2016年-世界发展银行全球_How_Sustainable_Are_Sanitation_Outcomes_in_Clean_Village_Prize_Winners____Findings_of_a_Large-Scale_Rapid_Assessment_in_India_10页_955kb

Summary of "How Sustainable are Sanitation Outcomes in Clean Village Prize Winners? Findings of a Large-scale Rapid Assessment in India"

Core Content

This document presents a large-scale rapid assessment of the sustainability of sanitation outcomes in Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) or Clean Village Prize winners in India, conducted between 2009 and 2011. The study focuses on evaluating whether the NGP, a financial incentive program introduced in 2003, successfully promoted long-term behavioral change and maintained sanitation outcomes in rural areas.

Main Points

Background on Rural Sanitation in India

• Rural sanitation in India is a state responsibility, though the Government of India provides substantial funding through Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).
• The CSS has evolved over time, including the Central Rural Sanitation Program (1986), Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC, 1999), Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA, 2012), and the Swachh Bharat Mission—Gramin (SBMG, 2014).
• The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation (MDWS) is responsible for national guidelines and monitoring, while state governments have flexibility in implementation.

Introduction of the NGP

• The NGP was introduced as an innovation in rural sanitation financing, shifting focus from individual toilet construction to collective behavior change.
• It aimed to incentivize local governments (Panchayati Raj Institutions or PRIs) by offering cash awards based on population size and recognition of community efforts.
• The NGP was verified through a two-step process: self-certification by GPs and third-party verification by survey agencies.

Sustainability Concerns

• Despite the initial success in generating enthusiasm, the NGP was criticized for its lack of focus on sustainability.
• Only 9.6% of NGP winners were sustaining Open Defecation Free (ODF) status, with even lower rates (0.6%) meeting all Nirmal criteria.
• The program's one-time verification approach did not allow for ongoing monitoring, leading to slippage in sanitation outcomes.

Key Findings

• Household Toilets: 81% of households in NGP-winning GPs reported access to a toilet, with 75% being functional. The proportion of functional toilets varied significantly by state, with Himachal Pradesh showing the highest (96%) and Jharkhand the lowest (22%).
• ODF Status: Only 9.6% of NGP-winning GPs were ODF, as defined by complete elimination of open defecation and safe disposal of infant feces.
• Infant Feces Disposal: 57% of infants' feces were disposed of safely, with Jammu and Kashmir leading at 100% and Arunachal Pradesh lagging at 11%.
• Hand-Washing Practices: 66% of households had access to water and a cleanser, with 56% using water with soap or detergent.
• Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal: In ODF villages, 76% of households reported safe disposal of organic kitchen waste, 66% for plastic, and 56% for paper. For liquid waste, 66% of kitchen wastewater and 68% of bathroom wastewater were safely disposed.
• School and Anganwadi Sanitation: 98% of schools and 81% of anganwadis had toilets, with 89% and 71% of these being functional, respectively.
• Child Diarrhea and ODF Status: A significant correlation was found between ODF status and the incidence of child diarrhea, with 12% of households in ODF villages reporting diarrhea in infants, compared to 17% in non-ODF villages.

Key Lessons and Recommendations

Recommendations for Reform

1. Putting Behavior Change First:

   • The NGP should be complemented with a focus on behavior change and community mobilization rather than just toilet construction.
   • Successful states like Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and Maharashtra emphasized participatory approaches and community engagement.

2. Strengthening the Quality of Verification:

   • Verification should be conducted on a rolling basis throughout the year to avoid time pressure and ensure quality.
   • Use of ICT tools such as mobile to web systems can improve the speed and transparency of the verification process.
   • Third-party verification should be ongoing, not limited to one-time checks, to ensure the sustainability of sanitation outcomes.

3. Incentivizing Sustainability:

   • The NGP should be restructured to reward not only initial achievement but also the retention of sanitation outcomes over time.
   • Sustaining villages could be given higher incentives than first-time achievers to encourage long-term commitment.

4. Channeling Public Funding through Incentive Funds:

   • Instead of separating funding for individual toilet construction and collective behavior change, public funds should be channeled as an incentive fund for PRIs.
   • This fund should be released based on the achievement of collective milestones, with a focus on community-led processes and transparency in implementation.

Conclusion

The NGP, while successful in generating interest and initial achievements in rural sanitation, fell short in promoting long-term sustainability. The program's design, which focused on one-time verification and hardware subsidies, did not adequately support behavior change or ongoing monitoring. The findings highlight the need for a more integrated and community-focused approach to rural sanitation financing and implementation to ensure lasting improvements in public health and sanitation practices.