provides the framework for the evaluation of the demand for water supply, the availability of storm water and wastewater, and the interaction between them (Mitchell, 2001). The METRON (2001) project describes urban water systems as passing through three sub-systems (see figure 2). The first is the natural hydrologic system, i.e. the catchment basin, where water precipitates and concentrates as run-off. The second is the constructed urban water supply system that captures and abstracts water from surface or underground run-off (rivers, lakes or artificial reservoirs or aquifers) and through a sequence of conveyance pipes, treatment plants and distribution facilities (storage tanks, main and secondary pipes, etc.) delivers it to the consumer’s tap. The consumer tap is part of the third major subsystem, the urban area, which poses the demand for service to the urban water supply subsystem in order to support its functions. Water is finally used and discharged and may be partly recycled back to the system. Figure 2: A model for an urban water system (after METRON project)
3
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
3. Sustainability issues in urban water Urban water problems are complex in nature and relate to a city’s socio-economic development. Most of the problems transcend the city’s hydro-geographical or infrastructural micro-level differentiation. They do not fit nicely into one box, but merge seamlessly between environmental, social and economic realms. Urban water sustainability is about making links between them critically and holistically. The concept of sustainability in urban water systems has been accepted without any clear answers or consensus about what the term actually means, how to define sustainable goals, and how to reach them. Although the concept is popular in planning since the Brundtland Commission Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), researchers and policy makers still find it difficult to operationalise its accepted objectives in water sector because most common definitions of sustainability are rather vague and imprecise.
Recognising the fact that this narrow idea
could hinder urban growth and development, considerable number of research projects have been completed and are being undertaken both in developed and developing countries to achieve the objectives of sustainable urban water management (METRON, 2001; MISTRA, 1999; SWARD, 2001; OTHU, 2000). The common thread running through almost all the approaches used in above mentioned projects is the production of a structured classification of urban water sustainability criteria covering equity, efficiency and environmental objectives, which would be forward-looking in order to be useful in decision making. These criteria capture the following five key aspects of urban water sustainability which can be put into the conceptual triangle of sustainability – economic efficiency, social equity and environmental protection (see figure 3). These are: (a) Infrastructure functioning and use: quantity, quality, and reliability of services (b) Institutional aspects: effectiveness of institutions in service delivery and management, assessing the degree of satisfaction of service objectives (c) Financial aspects: adequacy of cost recovery for scheme operation (d) Social aspects: affordability, equitable access and participation in benefits and management by urban poor and socially disadvantaged groups (e) Environmental aspects: assessing whether the impacts of the system on the natural environment are taken into account Figure 3: Conceptual triangle of sustainability and its associated criteria for municipal water The holistic view of sustainability therefore requires multi-objective tradeoffs in a multidisciplinary and multi-participatory decision-making process (ASCE & UNESCO, 1998; Loucks & Gladwell, 1999) using above-mentioned aspects. Recently the water utility of Delhi – Delhi Jal Board (DJB) announced its vision for the UWSS sector as “provision of universal 24/7 safe water supply and sewerage services in an equitable, efficient and sustainable
4
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
manner by a customer oriented and accountable service provider”. This vision has several building blocks and each of them is interlined with each other vis-à-vis sustainability criteria – economic efficiency, social equity and environmental protection. The vision has several key aspects of sustainability such as: Better supply reliability – from
Continuous round the clock water supply, better efficiency and water
intermittent to continuous
quality, leading to better health of customers, reduced supply costs
supply
and better financial health of service providers, and resulting in greater consumer satisfaction and willingness to pay and greater political willingness to charge
Social equity and affordability
Ensuring access to the economically weaker sections of the society at affordable price, and specific pro-poor measures
Technical efficiency
Rehabilitation of the water and sewerage systems, realignment of zones, operator incentives and accountability, and harnessing technical and managerial expertise
Economic efficiency
Revenue enhancement to reach full cost recovery, cost reduction, and depoliticisation of tariff decisions
Environmental conservation
Provision of comprehensive wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system, promotion of cost-effective water conservation measures and meeting appropriate public health and environmental standards
Customer orientation and
Improving efficiency through internal organization and incentives at
accountability
the operational level, Board-level monitoring and evaluation of customer satisfaction, independent regulation to safeguard the interests of the consumers with respect to service quality, reliability & tariff, efficient mechanism for grievance redressal, realignment of zones at the sector level through separation of the roles of policy making
Further, embedded in the vision are various technical and institutional components/ interventions for integrated and sustainable development of the Delhi’s water supply and sewerage sector. These are discussed below: 3.1. Better supply reliability – from intermittent to continuous supply (a) Preparation of a Master Plan with the objective to outline a water supply and sewerage system for city to cope with the expected future demand on a realistic time
5
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
scale for introduction of 24/7 supply and reorganized zoning arrangements to enable equitable supply and conducive to effective monitoring and control (b) Refurbishment of existing supply and treatment infrastructure, leading to efficient and equitable utilization of currently available resources, before augmentation of resources can be considered (c) Use of high quality customer meters and, in areas of intermittent supply, meters that can operate accurately during the transition phase (d) Continuation of the process of assessment of the existing services, generation of system information, network analysis and mapping of asset base through use of GIS, SCADA (e) Water audit (water balance) through bulk and consumer metering, routine leak detection surveys, condition assessment of transmission mains and repair (f) Restructuring and metering of bulk transmission to provide equitable supply (g) Restructuring of distribution system into pressure zones and district metered areas, metering inflows and outflows and controlling pressure (h) Metering of supplies through standposts and tankers (i) Undertaking pilot projects for progressive introduction of 24/7 water supply. The objective of the pilot study would be to provide insight into the costs and rehabilitation requirements per zone to achieve continuous supply as well as a ‘showcase’ project to demonstrate prudent investment and efficient O&M (j) Introducing best water industry management practices through harnessing technical and managerial expertise with transparent contractual relationships, clear service obligations and incentives to perform (k) Undertaking measures for demand management including using pricing as a tool to reflect the scarcity value of water, encourage water conservation and recycling of wastewater 3.2. Social equity and affordability Further utility efforts will need to be focused on understanding and explicitly addressing the conditions under which the poor gain access to water supply and sanitation services, in order to update its strategy for improving access and services to the urban poor. Any of the institutional and technical interventions shall be designed with a clear obligation to improve the services to the poor. Tariff re-structuring should consider generation of revenue to support extension of the service to the poor. The thrust areas of the policies will include: (a) Extension of water and sewer network on priority to poor areas with no access or where the sources are affected with quality problems (b) Targeted subsidies to encourage access to and consumption of minimal quantity of piped water
6
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
