NITI Aayog - Centre for Policy Research

NITI Aayog – CPR Open Seminar Series “Open-Defecation Free (ODF) Communities: A Key Step towards Swachh Bharat” Room 122, NITI Aayog, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 22nd May 2015

WWW.CPRINDIA.ORG

NITI Aayog-CPR Open Seminar Series – “Open Defecation Free (ODF) Communities: A key step towards Swachh Bharat” – 22nd May 2015

NITI AAYOG-CPR OPEN SEMINAR SERIES The NITI Aayog – Centre for Policy Research (CPR) Open Seminar Series aims to create a platform for deliberation on models for urban sanitation, including service delivery, through a series of thematic seminars with academic and research institutions, development partners, public and private organisations, NGOs and the three tiers of Government. The seminar series will help strengthen the understanding of the challenges and opportunities in urban sanitation by promoting evidence-based knowledge in the sector. The space seeks to initiate discussion by sharing experiences; lessons learned from successes and failures; alternative models of sanitation technologies and service delivery models; and studies of best practices. This platform will be a crucial tool to leverage the expertise of various stakeholders on urban sanitation, including service delivery, and create a feedback loop into government, aiding the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan in being a dynamic and responsive programme on sanitation. The presentations and subsequent discussions will be summarized as thematic discussion briefs for wide dissemination. The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog of the Government of India has been established to evolve a shared vision of national development priorities, sectors and strategies with the active involvement of States in the light of national objectives. This effort is part of its mandate to provide advice and encourage partnerships between key stakeholders and national and international like-minded Think Tanks, as well as educational and policy research institutions and to create a knowledge, innovation and entrepreneurial support system through a collaborative community of national and international experts, practitioners and other experts. The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) has been one of India’s oldest and leading public policy think tanks since 1973 and is a non-profit, independent institution dedicated to conducting research that contributes to a more robust public discourse about the structures and processes that shape life in India. CPR is implementing a policy research project that is focused on urban sanitation in Indian cities entitled Scaling City Institutions – For India: Sanitation (SCI-FI: Sanitation). The project has four thematic components focusing on national flagship programmes, action research in two medium-sized cities, sector-specific issues in the delivery of urban sanitation, and a pilot demonstration of city-wide sanitation service delivery in two small towns of Odisha state. For more information on the project please visit: http://cprindia.org/sci-fi.

CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

| PAGE 2 OF 18

OPEN DEFECATION FREE (ODF) COMMUNITIES: A KEY STEP TOWARDS SWACHH BHARAT The latest census conducted by the Government of India (2011) estimates that in India, 13% urban residents and 67% rural residents defecate in the open. Additionally, India accounts for nearly 60% of the world’s population that defecates in the open. These statistics have garnered unprecedented policy attention on the state of sanitation in India leading to an ambitious Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA) launched by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on 2nd October 2014, which aims to eliminate open defecation across the country and aims to make substantial improvements in the level of sanitation by the Mission’s end period in the year 2019. The Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA) proposes to construct individual household latrines, and convert insanitary (including single pit latrines) into sanitary latrines. For this, SBA offers a central government incentive of Rs. 12,000/- per targeted household in rural areas, and Rs. 4,000/- per targeted household in urban areas. At the end of 2019, it is expected that India will be Open-Defecation Free. In order to debate the definition of “open defecation free” communities and the evolution of a suitable matrix to measure the achievement of this status under (L to R) Ms. Sindhushree Khullar, CEO, NITI Aayog, Dr. Arvind Panagariya, Vice-Chairman, NITI Aayog, Dr. Pratap Bhanu the mission, the NITI Aayog and CPR organised the 1st Mehta, President & Chief Executive, Centre for Policy Research Open Seminar series on “Open Defecation Free (ODF) nd Communities: A Key step towards Swachh Bharat” on 22 May 2015 at Room 122, NITI Aayog, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001. AGENDA 15:00 – 15:15

15:15 – 15:35 15:35 - 15:55 15:55 – 16:30

Introduction & Welcome Presentation: Transformation to an ODF society through Sabar Shouchagar Movement in Nadia District, West Bengal Presentation: Framing the ODF measurement question Open Discussion

Ms. Sindhushree Khullar, CEO, NITI Aayog Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President & Chief Executive, Centre for Policy Research Mr. Rajarshi Mitra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat, Nadia Mr. Avirup Bose, Secretary, Nadia Zilla Parishad Mr. Shubhagato Dasgupta, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research Moderated by Ms. Sindhushree Khullar, CEO, NITI Aayog & Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President & Chief Executive, Centre for Policy Research


