10 CPPM 2015 Submission 120

Institutional Landscape Assessment of Rural Sanitation Sector in India

Mr Avinash Y. Kumar * and Ms Sukanya Bhaumik ***Urban Planner, CDD - Consortium for DEWATS Dissemination Society

** Program Officer, Public Affairs Centre

Abstract

From the Central Rural Sanitation Programme of 1986 to Swaccha Bharat Abhiyan of 2014, several sanitationprograms have been in place in rural India for the past three decades. As per government estimates, Rs 3 billionhas been spent on sanitation programmes in the country (Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation ),in the last 3decades. But inspite of this the rural sanitation landscape stands far from inspiring today. This paper attempts toevaluate the role of institutions in promoting rural sanitation in India.

This paper borrows from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework developed within the NewInstitutionalist Movement. It uses the framework to map out four elements in the strategic setting of the India’srural sanitation sector: (1) the institutions and their preferences, (2) the way institutions acquire, process, and useinformation to serve their service delivery objectives, (3) the decision criteria of different institutions and (4) theresources that an institution brings to a situation. Each of these aspects is studied to understand how policies affectthe action arena, the patterns of institutional interaction and the final programmatic outcomes.

The main aim of this paper is to evaluate the disbursement of sanitation services in rural India, by making asystemic assessment of the policy (government guidelines for the sector to function) framework and legal(prescribed statutes and rules for the sector to function) framework, in an attempt to understand the backlogs inmeeting sanitation targets. Through the process of institutional mapping, this paper examines rural institutions andtheir related aspects, such as fund devolution to Panchayati Raj Institutions, reasons for differentiated standards inservice delivery, slow pace of asset creation, etc. Conclusively the paper talks about interventions required tostrengthen the present institutional setup and identify the role of new institutions to achieve the same.

Keywords: Cognition, Horizontal/vertical governance, Capacity building, Institutional Analysis andDevelopment (IAD) Framework, Action arena, Policy framework and Legal Framework


2

Sanitation in India

Sanitation coverage in rural India is as low as 29%1.Nearly, 600 million people resort to open defecation everysingle day2. Even in the 40% of households that have a working latrine at least one member defecates in the open(Coffey, Gupta, & Spears, 2014). 10 million toilets constructed under various programs in the last 20 years are lyingunused3.

Lack of decent sanitation costs India nearly $54 billion (Rs 24,000 crore), or 6.4% of its GDP a year, mainly throughpremature deaths, especially of children, treatment for hygiene-related illnesses, and lost productivity (World Bank,2010).

It is estimated that since the first rural sanitation program in 1986 (Central Rural Sanitation Program) India has spentover $3 billion on constructing toilets across the country (Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation ).Despite suchmassive investments, India’s sanitation campaigns over the years have unfortunately yielded limited results.

The Indian government is now gearing up to spend an additional Rs.1.34 lakh crore over the next five years throughthe Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin). However keeping in mind the nature of the current institutional framework,bureaucratic red tape and redundancy looms large on limiting the successful dissemination of these basic needsservices and their scaling up in rural India.

India’s rural sanitation landscape is marked not by failures in policy formulation, but by the lack of decisiveimplementation through demand responsiveness and technology appropriation. Insanitation in India is largely theconsequence of development deficits and institutional failure Many reasons have been attributed to the failure ofrural sanitation in India such as lack of political will, distorted accountability, flawed monitoring and bureaucraticinertia, all of which are characterized by a ‘top-down approach’.The main aim of this paper is to evaluate such systemic and institutional gaps in the rural sanitation landscape in thecountry. Making an assessment of policy (government guidelines for the sector to function) framework and legal(prescribed statutes and rules for the sector to function) framework, we attempt to understand the bottlenecks in thesector, and subsequently point out required interventions and to strengthen the present institutional setup andidentify the role of new institutions to achieve the same.

Institutions and Organizations

The words ‘institution’ and ‘organization’ are usually used interchangeably or inclusively and often lead tomisunderstandings and misguided interventions. The most widely used definition of institutions is the onepropounded by North (1990), who pithily described institutions as ‘rules of the game’ and organizations as ‘theplayers’. He (North, 1990) described institutions as the “Rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are thehumanly devised constraints, rules, regulations, laws and rights that shape human interaction. In consequence theystructure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economical".

1 Census 20112 UNICEF & WHO 20123 R.I.C.E Institute,2014


3

On the other hand Uphoff (1992) define the organizations as “a group or association, formal or informal, in whichthere are defined and accepted roles, positions and responsibilities structured in some relationship to each other inorder to achieve a specific objective(s)”. Though organizations are not identical to institutions, they reciprocally

influence each other.Consistent with the institutional literature, Salethand Dinar (2000) shows that sanitation institutionsare conceived in a much broader sense than mereorganization. Sanitation institutions set the rulesand define, thereby, the action sets for bothindividual and collective decision-making in therealm development and management. Since theserules are often formalized in terms of three inter-related aspects, i.e., legal framework, policy

environment, and administrative arrangement,sanitation institutions can be conceptualized as an

entities defined interactively by its three main analytical components, i.e., sanitation law, sanitation policy, andsanitation organizations as shown below in Figure 1. On the other hand, laws and policies form the softwarecomponent of sanitation institutions whereas organizations form as hardware component of sanitation institutions.

The three main dimensions of sanitation institutions (law, policy and organization) are affected with many factorswhich have a diverse origin and varying level of impact. These factors can be grouped into endogenous factors thatare internal to sanitation sector and exogenous factors that are outside the strict confines of sanitation institution andsector. The endogenous factors include:

Water scarcity,

Water conflicts,

Financial and

Physical deterioration of water and sanitation infrastructure, and

Operational inefficiency of institutions.The exogenous factors include:

general legal system,

economic status (owing to development of local communities over time),

demographic growth,

technical progress,

economic policies,

political reforms,

international commitments,

Changing social values and ethos (Saleth & Dinar, 2000).