(c) Use of lower cost solutions, decentralized wastewater treatment plants for access in poor areas (d) Collaborate with other affordable alternatives such as informal network suppliers, e.g. vendors and service tankers, to reach difficult areas in short term (e) Encourage non conventional ways to deliver services to low income areas including the use of low cost options, community contracts, providing shared metered connections to serve the poor (f) Ensure future contractual arrangements have explicit pro poor provisions and incentives to improve services to the poor (g) Undertake baselines surveys, public consultative processes with specific focus groups of poor, representatives of NGOs, community organizations to solicit feedback in design of realistic objectives, targets, interventions to improve services to the poor 3.3. Technical Efficiency (a) Preparation of accurate records of all water supply and sewerage assets, on a GIS base (b) Introduction and maintenance of operational records (c) Introduction of modern management information systems based on the continuous monitoring of all aspects – technical, financial, administrative and customer-related of service management and operation (d) Adopting measures for energy conservation, use of high efficiency pumps and motors, stand by energy sources to cope with the erratic power supply (e) Use of preventive maintenance rather than crisis management approach (f) Use of monitoring indicators for operational, organizational and financial aspects to benchmark performance against other best practice utilities (g) Introduce best water industry management practices through harnessing technical and managerial expertise from outside of the public sector to enhance efficiency and investment across various aspects of the value chain. (h) Continuation of the process of assessment of the existing services, upgrading of the water and sewerage network to adequate capacity and capability 3.4. Economic efficiency To achieve economic efficiency and enhance accountability, the following is envisaged: (i) Revenue Enhancement & Cost reduction To enhance revenues and reduce costs, the focus would be on reduction of Non revenue water – both technical and commercial losses accompanied by rationalization of tariff to encourage prudent utilization of water and cost recovery. As mentioned before, for reduction of NRW the focus will be on refurbishment of existing infrastructure, reorganized zoning arrangements for effective monitoring and control, water audit through bulk and consumer metering, active leakage management, increasing collection efficiency, and introduction of
7
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
best industry practices. With respect to cost reduction, the focus will be on enhancing operational efficiency through better utilization of resources, enhanced staff productivity, adopting measures for energy conservation, use of preventive maintenance techniques as well as better investment planning and use of capital. With respect to rationalization of tariffs, the broad principles that will govern the setting of tariffs will include: (a) Revenue sufficiency i.e. recovery of the cost of operations and maintenance (including depreciation and debt charges) in a phased manner (b) Resource conservation through volumetric metering of customer usage (c) Fairness with high priority to drinking needs in water allocation and cross subsidy for extending the service to the poor (d) Ensuring access to vulnerable sections of the society through well targeted and transparent subsidies practicality, keeping in mind the ground realities (extent of metering, quality of enforcement, etc.) in the context of which it will be implemented. However, tariff increases must be carefully phased, and accompanied by improved services to ensure conversion of willingness to pay into revenues. (ii) Independent regulation - An independent regulatory body is envisaged to regulate the functioning of the sector and balance the interest of various stakeholders. The Regulator will frame principles & regulate tariffs with respect to water supply and sewerage, set and enforce service standards, ensure water quality through co-ordination with monitoring agencies, and promote the working of the utility in an efficient, economical and equitable manner (iii) Commercial reforms & Corporate Governance – It is proposed to create a framework which will be geared towards fostering sound utility governance and enhanced performance orientation. To enhance autonomy as well as facilitate accountability, there is a need to establish minimum governance requirements through clear delineation of the role of the Government as the policy maker and shareholder with increased powers of management of affairs to be vested with the Board of Directors, enhancing representation of key stakeholders including
independent,
professionally
qualified
members
with
limited
Government
representation in the Board, preparation of financial statements on basis of commercial accounting principles, stringent information disclosure requirements, external audit and public dissemination of performance reports, etc. 3.5. Environmental conservation The environmental issues of sustainability, over-exploitation, declining water quality and pollution are an integral part of water management. Paralleling the institutional and policy reforms, a concerted effort will need to be made to conserve available water and replenish natural water resources to the maximum extent possible. The various measures include: (i) Integrated water resource & demand management
8
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
(a) Encourage mechanisms such as integrated treatment of surface and groundwater right from project planning stage including quality and environmental considerations for efficient allocation between competing uses (b) Improve potential and management of groundwater with recharge measures, technical guidance and regulations (c) Undertaking extensive consumer awareness campaigns on water conservation measures and encouraging measures for recycling, rainwater harvesting etc. to meet the additional needs (d) Intensifying research efforts to promote dual mode of water supply especially in new areas (e) Regularization of unauthorized connections, controlling illegal tappings; making the theft of water a cognizable offence and empowerment of utility officials for effective enforcement of the same (ii) Pricing as a tool for demand management (a) Levy of charges for groundwater extraction to ensure that they reflect economic costs and keep demand within environmentally sustainable limits (b) Undertake efficient metering and tariff restructuring to signal the scarcity value and opportunity cost of water (iii) Wastewater & water quality management (a) Upgrading of trunk sewers and pumping stations; sewer desilting, sewer renovation to reduce overflow of untreated wastewater into drains (b) Extension of sewerage services to entire DJB supply area receiving piped water supply (c) Comprehensive monitoring of water quality and enhanced facilities for the same; effective monitoring and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations (d) Economic assessment and adoption of viable options for decentralized wastewater treatment (e) Treatment of wastewater to reasonable quality standards by adopting the desired technology, encourage adoption of pollution control and ‘polluter pay’ principles (f) Encouraging recycling of wastewater, beneficial use of effluent and sludge, considering treated wastewater as a resource rather than a waste 3.6. Customer orientation and accountability Various measures will be undertaken to improve utility’s internal organizational efficiency for better consumer responsiveness. These include: (a) Realignment of zones to encourage single-point responsibility in a defined geographic area for all functions and clearly defined accountability for smooth provision of services. These could be operated as separate Strategic Business Units or cost /
9
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
revenue centers to facilitate comparative benchmarking and setting of performance targets. A Zonal Advisory Council should be created including representatives from Resident Welfare Association, NGOs and DJB to encourage consultation with various stakeholders (b) Institutionalising performance management through identification of clear objectives and Key Result Areas for individuals and zones to be held accountable for achievement of these targets (c) Undertaking surveys, enhancing consumer consultation mechanisms for soliciting feedback (d) Management Information System for timely and informed decision making (e) Training to enhance the skills of employees (f) Setting up of Computerised Customer Service Centers in the realigned zones to offer a one- stop customer service solution for processing of applications, collection, grievance redressal (g) Enhancing options for bill payment viz. drop boxes at RWAs, internet, mobile collection vans, advance payment option (h) Dissemination of information through attractive & informative boards, brochures, updating of DJB website, wide circulation of Citizens’s charter (i) Facilitating web-based customer interactions in keeping with the Government’s intention to move towards an e-Governance 4. Framework to assess and analyse urban water sustainability There have been several attempts in the past to arrive at a definitive set of sustainability indicators for urban water systems, but of the many sets that exist, few show signs of convergence or uniformity in their derivation. The METRON (2001) project notes that a common vision, policy framework and set of principles for urban water sustainability is long overdue, both at the national and urban level. Setting such a vision, however, requires a coherent and holistic understanding of the nature and roots of the problem in a regional or local context. This poses a fundamental question that should there be a universally agreed language for discussing urban water sustainability or should there be a ‘framework’ to assess urban water sustainability in a local context that could be further explored and redefined. Due to the complexity of human needs related to water and its manifold functions in ecological systems, it is difficult to find simple answers to this question. In the METRON (2001) project, sustainability is not taken as a clearly defined universal goal upon which different systems will be evaluated but rather as a concept to be further explored and redefined through research on a specific problem-context. According to the report, moving towards sustainability is not a process towards an end-state but a continuously evolving process comprised of many small decisions and ‘evaluations’ between alternatives.
