Post on 28-Jul-2015
transcript
1st NITI Aayog – Centre for Policy Research: Open Seminar Series
Framing the ODF measurement question
Shubhagato Dasgupta, Senior Fellow
Background: India's sanitation challenge
India
Indonesia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Ethiopia Sudan
Niger
Nepal China Mozambique
Burkina Faso
Madagascar
Cambodia South Sudan
Rest of the world
59%, 605.3 million persons
Source : JMP 2014
Background: the evolution of Sanitation Policy
‘47
International Water & Sanitation Decade
‘80 ‘86 ‘90 ‘93 ‘95 2000 ‘01 ‘03 ’04 ‘05 ‘07 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘15
ILCS-‐ Integrated Low-‐cost SanitaJon, CRSP-‐ Central Rural SanitaJon Programme, GAP-‐ Ganga AcJon Plan, NRCP-‐ NaJonal River ConservaJon Programme, TSC-‐ Total SanitaJon Campaign, NGP-‐ Nirmal Gram Puraskar, JNNURM-‐ Jawaharlal Nehru NaJonal Urban Renewal Mission, NUSP-‐ NaJonal Urban SanitaJon Policy , SBM – Swachh Bharat Mission, NUDM
– NaJonal Urban Development Mission
Millennium Summit & MDG International Year of Sanitation. Part of Water for Life Decade
SDGs
ILCS CRSP
GAP
Manual Scavenging Act 1993
NRCP
GAP subsumed into NRCP
NGP
Pune Decl.
JNNURM, GOI financing for urban sanitation sector
started to increase
NUSP released
SBM AMRUT
Smart Cities
TSC
‘95 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 ‘21 ‘22
Goal of an ODF India!
Background: Genealogy of the term “Open Defecation Free”
“100% sani8zed village” -‐Mosmoil
N a 8 o n a l Focus on 1 0 0 % s an i8 zed v i l l age /ODF
TSC
Sant Gadge Baba
Swatchata Abhiyan
ODF in SBM G
2000 ‘01 ’04 ‘05 ‘07 ‘08 ‘10 ‘12 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘02 ‘03
SDG WDR 2004
TSC/NBA ODF
1999
INDIA ODF India target
Global ODF elimina8on
target GLOBAL
BANGLADESH
Nirmal Gram
Puraskar
From 78% to 3 % OD
SACOSAN (T 2022)
‘30
OTHER COUNTRIES
Background: Why has the “Open Defecation Free Community” concept received so much purchase? : Some explanations
• Clear recognition of the public good aspect of sanitation • Recognition that partial coverage and use of toilets leads to
unsatisfactory public health outcomes from sanitation • Clarifies the role of the community in sanitation • Sets up a clear identifiable stage in the sanitation improvemet matrix
aimed at safely containing human excreta thereby breaking the faecal oral route of transmission of disease
• Helps raise awareness across communities • Has induced innovative community approaches and participation • In a number of situations lead to rapid scaling up of absorption of
improved sanitation practices
Measurement : MDGs to SDGs: from access to improved sanitation facilities to ending Open Defecation
MDGs (2000-2015) GOAL
Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation
TARGET Halve by 2015, the proportion of population without sustainable access to safe drinking water & basic sanitation
INDICATORS • The proportion of the population that
use an improved drinking water source
• The proportion of the population that use an improved sanitation facility
SDGs: 2015-2030 GOAL: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water & sanitation for all
TARGET
(6.2) By 2030 achieve access to adequate & equitable sanitation & hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls
INDICATORS • % of all population using safely
managed sanitation services [progressive elimination of inequalities in access]
• Population with a hand-washing facility with soap & water in the household [progressive elimination of inequalities in access
Measured by the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) of the WHO & UNICEF (Dependent on naJonal household surveys / census)
Open Defecation (JMP) Census 2011 NSSO 69th Round
Open defecation: when human faeces are disposed of in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches, or other open spaces, or disposed off with solid waste
No latrine within premises – Public latrine -‐ Open
• Access to latrine – no latrine -‐ OD • Type of latrine – not used -‐ OD
• Whether all household members are using the latrine (male / female; above/below 15 yrs) & Reason
Census 2011
Latrine within premises?
Yes No Flush / Pour flush
latrine :
Pit latrine:
Service latrine: Open defecation
No
Public latrine?
