Analysis of the
Sanitation Supply
Chain in Rural and
Small Towns in
Uganda
Final Report from PATH to the
World Bank’s Water and
Sanitation Program
June 2012
2201 Westlake Avenue
Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98121
206.258.3500
P.O. Box 900922
Seattle, WA 98109
>>PROJECT REPORT
ii
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
Analysis of the Sanitation Supply Chain in Rural and Small
Towns in Uganda
This report was prepared with financial support from WSP and research by PATH
iii
Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... vi
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1
1.0 Study background ........................................................................................................................4
2.0 Research objectives and questions ................................................................................................4
3.0 Methods ......................................................................................................................................5
3.1 Desk review ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Regulatory environment and stakeholder mapping ........................................................................... 6
3.3 Supply chain assessment and gap analysis ......................................................................................... 7
4.0 Study limitations as they pertain to the analysis ............................................................................9
5.0 The sanitation value chain: A framework for analysis .................................................................. 10
6.0 Country background ................................................................................................................... 12
6.1 Household demographics ................................................................................................................. 12
6.2 Household sanitation status ............................................................................................................. 17
6.3 Household segmentation .................................................................................................................. 18
6.4 Regulatory and policy environment for sanitation ........................................................................... 19
6.5 Key sanitation stakeholders .............................................................................................................. 22
7.0 Study findings: The sanitation value chain in Uganda .................................................................. 23
7.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 23
7.2 Research and development .............................................................................................................. 24
7.2.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 24
7.2.2 Constraint: Lack of a standardized, culturally appropriate sanitation solution......................... 24
7.2.3 Opportunity: Documenting user input and feedback on latrine design and functionality ....... 25
7.3 Products ............................................................................................................................................ 28
7.3.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 28
7.3.2 Constraints: Pit digging and latrine construction materials....................................................... 30
7.3.3 Opportunity: Standardized product offering ............................................................................. 31
7.4 Distribution and service delivery ...................................................................................................... 32
7.4.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 32
7.4.2 Constraints: Disaggregation and lack of capacity ...................................................................... 36
7.4.3 Opportunity: Capacity building and supply chain integration ................................................... 38
iv
7.5 Marketing and behavior change communication ............................................................................. 41
7.5.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 41
7.5.2 Constraint: Lack of an active sales and promotion culture........................................................ 42
7.5.3 Opportunities: Better coordination, local government involvement, and incentives ............... 43
7.6 Post-installation service .................................................................................................................... 44
7.6.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 44
7.6.2 Constraints: Little awareness and demand for services ............................................................ 44
7.6.3 Opportunity: Supportive peripheral services ............................................................................. 45
7.7 Financing ........................................................................................................................................... 45
7.7.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 45
7.7.2 Constraints: Affordability, access, and attitudes ....................................................................... 46
7.7.3 Opportunity: Increased access to financing ............................................................................... 49
7.8 Macro- and local-environment issues affecting the development of a
household sanitation market .................................................................................................................. 51
7.8.1 Current status ............................................................................................................................ 51
7.8.2 Constraints: Alignment with market/local government needs, inflation .................................. 52
7.8.3 Opportunity: Supportive regulatory and policy environment for sanitation market
development ....................................................................................................................................... 53
8.0 Recommendations for strengthening/developing market delivery for the private-sector.............. 54
8.1 Focus on standardizing latrine requirements and components ....................................................... 55
8.2 Target the right supply chain actors ................................................................................................. 55
8.3 Enable and encourage financing mechanisms .................................................................................. 56
8.4 Align partners across the public-private-NGO spectrum .................................................................. 56
8.5 Potential business model .................................................................................................................. 56
8.5.1 Design ......................................................................................................................................... 56
8.5.2 Roles ........................................................................................................................................... 58
8.5.3 Timeline and funding ................................................................................................................. 59
8.6 Other considerations for market-based approaches ........................................................................ 60
9.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 62
Appendix A: Stakeholders’ interest and influence in community-led total sanitation (CLTS) and
sanitation marketing (SANMARK) in Uganda ..................................................................................... 64
Appendix B: Sample of Crestanks household sanitation products ...................................................... 67
v
Appendix C: Sample of available products and prices from Ugandan hardware shops ........................ 68
Appendix D: Estimated costs (UGX) of two-stance latrines as quoted by masons in three districts ...... 69
vi
Acronyms BOP Base of pyramid
CLTS Community-led total sanitation
DHI District health inspector
DHO District health officer
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
DWD Directorate of Water Development
GAR Gross attendance ratio
iDE International Development Enterprises
JMP Joint Monitoring Program (UNICEF and WHO) MFI Microfinance institution
MoH Ministry of Health
MWE Ministry of Water and Environment
NGO Nongovernmental organization
NSWG National Sanitation Working Group
PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PPP Purchasing power parity
SACCO Savings and credit cooperative organization
SANMARK Sanitation marketing
UGX Uganda shilling
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UPE Universal Primary Education
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VHT Village health teams
VIP Ventilated improved pit (latrine)
WHO World Health Organization
WSP Water and Sanitation Program (World Bank)
1
Executive summary Meeting the basic needs for millions of Ugandans to improve their household sanitation situation
requires a combination of investment, innovative solutions, and business models that cannot be
implemented by public-sector entities alone. It is the purpose of this study to begin to uncover some of
the opportunities and potential for increased private-sector participation in delivering sanitation
services to low-income populations throughout rural Uganda.
In order to develop a clearer understanding of the current market for sanitation services in Uganda,
PATH conducted a rapid, qualitative market assessment to provide a broad perspective of the rural and
small town sanitation market and the key elements of the supply chain. Through a process of
preliminary literature review, field assessments, and supply-chain analyses, the study generated a
foundational overview, gap analysis, capacity assessment, and recommendations to help optimize
market development opportunities and develop new business models to scale up sanitation products
and services in rural Uganda.
This research uncovered a series of constraints in the Ugandan household sanitation supply chain that
have hampered the enabling, development, and sustaining of an efficient market environment. The
biggest takeaway is that the market for household sanitation in Uganda is undefined and undeveloped.
It appears that there is a lack of coordination along the sanitation supply chain and entities are acting in
isolation; from manufacturers to distributors, sales, installation, and services, the players do not seem to
be in communication.
In addition, a lack of product and service delivery standardization inhibits the ability of the supply chain
to gravitate towards an optimized (i.e., integrated and efficient) business model to deliver better
sanitation products and services. As a result, a collection of improvised, makeshift latrines built through
informal means exists in a market that does not acknowledge the presence of sanitation service
provision as a subset of need or opportunity. Understanding what the consumer wants in design,
function, and health/safety benefits serves as the first step to being able to offer a range of desirable
technologies and services—at various price points—to meet the demands of households.
Issues around affordability apply not only to the relatively high costs involved in latrine construction, but
also reflect the current inability of households to break those costs into reasonable and manageable
outlays of money. Households encounter constraints in the prices they must pay for labor and supplies,
and seem to have disinterest in or lack awareness of consumer loans. Conversely, suppliers face
constraints in their lack of connection to financial products to build their business or to offer to their
customers.
From the study findings, it appears that households have no one place where they can learn about all
aspects of sanitation solutions—from the construction process to what their options are for building
materials to how to access service providers. Overall, it appears that low-income Ugandan households
are not considered to be a revenue-generating market and therefore the supply chain has not invested
in building appropriate sanitation solutions for this segment of the population.
2
This study underscores the significant opportunity to leverage the current basic latrine coverage to grow
business opportunities for household sanitation provision and improvement. Many households in
Uganda do not necessarily lack awareness about the need for a latrine, but do need better latrine
products and services delivered through more efficient and cost-effective means. Thus, key stakeholders
may wish to consider a shift from broad, generalized approaches to focusing on more catalytic activities
to stimulate market development, alignment, and linkages to build stronger household sanitation
delivery mechanisms.
Moving forward, it will be important to attempt to implement a business model that can address the
majority of constraints across the value chain, but at a small scale (i.e., in one or two districts) initially.
Given the current fragmented nature of the supply chain, lack of an appropriate product, and financing
barriers, targeting improvements to only one or two aspects of the existing supply chain would leave the
system overall as constrained as before and, most likely, prove unsuccessful. Therefore, critical first
steps for the household sanitation sector in Uganda are to focus on a specific product offering for the
target market (i.e., households in rural and small towns) and a proper business model to support and
ensure its success. Training local providers in the right techniques to deliver the product or service,
however, is only one aspect of business model development. Market growth efforts must also equip
providers with the knowledge and tools to actively market and sell their offering to potential consumers.
Furthermore, small businesses cannot succeed without working capital, and consumers cannot hope to
consider or prioritize important purchases that fall outside of their limited budgets without access to
financing. Financial education and credit programs should be introduced to allow lower-income
households or households with irregular income streams to purchase a latrine and to enable local
entrepreneurs and others in the supply chain to maximize scale by ramping up production and
distribution efforts more quickly and cost-effectively. Introduction of a sanitation financing program
could help develop and test multiple ways to increase access to financial products for more formal
sanitation products and services.
While the constraints within the current value chain are significant, they are not insurmountable, and
they point toward clear opportunities for laying a solid foundation for the development of the sanitation
market (Figure 1). The fact that little market infrastructure currently exists in the household sanitation
space allows for broad and potentially sweeping innovation across the entire value chain. The key will be
integrating and aligning current and future efforts accordingly to ensure both scalability and
sustainability. Such efforts would involve oversight from key organizations such as the Government of
Uganda or the Water and Sanitation Program, as well as multiple in-country partner organizations,
private-sector collaborators, financial institutions, and local government officials.
Challenges exist in terms of supply chain integration, infrastructure limitations, lack of awareness of and
demand for formal sanitation products and services, and inadequate financial resources, but the
opportunities for market creation around household sanitation in Uganda remain quite promising.
3
KEY
CO
NST
RA
INTS
Little user-centered design
Lack of complete, affordable solution
Households not viewed as a market
No coordination within supply chain
Disaggregated purchase process
Passive promotion
Low consumer awareness of sanitation solutions or suppliers
No access to appropriate financing
KEY
OP
PO
RTU
NIT
IES Standardized
latrine design & components
Targeted capacity building for supply-chain actors
Integrated links within supply chain to aggregate demand
Enable & encourage financing mechanisms
Supportive policy & regulation through public-private-NGO alignment
PO
TEN
TIA
L O
UTC
OM
ES
Appropriate, affordable improved sanitation solution
Coordinated and specialized efforts within the supply chain
Increased efficiency
Increased access
Reduced costs
Research & development
Product
Distribution & service delivery
Marketing & behavior change
Service
Figure 1. Constraints, opportunities, and potential outcomes within the current sanitation value chain in Uganda.
Fin
anci
ng
P
olic
y &
Reg
ula
tio
n
4
1.0 Study background Every person, regardless of where they live or how much they earn, shares the same basic need for safe
sanitation. Yet, much of the world’s population lacks access to this key element of a healthy, productive
life.
Uganda is a nation of approximately 33.4 million people, approximately 87 percent of which reside in
rural areas (World Bank 2012). The Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for the World Health Organization
and United Nations Children’s Fund estimated improved sanitation coverage in rural areas at only 34
percent of households in 2010 (JMP 2012).1 The Ministry of Water and Environment, however,
estimates that 70 percent of rural households have access to improved sanitation facilities as of June
2010, while the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey from 2006 estimates that only 9.2 percent of
rural households in the country have access to an improved toilet facility (WSP 2011, UBOS DHS 2006).
While these variances may be due to each organization evaluating sanitation based upon different
metrics, the numbers indicate that anywhere between 8.25 million and 25 million rural Ugandans lack
access to improved sanitation facilities—a significant shortfall regardless of which statistic one chooses.
This gap represents a major opportunity for suppliers of sanitation products and services to assist
households in adopting or improving their existing sanitation facilities. However, much of the demand
for household sanitation products and services has been met only through the informal sector. Thus,
there is a strong need for increased capacity building and coordination within the informal supply sector
for household sanitation in order to increase access and availability of appropriate sanitation solutions
in rural and small towns throughout Uganda.
In response to this need, the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) contracted PATH to
conduct a qualitative market assessment of the supply chain for household sanitation in rural and small
towns in Uganda. The study engaged in a rapid assessment of the elements of the household sanitation
supply chain to identify opportunities and constraints in the expansion of access to demand-responsive
and affordable sanitation products and services aimed at low-income households in rural and small
towns. The ultimate goal of the study was to provide WSP with a foundation for addressing gaps in the
system and to suggest ways to move forward with future market development efforts.
2.0 Research objectives and questions Meeting the basic need for millions of Ugandans to improve their household sanitation situation will
most likely require a combination of investment, innovative solutions, and business models that cannot
be implemented by public-sector entities alone. Public-private partnerships as well as increased private-
sector investment will be critical components of effective long-term solutions. It is the purpose of this
study to begin to uncover some of the opportunities and potential for increased private-sector
participation in delivering sanitation services to low-income populations throughout rural Uganda.
1 For Millennium Development Goal (MDG) monitoring, an “improved sanitation facility” is defined as one that
hygienically separates human excreta from human contact (JMP 2012).
5
The objective of this study was to conduct a diagnosis of the rural and small town supply chains for
household sanitation, focusing on the commonly found or most preferred technologies for improved
sanitation in Uganda. Key questions the study aimed to address included:
What factors and players enable or inhibit the environment in which sanitation service providers
operate? Who are the stakeholders in the sanitation ecosystem and what incentives are
necessary to motivate them to support the environment?
What types of sanitation solutions are low-income households currently utilizing, and to what
degree are sanitation elements purchased versus fashioned from local materials/sources?
What are the categories and characteristics of business models that currently provide sanitation
services to low-income households through sanitation product and service providers in Uganda?
How effective are these business models and providers in reaching low-income consumers, and
what are the determinants and/or constraints to expanding their operations, especially
compared to business models for certain other widespread products in Uganda?
To what degree is the current level of service-provider activity in the sanitation sector viable and
sustainable, and what is the likelihood of scaling up the provision of sanitation products and
services through these providers?
What are the barriers to and key leverage points for expansion of sanitation products and
services by providers alone or through public-private partnerships?
3.0 Methods In order to develop a clear understanding of the current market for sanitation services in Uganda, the
study undertook a multipronged approach under the guidance and advisement of WSP to provide a
broad perspective of the rural and small town sanitation market and the key elements of the supply
chain. Through a process of preliminary literature review, field assessments, and supply-chain analyses,
the study generated a high-level foundational overview, gap analysis, capacity assessment, and
recommendations to optimize market development opportunities and develop new business models to
scale up sanitation products and services in rural Uganda.
Non-probability sampling, specifically purposive sampling was used in the selection of the population
used in the study. The sample of the study covered a total population of approximately 50 individuals.
These included masons, hardware shop owners, heads of households which had traditional pit latrines,
managers of major Micro Finance Institutions and a SACCO, managers for major plastic industries, pit
emptiers, and District Health Inspectors. The population consisting of the masons, hardware shop
owners, and households was selected from the small and rural towns of five districts in Uganda. Two
individuals of each category (masons, hardware shop owners and heads of households with traditional
latrines) were selected from each district.
Data collection methods used were:
Literature review
Face to face interviews using semi structured questionnaires
Observation
Phone interviews using semi structured questionnaires
6
The study included three main activities:
3.1 Desk review
The initial phase of the study involved a preliminary review of current information on sanitation
provision and the sanitation value chain in Uganda from available resources to extract specific
intelligence related to the sanitation market. The study began by pulling demographic, economic, and
sanitation-related data from various data sets including World Development Indicators, World Bank
Country Indicators, Joint Monitoring Program country data, the Demographic and Health Survey,
Uganda Bureau of Statistics census reports, and World Health Organization (WHO) statistics.
Furthermore, the desk review involved a study of multiple documents and reports specific to sanitation
activities, research, and policy in Uganda provided directly from WSP or sourced through government of
Uganda, development agency websites and publications, and sanitation-focused consortium websites
on the internet.
A desk segmentation exercise was also conducted based upon analysis of secondary demographic and
geographic data collected in order to identify characteristics of the consumer market for and provide a
rough estimate of the market opportunity for household sanitation solutions among low-income
households in Uganda.
The study made attempts, whenever possible, to obtain all possible resources to inform the study.
However, our search was neither systematic nor comprehensive. Therefore, certain key publications or
data sources were inevitably missed that might have contributed further to the analysis.
3.2 Regulatory environment and stakeholder mapping
Understanding the environment in which both providers and consumers of sanitation products and
services operate is important to designing programs and implementations that have the greatest
likelihood of sustainable impact. The study pulled and reviewed multiple sanitation policy and regulatory
documents and reviews from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), WSP,
and the Uganda Ministry of Health (MoH).
Structured interviews were also conducted with a small sample of sanitation experts and policymakers
to solicit guidance and insight regarding key regions/sites of service-provider activity, key organizational
relationships within the sector, and barriers encountered by the experts to understand the state of the
regulatory and policy environment within Uganda for a market approach directed at low-income
households.
Desk review of policy and regulatory documents along with the small sample of structured interviews
were combined to develop an understanding of critical donor, government, implementation, and pilot
partner roles within the sector. In addition, these activities helped supplement a previous stakeholder
mapping exercise by WSP, as well as make recommendations for ways these stakeholders could be
brought together in a complementary and synergistic way for eventual business-model implementation.
7
3.3 Supply chain assessment and gap analysis
The study performed an initial household sanitation product scan via available secondary data,
sanitation program implementation reports, and a few local sanitation manufacturer websites to detail
and categorize the various sanitation products and services currently available in rural areas of Uganda.
This was further supplemented by additional product scans and documentation via observations during
field visits and interviews with supply chain actors in each district. The product scan and categorization
identified available products and services, as well as aided in assessing their positioning against one
another on critical components such as price/affordability, consumer preference, safety, and
effectiveness. The study also attempted to gather a limited amount of information on related products
(e.g., plastic buckets/basins or bagged cement) to gain context on business models and supply chains for
more ubiquitous products in rural areas.
WSP and the Ugandan Ministry of Health provided input for the selection of appropriate study sites and
respondents for field visits and supply-chain discussions based on the study timeline and budget (Figure
2). Primary data was collected through interviews and site visits with approximately 20–30 existing
sanitation service providers in five regions of rural Uganda. Specific supply chain interview guides were
developed to gather details about the extent of supply chain respondents’ operations and collect their
perspectives on interactions with other elements and actors within the sanitation value chain. The study
also observed, interviewed, and assessed several formal private-sector supply-chain actors working to
finance, manufacture, distribute, install, service, and/or maintain sanitation products. These included
entities such as plastics and cement manufacturers, pit emptying companies, and microfinance
institutions (MFIs). Through the development of detailed profiles of each actor and outlined both their
roles in the supply chain as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of their operations.
8
Figure 2. Selected districts for study field visits (Arua, Amuria, Tororo, Mpigi, and Bushenyi).
In addition, given the interest of WSP and the MoH in gaining some perspective from households within
the study, the study conducted a limited number of qualitative, contextual discussions with low-income
households that interface with sanitation providers in local communities. These discussions helped to
gauge the extent of their interaction with sanitation service providers and understand the benefits and
challenges households face in accessing sanitation solutions. Specific discussion guides were developed
for households which covered such topic areas as current household sanitation solutions, access to
latrine construction materials and services, and willingness/ability to pay for sanitation products and
services (including issues of financing for household sanitation). However, it should be noted that the
study was originally designed to be an examination of the supply chain, particularly the elements that
are offering products and services to rural households, and not an exploration of household needs,
beliefs, or practices related to sanitation. Therefore, these qualitative household discussions were
merely meant to serve as supplemental information to the supply chain interviews.