10
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Sustainability is therefore first and foremost about an institutionalised (“governance”) structure, which allows collective social valuation and expression of choice. Economic effectiveness in achieving the shared goals and a long-term precautionary outlook are the two other principles of moving towards sustainability. 5. Applying guiding principles of urban water sustainability through indicators Documents resulting from various national and international conferences, working groups, or committees, have identified some broad guidelines and principles (UNCED, 1992; Platt and Morrill, 1997; OECD, 1998; Loucks and Gladwell, 1999; Loucks, 2000; Cai et al., 2001) and these reflect some important concepts of sustainability in water resources planning, such as demand management, supply reliability and flexibility, negative impact control, technology adaptation, financial feasibility, and economic efficiency. While these broad guidelines provide assistance and guidelines to planners and decision makers, they have not been translated into operational concepts that can be applied to the region-specific design, operation, and maintenance of water resources systems (Biswas, 1994). These guidelines address qualitative aspects of the problem, and need to be transformed into quantitative plans of action that provide precise guidance for making decisions. Further, the establishment of a comprehensive data/indicator system has been central to the whole concept of sustainable development. Therefore a considerable number of international organisations and researchers have attempted to provide comprehensive lists of indicators representative of the basic relevant situation and trends in the performance of the water systems of the city with respect to sustainability goals and useful to policy makers at a strategic level (e.g. Sustainable Seattle, 1993; LGMB, 1994; Nilsson and Bergstrom, 1995; UNEP, 1995; Grotter and Otterpohl, 1996; UNCSD, 1996; Clark et al., 1997; WRI, 1997; Graff et al., 1997; Eurostat, 1998; Balkema, 1998; OECD, 1998; Jeppsson et al., 1998; Urban Audit, 1998; Hellstrom et al., 1999; Water UK, 2000; Jean-Luc et al., 2000; Hellstrom et al., 2000; METRON, 2001; Balkema et al ., 2001). An effort to combine social, economic and environmental performance within common indicator systems for various problem themes and geographical levels through models has also been attempted (Pressure-State-Response Model, 1998; OECD, 1994; Eurostat, 1998; Sustainable Development Record Model, 1995) recognising the fact that traditional economic performance-oriented data/indicators fail to provide a complete picture of the challenges for contemporary society. To promote the practical use of a set of sustainability criteria it must be concise and related to quantifiable indicators that are easily measured. An attempt is made to provide a core list of indicators identified as suitable for portraying the above mentioned key aspects of
11
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
sustainability issues in an urban area and help policy makers assess the situation and trends at a strategic level (see Table 1). All these indicators can be grouped into either efficiency or equity criteria as shown in the Table 1. In urban water systems the social equity aspect relates to the fact that water is an essential item; therefore every household should be able to consume a subsistence amount of it. Also, social equity means that the water tariff treats similar customers equally, and that customers in different situations are not treated the same. This would usually be interpreted as requiring users to pay monthly water bills that are proportionate to the costs they impose on the utility by their water use (Whittington, 2003). The efficiency aspect relates to three criteria – allocative, technical and dynamic. These are briefly described. (a) Allocative: price be set equal to the incremental (or marginal) costs of providing an incremental supply of water services. In other words, where the increase in costs incurred in providing an extra unit of water matches the price. The costs consist of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, capacity expansion expenditures that are necessary to increase water supply to consumers, and environmental or other externality costs. (b) Technical: using best and most productive techniques in the purification and delivery of water; and recycling of wastewater for non-potable purposes to avoid negative externality of depleting a scarce natural resource. An important indicator of technical efficiency is unaccounted-for-water (UfW) which when translated to money terms gives the indication of non-revenue water. UfW includes technical losses and illegal connections as well as billing inefficiencies. (c) Dynamic: continuing effort of the system towards institutional and policy reform processes concerned with economic innovation. Institutional and policy reforms should be linked to incentives influencing decision-making. Hence a system where the price of water increases with consumption; wastewater is recycled and reused in the urban areas for non potable purposes, and sectoral reforms form the agenda for present and future development, can be seen as measures to attain efficiency. Table 1: Indicators of urban water sustainability 6. Integrating urban water sustainability into decision support frameworks As mentioned earlier, the very notion of what constitutes sustainable urban water systems will change over time, so there must be a ‘framework’ to assess urban water sustainability in a local context which could be further explored and redefined through research on a specific
12
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
problem-context. The decision for urban water supply falls under different local bodies with different competencies and might justifiably continue to do so, but there is a rationale for a decision-support framework that will ensure coherence, enable integration and benefit all stakeholders. In the past decade, a number of computer-based techniques were developed for studying water quality management systems. Such computer-based systems are interactive with graphical user interface and directly address supply and use issues assisting individuals in their problem-solving processes at the local level (zone or colony). A similar decision-support framework incorporating sustainability criteria will allow considerable improvements in managing urban water as a whole. In the following flow chart (figure 4), steps in making a decision-support-framework incorporating sustainability criteria is illustrated. A boundary line of strategic intervention is also shown which follows implementation feasibility analysis. The implementation of suitable options and monitoring of the urban water systems’ performance will feed back into the assessment of system performance. This will aid in future decision making and further sustainability criteria can be incorporated into the formulation of new targets. This corresponds well to the fact that a sustainability framework could be explored and redefined in future through research on a specific problem-context at a local level. Finally, the guidelines and the principles of sustainability are related to the decision-making in terms of an identification of the key policy issues and relevant recommendations. In the next section, three pillars of sustainable urban water policy are briefly discussed. Figure 4: Steps in making a ‘decision-support-framework’ incorporating sustainability criteria 7. Strategies for sustainable urban water policy: three major pillars What can urban municipalities do to achieve sustainability in providing water services? Based on the review of literature, a framework of urban water resource management is drawn to provide a holistic picture of the issues and their relationships. In drawing this framework, the following three aspects are considered important as pillars of sustainable urban water policy: (a) Systems view of urban water management: water and wastewater as a part of hydrological cycle (b) Decentralised demand side infrastructure planning (DSIP) (c) Regulatory reform Figure 5: Three major pillars of sustainable urban water policy 7.1 Systems view of urban water management: water and wastewater as a part of hydrological cycle
13
