The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum...

42
September 2006 Report The World Bank-assisted Slum Sanitation Program aimed to provide high quality sanitation services to Mumbai’s slum dwellers. It was a demand-responsive initiative that incorporated a participatory approach to offer incentives to multiple stakeholders to work together to deliver community sanitation. THE WORLD BANK The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum Communities for Sustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis 38456 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

Transcript of The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum...

Page 1: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

September 2006

Report

The World Bank-assisted Slum Sanitation Program aimed to provide high quality sanitation servicesto Mumbai’s slum dwellers. It was a demand-responsive initiative that incorporated a participatoryapproach to offer incentives to multiple stakeholders to work together to deliver community sanitation.

THE WORLD BANK

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program

Partnering with SlumCommunities for Sustainable

Sanitation in a Megalopolis

38456

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Page 2: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in anymanner to The World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the companies theyrepresent or the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai or the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority or theGovernment of Maharashtra or the Government of India.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, andother information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of anyterritory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Page 3: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program

Partnering with SlumCommunities for Sustainable

Sanitation in a Megalopolis

Page 4: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

Preface 3

Background 7

Environmental Services in Mumbai Slums 11

Introducing a New Approach: The Slum Sanitation Program 15

Achievements of the Slum Sanitation Program 25

What Do We Learn from Mumbai? 29

Appendix:

Slums Studied 34

Select References 35

Contents

Page 5: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

The city of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) in India has undergone metamorphic changes over the years, because of the rapidpopulation growth and changing character of the city’s economy and socioeconomic composition. The challenges involved inproviding basic services, particularly adequate housing and related infrastructure, are enormous. Sanitation especially posesdaunting challenges since more than half of the city’s population of 13 million, that is, 6.3 million people, live in some 2,000densely populated slum settlements. In these slum settlements, residents have to largely depend on public toilets provided bythe government. These sanitation facilities are poorly maintained for the most part, and thus cause serious public health andenvironmental risks for the entire population of the city. An estimated one in 20 people in these slum settlements are compelledto perform daily ablutions and relieve themselves in open areas. Insecurity of tenure, complex land ownership patterns, technicalproblems, and other constraints pose formidable obstacles to strategies and programs that aim to address the problem.

The Slum Sanitation Program (SSP)—a component of the World Bank-financed Mumbai Sewage Disposal Project approved in1995 and implemented by the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (MCBM)—is a demand-responsive participatoryapproach to providing quality sanitation services. The SSP supported a new strategy in urban community sanitation thatprovided incentives to multiple stakeholders to work together to deliver reliable community sanitation in a flexible manner.An estimated 400,000 slum dwellers have benefited. The initiative helped demonstrate that a fresh partnership effort,engaging all stakeholders and shifting the locus of operation and maintenance to community-based organizations through aMemorandum of Understanding with the MCBM, could produce beneficial results.

Implementing a participatory, demand-based program in a complex urban setting is not without its challenges. Mumbai faces anumber of policy and programming issues that need to be addressed if the SSP experience is to be applied in a broaderstrategy and scaled-up to meet the city’s urgent sanitation needs. This document summarizes key features of the SSPimplementation challenges and how they were addressed as well as main lessons learned. The SSP experience provides a goodexample about how sustainable urban community sanitation programs can be implemented effectively. The experience isinstructive since this impacts communities’ lives not only in Mumbai but also provides lessons for other Indian cities as well asother large metropolitan areas in the developing world.

3

Preface

Page 6: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

This report documents a joint study commissioned by The World Bank and Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia.

The study was conducted by TARU Leading Edge Pvt Limited, WEDC, Loughborough University (United Kingdom), under thesupervision of Shyamal Sarkar, Senior Sanitary Engineer, World Bank, and Soma Ghosh Moulik, Water and Sanitation Specialist,Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia. The authors would like to thank Sonia Hammam, Sector Manager, SASEI, World Bank,without whose support and encouragement the study and this subsequent report could not have been accomplished.

The study also incorporates valuable inputs from Junaid K. Ahmad, Sector Manager, SASES, I. U. B. Reddy, Senior SocialDevelopment Specialist, SASES, Deepak Sanan, Team Leader, Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia, and David Savage,Senior Institutional Development Specialist, SASES, all of whom are with The World Bank Group.

This study would not have been possible without the facilitation and cooperation of stakeholder agencies in Mumbai: the WaterSupply and Sanitation Department (WSSD) of the Government of Maharashtra; the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai(MCBM); Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA); implementing partner agencies (NGOs andcontractors); and, most of all, CBOs and slum communities leading the charge on sanitation.

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable peer review provided by Peter J. Kolsky and Eduardo A. Perez of The WorldBank, and for the special inputs from Robert C. Buckley, Advisor, Urban Housing, World Bank, and Catherine J. Revels, RegionalTeam Leader, Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia.

Acknowledgments

4

Page 7: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

BSDP Bombay Sewage Disposal Project

CBO Community-Based Organization

CI Cast Iron

CTB Community Toilet Block

D&R Demolition and Reconstruction

FSI Floor Space Index

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GI Galvanized Iron

GoI Government of India

GoM Government of Maharashtra

IHHL Individual Household Latrine

MCBM Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai

MHADA Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSDP Mumbai Sewage Disposal Project

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NOC No Objection Certificate

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PSC Public Sanitary Conveniences

R&R Retrofitting and Restitution

RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete

sq. km. Square Kilometer

SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority

SRS Slum Rehabilitation Scheme

SSP Slum Sanitation Program

ULCRA Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act

WSP Water and Sanitation Program

YUVA Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action

Exchange Rate(Effective April 10, 2006)

US$1.0 = 44.66 Indian Rupees

1.0 Indian Rupee = US$0.0224

(1 billion = 1,000 million)

Abbreviations and Acronyms

5

Page 8: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering
Page 9: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

7

The Municipal Corporation ofBrihan (Greater) Mumbai (MCBM)implemented the World Bank-assistedSlum Sanitation Program (SSP)as a part of the Mumbai SewageDisposal Project (MSDP) thatcommenced in 1995. The SlumSanitation Program was a componentof the MSDP project and aimed at“improving the health and environmentalconditions in Greater Mumbaiincluding the slum dwellers”. It wastargeted at about one million slumdwellers (approximately 20 percentof the total Mumbai slum population)living on municipal land at about10 percent of the MSDP projectcost (approximately Rs. 13.2 billion orUS$295.6 million).

Under SSP, about 330 communitytoilet blocks (CTBs) with more than5,100 toilet seats were constructedand handed over to communitygroups to use and maintain.Implemented over 1996-2005,this program is estimated to havebenefited about 400,000 people inthe slums of Mumbai. The programwas unique in (a) fostering aparticipatory and demand-ledapproach in a complex metropolitansociocultural environment;(b) supporting partnerships betweenthe MCBM, non-governmentalorganizations, private constructionagencies, and slum communitygroups; (c) initiating innovations andincentives; (d) providing superiortechnical specifications that helpensure improved service qualitystandards; and (e) responding creativelyto an emerging market for operationsand maintenance.

Background

Figure 1: Map Showing Slums of Mumbai

The experience will be instructive for(a) the Government of Maharashtra(GoM) as it moves gradually towardsa new urban sanitation policy; and(b) the design of a national citycommunity sanitation project,Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (an integralpart of the national shelter upgradationprogram, Valmiki Ambedkar Awas

Yojana1). This summary report provideslessons about sustainable urbancommunity sanitation provision in large,poor urban areas that can be helpfulelsewhere in India as well as in othercities in the developing world.

1 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana is a Government of India-sponsoredscheme being implemented in the states of the country.

Page 10: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

8

Despite Mumbai’s general prosperity, about 54 percent of its citizens(an estimated 6.2 million out of the total 11.5 million) live in some2,000 slums cramped in about eight percent of the city’s land area.

Table 1: Comparative Slum Population

Year Slum Slum Total Proportion ofSettlements Population Population Slum Population(number) (million) (million) (percent)

1976 1,680 2.8 5.9 47

1983 1,930 5.0* 10.0 50

2001 1,959 6.2 11.5 54

*Includes 0.7 million pavement dwellers.Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005.3 Adapted from Slum Sanitation Survey, Montgomery Watson/YUVA. 2001.4

Mumbai: India’sCommercial Powerhouse

Spread over 438 square kilometers(sq. km.), the port city of Mumbai(formerly called Bombay) is the capitalof the state of Maharashtra in westernIndia and the financial capital of thecountry. It is home to more than13 million people and generates asignificant proportion of India’s grossdomestic product (GDP). It is one of theworld’s largest metropolitan centerswith perhaps the second-largestmunicipality globally. Once a hub oftextile, engineering, and chemicalmanufacturing, Mumbai witnessed anoccupational shift in the late 20thcentury when new jobs emerged inthe informal service sector that nowemploys two-thirds of the city’sworkforce. The population of GreaterMumbai grew from 8.2 million in 1981to 9.9 million in 1991 and, by 2001,added another two million people toreach 11.9 million (Census of India,2001). The immense populationpressure on the scarce land available inGreater Mumbai is manifested by anaverage density of 20,200 persons persq. km., about 62 times more than the

average density of India. Mumbai’sunabated growth challenges thegovernment with the need to provideadequate shelter and relatedinfrastructure and services.

