SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:13:45 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb Re: SanMark-CITY: Intelligent Design in Urban Sanitation Marketing- quick glimpse - by: KimAndersson I’m interested to know more about how your project is progressing.
Do you have further results and lessons regarding the piloting of the four technologies? What is the scale of testing (i.e. number of toilets installed)? Are the toilets being installed in different settings, e.g. both on household level and as shared facilities? How do you overcome possible challenges related to operation and maintenance?

You commented that the technologies in terms of costs are fairly high for the Bangladesh context. What are your strategies to achieve affordability and create a business driven development? You talked about using local available materials, therefore I wonder if you are trying to establish local production of the different models, and your experience doing so?

Looking forward to hear more about your project!

Thanks and best wishes,
Enabling environment Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:01:33 +0000
Re: Structuring of the fecal sludge market for the benefit of poor households in Dakar, Senegal (ONAS) - optimising faecal sludge emptying, transportation, processing - by: Onasbv

Thank you to find below the link of the Facebook account in french of the Program of Structuring of Fecal Sludge Market for the Benefit of poor households in Dakar (PSMBV).
You are most welcome in our Facebook account and you can find all the informations and the news about the PSMBV inside.

Good reception.

Aissatou BASSE]]>
Enabling environment Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:17:04 +0000
Re: Performance Assessment Systems (PAS) for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in India (CEPT University, India) - by: F H Mughal
The PAS system is interesting and is fairly comprehensive. As I understand, the system has its application in all urban local bodies in Gujarat and Maharashtra. What were the results and outcomes, and how the assessment enabled improvement in service delivery?

PAS is for “urban” water supply and sanitation, but some of the components (e.g., septic tanks) shows that it includes “rural” water supply and sanitation, as well.

Please comments on the absence of the following aspects:

Incidence of waterborne diseases – reduction of the diseases can be a good indicator

Hygiene – hygiene is an important adjunct of water and sanitation

Impact on reduction of open defecation (OD) – Reduction of OD cases is a useful indicator

Unit production costs ($/cubic meter of water) – Reduction in unit production costs in water treatment reflects efficiency

Stakeholders’ satisfaction – Increased percentage of stakeholders’ satisfaction, or conversely, increased complaints from the consumers, constitute a useful indicator

Please keep us posted on the milestones achieved in future.

Good luck!


F H Mughal]]>
Enabling environment Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:32:48 +0000
Re: Performance Assessment Systems (PAS) for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in India (CEPT University, India) - by: aasimmansuri
We have recently uploaded two presentations on Susana Library for you all to refer and get an update regarding our PAS project activities.

One presentation briefly describes the activities that we have taken up in the PAS project for last 5 years and other presentation briefly describes various urban sanitation activities that have been undertaken by the PAS project.

You will find this presentations on the following link:

Please do let us know if you have any feedback / comments / queries.

Enabling environment Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:09:25 +0000
Re: Bringing Sanitation Innovations to Market (B-SIM) (WSUP, UK and Ghana, Zambia, Kenya, Bangladesh) - by: tgoodwin
I'll answer on behalf of Andy. Overall, progress has been slower than we expected for several reasons:

First, we're dealing with an experimental technology initiative with a large and diverse set of actors. I’m sure everyone involved in the program feels both how exciting it is to be working with other great pioneers, and also recognizes the difficulty in trying to do so cohesively and effectively. We are in a particularly challenging position to handle this dynamic, as one of the only grantees currently working specifically on 'market activation.'

Second, as a new business unit within WSUP structuring itself to create startup businesses, and do so in the leanest manner possible, this grant (which is essentially to setup 4 new pilot business) required a lot of internal capacity development for us, with regard not only to new people, but also developing our business creation approach to be faster and more effective than in past cases (where we’ve developed new startup businesses in partnership with the various corporate innovation teams at Unilever — including their new business unit and open innovation department).

