Annual Performance Assessment Report of

Urban Water supply and Sanitation -

Databook, Part-1

[2012-13]

CEPT University July 2014

DATABOOK PART - 1 State Profile

Dhanera Tharad

Palanpur

Thara Radhanpur Idar Harij Rapar Modasa Bhachau Bhuj Kadi Viramgam Gandhidham Maliyamiyana Jhalod Dhrangadhra Mandavi Dholka DevagadhBariya Dhrol Savri Halol Okha Chotila Sikka Dhandhuka Khambhat ChhotaUdaipur Dwarka Kalavad Baravala Karjan Jamraval Gondal Gadhda Rajpipla Upleta Jetpur Ankleshwar

Visavadar Savarkundla Talaja

Mahuva Tarsadi

Jafrabad Kodinar Una

Vapi Umargam

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata Overall Performance All Sectors State Level Aggregation of Indicator Values for 2012-13

Harij

Gandhidham Mandavi Dhrol Chotila Dwarka

Rajpipla Ankleshwar

Tarsadi Kodinar

About Tableau maps: www.tableausoftware.com/mapdata Umargam Water supply indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Coverage of water supply connections 100.0 0.0 73.0 74.5 75.9 165.0 Coverage of water supply connections in slums 100.0 0.0 53.1 59.9 0.0 143.0 Per capita available of water at consumer end 288.0 12.4 88.5 83.1 107.1 165.0 Extent of metering of water connections 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 166.0 Extent of Non Revenue Water 55.3 1.1 19.9 18.4 10.0 158.0 Continuity of water supply 9.0 0.1 1.3 1.0 1.0 165.0 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (WS) 100.0 39.4 92.5 98.2 100.0 165.0 Quality of water supplied 100.0 0.0 96.4 100.0 100.0 161.0 Cost recovery in water supply services 249.4 5.1 68.6 56.7 52.7 155.0 Efficieny in collection of water supply related charges 96.8 7.5 60.4 63.3 63.7 160.0

Wastewater indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Coverage of Toilets 100.0 34.2 75.1 75.6 80.0 166.0 Coverage of individual toilets in slums 100.0 0.0 59.3 67.1 0.0 147.0 Coverage of wastewater network services 100.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 166.0 Coverage of wastewater network services in slums 100.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 137.0 Collection efficiency of wastewater networks 100.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 163.0 Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity 143.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 164.0 Quality of wastewater treatment 100.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 166.0 Extent of reuse and recycling of treated watsewater 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 166.0 Efficieny in redressal of customer complaints (WW) 100.0 0.0 81.5 97.8 100.0 165.0 Exetent of cost recovery in wastewater management 223.8 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 159.0 Efficiency in collection of sewerage charges 100.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 162.0

SWM indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Household level coverage of SWM services 100.0 0.0 84.9 89.7 100.0 166.0 HH level coverage of SWM services in slums 100.0 0.0 64.2 75.5 100.0 156.0 Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste 21.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 166.0 Extent of municipal solid waste recovered 100.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 166.0 Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste 100.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 166.0 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (SWM) 100.0 5.0 96.2 100.0 100.0 162.0 Extent of cost recovery in solid waste management services 73.4 0.0 18.2 15.1 0.0 158.0 Efficiency in collection of solid waste management charges 97.0 0.0 54.9 58.0 0.0 160.0

Storm water drainage indicators

Maximum Minimun Mean Median Mode Mean Count Coverage of Storm Water Drainage Network 89.8 0.0 12.5 5.6 0.0 167.0 Incidence of water logging/flooding 120.0 0.0 5.6 2.0 0.0 167.0 State Level Performance in Urban Water and Sanitation: 2012-13

Access and Coverage

Coverage related indicators are measured at the smallest unit of a household (HH). For water and sanitation, the indicator measures households served by individual connection/ toilets, and for SWM, it measures households served by door to door collection of MSW.

2013

100 Benchmark Value = 100 %

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Coverage of water supply Coverage of Toilets Coverage of WW network HH level coverage of SWM connections services services

Equity in Service Delivery

Equity in Service Delivery captures the variations in services provided within a city, across all sectors. Moreover, it measures the variations between poor and non-poor sections of the city.

