Hello,

This is regarding the invitation to inputs sent by you to Dr. Kaustuv Bandyopadhyay (PRIA) regarding your thematic discussion on innovations in WASH. I, Nilanjana Bhattacharjee, will be responding on behalf of PRIA. While I have registered on your website, somehow my login has not been activated. I am therefore, attaching my reply on this email (see below) in the hope that it contributes to the discussion fruitfully.

Regards,
Nilanjana Bhattacharjee

+++++++++++

Dear friends,
The very helpful and insightful introduction to this discussion identifies the main actors of WASH ecosystem to comprise government organisations, donors, private sector, academia, NGOs, social enterprises, innovators and entrepreneurs. I would like to introduce another main actor, a direct stakeholder – the communities. The people.

It was also mentioned in the introduction to the topic that for the expansion of the WASH infrastructure, services and its scale, the support from innovative technology and business solutions was needed. However, all kinds of innovations, especially external in nature such as technology, must be embedded in a community’s social infrastructure to be functional. The community must be ready, aware and able to understand and respond to such innovations. There needs to be a social infrastructure in place for a settlement of any kind to absorb physical as well as technical innovations. Empowering communities to be the partners, if not producers, in innovation and spreading agency, understanding, knowledge and power horizontally would enable sustainable change of any kind.

Borrowing from this belief, PRIA identifies one of the pertinent barriers to WASH related innovations as the missing link of people, of communities in it. The most significant aspect of SBM-U or even the universalisation of sanitation services is the demand from people. So far, however, the approach has been sporadic or unevenly sprawled where government efforts have been dominantly supply driven. For example, Municipalities have asked for applications to supply toilet creation. Even if we go with this simplistic approach of supply to sporadic demand, the campaigns for the same on behalf of the local governments have been more ‘visible’ or present in relatively better off areas in cities. Not enough campaigns have been taken up where sanitation services are acutely lacking, not enough informal settlements have been included in such campaigns. Furthermore, the supply focussed approach has created physical infrastructures such as toilets, many of which are in areas with no drainage/ water connectivity. Such “toilets” are now being used by the homeless of poor communities as shelters for their entire families.

One of the ways PRIA worked with this issue was to adopt the approach of nurturing communities (especially informal settlements) and their organisation in a manner that they not only generate demand but also ensure that utilisation is high. The idea was to carve an approach in which the behaviour change component is inherent and not external. This was done by setting up Settlement Improvement Committees (SICs) across all informal settlements (slums) in Jhansi, Ajmer and Muzaffarpur. Through these SICs of locally recruited leaders, PRIA aimed to facilitate a more holistic approach to the demanding of WASH as well as other types of basic services by socially aware community members themselves. Especially keeping in mind the indispensable need to organise the urban poor, our processes through the SICs were aimed at the formation of local institutions that identify and advocate for the interests and needs of the urban poor. 250 SICs were formed under PRIA’s Engaged Citizens Responsive City project and these SICs are developed as well as managed by the residents of each settlement. Instead of supply driven imposition of behaviour change, the SIC process focussed on indigenous knowledge and solutions of local problems to ensure community ownership of the settlement’s sanitation system and the sustainability of this innovation. There was a conscious effort to involve local residents, youth and women as members of these committees to find solutions through local knowledge, practices and needs by working with other institutions.

SIC members along with local resident enumerators surveyed their respective settlements, applied their generational knowledge for resource mapping, used mobile-based technology to generate authentic data about the current situation of settlements with respect to access to sanitation services. The generation of data by the communities themselves ensured the sustainability of positive changes unlike enumerations conducted by third party institutions which are divorced from the intricacies of contextual realities. It also led to amplified awareness generation.

These local committees or organisations are being strengthened not only through meetings but participatory activities such as Participatory Settlement Enumeration, transect walks and regular validation of current status versus initial benchmark of sanitation services. These organisations, after having generated and analysed their data, are also preparing proposals which articulate their demands to the municipalities and local leaders based on their needs. These processes and follow-ups are a part of a demand based and locally aware citizens of informal settlements – filling a huge gap of the lack of awareness and creating behaviour change out of the simple strategy of change in partnership with the community members themselves. PRIA’s role was limited to facilitation and technical knowledge, but the identification of problems, generation and evaluation of data, and consequent articulation of demands came from the people who decided to be active partners of development instead of passive recipients.

Sanitation and WASH related realities, especially in peri-urban areas are deeply grounded in traditional practices. These are influenced by gender, caste, class which become barriers of such innovations. While it is challenging to address these age-old customs and practices, this is where organising communities by a third party (in this case, PRIA) to create a safe deliberation forum such as SICs, help in detaching the space of discussion from power dynamics just enough, where all are seen as equally knowledgeable while keeping its roots in local realities.

The equal agency of voice given to each SIC from different neighbourhoods ensure the representation of all types of people from all social intersectionalities. The representation translates to equal power when each individual household has a role to play in the data generation and validation process. The inclusive nature of the processes help democratically negotiate sanitation issues among all settlements and come up with solutions together. While technical knowledge and solutions of WASH can be accessed through third party experts, the active association and consideration of the people, who are the direct stakeholders, and their increased interaction with local governments is the only way to ensure the sustainability and future innovations of WASH.

