Comparative Study of Public Sanitation Standards and Policies

Public Sanitation: A Comparative Study on the Standards of Sanitation and New Government Policies and Plans
NIRMA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
INSTITUTE OF LAW B.Com, LL.B (Hons.)- Fourth Semester
A Research Project for the Subject- Managerial Economics On the TopicPublic Sanitation: A Comparative Study on the Standards of Sanitation and New Government Policies and Plans
Submitted To:Arun B. Prasad (Asst Prof.) Economics

1
Submitted By:Rajdeep Singh Chouhan 10BBL007 Section- C
PREFACE
This research project titled, Public Sanitation: A Comparative Study on the Standards of Sanitation and New Government Policies and Plans is one which has been prepared by me to study the changing standards of Public Sanitation and also the new Government policies and plans in the field of Public Sanitation.
A detailed study has been carried out wherein, the firstly the current status of sanitation was studied then the past status was also looked upon. This part projected the increment in the standards of sanitation.
Next part was a study of the government policies and the initiatives taken by the nongovernment organizations from the years when sanitation was included in the important areas of emphasis by the government.
This project gives an insight of the concept of sanitation, its change in status, the evolution of government policies and plans, and the initiatives taken up by the nongovernment organisations, and also the increasing number of people and parts of the nation who have been benefitted by these programmes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A project report customarily falls short of its expectations unless and until it is guided by the right person at the right time. I have been guided by a number of persons throughout the span of this research project. There are number of hands in making this project fruitful and worthy. First of all, I would like to acknowledge my subject coordinator Mr. Arun B. Prasad, who handed me the authority to carry on the research project on a worth research doing topic i.e. and provided me with valuable suggestions and guidelines at every level to make the project a valuable one and worthy. Further, I would like to acknowledge my friends who also supported me and guided me to carry out the research in a well-mannered way.
______________________ Name & Signature RAJDEEP SINGH CHOUHAN (10BBL007)
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Rajdeep Singh Chouhan a student of IIIrd Semester pursuing B.Com, LL.B (Hons.), from Nirma University and the research areas mentioned in the index have been performed by him with full sincerity and dedication under my guidance and support.
DATE: 25.01.2012
__________________________ Name & Signature (Supervisor) Mr. Arun B. Prasad.
DECLARATION
The text reported in the project is the outcome of my effort and no part of the project work is copied in any unauthorised manner and no part has been incorporated without due acknowledgement of the concerned teacher.
DATE: 25.01.2012
__________________ Signature (Supervisor) Mr. Arun Prasad. (Asst. Prof. Economics)
_________________ Name and Signature Rajdeep Singh Chouhan (10bbl007)
List of Abbreviations
TSC MDG DDWS CRSP Total Sanitation Campaign Millennium Development Goals Department of Drinking Water Supply Centrally Sponsored Rural Sanitation Programme UNICEF United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund WHO WAI NGO JMP LPCD CPCB MSW RWSS UWSS RGNDWM World Health Organization Water Aid India Non-Government Organisation Joint Monitoring Programme Litres Per Capita Per Day Central Pollution Control Board Municipal Solid Waste Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission MoUD NC PC O&M HRD ULB Ministry of Urban Development Not Covered Partially Covered Operation and Maintenance Human Resource Development Urban Local Bodies
GIS
Geographic Information System
Research Methodology
The method of research applied in this report is Doctrinal Research Method. It has been prepared with an intensive study of articles, research papers, journals and reports, websites and books.
Hypothesis
The following hypothesis has been formulated for conducting the research
1. There has been a considerable change in the status of sanitization. 2. Only government organisations have been working in the field of sanitation, and that too, only in the area of urban sanitation.
Aim
The main aim of the research was To know the efforts of government through its policies for improvising the sanitation conditions
Objectives
The multiple objectives leading to this research are
To know the about the concept of sanitation. To know the population and areas benefitted by the government policies on sanitation. To know the plans implemented on sanitation in rural and urban areas.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr. No. 1. Introduction Definition History Status of Sanitation Rural Sanitation Urban Sanitation Conclusion Towards a Sanitized India Strategies for rural water supply and sanitation Strategies for rural water supply and sanitation Suggestions and Recommendations References Topics Pg. No. 8 8 8 10 12 15 19 24 26 28 31 40
2.
3.
4. 5.
Chapter 1- Introduction
Definition Sanitation is the hygienic means of promoting health through prevention of human contact with the hazards of wastes. Hazards can be either physical, microbiological, biological or chemical agents of disease. Wastes that can cause health problems are human and animal feces, solid wastes, domestic wastewater (sewage, sullage, greywater), industrial wastes and agricultural wastes. Hygienic means of prevention can be by using engineering solutions (e.g. sewerage and wastewater treatment), simple technologies (e.g. latrines, septic tanks), or even by personal hygiene practices (e.g.
simplehandwashing with soap).
The World Health Organization states that: "Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces. Inadequate sanitation is a major cause of disease world-wide and improving sanitation is known to have a significant beneficial impact on health both in households and across communities. The word 'sanitation' also refers to the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal.
History
Sanitation, sewers, and cities. The rise of the city brought mankinds first awareness of sanitation. The Romans built splendid public baths and toilets linked to fairly sophisticated water and waste delivery systems. The ruins of the pre-Roman Phonecian city of Kerkouane in todays Tunisia boast a bathtub in every home. The level of attention to urban sanitation then went into decline.
One of the worlds newer cities, Portland invested in sanitary infrastructure shortly after its founding toward the end of what could be considered western civilizations sanitation dark ages. In the nearly two millennia between the remarkable water and sewerage systems of the ancient world and the work of germ theorists and sanitary engineers in modern times, there were few advances in urban sanitation.
Portland sewers from 1864 to the Big Pipe By the mid-19th century large areas of the great cities of the West had become filthy, smelly slums. Until London got its first modern sewer in 1853, inhabitants would simply dump their chamber pots in the streets. For obvious reasons, the idea of using water to bear away filth caught on quickly. Even tiny Portland, Oregon would build its first, albeit rudimentary sewers, in 1864. Over the years, wooden troughs were replaced with terra cotta piping which in turn gave way to larger, more efficient brick and concrete sewers. As homes, businesses and streets of the city benefitted from various advances in sanitation, the Willamette was essentially dead by the 1930s. Citizen outrage led to a succession of reforms and eventually to the construction of the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant, which opened in 1952. But as the city grew, treatment facilities could barely keep up with the population and state and federal regulations had raised the bar.
10
Chapter 2- Status of Sanitation