2013

100

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Coverage of water supply Coverage of individual toilets Coverage of WW network HH level coverage of SWM connections in slums in slums services in slums services in slums State Level Performance in Urban Water and Sanitation: 2012-13

Financial Sustainability

Financial sustainability is measured based on the extent of O&M cost recovery in each sector; recovery through local charges and taxes. Another important aspect of financial sustainability is determined by the collection efficieny of service charges for all the sectors.

Extent of Cost Recovery 2013

100 Benchmark Value = 100 %

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Cost recovery in water supply services Exetent of cost recovery in WW Extent of cost recovery in SWM services management

Efficiency of Collection of Service Charges 2013

100

Benchmark Value = 90 %

80 e

g 60 a t n e c r e P 40

20

0 Efficieny in collection of water supply Efficiency in collection of sewerage Efficiency in collection of SWM charges related charges charges State Profile Water Supply Summary of Water Supply Services: 2012-13

Water Supply Coverage

Total number of households Households served by water 5220023 supply connections 5147710 4220119 4109454

Water Production

Ground sources 832 MLD 829 MLD

Bulk water Purchased Own surface Total water produced 2857 MLD 2764 MLD sources 3902 MLD 213 MLD 3885 MLD 293 MLD

Service Levels

ULBs supplying Avg. days Avg. duration Lpcd >= 100 of Supply of Supply 56 ULBs 23.1 days 1.33 hours 47 ULBs 23.3 days 1.32 hours State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2012-13

Coverage of water supply connections at HH level (%)

Total households connected to the water supply network with a private (not shared) service connection, as percentage of total households in the ULB.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Savri 100.0 Sojitra 100.0

) Chanasma 99.2 % (

s 80 Bantawa 99.2 n o i

t Karjan 99.0 c

e Patan 99.0 n n

o Manavadar 98.7 c

y 60 l Santrampur 97.9 p p

u Kapadvanj 97.5 s

r Bhuj 97.3 e t a Khambhaliya 97.2 w

40 f o

Mansa 97.2 e

g Mandavi 97.1 a r

e Amod 96.8 v o

C 20 Kalavad 96.1 95.4 Rajpipla 95.0 0 Balasinor 94.9 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Jamjodhpur 94.2 93.3

Coverage of water supply connections in 'slum settlements' (%)

Total households in slum settlements connected to water supply network with a private (not shared) service connection, as percentage of total households in all slum settlements in the ULB.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Amod 100.0 )

% Sojitra 100.0 (

s Bhachau 99.5 m u l Mandavi s 80 99.2

n i

Bantawa 97.1 s n

o 96.8 i t c Deesa

e 95.0

n 60 n Savri 92.1 o c

y Boriyavi 91.8 l p

p Kalol 91.0 u s

r 40 Chalal 90.9 e t

a Thara 90.0 w

f Kalavad 89.6 o

e Baravala 88.5 g a r 20 Talala

e 87.5 v

o Shahera 86.5 C Vijalpore 84.5 0 Palitana 83.4 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Patan 83.1 82.8 Nadiad State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2012-13

Per capita supply of water (Lpcd)

This indicator captures the quantity of water supplied to consumers daily. This considers only authorized billed and unbilled residential consumers.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 140 Benchmark Value = 135 lpcd Gandhinagar 288.0 Thara 225.2 120 Mandavi_S 223.9

) Sojitra 167.7 d c Mehmadabad 157.5 p

L 100 ( 157.3 r e t

a 156.4 w

f 80 Kheralu 154.5 o

y l Umreth 154.0 p p

u 143.2 s 60 a Dabhoi 141.8 t i p

a Kadi 137.3 c

r Petlad 134.1 e 40 P Anklav 132.5 Padra 132.4 20 Dhrangadhra 131.7 Chanasma 129.2 0 Valsad 128.6 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Karjan 128.3 Ankleshwar 128.0

Extent of metering of water connections (%)

Total number of functional metered water connections expressed as a percentage of total number of water supply connections (including public stand post connections).