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Addressing the urban water resource as an independent system, even for convenience, may lead to dangerously narrow conclusions defeating the objectives of the systems approach. Water supply and wastewater systems should be looked in an integrative manner. A key area of integration lies in reclamation and subsequent re-use of wastewater to reduce the required net import of water for water supply. Wastewater reuse is becoming an integrated part of water resource management policy in many countries throughout the world. The term re-use means taking wastewater from residential and industrial sectors and businesses, treating and disinfecting it, and reusing it for non-potable freshwater needs. Non potable re-use applications include (a) agricultural and landscape irrigation, (b) industrial use, (c) urban and suburban reuse and (d) ground water recharge and water source replenishment. The following paragraphs summarize previous and on-going work to develop more sustainable urban water management systems viewing water and wastewater as a part of the hydrological cycle. The early results dealing with a wide variety of urban water resources issues published in a paper by McPherson et al. (1968) pointed out that “A single aspect research approach is totally inadequate and, indeed, is entirely inappropriate, for resolving multi-aspect problems. The former simplistic approach of regarding a unit of water as a fixed entity, such as storm water, must be abandoned for that same unit at a different point in time will be categorized as water supply, recreation, aesthetics, etc., perhaps several times before leaving a given metropolis.” McPherson (1973) argued that developing an urban water budget was an essential first step in using a systems approach. Mitchell et al., (1996) describes a water budget approach to integrated water management in Australia. Budgeting is done at the individual parcel, neighbourhood, and wider catchment scale. On-site management options include providing rain and grey water storage. Clark et al. (1997) uses a water budget approach to evaluate decentralized urban water infrastructure for Adelaide, Australia. Aramaki et al. (1999) have developed a water balance model based on the GIS, using detailed geographic data of land use, buildings and sewer pipes in Tokyo, for the evaluation of a water management system in the urban area. They later evaluated the appropriate type of reclaimed wastewater reuse system from the aspects of economic efficiency using the GIS-based model (Aramaki et al., 2001). The following four reclaimed wastewater reuse systems and conventional waterworks and sewerage system were evaluated; ‘rain water storage and use system’, ‘onsite wastewater treatment and reuse system’, sewage treatment and reuse at an intermediate point on the sewer pipe ’ and ‘treated water supply system in sewage treatment plant’. According to Vollertsen, et al. (2002) sewer system design must be integrated with wastewater treatment plant design when moving towards a more sustainable urban wastewater management. This integration allows
14
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
an optimisation of the design of both systems to achieve a better and more cost effective wastewater management. Foxon et al. (2000) used systems modelling approach to simulate a range of scenarios representing possible future trends including the introduction of demand management measures. They developed a systems model of the urban water supply and wastewater systems. The model is driven by the supply of water needed to meet end-use service demands for water by households, with non-household demand assumed to remain at a constant level. The system model represents the flow of water in highly aggregated form at each stage of the life cycle of the public water supply and wastewater systems, from resource, supply, treatment and distribution through to end-use and wastewater collection and treatment. The study has gone some considerable way towards incorporating wider sustainability criteria into the assessment of water demand management measures in an urban setting. The study is now being developed in conjunction with process modelling and social analysis in order to develop decision-support tools and protocols for use by the UK water industry. Figure 6: A conceptual diagram representing water flow in an urban area including re-use option (dotted lines) In the above references, we see that researchers have tried to visualise the components of urban hydrological cycles into a single unit. We also learn that wastewater should be viewed as a resource in urban areas which must be maximally recovered and safely reintegrated into the urban water cycle as a component of the water budget. Wastewater at some point of time had been freshwater, and freshwater is either drawn from surface water or groundwater. Sustainability is directly related to the availability of freshwater from both these sources. Thus, returning back the water that was drawn earlier becomes absolutely vital to human civilisation. In most of the developing countries, approximately 80% of the water used is disposed as wastewater and 40% is lost in conveyance and distribution as unaccounted-for-water (UfW). If the total water loss at the system as a whole is reckoned and treated wastewater is used for non-potable purposes, it will certainly be close to both the observed and projected demand deficits preventing the need for any intersectoral water transfer. This underlines the vast scope for deficit reduction even within existing supply limits by improving use efficiency. Using our drinking water for non-potable needs makes little sense over the long run. So, it becomes extremely important to introduce dual-piping system in the municipal water cycle where an extra network is installed providing water of a lower quality for non-drinking purposes such as landscape watering, irrigation, gardening, toilet flushing, floor washing etc. This reused treated water may also eventually recharge aquifers. The main question is how far the wastewater needs treatment before it may be discharged to either river or into the
15
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
ground. So it becomes necessary to improve technical knowledge about wastewater recycling and secondary water use. Also, a wastewater reuse system requires additional infrastructure such as treatment facilities and piping systems to maintain water quality, stringent health and safety parameters. Technically, these standards are not difficult to meet and the potential for non-potable water reuse should be substantial. However, many non-technical challenges (regulatory, institutional, public perception, economic) must be met before a project becomes a reality. For the system to operate efficiently there must be demand for the resources and users must be willing to pay for any increase in water tariff. Also, the value of any water management system will differ according to its appropriateness for the area in which it is put into place. For this reason, it is important to develop quantitative evaluations of the desirability of different systems in an urban setting. This can help policy makers determine the optimum scope and combination of measures to adopt such as pricing structure. 7.2 Decentralised demand side infrastructure planning There has been a general tendency to direct attention to the lack of supply of water in urban areas due to natural forces (climatic variability, low river flow, etc.) rather than look at anthropogenic factors and at socio-political considerations. Little attention has been given to the objective of water conservation through the options that control and modify water demand. Economic incentives, water pricing policies, public participation and awareness, as well as education and information strategies are today powerful demand management tools, which are not only environmentally friendly, but also economically effective alternative solutions to balance supply and demand (Baumann et al., 1998; Guy and Marvin, 1996; Westerhoff & Lane, 1996; Winpenny, 1994; Maddaus et al., 1996; Mylopoulos & Kolokytha, 1997; Mylopoulos & Mentes, 2000, Rogers et al., 2002, Kolokytha, et al., 2002). A consideration of such demand side management tools in urban water sector recognises these approaches in the infrastructure planning itself. Decentralised demand side infrastructure planning (DSIP) can be defined as those activities, which aim to provide the greatest possible amount of services using the least possible volume of water locally. In a more general perspective, DSIP refers to the activities that aim to reduce water demand, improve water use efficiency and avoid the deterioration of water resources on-site putting less emphasis on end-of-pipe treatment and accommodating wider water conservation efforts. In practice demand management options will involve a package of measures including regulation, economic instruments, information and education, along with measures which directly address production as well as consumption patterns. DSIP recognizes the need for balanced development between water supply augmentation measures and water demand management measures and can be an obligatory solution in
16
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
