This is a summary of a study of the reaching of Everyone Forever with rural water and sanitation services in the Sagar and Patharpratima blocks of West Bengal, India.

1. Islands of success
Towards Everyone, Forever in Sagar and
Patharpratima blocks
By: Stef Smits and Kurian Baby, IRC

2. Background
 Adoption of the Everyone, Forever approach by WFP
 Triple-S (Sustainable Services at Scale) initiative to strengthen sustainability
of rural water supplies by IRC
 Collaboration between WFP and IRC to systematize WFP’s experience, both
for use nationally and internationally started in Honduras in 2011, with
interest to apply elsewhere
 Objective: to document and critically analyse the approaches and processes
of achieving universal coverage and putting in place mechanisms to ensure
sustainable service delivery in two blocks (Sagar and Patharpratima) of the
South 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, India.

3. Conceptual framework
• Triple-S principle framework
• Used as analytical tool with
windows for analysis
• Guiding questions around
each principle – applied to the
various institutional levels
• Scope is not assessing
whether EF is achieved but
rather how:
– How is WFP contributing to full
coverage?
– How is it ensuring services keep
working?
• Specific attention
– Scale and scalability
– Social inclusion
a) The adoption of a Service Delivery Approach
• Policy, legislation and institutional roles for agreed-upon
service delivery models.
• Financing for full life-cycle costs through combination of
tariffs, taxes and transfers.
• Participatory planning for full coverage accounting for
the different stages of the life-cycle
• Transparency and accountability mechanisms
consumers, service providers and independent oversight
bodies.
b) Having a strong learning and adaptive capacity
• Capacity (awareness, skills, resources, and access to
support) for stakeholders to fulfil their functions
• Ability to learn and innovate on the basis of knowledge
sharing, reflection and analysis.
c) Harmonisation and alignment
• Sector investment and support is harmonised and
aligned with national priorities and policies.
• Actions of stakeholders are coordinated at different
levels with commonly recognised platforms and forums.

4. Data collection, analysis and validation
• Review of project documents and other relevant (grey) literature
• Review of coverage and service delivery data from secondary databases
• Focus group discussion with WFP staff to assess the history of the programme, and their
perspective on the programme
• Key informant interviews and/or focus group discussions with:
– Service authorities
• State and district officials
• Block level officials and elected representatives
• GP elected representatives
– Service providers
• Water committees and SHGs
– Users
• Water users
• Households (for sanitation)
• School staff and students
– Support providers
• Jalabandhus
• Sanitation entrepreneurs
– Local partner NGO staff
• Validation and analysis meeting

5. Interviewees
Group Details
State level PHED Assistant Chief Engineer and water quality officer
District level
District Magistrate & Collector, District Coordinator and Assistant
Coordinator Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan Cell for South 24 Parganas
Block level
Block Development Officer Sagar
Sabhapati, Saha Sabhapati, and Members of Standing Committee,
both in Sagar Panchayat Samiti and Patharpratima Panchayat Samiti
Gram Panchayat level
Pradhan and/or Upa-Pradhan, Members of Standing Committee
and/or EF monitoring committee of 4 GPs
Support service providers Jalabandhus and sanitation entrepreneur at Production Centre
High school Teachers, parents and students at 3 high schools
Community organisations Members of 5 water committees and SHGs involved in sanitation
WFP staff
And partner NGOs Sabuj Sangha and Tagore Society for Rural
Development

6. Broader context
• Strong focus of GoWB on achieving full coverage
– ODF by 2015 (NBA)
– Water supply by 2020 (PHED)
• Through:
– Increasing subsidies for household sanitation for BPL and
special categories APL
– Hygiene promotion and awareness through IEC for
everyone and to encourage APL to invest for themselves
– Creation of rural sanitation markets and production
centres
– Extension of piped supplies
– Overall very high public investments

7. Broader context
• But…
– Multiplicity of funding streams (PHED, district, block,
MLA, GP, NREGA) that are often not well coordinated
– Service authority functions spread over different
levels and often not carried out well (planning,
regulation, monitoring)
– Service provider arrangements weak with little
community management, let alone professionalised
• Still significant degree of service delivery
achieved through ad hoc approaches but
probably at high costs and inefficiencies

