Benchmarking in Emerging Economies.pdf

1

BENCHMARKING IN EMERGING ECONOMIES: The Performance Assessment System (PAS) Project in India

MMehta*,DMehta**,AImmanuel***

*ProfessorEmeritus,SchoolofPlanning,CEPTUniversity,Ahmedabad,India**ProfessorEmeritus,SchoolofPlanning,CEPTUniversity,Ahmedabad,India***ResearchAssociate,SchoolofPlanning,CEPTUniversity,Ahmedabad,India

ABSTRACT

Benchmarkingofwaterandsanitationservicesinemergingcountriespose serious challenges. This is because the conventional approachusedinmoredevelopedcountriesdoesnotworkwhenwatersupplyis intermittent, often unmetered and a large number of consumerswho are poor depend on shared connections. For sanitation, citiesoftendonothavesewerage infrastructureandpopulationalso lacksaccesstobasicsanitaryfacilitiesforcaptureandstorage.

2 Proceedings Pi2011 Conference

These issues are being addressed under the PAS (PerformanceAssessment System) Project, at the CEPT University in India. TheProject has three main components: Performance Measurement,PerformanceMonitoringandPerformanceImprovement.Itenvisagessettingupasystem thatwillbeadoptedover timeby the localandstate governments. It is already aligned with the performancebenchmarking systembeing envisagedby theGovernmentof Indiafor services related to four subsectors: urbanwater supply, wastewater and sanitation, solid waste management and storm waterdrainage. This has increased the possibilities of sustaining theperformance assessment system being developed under the PASProject1.

Keywords: India, Pro-Poor indicators, state-wide benchmarking

1 MoreinformationonPASprojectisavailableathttp://www.pas.org.in/

Benchmarking in Emerging Economies: PAS Project in India 3

I.BACKGROUNDANDCONTEXTGreat strideshavebeenmade in India in improvingaccess tobasicwaterandsanitationservicesduring the last twodecades. IndiahasalreadyachieveditstargetfortheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalsforwater supply, with 96 per cent population having access to basicwatersupplyinurbanareasin2008.However,afewanomaliesstandout. First, access to improved level of services (house levelconnections)hasactuallyworsenedfrom52percentin1990to48percentin2008.Forsanitation,accesstosafebasicsanitationcontinuestostagnateat54percentin2008andanother21percenthadaccesstoonlyshared facilities.Anestimated18percentofurbanpopulationresorts to open defecation.2 While the focus in India is oninfrastructureinvestments,performanceonservicedeliverymeasureslikehoursandreliabilityofsupplyandfinancialsustainabilityisverypoor. Indian cities fare farworse than cities inSouthEastAsiaandAfrica.3 Transforming infrastructure creation to delivery of goodqualityservicesremainsakeyissue.Service level assessment through key performance indicators hasbecome a standard practice in thewater sector inmany countries.However, in India very little attention is paid to measurement ofperformance of water supply services. A few available studies ofperformancemeasurementclearlyshowthattheIndianwaterserviceproviders are relativelyworseoff than their counterparts inSouthEastAsia.

2BasedoninformationreportedinJMP(2010).Basicservicesareasdefinedby the WHOUNICEFs Joint Monitoring Program for tracking the MDGtargets.3Basedonperformancereported for20utilities in India (ADBandMOUD2007)and40utilitiesinSouthEastAsia(SEAWUNandADB2007).


Table1:ComparativePerformanceofUtilitiesacrossSubregionsinAsia

Sources:ADB(2004),SEAWUNandADB(2007)andMOUD(2010).

Despite comparable service coverage and production of water,Indianutilitiesperformworseon service levels asmeasuredbyhoursof supply.Averagedurationof supplyhasnot improvedmuch (from 4.3 to 4.6 hours).However, the quantum ofwatersupplied per capita is much higher than in SouthEast Asianutilities.