Slums Have Also Multiplied

Ironically, despite Mumbai’s generalprosperity, about 54 percent of itscitizens (an estimated 6.2 million out ofthe total 11.5 million) live in some 2,000slums cramped in about eight percentof the city’s land area. This is believed tobe the largest proportion and absolutenumber of slum dwellers in the world.Increasing rural-urban migration, limitedland availability for development, andhigh land values due to commercialdevelopment have challenged publicauthorities’ ability to provide basicshelter and services for its people,especially poor people. Mumbai has anartificially controlled and highly skewedland market resulting in high real estateprices. Price distortions have beeninfluenced by the population density,geographic limits on expansion, andlaws2 that prevent scarce lands from

becoming available for public housingand services, and the strong pull of theparallel economy. With demandaccelerating and supply restrictedbecause of regulatory, institutional, andother constraints, slum areas havepersisted and grown and a largeinformal housing market has emerged.Slum areas have become the refugenot only of poor people working in thelarge informal sector but also for better-off families working in the organizedprivate sector and the government.

Though the large numbers of slumdwellers provide the cheap labor thathelps drive Mumbai’s economic growth,slum areas themselves have beenvariously viewed over the decades asobjects of eradication and demolitiontill the early 1970s (“a blot on thecityscape”), as targets for clearance andimprovement (“tolerated as a housingsolution”), as areas where upgradationwas attempted (mid-1980s), to the

2 The State’s Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, and theRent Control Act, are laws intended to prevent concentration of landsin the hands of the few, and to protect tenants, respectively.

3 The World Bank and WSP-SA had commissioned a study to assessthe SSP project design, its approach, and process of implementationwith special emphasis on institutional, technical, social, environmental,financial, and monitoring aspects. The study was undertaken byTARU and WEDC in 2005.4 Montgomery Watson Pvt Ltd and YUVA conducted a baseline surveyof slums in Mumbai, in 2001, on environmental services with specialemphasis on sanitation.

Page 11: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

9

In a significant departure from the earlier stance on slums, the Afzalpurkar Committee in the early 1990s recommendedthe use of Mumbai’s land as a resource to solve the slum problem. One key feature of this approach is that additional area(permissible Floor Space Index or FSI) would be allocated for construction of tenements that, in turn, would be sold in themarket. Funds from such sales were expected to cross-subsidize tenements which could be given free of cost to slumdwellers. Accordingly, modified Development Control Regulations were sanctioned in 1997, and the Slum RehabilitationAuthority (SRA) was formed as an autonomous independent body. The SRA is responsible for reviewing the slumsituation, formulating schemes for rehabilitation of slum areas, and implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS).By capitalizing on the high cost of space, the SRS tries to provide saleable commercial space to the private sector asan incentive to put in capital and build multi-storey rehabilitation housing which could be given free of cost to slumdwellers. The SRS is a self-financed scheme, under which the entire expenditure is cross-subsidized from the salecomponent (incentive FSI).

From the mid-1990s when the SRA started to April 2005, an estimated 128,000 slum dwellers have benefited fromthe program, against a target of 800,000. By January 2005, the SRA had received applications for 1,264 schemes;of these, 704 have been approved, involving construction of an estimated 177,000 tenements. Work is in progress in531 schemes covering 75,500 tenements. Rehabilitation is nearing completion in more than 200 schemes, coveringabout 33,000 tenements or more than 100,000 slum dwellers (SRA, 2005). In slums where SRS is in progress,households have been resident before 1995, the cut-off date for recognizing legal slum dwellers. The SRS provides fortransit accommodation during implementation; the facilities include a dwelling unit, kitchen, water, and individual orcommon sanitation arrangements. Progress under this scheme appears to be accelerating but has hitherto fallen shortof expectation. Constraints include the land market, slum densities, developers’ poor or inadequate performance andthe scarcity of financially attractive locations.

Box 1: Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in Mumbai

current phase undertaking theirrehabilitation and reconstruction (sincemid-1990s) under the SlumRehabilitation Scheme (SRS).

Notifying slums (under the State’s SlumAreas Act5 ) accords legal recognition totheir existence and gives slum familiesthe right to “dwell”. However, securityof tenure over the housing plot or

5 Under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance)Act, 1956 (Section 4), the Competent Authority may, by notification,declare an area to be a slum area, if it is a potential source of danger tohealth, safety or convenience to the public due to inadequate or nobasic amenities, being unsanitary, squalid, overcrowded or in anyrespect unfit for human habitation; by reason of dilapidation,overcrowding, faulty arrangements, and design of buildings; narrownessor faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitationfacilities, or any combination of these factors; or detrimental to safety,health or morale. After notification, the slum can be taken up forimprovement works, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

Page 12: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

10

Land Ownership Percentage to Total Slums

Private 48.0%

State government 21.0%

Municipal 17.6%

Central government 4.7%

Indian Railways 0.7%

Municipal and private 2.5%

State government and private 2.2%

Other mixed ownership 3.0%

Grand total 100%

Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005. Adapted from Slum Sanitation Survey byMontgomery Watson/YUVA. 2001 (1,792 cases).

Table 2: Distribution of Slums by Land Ownership

structure is not conferred, since thegovernment wants to preserve therehabilitation option under SRS. Actualownership of lands on which slums arelocated is quite diverse and thus furthercompounds the issue (Table 2).

The state has notified most of the slumslocated on state government, municipal,and private lands (more than 85 percentof total slums). However, Governmentof India (GoI) agencies (including Indian

Railways) have been reticent inallowing notification of slums on theirlands lest this sets a precedence.Some slums on other lands (private,government, and mixed ownership)also remain to be notified. As a result,apart from more than 2,000 notifiedslums, there are 130 non-notified slumsin the city, accommodating anestimated 500,000 or more people.Slum settlements that are not notifiedare expected to be removed or

resettled elsewhere—hence, these arenot provided with urban services. Evenwhere slums are notified, their access tobasic services, in many cases, is limitedby the organizational constraints ofpublic agencies.

Although the state’s Slum Actempowers public agencies to provideservices to all slums irrespective oftheir ownership, these agencies face anumber of technical, capacity, andresource constraints in carrying outtheir mandate. They are also hesitantin making capital investments unlessthey receive a No Objection Certificate(NOC) from the land owner, fearingthat the investments may be at risk ofdemolition or waste at a later stage.The Government of Maharashtraalso prohibits investments in slumsearmarked for rehabilitation under SRSwithin two years so that resources arenot wasted (in building communityfacilities that will be demolished soon).Deficiencies in the housing and slumpolicies of the city, complex landownership patterns, insecure landtenure, technical problems, and otherconstraints often complicate anyinitiatives or initial actions by municipalservice providers.

Page 13: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

11

The provision of basic, environmentalservices in slum areas takes two distinctroutes. One is through conventionalmeans, that is, large interconnectednetworks of water, sewerage anddrainage, and solid waste removal,provided to formal housing areas aswell as to commercial, institutional, andindustrial areas of the city. The othertakes the form of feeder lines linkingthese networks to the periphery of slumareas through a mix of localized, in situmechanisms. Frequently, however,slum areas do not receive suchfeeder connections.

Water: Of the various water supplyarrangements in Mumbai’s slums, themost common is through sharedconnections or group connections,which cater to groups of five house-holds or more. About half of the slumshave this arrangement. In a third of theslums, there are mixed arrangements,comprising individual and sharedconnections. Only five percent ofthe slums have individual (private)household connections. Mumbai, unlikeother Indian metropolitan areas, isfortunate in not having a majorwater scarcity problem. However,contamination, low pressure, supply atodd hours, and high access costs arelocalized problems in slum settlements.A survey in 2001 (MontgomeryWatson/YUVA) reported lack of properwater supply arrangements in about17 slums housing about 100,000people. In such situations, there is near-total dependence on the purchase ofwater from informal water vendors, oron obtaining water from long distances.

Solid waste and drainage: Solid wastemanagement has witnessed some

initiatives. In addition to conventionalgarbage collection and transportationoptions, the city is currentlyexperimenting with local communitygroups playing a key role in keepingtheir neighborhoods clean. The city hasa network of large and small drains butit is under continuous pressure fromunplanned real estate developmentsand maintenance problems. Slums bearthe brunt of overflows and backflowsinto their houses every rainy season.The July 26, 2005, deluge wasparticularly severe, revealing again thevulnerability of slum areas.

Sanitation: Sanitation poses thegreatest challenges in the city’s slumareas. While the city’s wastewatercollection is well developed, it does not

cater to the large proportion ofMumbai’s slum areas’ population. Veryhigh housing densities, coupled withnarrow and winding lanes, poseformidable impediments to the planningand provision of wastewater collectionsystems. Thus, slum populations havebeen forced to depend on public toiletsto meet their sanitation needs. In a fewlocations, mainly large sites andservices settlements, a seweragenetwork has been laid. In a limitednumber of cases, individual householdlatrines have been connected to septictanks or are discharged into opendrains. Overall, the city has not beenable to cope with the existing sanitationneeds of the slum communities, posingserious public health and environmentalrisks for the entire city’s population.

Environmental Servicesin Mumbai Slums

Page 14: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

12

Three in four slums in Mumbai aredependent on public toilets. Anestimated one person in 20 (or about420,000 in total) is compelled todefecate in open areas; this representsabout six percent of Mumbai’s slum areapopulation. About 17 percent haveaccess to individual household latrineswhile nearly 72 percent depend onpublic toilets and five percent use a mixof arrangements.

