external integrity and transparency review

Report

Market Research Assessment in Rural Tanzania for New Approaches to Stimulate and Scale up

Sanitation Demand and Supply

PricewaterhouseCoopers, Limited

Global Scaling Up Sanitation Project

February 2009 This report is part of the WSP Global Scaling Up Sanitation Project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A major focus of the project is on learning how to scale up. The project is testing proven and promising approaches to create demand for sanitation and the use of marketing techniques to generate demand and improve the supply of sanitation-related products and services among the rural poor. This report documents the findings of recent work in Tanzania and is disseminated to encourage the exchange of ideas and information and to promote learning. We invite comments and feedback. Please send your feedback to: [email protected] The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) is a multi-donor partnership of the World Bank. For 30 years, WSP has helped the poor gain sustained access to improved water supply and sanitation services (WSS). The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) works with governments at the local and national level in 25 countries. For more information visit our website: www.wsp.org Credits

Production assistance: Paula Carazo Author’s Note:

This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers Limited, its members, employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of the author. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations and other information shown on any map in the document do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. .

ii


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wsp.org/

Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS………………………………………………iv 1. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………..1

1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 1.2 Key findings…………………………………………………………………………...1

2. Background and Context…………………………………………………………….....3

2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………3 2.2 Research objectives……………………………………………………………………3 2.3 Approach………………………………………………………………………………4

3. Analysis and results (Demand-side)…………………………………………………..19

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..19 3.2 General household characteristics……………………………………………………19 3.3 Household income and expenditure………………………………………………….20 3.4 Physical household characteristics…………………………………………………...21 3.5 Household health……………………………………………………………………..23 3.6 Current household sanitation practices……………………………………………….24 3.7 Improved household sanitation……………………………………………………….29 3.8 Household perceptions on sanitation………………………………………………....32 3.9 Community sanitation practices……………………………………………………...37 3.10 Access to information/media exposure………………………………………………38

4. Analysis and Results (Supply-side)……………………………………………………40

4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...40 4.2 Business characteristics……………………………………………………………….40 4.3 Customers……………………………………………………………………………..43 4.4 Product information…………………………………………………………………...48 4.5 Construction and improvement………………………………………………………..53 4.6 Constraints and opportunities to develop the business………………………………..55

5. Analysis and Results (Supply and Demand)…………………………………………..57

5.1 Summary of sanitation options demanded and supplied……………………………...57 5.2 Price…………………………………………………………………………………...57

6. Conclusions: Demand-Side Study……………………………………………………...59

6.1 Summary of key findings from the demand-side assessment…………………………59 7. Conclusions: Supply-Side Study………………………………………………………..62

7.1 Summary of key findings from the supply-side assessment…………………………..62

iii


List of Abbreviations and Acronyms CSSC Christian Social Services Commission CDO Community Development Officer DED District Executive Director DHO District Health Officer DWE District Water Engineer EEPCO Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control Organization GoT Government of the United Republic of Tanzania IQCS Interviewer Quality Control Scheme MDG Millennium Development Goal NGO Non-Governmental Organization PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers Ltd. PSU Primary Sampling Unit SACCO Savings and Credit Association SSU Secondary Sampling Unit SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences NBS Tanzanian National Bureau of Statistics ToR Terms of Reference VETA Vocational Education Training Authority WED Ward Executive Director WEO Ward Executive Officer WEPMO Water and Environmental Sanitation Projects Maintenance Organization WSP Water and Sanitation Program

iv


Executive summary

1.1 Introduction The Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) is a multi-donor partnership which aims to help the poor obtain sustained access to water supply and sanitation services. WSP recently began implementing the Tanzania Improved Sanitation Program, which has the central objective of improving sanitation to a scale sufficient to meet the sanitation Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 in Tanzania.

WSP engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers Ltd (PwC) to conduct two related studies: the first a consumer/household research study, which aimed to gain a better understanding of consumer perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, and habits related to the adoption and consistent use of improved sanitation; and a product range and sanitation market assessment, which aimed to gain an in-depth insight of local sanitation supply markets (i.e. informal rural markets).

The data gathered from these studies will diagnose constraints and identify drivers for improved sanitation, as well as develop benchmark indicators for monitoring and evaluation of sanitation reforms. The results from the surveys will be used to design appropriate strategies and programs to stimulate supply of, and demand for, improved sanitation in rural Tanzania.

Activities took place over a four month time frame, spanning 21 July to 28 November 2008. In total, 1000 households and 161 sanitation service providers were interviewed. In addition, researchers visited 85 stores to collect product and pricing information.

This report provides an in-depth description of the methodology used for this assignment, along with detailed findings for both the consumer/household research (demand-side) and the product range and sanitation market assessment (supply-side).

1.2 Key findings 1.2.1 Demand-side study

Latrine coverage amongst the respondents surveyed was relatively high, with 79% stating that they used a latrine ‘for this household only’. However, most households did not have access to improved sanitation products or facilities. 70% of those surveyed stated that they used a traditional pit latrine with no slab and 83% of households did not have access to hand washing facilities at the latrine they used.

Respondents surveyed were poor, earning an average of 30,000 Tanzanian Shillings (TSh) per week, and had limited disposable income or access to credit which impacted on their ability to afford improvements to their sanitation facilities. Indeed, a high proportion of those surveyed (64%) stated that financial constraints were the main impediment to improving their latrine.

Whilst many households recognized the link between sanitation and health, data collected shows that improving sanitation was not one of the highest priorities for these households, compared to other investments, (e.g. mobile telephones, school fees and livestock), which enable them to earn an income.

In addition to this, there was a lack of understanding or compliance with basic hygiene practices. Research shows that 40% of household latrines visited by researchers had human feces on the floor and only 5% had soap nearby.

1


A range of drivers to improve sanitation practices were identified amongst the communities surveyed. Shame was a significant driver. In total 89% of those surveyed agreed that people in the community would feel ashamed if they did not have a latrine. Privacy and safety were also cited as drivers.

The district and street government1 act as a major source of information on building or making improvements to sanitation facilities. Radio was the most popular media used to access information, with 37% of those surveyed stating this as a means of accessing information on sanitation issues. The majority (85%) of those surveyed were not aware of community organizations which could provide assistance in building a latrine.

1.2.2 Supply-side study The rural supply market was characterized by a lack of demand for sanitation products and services. This is due to a number of factors including: lack of consumer awareness of the range of products available; and the cost of building/improving facilities relative to household income.

Sanitation suppliers interviewed were part-time, informal, small scale providers. Sanitation services supply was not their primary source of business and was supplementary to other economic activities, (e.g. farming or construction). Anecdotal evidence from the field suggests that service providers were not coordinated and could be located through informal networks rather than through more formal means (e.g. associations).

The major constraint to business development was identified as lack of capital (75%). Lack of capital made it difficult for suppliers to purchase tools and supplies essential to develop their businesses. Accessibility of materials was also a significant issue. The most difficult materials to locate were cement (31%), wire mesh (26%) and slabs (15%).

Whilst many service providers (55%) had received training, most (78%) did not have access to training on new sanitation products and technologies. Only 55% were able to construct a pit latrine with slab; 50% could construct flush/pour systems; less that 5% could construct mound latrines; and less than 2% could construct composting toilets.

The range of sanitation services provided to consumers was limited. For example, only 27% of suppliers provided upgrading services and 12% emptying services.

1 Ward and village level government officials

2


2 Background and context

2.1 Introduction WSP is a multi-donor partnership which aims to help the poor obtain sustained access to water supply and sanitation services. Administered by the World Bank, WSP receives financial support from several bilateral, multilateral and private donors and helps its clients to prepare for and implement actions towards meeting the water and sanitation MDGs.

WSP recently began implementing the Tanzania Improved Sanitation Program, which runs until November 2010, and has the central objective of improving sanitation2 to a scale sufficient to meet the sanitation MDGs by 2015.

The research undertaken by PwC was funded as part of the Total Sanitation and Sanitation Marketing project (TSSM), an innovative initiative with the goal to generate sanitation demand at scale and increase the supply of sanitation products and services. The project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in partnership with WSP, is being implemented in Tanzania, India and Indonesia.

WSP draws upon two complementary mechanisms in implementing the program. First, total sanitation, which focuses on stopping open defecation at the community level, by highlighting the problems caused to all residents by poor sanitation within and around the community. This approach creates demand for sanitation by building upon a combination of peer pressure at the community level, and collective action, to help destitute members of the community and public facilities (hospitals and schools) have sanitation solutions. Second, sanitation marketing, which utilizes the power of the small and medium scale private sector in the provision of sanitation services. Sanitation marketing uses commercial marketing techniques to analyze the themes and messages that would generate demand for those services and lead to behavioral change.

A key program objective of the WSP is to increase improved sanitation coverage in Tanzania, through developing large scale and sustained demand for improved sanitation, and simultaneously supply it with products and services. The specific target for Tanzania is to have 750,000 new people owning and using an improved latrine by 2009. It should be noted that the main focus for WSP is households.

2.2 Research objectives WSP engaged PwC to conduct two related studies: a consumer/household research study; and a product range and sanitation market assessment. The data gathered from these studies will diagnose constraints and identify drivers for improved sanitation, as well as develop benchmark indicators for monitoring and evaluation of sanitation reforms. The results from the survey will be used to design appropriate strategies and programs to stimulate supply of, and demand for, improved sanitation in rural Tanzania.

The objectives of the consumer/household research were to:

Gain an in-depth understanding of consumer perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, and habits related to the adoption and consistent use of improved sanitation;

2 Improved sanitation includes sanitation systems which are: connected to a public sewer; connected to a septic system; a pour-flush latrine; a simple pit latrine; a ventilated improved pit latrine. Definition provided by the Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation (World Health Organisation and UNICEF), see: http://www.wssinfo.org/en/122_definitions.html

3


4


Use this understanding to infer demand parameters in order to model consumer behavior and develop appropriate demand creation programs, and communication and promotional strategies to stimulate demand for improved sanitation among the rural poor;

Facilitate the building of capacity of local government agencies in implementing appropriate strategies that are responsive to the existing sanitation practices;

Gain a common understanding and agree variables (e.g. improved sanitation coverage) and their baseline figures for defining the objectives of the project.

The objectives of the product range and sanitation market assessment were to:

Gain an in-depth insight of local sanitation supply markets (i.e. informal rural markets);

Develop and advance strategies to deliver improved sanitation to rural consumers.

The full Terms of Reference (ToR) for this assignment is included as Annex A.

2.3 Approach 2.3.1 Introduction

An overview of our methodology for this assignment is shown in Figure 2.1. Our original approach (documented in our proposal to WSP of 22 February 2008) was adapted in light of the contract negotiation meeting held with WSP on 25 April 2008. During this meeting the following points emerged:

A final version of the demand-side survey instrument had already been developed by WSP staff for use on this assignment;

An initial draft of the supply-side survey instrument had already been prepared;

5 districts would be surveyed and these would be representative of the rural population in Tanzania (covering: coastal, lake, central – dry, and highlands) to reflect the specific challenges and opportunities in each area. It was agreed that the areas to be covered would include: Rufiji; Iringa; Musoma; Sumbawanga and Kiteto as shown in Figure 2.2 below. An overview of the characteristics of each region is provided in Table 2.1 below;

The sample size remained the same at 1,000 rural households and 200 local service providers.

In light of these developments, it was agreed that some activities relating to developing the demand-side survey instrument would no longer need to be undertaken. These included: undertaking consultations, research and focus group discussions to influence the design of the demand-side survey instrument.

On the supply-side, it was agreed that one focus group would be held to finalize the development of the survey instrument.

During this assignment seven main tasks were therefore undertaken: mobilization; research to inform the design of the supply-side instrument; finalizing the survey instruments; piloting the instruments for both the supply and demand survey; conducting full surveys; data entry and analysis; presentation and reporting.

Activities took place over a four month time frame, spanning 21 July to 28 November 2008.