| PAGE 3 OF 18


The list of participants is at Annexure I. The speaker profiles are at Annexure II. Full presentations and video recording of the seminar and discussions may be seen from: http://cprindia.org/events/4367. PRESENTATION: TRANSFORMATION TO AN ODF SOCIETY THROUGH SABAR SHOUCHAGAR MOVEMENT IN NADIA DISTRICT, W EST BENGAL Mr. Rajarshi Mitra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat, Nadia Mr. Avirup Bose, Secretary, Nadia Zilla Parishad Nadia district in West Bengal state of India is a rural district, located around 150 kms north-east of the capital city of Kolkata. In 2013, the district administration launched the “Sabar Shouchagar” Movement to make the district open defecation free, and in April 2015, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee declared Nadia, the first Open Defecation Free (ODF) district in the country. The district also won the United Nations Public Service Award for 2015 in the category of improving public services under the Sabar Shouchagar movement. The presentation by Mr. Rajarshi Mitra and Mr. Avirup Bose, described the 2 year journey to an ODF Nadia. The trigger, as the presenters put it, was a comparison with Bangladesh across the border where open defecation was just 4.2% compared with 48.6% in West Bengal. At the start of the Movement in 2014, there were about 1.04 million (10.40 lakh) households in the district, of which nearly 33% (339,881) did not have toilets. The campaign was evolved with a dual focus of ensuring universal access to latrines and ensuring behaviour change away from open defecation. The programme was launched in July 2013 with “Nadia Sanitation Day”, and initially piloted in 17 Gram Panchayats of 17 rural blocks. In October 2013, the model was rolled out to all 187 Gram Panchayats in the district. The final achievement was a construction of 355,609 household toilets, 175 community toilets, 516 brick field toilets, 116 toilets for dhabas, and 73 cluster toilets. Overall, the movement has reported improved health indices, reduction in water borne diseases, empowerment of women through greater participation and increased livelihood opportunities, collective behaviour change among communities towards toilet use, and decentralised institutional capacity for sanitation programme service delivery.

Mr. Rajarshi Mitra presenting the Sabar Shouchagar Movement at the 1st Open Seminar.

In their presentation, the presenters highlighted the necessary inputs into the success of the Sabar Shouchagar movement; or as they termed it, ‘differentiators’: 1. Political & administrative will: Under the movement, elected representatives in the Panchayats across the district were mobilised and oriented to the key elements of the movement in extensive three-tier training programmes. Bye-laws for each Gram Panchayat were devised wherein, defecating in the open will be a punishable offence 2. Mobilisation of key stakeholders, especially women and children: Women and children were a special focus of the movement. School children were targeted in schools, where every Monday, pledges against defecating in the open were taken in all schools. This was supported by awareness programmes to spread the message, highlighting the need for sanitary latrines in the households. CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

| PAGE 4 OF 18


3.

Strategic involvement of faith based organisations: Faith leaders from all religions prominent in the district were mobilised. Awareness and training programmes were held for the faith leaders, who were also roped in as change agents for the movement. 4. A catchment area approach and involvement of frontline workers: Anganwadi Women Workers were roped in for a ‘catchment area approach’, promoting the health and hygiene benefits to an ODF Nadia. Under the NIHSanA (or Nadia Initiative for Health, Hygiene, and Sanitation Acceleration), the AWWs promoted information, awareness and behaviour change linking malnutrition, high Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR), lack of hygiene and sanitation facilities and the lack of health care services to the practice of open defecation. The movement formed committees of frontline workers (Para Najardari Committees) at each hamlet, comprising SHG members, local youth and other community members. These Committees identified vulnerable households for both toilet Mr. Avirup Bose presenting the Sabar Shouchagar Movement at the 1st Open Seminar. construction and motivated them behaviour change. In the initial stages, they visited those areas where people were known to practice open defecation and brought it to the notice of GP/Bloc for more focused attention. Their involvement has been a steady increment of vigilance, awareness creation, motivation and reward. 5. Management that involved SHGs: Women organised into existing SHGs were also mobilised for the movement. In all Sabar Shouchagar partners with SHGs and their clusters for service delivery, with 48 women’s groups functioning as Sanitary Marts, thereby also generating livelihood opportunities for them. 6. Effective BCC for elimination of OD: In addition to targeting individual groups of stakeholders for behaviour change communication, the district undertook a number of IEC and community-based activities to bolster the visibility of the movement in the district. Hoardings extoling the virtues and pride in an ODF Nadia were strategically placed throughout the district. In December 2014, faith leaders from all religions participated in a rally for ODF Nadia; overall, there were 2,500 people in the rally. In January this year, around 1,800 participants ran in a mini-marathon titled “Nadia: Run out of Shame”. Campaign strategies also included hot air balloon campaign, graffiti on walls, painting on school wall etc. A key differentiator highlighted by the presenters was the Oath taking ceremony held in different parts of the district. This was crucial in garnering on-ground public support and commitment for the movement. The results were validated by the Pratichi Trust, Inspiration, and TARU-UNICEF surveys. Additionally, a contingent of technical experts have been engaged to find out if there are any cases that have not yet been targeted. The presenters stress 6 lessons learned in the implementation of the movement and for any administration seeking to replicate the model: 1. Political and administrative will is important for any such movement 2. Community involvement is the key to making a programme a success 3. Every stakeholder’s contribution matters 4. Women’s participation is a game changer 5. Convergence of resources generates synergy 6. There is no substitute for intense monitoring