Legal Framework

The legal framework is a powerful and crucial tool to support sanitation at the local level. It also includes controlmechanisms which guarantee sanitation services to beneficiaries according to standards that take into considerationservice continuity and the socioeconomic, environmental and human dimension of sanitation as a social value and anessential requisite for the continuity and evolution of society.So, the core governmental role is to formulate policies, through which the government can delimit the activities ofall sanitation stakeholder groups, including itself. Appropriate policies can lead to the development of laws and rulesand regulations designed to achieve policy goals.

Figure 1: Water and sanitation institutional structure (Saleth &Dinar, 2000)


4

The role of laws for sanitation is to implement and enforce policy, and provide effective administrative andregulatory mechanisms at appropriate levels. Peters (2011) says that "good laws for sustainable sanitation and watermanagement recognize and acknowledge existing uses and rights, including international norms".A point worthy of mention is that in India is that with the burgeoning urbanization, rural areas on the brink ofurbanization have a tricky situation. A growing share of India's urban population that live in rural areas that havebeen declared Census Towns are governed under the rural administrative framework, despite very differentdemographic and economic characteristics, which may affect their future growth (Pradhan, September 07, 2013).

Institutional Framework

The term “institutional framework” refers to a set of formal organizational structures, rules and informal norms forservice provision. In the field of water and sanitation management, Peters (2011) says that the institutionalframework involves outlining the responsibilities of services institutions for various aspects of the sector.Institutional structures vary from country to country, but whatever the specific structure is like, it is essential to havemechanisms for dialogue and co-ordination.An institutional framework for sanitation should show integrity, comprehensiveness and a sound division of rolesand responsibilities. Suzuki (2010) shows that the institutional framework consists of a range of different keyinstitutional entities that are in place (or need to be in place) to develop, manages and deliver sanitation services atdifferent levels of society as shown in Figure 2. This includes: policy makers, regulators, service providers, andcustomers (civil society) as following:

1. Policy maker: The policy-making function resides mainly at the central level, and national policies arenormally imposed on lower tiers of the government.

2. Regulator: The regulatory system is responsible for enforcing rules to guarantee compliance with servicestandards and other sector policies to ensure sustainability. This requires providing adequate services ataffordable prices. However, it is important to ensure separation between regulators and service providers toavoid conflicts of interest. The regulator ensures that citizens receive services up to agreed standards tomitigate the risk that service providers underperform. Both bodies should not be under the jurisdiction ofthe same entity. It is equally important that the policy-making body and regulator be separate institutions.

3. Service provider: Service providers are responsible for providing sanitation services and at the same timeprovide wastewater collection and treatment. Consolidation of these services will help improve the controlof services and overall and promote accountability and more efficient operations.

4. Civil Society: Civil society should be institutionalized by users through appropriate participation channels.This helps ensure public participation in development and decision making. Policy makers and regulatorsoften consult user associations to assess and ensure the adequacy of policies, legislations, regulations, andservice levels.


5

Figure 2: Ideal institutional setup in sanitation sector(Suzuki, Dastur, Moffat, Yabuki, & Maruyama, 2010)

Organizational Structure DefinitionThe structure of the organization describes the functions, tasks and authorities of the departments, divisions andindividual employees and the relationships between them (line of command, communication and procedures). It alsodescribes the number of employees in each division, unit and department. On the one hand the structure dividesdepartments, divisions and individuals on basis of tasks, functions and authorities. Also, the structure coordinatesthese units through lines of communication and command. Only when the different units work in conjunction, theorganization is able to function as a whole (Rijn, 2004).Underdown (2003) says organizational structure "is the formal system of task and reporting relationships thatcontrols, coordinates, and motivates employees so that they cooperate to achieve an organization's goals".Organizational structure is the formal and informal policies and procedures the organization uses to manage jobs,employees and to facilitate the different processes. A general rule of the thumb is that the organization structureshould enhance the progress of the processes.

Figure 3: Organizational structure determinants and outputsSource: (Robbins & Judge, 2007)

Policy Makers

Regulators

Utilities

Customers/CitizensCivil Society Organizations

Performanceand

Satisfaction

Leads toDeterminesCauses:

1. Strategy2. Environment3. Technology4. Size

OrganizationsStructure Type

Moderate byindividual differences

and cultural norms

Causes:1. Strategy2. Environment3. Technology4. Size

Policy Makers


6

Sanitation a Public GoodServices such as sanitation may be understood variously as basic services, essential public services, and services ofgeneral interest or public utilities. Their existence is not explicable by the fact that they are necessary or particularlyuseful especially since most poor societies suffer from a lack of them. The key characteristic of these goods andservices is that, to a large degree, their benefits are difficult to internalize privately. For example, when a familyinstalls a latrine, it not only protects them from their own excreta; it also helps to protect their neighbors. Indeed,there is an impact on the health of the community as a whole from the overall level of sanitation. Thus, sanitation isnot only a private good, but also a public good, and that there is therefore a case for public measures (subsidy orregulation) to promote it. Individuals cannot be expected to pay voluntarily for a benefit which others will enjoy.

Type of Goods Exclusive Non-Exclusive

Rival Private Cars, House Clean Air, Grazing Land

Non-Rival Bridges, Swimming Pool, MovieTheatre

National Defence, Public Health(Sanitation)

Table 1: Private Goods and Public Goods

The more non-depletable and non-excludable a good or service is, the greater the justification for state involvement.Hence, sanitation is a ‘public good’ and needs to be seen as an integral component of the health structure and the‘Public Health Goods’.However, even if a community or the government provides a public good, it may be destroyed or degraded,essentially restoring the status quo in which the good was not provided. This distinct type of public goods problem isfrequent in both developing and developed countries, for example, newly constructed toilets are rendered unusableby deteriorated infrastructure, theft or vandalism.The inability of communities to maintain public goods has been problem that has surrounded public choice theoryfor long. The question as to how in some localities, public goods are degraded, damaged, or destroyed shortly afterthey are provided, while in other cases, their integrity and viability are maintained for a much longer period of timeis a matter of deliberation. In order to fully understand the dynamics of public goods problems, it is necessary tounderstand how communities solve two distinct collective action problems: inducing individuals to contribute to a‘public good’ and preventing individual from producing ‘public bads’ (Hardin, 1982).In order to develop a explanation for variations in the ability of communities and governments to provide andmaintain local public goods, one can draw a conceptual distinction between horizontal and vertical governanceinstitutions and show how the joint operation of these two types of institution contributes to the provision andmaintenance of public goods and social order.

