The presentation is an overview of the different modalities of public toilet construction and maintenance in Hyderabad. It also reviews the currently most preferred Build-Operate-Transfer model under Public-Private-Partnership, based on four criteria: - Community & Location - Economics & Viability - Governance & Operational Management - Design & User Experience This presentation was prepared by Indivar Jonnalagadda, Research Associate at Hyderabad Urban Lab for the workshop Toilet Republic held at Do Din 2014 on December 20, 2014.

1. Public Toilets in Hyderabad
An HUL Presentation
by Indivar Jonnalagadda
At the Toilet Republic Workshop, Do Din 2014.

2. Two Broad Types of Public Toilets
• Toilets in public places (conventionally called just public toilets)
• USER BASE:
• Workers who spend most of their time on roads or streets, such as sanitation
workers, hawkers, shop employees, auto-rickshaw/tempo/truck/private-
vehicle drivers, etc.
• Pavement dwellers.
• The occasional pedestrian.
• Community toilets
• USER BASE:
• Community toilets are usually attached to a specific slum settlement.

3. Community Toilet Models
• Government-built Community-operated
• NGO-built Community-operated
• NGO-built public toilet that also serves a specific community

4. The Life-Cycle of Community Toilets in Hyderabad
• The government builds the toilet and hands it
over to the community.
• There is little or no maintenance.
• Toilet starts going into disrepair and becomes
a hazard.
• Structure is demolished and a new toilet is
constructed.
• RELATED ISSUES:
• Toilets become sites of substance-abuse &
other illicit activities, resulting in the
perceived security of users, particularly
women, being compromised.

5. Public Toilet Models – Till the 2000s
Government builds and operates
NGO builds and operates for a limited
period of time

6. 2000s - Fund Your City Project
• PPP with a Build-Operate-
Transfer model
• Lease period of 7-10 years
• Incentives:
• Allowed to charge fees. Re.1 for
urinals and Rs.2 for latrines.
• Free advertising on 70% of the
exterior walls.
• Cross-subsidy:
• Required to build an additional
toilet in a by-lane

7. Review of the Project
• Community & Location
• Toilets located with consideration for advertising.
Mostly clustered at major junctions or on main
roads.
• This caters to a large user-base, but excludes the
working population on arterial roads and smaller
streets.
• Economics & Viability
• The thrust on PPP is necessitated by financial
considerations.
• However, the dilemma is that the incentive
structure perverts the expected outcomes of this
public good.
• Governance & Operational Management
• Effective vacuum of regulation with respect to
private operation of toilets – resulting in private
operators charging higher fees, inability to effect a
cross-subsidy, inability to effect transfer of
operation and inability to enforce guidelines
• Lack of statutory guidelines and rampant non-
adherence to existing guidelines
• Design & User Experience
• Most toilets are designed with a clear male-bias.
Not much consideration is given to the particular
needs of women: privacy, security, hygiene.
• No consideration is given also to the special needs
of disabled people. Particularly, those with walking-
impairments. Most toilets are elevated and
reachable only by stairs or a high pavement. Also,
there are rarely facilities suitable to their needs.

8. Major Constraints
• Land
• Absence of a pre-defined community in the case of public toilets
• Most solutions to problems of governance in PPP projects involve some kind
of “community participation”. But by its very nature, the public toilet does not
have a pre-defined community. Its user-base is a mobile population.
• Thus, the option of offsetting the shortcomings of PPP through community
consultation is ruled out.
• Only something like a market research survey can be done. Don’t know to
what extent such an exercise is undertaken though.
• No statutory norms