| PAGE 5 OF 18


PRESENTATION: FRAMING THE ODF MEASUREMENT QUESTION Mr. Shubhagato Dasgupta, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi In the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA), both the Gramin (Rural) and Urban link open defecation in India to the lack of individual household toilets. There are an increasing number of voices among researchers and practitioners that toilet construction alone is not the magic bullet solution to ending open defecation in India where there are strong cultural preferences, especially in rural areas, for open defecation. The SBA does acknowledge this, and in both its schemes sets aside significant proportions of the central allocation for Information Education & Communication (IEC) and Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) activities and campaigns – 15% in SBA (Urban) and 8% in SBA (Gramin). The question then arises, on what basis will India declare itself ODF by 2019? The presentation by Mr. Shubhagato Dasgupta traces the evolution of a suitable matrix to measure the achievement of this status under the mission. By and large, India’s focus on sanitation policy has followed the trajectory of international emphasis on sanitation policy. Mr. Dasgupta traces this through a chart where during the 1980-90 International Water & Sanitation Decade, India lauched the Integrated Low-Cost Sanitation (ILCS) Scheme in 1980, and in 1986, the Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) and the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) for pollution abatement and improvement of water quality by interception. In 1995, the Government of India launched the National River Conservation Programme (NRCP) to cover rivers other than the Ganga, and in 1996, the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) by ensuring access to toilets for all rural residents. In 2000, (also the year of the Millennium Summit and declaration of the Millennium Development Shubhagato Dasgupta tracing the evolution of a suitable matrix to measure the achievement of ODF under the Goals), the GAP was subsumed into the NRCP. The Nirmal mission at the 1st Open Seminar. Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) was launched in 1999 to replace the TSC. The focus here was on the principles of community-led total sanitation (CLTS) in rural areas. The focus on urban sanitation was first evinced with the Pune Declaration titled “Provision of Universal Sanitation in Urban India” on 20th March 2004 which stressed that improvements in urban sanitation, especially for the poor will positively impact public health, livelihoods and the environment. This was followed by the Water for Life Decade (2005-2015) and the International year of Sanitation in 2008. This period saw the launch of the Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP), as a post-achievement award-cum-fiscal incentive scheme in October 2003, and the launch of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Scheme (JNNURM) in 2005 where Government of India financing for urban sanitation sector started to increase, the release of the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP) in 2008 which envisaged all Indian cities and towns becoming totally sanitised, healthy and liveable, ensuring and sustaining good public health and environmental outcomes for all citizens, with a particular focus on urban poor and women. And of course, the Government of India’s declaration last year of a Mission to make India Swachh Bharat by 2019.


| PAGE 6 OF 18


Open Defecation (Free) has a recent genealogy in the evolution of sanitation policy, both in India and internationally, sourced from efforts in South Asia – namely Bangladesh and India. In 2000, the Bangladesh’s programme for Mosmoil villagers aimed at a 100% sanitised village ending OD. Through the programme and with the focus on Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS). This was followed by a national focus on 100% sanitised villages (including ODF status) and in the 2010s, Bangladesh has moved from roughly 78% OD to just 3% OD. In India, the Sant Gadge Baba Swachata Abhiyan (SGBSA) was launched in Maharashtra between 1997-2000 to reward the cleanest villages in the state. The scheme offered a no-subsidy reward-based model of motivating local governments to tackle all aspects of environmental sanitation, using fiscal transfers to reward outcomes. Maharashtra’s SGBSA was used as a best-practice example when designing the NGP scheme in 2003-04. ODF finds policy mention in the revised NBA of 2012, and as a clear goal in Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA) launched in 2014. ODF Communities have received purchase as a concept because of the clear recognition of the public good aspect of sanitation, and the recognition that partial coverage and use of toilets has lead to unsatisfactory public health outcomes as a result of poor sanitation. The term also clarifies the role of “communities” in sanitation goals and sets up clear identifiable stages in the sanitation improvement matrix with the aim of safely containing human excreta thereby breaking the faecal oral router of disease transmission. Internationally, in the move from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) from 2000-2015 to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) currently being formulated for 2015-2030, the goal of water and sanitation for all (Goal 6), requires as one of its target to be an end to open defecation by 2030. The indicators, however still talk of ‘safely managed sanitation services’ rather than clear concise indicators for open defecation. One of the reasons for this could be the fact that the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) of the WHO & UNICEF monitoring MDG sanitation targets is itself dependent on national household surveys / censuses and does not conduct independent surveys to measure the targets and goals. Across the world, national household surveys and censuses arrive at open defecation as a last choice, after ascertaining that no form of household toilet is available. For example, Indonesia and Ethiopia presume that if there is ‘no toilet’ as an answer to the question on “what kind of toilet facility does the household have?”, then the presumption is that the household defecates in the open. Pakistan and Nigeria have an added option of “no facility / bush / field”. But even here, the option is reached after eliminating other forms of household toilet facilities. India has two surveys that feed into the JMP – Census (2011) and the National Sample Survey; the latest being the 69th round (July-December 2012). Both these surveys follow the same trajectory as their international Mr. Shubhagato Dasgupta on why the concept of an “ODF community” has received so much purchase at the 1st Open counterparts, where there is a presumption of open Seminar. defecation ONLY if there is no household access to a latrine (including public latrine). However, with the increasing engagement of Indian sanitation policy with the concept of Open Defecation (Free) communities, we see an increasing engagement in the debate on measuring ODF communities. In the NGP 2005, detailed criteria to measure ODF included toilet usage by all households, migrant labour at public places, and no sites of OD found in the entire Gram Panchayat. The TSC campaign in 2011 asked Gram Panchayats for a plan of action to attain ODF status, and in its revised avatar of NBA in 2012, the programme stated that Gram Panchayats CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