UtilitiesinSouthAsiahavelowermeteringlevelswhichmakesitdifficult tohaveaccurateassessmentofwater losses.Somepilotassessments and water audits done in India suggest very high

PerformanceIndicators ADBUtilityDataBook(2003)

SEWUNUtilityDataBook(2005)

SSLBDataBook(2010)

India20

utilities

SouthEastAsia

40utilities

India28

utilities

Servicelevels WaterCoverage(%) 81.2 74.9 63.0

Wateravailability(hours) 4.3 22.9 4.6

Consumption/Capita(l/c/d) 123.3 106.5 130.0

Production/Population(m3/d/c) 0.24 0.22 Na

Efficiencyandfinancialviability

NonRevenueWater(%) 31.8 27.8 41.0

ConnectionsMetered(%) 24.5 99.4 46.0

RevenueCollectionEfficiency(%) 99.5 118.1 68.0

Accountsreceivable(months) 4.9 0.9 Na

OperatingRatio 1.6 0.8 1.4

Staff/1,000Connections(ratio) 7.4 7.2 Na

Tariffs,feesandcapitalexpenditure

AverageTariff(US$) 0.12 0.31 na

NewConnectionFee(US$) 39.6 60.0 na

CapitalExpenditure/Connection(US$) 39.8 44.4 na


levels of losses at over 50 per cent.4 In general, there is lessemphasis in these utilities on assessing and reducing physicalleakagesaswellasnonrevenuewater(NRW).

Average tariffs and connection fees in SouthAsian utilities are

considerablylowerandcombinedwithinefficienciesnotedabove,this results inpooroperating ratio.Mostutilitiesdonot recovertheir operating costs and thus lack financial viability.Interestingly,morerecentstudiesshowworseningintheaveragerevenue collection performance, with utilities collecting onlyabout70percentoftheirbills.

These results clearly highlight the need and importance of

introducingperformancemeasurementinIndiaonawiderscale.TheGovernment of India (GoI) has embarked on a very ambitiousprogram to fund urban infrastructure in leading urban centres inIndia.UndertheJawaharlalNehruNationalUrbanRenewalMission(JNNURM),GoIenvisagesatotalinvestmentofaboutUSD20billionduring 20052012. Till date, nearly 60 per cent of the JNNURMcommitment has been for water and sewerage projects. FundingassistancefromtheGoIislinkedtocommitmentbytherecipientstateand localgovernments to a set of timebound reforms that includeimproved performance and citizen interactions. Performancemeasurement, and linked monitoring and improvement will helpassess the impact of these investments, and enhance theirsustainabilityovertime.

It is in this context that theCEPTUniversity is implementing an

action research project for the development of PerformanceAssessmentSystems(PAS)forurbanwaterandsanitationinalllocalgovernments in two states (Gujarat and Maharashtra) in India. Inboth these states, water and sanitation services are provided bymunicipal governments. The PAS Project aims to implementperformance measurement in 400+ local governments with fourannualrounds.

4ThePASprojectspilotresults ina fewcities inGujaratandMaharashtrasuggestthatNRW ranges between 30 to 75 percent.Often, cities that had assumedNRWlevelsof3035percentwithoutanypropermeasurementsfoundtheirNRWleveltobe about 45% after PAS studies. Measurement of water production and waterconsumptionhasremainedkeyissuesinIndiancities.


II.THEPASPERFORMANCEASSESSMENTFRAMEWORK

For the PAS Project, there are three key components ofperformance measurement, monitoring and improvement. It is feltthat these three aspectsare critical to ensure that these systemsareused effectively at local and state levels. Such usewill also ensuretheirsustainability.

Performance measurement is a key first component of thePAS Project. The Performance Measurement Framework (PMF)includes the overall approach, key indicators for performancemeasurement and reliability assessment to respond to data qualityissues.Figure1:PASProject:FrameworkforPerformanceAssessment

ImprovedUWSSServiceDelivery(Equityandfinancialviability)

PerformanceMonitoring/Benchmarkingatstateand

locallevel

PerformanceMeasurementthroughKeyIndicatorsonWater,Sanitation,Solidwaste

PerformanceImprovementPlans

ApproachandKeyIndicatorsinPerformanceMeasurementFigure2outlines theapproach toPMF for thePASProject.Thekeyperformance indicators (KPIs)aredistinguished for servicedeliveryoutcomes (or main goals of public services) and intermediateoperational outcomes that reflect the plans and reforms needed toachievetheservicedeliverygoals.Thisenablesdistinctidentificationofgoalsandreformsneededtoachievethesegoals.