India may be on track in achieving the MDG sanitation target, it is important not to be complacent. MDG goals simply represent achievable levels if countries commit the resources and power to accomplish them. They do not necessarily represent acceptable levels of service. This is especially true for Indias sanitation situation. Despite recent progress, access to improved sanitation remains far lower in India compared to many other countries with similar, or even lower, per capita gross domestic product. Bangladesh, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Viet Namall with a lower gross domestic product per capita than Indiaare just a few of the countries that achieved higher access to improved sanitation in 2006.
An estimated 55% of all Indians, or close to 600 million people, still do not have access to any kind of toilet. Among those who make up this shocking total, Indians who live in urban slums and rural environments are affected the most.
In rural areas, the scale of the problem is particularly daunting, as 74% of the rural population still defecates in the open. In these environments, cash income is very low and the idea of building a facility for defecation in or near the house may not seem natural. And where facilities exist, they are often inadequate. The sanitation landscape in India is still littered with 13 million unsanitary bucket latrines, which require scavengers to conduct house-to-house excreta collection. Over 700,000 Indians still make their living this way.
The situation in urban areas is not as critical in terms of scale, but the sanitation problems in crowded environments are typically more serious and immediate. In these areas, the main challenge is to ensure safe environmental sanitation. Even in areas where
11
households have toilets, the contents of bucket-latrines and pits, even of sewers, are often emptied without regard for environmental and health considerations.
Sewerage systems, if they are even available, commonly suffer from poor maintenance, which leads to overflows of raw sewage. Today, with more than 20 Indian cities with populations of more than 1 million people, including Indian megacities, such as Kolkata, Mumbai, and New Delhi, antiquated sewerage systems simply cannot handle the increased load. In New Delhi alone, existing sewers originally built to service a population of only 3 million cannot manage the wastewater produced daily by the citys present inhabitants, now close to a massive 14 million.
Wastewater treatment capacity is also woefully inadequate, as India has neither enough water to flush-out city effluents nor enough money to set up sewage treatment plants. As of 2003, it was estimated that only 30% of Indias wastewater was being treated. Much of the restamounting to millions of liters each dayfind its way into local rivers and streams. According to the countrys Tenth Five-Year Plan, three-fourths of Indias surface water resources are polluted, and 80% of the pollution is due to sewage alone.
The impacts on human health are significant. Unsafe disposal of human excreta facilitates the transmission of oral-fecal diseases, including diarrhea and a range of intestinal worm infections such as hookworm and roundworm. Diarrhea accounts for almost one fifth of all deaths (or nearly 535,000 annually) among Indian children under 5 years. Also, rampant worm infestation and repeated diarrhea episodes result in widespread childhood malnutrition.
Moreover, India is losing billions of dollars each year because of poor sanitation. Illnesses are costly to families, and to the economy as a whole in terms of productivity losses and expenditures on medicines, health care, and funerals. The economic toll is also apparent in terms of water treatment costs, losses in fisheries production and tourism, and welfare impacts, such as reduced school attendance, inconvenience, wasted time, and lack of privacy and security for women. On the other hand, ecologically sustainable 12
sanitation can have significant economic benefits that accrue from recycling nutrients and using biogas as an energy source.
Rural Sanitation
Sanitation programmes in India have traditionally relied heavily on high levels of subsidies for latrine construction. This approach has been criticised for failing to motivate and sustain higher levels of sanitation coverage which also grew very slowly between 1990- 2000. The high subsidy approach has now changed with the introduction of the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in 1999. The TSC reform principles are demand driven and community-led. The concept of sanitation, which was previously limited to the disposal of human excreta by cess pools, open ditches, pit latrines, bucket system, has now been expanded to include liquid and solid waste disposal, food hygiene, personal, domestic as well as environmental hygiene.
The GoI has reported rapid growth in coverage levels in the last five years as a result of the TSC, which has now been implemented in 426 districts across the country. DDWS estimates that 9.45 mn latrines were constructed for rural households under the CRSP up to the end of the Ninth Plan. Rural sanitation was almost non-existent until 1990 and grew at just 1% annually throughout the 1990s. The progress in rural sanitation coverage (defined interms of households with toilets) according to sample survey statistics quoted by UNICEF (along with WHO and the Planning Commission) is shown in Figure 1. In 1990, 6% of rural households had a latrine. This figure increased to 15% in 2000 (the 2001 Census estimated 22% of households had a WC or pit latrine).30 The DDWS estimated coverage at 20% of households in 2001. Using the UNICEF statistics, 7.4 mn extra people per year, between 1990-2000, had a toilet in their household. For India to meet the MDG target 21.9 mn people per year, between 2000 and 2015, would need to gain access to a toilet, an enormous challenge. This also assumes that all the toilets are functioning, sanitary and that all members of the household use them; a big assumption. The steep upward sloping curve in Figure 1 highlights the required progress from 2000 onwards needed to meet the MDG target. These statistics also only show the proportion 13
of people with a latrine in their household, (although the Census also mentions the type of latrine) they do not take into account the sanitary conditions of the latrine or latrine usage, which are key components of sanitation. They also do not assess sanitation more broadly, for instance taking into account hygiene practices such as hand washing. The DDWS estimates that coverage was around 30% in 2004, which means that 19.09m people per year would need to be covered to meet the MDG target.
Field studies have pointed to low levels of latrine usage because of lack of awareness of the importance of sanitation, water scarcity, poor construction standards and the past government emphasis on expensive standardized latrine designs. Initial indications of an evaluation by the GoI and UNICEFs Child Environment Programme show that significant numbers of people, especially in below poverty line (BPL) households, are not using their latrines. A WAI study in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu had to revise the state governments coverage figures down 20% in order to account for a lack of latrine usage, which the state governments figures did not measure.
