Archive
TEDxAmsterdamWomen Anjali Sarker – Toilet+ overcoming my childhood fear TEDX event
A great presentation by Anjali Sarker of Toilet Plus on their strategy and reasoning for introducing toilets that work based on financial technical sustainable and social criteria. Toilet Plus is in the early phase of it plan.
” DEFECATION! DISEASE! DEATH! In Bangladesh, each year 69000 children die from diarrhea largely because of unhygienic sanitation. 68% of the villagers use unhygienic pit latrines or defecate openly. Though both govt and NGOs are trying to solve this problem, their efforts largely fail because poor villagers- 1)simply lack motivation to change their sanitation behavior or 2)can’t afford the shift to safe sanitation.
TOILET+ /Toilet Plus introduced as A HYGIENIC AND AFFORDABLE SANITATION SOLUTION. It’s a urine diverting dry toilet and is structurally similar to Ecosan. It can recycle 100% waste to produce organic fertilizer and is flood resistant. Toilet+ ($110 value) is made affordable to the villagers through microcredit from partner MFI.
Toilet+ OFFER COLLECTIVE PROFIT & RESPONSIBILITY. Households form cooperatives,apply for microcredit, and become collectively responsible to repay the total monthly installments to MFI. Member households get toilets from Toilet+ and Toilet+ get paid by MFI. Members sell waste (human and other bio-waste) to Toilet+ and Toilet+ convert waste into organic fertilizer for selling to agro firms. By selling waste, a cooperative gets $70 a month (75% of the collective installments) and each household pays only $1.3 out of pocket to repay the collective monthly installments. Members create strong peer pressure on one another to use toilet so that they can repay collective loan easily.
THE MODEL TURNS TO A SELF-SCALABLE AND SELF-SUSTAINABLE SANITATION CHAIN. Cooperatives will continue to earn revenue from sale of waste after repaying the microcredit in 2.25 years. Understanding the high profitability of financing toilets, enthusiastic cooperative members will start lending non-users to purchase Toilet+ just like MFIs. Users will use peer pressure to make other non-users purchase and use Toilet+ with cooperative financing. Thus cooperative will grow and members will earn more revenue from sale of waste from their financed toilets.
Toilet+ IGNITES THE SPARK, COMMUNITY MAKES IT A REVOLUTION. 1)The more a family uses Toilet+, the more it earns 2)Many Cooperatives will finance others’ toilets as a profitable business and thus expand the size of the cooperative. 3)Fewer fatal diseases, cleaner environment, and more income will improve the living standard of community permanently. “
source for quoted content Dell Social Innovation Challenge- Toilets (changed to third person)
About Anjali Sarker from DELL site
Toilet Plus site:
Related articles
-
Microcredit Regulatory Authority (MRA) is the central body to monitor and supervise microfinance operations of non-governmental organizations of the Republic of Bangladesh.
- A Business Model That Will Blow Your Mind & 10 Ways You Can Improve Yours (fireflycoaching.com)
- Canadian-made toilet aims to lay waste to sanitation diseases (ctvnews.ca)
- Toilet Apartheid (counterpunch.org)
- Renewed research call for low-cost sanitation technologies in Bangladesh [deadline18 Feb 2013] (sanitationupdates.wordpress.com)
- UN deputy chief urges action on water rights (sfgate.com)
- ICDDRB – Update on WASH and hygiene practices (sanitationupdates.wordpress.com)
- April Rinne, Where Is Microfinance Most Powerfully Linked with Sustainable Agriculture, Renewable Energy, Water and Sanitation to End Poverty and Mitigate Climate Change? (slideshare.net)
- Farmers in Nepal Use Urine to Boost Crop Yields (scientificamerican.com)
new reprort Financing On-Site Sanitation for the Poor
Financing On-Site Sanitation for the Poor A Six Country Comparative Review and Analysis
is Available From WSP Water and Sanitation Program is 174 page pdf doc dated January 2010
On-Site Sanitation for the Poor
“The study was written by Sophie Trémolet (independent consultant) under the leadership and guidance of Eddy Perez (Water and Sanitation Program – WSP) and Pete Kolsky (World Bank)…”
It starts with a quick overview of current conditions quoting from a variety of existing publications:
“…sanitation costs the economies of four Southeast Asian countries the equivalent of approximately 2 percent of their GDP…”
“In the six countries described in this study, the capital cost of household sanitation varied between US$17 and US$568, costs which often exceeded half the annual household income of the poor in the respective project areas.”