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 10 Benchmark Value = 100% Vadodara 2.7 1.2 )

% 0.1 (

s 8 Ahmedabad 0.0 n o i t Amod 0.0 c e

n Amreli 0.0 n o

c Anand 0.0

r 6 e

t Anjar 0.0 a w

Anklav 0.0 f o Ankleshwar 0.0 g n i r Babra 0.0 e 4 t

e Bagasra 0.0 m

f Balasinor

o 0.0

t

n Bantawa 0.0 e t x 2 Baravala 0.0 E Bardoli 0.0 Bareja 0.0 0 Bavla 0.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Bayad 0.0 Bhabhar 0.0 Bhachau State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2012-13

Extent of Non Revenue Water (%)

Difference between total water produced (ex-treatment plant) and total water sold expressed as a percentage of total water produced. NRW includes real as well as apparent losses.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 ChhotaUdaipur 55.3 Vapi 54.2 Morbi 49.8

) 80 Bavla 46.6 % (

Jamjodhpur 46.4 r e t

a Bhayvadar 45.0 W Chhaya 43.0 e

u 60

n Chalal 41.5 e v

e Maliyamiyana 38.0 R Vyara 37.0 n o

N Bilimora 35.9

f 40 o

t Shahera 35.5 n e

t 35.5 x

E Songadh 35.0 20 Benchmark Value = 20% Rajkot 34.9 Sihor 33.5 Kathlal 33.4 0 Thangadh 33.3 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Chorvad 32.8 Siddhpur 32.6

Continuity of water supply (Hours)

Continuity of supply is measured as average number of hours of pressurized water supply per day.

2013 Top Performing ULBs 4 (2013) Benchmark Value = 24 hours Sojitra 9.0 Mandavi_S 6.0 Bharuch 4.0

) Boriyavi 4.0 s r 3 u Chaklasi 4.0 o H

( Dharampur

4.0 y l

p Gandevi 4.0 p u

s Khambhat 4.0

r e

t Pardi 4.0

a 2 w

Petlad 4.0 f o

y 4.0 t i

u 3.5 n i t

n Surat 3.5 o

C 1 Amod 3.0 Anklav 3.0 Borsad 3.0 Nadiad 3.0 0 Patdi 3.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Thara 3.0 Anand 2.5 State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2012-13

Quality of water supplied (%)

Percentage of water samples that meet or exceed the specified potable water standards and sampling regime, at treatment plant outlet and consumer points as defined by CPHEEO.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value =100% Amod 100.0 Amreli 100.0 Babra 100.0 80 Bagasra 100.0

) Bantawa 100.0 % (

d Baravala 100.0 e i l

p Bareja 100.0

p 60 u Bavla 100.0 s

r

e Bhachau 100.0 t a

w Bhanvad 100.0

f o Bhavnagar 100.0 y 40 t i l

a Bhayvadar 100.0 u

Q Bhuj 100.0 Boriyavi 100.0 20 Botad 100.0 Chalal 100.0 Chanasma 100.0 0 Chhaya 100.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities ChhotaUdaipur 100.0 Chorvad 100.0

Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints in water supply (%)

Total number of WS related complaints redressed within time as stipulated in service charter of the ULB, as a percentage of the total number of water supply related complaints received in the year.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Anklav 100.0 ) Balasinor 100.0 % (

s

t Bantawa 100.0 n i

a Baravala 100.0 l 80

p Benchmark Value = 80%

m Bareja 100.0 o c

Bayad 100.0 r e

m Bhayvadar 100.0 o

t 60

s Boriyavi 100.0 u c

f Borsad 100.0 o

l Chaklasi 100.0 a s

s Chalal 100.0 e

r 40 d Chanasma 100.0 e r

n

i Chhaya 100.0

y

c ChhotaUdaipur 100.0 n e i 20 Chorvad 100.0 c i f f

E Dabhoi 100.0 Damnagar 100.0 0 Deesa 100.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Dehgam 100.0 Dharampur 100.0 State Level Performance in Water Supply Services: 2012-13

Cost recovery in water supply services (%)

Total operating revenues from water supply related charges expressed as a percentage of total operating expenses on water supply.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Kaalol 249.4 Amod 238.4