8. History and development of the
programme
• Before 2006: range of specific interventions (e.g.
arsenic treatment design) but not in programmatic
manner
• 2006: start comprehensive programme in 20 villages
in both blocks, mainly focused on full coverage,
through partner NGO
• 2007: baseline information in focus GPs and
establishment of contacts with GPs
• 2008: growing focus on demand creation and
perspective of full coverage
• 2009: Start Jalabandhu
• 2010: more explicit focus on sustainability
• 2011: formal adoption of Everyone, Forever and first
round of FLOW
• 2016: Envisaged exit with respect to investments;
monitoring will continue

9. Programme components
• Everyone
– Installing new tubewells
– Rehabilitating tubewells that were completely
broken down
– Facilitating household sanitation through
revolving fund as top-up for BPL or full loan for
APL, mainly Patharpratima
– (Limited) establishment of sanitation production
centres, as most areas had ones developed by
government
– Developing toilet blocks and water facilities for
high schools and some primary schools
– Not part of programme: piped water supplies;
direct household sanitation construction;
subsidies for household sanitation for BPL
families, comprehensive roll-out of sanitation
production centres

10. Programme components
• Forever
– Setting up and training water committees at
all water points that were intervened – incl
establishing tariff payment system
– Setting up Jalabandhu system, incl initial
training of Jalabandhus and tool kits
– Hygiene promotion and awareness raising
– Setting up maintenance committees in
schools
– Close coordination with GP and block
officials and elected representatives for joint
planning
– First mapping, using FLOW
– Not component of programme: training and
capacity building of GP and block officials
and elected representatives

11. Initial situation
• 40-50% coverage both in water and sanitation;
but need to have more precise data
– Sanitation: Patharpratima 11% and Sagar 45% (not
clear which year)
• Long breakdown periods
• Gram Panchayat as de facto service
provider, but no community management and
few trained mechanics
• No tariff system for cost sharing

12. Results: Everyone
Coverage
• Various GPs have been declared ODF. Sanitation coverage about
74% in Patharpratima and xx% in Sagar
• But risk of slippage as new APL families come up
• Both blocks nominally covered with water supply according to
FLOW; but distance means several pockets of limited access to
water. Government statistics show 74% and 98% for
Patharpratima and Sagar respectively
Inclusion
• Sanitation; Government focused on traditionally excluded
families. WFP on newly excluded: too well-off to access
subsidies, but too cash-poor to have all cash upfront –
therefore zero-interest loan (partially hidden subsidy), as well
as on BPL who want to top up subsidy for higher level of
service.
• Water; no explicit approach to exclusion initially. Only now
through FLOW can gap filling of those pockets take place

13. Results: Everyone
Service levels
• Sanitation:
– basic. Slate and rings for govt subsidized ones.
Slate and rings, off-pit for revolving loan. With
increase in subsidy, level of service may go up
– Few improved super-structures observed. Will
quality of these threaten sustainability?
• Water:
– Basic to intermediate according to FLOW.
Accessibility (duration of round trip), water quality
and seasonality are limiting factors
– Platform and super-structure
– Demand for higher level of service through piped
supplies with household connection, but also fear
of unreliability and poor quality of service.
• Schools:
– intermediate to high, particularly for girls

14. Results: Intervention model
• Water:
– Standard demand-responsive approach
– Given simplicity of technology, limited scope for participation in decision-
making
– No technology choice: only tubewells, not piped supplies, but choice in type
of handpump and siting. Raised platform as non-negotiable
– But accompanied by strong capacity building component for future service
provision arrangements
• Sanitation:
– Market-driven through revolving fund, supported by awareness raising. Family
constructs its own toilet or contracts mason
• School:
– Participatory planning and design with school stakeholders, though non-
negotiable components of design were defined (e.g. menstrual hygiene box
and washing room)