The study focused a significant portion of the survey sample on supply chain entities most directly
involved in product or service provision at the household level across five districts in Uganda selected in
consultation with WSP and the MoH (Table 1). The goal was to gather general perspectives from as
many different supply chain entities as possible who are currently operating in different parts of the
country.
9
Table 1. Sample of supply chain interviews for the study.
District Role Entity Number of respondents
Arua Supplier Hardware shop 2
Service provider Mason 2
Service provider Pit emptier 1
Manufacturer WE Concrete 1
Consumer or purchaser Individual household head 2
Amuria Supplier Hardware shop 2
Service provider Mason 2
Household Individual household head 2
Tororo Supplier Hardware shop 2
Service provider Mason 3
Household Individual household head 2
Mpigi Supplier Hardware shop 2
Service provider Mason 2
Household Individual household head 2
Bushenyi Supplier Hardware shop 2
Service provider Mason 2
Household Individual household head 2
Kampala Service provider Pit emptier 1
Other
(primarily
located
in/around
Kampala)
Nongovernmental Organization Plan International 2
Business support Captiva 1
Manufacturer Crestanks 1
Manufacturer Tororo Cement 1
Financial institution Microfinance institutions (BRAC, UGAFODE, FINCA)
3
Stakeholder MoH, Ministry of Water and Environment
3
The study aggregated data from these various activities to create a high-level review of the market
situation and potential in Uganda for the expansion of sanitation services. Furthermore, the study
analyzed the limitations and level of interconnectedness of the various supply chain elements to initiate
the process of identifying and addressing gaps in the system and suggest focus areas for future capacity
building and market-development efforts.
4.0 Study limitations as they pertain to the analysis It should be noted that this study was designed as a rapid, qualitative assessment of the market for
household sanitation in rural and small towns in Uganda. The study was not designed to be
representative of the entire country in terms of geography, population, sanitation solutions, or supply
chain entities. The findings reflect high-level conversations with an extremely small sample of value
chain actors and households across multiple districts, complemented by past studies carried out by the
Hygiene Improvement Project/Plan International–Uganda in Tororo and a demand driver study by
Nuwagaba. Most, but not all, of the individuals and organizations in our originally proposed sample fell
into our final sample of respondents (Table 1). Thus, the analysis and recommendations incorporate
10
reasonable assumptions based upon the themes of information expressed by respondents and may not
fully represent the market situation in every region or community in the country.
As mentioned above, the original terms of reference from WSP were to examine the supply chain actors
and business models for providing sanitation goods and services to rural households. The study was not
meant to focus on gathering extensive, quantitative data from the household perspective. Therefore,
the inclusion of limited information from qualitative household discussions is merely meant to provide
additional perspective on supply chain findings rather than serve as representative characteristics of
low-income, rural households across Uganda.
In addition, not all respondents were completely forthcoming with information asked of them during the
field surveys. Some reasonable assumptions were made, and gaps in information and analysis were filled
in some areas of the study based on comparisons to similar market conditions in other regional settings
in East Africa. While many commonalities exist between countries such as Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania,
it is understood that underlying socioeconomic and cultural factors play differing but substantial roles in
shaping behaviors and perceptions around sanitation, and those factors affect market conditions in
unique ways in each setting.
Finally, the design and timeline for the study allowed for a limited exploration of select issues related to
household sanitation in Uganda. The findings from the study point to certain recommendations but are
not meant to indicate a finite set of solutions to addressing the need for improved sanitation at the
household level. Any approach to solving the challenges of increased access to sanitation requires an
extensive examination of multiple complex and interwoven issues, and this report attempts to address
only a subset of issues related to leveraging better market mechanisms for household sanitation
provision in rural and small towns in Uganda.
5.0 The sanitation value chain: A framework for analysis Understanding the elements of the value chain begins with examining the interactions among the
system players involved in the distribution and delivery of sanitation products and services. Entities such
as product designers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and service providers all serve as individual
links in an interdependent system (i.e., “value chain”) of service provision, which can function under a
variety of public-sector, private-sector, or combined approaches (Figure 3). The efficiency and
effectiveness of the value chain, however, depends upon the strength of the connections between each
link.
Figure 3. Value chain framework for the study.
The initial link in the chain, and one of the most critical factors for uptake by the consumer, is product or
service research and development. If a product or service aimed at households at the base of the
pyramid (BOP) does not easily integrate into their daily “ecology” of surroundings and routines, product
11
adoption often suffers. Thus, user-centered research and development that takes into account
consumer preferences, practices, and beliefs lays the foundation for establishing the rest of the value-
chain elements.
Appropriate design then leads to products or services, preferably sourced through local means in order
to ensure low-cost delivery and market sustainability. Products or services must also be of a high enough
quality to withstand the challenging conditions in which most BOP households live, while maintaining a
simplicity of elements that accommodates easy transport, assembly, repair, replacement, or upgrading.
In addition, products or services must allow for reasonable manufacturing scale in order to ensure
volumes necessary for sufficient profitability.
Distribution provides the access to meet consumer demand for products or services. However, this link
is often the weakest in market-based value chains in low-resource settings. Poor infrastructure,
disaggregated groups of potential consumers, and a lack of specialized training are some of the
numerous challenges to successful service delivery that can reach large numbers of BOP consumers.
Marketing and behavior change communication serve as the bridge to bring demand from consumers
together with product or service supply. Demand generation must balance between providing sufficient
general education and information about a product or service (i.e., category-level promotion or
behavior change communication), while emphasizing the appealing aspects and features of a specific
product (i.e., branded promotion). This is particularly important in the context of BOP markets, where
consumers may be inexperienced purchasers but still have aspirations for products or services that
improve their quality of life. In low-resource settings, NGOs and other public-sector entities often
shoulder the burden of demand generation and behavior change communication. Private-sector players
must also find ways to tie into these efforts or conduct independent marketing campaigns in order to
ensure success for market-based approaches.
Product purchase or service acquisition occurs at the point where demand generation meets access, but
after-sales service is essential for sustaining the connections between value-chain elements. Service may
involve simple follow-up visits from salespeople to gauge consumer satisfaction, or more extensive
interactions with individual or groups of consumers to provide further education, repairs, or upgrades.
Finding ways to enable the consumer to continue to interact with the product or service aids in weaving
it more completely into their daily lives, and it builds a relationship between the customer and each
piece of the value chain.
The need for access to business capital and other financing mechanisms underlies every link in the value
chain. Small entrepreneurs must have the ability to develop their products and build their stocks from
adequate working capital, while BOP consumers require access to financing in order to afford products
or services amid their often fluctuating income streams. Financing for low-resource settings involves
risks on both the supply and demand side of BOP markets (e.g., informal, unregistered small enterprises;
small loan amounts with long-term borrowing horizons for consumer purchase), but catalyzing the
growth and sustainability of market-based value chains cannot flourish without it.
12
6.0 Country background
6.1 Household demographics Across Uganda, the current average population density is nearly 170 people per square kilometer (as of
2010), but density varies fairly widely across many of the districts, especially those covered in this study
(Table 2).
Table 2. Population statistics for study districts. (UBOS 2002)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
District Arua Amuria Tororo Mpigi Bushenyi
Urban households 12,241 1,286 8,004 2,571 8,196
% urban population 8% 2% 7% 3% 6%
Rural households 139,610 63,392 104,279 86,083 134,774 Total housholds 151,851 64,678 112,283 88,654 142,970
Population density (per sq. km) 156 65 330 139 191
Mean household size (persons) 5.5 5 4.8 4.6 5.1
Uganda is one of the world’s poorest countries in terms of per capita income. In 2010, it was ranked
196th out of 215 countries with a gross national per capita income of US$490 via the World Bank’s Atlas
analysis, and 190th out of 215 countries by purchasing power parity (PPP) at 1,230 international dollars
(World Bank 2010). At international poverty line standards, 65 percent of the population was below the
$2 per day (PPP) poverty line, while 38 percent of the population was below the $1.25 per day (PPP)
poverty line (World Bank 2012).
The mean household monthly income in 2006 for all of Uganda was approximately UGX 170,891
(US$69). In Kampala the mean was UGX 347,918 (US$140) and in rural areas it was UGX 142,778 (US$57)
(UBOS 2006). In rural areas, the main source of income was agricultural income followed by wage
employment and non-agricultural enterprises, whereas in urban areas, the primary source of income
was wage employment followed by non-agricultural enterprises.
Average monthly household income across the four regions in which the five study districts are located
varied from approximately UGX 117,200 (US$47) to approximately UGX 336,800 (US$135) as shown in
Figure 4.
13
Figure 4. Average monthly household income (UGX) by region. (UBOS 2010)
The data reveal a higher proportion of poorer households residing in the Northern and Eastern regions,
whereas more middle- and higher-income households are found in the Western and Central regions
(Table 3).
Table 3. Monthly household income classes (percentage of households). (UBOS 2010)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN >500,000 UGX 4.5 5.2 17.3 11.8
>300,000–500,000 UGX 4.8 7.0 12.9 11.7
>200,000–300,000 UGX 6.5 8.4 13.4 12.1
>100,000–200,000 UGX 17.9 25.3 23.7 32.1
>50,000–100,000 UGX 29.9 21.9 16.9 19.0 <50,000 UGX 36.4 32.2 15.9 13.3
The average household size throughout Uganda is five members, and living conditions across much of
the country remain rather basic. Standard housing in rural areas typically consists of earthen floors,
walls made from local materials (e.g., mud, poles, stones), and roofs made of grass, leaves, or metal
sheets; more permanent building materials such as cement, tiles, and bricks are more commonly found
among urban households. Although somewhat dated, household construction data from 2002 across
the five districts further speaks to these norms as well as highlights the differences in income classes
across the study sites (Table 4).
Table 4. Construction material used for housing (percentage of households). (UBOS 2002)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
District Arua Amuria Tororo Mpigi Bushenyi
Roofed with iron sheets 7.7 3.8 39.4 81.1 75.0
Grass-thatched roof 91.3 95.7 58.8 17.0 24.3 Walls made of mud and poles 21.3 13.9 75.6 43.8 80.2
Floor made of rammed earth 93.4 96.3 85.2 71.4 82.4
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
Urban
Rural
14
Even so, the vast majority of households across the study districts own their dwelling unit, and paying
rent seems to be more prevalent only in Mpigi district (Figure 5). This is an especially important
characteristic in regard to household sanitation as it speaks to the level of freedom that ownership
provides to individual families to make decisions about latrine installation and usage.
Figure 5. Percent of households by tenure of dwelling unit. (UBOS 2002)
Given its vast rural population, Uganda is primarily an agrarian society. Agriculture serves as a key
support to the economy, providing over 22 percent of the nation’s GDP and the majority of its exports,
including coffee, tea, and cotton. Subsistence farming accounts for 70 percent or more of how each
study district’s population makes their livelihood (UBOS 2002).
The fact that rural households rely upon subsistence agriculture, however, leads not only to low incomes
but also to minimal spending each month. Overall, mean monthly expenditures per adult equivalent in
2006 were UGX 39,746 (approximately US$16), with 45 percent going to food, drink, and tobacco (UBOS
2006). In rural areas, an average of 50 percent of all household expenditure goes to food while only 6
percent and 5 percent go to health-related expenditures and household and personal goods respectively
(Table 5). Not all household expenditures are in cash, and in-kind payments are fairly common.
Table 5. Percent share of total rural household expenditure by region. (UBOS 2010)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN Food, beverage, tobacco 58 56 42 53
Clothing and footwear 3 3 3 3
Rent, fuel, and energy 14 15 17 13
Household and personal goods 5 5 5 5
Transport and communication 4 6 10 7 Education 7 5 8 8
Health 6 6 6 7
Other consumption expenditure 2 2 4 3
Non-consumption expenditure 3 3 6 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Arua Amuria Tororo Mpigi Bushenyi
Owner occupied
Free
Rented
15
Household ownership of durables throughout the country is rather mixed, with most households in the
Central region having access to key assets such as household appliances and electronic equipment, but
much lower ownership levels throughout the rest of the country as seen in Table 6 (UBOS 2006).2
Table 6. Percent of household ownership of selected assets. (UBOS 2006)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
House 87.4 88.7 73.3 87.2
Furniture 78.0 94.1 91.3 94.6
Household appliances 33.4 35.7 59.5 16.1
Electronic equipment 40.8 58.3 76.3 69.1
Bicycle 44.5 49.7 39.6 33.4
Mobile phone 5.4 11.4 23.4 12.4
Savings account 9.3 10.4 15.8 14.6
Education levels were extremely low, and literacy rates—especially among females—varied widely
across each of the study districts in 2002. Far less than half of the population (15 years and older) had
completed primary school, and fewer than 45 percent of females were literate in three of the five study
districts (Table 7).
Table 7. Education and literacy rates by study district. (UBOS 2002)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
District Arua Amuria Tororo Mpigi Bushenyi
Education (%) Population (15+ years) completed primary school
26.0 25.2 29.4 41.8 32.3
Population (20+ years) completed secondary school
5.8 4.7 6.1 6.0 6.1
Literacy rate (18+ years, %)
Male 81.3 72.4 67.4 79.0 80.5
Female 42.9 36.0 40.4 70.9 63.1
Total 60.4 52.4 53.1 74.8 71.0
The introduction of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) program in 1997 has had positive effects on
school attendance at the primary level over the past several years. The most recent figures show a gross
attendance ratio (GAR) for the entire country at 123 percent, with the Eastern region having the highest
ratio at 133 percent and the Northern region having the lowest at 73 percent (UBOS 2012).3 Secondary
school attendance, however, continues to lag with an overall GAR of 23 percent; the Northern region
has the lowest GAR, at only 8 percent (UBOS 2012).
Ease of access to financial and market outlets in each of the study regions remains limited given the
large rural population. In particular, rural households face significant access barriers to key facilities such
as public transport, banks, and markets (Table 8).
2 Low ownership levels of appliances and electronics may be attributed to the lack of connectivity to the electrical
grid in rural areas further from main cities such as Kampala. 3 Gross attendance ratio is defined as the total number of primary or secondary school students, expressed as a
percentage of the official primary- or secondary-school-age population (UBOS 2012).
16
Table 8. Access to selected social and economic outlets. (UBOS 2006)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
Access to transport facilities (% of communities)
All season feeder
roads 48.9 61.0 81.0 66.4
Bus stop 11.5 20.1 12.6 15.6
Taxi/matatu stop 22.0 26.7 38.0 38.4
Access to banking facilities (% of communities)
Bank branch office 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.8
Microcredit institution 0.2 4.6 3.9 7.5
Distribution of markets in communities
Consumer products markets
64.1 49.3 61.7 57.2
Furthermore, regardless of household access to banking facilities, the overwhelming majority of people
in each of the study regions have never opted to borrow money through formal or informal means
(Table 9).
Table 9. Percent of households that have ever applied for a loan. (UBOS 2010)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
Formal 2.7 3.1 5.5 3.5
Semi-formal 2.6 3.2 5.0 3.9
Informal 2.6 3.2 5.0 3.9
For the few Ugandan households that have applied for a loan, most of them utilized it to purchase
inputs or working capital for a business, as seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Purpose of loan by percent of households having applied (all Uganda). (UBOS 2010)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Purchase inputs/working capital
Buy consumption goods
Pay for education expenses
Pay for health expenses
Pay for building materials
17
6.2 Household sanitation status
The Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for the World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s
Fund estimated in 2010 that just over a third (34 percent) of the Ugandan population was using
improved sanitation, with as many as 10 percent (primarily rural inhabitants) still resorting to open
defecation (JMP 2012). The number of households using open defecation as their sanitation solution has
dropped significantly since 1990, when the proportion was 28 percent. Some of this drop may be the
result of large-scale integrated rural water and sanitation programs, many of which offered subsidized
latrine platforms, as well as the enforcement by various local governments of the Public Health Act to
mobilize communities to end open defecation practices (WSP 2011). For the most part, however,
Uganda remains a country reliant upon traditional pit latrines, especially across the four regions of the
study (Table 10).
Table 10. Percent of households by type of toilet facility. (UBOS 2010)
Region NORTHERN EASTERN CENTRAL WESTERN
Flush toilet 0.3 0.6 14.1 0.8
VIP latrine 1.9 1.9 10.0 1.2
Pit latrine 72.9 86.1 75.9 95.7
Bush/no toilet 24.9 11.4 0 2.3
Many of the households with access to a latrine share that facility with other households, which equates
to unimproved sanitation access under JMP standards. JMP data from 2010 estimated that 20 percent of
the total population shared their sanitation facility with at least one other household (JMP 2012). The
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) in 2006 revealed that 43 percent of all respondents (37.3 percent
in rural areas) indicated they used a latrine facility that was shared with at least one other household
(Uganda 2007).
Little data exists on the quality of latrines found throughout the country. While DHS data collection
indicated that 40.8 percent of rural households utilized a pit latrine without a slab, no delineation is
given regarding the shared facilities, and few other studies have been conducted to extensively assess
the status of traditional latrines across Uganda.4 It is reasonable to assume from statistics related to
household facilities and the overall rural nature of Ugandan society, however, that most latrines are
constructed with simple materials. These basic-style latrines often have makeshift walls and roofs, but
rarely are the superstructures made from permanent materials, and few latrines offer full doors for
privacy. Grass, mud, dirt, wood, fabric, and other improvised materials that can be cheaply and locally
sourced are common building elements, particularly in rural areas. However, even these materials are
becoming increasingly scarce due to poor land-use methods, unsustainable harvesting of materials, and
deforestation (USAID 2009). Bricks, cement or plastic, and metal may also be utilized for walls, slabs, and
roofs respectively, but are much more expensive and difficult to access for low-income households.
4 For example, a qualitative study of 30 households by the United States Agency for International Development
Hygiene Improvement Project in Tororo district revealed that of the 16 households using latrines, 14 latrines were of a traditional style with mud slabs and grass-thatched roofs (USAID 2009).
18
Movement toward the initial rungs of the sanitation ladder
(Figure 7) has seen some positive progress in Uganda over
the past several years. Between 1990 and 2005, an average
of 3.96 percent of the population per year reported a
change in sanitation coverage to a traditional latrine
(Morella 2009). Improvements beyond traditional latrines,
however, have been extremely limited with only 0.2
percent of the population annually moving to an improved
latrine (Table 11).
Table 11. Annualized change in sanitation coverage (percent of
population) from 1990–2005. (Morella 2009)
Septic tank Improved latrine
Traditional latrine
Urban 0.5 0.7 4.4
Rural 0 0.1 3.9
Total 0.1 0.2 3.96
6.3 Household segmentation The country background data begins to paint a picture of
some key characteristics of the target market for potential
demand-responsive business approaches to household
sanitation provision. Overall, the market appears somewhat
homogeneous, but there are particular nuances that may
be critical to ensuring the success of certain approaches.
The majority of the population in these districts consists of
rural, low-income households dependent upon agriculture
for their way of life. The level of sophistication in their daily life is rather limited. Most households live in
primarily temporary dwellings constructed of basic materials and rely upon basic sanitation solutions
such as pit latrines or open defecation, and they have limited access to market infrastructure and the
tools necessary to engage in market activity—either as suppliers or consumers. Furthermore, there has
been little progression toward improved latrines over the last several years, and the status and quality
of the current traditional pit latrines remains questionable. This might indicate that the market need
may not necessarily be a new latrine design, especially for a population with constrained income and
limited access to finance. Piecemeal latrine upgrades and retrofitting of what households currently have
in place could be more appropriate approaches in the near term. All of these factors must be taken into
account for any market development activity, and all speak to the need to design relatively basic
interventions that can aid the majority of the population in gaining familiarity with both improved
sanitation and market mechanisms that might increase access to it.