Figu

re 2

.1: O

ur a

ppro

ach

Step

Stag

e I

Mob

ilizat

ion

Stag

e 2

Sur

vey

deve

lopm

ent

phas

e

Stag

e 3

Des

ign

surv

eyin

stru

men

ts

Task

s

Stag

e 4

Pilo

t the

Sur

vey

inst

rum

ent

and

train

in

terv

iew

ers

Stag

e 5

Con

duct

su

rvey

s

•Foc

us g

roup

s•D

esig

n

ques

tionn

aire

s•D

esig

n sa

mpl

es

•Initi

al c

lient

m

eetin

g•L

itera

ture

re

view

•Col

lect

st

akeh

olde

rs

perc

eptio

n

•Und

erta

ke

surv

ey p

ilot

•Del

iver

trai

ning

•Und

erta

ke

inte

rvie

ws

with

qu

estio

nnai

res

•Cle

an a

nd

code

qu

estio

nnai

res

•Ent

er d

ata

•Ana

lyse

dat

a

•Pre

pare

dra

ft re

port

•Pre

sent

atio

ns•F

inal

repo

rt

Out

puts

Ince

ptio

nre

port

& o

ral

pres

enta

tion

Issu

espa

per

Sur

vey

inst

rum

ents

, sa

mpl

e fra

me

& a

naly

tical

fra

mew

ork

Rev

ised

qu

estio

nnai

res;

tra

ined

in

terv

iew

ers

Com

plet

edsu

rvey

sD

ata

anal

ysed

D

raft

repo

rt &

fin

al re

port

Stag

e 6

Car

ry o

utda

ta e

ntry

an

d an

alys

is

Stag

e 7

Pre

sent

&re

port

Step

Stag

e 3

Des

ign

surv

eyin

stru

men

ts

Stag

e I

Mob

ilizat

ion

Stag

e 2

Sur

vey

deve

lopm

ent

phas

e

Task

s

Stag

e 4

Pilo

t the

Sur

vey

inst

rum

ent

and

train

in

terv

iew

ers

Stag

e 5

Con

duct

su

rvey

s

•Foc

us g

roup

s•D

esig

n

ques

tionn

aire

s•D

esig

n sa

mpl

es

•Initi

al c

lient

m

eetin

g•L

itera

ture

re

view

•Col

lect

st

akeh

olde

rs

perc

eptio

n

•Und

erta

ke

surv

ey p

ilot

•Del

iver

trai

ning

•Und

erta

ke

inte

rvie

ws

with

qu

estio

nnai

res

•Cle

an a

nd

code

qu

estio

nnai

res

•Ent

er d

ata

•Ana

lyse

dat

a

•Pre

pare

dra

ft re

port

•Pre

sent

atio

ns•F

inal

repo

rt

Out

puts

Ince

ptio

nre

port

& o

ral

pres

enta

tion

Issu

espa

per

Sur

vey

inst

rum

ents

, sa

mpl

e fra

me

& a

naly

tical

fra

mew

ork

Rev

ised

qu

estio

nnai

res;

tra

ined

in

terv

iew

ers

Com

plet

edsu

rvey

sD

ata

anal

ysed

D

raft

repo

rt &

fin

al re

port

Stag

e 6

Car

ry o

utda

ta e

ntry

an

d an

alys

is

Stag

e 7

Pre

sent

&re

port

5

Figu

re 2

.2: M

ap o

f the

dis

tric

ts in

clud

ed in

the

rese

arch

6

Tab

le 2

.1: C

hara

cter

istic

s of r

egio

ns se

lect

ed fo

r th

e su

pply

and

dem

and

asse

ssm

ents

D

istr

ict

Iring

a R

ural

K

iteto

M

usom

a R

ural

R

ufiji

Su

mba

wan

ga

Loca

tion

Cen

tral T

anza

nia

7.77

S, 3

5.69

E

Cen

tral N

orth

ern

Tanz

ania

4.4

5S, 3

6.40

E

Nor

ther

n Ta

nzan

ia

1.30

S, 3

3.48

E

Eas

tern

Tan

zani

a 7.

50S

, 39.

00E

W

este

rn T

anza

nia

7.58

S, 3

1.37

E

Popu

latio

n324

5,62

3

152,

757

35

0,95

3 20

3,10

2 37

3,08

0

Num

ber o

f ho

useh

olds

456

,682

31

,982

54

,213

44

,342

76

,701

Ave

rage

ho

useh

old

size

4.

3 4.

8 6.

1 4.

6 4.

9

Maj

or tr

ibes

H

ehe,

Ben

a, K

inga

M

aasa

i, R

angi

, Ngu

u Ji

ta, K

una,

Luo

W

ande

nger

eleo

, W

amat

umbi

, Wan

gind

o Fi

pa

Rel

igio

n C

hris

tiani

ty, I

slam

Is

lam

, Chr

istia

nity

C

hris

tiani

ty, I

slam

, tra

ditio

nal b

elie

fs

Isla

m, C

hris

tiani

ty,

tradi

tiona

l bel

iefs

C

hris

tiani

ty

Dis

tric

t san

itatio

n bu

dget

for

prev

ious

fina

ncia

l ye

ar

No

com

preh

ensi

ve p

lan

for s

anita

tion

Unk

now

n N

o fin

anci

al b

udge

t for

sa

nita

tion

US

D 8

milli

on (5

from

W

orld

Ban

k, 3

from

GoT

) U

SD

9.2

mill

ion

(app

roxi

mat

ely)

Hou

seho

ld

inco

me

sour

ces

Agr

icul

ture

, liv

esto

ck

Agr

icul

ture

, liv

esto

ck,

smal

l bus

ines

s A

gric

ultu

re, l

ives

tock

, fis

hing

A

gric

ultu

re, f

ishi

ng,

lives

tock

A

gric

ultu

re, f

ishi

ng,

lives

tock

M

ajor

cro

ps

Toba

cco

(cas

h cr

op),

mai

ze (f

ood

crop

) M

aize

(cas

h &

food

cro

p)

Cot

ton

(cas

h cr

op),

cass

ava

(food

cro

p)

Cas

hew

nut

s (c

ash

crop

), ric

e (fo

od c

rop)

M

aize

, ric

e, b

eans

(cas

h &

food

cro

ps)

Har

vest

tim

e M

aize

: May

- Ju

ly

Toba

cco:

Jul

y -

Sep

tem

ber

Mai

ze: M

ay -

July

C

otto

n: J

une

- Aug

ust

Cas

sava

: thr

ough

out t

he

year

, mor

e in

the

dry

seas

on

Cas

hew

nut

s:

Sep

tem

ber/O

ctob

er

Ric

e: A

pril-

June

Mai

ze: M

ay -

July

R

ice:

Apr

il-Ju

ne

Bea

ns: M

ay -

July

Clim

ate5

Trop

ical

wet

sea

son

- Tr

opic

al w

et s

easo

n -

Trop

ical

wet

sea

son

- Tr

opic

al w

et s

easo

n -

Hum

id s

ubtro

pica

l - w

et

3 T

anza

nia

Cen

sus

2002

- w

ww

.tanz

ania

.go.

tz/c

ensu

s/

4 Ibid

7

8

Dis

tric

t Iri

nga

Rur

al

Kite

to

Mus

oma

Rur

al

Ruf

iji

Sum

baw

anga

pr

onou

nced

dry

sea

son

&

dry

arid

/sem

i-arid

des

ert

clim

ate

pron

ounc

ed d

ry s

easo

n &

dr

y ar

id/s

emi-a

rid s

tepp

e cl

imat

e

pron

ounc

ed d

ry s

easo

n pr

onou

nced

dry

sea

son

sum

mer

s &

dry

arid

/sem

i-ar

id s

tepp

e cl

imat

e

Soil

Type

6M

ount

ains

bou

nded

by

esca

rpm

ents

and

tra

nsiti

onal

to h

igh

plat

eau,

with

und

ulat

ing

to h

illy p

late

au c

rest

s de

velo

ped

on g

neis

sic

rock

s, h

igh

altit

ude

(150

0-22

00 m

eter

s)

Mai

nly

wel

l dra

ined

(s

ome

topo

grap

hica

l de

pres

sion

s of

poo

r dr

aina

ge),

gent

ly

undu

latin

g to

rolli

ng

plai

ns a

nd p

late

au

deve

lope

d on

in

term

edia

te g

neis

ses

mod

erat

e al

titud

e (5

00-

1200

met

ers)

Pla

ins

with

con

side

rabl

e se

ason

al w

ater

logg

ing,

de

velo

ped

partl

y on

gr

anite

, col

luvi

um a

nd

allu

vium

. Med

ium

alti

tude

(1

000-

1200

met

res)

Coa

stal

pla

ins,

gen

tly

undu

latin

g an

d be

low

50

met

res

altit

ude

deve

lope

d on

lim

esto

ne,

sand

ston

es, m

arls

and

sa

nds.

Aw

ay fr

om th

e R

ufiji

river

– fl

at to

gen

tly

undu

latin

g pl

ains

on

old

allu

vium

no

long

er

subj

ect t

o riv

er fl

oodi

ng,

with

gen

tly u

ndul

atin

g pl

ains

dev

elop

ed o

n sa

ndy

clay

s an

d sa

ndst

ones

Com

plex

of g

ently

un

dula

ting

plai

ns a

nd

plat

eau

with

ste

ep h

ills,

foot

slo

pes

and

valle

ys,

deve

lope

d on

sch

ists

, ac

id v

olca

nics

, gne

isse

s an

d sa

ndst

ones

, with

so

me

area

s of

gra

nite

. H

igh

altit

ude

(150

0-23

00

met

res)

5 K

öppe

n C

limat

e C

lass

ifica

tion,

http

://en

.wik

iped

ia.o

rg/w

iki/K

öppe

n_C

limat

e_C

lass

ifica

tion

6 Soi

ls a

nd P

hysi

ogra

phy

of T

anza

nia,

De

Pau

w, E

, 198

3

9


2.3.2 Stage 1: Mobilization Initial meetings with representatives from WSP took place on 25 April 2008 and 4 July 2008. These meetings provided an opportunity for the PwC team to: confirm their understanding of the research objectives, agree on expected outputs and approach; and collate background information and relevant literature (e.g. previously conducted WSP assessments in other countries; and WSP resource materials related to Tanzania). Documents collected were reviewed as background research to influence the design of the supply-side survey instrument and in preparation for the analysis. In addition, maps of each district were also located in preparation for designing the sample frame. A full list of documents reviewed is provided in Annex B. Maps of each district are included in Annex C.

The assignment commenced on 21 July 2008 and an Inception Report outlining the approach and preliminary findings was produced within two weeks of contract signature.

2.3.3 Stage 2: Survey development Consultations and research are an essential aspect of survey development to ensure that the instruments capture cultural, economic and geographical issues which are specific to the local context. Furthermore, consultations are useful in that they: illustrate quantitative responses; confirm awareness; and can provide ideas for improvement of the survey instrument.

2.3.3.1 Supply-side survey instrument A draft supply-side survey instrument was provided by WSP. A focus group to develop the supply-side survey was held on 23 July 2008, with a selection of ten suppliers of sanitation products and services.

Temeke rural area was selected as the location for the focus group as, during our preliminary research, we were able to make contact with a number of non governmental organizations (NGOs) from the Temeke area, such as the Water and Environmental Sanitation Projects Maintenance Organization (WEPMO) and Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control Organization (EEPCO), who work directly in the area of water and sanitation. This enabled us to learn from their experiences to date, and access a range of suppliers more easily.

In preparation for the focus group, our social scientist developed a topic guide which provided structure for the session. The topic guide covered: background information on participants (e.g. type of business; length of operation; knowledge of business and training); product information (e.g. types of product; customer preferences for specific products); materials (e.g. types and preferred materials); slab information (e.g. source; cost and customer preference); pricing information (e.g. for different products; affordability; willingness to pay); customer base (e.g. marginalized groups; location, etc.); installation (e.g. number and type of latrines constructed; time taken to construct a latrine); manufacturing/upgrading (e.g. cost of maintenance/upgrading; affordability); and challenges and business opportunities.

The output of the focus group was an issues paper, which summarized the main issues raised by the group. The paper provided the basis for developing the quantitative survey and interpreting the survey results. The issues paper is provided in Annex D. Following the focus group, the supply-side instrument was revised to reflect the discussions.

2.3.3.2 Demand-side survey instrument A survey instrument for the demand-side study had already been developed by WSP staff. In line with our ToR, we reviewed the demand-side survey instrument and made some minor editorial and formatting changes to ensure the logical flow of questions. In addition we made

10


a number of recommendations on the content of the demand-side instrument (which were discussed with WSP staff) and as a result the survey instrument was adapted. Full details of recommended changes are documented in the Inception Report.

2.3.4 Stage 3: Refine survey instruments and set the sample frame During this phase we held discussions with WSP staff to refine the survey instruments and set the sample frame.