cases where the best supply opportunities have been exploited, and the marginal opportunities are much more expensive economically and environmentally. But this is a site and case specific problem. It requires a comprehensive study of resources availability, projection of demand, and cost considerations of various supply and demand side augmentations. 7.3 Regulatory reforms in urban water sector The regulatory framework for water services tend to address the form of private involvement and the nature of competition existing within the sector keeping in mind issues relating to consumer benefits, service quality and coverage, pricing of services, tariff regulation and cost recovery. The natural monopoly character of urban water services means that substantive regulatory control is needed both to enforce competitive conditions (e.g. check whether companies are complying with terms of the contract, measure and monitor performance, regulatory standards) as well as to assess compliance with social and environmental goals. Three major issues of concern in regulatory reforms relate to tariff setting, private sector participation and competition which are discussed separately in the following paragraphs. 7.3.1 Tariff setting There are many different ways to promote equity and efficiency in the water sector and correct pricing is probably one of the most important. A rational tariff structure is essential if the scarcity value and efficient usage of water is to be achieved (Dinar & Subramanian, 1997; ADB, 2000; Rogers et al., 1998; Price, 2001; Rogers et al., 2002; Whittington, 2003). The employment of pricing instruments (e.g. the application on increased block tariffs, the introduction of metering, Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), User Pays Principle (UPP) etc.) has proved to be effective in reducing demand. In general, it is a sound principle for the “full-costs” of water to be a basis for customer tariffs. However, it is simplest conceptually, but the most difficult to administer and implement practically. The structure of water tariff should be simple and easy to administer. According to the METRON (2001) project, there are at least four requirements that a pricing structure ideally has to fulfil. First, pricing should be such that it enables the actors in the water industry to cover their costs. Secondly, pricing should be such that they provide incentives to the users of water to use water efficiently. Thirdly, the pricing system that is used should be administratively feasible and efficient. Although, if financial sustainability is to be secured in the long term, then there is no alternative but the consumer should pay for the real cost of service provided. But this cannot be achieved in practice overnight. If the consumers see improvements in the levels of services offered, then the willingness to pay (WTP) considerably more than today’s tariff will slowly set in.
17
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
7.3.2 Private sector participation Over the past two decades, policy makers in both developing and developed countries have encouraged increased private sector participation in urban water infrastructure including varying forms of public/private partnerships: BOT (build-own-operate), BOOT (build-ownoperate-transfer), and concessions. Several countries have privatised their water supply and sewerage systems in order to improve efficiency and tap private investments. While divestiture has taken place in the UK, management contracts are used in France. Chile uses service contracts and lease contracts have been used in France and Spain. Concession agreements have been used in France, Spain, Mexico, Malaysia etc. As per the information available, privatisation of water supply has already started in some of the smaller countries of the world- Bolivia and Nicaragua in South America, and on the African continent, Mozambique, Kenya, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Tanzania and South Africa. It is also noteworthy that the world’s largest and most recent contracts for private sector water supply are in relatively poor cities – Buenos Aires, Casablanca, Jakarta, Manila etc. As privatisation of water utilities takes hold around the world, one of the main regulatory adjustments has been the recognition that efficiency does matter. Several studies (Crain and Zardkoohi, 1978; Feigenbaum and Teeples, 1984; Byrnes et al., 1986; Fox and Hofler, 1986; Estache and Rossi, 2002) give the intuition that there is no convincing evidence of a systematic superiority of public versus private providers in the water sector. According to them, it is wrong to assume that there will be automatic improvements in performance if the state or local bodies are subject to some form of privatisation. Privatisation will not necessarily move urban water systems towards a more efficient outcome, unless social and environmental criteria are explicitly addressed. The success of privatisation should be measured not only against the gains in efficiency, but also against the relative achievement of social objectives. It is therefore important to examine the conditions under which privatisation — one of the pillars of international development policy today — can bring about social equity for service users as well as efficiency gains. 7.3.3 Competition Considering the supply chain as a whole, the municipal water sector should likely be considered a natural monopoly. Natural monopoly is the case for the water industry and relates to the economies of large size, when the costs decline over the range of existing demands (due to the higher proportion of capital costs) and which makes a single supplying entity as the most efficient organisation, i.e. it is prohibitive for a second supplier to compete with a new distribution network to supply water to the households of a city. The required investments in the distribution network are so large, that it is unlikely that two firms, each with their own network, can profitably operate in this sector. Also, if there are more than one water
18
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
producing companies, they will supply water via the same network implying a risk of ‘free-rider behaviour’ if quality control is not performed before water is transported to the consumers. This means that ‘artificial’ conditions must be established to stimulate competition in the naturally monopolistic sector. According to ADB (2000) structural reform, by breaking up water utilities vertically or horizontally into smaller business units, can also directly or indirectly lead to increase in competition. The urban water sector should be unbundled to the extent possible. Ultimately, judgements must be made on whether the competition gains outweigh any unbundling costs. The potential for introducing more competition has been investigated and there is some experience with actual implementation in, for example in the UK. Both public and private water companies need regulation of water price and quality when real competition is not feasible. 8. Conclusions Urbanisation and consumption-oriented life-styles are increasing the demand for water causing concerns for the future availability of a reliable supply in an environmentally sensitive manner. There are a number of key challenges for the management of municipal water systems common to all towns and cities. They have environmental, social and economic dimensions, but many of the underlying causes are interrelated and overlapping. The common thread running through almost all the approaches cited in the paper is the production of a structured classification of criteria fulfilling urban water sustainability objectives, which would be forward-looking in order to be useful in decision making, and would be relevant to the decision-making process in question. Therefore, moving towards sustainability is not a process towards an end-state but a continuously evolving framework. This necessitates a compelling need to develop a clearer framework of sustainability in water systems at urban level which can be further improved and redefined towards achieving identified and widely supported goals of equity and efficiency. Since urban water needs in the near future are likely to surpass supply availability from usual sources, there is a need to promote a ‘new water regime’ based on a demand side approach focused on rational pricing, conservation, ecosystem development, and improvement of natural water quality, as well as wastewater reclamation and reuse, as a more sustainable option for urban water resources management. Economic efficiency cannot be the sole criterion for decision-making on infrastructure options and when undertaking utility reform. Social equity and environmental quality are equally important in achieving the sustainability of the whole systems. There is a significant trade-off between
social equity and economic
efficiency criteria, and a well-designed water tariff under regulatory control can make an important contribution to aligning them.