Horizontal governance refers to norm enforcement through decentralized networks of social sanctions, whereasvertical governance refers to institutions in which social rules are monitored and enforced in part by speciallydesignated third party, which could either be a community-based governance institution or a central government(Boone, 2003). Horizontal governance institutions have been identified by a wide range of economists, sociologists,and political scientists as being vital to overcoming collective action problems and motivating the provision ofpublic goods (Coleman, 1988).


7

Thus, horizontal and vertical governance institutions each solve a different kind of social dilemma, it follows thatdifferent configurations of these types of institutions will lead to different patterns of public goods provision andpublic bads prevention. If horizontal governance primarily works to motivate public goods provision and verticalgovernance primarily serves to prevent public bads, we should observe high-levels of public goods availability insocial settings in which both types of institution exist, are utilized, and are compatible with one another. In contrast,when only one type of institution or neither type exist or operate in a given social space, public goods will tend to beless available, either as a result of under provision of public goods, frequent production of public bads, or both.

Scenarios Nonexistent, Inactive, orIncompatible Vertical GovernanceInstitutions

Existent, Active, or CompatibleVertical Governance Institutions

Nonexistent, Inactive, orIncompatible HorizontalGovernance Institutions

No Provision of Public Goods, NoPrevention of Public Bads

Limited Provision of PublicGoods, Prevention of Public Bads

Existent, Active, or CompatibleHorizontal Governance Institutions

Provision of Public Goods, Limited,Prevention of Public Bads

Provision of Public Goods,Limited, Prevention of PublicBads

Table 2: Predictions of the Effect of Horizontal and Vertical Governance Institutions on the Provision of PublicGoods and Prevention of Public Bads

Variation in the existence and operation of horizontal governance between localities is driven by differences in thedensity and strength of social relationships (Ostrom E. , 1990). If the individuals in a given area have very few socialinteractions or shared beliefs, low levels of public goods provision are expected relative to areas that arecharacterized by high levels of social capital and social cohesion (Putnam, 1993). If a community has no designatedthird party enforcement institution, or the individual(s) assigned these role do not exercise those responsibilities, wewould say that vertical governance does not exist in any meaningful way and would expect high incidence ofbehavior that reduce overall social welfare (P.Englebert, 2000).

The coexistence of functioning horizontal and vertical institutions in a given locality is not sufficient to ensurethe joint production of public goods and prevention of public bads; if horizontal and vertical institutions exist inan area, but they are not compatible, public goods problems will persist. If horizontal governance institutionsexist but diverge from vertical institutions substantively or procedurally, local public goods may be provided on asporadic and uneven basis, and third-party institutions will exhibit only limited effectiveness with respect topreventing public bads.

Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for Policy Analysis

Mapping is a basic tool for achieving an understanding of potential roles of the stakeholders and institutionsinvolved, for identifying potential coalitions of support for the project, for scenario and strategy building and forassessing the relative risks entailed. If carried out with the participation of stakeholders, the procedure can also beessential for building legitimacy and policy ownership.


8

For any social change initiative any policy project it is important to get an inventory of institutions involved andidentify the key players, assess potential support or opposition among them and highlight the relevant institutions’roles and the inter institutional linkages.Stakeholders are defined as persons or groups whose interests and activities strongly affect and are affected by theissues concerned. Stakeholder analysis identifies the stakeholders and maps out their relative power, influence andinterests in a certain domain or in regard to a specific initiative, identifies the role and action arena of eachstakeholder (Morgan & Taschereau, 1996).This paper borrows from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework developed within the NewInstitutionalist Movement. It uses the framework to map out four elements in the strategic setting of the India’s ruralsanitation sector: (1) the institutions and their preferences, (2) the way institutions acquire, process, and useinformation to serve their service delivery objectives, (3) the decision criteria of different institutions and (4) theresources that an institution brings to a situation.The IAD approach is built around a three step mapping procedure in a predefined framework:

Identifying and mapping the action arena (action situation and actors)

Identification of factors determining the action arena (the rules, the attributes of a physical world, andthe nature of the community)

Patterns of interaction in multiple action arenas

The IAD framework uses several key parameters: (1) participants: the actors who are involved in a situation. (2)positions: place holders that associate participants with a set of authorized actions (employee, voter, judge, monitor),(3) actions: nodes in a decision tree, particular positions taken at different stages of a process identify actions thatmake an essential difference for the entire process in their consequences,(4) potential outcomes: the results ofindividuals interacting with one another in a regularized setting (quantities of output, interpersonal relations,changes in rules, externalities etc.), (5) a function that links inputs to output–in the case of voting for instance, thetransformation function takes the symbolic actions of individuals and produces a collective decision, (6)information: the data about an action situation and its implications, and finally (7) payoffs, positive and negativeweights assigned to the outcomes and the actions leading to outcomes. These parameters are used to map out fourkey elements: (1) actor’s preferences regarding certain actions and outcomes, (2) the way actors acquire, process,and use information, (3) the decision criteria actors use regarding a particular course of action, and (4) the resourcesthat an actor brings to a situation (Ostrom, Gardner, & Walker, 1994).This approach of institutional mapping not only satisfies the contextual and temporal parameters but also creates alink between that and the standard analytical paradigms and economics models. It represents one of the mostdeveloped and sophisticated attempts to use institutional and stakeholder assessment in order to link theory andpractice, analysis and policy. Institutional mapping entails not only very complex field methodologies andtechniques but also has very profound epistemological foundations. Hence, institutional mapping is one of the mostimportant tools in the tool bag of the policy practitioner (Aligica, 2006).


