National Drinking Water Mission – Review in Kerala – To provide every rural person with water for drinking, cooking and other domestic basic needs

National Drinking

Water Mission – Review in

Kerala – To provide every rural person with

water for drinking, cooking and other

domestic basic needs

The Scheme revolved around the three distinct interrelated issue:

accelerating the coverage of remaining uncovered habitations with safe drinking water systems

promote sustainability of safe drinking water systems and

institutionalising water quality management, monitoring and surveillance systems.

Scheme contours

the planning process conceived was adequate for successful implementation of the programme in terms of coverage, source sustainability and water quality;

the fund management was economical and effective;

the implementation of various programme components was effective and efficient; and

there existed effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism

Audit Objectives

Vision, Mission and Goals of NRDWP as reflected in the framework for implementation

Water Quality norms stipulated in the Protocol on Water Quality Monitoring

Work execution norms of Kerala Public Works Department Code and Public Health Engineering Department data book.

Audit Criteria

Five year rolling plan as envisaged in the framework for implementation of NRDWP (2010) was not prepared and only Annual Action Plan was prepared.

◦Consequently, adequate priority was not given for schemes started years back.

In schemes involving several components, failure to plan and synchronize resulted in delayed commissioning of the schemes

Findings and conclusions

Audit analysis of the impact of the programme revealed that despite the Guidelines 2000 specifying norms of 40 lpcd of potable drinking water, by the end of 2012-13

◦ only 76 lakh beneficiaries could be provided with said quantity of potable drinking water which worked to only 30 per cent of the total rural population of 2.55 crore.

◦ The challenges before the Government become all the more acute when faced with the heightened norms of providing piped water with quality to each household and higher norms of 55 lpcd.


Delayed execution of 11 major schemes resulted in cost escalation and denial of potable drinking water facility to 10 lakh rural population.

Poor progress was noticed in respect of schemes implemented for coverage of quality affected habitations and for sustainability of waters sources

Out of the 16 subdivisional laboratories formed in the State, 15 of them were functioning without separate infrastructure and technical facilities.


Though a State Water and Sanitation Mission was formed, activities as envisaged in the guidelines were not performed.

Effective monitoring and evaluation by State Level Scheme Sanctioning Committee or evaluation study by Central/State Government was absent during the period covered under audit.


The KWA should prepare a comprehensive rolling plan for according priority for completion of schemes already taken up.

KWA should accord priority to cover all quality affected habitations in providing safe drinking water to rural population.

Government should urgently formulate and execute schemes for sustainability of water sources to ensure water security

The SWS & S Mission should function to ensure greater convergence among various departments, besides carrying out other activities as envisaged in the scheme guidelines.

Recommendations

ALL INDIA PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF INDIRA AWAAS

YOJANA

IAY launched by GOI in May 1985 was aimed to provide financial assistance for construction/up-gradation of dwelling units to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, freed bonded labourers and non-SC/ST persons living Below Poverty Line.

The IAY benefits have been extended to widows or next kin

of defence personnel killed in action, ex-servicemen and retired members of the paramilitary forces.

BPL General Category of 40% beneficiaries includes people from the minority community to the extent of 15%.

INTRODUCTION

Commissioner of Rural Development under LSGD is in overall charge of implementation of the scheme in the State.

Project Directors of PAUs under CRD are in charge of District level.

Secretaries of Block Panchayats (BPs) are the Implementing Officers.

CRD is to forward monthly progress received from PAUs to GOI.

PAUs are to allocate the funds received from GOI and State to the Secretaries of BPs in the respective district.

Kerala has much enhanced pattern of assistance by way of supplementary assistance from PRIs from the Development Fund of ` 1,51,500 from 2011-12 (for SCs), for STs it is over Rs. 2 lakh– earlier it was Rs.38,500 for General and Rs.51,500 for SCs/STs.

Organisational set-up

CRD

Addl. Development Commissioner

Joint Development Commissioner

Asst. Commissioner

Organisational set-up (cond..)

