ii - municipaladmn.gov.in · current status of karnataka 3. sanitation issues and challenges 4....

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Current Status Of Karnataka

3. Sanitation issues and challenges

4. Components of NUSP

5. The vision of urban sanitation in Karnataka

6. Goals of Karnataka SSS

7. Guiding Principles

8. Institutional Framework

9. Planning and implementation Framework

10. Phasing of outcomes

11. Financing of urban sanitation

12. Monitoring and Evaluation

13. Conclusion

III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACS Additional Chief Secretary

BBMP Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

BOOT Build, Own, Operate, Transfer

BWSSB Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board

C& D Construction and Demolition Waste

CMSMTDP Chief Minister Small Medium Town Development Plan

CPHEEO Central Public Health Environmental Engineering Organization

CSP City Sanitation Plan

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

CSTF City Sanitation Task Force

DLMC District Level Monitoring Committee

DUDC District Urban Development cells

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

ETP Effluent Treatment Plant

IHHTs Individual Household Toilets

IPC Infection Prevention and Control

IPHC Inter Personal Hygiene Communication

ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management

JMP Joint Monitoring Programme

JNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission

KSPCB Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

KUIDFC Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation

KUWS&DB Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

LPCD Litres per capita per day

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MFIs Micro Finance Institutions

MLD Million litres per day

IV

MNRE Ministry for New and Renewable energy

MoUD Ministry of Urban Development

MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management

NKUSIP North Karnataka Urban Sector Investment Programme

O.D Open Defecation

ODF Open Defecation Free

PMAY Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

PPEs Personal Protective Equipment’s

RDF Refused Derived Fuel

SBM Swachh Bharat Mission

SFC State Finance Commissions

SHGs Self Help Groups

SHPSC State Level High Powered Committee

SLB Service Level Benchmark

SSNA State Level Nodal Agency

SSS State Sanitation Strategy

STP Sewerage Treatment Plant

SUSF State Urban Sanitation Fund

UDD Urban Development Department

UGD Under Ground Drainage

UIDSSMT Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small, Medium Towns

ULB Urban Local Body

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund is a United Nations

UNPD United Nations Procurement Division

WHO World Health Organization

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Demography of Karnataka

Table 2.2: Types of ULBs

Table 2.3: Comparison of Latrine Facilities in Urban Karnataka 2001 – 2011

Table 2.4: Status of All Types of Latrine Facilities (2011 Census) In Karnataka

Table 2.5: ULBs without UGD system

Table 3.1: Slum Details

Table 8.1: Members of DLMC

Table 9.1: Detailed Implementation Plan

Table 11.1: Allocation of Funds as per SBM Guidelines

Table 12.1: Monitoring Authority and Frequency

1 Karnataka - State Sanitation Strategy

1. INTRODUCTION

“For India, Sanitation is more important than Independence”. - Gandhi

Sanitation is one of the basic necessities of human life and its dignity. The

Constitution of India recognizes the fact that ‘water’ and ‘sanitation’ are local issues

and therefore are classified as state subjects in Schedule VII, List II, Entry 6 as

established through Article 246 of Constitution of India. The Government of India

notified the National Urban Sanitation Policy 2008, thereby entrusting the state

governments to develop a State Sanitation Strategy in line with the provisions of the

constitution of India.

‘Sanitation’ is defined as safe management of human excreta, including its safe

confinement treatment, disposal and associated hygiene-related practices by the

National Urban Sanitation Policy (2008)Poor sanitation not only harms human health

but also leads to multiple socio-economic and environmental concerns. Around 80%

of all diseases are attributed to water and sanitation related causes.

Inadequate disposal of human excreta and personal hygiene are associated with a

range of diseases including diarrheal diseases, jaundice, typhoid, malaria, dengue

viral fever and cholera. The economic costs poor bear for cure of these diseases (i.e.

expense on medical treatment, loss of productive time and loss of income) pushes

them deeper into the vicious cycle of poverty.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), on 28 July 2010, through Resolution

64/292, explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and

acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation

of all human rights. It is widely recognized and documented that lack of access to

this essential basic service is associated with adverse impact on public health and

environment.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) entrust upon the signatory nations

including India to extend access to improved basic sanitation to at least half of the

urban population by 2015 and to 100% access by 2025. This implies extending

coverage to households without improved sanitation, and providing proper sanitation

facilities in public places to make cities open defecation free.

The Karnataka SSS recognizes the importance of providing integrated sanitation

services including construction and management of toilets, septage management,

and connectivity to underground drainage system, waste water, solid waste

management and industrial/hazardous waste. The strategy has considered all the

dimensions from awareness and capacity building, to technology, financials,

inclusiveness as well as institutional roles and responsibilities of implementation and

monitoring.


2. CURRENT STATUS OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka is India’s 7th most urbanized state in the country. The total population of

Karnataka according to 2011 census was 6.11 crores, an increase from 5.29 crores

in 2001 census. The state accounts for 6.28%

of the country’s urban population.

The level of urbanisation in Karnataka

increased by 4.58 per cent, from 33.99 per cent

in the 2001 Census to 38.57 per cent in 2011,

while the level of rural population declined from

66.01 per cent to 61.43 per cent.

The population density is 319 per km². The total

number of households in Karnataka as per

2011 census was 13,179,911. The urban

population as of 2015 was 2.63 crore and it

was projected to reach 3.04 crore by 2020.

(Directorate of Economics & Statistics)

Karnataka State resorts to nearly 45 percent

Open Defecation (O.D) while the urban

population has 10.7 percent O.D as per 2011

census. The percentage of households having

pit latrines in the State is 13.6 percent while 48.8 percent do not have latrine facility

in the State (Census 2011). However, the percentage of urban households having

pit latrines is 12 percent and no latrine is 15.1 percent. The total households having

Septic tank in the state is 13 percent while the urban households have 17 percent.

Only 53.3 percent of the total urban areas have access to a piped sewer network

(2011 census). Currently 59 towns have been implemented with UGD, 60 towns are

under progress. (KUWS&DB).

The State has 277 Urban Local Bodies including BBMP in Bangalore, out of which

57 are newly formed ULBs and 4 are Notified Areas Committee. Bangalore is the 5th

largest metropolitan agglomeration in India. The city is having an autonomous

administration managed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). BBMP

has a total of 198 wards with 8 administrative zones. The population of Bangalore

was 8,443,675 with 2,101,831 households as per Census 2011.

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board is responsible for supply of water to the

city. The average total quantity of water supplied to the city is about 950 MLD. The

requirement of water for Bangalore for a population of about 9 million at the rate of

135 LPCD (National Building Code of India norms) is 1215 MLD. BWSSB maintains

7900Kms of sewerage pipes.


Table 2.1: Demography of Karnataka

Table 2.2: Types of ULBs

Capital city Bangalore

Districts 30

Area 191791km2

74051 sqmi.

Highest elevation

Lowest elevation

1,925 m (6,316 ft.)

0 m(0ft)

Population(2011)

Density

61,130,704

320/km2 (830/sqmi.)

Types Of ULBs No. of ULB's

(2017)

City Corporation 11

City Municipal Council 57

Town Municipal Council 116

Town Panchayat 89

Notified Areas Committee 4

TOTAL 277


Table 2.3: Comparison of Latrine Facilities in Urban Karnataka 2001 – 2011

Table 2.4: Status of All Types of Latrine Facilities (2011 Census) In Karnataka

Availability Of Latrine Facilities In Karnataka 2001-2011

Households Water

Closet (in

%)

Pit Latrine

(in %)

Other

Latrine

(in %)

No Latrine

(in %)

Year 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001

Total 1,31,79,911 1,02,52,133 36.9 18.9 13.6 13.4 0.7 5.5 48.8 62.5

Rural 78,64,196 66,75,173 13.4 4.7 14.7 9.5 0.3 3.3 71.6 82.6

Urban 53,15,715 35,56,960 71.6 44.9 12 20.7 1.4 9.7 15.1 24.9

Type Of Latrine Facility : New Addition In 2011

(In Percentage)

Total Rural Urban

Total Household 1,31,79,911 78,64,196 53,15,715

Piped Sewer System 22.7 2 53.3

Septic Tank 13 10.2 17

Other System 1.2 1.2 1.2

With Slab/Ventilated Improved Pit 13.2 14.3 11.6

Without Slab /Open Pit 0.3 0.3 0.3

Night Soil Disposed Into Open Drain 0.5 0.1 1

Night Soil Removed By Human 0.1 0 0.1

Night Soil Removed By Animals 0.2 0.2 0.3

Public Latrine 3.8 3.5 4.4

Open Defecation 45 68.1 10.7


The Karnataka urban water supply and drainage board (KUWS& DB) is the

implementing body for water supply and underground Drainage projects in 276 ULBs

of the state except Bangalore city. The Board aims to provide adequate water supply

from assured and safe sources of supply and also proper sanitation to all ULBs.