The barrier to any innovation is its scaling- up and sustainability. The social innovation of SICs can be the foundation on which the physical and technical and be formed to secure a functional, sustainable and inclusive sanitation system.

Thank you all for your insights. I have tried to sum it up:
I understand from the discussion thread that, if innovations in WASH have to be sustained, the innovator has to not only have enough recognition but also some kind of financial gain, though commercialization should not be the main driver; the innovations should take feedback from the users and the behavior change demanded should not be too big and existing beliefs have to be taken into consideration. Process innovation plays a big role in the WASH sector, which is tough due to the fact that various moving parts have to be orchestrated.
Would be happy to get perspectives from those involved in policy making and monitoring implementation on ground.

Hi,
I will write a few words from the point of view of the innovator / inventor. I have developed a portable device for personal hygiene in disaster and emergency conditions: a hand-washing tap, a shower and a bidet / shattaf in one device that I named HandyShower. It is designed in accordance with the guidelines of Oxfam and IFRC published on the website www.emergencysanitationproject.org/ in the part: Household Handwashing Device. It is small, easy to use, durable and water-saving. I already have a working prototype and I would like to test them in real conditions. Although I have many contacts to people who deal with this problem on a daily basis (obtained at WoldWaterWeek in Stockholm or Aidex in Brussels), I have a serious problem to persuade someone to test and share their comments. From the point of view of the inventor, the most important thing is the user's assessment. Why it is so difficult to persuade humanitarian organizations to test new products. How to overcome this barrier?
Regards
Zdzislaw

I came across an interesting term. Thinkering, that combines tinkering and thinking.

To answer the question, the barriers to innovation. The popular conception that innovation has to do with technology is somewhat true. If water quality is true, better purification technology will fix it. If toilet types are unsuited for a particular geography, technology will fix it. I often find the reverse happens - high tech offers attractive quick fixes that do not last. Fancy toilets break and become unusable faster than basic, well made toilets. Reverse osmosis plants have a high failure rate. High tech is usually high cost for users and innovators.

Process innovation is harder to do because of many moving parts from different fields. Social moving parts such as behaviour change and organizing communities, mentoring leaders etc., are time-consuming to engineer. Most NGOs, donors, companies or governments fixate on targets ignoring the real-politik of social engineering. Socially appropriate technology, or technology for society's sake and not for its own, it much harder to develop. Existing technology can be adapted but is usually a misfit. Thus, making all the parts work together smoothly is hard task only a few people are willing to invest in.

Take the example of social and physical engineering for integrated water resources management. Identifying and mapping stakeholders and the power structures is tedious. Getting them together on a platform is hard and hammering out an agreement is harder still. It is relatively simple to make a water supply system and run it, charging people for the service. But to be sustainable people have to part of the innovation process. Summing up, it is the lack of inter-disciplinary approaches that holds up innovation.

Regards
Nitya

Innovation in WASH should not be taken at par with innovation in business or industry where innovators translate new ideas into products or services and look for profit through commercialisation.
Generally an innovation does not happen just because one needs it. There should a reason to think of new ideas, and in business/industry sector that reason could be a necessity for survival looking in to ways of satisfying the needs of the customers with a view to profit making. Innovation in WASH should be voluntary to help the needy and therefore motivation should not be profit-driven. As such the main barrier for innovation in WASH is lack of service-based driving force behind it. Lack of resources like funding is not always a major barrier for innovation. For a start it needs ideas which do not cost anything, but creative thinking. Resources might be needed to put them into practice, for testing, performance analysis and implementation/follow -up. It can vary depending on the nature of the project.
Technology is not a barrier, but helping hand for innovations. If local ownership is a possible barrier it could be regulated for the benefit of both the innovators and the users.

Thanks Paramita for the intro to this topic. From my experience with the Orchha home-stay where we tried to introduce EcoSan composting toilets, I think the main barrier to innovation is insufficient consultation of the users before installation. They should clearly identify the problem and be given a variety of technical solutions to choose from. The solution should not deviate too much from existing habits - for ex. those who are used to defecating in the open feel claustrophobic in a closed space.

They must be made aware of the long-term effects of the solution they choose. In Orchha, they would not use compost made from human excreta or urine in place of urea. Demonstrating the increase in fertility of the soil in a public space could be a way around this. Using this compost to grow shady trees that are not fruit bearing would also be a way of overcoming this barrier.

What I'm getting at is that the behaviour change demanded should not be too big and existing beliefs have to be taken into consideration.

I am into innovation in the sanitation sector and I can mentioned some it here, like the multi compartment isolation treatment communal toilet or the multi user stand alone urinal. As new discovery, i dont want to discuss it in public at this point. I used the communal toilet in my apartment building for my tenants and i made the multi user urinal for donation under my rotary club. The question back in my mind, If I share this discovery like this, Do I get anything? A recognition? is there a way that I can be paid? I have not applied patent for as it. I have no protection. If i have resources, I could make many of those multi user urinal and place it public areas for a pay per use scheme.