Figure2:PASPerformanceMeasurementFramework

Service goals: Goals are identified on the basis of a review of theGovernmentofIndia (GoI)andstategovernmentobjectives.Table1providesdetailsofkeyservicegoalsandrelatedbenchmarksfor:(a)universalcoverage;(b)levelsandqualityofservices;and(c)financialsustainability.Table1:ServiceGoals:KeyPerformanceIndicatorsandBenchmarks

Goals Watersupply Sanitation/wastewater

Solidwaste

management

StormWaterDrainage

Universalaccessandcoverage

1.Coverage:%ofhouseholdswithindividualconnectionstowatersupplynetwork(100%)

1.Coverage:%ofhouseholdswithaccesstoindividualtoilets(100%)

1.Coverage:%ofhouseholdsandestablishmentscoveredbymunicipaldailydoortodoorSWMservices(100%)

1.Coverageofstormwaterdrainagenetwork(100%)

2.Coverage:%ofhouseholdswithindividualconnectionstoseweragenetwork(100%)

Servicelevelsandquality

2.Percapitasupplyofwater(172lpcdformetrocities,155lpcdforothercitieswithsewerageand92lpcdwithoutsewerage)

3.Collectionefficiency:%collectionofwastewatergeneratedwheresewerage/undergrounddrainageexists(100%)

2.Collectionefficiency:%collectionofsolidwastegeneratedinthecity(100%)

2.Incidenceofwaterlogging/flooding(0)

B.IntermediateOperationalOutcomesKeyReforms Efficiencyinserviceoperations Equityinservicedelivery

A.ServiceDeliveryOutcomesServiceGoals Universalaccessandcoverage Servicelevelsandquality Financialsustainability

C.SelectedIndicatorsforLocalActionFor instance, forequity,waterquality,nonrevenuewater,

consumergrievanceredressal,staffing,revenueandbilling


Goals Watersupply Sanitation/

wastewaterSolid

wastemanagement

StormWaterDrainage

Servicelevels andquality

3.Continuityofwatersupply:(i)shortterm:dailysupplyatregularhours;(ii)24*7overtime

4.Sewagetreatment:%capacitytotreatwastewatercollectedthroughsewerage/opendrainstorequiredstandards(100%)

3.Segregation:%ofwasteatdisposal/treatmentpointsegregated(100%)

4.Qualityofwatersupplied:%ofsamplesatmeetingtherequiredstandards(100%)

4.Recycling:%oftotalsolidwasterecycledorprocessed(>80%)

Financialviability

5.Costrecovery:%recoveryofO&McostsforwatersupplythroughULBleveltaxesandcharges(100%)

5.Costrecovery:%recoveryofO&McostsforwastewaterthroughULBleveltaxesandcharges(100%)

5.Costrecovery:%recoveryofO&McostsforSWMthroughULBleveltaxesandcharges(100%)

Note:Figures in brackets are thegoals (benchmarks)under theGoIsSLB Initiative.Somebenchmarks have been adjusted to reflect the Central Public Health and EnvironmentalEngineeringOrganisation(CPHEEO)normsorthesituationatthestatelevel.Forpercapitasupply,referCPHEEO(1999)Table2.1,p.11.The Performance Measurement Framework has identified a set ofKPIsunder these themes,whichwouldhelp central and state levelgovernments/agenciestomonitorprogressofcities.Indicatorstomeasurereforms:Intermediateoutcomesreflectreformsneededtoachievethegoalsorservicedeliveryoutcomes.Toidentifythe key reform measures, specific actions needed to achieve theservicegoalswere identified.This is illustrated forwater supply inFigure2.2.

Many programmes by the Government of India and some stategovernmentshave linkedprogramme funding to implementationofkeyreforms.Forexample,undertheJNNURM,twokeyreformsfocuson access for the poor and on ensuring financial sustainability inoperations through full recovery of O&M costs through user fees.Similar measures are also envisaged under the programmes of the