We're experimenting with an organizational structure to deliver the grant that aims to exit what we call the 'customer development' phase of commercializing these technologies as cheaply and quickly as possible. It's a delicate balance between hiring for fastest milestone delivery and hiring for the long-term sustainability of a fledgling social business.

To balance this, we work through extremely lean country teams and consultants to supplement these teams in places where there are capacity gaps. Orchestrating these teams in 4 countries at once has been our greatest challenge to date.

To hire our core country teams in Ghana, Zambia, Kenya, and Bangladesh we had to first find what we call 'Enterprise Leads’ --who are each responsible for piloting a business and ideally leading it up until the point it's ready for it's first management team. Finding local manager-level candidates with the level of experience, risk appetite, and vision for what we're trying to achieve -- while also not breaking the bank — is difficult.

In a traditional startup environment, you would find co-founders dedicated to the cause and willing to take reduced pay in return for equity. In this environment of intrapraneurship, you can easily find yourself with an unsustainable payroll structure from the outset if you don't hire skillfully. While working with visionary funders like BMGF helps in that we are able to fund staff more like a project than a sustainable business in these early stages, we are constantly thinking about how to best structure startup teams for both efficiency and a smooth path toward ultimately making each business self-sustaining and investable.

Ultimately, we must balance the cost of hiring for skills in difficult talent markets with the desire for strong team continuity through carrying a business to the point of investability. Since the end-game is investable businesses, if we make a model work but do so with an unsustainable team structure, the process of re-structuring the team for cost later on will pose a major threat to carrying forward any one of our models.

To discuss Bangladesh more directly:

The grant in Bangladesh is to “activate the market for on-site sanitation using new toilet designs in Rangpur, Bangladesh” — ideally by utilizing Gates RTTC designs (but this is not ultimately a constraint if we find other designs more suitable and market ready.

We hired the Bangladesh Enterprise Lead about 6 months ago. He is a young diaspora Bangladeshi from Texas, who moved from a Mongolian VC to work with us. He was the only candidate of such a profile that made it into the hiring funnel, and our fortune to find him was only through personal connection.

Other candidates were all Bangladeshi nationals with a "career-NGO” background. Few had ever worked for private companies — almost all had about 15-20 years of project management experience, with no career progression toward bigger projects or more responsibility. While this would be ok for hiring more of a project administrator for a set initiative, it presents huge challenges for a program that includes designing a business model from scratch and building a responsive team that can iterate and evolve the business.

In 6 months, progress has been steady, but slow. First, we originally intended to launch in Rangpur, a small city in the Northwest. However, after initial visits, we determined it wasn't an appropriate foothold market for RTTC. There were a number of active toilet subsidization programs, and residents were too poor to be in the market for upgrading beyond basic sanitation.

Shifting cities required a fresh evaluation of some of Bangladesh's urban areas, and making inroads with the various local city corporations to get an early indication of how supportive the local government actors would be for a program like this. We found the sanitation-as-a-business approach to be very difficult to grasp for many city leaders here, as the poor are not perceived as willing to pay for it, and Bangladesh has a long history of large NGO subsidization programs for latrines. Subsidization, of course, was a huge step in curbing open defecation here over the last 15 years, but it makes the idea of paid sanitation a tricky one.

Toeing the line of social business here is particularly challenging, because if you want to operate as an NGO, it requires a set of approvals and promises of very specific coverage targets agreed with the bureau. However, if you want to operate as a business, city officials may not see any reason to offer important collaborations, such as land concessions or allocation of engineers. Businesses are stereotyped as cutthroat and necessarily corrupt — the practice of paying to get things done is common and accepted.

We ultimately decided to launch our pilot in Chittagong, Bangladesh's second city. The people here benefit from a higher percentage of formal employment than other areas, due to the RMG and shipping industries located here, and basic community improvements in low-income wards have been made by the excellent work of a 10 year UNDP Urban Partnerships for Poverty Reduction program.

The idea of selecting pilot markets is interesting for RTTC, because you’re generally looking for favorable conditions that are still mostly representative of how the market will develop over the long term, rather than looking purely for suitable pilot conditions.