) Baravala 205.7 % (

s 80 Jambusar 185.6 e c i Khambhat 184.6 v r e

s Balasinor 180.6

y l Thasra 169.2 p

p 60 u Vanthali 168.9 s

r

e Bantawa 155.3 t a

w Surendranagar 146.8

n i Bagasra 143.5 y 40 r

e Limbdi 136.6 v o

c Jamraval 130.9 e r

t Chaklasi 127.3 s o

C 20 Sojitra 126.3 Borsad 124.9 Rajpipla 120.7 0 Karjan 119.2 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Jafrabad 115.6 Gandhidham 115.6

Efficieny in collection of water supply related charges (%)

Current year revenues collected from water supply related taxes and charges expressed as a percentage of total billed amounts (for water supply).

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013)

) 100 Vyara 96.8 % (

s Vadnagar 95.1 e

g Benchmark Value = 90% r Bhayvadar 94.3 a h c

80 Mandavi 93.7 d e

t Wankaner 92.8 a l

e Unjha 92.6 r

y l Vijalpore 92.1 p

p 60 u Gandevi 91.2 s

r

e Vadodara 90.7 t a

w Jafrabad 90.2

f o

Bharuch 89.9

n 40 o i

t Gondal 88.8 c e l

l Jamjodhpur 88.8 o c Lunavada 88.4 n i

y 20 Lathi 88.2 n e i Upleta 87.5 c i f f Dhandhuka 87.2 E 0 Kheralu 86.4 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Santrampur 86.1 Bilimora 85.8 State Profile Wastewater Management Summary of Wastewater Management: 2012-13

Wastewater Overview

Properties with toilets 6221622 Properties 5676771 with on-site systems Properties with sewer 2078140 Total number 1945883 of properties HHs dependent on connections 7392241 community toilets 3842690 7113274 84836 3732703 86754

Sewerage System

WW treated at Total WW Secondary Reuse of generated treatment plant treated WW 2491 MLD 1678 MLD 19 MLD 2477 MLD 1596 MLD 18 MLD Cities with partial Cities with secondary Number of cities sewage network WW treatment plant using untreated WW 62 ULBs 7 ULBs 12ULBs 62 ULBs 7 ULBs 18 ULBs

On-site Sanitation System

On-site sanitation Septic tank Septage system cleaning facility treatment facility 161 ULBs 140 ULBs 6 ULBs 161 ULBs 139 ULBs 8 ULBs State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2012-13

Coverage of Toilets (%)

Total number of properties with access to individual or community toilets as a percentage of total number of properties in the city.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% V.Vidyanagar 100.0 Gandhinagar 98.6 Veraval 97.9 80 Rajkot 97.6 Kutiyana 97.6 )

% Kansad 97.5 (

s

t Jambusar 97.0 e l i 60

o Surat 97.0 T

f Petlad 96.3 o

e

g Boriyavi 95.7 a r

e Talaja 95.6

v 40 o Bharuch 95.1 C Bayad 95.0 Himmatnagar 95.0 20 Umreth 94.5 Bhuj 94.1 Vadnagar 93.6 0 Anjar 93.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Ahmedabad 92.9 Kodinar 92.3

Coverage of sewerage network (%)

Total number of properties with individual connections to sewage network as a percentage of total number of properties in the city.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% V.Vidyanagar 100.0 Gandhinagar 98.6 Vadodara 87.0

) 80 Gandhidham 85.0 % (

k Kansad 82.4 r o Ahmedabad 80.1 w t e

n Surat 76.2

e 60

g Vijalpore 74.1 a r

e Navsari 69.4 w

e Kalol 68.1 s

f o 40 Sihor 63.6 e

g Nadiad 63.0 a r e

v Rajkot 61.2 o

C Dabhoi 56.4 20 Mehmadabad 55.8 Ankleshwar 52.6 Kapadvanj 51.6 0 Bardoli 50.7 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Kadi 50.5 Khambhat 50.4 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2012-13

Coverage of individual toilets in slums (%)

Total number of slum households with individual toilets expressed as a percentage of total number of households in 'slum settlements'.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Shahera 100 V.Vidyanagar 100

