TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (Deemed University)

Post Graduate Diploma in WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE

(WASH)

Biswajit Maity

ROLE OF RURAL SANITARY MART (RSM) IN PROVIDING

SANITATION

A Study of Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha Parishad’s

Experience

MENTOR:- PROF. RAMESH SAKTHIVEL, PhD

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

i

CERTIFICATE

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset I would like to express my gratitude to Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha

Parishad for entrusting me to conduct this study.

I would like to place on record my heartfelt thanks to Swami Pranananda – Joint

Director, RKMLP, and Mr. Chandi Charan Dey for their extensive support which

advanced me with basic understanding of the “Supply Chain Management” of RKMLP in

Sanitation sector. The study would not be possible without Mr. Dey’s guidance, planning

and subsequent field arrangement in four districts, viz. East Midnapore, West

Midnapore, Howrah and South 24 PGS.

I am also thankful to the Mr. Ajay Pal A.D.M (Development) and Swastha Karmadhakya

of East Midnapore district for fruitful discussion regarding present status of Sanitation

Movement (Specially NBA)

The District Officer, Mr. Swarup Ranjan Bera-Sanitation Cell, Purba Midnapore Zilla

Parishadhas shared valuable inputs on various aspects related to the study. I would like

to note my thanks to him also.

During field visit, respective RSM’s managers, District Coordinators of concerned district

& Divisional Co-ordinators have accompanied me and helped me to understand the

prevailing supply chain mechanism in the State at ground level. I have visited eight

villages with them covering 160 households. More than that, I also interacted with few

“Village Youth Clubs” and satellite RSMs,discussed with the manager-RSM and other

workers associated with the programme, met Gram Pradhans, Household members,

Teachers & Students in different villages. They have gladly replied all the queries made

in connection with the study and spared their time spontaneously for participating in

the interaction.

I appreciate their co-operative attitude and take the opportunity to thank them.

I would like to thank Dr. S. Peppin (Ex-Dean, TISS), Dr. Reshmi Peppin (Ex-Coordinator,

WASH) and Prof. Bipin Das for their overwhelming support from the beginning of the

work.

Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Ramesh Sakthivel –(Professor, TISS) for his continuous

support and direction as a mentor to complete the study within stipulated time period.

iii

ACRONYMS

ADO (P) Additional Development Officer (Planning)

BCC Behavioural Change Communication

CBO Community Based Organisation

CRSP Central Rural Sanitation Programme

DRDA District Rural Development Authority

FGD Focused Group Discussion

GP Gram Panchayat

IAY Indira Awas Yojna

ICDP Integrated Child Development Programme

IEC Information, Education and Communication

IPC Inter-personal Communication

HH Household

HHL Household level/latrine

HP Himachal Pradesh

M&E Monitoring & Evalution

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment GuranteeAct

NBA Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan

NGO Non Government Organisation

NGP Nirmal Gram Puraskar

OD Open Defecation

PC Production Centre

PPP Purchase Power Parity

PRI Panchayati Raj Institute

R & D Research and Development

RKMLP Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha Parishad

RSM Rural Sanitary Mart

SCM Supply Chain Management

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SHG Self Help Group

SIPRD State Institute of Panchayats and Rural Development

SLWM Solid Liquid Waste Management

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

TSC Total Sanitation Campaign

UN United Nation

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

WQMS Water Quality Monitoring System

CKNOWLEDGEMENT

iv

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Desk Research 4

2.2 Preparatory Study and Discussion 4

2.3 Visits to District’s RSMs and Respective Villages 5

2.4 Tools used for collection of data/information 5

2.5 Household Questionnaire: Latrine Knowledge,

Attitudes and Practices 9

3. OBJECTIVE 11

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 Study Supply-Chain (RSM/PC) 12

4.2 Global scenario of Supply-Chain mechanism in Sanitation 12

4.3 Demand Driven Approach for Sustainability 13

4.4 Sanitation as Business 14

4.5 Supply Chain Concept and Its Relevance to TSC/NBA 14

4.6 TSC/NBA Guidelines in Supply Chain 16

4.7 Sustainability of RSMs/PCs 17

4.8. Reluctance among Government functionaries/ Stake holders 19

4.9 Success story of RSM lead by RKMLP, West Bengal 21

4.10 Need of the study 22

5. RESULT & ANALYSIS

5.1 Activity Analysis 23

5.2 Factors for Sustainability 25

5.3 Operational & Financial viability of RSM/PC 30

5.4 Factors affecting Demand for Toilets: RSMs perspective 31

5.5 Seasonal Demand Forecasting 33

5.6 Analysis on Village level Latrine coverage 34

5.7 Perception about RSM: From villager’s point of view 36

5.8 Incidence of Diarrhoea 37

5.9 Latrine Coverage 37

5.10 Motivational Instrument 38

5.11 Description of Existing Latrine 39

5.12 Categorisation: APL & BPL 41

5.13 Institutional Credibility 42

5.14 Market Analysis 42

5.15 Source of Information 45

5.16 Other Reasons for Success 46

5.17 Scope for Improvement: Analytical view 46

v

6. RECOMMENDATION & CONCLUSION 48

7. REFERENCES 50

8. ANNEXURE I 52

9. ANNEXURE II 56

10. ANNEXURE III 57

11. ANNEXURE IV 61

12. ANNEXURE V 63

List of Figures

1. GP members: Lakshya village, Haldia Block, P. Midnapure 5

2. Marked surveyed Districts 6

3. Action area of RSMs in P. Midnapure 6

4. Action area of RSMs in Pa. Midnapure 6

5. Action area of RSMs in Howrah 7

6. Action area of RSMs in S-24 PGS 7

7. Data collection at household level 7

8. RKMLP accredited Tamralipta Guchha Samity 8

9. FGD in Amreswar village, S-24 PGS 8

10. Integrated Technical Component Sanitation 13

11. Ideal RSM, UP, India 14

12. Faulty construction- Vent pipe on Leach pit, Howrah, W.B 18

13. Latrine using SSP Model in P. Midnapure 21

14. PC in Vivekananda Yuba Parishad (Cluster/RSM), W.B 21

15. SSP Model 25

16. SSP model in BPL family, Pa. Midnapure 26

17. Factors for better performance (RSM) 26

18. Soil & Water Testing Labs in RSM 27

19. Responses from RSM managers regarding Sustainability of RSM 27

20. Retail outlet of SHG made Food products in A.N.P.S 28

21. Toilet up-gradation under NBA & MGNREGA 29

22. Number of Latrine constructed by the RSMs (April – Oct, 2013) 30

23. Annual Turnover (2012-’13) 31

24. Responses from RSM Managers on factor affecting

such of RSM’s demand for toilets 32

25. Trend of Demand for Latrine 33

26. Comparison of W.B performance in view of National overall progress 35

vi

27. Cases of Diarrhoea from respondent HH 37

28. Latrine Coverage 37

29. Type of Latrine built in the study area (I) 39

30. Meeting of Village Youth Club with Mother Committee,

Lokojagaran RSM 40

31. Type of Latrine built in the study area (II) 40

32. Type of Latrine built in the study area (III) 40

33. Latrine constructed APL & BPL families 41

34. Reason for choosing local RSM 42

35. Priority given to various benefits of Latrine by Latrine-owners 44

36. Priority given to various benefits of Latrine by non Latrine-owners 45

37. Source of Sanitation advice 45

38. Knowledge about “Water Table Rising” 46

List of Diagrams

1. Basic Supply System 15

2. Action Plan for a RSM 15

3. Operational Structure of RKMLP 24

List of Tables

1. Demographics of surveyed village 9

2. Comparative List of TSC/NBA Guidelines 17

3. Snapshot of RSM Level questionnaire 23

4. Comparative study about the hardware components used in latrine 29

5. Snapshot of Village survey details 34

6. Snapshot of FGD results with villagers 36

7. List of motivational factors 38

8. Snapshot of Assessment for Toilet affordability 43

9. Household constructed under IAY 47

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMERY

Lack of access to drinking water and

sanitation is perhaps the most passive

and pervasive human rights violation in

the country. Imagine about the day to

day life of approx. 19.5 million rural

people who don’t have access to safe

drinking water. And even we consider,

those (in rural areas) not having access

to water, having partial access to water

and people whose water sources are

contaminated, 77 million Indians come

on the platform, who are facing problem

with his/her water both in quantity or

quality. On sanitation, the situation is

more or less same with same story. Two

out of every three Indians defecates in

the open, more due to constraints than

behaviour. The health burden of

inadequate sanitation is so high that the

country spends more on health than on

direct sanitation provision. And 1.5

million children die of diarrhoea every

year.

This report presents an assessment of

structural and operational functionality

of five; Ramakrishna Mission

Lokasikasha Parishad (RKMLP)

accredited RSMs in two districts of West

Bengal, viz. Purba Midnapure and

Paschim Midnapure and three other

NGO/CBO run RSMs in other two

districts, viz. Howrah and South 24 PGS.

The objective of the study was to

understand perceptions, desires, and

practices regarding latrine use as a basis

for designing interventions to stimulate

demand. Village and household level

interviews and focus group discussions

were conducted in four districts. In total

eight villages and 160 households were

surveyed, including both latrine owners

and non-owners. In addition, eight focus

group discussions were conducted with

eight RSMs including their managing

committee members.

The results of the survey and focus

group discussions provide information

and insights relating to sequential

strategic intervention of RKMLP in

Water Quality Management and overall

sanitation (HHL, Community Level,

School & Anganwadi toilets) in a unique

way unlike other NGOs, which run

“Movement of Toilet Construction”

rather than focusing on Information

Education &Communication activities.

Among the survey population, 96% of

RKMLP led area and 80% of others led

area households own a latrine. The

techniques of interventions are equally

adopted by the other NGOs, with a

difference in objectives.

Latrine ownership was quite common in

RKMLP led areas (Two Midnapures) as

it became their basic need through

extensive and in depth behavioural

change programme, unlike other areas

where it is still based on subsidy

oriented motivational factors.

1

INTRODUCTION

1980-’90 is considered as

“International Water Supply and

Sanitation decade”, designated by

United Nation, which witnessed

enhanced attention towards both the

sectors, viz. Water supply and

Sanitation. An ambitious target of 100

per cent coverage for water, 80 per

cent for urban sanitation and 25

percent of rural sanitation was

decided by the Govt. of India1. But, on

ground, the country was able to

achieve only 9% in rural areas2.

In, 1986, Ministry of Rural

Development launched, first centrally

sponsored sanitation programme

titled Central Rural Sanitation

Programme (CRSP).The programme

was highly subsidized and supply

driven. That’s why it (CRSP – Central

Rural Sanitation Programme 1986-

99) failed to achieve the desired

objective of sustainability. The CRSP,

which was restructured in1999 under

the banner of the TSC strongly

advocated for a demand driven,

gender-sensitive community-led,

participatory approach which provide

scope for the private organisation,

other than govt. agencies. Synergized

action among government, people

and active NGOs was considered as

the key driver for success of this

campaign.

Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) that

started in 1999, as a part of the sector

reform, mainly focus on demand

driven approach with increased

emphasis on awareness creation and

demand generation for sanitary

facilities unlike CRSP. In order to

meet the generated demand the

program also envisaged appropriate

delivery along with various technical

options and price range in the form of

Rural Sanitary Marts and Production

centres.

Apart from creating demand for

sanitation through Information,

Education, and Communication (IEC),

establishing an effective supply chain

to respond to the demand generated

at the community level is considered

as critical component of the

programme. Evidently, the “Demand

Responsive Approach” (DRA) will yield

results only when effective “Supply

Chains” (the totality of processes

spanning from supplier to end

customer, focused on material work

and information flow) are in place.

The clarity in terms of effective and

sustained supply chain system was

evolved gradually from TSC to NBA.

The major difference lies among the

guidelines issued from Government of

India time to time is ambiguity in

terms of functionality of RSMs in long

term.

Target was

fixed up

without detail

consideration

about the

infrastructural

set up to

facilitate Supply

Chain system of

sanitary

products and

facilities.

2

1 Park, 2000 2 Alok, 2010

It is deemed necessary to design

situation specific supply chain to cope

with emerging demand for sanitation at

the grassroots. The Supply Chain

Mechanism, thus established is

expected to ensure that the right

products, information and services

reach the target groups. The services

are expected to be in accordance with

the choices and affordability of the

target groups and delivered in the most

resource-effective manner without

sacrificing quality, services as well as

sustainability.

Therefore, a comparative study was

necessary to find out the controlling

factors, which determine the fate of the

Rural Sanitary Mart. Due to certain

constraints (time, mobility, cost etc),

the sampling size was not too big, which

helps to minimize sampling error. For

comparative study purpose, a

successful RSM operation was selected

and that was none other than

Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha

Parishad lead RSMs scattered mainly in

Purba Midnapure and Pachim

Midnapure. Individual NGO lead two

RSMs from Howrah and one RSM from

South 24 PGS, were also selected to

compare with RKMLP lead RSMs. Apart

from that, the study was also conducted

to figure out the driving forces for the

sustainability of RSMs along with

proposed recommendation to achieve

it, in absence.

3

METHODOLOGY

2.1 Desk Research Prior to visit to the state, the necessary

available documents (National and

International perspective) on Supply

Chain Management of Sanitation were

studied. Physical and Financial progress

reports of TSC programme, available in

the DDWS (Department of Drinking

Water Supply) web site, was also

considered. The Review Reports of TSC

programme for various districts of West

Bengal vs. other states were also

consulted to ascertain different critical

issues including supply chain

management related with

implementation of TSC programme in

the state. The TSC Review Report of

Purba Midnapure, Paschim Midnapure,

Howrah and South 24 PGS districts of

West Bengal helped in developing the

understanding of critical programme

issues.

To get an insight of the Rural Sanitary

Mart and Production Centre, I went

through important articles, research

papers or Govt. documents, which are

listed under Reference list. There are

few international papers on SCM

(Supply Chain Management), mostly

written by WSP and UNICEF. Except

that, forums of Solution Exchange and

India Sanitation Portals have provided

lots of information regarding various

aspects of RSM/PC, and the reason

behind its failure (or limited success) on

a sustainable basis.

2.2Preparatory Study and Discussion The Objective and Scope of the study was discussed with senior professors of TISS, viz. Prof. R. Sakthivel, Prof. S. Peepin, Prof. B. Das, Prof. Kunhaman and Prof. N. Dhar including the domain experts from various national and international bodies like, Mr. A. Ghodke-

WATSAN Consultant, Asia Development Bank, Mr. Y. Kabir-WASH Officer, UNICEF Mumbai, Mr. H. Raj-Consultant, World Bank and the broad purpose of the study was clarified before going to West Bengal. Except that, the other steps were,

At the office of the RKMLP the documents available in the form of policy guidelines/Government Orders etc on supply chain system of the state collected, studied and discussed with Mr. Chandi Charan Dey- WASH Coordinator.