2.3.5 Demand-side sample frame 2.3.5.1 Survey coverage inclusion and exclusion criteria

The survey covered a total of five districts across five regions in Tanzania. The distribution of ward type by district is illustrated in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2: Region and districts selected for the survey and the distribution of wards by type

Region District chosen

Total number of wards in district Ward type

Total number of wards

Urban 1 Mixed 6 Pwani Rufiji 19 Rural 12 Urban 0 Mixed 2 Iringa Iringa Rural 20 Rural 18 Urban 0 Mixed 3 Rukwa Sumbawanga

Rural 23 Rural 20 Urban 0 Mixed 3 Mara Musoma Rural 27 Rural 24 Urban 1 Mixed 3 Manyara Kiteto 14 Rural 10

Exclusions:

“Urban” and “Mixed” wards were excluded from the sample; and

Very small wards, those with less than three villages, were also excluded from the sample frame. There were five wards for which this criteria applied.

Table 2.3 below shows the total number of rural wards, villages and households selected for the survey and the total population within each district selected7.

7 Data on the total number of wards and villages was collected from the National Bureau of Statistics. It should be noted that urban, mixed and very small wards (with less than three villages) were then excluded.

11


Table 2.3: Wards, villages and households selected for the survey


Total number of

rural wards8

Total number of

villages

Total number of

households Total

population Pwani Rufiji 11 103 21,000 105,200 Iringa Iringa Rural 17 163 48,134 226,435

Rukwa Sumbawanga Rural

20 150 64,880 311,917

Mara Musoma Rural

24 99 46,487 339,820

Manyara Kiteto 9 75 20,516 117,384 Total 81 590 201,017 1,100,756

2.3.5.2 Sample size

In order to provide for a regional analysis that was representative of the population, an adequate sample size needed to be covered by the survey. The proposed sample of 1,000 households yielded a margin of error9 of 3.09%, (see Table 2.4). This indicates that regional analysis would be robust and representative of the population.

Table 2.4: Margin of error Target

population Total

estimated households

Proposed sample

Level of confidence

Sampling error (+/-)

Method of data collection

Rural households in the 5 districts

specified 200,000 1,000 95% 3.09% Face-to-face

interviews

Villages in the selected wards vary by size. Interviewing ten households per village allowed for a cost effective accurate portrayal of behaviors at the village level.

With the proposed sample size of 1,000 households, 100 villages were selected to sample from. Due to travel time and associated costs, two villages in each ward were chosen, resulting in a total coverage of 50 wards.

2.3.5.3 Sample design and data collection We used a multi-stage weighted random sampling approach in selecting the wards and villages. In the first stage, wards were chosen from the districts as primary sampling units (PSUs) using the probability proportional to size method. The number of wards chosen was proportional to the total number of households. Wards were chosen using simple random selection by assigning random numbers from a random number generator.

At the second stage, villages were drawn from each of the selected wards as secondary sampling units (SSUs). Two villages were chosen in each ward using simple random selection by assigning random numbers from a random number generator. In addition to two sample villages, one replacement village was selected using the same sampling methods.

At the third stage, households were selected by our trained researchers. Ten households were allocated to each SSU. Households were chosen in conjunction with the village leader upon arrival in a village. These households were randomly selected, with the aim of getting 8 Rural wards with more than three villages 9 The margin of error refers to the amount of random sampling error in a survey's results. The smaller the margin of error, the more confidence can be placed in the survey’s reported results being close to the results expected for the population as a whole.

12


adequate representation in each village. All information below the village level (hamlet, 10 cell, and household) was taken from the field.

Table 2.5 illustrates the total number of wards, villages and households chosen from each district.

Table 2.5: Draft sampling frame for wards, villages and households


Total number of rural wards10

Number of wards

chosen

Number of villages chosen

Number of households

Pwani Rufiji 11 5 10 100 Iringa Iringa Rural 17 12 24 240

Rukwa Sumbawanga Rural

18 16 32 320

Mara Musoma Rural 24 12 24 240 Manyara Kiteto 9 5 10 100 Total 79 Total sample 100 1,000

2.3.6 Supply-side sample frame 2.3.6.1 Scope of the supply-side survey

The ToR indicated two components to the supply-side survey: a sanitation market assessment and a product range assessment:

The sanitation market assessment aimed to identify the key players providing sanitation products and services, understand their capacity to meet consumer demand for improved sanitation, determine the challenges faced by their business;, and their needs for new skills acquisition, in terms of technical, promotional and business management. This information was collected by interviewing sanitation suppliers, e.g. artisans (fundis);

The product range assessment aimed to identify a comprehensive range of sanitation products available on the market and assess how these products met the rural consumers’ need for improved sanitation. This information was collected from interviewing suppliers and visiting local markets.

Early on in the assignment it was recognized that comprehensive lists of sanitation suppliers were not readily available. In order to identify suppliers, we worked closely with local and regional NGOs, e.g. the Christian Social Services Commission (CSSC); local government and sector specialists before our field researchers started work in the field.

We also agreed that we would use snowball sampling techniques to access sanitation suppliers11. Snowball sampling is especially useful when one is trying to reach populations that are inaccessible or difficult to find. Although this method would hardly lead to representative samples, there are times when it may be the best method available.

In addition, it was agreed with WSP staff that researchers would visit the District Executive Director (DED), District Health Officer (DHO), the District Water Engineer (DWE) and the Community Development Officer (CDO) in each district to obtain:

10 Rural wards with more than three villages 11 In snowball sampling, the researcher begins by identifying someone who meets the criteria for inclusion in the study. The researcher then asks them to recommend others who they may know who also meet the criteria

13


Information on latrine suppliers (locations and contacts of suppliers, organizations that provide training in the district etc.);

Relevant health statistics at the district level;

Perceptions of sanitation in the district;

Information on the capacity to provide training and support to potential WSP programs.

Table 2.6 below provides an overview of the supply-side target group and the number of interviews to be conducted with each target group.

Table 2.6: Supply-side target group Target group Information obtained from Actual number sampled

District Water and Sanitation Team

District Commissioner 4 interviews per district (District Executive Director, District Health Officer, District Community Development Officer, District Water Engineer)

Latrine suppliers (trained or untrained)

District council, village leaders, recommendations while in the field, lists from NGOs that conducted training

161 total (on average 32 per district)

Product range assessment District and ward markets 43 in total (on average 8 per district)

2.3.6.2 Survey components

Sanitation market assessment Comments from WSP staff on the Draft Inception Report confirmed that the target group for the sanitation market assessment were ‘fundis who work with cement’. It was agreed that the assessment would cover:

Background information;

Questions on products sold, inputs and pricing;

Specific information on slabs (if used);

Questions surrounding customers and marketing techniques;

Installation, maintenance and upgrades;

Constraints and potential business opportunities.

Product range assessment In order to obtain accurate information on pricing and availability of materials it was agreed that a product range assessment would be conducted at seven markets in each district for a total of 35 markets. Undertaking seven assessments per district provided accurate information on pricing and availability.

This included collecting information on materials needed to make slabs, superstructures, and substructures. Examples of products used for improved sanitation facilities includes:

Cement;

Slab mould;

Corrugated tin;

14


PVC piping;

Cement blocks;

Locks.

Data on quantities sold was not collected because of the difficulty of determining usage of the products. For example, cement can be used for a number of things other than slabs. Samples (e.g. photographs of available products) were also obtained.

2.3.7 Stage 4: Pilot the survey instruments and train interviewers The draft demand-side and supply-side survey instruments were piloted in Kibaha rural area from 30 July to 1 August 2008.

2.3.7.1 Demand-side

As agreed with WSP, five suppliers and 30 households were covered in the pilot. Kibaha rural area was selected as the pilot area, primarily as, during the inception phase of the assignment, we had established good contacts with a number of NGOs, e.g. Plan International who had implemented water and sanitation related projects in Kibaha. This made it easier to locate suppliers of sanitation products and services.

The aim of the pilot was to test both the demand-side and supply-side survey instruments. More specifically to:

Test respondents’ understanding of the questions as a basis for eliminating any ambiguities;

Establish how long it actually took respondents to respond to the questionnaires;

Provide an opportunity to tailor the language used so that it was appropriate for the target respondents;

Test the logical flow of the questions;

Obtain any other comments from the respondents;

Ascertain how easy or difficult it was to locate rural-based suppliers of sanitation products and services.

On 30 July 2008 we visited the Kibaha District Council and met with the Acting DED and requested the council’s support to undertake the pilot. The Acting DED advised us that in order to obtain the districts full support to undertake the survey, it was essential to inform all relevant DEDs of the program in writing and provide exact dates of when visits would be undertaken. To this end, in preparation for the full survey, we drafted letters and dispatched them to all the DEDs in the five districts where research was undertaken.

On 31 July 2008, we were introduced to the CDO who accompanied our team to all the wards and villages.

We commenced the pilot by visiting the Soga ward and met with the Ward Executive Officer (WEO). Based on the WEO’s suggestion, we selected four villages, namely Soga, Boko, Bokonjiapanda and Kipangege for inclusion in the pilot. The selection was mainly based on the location and the number of households in the villages.

We interviewed a total of 30 households in the four villages. On average, it took one hour to complete one interview. Overall, we found that the respondents experienced no major difficulties in understanding the questions. However, feedback from the respondents and the interviewers indicated a need for us to:

1. Rephrase some questions to reflect cultural aspects or deepen understanding;

15


2. Provide additional options for the closed questions; and

3. Revise some of the terms used.

Based on the pilot, we made a number of revisions to the demand-side questionnaire and the interviewer instructions. Details of changes made are documented in the Pre-test Report which has already been submitted to WSP.

2.3.7.2 Supply-side Our supply-side survey team also visited the Kibaha District Council with the demand-side team. Fundis were located via a ‘snowball’ sampling method as Kibaha District Council did not have established lists of suppliers.

Fundis interviewed were self-employed and were not part of associations. Most did not have formal education/training in building latrines. Most built traditional pit latrines as well as improved latrines.

We conducted interviews in the following villages in Kibaha district: Kibaha town, Soga, Boko and Boko NjiaPanda. The selection was mainly based on accessibility of the villages within the available time frame.

We interviewed a total of five sanitation suppliers in the three villages. On average, it took 40 minutes to complete one interview. Overall, we found that the respondents experienced no major difficulties in understanding the questions. Feedback from the respondents and the interviewers indicated a need for us in some cases to:

1. Rephrase questions to ensure the correct Kiswahili translation;

2. Indicate which questions allow for multiple answers and which questions allow for only one answer; and provide additional options for closed questions.

The most significant observation from the pilot was regarding access to sanitation suppliers. In the villages we visited, the number of suppliers located, varied drastically, (e.g. one village had six and another had only two).

We also determined the best way to locate sanitation suppliers. The team discovered that in order to find suppliers, researchers had to specifically ask for “fundis that build latrines”, as most “sanitation suppliers” are construction fundis who also build latrines. These issues were noted and were incorporated into our training material.

Based on the results of the pilot, we made amendments to the draft demand-side and supply-side questionnaires which were discussed and agreed with WSP.

2.3.7.3 Training for field supervisors and researchers During this stage we also conducted training for field supervisors and researchers working on this assignment to ensure that responses were consistent and that high quality data was collected.

Our firm is accredited under the Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) which sets the research industry’s recognized quality standards for field work. Training was delivered to the standard of this accreditation. The training covered the following topics:

The role of the WSP and sanitation improvement activities in Tanzania;

The definition of key sanitation terms, etc;

Potential problems to be encountered;

How to ask questions and record responses;

How to handle difficult respondents;

16


How to collect high quality data;

Techniques to increase the response rate for rural participants;

Confidentiality and use of the data.

During the training, interviewers had the opportunity to go through the questionnaire in detail and undertake mock interviews so that they were comfortable undertaking the survey and answering any challenging questions posed.

In addition the field supervisors were trained on how to ensure the quality of data gathered, 9e.g. by monitoring research in the field and conducting back checks in line with the Market Research Code of Conduct) to ensure that interviews were conducted in an appropriate manner.

2.3.8 Stage 5: Conduct interviews Before commencing the fieldwork for this assignment, the final English versions of the questionnaires were approved by WSP and translated into Kiswahili. Back translations were also undertaken to ensure that consistency and quality of the translation. The final versions of the questionnaires (demand, supply, product range assessment and interview guide) are provided in Annexes E to H.