15. Results: service delivery model
• Mixed set of arrangements at community level:
– WFP-intervened water points:
• Water committee
• SHG carrying out tasks of water committee
– Non WFP-intervened water points;
• No local service provider arrangement – GP steps in to pay for repairs and act as de facto service provider
– Estimated 25% of water point have active local organisation
• Main tasks: local tariff collection, breakdown reporting, minor repairs (though not always clearly
defined), cleaning platform, in some cases preventive maintenance (greasing)
• Main benefit – according to users: more rapid repairs in case of breakdown and improved
ownership
• But, low degree of professionalism of community organisations
– Not formally registered as service provider nor legal status
– Little official back-up in GP’s by-laws or resolutions: only 2 of the interviewed GPs has “resolution” that
each water point should have a committee
– Based on volunteerism
– Tariff payment and extra collections
• As many GPs arrange and fund repairs in ad hoc manner for those without water committee,
little incentive to establish water committee

16. Results: service delivery model
• Supported by Jalabandu
– Contracted by community or GP for major repairs
(though not always clearly defined)
– Contracted by GP for routine monitoring and preventive
maintenance (planned in two GPs for next year)
• Main benefit: reduction of non-functionality of
an estimated 30-40% to 17-18% (FLOW data)
• Jalabandhu system works well and has potential
to grow (e.g. more systematic preventive
maintenance)
– Active network
– Competition among them – better ones increase
their market share
– Links with suppliers of spares – though in one GP
idea to have spare bank
– Start working on other standpoints

17. Results: service delivery model
Schools
• All have form of management committee composed of
teachers and students to oversee and monitor cleaning and
maintenance
• Generally, students do physical cleaning, supposed by rotating
amongst all – whether it happens in reality remains to be
seen. Allegedly no funds to outsource cleaning
• Maintenance outsourced to Jalabandhu or contractors
through School Development Fund

18. Results: life-cycle costs
• CapEx
– Water: Shared between WFP, GP and community (initially 80-20, now 50-50
approximately). Also from PHED and other government sources
– Sanitation: household –though hidden subsidy in zero-interest rate. Initially loan
was Rs 4000, now Rs 2000/family for loan. Any additional costs on top are for
family. Also repayment periods have gone down and monthly instalments gone up
so to decrease default rates and reduce the hidden subsidy
– Schools: shared between WFP and school (via government funds). 1.5 lakh from
WFP, rest from school (through school development and parents). Initially WFP
contribution was about 3.5 lakh
• OpEx
– Water: payment of Jalabandhu through tariffs; spares by GP. Water committees are
supposed to get costs of spares reimbursed (Rs 2-3/family/month plus extra
collection). GP has about 1 lakh for repairs
– Sanitation: household
– Schools: either through school development fund, or special fees levied on all
students

19. Results: life-cycle costs
• CapManEx
– Water: GP (and other govt agencies), basically as part of their
recurrent investment plan
– Sanitation: not looked at in detail, but should be household. Some
have started digging new pits, also facilitated by having T-joints so it is
easy to connect latrine to new pit
– Schools: no systematic reserve is built for this; they apply to
government again
• ExpDS
– Water: GPs have some budget (Rs 6000) for Jalabandhu; PHED covers
costs of water quality monitoring
– Sanitation: Government through health workers and materials
– Schools: n/a
• General: OpEx is the most critically undefined cost category

20. Results: service authority functions
• Planning
– GP following government planning tools and
instruments – they are a bit linear and focused
mainly on infrastructure development
– May need more fine-grained tools and
instruments to identify and plan for the pockets
of exclusion
• Coordination
– Multiplicity of government investments
– GPs have bilateral contacts with all and sign off
on them, or have funds channelled through
them
– Yet, no pro-active multi-stakeholder coordination
mechanisms for WASH investments
– Risk of duplication of efforts and reinforcing
infrastructure-driven approach

21. Result: service authority functions
• Monitoring
– Government monitoring data and tools main source of information –
coverage as primary indicator; updates based on what has been
constructed, not on what is really there
– Confusion around water quality monitoring through PHED labs: all water
points or samples? Periodicity? Feed-back to GPs and water committees?
– FLOW provides more comprehensive indicators, but need to consider how
it fits into government’s planning systems:
• Real-time monitoring (FLOW-plus): not needed for Jalabandhu, but could generate higher
level analysis of trends in break-downs
• Complement existing surveys by GPs and feed into fine-grained planning of pockets of
exclusion (gap analysis) at GP level (or block)
• General monitoring tool at block level – but can it then feed into the compulsory data it
needs to provide to government?
• Capacity to analyse the data is limited; option to institutionalise it with the Block
Resource Centre as technical support unit