9

Mapping Rural Sanitation in India

Year wise developments in Rural Sanitation in India

1985 Ministry Of Rural Development took over rural sanitation in the Department Of Drinking Water Supply.

1986 CRSP (Central Rural Sanitation Programme) launched with a target to achieve 25% rural sanitation by theend of the decade. Other ministry programs – IAY (Indira Awaz Yojana), NREP (National RuralEmployment Programme), RLEGP (Rural-Landless Employment Guarantee Programme) were used aschannels to build toilets.

1992 CRSP revised, beneficiary contribution included, funds allocated for marts, awareness programs etc.

1998 National KAP (Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices) survey was conducted, and it was revealed that subsidywas not the key motivational factor among villagers to build toilets.

1999 CRSP revised, TSC (Total Sanitation Campaign) was launched with 7 objectives

2003 NGP (Nirmal Gram Puraskar) was launched - encouraged PRIs (Panchayati Raj Institutions) to attain NGPstatus. Tourist areas are also included in TSC

2004 CCDU's (Communication and Capacity Development Unit) were approved by state governments.

2010 Department Of Drinking Water Supply changed to Department Of Water Supply And Sanitation

2011 Ministry of drinking water and sanitation formed

2012 TSC (Total Sanitation Campaign) changed to Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan with Gram Panchayat as the base unit

2014 Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin) launched

Table 3: Year wise developments in Rural Sanitation in India

The 1981 Census revealed rural sanitation coverage was only 1%. The International Decade for Drinking water andSanitation during 1981-90, began giving emphasis on rural sanitation. Government of India introduced the CentralRural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) in 1986 primarily with the objective of improving the quality of life of therural people by providing for 80% subsidy for construction of individual sanitary latrines for BPL households ondemand basis.4 From 1999, the “demand driven” approach under the “Total Sanitation Campaign” (TSC)emphasized more on Information, Education and Communication (IEC), Human Resource Development (HRD),Capacity Development activities to increase awareness among the rural people and generation of demand forsanitary facilities. Financial incentives were provided to Below Poverty Line (BPL) households for construction andusage of individual household latrines (IHHL) in recognition of their achievements. To generate awareness onsanitation, the first Nirmal Gram Puraskars (NGP) were awarded to recognize the achievements and efforts made atthe GP level in ensuring full sanitation coverage and achieving other indicators of open defecation free GPs. The“Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan” (NBA) the successor programme of the TSC, was launched in April 2012. The objectivewas to accelerate the sanitation coverage in the rural areas so as to comprehensively cover the rural communitythrough renewed strategies and saturation approach. NBA envisaged covering the entire community for saturated

4 CRSP Guidelines, 1986


10

outcomes with a view to create Nirmal Gram Panchayats. Under NBA, the incentives for IHHLs were enhanced andfurther focused support was obtained from MNREGA. However there were several implementation difficulties inconvergence of NBA with MNREGA as funding from different sources created delays at the implementationmechanism. To accelerate the efforts to achieve universal sanitation coverage and to put focus on sanitation, theSwachh Bharat Mission (SBM) on 2nd October, 2014. SBM has two Sub-Missions, the SBM (Gramin) and theSBM (Urban), which aims to achieve Swachh Bharat by 2019.

TSC NBA SBM (Gramin)

CentralGovernmentInstitutions

Ministry of RuralDevelopment

Ministry of DrinkingWater And Sanitation

Ministry of Drinking Water And Sanitation(Secretary DWS will be the MissionDirector)

CapacityDevelopment

CCDU(Communication andCapacity Development)

WSSO (Water&Sanitation SupportOrganisation)

State Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin)District Swachh Bharat MissionBlock Programme Management Unit

Awareness AndSocialMobilization

PRI, NGO, SHG, cooperatives

PRI, NGO, corporatehouses

Communication Cell

Planning ForAssets

State selects TSCdistricts

GP-block-district(DWSM/DWSC)-SWSM-SSSC-Ministryof drinking water andsanitation

National Resource Centre (NRC) – technicalassistance unit of SBM (Gramin)

FinanceFund to the state, stateadds its share and isreleased to the district.

SWSM- fund earmarkedfor districts giventhrough DWSM

Funding for SLWM project under SBM (G)is provided by the Central and StateGovernment in the ratio of 75:25.Anyadditional cost requirement is to be met withfunds from the State/GP, and from othersources like Finance Commission funding,CSR, Swachh Bharat Kosh and through thePPP model.

Asset Creation GOI, State, Beneficiary

Maintaining TheAsset

Beneficiary and PRI Beneficiary and PRI

Panchayats/VoluntaryOrganizations/Charitable Trusts forpublic facilities

Beneficiary and PRI

MonitoringCentral CRSP office,DDWS

State Review Mission Monitoring and Evaluation Cell

Other Ministries Public health MGNREGA Ministry of Rural Development

Table 4: Institutions involved in rural sanitation


11

InstitutionalFunction

Pol

icy

Sett

ing

Stan

dard

s

Cap

acit

yB

uild

ing

IEC

And

Soci

alM

obili

zati

on

Pla

nnin

g

Fin

ance

Ass

etC

reat

ion

Mai

ntai

ning

Ass

et

Mon

itor

ing

Cen

tral

Gov

ernm

ent

MoDWS

Sanitation Cell,MoDWS forconstruction

standards, targets forNGP, guidelines for

IEC, Swachchatadoot.