two state governments: the Sujal Nirmal Maharashtra Abhiyan(SNMA)of theGovernmentofMaharashtraandSwarnimGujaratoftheGovernmentofGujarat.Thereviewofothernationalandinternationalbenchmarkingeffortsalsosuggestsseveralintermediateoutcomeindicatorsthatneedtobecaptured.A key gap in the current benchmarking efforts relates tomeasuring equity in service delivery. In low and medium incomecountries like India, with nearly onefifth of urban populationresiding in slums, it is important that equity in service delivery iscapturedinperformanceassessment.Basedonthesefactors,keyreformshavebeenidentifiedandgroupedinthoserelatedto:(a)efficiencyinserviceoperations;and(b)equityinservicedelivery.Anefforthasbeenmade to identifyreformsandrelatedKPIsforwhichitispossibletospecifybenchmarks.Itislikelythat some of the indicators suggested for local action in the nextsection may move here after the first round of comparativeassessmentsarecompletedacrossallthecities.Figure3:IllustrativeReformstoAchieveGoldenGoalsforWaterSupply

Quantityofwatersupply

Continuityofwatersupply

Ensurespatialequityinsupplyofwateralongwithmetering

Ensureadequatestaffingforwatersupplyactivities

Ensuremeteringandreductioninphysicallosses

Qualityofwatersupply

Universalaccessandcoverage

100%recoveryofO&Mcosts

Reducenonrevenuewater,physicallossesandillegalconnections

Ensurehighcollectionefficiencyincurrentdemandfortaxesandcharges

OptimiseonunitelectricitycostsandtotalO&Mproductioncosts

Fullycovermunicipalareawithwatersupplydistributionnetwork

Ensureaffordablewaterconnectionchargesforthepoor

Identifyandregulariseillegalconnections

Provideindividualconnectionstoallslumhouseholds

Ensureallzonesincityarecovered

Ensureproperqualitymonitoring

Identifyandcosteffectivelydevelopsourcesofwaterofadequatequality

Continuouswatersupplytoavoidseepageinwaterpipenetwork

Reducephysicallossestoeconomicallyacceptablelevels

Identifyandcosteffectivelydevelopsourcesofwaterofadequatequality

Ensurespatialequityinsupplyofwateralongwithmetering


Table2:KeyPerformanceIndicatorsforReforms Performanceindicator Benchmark Equityinservicedelivery 1%of slumhouseholdswith: (a) individualwaterconnections; (b)individual toiletsand sewerageconnections;and (c)anddoortodoorSWMcollection

100%

Efficiencyinserviceoperations 2%ofnonrevenuewatertototalwatersupply* 20%*5%ofmunicipalsolidwastedisposedoffthroughscientificlandfillsites*

100%*

6Efficiency in consumergrievance redressal asper service charterforallthreesubsectors*

100%*

7%oftotalwatersupplyconnectionswithfunctionalmeters* 100%*8%collectionstocurrentbilleddemandforallthreesubsectors* >90%*Note: * Indicatorswith asterisks (*) and the associated benchmarks are covered under theGoIsSSLBInitiative;**Thecoefficientofvariation(CV)or relativevariabilityequalsthestandarddeviationdividedbythemean.Itisexpressedasaratio.Local action indicators: Additionally, PAS has developed localaction indicators which help the cities drill down on the KPIs toactionareasneededforimprovedperformance.Forexample,theKPIoncoverageinslumareashelpsthelocalgovernmentlookatequityissues, and local action indicators assess the extent of coverage ofwater/sewerage distribution network as well as slums that requireprovision of internal distribution network to increase the rate ofindividual connections for households in slum settlements. Localactionindicatorsforreducingserviceexpenditureincludeunitcostofproductionandunitcostofelectricityforwaterproduction.GiventhattheProjectcoverscitieswithpopulationassmallas17,000tosomeaslargeas13million,thePASbenchmarkingframeworkhastoensurethatthemeasurementframeworkisflexibleandadaptableto big and small utilities. For example, smaller cities without theconventional systems should also be able to measure and monitorperformance of waste water. For the PAS team, it has been achallenge to develop indicators for fecal sludge managementpracticesinanonseweredcontext.Theprojectteamintendstoshareitsexperienceattheconference.