Out of 276 ULB’s under the jurisdiction of the Board , 59 ULB’s has underground

drainage system in place (2011 census). Of these, two ULB’s viz. Kalburgi &

Bellary UGD system are being maintained by KUWS&DB. The UGD projects in 60

ULB’s are underway, of which 46 ULB’s have been taken up by KUWS&DB and

remaining 14 ULB’s have been taken up by KUIDFC. Above 60 projects are

expected to be commissioned in next two years. The Notified area committees are

not being considered currently. At present, the underground drainage system is not

available in the remaining 153 ULBs of the state. The abstract of same has been

mention below:

Table 2.5: ULB’s without UGD system

Types of ULB No. of ULB's

City Municipal Council 12

Town Municipal Council 64

Town Panchayat 77

Total 153


3. KEY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

While a lot of sanitary issues in India are common across the country, below are list

of key issues and challenges specific to the state of Karnataka.

3.1 Open Defecation

India is the country with most number of people practicing open defecation. Even if

toilets are available, people still need to be convinced to refrain from open defecation

as it causes public health problems. Therefore, the need for behavioural change is

critical in addition to the provision of toilets.

Karnataka state has an average of 45% population defecating in the open. In the

rural areas 68.1% people defecate in the open while the number stands at 10.7% for

the urban population as per 2011 census. There has been significant reduction in

open defecation in Karnataka due to the implementation of the Total Sanitation

Campaigns in the rural areas of the state. However the cities and towns have not

shown similar improvement. As per 2011 census data, 15.1 per cent of households

in urban areas do not have sanitary toilets within their residential premises. Some of

the reasons for this are poor economic capabilities and shortage of space within

residential premises for construction of toilets. Out of this about 10.7 per cent

defecate in open while remaining 4.4 percent use shared public sanitation facilities.

In absolute terms about 5, 68,781 households resort to open defecation and about 9,

08,987 have septic tanks in urban households.

Service Level Benchmark (SLBs) is to reach 100 percent coverage of the urban

households with sanitary toilets.

As of July 2016, out of 5276 wards in Karnataka, 560 wards had achieved ODF

status, 939 wards were ready for achieving ODF status and the remaining were

targeted to achieve the status within the next two years. Ensuring data accuracy in

these conditions can be extremely challenging. This can be attributed to the migrant

population and also data anomalies both on the end of ULBs and Census

operations.

Along with construction of individual household toilet, the municipalities are required

to provide community toilet and public toilets as per the normative standards

mentioned in Annexure VI.

While one of the focuses is to reach the ODF goal for all cities of the state, it is

important to maintain levels year on year through monitoring progress and

implementing campaigns towards sustained behaviour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_change_(public_health)


3.2 Lack of access to Sanitary Toilets

For many years, national governments, aid agencies, and charities have subsidised

sewerage and toilet construction as a means to improve access. This approach has

resulted in slow progress for two main reasons. First, the programmes have tended

to benefit the few relatively well-off people who can understand the system and

capture the subsidies, rather than reach the more numerous poor people. Second,

such programmes have built toilets that remain unused because they are technically

or culturally inappropriate or because the householders have not been taught the

benefits of them.

Over and above 14, 10,240 households which defecate in open in Karnataka are

another set of 2, 01,997 households who do not have access to toilet at home or

within the residential premises. They have to depend on shared facility.

As per the WHO UNICEF JMP definition, use of shared facilities by the household is

not considered as access to sanitary toilet. It is therefore desired that these

additional households should also be considered part of the target group for ensuring

access to safe sanitation. In case of paucity of land within the residential premises, it

should be desired that the toilet complex can be considered with individual

household ownership rather than adopt community toilet or public toilets as means of

ensuring their coverage by safe and hygiene sanitation.

The operation and maintenance of existing sanitary toilets has been a major

challenge therefore its mandated that appropriate business / operator mechanisms

be suitably designed with greater accountability on the service provider.

The aspect of public sanitation for floating and tourist population also needs to be

focused on to account for issues of women safety, dignity and the multitude of

stakeholders involved with appropriate design standards for provision of facilities.

3.3 Urban Sanitation Hygiene AND IEC

Access to improved water and sanitation facilities does not, on its own, necessarily

lead to improved health. There is now very clear evidence showing the importance of

hygienic behaviour, in particular hand-washing with soap at critical times: after

defecating and before eating or preparing food. Hand-washing with soap can

significantly reduce the incidence of diarrhoea, which is the second leading cause of

death amongst children under five years old. In fact, recent studies suggest that

regular hand-washing with soap at critical times can reduce the number of diarrhoea

bouts by almost 50 per cent.

The mission mode campaign style of programming may well help the state to reach

an Open Defecation Free (ODF) status soon enough, but to maintain it would rather

be difficult. There is always a risk of slippage from the ODF status unless the

campaign is run in the demand responsive approach fully backed by an Inter


Personal Hygiene Communication (IPHC) (especially hand washing and menstrual

hygiene), mass media and IEC activities so as to achieve a stable and sustained

status.

The urban poor on many occasions do not understand the importance of using toilets

even when they are accessible. They prefer to use the extra space as a storage

room or any such purpose. There is a need to constantly inculcate in them the risks

and hazards of unsafe sanitary practices.

3.4 Faecal Sludge Management

About 84.9 per cent of the households in the urban areas of Karnataka have a toilet

within their residential premises. Almost 17 per cent of them are connected to septic

tanks, 12 per cent to pit latrines while households having connection to the

centralized sewer system are about 53.3 per cent as per the 2011 census.

While there has been a lot of focused attention on installation of large on-site toilets

with septic tanks and pit latrines but limited attention has been paid to proper

construction, maintenance, and safe disposal of septage from these tanks and pits.

The installations are subject to local practices and considerable variations are

observed. In ULBs septic tanks are often dramatically undersized and poorly

constructed. Septic tanks are frequently installed underneath homes, driveways, or

sidewalks due to small lot sizes, thus making access for inspecting or desludging

extremely difficult.

In many instances, what is commonly referred to as “septic tanks” are not septic

tanks at all, but are instead seepage pits or cesspools. These unlined, earthen

receptacles not only perform poorly at treating sewage, but frequently serve as direct

conduits to aquifers, resulting in faecal contamination that can impact precious

drinking water supplies. Limited capacities and resources with ULBs and absence of

regulation of maintenance and cleaning of septic tanks and pits are far from

adequate.

Septage is often dumped in drains and open areas posing considerable health and

environmental risks. Sanitary workers also work in hazardous conditions having to

manually clean on-site pits and tanks without adequate protective gear and

equipment. The new legislation prohibits hazardous manual cleaning of septic tanks

and sewers, so as to ensure that health and safety of such workers is not

compromised.

There is a general lack of awareness of septic tanks and how these should be

planned, designed, installed, operated and maintained, especially among system

owners and ULBs which resulted pollution of the ground and surface water bodies

impacting the public health


The SLB benchmark is to ensure that all households have access to sewerage

connection so as to ensure that the faecal sludge is safely disposed and treated at

the Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP).

A case study for development of Faecal Sludge management system implemented

by CDD Society in Devanahalli is attached in the Annexure I.

3.5 Water Supply

It is true that without water there is no hygiene. Research shows that the less readily

available water is, the less likely that good hygiene will be practised in households.

The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (KUWS&DB) is the

implementation body for water supply and Underground Drainage projects in all

ULBs of the state except the city of Bangalore. Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board is responsible for the same in Bangalore.

The source of water supply in the state of Karnataka is primarily from surface water

and groundwater. Surface water sources are primarily reservoirs / dams, rivers and

canals and groundwater through bore wells.

The Central Public Health Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO),

Government of India, has prescribed the following norms for estimating the water

demands for planning & design purposes based on the type of town/city. The water

supply norms are 40 LPCD (Litres per capita per day) in case of public stand posts,

70 LPCD in case of towns without underground drainage and 135 LPCD in case of

towns with underground sewerage system and 150 LPCD in case of metropolitan

cities having population more than one million.

The normal capacity of water supply at the state level is 3567.84 MLD (million litres

per day) but however the present supply of all the ULBs put together is 2714.66 MLD

with a deficit of 853.18 MLD. Around 80 per cent of households in urban areas have

access to tap water from a treated source for drinking purpose.

Inadequate water source availability, inability to match investments in water supply

(bulk water and distribution network) with growth of population, high levels of NRW

as well as challenges in governance and policy arrangements are crucial reasons for

this gap. The present water supplies in majority of urban local bodies in Karnataka

are far below the prescribed norms. Adequacy and equitable distribution are the

major problems.

The state of Karnataka targets to cover 100 percent of the population under

protected water supply schemes in the state.


3.6 Waste Water Treatment and Disposal

Wastewater disposal and treatment is a major problem in cities in Karnataka. Most of

towns and cities in the state do not have underground sewerage systems and

sewage treatment services for disposal of the waste water. Only 53.3 per cent of

urban households in state are connected to underground drainage system and in

most of the ULBs in the state the waste water from toilets is been disposed through

septic tanks and soak pits and grey form of wastewater from kitchen and bathrooms

is directly discharged into the sludge drains without any treatment. This leads to

downstream pollution of water bodies.

Operation and maintenance of existing plants and sewage pumping stations is not

satisfactory. Discharge of untreated sewage is single most important cause for

pollution of surface and ground water since there is a large gap between generation

and treatment of domestic wastewater in Karnataka.