Nationalcommunication

strategyframework

CentralGovernment(MoDWS)

finalizes AIPs(Annual

Implementation Plan) andPIPs (ProjectImplementati

on Plan)

Basedon AIP,funds

shall bereleased

to thestates

Beneficiarywith PRI'shelp andMNREGSas per thestandards setby theauthorities.

Onlinemonitoring

Stat

e G

over

nmen

t

Supervise thestandards in

implementation,coordinate the

departments, settingup of institutional

arrangements

Conduct thetraining to the

functionaries atall levels by

engagingNGO's/ CBO's

of repute

WSSO to dealwith IEC, HRDmonitoring and

evaluation

SWSM makesAIP and PIP

of the state bycompilingDWSMreports

Stateshare isadded

according to thePIP and

isreleased

toDWSMwithin

15 days

Funds to bemade

available forIEC that

facilitatesmaintenance

training

fieldinspection by

state levelofficers, fillthe online

data


12

Dis

tric

t

DWSM is to ensurethat standards are

communicated to theGPs through

appropriate IECstrategy

Conduct thetraining to the

functionaries atall levels by

engagingNGO's/ CBO's

of repute

Prepare annualIEC plan and

ensure itsimplementation

DWSMmakes PIP ofthat district

DWSMtransfers

it toGPs and

DWSshould

plan andimplement theNBAworksof the

GP

Beneficiarywith PRI'shelp and

MNREGSas per the

standards setby the

authorities.

Fundallocation for

themaintenance

of publictoilets

DWSM toensure

meeting ofstandards

andconducting

of socialaudits as perMNREGS,review of

GP'sprogress in

work.

Gra

m P

anch

ayat

Ensure that thestandards are met

Implement theIEC and generate

demand forsanitationfacilities

GramPanchayatconducts asurvey toestablish

number andthe surveyresult go tothe block

panchayat andvillage is

identified forNBA.

GP’sopen abank

accountfor

NBAfundsand

utilizethem for

theprojects

Generatemechanismsto maintainthe public

facilities byuser fee andothers. Thegap is to befilled by thefunds madeavailable.

Take part inmonitoringactivities,conduct

social auditsthrough gram

sabhas.

Table 5: Responsibilities of stakeholders SBM


13

Table 4 (Institutions involved in rural sanitation) and Table 5 (Responsibilities of stakeholders) examine the roleof rural sanitation institutions and stakeholders in India. In rural areas this sanitation implementation meansimproving the levels of cleanliness in through Solid and Liquid Waste Management activities and making GPsOpen Defecation Free (ODF).There are 3 main phases of sanitation implementation, the planning phase, the implementation phase and thesustainability phase.

In the planning phase the actors chalk out the various stages of implementation and identify resources for each ofthem. In SBM the planning stage involves creation of the Annual Implementation Plan, OD elimination plansand identifying human and financial resources to execute these plans.The implementation phase involves undertaking the main activities of the sanitation program i.e IEC, Financingand Toilet construction. SBM identifies implementing institutions/agencies as National Swachh Bharat Mission(G), State Swachh Bharat Mission (G), District Swachh Bharat Mission, Block Programme Management Unit,Gram Panchayat/ Village Water and Sanitation Committee and Swachhata Doot/Sena. Each institution has animportant role to play in executing various aspects of sanitation program such as mass awareness raising,community mobilization, IEC activities, fund release and construction of toilets. Capacity building ofstakeholders and sanitation workers, the Swachhata Doots/Sena, members of PRIs, VWSCs, functionaries ofBPMU, DWSM, ASHA, Anganwadi workers, SHG members, masons, CSOs/NGOs etc is identified as animportant part of SBM implementation. The training needs to be on various approaches of IEC, promotingBehavioural change including Triggering (CLTS) house to house communication etc., masonry work, plumbing,as well as for construction and maintenance of toilets and for Solid and Liquid Waste Management works.The sustainability phase of sanitation implementiaon is very important as this ensures the end users do not slipbackwards in the sanitation value chain. Following up through community hand holding; Monitoring andEvaluation by spot checks/audits and third party evaluation are two important ways to ensure sanitationsustainability.

When mapping the institutions in the rural sanitation landscape in India it is important first to identify the actors.Four main actors: top-level officers in the DDWS, mid-level government officers, GP leaders and ruralcommunities. These actor groups and their roles are summarized in these tables.


14

Table 6: Activity Mapping

S.No. Activities VillageStudyStatus

Institutes / People Involved

a Start-Up Activities, which includes

i. Conducting of preliminary survey to assess sanitationstatus practices.

Yes GP

ii. Base-line survey Yes GP

iii. Orientation of key personnel at district/GP level DWSM

iv. Preparation of the State Plan. SWSM

b Information, Education and Communication (IEC)Activities. Production Centers

WSSO, DWSM

c Capacity Building WSSO, DWSM

d Construction of Individual Household Latrines (IHHLs) PRI, district MNREGS celland beneficiaries

e Setting up Rural Sanitation Marts and DWSM, SHGs, NGOs

f Provision of Revolving Fund in the District DWSM

g Community sanitation complex of total district projectoutlay

DWSM, NSSC

h Institutional toilets GP

i Solid and Liquid Waste Management (SLWM) GP, SSCC

j Maintenance of facilities created under NBA PRI, state government funds

k Administrative charges up to 4% of the total districtproject outlay

DWSM

Staff Category Functional responsibilities

Top level officers in theDDWS

Formulate/ Update policies and inform states

Delegate responsibilities to states

Monitor Progress

Distribute funds


15

Table 7: Actors in Sanitation Programs

Mid-level officers at state,district and block level

State Level

Attend National trainings

Develop state polices based on policy guidelines

Co-ordinate implementation with districts

Distribute funds to districts

Report Sanitation coverage to national level

District Level

Attend state meetings

Prepare and implement district projects

Distribute funds to blocks

Report sanitation coverage to state

Block Level

Attend district trainings

Support implementation

Provide training to GP leaders

Organize IEC or motivational activities in villages

Distribute funds to GPs

Report sanitation coverage to districts

GP Leaders Attend district and block trainings

Lead implementation in villages

Motivate households to adopt improved sanitation

Distribute funds to households

Report sanitation coverage to blocks

Rural Communities Attend village sanitation meetings and activities

Construct latrines independent of external support (BPL, households withincentive)

