By Payal Seth
India was declared an open defecation free of charge (ODF) nation at the conclusion of Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) on October 2, 2019. This claim was backed by the statistics from the SBM programme, which reported that India had accomplished universal coverage i.e. the proportion of folks with access to toilets. However, the statistics from NFHS-5 factsheet, which captures the use of these sanitation facilities, convey that India is far from attaining the ODF status (bit.ly/2MYzFEB).
The conflicting proof about India’s ODF claims from the two Government of India’s sources can be explained as follows: SBM informs us about the access, although NFHS-5 reports the fraction of households that commonly use the toilets. The two surveys jointly conclude that access to toilets in India does not concomitantly translate to its adoption as open defecation (OD) is an enduringly entrenched social norm in India. Given there is a disconnect in between access and adoption, SBM ought to also include things like the statistics on adoption of toilets on its dashboard. It is in this context that I propose budgeting for a nationally representative sanitation survey in the upcoming union price range 2021-2022.
The division of drinking water and sanitation (DDWS) beneath the ministry of Jal Shakti, launched the second phase of SBM (SBM II) on May 2020 with the objective to attain ODF plus status for India, i.e., sustaining India’s ODF status as properly as going beyond OD and tackling the impending challenges of strong and liquid waste management (SLWM). The ODF plus element will be evaluated along with 4 objectives: “plastic waste management, bio-degradable solid waste management (including animal waste management), greywater management and faecal sludge management” (bit.ly/3nJc7R0).
The recommendations for SBM II distinctly mention that the programme will work towards guaranteeing that every person utilizes the toilet (bit.ly/38JOLqe). While this statement along with the SLWM is a step in the positive path, the SBM II recommendations sidestep stating adoption of toilets in the checklist ready to declare a village/neighborhood ODF (supply: SBM II Operational Guidelines, 2020 (Page 19, bit.ly/39qLo6A). The checklist consists of, (1) access to functional toilets by all the households in a village, (2) the presence of neighborhood sanitation complexes (CSCs) in villages with more than one hundred households, (3) presence of gendered-functional toilets in anganwadi centres and 4 other waste management connected criterion.
It is vital to note that neither SBM nor SBM II accounts for adoption when declaring a village ODF. There is a need to have to take a step back and realize that India has nevertheless not effectively attained the ODF status in terms of adoption, therefore moving from ODF to ODF Plus beneath SBM II although circumventing usage of toilets will not be representative of the correct state of sanitation in India.
I propose that in the presence of conflicting proof of India’s ODF status immediately after NFHS-5, SBM II ought to be allocated a separate price range, beneath India’s 2021-2022 Union price range, to conduct a survey for independent verification of SBM statistics. Unlike SBM, the accomplishment of SBM II ought to not be self-reported by state and regional governments (see bit.ly/2LPKZlQ). Instead, this activity ought to be delegated to an independent survey agency that specialises in conducting surveys on sanitation behaviour. The surveys ought to incorporate two self-reported measures: (1) access to toilets, and (2) use of toilets. Concurrently, objective indicators like enumerator verification of the presence and high quality of toilets (for instance, if the toilets have a strong and intact structure deeming these match for use) ought to also be integrated.
Inclusion of a rigorous nationally-representative sanitation survey to assess India’s open defecation behaviour will raise the price range allocation for SBM in the 2021-2022 price range, but it will also assist the policymakers and the programme implementers to rationalise future investment in sanitation. For instance, will the investment yield highest return by additional escalating access? Or are the respondents merely facing infrastructural barriers to adoption and the most productive use of allocation of funds will be to just upgrade the currently constructed sanitation hardware? This is an vital query mainly because SBM and NFHS-5 are each silent about the high quality of toilets constructed. Finally, assuming that the access is universal and high quality of toilets is sound, ought to the programme invest in reinforcing the behaviour adjust messages to upend the behavioural constraints like sticky social norms towards working with toilets.
Budgeting for a survey this term will guarantee that the provision of a restricted SBM II price range yields highest returns in the coming years.
The author is Consultant at Tata-Cornell Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Views are individual