19
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Acknowledgements The author is indebted to his research guide Dr Leena Srivastava and Prof Subhash Chander for their guidance and support. He greatly acknowledges the support and helpful comments that were received from worldwide constituency of academics during the literature review. Thanks are due to Prof Usha Raghupati, NIUA, Delhi; Prof. Tim Foxon (Imperial College, London); Dr. Roberto Martinez-Espineira (Department of Economics, St Francis Xavier University, Canada); Dr. Marie - Helene Zerah, CERNA; Dr. David N. Barton (Environmental Economist, Interconsult International, Oslo); Chris Kitchen (Sustainable Development Unit, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London); Dr V. Grace Mitchell (CSIRO Urban Water, Australia); Dr. Stewart Burn (CSIRO Urban Water, Australia); Giorgos Kallis (Metron Research Coordinator, University of the Aegean) and Prof. Michael Nieswiadomy (Department of Economics, University of North Texas, USA).
References ADB (2000). Developing best practices for promoting private sector investment in infrastructure: water supply, Asian Development Bank, Manila, pp. 182. Aramaki, T., Sugimoto, R., Hanaki, K., and T. Matsuo (1999). Design of reclaimed wastewater reuse system using GIS-based water balance model, Conference reprint of Asian Waterqual – 99, pp. 137 – 142. Aramaki, T., Sugimoto, R., Hanaki, K., and T. Matsuo (2001). Evaluation of appropriate system for reclaimed wastewater reuse in each area of Tokyo using GIS-based water balance model, Water science and Technology, Vol 43, No 5, pp. 301 – 308. ASCE and UNESCO (1998). Sustainability criteria for water resource systems, prepared by the task committee on sustainability criteria, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the working group of UNESCO/IHP IV Project M-4.3 Balkema, A (1998). Sustainable criteria for the comparison of wastewater treatment technologies, Proc. 11th European Junior Scientist Meeting on ‘The Myth of Cycles versus Sustainable Water and material Flux management’, Feb. 12-15, 1998, Wildpark Eekholt, Germany. Balkema, A.J., Preisig, H.A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, A.J.D., Weijers, S.R. (2001). The use of indicators in the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems, Water Science Technology, Vol. 43, No. 7, pp. 265 – 269. Baumann, D., Boland, J., and Hanemann, M. (1998). Urban Water Demand Management and Planning, McGraw Hill, USA, 1998. Biswas, A. K. (1994). Sustainable water resources development: some personal thoughts, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 10(2): 109 – 116. Byrnes, P., Grosskopf, S., and Hayes, K. (1986). Efficiency and ownership: further evidence, Review of Economics and Statistics 68(2), pp. 337 – 341 (as cited in Estache and Rossi, 2002).
20
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Cai, X., McKinney D.C., and Lasdon, L.S. (2001). A framework for sustainability analysis in water resources management and application to the Syr Darya Basin, Working paper, University of Texas at Austin. Clark, R. (1997). Optimum scale for urban water systems, Report – 5 in the water sustainability in urban areas series, Water Resources Group, Dept. of Env. & Natural Resources, S.A. Clarke, G.R.G., Menard, C., and Zuluaga, A.M. (2002). Measuring the welfare effects of reform: urban water supply in Guinea, World Development Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 1517 – 1537. Crain, W., and Zardkoohi, A. (1978). A test of the property rights theory of the firm: water utilities in the United States, Journal of Law and Economics 21, pp. 395 – 408 (as cited in Estache and Rossi, 2002). Dinar, A. and Subramanian, A. (1997). Water pricing experiences: an international perspective, World Bank Technical Paper No. 386, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Estache, A., and Rossi, M.A. (2002). How different is the efficiency of public and private water companies in Asia? The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 139 – 148. Eurostat
(1998).
The
European
PSR
project,
accessed
on
http://forum.europa.eu.int/dsis/pip/info/data/pip_web/index.htm. Feigenbaum, S., and Teeples, R. (1984). Public versus private water delivery: a hedonic cost approach, Review of Economics and Statistics 65, pp. 672 – 678 (as cited in Estache and Rossi, 2002). Fox, W., and Hofler, R. (1986). Using homothetic composed error frontiers to measure water utility efficiency, Southern Economic Journal 53(2), pp. 461 – 477 (as cited in Estache and Rossi, 2002). Foxon, T. J., Mcilkenny, G., Gilmour, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C., Souter, R., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Pearson, P., Jowitt, P., and Moir, J. (2002). Sustainability criteria for decision support in the UK water industry, Journal of Environmental Planning and management, Vol. 45(2), pp. 285-301. Foxon, T.J., Butler, D., Dawes, J.K., Hutchinson, D., Leach, M.A., Pearson, P.J.G., and Rose, D. (2000). An assessment of water demand management options from a systems approach, Journal of the Charted Institutions of Water and Environmental management, Vol. 14, pp. 171–178. Graff, J.H.J.M. van der, Meester-Broertjes, H. A., Bruggeman, W. A., and Vles, E. J. (1997). Sustainable technological development for urban-water cycles, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 35(10), pp. 213 – 2 20. Grotter, M., and R. Otterpohl (1996). Integrated urban water concept. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on urban storm drainage. Hannover, Germany, pp. 1801 – 1806.