Field researchers were deployed to the field from 23 August 2008. Five supervisors were also deployed to provide support to the researchers and ensure the quality of deliverables in the field.

Field researchers produced reports on the work undertaken in the field. A summary of the key challenges and opportunities experienced by those undertaking the field research is shown in Table 2.7 below.

Table 2.7: Key challenges and opportunities faced and mitigating measures Opportunity Challenge Mitigation Language difficulties: some

respondents had limited understanding of Kiswahili and spoke local languages, such as Fipa in Sumbawanga

Supervisors worked closely with district officials and village elders to orally translate questionnaires. The accuracy of responses was double checked

Poor transport links especially in Musoma and Kiteto which made travel between areas slow

Supervisors worked with local district personnel to find the most effective way to travel. In exceptional cases, where villages were too remote to reach given the time available, a replacement village was selected

Significant support and co-operation from those at the district, ward and village levels

Poor or no accommodation in some areas

Local community and districts very supportive and offered accommodation in their own homes or offices to our team

Significant level of interest on both supply and demand-side in improving sanitation

Difficulties in obtaining responses in some areas for the household survey due to: respondent concerns over whether data would remain

Confirmation to respondents that the data would remain confidential and non attributable

17


Opportunity Challenge Mitigation confidential and non attributable; and dissatisfaction that surveys have been undertaken in the past and no practical support has been provided by government or the donor community

Confirmation to respondents that concerns would be passed on to government and WSP

Difficulties in obtaining responses for the product range assessment. For instance, in Rufiji shopkeepers considered pricing information to be commercially confidential. In addition, for the product range assessment, some materials were simply not available

Additional visits to suppliers undertaken to ensure that the required data was collected

Locating artisans to interview as many were busy undertaking other commercial activities (e.g. farming). Others wanted to receive payment for participation

Teams proactive in working with NGOs/ district officials and using ‘snowballing’ techniques to locate artisans willing to participate in the study

Limited statistics and data available at the district level

Efforts made to access statistics (e.g. on expenditure on water and sanitation from other sources)

2.3.9 Stage 6: Carry out data entry and analysis During this stage our team undertook the process of data cleaning, data entry and analysis.

The questionnaires for the supply and demand-side survey were cleaned and coded. Following this, all data was entered onto the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and quality control procedures were carried out including:

Creating a ‘dummy file’ before any data entry took place. This allowed us to check the data structure and ensure that all variables were correctly set up against the output and analysis requirements;

Running frequency analyses in order to perform logic and consistency checks on the top-line data. Outlying results or anomalous data could then be tracked back to the specific questionnaire.

At this stage we also translated the qualitative responses back into English. The data was then reviewed and prepared for analysis. This entailed:

Coding responses to the open questions. The aim of this was to identify and group similar themes. This process involved a lot of subjectivity. Therefore in order to ensure

18


quality, we assigned three consultants to do this independently for subsequent comparison;

Running sets of frequencies to determine the accuracy and completeness of data entry. For example that the number of responses did not exceed the number of respondents or that there were no out of range values.

In addition we ensured that survey responses were cross checked for accuracy.

It should be noted that (following discussions with WSP) the analytical framework, which was outlined as a requirement in the ToR (including dummy analysis tables and econometric models based on the data to be collected) was no longer required. Instead, the PwC team provided WSP with a plan of analysis (in the form of a draft report outline) which was approved.

Copies of the completed questionnaires and data sets for the demand and supply-sides can be found in the following Annexes:

Annex I: Copies of the completed demand-side instrument; Annex J: Data sets: demand-side; Annex K: Copies of the completed supply-side instrument; Annex L: Copies of the completed product range assessments; Annex M: Visual catalogue with illustrations of upgraded sanitation options; Annex N: Data sets: supply-side; Annex O: Product range assessment analysis.

2.3.10 Stage 7: Present and report During the stage we undertook analyses of data gathered. The detailed findings of the analyses are provided in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this report.

In addition we anticipate holding presentations for the WSP country team and Government of the United Republic of Tanzania (GoT) representatives to present our findings and receive comments on the draft report.

Comments from the presentation will be incorporated to produce the final report for approval by WSP.

3 Analysis and results (Demand-side)

3.1 Introduction This section provides detailed analysis and results for the demand-side survey. In total, 1,000 households were interviewed, covering 5 districts.

Households surveyed were poor and had limited disposable income or access to credit which impacted on their ability to afford improvements to their sanitation facilities.

Latrine coverage amongst the respondents surveyed was relatively high, however most households did not have access to improved sanitation products or facilities. Whilst many households recognized the link between sanitation and health, data collected shows that improving sanitation was not one of the highest priorities for these households.

3.2 General household characteristics Survey respondents ranged from 18 to 49 years of age, with an average age of 34. The majority of respondents (53%) stated that they were the head of the household. The position of the respondent in the household varied across district as illustrated below in Figure 3.1. Across the five districts, the majority of respondents were either the head of household (53%) or the wife in the household (38%). As the figure illustrates, researchers were able to access and interview a senior household member.

Figure 3.1: Respondents’ position in the household, by district (Base = 978)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Iringa Kiteto Musoma Rufiji Sumbawanga

Head of household Wife Mother Mother-in-law GrandmotherFather Father-in-law Grandfather Son Daughter

19


20


The average household size was 6.7 members, ranging from a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 25. 99% of respondents reported having children under the age of five living in the household. This ranged from one to seven children, with an average of 1.8 children under five years old.

90% of respondents stated that they had attended school. For those that attended school, the majority (90%) had completed primary school as their highest level of education. 82% of respondents stated their religion as being Christian,16% Muslim with the remainder stating their religion as African traditional or Pagan.

3.3 Household income and expenditure The majority (81%) of respondents indicated that their main income generating activity was agriculture on their own farm, followed by ‘working for pay’ (7%) and ‘unpaid in family business/farm’ (7%). This distribution was similar across all five districts. Kiteto had a larger percentage (17%) of respondents who reported livestock keeping as their main income generating activity.

34% of respondents were involved in their primary income generating activity throughout the year. 41% conducted this activity for six months or less a year.

From all income generating activities, respondents earned an average of 30,000 TSh per week12. Income ranged from 13,000 TSh per week in Musoma to 42,000 TSh per week in Rufiji. The most common response for what this money was used for was food (42%), followed by housekeeping (36%) and work/farming/trading (14%). 40% of respondents stated that the head of the household was the primary decision maker on how the money would be used.

Respondents were also asked where they could obtain money for drugs/medicines if they did not have funds available within their household. The majority of respondents (54%) stated that they would borrow money from friends or peers, 19% stated they would get a loan and 11% stated that they would sell livestock or agricultural produce. 64% of respondents indicated that the money would be accessible to them within the same day.

Whilst respondents stated that they were able to obtain small sums of money for a ‘one off’ purchase relatively quickly, obtaining larger sums of money proved to be more difficult. 91% of respondents indicated that they would not be able to borrow money for a more significant expenditure, such as the purchase of a latrine.

Households spent approximately 19,000 TSh per week on food with an average expenditure per person per week of 3,100 TSh.

Household expenditure for the preceding four weeks averaged 15,300 TSh per person per household per month. This figure varied across districts, with Rufiji reporting the highest monthly expenditure per person at 21,000 TSh and Iringa the lowest at 11,000 TSh per person.

Respondents were also asked questions about ownership of consumer goods and livestock. The distribution of households owning these goods is shown in Figure 3.2 below. Almost 80% of those surveyed owned a radio, 39% owned a mobile phone and 3% owned a television. 61% of households surveyed owned a bicycle, less than 3% owned a motorcycle or a moped and less than 1% owned a car or a truck. 3% of households had access to electricity. In terms of livestock, 77% reported that they owned chickens or ducks and 50% reported that they owned cows, sheep, goats or donkeys.

12 This does not include non-monetary transfers, e.g. from respondents using agricultural produce grown on their own farms or the sharing or barter of produce with others in the community.

Differences were found across districts, particularly with regards to livestock ownership. For example, in Sumbawanga 70% of households reported that they owned cows, sheep, goats or donkeys whilst in Iringa only 31% of households reported owning these types of livestock.

Figure 3.2: Percentage of households surveyed who owned various goods (Base = 983)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

1Radio Chickens/ducks Bicycle Cows/sheep/goats/donkeysMobile telephone Television Electricity Motorcycle/mopedNone of these Car/Truck Refrigerator Landline phone

3.4 Physical household characteristics Households used a variety of sources to obtain drinking water including: piped water, public taps/standpipes, boreholes, wells, rainwater, rivers/streams and the ocean. As illustrated in Figure 3.3 below, these sources varied considerably across the districts, with no two districts showing marked similarities with each other. For example in Iringa, 55% of those surveyed obtained water from more sophisticated sources, for example, through piped water pumped into their compound/dwelling or a nearby public tap/standpipe. In contrast, in Musoma, less than 1% of people obtained water from these sources, with the majority (76%) obtaining water from unprotected wells, rainwater or surface water sources.

Figure 3.3: Main source of drinking water for households, across districts (Base = 970)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Other

Lake water

Surface water (river,dam, stream)Rainwater

Unprotected well

Protected well

Tube well or borehole

Public tap/standpipe

Piped into compound

Piped into dwelling

21


For over 40% of the households, it took 30 minutes or longer (roundtrip) to obtain water. This varied by district, with Kiteto having the longest average time (102 minutes) and Iringa having the shortest average time (24 minutes).

Households used a variety of materials to construct their houses reflecting local access to these types of materials. Figure 3.4 below provides an overview of the types of materials used to build the house walls per district. In all districts, more than 85% of people built their house walls from either stones, bricks and cement or clay and mud.

In Sumbawanga, the overwhelming majority of those surveyed (89%) constructed their house walls using stones, bricks and cement. In Iringa, the proportion using stones, bricks and cement was around 53%. However, in Rufiji district, less than 10% of people used these materials, with the overwhelming majority using clay/mud as their building material. This is probably due to the fact that residents in Rufiji live on a river delta where clay/mud are easy to obtain and therefore the most cost effective material.

Figure 3.4: Main material for the wall of houses, by district (Base = 954)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Iringa

Kiteto

Musoma

Rufiji

Sumbawanga

Stones /bricks /cement Clay /mud Wood Burnt bricks Grass Mud blocks Other

Figure 3.5: Main material for the floor of houses, by district (Base = 980)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Iringa

Kiteto

Musoma

Rufiji

Sumbawanga

Natural floor (earth/sand/dung) Wooden planks Cement

Figure 3.5 above shows the main types of materials used to build the floors of dwellings per district. In four out of the five districts, approximately 70% or more of those surveyed used

22


basic natural floor coverings (earth, sand or dung), with the remainder generally using cement. In Iringa district, the figure was lower with around 50% of people using natural floor coverings with the remaining people using cement.

96% of households used firewood/straw as the main source of fuel for cooking. This response did not vary notably across districts.

93% of households owned the land and household structure in which the household lived. Ownership did not vary considerably by district. However, the amount of land owned did vary, with households in Musoma on average owning the most land, and households in Iringa owning the least. Distribution of land ownership by district is shown in Figure 3.6 below.

Figure 3.6: Distribution of land ownership, by district (Base = 907)

33%

3%17%

22%

17%

23%

13%

27%

18%

33%

53%42%

35%46%

32%25%

27%21%

6%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Up to 0.25 acre 0.26 to 0.50 acre 0.51 to 1 acre More than 1 acre

3.5 Household health Every year, unsafe water coupled with the lack of basic sanitation, kills at least 1.6 million children under the age of five13. The implications associated with poor sanitation are numerous. In terms of health, there is a high risk of sickness and disease. Diarrhea, cholera, schistosomiasis, trachoma, hook worms, and intestinal worms can largely be prevented through basic sanitation products and practices14.

Respondents were asked if any (and how many) children had experienced an acute respiratory infection (ARI) or diarrhea during the last two week period. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 below show the distribution of responses.

In total 37% of all households surveyed reported that at least one child had had diarrhea and 67% reported that at least one child had experienced an ARI. Of those households that reported incidences of these diseases, 74% reported that only one child had experienced an incidence of diarrhea while 26% reported that more than one child had diarrhea. Of the households that reported incidences of an ARI, 65% reported that only one child had experienced an ARI and 35% reported that more than one child had become sick.