Status of Supply Chain System in the state was reviewed with Swami Pranananda – Joint Director, RKMLP and state level officials, Mr. A. Pal (A.D.M). Tentative plan of visit to various district’s RSM was worked out with the help of Mr. Dey.

Focused discussions was also held in visited RSMs with grassroots level workers of Project Mangers, Block supervisors, Motivators, Representative of Cluster, PRI members, ASHA workers etc.

A briefing meeting was organised at the end of the field work in RKMLP’s office. The major findings of the study were discussed with the state level functionaries of RKMLP.

4

2.3 Visits to District’s RSMs and Respective Villages As part of field work, Purba Midnapore, Pachim Midnapore, Howrah and South 24-PGS districts were visited. Visited supply-chain units including RSMs which are accredited by RKMLP and those run independently. I also enquired about the received revolving fund from TSC programme to ascertain ground realities of present supply chain system. Visit was also arranged to observe sanitation arrangements in schools, Anganwadis, and specially household level, implemented through TSC and as well as other programmes. Fig 1:-GP members: Lakshya village, Haldia

Block, P. Midnapure

2.4 Tools used for collection of data/information

2.4.1 Survey Tools Questionnaires

Two questionnaires were developed for

the study: one to collect household-level

data and another to collect village-level

data along with concerned RSM/PC

details. Both the questionnaires were

circulated among concerned professors

and domain experts and several

comments and suggestions were

received and incorporated. Copies of the

questionnaires in English are included

in Annex I, II and III.

Field work for the survey occurred over

a fortnight period from 10th November

to 25th November, 2013. Questionnaire

interviews were conducted by me along

with Project Coordinators from RKMLP

or RSM manager.

Data from the completed questionnaire

forms was entered into a Microsoft

Access database by me after the

completion of the field work.

Focus Group Discussion

Focus group discussions were used to counter check, a number of topics touched on by the questionnaire. All the discussions were based on same guidelines for greater consistency. During each discussion, project coordinator was acted as facilitator and assisted me while taking note of the discussion. Discussions were also tape recorded and important points transcribed in English (Annex IV).

5

2.4.2 Sample Selection Selection of Study Area

Practical considerations of time and

budget, limited the survey to eight RSMs

and adjacent eight villages. Two districts

were selected in consultation with

RKMLP, where they already mobilized

the people through five cluster

organisations (Mother RSMs/PCs) and

achieved almost 100% HHL sanitation

coverage, except few schools and

anganwadis. More on that, on the basis

of advice and subsequent planning by

Mr. C. C. Dey, two more districts and

three more RSMs/PCs were included in

survey plan, which might be indirectly

influenced by RKMLP work process, but

don’t have any direct control under

RKMLP. The selected study locations are

indicated in Fig (2-6).

Fig. 2:- Marked surveyed Districts

Fig. 3:- Action area of RSMs in P. Midnapure Fig. 4:- Action area of RSMs in Pa. Midnapure

6

Fig. 5:- Action area of RSMs in Howrah Fig. 6:- Action area of RSMs in S-24 PGS

(Source:- Google)

Selection of Questionnaire Respondents in Rural Areas

A total of 160 rural households (144 latrine owners and 16 non-latrine owners) were

selected as questionnaire respondents using the following procedure:

Fig. 7:- Data collection on household level

For each of the four selected

districts, we used “Purposive

Sampling” procedure i.e, selection of

villages which are adjacent to the

RSMs to complete the survey task

within stipulated time period (1

RSM-1 Village-1 Day).

In each village, the survey team (me

and Representative of respective

RSM) consulted the village chief and

knowledgeable villagers to obtain a

list of all village issues pertains to

Sanitation & Health.

Households for interview purpose

were selected based on the

suggestion given by the RSM

representative, Panchayat Pradhan

or condition of specific community.

7

Selection of RSMs

Selection of Focus Group Participants

A total of 53 people participated in eight focus group discussions—one group in each

village area. Participants were selected according to the following procedure:

Fig. 9:- FGD in Amreswar village, S-24 PGS

As the objective of the study, was to

find out the reasons behind the

success of RKMLP accredited RSMs

and other RSMs, run by other

NGO/CBO or Zila Panchayat Udyog

(Chattopadhya, 2008), 5 RSMs were

selected from RKMLP accredited list

and 3 from others for a comparative

study.

The selection was once again based

on “Purposive Sampling” as per the

easiness of the work.

After questionnaires were completed in

each survey area, the Survey Team invited

six-seven of the questionnaire respondents

to participate in a focus group discussion

on the following day.

The invitees were selected based on the

Survey Team’s assessment of their specific

interest or knowledge and ability to

contribute to a group discussion.

The Survey Team sought a balance of

women and men, and latrine owners and

non-owners.

All invited participants took part in the

focus group discussions except for one

case where only four of the invitees

showed up due to a miscommunication

about the meeting place. A summary list of

the focus group participants is included in

Annex IV.

8

Fig. 8:-RKMLP accredited Tamralipta Guchha Samity (RSM)

2.5 Household Questionnaire: Latrine Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices

A question-by-question summary of

responses from the household-level

questionnaire is included in Annex V.

Responses are also included along with

two different column, RKMLP lead areas

and Other NGO run areas. Under, each

heading, each question are

disaggregated by latrine ownership. The

analysis is based on simple average and

percentage calculation, not calculating

statistical significance of result. The

following sections summarize and

elaborate on the data presented in

Annex V with emphasis on differences

between operational management of

RKMLP and other NGO lead RSMs/PCs.

2.5.1 Consumer Profile

We talked with upper aged people,

mostly HH head to gauge his/her

influence/opinion on the decision of

sanitation related matter. More on that,

in comparison with Latrine owner, non-

owners (very few) of RKMLP lead areas

are female headed. After close inquiry, it

was found that, being a non-subsidized

target segment, those HH could not get

any subsidy (APL category) and not able

to afford to pay Rs. 200/- as beneficiary

contribution. It is believed that, under

NBA programme, they can uplift their

status from non-owner to having

ownership.

Sr. No

Question

RKMLP lead area Other NGO lead area

All Rural

Latrine All

Rural

Latrine

Have n=96*

Haven't n=4*

Have n=48*

Haven't n=12*

1 Total number of village 5 3

2 Total number of blocks 5 3

3 Total number of districts 2 2

4 Total number of questionnaires 100 60

5 Average age of respondent (person who

answered the questionnaire) 44.63 39.75 46.00 42.00

6 Average household size 4.99 3.5 5.9 7.5

7 Average age of household members 44.63 39.75 46 42

8 Female headed households (% out of all

households) 3% 50% 8% 8%

9 Female Respondents 53% 53% 50% 43% 52% 8%

10 Average years of Education over 18 yrs 8.13 8.02 3.02 2.87 8.23 2.54

* Unless noted otherwise, sample size (n) for all Rural HHs are as indicated here(Sorce:- Own)

Table1:- Demographics

9

2.5.2 Type of Respondent

Sanitation & hygiene is critically

attached to girls and women in our

society. “Purdah system has been

practiced here for so many years

imposing many restrictions on the

women but when it came to their

defecating in the open menfolk never

felt ashamed and the women were also

effectively forced to venture out in the

open to relive themselves of the basic

call of the nature.” (Alok, 2010).

Statistical evidence said, most of the

unfortunate incidents with women

happen during dawn or evening in OD

practice. Except that, cleanliness of

home or other home stuff and hygienic

practices during food production are

still the matter for women’s subjects.

But, on the other side, our society is still

Patriarchic - decision taker. So, I tried to

keep gender balance (Item no. 9 of Table

1)

In addition, 44% mothers are disposing

their children’s faeces in the open

(Women News Network, 13.2.14).

Women and girls are more vulnerable to

a number of unsafe incidents, which

usually happen during OD practices.

That’s why, the survey deliberately

considered significant number of female

respondent to get their view on this

critical issue.

2.5.3 Educational Background

Well-designed education programmes to

demonstrate the link between

sanitation, hygiene, health and economic

development can contribute to increase

demand for improved sanitation.

The above, Table 1, item no. 10, shows

that, in comparison with Latrine owner

and non-owner, both the segments of

RKMLP lead areas and other NGO lead

areas have one common aspect. Overall

education, considering hygiene

education can create impacts on

improved sanitation. So, literacy rate

has direct relationship with sanitation

coverage.

10

OBJECTIVES

The major objective of the study was to

assess the adequacy and effectiveness of

the RSM as a key propelling component

of the Total Sanitation Program (TSC)

and ongoing NBA programme with a

view to compare it’s structural and

functional differences in-between

RKMLP accredited RSM and others.

Keeping this major objective in mind the

specific objectives of the study were:

1) To study the RKMLP accredited RSM’s

structure through Mednipure Model

2) To find out the link in between

promotional campaign and community

achievement in terms of Sanitation

coverage

3) To study the strategies adopted by

the RKMLP to diversify the activities of

RSMs for sustainability

4) To figure out the relativity of “Zero

Subsidy1” concept with higher subsidy

demand in accordance with the intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation

1Zero Subsidy:- It is contextual to the Sanitation Movement lead by RKMLP in Midnapur district in West Bengal at early twenty. As

per RKMLP, INSTALLATION OF Sanitation facilities can be promoted without giving any kind of subsidy to people, if there are proper

Sanitation Education activities involving village level CBOs. Subsidy will come into discussion, whenever there will be a

differentiation between the financial need of two or more societal segments. As RKMLP believes that, there should be proper

planning for an integrated area with the objective of saturating all the families with household toilets.

11

LITERATURE REVIEW

“Water and Sanitation is one of the primary

drivers of Public health. I often refer to it as ‘Health 101’,

which means that once we can secure access to clean water and to adequate sanitation facilities for

all people, irrespective of the difference

in their living conditions, a huge battle against all kinds of

diseases will be won.”

-Dr. Lee Jong-wook, Director-General World Health Organisation (WHO, 2004b)

4.1 Study Supply-Chain (RSM/PC) Access to sanitation is essential for

human well-being, dignity and economic

development. Changing hygienic

behaviour of rural people, through

demand creation innovations such as

Community Led Total Sanitation will not

be sustained unless a number of key

supporting conditions are met. One of

these conditions is access to affordable

and appropriate sanitation hardware

and services.

Empirical study shows that, Market-based

sanitation solutions have the most

potential for economic of scale and

sustainability. But, due to non-

prioritization for a long time, poorly

developed rural sanitation market still

remains unorganised and outreach is

limited. Sanitary shops selling hardware

and masons building toilets exist in any

country, but the challenge is to reach to

the marginalised section mainly across

the socio-economic spectrum. Affluent

section, due to sensitivity or status

identification can walk to the shops. But,

actual problems lies with those,

demotivated, illiterate, poor people, for

which shops (RSM) need to walk upto

them. Special attention is very much

required to cater the different consumer

segments, most notably marginalised

section, households living in poverty,

ethnic minorities and low caste groups.

Because rural sanitation supply chains

and finance often need to be

strengthened, work should start in this

area before and then be conducted in

parallel to demand creation activities.

4.2 Global scenario of Supply-Chain mechanism in Sanitation Rural Sanitation Supply Chains and

Finance is also a part of the global

SNV/IRC Sustainable Sanitation and

Hygiene programme, which mainly focus

on improving the quality of life of rural

people in five Asian countries (Bhutan,

Cambodia, Laos, Nepal and Vietnam).The

programme consists of four integrated

technical components (see diagram in

next page)

12

These four strategies will work hand to

hand, empowering local capacities for a

rural sanitation service delivery with a

district-wide approach. Along with that,

integrated management system based on

departmental convergence is ultimate

demand on the grassroots level as well as

policy designing part.

Fig. 10:- Integrated Technical Component Sanitation

Source: SNV and IRC, March, 2012 (Source:- SNV-IRC Report, 2012)

4.3 Demand Driven Approach for Sustainability

As per SDC report, in 2000, around 1 billion

urban dwellers still lacked adequate

quantity and quality drinking and

improved sanitation. The figure is even

worst in rural areas. Yet practical examples

from all over the world increasingly

demonstrate that this gap can be mitigated

through demand creation by mass

mobilization. Thriving for the inclusive

sanitation converges without any cast,

creed, economic or regional discrimination

may lead to achieve Millennium

Development Goals (MDG). (SDC, 2004)

The report also talked about, cultural

taboos, which most of the time overshadow

sanitation demand, making it too complex

to deal. People are used to talking about

food, but not about excreta. And although

everybody likes to stay in a green clean

environment to a dirty one, no one is ready

to take initiative to keep it clean.

Sometimes, demand may also depend on

behavioural characteristics. For instance, in

our country, people prefer open defecation

because they do not want to pollute the

vicinity of the house; as they perceive a

latrine as a source of pollution, especially, if

it is close to the kitchen. But such attitudes

and perception may change, mostly due to

presence of active mobilizers and right

kind of offering in right place at right time.

Adopters of latrines in India – have their

own perception about what is “pure” and

what is “polluted” – which is strongly

influence by their neighbours. Similarly,

one reason why we wash ourselves every

morning is the pleasure we derive from

feeling “clean”, but to a great extent we are

also influenced by social factors. Nobody

wants to smell of sweat or dirt and give a

bad impression. Prestige and social

pressure are absolutely crucial motives for

sanitation and hygiene campaigns.

13

Once demand for latrines is generated, an

opportunity has arisen for the private

sector as well as for social entrepreneur

to design, make and deliver a solution

that fully satisfies this demand. If the

customer is poor, then the product must –

above all – be modestly priced. If the

customer is wealthier, then the product

may be of a higher quality and a better

design. There is never only one solution:

it is not true that “one size fits all”(SDC,

2004).

4.4 Sanitation as Business

According to Dyalchand, profitable supply

chains guarantee continuous supply. In

developed countries, the markets for

sanitation and hygiene are reaching

saturation, fulfilling their basic need.

Nevertheless, the sanitation and hygiene

sector sustains itself through constant

innovation and aggressive marketing.

Looking from marketing point of view,

sanitation business has emerged and

diversified luxury and more comfortness

like “jacuzzis” or “whirlpools” into the still

growing “wellness” markets. The soap

and cosmetics industry is also constantly

positioning new products into markets

that are already very competitive.