Project Directors, PAU

Addl. Project Directors (Planning & Monitoring)

Secretary , BP

Extension Officer/Joint BDO

(Housing)

Village Extension Officer

State Level

District Level Block Level

The Scheme is being implemented in all the 14 districts in the State.

In the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994, implementation of rural housing schemes is in the domain of panchayats.

There are 14 District Panchayats, 152 Block Panchayats and 978 Grama Panchayats.

Four districts were selected using Probability Proportional to Size Without Replacement Sampling (PPSWRS) method, dividing the State into two strata viz., Southern region and Northern region.

Selection of Districts

Districts selected

Malappuram

Wayanad

Alappuzha

Thiruvananthapuram

Within each selected district 20% Rural Blocks subject to a minimum two and within each selected Block 30% number of GPs subject to a maximum 10 were to be selected. Within each selected GP, two wards (villages) were also to be selected.

Eleven Block Panchayats were selected from the selected districts using Simple Random Sampling Without Replacement (SRSWOR).

25 Grama Panchayats and 50 wards (two wards from each GP) were selected in third stage sampling.

318 beneficiaries from 50 wards (minimum six from each) were selected for joint inspection.

SAMPLE SELECTION (contd..) SELECTION OF BLOCK PANCHAYATS WITHIN THE SELECTED DISTRICTS

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE DURING 2008-13 (Rs. in lakh)

Period OBallocation Release

Misc Fund available

Expenditure incurred

Centre State Total Centre State Total

2008-09 712.26 10805.52 3601.85 14407.37 15655.70 5009.45 20665.15 233.12 21610.53 15190.55

2009-10 6419.98 16261.55 5420.52 21682.07 16261.55 5440.14 21701.69 215.27 28337.24 21256.92

2010-11 7080.32 18590.8 6196.93 24787.73 18590.8 6196.94 24787.74 28.81 31896.87 23312.03

2011-12 8584.84 18160.05 6053.35 24213.4 18160.05 5822.25 23982.30 104.438 32671.58 26419.68

2012-13 6251.89 20121.29 6707.12 26828.41 15344.332 5302.14 20646.472 3741.47 30639.83 21831.29

Total 83939.21 27979.77 111919 84012.43 27770.92 111783.4 4323.10 145156.1 108010.50

•Percentage of expenditure during the five years ranged between 70 to 80.•Short release by Centre and State in 2012-13 because of excess carryover of funds, short release of state share, delayed submission of UCs and non-adjustment of homestead share into IAY •The above figure do not include PRI assistance.•In Kerala, out of the total cost of ` two lakh per dwelling, the GOI plus State Government assistance is ` 48,500 called IAY component.•The supplementary assistance by PRIs from the Development Fund is presently `Rs.1,51,500 (in the ratio of 25:50:25 for DPs, BPs & GPs) .

Fund Flow

GOI

Rural Development Ministry

Addl Development Commissioner

(General)

CRD

Consolidated Fund

Allotment Letter

Rural Dev. Ministry

Sanctions

PAUDD

Cheque

(RTGS)

BP Scheme Account

During 2008-09 to 2012-13, against the physical target of 2.89 lakh new houses, 2.54 lakh were sanctioned of which 1.89 lakh houses were completed till March 2013.

Construction of 65180 houses were in progress of which 48041 were delayed beyond two years.

Major reasons for delay attributed to shortage of construction materials, non-availability of trained labourers, etc.

As of March 2013, 57086 houses were up-graded against 59238 houses sanctioned.

Target and achievement of the State

Audit Objective 1 To examine whether systems and procedures were in place

for identification and selection of the target groups and the processes for allotment, construction and up-gradation of dwelling units were adequate and conformed to the scheme provisions.