Along with the focus on setting up of such treatment plant, there needs to be

constant monitoring of these plants to ensure safe and scientific re-use, disposal and

treatment of all effluents.

Rapid urbanization is also having a detrimental effect on water resources – both in

terms of quality (pollution of rivers and groundwater) and quantity (as

conflicting/competing demands for water increase). Thus even greater attention is

now needed to collect and treat wastewater, and to manage finite water resources,

both surface and ground water, more effectively.

3.7 Storm Water Drainage Network

Numerous factors account for inadequate and poor drainage system effects, viz.

(i) blockage of natural drainage systems by dumping of solid waste construction

activities,

(ii) Indiscriminate land filling, and

(iii) Lack of comprehensive maintenance of natural watercourses due to land access

problems leading to overflowing of sullage and storm water.

As a result, in the rainy season the drains are unable to take the flow and spill over,

flooding the roads. In many ULBs storm water drains have become a free access to

dispose wastewater both grey and black water nearby habitation has converted them

into sullage drains. The sullage is directly dumped into canals and water bodies in

urban watershed without any treatment. The poor in slums are most vulnerable and

disproportionately affected; they often reside in informal settlements located on

marginal land – low-lying areas. In poorly drained areas with inadequate sanitation,

urban runoff increase the risks to health, flooded septic tanks and leach pits, and


blocked drains breeding grounds for vectors. Segregating sullage and effluents from

open drains by sewerage system has to be accorded priority.

3.8 Solid Waste Management

The National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) 2008 recognises the need to integrate

and include Solid Waste management in sanitation policies-

“While NUSP pertains to management of human excreta and associated public

health and environmental impacts, it is recognized that integral solutions need to

take account other elements of environmental sanitation, i.e. solid waste

management; generation of industrial and other specialized / hazardous wastes;

drainage; as also the management of drinking water supply.”

NUSP has also included Solid Waste Management in the rating chart for sanitation in

cities. On an overall 100 points rating for sanitation and waste, NUSP allocates 18

points to various Solid Waste management activities as follows

• Proportion of total solid waste generation that is regularly collected (4 points)

• Proportion of total solid waste generation that is treated and safely disposed (4

points)

• City wastes cause no adverse impacts on surrounding areas outside city limits (5

points)

• Solid waste management (collection and treatment) systems are efficient (and are

in conformity with the SWM Rules, 2016) (5 points)

Decentralized Approach for Waste Management

Solid Waste Management (SWM) refers to a systematic process whereby waste is

converted to resources and contributes to a circular economy.

The step wise processes include segregation at source, primary collection,

secondary sorting which leads to resource recovery, treatment and processing.

Residual waste which should not exceed more than 15-20% of total waste generated

by a city can be sent for landfilling.

An efficiently designed decentralized waste management reduces multiple handling

of waste avoiding negative impacts on public health and environment.

Waste management being a labor intensive activity, helps in employment generation.

The large informal sector which includes waste pickers and scrap dealers can also

be integrated into the formal sector which in turn can improve the livelihood option.

Solid Waste Management is now governed by comprehensive waste management

rules which are in line with the principals of a Circular Economy.


The rules/legislation has been introduced by the Ministry of Environment, Forests

and Climate Change. The rules were first introduced in 2000 and have been revised

recently in 2016, details of which can be found in Annexure II.

Karnataka state generates about 9000 tones of Municipal Solid waste per day. Most

of our cities & towns in the state have effective waste collection in place. Of the total

213 ULBs, currently 145 ULBs in the state are able to treat about 800 tons of MSW

by adopting simple composting technology. 208 ULBs have individual landfill sites

consisting of 2138 acres (approx.). The SFC and other funds have been earmarked

for municipal solid waste management.

The main challenges for implementing effective waste management system include:

Ensure 100% door to door collection of segregated waste from households and

commercial establishments.

Quantification of waste: Municipality should quantify the waste generated from

different source through waste audit and plan a strategy accordingly for effective

collection and transportation.

Composition of waste: based on the waste audit compostable and recyclable

materials can be distinguished for further processing of waste.

Convergence of National, State and ULB level policies on Solid waste

management.

Prevent waste spillage and leachate dropping from the vehicles on the ground

en-route to the processing or disposal facility.

Leachate collection and treatment

Enforcement of Polluters Pay principle.

Enforcement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for E-Waste and Plastic

packaging waste

3.9 Providing access to Slum Areas

In slum areas, providing infrastructure and access to safe sanitary services along

with proper disposal techniques is extremely challenging.


Table 3.1: Slum Details

Description Number

Total Urban Population (2001 Census) in lakhs 179.86

Total Slums Identified 2804

Total population in identified slums (in Lakhs)

(Including undeclared slum population)

40.50

Slum population to total population (%) 22.56

Total number of notified slums as per Act 2397

Total number of non-notified slums 407

As per the survey conducted by Board there are 2804 slum areas in state. Out of

which 597 slum areas are in Bangalore City. It is estimated that the population of the

slums in the State is about 40.50 lakhs, which works out to 22.56% of the State’s

urban population. Totally 2397 slums are notified in the State and out of which 387

slums are notified in Bangalore City alone under the Karnataka Slum Areas

(Improvement and Clearance) Act 1973.

66 per cent of notified slums in Karnataka have no latrines as against the national

average of 17 per cent. The gap for non-notified slums between Karnataka and the

national average appears to be less with Karnataka recording 53 per cent against

the Indian average of 51 per cent. Similarly, only 23 per cent of notified slums in

Karnataka have underground drainage (UGD) facilities as against the national

average of 30 per cent. However, 24 per cent of non-notified slums in Karnataka

have UGD coverage as against the national average of 15 per cent.

3.10 Hazardous and Industrial Waste

Karnataka has seen an unprecedented growth in Industrial activities over the last two

decades. This has led to the setting up of multiple industrial areas in Bangalore and

other parts of urban Karnataka. These industries do not have the right infrastructure

to manage the effluent and the liquid waste that is generated in huge quantities.

Not all Industrial areas have drainages linkages and most of the effluents are drained

into the nearby water bodies or the central sewage system without any treatment of

the hazardous nature of the waste.

Heavy metals, toxic organic and inorganic substances also can pose serious threats

to human health and the environment – particularly when industrial wastes are

added to the waste stream.


4. COMPONENTS OF THE NUSP

The following are the components of the National Urban Sanitation Policy:

4.1 Awareness Generation and Behaviour Change

A state wide Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Strategy will be

designed and implemented for raising awareness on public health and sanitation and

bring about a behavioural changes in an individual. A linkage with public and

environmental health amongst communities and institutions and promoting the

adoption of healthy sanitation practices;

4.2 Achieving Open Defecation free cities

Promoting access of households to safe sanitation facilities with appropriate disposal

arrangements; community operated toilets where necessary; upkeep and

management of urban public sanitation facilities.

4.3 Knowledge Development

The policy recognizes the importance of developing and disseminating knowledge

on institutional development, technology choices and management regimes,

planning new developments and up gradation and sustainable issues.

4.4 Capacity Building

The Govt. of Karnataka will help formulate and implement a State level strategy on

capacity building and training to support states and cities to build their personal

capacities and organizational systems for delivery of sanitation services.

4.5 Institutional Roles

The State Government will support clear assignment of roles and responsibilities,

resources and capacities and institutional incentives in relation to setting standards,

planning and financing, implementation, knowledge development, capacity building

and training, monitoring and evaluation, and regulatory arrangements. The

government will help cities and towns in ensuring sanitation as a core responsibility

of Urban Local Bodies as envisaged in the Constitutional (Seventy fourth)

Amendment Act, 1993. The special roles of NGOs and Community Based

Organizations (CBOs) will be recognized in mobilizing communities, raising

awareness and in working with poor communities to assist them in finding affordable,

community-managed solutions to sanitation.


4.6 Integrated City-Wide Sanitation

Re-orienting institutions and mainstreaming and prioritizing sanitation in all urban

management initiatives at the national, state, city and local level; extending access to

proper sanitation facilities for poor communities and other un‐served settlements.

4.7 Sanitary and Safe Disposal

100 % of human excreta and liquid wastes from all sanitation facilities need to be

managed safely without causing any harmful effects to the surrounding.

4.8 Operation, maintenance and capacity building

Promoting proper usage and maintenance of household, community and public

sanitation facilities; strengthening urban local bodies to provide sanitation services

by supporting need based capacity building and training at state level.

4.9 Financing

The Govt. of India, wherever possible, will explore possibilities of providing

assistance for funding projects proposed as part of City Sanitation Plans through its

schemes like JNNURM, UIDSSMT, and Satellite Township Schemes etc. However,

the emphasis will be on improving the efficiency of existing sanitation infrastructure

and service delivery.

4.10 National Monitoring & Evaluation

At the national level, the Govt. of India will support periodic rating of cities by

independent agencies. A National Annual Award will be instituted on the basis of this

rating (Chapter on National Award Scheme for Sanitation for India Cities).

4.11 Coordination at the National Level

National investments in urban infrastructure and housing shall accord high priority to

sanitation. Towards this, sanitation will be mainstreamed into all relevant

programmes of all the relevant sectorial ministries.