PerformanceMonitoringThe second component of PAS Project is performance monitoring.This deals with establishment of an online database of sectorinformation that cities can access and use to monitor theirperformanceineachofthesubsectors.Awebbasedportalhasbeendeveloped which would give access to each of the 400+ cities, toreview their information in comparison to other cities of similarcharacteristics in the state.Thiswouldalsoensureease in thecitysfunctions inreportingperformancetovariousstateandcentral levelagencies. PASintendstoestablishinformationsystematthestatelevelsothattheinformationwillbeusednotonlyforperformancemonitoringofall water utilities, but will also be used for tracking progress onvarious sector reforms. With the recommendations of the nationalThirteenth FinanceCommission on performance based grants, it isexpectedthatPASinformationwillbeusedbythestategovernmentforallocatinggrants towaterutilities.Themonitoringsystemat thestate level is also expected tohelp set targets and allocatebudgets.For example, both the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat havedeclared tomake their state open defecation free. PAS team hasdeveloped simple simulation models to estimate extent of opendefecation in each city and compute fund requirements based onvarioustechnologyoptions.PerformanceImprovementThe third componentofPASdealswithperformance improvement.Two critical areas of improvement, identified under PAS are:financial sustainabilityand increasedaccessofwaterand sanitationto urban poor. PAS team is developing approaches that use theperformanceindicatorsandbenchmarkstoidentifypriorityareaanddevelopactionplans.Forexample,arapidwaterauditmethodologyis developed to help identify specific actions related to increasingrevenues(identifyillegalconnections,improvebillingandcollection)and reducing costs (repair leaks; reduce energy costsby improvingpump efficiencies etc.).For increasing access tourbanpoor,PAS isdevelopingSLUMPAS,a slum settlement level information systemin a few cities. SLUMPAS is a GIS based slum system where


information about access to services in each slum settlement ismappedandisusedtodevelopspecificprojectsforwatersupplyandsanitation.III.ADDRESSINGTHEEMERGINGISSUESINPEFORMANCEASSESSMENTThePASProjectcovers419cities in the twoIndianstatesofGujaratandMaharashtra.The firstroundofdatacollection forallcitieshasbeen completed and it is intended todo this for annually thenextfour years through the project. Over the five year project period,effortswillalsobemadetoachievegradual improvement inqualityof data to increase reliability and accuracy ofKPIs.Work has alsobeeninitiatedinworkingwiththestateandlocalgovernmentstousethisinformationforperformanceimprovement.Based on the experience from the first round of data collection, anumber of issues in appropriate indicators and theirmeasurementhave been identified. These emerge both due to the very differentcontext of type of services and modes of service providers whereurban local governments, rather than autonomous utilities providewatersupplyservices.Someofthekeyissuesarediscussedbelow:Coverageofwatersupplyandsanitationservices:Whilecoverageisused as an indicator across most benchmarking exercises in bothdeveloped anddeveloping countries, the focus is quitedifferent inthetwocontexts.Inthedevelopedworld,itisviewedmoreintermsofthecommercialobjectiveofsizeofthecustomerbase.Forexample,theAustralianNationalPerformanceReportprovidesdetailsonlyonthetotalnumberofcustomers.5Ontheotherhand,inthedevelopingworld,theextentofcoverageasa share of total population is an important indicator of the socialobjectiveofprovidingwaterandsanitationtoall.MostperformancebenchmarkingexercisessuchasthatbytheAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)andtheWorldBanksIBNethaveindicatorsrelatedtopercentofpopulationcovered.Infact,IBNetalsohasaseparateindicatorfor

5AustralianWaterCommissionandWaterservicesAssociationofAustralia(2007), National performance Report, 200506 for Major water utilities,WaterservicesAssociationofAustralia