Beyond the broad characteristics across all study sites, there are some differences between districts that
are particularly important to highlight for any future sanitation market development opportunities. The
data show higher average monthly incomes and a greater proportion of households in the higher
Figure 7. The sanitation ladder.
Open defecation: When human waste is disposed of in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches, or other open spaces, or disposed of with solid waste.
Unimproved facilities: Do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines, and bucket latrines.
Shared facilities: Sanitation facilities of an otherwise acceptable type shared between two or more households. Only facilities that are not shared or not public are considered improved.
Improved sanitation facilities: Ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. Such facilities
include: Flush or pour/flush latrines to piped sewer, septic system , or pit latrine; ventilated improved pit latrine; pit latrine with slab; or composting toilet.
Un
imp
rove
d s
anit
atio
nIm
pro
ved
san
itat
ion
19
income classes in both the Central and Western regions (where Mpigi and Bushenyi districts respectively
are located). Mpigi and Bushenyi also display higher rates of education (percent of population having
completed primary school) and literacy from the 2002 data. These factors may indicate a population not
only better able to consider market-based interventions requiring parting with their expendable income,
but also one better able to connect with marketing efforts for new household sanitation product
offerings.
Lower average monthly household incomes and household income classes are found in the Northern
and Eastern regions (where Arua and Amuria/Tororo districts respectively are located). Only one-quarter
of the population in Arua and Amuria have completed primary school, and only 36 to 43 percent of
females in Arua, Amuria, and Tororo are literate (UBOS 2002). Furthermore, approximately 25 percent
of the population still resorts to open defecation in the Northern region, and over 10 percent defecate
in the open in the Eastern region. These factors point to the need for a very different approach than that
applied in other locations of Uganda. A low-cost, basic improved sanitation solution communicated
through simple means may be the most appropriate approach.
6.4 Regulatory and policy environment for sanitation
The Government of Uganda has committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goals to address
issues related to the high poverty rates within the country and has incorporated many of these targets
into the 2010 National Development Plan. The government’s current policy objectives for the water and
sanitation sector are to address poor sanitation and hygiene to move households up the sanitation
ladder to facilities that can be cleaned and have hand-washing facilities next to them. The specific target
is to increase the proportion of households in Uganda with pit latrines from the current 70 percent in
2011 in rural areas to 77 percent by the year 2015 (UMoH 2010). The government’s approach has
progressed through several policy development and iteration processes including:5
Kampala Declaration on Sanitation of 1997
Ministerial Memorandum of Understanding of 2001
Formation of the National Sanitation Working Group of 2003
Environmental Health Policy of 2005
Improved Sanitation and Hygiene Financing Strategy of 2006
Each policy has incorporated a stronger focus on bridging existing gaps in sanitation access and
provision; however, it should be noted that Uganda still has no specific national sanitation policy.
Instead, sanitation is managed under a broad network of laws, regulations, by-laws, and policies spread
among numerous agencies and governing bodies. While there is no single institution with a direct
mandate to authoritatively deal with all aspects of sanitation in Uganda, the MoH is widely viewed as
the acknowledged lead, especially in the realm of policy development, but continues to be hampered by
a lack of resources (Table 12). Furthermore, local governments struggle with sanitation law enforcement
due to political interference at various levels and difficulty in getting by-laws approved which causes
5 Several other policy documents have also been written and are at various levels of implementation such as the 1
st Health
Sector Strategic Plan in 2005, the National Health Policy and 2nd
Health Sector Strategic Plan in 2010, and the Improved Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion Financing Strategy in 1997.
20
increased difficulty in the improvement of access to safe sanitation services at the household level.
Stakeholders under the National Sanitation Working Group have supported different aspects of the
sector, with WSP supporting policy development and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as
Plan International–Uganda introducing new methodologies.
Table 12. Institutional responsibilities in the Uganda sanitation sector. (The Water Dialogues 2008)
Institution Responsible department/division Specified role
Ministry of Health Environmental Health Promote household hygiene and sanitation.
Ministry of Water and Environment Directorate of Water Development and National Water and Sewerage Corporation
Plan investments in sewerage services and public toilet facilities in urban areas.
Ministry of Finance, Planning, and Economic Development
N/A Allocate sanitation sector budget.
Ministry of Gender, Labor, and Social Development
Community Development Department
Develop policies and guidelines with respect to community mobilization and empowerment, gender responsiveness, coordinating and mentoring community development workers, and coordinating cross-cutting development areas.
Ministry of Local Government N/A Inspect, monitor, advise, and provide technical assistance to local governments.
Local governments District Health Inspectorates Enforce laws and provide sanitation services at the local level.
National Sanitation Working Group N/A Coordinate ministries responsible for sanitation and sanitation promotion activities.
District Water and Sanitation Working Groups
N/A Coordinate sanitation-promotion activities at the district level.
Setting funding priorities for water supply, sanitation, and primary health care interventions has largely
been ceded to local governments, with budget-making and control designated at the district levels.
However, the central government retains the roles of policymaking, standard setting, technical
oversight, and overall program supervision (USAID 2007). Funding for rural sanitation activities at the
district level depends on national-level allocations from within ministerial budgets, known as on-budget
funding. Districts decide how to spend these allocated funds, within guidelines and restrictions imposed
from the national level. Off-budget funding from nongovernmental sources can be provided directly to
districts, but more often bypasses district budgeting and expenditure mechanisms, going directly to pay
for implementation activities designed and run by NGOs themselves, often at the sub-county or village
levels (USAID 2007).
At the national level, government funding for sanitation still lags far behind funding for the water
supply. A key funding problem has been the general marginalization of sanitation and hygiene activities
at the district level, particularly the general lack of district-level attention to rural household sanitation
(USAID 2007).
21
The Ugandan government has attempted to use innovative approaches including incentives and
competition to encourage districts. Potential sources of off-budget financing (decided at national and
district budgets) for household sanitation and hygiene promotion have included household investment
in sanitation facilities, microfinance available to communities and consumers (thus far fairly minor, but
increasing), grants and subsidies from NGOs and donor projects, and private-sector investments (also
very limited to date). However, neither microfinance nor private-sector investments have been
mobilized directly for rural sanitation thus far (USAID 2007).
Uganda’s rich policy context with various regulations, declarations, and legal instruments intended to
achieve its health and sanitation objectives, however, has not translated into substantial progress in
provision of improved sanitation—especially in rural and small towns—or tangible health outcomes.
Inadequate resources, high levels of poverty, inadequate awareness and poor enforcement of public
health by-laws are major challenges that have affected the implementation of environmental health
strategies (UMoH 2010).
According to a 2008 report published by The Water Dialogues:
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to progress in improved sanitation in Uganda is the lack of a specific
sanitation policy under the current institutional and policy arrangements. Implementation of
interventions relies on inferences from other policies like the national Environmental Policy and
the Water Policy, which are not adequate to address the needs of the sanitation sector. This
explains why even progressive strategies like the Improved Sanitation and Hygiene Financing
Strategy, which is championed by the National Sanitation Working Group (NSWG) as the
preferred approach to sanitation improvement, remains difficult to implement and monitor, as
they have no institutional home, but largely rely on the goodwill of various agencies and persons,
and often the short-term pressure of development partners, especially through the NSWG.
Unfortunately such goodwill does not provide an adequate anchor for private sector
participation or a guarantee of security for their investments (The Water Dialogues 2008).
Uganda primarily follows a private-sector-led economic system, with the government serving to provide
policy and regulatory support. Private provision of sanitation services in Uganda has a long history
stemming from the Public Health Act of 1964 (and refreshed in 2000), which places the responsibility for
obtaining sanitation facilities with individual households.6 Still, a substantial proportion of the
development programs stemming from the Poverty eradication Action Plan (PEAP) are financed by
donors. This has consequently distorted the potential for market development and prohibited private-
sector entry into sectors such as sanitation by creating unrealistic expectations, most likely within the
supply chain, that services will be provided to households for free or via subsidies through government,
donor, or NGO funding (The Water Dialogues 2008).7
6 Furthermore, the Public Health Act provides that any dwelling without proper sanitation facilities should be
closed down and or its owner prosecuted (The Water Dialogues 2008). 7 While the Environmental Health Policy states that no subsidies shall be offered for household sanitation, the
funding of development programs by donors can foster a discouraging signal to private-sector players that they might not be able to obtain a profitable return on their participation in the sector.
22
6.5 Key sanitation stakeholders
While local government entities, donors, international NGOs, civil society organizations, private-sector
players, and individual communities all play an important role in health, the Ministry of Health has
overall authority over the household sanitation sector in terms of promulgating regulations and
implementing programs. According to a 2011 study in which stakeholders were ranked according to
influence, the MoH/Environmental Health Department was said to be the most powerful and influential
with regard to community-led total sanitation (CLTS) and sanitation marketing (SANMARK) (J. Birungi,
unpublished data, 2011). The Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE)/Directorate of Water
Development (DWD) was said to be the second most powerful due to its responsibility for urban
sanitation and hygiene promotion among safe water user communities. The MWE allocates funds to
local governments for sanitation under the District Water and Sanitation Conditional Grant and provides
capacity building through Technical Support Units. District local governments were identified as key in
the implementation of CLTS/SANMARK as they are responsible for service delivery including sanitation,
formulating policies and by-laws, and planning and locating resources for sanitation at the district level.
The study attempted to visually represent a continuum
of influence based upon the interpretation of the major
actors within the sanitation sector (Figure 8).
The continuum illustrates some of the key issues
currently contributing to the development of better
mechanisms for delivering household sanitation within
Uganda. Government entities maintain high influence,
but without particularly clear lines of coordination and
few resources. International and local organizations
find themselves clumped somewhere in the middle, all
experiencing various levels of success amid different
implementation efforts. Meanwhile, the private sector
and media sit at the lowest levels of influence within
the sector, either through circumstance or by choice.
A separate, similar mapping exercise was carried out by
WSP to assess the level of influence of each stakeholder
based upon its amount of resources, policy mandate,
and/or authority to make decisions. The full table of
stakeholders can be found in Appendix A. The results
were fairly similar in that it displayed the various
degrees of influence and support across the sector,
and seems to point towards the need for consolidation
of sanitation policy and alignment of key contributors
for pursuing market provision of sanitation.
Figure 8. Continuum of influence of sanitation
sector actors in Uganda. (J. Birungi,
unpublished data, 2011)
MoHMWE
Districts
MoFPEDWorld Bank/WSP,
DANIDA, AfDB, UNICEF
Plan, Water Aid, NETWAS, SNV, Technical Support
Units, UWASNET
MediaPrivate sector
Low
Hig
h
23
7.0 Study findings: The sanitation value chain in Uganda
7.1 Summary Secondary data reflect a population generally aware of the need for household sanitation solutions, but
unable to meet the proper threshold for improved latrine designs due to any number of reasons.
Households may choose to construct everything themselves or hire a local laborer to assist with portions
or all of the construction. The building process and materials, however, most often do not comply with
any sort of specifications or regulations for ensuring a safe and improved sanitation solution. A
collection of improvised, makeshift latrines built through informal means has resulted from a market
that basically does not acknowledge the presence of sanitation service provision as a subset of need or
opportunity.
The market for household sanitation in Uganda is undefined and undeveloped. At the most basic level
this is evident in the fact that Crestanks—a local manufacturer of ready-made, plastic latrine
components—does not sell directly to the consumer.8 As for the actors within the supply chain that do
interact directly at the household level (e.g., masons), they do so in a one-off, disaggregated fashion and
do not currently possess the correct training, tools, or approaches to take their operations to scale in
any meaningful way. Instead, they focus on “easy win” opportunities such as government and school
contracts for latrines and other construction projects. Households are not seen as consumers for
improved latrines and this philosophy appears to permeate the small service providers within the supply
chain, from hardware stores who sell traditional latrine components to the masons who build them. At
this point in time, many low-income Ugandan households are not considered to be a revenue-
generating market and therefore the supply chain has not invested in building appropriate sanitation
solutions for this segment of the population. However, a USAID study from 2009 posited that if demand
were stronger and year round, the development of specialized latrine contractors may be viable (USAID
2009).
It appears that there is a lack of coordination along the sanitation supply chain in Uganda and entities
are acting in isolation. From manufacturers to distributors to sales, installation, and services, the players
do not seem to be in communication or have aligned incentives. This creates gaps that unnecessarily
increase the financial and time resources needed to deliver a complete solution to the end user,
therefore further constricting the development of a sophisticated household sanitation market.
Until gaps along the entire value chain are addressed, the household sanitation industry will remain
immature and will inhibit the creation of safe, culturally-relevant solutions for low-income markets. This
endeavor will take great coordination and investment in order to strengthen supply, build demand, and
sustain a competitive business environment that fosters synergies and innovation and allows for
expansion.
8 This supports findings from a 2007 study by USAID that found that “while Crestanks remains hopeful and believes
sales to households is ultimately where it wants its market to develop, the company currently has neither the market reach, distribution, capacity, nor the ability to invest in direct promotion and sales to households” (USAID 2007).
24
While the constraints within the household sanitation value chain in Uganda are significant, they are not
insurmountable, and they point toward clear opportunities for laying a solid foundation for the
development of the sanitation market. The fact that little market infrastructure currently exists in the
household sanitation space allows for broad and potentially sweeping innovation across the entire value
chain.
Certain aspects of any household sanitation market creation effort will present much more complex
challenges than others, and will require coordination, partnership, and patience. Still, some initial
components for high-potential market-based approaches to household sanitation in Uganda are already
in place, and stakeholders appear to be engaged and established within the sector. The key will be
integrating and aligning current and future efforts accordingly to ensure both scalability and
sustainability.
For example, organizations such as Plan International–Uganda have begun to build a foundation for
improved access to better household sanitation through training masons, behavior change
communication, community-led total sanitation (CLTS), and hand washing initiatives. However, the next
step is to create an environment that encourages efficiency as well as building and delivering market-
based solutions at scale. Properly establishing a household sanitation industry will require specialization
and vertical integration.
7.2 Research and development
7.2.1 Current status
Broad research and development efforts around household sanitation in Uganda appear to be virtually
non-existent, apart from a few targeted efforts such as the Network for Water and Sanitation Uganda
(NETWAS) Action Research Project carried out with a few designs in four districts. While some
manufacturers have worked with local and international NGOs on targeted (primarily in terms of
geographic locations and specific populations) sanitation-related projects, few have taken the initiative
to design sanitation products or latrine elements geared toward broad acceptance by low-income
households across the country. Organizations such as Plan International–Uganda have instituted
projects around new styles of latrine slabs and other organizations have introduced Ecosan
technologies, but these efforts have been limited to a small number of districts and have shown little
success in terms of uptake.9 Evidence exists within Uganda of multiple household sanitation-related
products (primarily in the plastics category), but there appears to be no proactive effort on the part of
manufacturers or other product design entities to better understand user needs and desires for
acceptable and affordable household sanitation solutions.
7.2.2 Constraint: Lack of a standardized, culturally appropriate sanitation solution
The study encountered a wide range of definitions of what materials are needed to construct an
improved latrine. Of all the groups interviewed, masons seem to have the clearest idea of what they
require, but there were discrepancies in the exact materials, the amount of materials, and the time
9 Plan noted in an interview that since inception, 90 Plan-sponsored masons have sold only about 40 to 50 latrines
over a three-year timeframe.
25
needed for construction. The study was unable to discern a widely-used, standard package of latrine
construction materials (e.g., cement, iron bar, wire mesh, etc.), and therefore, was unable to get an
accurate idea of the total price of an improved household latrine.10
The lack of standardization inhibits the ability of the supply chain to gravitate toward an optimized
business model to deliver better sanitation products and services. Understanding what the consumer
wants in design, function, and health/safety benefits serves as the first step to being able to offer a
range of desirable technologies and services, at various price points, to meet the demands of
households.
At the current time, there are no consumer brands for household latrine products or complete solutions.
When a household approaches a mason or hardware store to inquire about latrine construction, there is
no one set of materials that serves as a reference point. Variable inflationary price fluctuations and
product stock-outs across hardware suppliers also make estimating a guaranteed total cost for a latrine
extremely difficult once a household attempts to assemble the necessary materials. The result is a
convoluted and confusing latrine construction decision and purchase process for the household. The
simple addition of a single, bundled product/service solution at the point of sale could make all the
difference in generating increased consumer demand for improved household latrine solutions.
While the MoH has design standards for latrine pits, these do not seem to be followed on a wide scale at
the household level. Pits depths can vary from 15 to 40 feet, and any official guideline for optimization,
safety, or compliance does not seem to be recognized by the majority of informal service providers. The
dimensions of the pit partially dictate the amount of materials needed to construct the remaining
components of the entire latrine, and so from the very beginning, there are variances, which further
complicate the industry.
With no standard for either materials or construction pricing, coupled with inflation and stock-outs, the
task of quoting the exact total cost of an improved latrine to a household is difficult. The inability to
clearly communicate aspects of materials, labor, and total cost to households affects the overall
perception of improved sanitation and makes access and uptake even more challenging. Once a
common solution set to meet demand for household sanitation products and services is established, the
natural forces of competition and specialization can smooth out issues of pricing and eventually lay the
foundation for a package of solutions aimed at various niche markets.
7.2.3 Opportunity: Documenting user input and feedback on latrine design and functionality
The critical gap in the initial link of the value chain is a lack of knowledge of what households might
desire for their sanitation solutions. There appears to be little to no investment on the part of plastics or
cement manufacturers on specialization, innovation, or product development related to household
sanitation. Although plastics manufacturers currently produce products that can be used in household
sanitation settings as well as engage in small-scale, coordinated product development, most of this
activity appears to be tied to NGO initiatives and distribution efforts. Such efforts, however, do little to
drive a market for household sanitation forward. Without competition from elsewhere in the sector,
10
However, cost estimates from the Network for Water and Sanitation (NETWAS) estimate slab construction with a similar set of materials at a cost of approximately between UGX 40,000 and UGX 50,000 (NETWAS 2012).
26
manufacturers have little incentive to explore lower-cost product designs or broaden their distribution
channels. That type of market structure means that consumers will never have the opportunity to
provide their input and feedback to market actors, especially in critical areas such as product design and
functionality.
The opportunity exists for better understanding of household sanitation needs and desires in Uganda,
and then introducing or developing a latrine that fulfills that need. The Ugandan Network for Water and
Sanitation (NETWAS) is already helping to address this opportunity through the Action Research sub-
component if the Learning for Policy and Practice in Rural Household and Primary School Sanitation and
Hygiene (LeaPPS) project (Box 1). The project has taken current basic, improved latrine designs and has
worked with communities to adapt them for the local context. This iterative process continues, and
challenges remain especially in terms of cost of construction, but findings thus far indicate that the
potential is high for replication in other locations over time.
Box 1. Action Research with latrine designs under the LeaPPS project.
Since 2008, Simavi has supported SNV, IRC and NETWAS to implement the Action Research for Learning for Policy and Practice in Rural Household and Primary School Sanitation and Hygiene (LeaPPs) project which focuses on local learning around cost-efficient and effective sanitation and hygiene programs, sustainable facilities, and behaviors in primary schools and households (NETWAS 2012).
This initiative aims at synthesizing sanitation and hygiene issues derived from the previous action research to streamline further learning towards more effective and pro-poor sustainable sanitation technologies and approaches in households and primary schools in the districts (NETWAS 2012).