5. VISION

The vision for Urban Sanitation in Karnataka is that “All cities and towns of

Karnataka have access to safe, affordable and hygienic sanitation as a basic human

right with an integrated and scientific treatment approach for positive public health

and environmental outcome”.

6. GOALS OF KARNATAKA SSS

6.1 Achieving ODF Cities

All urban dwellers should have access to safe and hygienic sanitation facilities and

open defecation should not be required. The following set of actions would be taken

to achieve this:

a. Promote construction of household toilets with scientific faecal sludge

management

b. Make public sanitation facilities available for migrant and floating populations

c. Provide community toilets for the urban poor

d. Manage public and community facilities continuously to ensure safe and

hygienic places for use

e. Run ongoing awareness programs through partnerships with local SHG’s,

NGOs or community participation to enable sustained behaviour change.

6.2 Ensuring 100% hygienic and scientific sanitary treatment

and disposal

100% of human excreta and liquid wastes from all sanitation facilities including toilets

must be safely treated. In order to achieve this goal, the following activities shall be

undertaken:

a. Encourage safe and properly constructed onsite sanitation arrangements

wherever sustainable;

b. For network-based sewerage systems, adequate connectivity of households

and demonstrated financial viability for O&M would be required to ensure

sustainability and proper functioning of the system;

c. Promote proper treatment of sludge from on-site installations (septic tanks, pit

latrines, etc.);


d. Ensure that all the human wastes are collected safely, confined and disposed

of after treatment so as not to cause any hazard to public health or the

environment;

e. Promote recycle and reuse of treated waste water for non-potable

applications

f. Promote safe recovery from waste materials wherever possible.

6.3 Improved Institutional Governance

Roles and responsibilities between the state and urban local bodies should be

distinguished. States should provide guidance and advisory to the ULBs. ULBs

should implement and operate CSP. In order to achieve this goal, the following

activities shall be undertaken:

a. Orient government institutions to understand and prioritize sanitation requirements

and opportunities.

i) Provide information and increase awareness amongst bodies at all levels, in all

sectors, and departments for them to consider sanitation as part of their agendas

especially among ULBs.

ii) Strengthen state, city and local institutions (public, private and community) to

accord priority to sanitation provisions, including planning, budgeting,

implementation and O&M management.

iii) Strengthen the regulatory framework on sanitation service delivery.

b. Strengthen ULBs to provide or cause to provide, financially sustainable sanitation

services delivery.

c. ULBs should have the tools to ensure proper operation & maintenance of all

sanitation installations.

d. Promote proper usage, regular upkeep and maintenance of household,

community and public sanitation facilities, sewage/septage treatment facilities and

management of solid waste.

6.4 Increased Awareness and Sustained Behaviour Change

a. Create and maintain enhanced awareness about sanitation and its linkages with

societal and environmental health and climate change, while highlighting impacts

on different communities, people and institutions;

b. Promote mechanisms, campaigns, and programs to bring about sanitary practices

and hygiene behavioural changes


6.5 Technological Efficiency and Appropriateness

a. Set guidelines on range of technology options that are energy efficient,

ecologically and climatically suitable and financially sustainable.

b. Sanitation systems are built for a range of technological options and its

management for comprehensive range of water and sanitation services.

6.6 Set benchmarks and guidelines for sanitary units

a. Establish which bodies and institutions will set benchmarks for sanitation

facilities.

b. Identify metrics such as usage, maintenance, impact, and status of sanitation

facilities to track and measure progress.

c. Regular monitoring of metrics and auditing of sanitation facilities.

d. Improve sanitation strategy based on findings from implemented projects and

programs.

6.7 Fair inclusiveness of all stakeholders

a. Institutions should include and engage all stakeholders involved in planning and

implementation of sanitation programs.

b. Urban Local Bodies should engage users to understand their needs and ensure

that they are met.

c. Urban Local Bodies should focus on dignity of workers who operate systems.


7. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

7.1 Basic Right

Access to hygienic and dignified sanitation is a basic human right and service to

be made available for all irrespective of caste, gender, or economic status.

7.2 Holistic approach

All solutions will need to be evaluated holistically in order to prioritize

sustainable development over piecemeal approach to solving problems.

7.2 Changing Mind-set

Changing mindsets and attacking the root of the issues through awareness and

sustained behavior change triggers is vital for effective implementation.

7.3 Empowering ULBs

Development to be enforced in a decentralized manner by empowering the

ULBs and extending sufficient support through the appropriate Institutional

frameworks.

7.4 Integrated Development

Focus on sanitation to be included at all planning levels (community, city, state

and regional etc.) in order to achieve integrated development along with other

development outcomes.

7.5 Participatory

Sanitation services should be developed and operated with the participation of

all stakeholders, in line with their respective roles and capacities. This includes

relevant municipal agencies, private sector, NGOs, men and women as both the

users and home-owners or tenants.


8. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

With established trends of growing proportion of population in the urban areas, it is

imperative that the institutional structures for the delivery of urban sanitation services

are streamlined.

The role of state level agencies should be of a facilitator, regulator and handholding

ULBs through technical assistance, capacity building and finances from its own

budgetary resources or from Government of India (GoI), External Support Agencies

(ESA) and innovative mechanisms. Until ULBs develop their robust capacities, it may

be desired that the technical support is extended in planning, designing,

implementation and O&M of urban sanitation services. Active involvement of local

NGOs, community organizations, self-help groups of women will be ensured through

awareness creation and community mobilization for increased ownership of the

overall sanitation agenda at the local level. Promotion of active support to Area

Sabhas at the Ward level with primary focus in eliciting women participation will be

paramount to the achievement of the goals of the State Sanitation Strategy. The

below mentioned are the four-tier institutional arrangements for urban sanitation.

8.1 State Level

a. State Mission on Urban Sanitation

This comprises of a (i) Governing Body headed by the Urban Development Minister

with membership Minister of Bangalore Development, Minister of Municipal

Administration and relevant Ministers of the corresponding line departments.

ii) Executive Committee headed by Chief Secretary with membership of relevant

Secretaries of the line department.

The governing body shall provide overall guidance and policy direction to urban

sanitation initiatives in the state, and oversee the planning and implementation of the

State Sanitation Strategy.

b. State level Nodal Agency on Urban Sanitation (SSNA)

Urban Development Department (UDD) to function as the nodal agency and

Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) as nodal officer for facilitating the implementation

of State Strategy. The Nodal officer will be designated as State Programme Officer,

Urban Sanitation and would be supported by a Technical Cell comprising at least

four professionals with more than 5 years of experience in urban sanitation, social

mobilization, communication and capacity building. The Cell will provide technical,

managerial and professional support to the SSNA.


8.2 District Level

a. District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC)

Under the Chairmanship of District in charge Minister, the District level Monitoring

Committee (DLMC) will over look and monitor the implementation of urban sanitation

programmes. The cell has to be constituted in all the districts having a team of

following members:

Table 8.1: Members of DLMC

District In-charge Minister Chairman

Member/Members of

Parliament

Deputy Chairman/Co-Deputy

Chairman

Local MLAs/MLCs Member

Deputy Commissioner/CEO Member

Project Director, DUDC Member Secretary

District Social Welfare Officer Member

Regional Pollution Control Board Officer Member

District Medical Officer Member

District Education Officer Member

District Slum Board Officer Member

Other Officers Member

b. Functions of District Level Monitoring Committee

Approval of City Sanitation Plan/DPRs submitted by the ULBs of the district.

Conduct independent inspection of the projects during implementation and

supervise the implementation with the help of consultants.

Monitor outcome and O&M arrangements of projects sanctioned and

completed.

Organize capacity building & training programmes.


Ensure inter departmental co-ordination.

A mix of self assessment by the city sanitation task force – based on

implementation agency data, citizens’ groups feedback and primary field

visits.

Cross city monitoring with participation of State level and other city

stakeholders.

8.3 ULB Level

The Urban Local Body Commissioners / Chief Officers will be the implementing

authority for achieving total sanitation in their city.

Further ULB level institutional set up maybe required for effective implementation by

creating a task force.

City Sanitation Task Force (CSTF) will be created within the ULB under the

leadership of the Commissioner/ Executive Officer to design, implement and monitor

the sanitation promotion programs in the respective ULBs. The mechanisms to be

used in monitoring implementation include:

Administrative data from implementing agency reports and from the

implementing consultants and contractors.

Task force field visits to different parts of the city for site inspection.

NGOs working in different parts of the city, e.g. an NGO working in certain

slum pockets may be able to monitor changes in the relevant settlements

since they work there and interact with people regularly.

A Memorandum of Understanding or undertaking to provide additional

expenses may be required from the ULB, whereas some NGOs, especially

those working on health, may be collecting some of this data as a part of their

own work.

Community Groups asked to provide structured feedback to the implementing

agency and the Task Force on progress of implementation and the condition

in their respective neighborhoods.

Independent third party assessments.

Concurrent Evaluations by a Survey Agency.

An important aspect of monitoring and evaluation is to make the findings and reports

available to the public so that feedback and suggestions can be received from other

stakeholders. Sharing key features in monthly task force meetings and press

briefings are also another way of mobilizing city stakeholders and eliciting their

cooperation.


9. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK

Table 9.1: Detailed Implementation Plan

Implementation plan

Area Category Activity Relevant

department

Timelines

(from

SSS

adoption)

Extend

coverage

Enable ODF

status

Prepare City Sanitation plans in line to achieve ODF status

for localized areas (as per Annexure II of NUSP).

ULBs 1 year

State Action Plan for universal coverage of latrines targeting

both toilet less households and households with insanitary

latrines.

SSNA 1 Year

Implement on ground works and create infrastructure assets

in line with requirements laid out in CSPs.

ULBs 2 Years

Monitor ODF implementation progress across ULBs. SSNA On-going

Offer technical, resource and financial assistance as

required.

SSNA On-going


Extend coverage

Sustained

behaviour

change

Prepare a comprehensive IEC plan (with common themes

and campaigns across the state) at the state level.

SSNA 1 year

Submit localized IEC plan along with budget requirements

with special focus on school children, anganwadi’s etc.

ULBs 6 months

Implement IEC campaigns across channels - Media (TV,

Newspaper, and Radio), public forums (competitions, rallies,

orientations, recognition ceremonies).

ULBs 2 Years

Monitor IEC campaigns and effectiveness across the state. SSNA 2 Years

Design Incentive campaign across the state with targets and

budget requirements.

SSNA 6 months

Improve

sanitation

standards

Environment

and health

outcomes

Review standards, benchmarks and targets on key

environmental indicators such as water quality (including

surface water, sensitive ecosystems such as coastal areas

etc.), effluent parameters,

KSPCB 6 months

Prepare public Health outcome standards linked to sanitation

(such as Infant Mortality Rate, Sanitation related disease

cases - diarrhoea, typhoid)

State Health

Department

6 months

Waste water

and septage

management

State Action Plan for use of low energy/decentralized

wastewater treatment technologies, safe disposal of waste

water and onsite septage in line with National Urban Faecal

Sludge and Septage Management policy

KUWS&DB 6 months


Improve

sanitation

standards

Municipal Solid

Waste

Develop comprehensive State policy for Solid Waste

Management throughout the state.

KUIDFC 6 months

Water Supply Preparation of state wide plan for providing universal access

to drinking water with key emphasis on individual

connections.

KUWS&DB 1 Year

Storm water

drainage

Comprehensive guidelines for O&M of Storm Water

Drainage and standards on recycling and reuse of water.

SSNA+ULBs 1 Year

Process

guidelines

Infrastructure / design standards (for public and community

toilets, sewerage systems, bio-digesters etc.)

KUWS&DB 6 months

Service

delivery

standards

Set standards for timely and effective delivery of sanitation

and civic operations (across topics like availability of water

supply, clearance of waste and drainages, staff man-days)

UDD 6 months

Labour

standards

Plan to address prevailing manpower issues including

remuneration, adequate and necessary benefits,

employment T&C, safety standards etc.

Labour

Department.

1 Year

Sanitation

Operations

Sanitation

infrastructure

Set up necessary infrastructure across community and public

toilets (as per CSP)

ULBs 3 Years

Set up infrastructure for water supply and ease of access for

drinking water (as per CSP)

ULBs 3 Years


Sanitation

Operations

Sanitation

infrastructure

Execute centralized underground drainage systems across

jurisdiction (as per CSP)

ULBs 3 Years

Setting up and M&E of STPs and storm water drainage

systems (as per CSP)

ULBs 3 Years

Ensuring integrated and holistic Solid Waste Management

infrastructure (as per CSP)

ULBs 2 Years

Delivery of

service

Ensure on going delivery of sanitation services and

incremental development work

ULBs On-going

Monitoring and

evaluation

Data structure and reporting systems across outcome

indicators.

SSNA 1 Year

Periodic review of State level progress targets and

troubleshooting as required.

SSNA Yearly

Track compliance of local establishments (households,

community areas etc.) with outcomes and process standards

ULBs On-going

Define penalty framework for non-compliance with service

delivery and process standards.

SSNA 1 Year

Define framework for Citizen report cards, self-assessment

systems.

ULBs 1 Year

Create discussion forums and regular feedback collection

mechanisms for progress evaluation from NGOs and CBOs.

ULBs 2 Year


Capacity

Building

State

government

representatives

Training for the appropriate officials on topics covering

NUSP, Urban Sanitation strategy, SBM goals, concept of

user fee in sanitation.

Central

agencies/

Institutions

6 months

ULB

representatives

Training for elected ULB officials on topics covering NUSP,

SBM goals, preparation of CSPs, Central/state schemes

relating to sanitation, financing models.

State

government

1 Year

Sanitation

workers

Training across sanitation technologies, operations handling

and EHS standards.

ULBs and

NGOs/CBOs

1 Year

Citizens Training for citizen bodies on importance of sanitation,

incentive schemes, relevant regulations, user fee models.

NGOs/CBOs 2 Years

Incentives

and

recognit-

ion

Sanitation

Ranking

Annual sanitation competition across ULBs in line with

Annexure III of NUSP.

SSNA 6 months

Award

Schemes

Annual award scheme to recognize high performers at the

state government level across sanitation parameters

SSNA 6 Months

Private sector

and Community

groups

Incentivization plan for innovation, participation and support

from Private and Corporate sector towards achieving

sanitation outcomes as defined in Karnataka SSS.

SSNA 2 Year


Household

incentives

Verification and compliance to qualification criteria for

releasing Central government SBM incentive for individual

household toilet construction.

ULBs Ongoing

Financing Finalizing

financing

requirements

Consolidation of financing requirements at the state level

across ULBs as per CSPs.

SSNA 1 Year

Set up state

funds

Setting up of State Urban Sanitation Fund. SSNA 2 Years

Alternate

funding sources

Explore ability to draw funds from alternate funding sources

such as JnNURM, UIDSSMT, CMSMTDP, SBM, NKUSIP ,

PPP options with private and corporate sectors, partnerships

with NGOs, User pay models and other sanitation participants

SSNA 1 Year


10. PHASING OF OUTCOMES

Urban areas in the state have witnessed tremendous growth in recent years. The

rapidly growing urban population poses greater challenges in meeting infrastructure

and services needs.

While recognizing these challenges, actions for achieving the goals will be phased

out over the time. In this regard Karnataka Government has planned several

Initiatives that directly or indirectly contribute for the improvement in sanitation

infrastructure and services in urban areas. Action for achieving the goals in a Phased

manner with projections to reach the set targets:

Table 10.1 Definition of phases

Phase Time Span Time Spread

Short term 2 years 2017-2019

Medium Term < 5 years 2017-2022

Long Term <10 years 2017-2027

10.1 Sanitation goals achieved in a phased manner

a. Short term

Construction of individual toilets should be completed within set time frame.

Selection of locality for construction of community toilets with priority to slum

areas and urban poor.

Site verification for public toilet by CSTF/ CMC.

Selection and Approval of Community and public toilet design.

Conversion of insanitary latrines to sanitary latrines.

Achieving ODF in all ULBs

b. Medium Term

Completion of individual, community and public toilets.

Laying of UGD to individual, public and community toilets.

Infrastructure for waste water treatment facilities

c. Long term

Completion of UGD and water supply in all cities.

Sustaining the ODF status in all ULBs

Upgrade technology infrastructure to improve system efficiencies


10.2 Solid Waste Management in a phased manner

Short Term

Improve the efficiency in collection of MSW.

Coverage of 100% source segregation.

Coverage of 100% door to door collection.

Medium Term

Improve the efficiency in treatment through various methods of composting.

Levy the cost for collection of MSW from the generator.

Scientific treatment and disposal of MSW.

Long term:

Development of solutions for scientific treatment of all types of waste.

Phasing out of manufacturing of non-recyclable materials

Implementing EPR for all streams of waste

Formalize the informal sector by integrating them into formal systems of collection


11. FINANCING OF URBAN SANITATION

11.1 Central Government

The Govt. of India, wherever possible, will explore possibilities of providing

assistance for funding projects proposed as part of City Sanitation Plans through its

schemes like JNNURM, UIDSSMT, and Satellite Township Schemes etc. However,

the emphasis will be on improving the efficiency of existing sanitation infrastructure

and service delivery.

a. Swachh Bharat Mission: Under this mission, the Central government has

allocated funds for achieving 100% sanitation in urban sector focusing on

providing funds for individual / community / public toilet construction, various

activities under solid waste management as well as for the IEC, public

awareness and capability building in the respective areas to create long term

change. The Swachh Bharat Mission guidelines mainly focus on Sanitation

through elimination of open defecation and conversion of insanitary latrines

into pour flush latrines. The funding pattern between central government and

state government/ULBs is 75%:25%.