Insecurity of tenure, lack of space,and affordability constraints rule outuse of conventional water-borne sewer-based solutions. Even in instanceswhere households are able and willingto invest in appropriate facilities,topography (as many slum settlementsare located below the road level orsewer invert level) often poses a barrier.The MCBM is responsible for providingsewerage, public, and communitysanitation services to the city, includingthe slums. In addition, the state’shousing development agency,Maharashtra Housing and AreaDevelopment Authority (MHADA), isalso charged with providing communitysanitation infrastructure in slum areas.

Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005.

Figure 2: Mumbai Slums—Access to Sanitation Arrangements

Percent to Total Slums

17%

6%3% 2%

72%

Public

Mixed

Open defecation

Public toilets in other slums

Mixed (individual, pay-and-use, among others)

Three in four slums in Mumbai are dependent on public toilets.An estimated one person in 20 (or about 420,000 in total) is compelledto defecate in open areas; this represents about six percent of Mumbai’sslum area population.

Over the last three decades, as asupplement to building a large citywidenetworked infrastructure6, Mumbai’sresponse to demand for urbansanitation facilities for the population atlarge, including slum dwellers, wasthrough provision of:

• Public free-for-use toiletsconstructed and maintained bymunicipal agencies.

• Public pay-and-use toiletsconstructed by MCBM (later,private agencies), and operated andmaintained by private agencies.

• MHADA-constructed toilets foruse by slum dwellers. However,its mandate and responsibilityfor operations and maintenanceis unclear.

Public, Pay-and-Use, andCommunity Toilets for Slums

Public toilets are available for use by thepublic-at-large, who usually are requiredto pay user charges. Community toilets,on the other hand, are meant for use bya specific community of households oran identifiable core group of users. “Forthis reason, users develop a sense ofownership of the assets and are willing

6 Part of the city sewerage master plan implemented by 2001 andcovering five zones comprises about 1,500 km of sewers including51 pumping stations, preliminary treatment facilities, and outfalls.

Page 15: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

13

to take full charge of their management.”(Nitti and Sarkar 2003.)

Pre-1990s’ public toilets: Until aboutthree decades ago, the MCBM hadconstructed public toilets free of chargeand MCBM staff was responsiblefor their upkeep and maintenance.However, because of poor maintenance,lack of electricity and waterconnections, as well as indifferentpublic attitudes, most of these toiletsfell into disrepair and only a fewfunctioned properly.

Public sanitary conveniences orpublic pay-and-use toilets (PTs) usinga public-private approach: With thepopularization, starting in the mid-1980s, of the ‘Sulabh’ (pay-and-usepublic toilets) model in different cities inIndia, more than 100 toilet blocks(public sanitary conveniences or PSCs)were constructed by the MCBM duringthe 1984-1991 period. These weregiven out on management contracts toSulabh International7 for 30 years.These toilets, usually located in highlypopulated public and commercial areas,ran well and showed that people werewilling to pay and use good qualitysanitation facilities. By the early 1990s,the MCBM, realizing the commercialpotential of such pay-and-use PSCs,concluded that it did not need to investits own resources for construction ofthe facilities. The task of financing,constructing, running, and maintainingsuch public toilets was opened to anyorganization that came forward toimplement PSCs on a build-operate-maintain basis. The MCBM provided the

necessary permissions and land forbuilding the toilets, approved thebuilding structure and design, andregulated the use of structures (such asfor advertisements). These PSCsare typically located in and aroundcommercial areas or areas with a highfloating population. They depend onpay-and-use revenues that not onlycover the operational and maintenanceexpenses but are also able to recovercapital investments. This approachoriginally was intended to encouragetoilet construction in slums too—onetoilet for slums or ‘non-commercialpotential areas’ for every one incommercial areas, using cross-subsidization schemes. This approachfailed, however, since the organizationsinvolved restricted themselves tocommercially attractive locations only,

leaving the slum areas unserved. ByFebruary 2005, there were an estimated1,327 pay-and-use public toilets in thecity operated by nearly 155 agencies,according to MCBM.

Community toilet blocks (CTBs) inslum areas: Along with the provision offree public toilets before the 1990s, theMCBM also had a Slum ImprovementWing (from 1969 to the 1990s)8 thatwas responsible for various upgradingactivities, including the provision ofcommunity toilets. These toilets wereconstructed for use by various slumcommunities. Funded by the MCBM, theregular maintenance of these toilets wasassigned to MCBM’s municipalsweepers. Although they were few in

7 Sulabh International is a national organization that began in the1970s and, among other things, popularized pay-and-use publictoilets that it operated and maintained across many Indian cities.

8 This Wing was dissolved and its functions devolved to the MCBMmunicipal ward offices in the 1990s.

Page 16: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

14

Note: Base—1,959 slums.Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005. MW-YUVA Survey. 2001.

Figure 3: Mumbai Slums—Agency-Wise Proportion of Toilet Blocks

28.29%22.67%

44.68%

4.37%

2.25%

0.18%

0.37%

1.57%

MHADA

Community/Owner

Sulabh

Government

MCBM

NGO/Private

CBO

number, the toilet facilities also fell intodisrepair as the MCBM was unable tomaintain and repair them, in partbecause there was little incentive forthe cleaning staff to get the job done.Further, as these toilets were restrictedto slums on MCBM land—the MCBMwould not finance toilets outside itsjurisdiction—it left considerable slumpopulations without access tosanitation facilities.

In the latter half of the 1990s, sanitationbecame the focus of a new nationalpolicy thrust along with increasedgovernment funding. MHADA becamethe pre-eminent agency constructingtoilets in slum areas of urbanMaharashtra including Mumbai. MHADAimplements the state and centralgovernment’s funded housing andinfrastructure schemes, anddiscretionary local area developmentfunds of members of parliament andmembers of the state legislature. TheAuthority constructed public toilets inMumbai through the late 1980s. Withsubstantial resources coming to itsdisposal in the late 1990s and early2000s, it has by now become thelargest public toilet construction agencyin the city. By 2001, there were about10,000 community toilets blocks in thecity, of which 45 percent had been builtby MHADA, 29 percent by MCBM, 23percent by communities or charitableorganizations, and two percent each byCBOs (or private organizations) andSulabh. A majority of these toilet blockshave aqua privies (53 percent) for wastedisposal, followed by septic tanks (46percent)—with a small proportion beingconnected to the city’s sewers.

The bulk of the community blocks areconstructed without communityconsultation and are, typically, a singlelevel battery of 10 seats for use byadults with separate sections for menand women. These are load-bearingstructures with asbestos cementroofing sheets, no provision for watersupply or electricity, and aqua priviesor septic tanks for waste disposalwhich often overflow and dischargeinto the nearest drain. Whether builtby MCBM or MHADA, a number ofproblems erode the potential benefitsthat these community toilets couldprovide. About two-thirds of thecommunity toilet blocks (CTBs) are invarious stages of disrepair and disuse.Lack of availability of water and noelectricity leads to poor cleanliness,restricted time of use, and frequentdamage. The operation andmaintenance of these toilets hascontinued to pose significant challenges,since users were not actively involved inthe planning and hence have little senseof ownership. This has contributed to

their rapid dilapidation followed bypublic demand for reconstruction.Agencies such as MHADA haveresponded with their resources butthe rebuilt toilets are invariablyreconstructed with inappropriatespecifications and without users’involvement. Since there is noprocess of formal handover betweenMHADA and MCBM, expectationsof maintenance are further belied.Thus a cycle of failure is perpetuated,aggravating already bad situationsand increasing health risks.

This was the context within whichthe Slum Sanitation Program (SSP),supported by The World Bank, wasconceived. The aim was to help arrestthe cycle of failure and misusedresources through the provision ofreliable, good quality, sustainablesanitation facilities to meet a large andgrowing desperate need. The SSPfaced a formidable challenge of tryingto be innovative yet responsive topublic demand and preferences.

Page 17: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

15

The World Bank-financed MumbaiSewage Disposal Project (MSDP),approved in 1995, was primarilytargeted at undertaking specialsewerage works in Mumbai andstrengthening the capacity of theMCBM to provide sewerage services.The MSDP, approved in 1995,involved a total project cost ofapproximately Rs.13.2 billion(US$295.6 million), which was financedin part by a Bank loan of approximatelyRs. 8.6 billion (US$192 million).The Slum Sanitation Program was acomponent added to the MSDP withthe aim of “improving the health andenvironmental conditions in GreaterMumbai including [those of] slumdwellers.” It was targeted at aboutone million slum dwellers (approximately20 percent of the total Mumbaislum population) living on municipalland at about 10 percent of theMSDP cost.

What was Special About SSP?

The design of the SSP was unique in thefollowing ways:

• Demand-responsive participatoryapproach to provision of communitytoilet blocks.

• Incentives for private contractors,non-governmental organizations(NGOs), and community-basedorganizations (CBOs) to worktogether to jointly deliver communitytoilet blocks in a flexibleframework—NGO-led partnershipwith contractor, and contractorled-partnership with NGO.

• Contracting innovations, such assimple contract milestones and100 percent contract variation.

Introducing a New Approach:The Slum Sanitation Program

• High technical standards ofconstruction and high quality servicelevels, including 24-hour water andelectricity, and other amenitiesincluding toilets for disabledpersons, urinals, children’s toilets,and a room for the caretaker.

• Initial community mobilization andCBO registration, householdcontribution for membership.

• Entire O&M responsibility handedover to CBO, and CBO signed MoUwith MCBM which spelled out theroles and responsibilities of theCBOs and MCBM.