If variables such as usage are also included in a definition of sanitation coverage, the national picture is likely to be worse than that shown in Figure 1 with a corresponding impact on the number of people who need to be reached to meet the MDG target. The challenge of poor rural sanitation coverage arises for a variety of social and economic factors and not simply from individual behavioural resistance, which has been the dominant discourse for explaining poor coverage. The way rural livelihoods are structured in India, the increasing migration from their rural areas to unsanitary urban areas, has a negative impact on attitudes and behavioural change. Social taboos of caste and class in handling human faecal excreta have weakened but still hold sway in many rural and urban areas. A lack of gender sensitivity in villages, with sanitation not being considered a priority by men, also hinders latrine take-up although the enhanced social status associated with having a latrine often has the opposite effect. Congested villages with little room for latrine construction and where the risk of contamination of ground water is high, needs to be taken into account when propagating pit based latrines. Besides the above reasons, geographical and terrain factors, such as hilly areas where level 14
ground is limited, flood plains and coastal belts with high water tables, make the creation of sanitation infrastructure more complicated. There is little evidence, either from research or field studies, that draws out meaningful correlations on how the above factors impact on low coverage levels in rural areas but these issues are very real and are reflected in the low national coverage situation. The GoI aims to tackle the problem of low sanitation coverage through the TSC. The TSC shifts the focus of sanitation provision from subsidising individual latrines to promoting community collective action, based on information, education and communication (IEC) with subsidy only for below poverty line (BPL) households. The TSC guidelines emphasise IEC, human resource development and capacity development activities in order to increase awareness of sanitation in rural areas and generate demand for sanitary facilities. It is intended that the IEC element of TSC will involve all sections of the rural population, in order to generate demand for latrine construction. The IEC campaign will involve Panchayati Raj Institutions, cooperatives, women's groups and self-help groups. NGOs are also important components of the Strategy but it is still unclear how partner groups and NGOs will be chosen. The GoI plans to implement the TSC across the whole of rural India by 2010 and through the success of the programme achieve the MDG target by 2007. The GoI expects that one APL household will be motivated to build a latrine without subsidy for every two BPL households that build a latrine with GoI subsidy. So far statistics released by the DDWS do not support this assumption. The TSC objectives are to achieve 32,300,000 individual household latrines (IHHL) for BPL households, with 16,900,000 IHHL built (without subsidy) by APL households, a ratio of approximately 2:1. The physical progress made in the TSC, up to July 2004, shows that whilst 7,841,488 IHHL for BPL households have been built only 667,497 IHHLs in APL households have been constructed, a ratio of around 12:1. In Madhya Pradesh, the state sanitation policy is guided by the Total Sanitation Campaign. Under TSC there has been an achievement of construction of 0.3% of APL households and 3% of BPL households so far. The data on their actual area is not available. This throws into doubt the likelihood of achieving the MDG target for rural sanitation by 2015. The recent progress of sanitation coverage also casts a shadow over whether the MDG target is attainable. In 2003-04, under TSC, 450,000 IHHL (covering about 2.2m people) were constructed. Even if a further 225,000 15
IHHLs (based on the 2:1 assumption) were built in APL households, covering 1.1m people, the total coverage under the TSC for 2003-04 would be 3.3 mn. This total is far short of the 20 mn or so people that need to be covered each year to meet the MDG target.
Figure 1-
Urban Sanitation
According to UNICEF/WHO/Planning Commission figures, as shown in Figure 5, India is almost on course to meet the MDG target for water and sanitation in urban areas by 2015 despite these rapid changes. Between 1990-2000, India reached 8 mn extra people per year with water and 7.7 mn extra people per year for sanitation as shown in Figure 5 below.
The 2001 Census of India put the number of households having a pit or WC/flush latrine at 61% a similar level as the JMP in 2000 but there are reasons to approach the statistics with caution. There are no systematic and regular systems for monitoring and generating data for the status of urban water and sanitation from the state level upwards to the Central Government agencies. 16
Even if 61% of Indias urban population had adequate excreta disposal facilities in 2000, inadequate sewage systems and wastewater treatment facilities along with a high quantum of solid waste generation is causing an impending health catastrophe. The midterm review of the Ninth Plan in 2000 by the Planning Commission found that the service levels of water supply in most of the cities and towns were far below the desired norm, and in smaller towns, even below the rural norms. It also found that urban sanitation was very poor: At the start of the Ninth Five-Year Plan [1997], although 49% of the population had provision for sanitary excreta disposal facilities, only 28% had sewerage systems. Where sewers were present, they generally did not have adequate treatment facilities. In the case of solid waste disposal, only about 60% of the generated waste was collected and disposed of and of this, only 50% was disposed of sanitarily. Separate arrangements for safe disposal of industrial, hospital and other toxic and hazardous wastes were found to be generally nonexistent. Even in Indias capital, Delhi, many of the citys toilets are not connected to the sewerage system, which results in the pollution of groundwater and also makes wastewater treatment plants difficult to run as they need minimum levels of sludge to operate. For urban water, official reports tend to give greater weightage to physical and financial progress rather than to the quality, reliability and sustainability of services, which leads to problems in identifying coverage based on a strict definition of the term as outlined in Problems of Analysis (pages 16-17 of this
17
report). For instance, the coverage of drinking water in urban areas was reported to be 91% in the 55th round of the National Sample Survey in 1998-99. However, 59% of the urban population received drinking water only from a public source to which they did not have sole access. In WAIs experience, public sources often provide insufficient amounts of water and/or intermittently in congested urban areas. In fact the survey noted that 15% of the urban households did not get sufficient water from their principal water source in April, May and June. It is therefore hard to believe that 88% of the urban population of India had access to safe and adequate drinking water in 1990. The urban slum population of India is severely under reported as per official estimates. Even though slum populations are valued as vote banks, the enumeration for informal settlements usually excludes them in the total headcount for urban population. There are many categories/classifications of urban poor settlements in India including authorised and unauthorised slums, resettled slums and Jhuggi Jhopdi clusters. Urban poor living in slum like conditions could constitute at least 50% of the Indian urban population. It is fair to assume that only 50% of the urban slum population have adequate access to safe water. The revised water line in Figure 6 adjusting for a higher urban slum population of India than the official statistics, WAI believes that only 155 mn out of the 280 mn urban population or 55% of urban population had access to safe and adequate drinking water in 1990, as against the official estimate of 88% coverage. Moreover, urban water access/coverage is often calculated by measuring the total water available in an urban area and dividing this by the total population. This provides an unsatisfactory assessment of coverage, as there is inequity in the distribution of water in Indian cities. Whilst wealthier parts of town receive huge quantities of water poorer areas go dry, yet the average supply per capita looks good. Poor quality, regular shortages in supply (which in turn leads to contamination), weak infrastructure and high leakages (as high as 25-50%) are also major problems confronting the provision of urban drinking water. In Tamil Nadu, WAI found that overage statistics often do not take into account the large numbers of unserved people living in slums and therefore over estimate the proportion of urban people covered. In Thiruchirapalli, whilst only 10% of people in urban areas did not have access to enough safe, sustainable water, the figure for slum areas was around 90%. In Delhi, NGOs estimate that just 30-40% of the slum population has adequate drinking 18