Under LeaPPS, the Action Research sub-component brought four sanitation technology solutions (the fossa alterna, spiral fossa alterna, two-in-one fossa alterna, and arborloo latrine designs) to communities with poor soil formation and termite infestation that did not favor construction of the commonly used traditional pit latrines (NDCL 2012). The technologies are also a deterrent to wastage of arable land and promote organic farming through provision of compost manure in predominantly agriculture areas.
The latrine designs were meant to address specific geological difficulties faced by certain communities in Uganda. For example, the latrines incorporate shallower pit designs and composting strategies to alleviate the difficulty of having to dig a deep pit in rocky soil. However, the designs for each latrine have been altered over time to suit individual community and socio-economic needs. These adaptations have resulted in improved perception of the latrines and increased interest in how to construct them by community members.
Overall, many stakeholders are also satisfied with the designs, but challenges related to the cost of construction remain. Households seem unwilling to invest their own money in sanitation despite being interested in the technologies, and the initial costs of construction (UGX 248,400 for a fossa alterna latrine, and UGX 117,450 for an arborloo latrine) have discouraged local community uptake (NETWAS 2012). In addition, there is limited access to non-local construction materials such as cement, iron bars, and iron sheets.
Still, the project continues to work with the local communities to incorporate their ideas and concerns into additional improvements to the design to bring down construction costs and increase access and uptake. The project plans to undertake pilot construction of fossa alterna sub-structures with locally-sourced soils and treated logs to test for appropriateness and durability.
The project acknowledges that further time is required to continue to build awareness about the different technologies and educate the communities about the design aspects. However, current recommendations point towards extending the project in order to continue to learn from current progress and better determine the best course for future replication.
27
An additional opportunity lies at an even more basic level of gathering more insight into more specific
user preferences related to sanitation at a broad, country-wide level (Box 2). Similar to the process of
tweaking current designs as done in the LeaPPS Action Research, more can be done to completely
understand the nuances of sanitation practices and preferences to ensure those details are considered
in the initial design of new sanitation solutions (or redesigns of old ones).
The challenge is not necessarily to design the cheapest latrines and superstructures possible, but to
create designs that fit the reality and desires of the target audience, to make valued latrine products,
including superstructures that can be a major part of the cost (USAID 2007). In-depth research and
development with users (i.e., households) to move toward lower-cost designs and production of
improved latrine components should be encouraged in order to aid in building a brand and business
model to deliver that product, increasing local production of latrine components, eliminating the need
to transport supplies or products over long distances, and driving down costs across the entire value
chain.
Box 2. PATH’s user-centered design approach and latrine user-needs assessment in Cambodia and Kenya.
To date, there has been limited involvement of end-users in the design of improved sanitation solutions in spite of evidence demonstrating higher uptake and sustained use of technologies that incorporate user experience through iterative feedback loops based on human-centered design theory. Factors such as attitudes about human feces—including those of very young children—or women’s needs for privacy and security are often mentioned, but they are poorly understood and rarely considered in design. Furthermore, few designs for high-volume production currently exist that focus on user experience or include input from users themselves. Locally designed and site-constructed latrines that involve communities and users provide an important starting point for additional learning and research.
To that end, PATH conducted qualitative user-needs assessments in Cambodia and Kenya focusing on the preferences and priorities of low-income latrine users. The objective of the assessments was to explore how users’ norms, preferences, and priorities around sanitation may impact their use and demand for an improved, upgradeable latrine platform.
The study consisted individual interviews with opinion leaders, service providers, and users, as well as hardware inventories in multiple communities in each country. The structured interviews explored the current behaviors, preferences, priorities, and barriers to healthy sanitation practices for users of latrines and covered topics such as desired ideal profile-specific features, comparative standards, motivation to change behavior, and hygiene.
Findings from the research highlighted critical issues for user acceptability related to latrine design in Kenya, which may impact the uptake and continued use of latrines. The research also revealed the importance of pairing the platform component of the latrine with a structurally sound enclosure and weather/flood resistant collection pit.
In Cambodia, the large amount of user-feedback data generated from focus groups allowed for the drafting of initial engineering design plans for a latrine slab or platform. These designs incorporate user preferences such as ease of cleaning, material composition, and layout of slab features with production requirements for interoperability with standard construction processes, structural requirements, and ventilation. The end result was an alpha design that meets baseline criteria for the target audience and is ready to be transitioned to physical prototyping and testing in a forthcoming PATH project. The availability of this prototype opens the door to end-user experience research, the crucial next step in ensuring that the product can combine effectiveness, appropriateness, and desirability.
28
7.3 Products
7.3.1 Current status
The supply chain interviews make it fairly apparent that households view certain aspects of a latrine as
completely separate entities, whether due to costs, labor, or other factors. Pits seem to be thought of as
a facet of the latrine construction process that is independent from slabs and/or superstructures.
Therefore, while usually not requiring physical materials, the pit can be considered an individual product
in the household latrine value chain. From the field work, it appears that most pits are dug to an
impressive and expensive depth, and then usually left unlined, which can make them susceptible to
collapse, especially during the rainy season. References were made by several respondents to formal pit
regulations that are broadly known by households and often followed for fear of financial penalties.
Households appear to hire informal laborers to dig pits and pay cash upon completion, or in increments
as able with the laborer digging in a meter-by-meter fashion upon payment.
For households that choose and are able to invest further resources in building a latrine over a newly-
dug pit, or improving a current latrine, the options to do so through the commercial market are fairly
limited and usually revolve around either the slab or the superstructure components. Cement slabs are a
common route for improved pit coverings for households in rural and small towns. Mass-produced,
ready-made, pre-cast cement slabs are virtually nonexistent (however, the study did speak with one
small, independent cement manufacturer in Arua district making cement slabs for purchase; see Box 3).
Thus, households who choose the option of investing in a cement slab sacrifice the investment of time
and energy, in addition to the cost, to obtain and transport the necessary materials on their own and
then hire a mason to construct it for them. No common set of cement slab materials appears to be
established either through regulatory means or from manufacturers, which means households are left
to determine on their own what they think is necessary or simply what they can afford to fashion a
cement latrine slab.
29
Multiple major cement manufacturers exist in Uganda, including Hima Cement and Tororo Cement, but
findings from the study indicate that these manufacturers are not currently offering any specialized
product for use in latrine facilities. They focus their business on large industrial projects such as roads
and simply meeting the increasingly high demand for bagged cement within Uganda as well as in
neighboring countries. None of them are specifically gearing any of their production toward use in the
construction of sanitation facilities.
Plastic slabs are much lighter, more conducive to centralized production, and easier to distribute given
their lighter weight, higher durability, and “nesting” ability for shipping. Both plastic slabs and
superstructures are produced locally in Uganda and come ready-made, but low-income households have
little access to them due to either their relatively high price or lack of commercial distribution.11 One
local company currently manufacturing household sanitation components is Crestanks, a subsidiary of
AquaSan Tec and headquartered in Kampala. The company currently manufactures a full catalog of
sanitation products; however, most of these items seem to be geared primarily toward the needs of and
use by NGOs. In addition, the cost of their products is quite prohibitive to the typical rural household
(WSP 2011). Their products include latrine platforms of various sizes and styles, modular latrine
11
It should be noted that a few of the households from the field survey also mentioned that they did not prefer the look of currently available plastic latrine slabs. Thus, an additional issue may be lack of appeal.
Box 3. WE Concrete in Arua District.
Major manufacturers such as Tororo Cement and Hima Cement primarily produce bagged cement for distribution throughout Uganda, but PATH found little evidence of broad availability of pre-cast cement products for household sanitation. One notable exception is WE Concrete in Arua District. WE Concrete sells multiple concrete products, including pre-made cement latrine slabs of various sizes. They have been in operation now for seven years and also have an additional branch in Gulu District.
WE Concrete currently offers three different sizes of slabs:
80cm x 100cm for UGX 45,000
80cm x 120cm for UGX 60,000
90cm x 120cm for UGX 65,000
They sell the slabs through passive efforts by placing them by the roadside, where customers come to purchase and transport them on their own. Even so, WE Concrete mentioned that all three sizes of slabs “sell a lot” and there are weeks when their stock of slabs sells out.
The company came up with the idea of pre-casting latrine slabs because they realized other materials that households were using for latrines (e.g., wood and mud) easily deteriorated. Pre-fashioned cement slabs provided a cost-effective, durable, and portable solution that could even be re-used if a new latrine became necessary.
WE Concrete currently employs seven laborers who assist in slab production, and one marketing manager. The majority of their customers come from within Arua as well as neighboring districts, but some come from as far away as Kampala, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Sudan. The company estimates that 60 percent of their customers are from urban areas, and households that purchase are primarily from middle and upper income classes.
WE Concrete believes that the pre-fabricated slabs are one of their most popular and profitable products. They estimated that sales of the slabs account for an average of 70 percent of their overall monthly business, and they are interested in exploring ways to expand their business.
30
superstructures, waste storage tanks for latrines, and large septic tanks. More about these products can
be found in Appendix B. Prices for these products range from US$35 for a small latrine platform to
US$250 for a septic tank or US$400 for a complete modular latrine including superstructure and slab
(but not including any below-ground storage). Production capacity in the Kampala facility is fairly robust,
but it is not fully utilized at the moment for sanitation-related products due to low demand.12
Mr. N. Suresh, Crestanks’ General Manager, confirmed that the overall demand for their sanitation
products is low, with the company only having generated approximately US$750,000 to US$1 million in
sanitation-related revenue over the past five years. The majority of Crestanks’ sales of latrine products
are to government, NGOs, or religious organizations, while almost none are to consumers. Mr. Suresh
noted that he has been selling to NGOs for eight years now. Crestanks’ only real “outlet” for products
that get close to end users are small hardware shops in rural towns. The sales volume to these outlets,
however, is extremely low. Predominant customer groups in order of size are:
1. Schools
2. Refugee camps
3. Domestic customers (through commercial distribution channels; however, sales in this group are
virtually nonexistent)
7.3.2 Constraints: Pit digging and latrine construction materials
Households independently hire a porter to dig the pit and then hire a separate mason to construct the
latrine. Digging the pit is the first step in the construction process and seemingly the easiest to obtain
due to a large supply of porters. Since this process is not performed by the mason who builds the latrine,
there is a natural break in the momentum of the sales and construction process. One household in this
study, which was considered to be middle class, cited that they had dug a pit but then too much time
elapsed before construction started. The homeowner was concerned with the dangers of an open pit
and having children on site, and therefore decided to have the hole covered, stopping the installation
process. A lack of funds contributed to the decision to halt the process and led to the gap from pit
digging to latrine construction. It is possible that if she had known the total cost up front, she might have
not taken that first step. Alternatively, if a more reasonable pit standard were established, it might have
freed up enough funds to cover both pit digging and subsequent latrine construction. Tangential to this,
masons expressed concern with coming into the construction process and not knowing the details of the
pit digging. If a pit is not reinforced in a timely manner, and depending on the season, masons face the
danger of a pit collapsing. This is especially the case given that the standard guidance on pits across
much of the country stipulates a preferred depth of 15 feet or more. Thus, better pit standardization
and guidance could provide benefits from both a demand and supply perspective.
After the pit is dug, construction of the foundation and slab can commence once the household has
hired a mason and the materials are on site. Our interviews with masons demonstrate that households
do not trust them to buy their materials and therefore go directly to the hardware stores and other
12
Mr. Suresh noted that they can produce as many as 750 large latrine platforms per day, but the volume they currently produce is only a fraction of that.
31
suppliers for their latrine construction materials, cutting the mason out of the purchase process.13 This
situation is not ideal because in our observations, the mason is the only entity in the supply chain that
possesses accurate knowledge of what materials are needed in the appropriate quantity, yet is rarely
the one who make the purchases. Occasionally, a mason will give the household a shopping list, but the
household relies on the hardware store to give advice and guide the ultimate material decisions.
However, hardware stores are unable to always clearly and consistently articulate to the consumer what
items are needed to build the latrine, which can lead not only to missed sales opportunities, but to a
delay in the construction process. It can also contribute to households over-purchasing supplies
depending on whose advice they trust, or simply as a result of the overall lack of knowledge within the
supply chain. Masons cited frustrations with having to wait for the household to buy the materials
before they could start construction, often running into issues with not having the correct amount or
type of materials they need, or being unsatisfied or uncomfortable building with low-quality products.
Thus, the resulting quality of a finished latrine may depend more on the materials made available to the
service provider, rather than the service provider’s skills (USAID 2009). Moreover, if a household
purchases the materials in batches or pays in installments, this delays the construction process even
more.
As an added complication, most latrine materials such as cement, wire mesh, and nails are purchased at
the hardware store, but brick, sand, and stones must be purchased separately, and the study did not
uncover any mention of formal or informal connections between these entities.
When considering the total cost of installing an improved latrine, households may easily take into
account the sales prices of the components, but additional hidden cost barriers (e.g., time, effort, and
risk) can disrupt their purchase process. In the case of the current household latrine industry, a decision-
maker may become disconcerted with the process when they realize that they will need to hire a porter
and a mason, buy the materials themselves, and find a way to transport them to the worksite despite
the limited mobility and access they have to modes of transport as noted in Table 8. When the sales
process is disaggregated, a consumer is forced into too many decision points, which may progressively
discourage them from moving toward completion.
7.3.3 Opportunity: Standardized product offering
A critical first step for the household sanitation sector in Uganda is to focus on a specific product
offering for the target market (i.e., households in rural and small towns). While some evidence exists of
specific, complete latrine solutions such as Ecosan latrines offered through NGOs and Crestanks’ Ekoloo,
no simple all-in-one latrine package is currently available for low-income households. Thus, actors within
the supply chain, including households, masons, and hardware shops, must resort to unsystematic
means to resolve the challenges of constructing a latrine.
13
This was also the finding from a USAID study in 2009 in Tororo District, in which it was found that “most clients currently purchase the materials themselves, paying the contractor for labor only” (USAID 2009).
32
As noted above, product development research
need not produce something that is overly
complex, is technologically advanced, or offers an
endless array of options. For example, through
iterative product development research and design
utilizing locally sourced materials, International
Development Enterprises (iDE) in Cambodia was
able to develop the Easy Latrine as a simple,
affordable household latrine option (Figure 9).
Developed through a collaboration between iDE
and multiple partners including WSP, it consists of
a squat pan, concrete slab, prefabricated concrete
chamber, PVC pipe, and concrete rings to line the
pit. Key inputs into the design have helped to
drive down costs and make it easier for suppliers
to purchase the necessary materials and manufacture and transport at-scale. The result has been a
three-fold increase in the number of rings a local, small-scale concrete producer can make in a day (iDE
2011). The Easy Latrine retails at under US$35 and offers poor households—even those in remote, rural
settings—a simplified solution without having to procure or transport any materials themselves.
Limiting the complexity of the design helped iDE simplify the product marketing, sourcing, distribution,
and training, as well as reduce consumer “decision paralysis” about which materials to use for each part
of the latrine. Households may choose to upgrade their latrine with a superstructure on their own, but
the critical elements of safe waste containment are already accounted for in the Easy Latrine design.
Most importantly, it allows for a single product that can be “branded,” marketed, and sold. This allows
producers to create brand awareness and identity, and then sell that brand. This currently cannot be
done in Uganda since no latrine “brand” yet exists.
Development of a complete solution sourced from locally-made materials, such as the Easy Latrine,
along with a range of upgrade products for household latrines means that families would have the
option to consider incremental upgrades as well as more immediate ways to progress up the sanitation
ladder depending on their willingness and ability to invest in latrine improvements. Offering all of these
items under a single brand would help to increase awareness of sanitation solutions for low-income
consumers and build their confidence in being able to seek out appropriate products for their individual
needs and budget.
7.4 Distribution and service delivery
7.4.1 Current status
Materials for latrine construction, whether they are individual components or prefabricated products,
move through a relatively disaggregated supply chain to reach retail outlets and, ultimately, households
in rural and small towns. Stronger, more reliable linkages between supply chain actors currently only
exist within or around larger urban settings within the five study districts, which creates obstacles of
Figure 9. iDE Cambodia Easy Latrine.
33
logistics, lost time, and transport costs for small retailers, masons, and households further afield to
obtain materials for household sanitation.14
Small, local hardware shops basically serve as the primary outlet for all construction-related materials,
including those used for latrines. Most of these shops are located near established small towns or
settlements and operate on an independent basis, although the study found two instances of shops
operating as small franchises in Tororo and Arua districts. The majority of hardware shops surveyed
carry various permutations of inventory and charge differing prices for each type of product. It should be
noted, however, that no hardware shop within the study sample carried any plastic household latrine-
specific (e.g., plastic latrine slabs) products. More information regarding products found in the various
hardware shops from the sample and the corresponding prices of materials can be found in Appendix C.
In addition, nearly every hardware shop owner from the field survey indicated that prices they must pay
for materials often fluctuate, sometimes multiple times a day (e.g., for cement), which further
complicates their overall business operations.
About half of the hardware shops in the sample owned their own vehicles and used these to transport
materials to their shop for sale. The others either rented vehicles or found other means to transport
supplies to their shop. There were only a few instances in which hardware shops referenced suppliers
delivering products to their shops, and in those instances, it was only select products rather than entire
inventories. The shops must pay transport costs for products that are delivered. Some hardware shop
owners also mentioned purchasing stock from “roving salesmen” who sell products on the side of the
road. These “close-in” suppliers help them save transport costs but appear to be used on an irregular
basis.
Most hardware shops did not reference whether specific products were more difficult to source than
others, but a few noted that high demand for cement makes obtaining sufficient supplies rather
challenging. Several hardware shops expressed concerns over appearing to have stock-outs of certain
supplies and admitted to purchasing additional materials at retail price from other nearby hardware
shops just to maintain a minimum level of products for which they had sold out.
Delivery of materials from a hardware shop to a work site is only covered by the hardware shop for large
orders (e.g., for school or industrial sanitation projects and to a few wealthier households). Thus,
masons or individual households must assume the burden of arranging and paying for any transport of
latrine construction materials from hardware outlets to their plot. This is often done via boda-boda
motorcycle taxis for various rates and in stages as materials are often purchased piecemeal rather than
all at once. Table 13 provides a sample of rates quoted by hardware shops for the transport of cement
via boda-boda taxi.
14
This mirrors findings from WSP indicating that, although there are points of sale for sanitation facilities, they are mostly found in urban areas or small towns and not in rural areas (WSP 2011).
34
Table 13. Quoted rates from hardware shops for materials transport via boda-boda taxi.
District Capacity Distance Rate
Bushenyi respondent 1 4 bags of cement 4–5km 1,000 UGX
Bushenyi respondent 2 Not given 1km 3,000–5,000 UGX
Amuria respondent 1 Not given 1km 2,000 UGX
One reason why latrine construction materials are purchased in stages is that there is no known
standardized suggestion of necessary supplies among hardware shops, masons, or households. Masons
seem to hold a bit more knowledge about which materials are most useful for building a latrine
platform, for instance, but households seem to be much less aware and usually resort to asking masons
or hardware shop owners for advice. Meanwhile, hardware shop owners do not currently suggest any
“package” of latrine materials as most insist that every customer’s need is different and because
demand is currently so low. Hardware shop owners also noted that it can be difficult to tell what
customers plan to build with the materials they purchase as the supplies needed for a latrine are similar
to those required to construct a house or a grave. Regardless of the reasons behind a lack of promotion
of a package of latrine materials, the result is an inefficient process of obtaining supplies for latrine
construction at the household level.