) Dhandhuka 98 % (

s 80 Pethapur 96 m

u Savarkundla 95 l s

n Mansa 94 i

s t Bantawa 93 e l i 60 o Dwarka 93 t

l

a Siddhpur 93 u d i

v Chhaya 93 i d n

i Bhayvadar 92

40 f o

Vallabhipur 91 e

g Okha 91 a r e

v Harij 91 o

C 20 Talala 90 Kansad 90 Vijalpore 90 0 Kapadvanj 90 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Mandavi 89 Mehmadabad 88 Thara Coverage of wastewater network services in slums (%)

Total number of slum households connected to sewage network expressed as a percentage of total number of households in 'slum settlements'.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 V.Vidyanagar 100

) Siddhpur 93 % ( Sihor 80 s

m 80 Bhachau 78 u l s Kansad 73 n i

s Rajkot 68 e c i

v Ankleshwar 67 r

e 60

s Ahmedabad 64

k r

o 63 w t Mahuva 60 e n Anjar 58

W 40

W Nadiad 53

f o Navsari 42 e g

a Vadodara 36 r e

v 20 Visnagar 36 o

C Talaja 26 Mandavi_S 26 0 Patan 26 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Petlad 25 Karamsad 23 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2012-13

Collection efficiency of wastewater networks (%)

Quantum of waste water collected at the intake of the treatment plant to the quantity of wastewater generated (as per CPHEEO, 80% of water consumed is waste water generated).

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Kalol 100.0

) Surat 100.0 % ( Balasinor 99.8 s k r

o 80 Rajkot 98.9 w t Vadodara 97.3 e n

r Gandhinagar 92.5 e t

a Morbi 92.4 w

e 60 t Ahmedabad 92.0 s a

w Valsad 89.7

f o

Karamsad 89.1 y c

n Unjha 89.0

e 40 i c

i Mandavi 82.3 f f e Mandavi_S 80.4 n o i

t Patan 79.1 c e l

l 20 Petlad 76.5 o

C Anklav 30.4 Amod 0.0 0 Amreli 0.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Anand 0.0 Anjar 0.0 Ankleshwar Adequacy of wastewater treatment capacity (%)

Quantum of wastewater that can be treated to secondary treatment standards (removal of BOD and COD) as a percentage of normative wastewater generated.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 120 Ahmedabad 143.1 Surat 137.2

) Vadodara 106.6 % (

100 Rajkot 101.2

y Benchmark Value = 100% t i

c Valsad 89.7 a p

a Amod 0.0 c

t 80 Amreli 0.0 n e

m Anand 0.0 t a

e Anjar 0.0 r t 60 Anklav 0.0 W W

Ankleshwar 0.0 f o

y Babra 0.0 c

a 40 Bagasra 0.0 u q

e Balasinor 0.0 d

A Bantawa 0.0 20 Baravala 0.0 Bardoli 0.0 0 Bareja 0.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Bavla 0.0 Bayad 0.0 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2012-13

Quality of wastewater treatment (%) Total number of waste water samples (BOD and COD) that have passed the specified secondary treatment standards to number of waste water samples conducted, at the outlet of the plant.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Gandhinagar 100.0 ) %

( Valsad 100.0

t

n 80

e Rajkot 95.5 m t Surat 92.3 a e r

t Vadodara 90.5

r 60 e t Ahmedabad 85.0 a

w Amod 0.0 e t s

a 40 Amreli 0.0 w

f Anand 0.0 o

y t

i Anjar 0.0 l

a 20 u Anklav 0.0 Q Ankleshwar 0.0 0 Babra 0.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Bagasra 0.0 Balasinor 0.0 Extent of reuse and recycling of treated watsewater (%) Quantity of waste water that is recycled or reused after secondary treatment as a percentage of quantity of waste water received at the treatment plant.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) Gujarat 0.65 Surat 2.5 Municipal Corporations 1.03 Vadodara 1.8 Other Municipalities 0.00 Ahmedabad 0.1 Amod Efficieny in redressal of customer complaints in wastewater (%) Total number of wastewater related complaints redressed within time as stipulated in service charter of the ULB, as a percentage of the total number of wastewater related complaints received in the year.