Fig. 11- Ideal RSM, UP, India

In comparison to that, the sanitation

coverage rate with minimum acceptable

degree is far-far away from saturation, so

the markets for sanitation and hygiene in

developing countries appear to be almost

endless. Once the “affordability” barriers

crossed, demand can grow more or less

continuously. However, empirical

evidences showed that, the real challenge

lies in maintenance of profitable and

performing supply chains. For example, in

south-east countries construction labours

(Usually, plumbers and masons) are

available in a good number. They are

mostly semi-skilled, having low status

and work mostly in the informal sector.

This means that they cannot create

markets on their own, but if there is a

demand, they can deliver goods and

services at very low costs. (Dyalchand,

2001)

4.5 Supply Chain Concept and Its Relevance to TSC/NBA

In order to understand how the supply

chain system pertaining to rural

sanitation functions it is necessary to

know what a supply chain is. In simple

terms a supply chain is a network of

facilities that procure raw materials,

14

transform them into intermediate goods

and then final products, and deliver the

products to customers through a

distribution system. Thus a supply chain

relates all the activities associated with

the flow and transformation of goods

and services from their source to the

end users that is from manufacturers,

importers and service providers,

through a network of distributors to

consumers. A schematic diagram of the

supply chain can be seen from diagram -

1.

Diagram.1:- Basic Supply System

Source (Report from Samanta, March 2009)

The ‘Campaign’ word in TSC implies that

the programme has to be implemented

in campaign mode which will result in

large quantum of demand generation in

short period of time. In addition, it also

focuses on low-cost technology options

for easy affordability at household level

even for the poor households. These two

requirements of the programme call for

a mechanism to manage the supply-side

in TSC/NBA. That is why the provision

of an alternate delivery mechanism in

the form of a network of Production

Centres (PCs) and Rural Sanitary Marts

(RSMs) was incorporated in TSC. Now,

putting this basic understanding about

Supply Chain, in the graffiti of RSM

structure, the following diagram in Fig-

13 may arise.

RSM – Manufacturers & Service Providers

Generating demands through IEC

activities & Motivators

Manufacturing /Supply of Hardwires

and installation at HHL

Sanitation plus activities – SLWM, WQMS, Manufacturing Water Filters, Smokeless

Oven, and Rain Water Harvesting in the NGP awarded GPs

Post Installation Service, Monitoring

Use & Maintenance of toilet, Up-

gradation of toilet on demand by

households

Dia. 2:- Action

Plan for a RSM

Customers

(Community/Individuals)

Distributors

(Wholesalers/Retailers)

Manufactures/Service Providers

15

Source:- RKMLP

4.6 TSC/NBA Guidelines in Supply Chain The Central Rural Sanitation Program

(CRSP), in its 1993 Revised Guidelines,

had, for the first time, brought out the

concept of Rural Sanitary Mart (RSM) to

address the problem of supply chain in

rural sanitation. This was based on the

successful initiation of the concept by

UNICEF in some States. Since then the

concept has been carried through

various revisions of the CRSP including

the TSC (1999) and subsequently NBA

(2012). As per the TSC/NBA Guidelines,

the Rural Sanitary Mart (RSM), as a

stand alone or combined with the

Production Center (PC), is an effective

strategy of TSC/NBA to meet sanitary

ware and services demand. It is to

function as a hub for providing

Alternative Delivery Mechanism in

terms of low cost sanitary items and

services.

RSMs are supposed to have those items

that are required as a part of the

sanitation package that goes beyond

toilet construction. Production centres

are the means to improve production of

cost effective affordable sanitary

materials that are marketed through

RSMs generally managed by

NGOs/SHGs/Panchayats. The objective

of establishing RSM is not limited to its

functioning to accelerate the pace of the

sanitation program but also to provide

need based, locale specific people

centred system of outreach services of

trained masons, economically viable low

cost sanitation options including the

various low cost designs of the super

structure and catalyze the change in

behaviour and adoption of hygiene

facilities through IEC materials such as

pamphlets, posters, brochures, stickers,

etc.

As per the 2004 guideline, the TSC has

envisaged an investment, which can be

more than 5% of the total project outlay

(subject to a maximum of Rs 35.00 lakhs

per districts) of the total Government

outlay for the establishment of RSM and

production Centre. In 2007 guidelines, it

remained same, where as in 2012

(NBA), it is fixed upto 5% of the project

outlay (subject to a maximum of Rs

35.00 lakhs per districts). Funding for

this component is in the ratio of 80:20

between GOI and the State Government.

The upper financial limit for the

establishment of an RSM/PC has been

kept at Rs 3.5 lakhs. The amount is to be

utilized for construction of a shed

(including curing tank), training of

masons and also as a revolving fund.

Source:- google

16

After an RSM/PC attains a certain level

of sustainability, the revolving fund was

to be refunded to the District

Implementing Agency.

The District Implementing Agency is

required to identify key training

institutions/resource persons to train

the RSM/PC Mangers. An MOU is to be

signed with the agency establishing

RSM/PC and a system of joint

monitoring evolved to ensure that the

RSMs/PCs are successful as an

enterprise and function in accordance

with the objectives of the TSC/NBA.

Other than that, chronologically the

guidelines reflect clarity regarding the

policy along with specifying the

attributes towards RSM/PC’s operation.

Table-2:- Comparative List of TSC/NBA Guidelines

Sr. No

Component 2004 2007 2012

1 RSM/PCs An outlet dealing with sanitary toilets and other sanitary

facilities;

Max. Rs. 3.5 Lakh per RSM/PC can be provided;

MOU in between RSM/PC and District

Implementing Agency.

Specified the items of sanitary facilities;

Option for private

entrepreneur to take part in

effective supply chain; Mini-RSMs are permissible

Specifically mention one year grace

period from

the date of the receiving loan and the

number of recovery

instalments (12-18)

2 Revolving Fund in the District

SHGs/Dairy Cooperative Societies’ members can get loans from these

organisations for constructing toilets only.

District Implementing Agency can provide max.

Rs. 50 Lakh to SHGs or Cooperative societies.

Same as before

4.7 Sustainability of RSMs/PCs It is observed that, RSMs are not making the visualised progress in sanitation

sector. Followings are the probable reasons listed for comparative analysis:

Higher production cost and poorer

quality of sanitaryware RSMs vis-à-vis the market

Inadequate quality control in RSMs

17

Lack of technical innovations to adapt to local conditions

Lack of awareness among community on construction material quality

1.Himachal Pradesh(Rana, DRDA, HP) 2.Madhya Pradesh3.Rajasthan (Kumar S, UNDP, New Delhi) (Kumar S, UNDP, New Delhi) 4.Orissa (Kumar S, UNDP, New Delhi)

Simour Districts District Authorities initially started

RSM unit Tried to sell the pan to local

communities at a profit after meeting the costs

But, production cost were high, and pans could not compete by price or quality in market

Chamba Districts Revolving fund was given to RSMs

without considering experience in

entrepreneurship, marketing etc.

Most of the cases, revolving funds were

misused and not recovered.

Betul Districts RSMs were promoted as “show pieces”

by implementing NGOs Message was given to RSM, that it was

“wrong” to keep things other than sanitary material in an RSM

RSMs were not linked to providing sanitary services or training in construction, plumbing, maintenance of sanitary infrastructure.

Tonk Districts Lack of effective training programme led

to faulty construction. The size of the soak pit was so small (1

feet X 1 feet X 1 feet) that village people felt that it would get filled up in a couple of days, and therefore refused to use it.

Poor Sanitary infrastructure.

Puri Districts No knowledge about rising of water

table during monsoon or floody area. No area specific construction Villagers experienced soak pits got

flooded and excreta from these soak pit started floating and spreading to other parts of the village during flood, and

People started to reject it.

Fig.12:- Faulty construction- Vent

pipe on Leach pit, Howrah, W.B

18

4.8. Reluctance among Government functionaries/ Stake holders The government system is so

used to well-defined guidelines

and instructions on every minor

detail that the flexibility given to

the districts in operationalizing

the supply chain mechanism was

not very much appreciated by

many states and during

interaction with them they used

to ask for further details

guidelines. For example, the

money available for setting up

RSM or PC could be used partly

for creating infrastructure and

partly as revolving fund or the

entire amount could also be used

as revolving fund but no such

percentage was decided in the

TSC guidelines. It was done

deliberately to give flexibility to

the TSC implementing agencies to

decide the best possible option as

per the ground reality. Afraid of

taking financial decision, informal

requests used to be made to the

ministry to issue further detailed

guidelines, which was fortunately

not agreed to and the basic

character of a flexible TSC

framework was retained. (Kumar

Alok, 2010)

According to Mr. Chattopadhyay

(WBCS), due to systematic failure

to disseminate “right information,

at right time” about the change in

choice (Mosaic pan to Ceramic

pan) for RSMs or PCs, leads to

unbalanced competition with

private entrepreneur. In Uttar

Pradesh, Private Entrepreneurs

reached to remote villages for

construction of toilets with

ceramic pan and readymade fiber

doors which attracted

households and they became

disinterested to use mosaic pans

manufactured by RSMs. The

RSMs have failed to compete with

them due to financial reason and

stopped functioning. As there is

no production unit of ceramic

pan in Uttar Pradesh, RSMs used

to procure the same directly from

Gujarat resulting in closure of

production centres of RSMs. Lack

of capacity of NGOs running RSM

to compete with the Private

entrepreneurs and the minimum

profit RSMs were getting on ‘No

Profit, No Loss’ has created

discouragement among the NGO

run RSMs. Now there is no NGO

managed RSM is functional in U.P.

Lack of convergence among

various associated departments

is one of the key reason of the

non sustainability of RSMs in case

of project or paper approval,

inspection, payment release etc.

During his field study in U.P, Mr.

Chattopadhyay found that, Block

Development Officer is not an

active partner of the Programme.

ADO (P) posted in the Block, on

behalf of the Panchayati Raj

Department looks after TSC. In

Even in Bengal

also, payment to

RSM at regular

interval is a

problem. People

used to say, “

Upare

Bhagaban, Niche

Pradhan”. Like

god, GP Pradhan

is the decider of

due payment

19

the Block level meeting, ADO(P)

normally does not get the opportunity to

mention progress & problems of TSC

implementation. DPROs opined that the

main problem of TSC implementation is

the non-cooperation / non-involvement

of the Block Development Officers. The

problem is that BDO is an officer of the

Rural Development Department and the

Nodal Department for TSC happens to

be Panchayati Raj Department. So fund

is directly placed with the Gram

Panchayats not through Block

Development Officer. This is a serious

problem of Convergence of important

stakeholders.

Even in Orissa, there are also

multifarious agencies with in a district

that are involved in the supply-chain

management. There is hardly any

coordination among them. The focus

being more on achieving the targets set,

the capability of the implementing

agencies is given a go-by. Barring

ceramic pan/trap/footrest and PVC

pipes, for most other components there

are no standards and hence quality

poses a big problem. Ensuring quality of

materials and services is the greatest

weakness in the present supply chain

system in Orissa. As a result the quality

of items available from the production

centres and the quality of toilets

constructed is much below the desired

level. For example, the reinforcement

given for cement rings is very weak

leading their breakage during

transportation (Samanta, March, 2009).

Adding to that, according to Mr.

Chattopadhyay, in U.P, there is no

Technical Officer in all District & Blocks

to give training of Masons. Masons’

training is held normally for 4/5 days

which is not residential. Training period

should be residential and at least for 8

days for acquiring proper skill. In

absence of Technical Officer, Quality

Control of the construction and

materials are not possible. Regular

monitoring meeting are not held at GP

level. / Block level. Many of the toilets

are not being used for the purpose it

was built. [Chattopadhyay, (WBCS),

W.B]

It was found through the study

conducted by Mr. Chakraborty that, in

Maharashtra, Social marketing

strategies focusing on demand creation

persuading consumer to consider

alternate and more affordable options

found to be absent to a great extent in

the present system. Various feasible

technological options for constructions

are not packaged in a way easily

accessible to consumer with clear

pricing information mapping out a step

by step upgrade path for lower cost

initial investment model. In absence of

proper knowledge and suitable supply

chain, end users constructing latrines of

expensive designs consisting of an offset

pit, a pour flush pan (many times

without adequate slope) , and brick

walls and C.G.I roof – as an entirely one-

time investment. This is done without

exploring the options of upgrading

latrines over a period of time. The

20

beneficiary community do not generally

have proper information and correct

understanding of technology. Neither

are they advised to invest on the asset in

a judicious manner. Though while

submitting the proposal for TSC

programme to GOI, DWSC committed

them for developing effective supply

chain setting up RSM/PC, but during the

implementation no due attention was

given in this regard. In spite of

substantial investment for setting up

RSM in Maharashtra, the supply chain

system is dominated primarily by

private sector with commercial motive

with very little attention towards

attaining social objective. Furthermore,

as those private-sector actors do not

have adequate technical understanding

on various aspects of sanitation, various

non-negotiable aspects have been

getting seriously compromised

(Chakraborty,2009).

4.9 Success story of RSM lead by RKMLP, West Bengal The programme for promotion of

sanitation was dependent not on the

needs of the country but on availability

of funds for subsidy from the

Government exchequer for construction

of toilets in rural households under

Central Rural Sanitation Programme

(CRSP).It was assumed by the planners

and policy makers that high rate of

subsidy will act as a means for creating

demand for household toilets but it was

observed later that strategically the

concept was weak. The yearly rate of

household toilet coverage in the country

was very insignificant against the total

number of non-toilet households. As a

result household toilet coverage in rural

areas was very marginal.

Realising the weaknesses in Government

operated sanitation programmes,

various experiments were carried out in

the country during end 80’s.

Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha

Parishad, Narendrapur conceived one

Demand Driven and People Centred

Sanitation programme in Medinipur

district of West Bengal in collaboration

with UNICEF. Medinipur is the most

populous district of the country.

Population was 8.3 million in 1991.

Fig. 13:- Latrine using SSP

Model in P. Midnapure

Fig. 14:- PC in Vivekananda Yuba Parishad (Cluster/RSM), W.B

21

Followings are the Salient Physical Achievements in Medinipur Sanitation Programme.

(Swami Asaktananda& Dey, 2005)

As a result of this intensive

endeavor, household toilet coverage

increased to 100% in Purba

Medinipur (total household

7,83,623) and 91% in Paschim

Medinipur (total household

9,14,042) district in December 2006,

against 4.74% in 1991.

Itwas noticed that Incidence of

diarrhoeal diseases has

tremendously reduced in the 100%

toilet access blocks and Gram

Panchayats.

Out of a total 7376 nos. of Rural

Primary Schools of Purba and

Paschim Medinipur districts, School

Toilet Blocks installed in 7376

Primary Schools till December 2006

Nandigram-II Block of Purba

Medinipur district is the First block

in the Country which has Achieved

100% Household Toilet Coverage in

December 2001.