• O&M management—CBO collectsmonthly pass charges (members)and per use user charges(other visitors).

Key Features andImplementation Challengesof SSP

Participatory and demand-responsiveapproach: The SSP stipulated that inslums where toilets are to be built,people would be engaged in aconsultation process, during which theproject and their role in it would bediscussed. A key feature was theinvolvement of slum communities in

Page 18: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

A key feature was the involvement of slum communities in projectimplementation right from the planning stage. The mobilization processfacilitated collaborations between NGOs, contractors, and CBOs.

16

project implementation right from theplanning stage. They would participateand be eligible for benefits by making aninitial financial contribution towardmembership. They would take an activepart in planning including site selectionand toilet block design. They would alsoprovide assistance and oversightthrough the construction process.NGOs were expected to facilitate this.The project specified that the choice oftechnologies and their locationsreflected the collective views of thecommunity as a whole. These decisionswould be documented in minutes ofcommunity meetings.

In each slum settlement a CBO wasformed and registered as a Trust or aSociety (under the Bombay Public TrustAct). In order to express its ‘demand’each family in the target slum area wasasked to pay a contribution of Rs.100per adult (up to a maximum of Rs. 500per family) as a membership fee. Theamount was deposited in a joint bankaccount (with CBO and MCBM).Construction work began after thisprocess was completed.

After construction of the toilet block,the CBO typically certifies itssatisfactory completion and signs aMemorandum of Understanding (MoU)with the Municipal Corporation. Theresponsibility of maintaining the toiletblock is then handed over to the CBO.The MoU specifies that CBOs operateand maintain the toilet blocks.

Considerable effort is required tomake the collaborative partnership ofNGOs, contractors, and CBOs workeffectively. There were inevitablestart-up problems but, over time, themobilization process began to succeed.

There was a marked contrast to theexperience of earlier CTBs that werebuilt without any participation of theintended user group.

Integrated or ‘Compact’ Contracts:Initially, the SSP design envisaged afour-step process that involved(a) raising awareness about theprogram; (b) choice of location and typeof toilet by a team of engineers andcommunity workers, followed by(c) construction of facilities by acontractor, leading to (d) use andmaintenance of the facilities created bycommunity groups.

Launched in 1997, the SSP met withconsiderable political opposition andinstitutional reticence in the early stages.The SSP design also did not receive afavorable response from NGOs andcontractors and little progress wasachieved. These initial difficulties led toconsiderable rethinking about thestrategy; the four-step approach was

replaced by an integrated ‘compact’contract, either led by an NGO or acontractor. The revised roles wereas follows:

a) MCBM was to create an enablingenvironment that would bring NGOsand the private sector to facilitateparticipation of slum households,and provide the capital investmentto construct toilet blocks.

b) NGOs would mobilize slumcommunities, facilitate formation ofCBOs, provide hygiene educationand training on O&M and CBOfunctioning, and serve as the maincatalyst to encourage a partnershipbetween the community groups andCBOs and the MCBM.

c) Private construction companieswere asked to carry out toiletconstruction, in partnership withNGOs. Alternatively, in the NGO-ledconsortium, they were responsiblefor community mobilization and

Page 19: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

17

CBO formation as well asconstruction. All work was subjectto competitive bidding procedures,consistent with government andWorld Bank guidelines.

d) CBOs were to help enable localcommunity processes, superviseconstruction and take full charge ofO&M management of local sanitationservices and assets.

Creating an enabling environment andpartnerships: An enabling policyframework emerged embracing differentstakeholders who were provided withincentives to participate. The goal wasto respond to user households’demands and to the preferences forwhich they were willing to pay. At first,this approach encountered resistancebecause of the presence of competing,supply-driven free service facilities. Thereal test of this novel approach waspredicated upon garnering politicalsupport for experimenting withmobilizing interest among slumcommunity households, forming andstrengthening registered CBOs, withNGOs and contractors jointly delivering,as a part of an integrated contract,mobilization, planning, design andconstruction of toilet blocks, in closeconsultation with community groups.After the construction, the entireresponsibility for operations andmaintenance would be handed overto the CBO, formalized in an MoUbetween the CBO and MCBM. In thisway, the SSP sought to shift thefocus of activities to the CBOs(responding to the community’sdemand), with NGOs, contractors, andMCBM playing the role of facilitators, asshown in Figure 4.

Technical CBO Development

1. MCBM issuestenders and awards to

NGO/contractorjoint venture

3. NGO identifiesor facilitates formation

of CBO with MCBMsupport where

necessary

5. Contractorprepares outlineof toilet design

4. NGO assesses userdemand for public toilet

in proposed location

7. Contractor preparesdetailed public

toilet design

6. Communityconsulted; outline

toilet designselected. Contractorprepares alternate

design if communityrejects earlier design

8. CBO formed;collects agreed

upfront membershipcontributions

9. Contractor submitsdetailed design and

costs to MCBM

10. CBO submitspublic toilet

application toMCBM

13. Constructioncommenced and

service connectionsarranged

11. MCBM approvesproposal and issueswork order for toilet

construction 12. NGOundertakes

capacity-buildingof CBO

14. Constructioncompleted to

satisfaction of MCBMand CBO, and toilet

commissioned17. MCBM handover;

management oftoilet to CBO

2. NGO andcontractor promoteSSP public toilets inselected slum areas

18. MCBM andNGO provide continued

support to CBO untilO&M stabilized

Figure 4: The Process of Slum Sanitation Project

15. CBO collectsremaining O&M

fund and completesregistration

16. MoUbetween CBO

and MCBM signed

Page 20: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

18

The Real Challenge

As noted earlier, the SSP approachinitially did not find favor with slumcommunities; they were reluctant to payupfront membership contributions,especially in the face of free toilets beingbuilt by MHADA. NGOs and privateconstruction contractors were notforthcoming, apprehending difficultiesin execution. Procedural delays (forexample, in water, electricity, andsewage connections) also slowedprogress, as did local politicalopposition at many locations.Confidence started to build amongstcommunities only after a prolongedstart-up of construction of somecommunity toilet blocks, along with anumber of revisions and innovations incontracting conditions, a series of

consultations and collaboration withNGOs, contractors, and MCBM.Political support also started to emergewith growing evidence of communityinterest and acceptance of the SSPapproach. The initial doubts of municipalcouncilors were allayed when theywitnessed growing demand for theSSP, the willingness of people to helpoperate and maintaining the CTBs, andthe new employment-generatingopportunities that were in sharpcontrast to the disincentives andenvironmental degradation resultingfrom free provision of toilets. The SSPpicked up pace by 2001.

Technical Options. In spite of a difficultstart, the SSP had demonstrated acapacity to dramatically improve thespecifications, quality, and potential

service life of community toilets for slumdwellers. The program was sensitive tothe constraints that aqua privies posedin terms of waste disposal, and hencesewerage connections were soughtwherever feasible. The programsuccessfully tested and implemented aseries of technical options to addressthese constraints, including:

• Sewerage for individual householdlatrines (IHHLs).

• Retrofitting and restitution (R&R)of existing community toilet blocks(CTBs).

• Provision of new community orgroup toilets.

• Permission for chawl (or slum)residents to build IHHLs.

• Shiftable toilet blocks andconnection to sewerage networks.

• Demolition and reconstruction ofexisting CTBs (including enlargedblocks both vertically andhorizontally).

Other important design innovationsincluded special toilets for children, forelderly and disabled persons, androoms for a caretaker. The latter turnedout to be a programmatic and beneficialdecision since it fulfilled a need forsomeone to maintain the facility sitefull-time—thereby increasing the qualityof upkeep and maintenance on behalfof the community.

The majority of toilet seats constructedunder SSP were in community toiletblocks—most of them with two-floorreinforced cement concrete (RCC)frame structures with 24-hour watersupply (through an overhead tank), an

Page 21: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

Component/Provider MHADA Toilet Blocks SSP Toilet Blocks

Planning and Design

Planning Highly standardized design adopted. Flexible approach—planning done on the basis ofNo community participation in design; space availability. Community participation incommunity remains a passive recipient planning and designing is a program rule

Service life 10 years (past experience shows that Designed for 30 years. Some blocks may needthe service life is about two or three years) retrofitting to meet design specifications

Usage norm One seat for 35 users One seat for 50 users

Water Not provided Compulsory (water connection, underground sump,overhead tank, and lifting pump)

Electricity Compulsory

Caretaker’s room None Compulsory for toilet blocks bigger than 10 seats.Where these rooms are not used, they have beenput to use for community activities (child recreationcenter, library, among others)

Number of cubicles Typical eight-12-seater block Not fixed, depends on community demand orrequirement, space availability

Squatting platform/seats None Yesfor children

Seats for old and Optionaldisabled persons

Provision of bathrooms One bathroom for every 10 toilet cubicles provided

Urinals Yes

Privacy for women Not ensured (many times the men and Ensuredwomen sections are not separated)

Plinth height Generally 1.2 meters, as the Flexibility in deciding plinth heightsuperstructure rests on septic/aquaprivy tank

Additional spaces No flexibility Caretaker’s room can be used for communityactivities (child recreation center, library, among others)

Structure Load bearing RCC framed structure

Waste disposal Generally septic/aqua privy tank Preference for sewerage connection

Capital costs per seat Rs. 23,000-40,000 Rs. 50,000-65,000

Management Left to the user group to decide after CBO is the designated maintenance agency.arrangements blocks are constructed by MHADA. Its involvement is ensured by including the

Little evidence of formal handing over responsibility for creation, training, and handingto MCBM by MHADA for back-up over O&M management, in the contractor/NGOoperations and maintenance in case construction contractuser community is unable to

Tariff Free usage Typically Re. 1 per visit; for monthly familypassholders, Rs. 20 to Rs. 50 per month(mean Rs. 31) for unlimited use by all family members

Operations and Not ensured. Free usage; dependent Community financed O&M, including corpus,9 monthlymaintenance sustainability upon MCBM maintenance and, in some family pass/pay-and-use system; agreement drawn

cases, community’s initiative to hire/pay between MCBM and operating CBO with cleara sweeper division of responsibility for O&M

Monitoring None MCBM is the apex agency responsible for monitoring

Table 3: How SSP Toilets Compare with MHADA Toilets

Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005. 9 The CBO corpus is built at the planning and design stage, through upfront contribution from users.

