The Water Blog
Syndicate content

India

Rajasthan tells an unexpected story of stopping open defecation under Swachh Bharat Mission

Mathews K. Mullackal's picture
Rajasthan has become an unlikely frontrunner in sanitation. Until recently, it was among Indian states with the lowest rates of toilet coverage. With a difficult terrain, scarce water, and low levels of literacy, the slow pace of progress was not surprising.

Since 2011, that has changed. As shown in Figure 1, the proportion of people with access to a toilet has more than trebled – from under 20 percent to nearly 68 percent. Of 9,892 Gram Panchayats, the local level of government in India, almost a third – 3,545 – has been declared free of open defecation. That includes all Gram Panchayats in five of the state’s 33 districts, with more set to follow. What has gone right?

 

3 steps to improve rural sanitation in India - a pathway to scale and sustainability

Joep Verhagen's picture
Child using a latrine in Rajasthan. 
Photo credit: World Bank

Almost 600 million Indians living in rural areas defecate in the open. To meet the ambitious targets of the Indian government’s Swachh Bharat Mission Grameen (SBM (G)) – the rural clean India mission – plans to eliminate open defecation by 2019. SBM (G) is time-bound with a stronger results orientation, targeting the monitoring of both outputs (access to sanitation) and outcomes (usage). There is also a stronger focus on behavior change interventions and states have been accorded greater flexibility to adopt their own delivery mechanisms. 
 
The World Bank has provided India with a US$1.5 billion loan and embarked on a technical assistance program to support the strengthening of SBM-G program delivery institutions at the national level, and in select states in planning, implementing and monitoring of the program.

Q&A: Engaging with Citizens in India for Improved Water Services

Vandana Bhatnagar's picture

Is there a model to track citizen experience of water services and present it in a ready-to-use manner for decision makers and the public? Would better articulation of citizen preferences encourage more meaningful engagement with service providers?