water. The issue of effective coverage for slum populations in urban areas of India is particularly difficult as it is often linked to the tenure status of settlements (authorized vs. unauthorized, legal vs. illegal) and large floating populations. This makes investments in sanitation infrastructure problematic. The poor coverage situation in poorer areas is also often a reflection of poor and disadvantaged people being excluded from participation in water and sanitation decision-making.
In Tamil Nadu, WAI found that coverage statistics often do not take into account the large numbers of unserved people living in slums and therefore overestimate the proportion of urban people covered. In Thiruchirapalli, whilst only 10% of people in urban areas did not have access to enough safe, sustainable water, the figure for slum areas was around 90%. In Delhi, NGOs estimate that just 30-40% of the slum population has adequate drinking water. The issue of effective coverage for slum populations in urban areas of India is particularly difficult as it is often linked to the tenure status of settlements (authorised vs. unauthorised, legal vs. illegal) and large floating populations. This makes investments in sanitation infrastructure problematic. The poor coverage situation in poorer areas is also often a reflection of poor and disadvantaged people being excluded from participation in water and sanitation decision-making. In a study done by 19
WAI for Madhya Pradesh, it was found that 93% of towns in the state have less than 70 lcpd of water as against a minimum supply norm of 135 lcpd. The data related to supply of water indicated that only 63% of the urban centres receive water daily, while 28% towns receive water supply once in two days and 9% towns once in two or more days. Similarly on sanitation, the study found that only 76% of the urban households in the state have the facility of being connected to either a closed or an open drain. The districts in the Bundelkhand region, namely, Damoh, Chhatarpur, Panna, Satna, and Rewa; and districts in the southern tribal belt namely, Shahdol, Sidhi, and Umaria have a high proportion (more than 35%) of households which are not connected with drains for the disposal of waste water. There have been innovative experiments in sanitation infrastructure and service provision in some urban slums by NGOs and government. SPARC and WaterAid India have demonstrated the concept of community managed slum sanitation programmes in Mumbai and Thiruchirapalli. Recently, with the engagement of the Pune Municipal Commissioner, this work was taken up on a large scale in Pune Municipality. The cities of Hyderabad and Bangalore have also witnessed innovative successes. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation relied on increased tax collection for spending on water and sanitation. However the Pune Municipal Commissioner (R. Gaikwad) did not follow this route and was able to spend forty times the annual outlay for urban sanitation by drawing on sources of funding other than increasing taxes on civic services. The Infosys sponsored model in Bangalore demonstrated a sustainable pilot project where high quality public toilets in commercial areas cross subsidise toilets in slums. However, to what extent this cross subsidisation is effectively working in Bangalore and can be replicated in other cities in India needs to be reviewed. It is clear that increased spending on urban slum sanitation is not a priority for most city corporations in India and making a case for this requires a larger coordinated effort from all parties.
Conclusion
Analysis of coverage data from various sources shows that despite the acceleration of coverage under the Eighth Plan, only between 18 to 19 per cent of all rural households 20
have a toilet. However, the trend line shows that there has been increase in coverage, from around 10 per cent in 1990. At the same time, between 75 to 81 per cent of all urban households in India have toilets, an increase from the 1990 figures of around 64 per cent. Once again, data compiled by the WHO-UNICEF JMP process roughly coincides with these findings. The higher percentages for urban sanitation have largely been due to private initiatives at the household level and due to high concentrations of household toilets in the larger urban metropolitan cities. Coverage performance at the rural levels has obviously not been as successful. This has been due to a multiplicity of factors including low awareness of the potential health benefits (and therefore, economic benefits) of better hygiene practices, perception of the costs of having a household toilet as being very high and in most cases unaffordable, the sheer convenience (at least for men) of open defecation (vis--vis an enclosed space), high subsidies, and inadequate promotion of awareness.
As in the case of water supply, disparities across states exist. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-II) data on toilet facilities shows that the proportion of households having access to toilet facilities in larger, more populated and poorer States was much lower than the national average. These include Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. Among the smaller States, only Himachal Pradesh followed this pattern. In case of Kerala, the proportion of households with access to household toilet facilities at 85 per cent was much above the national average of 36 per cent. The coverage in terms of organised sewerage systems ranged from 35 per cent in class IV cities, to 75 per cent in class I cities. Studies conducted by the CPCB during 1994-95 showed that the total wastewater generated in 300 class I cities is around 15,800 million litres a day (MLD), while the treatment capacity is hardly 3,750 MLD. Twentythree metro cities generate over 9,000 MLD of sewage, of which about 60 per cent is generated in the four mega cities (Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Chennai) alone. Of the total wastewater generated in the four metros, barely 30 per cent is treated before disposal. Thus, the untreated and partially treated wastewater eventually finds its way into freshwater resources such as rivers, lakes, and groundwater.
21
(Referred from Study Sponsored by WHO-UNCIEF)
There has been a significant increase in MSW generation in India in the last few decades. This is largely because of rapid population growth and economic development in the country, and solid waste management has become a major environmental issue in India. The per capita of MSW generated daily, in India ranges from about 100 g in small towns to 500 g in large towns. Although, there is no national level data for MSW generation, collection and disposal, and increase in solid waste generation over the years, some estimates can be made. For example, the population of Mumbai grew from around 8.2 million in 1981 to 12.3 million in 1991, registering a growth of around 49 per cent. On the other hand, MSW generated in the city increased from 3,200 tonnes per day to 5,355 tonnes per day in the same period registering a growth of around 67 per cent. This clearly indicates that the growth in MSW in our urban centres has outpaced the population growth in recent years. This trend can be ascribed to changing lifestyles, food habits, and change in living standards. MSW in cities is collected by respective municipalities and transported to designated disposal sites, which are normally low-lying areas on the 22