coveragethroughhouseholdconnectionsversuspublicwaterpoints6.Thesedohelptocapturethenuancesincoverage.InthePASProject,accessofservices in theslumsettlement isaseparate indicator.ThegroundrealityinslumsinthecitiessurveyedunderthePASProjectsuggeststheneedtodistinguishbetweenasharedgroupconnectionandapublicstandpoint. It isalsoessential toassess thenumberofpersons or households actually dependent on the public or sharedwaterpoint.Insanitationindicatormeasurements,suchanapproachis generally missing as the focus is only on sewerage. Generally,accesstotoiletsisnotconsideredseparatelythoughtheMillenniumDevelopmentGoal (MDG) target is about access to safe sanitation.Thusbenchmarkingexercisesincitiesindevelopingcountriesneedtoalso capture toilet access/coverage, especially for the poor, as aseparateindicator.Populationservedbytheserviceprovider:Ourexperiencesuggestsanumberofdifficulties inactuallycapturing thedataforwaterandsanitation coverage, particularly related to: a) assessing nominalservice population and households of the service provider, b)assessing population/households served per connection, a publicwaterpointorapublictoiletfacility,andc)forsanitationdifficultyin identifyingpropertieswith toilets, anddistinguishing between acommunitytoiletandapublictoiletmeantforfloatingpopulation.OpportunitiesforresolvingtheseissuesinIndiaaremainlylinkedtothe property tax data base (PTDB) which is the main source ofrevenueforallcitiesinthetwostates.Thereisaneedtocreateagoodbaselinedataonallhouseholdsandtheiraccesstomunicipalsupplythrough legal connections and onsite available sanitation services.Thiswould require tobedone throughacarefullydesigned specialhouseholdsurveythatwillenablealinkwiththePTDB.AsPTDBiscomputerised ormost stateshaveplans for this, the system can beeasily set up efficiently and can be linked to both performancemeasurementaswellasforbilling.Also,asthepropertytaxsystemisupdatedeveryfouryears, itwillalsomake itpossible toupdatethedata.

6 Even IBNetwhich does have a separate subindicator for publicwaterpoint,doesnotreportthisonitswebsite.


Service levels quantity of water, service continuity and waterquality:Aftercoverage,possibly themostcommonlyused indicatorin water supply is related to the quantity of water supplied,measured either as per capita or per connection. However, thequestion is theappropriatenessofusingonly this indicator inmanydeveloping countries where water supply is nonpressurised,intermittent (often ranging from 20minutes to twohoursperday)and in some cases for less than 15days in amonth.What are theappropriate indicators?There is aneed tomeasuredaysof supply,hoursofsupply,andintracityvariationsinsupplyofwater.Secondly, and even more importantly, in a large number of citiestherearenometersatthesupplyend,inthedistributionsystemoratconsumer end.Thismakes itdifficult tomeasurequantityofwatersupplied. It alsomakes it difficult to assess thewater balance andextent of NRW on a regular basis. Under the PAS Project, a costeffective approach forpreliminarywater audithas beendevelopedandtestedinonemediumsizedcitywithapopulationof150,000.Itshowed thatcompared to theurban localbodiesestimateof33percent, measured NRW was actually 44 per cent. This approach isplanned to be tested further in other cities and then scaled upthrough a market based approach. However, this will require acarrotandstick approach that both requires and incentivises theurban local bodies (ULBs) to take on such activities. The stategovernmentwillhave toplayan importantroleas thecurrent tarifflevels are such that NRW related aspects are less important, andbottomlineforurbanwatersupplyandsanitationforULBsisnotasimportantas forwaterutilities.Thus,ULBsneed tobesensitised tothecostsofNRW,togetthemtocarryoutsuchassessments.

Measuring equity in service delivery: The Joint MonitoringProgramme of UNICEF/WHO suggests that in India while theestimated coverageofwater serviceshas improved, thehouse levelconnection rationhasdecreased.Such information isgathered fromspecialsurveysasutilitiesdonotmaintainsuchdata. It isgenerallybelievedthatitisthepoorwholackservices.However,inabsenceofinformationtosubstantiatethis,itisdifficulttovalidatethis.


OneoftheimportantcontributionsthatPASProjectaimstomakeisinthecontextofdevelopingindicatorsthatmeasureequityinservicedelivery.Across thebenchmarking literature,wehavenotyetcomeacross efforts at benchmarking services for the poor. The firstchallengeforusinthePASProjectwastoidentifywhothepoorareandwheredo they stay. In the first round,we have looked at theslumdwellers in the Indiancitiesas thepoor.However,utilitiesdonot always have information on services in the slums.PASProjectaimstoremedythissituationbydevelopingSLUMPAS.Contextofnonseweredcities:ThePASteamalsofacedchallengesindefining appropriate indicators for safe sanitation. The indicatorsdevelopedbyGovernmentofIndiaandAsianDevelopmentBankarebased on utilities that have underground sewerage and treatmentfacilities.Thesituationongroundisquitedifferent.Ofthe414citiessurveys under PAS, only 85 cities have underground sewerage