Presently all 25 blocks of Purba

Medinipur district have achieved

100% household Toilet coverage and

the district has applied for “Nirmal

Zilla Puraskar” this year.

More than 30 International

delegations from China, Vietnam,

Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,

Indonesia, Burma, Nepal, Nigeria,

Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe

and International Aid Agencies

(UNICEF, WHO, DFID, SIDA, AUS-Aid,

Water Aid, World Bank-WSP etc.)

paid study visits to understand the

innovative approach and strategies

developed and practised in

Medinipur Demand Driven

Sanitation Programme.

Government of West Bengal is

regularly using the expertise and

infrastructure of RKMLP for

imparting various training and

orientation programme for the TSC

functionaries of this state.

4.10 Need of the study From the discussion till now, it is cleared

that, the success of effective supply

chain system (RSM/PC) in Sanitation is

restricted in few pockets of the country

(like RKMLP’s Mednipure model) in

spite of equivalent guideline. As the

operational factors for the sustainability

of the RSM/PC varied from state to state,

having almost same universal Business

Model, it exhibits worst performance to

more than desired output depending

upon management, organizational

structure, role of motivator, back to back

supply following demand creation. The

study is to figure out all those positive

structural attributes which are the

reason for success of RSMs in some

region along with comparative study of

the impacts of the RSM on Sanitation

coverage, Behavioural change, based on

region specific socio-economic

condition.

22

RESULT AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Activity Analysis 5.1.1 Organisational Relationship: RKMLP and others RSM level surveys were conducted in

four districts of West Bengal, in eight

RSMs/PCs. Among that, four RSMs are

from Purba Midnapur, two from Howrah

and one each from Paschim Midnapur

and South 24-PGS. All the RSMs more or

less follow same working model (ISP2),

designed by RKMLP and UNICEF at early

twenty. This is quite different from CRSP

and later TSC or NBA guideline having

little bit alteration in grass root level.

But, the objective or basic structure of

the programme remains same.

RSM Level Questionnaire

Location Reason for Involvement

Ty

pe

Stat

e

Dis

tric

t

RSM

's N

ame

Typ

e

Soci

al w

ork

, n

o p

rofi

t

Soci

al w

ork

, m

argi

nal

p

rofi

t

Bu

sin

ess

Un

it

Mo

tiva

ted

by

RK

ML

P

Am

t. o

f A

id a

t st

arti

ng

(Lak

h)

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Tarralipta G.S NGO

50

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Abhudhaya Haldia NGO

0.3

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Lokojagaran G.S NGO

10

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Vivekananda Y.P NGO

17

Rural W.B W Midnapore Kangsabati G.S NGO

50

Rural W.B S. 24 PGS World Club Health NGO

0

Rural W.B Howrah Gondalpara Nabin P.S.S

NGO

2.5

Rural W.B Howrah Akshay Nagar P.S NGO

1.2

Table 3:- Snapshot of RSM Level questionnaire

Table 2 revealed through the study that,

instead of having one RSM/PC in each

block (as per TSC/NBA guideline), in

RKMLP lead area, each mother RSM

used to control 3-4 blocks. First five

RSMs/PCs in the above list are directly

monitored by RKMLP, where as other

three are controlled by individual NGO.

During FGD with RSM’s staff, it was clear

that, due to unique operational

techniques, designed by RKMLP, the

RSM’s sustainability is evident. The

structural setup of each RKMLP

accredited RSM, is based on

representative selection process, where

“Village Youth Club” acts as pillar of the

success. The diagram shows the

relationship.

2During 1990, RKMLP & UNICEF jointly started zero subsidy based “Intensive Sanitation Project” (ISP) in Midnapure district of W.B

23

Diagram 3:- Operational Structure of RKMLP (source: RKMLP)

In this structure, few enthusiastic

villagers (male and female), namely

‘Anuprerak’ (Sanitation

Motivators1) formed Village Youth

Club through the extensive IEC

activities of RKMLP. They act as

grassroots level workers, go house

to house, and motivate people for

toilet construction through

behavioural change. The

representatives from each VYC

formed Cluster or Guchha Samity,

which act as a registered

society/NGO. Later on, these NGOs

are operated under the direction of

RKMLP as a RSM/PC-Supply chain

unit of 3-4 blocks. But, this kind of

grass root representation is

absent in other NGO.

It is found from Literature review

that, sustainability of RSM/PC is a

long term issue, which can be

achieved with constant demand

creation (by new toilet construction

or updation through new variation)

or parallel engagement for other

systematic process. It was found

from the study that, lack of

entrepreneurial skill, proper

training, right information at right

time leads to the failure of RSMs in

most of the area as we discussed.

Although, most of the RSMs believe

on marginal profit with social

motive for the sustainability of their

operation, but don’t know how to

maintain that for a long run. Better

success rate of RKMLP accredited

RSMs is due to people centric

Medinipur Zilla Parishad

Sanitation Committee

Cluster Organisations

(PC and SM operators)

RKMLP, Narendrapur

Block Level Sanitation

Committee

Village Youth Clubs Gram Panchayats

Sanitation Motivators

Families & Community

Reason for

Success-1:RKMLP

lead RSMs act as

true

representative

body through

villager’s

participation.

Neither any

outsider, nor only

Govt. official can

bring complete

desirable changes

without people

participation.

24

1Motivators are grass root level workers selected by the respective GP and RSM. They used to get Rs. 20/- against per toilet motivate the family

innovation, better management along

with regular M & E provide them

unprecedented millage.

During my study, I found other three

RSMs are also doing well internalising

the operational concepts of RKMLP, but

their motive is too much business

centric, deviating from social objectives.

Their main focus is “number of toilet

construction” to fulfil the target set by

Zilla Parisad rather than bringing any

permanent behavioural change through

intrinsic motivation. This part is well

observed in other areas of the country

which is one of the key reason for short

term achievement (NGP status), but fail

to maintain “Open Defecation Free

Village” for long term.

The operation process of RKMLP is quite

similar to “The Micro franchising

model” (Progress Brief; SNV, IRC 2012)

where one larger enterprise engages a

number of other people or small units to

implement the idea at scale.

5.1.2 Inequity in Financial help

Looking at the funding pattern from

Table 2, it gives clear indication, that all

the five RKMLP lead RSMs got sufficient

amount of fund (from UNICEF) at the

staring of their operation unlike rest of

three. So, in that case, the proportional

expenditures on Hardware and Software

are quite logical and effective for the

Clusters to bring the societal changes

upto a greater extent, unlike others (Non

RKMLP lead RSMs), who mainly

invested all the money on Hardware and

waited for the demand call from GP or

individual villagers.

5.2 Factors for Sustainability

If we consider the reply given by Mart

Managers, the success of Medinapur

model lies strongly on mainly five

attributes,

5.2.1 Less Operational Cost

Most of the RSM managers require

additional financial support to meet the

operational cost. It closely related to

production and transportation through

“economy of scale”.

Reason for Success-2:The concept RKMLP’s

“MOTHER RSM/PC (Cluster)” centre, taking

care of 3-4 blocks through “Satellite RSM” is a

well established formulae for long term

sustainability.

Reason for Success-3:Government Institutions (Water or Sanitation cell or Financing

Institution) or other donor agency (UNICEF) provided fund strengthened the base of the RSMs

to create more demand creation as well as infrastructure build up in Mednipur Model.

Reason for Success:One RSM/PC for 3-4 block leads

to larger action area More demand Less

production cost

Full load transport

Less Operational Cost Less unit transport cost

Fig

15:

SSP

Model

25

Evidences from most of the unsuccessful

RSM’s SCM in Sanitation, indicate mostly

higher operational cost. Higher cost is

due to (a) higher slope, these pans

required more volume and more time

and less number of pans could be

backed in furnace at one time, taking

more energy.(b) Having a small business

area (One RSM-One Bolck), demand

never became in such, which can

compensate transportation cost (Alok,

2010). In this context RKMLP emerged

as a winner due to its unique innovative

strategy.

First of its kind, RKMLP developed

affordable Technological options for the

rural people according individuals

financial capabilities, keeping in mind

about the improved sanitation of that

village. 12 different cost-effective

models (Cost Rs. 250/- to 3000/- in

1990) were introduced from which later

on 6 models were selected for

Medinipur Model. For the first time,

RKMLP bought, water seal SSP

(Squatting Square Plate) model having a

cost of Rs. 250/- which does not require

any technical knowledge for installation.

As per structural positioning, each

Guchha Samity (Cluster/Mother

RSM/PC) is looking for 3-4 blocks

having approx. 8-9 lakh population

providing good number of target

audience. So, for stoking of the sanitary

materials in satellite RSMs, the transport

cost becomes feasible from operational

cost’s point of view.

Fig. 17:- Factors for better performance (RSM)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Well structured organisation

Less operational Cost

% of Respondents

Performance

Reason for Sucess-5:-The way, RKMLP thought “Out of the Box”, has not happened anywhere

else where the former “demonstrated a unique low-cost technology for toilet construction

which costs only Rs. 230-250 per toilet.” (Alok, 2010)

Other than that, innovative structural arrangements for grater operational area also gave an

edge to minimize operational cost.

Fig 16:- SSP model in BPL family, W.

Midnapure

26

5.2.2 Well Structured Organisation

Diagram 3, reveals organisational

structure of the Cluster/RSM’s

operation, involving people

participation in a unique way under the

guidance of RKMLP. Subsequently, Fig.

17, also indicate the importance given

by the mart managers or other staffs, to

structural superiority for better

performance. Although, few other NGO

driven RSMs/PCs are trying to follow

the model, but due to lack of proper

ideology, social motive and professional

approach, the success of the later still

remains rudiment.

At the beginning of the programme

(1990), Zilla administration of Midnapur

district also played pivotal role along

with RKMLP for regular monitoring and

inter-departmental coordination in a

unique way. It was fixed up that, every

Monday, there will be GP meeting along

with all the functionaries of sanitation,

Tuesday block level meeting,

Wednesday Sub-division meeting,

Friday district review meeting along

with all BDO, GP pradhan, Zilla

Sabhadhipati and RSM representatives.

End of every month, there is Review

meeting in RKMLP Head office with all

cluster representatives to check the

progress about the ongoing projects.

5.2.3 Water and Soil Testing Lab

Attachment of Water and Soil Testing

Lab with each Guchha Samity by RKMLP

and PRI pushed Cluster/RSMs one step

ahead for Sustainability. As per the

NRDWP guidelines, the water quality of

the village water source or resource

need to checked in 3 months interval.

Except that, it also facilitated farmers

with soil testing facility to know the

fertility of their sowing fields.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Demand for New toilets/upgradation

Involved in other social activities

Full fledged Sanitary Retail outlet

Water/ Soil testing Lab

% of Respondents

Reason for Sucess-7:-Diversification of Water & Soil Testing Laboratory. 90% of the Mart

Manager tagged it as one of the priority zone for Sustainability

Reason for Sucess-6:-Unique

Organisational structure for better

intervention.

Fig 18:- Soil & Water Testing Labs in RSM

Fig. 19:- Responses from RSM managers regarding Sustainability of RSM

27

5.2.4Involvement in other Social Activities

All these Cluster organisation of

RKMLP are not only associated with

Sanitation Movement through toilet

construction, but they are closely

associated with other activities (Dey,

2005) lead by RKMLP (Fig.22).

Adult and Non Formal Education

Integrated Women and Child

Development

Preventive Health Care and

general Health services

Agriculture and Animal resource

Development

Forest Management and Social

Forestry

Promotion of Self-Help group

activities

Promotion of Solar energy, Water

purifier

Training on vocational skills,

Entrepreneurship and

organizational management

Promotion of Youth groups/

organisations for social

development

Following the same principle, Akshay

Nagar Pallisri Sangha (Studied RSM,

outside RKMLP authorisation) also

provides marketing tools& access to

local SHG for their processed food

products.

5.2.5 Demand for New Toilet/Up gradation

After the launching of NBA programme

(2012) along with convergence with

MGNREGA for giving Rs. 10,000/- as

subsidy for toilet construction, all the

villagers from the studied area (Latrine

or Non Latrine holders) are very much

interested for new latrine construction

or up-gradation. In, South 24PGS and

Howrah, already toilet construction has

took place under NBA model, where as

in both the Midnapur(s), it is still under

process due to some administrative

hindrance (till September, 2013). People

are also contributing on their own to

make the toilet more attractive or build

toilet cum bathroom. This also adds

value asserting long term demand at this

moment, which is reflected on the graph

(Fig. 19).

Reason for

Sucess-8:-

Involvement

of other

social

mobilization

programmes

among the

same target

segment

provides

increased

contacts for

the

maximum

coverage.

28

Fig 20:- Retail outlet of SHG made Food products in A.N.P.S

5.2.6 Horizontal & Vertical expansion of RSM

Most of the RSMs perceived that their

activities will be sustained at least for

the coming 4-5 years (through vertical

expansion), mainly based on up-

gradation through NBA programme.

From the table below (Table 4), it is

clear that, concrete roof structure is

available only 22% of the HHs, where

concrete/brick wall is 29%. The figures

are self explanatory for more work

opportunities in future, transforming

78% of others to concrete roof structure

or 71% of others to concrete/brick wall

structure.

Sr. No Question Latrine owners n=144*

1 Roof construction material (% out of all respondents)

Concrete 22%

Fibrous cement

Galvanized steel 8%

Tiles 7%

Jute

Plastic sheet 23%

Salvaged material 7%

Coconut Leaves 10%

No roof 22%

2 Shelter wall structure

Concrete/Brick 29%

Fibrous cement 3%

Galvanized steel 2%

Bamboo 16%

Jute 13%

Plastic sheet 19%

Salvaged material

Coconut Leaves 17%

3 Slab structure

Pour flush 100%

Western Toilet bowl

Table 4:- Comparative study about the hardware components used in latrine

Fig 21:- Toilet up-gradation under

NBA & MGNREGA

* Unless noted otherwise, sample size (n) for all Rural HHs are as indicated here

29

Reason for Sucess-9:-Using

entrepreneurial skills, RSMs are

motivating people for more improved

sanitation along with better hygienic

condition through up-gradation.

To achieve sustainability for the longer

period, horizontal expansion plan need

to be adopted, which is discussed in

detailed in “Recommendation &

Conclusion” section.

In addition, the report titled “Rural

Sanitation Supply Chains and Finance”

(2012), published by SNV & IRC

revealed that the success of sanitation

coverage depends on “demand

aggregation and better linkages between

SME and consumers”. For example, in

Cambodia, ‘village sales agent’ plays

same role as ‘sanitation motivator’

appointed by RKMLP. Even, in Nepal, the

experiment was done to establish

relationship in between shops at district

headquarters and village level ‘outlet’

through existing village shops. More on

that, micro-finance plays an important

role. In south India (Trichy), the

subsidiary unit of Gramalaya, viz,

Gramalaya Microfin Foundation

provides micro-finance for toilet

construction.