outskirts of the city. The limited revenues earmarked for the municipalities make them ill equipped to provide for high costs involved in the collection, storage, treatment, and proper disposal of MSW. As a result, a substantial part of the MSW generated remains unattended and grows in the heaps at poorly maintained collection centres and landfill sites. The poorly maintained landfill sites are prone to groundwater contamination because of leachate production. Open dumping of garbage facilitates the breeding for disease vectors such as flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rats, and other pests. Landfill sites also generate gas emissions that are 50 to 60 per cent methane, which is a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
23
24
Chapter 3- Towards A Sanitized India
The first five Plan periods were characterised by relatively negligible investments in water supply and sanitation. Since the beginning of the Sixth Five-Year Plan (1980-85) and the launch of the International Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, India has substantially increased its commitment to the water supply and sanitation sector. The Ninth Plan provides for Rs.395 billion (about US$ 8 billion) as outlay for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector, which works out to about 4.6 per cent of the Ninth Plan Public Sector Outlay and is an all-time high. Over the various Plan periods, there has however been a shift in the ratio of UWSS to RWSS. Up to the Fifth Plan (1974-1979), investments in UWSS were relatively higher. This changed since the Annual Plan of 1979-80, and the RWSS sector was the focus of increasing investments. However, during the Ninth Plan, the gap has narrowed. Examination of Central Plan investments by subsector shows that Central Plan outlays for rural water supply far exceed those for rural sanitation, urban water supply and urban sanitation. While this is compensated for to a large extent by relatively higher state outlays, state outlay data disaggregated by subsector is not readily available, especially for UWSS. This is primarily due to issues relating to collection of information from the states, etc. India has witnessed rapid demographic changes in the last decade. While the population grew by over 21 percent, plan allocations to the water supply and sanitation sector during the same period increased by barely one and half per cent. This of course, shows the operational reality of resource constraints. As in the earlier plans, coverage is one of the basic factors for allocation. This brings to the forefront a basic dilemma. If coverage is used as a basis for planning, then the planning is target driven. At the same time, the Eighth Five Year Plan and subsequent plans strongly advocate demand responsive approaches, which seek to move away from earlier top down, target driven approaches. Indias population over the coming years, based on projections (and taking into account the rapid urbanization rate will be as follows:
25
India aims to reach 100 per cent coverage in terms of rural water supply by 2004, consolidation by 2007, and augmentation by 2015. If it is assumed that India will maintain 100 per cent coverage from 2004 onwards, projections based on current level of coverage and estimated population growth trends, this will mean that: By 2004, India will need to reach an additional (from the current level) 232 million people, a further 19 million people by 2007 (from the 2004 level) to maintain 100 per cent coverage, another 33 million (from the 2007 level) people by 2015. By 2025, rural populations would have stabilised (partially due to falling birth rates, and partially due to the increasing urbanisation), and it will be enough to maintain rural water supply coverage at the 2015 levels. If the Millennium and Johannesburg summit goals of halving uncovered populations by 2015 have to be met, the figure will be approximately 142 million additional people (from the current levels). If the global goal of water supply for all by 2025 has to be achieved, this will mean covering an additional 75 million people from the 2015 levels. India plans to achieve 35 per cent coverage by 2007 in rural sanitation, and 50 per cent by 2015. This will mean: Reaching 133 million additional additional people by 2007 (from the current level) and another 133 million by 2015 (from the 2007 level). If the Millennium and Johannesburg goal of covering at least half the unserved populations by 2015 has to be met, India will have to reach an additional 335 million people (from the current levels). If the global goal of sanitation for all by 2025 has to be met, 269 million people will have to be covered (from the 2015 levels).
Likewise, India aims to achieve 100 per cent coverage in urban water supply by 2007, and 75 per cent coverage in urban sanitation by the same year (under low cost sanitation and sewerage). This means that: Approximately 43 million additional (from the current level) urban people will have to be covered by water supply and an additional (from the current level) 31 million people with sanitation by 2007. In order to meet the Millennium and Johannesburg summit 26
goals, the figures will be approximately 88.5 million and 92.5 million additional (from the current levels) people for urban water supply and sanitation respectively. For the global 2025 goals to be met, the figures will be approximately 236.5 and 240 million people respectively (from the 2015 levels).
Projections of investment needs made by the RGNDWM for the Tenth Plan period for rural water supply and rural sanitation are Rs. 621 billion and Rs. 248 billion respectively (including state and central plan funds). Similar projections made by the MoUD for the Tenth Plan period for urban water supply and urban sanitation (including drainage, sewerage, and solid waste management) are Rs. 283 billion and Rs. 494 billion respectively.
Extrapolation (keeping in mind current coverage levels) of the above show that estimated investments to the tune of Rs. 380 billion and Rs. 200 billion respectively will be needed for rural water supply by 2015 and 2025 to meet millennium/Johannesburg and international goals. For rural sanitation, the figures will be Rs. 676 billion by 2015 and Rs. 503 billion by 2025. Likewise, the investments necessary for urban water supply by 2015 and 2025 will be Rs. 96 billion and Rs. 258 billion respectively and for urban sanitation, the figures will be Rs. 208 billion and Rs. 539 billion by 2015 and 2025 respectively.
Strategies
Rural water supply and sanitation The National Agenda for Governance envisages provision of safe drinking water to all rural habitations by 2004. The RGNDWMs strategy to achieve this revolves around (a) accelerating coverage of remaining NC and PC habitations with improved drinking water systems (b) tackling the problems of water quality in affected habitations and to institutionalise water quality monitoring and surveillance systems, and
27