Individual household owners seem to overwhelmingly assume the responsibility of transporting
materials for latrine construction. The majority of masons interviewed for the field survey noted that
while households may ask for advice from masons about which materials are needed, the household
owners purchase and transport the materials themselves. There were one or two masons who
referenced buying a portion of the materials for households, but only one mason recalled purchasing all
the construction supplies for a latrine he built—an instance he even noted as “rare.” Households were
noted as being suspicious of masons either buying cheaper, sub-standard materials and pocketing some
of the money, or simply running off with the cash. Such inefficient linkages and accountability within the
supply chain lead households to shoulder additional expenses of time and effort beyond costs of labor
and materials once they have made the decision to improve their latrine.
Hardware shops appear to have no current involvement in service delivery related to household
sanitation. Given that most shops are small and independently-owned operations, few have the capacity
to consider such an offering. Some shop owners do offer customers informal referrals to known
contractors; however, there is no established system that links hardware shops to local masons or
construction workers to provide efficient sourcing of labor for households looking to build a latrine. In
addition, only one hardware shop from the field surveys mentioned having sales agents to help them
sell products.
Thus, service delivery related to household sanitation seems to be handled entirely through
independent laborers or masons in local communities. However, labor prices do not appear to hold to
any uniform rate whether it comes to pit digging or latrine construction. As noted above, latrine pits are
a distinct consideration within a household’s latrine-building decision process. Pits are dug by laborers
with no connection to the mason who might build the latrine slab, and with little consideration of the
latrine slab construction process. Thus, while there may be some basic instruction given to a pit digger in
terms of depth and width of the pit, there appears to be no formal coordination of the pit digger’s labor
35
with the latrine construction process, which can lead to both cost and labor inefficiencies for the
remainder of the steps necessary to complete the latrine. Furthermore, there seems to be no standard
labor rate for pit digging (Figure 10).15 The relatively high rates of labor per foot—with some rates even
varying as the pit is dug deeper—and the total suggested depth of the pit lead to an expensive initial
financial burden for any low-income household to begin building a latrine, especially given that
approximately 65 percent of the population lies below the $2 per day (PPP) poverty line (Table 3).
Figure 10. Total pit digging costs (UGX) and labor rates per foot as quoted by masons from field survey.
For those masons that do provide household latrine building services, they seem to do so on an
infrequent and informal basis. The majority of masons in the field survey focus their work on building
houses. When called upon to build latrines, they are usually either more expensive improved latrines for
middle-income households, or large latrine projects for local government or school projects. Household
latrine construction was noted to be more of a seasonal opportunity, occurring primarily during harvest
seasons and once school fees were paid (i.e., usually between the months of November and February).
Masons noted having the ability to construct both latrine slabs and superstructures, with the slabs being
the most difficult portion to construct. Latrine repair services and latrine emptying are not typically
provided by masons.
15
Rates and depths quoted from the field survey were for two-stance latrines.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Aru
are
spo
nd
en
t 1
Am
uri
are
spo
nd
en
t 1
Am
uri
are
spo
nd
en
t 2
Toro
rore
spo
nd
en
t 1
Mp
igi
resp
on
de
nt
1
Mp
igi
resp
on
de
nt
2
Bu
she
nyi
resp
on
de
nt
1
Bu
she
nyi
resp
on
de
nt
2
Tota
l pit
de
pth
(fe
et)
6,00
0 /
ft 7,00
0 /
ft
8,00
0 /
ft
6,00
0 /
ft
5,00
0 /
ft
5,00
0 /
ft4,
000
/ ft
5,00
0 /
ft3,
000
/ ft
3,00
0 /
ft4,
000
/ ft
180,000
112,000
160,000
90,000
150,000
190,000 180,000
110,000
36
As with pit digging, masons’ labor rates for latrine construction seem to vary quite widely, as seen in
Table 14.16 The two masons who were trained by Plan International–Uganda charge UGX 10,000 (about
US$4) per day for labor, but others quoted UGX 300,000–500,000 (about US$120–200) or more. A 20
percent charge of the total materials cost seems to be the historical average, but some masons cite
being unable to charge this to households lately due to ever-increasing prices of materials. These costs
can be extremely high when compared to the mean monthly income in rural areas as noted in Figure 4,
and are in addition to the costs of materials as well as transportation to the construction site. A sample
of full estimated costs of two-stance latrines as quoted by masons from the field survey can be found in
Appendix D.
Table 14. Sample of quoted labor rates (UGX) by masons for latrine construction (exclusive of pit excavation
costs).
District Rate (UGX)
Arua 420,000 flat rate
Arua 400,000 flat rate
Amuria 450,000 flat rate
Tororo 159,000 estimate
Tororo 250,000 for recently completed latrine
Mpigi 300,000 flat rate
Bushenyi 500,000 flat rate
Bushenyi 500,000 flat rate
Masons in the field survey almost all noted having other employees under their supervision implying a
somewhat organized approach to their construction work. In addition, most mentioned having received
training (non-specific to sanitation) from NGOs, technical institutions, or apprenticeships. Most masons
find new opportunities by word-of-mouth and based upon their reputation for “doing high quality
work.” None were engaged in active promotions, particularly related to household sanitation.
7.4.2 Constraints: Disaggregation and lack of capacity
The hardware stores interviewed in the study said that they only deliver to customers who purchase
very large orders. Therefore, individual household latrine supply purchases do not qualify, and a client
(i.e., an individual household) must arrange for their own transportation. Most hire the local boda-boda
taxis to transport their materials, but the general maximum capacity is only four bags of cement, which
adds both cost and complication for transferring the entire set of materials to the job site. This is a
particular burden because many households must travel far from rural areas, as well as from other
countries such as Sudan, in order to access hardware materials that need that are not available in their
local areas. The result is a disaggregated network in which the household has to serve as the primary
link in the supply chain (Figure 11).
16
It is critical to note that the majority of cost estimates provided by masons in the field survey centered around two-stance latrines, which are primarily suited for school or community (i.e., higher-use) settings but often built for household latrines due to limited knowledge and skills of pit diggers on how to safely and properly dig (and reinforce, if necessary) a single-stance latrine pit. Thus, the labor rates found in Table 14 and estimated costs for supplies found in Appendix D are most likely higher than those required for a well-designed, single-stance household latrine.
37
Figure 11. Current nature of procurement of supplies and services for household latrines.
Further up the supply chain, materials distribution and transportation are a constraint for the hardware
stores themselves. Many do not own vehicles and since many suppliers only deliver large orders, they
have the added expense and aggravation of arranging transportation themselves; even those suppliers
that do offer delivery will charge for fuel. There is an opportunity for demand to be aggregated at both
the distributor and the household level; this would combat increased transportation costs, thus reducing
the total cost of the latrines.
When speaking about the household latrine building process, masons and hardware stores only
mentioned using concrete slabs, and masons consistently say that the slab construction is the most
difficult and tedious process. A few said this part of construction takes anywhere between 12 and 28
days; however, little information was gathered as to why the process seems so lengthy and inefficient.
Up to a four-week timeframe to complete the construction of a cement slab for a household does not
seem to indicate an optimized process or set of materials and may encourage further second-guessing
by consumers. It seems that significant efficiency gains could be made by either verifying proper cement
structural engineering, simplifying the cement slab construction process, or redesigning the inputs to
allow for increased production capacity by masons and improved customer service.
Crestanks has a large portfolio of ready-made plastic slabs and other latrine products that could
dramatically reduce construction time by replacing slabs altogether or integrating into cement slab
designs to reduce the need for a four-week slab production process. According to Crestanks, households
have little demand for them, yet no direct marketing or sales to households through commercial
channels has been done. Thus, a gap in awareness of products from the household perspective and a
gap in knowledge of household demand from the supplier perspective has resulted in sanitation service
providers employing unspecialized and inefficient techniques to build latrine components.
38
7.4.3 Opportunity: Capacity building and supply chain integration
A well-designed product or service cannot be successful without the proper business model to support
and ensure its success. Other studies, such as the USAID analysis of sanitation marketing in Uganda in
2007, have concluded that sanitation marketing is both a viable and needed approach to increase
sanitation uptake among rural households (USAID 2007). Training local providers in the proper
techniques to deliver the product or service, however, is only one aspect of business model
development. Market growth efforts must also equip providers with the knowledge and tools to actively
market and sell their offering to potential consumers. Few businesses, and especially any business
concept focused on sanitation, can expect to survive simply on passive strategies for obtaining
customers, such as “word-of-mouth” advertising.
Business development and sales necessitate very different skills than those
for labor and construction, and not every individual has the same inherent
entrepreneurial capabilities. Thus, any market development effort in
household sanitation should provide for identification and selection of
individuals best suited for each role (e.g., sales, manufacturing, delivery, or
service) within the business model. Small-scale operators would then be
able to focus on their areas of expertise and connect with other providers
via vertical integration to increase efficiency, drive down costs, and expand
their reach (Figure 12).
One example where this could be possible in Uganda is in slab production.
For example, one of the lowest quoted rates for slab construction in our
field survey was by a mason in Mpigi district. He quoted material costs for a
single slab at a total of UGX 86,000, exclusive of any associated labor (see
Appendix D). However, this falls more than 20,000 UGX above the highest
retail price for a pre-made latrine slab offered by WE Concrete, and almost
double the retail price of their cheapest latrine slab (see Box 3). By
recognizing a need, creating a limited set of solutions to that need, and
specializing in delivering those solutions (i.e., latrine slab construction and
sales only), WE Concrete provides a useful example of how much costs to
consumers can be lowered through specialization.
Alternatively, additional gains could be made by creating better links
between masons and pit diggers. As pointed out in a USAID supply
assessment in 2009, masons and pit diggers could be “…linked in such a way
that the pit diggers are placed under the supervision of masons who
determine and offer technical guidance on specifications appropriate for the
type of slab the masons intend to offer to a household. This will not only
keep the existing pit diggers in business, but will allow for specialization
and supply chain linkages, completeness, and sustainability” (USAID
2009).
Figure 12. A more optimized,
vertically integrated supply
chain for household sanitation
in Uganda.
39
Lower costs through increased efficiency has also been possible for iDE in Cambodia. iDE’s Sanitation
Marketing program has identified select entrepreneurial individuals in local communities and trained
them in business development and sales (Box 4). iDE then connects these entrepreneurs to other local
materials suppliers and laborers. The entrepreneurs, who often are also linked to local influencers or
village heads to help gain access to households, focus on demand generation, sales, and business
management, while the suppliers provide materials, delivery, and construction services.
40
The fragmented nature of the sanitation market and the current structure of household sanitation
provision within Uganda require much more vertical integration of all supply chain actors. Approaches
such as iDE’s in Cambodia demonstrate that encouraging the market to take root from limited,
Box 4. International Development Enterprises (iDE) Cambodia’s Sanitation Marketing program.
Since 2003, iDE has pioneered innovative market-based approaches to improve rural sanitation in Southeast Asia. These approaches exploit the comparative advantage of private-sector, NGO, and government stakeholders to reach large numbers of poor households in short time frames.
Launched in Cambodia in October 2009, iDE’s Sanitation Marketing program focuses on market-based solutions and sustained changes in the sanitation behavior of individual households and communities. Local entrepreneurs are profitably creating and supplying demand for sanitation in larger numbers and with lower costs than any sanitation program has previously been able to achieve in Cambodia (iDE 2011).
The Easy Latrine’s award-winning design became a catalyst for invigorating both the supply and demand sides of sanitation markets’ adaptability. Upon completion of the product design phase, iDE worked with the Ministry of Rural Development and other organizations in the sanitation sector to promote a holistic approach to rural sanitation development in Cambodia.
Introducing the latrine design to the marketplace involved training and support of the supply chain, demand creation activities in rural villages, and communication and coordination with local government bodies. To create a sustainable supply chain and introduce the latrine design to the marketplace, three key changes were necessary by producers that wished to engage in the program: investing in sanitation, thinking long-term, and undertaking active sales and marketing.
Asking producers to become active salespeople has proven to be the most challenging aspect of the program. Traditionally these individuals had been laborers working with their hands, and only a few had shown themselves effective in expanding beyond a passive role. On the one hand, training producers to become convincing and outgoing salespeople can be seen as a difficult but necessary task, and worth the effort. On the other hand, the use of commissioned sales agents who work at community level and are paid by the supplier has proven to be an effective way to overcome this obstacle (Rosenboom 2011)
To help the producers make the required changes, the program provided training in four main areas (Rosenboom 2011):
1. Sanitation and hygiene education: Understanding basic hygiene principles, why every household needs a latrine, health consequences of open defecation, benefits of latrine ownership, and how to install a latrine sanitarily.
2. Technical/Production: Latrine design manufacturing and stock and production management. 3. Business management: Sales force and labor management, order and delivery management, and
basic accounting. 4. Sales and marketing: Pricing strategies, simple sales skills and tactics, use of marketing materials,
customer service principles, working with local authorities in support of latrine adoption.
During the Sanitation Marketing Pilot Project in Cambodia, iDE completed a successful first sweep of the pilot project areas in Kandal and Svay Rieng provinces, demonstrating that widespread latrine purchases can be achieved by capturing the “early adopter” segment of the market.
iDE’s sanitation marketing approach is being further developed by combining it with community-let total sanitation (CLTS) and additional innovative latrine designs resulting in more than 12,700 latrine installations (through July 2011) since the program began, without any hardware subsidy.
1
1 iDE Cambodia’s project preparation research is published in the WSP Field Note: Sanitation Demand and Supply in Cambodia (www.wsp.org/UserFiles/file/Sanitation_demand_and_supply_fieldnote_final__1.pdf). A short video on the project is posted at www.youtube.com/watch?v=zloOePIhQzc.
41
affordable options provided through select suppliers—rather than non-standardized solutions available
through numerous unspecialized entities—can lead to not only increased uptake but better prospects
for long-term market sustainability as well.
7.5 Marketing and behavior change communication
7.5.1 Current status
The lack of promotion around household sanitation outside of limited NGO programs and targeted
efforts is not surprising given the need to build further support and capacity for public-sector
engagement in sanitation marketing. Major manufacturers such as Crestanks and Tororo Cement do not
currently conduct household sanitation marketing efforts related to any of their products. In the case of
Crestanks, they rely upon NGOs, schools, and religious organizations to market their plastic latrine
products. Tororo Cement has not conducted much marketing of their cement products in the past, but
plans to invest more in the future given the increased competition for cement within the country. Their
plans for expanding their marketing activities, however, do not involve any household sanitation-specific
campaigns. Likewise, Hima Cement has recently been carrying out a major promotional campaign for
their products, but with no specific links to sanitation.
Very little additional commercial messaging around household sanitation occurs at either the hardware
shop or mason levels of the supply chain. Most hardware shops employ primarily passive strategies for
bringing in customers by relying on word-of-mouth, the location of their shop, or repeat customers to
drive their business. Some mentioned using radio advertisements in the past or present, but only in a
limited fashion. They do not engage in sanitation-specific promotions because they claim there is little
demand for such products at the household level. Likewise, masons make few efforts to actively seek
out new customers or business opportunities within their communities, especially when it comes to
household sanitation. All masons surveyed in the field responded that they find work through word-of-
mouth referrals and/or their reputations for providing quality work. In addition, they tend to steer
toward offering their services for large institutional projects where they feel there are more reliable
demand- and income-generating opportunities. The only mention of a more proactive sales approach
noted by a few masons was an effort to try to sell latrines through village health teams (VHTs). It seems
this may be a fairly common approach in some areas, but there appears to be little indication of
whether VHTs had received any sales skills training themselves or any assessments of the results of this
approach. In addition, the majority of the VHTs seem to serve on a volunteer basis, and for those who
may be compensated for their time and effort, they may then refuse to work again unless they are paid
a permanent salary for their services (USAID 2007).
At the household level, this paucity of active promotion upstream in the supply chain leaves a significant
knowledge gap regarding the available options for improving household sanitation conditions.
Households may understand the need for improved sanitation, but remain largely unaware of solutions
available to them and what is required—either in terms of materials, effort, or costs—to adopt those
42
solutions.17 This, in turn, tends to give the impression of inadequate demand, which only continues to
feed the inattentiveness of actors within the supply chain.
7.5.2 Constraint: Lack of an active sales and promotion culture
In any industry, in any setting, and at all levels, a strong sales spirit is necessary to help generate and
sustain demand. Without this, a business will not be able to compete and maintain a strong market
position. Manufacturers will therefore not see demand and will foray into new pastures. Across the
Ugandan sanitation supply chain, most entities have relied on a reactive rather than proactive business
style, which has stunted market growth and opportunity.
The private sector understands the need and has the capability to reach potential consumers through
sales and marketing efforts around their other products. Yet manufacturers fail to use these same
communication channels and techniques to inform low-income consumers about their household
sanitation products. Little is being done to address the need to increase consumer awareness of, and
access to, affordable and attractive latrine technology options (USAID 2007). Manufacturers such as
Crestanks seem to rely heavily on schools, religious groups, and NGOs to promote their products; none
of Crestanks’ nine marketing executives target households or employ any other type of direct marketing
or advertising aimed at the household sanitation market. Sanitation awareness campaigns through
these channels, however, often do not mention specific products, brands, or manufacturers. Instead,
they center on the importance of safe sanitation practices and generic, categorical sanitation solutions.
Most hardware stores interviewed in this study do not employ direct sales techniques such as
advertising, promotions, or referrals. “Word of mouth” was frequently cited as the way the customers
find their store, and some even referred to their faith as the reason for good business. Hardware shops
mentioned having difficulty in determining whether customers purchased products for a latrine, grave,
or house since all such projects use similar materials. Hardware stores seem reluctant or unwilling to
inquire to a consumer about the end product they are looking to construct unless asked directly by the
customer, which may be due to a cultural norm, but also contributes to a passive sales approach and a
lack of promotion. In regard to linkages with construction services, hardware shops are not interested in
providing services themselves, but occasionally refer to known masons or contractors. This highlights a
missed opportunity for both the hardware stores and masons to coordinate commission structures and
incentivize each other to make the referrals both up and down the supply chain.18
Masons mentioned that a household latrine business would be more lucrative if demand was there, yet
they apparently do not actively seek out clients or promote their services. The masons all noted that
they are chosen by their clients due to the quality of their work and that, in general, clients seek out
their services. When asked about their best time of year for sales, almost all masons referred to the
months of November to February, citing that parents are not paying school fees, not harvesting, and
therefore have the time and money for construction jobs. Yet none of the masons mentioned trying to
promote their business in anticipation of this high season, nor did they seem to understand that
17
This is evident from the fact that only 9.2 percent of rural households have access to an improved toilet facility (Uganda 2007). 18
For example, only one hardware shop owner mentioned a commission (UGX 500–1,000) given to boda-boda drivers for their referrals to his store.
43
promoting sales in general might lead to higher sales volumes. While they may feel their quality of work
and reputation allows customers to find them, many masons had only sold one or two latrines per year.
This does not demonstrate a strong sales strategy.
Plan International–Uganda has made some inroads into building a sales approach by offering masons a
sales training curriculum that included providing household sanitation flyers. These flyers were meant
for distribution to VHTs so that they might utilize them to promote and sell latrines. However, no
commission seems to have been offered as a part of the program to the VHTs doing the promotion. This
is another example that reinforces the need to properly align incentives within the supply chain to spur
action and build stronger links.
As a result of these gaps within the supply chain, households remain fairly unaware of their options for
household sanitation solutions. There is no one place where they can learn about the construction
process, what their options are for materials, compare designs, and access service providers. CLTS
campaigns can help to trigger demand for improved sanitation, but often households in CLTS
communities choose to construct very simple, low- or no-cost latrine designs that are subject to collapse
over time because they cannot find other more proper solutions. This can be a consequence of CLTS
programs incorporating too much of a “blanket” approach that expects every trained supplier to serve
as laborer, marketer, salesperson, and servicer—skills that not every individual has or wishes to learn.