UPPR built roads, water wells, and communal latrines and created a effective community organization structure that we'll be able to build on in marketing sanitation. The prevalence of basic latrine access for most of the population means the low-income market is in prime position to continue moving toward better sanitation as families decide to trade up to more private solutions.

We expect to be able to build on this structure as the UPPR program is retired next year, and believe RTTC toilets could be an appealing offer for this market. In particular, offering toilets with better waste containment and collection service would be invaluable in communities that suffer from heavy monsoon flooding and poor drainage.

Waste treatment is also an attractive path as Chittagong does not feature any functional waste treatment facilities, and 0% of fecal sludge is currently disposed safely. Combined with the fact that many people bathe-in and drink surface water from local ponds, people are very concerned with increasing the overall hygiene and surface water quality of their community.

To date, we have wrapped up a period of intense market research looking across household economics, current sanitation choices, regulatory environment, and reactions to RTTC toilet concepts. We are now conducting design research to build on these market insights and develop technology-independent business concepts. However, several Gates portfolio technologies look attractive as hardware options.

In the coming months, we'll be creating a plan for government capacity development, using a 'collaborative projects' approach we've been developing in Zambia over the last few months. This approach toward identifying areas of alignment between the expected business activities and government stakeholders' priorities will hopefully shift the dynamic between sanitation actors and the government toward a more win-win scenario. From there, our aim is to begin selling new toilets on a free market basis (as the grant describes) in 2015.

Biggest successes so far:
Hiring a solid core team and bringing in the right supplemental expertise to develop and begin testing new approaches to B-SIM.

Main challenges / frustration: Getting up to speed on BMGF project and partnership universe, and making sense of 4 very diverse markets at once.

Links and further readings related to this project: None

To what extent have you achieved the goals already? Market research and consumer insights work either finalized or coming soon in each country. Approach to capacity development defined in Zambia, currently being transferred to other countries. Final pre-pilot business planning and financial modeling underway in Zambia, and coming soon in other countries.

What have been enabling factors? Willingness of people to participate in the research process. In each country, both consumers and stakeholders are eager to be part of developing solutions, and that is critical to designing approaches that work.

When can your technology be brought to scale and under which conditions? N/A

Where do you see its biggest niche or application area? N/A]]>
Enabling environment Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:34:31 +0000
Re: Performance Assessment Systems (PAS) for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in India (CEPT University, India) - by: aasimmansuri
Thank you for your interest in PAS project of CEPT University.

The indicators that we have been using in our work are mentioned in this link (go in framework section of performance assessment tab). More recently, we are developing indicators for onsite sanitation assessment and we will be sharing this soon. We will be happy to receive your comments. Hopefully, the post-2015 sanitation monitoring can use some of these indicators.

Regarding shared toilets, we are trying out this idea in a few small and medium towns in Maharashtra, India. We strongly believe that shared sanitation facilities provided by public agencies are not viable. Its life cycle cost is much higher and it is not safe. Instead, we promote one family- one toilet concept. However, in dense communities, where there is no space in the house for a toilet, we advocate provision of a toilet for 2-3 families, which is collectively owned and maintained by them. In the towns, where we are working, we have designed an incentive subsidy scheme, where a family without a toilet is given a small grant by the local government. So if more households are willing to share the toilet the subsidy amount per toilet will increase.

Enabling environment Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:09:33 +0000
Re: Evidence-based sanitation advocacy in India to promote latrine use - by: neilpw
Thank you for this comment. I would be interested to hear what works (and what doesn't) with regards to IEC*. Below are some possible methods, but I am not sure where and how they have been tried, and with what results:
- Community Health Workers (or ASHAs in India) explain importance of sanitation as part of routing health education (one-to-one, or in groups)
- Health education / sanitation posters (at health facilities and/or in public places)
- Health education / sanitation leaflets (at health facilities and/or in public places)
- SMS text messaging (health education "behavior change" messages)
- short videos on feature phones (basic mobile phones with SD cards)

Women's learning groups have been successful in reducing maternal and child mortality in many countries, through learning and preparedness for childbirth and child diseases. I am sure they have an important potential role in sanitation also.