They go on to say ” The challenges of fnance – the practical decisions about who pays how much for what, when, and how – thus lie at the heart of the world’s eforts to promote health, dignity, and a cleaner environment through sanitation. Yet despite the importance of the topic, past eforts to gather meaningful data on sanitation fnance have largely failed.” Thus, the study.
The 6 cases studies are:
- Bangladesh DISHARI – based on Community Led Total Sanitation CTLS
- rural areas
- Basic latrines
- 1,630,733 people
- 2004 to 2008
- Ecuador – PRAGUAS
- rural areas
- Sanitation units (toilet, septic tank, sink, shower)
- 143,320 people
- 2001 to 2006
- Maharashtra (India) – Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) using CLTS approaches
- rural areas
- Improved latrines
- 21,200,417 people
- July 2000 to November 2008
- Mozambique – Improved Latrines Program (PLM) -
- urban areas
- Improved latrines
- 1,887,891 people
- 1980 to 2007
- Sénégal- PAQPUD -
- urban areas
- improved latrines to septic tanks
- 410,507 people
- 2002 to 2005
- Vietnam – Sanitation Revolving Fund SRF
- urban areas
- Mostly bathrooms and septic tanks
- 193,670 people
- 2001 to 2008
According to the study they address:
• How much does provision of access to on-site sanitation cost, that is, once all costs (hardware and soft-
ware) are taken into account?
• Do the type and scale of sanitation subsidy afect provision and uptake? How?
• How can the public sector most efectively support household investment in on-site sanitation?
• Should it be via investment in demand stimulation, subsidies to households or suppliers, by support to
credit schemes, or by other means?
• Should hardware subsidies be provided or should public spending be focused on promoting demand or supporting the supply side of the market? Where hardware subsidies are adopted, what is the best way
to ensure that they reach their intended recipients and are sustainable and scalable?
• What innovative mechanisms (such as credit or revolving funds) can be used to promote household sanitation fnancing?
Evaluation criteria:
- “Impact on sustainable access to services: Did the project contribute to increasing access to sanitation? “
- “Costs: Are the costs of the resulting sanitation facilities reasonable and affordable to the beneficiaries?”
- “Effectiveness in the use of public funds: Were public funds used in a way that maximized impact? “
- “Poverty targeting: Did the program seek to target the poor and was the program effective at doing so?”
- “Financial sustainability: Could the financial approach be sustained over time without external support?”
- “Scalability: Could the fnancial approach be scaled up to cover those who are not yet covered in the
country at a reasonable cost?”
The Key finding explored in detail in the study are
- “Taken together, the case studies make a compelling case that partial public funding can trigger signifcantly increased access to household sanitation. “
- “The studies show that the most relevant question is not “Are subsidies good or bad?” but rather “How best can we invest public funds?” “
- “The diferent fnancing strategies adopted had a profound infuence, for better or for worse, on equity, scale, sustainability, levels of service, and costs.”
- “Households are key investors in on-site sanitation, and careful project design and implementation can maximize their involvement, satisfaction, and fnancial investment…”
- “Hardware subsidies of some form played a critical role in all six case studies. “
- “Subsidy targeting methods need to be tailored to country circumstances. “
- “The provision of hardware subsidies on an output basis rather than an input basis can be efective at stimulating demand and leveraging private investment.”
- All of the case studies included a signifcant publicly funded software component (promotion and community mobilization).
Related:
Gates Foundation steps up water efforts with grant to improve sanitation
The challenges of financing sanitation
Ethiopia – Effective financing of local governments to provide water and sanitation services
Innovations in Financing Urban Water & Sanitation
water sanitation new
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