Selection of beneficiaries Grama Sabhas were to select the beneficiaries from the list of

eligible BPL households and their selection was final. Grama Sabhas were sending lists of beneficiaries to BPs without

verifying their eligibility. Verification of the lists by VEOs revealed that the lists contained

ineligible beneficiaries.

Audit findings

Selection of beneficiaries under IAY is to be done from the permanent IAY waitlist prepared out of the BPL list and approved by the Grama Sabha.

No permanent IAY waitlists were prepared by the Blocks test-checked (except one block each in Thiruvananthapuram & Malappuram).

Selection was done from the annual beneficiary list prepared by Grama Sabha.

Annual beneficiary lists contained some APL beneficiaries.

Selection of beneficiaries (contd..)

Since beneficiary lists are prepared annually, strict observance of priority could not be ensured –Lack of transparency in ranking of beneficiaries.

By not having a permanent waiting list, prioritization of beneficiaries in terms of seniority does not take place.

Beneficiaries have to repeatedly apply year after year for getting benefit as the preference is for widows as head of the family, physically handicapped, war widows etc.

Minimum 2 years, beneficiaries have to wait on an average.


Most of the beneficiaries surveyed were not aware of waiting list or their priority.

This underscores the importance of Permanent waiting list. Beneficiary survey of 318 revealed:

◦ 268 held BPL ration cards◦ 49 held APL ration cards◦ One had no ration card- he was selected on the basis of VEO’s

certificate


Criteria for allocation among blocks/GPs within a district Allocation of fund and physical target among blocks in a district was to

be done by giving 75% weightage to housing shortage and 25% weightage to rural SC/ST population of the concerned block.

Only the PAU, Malappuram and one BP (out of the three BPs of the district test-checked) adhered to the principle.

PAUs and BPs of Alappuzha, Thiruvananthapuram and Wayanad did not observe this principle.

Non-adherence to the principle resulted in distribution of funds without giving due weightage to housing shortage and SC/ST population.

Audit findings – Objective 1 (Contd…..)

Homestead schemeA part of IAY scheme for providing homestead sites to those rural BPL households who have neither agricultural land nor a house site. Funding was shared between Centre and States in the ratio of 50:50. Financial assistance per beneficiary was `Rs.10,000.

GOI sanctioned grant-in-aid of Rs. 32.09 crore to the State in December 2009 as one-time measure. State matching grant Rs.32.08 crore.

Out of Rs. 23.34 crore received (December 2009) by the PAUs of the four selected districts, only Rs.3.06 crore was utilised (13% achievement).

Assistance from Homestead scheme was meagre compared to the land value.


Land value being very high in Kerala due to increased urbanisation, Rs.10,000 is considered as too low and beneficiaries are not coming forward and PRIs are not able to formulate projects because of lack of interest.

Under decentralized planning, the Panchayat are providing assistance of Rs.50,000 per beneficiary in rural areas for purchasing land – even that is not considered enough.

In the test-checked districts, out of 23341 households selected under Homestead only 3038 beneficiaries availed the benefits


Homestead scheme (contd..)

PAU, Wayanad did not follow GOI direction to credit the balance outstanding under Homestead into IAY account. Consequently, GOI did not provide second installment of IAY share during 2012-13.

There was shortage of fund under IAY during 2012-13 on

account of this in Wayanad.

In the four test-checked districts, total no. of landless families were 45794, of this 23341 were sanctioned. And out of this, 3038 have benefitted, to the total cost of Rs.3.06 crore.


Cluster approach to facilitate better implementation Guidelines stipulate that the States should follow the

cluster approach to facilitate better supervision, convergence of schemes and economies in purchases. For this purpose, all the villages in a district/block were to be divided into three groups and each group of villages was to be provided funds every year.

This was not seen done in any of the districts in the State. Had this been followed, the difficulties faced by the

beneficiaries could have been reduced.


Inventory of houses The guideline provided that the implementing agencies should

have a complete inventory of houses constructed/upgraded under IAY giving details of commencement of houses and its completion, name of the village and block in which the house is situated, occupation and category of beneficiaries and other relevant particulars to ensure proper planning.