| PAGE 7 OF 18


will be monitored for their sustained ‘Nirmal’ status. As stated above, both the Rural (Gramin) and Urban versions of the SBA emphasise elimination of open defecation. SBA (Gramin) states that community incentive, if any, will be released after the village unit is ODF for a significant length of time. SBA (Urban) only require that “no households engage in the practice of OD”. Neither programme states ‘how’ they would like to measure this status, or how they would like to factor the impact of BCC into the measurement of this status. An impact assessment of NGP by the Government of India in 2011, found that while nearly 81% of all households in areas that received the NGP had access to latrines at the time of the study, only 67% of households had ALL members using these latrines. Some crucial reasons identified for the slippage include poor or unfinished installation, no superstructure, a full pit / septic tank, or no water available for 82% of households that reported slippage. The rest of the households preferred using the space for storage (2%), had problems with the site selected for the toilet (6%), and didn’t want to use the toilet (10%). Of all the reasons, poor or unfinished installations was the key reason for slippage. The Nadia District officials also echoed this view in their presentation where they also found that slow and incomplete construction was a key deterrent to the district’s ODF status. The supply side interventions take care of only part of the OD problem; there are complex behavioural issues involved as well. The Sanitation Quality, Use, Access and Trends (SQUAT) Survey conducted in 5 North-Indian states in 2014 reports, for instance that 40% of rural households with a working latrine reported preference for OD by at least one member of the household. There is a psychology of the ‘unclean’ where the desire is to create distance between the living space and the space of defecation, that leads to either the practice of open defecation or the creation of high capacity pits (or both). In the development of an assessment framework for measuring ODF, the presenter points to the following key points. India is among the few countries to have a significant toilet subsidy program (output). It is also the only country that has an incentive and reward scheme for sanitation; other countries have recognition schemes or awards. In this schema, slip-back is highly probable, so social mobilisation and other special efforts towards maintaining and improving status are needed. The past decade of interventions, particularly on the rural side has shown us that a one-time measurement and declaration of ODF status has not worked well enough. The status needs to be confirmed only after a few years of consistent results. Sanitation advances cannot be achieved and improvements maintained as a one time effort but need ongoing programmes. Program Survey and aggregator biases are difficult to control, so an independent on-going measurement system is needed, to monitor and record sanitation status along a matrix on ODF, SLWM, Hygiene and safe water. In conclusion, the presenter recommends a non-programme linked annual survey on a sanitation matrix with the objective to gauge the sanitation situation from the perspective to which waste (human excreta, liquid and solid waste) is disposed off Participants in the open discussion safely such that there are no adverse effects on health, and to possibly understand where different states in the country rank on a sanitation index (constructed through the survey) so that the efficacy of their sanitation efforts can be reflected upon.


| PAGE 8 OF 18


OPEN DISCUSSION Q: Questions by the audience A: Answers by the presenters Q: W hat is your explanation for why so many don’t use toilets when the infrastructure exists? A: There are a few surveys that are looking at why the slip back has happened. Some look at input characteristics that are physical – incomplete toilet construction, but there is also a chunk that looks at the behavioural issues. There seems to still be a preference for people defecating in the open, and this needs to be understood better. What also needs to be strongly communicated to the communities where open defecation is evinced is the link between OD and adverse health effects. Q: You have three key interventions: (A) Supply side toilet construction with water supply; (B) Behavioural change communication; and (C) Accountability mechanisms through the Para Najardari Committees. Of these three, if you had to assign weightages for the success in your district, what weightage would you assign to these three? A: Our experience has shown that the mere construction of toilets alone will not ensure behavioural change or ODF status, as this is civil work and can be done by anyone with the expertise. Rather this is an incremental set of steps towards ODF status. After constructing the toilets, we moved towards a strong programme of behavioural change communication, and creating the pressure groups. In parallel Participants in the open discussion to this, we worked with local community leaders and stakeholders to ensure that they kept up the work to ensure that there was no slippage towards OD. If we were forced to assign weightages, then in our opinion, we would assign 20% to construction, and the rest to behaviour change and pressure groups to ensure long-term sustainability of the project. Q: How did the Nadia administration get the people in the district to start using the toilets? A: We conducted field level investigations to understand why toilets were not being used. The key reason was the incomplete construction of household toilets. We established a strong local feedback loop through the communities, and even engaged with the public through the press. This allowed us to keep abreast of the delays in construction and tackle those immediately. With those families that had a persistent practice of OD or a preference for OD, we investigated further as to the reasons for this phenomenon. The families themselves came up with reasons – e.g. there were too many members in a family, or that there was natural discomfort in using the toilet. We tackled this in two ways. First, the Para Najardari Committees, which provided us with strong oversight of the local level – many committees were populated by the older generation, and the peer pressure of the elders not to defecate in the open is a success story of the district. Second, we ensure that there is adequate supply of water to the toilets so that they do not fall into disuse.


