Islands of success

Towards Everyone, Forever in Sagar and Patharpratima blocks

By: Stef Smits and Kurian Baby, IRC

Background Adoption of the Everyone, Forever approach by WFP Triple-S (Sustainable Services at Scale) initiative to strengthen sustainability

of rural water supplies by IRC Collaboration between WFP and IRC to systematize WFP’s experience, both

for use nationally and internationally started in Honduras in 2011, with interest to apply elsewhere

Objective: to document and critically analyse the approaches and processes of achieving universal coverage and putting in place mechanisms to ensure sustainable service delivery in two blocks (Sagar and Patharpratima) of the South 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, India.

Conceptual framework• Triple-S principle framework• Used as analytical tool with

windows for analysis• Guiding questions around each

principle – applied to the various institutional levels

• Scope is not assessing whether EF is achieved but rather how:– How is WFP contributing to full

coverage?– How is it ensuring services keep

working?

• Specific attention– Scale and scalability – Social inclusion

a) The adoption of a Service Delivery Approach• Policy, legislation and institutional roles for agreed-upon

service delivery models.• Financing for full life-cycle costs through combination of

tariffs, taxes and transfers.• Participatory planning for full coverage accounting for

the different stages of the life-cycle• Transparency and accountability mechanisms

consumers, service providers and independent oversight bodies.

b) Having a strong learning and adaptive capacity• Capacity (awareness, skills, resources, and access to

support) for stakeholders to fulfil their functions• Ability to learn and innovate on the basis of knowledge

sharing, reflection and analysis. c) Harmonisation and alignment• Sector investment and support is harmonised and

aligned with national priorities and policies. • Actions of stakeholders are coordinated at different

levels with commonly recognised platforms and forums.

Data collection, analysis and validation• Review of project documents and other relevant (grey) literature• Review of coverage and service delivery data from secondary databases• Focus group discussion with WFP staff to assess the history of the programme, and their

perspective on the programme• Key informant interviews and/or focus group discussions with:

– Service authorities• State and district officials• Block level officials and elected representatives• GP elected representatives

– Service providers• Water committees and SHGs

– Users• Water users• Households (for sanitation)• School staff and students

– Support providers• Jalabandhus• Sanitation entrepreneurs

– Local partner NGO staff• Validation and analysis meeting

IntervieweesGroup Details

State level PHED Assistant Chief Engineer and water quality officer

District level District Magistrate & Collector, District Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan Cell for South 24 Parganas

Block level

Block Development Officer Sagar

Sabhapati, Saha Sabhapati, and Members of Standing Committee, both in Sagar Panchayat Samiti and Patharpratima Panchayat Samiti

Gram Panchayat level Pradhan and/or Upa-Pradhan, Members of Standing Committee and/or EF monitoring committee of 4 GPs

Support service providers Jalabandhus and sanitation entrepreneur at Production CentreHigh school Teachers, parents and students at 3 high schoolsCommunity organisations Members of 5 water committees and SHGs involved in sanitation

WFP staff And partner NGOs Sabuj Sangha and Tagore Society for Rural Development

Broader context

• Strong focus of GoWB on achieving full coverage– ODF by 2015 (NBA)– Water supply by 2020 (PHED)

• Through:– Increasing subsidies for household sanitation for BPL and

special categories APL– Hygiene promotion and awareness through IEC for everyone

and to encourage APL to invest for themselves– Creation of rural sanitation markets and production centres– Extension of piped supplies– Overall very high public investments

Broader context

• But…– Multiplicity of funding streams (PHED, district, block, MLA,

GP, NREGA) that are often not well coordinated– Service authority functions spread over different levels

and often not carried out well (planning, regulation, monitoring)

– Service provider arrangements weak with little community management, let alone professionalised

• Still significant degree of service delivery achieved through ad hoc approaches but probably at high costs and inefficiencies