In the blocks/districts test-checked, inventory of houses as stipulated in the guidelines were not prepared.

In the absence of inventorisation, details of the beneficiaries for future reference are not available.


Objective 2To examine whether the physical performance under IAY in terms of number of units constructed and upgraded was as planned and targeted and that the constructions corresponded to the quality and financial parameters set out in the scheme guidelines.

Shortage of allocation to SC/ST

Guidelines provide that at least 60 per cent of the IAY fund and physical target should be utilized for construction/upgradation of dwelling units for SC/ST BPL households.

State picture Against 152355 (60%) new houses to be provided, only 132239

(52.07%) were provided during 2008-13. Physical achievement under Up-gradation was 50.43% against the

target 60%.

Audit findings – Objective 2

Delay in completion of houses Considerable delay noticed in completion of houses. Laxity in monitoring and supervision of the worksites by

VEO, Jt. BDO (Housing) and PDs. BDOs failed to motivate the beneficiaries to complete the

houses in time. Due to non-completion, beneficiaries failed to create

permanent shelter and also expenditure of Rs.4.66 crore is locked up since 3-4 years.


Total expenditure (new houses & upgradation) during 2008-13 was 49.86%.

In Alappuzha, against 15255 (60%) houses, 9785 (38.48%) were provided, shortage of 5470 houses. Against upgradation of 60%, the performance was 44.38%.

In Malappuram, against 14820 (60%) houses to SC/ST, only 12721 (51.41%) provided, short provision of 2099 houses. Against upgradation of 4258 (60%), only 3712(52.31%) were provided.

In both these districts, lack of willingness of SC/ST beneficiaries because they were accessing from other SC/ST promotion schemes and amount provided was perceived to be meagre compared to the actual cost of construction.

In the other two districts, coverage of SC/ST was more than the required percentage.


Survey of 318 beneficiaries revealed that:306 houses were allotted in the name of females

Land ownership - females:162; jointly with spouse: 65; other family members : 91

Non-provision of amenities IAY houses were to be provided with sanitary latrine,

smokeless chulha, drinking water facilities and electricity connection.

Out of 318 beneficiaries surveyed, 230 houses were without smokeless chulha, 60 were without sanitation facilities and 20 were without proper drinking water facility.


Involvement of contractorGuidelines stipulate that no contractor shall be involved in the construction of dwelling units under lAY, by the Implementing Agency. Four beneficiaries (ST) out of 12 surveyed in one GP under

Mananthavady Block in Wayanad District admitted involvement of contactors in construction of their IAY houses.

Village Extension Officer, Thondernadu GP, registered a complaint with the local police against a contractor who failed to complete construction of 5 houses (ST) sanctioned in 2011-12. These beneficiaries were sanctioned Rs.2.5 lakh each.

Involvement of contractors will have risk of non-completion/ abandonment of houses/cost escalation.

Audit findings – Objective 2 (contd….)

Availability of information on technology Guidelines stipulate that effort should be made to utilize local

materials and cost effective disaster resistant and environment friendly technologies developed by various institutions. The State Governments may also arrange to make available information on cost effective and environment friendly technologies, materials, designs etc., at district/block level.

Cost effective disaster resistant and environment friendly technologies/products were not made available to beneficiaries.


Absence of uniform design of dwelling units (contd…)

Guidelines provide that Officers dealing with the IAY at the State, district and Block levels must be trained in various disaster resistant features to be adopted in the houses and they should ensure that this is complied with during their field visits.

No district and block level officials were trained in adopting cost effective and environment friendly housing technologies and also disaster proof building practices, to assist the beneficiaries.

No logos were displayed in front of majority of the houses inspected.

70 out of 318 houses surveyed were not aware of the requirement of displaying logos.