| PAGE 9 OF 18


Q: W hen you, as district administration, move from this assignment, how would you rate this experiment on a scale of 1-10 on replicability in other parts of the district and state, and the scalability of the Nadia model to all other GPs in the country? A: There are a number of crucial factors needed for replicability and scalability; the four most crucial are – administrative will, local and political will, supply side interventions of infrastructure and water supply, and public validation of results. In administration, what we have done is unprecedented; we had never seen government officials patrolling districts at 4:30am before this assignment. So the determination and dedication of government officials at the local level plays a very strong role in the rolling out of the Participants in the open discussion model across the district and to the rest of the state. As far as infrastructure is concerned, the physical construction of toilets and ensuring water supply is perfectly replicable across villages, blocs, districts, and states. The key issue here is to ensure the timely construction of toilets / sanitation infrastructure, as well as the regular supply of water to the toilets once constructed. Of the three, the local and political will is the hardest to mobilise, but once mobilised, is the most sustainable path to replicability of the model. We worked with all kinds of stakeholders at the local level – local elected representatives, womens’ groups, including SHGs, faith leaders, children in schools, and local community leaders through the Para Najardari Committees. Once their support was garnered, it worked as a peer influencing mechanism where surrounding blocs, seeing the evidence of a clean village / bloc also came together to form these peer mechanisms to work towards an ODF status. Finally, we involved outside NGOs to publically validate ODF status. This, in addition to the local accountability mechanisms created a feedback loop in real time to the district administration that allowed us then (and still does) to take corrective action in the case of slippage. It is not one or two, but a strong combination of all these four that ensured our success, and if replicated, then all these four factors must play a core role in the replicated model. Q: How deeply were the DM and SDMs involved in actually visiting the GPs / villages? Did this result in motivation of the community for an ODF status in any way? A: Senior government officials did visit the GPs and villages, as has already been pointed out and this was deeply motivating to Participants in the open discussion the community, particularly the key stakeholders including the local elected representatives, womens’ groups, including SHGs, faith leaders, children in schools, and local community leaders through the Para Najardari Committees. Q: If you had to point to one factor of success in Nadia, which one would it be? A: The key factor is the district administration’s attitude to the problem – rather than conceive of this as a standard programme for implementation, we worked closely with the community to conceive of the problem, and rather than focus on spread, we chose small areas to begin with and went into the depth of the problem in each area chosen. This approach was then applied to each area that the movement was applied to. Another key factor (which


| PAGE 1 0 OF 18


may not be replicable in all areas) is the proximity to Bangladesh where the rate of OD is quite low; this comparison was very helpful in garnering local support for the cause. Q: W as there any impact of the movement beyond ODF status to the general state of cleanliness (solid waste) of the village, bloc and district? A: There were certainly areas where the overall cleanliness improved, but this is not universally evinced. In many places the solid waste dumping grounds need to be better managed. Across all areas, schools, however were the one area that we saw a universal improvement in the overall cleanliness as a direct result of this movement. Q: Did you see a preference for construction of large pits in the construction of toilets? And what was the sense of cleaning these pits, once they got filled up? These two issues, related to purity and pollution, can at a cultural level, be a cause of slippage into open defecation. A: We did have an initial problem where people showed a preference for very large pits. But we were able to closely monitor construction and prevent pits larger than 4 feet in depth from being constructed. As these have just been constructed, however, we will have to wait and see the results when the pits get filled up. Q: Is there a monitoring of the use of toilets once constructed – Your survey indicated 98-99% construction of household toilets, what percentage of these are now being used? A: The TARU report was released only in the last week of April 2015, which shows 99.8% of toilet use. They have also mentioned that 100% of the schools have toilets. As mentioned earlier, we Participants in the open discussion encourage external monitoring of our results, and are glad to see reports like TARU supporting our findings. If there is any slippage found, we request to be informed of it and will focus on the needs of that area(s) immediately. Q: You’ve spent a lot of money on BCC activities. The funding of BCC in SBA (Gramin) is very low. Did you see a fund crunch for BCC activities? And is that why the district administration had to go to other sponsors? A: We agree that there is a fund crunch for IEC and BCC activities. To make up the difference, we encouraged CSR funding for these activities including the mini-marathon. Q: W hat technology for toilet construction was preferred in Nadia – rings or bricks? If the former, what percentage of contribution comes from the beneficiary him/herself? A: We have used the double leach-pit technology in the construction of sub-structures of toilets in Nadia; this has been approved by UNICEF. This has been widely accepted in the district because bricks are more expensive, and is time-consuming to construct. Q: Experience in W est Bengal has shown an unusual dependence on direct access to local / surrounding water bodies for sanitation, bathing, cooking and washing (clothes and utensils) that has led to contamination of the water table. W hat impact has this had on your programme in Nadia district? CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