5.3 Operational & Financial viability of RSM/PC

5.3.1 Trend Analysis - Latrine construction

Fig. 22:- Number of Latrine constructed by the RSMs (April – Oct, 2013)

From the above mentioned graph, it is

clear that, the first five RSMs

performance in terms of construction of

toilet is comparatively higher than the

rest three, which are individually run

NGO driven RSMs. There can be many

reasons behind that. Few are listed

below.

1. The operational areas are

comparatively small than RKMLP

lead RSMs

2. The ‘three’ are mainly focus on

infrastructure build up rather

than behavioural change through

various IEC activities

3. Start up capital support was

much more (Table 3) for RKMLP

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Nu

mb

er

of

Latr

ine

co

nst

ruct

ed

With Super structure With out Super Structure Total

30

lead RSMs compared to others,

which led to infrastructural

disparity

4. Five said RSMs usually get each

other support in case of

production, supply and shifting of

ideal manpower under single

umbrella (RKMLP), which is not

available for others.

5. Abundance of other activities by

RKMLP facilitates RSMs to gain

more trust and respect from the

people, where others remain as a

“Toilet Constructing Unit”

5.3.2 Trend Analysis – Annual Turnover

Fig. 23:- Annual Turnover (2012-’13)

Sustainability of the Supply-chain

system (RSMs/PCs) in West Bengal can

be realised through their present

turnover of respective RSMs after

approx. 23 years from starting of

sanitation movement (except World

Club Health RSM, started operation on

2001). The demand is still high due to

generation of new households along

with desire for improvisation of the

existing toilets. Along with that, we also

need to consider that, infusion of capital

fund is much more in case of RKMLP

lead RSMs, compared to others.

5.4 Factors affecting Demand for Toilets: RSMs perspective

During in-depth analysis about the

factors affecting Supply-Chain system in

sanitation of West Bengal, which is

mainly lead by RKMLP, it was found

that, the success has come only because

of a superb blend of various supporting

factors. The movement created sufficient

demand, which was filled up by

excellent arrangement of supply chain

through RSMs.

100

50 50

26

100

70

15

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Am

ou

nt

in L

akh

s

RSM/PC

31

Support of local or state administration

is highly essential for the success of

RSMs. The success of Mednipur model

stands on the active participation of GP,

Block authorities and on the top district

administration. That helped to gain

confidence of the people in terms of

supportive behaviour and smooth

functioning of Demand-Supply system.

Fig. 24:- Responses from RSM Managers on factor affecting such of RSM’s demand for toilets

In addition, regional factors also played

important role, like high literacy rate or

strong advocacy of RKMLP through their

extensive IEC activities.

From the graphical representation, it is

clear that, Govt. subsidy, Role of other

NGO and RSM’s special influential power

played less important role in Sanitation

movement. From the beginning, unlike

others, RKMLP’s focus was “Zero

Subsidy” sanitation movement, where

people would bore the construction cost

after realising the need of toilets for

their benefits through extensive IEC and

CLTS programmes. In other way, it also

reflects the degree of success rate in

social mobilization.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Various IEC Programmes

RSM's special influential power

Supportive behaviour of people

High Literacy Rate

Strong political intervention

Pro-active role of GP

Favourable economic condition

Strong advocacy of RKMLP

Role of other NGO

Govt. Subsidy

% of Rspondents

Reason for Sucess-10:-Well converged system is always more effective than individual

approach. The holistic approach from RKMLP, PRIs, other Govt. departments, even local

Police Station brought the ‘IM-POSSIBLE’ to ‘POSSIBLE’ state.

In Sutahata Block in East Medinipur, all the GPs made a resolution of fining of Rs. 100/- for

OD, where in Haldia Block (eg. Lakshya GP), GP created informal pressure on HHs for

constructing toilets (at least low cost one) by withholding rationing or issue of other papers

from GP office.

In Nandigram II block, local Police Station played an important role. The fear of call from the

local police station to openly defecated people, against informal complaintmade by GP or

RSM, of polluting environment causing problems for the others, forced them to change the

habit.The later usually rectify him/her self due to fear of police harassment or neighbour’s

insult.

32

It is true that, the whole concept of

mobilization process along with

focusing of nil subsidies was

conceptualized in the lab of RKMLP,

with the active participation of then Zilla

Sabhadhipati, District Magistrate and

other concerned members and the

support and guidance from UNICEF.

Later on other NGO run RSMs tried to

follow the principles/process which was

elevated for others to adopt, not only in

state level, but national level also. So,

other NGOs role in innovation or

application, are not something new or

attentive. More than that, it was found

that, individual RSM’s own influential

power is very limited under the ripple

effect in the neighbour areas.

5.5 Seasonal Demand Forecasting

Better management of any organisation

(even for RSMs/PCs) depends upon one

of the key factor, i.e, ‘Forecasting’.

According to that, the RSM or PC can go

for raw material procurement,

production planning, hiring of contract

labour, stocking etc. It also helps to

minimize operational cost by managing

recurring expenditure in an effective

way.

Fig. 25:- Trend of Demand for Latrine

(Source:- RKMLP lead RSMs)

This scientific and professional

approach to catch up the trend is well

established in RKMLP lead RSMs by

collecting data over the period.

Following this trend help them to reduce

the chances of blocking of money for a

longer period through raw material or

finished goods, in turn provide them

financial stability unlike others in most

part of the country, which is a critical

reason for the failure of the operation of

most of the RSMs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan Feb March April May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

(R

SM)

Reason for Sucess-12:-In today’s scenario, sustainability of any system can be achieved only

through the optimum use of the resources by trend analysis. That is one of the key factors.

33

Reason for Sucess-11:-Education is directly proportional to Nation’s development. And,

Nation’s development stands on improved Public Health. The literacy rate of Purba

Midnapure is 80.16 [74.04% for India] (Census 2011), which catalyzed quick behavioural

change through Sanitation and Hygiene Education.

5.6Analysis on Village level Latrine coverage

Table 5:- Snapshot of Village survey details

Village Level Questionnaire

Location Population Latrines Interviews

Typ

e

Stat

e

Dis

tric

t

Blo

ck

Vill

age

Ho

use

ho

lds

Peo

ple

Tota

l Lat

rin

e

% w

ith

La

trin

e

Latr

ine

ow

ner

s

No

n o

wn

ers

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Tamluk D. Dalhara 317 1268 317 100 20 0

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Sutahat Baroda 263 1052 263 100 20 0

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Nandigram-II Monoharpur 402 1608 402 100 20 0

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Egra-II Dulalpur 310 1270 310 100 20 0

Rural W.B W. Midnapore Debra Bakaba Sevak

359 1795 294 81.89 16 4

Rural W.B S. 24 PGS Bhagar-I Amreswar 1575 9450 170 10.79 10 10

Rural W.B Howrah Panchla Gondalpara 700 3000 638 91.14 18 2

Rural W.B Howrah Bali-Jagacha Saheb Bagan

300 1500 300 100 20 0

As per the statement made earlier, the

survey was conducted in eight RSMs and

eight nearby villages. Among these eight

villages, five villages from East and

Paschim Midnapur are performing

under the leadership of RKMLP. Rest

three villages from South 24 PGS and

Howrah are led by individual NGO run

RSMs/PCs.

In the above list, first four and last two

villages shows 100% sanitation

coverage as per the report given by

respective RSM and GP member. Due to

the intensive endeavour of RKMLP,

household toilet coverage in Purba

Midnapur went from 4.74% in 1991 to

100% in September, 2005. At the same

time Paschim Midnapur achieved 81%

household toilet coverage, which is

reflected in Table 5. Panchla and Bali-

Jagacha block are situated within the

Metropolitan area of Kolkata. Closeness

to the urban culture along with semi-

urban locality coupled with citable effort

from RSMs level achieved the target

easily in terms of household toilet

coverage is concerned. Only poor

coverage area under the study was

Amreswar village under Bhagar-I block.

This village is inhbitated by minority

population. Some citable reasons for the

poor coverage are:

34

Comparative analysis of sanitation

coverage in between state of West

Bengal and overall country based on

statistical data, also confirmed the

superiority in terms of penetration

through innovative and assertive

intervention (Fig. 26). Govt. of West

Bengal already took an initiative along

with RKMLP to declared Bankura

district as “Nirmal Zilla” within 2015

(ABP, 9.1.2014).

Fig 26:- Comparison of W.B performance in view of National overall progress

I. Poor performance of RSM IN IEC activities

II. Tender based work culture of RSM, where the later is only focusing on

building infrastructure as per target given by GP, rather than bringing

over all behavioural changes.

III. Being a flood prone area RSM did not take any precautions against high

water table during rainy seasons. So, overflowing of excreta during rainy

season created negative impacts on sanitation movements.

IV. People mind set is much more subsidy oriented rather than need based.

V. 3-4 technically wrong constructed toilets were observed during visits

(Toilet constructed side of the handpump or regular used pond, no

provision for Y-junction for double pit leach latrine, used vent pipe on

leach pit.)

Source:- Report of Dept. Rural Development, W.B

35

5.7 Perception about RSM: From villager’s point of view

Table 6:- Snapshot of FGD results with villagers Village Level Questionnaire

Location Type of Org Types of activities

Typ

e

Stat

e

Dis

tric

t

Blo

ck

Vill

age

San

itat

ion

P

rom

oti

on

Go

vt. O

rg

NG

O

CB

O

SHG

CLT

S

Wo

rksh

op

Sem

inar

Do

or

to D

oo

r

Gra

msa

bh

a

Me

eti

ng

Cam

pai

gn b

y

RSM

#

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Tamluk D. Dalhara

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Sutahat Baroda

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Nandigram-II Monoharpur

Rural W.B E. Midnapore Egra-II Dulalpur

Rural W.B W.

Midnapore Debra Bakaba Sevak

Rural W.B S. 24 PGS Bhagar-I Amreswar

Rural W.B Howrah Panchla Gondalpara

Rural W.B Howrah Bali-Jagacha Saheb Bagan

Sanitation promotion

programmes has been initiated in

most part of the state from 1987

onwards. Even the performance of

West Bengal in Toilet coverage is

(78%) much more than national

figures (75%) [MoDWS,

GoI].Other than that, in RKMLP

lead areas, total sanitation

campaign was designated to

RKMLP including start up

activities, IEC, RSM/PC

construction, monitoring, etc. “For

the first time in the country,

RKMLP is the first voluntary

organisation, had been entrusted

to act as a Nodal Agency for

implementing sanitation project

in a district” (Alok, 2010). So, all

the supports of Govt or other

donor agencies were routed

through RKMLP for better

coordination.

But, for other NGO run RSMs, GP

primarily involved in IEC activities

and based on that they used to

handover demand list to

respective RSMs to supply or

construct toilet. So, sometime too

many departmentalisations

caused ill coordination and poor

delivery. Various campaign (CLTS,

Workshop, Door to Door, Seminar

etc) were much more in RKMLP

lead areas, where, the same were

in other areas in lesser frequency.

36

Reason for

Sucess-13:-Single

window operation

most of the time

makes things first

and effective.

Coordination from

single point to all

the related

activities makes

controller

accountable and

quick decision

maker. Entrusting

RKMLP as “Nodal

Agency” removes

bureaucratic

compartmentalism

5.8Incidence of Diarrhoea

Fig 27:- Cases of Diarrhoea from respondent HH

Lack of access to safe, clean drinking-

water and basic sanitation facilities,

along with poor hygienic condition

cause nearly 90% of all deaths from

diarrhoea (WHO). In India, 13.8% of U-

five child death occurs due to diarrhoea.

The survey result showed that, in case of

RKMLP lead area the diarrhoeal incident

is lesser (within 2 wks from the survey

date) compared to other NGO lead area.

Table 1, item no 10, shows more or less

equal literacy status in both the areas

(RKMLP lead and other NGO lead areas),

whereas Fig. 30 shows high diarrhoeal

cases in other NGO lead areas, which is

contradictory in nature. It might be

happen due to considerable low sample

size.

But, one argument arose through FGD

session that, more diarrhoeal cases in

other NGO areas (having same education

level) is simply based on failure of

‘message internalisation’. For example,

all of us know that “Smoking is

injurious to Health”. But among the

smokers, most of them are educated one.

Extensive focus of IEC activities by

RKMLP and its cluster organisations

have bought remarkable behavioural

changes, which is absent for others.

5.9Latrine Coverage

Fig. 28:- Latrine Coverage

0% 1%

4%

16%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

RKMLP lead area Other NGO lead area

% o

f C

ase

s

Latrine Have

Latrine Haven't

96% 80%

4% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RKMLP lead area Other RSMs lead area

% o

f H

H

Latrine Haven't

Latrine Have

37

The success of Medinipur model, still

can be perceived from the below graph,

which indicates citable differences in

latrine coverage in two different area.

Proper institutionalisation of supply-

chain system (RSM/PC) along with

unique motivational campaign team and

involvement of RSMs in IEC activities

with regular strict monitoring system,

brought maximum changes compared to

other part of the state, even most of the

part of the country. The structural

superiority (Diagram 3) along with

active people participation in the

process gives an edge to get maximum

coverage.

5.10Motivational Instrument

Table 7:- List of motivational factors

Sr. No Question

RKMLP lead area Other NGO lead area

Latrine Latrine

Have Haven't Have Haven't

Motivator for building toilets

Motivator appointed by RSM 100% 50%

Anybody from RKMLP

Neighbour 21%

Adult male in household 18% 58%

Adult female in household 100% 100% 40% 42%

Children in household 50% 46%

GP 54% 31%

Other NGO (Except RSM)

CBO 100% 33%

SHG 27%

From the above table, it is clear

that, the impacts of RKMLP lead

mobilization at first creates ‘need,’

mainly through RSM appointed

motivators, groups of local women

(Mother Committee3) and village

youth clubs (CBO). Then the ‘need’

was transformed to materialistic

objects (toilet) through acceptable

technical and financial options.

Remarkably, children and GP in

both (RKMLP lead and other NGO

lead area) the areas plays a vital

role. One peculiar observation

came into notice that, female

members of the non-latrine HH,

are aware of the need of toilets.

But, due to non interest of male

head, they are still depriving from

the benefits of improved

sanitation. Except that, RSM

appointed motivators, after citable

effort, did not able to fully

convince those house hold heads.