Audit findings – Objective 3 (contd…)Delay in release of PRI share

Since 2012-13, 75% of total funds of Rs.two lakh were contributed by PRIs in Kerala

During 2008-13, PRI share for construction of IAY houses was Rs.1417.82 crore. Of these, Rs.1,111.76 crore spent on completed houses.

Though the time for completion of houses was two years from the date of sanction of house, release of supplementary assistance by PRIs was delayed.

The delay ranged from one to five years in the test-checked blocks. This was one of the major reasons for delay in completion of dwellings.

Audit findings – Objective 3 (contd…)Availing loan under Differential Rate of Interest (DRI) There was failure on the part of the banks in providing hassle

free DRI loans to IAY beneficiaries. The banks insisted strict security norms like pledging of property.

Out of 2.53 lakh beneficiaries in the State during the period 2008-13, only 2753 availed DRI loan.

In Thiruvananthapuram and Wayanad Districts, none of the beneficiaries availed DRI loan whereas in Malappuram district, out of the 45 applications received by banks during 2008-09 to 2012-13, loans were sanctioned to 15 beneficiaries only and the remaining 30 applications were rejected.

Majority of beneficiaries surveyed were not aware of DRI loan facilities.

Beneficiary survey revealed: ◦ Only 19 out of 318 beneficiaries were aware of DRI loan facilities. Of

these, 8 availed loan facilities.

Audit findings – Objective 3 (contd…)

Credit-cum-Subsidy scheme Guidelines provide that under Credit-cum-subsidy up to 20% of

the total funds can be utilized for up-gradation of existing kutcha houses @ 15000 per household and Credit- cum-Subsidy will be provided @ Rs. 12,500 per household for construction of houses with credit from Banks/Financial Institutions.

During the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, only 8.65% against 20% of the total funds was utilized for upgradation of existing kutcha houses and Credit- cum-Subsidy.

During the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 only 1491 beneficiaries availed credit cum subsidy, percentage of utilization was 0.15.


Objective 4To examine whether the convergence of the IAY activities with other programmes as envisaged was effectively achieved and availability of a complete functional dwelling unit was ensured.

Absence of effective convergence in the test-checked districts. Beneficiary survey also revealed that no support was received

from any Government scheme for the facilities of water, sanitation and electricity.

Out of 318 beneficiaries surveyed, only 50 stated that there was convergence with other programmes like TSC/RGGVY etc.


Objective 5 To examine whether the mechanism in place for monitoring and evaluation of the

outcomes of the programme was adequate and effective.

Monitoring

Shortfall in monitoring at district level.

Shortfall ranging from four to ten meetings during audit period in convening District Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee meetings.

Difficulties experienced by IAY beneficiaries were seldom discussed in

these meetings.

Beneficiary survey (318 beneficiaries) revealed: 45 households faced problems in getting IAY assistance.

Audit findings – Objective 5Evaluation

Planning Commission entrusted PEO to conduct evaluation study during June 2009 to December 2010.

Many IAY beneficiaries ignorant about the stages of fund release and when to complete the house construction.

Wide range of time period for completion of the construction of houses.

Majority of the houses did not display IAY logo. IAY houses are good and of average quality. IAY beneficiaries faced problems regarding

release of instalment causing delay in completion of the house.

The State Government also conducted an evaluation study through Centre for Development Studies that broadly corroborate our findings

Recommendations on improving governance Necessity of a permanent waiting list is

emphasised for identification of beneficiaries, their prioritization and for transparency in selection.

Land value being high it is essential that the assistance is substantially increased for Homestead schemes to be successful.

The cluster approach should be considered for better supervision (in view of delay in construction), convergence and economy in purchase.

To avoid delay in PRI supplementary assistance, augmentation of development fund/streamlining the loan facilities through banks to be considered.

System to be strengthened for effective convergences of IAY with other programmes for facilities of water, sanitation and electricity to be provided.

Documents

National Drinking Water Mission – Review in Kerala – To provide every rural person with water for drinking, cooking and other domestic basic needs