| PAGE 1 1 OF 18


A: This has not had a huge impact on our programme. Even in households where toilets have been constructed, there were many cases where we had to replace existing primitive toilets that were constructed without a siphon – usually a pit covered by two planks of wood over which people would squat and defecate. However, post construction of the new toilets, and because we were strict about the depth of the pits, so far, we have not seen evidence of the new toilets contaminating the water table. Q: The photographs of the toilets shown in the presentation on Nadia district, show small, fairly narrow toilets that are not very spacious and well constructed. Do you think if you had money to build larger, more airy toilets, would that have made a difference in the move towards toilet use and away from OD? A: Yes, we have got limited feedback that echoes your view. But based on our field visits and direct interaction with people in the villages, the primary reason why toilets do not get used is because their construction remains incomplete. Q: At any point in your process, were you thinking of the design of the toilet in terms of userexperience? And was feedback being given to the manufacturers in this process? W as there a feedback mechanism in infrastructure creation that was used to introduce changes and innovations? A: Yes, there was a tendency to make the pits bigger (as indicated to an earlier question), and we had to restrict the pit depth to no more than 4 feet. We had to repeatedly get back to manufacturers to ensure that they did not give into consumer demand as this would adversely affect the water table. Q: Did women’s understanding of the adverse health impact of OD have any role to play in the use of toilets? A: Women were our ambassadors and change agents in our movement. Our work with SHGs has been the most fruitful – we worked with them to develop sanitary marts that were toilet complexes that could be used for livelihood generation activities, thus ensuring both maintenance of public toilet facilities and income generation for the SHGs. Additionally, because of their prime position in the household, these women, once mobilised ensured that the message of good sanitation practices reached their individual households. Q: Could you comment on how you were initially able to motivate the front-line workers in the movement to encourage latrine use? W as there any incentive designed for them as part of the movement? A: Because of the dearth of district administration staff required to implement such a programme, we hired community facilitators at the Gram Panchayat level who were paid Rs. 10/- per constructed toilet (This included identification of the household, construction, and uploading the photograph as proof of construction). As per the guidelines of SBA(G), households invested Rs. 900 per constructed. However, while this was the minimum amount required under SBA(G), if the household wished to invest a further amount, we did not stop them. Q: W hat role did Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) play in the movement in Nadia district? A: We took the help of all CBOs, and sometimes used them as programme implementers – e.g. Retro Society and RSM initiated sanitary marts as local businesses with the community as well. Civil society stakeholders were encouraged to take part in the movement in a way that benefitted them. CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

| PAGE 1 2 OF 18


Q: W hat was the cost of construction of the toilets in Nadia district? A: Toilets were constructed at a rate of Rs. 10,000/- per toilet. Prior to SBM, the funds were garnered from different sources, and this was, admittedly difficult to converge the different programs and interests. However with the launch of SBA(G), the funds are clearly allocated for construction of toilets, and this has both, improved fund flow for infrastructure creation, and ensured that the infrastructure can be created in a timely manner.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED BY NITI AAYOG AND CPR OVER SOCIAL MEDIA A total of 14 questions were received by NITI Aayog and CPR over social media (Twitter and Facebook) prior to the seminar. These have been categorised as questions on construction, behaviour change, financing ODF, interlinked facilities, technology, and measurement. Responses to these questions on the various themes have been summarised below: Questions on Construction Q: How do you ensure ODF communities in slums and other informal settlements, and encourage usage of toilets? A: Three means of ensuring toilets in informal settlements include: a) Mapping informal settlements that are excluded b) Building cluster toilets c) Creating local community groups for peer pressure and training them Questions on Behaviour Change Communication Q: Do you agree that toilet construction alone does not guarantee ODF communities? Yes, absolutely. Community mobilization for behaviour change is a key strategy. Q: How do you ensure toilet usage to prevent OD? A: The strategy for this that has been proven time and again, is the involvement of the community. For this, targeting and mobilising both women and children are crucial. The impact that women can have on their respective family’s practice of OD is enormous. Children should be targeted for behaviour change in schools to allow for peer learning and pressure against OD. Q: W hat impact does water supply to toilets have on OD? A: Water supply to toilets is essential, without which the risk of a community slipping back into OD is quite high. The speakers recommended that construction of toilets must be close to natural water sources. Toilets in houses must be provided with water supply as well. Q: W hat drives people to defecate in the open? A: The absence of functional toilets is the main reason for OD rather than habitual defecation. In many cases, it is where toilets are under construction, but have been stalled because of lack of programme funds, that we find slippage of communities back into OD. It is therefore essential to focus on speedy and sustainable construction of