Reason for

Sucess-14:-

Instruments like

Mother Club,

Village Youth Club

or one Tara pump

for 30 toilet

constructed HH

played pivotal role

in Midnapure,

later on other part

of the West Bengal

38

3Mother Committee is a new programme intervention tool developed by RKMLP during ISP. It is a body of women representative

from interested households. Their main objective is to mobilize other HH for toilet construction along with collection of beneficiary

contribution and submission to respective RSM for toilet construction

5.11Description of Existing Latrine

The Sanitation movement was started in

West Bengal back in 1981 by RKMLP as

a part of its Integrated Child

Development activities, with the support

of UNICEF and later on from the Govt. of

West Bengal. As per the socio-economic

condition in the region, low cost latrine

(SSP model) became main focus area in

ISP and later on CRSP or TSC. As the

state govt. as well as RKMLP is strong

believer of “Zero Subsidy” programme,

up-gradation of the SSP model did not

happen drastically without any further

subsidy offering from the State Govt. and

from the Nodal agency too. Till

September, 2013, NBA programmes

were not even started in RKMLP lead

areas. That’s why, most of the latrine in

RKMLP lead areas are single and old one

(except few). The same is applicable to

other NGO lead areas also, who followed

RKMLP’’s guideline and technology (SSP

model).

Fig. 29:- Type of Latrine built in the study area (I)

In case of other three NGO lead areas,

they are close to Kolkata metro city. So,

PPP among the people along with

lifestyle is much near to the urban style.

In addition, the other NGO lead RSMs,

already have higher financial allocation

under NBA programme. That’s why, the

percentage of “Latrine with separate

bathroom’ or “Latrine cum bathroom” is

little bit higher side compared to

RKMLP.

As RKMLP firstly promoted zero subsidy

low cost toilets, most of the HH in their

intervened area installed water-seal

Squatting Square Plate (some time it can

be round in shape). So, most of the

toilets are onsite based.

91%

4% 5%

77%

6%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Only Latrine Latrine with separatebathroom

Latrine cum bathroom

% o

f H

H

RKMLP area Other NGO area

39

But, other studied NGOs were started

their operation much later than RKMLP

along with use of full subsidized amount

offered through CRSP/TSC or NBA

programmes. So, most of their

constructions are offset based, single or

double leach pits. Few HHs constructed

septic tank after adding their

contribution with subsidized amount.

Fig 30:- Meeting of Village Youth Club with Mother Committee, Lokojagaran RSM

40

Fig. 32:- Type of Latrine built in the study

area (II)

Fig. 31:- Type of Latrine built in the study area (II)

5.12 Categorisation: APL & BPL

Fig. 33:- Latrine constructed APL & BPL families

The success of any project or

programme lies on inclusive

involvement of all the stake holders. At

the beginning, during CRSP programme,

subsidy was only declared for the BPL

categories, which later on carried

forward to TSC programme also. A

considerable number of deserving

people are out of the ambit of BPL list

due to political biasness or

administrative fault. Only in NBA, the

programme includes APL category with

certain specification as policy makers

realized their mistakes from last ones.

In this segment also, RKMLP acted as a

pathfinder. From the beginning, (1981,

much before CRSP lunching) their

sanitation movement is based on

inclusive coverage programme, whether

the family is APL or BPL, rich or poor.

Success cannot be achieved if a single

person left out, who is going for OD. It is

clear from the graph that, both APL and

BPL were equally emphasized in RKMLP

lead areas unlike the other NGO lead

areas.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RKMLP affiliated RSMs Other RSMs

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

BPL

APL

Reason for Sucess-15:-RKMLP considered all the segments of the people as target segment,

instead of leaving APL segment, with a pseudo belief that, the later is self motivated to construct

toilets by own. At the beginning, UNICEF supported fund was distributed among 700 families.

41

5.13 Institutional Credibility

Fig. 34:- Reason for choosing local RSM

RKMLP accredited RSMs/PCs achieved

more reliability in terms of service,

quality, right kind of advice and

involvement with people compared to

other RSMs which is found during study.

But, the villagers feel that, easy

accessibility, low price, credit facility

and quality assurance played important

role in changing their mindset.

5.14 Market Analysis

5.14.1 Affordability Perception

Data feeded in below mentioned table,

proved the need for research regarding

various low cost toilet options, which

was rightly conducted by RKMLP before

starting of ICD programme (ICDP). 94%

of the people, nodded against the last

option (Rs.250/-) as their affordability,

which come to 50% when price tag goes

up to Rs. 1450/-. The other upward

figures also tend to lower percentage.

This kind of domain specific research

was never done in most part of the

country. For that reason, most of the

RSMs try to sell ‘one size fit’ product to

everyone without having any

customized option. This is mostly due to

lack of management skill of the mart

management. Regular training and strict

monitoring system, brought desirable

success in RKMLP controlled RSMs/PCs.

71%

7%

97%

47%

90%

0% 0%

33%

5%

80%

0%

57%

7% 8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Easilyaccessible

Moreoptions

Low price Creditfacility

Qualityproduct

Singlewindowoption

Efficientafter sales

service

% o

f H

H

RKMLP area Other NGO area

Reason for Sucess-16:-More than social credibility and integrity, RKMLP’s success in

sanitation movement is also based on ‘Spiritual Connectivity’ with people.

42

Table 8:- Snapshot of Assessment for Toilet affordability (Source:- RKMLP)

Sr No Question

Total

All Rural

Latrine

Have n=784*

Haven't n=375*

1 Affordability perception (% out of all respondents)

At price Rs. 9400/-

Afford at peak income 4% 5%

Never afford 96% 95% 100%

At price Rs. 8400/-

Afford at peak income 8% 9%

Never afford 92% 91% 100%

At price Rs. 5000/-

Afford at peak income 15% 17%

Never afford 85% 83% 100%

At price Rs. 4000/-

Afford at peak income 19% 21%

Afford after saving >2 months 19% 21%

Never afford 81% 78% 100%

At price Rs. 1450/-

Afford anytime 6% 7%

Afford at peak income 44% 49%

Afford after saving >2 months 9% 10%

Never afford 41% 34% 100%

At price Rs. 250/-

Afford anytime 94% 100% 44%

Afford at peak income 6% 56% * Unless noted otherwise, sample size (n) for all Rural HHs are as indicated here

Unlike other areas, continuous research

by RKMLP and SIPRD brought the result

of low cost water seal latrine technology,

which later on changed the whole

scenario. In-depth analysis of the socio-

economic condition of intervened

people and their priority led R&D, PC

and SCM provide customized solution to

uproot the problem of sanitation

hazards.

Before implementing any programme,

socio-economic evaluation through field

survey is critical to customize the

former as per situation demand. In its

report, “Sanitation is a Business”, SDC

(2004) advocated for fixing up low cost

technical options for sanitation. It is

believed by the later that, sustainability

can be easily achieved through the

fundamental idea of ‘economy of scale’.

Low cost will create demand and once

demand is created supply will follow it.

High supply needs maximum

production, through optimum use of

resources, which in turn reduce unit

cost. For example, Sulabh International,

after through research on the current

43

situation of the community toilets, came

with a unique idea to provide public

toilets with cleanliness and hygienic

condition to common people, who can

afford Rs.1 or 2, instead of making

nuisance around public places. Daily

basis it is catering near about 12 million

people. The same way RKMLP brought

low cost SSP model, which pulled up

100% and 81% HHL coverage in 2005

against 4.74% in 1991, in Purba and

Pachim Midnapur respectively (Dey,

2005)

5.14.2 Impact Study

During survey, the effort was in place to

assess the degree of impacts of various

IEC or sanitation and hygiene education,

performed on those study areas. The

effort was also extended to know the

priority area of the individual HHs as

per their understanding. For that

purpose, we conducted same survey to

latrine owners and non-owners.

Fig. 35:- Priority given to various benefits of Latrine by Latrine-owners

It is clear from both the graphical

representation (Fig. 34 & 35) that,

intervention from RKMLP lead RSMs,

were very much strong, even on latrine

non-owners. The reason behind the

reluctancy/inability of the later is quite

different. But, on the same time, the

achievement of other NGO lead RSMs

are lagging behind. One of the strong

reasons behind the differences is

fixation of objectives. As I said earlier,

RKMLP’s main focus is creation of

demand through behavioural change,

where as other NGOs believes on merely

infrastructure build-up.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Improved hygiene

Improved health

More privacy

More comfortable

Convenience / Save time

Improved safety

Improved status/prestige

% of Respondents

Other RSMs RKMLP affiliated RSMs

44

Fig. 36:- Priority given to various benefits of Latrine by non Latrine-owners

5.15 Source of Information

Fig. 37:- Source of Sanitation advice

Study on the survey result also

demonstrate the vital role of RSM

appointed motivators, Local RSM’s

activities and various IEC programmes

lead by RSMs, PRIs, block or district

administration. More and more IPC,

would be much more effective rather

than any other means of awareness

campaign. The success of RKMLP lead

sanitation movement is due to the

emergence of leaders from the

community, not from the outside. Unlike

urban area, TV or News paper did not

able to create considerable awareness.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Improved hygiene

Improved health

More privacy

More comfortable

Convenience / Save…

Improved safety

Improved…

% of Respondents

Other RSMs RKMLP affiliated RSMs

45

5.16 Other Reasons for Success

Other than that, the study revealed that,

following points also contributes to the

success of Sanitation movement in West

Bengal lead by RKMLP accreted

RSMs/PCs.

5.17Scope for Improvement: Analytical view

5.17.1 Water Table Rising

During field visit, it was found that, people

are unaware about (79%) the selection

criteria of latrine place, specially flood

prone areas in Bengal. Even the Mart

manager or other technical persons of the

mart, do not know about “water table

rising” scenario1 or distance of latrine

from nearby tubewell or regular using

ponds2. Even in school or anganwadi

toilets, the required technical parameters

were not considered by the RSMs.

Fig. 38:- Knowledge about “Water Table Rising”

1) Availability of trained mason and semi skilled labour teams as per demand

2) Attractive commission structure for motivators along with target based incentive plan

3) Regular knowledge sharing and training programmes regarding policy or technology updates.

4) Availability of various options from low cost toilet (SSP) material to high cost range. [Rs. 250/- to Rs.9400/- (Integrated Health Programme; RKMLP, Govt. of W.B & UNICEF)

5) Effective and transparent monitoring and evaluation system

6) Spiritual attachment and presence of so many branch offices of RKM throughout both the Midnapure provides extra edge in social mobilization with deeper penetration.

46

Regular training programmes along with

technical updation are very much

necessary from RSMs OR District sanitary

cell’s point of view. Monitoring and

evaluation system need to be strengthen

to prevent future mistakes.

5.17.2 Policy Convergence: IAY

Table 9:- Households constructed under IAY

Sr No

Question

RKMLP lead area

Other NGO lead area

Latrine Latrine

Have Haven't Have Haven't

1 Families (Interviewed) financial assistance under IAY 22% 50% 23% 42%

The survey result demonstrates that,

almost 50% of the latrine non-owners

did not construct toilet along with house

construction under IAY. Unfortunately,

in spite of clear discretion in IAY

guideline that, “every house should

include a toilet, soak pit and compost

pit.........and every household should be

actively encouraged to construct a

bathroom”(IAY Guideline, 2013), it is

not happening according to the rule due

to negligency of implementing authority.

Local RSM or district sanitation cell

should coordinate with respective

department for better implementation.

47

RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

The study was conducted mainly for two reasons,

Merely constructing infrastructure will

not serve the purpose. Without proper

motivational technique, persistency of

behavioural change is questionable.

Flexibility in terms of organisational

structure and management system, need

to be allowed as per the region specific

socio-economic condition of target

groups, instead of sticking to the line by

line policy guidelines. The spirit of the

law or policy needs to be maintained for

a uniform, transparent execution and

monitoring & evaluation system. It is

good to see the changes are taking place

gradually through the good practices of

successful RSMs through various

private-public partnership. Now, it is not

only just a issue but a burning issue even

in socio-political arena, where it is also

put in the same line with Roti(food),

Kapradh(apparel) and Makan(house).

The situation has aroused to say that,

“Pahale Souchalaya, Fir Devalaya

(Presence of Toilet even come first then

Worship place)

To bring the sustainability in RSMs

operation is a vital and inevitable need

to meet the MDG, set up by UN body. For

this purpose, following

recommendations are made.

1)

48

I. To do comparative study between operational procedure of RKMLP and other failed RSMs/PCs in most of the part of our country and

II. To find out the contributing factors for achieving sustainability of RSM

1) Highlight or award all those successful RSM or PC centres which consistently performing well, adding value into the system (like NGP)

2) Ensure active participation of RSMs in design or suggesting IEC activities along with allocation of funds for said purpose to RSMs. The controlling power should not be in one hand (decentralisation), otherwise the fund will be misused (observed few instances during Purba Midnapur vist)

3) It is good to involve local people in mobilization processes, rather than efforts from outsider. (Hardly people knew, that Vidya Bhalan is promoting NBA programme!)

4) All the RSMs should build professional attitude and work culture to deal with such kind of critical issues. Regular intensive training programme needs to be arranged (may be by the help of renowned institute having expertise in Rural development and Rural marketing) to upgrade skills of functionaries.

5) Research on customized solutions need to be encouraged to explore new technical options which are affordable by the common people.

After conducting the study and pen

down the work on paper for analytical

purpose, it is evident that Rural Sanitary

Mart is a critical junction point in supply

chain system of sanitation. The success

of any programme (ISP, CRSP, TSC or

NBA) is directly proportional to the

organisational set up of the RSM along

with its involvement in grass root level.

The inferences came through the

comparative study among the RSMs,

managed by different stakeholders. It is

just a chain reaction. Effective

mobilization process creates demand

vacuum, which need to be filled up by

efficient supply chain (RSM/PC) on

immediate manner. This will provide

RSMs to build up rapport with target

consumers for future up-gradation or

selling of other products (low cost water

purifier, smokeless chulla, solar lantern),

which in turn ensure sustainability of

the enterprise. The study tried to

diagnose the problem associated with

the non-functionality of RSM and

recommended possible remedies.

“A sense of national or social sanitation is not a virtue among us. We may take kind of bath,

but we don’t mind dirtying the well or the tank or the river by whose side or in which we

perform ablutions. I regard this defect as a great vice which is responsible for the

disgraceful state of our villages and the sacred banks of the sacred rivers and for the

disease that spring from insanitation”

-Gandhi (1947)

6) More focus on effective Sanitation & Hygiene education rather than infrastructure.

7) The focus has to shift from ‘Subsidy driven’ to ‘Demand driven’ mode

8) RSM should be located at a central point of the block (or cluster of blocks), which can ensure accessibility to all the targeted communities.

9) RSMs should be supported by sufficient financial allocation right at beginning and even during the course of its existence. Banks can provide loans to RSMs under SME unit.