19

Page 22: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

20

electricity connection for lighting andwaste disposal to sewers wherefeasible or to septic tanks and aquaprivies. Typically, with about 10 toiletcubicles, there are separate sections formen and women, additional facilities forchildren and disabled persons, urinals,and bathing areas. High technicalstandards for civil construction (with adesign life of 30 years) are matched withother features, such as ceramic-tiledfloors, aluminum shutters, galvanizediron (GI) water pipes, cast iron (CI)sanitary pipes, circulating areas, androoms for a caretaker. In short, despitesome construction weaknesses andlimited technical options, the SSPmanaged to provide toilets built to hightechnical standards and that providedreliable service. Communities in timeexpressed preferences for such toilets

and agreed to operate as well asmaintain them. Since ownership of landscaused a potential constraint, mosttoilet blocks were constructed onMCBM and state government lands,and only a handful on private orGovernment of India land.

By mid-2005, the SSP had constructedover 328 toilet blocks and more than5,100 toilet seats in slums acrossMumbai. The program was executedby three contractor-NGO consortia,selected in accordance with standardcompetitive bidding procedures;however, nearly two-thirds of thecommunity toilet blocks wereconstructed by one service provider,also selected competitively. Despitesome construction weaknesses andlimited technical options, most of the

original performance benchmarks ormilestones were achieved except at afew sites where ongoing conflicts andcontractual challenges delayedcompletion. At the design stage thesefacilities were meant to cater to theneeds of 250,000 people. Empiricalobservations suggest that the actualnumber of users exceeds 400,000since a large number of additional users,attracted by the good qualitystandards, is also using these toilets.

Community Groups Operateand Manage CTBs

Management of toilet blocks by CBOsis an important feature of the SSPand has important implications forsustainability. Since the program waspredicated upon operations andmaintenance (O&M) management byCBOs, the issue of user charges wasalso left to them. Two forms of usercharges emerged in practice. The CBOscollect monthly fees (from ‘members’who are holders of monthly familypasses typically priced at a mean ofabout Rs. 31 per family for unlimiteduse), and per-use user charges (Re. 1per visit for those who do not havefamily passes). These charges helpdefray all expenses related to theupkeep of the toilet blocks includingwater and electricity charges. All minorrepairs are carried out and paid for bythe CBOs while the MCBM attends tomajor repairs and provides networkservice (for instance, water supply, andsewerage). CBOs maintain membershipregisters, books of accounts, andminutes of meetings. A study in 2005showed that, by and large, CBOs haveaccepted this responsibility and anumber of different arrangementsfor O&M have emerged.

Page 23: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

21

A. CBO members operate and manage toilet block on their own.

B. CBO employs staff (for example, caretakers) to operate and manage the toilet block.

C. CBO contracts a caretaker (individual or family) to manage and operate the toilet block on its behalf.

D. CBO contracts a professional operator to manage the toilet block.

Box 2: Main Management Arrangements

Some CBOs use informal managementarrangements for O&M, leading tomixed outcomes. Some toilet blocksseem to be dominated by small groups,and some have also been informallycontracted out to professionaloperators for delegated managementwithout a proper contracting procedure.Few CBOs have sufficient experienceto provide proper accounting andtransparent financial reporting aboutcosts and revenues. These are areas

where CBOs need further supportand guidance from MCBM.

By and large, CBOs have provedtheir ability and interest in managingthese toilet blocks. Most important,the experience to date indicatesthat an innovative new model existsfor ensuring future sustainableslum-area sanitation throughcollaborative operations andmaintenance approaches. It is

Very Poor

Man

agem

ent

Arr

ange

men

t

Contractor-Run

No Arrangement

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of Toilet Block

Poor Average Good Very Good Mean Maintenance Index

0%

CBO/Group

Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good

Mean Maintenance Index

Caretaker and CBO

Figure 5: SSP Toilet Blocks’ Service and Maintenance Quality

Total Blocks (31): CBO/group (13); caretaker and CBO (14); contractor-run (2); no arrangements (2).Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005.

too early to pass final judgmenton the comparative performanceof different management stylesbut small-sample studiesindicate that:

• Toilets with better technicalstandards are likely to providebetter service to users;

• Facilities managed by CBOsand caretakers show bettermaintenance standards;

Source: WSP/World Bank TARU and WEDC Study. 2005.

Page 24: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

22

• At some locations, the better-managed and maintained CTBshave become commoncommunity spaces for social,economic, and educationalactivities.

Economic andFinancial Dimensions

Estimates show that per seat (contract)capital costs under the SSP variedbetween Rs.50,000-65,000. About 80

percent of all the required communitycontributions had been deposited inbank accounts for 317 toilet blocks.There have been a few cases wherecontractors have reportedly paid thecommunity contributions on behalf ofthe community, thus circumventing theprocess of the community beingmobilized and expressing demand.Community contributions weresupposed to make families eligible formembership but, in practice, in many

Figure 6: Estimated Daily Operating Surplus of 20-Seater SSP Toilet Blocks

Operatingsurplus line

Rs. 80

Rs. 20

(@ 1,300 mean daily loading, 30-year toilet life, 2005 prices)

Either ~ 40% pay-and-useOr ~ Rs. 120 per monthly family pass

Estimateddaily operating

surplus (Rs.)

0% 20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Proportion of pay-and-use (%)

(400)

(200)

-

200

400

600

800

1,000800 to 1,000

600 to 800

400 to 600

200 to 400

-200 to 0

-400 to -200

0 to 200

Cost of monthlyfamily pass (Rs.)

Box 3: Operational Cost/Revenue Analysis

The analysis of operating loss/surplus was simulated on the basis of a daily mean loading of 1,300 visitors for a 20-seatertoilet block at 2005 prices, as presented in Figure 6. The figure presents an operating surplus range that is defined by twovariables: the proportion of pay-and-use users (from 0 percent to 100 percent) and the cost of monthly family pass(ranging from Rs.20 to Rs.120). The operating results for a typical toilet block ranges from a loss of Rs.400 to a surplusof Rs.1,000 per day, depending on where the toilet block lies on this surface. The operating surplus line (in dashed blue)separates those conditions in which a loss is made (orange and grey) from those in which a marginal surplus is made(white) and those in which a moderate and substantial surplus is made (various shades of blue).

toilet blocks, the monthly pass forunlimited use by all family members wasfar lower (in the range of Rs. 20 toRs.50 per month; mean being Rs.31),than the common pay-and-use chargeof Re.1 per visit. Hence, some familieswho are not members but regular usershave to pay a hefty sum per month.This situation had arisen where somewere late in joining and the maximumnumber of membership (at 50 per seat)for the toilet block had been reached.

Page 25: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

23

Boundary issues created problemsin some cases; in other cases, small-group dominance and search tomaximize revenues also resulted inexclusion of families from takingmembership in a CBO.

The CBOs are expected to look afterfinances for O&M, but not all of themhave the capacity or systems to do so.Less than a third of CBOs (of 36 CBOsrandomly sampled in a 2005 study)followed the practice of issuing receiptsfor family passholders on monthlypayments, and very few maintainedaccounts of daily pay-and-use cashreceipts. Many toilet blocks are lessthan a year old and hence have notstarted receiving utility service billsregularly. Since the current operationalcosts consume most of the revenuereceipts for many of the CBOs, theymay encounter payment difficulties oncethey start receiving water and electricitybills. Some toilet blocks without pipedwater connections, where the CBOshave to pay for expensive groundwaterpumping, are particularly at risk of notbeing able to pay all the necessarycosts. These are areas where CBOsneed further support and guidance totake collective decisions from MCBM.

Although the de facto life of most of theearlier toilet blocks was at best betweenfive and 10 years, the SSP sought to

increase the specifications and potentialservice life of the toilets to 30 years.This meant higher capital and O&Mcosts which, however, needed to beseen in the framework of the overalllife cycle cost, that is, both capitaland O&M costs. A financial modeldeveloped under the 2005 studyidentified the percentage of pay-and-useusers to total, monthly pass cost,number of users per day as keyvariables in O&M. The longer termlife cycle cost and the internal rate ofreturn were most sensitive to toilet life(or length of the concession in acontractual scenario), and level ofcapital subsidy.

From Figure 6, it is clear that surplus isstrongly influenced by the proportionof pay-and-use users. A minimum of40 percent of pay-and-use users isrequired for an existing toilet block witha monthly family pass of Rs.20 andclose to 100 percent recovery to showan operating surplus. Similarly, it wouldrequire a raise in the monthly family passfee to over Rs.120 to enable a toiletblock with no pay-and use-users tohave an operating surplus.