Put simply, a good mason is not always a good sales person. There is a substantial need to streamline
the process of building skills and capacity to provide sanitation products and services by focusing on the
individuals with the most potential to do so effectively and equipping them with the tools they need to
succeed.
7.5.3 Opportunities: Better coordination, local government involvement, and incentives
Beyond supply-chain capacity building, which can assist individual suppliers with improving their sales
and marketing approaches, a key opportunity in marketing and behavior change communication relates
to better coordination between public-sector efforts and private-sector inputs to household sanitation
provision. Key private-sector players currently operate under a strategy of primarily supplying sanitation
product orders to NGOs without any further involvement in commercial distribution, sales, or
communication efforts. Meanwhile, public-sector awareness and distribution efforts often lack the
branding and commercial inputs to help build and sustain demand for household sanitation solutions.
Encouraging more public- and private-sector collaboration could help boost the impact of sanitation
campaigns by cultivating the consumer knowledge and awareness of sanitation options necessary to
drive demand and providing information about where and how to access those solutions.
Additional opportunities exist to bolster such coordinated efforts at the local level by equipping district
health officers (DHOs) and district health inspectors (DHIs) with the necessary information to serve as
sanitation advisors to households. DHOs and DHIs have strong links and regular interactions with their
local communities. That presence could be better optimized and leveraged to promote better sanitation
awareness and demand. DHOs and DHIs could serve as reliable resources on both a proper, minimum
standard latrine design and set of materials, as well as options of local suppliers and service providers to
assist in building or improving a latrine. Providing DHOs and DHIs with pamphlets or posters from public-
44
private coordinated efforts could also help to increase awareness of available options for household
sanitation and aid local suppliers in advertising their services.
Finally, incorporating proper incentives among supply chain actors could help support increased
communication and marketing across the supply chain. Establishing incentives for increased sales of
products, services, and referrals could help supply chain actors better understand the interdependencies
within the supply chain. This, in turn, could encourage them to cross-promote the services of other
suppliers and providers so as to create greater overall demand within the sector and benefit all players.
7.6 Post-installation service
7.6.1 Current status
The study found little evidence of widespread pit emptying service provision within the study districts.
Based off conversations with the Pit Emptiers Association in Kampala, one other independent pit
emptying business located in Arua district was identified.19 Both operations offered truck-based
emptying services, although the Kampala-based association did mention they compete with
“scavengers” who empty some small pits by hand with buckets and then dump the waste elsewhere
indiscriminately.20 Each pit emptier respondent noted that they service household latrines, but that
much of their business came from larger institutions such as schools or hotels, or from wealthier
households with septic tanks or improved latrines. The emptying businesses offer services across a
broad geographic region, but costs for pit emptying seem to be based upon not only the volume of
waste hauled away, but also the distance the pit emptier must travel. Both respondents indicated that
they do not engage in active promotion of their businesses, but that there was sufficient demand for
their services to keep their businesses intact.
7.6.2 Constraints: Little awareness and demand for services
Masons in Uganda do not offer latrine services such as emptying, cleaning, maintenance, or repairs, and
many mentioned that they are uninterested in offering this, and have not been called upon to do so. It
seems common practice with basic latrine designs that when one fills up or falls into disrepair, most
households will simply construct a new one rather than investing in upkeep. In addition, many
interviewees mentioned that most latrine emptying trucks come from the capital city of Kampala, and
this service is not offered locally. In short, there appears to be little demand for latrine servicing, but
part of this may be due to households not knowing of the importance of it, or of any entities that might
provide such services. It could also be a result of average pit depths across much of the country. Pits dug
15 feet deep (or more) do not require much servicing as they take extremely long periods of time to fill.
While such an approach may eliminate an extra consideration of and cost for servicing to households, it
is not completely clear whether that savings outweighs the cost households must pay to dig such deep
pits in the first place. This represents another break in the sales process for a complete end-to-end
improved latrine solution, but also suggests an opportunity for an additional service industry and
19
The Arua pit emptier respondent did mention that he was one of four different single-truck pit emptying businesses operating in Arua district and servicing surrounding districts as well as communities across the border in Sudan. 20
However, it was unclear where these smaller pit emptying operators focus their efforts.
45
revenue streams for masons, or at the very least, for a more formal referral service opportunity. With a
more reasonable standard for pit depths, additional demand and opportunities for pit servicing could
help drive further market growth and investment in the sector and provide options that might be more
cost-effective to households (e.g., in terms of their economics, safety, and health) in the long run than
digging deep, expansive, and expensive pits every seven to ten years.
7.6.3 Opportunity: Supportive peripheral services
Establishing a market to deliver improved sanitation products and services brings with it a need for
ongoing peripheral services. A household latrine market need not stop at pit digging and slab
construction. Opportunities remain untapped, for example, to offer subsequent latrine servicing and
additional improvements to latrine owners. Although a few independent latrine emptying businesses do
exist, neither their opportunity nor that of the latrine servicing segment appears to have been fully
realized. Part of the difficulty in generating successful latrine servicing to date seems to come from the
diverse household sanitation solutions found across the target population. Without an established and
uniform latrine design, prospective pit emptying businesses are limited in how they can design their
service model and pricing structure to reach a large enough proportion of the population to be
successful. Furthermore, they are unable to aggregate demand to keep their costs low. Better product
design and vertical integration of latrine suppliers, therefore, should also integrate opportunities for
additional service aspects to meet the full set of needs of latrine owners and create a broad range of
business prospects to sustain the market.
7.7 Financing
7.7.1 Current status
Only hardware shop owners referenced having pursued any formal means of financing to assist in
growing their business. Half of the hardware shop respondents mentioned taking loans from commercial
banks either currently or in the past. When it comes to offering credit to their customers, however, only
those customers that hardware shop owners trust and interact with regularly receive informal credit on
purchases. Even so, the owners that said they offered credit to their customers also noted that it is often
difficult to collect payments.
Similarly, masons only offer the option for installment payments to their most trusted and common
customers, and also experience troubles in collecting those payments. Masons, however, often require a
deposit payment upfront, and then allow for installment payments for the remaining balance. Quoted
initial deposits that masons require range from 20 to 50 percent of the total project cost. Given the
primarily labor-focused aspect of their work, none of the masons interviewed referenced having sought
out loans from formal financial institutions for their business.
Use of formal or informal financial products appears somewhat mixed at the household level, but overall
remains quite low across the country as noted in Table 9. Nearly every household in the field survey said
they had paid for something via installments before. However, six of the eight households noted having
no past interaction with any MFI. This suggests a reliance on more informal financing options to increase
the affordability of certain items, and also correlates to census data regarding access to financial outlets
and past history of engaging with loan products. One of the common reasons cited for not interacting
46
with MFIs was a concern regarding land or asset seizure by the MFI, a perceived consequence of not
being able to repay loans.
While as many as 25 MFIs currently operate in Uganda, there do not appear to be any broadly offering
loans geared specifically towards household latrines or the needs of low-income families, as noted
above from the 2007 USAID study. MFIs such as UGAFODE and FINCA offer consumer product loans (i.e.,
non-income generating loans), loans for school fees, and small business loans. The amounts and terms
of these loans vary from as little as UGX 100,000 (approximately US$40) paid back over one to three
months, to over UGX 20 million (approximately US$10,000) paid back over 36 months. UGAFODE offers
home improvement loans to individual households, which could provide for household sanitation
improvements, but latrines are not the sole focus of the loan products. If an MFI were to make loan
products available for household sanitation, they must also offer them with appropriate terms. One to
three months to pay back a loan of UGX 250,000 (about US$100) can be a stretch for a family only
earning UGX 125,000 (about US$50) per month. Longer periods of six months to one year (at a
minimum) that maintain reasonable interest rates are necessary to reduce the monthly payment
amounts to households and make microfinance more attractive for accessing household sanitation
solutions.
One savings and credit cooperative organization (SACCO) relayed many of the same structures and
policies as MFIs. The Mpigi Self Support SACCO Ltd is a member-based organization serving communities
in Mpigi district. The SACCO offers products such as school loans, business loans, and agriculture loans
with interest rates varying from 3.5 to 10 percent per month. However, they do not offer any loan
specific to household sanitation or to home improvement outside of incoming-generating construction
loans (e.g., construction of a commercial rental property or a house to be rented out). When asked
about the potential for creating a loan for household sanitation, the response from the SACCO as well as
other MFIs was that there would first be a need to research the viability of such a project.
7.7.2 Constraints: Affordability, access, and attitudes
Issues around affordability apply not only to the relatively high costs involved in latrine construction, but
also to the current inability of households to break those costs into reasonable and manageable outlays
of money. Households encounter constraints in the prices they must pay for labor and supplies, and
seem to have a disinterest in or lack of awareness of consumer loans. Conversely, suppliers face
constraints in their lack of connection to financial products to build their business or to offer their
customers.
Discussions with households indicate that the desire for an improved latrine exists, but they seem
resigned to the fact that fulfilling that desire is impossibile. When asked what households like most
about their latrine, they stated that “it serves its purpose” or that there is nothing they like about it, but
their situation “is a fact of life based on their level of poverty.” When asked what they would like to
have, many cited that they desire a solution that is durable, private, easier to clean, safe from fear of
collapse, comfortable to use, and aesthetically-pleasing. The desire for an improved latrine is definitely
there, but the appropriate solution is not.
47
The financial barrier likely reflects a constraint to building the desired latrine rather than a simple
latrine. It may also reflect a misinformed perception of high cost, as found in many rural settings where
local information, opportunities, and access to latrine building materials, designs, and good technical
information about actual costs is relatively poor (USAID 2007). Examining some of the costs for latrine
construction quoted by masons seems to confirm the perceptions of households that improved
sanitation options are beyond their financial means (Appendix D). Not including transportation or pit
emptying, masons in Amuria quoted total latrine construction costs that ranged from UGX 2,000,000 to
almost 3,000,000. This is an outrageously expensive price in any market, but it is especially unrealistic
considering 36.4 percent of households in the Northern region earn less than UGX 50,000 per month
(UBOS 2010). Even if the lowest estimate cited in this study—about UGX 350,000 in Tororo district—is
accurate, the price is still a stretch for many rural households.21
When households were asked what an improved latrine would cost them, most quoted a minimum of
UGX 300,000, but others were unwilling or unable to calculate the cost. Households in Amuria estimated
the highest total costs, ranging from UGX 1,000,000 to UGX 2,000,000. One household estimated a total
latrine cost of UGX 1,000,000, which at his income of UGX 30,000 per month, would take him over 33
months to afford, assuming he had no other expenses. Masons seem to be well aware that households
cannot afford these costs for improved latrines and instead focus their energy on obtaining government
and school construction contracts, which provide a much more reliable and steady source of income for
them.
Access to capital is a primary concern across the supply chain. Nearly all hardware shops said they
wanted to grow their business but lacked access to capital. The pit emptying respondents stated the lack
of capital to fund sales and marketing as a major constraint to the growth of their business (i.e., some
are able to finance only the hard assets—trucks). In short, banks will not lend to these types of “high-
risk” businesses without some evidence of financial or operational stability.22
Both masons and hardware stores stated that offering credit to clients is a necessity to obtain and
secure business, but presents a unique set of challenges. When masons are hired for construction jobs,
they are often only able to collect an initial deposit of 20 to 50 percent prior to breaking ground. Masons
have a fear of offering credit to households for the remaining balance of construction costs and appear
to only extend this offer to those who are deemed reliable and hold a lucrative job (e.g., a teacher).
Masons claim to accept payments via installments out of necessity, but admit they have difficulty
collecting those payments. The struggle to collect full payment hinders their ability to fully pay their
workers, obtain additional material stocks, and take on additional work or contracts.
Hardware stores often mentioned that their cost of goods is increasing and they have the challenge of
explaining price increases to their customers. In addition to the effects of country-wide inflation,
manufacturers have told them that production costs are increasing due to forces out of their control,
21
The USAID supply assessment notes that “spending UGX 150,000 is considered a large investment for a poor farming family (USAID 2009). 22
In its interview business-support agency Captiva mentioned that most of the businesses they were working with needed to raise capital, but lacked the tools to convince a formal lender to grant it to them (i.e., the businesses needed help in building a financial model or in writing a business plan).
48
such as rising electricity costs. Many also mentioned the desire to go straight to the factory for reduced
prices, but that this requires additional upfront investment for bulk orders. If a hardware store does not
have enough working capital to fully stock their shelves, they often face the need to purchase the
material at the retail price at another store on behalf of their customer, thus increasing their operating
costs and reducing already crunched margins.
Access to financing and perceptions of the risks of taking on loans appear to be prominent issues among
households as well. The demographic data demonstrate the lack of access most rural households have
to formal financial institutions, as well as the limited number of households who have applied for
structured loan products as shown in Table 8 and Table 9 above. While many of the households had
some sort of experience with paying for household items through more informal installments (e.g., for
school fees) and were comfortable with this arrangement, they expressed no interest in taking a loan
from an MFI or referenced an aversion to the consequences—whether real or perceived (e.g., property
seizure)—of not being able to repay an MFI loan.
For example, when households were asked if they would be willing to purchase a latrine priced at
approximately UGX 300,000, most seemed interested, but said that they could not pay this amount in
one sum. When asked about doing so via installments, they were willing to consider this option and said
they could pay anywhere from UGX 3,000 (US$1) up to UGX 20,000 (US$8) per month over a period of
several years. Even for a loan of US$40 with interest, which some MFIs noted they make for other
products, a maximum monthly payment of US$8 per month would require more than a three-month
term based upon the feedback received from households in the survey. However, one MFI mentioned
that they would require a maximum three-month payback for such a loan (which would mean more
than UGX 100,000 per month on the proposed latrine price point). This underscores the critical need for
better loan terms from MFIs. Loan terms from the SACCO did have some flexibility, with repayment
terms ranging from four months to two years and loan sizes from UGX 300,000 to a maximum of UGX 5
million. However, borrowers are expected to have saved 20 percent of the money they wish to receive
through a loan as a prequalification for approval. At the minimum loan level of UGX 300,000, this
represents a “downpayment” of UGX 60,000 which could still take several months for a poor, rural
household to save.23
Most households said they were not interested when they were asked about interacting with an MFI or
bank to secure a loan to help pay, and many expressed fears of seizure of their land or assets even
though this may not be the norm. For example, the Mpigi Self Support SACCO mentioned that while
borrowers sometimes register their assets against their loans, confiscation of borrowers’ property is on
a very small scale and is used only as a last resort. Still, this issue seems to point to a disconnection
between how households view taking on debt and the different options, formal and informal, for doing
so. An opportunity may then exist to better educate consumers about how to responsibly use debt to
reduce their level of poverty.
23
However, this is also part of the Mpigi Self Support SACCO’s overall goal—to encourage their members to save. All members of the SACCO are taught about “the saving culture” in order to encourage responsible financial management.
49
7.7.3 Opportunity: Increased access to financing
Small businesses cannot succeed without working capital, and consumers cannot hope to consider or
prioritize important purchases that fall outside of their limited budgets without access to financing. The
Uganda household sanitation market constraints across the value chain emphasize the necessity for
increased access to financial products at both the supplier and consumer level.
There is a considerable need for better overall coordination of financing within the household sanitation
distribution and service delivery sector in Uganda. If suppliers hope to focus or expand their business to
capitalize on providing household sanitation products and services, they most likely will require
additional inputs of physical capital. Part of the difficulty in obtaining working capital for small
entrepreneurs in the sector, however, is the level of risk involved. Financial institutions need to fully
understand and assess the types of loans small businesses request of them. In the case of household
sanitation, however, banks and MFIs appear to know very little because small businesses such as
hardware shops and masons lack the interest or ability to characterize and communicate the market
opportunity. Similarly, financial institutions struggle to provide any latrine-specific loans to consumers
(separate from home improvement loans) because no standardized latrine product exists around which
they might design a loan option. Where “consumer” loan options do exist, they are not appropriately
designed to fill the needs of low-income households (i.e., relatively short repayment terms create
monthly payments that are still too large) or increase latrine uptake.
By creating more opportunities for generating awareness about household sanitation products and
business opportunities among financial institutions, the entire value chain can benefit from increased
access to working capital. In addition, supply chain actors can better learn how to responsibly take on
and utilize debt. Likewise, consumers can become more educated regarding the types of financial
products available to them (including the terms and conditions), which might aid in dispelling some of
the current negative perceptions around loans. Programs building better access to finance have shown
success in both household water treatment and household sanitation in other settings, and have the
potential for application in Uganda (Box 5).
50
While there is precedent in other countries for financing to play a successful role in the provision of
sanitation products and services for both the household and supply-side, it may be unrealistic to expect
MFIs to invent these types of loan products themselves in Uganda. Several things will need to happen
for it to become a possibility:
1. An appropriately standardized sanitation product must be created. A formal financing scheme
through which households can purchase a sanitation solution cannot be created until there is a
standard latrine product to which this financing can be attached.
Box 5. Building new linkages for financial products in the water and sanitation sector.
For many households in developing countries, sanitation interventions provide education about the need to follow proper sanitation practices and generate demand for a latrine product. However, for lower-income households or those with irregular income streams, a purchase of a latrine may still be out of reach. These households may generate enough income to pay for a latrine, just not in one lump sum at the time of installation. As a result, a program allowing these households to finance the purchase of a latrine over time could greatly expand access to sanitation solutions and drive uptake of latrine products.
Actors in the sanitation supply chain face a related challenge. Programs such as community-led total sanitation (CLTS) and sanitation marketing can drive consumer demand for latrine products, and technical support can assist suppliers in the manufacturing and distribution of products to meet this demand, but lack of capital to support the growth of the business is a limiting factor. For local entrepreneurs seeking to enter the latrine business this can either create a barrier to entry (as the entrepreneur may be unable to make the necessary investment up front) or severely inhibit the growth of the business (as scale is limited to what can be financed out of profits).
In response to this need and in an effort to increase access to latrine products and support the rapid scale-up of sanitation solutions in Cambodia, PATH has partnered with International Development Enterprises (iDE) to develop financing programs for:
1. Consumers: Product financing—through microfinance institutions (MFIs)—to allow lower-income households or households with irregular income streams to purchase a latrine.
2. Supply-chain actors: Working capital and/or inventory financing to allow local entrepreneurs and others in the supply chain to maximize scale by ramping up production and distribution efforts more quickly and cost-effectively.
PATH began this program with a rapid assessment of the need and demand for financial services in the sanitation space, both for consumers and suppliers. The assessment indicated that, similar to the situation in Uganda, there is a tremendous need for access to capital by suppliers and for more manageable payments for latrines by households. It also indicated a range of payment terms that are acceptable and affordable to households and suppliers that present an appropriate risk/return profile for financing partners.
Armed with this information, PATH developed partnerships with two MFIs in order to launch sanitation financing activities in Kampong Speu and Prey Veng provinces. The model utilizes the MFI channel to pair MFI partners with latrine businesses selling the iDE Easy Latrine. Working with local village chiefs and key opinion leaders to bring together groups of households, salespeople for each latrine business are working closely with credit officers from the MFI to sell latrines to these households through installment payments.
While it is currently too early to report results of these pilots, the program was modeled on a very successful water filter financing approach in Cambodia that generated significant product uptake, 100 percent loan repayment by households, and the subsequent scale-up of the model by supplier and MFI partners to the rest of the country.
51
2. Sanitation businesses themselves must be standardized, coordinated, and aligned. A financing
organization cannot and will not finance a fragmented, one-off, unreliable supply chain that
cannot create products at scale.