13 Joint Monitoring Program for Water and Sanitation, WHO/UNICEF, 2006 14 Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, WHO/UNICEF, 2000.

23


Figure 3.7: Number of children with diarrhea in household reporting incidence of this disease (Base = 359)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Dis

trib

utio

n of

num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n fo

r tho

se

hous

ehol

ds th

at re

port

ed in

cide

nce

of d

iarr

hea

1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children

Figure 3.8: Percentage of households with children having ARI in the last two weeks (Base = 648)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Dis

trib

utio

n of

num

ber o

f chi

ldre

n fo

r tho

se

hous

ehol

ds th

at re

port

ed in

cide

nce

of A

RI

1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children More than 5 children

3.6 Current household sanitation practices 3.6.1 Existing household facilities (data provided by respondents)

When asked where members of the household currently relieved themselves15, the majority of households (79%) stated that they used ‘a latrine for this household only’. 10% stated that they defecated in the open and 10% stated that they shared a latrine with other households or used their neighbors latrine.

Households that had access to a latrine used a variety of above ground and below ground structures. The distribution of these did not vary extensively by district and is shown below

24


15 Respondents were asked to consider the most regular place currently used

in Table 3.1 below. The majority (70%) used an unimproved sanitation option, i.e. a traditional pit latrine with no slab. Only 2% of respondents reported that they used a fully lined pit with a slab.

Table 3.1: Types of latrines, above and below ground structures (Base = 868)

Unlined pit Partially lined pit

Fully lined pit Blank

WC 1% 0% 2% 0% Traditional Pit (no slab) 70% 7% 7% 8% Traditional Pit (with slab) 2% 1% 2% 0%

Respondents that used a latrine were asked if they shared this facility with other households. 25% of respondents said yes with the average number of households they shared a latrine with being 2.6.

The average number of people sharing was 14.5. It should be noted that there was a very wide variation in responses ranging from a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 100.

83% of households stated that they did not have access to hand washing facilities at the latrine they used.

The majority of respondents (57%) thought that the most important reason for having a latrine was for good health and to avoid disease. The distribution of these responses is shown in Figure 3.9 below:

Figure 3.9: Single most important reason for having a latrine (Base = 994)

57%

23%

11%

4%2% 2% 1%

For good health/avoid diseaseAvoid contaminating the environmentEvery household must have a latrinePrivacyAvoid embarrassmentEasy to keep cleanAvoid sharing with others

58% of all respondents were not satisfied or very unsatisfied with their current place of defecation. Satisfaction ranged across districts, with households in Iringa being the most satisfied (56% satisfied or very satisfied) and Rufiji being the least satisfied (84% not satisfied or very unsatisfied). This is illustrated in Figure 3.10 below. Responses from those surveyed suggests that dissatisfaction expressed may be due to the fact that Rufiji is a low lying delta with sandy soils and is prone to flooding, which causes latrines to collapse more frequently.

25


Figure 3.10: Satisfaction of current place of defecation, by district (Base = 977)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Not satisfied Very unsatisfied

Respondents liked and disliked a number of things about their current place of defecation. Respondents were asked for up to 3 responses. The distribution of these responses is show in Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12 below.

As Figure 3.11 below shows aspects which respondents most liked about their current place of defecation. 20% of responses indicated that there was nothing that they liked about their current place of defecation. 14% of responses revolved around cleanliness and 14% of responses indicated that they liked their current place of defecation because the facilities were not shared.

Figure 3.11: Aspects respondents most favored about current place of defecation (Base = 1,873)

26


6%

7%

7%

9%

10%14%

14%

20%

2%

4%

4%3%

Nothing

It is clean

Not shared

Affordable

Provides shelter (roof)

Easy to clean

Safe for the children

Affords privacy (full door and walls)

Minimal bad odour

Long-lasting/durable

Good condition (no damage)

Good/unbroken floor

Figure 3.12: Aspects respondents liked least about their current place of defecation (Base = 2,179)

5%

7%

8%

9%

11%

13%

14%

16%

2%2%2%3%3%

5%No doorUnsafeNo roofUncleanBad odoursTemporaryShare with othersLike everything/nothingPoor conditionNot cementedNo access to waterFullUnstable or no superstructure (walls, roof)Passport style

Figure 3.12 above shows that lack of privacy, safety and shelter were highlighted as the aspects respondents liked least about the current place of defecation.

Only 20% of respondents stated that there was a period when their latrine was not usable. Of these, 57% stated that the latrine was unusable because it had collapsed and 27% stated it was unusable because it was full. When their own latrine was not available, the majority of respondents (63%) used a neighbor’s latrine and 30% defecated in the open. When asked how they felt about their latrine being out of use, a large proportion of respondents (42%) stated that they felt ashamed, followed by 27% who stated that they felt inconvenienced as they could not use the latrine at their leisure.

A high percentage (64%) of respondents cleaned their latrine every day. However the majority (79%) stated that they cleaned the latrine using a local brush16, with a small proportion (0.6%) stating that they used Harpic/disinfectant soap17.

3.6.2 Existing household facilities (observations from interviewers) After conducting the interview, respondents were asked to show the interviewer their latrine. Interviewers recorded aspects including special features, status, fullness and structure of the latrine.

The majority of superstructures had complete walls (72%) and a roof (61%). Only 23% of latrines visited had full doors. Grass was the most common material used for the roof (in 16 NB: From observations in the field many households use only water to clean their latrines. In some cases soapy water, left over from doing the laundry, may be used to clean the toilet. Cleaning the toilet using water from the laundry may occur infrequently as washing is usually done at water sources e.g. wells, rivers etc. It should also be noted that only more affluent families can afford to buy cleaning agents.

27


17 Note that this question allowed for one response only.

43% of cases) and bricks were the most common material used for the walls (in 65% of cases). In 98% of the households visited, there was room for a new permanent latrine to be constructed in the compound.

The state of the latrine varied by district, but across all districts approximately 40% of latrines had visible feces on the floor and only 5% had soap nearby. The distribution of the condition of latrines visited is shown in Figure 3.13 and 3.14 below:

Figure 3.13: Condition of latrines visited, as recorded by the interviewer (Base = 502)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1Visible faeces on floor Visible cleansing materials on floor Latrine coverBrush/rag Water in or close to the latrine Soap in or close to the latrine

Figure 3.14: Fullness of pit (distance from feces to the top of pit) (Base = 765)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1Totally full Within 0.25m Within 1m Solid waste visible in pit Cannot see down

Figure 3.14 above shows around 13% of pits viewed were either very full (within 0.25 meters) or totally full.

28


3.6.3 Variety of sanitation products available Respondents surveyed had tried a variety of latrines: water closet (54%); pit latrines without slabs (44%); ceramic sink/bowl latrine/pour flush (21%); pit latrine with slab (19%); VIP (9%); Ecosan latrine (2%); and drum/tyre latrine (1%).

Of those that had tried other latrines, 58% of respondents surveyed preferred a WC latrine and 20% preferred a pour flush. For the most common responses, the distribution for respondents’ favorite latrine and reasons for that preference is shown in Table 3.2 below. Numbers over 20 are bolded.

Table 3.2: Comparison of respondents’ favorite latrine and reasons for that preference (Base = 564)

Modern/ Good style

Easy to Clean AffordableEasy to

Construct No Smell Children can Use Durable Don't See

Feces

WC 97 144 9 2 29 5 32 16 Pit latrine (no slab) 0 2 7 18 0 2 3 2

Pit latrine (with slab) 5 15 10 0 8 6 15 2

VIP latrine 2 2 2 0 22 0 2 0 Pour flush 25 48 2 0 13 3 7 7

Table 3.2 shows that the most popular latrine type was the WC because it is easy to clean and modern. For those that chose the pit latrine (no slab) as their favorite, they did so because it was easy to construct and affordable.

When asked what the factors were which make for a good latrine, a significant proportion of total responses suggested a full superstructure (18%) and a roof (15%). Figure 3.15 below provides an overview of all responses.

Figure 3.15: Most common responses for which factors make a good latrine (Base = 2,831)

Q39 What makes a good latrine?

5%

18%

15%

14%

9%

9%

8%

7%

5%

1%2%2%2%3%

Full superstructure

Roof

Clean

Disinfectants & water available for cleaning

Full door

Tiled floor and/or wall

Unbreakable floor

Permanent

No odours

Easy to clean

Lined pit

Not shared

Ceramic pan

Not full

29


3.7 Improved household sanitation 3.7.1 Households who own/share a latrine

86% of households surveyed, who had their own or a shared latrine, had not made any improvements to their latrine/place of defecation during the last six months. For those who had made improvements, the most common improvement made was to build a new pit.

The majority of respondents (54%) who had a latrine had current plans to replace or improve their existing latrine, with 57% planning to do so in the next year. As Figure 3.16 below shows, respondents wanted to make improvements in order to modernize (35%) and because the existing latrine was not safe (23%). Figure 3.16: Most common reasons for improving an existing latrine (Base = 432)

35%

23%

20%

8%

6%

4%2% 2%To modernise

Latrine not safe

Poor condition of the latrine

Make easier to clean

Other

It is full (or will be soon)

To have our own

To improve privacy

Households were also asked about the type of improvement they would like to make. The most common response for the improvement that respondents would like to make was to build a new pit (23%). This was followed by installing a permanent superstructure (18%). The perceived single greatest benefit from this improvement depended on the specific improvement made, but the most common benefit stated was to have a more durable latrine (27%) followed by improved health (27%) and to have a modernized latrine (16%).

Households surveyed provided a range of estimates for the cost of making improvements, with 51% of respondents estimating that these improvements would cost 100,000 TSh or less. The majority (69%) stated that they would save in order to make the improvements. 67% suggested that they would need to save for a period of over 3 months.

For those who did not plan to improve their latrine, a majority (64%) of the total survey respondents cited financial constraints as the main impediment to making improvements.

3.7.2 Households planning to build a latrine Latrine coverage across all five districts was high. In total only 9% of respondents did not share or own a latrine. Of those surveyed who did not have a latrine, 69% had plans to build one.

Figure 3.17 below provides an overview of the types of latrines respondents intended to build for both the above and below ground structures. The majority of respondents intended to build a traditional pit latrine with no slab (75%) and an unlined pit (49%).

30


Figure 3.17: Types of latrines respondents intended to build (Base = 61)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Above ground

WC

VentilatedImproved Pit(VIP) latrine

Pit latrinewith slab

Traditionalpit latrine -no slab

Below ground

Drum/ tyrelatrine

Septic tank

Don't know

Partially linedpit

Fully lined pit

No response

Unlined pit

The most common reason for purchasing a pit latrine with no slab and an unlined pit was due to ease of construction (59%) and cost considerations (56%). 56% of those surveyed suggested that the main benefit of building a new latrine was privacy. This was followed by increased safety (18%) and neighborly respect (11%).

Respondents’ perceptions of how much it would cost to build a latrine were in line with actual costs collected from suppliers during the product range assessment. Of those that were planning to build a pit latrine without a slab, 52% thought that it would cost less than 50,000 TSh. The distribution of expected costs for those planning on building a traditional pit latrine is illustrated in Figure 3.18 below.

Figure 3.18: Expected costs for building a traditional pit latrine, without slab (Base = 46)

31


52%

18%

10%

10%

6%5%

Under TSh 50,000

TSh 51,000 - 100,000

TSh 101,000 - 150,000

TSh 151,000 - 300,000

Over 300,000

Don't Know

The majority of respondents (73%) stated that they would save money to pay for improvements. Most (55%) suggested that they would have to wait for over 3 months to be able to save enough money in order to build a latrine. Anecdotal evidence from the supply-side survey indicates that the initial saving may be to pay for a down payment to allow work to begin, with the balance of the costs payable in installments over a longer period of time.

3.7.3 Resources available for improving and building household latrines 85% knew of a supplier (mason, builder, fundi) who could provide help with improvements or building a latrine. The median distance (in minutes) between the customer and supplier was 30 minutes for Iringa, Kiteto and Musoma, 60 minutes for Rufiji and 15 minutes for Sumbawanga.

A range of constraints to building latrines were highlighted by respondents. The most common response dealt with the cost of latrines (40%) followed by difficulties in accessing materials (25%). No considerable differences were recorded between districts.