History and development of the programme

• Before 2006: range of specific interventions (e.g. arsenic treatment design) but not in programmatic manner

• 2006: start comprehensive programme in 20 villages in both blocks, mainly focused on full coverage, through partner NGO

• 2007: baseline information in focus GPs and establishment of contacts with GPs

• 2008: growing focus on demand creation and perspective of full coverage

• 2009: Start Jalabandhu• 2010: more explicit focus on sustainability• 2011: formal adoption of Everyone, Forever and first

round of FLOW

• 2016: Envisaged exit with respect to investments; monitoring will continue

Programme components• Everyone

– Installing new tubewells– Rehabilitating tubewells that were completely broken

down– Facilitating household sanitation through revolving fund

as top-up for BPL or full loan for APL, mainly Patharpratima

– (Limited) establishment of sanitation production centres, as most areas had ones developed by government

– Developing toilet blocks and water facilities for high schools and some primary schools

– Not part of programme: piped water supplies; direct household sanitation construction; subsidies for household sanitation for BPL families, comprehensive roll-out of sanitation production centres

Programme components• Forever

– Setting up and training water committees at all water points that were intervened – incl establishing tariff payment system

– Setting up Jalabandhu system, incl initial training of Jalabandhus and tool kits

– Hygiene promotion and awareness raising– Setting up maintenance committees in

schools– Close coordination with GP and block

officials and elected representatives for joint planning

– First mapping, using FLOW– Not component of programme: training and

capacity building of GP and block officials and elected representatives

Initial situation

• 40-50% coverage both in water and sanitation; but need to have more precise data– Sanitation: Patharpratima 11% and Sagar 45% (not

clear which year)• Long breakdown periods• Gram Panchayat as de facto service provider,

but no community management and few trained mechanics

• No tariff system for cost sharing

Results: EveryoneCoverage• Various GPs have been declared ODF. Sanitation coverage about

74% in Patharpratima and xx% in Sagar• But risk of slippage as new APL families come up• Both blocks nominally covered with water supply according to

FLOW; but distance means several pockets of limited access to water. Government statistics show 74% and 98% for Patharpratima and Sagar respectively

Inclusion• Sanitation; Government focused on traditionally excluded

families. WFP on newly excluded: too well-off to access subsidies, but too cash-poor to have all cash upfront – therefore zero-interest loan (partially hidden subsidy), as well as on BPL who want to top up subsidy for higher level of service.

• Water; no explicit approach to exclusion initially. Only now through FLOW can gap filling of those pockets take place

Results: EveryoneService levels• Sanitation:

– basic. Slate and rings for govt subsidized ones. Slate and rings, off-pit for revolving loan. With increase in subsidy, level of service may go up

– Few improved super-structures observed. Will quality of these threaten sustainability?

• Water: – Basic to intermediate according to FLOW. Accessibility

(duration of round trip), water quality and seasonality are limiting factors

– Platform and super-structure– Demand for higher level of service through piped supplies

with household connection, but also fear of unreliability and poor quality of service.

• Schools: – intermediate to high, particularly for girls

Results: Intervention model• Water:

– Standard demand-responsive approach– Given simplicity of technology, limited scope for participation in decision-

making– No technology choice: only tubewells, not piped supplies, but choice in type of

handpump and siting. Raised platform as non-negotiable– But accompanied by strong capacity building component for future service

provision arrangements• Sanitation:

– Market-driven through revolving fund, supported by awareness raising. Family constructs its own toilet or contracts mason

• School:– Participatory planning and design with school stakeholders, though non-

negotiable components of design were defined (e.g. menstrual hygiene box and washing room)

Results: service delivery model• Mixed set of arrangements at community level:

– WFP-intervened water points:• Water committee• SHG carrying out tasks of water committee

– Non WFP-intervened water points;• No local service provider arrangement – GP steps in to pay for repairs and act as de facto service provider