21
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Guy, S., and Marvin, S. (1996). Managing water stress: the logic of demand side infrastructure planning, Journal of Environmental planning and management, Vol. 39(1), pp. 123 – 128. Hellstrom, D., Jeppsson, U., and Karrman, E. (2000). A framework for systems analysis of sustainable urban water management, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 20(2000), pp. 311 – 321. Hellstrom, D., Jeppsson, U. and Karrman, E. (1999). System analysis of sustainable water management – a first approach, Proc. 4th International Conference – Managing the wastewater resource, June 7-11, 1999, As, Norway. Jean-Luc Bertrand-Krajewski., Barraud, S., and Chocat, B. (2000). Need for improved methodologies and measurements for sustainable management of urban water systems, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 20(3), June 2000, pp. 323 – 331. Jeppson, U., Hellstrom, D., and Karman, E. (1998). System analysis of sustainable water management, MISTRA project report, October 1998. Jeppsson, U., Hellstrom, D., Karrman, E. (1999). Systems analysis of sustainable urban water management, Lund, Sweden, Dept. of Industrial Eng. & Automation, Lund Institute of Technology, technical Report TEIE – 7135, 1999. Kallis, G., and Coccoccis, H. (2001). Metropolitan areas and sustainable use of water: issues and policies, European Commission, 4th framework Research Programme, Environment and Climate Programme, Mytilini: Environmental Planning Laboratory, University of Aegean, October 2001. Kolokytha, E.G., Mylopoulos, Y.A., and Mentes, A.K. (2002). Evaluating demand management aspects of urban water policy – a field survey in the city of Thessaloniki, Greese, Urban Water, Vol.4, Issue 4., 2002. LGMB (Local Government Management Board), (1994). Sustainability Indicators Research, Luton. Loucks, D. P. (2000) Sustainable water resources management, Water International, Vol. 25(1), pp. 3 – 11. Loucks, D. P., and Gladwell, J. S. (eds) (1999). Sustainability criteria for water resource systems, International Hydrology Series (IHS), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ludin, M (1999). Assessment of the environmental sustainability of urban water systems, Department of Technical Environmental Planning, Chalmers University of Technology. Maddaus, W., Gleason, G., and Darmody, I. (1996). Integrating conservation into water supply planning. Journal of American Water Works Association, pp. 57 – 67. McPherson, M.B. (1973). Need for metropolitan water balance inventories, Journal of the Hydraulics Div. ASCE. 99, HY10, pp. 1837 – 1848. McPherson, M.B. et al. (1968). Systematic study and development of long-range programs of urban water resources research, Report to office of water resources research. NTIS No. PB 184 318. Washington, D.C.
22
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
METRON (2001). Water for the city: critical issues and the challenges of sustainability, Final Metron Project Synthesis Report, European Commission, 4th framework Research Programme, Environment and Climate Programme, Mytilini: Environmental Planning Laboratory, University of Aegean, October 2001, pp. 214. MISTRA (1999). Sustainable urban water management, Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental
Research,
In:
Malmqvist,
P-A
(ed.)
Sustainable
urban
water
management, Vatten, 1999 (55), pp. 7 – 17. Mitchell, V.G. (2001). Modelling the urban water cycle, J. of Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 16(2001), pp. 615 – 629. Mitchell, V.G., R.G. Mein and T.A. McMahon (1996). Evaluating the resource potential of stormwater and wastewater: an Australian perspective. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on urban storm drainage, Hannover, Germany. pp. 1293 – 1298. Mylopoulos, Y.A., and Kolokytha, E. (1997). In: Social and economic aspects of sustainable water supply policy. The city of Thessaloniki caseRefsgaard and Karalis, Editors, Operational water management, Balkema, Rotterdam (1997), pp. 41 – 45. Mylopoulos, Y.A., and Mentes, A. (2000). In: Perspectives of a demand oriented water policy in the city of Thessaloniki, Proceedings of the International Conference: Protection Restoration of the environment V, Vol. I, Thassos, Greece (2000), pp. 289 – 295. Nilsson J. and S. Bergstrom (1995). Indicators for the assessment of ecological and economic consequences of municipal policies for resource use, Ecological Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 175 – 184. OECD (1994). Managing the environment: the role of economic instruments, OECD, Paris. OECD (1998). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Athens Workshop, Sustainable management of water in Agriculture: issues and policies, No. 511998081E1, OECD Publications, Paris, 1998. OTHU (1999). Experimental Observatory for Urban Hydrology (Observatoire de Terrain en Hydrologie Urbaine), Report for the OTHU Scientific Committee, Lyon, France, GRAIE, 1999. Platt R.H and Morrill L. (1997). Sustainable water supply management in the United States: experience in metropolitan Boston, New York and Denver, in D.Shrubsole and B.Mitchell (eds.) Practicing Sustainable Water Management, Canadian Water Resources Association. Pressure-State-Response Model (1998). Using the pressure-state-response model to develop indicators of sustainability: OECD framework for environmental indicators, OECD Environment Directorate – State of the Environment Division, OECD. Price, J (2001). The Indian water industry today, Indian Infrastructure, Vol. 4, No. 4, Nov. 2001.
23
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Rogers, P., Bhatia, R., and Huber, A. (1998). Water as a social and economic good: how to put the principle into practice, Global Water Partnership/Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm, Sweden (as cited in Rogers et al., 2002) Rogers, P., De Silva, R., and Bhatia, R. (2002). Water as an economic good: how to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability, Water Policy, Vol. 4(2002), pp. 1 – 17. Sustainable Development Record Model (1995). In: Nilsson J. and S. Bergstrom, Indicators for the assessment of ecological and economic consequences of municipal policies for resource use, Ecological Economics, Vol. 14 (1995), pp. 175 – 184. Sustainable Seattle (1993). Indicators of Sustainable Seattle, Metrocenter YMCA, Seattle. SWARD (2001). A multi-criteria analysis/risk management tool to assess the relative sustainability of water/wastewater systems: SWARD (Sustainable Water Industry Asset Resource Decisions), Proc. of the First National Conference on Sustainable Drainage, Coventry, 18-19 June, 2001. The International Institute for the Urban Environment (1993). The European sustainability index project, Delft, IIUE, 1993. UNCED (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Chap. 5 and 18, Rio de Janeiro, 1992. UNCSD (1996). Indicators of Sustainable Development Framework and Methodologies, Commission on Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York. UNEP (1995). From problematics to indicators: water as an example, UNEP, Athens, 1995. Urban Audit (1998). http://www.inforegio.org/urban/audit/index.html Vollertsen, J., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Ujang, Z., and S.A. Talib (2002). Integrated design of sewers and wastewater treatment plants, Water Science & Technology, Vol. 46(9), pp. 11–20. Water UK (2000). Towards environmental sustainability: UK water industry environmental sustainability indicators, Water UK, London. Westerhoff, G. and Lane, T (1996). Competitive ways to run water utilities, Journal of American Water Works Association, pp. 96 – 101. Whittington, D. (2003). Municipal water pricing and tariff design: a reform agenda for South Asia, Water Policy 5 (2003), pp. 61 – 76. Winpenny, J. (1994). Managing Water as an Economic Resource, Routledge, New York. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future, Oxford University Press, London. WRI (1997). World Resources Institute, Environmental indicators: a systemic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development, WRI, 1997.