| PAGE 1 3 OF 18


toilets. After construction is ensured, then the community must be galvanised into both, usage of the latrines, as well as maintenance. Q: W hat is the emphasis on behaviour change in the mission? Are states given any targets beyond no. of toilets built? A: Both the Gramin and Urban versions of SBA have a strong emphasis on behaviour change to trigger the demand for sanitary facilities in urban and rural areas. Under SBA(G), funds are available under IEC for actual behaviour change communication (BCC), capacity building for all functionaries responsible for the SBA, and the placement of district-level BCC consultants in each district. Under SBA(U), 15% of the total central allocation is earmarked for IEC & public awareness activities. Both programs are expected to develop strong monitoring systems for this, chiefly through a management information system (MIS). Q: How could educational institutions be instrumental in making SBA successful? A: Educational institutions can be valuable partners in implementing the IEC component of ODF related schemes to ensure behavioural change among target audiences. An example in Sabar Shouchagar programme was the involvement of schools in a massive oath taking exercise, which attracted more than 2 lakh participants in Nadia, West Bengal. The exercise was a crucial step towards self-acknowledgment of open defecation and commitment towards using toilets. Additionally, teachers can be trained to counsel students, and reaching out to younger students in their primary stages of learning is the most effective method of ensuring behaviour change. For more details on how the Sabar Shouchagar programme involved educational institutions, please visit their website— www.sabarshouchagar.in/. Questions on Financing ODF Communities Q: Is the budget for toilet construction sufficient? A: Yes. However, before the Swacch Bharat Mission (SBM), implementers had to rely on convergence with other schemes. SBM has provided a single window clearance process, which is a positive step for on-ground implementation. However, Information-Education-Communication (IEC), and administrative costs still have to be supplemented. Q: W hat is the cost estimate for toilet construction in urban and rural areas under SBA? (How has this been arrived at?) A: Cost estimates for toilets will differ from place to place. The amount for construction of toilets indicated in the guidelines as central assistance (Rs. 4,000 in urban areas and Rs. 12,000 in rural areas) is predicated on the notion that government funds should be used to leverage demand for sanitation facilities by the local communities themselves, who would be willing to put in their own funds to construct household-level toilets. Therefore, these amounts are considered by government to be ‘incentive’ funding rather than covering the full cost of toilet construction. Q: Based on the on-ground scenario, would you agree that incentive amounts for toilet construction under SBA in rural (Rs. 12,000) and urban (Rs. 4000) areas should be reversed? A: No, it need not be reversed but there is scope for increasing the budget for building urban toilets. Based on experience of implementing these projects, the cost of material is quite high in urban areas, especially for the poor. While it is important for the beneficiary to contribute, perhaps, on a case-by-case basis, SBA in urban areas, may consider special dispensation for the very poor. CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

| PAGE 1 4 OF 18


Questions on Interlinked Facilities Q: W ith the new emphasis on toilet use under SBA, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of people using toilets. In such a scenario, how does government ensure adequate water supply for the increased number of times toilets will be used? A: In both SBA, Gramin and Urban, SBA understands the crucial need for water supply for sanitation services, and particularly as the strategy to ensure functional toilets that prevent OD-specific behaviour. In both Gramin and Urban, SBA mandates that Gram Panchayats (GPs)/Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) ensure that constructed toilets have adequate water supply. States, and GPs / ULBs are required to plan for sanitation in that area that focuses on convergence with departments in charge of water supply in the village / city for this purpose. Q: W ould ensuring that the areas around public toilets, and the toilets themselves are "safe" for use, lead to increased usage? A: Yes, absolutely. There are plenty of success stories to this effect – please refer to Sabar Shouchagar website (www.sabarshouchagar.in/) for examples. Questions on Technology Q: Is there any technological research going on for quick fix toilets? A: ‘Quick-fix’ toilet solutions are not recommended for long-term and sustained status of ODF communities. Experience has shown that we have to work intensively with communities over a period of time to combine construction of toilets and BCC. In many cases, acceptance of toilets by the community can depend on the design of the toilets itself. When the community is involved in and understands its design, the acceptance and adoption of the use of (such locally designed) toilets as a sustained habit goes a long way towards making the community ODF. Question on Measurement Q: How do you measure ODF? A: Internationally, it is gauged through construction of 80% per cent household toilets. However, in India, we should aim for (and measure) 100% access and continued usage of toilets. Responses to these questions were tweeted via the NITI Aayog and CPR twitter handles and posted on the NITI Aayog’s Facebook page shortly after the event.


| PAGE 1 5 OF 18


ANNEXURE I: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Panelists 1. Dr. Arvind Panagriya, Vice Chairman 2. Ms. Sindhushree Khullar, Chief Executive Officer 3. Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President & Chief Executive 4. Shubhagato Dasgupta, Senior Fellow 5. Rajarshi Mitra, Sub-divisional Officer, Ranaghat, Nadia District 6. Avirup Bose, Secretary, Nadia Zilla Parishad

Other Participants 7. Shri Alok Kumar, Additional Secretary, Niti Aayog 8. Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Adviser (PCMD/HUA), Niti Aayog 9. Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Adviser(RD), Niti Aayog 10. Shri B. D. Virdi, Adviser ((MLP/MHA Cell/Law & Justice), Niti Aayog 11. Ms. Suman Kaushik, Adviser (Mineral) , Niti Aayog 12. Shri Srikara Naik, Adviser(VAC/Minorities) , Niti Aayog 13. Ms Indu Patnaik, Joint Adviser(MLP) , Niti Aayog 14. Shri Ram Karan, Director (SP) , Niti Aayog 15. Ms Mary B. Barla, Director (SER/Welfare/MHA) , Niti Aayog 16. Ms Tapasya Nair, Deputy Secretary (PS to Vice Chairman) , Niti Aayog 17. Ms.Gayatri Nair, Deputy Adviser (O/o Additional Secretary) , Niti Aayog 18. Dr. Ashok Sonkhusare, Deputy Adviser (S&T) , Niti Aayog 19. Shri Padma Kant Jha, Deputy Adviser (Water & Sanitation & RD) , Niti Aayog 20. Shri Venkata Narayana, Research officer (WR/Agri Divn.), Niti Aayog