3. Finally, a centralized organization must unify these two efforts and demonstrate to financing
organizations, such as MFIs, that sanitation loan products can be administered profitably within
appropriate risk/return profiles. This will require an organization to catalyze this program and
demonstrate to financing organizations (through pilots and potential loan guarantees) that such
a program can be made to work and is appropriate for scale.
If Uganda were able to follow this prescription, the potential to open up sanitation products and
services to lower-income households is significant.
7.8 Macro- and local-environment issues affecting the development of a household
sanitation market
7.8.1 Current status
Within the public-sector realm, the Government of Uganda is committed to achieving the Millennium
Development Goals and has incorporated many of these targets in its National Poverty Eradication
Action Plan and the new National Development Plan. Several policy documents have also been written
and are at various levels of implementation, such as the Health Sector Strategic Plan II 2005, the
National Health Policy and Health Sector Strategic Plan III 2010, the Improved Sanitation and Hygiene
Promotion Financing Strategy, the Kampala Declaration on Sanitation of 1997, and the Environmental
Health Policy of 2005.
The government’s overall policy objectives for the water and sanitation sector are “to provide
sustainable provision of safe water within easy reach and hygienic sanitation facilities…to 77 percent of
the population in rural areas and 100 percent of the urban population by the year 2015 with an 80–90
percent effective use and functionality of facilities” (UMoH 2006).
Policies and legislation play an important role in influencing the context within which sanitation
marketing operates (USAID 2007). However, despite Uganda’s rich policy context with various
regulations, declarations, and legal instruments intended to achieve its health and sanitation objectives
has failed to translate into tangible sanitation or health outcomes. Inadequate resources, high levels of
poverty, inadequate awareness and poor enforcement of public health by-laws are major challenges
that have affected the implementation of environmental health strategies (UMoH 2010).
Some challenges cited with the current policies are that they contain few mentions of, or support for,
sanitation marketing, specifically. The concept of “sanitation marketing” is new in Uganda, and as such,
is likely to require sustained investment, education, and advocacy to become a truly effective, widely-
applied approach for increasing access to improved sanitation among rural households.24 Fortunately,
24
It is important to note that “sanitation marketing” itself lacks a standard definition within the global sanitation sector. Stakeholders may employ too broad a definition of this term to provide enough detail for encouraging private-sector participation, as commercial entities often have a very different idea of what “marketing” should and does entail.
52
this need has been highlighted in the 10-Year Improved Sanitation and Hygiene (ISH) Financing Strategy
from 2006. The ISH advocates private-sector-driven approaches, such as sanitation marketing and
public-private partnerships, as the most affordable and sustainable, which should help to ensure
inclusion of the private sector in current and future sanitation market development efforts (The Water
Dialogues 2008).
7.8.2 Constraints: Alignment with market/local government needs, inflation
Multiple macro-environment factors have hampered the creation of a household sanitation industry in
Uganda to varying degrees. Regulatory policies can have direct effects (both positive and negative) on
how households and the market react to household sanitation provision, and infrastructure issues such
as access to and reliability of electricity and road networks can indirectly influence the costs and quality
of products and services across the value chain. Some of these factors can be addressed through
shorter-term interventions, while others may warrant a long-term advocacy and policy strategy. In the
end, a supportive policy environment is critical to building and sustaining a household sanitation
commercial market.
As noted above, Uganda has a very active policy environment for sanitation—a sign of strong political
will for improving sanitation within the country, and a critical foundational need for further efforts. The
primary shortfalls within the realm of public-sector support are the lack of an authoritative home for
sanitation regulation and a specific guiding policy (The Water Dialogues 2008). Other challenges include
the decentralization of implementation from national to sub-national or district level which is said to
reduce the political will and support for sanitation. Linking water and sanitation as one sector is also said
to undermine support for sanitation-specific issues for funding or policy considerations.
Beyond the needed centralization of policy is the need to coordinate and focus implementation efforts
toward more market-based approaches and models. NGOs and local organizations have built some
capacity for household sanitation provision within targeted areas of the country, but local community
recipients of sanitation marketing programs may resort to employing informal, passive strategies,
resulting in only marginal long-term progress. Thus, actors within the value chain do not have enough
time or support to fully develop into sustainable providers of products and services. Greater support
from the national and local level and coordination with both NGO and smaller, private-sector players
could help to lay a firmer foundation from which to grow a more solid household sanitation market.
However, proper alignment of public-sector entities and policies is only one aspect of creating an
enabling environment for market provision of household sanitation. A solid understanding of business
principles and methods, especially among supply chain actors and small entrepreneurs, must exist in
order to capitalize on any such public-sector support, demonstrate the opportunity, and foster the
growth of entrepreneurial activity. Low coordination among public-sector stakeholders has slowed the
development of wide-scale education and training initiatives for entrepreneurs in rural areas. Given
some of the challenges in education levels within the country, this lack of access to additional training
prevents potential entrepreneurs and other providers who may wish to engage in the sanitation sector
from doing so.
53
At the local level, the Uganda Public Health Act mandates that all households have a latrine, but the
depth and breadth of enforcement is unknown. Unfortunately, this has created an environment where
many households’ top concern is to have something installed to meet the requirement. More often than
not, this equates to a makeshift, unimproved latrine built from whatever meager budget or physical
resources a household has at the time. Regular household latrine enforcement varies by district across
the country, primarily due to constrained resources at the district level, and the inability of district
health inspectors (DHIs) to reach their assigned communities on a recurrent basis. This leads to
inconsistency in households’ expectations of enforcement and can create a mixed sense of urgency and
prioritization around sanitation, which in turn can affect levels of demand and the market’s ability to
respond appropriately.
DHIs interviewed in the field surveys also expressed concerns about the lack of coordination between
local government and local suppliers beyond small-scale, short-term sanitation programs. DHIs in
Tororo, Bushenyi, and Mpigi mentioned that few linkages currently exist between service providers such
as masons and materials suppliers which make it difficult for the DHIs to act as resources to households
seeking improved sanitation solutions. In addition, a few DHIs noted that they struggle with
understanding the roles of key stakeholders within the sanitation sector at the local level, which affects
their ability to influence initiatives aimed at increasing access to sanitation products and services.
Additionally, DHIs in Bushenyi and Mpigi noted that significant sanitation uptake in their districts only
resulted from projects involving subsidies to increase affordability, but these projects had since ceased
and uptake had fallen off. This seems to point to the need to identify more sustainable ways to find
affordable solutions for rural households that local officials can help to promote and support through
coordinated, informed efforts with local suppliers.
Finally, households, hardware stores, masons, and manufacturers all mentioned inflation as one of their
chief concerns as they look to the future. Prices and interest rates are climbing and uncertainty
regarding economic stability is negatively affecting an already weak lending culture. In addition, rising
inflation continues to drive up production and consumer prices on latrine components. Hardware stores
make very low margins on their latrine products, and so any increase in their cost from the
manufacturer or distributor must be absorbed somewhere along the supply chain. In the case of
household latrines, this additional cost is often passed along to consumers, who quickly find themselves
priced out of safer sanitation solutions for their families.
7.8.3 Opportunity: Supportive regulatory and policy environment for sanitation market
development
A strong enabling environment must provide the right balance of regulatory and public-sector support
without stifling market entry, competition, and prosperity. Commodity prices and quality of
infrastructure services, such as electricity, play important roles in allowing markets to work, and
respondents from large supply-chain players (e.g., major manufacturers) highlighted these issues as key
constraints to their operations. However, such factors require more extensive intervention and will take
time to resolve. Meanwhile, immediate opportunities exist to bring about more reasonable and properly
aligned household latrine regulations that would support the development of efficient sanitation
54
provision. For example, the study findings seem to point towards the need for a re-examination of
current requirements for the depth of latrine pits and the cost burden those requirements place on
individual households. Evaluating a more appropriate latrine pit expectation and the corresponding
costs, paired with a standardized design, could quickly consolidate the information necessary to build
sufficient awareness of appropriate sanitation solutions on both the supply and demand sides of the
value chain. Development of proper incentives—financial or otherwise—could also assist in stimulating
increased market involvement by large supply-chain players or formal financial institutions, and better
interaction between smaller suppliers and service providers. Incentives could come in the form of tax
breaks, risk capital for the creation of new loan products, or access to vocational or business training
programs. Such crucial, complementary roles for public-sector involvement can drive the market
forward while still providing a sufficient level of governance to ensure that all households have access to
safe sanitation solutions.
At the local level, better support may be attainable simply by creating stronger ties between DHIs and
local suppliers. For example, helping DHIs assemble better information (e.g., a database of local
suppliers, resources outlining clearly defined roles for sanitation provision or required materials for
latrines) about the supply chain actors in their communities and then encouraging engagement with
those entities could allow DHIs to serve as key resources for their communities as well as points of
promotion and advertising. This would also allow DHIs to maintain some awareness about the needs of
various suppliers and service providers to know where additional resources (e.g., training, better
infrastructure, streamlined incentives) might be requested from district or national government levels.
8.0 Recommendations for strengthening/developing market delivery for the
private-sector This study underscores a significant opportunity to leverage the current basic latrine coverage to grow
business opportunities for household sanitation provision and improvement. Many households in
Uganda do not necessarily lack awareness about the need for a latrine, but do need better latrine
products and services delivered through more efficient and cost-effective means. Thus, organizations
such as WSP may wish to consider a shift from broad, generalized approaches to focusing on more
catalytic activities to stimulate market development, alignment, and linkages to build stronger
household sanitation delivery mechanisms.
While opportunities exist within every portion of the value chain, it should be understood that focusing
a potential solution on only one link within the chain will likely bring only limited success. The key is to
prioritize the opportunities at hand and integrate them into a model that addresses gaps across the
entire value chain. Initially, this process may require sacrificing scale until success is proven, but the end
goal should be sustainability of the solution over initial reach. Providing a solution that can fill all the
gaps across the value chain is most critical to ensure lasting impact. While challenges exist in terms of
supply chain integration, infrastructure limitations, lack of awareness and demand, and inadequate
financial resources, the opportunities for market creation around household sanitation in Uganda are
promising with the right mix of patience, iteration, and targeted support.
55
8.1 Focus on standardizing latrine requirements and components
As the study findings point out, a significant need exists for creating clearer definitions for household
latrines and their components. A minimum product standard and design accepted across the
stakeholder community would allow for better engagement with value chain entities to explore how to
provide solutions that meet (or exceed) that specific threshold. A common latrine standard would
educate and subsequently allow market actors and small entrepreneurs to create specialized products
and services to meet differing needs for product, price, and availability depending upon the
communities they serve. This standard would also allow for supply chain aggregation around that design
in a way that could create significant efficiencies, drive up supplier margins (thereby encouraging entry
into the sanitation business), and drive down prices to the end consumer (increasing affordability and,
ultimately, uptake of sanitation products). Finally, as noted above, setting a standard for household
latrines would help to catalyze the creation of a latrine “brand” that could be properly and extensively
marketed to a broad number of households through an established and integrated network of suppliers
at an appropriate price point. Such a product would also open the door for testing financing options,
increasing the affordability to low-income households, and improving access and use of safe sanitation
solutions.
8.2 Target the right supply chain actors
Box 3 (page 29) illustrates that suppliers who recognize and wish to capitalize on the opportunity to
provide better sanitation products and services exist in Uganda. The key is finding them and then
concentrating on providing the resources and tools they need to be successful at scale. Identifying gaps
in the capacity of the supply chain, such as sales skills or access to capital, and focusing technical
assistance objectively and efficiently is critical to the success of a market-based solution to sanitation
challenges. Not all links in the supply chain are worthy of support, and resources to build capacity are
limited. Therefore, these resources should be focused on actors who provide the greatest potential
return on investment. WE Concrete is a good example of a small business that has begun to build a solid
model for meeting the need for household sanitation, although they still lack the capacity (both in skills
and capital) to drive down their costs and expand their operations further. Identifying these types of
entrepreneurs and then targeting efforts to help build their operations has the potential to lead to much
greater long-term impact than broad training or capacity-building programs that do not recognize the
strengths and limitations of participants. This process takes time and iteration, as programs in Tanzania
and Cambodia can attest to. Even targeted entrepreneurs are not all guaranteed to succeed, and
approaches to identifying the right ones and building their capacity need tweaking.25 Still, patient,
diligent, and focused efforts can build solid results and germinate a sustainable market where other
more general interventions have shown slow progress.
25
For example, WSP’s Total Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing (TSSM) program in Tanzania initially focused on selecting and training high-potential individuals as latrine slab masons. However, after a few months of implementation, WSP found that sales were not as high as expected and that many masons simply were not good salespeople. Thus, they have begun to focus on building the capacity of specific hardware shop owners to aggregate masons and provide slab building services in cooperation.
56
8.3 Enable and encourage financing mechanisms
A common refrain across all stakeholders in the supply chain was the need to access capital to expand
their businesses. In addition, while many did not state this directly, capital would allow for increased
efficiencies in the supply chain by enabling bulk purchasing and batch processing. The challenge is that
most financial institutions are not currently willing to loan to fragmented, informal suppliers, nor will
they lend uncollateralized funds. This prevents many businesses from supporting the necessary
marketing activities to drive demand, as “marketing” is not the kind of hard asset against which funds
can be loaned. For households, irregular income streams and low savings make most sanitation products
unaffordable. They face a challenge similar to supply chain actors, as most financing organizations are
not willing to lend them funds without collateral. This required guarantee then prevents households
from borrowing as they are overly averse to the potentially negative consequences of non-payment. A
program is needed that is designed to demonstrate to both lenders and borrowers that sanitation
financing can work. This would require pilot tests of financing programs, capacity building in both supply
chain and financing partners (to overcome inevitable early challenges), and possibly loan guarantees to
entice lenders to participate in early efforts to vet and develop a financing model.
8.4 Align partners across the public-private-NGO spectrum Better coordination and alignment between public-sector and NGO efforts and private-sector inputs to
household sanitation provision is necessary to enable these recommendations and other opportunities
stemming from the study. Key private-sector players currently operate under a strategy of primarily
supplying sanitation product orders to NGOs without any further involvement in commercial
distribution, sales, or communication efforts. Meanwhile, public-sector awareness and distribution
efforts often lack the branding and commercial inputs to help build and sustain demand for household
sanitation solutions. Finally, government regulation, guidelines, and incentive structures are often
misaligned with the ultimate goal of bringing safe sanitation to more Ugandan households. Encouraging
more public-private-NGO sector collaboration down to the local level will help boost the impact of
sanitation campaigns and market development activities, as well as cultivate consumer knowledge and
awareness of sanitation options necessary to drive demand.
8.5 Potential business model
8.5.1 Design
Given the similarities between the current household sanitation sector in rural and small towns in
Uganda and the sector in Cambodia prior to the implementation of iDE’s Sanitation Marketing program,
This study would suggest piloting a similar business model at a small scale in Uganda. Using the
Sanitation Marketing program as a template, the Government of Uganda could build a comparable
approach with the inclusion of a consumer and supplier financing mechanism to encourage better start-
up efficiency among supply chain actors as well as increased access to improved latrine products made
available through the business model. The model would address the critical gaps across the value chain,
and when tested in one or two locations (i.e., districts), would allow for iteration and design for
sustainability and eventual scale-up.
57
Location should be a primary consideration for project implementation. Success will likely hinge on
selecting a geographic setting in which the environment is conducive to a wide variety of potential
latrine designs, including physical access to supplies or materials and a large enough target market to
allow for sustained sales and service models. It may also be necessary to choose sites where no other
organizations have initiated previous sanitation projects. This could have some negative effects on initial
demand for household sanitation products and services, but operating in an “untouched” region will
allow for the most freedom in terms of business model design and entrepreneur recruitment and
training. Finally, initial site selection must also take into consideration the proximity of raw materials
and appropriate infrastructure to reduce supply chain challenges and focus on gaps in the supply chain
itself in order to hone the model before scaling it in more challenging locations.
Upon selection of one or two implementation sites, the initial phase should consist of a more thorough
landscape analysis of the household sanitation sector in each location. The landscape process should
include an in-depth verification of the current value chain elements, a product scan of current latrine
solutions in use at the household level, engagement with local stakeholders to understand their needs
and links to local supply chain actors, discussions with appropriate financing organizations, and in-depth
consumer surveys to gather information on their current sanitation practices as well as desires and
needs for improved household latrine products and services.
The next step would be to design a specific latrine solution for the local setting. This process would
include both product and service delivery design, and would incorporate input from households as well
as from local suppliers and service providers. The ultimate goal would be to create a simple, easily-
sourced basic latrine similar to iDE’s Easy Latrine around which a full business model could be structured
and delivered through local entrepreneurs. Thus, business model development should occur in tandem
with product design to ensure that supply chain capacity is matched to manufacturing needs, and that
incentives are structured and aligned to encourage integration and coordination between supply chain
actors. The targeted result of this phase of work would be a sanitation business “kit” that encompasses
all the needed elements for local entrepreneurs to initiate and maintain businesses focused on
delivering improved latrines to individual households.
Once product design nears completion, attention should then shift to identifying, recruiting, and training
a small number of local entrepreneurs to initiate promotion, sales, and installation of improved latrine
offerings to rural households in the selected implementation sites. Local partner organizations would
assume the roles of business development and support through provision of sales and marketing
assistance in the form of tools and assets, training of entrepreneurs on aspects of household sanitation
(including specific training around the latrine design and manufacturing process), and coordinating the
logistics of business model roll-out to local communities in each implementation location. As the
implementation effort launches, these partner organizations will then assume the responsibility for
maintaining linkages with each entrepreneur to provide follow-up support and help them address
barriers they face as their business grows.
A critical factor for success of the program will be the inclusion of a financing extension toward both the
entrepreneurs and households who wish to purchase improved latrine products. Once the product and
business model design is complete, financial education and credit programs should be introduced for:
58
1. Consumers: Product financing—through MFI loans or savings and lending groups—to allow lower-income households or households with irregular income streams to purchase a latrine.
2. Supply-chain actors: Working capital and/or inventory financing to allow local entrepreneurs and others in the supply chain to maximize scale by ramping up production and distribution efforts more quickly and cost-effectively.
The sanitation financing program would develop and test multiple ways to increase access and reach
scale. The partners would then document, formalize, and promote the viral adoption of the most
successful models across the scale-up regions.
Lessons learned from similar work in Cambodia as well as secondary and primary data from this
assessment indicate that a certain level of consumer financial education and marketing and lender
stimulation is required to catalyze this market. Consumers often do not know financing options are
available, fear debt, or do not know how to use it wisely. Lenders often lack experience lending to
consumers and need to be convinced that such programs can be logistically feasible and financially
profitable. Partnerships with local financial institutions would build capacity among both consumer
households and supply-chain actors by developing educational programs designed to increase the
awareness and understanding of financing options and how to use debt responsibly.
Furthermore, a financial advisor should be assigned to each region to educate supply-chain actors on
their financial options and how to use credit wisely. Based on knowledge of the supply-chain dynamics
and actors developed through the Sanitation Marketing program, this individual could help each
supplier explore his or her financial options in addition to gaining a better understanding of where the
financial constraints lie in the supply chain (i.e., access to capital, interest rates, loan terms, etc.). In
addition to making connections to MFI financing, the financial advisor would help the supplier explore
the path of least resistance, whether it be a traditional bank loan, inventory financing, or other options.
The financial advisor would also work with the financing partners to coordinate the sale of latrines by
the supplier with the extension of credit to households to support their purchase. The financial advisor
would act as liaison between the suppliers’ latrine sales people and the financing organizations’ loan
officers to ensure the seamless sale and delivery of latrines alongside the efficient processing of loans
and collection of installment payments from households.