Table 11.1 Allocation of Funds as per SBM Guidelines

Allocation of funds for States / UT’s as defined under SBM

S.No. Classification % Allocation ( Central Govt. Funding )

1 Project Fund based on Normative Criteria

60%

2 Performance Fund based on Performance Matrix

20%

3 Public Awareness & IEC Activities 15%

4 Capacity Building & A&OE 3%

5 Research, Capacity Building & A&OE (M/o UD)

2%

3% will be retained by MoUD


b. AMRUT: The Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation

(AMRUT) a centrally sponsored scheme was launched in selected 500 cities

in India. Out of 500 cities, 27 cities have been selected in our state under this

scheme. (Enclosed as Annexure IV). The objective of the scheme is to

provide basic infrastructure services to the cities above 1Lakh population.

One of the thrust areas in AMRUT scheme is Sewerage and septage

management. For all ULBs covered under AMRUT, the UDG projects will be

completed by March 2020. The AMRUT scheme components in sewerage

covers:

Decentralized, networked underground sewerage systems, including

augmentation of existing sewerage systems and sewage treatment

plants.

Rehabilitation of old sewerage system and treatment plants. Recycling

of water for beneficial purposes and reuse of wastewater

c. JNNRUM: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission has a provision

for providing funds under the governance and urban infrastructure component

for sewerage storm water drainage and Solid waste management.

d. UIDSSMT: Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small, Medium

Towns to build basic infrastructure facility in small and medium towns like

water supply sewerage solid waste management etc.

e. Other Schemes with provision for Sanitation – The SSNA will factor in

provisions from other government schemes that include provisions for

Sanitation funds available - BSUP, IHSDP, ILCS, RAY etc.

11.2 Karnataka State Government

At the state level, the SSNA will take up the responsibility of ensuring the following

activities get executed.

1. State Urban Sanitation Fund (SUSF): To support most planning,

communication and monitoring activities to be performed by SSNA and ULBs

as outlined in the State Sanitation Strategy, a dedicated State Urban

Sanitation Fund (SUSF) may be set up under the budget of DMA with outlay

from the state budget, supplemented by any provisions from MoUD, GoI.

2. Consolidated CSP budget: The SSNA will consolidate budgets as defined in

individual CSPs by the ULBs. The planning and communication for the same

will be supported appropriately by the SUSF.

3. Disbursement of funds under SBM to ULBs: The SSNA will be responsible

for monitoring, evaluation and subsequent disbursement of funds to the ULBs.

The SSNA shall ensure the fund release is linked to achievement of

outcomes and not purely to input requirements as defined in CSPs.


4. Institutionalize incentive and award schemes for top performing ULBs to

encourage municipal bodies to prioritize sanitation on the lines of Nirmal

Bharat Abhiyan and SBM incentive guidelines.

5. Institutionalize minimum ceilings on user fee based schemes.

6. Plan and coordinate IEC activities to support successful achievement of the

goals contained in the National Urban Sanitation Policy 2008.

11.3 ULB level

1. All ULBs to prepare CSPs in accordance with Annexure II of NUSP (wherever

not already submitted)

2. The ULBs concerned will earmark a certain percentage of their own resources

to be spent on creating and maintaining vital sanitation infrastructures in the

city on sustainable basis; with objectively verifiable results thereof. This will be

adjudged as an initiative towards ODF status.

3. Coordinate with banks to come up with schemes to support community and

Public sanitation projects.

4. Encourage schemes for the corporate sector to take up CSR projects focusing

on providing improved sanitation services in line with the SSS.

5. Identify different methods for meeting O&M budget like hoardings on rooftops

of community sanitation facilities, maintenance fee, tariffs, user pay fee etc.

6. Capacity building under SJSRY and / or other Central/State schemes of

aspirants keen to take up above projects as a means of livelihood.

11.4 Individual / User level

1. Assigning to the operators of the facility the right to recover fines from persons

found defecating in the open and/or practising socially-offensive sanitation

practices

2. Users have to be sensitive to maintaining the community sanitary facilities and

pay a user fee as charged by the ULB or the agency maintaining the facility.

This will support the operational budget requirements for such projects.

3. Citizens groups should mobilize support towards M&E of the activities of the

ULBs in line with the CSPs.

Summary of Financial Requirement for Sanitation objectives

Current estimates suggest that there is a requirement of approximately Rs. 22,000

Crores for completing water supply and underground drainage network across all

ULBs in Karnataka. The SSNA will drive the consolidation of additional budget

requirements across plans of relevant departments as defined in the implementation

framework.


12. MONITORING, EVALUATION AND

CAPACITY BUILDING

Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation (PM&E) is a process through which

stakeholders at various levels engage in monitoring or evaluating a particular project,

program or policy, share control over the content, the process and the results of the

monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activity and engage in taking or identifying

corrective actions. PM&E focuses on the active engagement of primary

stakeholders.

As with all other monitoring and evaluation elements, the process for PM&E has to

be prepared prior to project implementation. The stakeholder groups typically

involved in a participatory M&E activity include: the end users of project goods and

services, including both men and women at the community level; intermediary

organisations, including NGOs; private sector businesses involved in the project; and

government staff at all levels

Monitoring water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) is important to track progress,

improve accountability, and demonstrate impacts of efforts to improve conditions and

services, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Indicator selection methods

enable robust monitoring of WaSH projects and conditions. However, selection

methods are not always used and there are no commonly-used methods for

selecting WaSH indicators. To address this gap, a systematic review of indicator

selection methods used in WaSH-related fields should be conducted.

Sanitation ratings and ranking exercise conducted for few ULBs in the state of

Karnataka during last sanitation ranking. This will be extended to cover all the ULBs

in the state of Karnataka and they will be used to establish reward scheme. The

participation of primary stakeholders i.e. users of services will be encouraged. Also,

a Clean School Campaign that is used for establishment of annual award schemes

will be set up.

There is a need to institutionalize incentives schemes that encourage the Municipal

bodies to prioritize sanitation on the pattern similar to Swachh Bharat Abhiyan

(gramin) for the rural areas.

The state will need to enforce achievement of the defined benchmarks and can use

this tool for monitoring performance by linking funding with progress towards

achieving service level benchmarks. ULBs are encouraged to participate in ‘third

party assessments’ that will help in bringing about required modifications in approach

to service delivery for holistic outcomes.

Therefore, the state will have to introduce citizens’ report cards, citizens’ monitoring

committees, self-assessment system, inter-city competitions, concurrent evaluation


and third party assessments as monitoring tool for improving urban governance of

water and sanitation services.

The monitoring can be done in different stages as below:

Table 12.1 Monitoring Authority and Frequency

Level of monitoring Monitoring Authority Frequency of evaluation

State SSNA Once in a year

District Project Director/District

Commissioner

Once in 3 months

ULB Commissioners/Chief Officers Monthly

12.1 Capacity building

In the context of this strategy, it is recognized that there is a need to improve the

efficiency of the state departments and the ULBs across the state through a

systematic approach, of which training is an important component. It is understood

that capacity development is a long-term process that requires systematic and

continuous effort at state as well as ULB level, both from the demand and supply

perspective of service delivery.

To support the implementation of SSS in Karnataka it is necessary to have a

dedicated Centre with adequate domain expertise to address the training needs of

the state department as well as ULBs across the state. The state will therefore tap

funding opportunities that are being offered by MoUD to the maximum possible to

establish State level centres for training or restructuring existing institutions.

The provisions for training and capacity building with appropriate state training

policies for the sanitation sector and Annual Action Plans for Urban Development

Department and ULBs will be defined. Further training should be linked to

development of competencies of individuals and to career progression as well as

suitable amendment of service rules etc. The ULBs may be strengthened through

adequate staffing ensuring all relevant posts in the various departments are filled.

A dedicated training cell with a training manager may be created within SSNA and

the municipal corporations within the state. Dedicated funds for training and capacity

building activities may be provided. As ULBs have final responsibility for ensuring all

service delivery achieves sanitary and environmental outcomes, it is therefore

prudent to establish innate capacities within the ULB. Since urban local bodies are


required to provide better urban services to the citizens and also to ensure planned

development of the urban areas, there is a need to have a dedicated Municipal

Cadre to meet the requirement of functional domain of the urban local bodies.

Significant increase in urban population as well as financial transactions of ULB and

implementation of urban reforms along with centrally sponsored/externally aided

projects are added responsibilities of ULBs.

Recognizing limitation in finding quality technical human resources, a long term view

to the challenge is through gearing our technical institutes of higher education as

well as vocational training to tailor courses of global standards.

The actions shall include:

• Assessment of training capacities for sanitation related skills.

• Creation of Municipal Cadre will help in improving the performance of the urban

local bodies and attract qualified people to the services. A Cadre will facilitate

career opportunities for the persons working in the municipalities and sharing of

experiences across cities. A scoping study on establishment of the municipal cadre

will be required to build strong foundation for the Municipalities.

• Establish sufficient capacities in Higher Education that enables state and city

departments to execute sanitation obligations in the field of Environmental

Management, Environmental Engineering, Water Resource Management and other

related fields.

• Establish sufficient capacities in Vocational Training that enables state and city

departments to execute sanitation obligations in the field of household plumbing,

network plumbing and any other related skills for sanitation operation.

• Refresher courses and long term course such as the post graduate diploma in

sanitation, operator training programmes

• Professional skills strengthening through short targeted courses and regular

refresher courses for the staff in sanitation.