(c) to promote sustainability, both of systems and sources to ensure continued supply of safe drinking water. To ensure coverage, a Comprehensive Action Plan has been prepared based on information furnished by the states. As has been observed in the past, new non-covered habitation often emerge in covered areas or covered habitations cease to be so due to various factors. To address this, the 2004-2007 period is expected to be used for re-survey of all habitations and consolidation work, thereby dealing with slippage and covering new habitations. For addressing water quality issues, exclusive Sub- Missions have been constituted for initiating preventive and remedial measures. Current sub-mission programmes include those on Arsenic, Fluoride, Brackishness, Iron, and another on sustainability.
In terms of sustainability, one strategic development has been the recognition and acknowledgement that the government alone will not be able provide necessary expansion of services to a growing population and that a shift of government role, from that of a service provider to that of a facilitator and that local communities need to be empowered to act as agents of social change. Coupled with the fact that while drinking water is a fundamental social right, exercising this right needs to be done keeping in mind that water is an economic good and the adoption of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, the Sector Reforms Programme for rural drinking water supply was initiated, adopting a demand responsive and adaptable approach. The reforms strategy aims to ensure full participation of villagers by empowering them to make decisions in the choice of scheme design, control of finances and management, and by ensuring partial capital cost sharing and shifting responsibility of O & M completely to end-users. Strategies being adopted/ advocated for sustainability of water sources include rainwater harvesting, artificial recharge of aquifers, conjunct use of surface and groundwater, revival of traditional water harvesting and management systems such as ponds and tanks, johads, checkdams, etc. A HRD programme is also in operation to support the reforms process, in terms of empowerment of PRIs and local bodies for O & M, capacity building of local communities including training to mechanics, masons, health workers, motivators, etc. 28
Comprehensive IEC programmes for building awareness and motivation, setting up of MIS systems, data collection, and continuous monitoring and evaluation are also being adopted.
Likewise, strategic reforms are underway in the rural sanitation sector. The TSC under the RCRSP represents a shift from a high subsidy, low community involvement, supply driven programme to a low/zero subsidy, high community involvement, demand responsive approach.
The key strategic features of the TSC include lower subsidies, greater household involvement, range of technology choices, options for sanitary complexes for women, rural drainage systems, stress on IEC and awareness building, involvement of NGOs and local groups, availability of institutional finance, HRD, and most importantly, emphasis on school sanitation. The Tenth Plan emphasis on UWSS and reforms in the sector are a step in the right direction, as the sector faces deep systemic problems. Rapid growth in population combined with rapid growth of urbanisation has meant that most urban environments in India are highly stressed and deteriorating rapidly. Plan outlays for the urban sector have been grossly inadequate compared to the basic requirements of basic urban infrastructure. Most local governments, responsible for urban governance and management lack the required capacity for planning and managing local development initiatives, capabilities for appropriate decision making and shoring up and managing financial resources.
Urban water supply and sanitation The primary objectives of the UWSS sector continue to include universal coverage, adequacy of water supply, regularity of supply, avoidance of excess drawal leading to depletion, and the need to conserve and make conjunctive use of water resources remain unchanged. At the same time, keeping in mind the 74th Constitutional Amendment, the growing urban population and the rate of urbanisation, and the current status of urban water supply and sanitation services, several reform processes are underway. Broadly, these reform strategies include 29
(a) decentralisation (b) commercialisation or corporatisation of existing institutions (c) enhancement of technical and managerial capabilities (d) unbundling or rebundling of functions if ULBs (e) institutional restructuring (f) changing role of government from service provider to regulator and facilitator (g) appropriate forms of private participation and publicprivate partnerships, (h) benchmarking for performance (i) evolution of a sound sector policy, and (j) emphasis on low cost sanitation and solid waste management.
Reform strategies envisage shifting of responsibility for UWSS to municipal governments, which in turn could undertake the responsibility via a variety of arrangements including municipal department or enterprise, contracts with reformed state utilities or with private providers. Decentralization strategies are also accompanied by reforms that include development of good practices in municipalities, especially in the areas of accounting, auditing and procurement, the professionalizing of municipal management, removal of monopolies to state owned providers to encourage competition, corporatisation of dis-aggregated entities (privatisation in some cases), full autonomy to ULBs, and adoption of institutional capacity building. Financial reform strategies will now increasingly include direct market access to service providers, better access to capital markets, credit enhancement facilities, and utilisation of public funds to further reform initiatives (thereby enabling ULBs to leverage market funds). Tariff reform strategies include rational water pricing on volumetric basis to encourage conservation and planned achievements of cost recovery via rationalised pricing (thereby generating internal funds for infrastructure improvements and enhancements). Improved accounting based on double entry based accrual systems are also being advocated. Increasing emphasis on use of information technology applications in urban governance and management to ensure quick access to information, planning and decision support systems (such as GIS), public domain access to all relevant information (many ULBs are beginning to make extensive and effective use of the internet some such as the Greater 30
Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the Delhi Jal Board, the Kolkata Metropolitan Authority, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, and many others have comprehensive websites providing extensive access to information on services, tariffs, infrastructure, management, contracts, government orders, etc) is also being advocated. Several options for private sector participation and public private partnerships such as service contracts, management contracts, leases and concessions, SOT/ BOO/BOOT, etc and divestiture are also being increasingly facilitated. Several water conservation measures are being advocated, such as leak detection and rectification works, rainwater harvesting (in some cities, mandatory for certain categories of buildings and projects), reuse and recycling of treated wastewater, and recharging of aquifers. Solid waste management is also increasingly seen as an important area in UWSS. Legislation on municipal waste handling and management has been passed in October 2000. Some strategies on solid waste management include preparation of town-wise master plans, training of municipal staff, IEC and awareness generation, involvement of community based and non-governmental organisations, setting up and operation of compost plants via NGOs and the private sector, enhancement of the capacities of some state structures such as State Compost Development Corporations with emphasis on commercial operations and private sector involvement.
31
Chapter 4- Suggestions and Recommendations