It is indeed interesting to discuss and share our views on the innovations in WASH. Correctly stated by the initiators and the esteemed members of the platform. I would like to share my experiences from the ground reality. Most of my experiences are from the rural setup, the same were faced in the RURBAN and URBAN setup.

It is debatable but the activities of WASH are still considered as the most lowered profile work in the existing society set up. The persons involved in the activities, even the development professionals face the challenges of non-cooperation in such activities in their environs. Therefore, INNOVATION correctly said should be based on NEED. The need is for livelihood or income generation.

The water or developmental professionals need to link the income generation steps for the commoners through WASH activities. let's innovate in form of "WASHERPRENEURS".

Another aspect is the deterioration of cultural values. In the Braj Area (NE Rajasthan+SW UP+SE Haryana) have many customs and traditions which are related to WASH activities. The logics are lost, even Development Professionals overlooked such traits. The customs and traditions are now symbolic. The glamorized approach deformed the ethical values.

The water or developmental professionals need to revive such bondings which bring the common mass towards maintaining their hygienic environment.

Every Municipal Body should be made mandatory to bring innovative actions/ models to undertake the management of resources and wastes (solid and liquid). The waste itself could be a great RESOURCE through an innovative approach.

Hi.

What drives innovation worldwide is the large scale commercialization possibilities of the innovation with the inherent rewards to the innovators. The WASH sector has for long been driven by mainly subsidies or funding from - government's +NGOs which is usually finite (limited resources). The motivation to innovate in WASH is not as high as the motivation to innovate in health with huge possibilities of patenting innovations and benefiting over a long period of time.

The resource constraint is compounded by the attitude of beneficiaries of WASH innovation (especially the BOP population) who tend to think that WASH services are free and thus willingness to pay for better services is low.

Thanks

I will add on the issue of Sanitation and Hygiene, current i am working with Non Governmental Organisation called Sustainable Environment Management Action(SEMA) found in Tanzania country. We as SEMA according to the project we are implementing, we found that the community doesn't need a whole process of using CLTS Approach to reach ODF Status, community has been educated often and you can find that there are some villages triggered more than one but up to now they have not reached the stage of being certified as ODF, therefore what we opt to reach ODF status, we decided to make a closed follow up in collaboration with LGAs from district to villages level to make sure that people they construct toilets and wherever action needed to those who doesn't show a will of going with our race, appropriate action act on them according to existing By-Law. The good thing, we have now starting to reach universal ODF.

Theme 1 : Innovation : 1. It is generally observed that any innovation or adapted versions of an old inititive do not sustain its operational life. 2.It is apt to look for Case Studies of initiative that are in operation for - for 5 years -for 5-10 years or - for more ..ie ever sustaining.. 3. The initiative to sustain and keep on performing it ought to be useful to the community.. ie doing a community good.

eg if you have a WWT plant it is not good enough if it is kept operational to ensure compliance of effluent standards.. more attributes are needed: 1. by way of the plant supplying re use water .. and 2. others

This re use water available to the community at site . all year around has a lot to showcase.. To mention a few: - greens are sustained even in worst dry seasons. - saves expenses and efforts on extraction of ground water and other water resources.. - as greens are more than adequate the bio diversity assets are enhanced - the quality of living in community is enhanced ..etc - community becomes more confident and is motivated to try more innovations.. in next stage ..

The innovation once proven needs to be R&D-ed & propagated in other communities..

The original innovator needs to be rewarded with acclaim and recognition etc ..

Also financial and other eco logical gains are computed and kept on record. This evaluation would more than justify ROI on projects etc..

Offering well wishes.I shall thank you to feel free to be in touch on any matter concerned with this concept.

Prof Ajit Seshadri Vels University. Chennai.

Thanks to Susana for initiating this topic and a person for NIUA is moderating the same. There are a number of call for WASH programme from different sources. Still the information has not reached the masses for them to come out with ideas. Moreover, this is a complicated one and at times requiring inputs from various areas and that it relates one considered as a periphery area rarely touched upon by people. Moreover, the livelihood pressures (education, employment, attending to day to day chores etc) doesn't allow people to think on this. Moreover, with poor jobs people are always worried about their future and not on these areas. Start up support financing programmes also have not shown much interest in such technologies. Don't know whether this is due to the political climate where people are not penalized for throwing wastes or disposing wastes just like that and no Governments are interested to tax people for polluting the environment, cities, rivers, air etc. Even those polluted are spared by either Governments or courts so that people never want to learn the other side of life what is called Swachh. Some ideas that can yield results are 1) Taking this as a contest to all colleges and schools, 2) Asking the workers in Government offices to provide solutions /modifications / interventions to maintain their own office toilets clean (most of the Government toilets were and are not clean still), 3) Penalize those polluting public spaces, 4) Establish free toilets in all cities, towns, villages, bus stands, railways stations so that people start using that and come up with various ideas for changes in maintenance and modifications.