2013 Top Performing ULBs s

t (2013)

n 100 i a l Amod 100.0 p

m Amreli 100.0 o c

80 r Benchmark Value = 80 % Anklav 100.0 e

m Ankleshwar 100.0 o t

s Balasinor 100.0 u

60 c

) f Bantawa 100.0 o %

( l

a Bardoli 100.0 s s

e 40 Bareja 100.0 r d

e Bhabhar 100.0 r

n i

Bhayvadar 100.0

y 20 n Bhuj 100.0 e i c i

f Bilimora 100.0 f

E 0 Boriyavi 100.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Chaklasi 100.0 Chhaya 100.0 State Level Performance in Wastewater Management: 2012-13

Exetent of cost recovery in wastewater management (%)

Total operating revenues from sewerage related charges expressed as a percentage of total operating expenses on wastewater.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 ) Benchmark Value = 100 % Anjar 223.8 % (

t Gandhidham 198.6 n e Dholka m 187.0 e

g Kalol 140.1

a 80 n

a Valsad 130.8 m

r Rajkot 126.0 e t

a Vadodara 109.4 w

e 60 t Mehmadabad 102.6 s a

w Karamsad 101.2

n i

Songadh 100.6 y r

e Bhuj 94.8 v 40 o

c Vijalpore 94.4 e r

t Dakor 93.8 s o c

Mehsana 93.5 f o

t 20 Siddhpur 85.7 n e

t Nadiad 85.2 e x

E Jambusar 82.8 0 Oad 82.4 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Umreth 73.7 Sojitra 73.4

Efficiency in collection of sewerage charges (%)

Current year revenues collected from wastewater related taxes and charges expressed as a percentage of total billed amounts (for wastewater).

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Gandhinagar 100.0

) Bardoli 96.6 %

( Benchmark Value = 90 % Gandevi 93.6 s e

g 80 Unjha 92.5 r a

h Vijalpore 92.0 c

e V.Vidyanagar 90.5 g a r Dehgam 90.1 e

w 60

e Vadodara 89.1 s

f

o Himmatnagar 88.5

n

o Jafrabad 85.7 i t c

e Mehsana 84.8 l

l 40 o

c Siddhpur 84.2

n i Anand 82.9 y c

n Mandavi 81.5 e i c i 20 Dharampur 81.4 f f

E Padra 80.3 Dahod 79.7 0 Navsari 78.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Mandavi_S 78.0 Dabhoi 74.9 State Profile SWM and Storm Water Drainage Summary of Solid Waste Management: 2012-13

SWM Overview

HHs and Establishments HHs and Establishments 7079354 having door to door service 6780468 6268826 5922579

Collection Infrastructure

Total secondary Sweepers per Installed recycling storage bins km road length capacity 11638 2.2 4694 TPD 11487 2.5 3400 TPD

Recycling and Disposal

Waste collected Waste generated 9450 TPD 8950 TPD 9213 TPD 8674 TPD

Waste at open dump site Waste processed in ULB Waste at landfill site 6901 TPD 2603 TPD 368 TPD 6668 TPD 2158 TPD 282 TPD State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2012-13

HH level coverage of SWM services (%)

Total number of households and establishments with door to door collection facility of municipal solid waste (MSW) to the total number of households and establishments in the city.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Bareja 100.0 Bhanvad 100.0

) Bilimora 100.0 % (

80 Chhaya 100.0 s e

c Gandevi 100.0 i v r Godhara 100.0 e s Himmatnagar 100.0 M 60 W Jamjodhpur 100.0 S

f

o Jamraval 100.0

e

g Kathlal 100.0 a r

e Kheda 100.0 v 40 o

c Kheralu 100.0

l e

v Kodinar 100.0 e l Mahudha 100.0 H

H 20 Morbi 100.0 Padra 100.0 Surat 100.0 0 Talaja 100.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Talala 100.0 Talod 100.0

HH level coverage of SWM services in 'slum settlements' (%)

Total households in slum settlements serviced by door-to-door collection of MSW as a percentage of total number of HHs in slums.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Anand 100.0