24
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars Precipitation Surface Run-off & Urban Wash-off Raw water intake
R I V E R
Water Treatment Plant
Water Supply Mains
Urban Water Supply Network
Functions/Services
Non-potable Services Garden irrigation, flushing, floor washing, etc.
Groundwater Aquifer
Potable Services Drinking, dish washing, bathing, etc.
Sewer Network Recycling Effluent
WWTP
Drains
Wastewater
Storm Water Drains
(WWTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant)
Figure 1. A simplified conceptual diagram depicting urban water cycle
Other Users
Precipitation Pollution
URBAN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
HYDROLOGIC SYSTEM
Services URBAN AREA SYSTEM
Waste
Function Impacts
Figure 2. A model for an urban water system (after METRON project)
25
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Infrastructure functioning and use Institutional aspects Financial aspects
Economic efficiency
Conceptual triangle of sustainability
Environmental Protection
Environmental impacts Resource conservation
Social equity
Affordability Social inclusion Participation
Figure 3. Conceptual triangle of sustainability and its associated criteria for municipal water
26
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Review the past performance of urban water utility
Formulate new targets
SOCIAL Equity
ECONOMIC Efficiency & Reliability
ENVIRONMENTAL Quality & Resource utilisation
Generate options for performance improvement
Set objectives for improving the performance
Select sustainability criteria/aspects
Collect data relevant to these criteria for each option
Analyse the scenario
Select the preferred scenario
S T R A T E G I C
I N T E R V E N T I O N
Carry out implementation feasibility consideration/analysis Feedback into the assessment of system performance
Monitor
Develop further choice of criteria for future decision making
Figure 4. Steps in making a ‘decision-support-framework’ incorporating sustainability criteria
27
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Water and wastewater as a part of hydrological cycle
Decentralised demand side infrastructure planning
3 major pillars of sustainable urban water policy
Reuse for nonpotable purposes through dual piping system
Regulatory reform
▪ Tariff setting ▪ Private sector participation ▪ Competition
▪ Avoid transportation of wastewater ▪ Decentralised on-site treatment, less emphasis on end-of-pipe treatment
Figure 5. Three major pillars of sustainable urban water policy
Upstream Reservoir
URBAN BOUNDARY
Rainfall
RIVER Urban recreation/water recharge
WTP
Urban users
Sewerage system
WWTP Downstream
(WTP: Water Treatment Plant; WTP: Waste Water Treatment Plant)
Figure 6. A conceptual diagram representing water flow in an urban area including reuse option (dotted lines)
Downstream
28
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
Table 1: Indicators of urban water sustainability Category/Aspects (a) Infrastructure functioning and use
Criteria Economic Efficiency, Productive Efficiency and Dynamic Efficiency
Objectives Ensuring reliable and quality services in sufficient quantity
Indicators Average daily per capita water availability and distribution (water supply) % of population with access to water services - Overall in the city - In zone with maximum supply - In zone with minimum supply - In slums - In planned colonies - In urban and rural villages - In resettlement colonies Average consumption per zone (block) per month Duration of daily supply - Overall in the city - In zone with maximum supply - In zone with minimum supply - In slums - In planned colonies - In urban and rural villages - In resettlement colonies No. of colonies served by tankers on daily basis - Overall in the city - In zone with maximum supply - In zone with minimum supply - In slums - In planned colonies - In urban and rural villages - In resettlement colonies
(b) Institutional aspects
Technical Efficiency and Dynamic Efficiency
Using best and most productive techniques in service delivery and management
No. of times per day Hours/day
No. of tankers per colony (block) per day Litres of water supplied per block per day
- Total no. of samples found unfit for drinking tested per lakh population
No. per day per block
Apparent losses - Unauthorised consumption - Metering inaccuracies
Litres per block per month
- No. of pipe breaks per month per zone (block) Adequacy of cost recovery for scheme operation, tariff to match not only costs of
m3/month/zone
No. per day per block
Stress on water distribution system - No. of connections/length of water pipe per zone (block) - No. of connections/length of water pipe per zone (block)
Economic Efficiency
Litre per capita per day (lpcd)
Maintaining water quality standards - Total no. of complaints received due to contamination or quality downgrading
Real losses - Leakage on transmission and/or distribution mains - Leakage on service connections up to point of customer metering - Real Losses/No. of service connections
(c) Financial aspects
Unit
Litres per block per month
No./Km per block
No./month/zone
Total O&M cost per kL of water produced $/kL
29
Dutta, V. (2004)/Urban India, Vol. XXIV(II): 89 – 131/National Institute of Urban Affiars
supply (i.e. O&M and capital costs), but also opportunity costs, and externality costs
(d) Social aspects
(e)Environmental aspects
Social Equity
Productive Efficiency
Access to minimum basic water services to all essential for the maintenance of human health (Universal social obligation and service provision maintaining certain quality standards)
Efficient resource utilisation through operationalsing water conservation programmes
- Increasing block rate tariff aligning price to the cost of providing water up to consumer’s end - Wastewater treatment surcharge on metered water consumption - Average revenue per unit of water produced Revenue water -Billed Authorised Consumption (BAC) Non revenue water - Unbilled Authorised Consumption - Unauthorised connections
$/unit of metered water consumed
Willingness-to- pay (WTP)
$/per household
$/unit of metered water consumed $/KL Litres per block per month Litres per block per month
$/unit of existing services $/unit of improved services Proportion of slum population served by - Piped supply - Non-piped supply - Not served - No. of households in slums per public hand pumps
No. or % of population
Energy consumption - Total energy consumption/KL of water supplied
KW/KL
- Energy consumed/ML of water pumped in raw water pumping station - Energy consumed/ML of water treated at treatment plants - Energy consumed/ML of water pumped at water pumping station - Energy consumed/KL of water pumped from tube wells Water production per treatment plant - Raw water pumped - Clean water produced Ratio of average daily output to operational installed capacity Water reuse and recycling - quantity of water treated per treatment plant - quantity of water reused per treatment plant
KW/ML KW/ML KW/ML KW/KL Million litres per day % Litres per treatment plant Litres per treatment plant
30