– Estimated 25% of water point have active local organisation• Main tasks: local tariff collection, breakdown reporting, minor repairs (though not always clearly

defined), cleaning platform, in some cases preventive maintenance (greasing)• Main benefit – according to users: more rapid repairs in case of breakdown and improved

ownership• But, low degree of professionalism of community organisations

– Not formally registered as service provider nor legal status – Little official back-up in GP’s by-laws or resolutions: only 2 of the interviewed GPs has “resolution” that

each water point should have a committee– Based on volunteerism– Tariff payment and extra collections

• As many GPs arrange and fund repairs in ad hoc manner for those without water committee, little incentive to establish water committee

Results: service delivery model• Supported by Jalabandu

– Contracted by community or GP for major repairs (though not always clearly defined)

– Contracted by GP for routine monitoring and preventive maintenance (planned in two GPs for next year)

• Main benefit: reduction of non-functionality of an estimated 30-40% to 17-18% (FLOW data)

• Jalabandhu system works well and has potential to grow (e.g. more systematic preventive maintenance)– Active network– Competition among them – better ones increase

their market share– Links with suppliers of spares – though in one GP

idea to have spare bank– Start working on other standpoints

Results: service delivery model

Schools• All have form of management committee composed of

teachers and students to oversee and monitor cleaning and maintenance

• Generally, students do physical cleaning, supposed by rotating amongst all – whether it happens in reality remains to be seen. Allegedly no funds to outsource cleaning

• Maintenance outsourced to Jalabandhu or contractors through School Development Fund

Results: life-cycle costs• CapEx

– Water: Shared between WFP, GP and community (initially 80-20, now 50-50 approximately). Also from PHED and other government sources

– Sanitation: household –though hidden subsidy in zero-interest rate. Initially loan was Rs 4000, now Rs 2000/family for loan. Any additional costs on top are for family. Also repayment periods have gone down and monthly instalments gone up so to decrease default rates and reduce the hidden subsidy

– Schools: shared between WFP and school (via government funds). 1.5 lakh from WFP, rest from school (through school development and parents). Initially WFP contribution was about 3.5 lakh

• OpEx– Water: payment of Jalabandhu through tariffs; spares by GP. Water committees are

supposed to get costs of spares reimbursed (Rs 2-3/family/month plus extra collection). GP has about 1 lakh for repairs

– Sanitation: household– Schools: either through school development fund, or special fees levied on all students

Results: life-cycle costs• CapManEx

– Water: GP (and other govt agencies), basically as part of their recurrent investment plan

– Sanitation: not looked at in detail, but should be household. Some have started digging new pits, also facilitated by having T-joints so it is easy to connect latrine to new pit

– Schools: no systematic reserve is built for this; they apply to government again • ExpDS

– Water: GPs have some budget (Rs 6000) for Jalabandhu; PHED covers costs of water quality monitoring

– Sanitation: Government through health workers and materials– Schools: n/a

• General: OpEx is the most critically undefined cost category

Results: service authority functions• Planning

– GP following government planning tools and instruments – they are a bit linear and focused mainly on infrastructure development

– May need more fine-grained tools and instruments to identify and plan for the pockets of exclusion

• Coordination– Multiplicity of government investments– GPs have bilateral contacts with all and sign off on

them, or have funds channelled through them– Yet, no pro-active multi-stakeholder coordination

mechanisms for WASH investments– Risk of duplication of efforts and reinforcing

infrastructure-driven approach

Result: service authority functions• Monitoring

– Government monitoring data and tools main source of information –coverage as primary indicator; updates based on what has been constructed, not on what is really there

– Confusion around water quality monitoring through PHED labs: all water points or samples? Periodicity? Feed-back to GPs and water committees?