) Ankleshwar 100.0 % (

s Baravala 100.0 m

u Bardoli 100.0 l 80 s

n Bareja 100.0 i

s

e Bhanvad 100.0 c i v

r Bharuch 100.0 e

s 60 Bilimora 100.0 M Boriyavi 100.0 W S

f Chalal 100.0 o

e Chorvad 100.0 g 40 a r Dabhoi 100.0 e v

o Gandevi 100.0 c

l

e Idar 100.0 v e l

20 Jamjodhpur 100.0 H

H Jamraval 100.0 Jetpur 100.0 0 Kalavad 100.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Karamsad 100.0 Kathlal 100.0 State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2012-13

Efficiency of collection of municipal solid waste (%)

Quantum of waste that is collected at the treatment/ disposal sites to the total quantity of waste that is generated in the city.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100 % Anklav 100.0 )

% Bantawa 100.0 (

e

t Bavla 100.0 s a 80 Bayad 100.0 w

d i

l Bilimora 100.0 o s

Chalal l 100.0 a p

i Dakor 100.0 c i 60 n Gandevi 100.0 u m

Gariyadhar 100.0 f o

n Kalavad 100.0 o i t

c Kanjari 100.0 40 e l l Kathlal 100.0 o c

f Kheda 100.0 o

y

c Mahudha 100.0 n e i 20 Mandavi_S 100.0 c i f f Palitana 100.0 E Rajpipla 100.0 0 Sanand 100.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Savarkundla 100.0 Savri 100.0 Sihor Extent of segregation of municipal solid waste (%)

Quantity of segregated waste received at treatment/ disposal sites to the total waste collected by the service providers.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% Himmatnagar 21.1 ) Songadh 20.6 % (

e Rajkot

t 15.7 s

a 80 Limbdi 13.1 w

d

i Surat 11.8 l o s

Bhavnagar 9.0 l a p

i Dehgam 7.6 c i 60 n Ahmedabad 7.3 u m

Bilimora 7.1 f o Morbi 5.9 n o i t Gandhinagar 3.9 a 40 g

e Mansa 3.6 r g

e Umargam 2.7 s

f

o Valsad 1.4

t

n 20 Amod e 0.0 t x

E Amreli 0.0 Anand 0.0 0 Anjar 0.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Anklav 0.0 Ankleshwar 0.0 State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2012-13

Extent of municipal solid waste recovered (%) Quantum of waste that is recycled or processed to the total waste that is collected by the service providers.

2013 Top Performing ULBs

) (2013)

% 100 (

d Jambusar 100.0 e r

e Karjan 100.0 v

o 80 c Benchmark Value = 80% Vadodara 100.0 e r Rajkot 96.1 e t s Vadhvan

a 90.9

w 60 Kheda 84.6 d i l

o Talod 82.0 s

l

a 80.8

p 40 i c i Mehmadabad 80.0 n u Bhavnagar 67.1 m

f

o 20

Lathi 65.2 t n

e Bavla 62.5 t x

E 0 Chalal 62.5 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Mandavi 62.2 Rajpipla 61.6 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints in SWM (%) Number of SWM related complaints redressed within time as stipulated in service charter of the ULB, as a percentage of the total number of SWM related complaints received in the year.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) Gujarat 97.3 Ahmedabad 100.0 Municipal Corporations 99.1 Amod 100.0 Other Municipalities 95.2 Anjar 100.0 Anklav Extent of scientific disposal of municipal solid waste (%) Quantum of waste that is disposed in scientific/ compliant landfills to the total quantum of waste disposed in compliant and open disposal sites.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100

) Benchmark value = 100% Rajkot 100.0 % ( Vadodara 100.0 W

S 80 Surat 1.9 M

f

o Ahmedabad 0.8

l a

s Amod 0.0 o 60 p Amreli

s 0.0 i d Anand 0.0 c i f i t Anjar 0.0 n 40 e i

c Anklav 0.0 s

f Ankleshwar

o 0.0

t

n 20 Babra 0.0 e t x Bagasra 0.0 E 0 Balasinor 0.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Bantawa 0.0 Baravala 0.0 Bardoli 0.0 State Level Performance in SWM Services: 2012-13