The analysis established that it ispossible for many of the toilets tobreak-even and even post a surplus ifloading and tariff-setting were floatedto match with local conditions.

Land Ownership Issues

The bulk of the toilets constructedunder the SSP were in slums situatedon MCBM-owned land. A No ObjectionCertificate was required from therelevant ward office of the MCBM,which would certify that the land wasnot earmarked for alternate use indevelopment plans and that it waspossible to extend water and drainagefacilities to the slum. Slums that wereproposed to be taken up under SRSin the following two years wereexcluded from the SSP. Where the landwas owned by the Government ofIndia (for instance, Airports Authorityof India, Indian Railways) or otherprivate owners (individuals ororganizations like the Bombay PortTrust), the respective owners wouldhave to give a clear no-objection beforethe toilet blocks were constructed.In most cases, there was reticence onpart of these agencies to recognizeslum settlements on lands owned bythem, and hence issue NOCs. In a fewinstances, the SSP was sought tobe implemented on lands owned bythese agencies, and some of thesefell into dispute. This is an importantissue; agreements with Governmentof India agencies and private land-owners need to be made to facilitatefurther scale-up of the program.

Page 26: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering
Page 27: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

Although the community sanitationchallenge in Mumbai is far from beingaddressed, the SSP experienceprovides a good roadmap for futuredevelopment of sustainable programs.The key elements of this roadmap maybe summarized as follows:

• One of the earliest obstacles of theSSP—and later its achievement—was to win political support for theprogram. The supply-drivenprovision approach was popularwhen the SSP started. Apart frommunicipal councilors, other politicalleaders including local slum leadersas well as members of the statelegislative assembly and membersof the national parliament had to beconvinced that the SSP approachcould potentially deliver good resultsfor communities if the arrangementswere devolved to them. This took alot of time and effort. The SSP’simplementation experience showedthat, apart from gaining entry fordemonstration, there was a need toprove the concept in actual practice.Considerable progress was made inthis regard. As a result, properlyfunctioning and sustainablecommunity toilets have come tobe regarded as a major factor inthe city’s political dynamics anda notable example of effectivecollaborative effort at thecommunity level.

• The SSP demonstrated thesuccessful impact of a participatory,demand-responsive approachwhereby community members werewilling to contribute to upfrontmembership fees, pay fully for andcarry out routine operations and

25

Achievements of theSlum Sanitation Program

maintenance, with major repairs andreplacements being done by MCBM.

• Superior technical quality andservice levels attracted people evenif this meant higher capital (borne bythe MCBM) and O&M (borne byregistered CBOs made up of slumhouseholds) costs. Householdswere also encouraged to expresstheir demand by making an upfrontmembership contribution that wouldbecome a part of its O&M resourcesfor later use. Thus, the SSPdemonstrated the effectiveness ofconstructing a high quality assetwith arrangements for 24-hourwater, power and safe wastedisposal, and with a long potentialservice life.

• It showcased the successfulpartnering of contractors, NGOs,and CBOs, selected competitively, indelivering good quality sanitationinfrastructure facilities, with theMCBM playing the role of facilitator.The SSP depended upon allocationof responsibilities based on thecomparative advantages of eachproject partner as part of contractsand MoUs, with suitable degreesof flexibility.

• A review commissioned by WSP/World Bank in 2005 showed thatSSP toilets have demonstratedsignificant improvement in levelsof maintenance and cleanlinesscompared to the existing MHADAand older MCBM toilets.

Page 28: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

• Many of the toilets are well usedby many more slum residentsthan anticipated at the earlydesign stage. Also, many havegood potential revenues if tariffsand costs are managed to suitlocal conditions and some of thepricing distortions removed.

• The SSP successfully tested arange of technical options andcontracting innovations, which areavailable for a potential scale-upof the program or for use in urbansanitation initiatives elsewhere.

• The SSP revealed latententrepreneurship capacity in the citythat was ready and able to providetoilet management operatorservices to CBOs in the city.

The SSP has thus provided a solidfoundation for what could be a newparadigm in the provision of sustainablesanitation services in Mumbai—a shiftof focus away from a supply andcapital-intensive toilet constructionapproach to one that attempts toprovide incentives to multiple stake-holders acting collaboratively for a moredurable O&M regime to help ensureimproved access and quality services.

Challenges Ahead

Implementation of a participatoryand demand-responsive approachin the complex environment ofMumbai is not without its challenges,especially given the scale and noveltyof the structures and communitymobilization process. Mumbai faces

a number of policy and programmingissues that need to be addressed ifthe SSP approach is to be scaled-up with a view to helping meet moreof the future demand for sustainablecommunity sanitation in slum areas.

Policy and Strategic Challenges

• Land mobilization and notification ofslums: The bulk of slums and slumpopulations are located on landswith private, mixed, and GoI agencyownership. This poses a keychallenge since community toilets inthe future will need to be providedin these aforementioned areas andnot only on MCBM and stategovernment lands. The state needsto get land-owning agencies toagree to construction of toilets inslums located on their lands. Thefuture general sanitation and healthof Mumbai are at stake.

• Compliance of agencies toGovernment of Maharashtra policy:The SSP has triggered a movementtowards a new, more sustainableurban sanitation policy throughgreater collaborative effort locally.However, compliance to these policyguidelines in the past, from agenciessuch as MHADA, was notforthcoming because of a numberof organizational constraints.Orientation and capacities needto be instilled in these agenciesso that they can follow a commonapproach leading to a sustainableCBO-managed communitytoilet10 program.

10 MHADA has now agreed in principle to follow the newapproach, and has also recruited personnel with communitydevelopment training to ensure proper mobilization ofcommunities and handover of toilets to them.

26

The Slum Sanitation Program showcased many achievements, for instance,winning political support and forging partnerships, using a participatorydemand-responsive approach, providing superior technical quality andservice levels, and nurturing latent entrepreneurship capacity in the city.

Page 29: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

• MCBM to accord priority tosanitation: Sanitation services arecurrently divided across the solidwaste management department(for Public Sanitation Complexes),ward offices (O&M of MCBM andMHADA toilets), and the SSPitself. A Strategic SanitationDepartment with adequate humanand financial resources is requiredto be created within MCBM totake the SSP forward.

Programming Challenges

• CBO mobilization, management,and sustainability: One of thelimitations of the SSP has beenspreading resources thin and theresultant inadequate attention tocommunity mobilization in somecases. This needs close attentionand monitoring since this is a key toensuring sustainability for SSP’sparticipatory and demand-responsive community managedapproach. Further, CBOs needencouragement and strengthening ina number of areas that constitutetheir core management tasks,including mechanisms for viability,tariff-setting, proper accounting anddisclosure, social inclusion andrepresentation, and improved formalcontracting for delegatedmanagement accountable to users.Further, any possibility of ‘capture’

by a few families and not accountingfor pay-and-use revenues, needto be monitored and stronglydiscouraged.

• Greater technical options and betterquality delivery: The SSP hasdemonstrated the feasibility of anumber of technical choices andspecifications although only a fewwere implemented. A large set ofsuch technical options will becomefurther necessary for scaling-upwhile being environmentally superiortoo. Construction weaknesses insome areas need to be accordedgreater attention; quality assurancesystems should be institutionalizedinto the management structure andcapacities of NGOs and contractors.The use of the community as sub-contractors was a positive step anda key SSP innovation but effectivecapacity development of sub-contractors and quality assurance ofsupervisors will be necessary toleverage this into an effective, largerprogram in future.

• More NGOs and contractors: Theinitial stages of the SSP provideda valuable opportunity forexperimentation and learning byNGOs and contractors, althoughonly a few participated. There is astrong case for involving largernumbers of NGOs and contractors

to participate competitively in theprogram. The later stages of theSSP seem to have generatedstronger interest among them.However, building their capacitiesafter learning from SSP experience,and institutionalizing organizationaland program managementprocesses, will be a key issue for ascaled-up initiative. This may requirevendor capacity development bythe government.

• Better monitoring: While SSPwas implemented using areasonably good progressmonitoring system, a number ofimprovements are possible inthis area. These include improvedthird-party concurrent monitoringof technical quality (as was triedout in SSP initial stages butlater discontinued), and community-level monitoring of programprogress including a special focuson monitoring the quality of CBOmobilization.

The above are a few of the keychallenges, and there are strategic andinstitutional options for scale-up.The bottomline will be focusingpolicy instruments and expandingprogramming options so that asignificant impact can be made onMumbai’s environmental conditionsand public health outcomes.

27

Page 30: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering
Page 31: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

The experience of the SSP in Mumbaiholds a number of valuable lessons:

• Key impediments to success: Mostimportantly, the Mumbai experienceemphasizes that key constraints toeffective delivery of sustainablesanitation systems for poor peopleare rooted in government slum,housing, and land policies.Reforming these laws and policiesis essential for long-term success.A highly skewed land market, andcontrol regime controlled bypowerful vested interests underliethese policies in Mumbai. Withrespect to slums, there is evidenceof some reform movement inMumbai but the pace of requiredchange is too gradual to date togive hope of seriously addressingthe enormity of the challenge. Thisinevitably leads to second-bestsolutions. Limitations of space andinsecure tenure further obstructmeaningful reform efforts. Thus,provision of good quality andwell-maintained community toiletblocks becomes the only way ofensuring access to sanitation formany slum residents, especially theurban poor, who may find it difficultto use pay-and-use public toilets(often with higher user charges thancommunity toilet blocks).