21. Ms. Vidya, YP (Member Office) , Niti Aayog 22. Dr. Mayank Shersiya, YP (H&FW) , Niti Aayog 23. Dr. Dibya, YP, Niti Aayog 24. Ms Himani Sachdeva, YP (FR) , Niti Aayog 25. Ms.Kheya Furtado, YP (H&FW Division) , Niti Aayog 26. Ms Rajkamal Singh Mann, YP, Niti Aayog 27. Ms Amy Mishra, YP, Niti Aayog 28. Arvind Kumar, M/o Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation 29. Neeraj Gahlawat, M/o Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation 30. Dr. Neeraj Tewari, Consultant, M/o Drinking Water & Sanitation 31. Shailendra Kumar, Resident Office, Bihar Bhawan, G/o Bihar 32. R. K. Mehta, State Coordination, SBM (G), Haryana 33. Ashok Kumar, PHED, Bihar 34. Sowmya Rao, 451 Advisory (Legal / Policy Practice) 35. Kritika Singh Chauhan, Amity Society for International Law 36. Raka Sinha Bol, Angaja Foundation 37. Vishwa Trivedi, Project Officer, Arghyam 38. Namrata Mehta, Centre for Knowledge of Societies 39. Pranav Gupta, CSDS Delhi 40. Dr. Partha Mukhopadhyay, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 41. Dr. Anjali Chikersal, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 42. Richa Bansal, Director-Communications, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 43. Dhruv Arora, Digital Content Manager, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 44. Anju Dwivedi, Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi


| PAGE 1 6 OF 18


45. Kimberly Noronha, Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 46. Susrita Roy, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 47. Amandeep Singh, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 48. Aditya Bhol, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 49. Nikhil George, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 50. Swati Dhiman, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 51. Prakhar Jain, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 52. Bhanu Joshi, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 53. Persis Taraporevala, Research Associate, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 54. Dibyendu Samanta, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 55. Abhey Jain, Intern, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 56. Ramya Kapoor, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi 57. Amit Gordon, Consumer Unit & Trust Society (CUTS) 58. Sawmya Chandok, Student, Faith Academy 59. Usha Mahajan, Freelancer 60. Ramesh Mahajan, Freelancer 61. Madan Kr. Dubey, FSD 62. Awinda Chatterjee, IDRC 63. Seema Bhatia Panthaki, IDRC 64. Harsh Chandola, IRPPolicy.com 65. Manas Dowlani, International Youth Council 66. Sangita Vyas, R. I. C. E 67. Aashish Gupta, R. I. C. E

68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96.

Prerana Bhaduli, Research Scholar, JNU Akanksha Singh, Research Scholar, JNU Khushboo Aggarwal, JNU S. K. M. D. Azharuddin, JNU Arjun Kumar, JNU Paramita Datta Dey, NIUA Mansi Maheshwari, Nirma University Rajesh Aggarwal, Management Trainee, Outline India Purva Joshi, Oxford Policy Management Joyita Ghosh, PRS Legislative Research Apoorva Shankar, PRS Legislative Research Ajay Kumar Chawariya, Programme Coordinator, Public Health Resource Network Mitali Joshi, School of Planning & Architecture, Delhi Saurabh Sinha, Law Research, Supreme Court of India Ruchi Thakur, Student (UB) Manish Aggarwal, Tata Institute of Social Sciences Ashish Kumar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences R. Johri, TERI Suneel Pandey, TERI Nidhi Pasi, Water Aid Puneet Srivastava, Water Aid Dr. Chandrkant Lahariya, WHO India Rinku Murgai, World Bank Apurba Mitra, WRI Milan Sharma, Lamin DNA (Zee Media) Swapnil Gaur, Student (LLB) Bijjoyini Ghosh, Student (LLB) Yuraus Srinivas Hemant Kumar


| PAGE 1 7 OF 18


ANNEXURE II: SPEAKER PROFILES Rajarshi Mitra is an officer of the 2012 batch of IAS. He is presently serving as the Sub Divisional Officer of Ranaghat, Nadia, and it that capacity he has had a direct role in organising, coordinating, and, implementing 'Sabar Souchagar', the Nadia district initiative at achieving total sanitation and sanitary health.

Avirup Bose is an officer of the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) of the 2002 batch. As the Secretary, Nadia Zilla Parishad he had an important role in organising, coordinating and implementing the Sabar Souchagar programme. Shubhagato Dasgupta is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, and Director of the Scaling City Institutions for India (Sci-Fi) Sanitation initiative at CPR. His current research focuses on drinking water and sanitation in India and the world, with particular reference to flagship government programs and service delivery challenges in smaller cities. Other major areas of work include urban infrastructure and service delivery financing, housing and slum rehabilitation, urban sector public finance, and urban environmental infrastructure planning, management, and investment, alternatives. Before CPR, he led the Support to National Policies for Urban Poverty Reduction project, a collaboration between the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) and India’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation to develop pro-poor urban policies. He has also worked on issues of urban development with a wide range of other public, private, multilateral, and non governmental organisations, including as Senior Urban Specialist at the World Bank, Assistant Vice President at the Infrastructure Development Finance Company (IDFC), the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) and The Action Research Unit. In addition Shubhagato has also been worked on private sector participation projects in urban and drinking water programs in eastern and southern Africa for the International Finance Corporation and the Acumen Fund. Shubhagato Dasgupta was trained as an architect at the Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology in Ahmedabad and holds an MSc in housing and development planning from the Development Planning Unit of the University College London. He is also currently undertaking a PhD at the Centre for Urban Studies at the University of Amsterdam.


| PAGE 1 8 OF 18