• Review of training curriculum against the needs of the water supply and sanitation

sector on conducting a Training Needs Assessment

• Capacity building programs will also need to target artisans (builders, pump

mechanics, well sinkers), planners, community mobilizers, hygiene promoters, and

community leaders. Guidance on good business practices will be needed for local

entrepreneurs, NGO and private sector institutions involved in component supply

chains.


13. CONCLUSION

The State sanitation strategy gives a road map to prepare the CSP for their

respective cities. The successful implementation of CSP will help to reach the vision

of Swachh Bharat Mission. Thus, a city can achieve overall sustainable

development by adopting suitable technology options on sanitation practices and

make cities free from open defecation. However, all the stakeholders’ performance

plays a very vital role towards achieving our nation’s vision on sanitation.

Urbanization has increased in speed and scale in recent decades, with more than

half the world’s population now living in urban centres (UNPD, 2012). By 2050, urban

dwellers probably will account for 86 per cent of the population in developed

countries and for 64 per cent of the population in developing countries (UNPD,

2012). Rapid urban population growth has resulted in a number of land-use and

infrastructural challenges, including providing basic facilities like clean water and

sanitation, municipal solid waste management etc. The waste hierarchy is now used

globally as a communication tool to remind those who generate waste and those

who manage it that preventing waste through efficient use of resources and raw

materials is the best option as we move to a resource scare era.

This Sanitation strategy builds on the restructuring and rejuvenation of existing water

and sanitation and waste management sectors across the State. The Strategy will

provide a framework for improving and sustaining sanitation and hygiene service

delivery for all citizens and eliminate open defecation problem. The Strategy builds

on progress made to date and lessons learnt from previous experiences. Critically, it

adjusts current approaches in the light of recent implementation experiences. The

strategy signifies a shift from a supply-driven approach, with a strong emphasis on

technologies; to a demand-management approach, with emphasis on behaviour

change and services responding to community and consumer demand. The Strategy

analyses the key issues and challenges facing sanitation and hygiene in urban

settings, reviews existing practice and recommends priority strategic actions and

creating a roadmap for city sanitation plan.


ANNEXURE I

Faecal Sludge Treatment Plant, Devanahalli: A Case Study by CDD Society

1. Introduction

The aim of this project was to introduce an integrated decentralized FSM system in

Devanahalli and assess its effectiveness in addressing the sanitation needs of the

town. This faecal sludge management system also provided for resource recovery

options (soil conditioner and nutrient-rich water) and gave the opportunity to explore

the suitability of such a system which could be replicated in other towns and cities

across India.

1.2 About Devanahalli

Devanahalli is 36 km away from the heart of the Bangalore and it is houses the

Kempegowda International Airport. It has a population of roughly 28,000 as per the

2011 Census, which has grown by 21% over the last decade, driven mainly by the

growth expansion of Bangalore city and the construction of the Kempegowda

International Airport.

Figure: Human Faecal Flow Diagram – Devanahalli

Source: Devanahalli TMC, Intellecap and CDD Research


2. Devanahalli: Before the Initiative

2.1 Existing Sanitation Situation in Devanahalli

Table 2.1: Sanitation in Devanahalli

Particulars Details

Total Population 28,000

Number of Households (HHs) 6,500

Pits/Septic Tanks > 4,000

Pit size 3 – 5 rings

Average frequency of cleaning pits 2 – 5 years

Community toilets 3

Source: Devanahalli TMC

Containment: The prevalence of open defecation in Devanahalli is quite low at 5%.

Over 90% of the population uses pit latrines and/or septic tanks, with the rest

discharging its sewage directly into the storm-water drains that line the streets of

Devanahalli.

Transport: Pit latrines need to be desludged every 2 to 5 years depending on their

size. The TMC desludging vehicle services 4 septic tanks/pits weekly on an average

and the charges for operations are Rs.1,200 to Rs.1,500 depending on the size of

the septic tank/pit latrine and complexity of the procedure. Private service-providers

also charge a similar amount per servicing.

Treatment and Reuse: Currently, some of the faecal sludge in Devanahalli is being

reused in agriculture by supplying it to a grape farm where it is allowed to dry out in a

large trench and then mixed with soil to be used as manure in the grape plantation

and other farms where ragi is grown. There is no specific ‘treatment’ carried out.


3. Establishing the Faecal Sludge Management System

3.1 The Design and Process

Co-composting: This refers to composting of two or more raw materials together.

Organic materials such as animal manure, saw-dust, wood chips, bark,

slaughterhouse waste, sludges or solid residues from food and beverage industries

are typically used for co-composting.

3.2 Training and awareness creation

The setting up of the plant alone was not sufficient for ensuring implementation of

FSM system in the town, it was backed with awareness drives stressing on the

proper construction of toilets, conversion of insanitary toilets to sanitary toilets and

proper use of toilets.

3.3 Operation and Maintenance

The plant operates on no electricity and doesn’t consist of any machinery. This was

intentionally designed to cope with the lack of steady electricity supply and for ease

of maintenance and operation by semi-skilled labour.

3.3.1 Financing FSM System in Devanahalli

The capital expenditure for setting up the plant was met through BMGF funding. The

cost of setting up the FSTP (6,000 L capacity of FS per day) along co-composting

was approximately INR 70 Lakhs on land which was sanctioned by the TMC,

Devanahalli. Operational expenditure of running the plant and the co-composting

facility includes the salary of the operator, maintenance costs, cost of unforeseen

breakdowns, electricity and water costs, cost of protective gear etc. Together this

amounts to close to INR 7 Lakh per annum.

Figure 2: FSTP treatment process


3.3.2 Administration and Governance

Devanahalli is one of the first town municipal councils to have passed such a

resolution related to FSM at town scale. However, being a matter of policy, it needs

approval from the DMA and the Government of Karnataka, which is awaited now.

Table 3.1 Cost of operating and maintaining the FSTP and Desludging Services

Particulars Cost (INR) per annum

Truck Operations 10,47,830

FSTP-operations 4,37,667

Co-composting-operations 2,52,000

Net Total 17,37,497

Service Tax 5,20,625

Plant management-and admin

cost

11,00,000

Gross amount total 37,71,470

4. The Impact

For CDD Society the purpose of this pilot was not just to implement a faecal sludge

management system or a faecal sludge treatment plant and use the data for

research alone. It was to create a system that could be integrated into the landscape

of the community. The result of this endeavour is a faecal sludge treatment plant

which is as aesthetically pleasing as a park, sans any malodour, vermin or anything

that might be an eyesore for the people who live around it.

With this pilot initiative, the research team of CDD Society has been vigilantly

observing the quality of treatment the plant provides and the possible impact it may

have on the town in the near future. Apart from improving the overall sanitation

situation in Devanahalli, FSM enables complete resource recovery from the waste

that we generate on a daily basis, which is rich in nutrition. The treated faecal sludge

after composting could be a boon to practitioners of agriculture around towns, which

it is in Devanahalli. Despite not pricing the treated sludge, it was observed that there

is a high demand for the composted sludge at the plant.


ANNEXURE II

1. Solid Waste Management Rules 2016

The rules outline the compliance criteria for each stage of waste management -

collection, segregation at source, transportation, processing and final disposal of

residual waste.

1.1 Highlights

• Segregation of waste at source by the generator is mandatory

• Segregated wet and dry waste must be collected and transported separately to

appropriate destinations

• Wet waste should be processed through composting or other appropriate

technologies

• Dry waste should be sent to recyclers or to cement kilns for co-processing

• Sanitary waste should go to medical waste facility for treatment and incineration

• Brand owners are now responsible for awareness and collection of plastic

packaging waste

• Institutional waste generators/bulk waste generators should allocate 5% of their

total campus area to manage their wet and dry waste onsite or ensure that their

waste reaches common facilities for processing and treatment

• User fees can be collected from the generator to support operations of the entire

process

• The informal sector should be integrated into the systems for waste pickers and

kabadiwalas from the informal sector to the formal sector by the state government.

• The rules also stipulate zero tolerance for throwing; burning, or burying the solid

waste generated on streets, open public spaces outside the generator’s premises, or

in the drain, or water bodies.

1.2 Implementation of SWM Rules

In cities waste generators are categorized as follows.

• Small Generators: slum and non-slum Households, Petty shops, other commercial

shops like provision stores, Bakery etc. small temples and small canteens

• Bulk Generators: Marriage halls, Major hotels, large apartments, Tech-parks,

offices theaters, commercial establishments like malls etc.


2. Components of Solid Waste Management

2.1 Segregation at source

Waste generators have to comply with a source segregation system for wet, dry and

sanitary waste. For households the 2 bin and 1 bag can be adopted where

biodegradable (Green-wet waste) is stored in a green bin without any plastic liner.

Dry waste or recyclable waste should be kept in a bag and sanitary waste including

other hazardous waste should be kept in a red bin.

2.2 Primary Waste Collection for small generators

The primary waste collection is the first waste collection from source. Wet waste

which is collected from individual bins is transferred into a tipper auto. The person

collecting must ensure no plastic or other recyclable waste should enter the tipper.

Arrangements for a daily collection of wet waste is preferred and required. To ensure

compliance of segregation and avoidance of public nuisance the primary collection

vehicle should be designed such that it can hold organic and inorganic waste

separately.