Adopt improved sanitation practices


16

Motivation Cognition Power

Low priority in initial years Infrastructure -focused technocrats Decentralized governing system

Misdirected accountability Lack of training Technocratic governingmachinery

Competing personal interests Flawed monitoring system Paternalistic inertia

Corruption Inaccurate poverty classification

Table 8: Sanitation actor characteristics

The poor outcomes of the sanitation programs in India are related to the fact that the principles upon whichpolicies were based were not translated to practice. Several elements and processes related to the characteristicsof the actors involved in the implementation process, shed light on this theory–practice gap, some of them arediscussed below:

Motivations

Motivations drive the behaviors and actions of actors. Four motivations contributed to the theory–practice gap:low priority for rural sanitation, misdirected accountability, competing personal interests and corruption.Low priority for rural sanitation: It is only very recently that rural sanitation has gained attention with the NBAand SBM (Gramin). Previously, government officers and engineers, tasked with leading water and sanitationprojects, neglected sanitation in favor of more stimulating and costly water projects. Even where officers weremotivated to facilitate real sanitation change, lack of training in participatory development methods remained anobstacle for implementing.

Misdirected accountability: Accountability in the administration was focused mainly on subsidy expenditure, tosome extent on coverage achievement, and minimally on latrine usage. Government officers were evaluatedbased on funds distributed and toilet numbers accrued. Hence, they focused on spending and construction, whichresulted in subsidy-driven, infrastructure-centered and supply-led implementation.Competing personal interests: Sanitation, a challenging area to confront that takes a long time to show progress.Hence, District and Block level officers had personal incentives that deterred sanitation progress. Alternatively,some officers haphazardly implemented these programs and over-reported coverage progress.

Corruption: Self-guided distribution of hardware subsidies and lack of oversight during project procurement andconstruction promoted misuse of subsidy funds. Consequently, community distrust of leaders and officers grew,hindering future efforts.

Cognitions

Cognitions are the information and knowledge that inform actors’ interpretation of a situation. Four cognitioncomponents contributed to the implementation gap: infrastructure-focused bureaucracy, lack of personnel andabilities (capacity), flawed monitoring system, and inaccurate poverty classification.Infrastructure-focused technocrats: Officers from the central to local levels viewed rural sanitation as a dilemmaof technology and poverty, not as a social and institutional issue requiring focus on the people. According toIndia WASH Forum ‘the district and state level coordination is geared towards construction and hardware, sincethese are the strengths of the implementing agency. Hence at the institutional level there is a structural gap inplanning and delivery effective BCC [Behavior Change Communication] for sanitation.

Lack of officer training: Local government officers tasked with leading the sanitation programs were generallyunder-trained. They were also simultaneously responsible for many other rural programmes. Districts and blocksdid not rely on social workers or community development experts to implement the campaign, but on engineers.


17

Without experience and adequate training, many local government officers lacked the skills needed for acommunity-led campaign.

Flawed monitoring system: As proven by the 2011 census, the monitoring systems in sanitation programs werehighly inaccurate. Examples abound at the local level, too. The flawed monitoring system reflects and reinforcesthe infrastructure-centered and target-driven implementation of the sanitation programs. Inaccurate povertyclassification: Because of an unreliable poverty classification system, hardware subsidies provided to householdswith BPL cards failed to promote inclusion of the poorest.

Power:

Power refers to an actor’s capacity to implement a policy. It includes the regulatory or formal dispositions, alongwith relevant informal rules or hierarchies. The three determining aspects include a decentralized system,technocratic governing machinery and paternalistic inertia.

Decentralized system: The Indian governing system is widely decentralized, involving many actors acrossdifferent levels. Coherently for sanitation, the central government issued guidelines and the states developedpolicies and delegated campaign implementation to districts, which in turn facilitated blocks and villages to takeresponsibilities over the campaign. Decentralized systems are considered to be positive for encouraginginnovation and customizing programs to the local situations. However in the case of sanitation programs it madeit difficult to achieve skilled facilitation or to make policy changes happen locally.

Technocratic governing machinery: India has a hierarchical and technocratic bureaucracy that is well suited tosend down technical designs and subsidies for physical infrastructure projects. As a consequence, sanitationprograms focused on subsidized hardware, instead of facilitating behavior change and sustainable latrine usage.As a result, sanitation was implemented in a supply-led mode despite guidelines that described a demand-driven,participatory program.

Paternalistic inertia: For many decades the Indian government has been attempting to meet the basic needs of itsmost vulnerable citizens through various welfare schemes. This paternalistic inertia resulted in raising theexpectations from the state and rural program beneficiaries.

Recent planning frameworks for sustainable sanitation systems suggest the utilization of a number of steps: (i)recognizing the existence of different domains, (ii) analysis of the interests driving desire for the sanitationsystem and services for the stakeholders across the domains, (iii) analysis of external drivers and context thatimpact behavior in each domain (iv) analysis of technical options, in relation to findings on context and criteria,(v) analysis of management requirements for proposed technical options, (vi) critical assessment whether theproposed system is fit for the purpose (Huesoa & Bellb, 2013).


18

ConclusionHaving attempted the theoretical framing of the rural sanitation sector in the earlier section, an assessment of theactor’s motivations, and the way they function (acquire, process and use information) are analyzed.

