1. “Looking Beyond Capital Costs”
Life Cycle Costing for Sustainable Service Delivery
A Study of Rural Sanitation in Andhra Pradesh, India
ASIA REGIONAL SANITATION AND HYGIENE
PRACTITIONERS WORKSHOP, Dhaka 2012
Snehalatha. M
Venkataswamy.M
Sirisha. D
Anitha. V
Busenna. P

2. objectives and sample
 Differential access to and use of
sanitation services by the poor
and non poor.
 Analysing the expenditure using
the life cycle costing approach
Sample :
Total Sanitation: 72,000
NGP Award: Around 2000
Agroclimatic zones - 9
Districts - 22
Household surveys - 5233

3. Service Level Measurement
Service level ISL Access ISL use Reliability Environmental
protection
Improved More than All the family Rs1000+ spent Drains and dumps are
one toilet members use on O&M well maintained, In
toilet& infant addition solid and liquid
faeces disposed re use and re cycle is
in toilet practiced
Basic One ISL All the members Rs 500+ spent Drains are well
of family using on O&M maintained. Dumps used
for solid disposal
Limited/Sub Shared Some family less than Rs500 Drains are there but
Standard members using spent on O&M poorly designed and
the toilet maintained. Dumping
area for solid waste exists
but not used
No service No ISL All Open Households did No Solid or liquid waste
Defecation not spend any management
amount

4. Household Level Service Levels
No Service Limited Basic
100% 3% Access is better but needs more
12% 10% time to reach TSC goal
90%
24%
38% Usage is alarmingly low
80% 22%
33%
70%
Reliability concerns lowers the
% 3% usage ( fear of filling the pit, no
60%
of service providers for
h 50%
emptying, finding replacement of
o
u 40%
73%
hardware)
66%
se 30%
59% 57%
h No systems for solid/liquid
ol 20% disposal systems
d
10%
s Even award winning villages(NGP)
0% report similar findings
Acces Use Reliability
Environmental Protection
Source: WASHCost (India) study 2010

5. Access and Usage by different caste groups
100 2 Broadly divided into three
8 6
13 13 categories, ‘scheduled’(SC/ST), ‘backwar
90 18
1 d(BC)’ and ‘other(OC)’.
35 32 19
80 18
54 Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled
70
3 Tribes (ST) are at the lowest social rung
3 36
60
and have constitutional provision of
50 reservations in educational
4 92 institutions, employment, fund
86
40
73 allocation in Govt programs
65 69
30 62
42 46 Lower access among Lower caste
20
categories,
10
Usage is low across all the groups but
0
worst in Lower caste categories
OC BC SC ST OC BC SC ST
Access Use
Basic Limited No Service

6. Access and Usage by Households
Access and Usage by Households
based on their farm size
based on their income
Basic Limited No Service
100
Basic Limited No Service 12 11
15
100 3 90 25
10 15 33
80 38 19
90 25 49 22
32 21
18 70 63 31
80 44 4
4 60 3
25 38
70
3 50 1
60 40
3 3 66 70
50 30 59 63
50 54
40 75
20
34 37
71 72
65 60 10
30
53 0
20
Large farm size
Medium farm Size
Medium farm Size
Landless
Landless
Small farm size
Large farm size
Small farm size
10
0
US$415to1035
US$415to1035
>US$1035
>US$1035
< US$ 415
< US$ 415
Access Use

7. Why are the services low?
1….
2…..
3…..
4…..
5…..
6…..
N…..
Lets look at where/How the investments were
made?

8. Costs of excavation of pit,lining, slabs,
superstructures and drainage pipes etc, drainage
systems, solid waste disposal systems,Institutional
toilets etc
Costs of Capital
capital expenditure Day-to-day maintenance, chemicals, cleaning
Operational
materials, soap for handwashing, minor repairs
and minor
Expenditures
maintenance
on indirect
expenditure To restore the functionality of a system eg: replacing
support
a slab or emptying a septic tank or superstructure
Capital etc.
Expenditures maintenance
on direct expenditure
support
Providing support to VWSCs, Cost of conducting IEC
and awareness camps and training programs etc
Macro level planning & policy making, support to
decentralised service authorities or local
government
Interest rate that Government / houesholds pay on
the loans they take to construct a toilet

9. Investments made on Life Cycle Cost Components
Exclusive focus on Hard ware
Relative share of Sanitation
investments Percapita per year
Social engineering, not a priority to
4% 0% 8%
2% technical engineers
0%
No/Low direct support indicate lack of
86%
demand generation activities
CapManEx absent indicating low
sustainability
CapexHrd CapExSft ExpDs
ExpIDS CapManEx OpEx Lack of Institutional structures for
ensuring O&M
Source: WASHCost survey(2010)

10. What makes households go for a toilet?
Personal factors
Privacy Socio and Economic
Factors
Seasonal/environmental
Security for women and Subsidy from Govt and Other factors
Adolescent Girls
Convenience during rainy
Improved social status in seasons & night times
Needs of elderly the society
Pressure from Panchayats to
win the NGP Award
Self respect and shame Education levels of the
family memebrs Awareness on health
to defecate openly
benefits
RWSS /contractor Non availabily of open
Constructed fields/ difficulty in accessing
the agricultural fields

11. Way Forward
• Monitoring the expenditure using Life Cycle Cost Approach
•Increasing the scale and duration of expenditure on IEC that include different
strategies over a longer period looking beyond the capital costs.
•A step wise award system that rewards sustained achievement of sanitation
services need to be designed.
•Safeguards should be in place for the poorest of the poor, SC/ST and
disadvantaged households to receive the Government subsidies on priority.
Involving the SCs and STs and poorest of the poor households require the
support of a professional agency / NGOs
• Urgent need for convergence and sequencing the activities of TSC
• “demand generation”
• “fund disbursal”
• “regular monitoring” for sustained sanitation