Extent of cost recovery in SWM services (%)

Percentage of total operating revenues from SWM related charges to total operating expenses on SWM services.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark value = 100% DevagadhBari.. 73.4 Mansa 70.7 ) %

( Nadiad 65.1

s

e 80 Harij 63.0 c i v

r Vadali 58.0 e s Borsad 48.6 M

W Bhavnagar 47.1 S

60

n Vijalpore 44.2 i

y

r Mehsana 41.8 e v

o Himmatnagar 40.8 c e r

40 Anklav 38.1 t s

o Thara 38.0 c

f

o Bhabhar 37.6

t

n Vapi 37.3 e t

x 20 Jamraval 35.8 E Anjar 35.4 Mahudha 34.6 0 Chanasma 34.4 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Bayad 34.2 Kaalol 34.0

Efficiency in collection of SWM charges (%)

Percentage of current year revenues collected from SWM related taxes and charges as a percentage of total billed amounts (for SWM).

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Umargam 97.0 Vyara 96.4

) Benchmark Value = 90 % Mandavi 96.1 % (

s 80 Bantawa 96.0 e g r Vijalpore 91.9 a h c

Gandevi 91.7

M Unjha 91.1 W

S 60

f Bhayvadar 90.2 o

n V.Vidyanagar 88.7 o i t

c Bilimora 88.0 e l l

o Vadhvan 85.6

c 40

n Bharuch

i 85.0

y

c Wankaner 85.0 n e i Kodinar 84.4 c i f f 20 Vadodara 84.3 E Una 82.7 Gadhda 82.6 0 Upleta 82.4 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities DevagadhBari.. 82.2 Vapi 82.1 State Level Performance in Storm Water Drainage: 2012-13

Coverage of storm water drainage network (%)

Percentage of road length covered by storm water drainage network.

2013 Top Performing ULBs (2013) 100 Benchmark Value = 100% 89.8

) Prantij 85.0 % ( Mandavi_S 79.6 k r o 80 Vapi 76.0 w t

e Dholka 71.4 N

e Surat 64.0 g a n

i Palanpur 61.2 a r 60 Veraval 60.0 D

r e

t Karjan 56.0 a

W Pethapur 51.1

m r 40 Damnagar 48.1 o t

S Valsad 46.3

f o

Songadh 45.0 e g

a Vadodara 44.8 r e

v 20 Bhavnagar 44.4 o

C Modasa 41.1 Visnagar 37.4 0 Bardoli 36.7 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Dehgam 34.0 Bilimora 33.9

Incidence of water logging/ flooding (%)

Number of times water logging is reported in a year, at flood prone points within the city.

2013 Highest no. of waterlogging (2013) 50 Surat 120.0 Bharuch 68.0 ) s r

e Gandhinagar 50.0 b

m Bilimora 42.0

u 40 N

( Bhuj 32.0

g

n Ahmedabad 30.0 i d

o Bhavnagar 30.0 o l f / 30 Chaklasi 28.0 g n i

g Morbi 25.0 g o l Navsari

25.0 r e t Bhachau 24.0 a 20 w

Vadhvan

f 20.0 o

e Godhara 18.0 c

n Nadiad

e 18.0 d i

c 10 Gandhidham 16.0 n I Amod 15.0 Jetpur 15.0 0 Benchmak Value = 0 Nos. Radhanpur 15.0 Gujarat Municipal Corporations Other Municipalities Surendranagar 15.0 Amreli 14.0

The Performance Assessment System (PAS) Project

The Performance Assessment System (PAS) Project supports development of appropriate tools and methods to measure, monitor and improve delivery of urban water and sanitation services in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. The PAS Project includes three major components of performance measurement, performance monitoring and performance improvement. It covers all the 400+ urban local governments in Gujarat and Maharashtra.

CEPT University has received a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the PAS

Project. It is being implemented by CEPT University with support of Urban Management Centre (UMC) in Gujarat and All Institute of Local Self-Government (AIILSG) in Maharashtra.

PAS Project

CEPT University Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, University Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009

Gujarat, India

Tel: +91-79-26302470 Fax: +91-79-26302075 www.pas.org.in