network,andoftheseonlyabout40citieshavewastewatertreatmentfacility.Thus, besides waste water management indicators, we would alsoneed to develop indicators related to septage management. As ofnow,wearelookingatthenumberofsewerageconnections(thedataforwhichishardtocomebyasmostutilitiesdonotkeepsuchdata).Oftentheylevyapercentsurchargeontheirwaterbillaswastewatermanagementcharge.Innonseweredcities,PAScollectsinformationon toiletsconnected toseptic tanksandsoakpits. Inabsenceofcityleveldatabase,suchinformationisalsohardtocomeby.Financialratios:PAS teamhasalso facedsomedifficulty ingettingfinancial information from utilities. In India, most urban localgovernments follow cashbasedaccountingsystem. InGujarat, themunicipalities have shifted to accrual based accounting system. Incashbasedaccounting,iftheULBhasnotpaiditsbills,itwillnotbereflectedintheexpenditureandhencetherewillbeunderreporting.In the stateofMaharashtra,very fewULBshavemoved to accrualbased system. In Gujarat, where all ULBs have moved to accrualbasis,asaresultofstategovernmentmandate,itispossibletogetamoreaccurate reflectionof theexpenditureonwaterand sanitationservices7.ConclusionMovingfromMeasurementtoImprovement:Whiletherearemanyissuesrelatedtomeasurementofperformanceinanemergingeconomycontext,thePASexperiencesuggeststhatitis important to beginwithwhat is available and then improve themeasurement over the years. One could spend years in perfectingmeasurement ina fewpilotcities,but then it isdifficult toreplicatethis for all the cities. Instead, it is important to startbenchmarkingexercise at a scale involving as many utilities as possible, bydevelopingasystemthatusestheexistinginformationwithutilities.It isonlywithanexerciseundertakenata scale thatbenchmarkingcanmakerealimpactsonpoliciesandonservicedelivery.

7 Aminorissuewasaboutbillingbythecreditorsoftheutility.Inmanycases,thestaterunelectricsupplycompanydidnotsendthebillintimeandhence,itwouldnotbeincludedinthedoubleentryaccountingsystem


The second important lesson is thatbenchmarking exercises shouldnot be viewed as a data collection exercise. The cities need tounderstand how such information can help them improveperformance. The PAS Project team is now devoting considerabletimeandeffort indevelopingappropriate frameworksandmodulestohelpcitiesuse thebenchmarking informationanddevelopactionplan.The project aims toworkwith about 40 cities ondevelopingperformanceimprovementplans.Assuggestedearlier,thePASteamis alsodeveloping frameworks for the stategovernment to takeupspecificprogrammes,suchasmakingcitiesopendefecationfree.Thekeytoasuccessfulbenchmarkingistoensurethatitisownedby theutilityandnot enforcedbyaregulatororstategovernment.The ownership at local level will come only when it can bedemonstratedthatbenchmarkingleadstobetterservicedeliveryandimproved efficiency. It will then become a part of the routineadministration at the state and local level and will becomesustainable.References:AustraliaWaterCommission(2007),NationalPerformanceReport,200506 for Major Water Utilities, Water services Association ofAustralia.ADB (2004), Asian Development Bank, Benchmarking and WaterUtilitiesDataBook,Manila,ThePhilippines.MoUD (Ministry of Urban Development) and ADB (AsianDevelopment Bank). 2007. 2007 Benchmarking and Data Book onWaterUtilitiesinIndia.JMP (2010) Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply andSanitationProgressonDrinkingWaterandSanitationNewYork:UNICEF,andGeneva:WHO.SEAWUNandADB(2007),SouthEastAsianWaterUtilitiesNetworkandAsianDevelopmentBank,DataBookofSouthEastAsianWaterUtilities,November2007,Manila,thePhilippines.


MoUD (Ministry of Urban Development). 2010, Service LevelBenchmarks:DataBook,GovernmentofIndia,NewDelhi.CPHEEO (Central Public Health and Environmental EngineeringOrganisation). 1999, Manual for Water Treatment: CPHEEOGuidelines.MinistryofUrbanDevelopment,GovernmentofIndia.

Documents

Benchmarking in Emerging Economies.pdf