A. Successful pro-poor sanitation programs must be scaled up As clearly shown over the past decade in India, increased investment is only part of the challengeit does not guarantee that the poorest will be reached. With a handful of sanitation projects successfully implemented for Indias urban and rural poor, the challenge now is to scale up models to a level where they make a real and lasting impact at the national level. Despite the significant efforts of the government and many NGOs to target them over the past two decades, poor households are still lagging far behind. The ADB study shows that sanitation services for the lowest income group improved the least between 199293 and 200506. Instead, much of the advances have been enjoyed by the middle and upper-middle classes (Figure 1). Thus, governments and the international community must now fully focus their attention on those sections of society that cannot provide for their own needs under existing service delivery systems.
B. Investments must be customized and targeted to those most in need According to new World Bank estimates, some 456 million Indians (or about 42% of the population) still live below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day. Realistically, not all of the poor can be assisted by Indias target of 2012. Thus, decision makers must prioritize investments and make public policies and expenditures more efficient to target those most in need.
Empirically-driven research is vital in this effort. Socio-economic background characteristics (e.g., residence, caste, education status, religion) affect access to household sanitation and drainage, either by influencing differentials in public policy (e.g., state of residence, urban/rural residence) or by shaping the cultural attitudes towards using public or household facilities. The ADB study revealed that certain areas and population groups in India have greater resistance to adopting household sanitation facilities than others. The results, summarized below, can help designers of sanitation programs target certain population groups, gain insights on how sociocultural factors may 32
be hindering progress, and customize interventions by taking these factors into consideration. State-level differentials. States that have low coverage for both household sanitation and drainage tend to be the relatively poorer states clustered in central and eastern India, including Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal. Other states with relatively low levels of sanitation and drainage service include Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, and Rajasthan in the northwest; and Tamil Nadu in the south.26 Conversely, many of the states with the highest coverage of toilets and drainage are located in the northeast.27 These states are also relatively poor, which suggests that a low level of economic development does not necessarily present an insurmountable barrier to address sanitation challenges. Religion-based differentials. Religion-based differentials are also significant. Hindu households have the lowest percentage of households with a toilet (41%), followed by Muslim households (60%). Christian and Sikh households fare much better, at 70% and 74% respectively. It is also worth noting that, of the ten poor performing states listed above, eight of them have Hindu populations exceeding 88% of their total populations. Hindus account for 80.5% of the total population in India. Caste-based differentials. Scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs), which include some of the most disadvantaged groups in India,29 both suffer from poor household sanitation and drainage. ST households have the lowest ownership of toiletsonly 18% in 200506. Moreover, only 23% of ST households have access to any form of drainage. This is likely due to a high degree of inequality in access to basic drainage facilities associated with dispersed hamlets and remote rural and forest areas. SC households fare slightly better, with access at 32% for toilets and 46% for drainage.
33
Education-based differentials. Education-based differentials in households lacking toilets are large and continue to persist over the last decade. Households whose heads of household are illiterate have the least access to toilets77% in 200506. Unlike wealth- and caste-based differentials, progress in access to toilets by various household education categories appears uniform over the last decade. These results might suggest certain directions for sanitation programs. For instance, in prioritizing investments, programs might consider targeting those states that are lagging the furthest behind, such as Chattisgarh and Orissa. To be successful, it is also clear from the results that programs must take into account cultural factors and high levels of illiteracy.
C. Cost-effective options must be explored, guided by proper planning The ADB study also revealed that those states that have implemented affordable and sustainable sanitation options have higher rates of coverage for household sanitation and drainage.
Given that most communities have limited resources, the conventional wisdom is that a phased-development approach is ideal. The further one goes up the sanitation ladder, the greater the benefits for people and the environment. As economic growth permits, communities can then gradually improve the quality of sanitation services with highercost options.
To accomplish this, local governments must change their current mindset. Many still view sanitation investments as too costly and not sustainable or replicable. Worse, some still believe that substandard interventions are all that is possible. In urban areas, local governments may also disregard squatter settlements, which absorb much of Indias growing urban population. They are often omitted from demographic statistics and town plans. As a result, slum communities do not have tenant rights and are not allowed to invest in proper sanitary facilities, even if they have motivation and capacity. The first step is to provide basic sanitationor toilets. As mentioned earlier, these must ensure
34
hygienic separation of excreta from human contact, which means feces must be confined until they are composted and safe. Regardless of the toilet technology selected, these systems must also address sanitation all the way from toilet to river, meaning that pathogens and pollutants cannot be allowed to enter nearby water sources, including aquifers.
This is where sanitation becomes particularly challenging, as affordability and environmental cleanliness are often at odds. The simplest optiona pit latrinemust be moved or emptied regularly, which is a difficult prospect in crowded areas. Pour-flush latrines require that an ample water supply is readily available, as well as properlyconstructed septic tanks, drainage to carry away the wastewater, and services for eventually dealing with the collection of sludge and transfer to a septage treatment facility. These requirements greatly add to front-end and ongoing costs.
Given these challenges at the lower end of the ladder, this paper suggests that sanitation programs that target the poor in India should consider jumping a number of rungs directly to composting toilets, which use microorganisms to break down the waste into organic compost or manure. There are many advantages of going this route, including reuse of the compost as a soil conditioner, reduced use of chemical fertilizers, reduced pollution of groundwater, and lack of dependence on water. However, skilled labor is required for the construction and the front-end costs tend to be more expensive than other options down the ladder. Public facilities can also be part of a hygienic and affordable solution to Indias sanitation problems, despite the fact that the MDG sanitation target does not count shared facilities as an improvement and the widely held perception that public facilities cannot provide a safe sanitation option for poor communities. The key is ensuring proper management and cleanliness of these facilities.
Regardless of the technology selected, making sanitation improvements in any community requires careful planning and concerted investment efforts between households and governments. Lacking proper coordination, some investments can become very wasteful and redundant. For instance, the disposal of contaminated 35
wastewater in densely populated areas is both expensive and technically challenging, while the prospects for charging for this service are limited. Thus, if water services are introduced in an area without a proper drainage and sewerage system, there will be no way to take away the volumes of dirtied water. For up-and-coming communities, it may be possible to leapfrog lower-cost options by connecting toilets to a sewerage or a combined sewer-drainage system with wastewater treatment facilities. In those cases, user fees for capital plus operations and maintenance costs must be built into the project cost and approval process so that the wealthy pay for services that cannot be provided universally otherwise. The choice of on-site wastewater treatment systems versus off-site systems must consider population densities and investment capacities.33 Reuse of treated wastewater (e.g., water supply for flushing toilets, watering plants/gardens, and irrigation) should also be considered.