Table 3.3 below provides an overview of constraints to carrying out improvements or building a latrine that were identified by respondents according to their socio-economic status (quintiles). It is noticeable that the ‘high cost of latrines’ was cited as a constraint by similar percentages of respondents across all quintiles. A possible explanation for this is the relatively narrow spread of income/wealth between the lowest and highest quintile. With regard to access to credit, as would be expected, the lowest quintile experienced greater difficulties, with 43% identifying this as a main constraint, and only 26% of the highest quintile identifying this as a main constraint.

Table 3.3: Main constraints to building a latrine/carrying out improvements by socio economic status

Main constraint to building a latrine

Lowest quintile %

Low quintile %

Middle quintile %

High quintile %

Highest quintile %

High cost of latrines 42 47 57 47 57

Lack of ability to save or 43 36 30 31 26

32


33


access credit

3.8 Household perceptions on sanitation Households were asked to respond to around forty statements, categorized into behavioral drivers for improving sanitation practices. The behavioral driver categories are listed below:

Social norms (i.e. perceptions on open defecation);

Social support and influence (i.e. support available to build a latrine);

Self confidence and skills (i.e. ability/skills available to build a latrine);

Attitudes and beliefs (i.e. the link between hygiene and health);

Emotional drivers (i.e. shame, health);

Threat (e.g. disease)

Locus of control (e.g. over health issues);

Self-esteem and pride;

Competing priorities (preferences for other goods e.g. livestock, mobile telephone etc).

Respondents scored each statement using ratings (from 0-4) so that responses that indicated a positive sanitation behavior (e.g. disapproval of open defecation) received a higher score and responses indicating a negative sanitation behavior (e.g. not taking care of the latrine) received a lower score18. Thus, a higher score was classed as indicative of perceptions and behavior that were likely to influence and contribute to improved sanitation practices.

3.8.1 Perceptions by socio-economic status As shown in Table 3.4 below, it appears that in some aspects (e.g. social norms, social support and influence, attitudes and beliefs, emotional drivers) socio-economic status (SES) had a limited impact on the behavioral drivers for improving sanitation practices. In other words, the perceptions of respondents who were ‘better off’ did not differ significantly from the poorest group. A possible explanation for this is the relatively low overall spread of wealth/income between the lowest and highest SES quintiles, due to the generally low levels of wealth/income inequality prevalent across much of rural Tanzania.

Table 3.4: Average respondent scores to questions concerning behavioral determinants of sanitation behavior, by socio-economic status quintile

SES Quintile Behavioral Determinant

Lowest 20%

Middle 20%

Highest 20%

Standard Deviation

Notes

Social norms 2.6 2.7 2.6 0.6 Mixed responses

Social support and influence

1.8 1.8 1.8 0.5 Low scoring

18 Certain questions that were framed to elicit a response to a negative behaviour were reverse coded, so that

agreement with the negative behaviour received a low score, and disagreement received a high score.

34


Attitudes and beliefs 3.6 3.6 3.7 0.4 High scoring

Emotional drivers 3.3 3.3 3.4 0.5 Moderately high scoring

Threat 3.3 3.4 3.5 0.5 Moderately high scoring

Locus of control 3.2 3.3 3.4 0.5 Moderately high scoring

Self-esteem and pride

3.3 3.5 3.5 0.6 Moderately high scoring

Competing priorities 2.8 2.9 2.9 0.8 Mixed responses

Table 3.5 below shows competing priorities to purchase or upgrade a latrine by socio-economic status. As the data shows, the effect of socio-economic status on preferences is marginal, with the exception of mobile phones, where those who are ‘better off’ agreeing that people in the community would rate buying a mobile as a higher priority compared with those of lower economic means.

Table 3.5: Competing priorities for the purchase or upgrade of latrine by socio-economic status SES Quintile Question Response Lowest

20% Middle

20% Highest

20% Strongly disagree or disagree

51 47 45 In this community people would rather buy a mobile than a latrine.

Strongly agree or agree

45 52 54

Strongly disagree or disagree

54 55 55 School fees are more important than improving a latrine.


45 44 45


69 66 72 A household needs a bicycle more than a latrine.


31 33 28


57 56 57 In this community people would rather buy animals than a build a latrine.


43 43 43

It should be noted however that respondents who were ‘better off’ did seem to have a better understanding of the link between improving latrines and general hygiene and improving

35


health. For example this group scored more highly in the areas of ‘threats’ and ‘locus of control’. Pride was also a more significant driver for this group.

In terms of the absolute scores by individual behavioral determinant category, the category ‘social norms’ (which posed statements regarding perceptions of open defecation) seemed to produce a score that indicated either weak agreement or disagreement with the question posed. This is in contrast to the other behavioral determinants where a stronger positive or negative score was observed. This may be because in some communities (e.g. among pastoralists) open defecation is widely practiced.

Questions related to ‘social support and influence’ produced low scores, pointing to perception of generally weak community capacity/cohesion with specific regard to improving sanitation practices.

With regard to ‘attitudes and beliefs’, these responses saw the highest overall scores and the lowest level of standard deviation of response of all the categories of behavioral determinant, reflecting a consensus toward attitudes and beliefs compatible with positive sanitation practices.

The categories of ‘emotional drivers’, ‘threat’, ‘locus of control’, ‘self-esteem and pride’ all produced moderately high scores and relatively similar levels of standard deviation of responses, again reflecting factors contributing to positive sanitation practice.

3.8.2 Perceptions across districts Table 3.6 below describes the variation in responses to the behavioral determinant statements analyzed by district.

Table 3.6: Average respondent scores to questions concerning behavioral determinants of sanitation behavior, by district

Behavioral Determinant

Iringa S’wanga Rufiji Musoma Kiteto Standard Deviation

Notes

Social norms 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.2 0.6 Higher in Iringa and Sumbawanga

Social support and influence

1.8 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.6 0.5 Low scores in all 5 districts

Attitudes and beliefs

3.9 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.7 0.4 Higher in Iringa

Emotional drivers

3.6 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 0.5 Higher in Iringa

Threat 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 0.5 Higher in Iringa Locus of control 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.2 0.5 Higher in Iringa Self-esteem and pride

3.8 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 0.6 Higher in Iringa

Competing priorities

3.3 3.1 2.6 2.1 2.3 0.8 Higher in Iringa and Sumbawanga.

A noticeable feature of the data presented is the extent to which the respondents in the districts of Iringa and Sumbawanga tended to exhibit different and generally higher scores than the three remaining districts of Rufiji, Musoma and Kiteto. The effect is somewhat

stronger for Iringa than Sumbawanga, and most noticeable in the categories of ‘attitude and beliefs’, ‘self-esteem and pride’, ‘competing priorities’, and ‘social norms’. The effect of Iringa and Sumbawanga tending to group more closely in terms of responses has been observed a number of times in this survey and may possibly reflect shared geographic characteristics, i.e. both highland areas, relatively wetter, more fertile (and therefore relatively wealthier) than the other three districts.

Examining the determinant ‘social norms’, the districts of Iringa and Sumbawanga were less likely to regard open defecation as a normal behavior than the three remaining districts, especially Kiteto. To illuminate further the influential impact of geographical effects, we have examined a single question concerning public defecation that was posed within the ‘social norms’ section of the survey in more detail and present this data in Figure 3.19 below

Figure 3.19: Responses to “it is normal for people to defecate in the open in this community” (Base = 983)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Don't know

36


Figure 3.19 shows that Sumbawanga, Iringa and Musoma, over 50% of respondents felt that open defecation was not normal. However, in Kiteto and Rufiji the majority of respondents stated open defecation was normal. In Kiteto this may be due to the fact that many respondents were pastoralists who may find it more convenient to defecate away from their homes, and who are more likely to accept defecating in the open as a normal practice. In

37


Rufiji (where local conditions make latrines prone to collapsing) some people may prefer to defecate outside, rather than using a non functioning latrine.

Regarding the behavioral determinant of ‘social support and influence’, Kiteto and Musoma respondents scored the lowest (1.6 and 1.7 respectively), with the greater influence of a semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle possibly a factor in their responses. Although, as has already been noted, responses to this question overall, demonstrate a generally weak community capacity/cohesion with specific regard to support for sanitation matters across all districts.

With regard to ‘attitude and beliefs’ all districts scored highly, with Iringa scoring highest (3.9) and the lowest scoring district scoring a high (3.5). The result is interesting in that it highlights that across all districts there is a widespread perception that ‘open defecation’ and other sub-optimal sanitation practices are undesirable and unsafe, and that this is even the case in districts such as Kiteto and Rufiji where unsafe practices are often accepted as ‘normal’.

With regard to ‘emotional drivers’ and ‘threat’, Iringa district scored the highest (3.6 and 3.7 respectively). Examining the driver ‘locus of control’, Iringa district also scored significantly higher (3.8) than the other four districts.

With regard to ‘competing priorities’, Iringa (3.3) and Sumbawanga (3.1) districts gave significantly higher scores than the other districts, Rufiji (2.6), Kiteto (2.3) Musoma (2.1). In short, in Iringa and Sumbawanga respondents tended to prioritize sanitation above other competing priorities, whereas in the remaining districts other priorities were perceived to be of higher importance e.g. school fees or mobile telephones.

The reasons for this are likely to be complex, but may be explained by the differential value that different communities place on improved sanitation. However, it is also important to consider the varying levels of utility that can be derived from the alternative competing priorities in different districts as a potentially influential factor. For example, a mobile phone or a bicycle may be significantly more useful and life-enhancing investments in districts that are less densely populated and have relatively poorer public transport.

Whilst social support for building latrines was limited, those surveyed had the skills and confidence to build a latrine. Over half (54%) agreed or strongly agreed that people within the family knew how to build a latrine. However as Figure 3.20 below shows, knowledge about building an improved latrine is limited, with only around 34% of those surveyed agreeing or strongly agreeing that a member of their household knew how to build an improved latrine.

Figure 3.20: Percentage strongly agreeing or agreeing to questions on latrine building skills (Base = 978)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Build a latrine

Build a pit, but not a slab

Build an improved latrine

Improve a latrine to have a safeslab

Percent agreeing or strongly agreeing

3.9 Community sanitation practices Respondents were also asked about their perceptions on community sanitation. Only 4% of respondents felt that the general sanitation situation in their village was very good or excellent. The most common response for the major sanitation problems facing the community/village were lack of clean water (62%), poverty (55%), diseases and poor health (40%). The distribution for the single greatest problem relating to household sanitation per district is shown in Figure 3.21 below. The single greatest problem cited by four out of five districts was poor latrines or lack of clean water. In Rufiji district, respondents stated that the single greatest problem was collapsing latrines (31%) followed by poor latrines (22%). This reflects Rufiji’s particular geology and topography, being a river delta with sandy soils.

38


Figure 3.21: Distribution of single greatest problem relating to household sanitation, by district (978)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Open defecation

Lack of cleaningmaterialsLack of emptyingservicesPoverty

Don't know

Lack of (enough)latrinesPoor security in latrines

Full latrine

Flooding latrines

Collapsing latrines

Lack of clean water

Poor latrines

3.10 Access to information/media exposure

Respondents indicated that they had access to a variety of information sources. 82% of respondents indicated that they would hear about services for latrine construction and improvements through the street government, followed by the radio (38%) and the ward leader (32%). The street government was also the source that was most trusted (46%) followed by health committee members (16%). 10% of respondents indicated that the radio was the most trusted source of information.

Respondents were also asked about their general media exposure. Figure 3.22 below illustrates the percentage of respondents who listened to the radio, watched TV and read the newspaper and how frequently they did so.

As the data shows, radio was by far the most accessed media form, with over 80% of people indicating that they listened to the radio, and 75% indicating that they listened every day. Only around 10% of people indicated that they accessed television or newspapers and of those the majority (80%) accessed newspapers once a week. Of those that watched television, 52% accessed television once a week.

39


Figure 3.22: Media exposure to radio, TV and newspaper (Base = 974)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Radio TV Newspaper

Freq

uenc

y of

exp

osur

e

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Perc

ent w

ho w

atch

/list

en/r

ead

Once a week 2-3 days a week 4-5 days a week Every day Percent who watch/listen/read As Figure 3.23 shows, in all districts except Iringa, TBC (Radio Tanzania) was the most common radio station respondents listened to. In Iringa, the most popular radio station was Ebony FM, a local radio station serving the Iringa district.