22. Results: sustainability of hygiene
behaviour change
• Reported rapid changes in hygiene behaviour:
– Absenteeism at schools due to menstrual hygiene
facilities
– Taking hygiene behaviour (hand washing and demand
for clean toilets) from school to community
– Rapid increase in access to toilets
– Critical mass of toilet use and other hygienic behaviour
• Risks that people will fall back to ODF and
unhygienic behaviour
– Super-structures are rudimentary
– Cleanliness and maintenance at schools
• Mitigation measures
– EF monitoring committees – but voluntary
– CHCMI monitoring
– Ward representatives reporting to GP and taking action
locally

23. Conclusions
• Both blocks have (almost) achieved Everyone
with basic service levels with remaining pockets:
– Sanitation: probably APL-categorised family who are
still to cash-poor and often young or new families.
– Relatively far away families for water
• Inadequacy of service levels: seasonality, quality
and time spent/accessibility
• WFP contributed 10-15% coverage, through
strong partnering, leveraging and topping up of
government investment, particularly by:
– Pooling funds for water
– Complementary for sanitation, by focusing on APL
families for sanitation through revolving fund
– Schools: topping up government investment

24. Conclusions
• Improved functionality through
– Active water committees for local level
management
– Active network of Jalabandhus
– Management arrangements for schools
• However, still many risks around sustainability:
– Limited scale, formalisation and professionalisation
of water committees
– Mixed role of GPs vis a vis OpEx
– Service authority functions
– Mixed financial commitment to cleaning and
maintenance at schools
• This manifests itself not so much in rapidly breaking
down of facilities but more in inefficient and expensive
repair and capital maintenance by government

25. Conclusions
• Main added value in relation to government
programme:
– Gap filling in terms of coverage, particularly APL
for sanitation
– By partnering with government
investment, possibility to have higher levels of
service
– Developing and applying innovations for
sustainability, contributing to changes in
government approaches to sustainability

26. Conclusions
• Taking Everyone to scale (e.g. other blocks) is
relatively straightforward, aligning with
government policies and investment
– With new challenges of move towards higher levels of
service through piped supplies or convergence of
sanitation investments with NREGA
• Taking Forever to scale (in existing and new
blocks) is more challenging, as overcoming some
sustainability challenges need to be addressed at
higher levels of government (block, district, State)
– added value of WFP in field testing and
institutionalizing such innovations

27. Recommendations within scope of this
programme
• Everyone:
– Develop and apply structured methodology for gap analysis where nominal coverage is
above 90%
– Pilot piped supplies as technology option to reach everyone, with professionalised
service provider arrangements
• Service delivery model:
– Work with blocks and GPs to legalise and institutionalise water committees as service
provider model (as registered entity or as sub-committee of the GP), and develop
corresponding by-laws and guidelines, including reporting by water committees to GP
– Scale up water committees to existing water points (not directly by WFP but by GP?)
– Pilot professionalised water committees –particularly for piped supplies
– Work with blocks and GPs on local policies and by-laws and guidelines on tariffs and
when GPs can contribute to repair costs
– Continue working with Jalabandhus and expand their work through contracts between
GPs and Jalabandhus for routine monitoring and preventive maintenance
– Encourage schools to outsource cleaning and develop budgets for that

28. Recommendations within scope of this
programme
• Strengthening service authority functions
– Establishing investment tracking and coordination mechanisms
at block and GP level
– Analyse in detail existing government monitoring processes and
see where and how FLOW (plus) best fits in, even at level of
indicators, particularly at block level
– Support GPs (and blocks) in strengthening water quality
monitoring having a say in sampling, analysing data and
reporting back to committees
– Continuous monitoring of ODF status and possible fall-backs in
this by GPs and its sub-committees
– Develop a communication strategy about your programme at
district and State level to support some of the previous points