To incentivize local MFIs to participate in making sanitation loans, a financing organization (such as the
International Finance Corporation or Kiva) could make soft money funds available to financing
organizations by creating a revolving credit fund. This would be made available to the local financing
organization to allow them to draw upon the fund in order to make loans to consumers and supply-
chain entrepreneurs. For example, funds could be allocated to the MFI partner at reduced rates of
interest as long as the MFI continues to recycle repayments from borrowers into new sanitation-related
loans during and after the project period for an agreed-upon length of time.
8.5.2 Roles
Successful implementation of such a project will require collaboration between multiple organizations in
order to leverage their specific strengths as they relate to each aspect of the project. Overall project
59
coordination could be handled solely by the Government of Uganda, an organization such as WSP, or
other local organization, or by a combination of organizations in partnership. For example, coordination
by WSP could ensure alignment and linkages to MoH strategies for scale-up of improved access to
household sanitation while leveraging WSP’s connections to the larger sanitation network within
Uganda.
Local implementing organizations such as Water for People or World Vision could aid in initiating the
project in each location. The head organization would work in close coordination with these entities to
conduct the landscape activities and engage with local stakeholders and individual households to
understand the sanitation needs specific to each setting. In addition, other players such as iDE could play
a crucial technical advisory role in the latrine design and business model structuring processes. The
experience that iDE gained in building and implementing their Sanitation Marketing program in
Cambodia would allow for efficient guidance and prioritization throughout the early stages of the work
and ensure that the product and business model are appropriate for the local setting and supply-chain
actors.
A business-support agency such as Captiva could be recruited to assist with entrepreneur selection,
training, and support. Captiva could be paired with the local implementing organizations to structure the
logistics for launch of the businesses in each location upon completion of the business training and
build-up activities. As mentioned above, they would also continue to stay engaged with entrepreneurs
throughout the project to help address challenges the entrepreneurs may face in accessing materials,
increasing their sales, or interacting with other supply-chain actors.
As noted above, once the latrine design and business model are determined, financial institutions
should be contacted and recruited to participate in the financing aspects of the project. These may
consist of banks, MFIs, or SACCOs, depending on the location of the project and extent of the business
model structure.
Finally, local stakeholders such as DHOs and DHIs would be necessary to assist in marketing and
promotional activities. They should also serve as primary points of information about improved latrine
products and household sanitation service providers. The local implementing organization and business
support agency should interact closely with local DHOs and DHIs to educate them about the sanitation
solutions made available through each entrepreneur and provide them with promotional materials for
distribution to local communities. In addition, DHOs and DHIs could assist in monitoring and evaluating
the progress of entrepreneurial efforts in each location as well as correct and consistent use of
sanitation facilities at the household level.
8.5.3 Timeline and funding
Given the time and extent of resources required for similar efforts (e.g., by Plan International-Uganda
and iDE in Cambodia), such a project should be designed for implementation over a minimum of three
years. This timeframe would allow for sufficient initial landscaping, business model and product
iteration, and entrepreneurial training, as well as enough run time to assess the success of each
entrepreneur and plan for subsequent scale-up to additional locations.
60
Such an effort would most likely require an initial funding level of approximately US$1.5 million to US$2
million for the entire project period. Costs for subsequent scale-up could be assessed toward the end of
the project based upon the value of each project activity in contributing to the success of each
entrepreneur.
8.6 Other considerations for market-based approaches
Market-based approaches, especially in BOP settings, often need to scale in organic ways. To that end,
three common routes uncovered by the recent Monitor Group report on market-based solutions to
poverty in Africa serve as useful guideposts when considering the opportunities for encouraging
household sanitation market development in Uganda (Kubzansky 2011):
1. Innovate and grow.
2. Replicate, disseminate, and transplant.
3. Leverage and improve.
The “innovate and grow” approach might be considered the typical entrepreneurial route in which
product, payment, sourcing, or distribution innovations fuel market development. Generally, this
approach is most relevant where there is an active private sector but existing business models are not
yet financially sustainable and/or not proven at the BOP level. It is also a relevant approach in cases in
which the effectiveness of an enterprise’s business model has been demonstrated, but it lacks capital to
expand. The second route involves expansion of successful models into new markets, imitation or
replication of successful business models, or transplantation of models into new geographies; it requires
openness of business pioneers to sharing best practices and insights. Finally, the “leverage and improve”
route aims to build upon an established, “installed” base of product and service providers to the BOP.
This is often accomplished through cooperation with government and other key constituencies to
formalize and register enterprises to encourage better aggregation and provide targeted support.
Future market development considerations based upon the opportunities in Uganda should also
incorporate certain fundamental principles for encouraging increased private-sector participation at the
BOP. The first key principle is patience and the need to allow for private-sector incubation. The
disaggregated, localized nature of BOP markets means that private-sector approaches are most efficient
when they initially aim to serve a small geographic area and consumer base. Unfortunately, this
approach is more investment-intensive per unit of output than a larger-scale system, and businesses
cannot replicate without time to grow and sizeable additional inputs of human and financial capital. The
operations of the entire business unit must first be systemized and made routine, which takes time (E.
Simanis, unpublished data, 2011).
The second key principle is the need to build a “margin-boosting platform” around the product or
service that includes a hardware component, a service component, and a software component. The
hardware component should include localized base products that constitute a product bundle, the
service component should entail an enabling service that engages consumers to interact with and
understand the product, and the software component must operate in the background, aggregating and
connecting customer peer groups (E. Simanis, unpublished data, 2011). These components are
particularly important for household sanitation due to the need to offer an end-to-end solution to
61
households that incorporates services such as construction and latrine servicing with the latrine
technology itself.
The proper business models and costs to scale up the above opportunities and recommendations are
difficult to assess based upon the highly qualitative nature of the study. Furthermore, steps such as
determining a common latrine standard must be complete before proper business models and other
enabling services can be incorporated. In looking toward future market development efforts and
opportunities, it will be important to apply patient capital to new household sanitation market
approaches. These inputs need not be in the form of subsidies or grants, but rather applied under real-
world business terms in order to test their viability and foster sustainable market growth. With
coordination, patience, and persistence, the ability to generate a market for household sanitation in
Uganda appears quite promising.
62
9.0 References CIA Uganda country page. CIA World Factbook website. Available at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html . Accessed January 19,
2012.
International Development Enterprises (iDE) Cambodia Sanitation Marketing website. Available at:
http://www.makingsanitationeasy.com/. Accessed June 13, 2012.
Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) data resources and estimates page. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Program for Water Supply and Sanitation website. Available at: http://www.wssinfo.org/data-
estimates/introduction/ . Accessed June 11, 2012.
Kubzansky M, Cooper A, Barbary V. Promise and Progress: Market-Based Solutions to Poverty in Africa.
New York: Monitor Group; May 2011.
Morella E, Foster V, Banerjee SG. Climbing the Ladder: The State of Sanitation in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; 2009.
Nana Development Consultants Limited (NDCL). Assessing the Impact of LeaPPS Action Research in
Kamwenge, Kyenjojo, Aura and Koboko districts: Final report. Kampala, Uganda: NDCL; February 2012.
Network for Water and Sanitation (NETWAS) Uganda website. Available at:
http://www.netwasuganda.org/. Accessed June 11, 2012.
Rosenboom JW, Jacks C, Phyrum K, Roberts M, Baker T. Sanitation Marketing in Cambodia. Waterlines.
2011;30(1):21–40.
The Water Dialogues. The Uganda Water and Sanitation Dialogues: Reviewing the institutional
framework for sanitation in Uganda. September 2008. Available at:
http://www.waterdialogues.org/documents/ReviewingtheinstitutionalframeworkforSanitationinUganda
The.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and Macro International, Inc. Uganda Demographic Health Survey
(DHS) 2006. Calverton, MD, USA: UBOS and Macro International; 2007. Available at:
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR194/FR194.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2011.
UBOS. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011: Preliminary report. Kampala: UBOS; March 2012.
UBOS. Uganda National Household Survey 2005/2006: Report on the Socioeconomic Module. Kampala:
UBOS; December 2006.
UBOS. Uganda National Household Survey 2009/2010: Report on the Socioeconomic Module. Kampala:
UBOS; December 2010.
UBOS. Uganda Population and Housing Census 2002: District reports. Kampala: UBOS; 2002.
Uganda Ministry of Health (UMoH). Health Sector Strategic Plan II: 2005/06–2009/10. Available at:
http://aidsalliance.3cdn.net/e9266246309cee49e2_qbm6bt9wn.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2012.
63
UMoH. Health Sector Strategic Plan III: 2009/10-2014/15. Available at:
http://www.health.go.ug/docs/HSSP_III_2010.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2012.
United Nations. Millennium Development Goals Indicators website. Available at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx. Accessed August 30, 2011.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In-depth Consumer Assessment Report for
Sanitation Marketing Pilot: Tororo District, Uganda. Washington, DC: USAID; May 2009.
USAID. Opportunities for Sanitation Marketing in Uganda. Washington, DC: USAID; 2007.
Water and Sanitation Program (WSP). At-scale Sanitation and Hygiene Implementation Program:
Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: WSP; 2011.
WSP. Uganda] Sector Performance Report. Kampala, Uganda: WSP; 2010. Available at:
http://www.mwe.go.ug/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&Itemid=0&gid=62. Accessed
August 30, 2011.
World Bank Country Indicators website. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/country/uganda.
Accessed January 26, 2012.
World Bank. Gross National Income Per Capita 2010 Data Summary. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2010. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2012.
64
Appendix A: Stakeholders’ interest and influence in community-led total
sanitation (CLTS) and sanitation marketing (SANMARK) in Uganda
Stakeholder Interest Influence Level of support
International organizations and donors
Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) of the World Bank (WB)
Provides technical, advisory and capacity building support to sanitation and hygiene program.
Provides input in sanitation policy formulation and budget allocation to sanitation through the Sector Working Group. WSP/WB is a major partner in providing capacity building for CLTS and SANMARK.
High
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Provides technical input to policies and strategies; and provides technical and financial support for sanitation and hygiene. Has a focal point officer for CLTS.
Has influence on sanitation policy and strategy formulation; and provides technical and financial resources.
High
Austrian Development Cooperation
Provides technical and financial support to the sanitation sector. Has been supporting the promotion of Ecosan under the South-Western Towns Water and Sanitation Project.
Is the lead donor in the sector. Determines the budget allocated to sanitation under the South-Western Towns Water and Sanitation Project.
High
African Development Bank
Provides financial support to sanitation-related activities.
Has influence on provision of financial resources. Is a member of the sector working group that approves sector budget and provides financial support towards sanitation.
High
Germany Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ)
Supports the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE)/Directorate of Water Development (DWD) in improving sanitation services delivery in urban areas. Its promoting SANMARK through support to private sector (Crestanks, Poly fibre and concrete products manufactures) and research institutions.
Has influence in determining the amount of resources it will provide for sanitation.
Moderate
65
Stakeholder Interest Influence Level of support
International Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)
Water Aid Uganda (WAU)
Supports household and school sanitation programs, capacity building, and advocacy for sanitation.
WAU provides substantial resources for sanitation and therefore has influence on the amount of resources to be allocated especially in their area of operation. It also has influence on capacity building efforts for extension staff through the support given. WAU also influences policy through policy studies and monitoring.
Moderate
Plan International –Uganda
Supports Sanitation and Hygiene programs. Uses CLTS and SANMARK is the promotion of sanitation and hygiene.
Plan is providing substantial resources in the implementation of CLTS and SANMARK. It will be crucial in providing resources for advocacy and implementation as well as capacity building in their area(s) of operation.
High
SNV—Netherlands Development Organization
Involved in strengthening the capacity of local actors to execute their roles in sanitation service delivery. It promotes collaborations between the agencies at national and district levels in the promotion of sanitation.
Provides resources for capacity building and policy monitoring. Its role will be critical in capacity building of the stakeholders through supporting learning platforms.
Moderate
Action Against Hunger (ACF)
Promotes household and school sanitation and hygiene in Gulu, Amuru, and Otuke districts. Uses CLTS to promote household sanitation.
ACF influence is limited to the three districts it covers. It provides resources for sanitation and capacity building in the three districts. It will be crucial in providing the much needed financial resources and capacity building for extension staff in their area(s) of operation.
High
Civil Society and Private Sector
Uganda Water and Sanitation Network (UWASNET)
Promotes capacity building of NGOs involved in water, sanitation, and hygiene.
Has influence on policy because of membership in the sector working group; represents NGOs in most fora. Has influence over all water and sanitation NGOs and therefore can contribute to scaling up the approaches.
High
66
Stakeholder Interest Influence Level of support
Health Through Water and Sanitation (HEWASA)
Has high interest in the promotion of household and school sanitation an hygiene Building the capacity of partners in sanitation and hygiene promotion Carrying out research on sanitation and hygiene.
Has influence in Rwenzori region in terms of provision of resources and mobilization through the catholic church.
High
Network for Water and Sanitation (NETWAS)
Has interest in promotion of innovative approaches and technologies for sanitation, knowledge management, and capacity building.
Has influence in piloting approaches. It is currently implementing CLTS.
Moderate
Uganda Muslim Rural Development Association (AMURDA)
Has interest in promoting of household sanitation through CLTS.
Does not have much influence because of lack of resources.
High
Uganda Red Cross Society (URCS)
Has interest in promoting sanitation and hygiene in emergency situations.
Has limited influence except for resource mobilization for sanitation in emergency situations.
Moderate
Crestanks The interest is in manufacture of sanitary products such as plastic septic tanks, hand-washing tanks, etc.
Has influence in marketing of sanitary products. Should be targeted for SANMARK advocacy.
High
Media Has interest in disseminating sanitation information.
Influences public opinion on sanitation.
Low
Sanitation and water consulting company.
Has interest in providing technical services for sanitation.
Has limited influence. Low
67
Appendix B: Sample of Crestanks household sanitation products
Slabs and Plates for Household Use
AquaSanTec offers a range of slabs and plates for household use. Additional information and product
descriptions can be found at:
http://www.kentainers.com/kent/products/products.html
Type of plate Width (cms) Length (cms) Picture
Mobi-Plate Keyhole Design 78 59
Eko-Plate Urine Diversion 78 59
Eko-Plate for sitting 60 50
Eko-Plate for embedding in concrete 45 30
68
Appendix C: Sample of available products and prices from Ugandan hardware shops
This table shows the sales price in UGX (margin in parentheses) for various latrine-building supplies in the five districts surveyed. An X indicates
that the product was offered but the price is unknown.
District Iron bar Wire mesh Bagged cement
PVC Caps PVC Nails (Kg) Iron sheet
Mpigi 30,000 (1,000)
24,000 (1,000)
30,000 (300) N/A X X N/A
Mpigi 30,000 24,000 (2,000)
30,000 (800) X X X (100) 23,000
Tororo N/A N/A X N/A N/A N/A N/A Tororo N/A X X N/A X N/A N/A Bushenyi 28,000
(2,000) 25,000 32,000
(1,000) N/A X X 22,000
Bushenyi 30,000 (1,000)
20,000 (1,000)
31,500 (500-800)
X 25,000 X (100) X (500)
Amuria 23,000 28,000 30,000 N/A 15,000 6,000–7,000 N/A Amuria X (1,500) X (3,000) 30,000
(1,500) N/A X X X
Arua (1,500) (2,000) (500) N/A N/A X X Arua X (1,000–1,500) (300-500) N/A X X X
Other products in limited availability at hardware shops from the field survey included:
Timber
Reinforcement bar
Extended metals
Squat pans
Paint
Binding wire
Toilet plastic sittings
DPC
Bricks
Plywood
Hoes
Wheelbarrows
Ring wire
Ventilators
Barrister
Hoop iron
69
Appendix D: Estimated costs (UGX) of two-stance latrines as quoted by masons in three districts
Amuria Mpigi Bushenyi
Mason 7 Mason 8 Mason 2 Mason 5 Mason 6
# units Unit cost Total # units
Unit cost
Total # units Unit cost
Total # units Unit cost
Total # units
Unit cost
Total
Pit
Pit (average depth) 30 30-40 30-40
0–10 feet 10 4,000 40,000 10 3,000 30,000 10 3,000 30,000
10+ feet 30 5,000 150,000 20 5,000 100,000 20 4,000 80,000
Flat rate 16 7,000 112,000 20 8,000 160,000
Slab
Cement (bag) 20 32,000 640,000 6 30,000 180,000 1 30,000 30,000 20 33,000 660,000 4 33,000 132,000
Bricks 3,000 130 390,000 1,500 150 225,000 500 120 60,000 2,000 150 300,000 1,600 130 208,000
Bricks loading 40,000
Iron bar 6 30,000 180,000 6 22,500 135,000 1 20,000 20,000 10 30,000 300,000 6 30,000 180,000
Wire mesh (8'x4') 2 25,000 50,000 1 24,000 24,000 2 25,000 50,000
Wire mesh (8'x2') 1 30,000 30,000 2 20,000 40,000
Sand (wheelbarrow)
2 80,000 160,000 2 1,000 2,000
Sand (trip) 20,000 2 100,000 200,000 1 100,000 100,000
Sand loading 50,000
Stone (wheelbarrow)
1 160,000 160,000 2 5,000 10,000
Stones (trip) 80,000 1 70,000 70,000
Stones loading 70,000 1 60,000 60,000
Nails (kg) 2 600 1,200
Timber 4 3,000 12,000 10 15,000 150,000 8 10,000 80,000
Wall
Reeds, maize, mud
70
Amuria Mpigi Bushenyi
Mason 7 Mason 8 Mason 2 Mason 5 Mason 6
# units Unit cost Total # units
Unit cost
Total # units Unit cost
Total # units Unit cost
Total # units
Unit cost
Total
Cement 5 30,000 150,000 8 32,000 256,000 8 33,000 264,000
Bricks 800 150 120,000
Roof
Nails (kg) 1 10,000 10,000 1 6,000 6,000 1 8,000 8,000
Nails (kg) 1.5 6,000 9,000
Iron sheet (30 gauge)
6 29,000 174,000 3 29,000 87,000 4 22,000 88,000 4 24,000 96,000 4 23,000 92,000
Timber 6 15,000 90,000 6 15,000 90,000
Timber (4"x2") 4 8,500 34,000 5 8,500 42,500
Timber (3"x2") 3 6,500 19,500 3 6,500 19,500
Hoop irons 10 1,500 15,000
Door
Door 2 100,000 200,000 2 61,250 122,500 2 100,000 200,000 2 70,000 140,000
Latrine/Other
Binding wire (kg) 4 10,000 40,000 1 8,000 8,000 2 5,000 10,000 1 3,000 3,000
PVC pipe 2 15,000 30,000 2 15,000 30,000 2 15,000 30,000
Timber 4 15,000 60,000
Timber (4"x2") 2 8,500 17,000
Ringwire 4 3,500 14,000
Wire nails (6") (kg) 2 8,000 16,000
Wire nails (4") (kg) 2 8,000 16,000
Wire nails (2"x3") (kg)
2 8,000 16,000
Nails (3") (Kg) 0.5 6,000 3,000 1 600 600 1 6,000 6,000
Labor
Daily rate
Flat rate 20% 451,700 450,000 250,000 400,000 500,000
Materials 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
71
Amuria Mpigi Bushenyi
Mason 7 Mason 8 Mason 2 Mason 5 Mason 6
# units Unit cost Total # units
Unit cost
Total # units Unit cost
Total # units Unit cost
Total # units
Unit cost
Total
transportation
Pit emptying service
180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 180,000
TOTAL COST 2,900,200 2,184,500 1,240,600 2,882,000 2,228,200