Figure 3.23: Radio stations listened to, by district (Base = 784)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


TBC (Radio Tanzania) Radio Free Africa (RFA) Radio Maria Ebony FM Radio Injili IMANI Radio Victoria

40


41


4 Analysis and results (Supply-side)

4.1 Introduction This section provides detailed analysis and results for the supply-side survey, which includes a sanitation market assessment and a product range assessment. For the sanitation market assessment, a total of 161 sanitation service providers were interviewed, with an average of 32 suppliers per district. 85 stores were visited to complete 43 product range assessments, representing approximately 8 assessments per district.

The rural supply market is characterized by a lack of demand for sanitation products and services. As the data indicates, this is due to a number of factors including: a lack of consumer awareness of the range of products available; the inaccessibility of materials; and the cost of building/improving facilities relative to household income.

Sanitation suppliers interviewed were part-time, informal, small-scale providers. The supply of sanitation services was not their primary source of business and was supplementary to other economic activities, such as, farming or construction. They faced a number of challenges in developing their business including the lack of access to: finance, training in improved sanitation practices, and materials.

This section provides detailed findings from the supply-side research.

4.2 Business characteristics 4.2.1 Profile of the service provider

Almost all respondents (98%) stated that they were “fundi binafsi”, which translates into English as ‘independent construction workers’19. 78% of respondents stated that they owned their sanitation businesses. However, it should be noted that many of these businesses (95%), were classified as informal and not officially registered. Although these businesses were classified as informal, respondents reported that they employed staff. The average number of employees was four with the minimum being zero and the maximum 3020.

The majority of respondents (52%) indicated that they saved money to start up their business. 21% of respondents cited that they used their earnings from work and 17% had received a loan from family/friends.

Respondents provided a range of reasons for getting involved in supplying sanitation services. Figure 4.1 below shows the percentage of responses across motivational factors. A significant proportion of respondents (40%) cited that they were motivated because it was an available business opportunity21. Anecdotal evidence suggests that does not mean there was a wealth of opportunity, but rather when the need arose, respondents acted to fill it. No respondents cited consumer demand as a motivation for providing water and sanitation products and services. This correlates with anecdotal evidence gathered from the field which suggests that demand for sanitation products and services amongst the rural communities across all five districts is low.

19 Data on the skill set of these workers was not collected as part of the research. 20 Employees may be casual workers and employed on an ad hoc basis 21 NB: Business opportunity may be defined as ‘any available construction activity’. Fundis are informally employed on different construction activities and may seek work on a day to day basis. When opportunities arise to undertake construction they take advantage of such opportunities.

Figure 4.1: Motivation for getting involved in supplying sanitation products and services (Base = 122)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Only opportunityavailable

Motivated by someone Iknow who was doing

well in the samebusiness

Experience/training inthis business

Easy and profit makingbusiness

There was a demandfor the products

Survey responses also suggest that provision of sanitation services does not generate enough business to make a living. 89% of respondents participated in other business activities to supplement their income. Figure 4.2 below shows the types of other income generating activities respondents were involved in. Of those that were involved in other business activities, the majority of those surveyed cited farming (91%), construction of houses (16%) and other structures (4%) as the key supplementary activities. Anecdotal evidence from the field suggests that most respondents considered themselves as farmers. When opportunities arose to build latrines, or construct other structures, they took advantage of such opportunities.

Figure 4.2: Types of other income generating activities (Base = 146)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Farming Construction ofhouses

Construction ofother

structures

Carpentry Animalhusbandry

Tailoring Catering Welding

4.2.2 Capacity of the service provider

Respondents had a range of experience in providing sanitation services. The average length of experience was 11 years, with the minimum number of years of experience reported as less than 1 year and the maximum 50 years.

Just over one-half (55%) of respondents reported that they had been trained to provide sanitation services. The number of respondents who received training varied slightly across districts, with almost twice as many respondents from Rufiji receiving training compared to

42


43


those in Iringa. Figure 4.3 below shows the distribution of respondents receiving training across the districts.

Figure 4.3: Respondents who received training across districts (Base = 156)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Kiteto Musoma Rufiji Sumbawanga Iringa

Received training Did not receive training

Training was provided by a range of organizations and consisted of ‘on the job’ training as well as more formal training activities. As shown in Figure 4.4 below, 36% of respondents who received training, stated that they had received it from a college or training institute. It should be noted that formal training colleges, (e.g. the Vocational Education Training Authority (VETA)) offer generic courses on building (which have a component focusing on building a latrine) rather than providing specific training on improving latrine construction for rural areas. Formal training provided therefore, may not be sufficient to equip fundis with the skills required to build improved latrines in rural areas, given the challenges faced in terms of access to materials/products.

Figure 4.4: Outlets where respondents received training (Base = 112)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Community based organisation (CBOs)

Self-trained

Parent

Faith based organisation

NGO

Government

A donor funded project training programme

Apprentice/on-the-job

College/training institute

Percent

On average, respondents who had received training were trained for 12 months, with a minimum response of one week, and a maximum response of 5 years. The length of training

44


received varied by outlet. Figure 4.5 below shows the average length of training received, in months, by training outlet.

Figure 4.5: Average length of training (in months) by training outlet (Base = 83)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Average time trained (months)College/training institute Apprentice/on-the-jobFaith based organisation NGOA donor funded project training programme Government

Respondents found the quantitative and technical areas of training to be most difficult: mathematics/measurements (32%) and reading blueprints/latrine designs (25%). The other areas of training respondents found difficult included the physical labor required (15%) and paying for training (13%).

Respondents listed a number of specific organizations where they received training. Table 4.1 below shows a sample of the organizations that provided training to more than 3 respondents.

Table 4.1: Names of organizations where respondents received training (Base = 89) Name of training organization Number of respondents

trained Location of respondents

Environmental Engineering and Pollution Control Organization (EEPCO)

8 Kiteto, Rufiji

Vocational Education and Training Authority (VETA)

6 Musoma, Iringa

Karina Artisan Training Institute 6 Musoma Chang’ombe Technical College 4 Musoma, Rufiji, Kiteto

The majority of respondents surveyed (79%) did not have access to training on new sanitation products and technologies. However, they did not perceive this as a major constraint. The major constraints that were identified were as follows: lack of capital (27%), lack of materials (24%), lack of customers and/or demand (20%).

It should be noted that many respondents also indicated that they were unable to construct some of the improved latrine types. Only 60% indicated they could construct a pit latrine with slab, 52% indicated they could construct flush/pour flush systems, and 2% could construct mound latrines (see Figure 4.6 below). This indicates that there may be a need to raise awareness of improved sanitation products and technologies, which are appropriate to the local conditions (e.g. soil type, climate and demand) in each district, as well as provide the necessary training.

45


Figure 4.6: Types of latrines respondents can construct (Base = 161)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Pit Latrine without Slab / Open Pit

Pit Latrine with Slab

Flush / Pour Flush: to Pit Latrine

Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (VIP)

Flush / Pour Flush: to Septic Tank

Flush / Pour Flush: to Piped Sewer System

Flush / Pour Flush: to Elsewhere

Flush / Pour Flush: to Don’t Know Where

Mound Latrine

Composting Toilet

4.3 Customers 4.3.1 Main customer base

Respondents built latrines and provided sanitation services to a range of customers, the majority of which were households (52%), followed by government institutions (21%) and private businesses (e.g. restaurants) (18%). These ratios did not vary significantly across districts. Overall, the majority of respondents (57%) did not provide services to vulnerable groups.

Latrines were built for a variety of reasons including for people that had no latrine at all (63%), for people with collapsed latrines (16%) and people with full latrines (9%). The distribution of these reasons varied by districts as illustrated in Figure 4.7 below.

Figure 4.7: Reasons why latrines are built across districts (Base = 160)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Kiteto

Musoma

Rufiji

Sumbawanga

Iringa

For people that had nolatrine at allFor people withcollapsed latrinesFor people with fulllatrinesNewcomers to the village

Vulnerable groups(supported by NGOs)For people that want toimprove their latrineInstitutions, restaurants,etc.All of them

People that are doingfarming activities

The majority of respondents indicated that customers heard about their services by word-of-mouth (91%), followed by their 10 cell leader (25%) and ward leader (19%). 18% of respondents indicated that customers heard about their services through work previously completed.

46


Figure 4.8 below shows the means by which customers learnt about the different types of latrines available. 23% of suppliers indicated that their customers had no knowledge about the different types of latrines. In total around 47% of responses indicated that customers had heard about different types of latrines through verbal interactions or through community institutions and a further 30% had learned through being shown a physical example, picture or diagram of an improved latrine. This suggests that targeting community institutions and informal networks may be an effective way of disseminating information on improved sanitation practices.

Figure 4.8: Means by which customers learnt about available latrine types (Base = 244)

14%

16%

17% 23%

30%

Verbal descriptions oflatrine types

They do not know typesavailable

Leant from communityinstitution e.g. school,church, mosque

Learnt through physicalexample

Learnt through picturesor diagrams

Respondents were asked about fluctuations in demand for latrines around harvest time and across seasons. 61% of respondents indicated increased demand around harvest time, 58% around the dry season and 35% around the wet season. Some respondents indicated increases in demand in both the wet and dry seasons. These findings may be explained by a range of factors including: customers having increased income around harvest time, some of which may be allocated towards building new latrines; customers facing challenges due to latrines collapsing in the wet season; and routine maintenance being undertaken in the dry season before the rains begin.

Figure 4.9 below provides the distribution of respondents who experience seasonal demand increases for latrine construction across districts.

Figure 4.9: Seasonal increased demand for latrines by district (Base = 160)

47


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Harvest time Seasonal changes (dry season) Seasonal changes (rainy season)

Table 4.2 below gives a brief profile of each district covered by the survey, and how economic and location factors may contribute to changes in seasonal demand.

Table 4.2: District characteristics and how they relate to latrine demand District Geological

features Major source of income

Other issues Highest demand and explanation

Iringa Mountainous area, variable rainfall across district

Agriculture Pronounced dry season Dry season – possibly due to this being an optimum time for construction activities

Rufiji Coastal plains, low lying river delta/flood plains. Sandy and sandy/clay soils

Agriculture (rice cultivation), fishing

Lack of available water in some areas. Latrines prone to collapse during rainy season due to soil type

Dry season – possibly due to this being an optimum time for construction activities

S’wanga Plains and plateau, steep hills and valleys. Sandstone, areas of granite

Agriculture, fishing, livestock

Remote location Harvest time - probably due to income from sale of agricultural produce

Kiteto Medium altitude. Arid/ semi arid

Livestock and agriculture

Pronounced dry season. Mainly well drained (some depressions of poor drainage)

Harvest time - probably due to income from sale of agricultural produce

Musoma Medium altitude. Plains developed partly on granite, colluvium and alluvium

Livestock, agriculture, some fishing

Considerable seasonal water logging

Rainy season - possibly due to availability of water required for construction, e.g. making bricks.

On average, respondents had constructed latrines in 3 villages, with a minimum response of 0 and a maximum response of 23. Respondents were also asked whether they had built latrines in the villages (in the corresponding district) where the demand survey was taking place in. 59% of respondents indicated that they had built latrines in these villages.

Respondents used a variety of means of transportation to reach their customers. Table 4.3 below shows the average, minimum and maximum of the longest/furthest time traveled to

48


build a latrine and the different types of transportation used. Most respondents traveled on foot, which limits the amount of materials which can be carried or collected.

Table 4.3: Statistics on the furthest/longest time traveled to build a latrine (Base = 101) Method of transportation

Number of responses

Average time in minutes

Minimum time in minutes

Maximum time in minutes

On foot 67 51 10 360 On bicycle 12 110 45 300 In vehicle 22 208 15 1,440

4.3.2 Customer preference Customers purchased latrines for a number of reasons. Figure 4.10 below shows the distribution of common reasons why customers purchased an improved latrine, from the point of view of the service providers. Responses gathered indicate that the most common significant driver was pressure from the district health officer (16%) or because the current latrine was full (16%), followed closely by improved health (15%). Relatively few responses (6%) indicated that pressure from neighbors was reason for the purchase of a new latrine.

This contrasts with data gathered on the demand-side of the survey which shows that 57% of households stated that the most important driver to build a latrine was ‘for good heath/to avoid disease’ or to avoid contaminating the environment (23%).

The data shows that the drivers for purchasing an improved latrine are manifold and complex. Therefore in any program to scale up sanitation supply and demand it will be necessary to work in partnership with district authorities and other stakeholders, (e.g. NGOs) to pilot a range of approaches which ensure that options appropriate to the specific rural context are implemented.