10) State and Central Govt. should offer sales tax exemption along with provision like free electricity for certain period, leasing of waste land to RSMs for Production centre.

49

REFERENCES

B. B. Samanta, 2009. STUDY OF SUPPLY CHAIN SYSTEM IN TSC ORISSA CASE STUDY

REPORT

Chandi Charan Dey, 2010.Production Centers cum Rural Sanitary Marts: An alternate

delivery mechanism for sanitation promotion in West Bengal

CMS, 2011. Assessment Study of Impact and Sustainability of Nirmal Gram Puraskar

Jacqueline Devine and Craig Kullmann, 2011. Introductory Guide to Sanitation

Marketing. pp. 6-10

IDE, 2011.Easy Shower Latrine, Technical Handbook

India Together, [viewed on 24.10.2013].

file:///D:/Sanitation%20Marketing/Success%20in%20rural%20sanitation%20-

%20July%202003%20-%20India%20Together.htm

Indira Khurana and Richard Mahapatra, 2009.Right to Water and Sanitation

Kamal Kar & Robert Chember, 2008. Handbook on Community-Led Total Sanitation

K. K. Jadeja, 2009.Study of supply chain management under Total Sanitation Project in

Gujarat

Kumar Alok, 2010. Squatting with Dignity: Lessons from India

Kumar Alok & Sumita Ganguly, 2007. Rural Sanitary Marts: Developing a sustainable

alternate delivery mechanism for sanitation in West Bengal

Leonie Kappauf, 2011. Opportunities and Constraints for more Sustainable Sanitation

through Sanitation Marketing in Malawi, 2011. pp. 21-27

Michael Roberts, M.S. and Anthea Long, 2007. Demand Assessment for Sanitary

Latrines in Rural and Urban Areas of Cambodia

Michael Roberts, Aaron Tanner, and Andrew McNaughton, 2007.Supply Chain

Assessment for Sanitary Latrines in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas of Cambodia

Ministry of Rural Development, GoI, 2013. INDIRA AWAAS YOJANA. pp. 5-7

Nilaya Deep, 2007. Total Sanitation Campaign in West Bengal A Study of the Supply

Chain Mechanism

Shri P K Chakraborty, 2009. STUDY OF SUPPLY CHAIN IN TSC MAHARASHTRA CASE

STUDY

50

S. K. Chattopadhyay, 2008. STUDY OF SUPPLY CHAIN SYSTEM IN TSCUTTAR PRADESH

CASE STUDY REPORT

Solution Exchange-Water Community, 2007. Making Rural Sanitary Marts viable and

more effective – Experiences, Examples.

Solution Exchange-Water Community, 2008. Strategy for Scaling Up Rural Sanitation

Coverage

SNV & IRC Report, 2012.Rural Sanitation Supply Chains and Finance

S. R. Mendiratta, 2000. Sanitation Promotion through Rural Sanitary Mart. pp. 156-157

Swami Asaktananda and Chandi Charan Dey, 2005. Sanitation is a Movement :

Ramakrishna Mission Lokasiksha Parishad’s Experiences

UNICEF, 2004. Rural Sanitary Marts and Production Centres – An Evaluation

UNICEF, 2007. Technology options for HOUSEHOLD SANITATION. pp. 6-23

UNICEF, 2011. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Annual Report 2011.pp. 43-46

WaterAid, 2000. Marketing Sanitation in Rural India

Water SHED,2010.WASH Marketing ProjectKampong Speu Baseline Survey

WSP, 2004.Sanitation is a business: Approaches for demand-oriented policies

WSP, 2009. Learning at Scale: Total Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing Project. pp. 5-8,

10

WSP, 2010. From Dreams to Reality: Compendium of Best Practices in Rural Sanitation in

India. pp. 19-25

WSP, 2010. THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INADEQUATE SANITATION IN INDIA

WSP, 2012. Sanitation Marketing Lessons from Cambodia: A Market-Based Approachto

Delivering Sanitation

51

ANNEXURE I

A. Questionaire for RSMs No Question Coding Skip

Q1. RSM is operated by 1. GP 2. SHG 3. DSMS 4. NGO 5. CBO 6. Local Entrepreneure___________ 7. Other (specify)___________________

Q2. Why did you involve in RSM?

1. Only social work, no profit 2. Social work with marginal profit 3. To establish full fledged Business unit 4. Motivated by RKMLP 5. Other (specify)____________________________

Q3a. Does the RSM get Finanacial Aid at begining?

Yes No

Q4a.

Q3b. Where from does the RSM get financial Aid?

Q3c. How much F.A did it get?

Q3d. What is the bifurcated amount?

1. Capital Investment Rs.____________ 2. Revolving Fund Rs_____________ 3. Other (specify) Rs_____________

Q4a. Does the RSM get any financial assistance after inception?

Yes No

Q5.

Q4b. How?

Q4c. How much did the RSM get?

Rs._____________________

Q5. How many stuff do you have? What are their salary/wages (per month)?

1. Manager _________No@Rs._____________/m 2. Chief Motivator _____No@Rs._____________/m 3. Motivator __________No@Rs._____________/m 4. Mason ___________No@Rs._____________/m 5. Labour ____________No@Rs.____________/m 6. Other (specify)________No@Rs.___________/m

Q6. Trained mason’s availability (Check all that apply)

1. RKMLP trained mason for that village 2. People have to arrange by themselves 3. RSM has their onroll mason 4. Other (specify)________

Q7a. Is the operation self sustaining?

Yes No

Q8a

Q7b. Factors for sustainability

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Q8a. Why the RSM unit is not self susstaining?

1. Economic Condition of villagers 2. Mindset 3. Lack of support (Promotional) 4. Lack of support (Financial) 5. Water scarcity 6. ________________________________________ 7._________________________________________

Q8b. What measures are taken to make the unit sustainable?

1. 2. 3. 4.

52

(If any)

5. 6.

Q9. Do you sell device to assist disabile persons?

1. Yes 2. No

Q10a. Do the RSM have a PC? Yes No

Q11a

Q10b. Benefits of having PC adjacent to RSM

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Q10c. Annual Turnover (RSM +PC)

Rs.___________

Q11a. How does the RSM outsource sanitary materials?

Q11b. Annual Turnover (RSM) Rs._____________

Q11c. Reasons for not having a PC

1. 2. 3. 4.

Q11d. What extent does it save cost?

Q12. Annual Production (Latrine)

______Units (With Super structure) ______Units (Without Super Structure) ______Units (Total)

Q13a. Role of RKMLP in promoting Sanitation in villages?

1. Only through RSM 2. IEC Aactivities in village 3. Providing support to GP to lead the activities 4. Only Financial support to BPL families 5. Financial support to APL + BPL 6. CLTS 7. Other (specify)____________________________

Q13b. Role of RKMLP in support to RMS?

1. Support for Capital Investment 2. Training 3. Information dissemination 4. Monitoring & Evaluation 5. Reward or Incentive 6. Other (specify)____________________________

Q14. What kind of diversified materials does the RSM have except materials for Latrine costruction?

1. Wash Basin 2. Pipe 3. Water Tap 4. Long handled ladles 5. Drinking water pots 7. Water purifier (Low cost) 8. Brooms, Brushes 9. Soap & Disinfectants 10. Other (specify)___________________________ 11. Other (specify)___________________________

Q15. Cost of the Latrine construction is inclusive of

1. Only Hardware 2. Hardware and transport 3. Hardware, transport and installation 4. Hardware, transport, installation and motivator commission 5. Other (specify)____________________________

Q16a. Did you construct School or Anganwadi toilets?

Yes No

Q17a

Q16b. How many?

Q16c. Technical expertise about School or Anganwadi toilets?

Yes No

Q17a. Is there any citable demand for toilets?

Yes No

Q18

Q17b. What may be the reasons for demand?

1. Various IEC Programmes 2. RMS’s business promotion

53

3. Supportive behaviour of the people 4. High literacy rate 5. Strong political intervention 6. Pro-active role of GP 7. Favourable economic condition 8. Strong advocacy of RKMLP 9. Role of other NGO/CBO/SHG_________________ 10.Other (specify)____________________________

Q18. What are reasons behind lack of demand?

1. Already saturated market 2. Lack of awareness 3. No support from Govt/GP 4. No support from other NGO/Pvt. Body 5. Faliure of BCC 6. Social taboo 7. Religious constraints 8. Other (specify)____________________________

Q19. Who does usually play important role in toilet construction?

1. Head of household 2. Housewife 3. Old peolpe 4. Young generation 5. Children 6. Other (specify)____________________________

Q20. How many toilets actually used for defaecation purpose?

%

Q21. How many families are still going for OD after constructing toilets?

%

Q22. In what month(s) do you have the highest income? (Check all that apply)

1. Jan 2. Feb 3. March 4. Apr 5. May 6. Jun 7. Jul 8. Aug 9. Sep 10. Oct 11. Nov 12. Dec 13. Income is constant through out the year

Q23a. How many households did get financial support through IAY scheme?

Q23b. How many household did construct toilet along with construction of house under IAY scheme?

Q24a. What kind of roof shelter do you sell? (Check all that apply)

1. Concrete 2. Fibrous cement 3. Galvanized steel 4. Tiles 5. Jute 6. Plastic sheet 7. Salvaged material 8. Coconut Leaves 9. Other (specify)__________________________

Q24b. What kind of shelter walls do you sell? (Check all that apply)

1. Concrete/Brick 2. Fibrous cement 3. Galvanized steel 4. Bamboo 5. Jute 6. Plastic sheet 7. Salvaged material 8. Coconut Leaves 9. Other (specify)__________________________

54

Q24c. What kind of slab do you sell? (Check all that apply)

1. Open hole-woden slab 2. Open hole –concrete slab 3. Pour flush 4. Western Toilet bowl 5. Other___________________________________

Other Comments:-

55

ANNEXURE II

B. Questionaire for General Information about Village

d d m m y y

No Question Coding Skip

Q25. Number of HHs in that village _______________HHs

Q26a. Q26b. Q26c.

Number of people in that village

_______________Women

_______________Men

_______________Total

Q27a. Q27b. Q27c. Q27d.

Number of latrines in that village Number of latrine with separate bathing plac Number of latrine cum bathroom Number of Community Toilets in that village

_______________Number _______________Number _______________Number _______________Number

Q28a. Q28b.

Number of Latrine owners interviewed Number of Non Latrine owners interviewed

_______________Latrine owners _______________Non Latrine owners

Q29a. Q29b.

Distance to nearest RSM Distance to nearest commercial high priced showroom

_______________Km _______________Km

Q30a. Has there ever been any Kind of sanitation promotion event in the village?

Yes No

End

Q30b. Who did organize the promotion? [Check all that apply]

1. Govt. Organization 2. NGO 3. CBO 4. SHG 5. Other (specify)__________________

Q30c. What type of promotional activities was happend? [Check all that apply]

1. IEC Campaign 2. CLTS 3. Workshop 4. Seminer 5. Door to Door 6. Gramsabha metting 7. Campaign of local RSM 8. Other (specify)__________________

Q30d. Year promotion activities started

Q30e. Are promotional activities still ongoing? Yes No

Q30f. Year promotional activities ended

Questionnaire No.

Village Name

Block

District

Interview Team

1. 2. 3.

Respondent

Date of Village Visit Arrive Depart

56

ANNEXURE III

C. Questionaire for Villagers QUESTIONNAIRE IDENTIFICATION

Village Name Questionnaire Number

Block Respondent Name

District Respondent age

Interviewer Name

Respondent sex M F

Date of Interview

HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Q31a Q31b Q31c Q31d Q31e

No Relation to Household head Age Sex Years of Education

How many times has this person had diarrhea in the past 2 weeks?

1 Household head

2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11

No Question Coding Skip

Q32. Do you have Toilet Yes No

Q43a

Q33a. What kind of is it? (Check one)

1. Only latrine 2. Latrine with separate bathroom 3. Latrine cum bathroom

Q33b. 1. Onsite 2. Offsite

Q33c. What kind of model is it? (Check one)

1. Medinapur Model 3. Simple pit Latrine 4. VIP Latrine 5. Single leach pit 6. Double leach pit 7. Ecosan 8. Septic tank 9. Piped sewerage 10. Other (Specify)____________________________

Q34a. Did you get any assistance under IAY scheme?

1. Yes 2. No

Q35a

Q34b. Did you construct toilet along with construction of your house

1. Yes 2. No

Q35a. Who helped you during construction of your toilet?

1. Local RSM____________________________ 2. Local mason 3. By own 4. Other (Specify)____________________________

Q36

Q35b. Why did you choose local RSM?

1. Easily accessible 2. More options 3. Low price 4. Credit facility 5. Quality product

57

6. Single window option 7. Efficient after sales service 8. Association of RKMLP

Q35c. Did you refer anybody to your Local RSM for toilet construction? If yes, how many?

Yes ____________Number No

Q35d. Rank your local RSM. (9 for Excellent and 1 for very poor)

Q36. When do you construct your toilet?

Q37. What is the distance between your house and RSM?

Q38. Who motivated you to build toilet? (Check all that apply)

1. Motivator appointed by RSM 2. Anybody from RKMLP 3. Neighbour 4. Adult male in household 5. Adult female in household 6. Children in household 7. GP 8. NGO_______________________________ 9. CBO_______________________________ 10. SHG_______________________________ 11. Other (Specify)____________________________

Q39a. What kind of shelter roof does your latrine have? (Check one. If more than one wall material is used choose material that covers the largest area)

1. Concrete 2. Fibrous cement 3. Galvanized steel 4. Tiles 5. Jute 6. Plastic sheet 7. Salvaged material 8. Coconut Leaves 9. No roof 10. Other (specify)__________________________

Q39b. What kind of shelter walls does your latrine have? (Check one. If more than one wall material is used choose material that covers the largest area)

1. Concrete/Brick 2. Fibrous cement 3. Galvanized steel 4. Bamboo 5. Jute 6. Plastic sheet 7. Salvaged material 8. Coconut Leaves 9. No roof 10. Other (specify)__________________________

Q39c. What kind of slab did you buy?

1. Open hole-woden slab 2. Open hole –concrete slab 3. Pour flush 4. Western Toilet bowl 5. Other___________________________________

Q40. How much did you pay for your latrine?

1. Rs.________________________ 2. Don’t know

Q41. Why do you construct toilet?

1. Improved hygiene/cleanliness 2. Improved health 3. More privacy 4. More comfortable 5. Convenience / Save time 6. Improved safety 7. Improved status/prestige 8. No advantage 9. Don’t know 10. Other (specify)____________________________

Q42a. Do all the members of your family use toilet?