– FLOW provides more comprehensive indicators, but need to consider how it fits into government’s planning systems:• Real-time monitoring (FLOW-plus): not needed for Jalabandhu, but could generate higher

level analysis of trends in break-downs• Complement existing surveys by GPs and feed into fine-grained planning of pockets of

exclusion (gap analysis) at GP level (or block)• General monitoring tool at block level – but can it then feed into the compulsory data it

needs to provide to government?• Capacity to analyse the data is limited; option to institutionalise it with the Block Resource

Centre as technical support unit

Results: sustainability of hygiene behaviour change

• Reported rapid changes in hygiene behaviour:– Absenteeism at schools due to menstrual hygiene

facilities– Taking hygiene behaviour (hand washing and demand

for clean toilets) from school to community– Rapid increase in access to toilets– Critical mass of toilet use and other hygienic behaviour

• Risks that people will fall back to ODF and unhygienic behaviour– Super-structures are rudimentary– Cleanliness and maintenance at schools

• Mitigation measures– EF monitoring committees – but voluntary– CHCMI monitoring– Ward representatives reporting to GP and taking

action locally

Conclusions• Both blocks have (almost) achieved Everyone with

basic service levels with remaining pockets:– Sanitation: probably APL-categorised family who are still

to cash-poor and often young or new families. – Relatively far away families for water

• Inadequacy of service levels: seasonality, quality and time spent/accessibility

• WFP contributed 10-15% coverage, through strong partnering, leveraging and topping up of government investment, particularly by:– Pooling funds for water– Complementary for sanitation, by focusing on APL

families for sanitation through revolving fund– Schools: topping up government investment

Conclusions• Improved functionality through

– Active water committees for local level management

– Active network of Jalabandhus– Management arrangements for schools

• However, still many risks around sustainability:– Limited scale, formalisation and professionalisation

of water committees – Mixed role of GPs vis a vis OpEx– Service authority functions– Mixed financial commitment to cleaning and

maintenance at schools• This manifests itself not so much in rapidly breaking

down of facilities but more in inefficient and expensive repair and capital maintenance by government

Conclusions

• Main added value in relation to government programme:– Gap filling in terms of coverage, particularly APL

for sanitation– By partnering with government investment,

possibility to have higher levels of service– Developing and applying innovations for

sustainability, contributing to changes in government approaches to sustainability

Conclusions

• Taking Everyone to scale (e.g. other blocks) is relatively straightforward, aligning with government policies and investment– With new challenges of move towards higher levels of

service through piped supplies or convergence of sanitation investments with NREGA

• Taking Forever to scale (in existing and new blocks) is more challenging, as overcoming some sustainability challenges need to be addressed at higher levels of government (block, district, State) – added value of WFP in field testing and institutionalizing such innovations

Recommendations within scope of this programme

• Everyone:– Develop and apply structured methodology for gap analysis where nominal coverage is

above 90%– Pilot piped supplies as technology option to reach everyone, with professionalised

service provider arrangements

• Service delivery model:– Work with blocks and GPs to legalise and institutionalise water committees as service

provider model (as registered entity or as sub-committee of the GP), and develop corresponding by-laws and guidelines, including reporting by water committees to GP

– Scale up water committees to existing water points (not directly by WFP but by GP?)– Pilot professionalised water committees –particularly for piped supplies– Work with blocks and GPs on local policies and by-laws and guidelines on tariffs and

when GPs can contribute to repair costs– Continue working with Jalabandhus and expand their work through contracts between

GPs and Jalabandhus for routine monitoring and preventive maintenance– Encourage schools to outsource cleaning and develop budgets for that

Recommendations within scope of this programme

• Strengthening service authority functions– Establishing investment tracking and coordination mechanisms at

block and GP level– Analyse in detail existing government monitoring processes and

see where and how FLOW (plus) best fits in, even at level of indicators, particularly at block level

– Support GPs (and blocks) in strengthening water quality monitoring having a say in sampling, analysing data and reporting back to committees

– Continuous monitoring of ODF status and possible fall-backs in this by GPs and its sub-committees

– Develop a communication strategy about your programme at district and State level to support some of the previous points