Financing household on-site sanitation for the poor

In 2010, the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and the World Bank conducted a study to improve understanding of the financing of on-site sanitation at the household level through analysis of field experiences in six countries:  Bangladesh, Ecuador, India (Maharashtra), Mozambique, Senegal, Viet Nam.

A new Research Brief [1] summarizes findings from the full report [2].

Key messages from the research are:

• Public financing for “software” has a significant role to play in creating demand for improved sanitation and changing community and household behaviours. However, the amount and way such public support is financed can significantly affect the performance of sanitation projects and their impact.
• Project designers should look beyond the semantics of simplistic “subsidy vs. no subsidy” debates to define an appropriate level and form of public investment in sanitation. The design of the financing approach at the outset of on-site sanitation programs is too often not given sufficient critical thinking. Answers to basic financial questions—“Who pays for what, when, and how?”—can determine the extent to which projects can replicate, expand sanitation, be sustainable, and meet household needs.
• Well-targeted hardware subsidies can provide a critical safety net for the poor. Such subsidies should not be used as a substitute for hardware investments by households. Hardware subsidies that were most effective were provided after demand was created—and especially after outputs and/or outcomes were achieved.

[1] Tremolet, S.; Kolsky, P.; Perez, E.(2011). Financing household on-site sanitation for the poor : WSP Sanitation Global Practice Team. (Research Brief / Water and Sanitation Program (WSP)). Washington, DC, USA. Water and Sanitation Program, WSP. Downloadable document: WWW PDF [1299 KB]

[2] Tremolet, S. (2010). Financing on-site sanitation for the poor : a six country comparative review and analysis. (Technical paper / WSP). Washington, DC, USA, Water and Sanitation Program, WSP. Downloadable document: WWW Download PDF [2.35 MB]

Time to acknowledge the dirty truth behind community-led sanitation

In rural India, extremes of coercion are being used to encourage toilet use writes Liz Chatterjee in the Guardian’s Poverty Matters blog. Her provocative post has drawn comments from the likes of Robert Chambers, Rose George, Ned Breslin and Erik Harvey.

Wall art on the local council headquarters in Karnataka, where a two-year sanitation education campaign still has a long way to go. Photo: Liz Chatterjee

A spectacular rise in toilets usage from 20% to nearly 100% in a semi-rural district in Karnataka, realised by India’s national Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), Ms Chatterjee discovered, was founded on community-led coercion.

Previous efforts to build toilets in the area failed to ensure actual use. They were often used to store firewood or chickens while families continued to defecate outdoors.

But some of the techniques used to persuade reluctant community members to construct toilets were unorthodox to say the least.

At its mildest, this meant squads of teachers and youths, who patrolled the fields and blew whistles when they spotted people defecating. Schoolchildren whose families did not have toilets were humiliated in the classroom. Men followed women – and vice versa – all day, denying people the opportunity even to urinate. These strategies are the norm, not the exception, and have also been deployed in Nepal andBangladesh.

Equally common, though, were more questionable tactics. Squads threw stones at people defecating. Women were photographed and their pictures displayed publicly. The local government institution, the gram panchayat, threatened to cut off households’ water and electricity supplies until their owners had signed contracts promising to build latrines. A handful of very poor people reported that a toilet had been hastily constructed in their yards without their consent.

A local official proudly testified to the extremes of the coercion. He had personally locked up houses when people were out defecating, forcing them to come to his office and sign a contract to build a toilet before he would give them the keys. Another time, he had collected a woman’s faeces and dumped them on her kitchen table.

Urban water supply: learning to mitigate risks in Asia

Risks that can impair development effectiveness in the urban water supply sector are multidimensional, says a new report [1] by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). This highlights the sector’s vulnerability to risks in the absence of appropriate mitigating measures.

Evaluation lessons in the report are drawn from actual independent evaluation, self-evaluation, and ADB’s Evaluation Information System. The report complements ADB’s 2009 Guidance Note on Urban Water Supply Sector Risk Assessment.

Risks in the urban water sector can emanate from (i) capacity weaknesses in policy making, regulation, partnerships, sector planning, and management; (ii) unresponsive systems (water resource management, financial management, and procurement); (iii) poor governance, which hampers stakeholder participation, transparency, and accountability; and (iv) weak project design, management, and evaluation, among others. Financial management systems and operating environment that are unable to provide returns on invested capital and adequate revenue streams for facility maintenance can seriously undermine new investments, jeopardize service quality, and threaten the viability of sector operations. Lack of stakeholder commitment to sector improvements can also seriously compromise sustainability. Overall, fragile links in the chain of policy, planning, financial management, project management, and results-based evaluation can work against development effectiveness.

Various lessons drawn from the experience of ADB in the urban water supply sector call attention to the diversity and varying complexity of risks, along with measures pursued by various developing member countries (DMCs) to address these risks. A careful understanding of the risk environment is a must, with due regard to specific contexts in which risks occur, the arrangements that can mitigate these risks, and the extent to which stakeholders and stakeholder alliances can affect policy, planning, and implementation processes. Where sector reforms are required, assessing roadblocks to collaboration as well as potential areas for engagement is crucial. Differences in stakeholder responses and the interplay of institutional, organizational, and capacity-related factors often shape development outcomes.

[1] Bestari, N. … [et al.] (2011). Learning lessons : urban water supply sector. (ADB independent evaluation). Manila, Philippines, Asian Development Bank. vi, 25. p. Download full report