1. Yes 2. No

Q44a

Q42b. Why does the toilet not use 1. Old people prefer to go outside

58

by others? 2. Made only for young family members for their privacy & dignity 3. Using by all will lead to fill the pit quickly 4. Better to use only in rainy session 5. As we used it as seasonal store room 6. Others (specify)_____________________________

(Go to next section) Q44a

Q43a. Do you feel that toilet is necessary?

Yes No

Why? 1. Improved hygiene/cleanliness 2. Improved health 3. More privacy 4. More comfortable 5. Convenience / Save time 6. Improved safety 7. Improved status/prestige 8. No advantage 9. Don’t know 10. Other (specify)____________________________

Q43b. Why you did not construct toilet?

1. Bad smell 2. Attracts flies 3. Cost to maintain it 4. Work to maintain it 5. Other people come to use it 6. Too expensive 7. No space 8. No water 9. No problem to defecate other than toilet 10. No disadvantage 11. Lack information about bad effects or where to purchase a latrine 12. Other priorities come first 13. Don’t know 14. Other (specify)____________________________

Q44a. Can you afford to buy a latrine at the following price? (Check one box for each price)

Price Can afford

any time

Can afford at time of peak income (e.g., after harvest)

Can afford by saving for 2

months or less

Can afford by saving for more than 2

months

Can never afford

Q44b. (Show respondent picture of five types of latrines) How much would you expect to pay for these latrines?

1. Latrine type A.......... Rs.___________ 2. Latrine type B.......... Rs.___________ 3. Latrine type C.......... Rs.______________ 4. Latrine type D.......... Rs.______________ 5. Latrine type E.......... Rs.______________

Q45. What can motivate you to build toilet?

Q46a. Is your residential land flooded regularly?

1. Never 2. Sometimes 3. Every year

Q46b. Do you know that rising water table is related to toilet construction?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Partly

Q47. What items did you spend money on in the last 12 months? (Rank all items from 9 to 1. The largest annual expense is 9, the second largest is 8, and so on. I f there was no

1. Food 2. Health Care 3. Education 4. Housing 5. Clothing 6. Agriculture inputs 7. Productive assets 8. Consumer goods

59

expenditure enter zero) 9. Ceremonies/gifts

Q48. In what month(s) do you have the highest income? (Check all that apply)

1. Jan 2. Feb 3. March 4. April 5. May 6. Jun 7. Jul 8. Aug 9. Sep 10. Oct 11. Nov 12. Dec 13. Income is constant throughout the year

Q49a. What sanitation advice have you heard before? (Do not read options; check all that apply)

1. Drink safe water 2. Use a latrine 3. Wash hands/face/body 4. Food hygiene 5. Other (specify)____________________________ 6. None

Q49b. What was the source of the sanitation advice? (Do not read options; check all that apply)

1. Own family 2. Other villagers 3. NGO worker 4. Health centre 5. Local RSM 6. VWSC 7. School students/ Teachers 8. Religious leader 9. TV 10. Radio 11. Newspaper 12. IEC Programme 13. GP 14. Other (specify)____________________________

Q50. Are there any disabled people in the household?

1. Yes 2. No

Q50a End

Q50a. Which household member? (Enter person’s number from the Household Member Table)

_____________Household Member Number

Q50b. Describe the disability

Q50c. How is this person able to defecate?

1. Assisted 2. Unassisted

Q50d. Does this person use any device to assist them to defecate?

1. Yes 2. No

Q50 End

Q50e. Describe the device

Other Comments:

60

ANNEXURE IV

FGD for RSM

1. Price

i. What are the different toilet options available in RSM? ii. What is the % of profit margin?

iii. How do you calculate the cost of the product? iv. Do you have any credit facility? v. Do you have different price stategy for APL and BPL? If, then What?

vi. Do you get any subsidy from other organisations for selling the items to poor? vii. Does the price moves on seasonal basis?

viii. List of last 5yrs/3yrs account details

2. Promotion

i. What kind of prmotional activitives do you have? ii. Do you work through motivator network?

iii. How do you appoint them? iv. How do you assinge them? v. How do you evaluate them?

vi. What is their payment and incentive structure? vii. What is the linkage with local mason developed?

3. Product

i. What are the products available in RSM along with varities? ii. What kind of facilitities do you have for old people or disabled people?

iii. How can it be further diversified? iv. What role does the convergence play (with water quality monitoring, community

vermicopost unit, bio gas plant)?

4. Position (Delivery)

i. Do you provide after sales services? What are the terms and conditions? ii. Do you provide services for desludging after decomposition of excreta?

iii. What do you plan for the sustaining of the business after saturation of toilet coverage?

FGD for Villagers

1. Household Head

i. What are the scope for improvement of local RSM? ii. What are the products you want to be available in that Mart ?

iii. Do you want to upgrade your existing latrine to more beutiful and expensive one through an easy EMI process?

2. Women

i. Do you know about SHG? ii. How it can help poor families to construct toilets through microcredit?

iii. How is the toilet so important for old peole, children and specially women? iv. How does local RSM play an important role in your village?

61

3. Children

i. Do you know the benefits of toile construct and hygiene practices? ii. How can you become a change agent?

iii. What do you think about a beautiful toilet?

4. Sarpanch

i. What kind of role do you play for maximum toilet coverage? ii. What kind of support can you provide to local RSM for its longterm self

sustainability?

5. VWSC Member

i. How do you can help RSM to get maximum order?

6. ASHA/ANM

i. How can your sechdule visit to HHs lead to toilet construction of uncovered areas?

ii. What extent can you play a role in NBA?

62

ANNEXURE V

RURAL AREAS REPORT

No Question

Total RKMLP affiliated RSMs Other RSMs

All Rural

Latrine All

Rural

Latrine All Rura

l

Latrine

Have Haven't Have Haven

't Have Haven't

Q0a Total number of village 8

5

3

Q0b Total number of blocks 8

5

3

Q0c Total number of districts 4

2

2

Q0d Total number of questionnaires 160

100

60

Q0e Average age of respondent (person who answered the questionnaire)

43.10 45.32 40.88

44.63 39.75

46.00 42.00

Q0f Female respondent (person who answered the question)

49% 51% 38%

53% 50%

46% 33%

Q31a Average household size 5.47 5.44 5.5

4.99 3.5

5.9 7.5

Q31b Average age of household members 44.87 45.31 40.87

44.63 39.75

46 42

Q31c Female headed households (% out of all households)

6% 5% 19%

3% 50%

8% 8%

Q31d Average years of education for those over 18 years

7.60 8.13 2.87

8.02 3.2

8.23 2.54

Q31e Have had at least one case of diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks (% out of all people in respondent households)

3% 1% 16%

1% 12%

1% 16%

Q31b Under-5 population (% out of all people in respondent households)

16% 12% 43%

13% 12%

9% 49%

Q31e Under-5 that have had one or more cases of diarrhoea in the past 2 weeks (% out of all under 5s)

16% 6% 35%

5% 100%

9% 32%

Q32 Having toilets (% out of all respondents) 90% 90% 10%

96% 4%

80% 20%

Q33a Type of Latrine

Only Latrine 87% 87%

91%

77%

Latrine with separate bathroom 5% 5%

4%

6%

Latrine cum bathroom 8% 8%

5%

17%

Q33b Onsite 67% 67%

88%

27%

Offsite 33% 33%

12%

73%

Q33c Model

Medinapur Model 68% 68%

74%

54%

Simple pit latrine

VIP Latrine

Single leach pit 19% 19%

18%

23%

Double Leach pit 9% 9%

6%

15%

Ecosan

Septic tank 4% 4%

2%

8%

Q34a Families (Interviewed) financial assistance under IAY

24% 22% 44%

22% 50%

23% 42%

Q34a Families constructed toilets under IAY assistance

20%

22%

23%

Q35a Toilet constructed by (First time)

Local RSM 77% 77%

100%

33%

Local Mason 22% 22%

0%

65%

By own 1% 1%

0%

2%

Q35a* Toilet Constructed in BPL families

51%

88%

Toilet Constructed in APL families 49%

13%

Q35b Reason for choosing Local RSM (if constructed

by RSM for the non-latrine owners)

63

Easily accessible 57% 60% 31% 71% 70% 100% 33% 40% 8%

More options 8% 7% 19% 7% 5% 50% 5% 4% 8%

Low price 91% 92% 75% 97% 97% 100% 80% 83% 67%

Credit facility 29% 33% 0% 47% 49%

0%

Quality product 78% 84% 19% 90% 92% 50% 57% 69% 8%

Single window option 3% 3% 0% 0%

7% 8%

Efficient after sales service 3% 3% 0% 0%

8% 10%

Association of RKMLP 64% 64% 25% 96% 96% 100% 0%

Q35c

Number of HHs, which refer RSM's name to other (From the respondents)

17

13

4

Q35d Rank of local RSM

Point 9 13% 12% 19%

15% 75%

6%

Point 8 14% 16% 0%

18%

13%

Point 7 30% 31% 25%

32% 50%

27% 17%

Point 6 29% 33%

38%

23%

Point 5 1% 1%

2%

Point 4

Point 3

Point 2

Point 1 13% 8% 56%

5%

13% 75%

Q38 Motivator for building toilets

Motivator appointed by RSM 61% 67% 13%

100% 50%

Anybody from RKMLP

Neighbour 6% 7%

21%

Adult male in household 28% 31%

18%

58%

Adult female in household 85% 80% 56%

100% 100%

40% 42%

Children in household 44% 49%

50%

46%

GP 42% 47%

54%

31%

Other NGO (Except RSM)

CBO 70% 78%

100%

33%

SHG 8% 9%

27%

Q39a Roof construction material (% out of all respondents)

Concrete 20% 22%

Fibrous cement

Galvanized steel 8% 8%

Tiles 6% 7%

Jute

Plastic sheet 21% 23%

Salvaged material 6% 7%

Coconut Leaves 9% 10%

No roof 20% 22%

Q39b Shelter wall structure

Concrete/Brick 26% 29%

Fibrous cement 3% 3%

Galvanized steel 2% 2%

Bamboo 14% 16%

64

Jute 12% 13%

Plastic sheet 18% 19%

Salvaged material

Coconut Leaves 16% 17%

Q39c Slab structure

Open hole-woden slab

Open hole –concrete slab

Pour flush 90% 100%

Western Toilet bowl

Q41 Latrine advantages (% out of all respondents)

Improved hygiene/cleanliness 92% 94% 69%

95% 100%

94% 58%

Improved health 69% 71% 56%

93% 100%

27% 42%

More privacy 55% 54% 63%

67% 75%

29% 58%

More comfortable 12% 11% 19%

9%

15% 25%

Convenience / Save time 60% 60% 56%

81% 100%

19% 42%

Improved safety 43% 45% 25%

49% 100%

38%

Improved status/prestige 5% 6%

8%

No advantage

Don’t know

Other

Q43b Latrine disadvantages (% out of all respondents)

Bad smell

Attracts flies

Cost to maintain it

Work to maintain it

Other people come to use it

Too expensive 8%

81%

100%

75%

No space 26% 28%

20%

46%

No water

No problem to defecate other than toilet

No disadvantage 66% 72% 19%

80%

54% 25%

Lack information about bad effects or where to purchase a latrine

Other priorities come first

Don’t know

Other

Q44a Affordibility perception (% out of all respondents)

At price Rs. 9400/-

Afford anytime

Afford at peak income 4% 5%

Afford after saving <2 months

Afford after saving >2 months

Never afford 96% 95% 100%

At price Rs. 8400/-

Afford anytime

65

Afford at peak income 8% 9%

Afford after saving <2 months

Afford after saving >2 months

Never afford 92% 91% 100%

At price Rs. 5000/-

Afford anytime

Afford at peak income 15% 17%

Afford after saving <2 months

Afford after saving >2 months

Never afford 85% 83% 100%

At price Rs. 4000/-

Afford anytime

Afford at peak income 19% 21%

Afford after saving <2 months

Afford after saving >2 months 19% 21%

Never afford 81% 78% 100%

At price Rs. 1450/-

Afford anytime 6% 7%

Afford at peak income 44% 49%

Afford after saving <2 months

Afford after saving >2 months 9% 10%

Never afford 41% 34% 100%

At price Rs. 250/-

Afford anytime 94% 100% 44%

Afford at peak income 6%

56%

Afford after saving <2 months

Afford after saving >2 months

Never afford

Q44b Average expected price for each pictured option (all respondents)

Latrine type I

Rs. 150

Rs. 100

Latrine type C

Rs. 196

Rs. 100

Latrine type G

Rs. 196

Rs. 107

Latrine type E

Rs. 200

Rs. 110

Latrine type A

Rs. 211

Rs. 110

Q46a Residential land flooding (% out of all respondents)

Never 79% 83% 44%

85% 50%

79% 42%

Sometimes 16% 12% 56%

8% 50%

19% 58%

Every year 4% 5%

6%

2%

Q46b Knowledge about water table rising

Yes 9% 10%

11%

8%

No 79% 76% 100%

74% 100%

81% 100%

Partly 12% 13%

15%

10%

Q47

Spending Priorities (average rank given to each expense category)

66

Food 7.55 7.6 7.13

Health care 6.95 6.97 6.78

Education 6.01 6.04 5.78

Housing 2.21 2.12 3.02

Clothing 1.68 1.75 1

Agriculture input 8.52 8.56 8.14

Productive assets 4.71 4.78 4.12

Consumer goods 5.65 5.91 3.34

Ceremonies/gifts 1.59 1.65 1

Q48 Month of highest income (% out of all respondents)

Jan 7% 7% 6%

Feb 2% 2%

Mar 4% 4%

Apr 17% 15% 31%

May 13% 13% 13%

Jun 6% 7%

Jul 3% 3%

Aug 3% 3%

Sep 2% 2%

Oct 4% 4%

Nov 6% 6%

Dec 24% 22% 38%

Constant income throught the year 10% 10% 13%

Q49b Source of Sanitation advice

Own family 34% 35% 25%

18%

71% 33%

Other villagers

RSM appointed Motivators 56% 62%

93%

Health centre 11% 12%

5%

25%

Local RSM 84% 90% 25%

96% 50%

79% 17%

VWSC

School students/ Teachers 23% 22% 31%

22% 75%

23% 17%

Religious leader

TV 2%

19%

25%

Radio

Newspaper 41% 45%

44%

48%

IEC Programme 83% 92%

94%

88%

GP 27% 30%

38%

15%

Other

Q50 Disabled person in the household (% out of all respondents)

4% 3% 19%

2%

4% 25%

Q50c Disabled person able to defecate (% out of all disabled respondents in category)

Assisted 3% 3% 6%

2%

4% 8%

67