Sanitation Preference AnalysisThe end users of sanitation services in rural areas are ‘the’ most important stakeholders and it’s very importantto understand their perspective about the services provided and what their preferences are in this regard.Sanitation Programs have traditionally been perceptive to the end users preferences only to the minimal extent ofaddressing ‘access to toilets’, (even though leaving a lot to be wanted in this regard). However the additionalrequirements of convenience and user preferences, for sanitation services are a largely less understood domain,even in a country as worried about its sanitation as India.Most of the operation and maintenance considerations for sanitation services are designed by service providers(government or private service providers) based on few general assumptions without reflecting on userpreferences. For example the assumption that the end user may value a particular kind of service may not alwaysbe valid. It needs to be evaluated based on their socio-economic profile, the nature of the region’s physiographyand most importantly how people value different attributes (feature, function, benefits) that make up anindividual product or service.The disbursement of sanitation services need to utilize the benefits of perception studies. A bottoms-up approachcan only help in this regard to understand the perceived gap in the services being provided to the end users andtheir preferences and willingness to pay, the service packages could be designed based on the outputs receivedfrom this study. This would help understand how different aspects of O&M services are perceived as valuable,purely from an un-informed approach for different end-user groups.

Weak local InstitutionsAn observation stands out while conducting the mapping of these institutions and their relative roles andresponsibilities. The general case with sanitation programmes is that, they are all driven from ministerialplatforms, with sophisticated planning and implementation criteria but weakly anchored within the seats of localgovernment. From the hierarchy of the local government onwards (in this case the Gram Panchayat), thegovernment functionaries are largely limited in terms of staffing as well as capacity building.Most government programs focus towards disbursing funds for asset creation. However, endogenous factors likethe sanitation markets have to be understood well by the functionaries administering any sanitation program, inorder to scale up efforts or even provide sustainable sanitation solutions. And in this regard, the gram panchayatinstitutions need to be strengthened (especially in terms of their exposure to sanitation technologies). Apart fromasset creation, the local governing framework needs to address the other aspects of regulation and monitorservice delivery.

Excessive Functional FragmentationAnother point of observation is the excessive fragmentation of the institutional functions which reduces theefficacy and autonomy of individual institutions. Each of the institutional functions of asset creation, regulation,monitoring and service delivery are all distributed across various organizations which creates further hurdles inservice delivery. This problem is only worsened by the limited linkages between the government institutionalinterface with the non-governmental institutional interface like CBOs/NGOs/SHGs.Though reduced functional fragmentation may not be realistic, the function of rural sanitation policy makersshould be to atleast reduce the gap between the non-governmental and governmental institutions, by allowingmore participatory policy making.


19

Gaps in the value chainEver since the first generation of sanitation reforms in India, sanitation planners and policy analysts havedeveloped agreements on what a comprehensive sanitation solution should be like and then reflect on thegovernment’s role in that framework. The widely accepted understanding is that sanitation solutions mustaddress all components along the sanitation value chain alongside reviewing cross cutting issues on institutionaland private sector capacity.

The primary motive of the central government (Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation) is to facilitate accessto toilet (by asset creation) for 100% of the population, and regulate the process. In addition, it also carries theadditional mantle of mobilizing public awareness by administering the ‘National Communication StrategyFramework (NCSF)’, much the same way as asset creation. This means, that the NCSF sets the framework forthe Information, Education, Communication approach (similar to a policy guideline) of the government. Theactual process of conducting the campaign is to be driven by the Water Supply and Support Organization(WSSO) in tandem with the district functionaries (who Prepare annual IEC plan and ensure its implementation).Between preparing the plan and implementing it, lays the major gap of inherent capacities within these arms ofthe government. Inadequate filling of staff positions and their limited technical capacities is a major impedimentin executing awareness campaigns among the population. The IEC programs would require design of thepedagogic approach which needs to be thought through by professionals with the appropriate skill sets (which asstated earlier is a major cognitive component of these institutions to function efficiently). The WSSO in thisregard is a major bridge between the central government’s objectives - to create awareness and thus incentivizetaking up interest in sanitation - and the Panchayati Raj Institutions mandate to facilitate public health throughprovision of sanitation amenities in its jurisdiction.

As understood from Figure 4 we have most of the functional responsibilities taken care of, the degree of focuson each stage of the value chain is majorly focused on the user interface and that too, in terms of asset creation.The asset, which in this case is the toilet (which could be an individual, shared or community toilet) constructionis provided with minimal evaluation of user preferences of sanitation habits and hygiene. Thus close to 50% ofthe toilets constructed under NBA in rural Odisha stand unused5. Several lessons can be learnt from a CitizenReport Card (CRC) exercise carried in rural Odisha thus ensuring toilet construction only after due considerationof user preferences; demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the population.

5 Implementation of a Citizen Report Card (CRC-1),Improving Consumer Voices and Accountabilityin the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan , Public Affairs Centre (Bangalore)

Figure 4: Sanitation Value Chain


19







19







20

Lessons from Rural Odisha

(Citizen Report Card: Public Affairs Centre, October 2014)

A total of 2680 NBA beneficiaries were interviewed in the districts of Angul, Baleshwar, Cuttack,Dhenkanal, Ganjam, and Sambalpur.

Main sources of information on NBA:The main sources of information on the toilet construction process under NBA were NGOs accordingto 34% respondents followed by GP officials (33%) and GP members (21%). Swachchata Doots,health workers, SHG members reached a very small proportion of people.

Impact of exposure to NBA (IEC):32% of the respondents reported having started construction and an equal number stated that they hadcompleted the constructing a toilet. While 30% of the respondents did not take any action based onthe information they received.

Status of toilets:52% of the respondents stated that their toilet was completed and was in usable condition. Of those(32% respondents) who said the toilet was not usable, 63% cited the lack of a wall and 76% saidthere were no roof. Two other prime reasons cited by respondents was the pit being blocked and full.

Construction of the toilet by self/mason37% of respondents reported that the toilet was constructed by a contractor, 21% had hired a masonfor construction purposes, whereas 32% said that they themselves built the toilet. 29% of respondentssaid that NGOs helped in construction of a toilet. Interesting results emerge when the condition of thetoilet is related with who built the toilet. The probability of a toilet being in a complete and in ausable condition is higher when it is built by the HH on its own or by a mason who has been hired bythem as compared to toilets built by the NGOs/Contractors without involving HHs.

