1. Participatory market mapping and urban sanitation market development
Lucy Stevens: Senior Policy Adviser

2. Sanitation chain Containment Collection / Emptying Transport Treatment
Treatment
Reuse / Disposal
We’re all familiar with the sanitation chain

3. Learning from agricultural value chains: what’s different?
Agricultural markets have:
Large numbers of poor producers
Producers the main people we want to benefit
Generic steps in the value chain
Well established markets for products
Practical Action has gained a great deal of experience over the last 15+ years into market system development in agricultural markets aimed at improving the lives of poor producers at scale. That could be e.g. dairy farmers in Nepal.
Cow lollipops for better yields in Nepal

4. The PMSD Roadmap www.pmsdroadmap.org
We’ve codified that experience in our toolkit and associated training on ‘Participatory Market System Development’ PMSD roadmap – available online – which takes you through a set of 10 steps in process. Helps identify barriers and opportunities – points of leverage where significant changes can be made. It puts a focus on:
Systemic thinking (the whole market system)
Changing relationships between different market actors – through a participatory process

5. A framework to understand market systems & value chains
It takes three levels: the value chain itself in the middle, with supporting services, and the enabling environment.

6. Sanitation chain: interacting market systems
Value Chain for faecal sludge
Service Chain
Containment
Collection / Emptying
Transport
Treatment
Reuse / Disposal
So what happens when we apply that thinking to urban sanitation markets? What changes?
1. There are interacting and overlapping market systems along the sanitation chain
2. There are both value chains and service chains
Pay as you go
Service chain
Toilet construction
Value chain
Compost / biogas
Value chain

7. Value chains for goods Consumer (eats apples) Intermediary trader
Producer (grows apples)
Simple value chain for agricultural products
Money
People whose lives we want to improve
Product
Consumer
Householder
Artisan builder
Differences in Sanitation Value Chains:
Generally shorter value chains
We are most interested in benefits to the consumer – and a bit less interested in benefits to the producer
There are not usually very large numbers of producers
Simple value chain for toilets
People whose lives we want to improve

8. Value chain for pit-emptying services
Household
Pit emptier
Transport
Treatment
Reuse / Disposal
Money
Product
Differences in Sanitation Service chains? (Pit emptying – but could include e.g. maintenance of public toilets, or those at schools / clinics)
The thing which is being bought is a service – the physical product is not valued by the consumer / household
Treatment / disposal is not valued as part of the service by the consumer / household
This is not all private-sector driven – Local Authorities are often active in this service chain
So clearly this is why people are chasing the ‘holy grail’ of giving that product a value so that the service providers (pit emptiers) are both providing a service and selling a product.
Then money can start flowing to the pit emptiers from the other end of the chain as well.
Service
Can we create value for the product?
Can we get householders to value ‘public goods’ as part of the service?

9. Sustainable Public-Private Partnership for Human Waste Value Chain Faridpur, Bangladesh
What does this mean in practice and what additional insights has it brought us?
What are its limitations and challenges?

10. Four key problems
30% of individual households connect their pits/tanks to storm drains
Emptying services are only used by 55% of HHs and 81% of institutions. Services serve less than 30 % of cases where a containment should be emptied
Unsafe containment of sludge at source
Lack of capacity in collection and transportation of sludge
Only 10% of the sludge is safely managed
No National Regulatory Framework on FSM
What is the situation?
Unsafe disposal of sludge
Gaps in national capacity and co-ordination

11. Shit-flow diagram, Faridpur
High coverage of on-site sanitation.
High proportion left to overflow or abandoned (demand for the service needs to grow- partly a problem of affordability and ease of access to the service – partly a problem of not valuing the ‘public good’ of safe emptying and disposal – partly a problem of poor infrastructure which is hard to empty)
Two different types of suppliers – the informal groups are seen as more responsive, and able to access difficult locations
Is this the right role for the Conservancy Department? Is supporting this service the best way they could use their money to improve the system?

12. Lease: ($L): to cover equipment capital ($EC), TPO shortfall subsidy ($TS), transport cost to be passed back through safe transfer incentive ($STI)
Contract : Capped transfer to TPO from municipality FS FS
compost
$P1
$P2
Employed our thinking about
Market System Not only value chain, but also necessary services (like equipment and financing), and enabling environment (permissions to operate, rules and regs)
Participation – that it makes a significant difference to the outcome if you can bring market actors together to come up with solutions together. That process needs to be facilitated.
Facilitation role – trying to act as a facilitator and not as an active market player. So – we are not directly operating the treatment plant. We are not finding / employing new pit emptiers (leaving it to existing market actors)
Outcome is here
Product flows all the way to disposal / reuse
Value comes to pit emptiers from both the households and from the treatment plant.
Conclusion of business modelling
Looking at all the incentives throughout the system, and doing the business modelling, indicates that there will be an on-going need for the municipality to inject cash into the system. This is in the form of a payment to the treatment plant to cover its costs which will not be fully recovered from sale of compost.
Safe transfer incentive
Containment
Emptying
Transport
Treatment
Disposal-Reuse
Safe transfer incentive ($STI)

13. Urban CLTS: multiple actions
Demand creation (behaviour change)
Working with artisans
Working with pit emptiers
Enabling environment (rules & regs)
What if you’re in a situation where there isn’t existing good toilet coverage and actually the priority is to work on that as well as on pit emptying? Needing to deal with more of these value and service chains simultaneously?
Closest we’ve come to that is in our work in Nakuru to adopt and adapt a CLTS approach with the aim of achieving high levels of coverage.
That worked with the toilet construction value chain (Value chain: consumer demand and ability of artisans to respond. Services: financing for households. Enabling environment: rules, community health volunteers, collective behaviour change)
It also worked with pit emptiers.

14. Open Defecation Free status in urban areas: CLTS
1,603 facilities newly constructed
601 facilities renovated
58,260 residents benefitting
4 villages close to declaring ODF status
28 pit emptiers legal & work during the day
There have been good results:
The difficulty is that we weren’t able to really concentrate on particular elements of each of those value chains, and there was a danger of becoming an active market player.
New project (just approved) in Kisumu will also adopt this kind of systemic approach and has components of value chains / systemic thinking – because previous work we did failed to scale up effectively. It will look more systemically at pit empyting as a specific component.

15. Lessons Insights from applying market systems thinking
Systemic thinking helped identify key entry points and new solutions
Continuing role for the Municipality and inputs of municipal money – but how best to deploy this
Benefit of working with existing market actors, and thinking about the incentives which drive them
Practical Action as facilitator, not direct market actor
Challenges:
Multiple value and service chains: complexity
Change of mind-set and ways of working
Many actors are highly vulnerable: need for expert facilitation
What additional insights has it brought us?
Starting point: Systemic change [We want this system to work better to e.g. Increase % waste safely managed, or to increase coverage of access to clean sanitation] – previously would think about just small components of the picture (financing for landlords on its own)
It’s not just about making this 100% commercially viable. There can still be a role for municipal money – just thinking about where that is best spent.
Importance of change in relationships / building the capacity of permanent actors (before we might have worked with local CBOs who don’t necessarily have a market perspective)
Thinking about incentives
What are its limitations and challenges?
There are overlapping and interacting value and service chains – and it is not easy dealing with that complexity
Many of the actors we are working with are highly vulnerable – and this takes additional care and expert facilitation

16. Thank you lucy.stevens@practicalaction.org.uk @lucykstevens
policy.practicalaction.org