Finally, stakeholders must remember that the supply of latrines and toilets by themselves will not improve health. All members of the community must regularly use them and also wash their hands after use to break the fecaloral cycle in the spread of disease.
D. Community-based solutions are the most effective The study results also suggest that Indias sanitation problems lie not just on the lack of facilities or funding, but on cultural attitudes and behavior towards hygiene. In the areas where open defecation is the norm, such as in many large Hindi states, people must make a radical shift in their cultural practice of disposing human waste and learn to take charge of their water supply and sanitation needs, without waiting for the government to provide everything. In many poor slums and rural villages, it is difficult to convince people to stop open defecation and try using indoor facilities, along with other hygienic practices (e.g., washing of hands, safe preparation of food). A combination of factors traps them into this practice, including tradition, lack of awareness about the importance of sanitation, and misconceptions about the costs involved. In addition, communities must learn that technologies, even simple ones, are not the monopoly of engineers and technocrats, before they have the confidence to use and manage their sanitation problems.
36
For policymakers and program implementers, experience has shown that information, education, and communication (IEC) campaigns involving communities and grassroots organizations can accelerate the process of change and hasten the adoption of sanitary practices. These efforts must include addressing sociocultural attitudes toward owning a household toilet. In many cases, this will require educating SCs and STs, many of whom are illiterate, about the need to use latrines and the importance of hygiene. In this effort, it is important to understand that much of the demand for latrines comes from women, as they are the worst sufferers due to non-availability of these facilities. Women have, by far, the most important influence in determining household hygiene practices and in forming habits of their children. Thus, the social marketing of many sanitation programs often start with making house-to-house contact to educate and motivate women in target communities. Messages that appeal to the need for privacy and the social stigma of open defecation have been shown to work. Some of the more successful efforts focus on empowering people to analyze their own environment, instead of prescribing the right latrine models or telling people up front that their behavior is unhygienic. This grassroots approach of CLTS helps residents recognize that they need sanitation facilities; that they should mobilize themselves to build their own toilets; and that everyone in the village needs to contribute to make the effort successful, including planning, implementation, and monitoring.
One innovation is socialized community fund-raising, which has been implemented with great success by Gram Vikas, an NGO that works with the rural poor to improve sanitation. Through its Rural Health and Environment Program (RHEP), the NGO has helped more than 200 rural villages in Orissa acquire good quality toilets and bathrooms, coupled with at least three taps per household and 24-hour water supply. Most of these villages are tribal and dalit, really the poorest of the poor, which makes their success all the more incredible.
E. Innovative partnerships must be forged to stimulate investments To help realize higher levels of service coverage and quality, sanitation programs must stimulate investments from as wide a range of sources as possible, including consumers 37
themselves and the private sector. Successful publicprivate partnership (PPP) models can help overcome the limitations of local governments, which are under tremendous pressures in view of rapid urbanization and fast growing slum and low-income populations. In the sanitation sector, partnership arrangements between the public and private agencies, with the involvement of community networks, such as NGOs and CBOs, have proven to be successful.40 In India, these private sector partners will mostly be local, since transnationals will not be interested in much beyond a few major cities. Several Indian NGOs have actually crossed over to become formal private operators while retaining their NGO character. For instance, in 1999, the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) implemented a citywide sanitation program for 500,000 people. Only NGOs were allowed to bid for the project to ensure that the community participated in the construction, design, and maintenance of block toilets. PMC remained a facilitator, and communities handled the major decisions. The project, implemented within budget and on schedule, was successfully replicated in Mumbai. Perhaps the best example of an Indian NGO taking on a private sector role is offered by Sulabh International. The NGO enters into interventions and activities in collaboration with municipalities and other public agencies and earns profits in the process. It reinvests its profits only into the company, not in the market, and subsidizes the exceedingly poor communities that cannot afford to pay for their toilets.
Among its many innovations, Sulabh has adopted a pay-and-use approach to maintain some 7,500 community complexes it has constructed to cater to the poor and low-income sections. In so doing, Sulabh International has proven that poor slum communities are willing to pay for improved water and sanitation services and that such operations can be financially viable.
To ensure greater service coverage while incorporating social reforms, there is a need to promote similar organizations and PPP arrangements that involve a collaboration of governments, local bodies, NGOs, communities, and international agencies. It is also important that promoters of social reforms gain the trust of the people and cultivate their partnership. 38
In this effort, sanitation programs should consider increasing their advocacy and training for water utility providers and regulators on incorporating pro-poor elements in future contracts and regulation. The commitment of political leaders and the cooperation of public agencies is a key factor in formulating, implementing, and sustaining such partnerships.
They can also continue urging governments to either fix the procurement and regulatory frameworks before entering into contracts or, at the least, make sure that the baseline assessment of services is as accurate as possible. That way, parties can avoid unrealistic expectations and the need to scale down and revise targets immediately thereafter, which creates an atmosphere of continuing mistrust rather than cooperation or partnership.
Hence, according to the studies carried out in the field of sanitization, there have been some findings regarding the hypothesis that had been established before the study. My first hypothesis, which said, There has been a considerable change in the status of sanitization, has been proved correct as the numbers in the study show how many people have been benefitted by the government policies and plans. The second hypothesis, which was, Only government organisations have been working in the field of sanitation, and that too, only in the area of urban sanitation. was proved wrong as there have been many other non-government organisaitons too that have been rigorously working in this field, with a view of making India a better place to live in.
39
References
Websites Referred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitation - as on 10/01/2012
http://www.phlush.org/portlandtoilets/sanitation-history-in-portland-and-beyond/as on 11/01/ 2012 http://www.law.indiana.edu- as on 11/01/2012 www.legalserviceindia.com- as on 11/01/2012 www. legalsutra.org. as on 11/01/2012
40

Comparative Study of Public Sanitation Standards and Policies

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Comparative Study of Public Sanitation Standards and Policies

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Public Sanitation: A Comparative Study on the Standards of Sanitation and New Government Policies and Plans

NIRMA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

INSTITUTE OF LAW B.Com, LL.B (Hons.)- Fourth Semester

Submitted To:Arun B. Prasad (Asst Prof.) Economics

Submitted By:Rajdeep Singh Chouhan 10BBL007 Section- C

______________________ Name & Signature RAJDEEP SINGH CHOUHAN (10BBL007)

__________________________ Name & Signature (Supervisor) Mr. Arun B. Prasad.

__________________ Signature (Supervisor) Mr. Arun Prasad. (Asst. Prof. Economics)

_________________ Name and Signature Rajdeep Singh Chouhan (10bbl007)

Geographic Information System

simplehandwashing with soap).

Chapter 2- Status of Sanitation

(Referred from Study Sponsored by WHO-UNCIEF)

Chapter 3- Towards A Sanitized India

Chapter 4- Suggestions and Recommendations

Potrebbero piacerti anche