• Community sanitation must beintegral to environment servicesplans: The provision of most urbanenvironmental services is carriedout within a complex panoramaof historic tenurial and housingconditions that influence the mix ofsanitation options and attendantemployment opportunities. Thismilieu, in turn, influences any efforts

to mobilize households andcommunity groups. As a result, anycapital-centered approach that doesnot fully take the above realities intoaccount is bound to be limited inimpact and ultimately fails to provideenvironmental health benefits to allcitizens. The MSDP experience hasshown that investments in moderntrunk infrastructure cannot becomefully effective11 unless human excretagenerated by the more than halfof the city’s residents is safelycollected, transported, and treated.Thus, the original rationale for acitywide sewerage and drainage

investment with consequentenvironmental health gains, wasundermined. In large cities with largeslum areas, comprehensivesanitation services to slums cannotbe an add-on to sewerage anddrainage infrastructure efforts.Instead, slum area services shouldbe regarded as an integral part ofthe total program for the entire city.

An interim goal of open-defecation-freecities is a good working starting point,to work toward a vision of clean,healthy, and environmentally sustainablecities. The SSP showed that a flexibleframework involving systematiccommunity consultation achievedsignificant unplanned and long termgains even though the initial progress

11 As the project was to acknowledge later, effectiveness was notonly on health and environmental grounds, but not connectingslums to sewers meant that loads in sewers would not beenough to generate adequate flows.

29

What Do We Learn from Mumbai?

Page 32: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The use of the community as sub-contractors was a positive step anda key innovation. Effective capacity development of sub-contractors andquality assurance of supervisors will be necessary to leverage this intoan effective, larger program in future.

30

was slower than anticipated. Thisshows the potential of convertingsanitation into a movement lessdependent on formalistic planning.

• Listen to what communities wantand forge partnerships: TheMumbai SSP proved that giventhe right framework of communityengagement, quality serviceprovision, and assurance of reliablemaintenance, people are willingto pay—even in poor slumcommunities that are customarilyassumed by governments andservice providers as powerless,divided, and economically unableto bear costs. (In fact, theymay actually be payingsubstantial amounts in terms ofinformal arrangements andprohibitive health costs, as manystudies elsewhere have shown.) Thisconfirms experiences elsewhere thatclose attention needs to be paid tousers’ preferences. Effectivepartnerships also need to beencouraged between formalmunicipal agencies, NGOs, theprivate sector, and informalcommunity groups sustainablesanitation service delivery. By now,this is also well-recognized by theWater Supply and SanitationDepartment (WSSD) in the GoM,which previously harboredreservations. Further, the SSPshowed that user charges need tobe administered flexibly, that is, leftto community groups to decidedepending on local costs andrevenue requirements. Overall, a keyto success in this area is a policyframework that embraces differentstakeholders and provides them

incentives to participate, alongwith careful attention to userhouseholds’ needs and preferencesfor which they were willing to pay.

• Encourage entrepreneurs: Aparticularly helpful aspect of the SSPexperience was the emergence ofprivate entrepreneurs willing toprovide toilet operation andmanagement services to CBOs.Encouragement and recognition ofthis potentially valuable marketforce, even though it may operatelargely in an informal and not readilyvisible manner, is essential forpromoting new delivery mechanismsfor sustainable sanitation coverage.While this may have been inevitable,given the dynamic andentrepreneurial character of Mumbai,it is also true that programs topromote broad-based communityand private sector involvement insanitation and sewerage havesignificant beneficial potential.Sanitation policies will need not onlyto be informed by such a latentpresence of the informal sector, butalso provide adequate space andincentives to help in their systematicdevelopment and consolidation.

• Develop vendors: On the otherhand, the experience of SSPimplementation showed that stateand program policies often assumethe adequate availability of reliableNGOs, contractors, and otherfacilitating agents. In fact, there canbe a scarcity of such agents and thisscarcity can create programmingbottlenecks and delays. Policies willhenceforth need to give adequateconsideration to the development

of capacities amongst potentialvendors and social mobilizationagencies.

• Policy development needs proofof concept and buy-in fromstakeholders: Another importantlesson was the process of policydevelopment. While the MCBMcirculars and GoM Orders reflectedthe elements of sound policy, therewas a lag in obtaining compliancefrom line departments which, duringthe initial stages, continued to followolder guidelines, often leading tounnecessary conflicts and delays.This experience highlights the needfor demonstration or pilot initiatives(like in SSP toilets), persistentengagement and consultation withstakeholders, and appropriaterecognition of the institutionalincentives and interests that canhelp promote the overall program.MCBM and GoM have decidedthat in Mumbai and Maharashtra,respectively, as a matter of policy,community toilets will not bepermitted to be built in urban areasif they are not in compliance withthe SSP approach.

• Sanitation initiatives can helppromote institutional changes: In asimilar vein, the SSP approach ofshifting the locus of all action to theCBOs and user households helpedto provoke needed institutionalchange within the MCBM (forexample, according greaterinstitutional priority to sanitation, andcreating appropriate organizationalstructural changes and buildingdedicated capacity to implement)although this was not an aim of the

Page 33: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

31

SSP. The SSP did not wait for a full-fledged reformation of the MCBM,and experimented with mobilizingcommunity participation to locatesanitation facilities in a mannerconsistent with peoples’ perceivedneeds. This strategy, in turn,provided grounds for the MCBMto adjust and re-orient, albeit in alimited manner. The SSP cell’s rolein implementation was crucial. Forexample, emerging problems onthe ground signaled a greater needfor maintenance and organizationalsupport to CBOs, and inspired adecision within the MCBM toestablish a dedicated cell or

department to look after communitytoilets. Sanitation initiatives clearlyhold the latent potential to spark aseries of transformations ininstitutions, while closer attentionto institutional mainstreaming ofenvironmental sanitation can helpcities reap additional benefits.

• Commercial viability: The successof a few CBOs in earning surplusesshows that, given management andpricing rules responsive to localconditions, commercial viability ispossible for many toilet blocks. In afew cases, some toilet managementservice providers have taken toilet

blocks on contract from CBOs sincethese have proved to be goodbusiness propositions.

• Departmental divides need to beresolved: In many large, rapidlygrowing metropolitan areas aroundthe world, government institutionalcapacity to respond effectively todramatically increasing publicdemand and need for effectivesanitation services is found wantingin many respects. This seems tobe the case in Mumbai and acrossthe state of Maharashtra, wheredivergent agency interests, theabsence of appropriate institutional

Page 34: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

32

incentives and frequentlyoverlapping jurisdictional andaccountability patterns often are atodds with good public policy as wellas efficient program execution.Historically, several state and citygovernment agencies have beenestablished with mandates forproviding various housing andrelated urban infrastructure services.With the rapid growth andtransformation of Mumbai, theseinstitutional configurations haveproved to be inadequate to meetcurrent and future needs. Theinstitutional transaction costs havebecome excessively burdensome,if not counterproductive, and mustbe borne ultimately by Mumbai’scitizens.There is an urgent need toexamine the entire institutionalframework carefully with a view tostreamlining and redefining functions.

• Sanitation cannot wait: Sanitationneed not wait for institutional andpolicy changes, important as thesemay be. An interim good policy isto start early. The Mumbaiexperience strongly highlights thedesperate need for sanitation as abasic human entitlement that statesneed to provide for the health andwell-being of citizens. The SSP alsodemonstrated that this can be done,efficiently and effectively, using alearning-by-doing flexible approachwithin an overall framework offacilitation by municipalities and stateactors, grounded in the participationof user communities, and facilitatedby a partnership of state and privateagents. Governments that can moveaway from a supply- and coverage-driven approach to unleashinga peoples’ movement, withcommunities as the key players,

will overcome challenges faster andin a durable manner.

Moving Ahead:From Pilot to Scale-Up

The SSP has provided a valuable set ofexperiences from learning-by-doing.Mumbai seems poised to build on thisexperience by considering moreinnovative future policies and programsthat have greater potential to rapidlyachieving open-defecation-free statusbenefiting not only the slum populationbut also the city at large. Lessons fromthe SSP will need to be integrated intothe design and implementation of apossible SSP follow-up phase, currentlyunder consideration.

Preliminary Directions foran SSP Phase II

• Objective: To extend sanitationcoverage to unserviced slum areas/pockets of Mumbai.

• Measures: Provision of 35,000additional toilet seats in slumslacking proper sanitation facilities.

• Expected benefits are:

• More than 1.7 million urban poorin slums will obtain access togood sanitation facilities.

• Overall improvement of publicsanitation and environmentalhealth in Mumbai.

[Contracts for Stage I of Phase IIwhich comprised five packages, eachcontaining 1,000 toilet seats, has beenawarded by MCBM and work willcommence soon.]

Page 35: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

Page 36: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

Appendix: Slums Studied

Names of SSP 1 Slums Ward No. Names of Non-SSP Slums Ward No.