Design of the toilets and ease of use53% of respondents said that the design of the toilet built was easy to use and maintain; 47% said itwas not so. 76% of respondents (N=1271) who were not happy with the design cited the lack of aroof as the reason whereas 48% cited absence of walls as another reason.


21

Apart from the concerns at the user interface, the later stages of the sanitation value chain have long beencompletely unaddressed by the sanitation programs in rural India till the recent SBM (G) guidelines.The concerns of handling the fecal sludge that is collected in the pits and septic tank chambers of the toiletswhich constitute the subject matter of an upcoming domain of septage management had long been unaddressedin rural areas in particular. Post the user interface6, there are the several stages of sanitation planning that need tobe addressed by the institutions. The SBM (G) guidelines talks about solid and liquid waste management forrural India and prescribes technologies identifies actors and institution as well as funding sources to undertakethe same. However it is important that for each of the above stages, the institutional positions (with their set ofauthorized statutory roles) and their actions must be aligned.

6 The User Interface describes the type of toilet, pedestal, pan, or urinal with which the user comes in contact;it is the way by which the user accesses the sanitation system. In many cases, the choice of User Interface willdepend on the availability of water

Asset creation in the NBM has been done in convergence with the MNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National RuralEmployment Guarantee Scheme) administered by the local Panchayati Raj Institutions. Several issues have beenfaced in aligning two separate state departments for executing the convergence. Though the convergence wasmeant encourage users to construct toilets it has so far been major impediment in several states.


22

Way ForwardIt is recommended that the following steps be taken to ensure the goals of SBM are met:

Reviving the Gram Sabha’s role in both generating awareness regarding improved toilet options amongstakeholder groups and thereby creating demand

After collecting user preferences, helping stakeholder groups identify latrines according to their needsand ability. As this remains the major backlog of the India’s sanitation story wherein user preferencesare taken into account only in terms of creating access but not in terms of monitoring the nature ofaccess. A user preference evaluation would also help understand how resource intensive (i.e.,economic, material and human) sanitation provisions and technologies are compared to the othertechnologies, and thereby make informed choices for the population.

Facilitating the progress of the population, thesanitation ladder from no access to a sharedtoilet and finally an individual toilet must alsotake into account the aspect of behaviour change(as illustrated in the image here), through raisingawareness across all rural stakeholders.

Building capacities of actors and institutions willbe very vital to ensure implementation andsustainability. Capacity building of stakeholdersand sanitation workers, the Swachhata

Doots/Sena, members of PRIs, VWSCs,functionaries of BPMU, DWSM, ASHA,Anganwadi workers, SHG members, masons,CSOs/NGOs etc. through indentified institutions on various approaches of IEC, promoting behaviouralchange, masonry work, plumbing, as well as for construction and maintenance of toilets will ensure thecommunity moves up the sanitation value chain. Awareness generation among communities will triggerdemand among the village community on various aspects of sanitation. It will also help the GPs inachieving ODF status, sustaining and building on it with effective motivation and low cost managementof solid and liquid wastes.

Strengthening horizontal governance institutions in rural India: The social interactions among thevillagers and the respective Gram Panchayat institution as stated by Putnam shows a strong bearing onthe low level of public good provision (in this case being sanitation). As earlier stated, if horizontalgovernance institutions exist but diverge from vertical institutions substantively or procedurally, localpublic goods may be provided on a sporadic and uneven basis, and third-party institutions will exhibitonly limited effectiveness with respect to preventing public bads.

Figure 5: Behavioural change ladder


23

BibliographyAligica, P. D. (2006). Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for Policy Analysis andInstitutional Change. Springer Science.

Boone, C. (2003). Political topographies of the African state : territorial authority and institutionalchoice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coffey, D., Gupta, A., & Spears, D. (2014). Revealed Preference for Open Defecation. Economic andPolitical WEEKLY , 43-55.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology.

Hardin, R. (1982). Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Huesoa, A., & Bellb, B. (2013). An untold story of policy failure: the Total Sanitation Campaign inIndia. IWA.

Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation . (n.d.).

Morgan, P., & Taschereau, S. (1996). Capacity and institutional assessment: frameworks, methodsand tools for analysis. CIDA Policy Branch.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University ofMichigan Press.

P.Englebert. (2000). Pre-Colonial Institutions, Post-Colonial States, and Economic Development inTropical Africa. Political Research Quarterly .

Peters, D. (2011). Building an Institutional Framework. Retrieved March 28, 2015, fromhttp://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/wastewater collection/software /building aninstitutional framework

Pradhan, K. C. (September 07, 2013). Unacknowledged Urbanisation - New Census Towns of India.Economic and Political Weekly , Vol - XLVIII No. 36.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, N.J:Princeton University Press.

Rijn, J. (2004). Designing Organization Strutures. Retrieved April 15, 2015, fromwww.indevelopment.nl/PDFfiles/organisationStructure.pdf

Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2007). Organizational Behavior. Prarson/Prrnticr Hall.

Saleth, M., & Dinar, A. (2000). Institutional Changes in global water sector: trends, patterns andimplications. Elsevier Science , 176-178.


24

Suzuki, H., Dastur, A., Moffat, S., Yabuki, N., & Maruyama, H. (2010). Eco2 Cities: Ecological Cities asEconomic Cities. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Underdown, R. (2003). Organization Structure. Retrieved April 16, 2015, fromhttp://dept.lamar.edu/industrial/Underdown/org_mana/Org_Structure_George

Uphoff, N. (1992). Local institutions and participation for sustainable development. London: IIED.

(2010). World Bank.

Date post:	17-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	avinash-ykumar
View:	7 times
Download:	2 times

10 CPPM 2015 Submission 120

Documents