For bulk/institutional generators, the waste collection must be addressed through

private vendors who are registered and recognized by the Urban Local Body. These

private vendors should be able to provide complete and holistic waste management

services including on –site waste management and processing of wet and dry waste.

2.3 Secondary sorting and processing

For small waste generators, Primary waste collection should then be channeled to

appropriate destinations. The waste collected by autos or pushcarts will be

aggregated and then sent through larger vehicles to destinations for treatment and

processing

The SWM from the bulk/institutional generators (commercial zones, large

apartments, temples, institutions, hotels, choultries, etc.) must be managed privately.

This can be done through service providers who preferably are specialized waste

management companies. The waste for managing their own waste either within their

own premises or through shared processing centers.


2.4 Processing techniques for different waste streams

2.4.1 Wet waste

Within each ward small scale composting units should be set up in vacant land which

is owned by the Urban Local Body.

Appropriate technology including shredders and microbial cultures should be used to

reduce the time taken for composting and increase efficiency in use of space made

available.

The other solution for wet waste is bio-gasification. This biogas can be bottled and

used to run trucks or can be burnt under controlled environment to produce

electricity.

2.4.2 Dry Waste Collection Centers (DWCC):

In order to regulate and facilitate the sorting of the recyclable and non-recyclable

waste the Urban Local Body should provide for as many dry waste sorting centres as

required.

Dry waste which is brought to the centre should be sorted and then sold to

authorised recyclers or scrap vendors. It is important that dry waste collection

centres are run professionally so as to ensure all the types of waste including low

grade plastic, Styrofoam, and multi-layered laminates are managed at the centre.

The centre will need to look at additional sources of revenue beyond the sale of

waste. Service fees from the Urban Local Body and Waste generators are two

possibilities

2.4.3 Sanitary waste/Domestic hazardous waste

All the sanitary waste/domestic hazardous waste should be segregated in a separate

bin and handed over to authorized agencies for either incineration or scientific

landfill. However all recyclable and reusable materials should be recovered before

landfilling anything.

3. Common Processing and Treatment

In addition to the decentralized processing centers excess waste from small and

bulk/institutional waste generators can go to common processing centers such as

Waste to Energy plants/Refuse Derived Fuel plants or bio-methanization plants.

These centers can run on a BOT model where the Urban Local Body gives land on a

long lease to private entities who in turn invest in the infrastructure and operate the

centers through sale of waste and Service fees.


4. Landfill/Incineration

Scientific landfills need to be developed as per the approved standards of CPCB for

handling inert materials. Sanitary waste and domestic biomedical waste need to be

send to an authorized incineration facility whose emissions are constantly monitored.

5. Information, Education and Communication (IEC)

SWM can be achieved successfully only with the active participation and

involvement of the citizens. Awareness about the rules and processes is therefore

driven through an IEC strategy which includes the following

An implementation plan which will include an outreach programme that will

include the different stakeholders

A standard IEC Toolkit comprising creative content should be developed and

printed as per the IEC Strategy

A separate budget shall be earmarked for IEC activity convened periodically as per

the IEC strategy.


ANNEXURE III

Table 1. Technical Option For Toilets Under SBM (Urban)

SL

No

OSS Option Types of Latrines Applications

IHHL Shared

Latrines

Community

toilets

Public

toilets

1

Twin-pit

latrines/

Leach Pits

√

*In low to medium density areas, particularly peri-urban areas,

where there is space to install pits and where the digested

sludge can be applied to local fields and/or gardens as a

fertilizer and soil conditioner.

* Where water use is in the range 30-50 litres per capita per

day depending upon the characteristics of the soil or

groundwater level.

2

Septic Tank

System with

soak pit

√

√

√

√

* Septic tanks are widely used to provide partial treatment of

wastewater from individual homes, household clusters or

institutional buildings where there is no sewerage network.

*For soak pits to function, soil conditions must be suitable for

infiltration of effluent from septic tanks.


3

Bio-digester

toilets

(Anaerobic-

developed

by DRDO)

√

√

√

√

* Widely used to provide 80% treatment of wastewater from

IHHL, household clusters or institutional buildings where there

is no sewerage network.

* The effluent should be passed through a reed bed or soak pit

before discharge

* For soak pits to function, soil conditions must be suited for

infiltration to effluent from septic tanks

4

Aerobic Bio

Tank

√

√

√

√

* Widely used to provide 100% treatment of wastewater from

IHHL, clusters of houses or institutional building where there is

no sewerage networks. The effluent can be directly discharged

since it is completely safe.

* Chlorination is followed after treatment.


ANNEXURE IV

MOUD, GoI, vide OMOM No.K-14012/95/2015-SC-II (part), 31 July, 2105, has

notified the following 27 cities of Karnataka State for the implementation of AMRUT:

Table 1. List of Cities under in Karnataka under AMRUT

Category- I -26 Cities Category-III - 1 City

Cities with a population of over one lakh City classified as

Heritage Cities by

MoUD under the

HRIDAY Scheme

Bellary

Bidar

Gulbarga

Gangavathy

Raichur

Hospet

Belgaum

Dharwad

Bijapura

Gadag-Betageri

Bagalkote

Rannebennur

Tumkur city

Shimoga city

Bhadravathi

Chitradurga

Davanagere

Kolar

Robersonpet

Mangalore

Mandya

Mysore

Hassan

Udupi

Chickamagalur

Bangalore

Badami


ANNEXURE V

Table 1. Objectives and Targets under SBM

Target Under SBM (Urban)

SL No.

Objective Action under SBM (Urban) - Target

Census 2011 – definition

1 Elimination of Open Defecation

80 % of urban households are defecating in open to be targeted for construction of household toilets

no latrine within premises - open

2 20% of urban households are defecating in open to be for construction of community toilets

no latrine within premises -open

3 construction of community toilets for floating toilets(presumed at 5% of urban populations)

Total urban population

4 Conversion of insanitary latrines into sanitary latrines

100% of urban households having insanitary latrines to be targeted for the construction of households toilets

* Night soil disposed into the drain * service latrine with night soil is removed by human *service latrine with night soil is serviced by animal

5 Conversion of single pit latrines

60% of households having pit latrines

* pit latrine with slabs * pit latrine with ventilated improved pit * pit latrine without slab/open pit

6 Solid Waste management

80% of the urban population to cover SWM service( allowing 2% of increase by year and year)

Total urban population


ANNEXURE VI

State Level Normative Standards under Swachh Bharat

Mission (SBM)

Individual sanitation facilities:

Households (80%) resorting to Open defecation have to construct individual

household toilet.

Central Government has allocated is Rs. 4,000 with Rs. 1,333 of State

Government grant for construction of each individual household toilets.

Conversion of insanitary latrines into sanitary latrines.

Households with existing single pit latrines have to construct individual toilets

with twin pit or septic tank/UGD.

20% of the households have space constraint hence they can be

recommended to use community toilets.

Water closet should be mandatory for all individual toilets.

All government/ private offices, hospitals, institutions, convention halls, banks,

auditoriums should have access to sanitation facilities.

The facilities must be adequate in number for staff considering the visitors.

Proper water facility, sufficient ventilation has to ensured

In case of high rise buildings the facilities has to be provided in every floor.

Community toilets:

The municipalities shall provide community sanitary facilities in all the notified and

non-notified slum.

20% of the households without toilet facility can access to community toilets.

The facilities should be separate for men and women. One seat for 35 men,

one seat for25 women.

For construction of community toilets, the cost per seat is calculated as Rs.98,

000 the fund allocated from GoI is Rs. 39,200 per seat and from GoK is Rs.

13066 per seat.

Separate facilities should be provided to physically challenged people.

Facilitate separate bathing complex for men and women.

Make sure that Community toilets consisting of proper no of seats, pan,

water closet and wash basin.

A reasonable user fee may be charged to individual households on monthly

basis.

To maintain the community toilet in a hygienic condition, a local agency or a

community representative should take the responsibility to keep the premises


clean. A regular monitoring needs to be done by the concerned municipal

authorities

Public toilets:

Providing sanitation facilities at public places such as railway stations, bus stop,

libraries, parks and market areas should be mandatory.

5% of the total population has been considered and projected for construction

of public toilets.

Construction of public toilets is estimated at the cost of Rs. 98,000 per seat.

Where in Central Grant will be 40% of project cost i.e 39,200 per seat and

from GoK is Rs. 13066 per seat.

Public toilets should be adequate in the city, keeping in view the floating

population.

Ensure cleaning of public toilets twice a day is a must to maintain hygiene.

User fee may be levied to use this facility.

Separate toilet facility to men, women and physically challenged persons has

to be provided.

Ensure regular water supply is available in the toilets.

Inclusion of Urinals - Open Defecation Component:

Central Government grants of up to 40% to be given on lines of Community and

Public Toilets and base cost of urinals to be Rs.32, 000 per unit. And central share is

Rs. 12,800 per unit and GoK share is Rs.10, 666 per unit.

ii - municipaladmn.gov.in · current status of karnataka 3. sanitation issues and challenges 4....

Documents