Best wishes,
Neil Pakenham-Walsh, HIFA moderator (

* IEC stands for Information, Education, Communication (note added by moderator)]]>
Enabling environment Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:39:10 +0000
Structuring of the fecal sludge market for the benefit of poor households in Dakar, Senegal (ONAS) - optimising faecal sludge emptying, transportation, processing - by: mbaye
Sorry for the delay in responding. Here are my answers to your questions from your post on 14 July:

You wrote:
I am very interested to learn note about the call centre works that you refer. As well increasing competition and lowering prices for the customer, this may also help with monitoring and regulation. So, as you say, this is a novel idea that can have various benefits.

I would be very interested to hear more about how this is structured according to different customer groups

Is this the same for all types of customer? Are there service levels that are specified that the operator needs to adhere to/achieve?

Is this only for small businesses for trucks? Presumably, the operators have to be registered to receive the request for pit emptying - do they also need to be members of the association of pit emptiers?

Thank you for your interest about the call center. This tool is designed for the emptying of household's pit but it can be used by any entity that needs an desludging service.
It applies to all emptying companies, the smallest to the largest. All these companies are identified, their trucks geolocalized and therefore present in the database of the call center. The auctions do not apply to companies but to individual trucks. You do not need to be a member of the Association of emptiers for your participation in the auction.

You wrote:
I understand that the bargaining is based on one submission from the desludging company. What happens if the job turns out to be much more difficult than they expected due to local situation? The benefit of negotiation on the ground is that the desludger can assess more easily the scale/nature of the job and adjust the charge accordingly. If this is done remotely, then this is difficult. I suppose the desludger can visit the site, but I am not sure that this is realistic. So, there is possibility that the householder ends up paying more than they were quoted for, or the operator takes a loss or does the job poorly to cut costs.... what happens in this case ?

Under these conditions, it is possible that some emptiers, once on the ground, face difficulties in accessing or the customer requires several rotations. In this case, they do not empty the pit and inform the center.
It must be said that the desludgers are very familiar with the neighborhoods in which they operate. The location is listed in the auction and in this case, they adjust their prices accordingly. In a case where an emptier win the market and made a bad quality work, the customer shall inform the Centre during the call quality control (which is done after every emptying activity) and then the desludger is sanctioned. Example of penalty: at its upcoming participation in an auction, the system automatically puts 2,000 FCFA more on his offer; which will make him less competitive.

I remain at your disposal for any other questions.

Enabling environment Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:52:24 +0000
Re: Performance Assessment Systems (PAS) for Urban Water Supply and Sanitation in India (CEPT University, India) - by: KimAndersson Thanks for introducing your project, which is an exciting long-term and large-scale effort. Would be interesting to hear about some of the insights you have gained so far. Hence, here’s a set of questions that I hope you can comment on.

Regarding the performance monitoring, what are the indicators you have applied to follow-up sanitation? What are your strategies for collecting data? Have you implemented any innovating ways of monitoring? This is a most relevant international matter today, since the Post-2015 process is ongoing with new Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) coming up soon. There is a need to develop indicators that actually measure the sustainability of sanitation systems and allow for feasible monitoring mechanisms.

I’m also interested to know more about your 2-3 family-shared toilets. What is your learning from this approach? For example, how do you group families? Or do you only involve relatives? How do they manage ownership and O&M? What type of sanitation systems are you implementing/considering?

Best regards,
Enabling environment Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:03:44 +0000
Re: SanMark-CITY: Intelligent Design in Urban Sanitation Marketing- quick glimpse - by: esthapit
 Most of the tiger toilets installed are working fine
 All the enbiolets and biofil are working well

All three technologies : enbiolet, biofil and SunMar, are already in the market in other parts of the world and are used extensively. Only in Bangladesh, it is the first time and therefore this pilot phase is very important. Regarding the high cost that you have mentioned, as compared to the easily available toilet made of rings and slab, it is not only SunMar, but all three others which are quite expensive in Bangladesh. The greatest advantage of the selected technologies however that needs to be considered most is the convenience i.e. no odor, no/less pollution, longevity, easy maintenance etc. Furthermore, one of the main objectives of the project is to making the toilets with locally available materials, which will significantly reduce the cost of each type of technologies included in the project.