Measurement : JMP uses National Survey data from India and elsewhere
Indonesia (2012 DHS; 2010 Census)
Pakistan (1998 Census; 2007 DHS)
Nigeria (Census 2006)
Ethiopia (Census 2007)
What type of toilet facility? – No toilet
1. Latrine – no latrine 2. What kind of toilet
facility do members of your household usually use? – o No facility / bush /
field o Flush or pour flush
toilet: to somewhere else; don't know where
1. What type of toilet do you use in this household? - Nearby (bush/beach/field)
2. What kind of toilet facility do members of your household usually use? – No facility / bush / field
What type of toilet facility does the housing unit have? – no toilet facility
Measurement : JMP uses National Survey data from India and elsewhere
Measurement : Increasing engagement with ODF measures in Indian programmes – NGP to NBA to SBM
§ Nirmal Gram Puraskar 2005
§ Objective : To incentivize PRIs to make villages ODF and to adopt Solid & Liquid Waste Management (SLWM)
§ Detailed critrea : incl Toilet usage by all households, migrant labour at public places and no open defecation found in GP
§ Total Sanitation Campeign 2011
§ Asks GPs for “Plan of action to attain ODF/Nirmal Status”
§ Nirmal Bharat Abhyan 2012
§ Additionally : “that GPs will be monitored for ‘Nirmal’ status”
§ Swachh Bharat Abhiyan 2014
§ Objective 2.1(a): “……eliminating open defecation”
§ “community incentive, if any, … released after the village unit is ODF for a significant length of times”
§ Urban : “no households engage in the practice of OD”
India-NGP Nigeria Indonesia JMP CLTS PLAN
No OD found in the area ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
100% presence of a functioning HH latrine ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
> With superstructure ✓ ✓
>evidence of use ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
>Latrines are well maintained ✓ ✓
Child stools are safely disposed of ✓ ✓ ✓
Safe containment of excreta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Handwashing facilities are present ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
>above with soap ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
IEC activities ✓ ✓
>use of sanctions ✓
>existence of a monitoring system ✓ ✓
School sanitation ✓ ✓ ✓
>with handwashing facilities ✓ ✓
Aanganwadi sanitation ✓
Community toilets ✓ ✓
Health centre sanitation ✓
No manual scavenging ✓
Access to water ✓
Solid waste management ✓
Liquid waste management ✓ ✓
Time for certification (months) 24 3 NA NA 3-6 24
Source: WaterAid Policy Note – “Open Defecation Free”
Measurement : ODF indicators used across programmes
Source: Ministry of Drinking Water and SanitaJon, Government of India (2011)
ZPs awarded in that State
Measurement and Results : NGP awarded GPs (2012) by state in percentage
10.58
33.2
60.9
111.47
55.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Census TSC Expon. (1991-‐2001 Growth rate) Linear (1991-‐2001 Growth)
(10%)
(23%)
(34%)
Million HH
s
Source: Ministry of Drinking Water and SanitaJon, Government of India (2012); Census 1991,2001,2011
Measurement and Results : TSC and Census 2011 compared
Measurement and Results : Some questions and explanations for the Slip back
SLIP BACK STATUS : NGP Impact Assessment Study
• 80.8% HHs from NGP had access to latrines at the time of the study • 26% HHs had fully functional latrines • 67% HHs all members used latrines • Similar findings from UNICEF-TARU and Arghyam Surveys Some issues identified by the NGP Impact Assessment Study – WHY?
Source: Assessment Study of Impact and Sustainability of Nirmal Gram Puraskar (GoI 2011)
Measurement and Results : Some questions and explanations of the complexity of behavioral issues involved
Sanitation Quality, Use, Access and Trends (SQUAT) Survey, 2014 in 5 North Indian states
• A preference for open defecation: – over 40% of HHs with a working latrine have at least one member who
defecates in the open – Why? • Psychology of the “un-clean” – create distance, build high capacity pits… • Feedback on benefits to defecating in the open:
– 47% of those that defecate in the open say they do so because it is pleasant, comfortable, or convenient – Why?
• Rural households in India do not build inexpensive latrines like the ones in countries in the region or Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa – WHY?
• Most people who own a government-constructed latrine continue to defecate in the open - this is mentioned as a choice – Why?
Source: hfp://squatreport.in/about-‐the-‐survey/ (3,235 adults on defecation practices and individual level latrine use data for 22,787 household members)
Randomized Control Trials (RCTs)
• London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine- Helminths infection
• Sanitation and stunting in I n d o n e s i a , O r i s s a , Maharashtra
• TSC, defecation behaviours and health
Hand washing and habit formation
Higher intensity
Lower intensity
Government driven ODF
surveys eg. NGP surveys
NSSO surveys
Non-governmental
sample surveys
Census household
survey
Programme evaluations eg. NGP scheme,
JNNURM
Sanitation Baseline surveys
100% Surveys Sample Surveys Aggregator Surveys
What we have learnt on ODF communities and its measurement
What we have learnt on ODF communities and its measurement
1. India is among a few countries that have a significant toilet (output) subsidy program
2. It is the only country that has an incentive and reward scheme for sanitation • Others have recognition schemes / awards etc.
3. Slip back, is highly probable, so social mobilisation innovations and special efforts needed for maintaining and improving status
4. One time measurement and declaration of ODF status has not worked well enough • ODF status needs to be confirmed only after few years of
consistent ODF results 5. Sanitation advances cannot be achieved and improvements
maintained as a one time effort but need ongoing programmes 6. Program Survey and aggregator biases difficult to control, so an
independent ongoing measurement system is needed, to monitor and record sanitation status along a matrix on ODF, SLWM, Hygiene and safe water
Some ideas going forward on measuring ODF communities
• There is a need for an non-program linked annual survey on a Sanitation Matrix
• Possibly conducted by the NSSO and NITI Aayog? • With the objective to gauge the sanitation situation from the
perspective of the extent to which waste (human excreta, liquid and solid waste) is disposed of safely so that there are no adverse effects on health
• Possibly understand where different states of the country rank on a sanitation index (constructed through the survey) so that the efficacy of their sanitation efforts can be reflected upon
• THANK YOU