Ganesh Murti Nagar A Sanjay Gandhi Nagar E

Andhra Association F North Bhim Wadi F North

Bengalipura F North Ram Nagar F North

Bharat Nagar F North Dada Bai Chawl F South

Anna Nagar G North Gadi Adda F South

Kunchi Korve Nagar G North Madina Compound G North

Old B.M.C. Chawl H West Mithwala Chawl G North

Indira Nagar K East Chunna Bhatti G South

B.M.C. Colony, Anand Nagar K West Ram Nagar H East

Liberty Garden P North Carter Road Sea Face Society H West

Malvani Plot 61 P North Nava Mala H West

Malvani Plot 68 P North Jai Hind Cooperative Housing Society K East

Prem Nagar P South Patil Wadi K East

Durga Chawl R South Shanti Nagar K East

Ekta Nagar-Part B R South Tripathi Nagar K East

Hanuman Wadi R South Mahatarpada K West

Janu Pada R South Patel Wadi P North

Ovari Pada R South Seva Nagar P North

Gajanan Estate L Vasari Hills P South

Qureshi Nagar L Ambedkar Nagar R Central

Sripat Yadav Chawl L Anna Nagar R North

Yadav Nagar L Medona Colony R North

Chikhal Wadi M East Laxmi Nagar R South

Shiv Kripa M West Maharashtra Chawl L

Shivaji Nagar M West New Mill Road L

Kamraj Nagar N Shivneri Nagar M East

Shiv Krupa Society N Panchasheel Nagar M West

Ekveera Nagar S Garib Nagar S

Hariom Nagar S Kera Yadav Chawl S

Mahatma Phule Nagar S Morarji Nagar S

Sai Krupa Nagar S

Ali Bahadur Chawl T

Azad Nagar T

Moti Nagar T

New Rahul Nagar T

Vishwa Shanti Nagar T

34

Page 37: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program:Partnering with Slum Communities forSustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

35

Government of Maharashtra. 1971.Maharashtra Slum Areas Act 1971. Lawand Judiciary Department. Mumbai.

Government of Maharashtra.Bombay Act No. III of 1888: TheMumbai Municipal Corporation Act.Law and Judiciary Department. Mumbai.

Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai.2001. Consultancy Services forSanitation Survey of Slums in BrihanMumbai and Preparation of anImplementation Action Plan for SlumSanitation Program—Final Report,Vols. I and II, prepared by MontgomeryWatson Consultants India Pvt.Ltd.-YUVA.

Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai. 2004. Guidelines forCommunity Sanitation Facilities.Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai.

Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai. 2004. World Bank AidedMumbai Sewage Disposal Project(Loan-3923/Credit-2763-IN), July 6,1995 to December 31, 2003.Project Completion Report.

Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai. 2005. Contractor, Lot andWard-wise Costing and Seats of ToiletBlock under Slum Sanitation

Programme. Municipal Corporationof Brihan Mumbai, Slum SanitationProgramme.

Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai. 2005. Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) withCommunity-Based Organisationunder Slum Sanitation Programme.Municipal Corporation of BrihanMumbai, Slum Sanitation Programme.

Maharashtra Housing and AreaDevelopment Authority. 2002.Maharashtra Housing and AreaDevelopment Authority: AnnualAdministration Report, 2001-2002.

World Bank, September-October 1995.The World Bank Mission Report No. 1.

World Bank, June 1996. The WorldBank Mission Report No. 2.

World Bank, December 1997. TheWorld Bank Mission Report No. 5.

World Bank, December 1999 (SSP MidTerm Review). The World Bank MissionReport No. 10.

World Bank, June 2000. The WorldBank Mission Report No. 11.

World Bank, November-December2000. The World Bank Mission ReportNo. 12.

World Bank, June 2001. The WorldBank Mission Report No. 13.

World Bank, December 2001. TheWorld Bank Mission Report No. 15.

World Bank, May 2002. The WorldBank Mission Report No. 16.

World Bank, October 2002. The WorldBank Mission Report No. 17.

World Bank, February-March 2003. TheWorld Bank Mission Report No. 18.

World Bank, October 2003. The WorldBank Mission Report No. 19.

World Bank. 2003. Nitti, Rosanna,and Shyamal Sarkar. Reaching thePoor through Sustainable Partnerships:The Slum Sanitation Program inMumbai, India. Urban Notes:Upgrading Experiences, No. 7,January 2003. The World Bank.Washington, DC.

World Bank, June 2004. MumbaiSewerage Disposal Project,Implementation Completion Report.

WSP/World Bank. September 2005.TARU and WEDC, Study of the WorldBank Financed Slum SanitationProject in Mumbai (Vols. I, II, and III),September 2005.

Select References

Page 38: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

36

Kokni Pada Chawls

Ketki Pada Chawls

Yogi Nagar Chawls

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Slum

Singh Estate Chawls

Dhanukar Wadi Slum Poisar Slum

Kandivali

Patel Wadi Chawls

Prem Nagar Slum

Anand Nagar Slum

Sanjay Nagar SlumPaspuli Village Chawls

Surya Nagar Slum

Shastri Nagar Chawls

Siddharth Nagar

Patil Nagar

Mane Chawls

Mulund

Bhandup

Hanuman Nagar Slum

Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Slum

Lal Mitty Chawl

Shivaji Nagar 8 Rooms Chawls

Slums Studied

Major Roads

Expressway

Railway Stations

Railway Line

Urban Boundary

Ward Boundary

Slums

Source: TARU Analysis, 2005;Slum Sanitation Project, Mumbai, 2005;Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai, 2005;Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

Goregaon

Jogeshwari

Andheri

Ville Parle

Santacruz

Bandra

Mahim

Dadar (C)

Parel

Lower Parel

Mahalaxmi

Byculla

Bombay Central

Dockyard Road

Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus

Churchgate

Mankhurd

Chembur

Lokmanya Tilak Terminus Kurla

Ghatkopar

GS

HW

HE

KW

KE

PS

PN

RBorivali

T

S

L

GNFN

FS

E

D

C

B

A

N

T

Sion

72º48’00” E 72º51’00” E 72º53’50” E 72º56’50” E 72º59’50” E

72º45’00” E 72º48’00” E 72º51’00” E 72º53’50” E 72º56’50” E 72º59’50” E 18º 5

4’00

” N

18º 5

7’00

” N

19º 0

0’00

” N

19º 0

3’00

” N

19º 0

6’00

” N

19º 0

9’00

” N

19º 1

2’00

” N

19º 1

5’00

” N

19º 1

5’00

” N

18º 5

7’00

” N

19º 0

0’00

” N

19º 0

3’00

” N

19º 0

6’00

” N

19º 0

9’00

” N

19º 1

2’00

” N

0

LEGEND

72º45’00” E

10 km

M

Page 39: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering
Page 40: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

Water and Sanitation Program-South AsiaWorld Bank55 Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003India

Phone: (91-11) 24690488, 24690489Fax: (91-11) 24628250E-mail: [email protected] site: www.wsp.org

September 2006

WSP MISSION:To help the poor gain sustained access to waterand sanitation services.

WSP FUNDING PARTNERS:The Governments of Australia, Austria, Belgium,Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg,the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,the United Kingdom, the United States ofAmerica; the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, The World Bank, and the Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation.

The report has been financed by theSwedish International Development Agency,Cities Alliance, and AusAID.

AusAID provides WSP-SA programmatic support.

PREPARED BY:Shyamal Sarkar, Soma Ghosh Moulik,Somnath Sen.

Editors: Thomas Blinkhorn and Anjali Sen GuptaPictures by: TARU Leading EdgeCreated by: Write MediaPrinted at: PS Press Services Pvt Ltd

Page 41: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

1. Is the format of this report easy to read? � Yes � No

2. Is the report a comfortable length to read? � Yes � No

3. If no, would you prefer � more details/data � less details/data

4. Do you find the information contained in this report relevant to your work? � Yes � No

If no, give reasons why(Use extra sheets of paper if required)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

If yes, how would you use this information in your work? (Use extra sheets of paper if required)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

What impact, if any, does this information have on:

•You: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

•Your organization: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

•Your colleagues: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

What are the main lesson(s) you have learnt from the information contained in this report?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Would you like to share any study/research similar to the information in this report?

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering with SlumCommunities for Sustainable Sanitation in a Megalopolis

FEEDBACK FORM

Page 42: The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program Partnering with Slum …documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/620841468041130033/... · 2016-07-14 · The Mumbai Slum Sanitation Program: Partnering

5. Give up to three subjects/issues in the Water Supply and Sanitation sector that interest you and you would like toknow more about:

i) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

ii) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

iii) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

6. Do you know anyone else who might benefit from receiving our publications?If yes, provide the following details (optional)

Name: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Designation: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Organization: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Address: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Phone Numbers: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

E-mail: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Area of work: Government / NGO / Private Sector / Academia / Consultant / Bilateral Agency / Dev Bank / any other

7. Please provide your particulars:

Name: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Designation: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Organization: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Address: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Phone Numbers: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

E-mail: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Area of work: Government / NGO / Private Sector / Academia / Consultant / Bilateral Agency / Dev Bank / any other

8. Indicate your area of interest:

� Water

� Sanitation

� Rural

� Urban

Water and Sanitation Program-South Asia

E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.wsp.org

E 32 Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla NagarDhaka 1207, BangladeshPhone: (880-2) 8159001-14Fax: (880-2) 8159029-30

20 A Shahrah-e-JamhuriatRamna 5, G-5/1Islamabad, PakistanPhone: (92-51) 2279641-46Fax: (92-51) 2826362

55 Lodi EstateNew Delhi 110 003, IndiaPhone: (91-11) 24690488-89Fax: (91-11) 24628250