Please feel free to come back for further information and/or clarification.]]>
Enabling environment Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:50:44 +0000
The Website in english and in french of the PSMBV. - by: Onasbv

Thank you to find below the link of the website in french and in english of the Program of Structuring of Fecal Sludge Market for the Benefit of poor households in Dakar (PSMBV).
You are most welcome in our website and you can find all the informations and the news about the PSMBV inside.

Good reception.

Aissatou Basse]]>
Enabling environment Wed, 03 Sep 2014 09:06:44 +0000
Re: Catalyzing Sanitation Businesses (Water for People, USA, Malawi, Uganda, India) - by: smunyana Enabling environment Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:02:52 +0000 Re: Evidence-based sanitation advocacy in India to promote latrine use - by: SangitaVyas
You are right. In India, very few people have inexpensive, simple latrines. These types of latrines are much more common to find in other parts of the developing world, even in South Asia. In Bangladesh, it's very common to find simple pit latrines, the kinds that UNICEF/WHO classifies as "unimproved." It's virtually impossible to find these in India. In India, people either build expensive latrines which often have septic tanks. And if they can't afford that, then they build nothing at all. There is no such thing as the sanitation ladder here.

Yes, there needs to be much more focus on IEC*. In the past financial year, very little of the IEC budget was spent. We need to be spending all of it.


* IEC stands for Information, Education, Communication (note added by moderator)]]>
Enabling environment Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:42:56 +0000
Re: Evidence-based sanitation advocacy in India to promote latrine use - by: pkjha
As per the guidelines of NBA (earlier TSC) financial incentive will be provided after the construction and use of latrines. At policy level there is no problem in this regard. Main problem is almost complete lacking of monitoring (of construction and use of toilets) at the state and centre levels. Lack of awareness in rural areas is the most important issue. In such areas sanitation is not regarded as a felt need problem due to lack of knowledge, awareness and motivation. In some states like Haryana, in a short period, there has been appreciable sanitation coverage due to involvement of Women Self Help Groups. Many households constructed toilets without taking any financial support from the Government.
Lack of sanitation is mainly a social issue- not financial or technical. One can easily see several households having good houses and personal vehicles but without toilet. Increasing rate of cash subsidy of construction of toilets is also one of the deterrents of the programme. Such subsidy has made the program a supply driven approach. In 2011 rural sanitation coverage, as per the IMS data of the Ministry (as provided by the States) was over 70%. However, Census 2011 data showed only 31-32% coverage. Obviously there were considerable no. of missing/ unfinished construction/ wrongly located toilets, constructed under subsidy, not fit for use. Therefore, proper construction of toilets is equally important. Without having a toilet there is no question of its use. The IEC program of the Ministry needs to be monitored by the States with measurable deliverables.
Enabling environment Fri, 29 Aug 2014 03:29:35 +0000
Re: Evidence-based sanitation advocacy in India to promote latrine use - by: SangitaVyas
You pose an interesting question. The government doesn't focus on latrine use simply because all incentives point towards focusing on construction.

Local level bureaucrats prefer construction projects to behavior change campaigns because they are more profitable. It is easier to skim money off construction projects. Politicians prefer construction projects because they are very visible, and they can easily claim responsibility. Many local level politicians actually get their names written on the latrines that are built during their time in office. And to people who don't know much about sanitation in India, construction sounds like the obvious solution. Finally, construction is the status quo. And inertia gets in the way of changing it.

Only a politician or bureaucrat who really cares about eliminating open defecation would emphasize latrine use.]]>
Enabling environment Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:28:38 +0000