Figure 4.10: Drivers for purchasing an improved latrine (Base = 392)

16%

16%

15%

14%

12%

8%

6%

5%4%

3%1%

Pressure from district health officer

Current latrine is full

Improve health

Current latrine unsafe (collapsed,etc)Recent sanitation campaigns

Impressed by a neighbour’srecently built latrinePressure from neighbours

Recent influx of money

Pressure from educated/urbanrelativesSensitisation from the ward/villageleadership (health officer)Improved income

From the view of service providers, the drivers for purchasing an improved latrine varied across districts as illustrated in Figure 4.11 below.

49


Figure 4.11: Common drivers for purchasing an improved latrine across districts (Base = 448)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Improved income

Sensitisation from the ward/villageleadership (health officer)Pressure from educated/urban relatives

Recent influx of money

Pressure from neighbours

Impressed by a neighbour’s recently builtlatrineRecent sanitation campaigns

Current latrine unsafe (collapsed, etc)

Improve health


Pressure from district health officer

Suppliers were asked about which latrine customers preferred most. The question aimed to solicit responses that did not consider price as a factor. However, the majority of responses indicated that customers preferred a “pit latrine without slab/open pit”. This question was followed by a question asking the reason why customers most preferred that type. The most common response was “because it is cheap” (40%). This response could be because of maintenance costs. Pit latrines without slabs are easily maintained and cleaned by spreading ash around the pit. Latrines with slabs require water, which may not be readily available.

This also highlights that despite attempts to ascertain preferences, independent of price, in reality, cost is an overwhelmingly significant factor and one which could not be set aside by respondents when considering their response.

Respondents were also asked the main reason why they would construct a latrine without a cement slab. The majority of respondents (77%) indicated that the cost for the customer was the largest reason for building a latrine without a cement slab. This was followed by lack of materials (18%) and the supplier not knowing how to make slabs (3%).

4.4 Product information 4.4.1 Improved sanitation products and technologies

Product information was gathered by undertaking:

A market assessment, which aimed to gather information from sanitation suppliers, i.e. fundis involved in providing sanitation services to households; and

A product range assessment, which aimed to identify a comprehensive range of sanitation products available on the market. This information was collected from interviewing suppliers and visiting local markets.

An analysis of the data gathered from the market assessment is provided in the following sections. Data gathered from the product range assessment and an inventory of products available in each district along with prices is provided in Annex O.

4.4.2 Improved sanitation products and technologies

There was limited demand from customers for improved sanitation products and technologies. The most popular latrines, which were reported to have been constructed, were

50


pour flush latrines and pit latrines without slab. Figure 4.12 below provides an overview of the median number of latrines sold in the past three months, the past year and the median price sold per latrine type22.

Figure 4.12: Quantity and price of latrines supplied (Base = 137)

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Flush / P

our Flush

to Piped Sewer S

ystem

Flush / P

our Flush

to Septic Tank

Flush / P

our Flush

to Pit Latrin

e

Flush / P

our Flush

to Elsewhere

Flush / P

our Flush

to Don’t K

now Where

Ventilated I

mproved Pit L

atrine (

VIP)

Pit Latrin

e with

Slab

Compostin

g Toilet

Pit Latrin

e withou

t slab /o

pen pit

Mound Latr

ineOthe

r

Cur

rent

med

ian

pric

e

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 Median num

ber constructed

3 months 1 year Price

4.4.2.1 Slab information When asked where respondents obtained slabs from, 25% indicated that they did not use them. 49% indicated they made slabs themselves23, 32% purchased them and 3% received them through a donor/NGO subsidy/donation program.

22 Large variations in price and anecdotal evidence from the field suggests that variations may be due to some respondents including materials and others including only labour charges.

51


23 It should be noted that this question did not specify “cement slabs”. The data indicates that some respondents that make slabs do so out of locally available materials such as tyres, wood, rails, etc.

52


56% of respondents sold cement slabs24. Of these, 88% sold a small square design (“sungura” in Kiswahili), 36% a large square design, and 14% sold a dome design. Respondents indicated that the average size of slab sold was 76 cm with a maximum of 150 cm.

Respondents were asked which cement slab type customers preferred the most and the reasons for that preference. Table 4.4 illustrates these responses and shows that the small square slab is customers preferred choice for a variety of reasons including: affordability, ease of transportation, cleaning, and use.

Table 4.4: Customer preferences and reasons for that preference25 (Base = 205)

Small square

slab

Large square

slab

Dome (round)

slab

None preferred

Don't use slabs

Easier to clean 31 8 4 0 0 Easier to use by all age groups, including children 37 12 4 0 0

Prices are affordable 36 3 2 0 0 Easy to transport (not as heavy) 22 4 1 0 0

Easy to make 0 1 0 0 0 Durable 0 4 2 0 0 None 2 0 0 20 11

4.4.3 Source and availability of improved sanitation products, technologies and materials

The majority of respondents (84%) indicated that customers supplied the materials used to build a latrine, with 14% of respondents indicating that customers supplied some products. Only 2% of suppliers indicated that they supplied all products.

The products that customers purchased when they hired a sanitation supplier to build a latrine ranged from cement to metal gauge to locally obtained materials (e.g. grasses for the roof structure). Figure 4.13 shows the most common products that customers supplied to build a latrine.

Figure 4.13: Common products that customers supply (Base = 609)

24 Data on hole covers not collected under the research. 25 Because the question asked, allowed for multiple responses, totals are given and not percentages.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1

Metal gauge

All

Nails

Timber

Water

Iron bar

Bricks

Wire mesh

Aggregate (gravel)

Sand

Cement

56% of respondents indicated that the cost of materials was the number one factor that influenced customers’ choice of building materials. Cost was followed by physical accessibility of materials (25%) and durability of materials (17%). This distribution of the factors that influenced customers’ choices, varied by district as illustrated in Figure 4.14 below.

Figure 4.14: Factors influencing customers’ latrine choice across districts (Base = 151)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Cost of materials Materials that match the house Materials that will last the longest Physical accessibility of materials

The cost of materials is a large factor that influences the customers’ choice of building materials. Anecdotal evidence from the field indicates that because of the remoteness of Sumbawanga, lack of access is a more significant factor than price.

53


4.4.4 Availability of materials used for construction As indicated above the majority of materials used to build a latrine were provided by customers. Respondents were also asked questions on the availability and costs of materials needed. The most common response for the hardest materials to find were cement (31%), wire mesh (26%) and slabs (16%). The difficulty of finding materials varied by region as illustrated in Figure 4.15 below.

Figure 4.15: Difficulties in finding materials by region (Base = 251)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Musoma Iringa Kiteto Rufiji Sumbawanga

All materials are hard to findAll materials are availableCeiling boardScissorsSlab (sungura) framesMetal gaugeNailsMasonry tools (spirit level, saw mills, etc.)Tapes/ropesTimberSinkPVC pipingRocksPipesIron barsOtherSlabsWire meshCement

Respondents indicated that the largest constraint regarding the supply of materials was fluctuating prices (50%). This was followed by inconsistent availability (24%), long distances traveled to obtain materials (14%) and transportation difficulties (10%).

The survey found that 59% of respondents used substitute materials to build latrines when first choice materials were not available. For example, if there cement blocks were not available for lining the pit, suppliers would use stones, burnt bricks or tires. If cement slabs were not available, metal drums, rails or tires would be used instead.

25% of respondents indicated that they would not build a latrine if there were unable to find the materials they needed and 15% indicated that they would build an incomplete latrine. Clearly, availability of materials and price drive the types of latrines constructed, which may or may not be the most appropriate solutions.

4.4.5 Pricing information 96% of sanitation suppliers indicated that customers could negotiate the price of a latrine. The way that customers negotiate prices varies from requesting the use of cheaper materials to offering to help with labor. Figure 4.16 shows respondents answers to the most common ways customers negotiate prices.

Figure 4.16: Most common way that customers negotiate on the price of a latrine (Base = 153)

54


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1

Request cheapestmaterials

Offer to supplycertain materials

Offer manual labour

They want to provideall materials

Discount on labourcharges

Almost all respondents (94%) indicated that the prices for all materials had increased over the past 6 months. Correspondingly, 82% of respondents increased the prices they charged. 16% of respondents indicated that all of the prices of materials had increased over the past six months, but that the prices they charged remained the same. This is most likely due to the fact that most customers supply materials and suppliers only supply labor. Table 4.5 below shows the relationship between material prices and the prices charged to customers.

Table 4.5: Relationship between material prices and prices charged to customers over the past six months (Base = 154)

Prices charged to customers Increased Remained the same Decreased

All material prices increased

78% 16% 0%

Some material prices increased

5% 1% 0%

Material prices remained the same

0% 0% 0%

According to respondents, when customers were told the price that it would cost to build a latrine, their most common reaction was to try and negotiate prices (81%), followed by telling the supplier they did not have enough money (18%), with a smaller percentage telling the supplier they had enough money but chose not to purchase a latrine (1%).

Respondents indicated that the most common method of payment from customers was cash over time (88%) followed by cash up front (10%). This corresponds to anecdotal evidence from the field which suggests that low household income is one of the major constraints to improving sanitation, as households prioritize other goods and services over improving sanitation facilities.

4.5 Construction and improvement 4.5.1 Installation

When installing a latrine (on average) sanitation providers ensured that the latrine was 22 meters away from a water source (river, well, etc.). Recommended guidelines suggest that latrines should be built at a minimum of 15 (ideally 30 meters) away from a water source to

55


ensure that ground water supplies do not become contaminated26. It should be noted that both the minimum and median values for this question were zero meters, and the maximum 400. The majority of respondents (60%) did not consider distance from a water source when building a latrine. This finding indicates that there is a need to provide training to fundis on the importance of considering distance to water sources when building latrines.

Figure 4.17 shows the percentage of respondents and the guidance they provided. Just over half, 52% gave guidance on how to empty the latrine and less than 50% gave guidance on hand washing. Again this indicates that there may be a need to develop training for fundis in relation to these areas.

Figure 4.17: Guidance provided to customers after installing a latrine (Base = 160)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1Guidance on how to clean Guidance on how to use Guidance on how to empty Ensure handwashing facilities in place

4.5.2 Maintenance/improvement 28% of respondents did not provide latrine maintenance/upgrading services to customers. 65% provided repair services, 27% upgrading services and 12% emptying services. On average, 1.5 customers contacted the respondents regarding maintenance issues with their latrine over the past month. This ranged from zero to 14 persons.

Customers improved and maintained latrines for a number of reasons. Figure 4.18 below shows the most common drivers for customers improving and maintaining their latrines (from the view of sanitation suppliers). These include: 31% citing a full or unsafe latrine as a reason for improvement; 27% citing pressure from a DHO or a recent sanitation campaign; and 16% citing health as a driver.

56


26 http://Tilz.tearfund.org

Figure 4.18: Reasons why customers improved or sought maintenance for an existing latrine (Base = 392)

16%

17%

16%14%

11%

8%

6%

4%4% 3%1%Improve health


Pressure from district healthofficerCurrent latrine unsafe(collapsed, etc)Recent sanitation campaigns

Impressed by a neighbour’slatrinePressure from neighbours

Sensitisation from wardleadership (health officer)Pressure from educated/urbanrelativesRecent influx of money

Income

The most common types of improvements purchased were building a new pit (34%) and lining pits (24%). Other common improvements were replacing a grass roof (10%) and constructing a permanent super structure (9%). Only 5% of responses indicated cement slab as a type of improvement purchased.

Respondents were also asked about fluctuation in demand for latrine improvements and maintenance around harvest time and seasonal changes. Figure 4.19 below illustrates how the districts experienced increases in demand for improvements and maintenance across the various seasons. For example, Iringa has a pronounced dry season which is the optimum time for construction activities in that district. In Rufiji, the pattern of demand was more evenly spaced throughout the year.

Figure 4.19: Increases in demand for latrine improvements and maintenance across seasons and districts (Base = 131)

57


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Harvest time Seasonal changes (dry season) Seasonal changes (rainy season)

4.6 Constraints and opportunities to develop the business 4.6.1 Constraints

98% of respondents indicated that there were other providers in the area that offered similar sanitation services. The average number of other providers reported was nine, with a minimum response of two and a maximum of 50.

Respondents faced a number of constraints when conducting their business. The most common constraint cited was lack of capital (27%), followed by lack of materials (24%) and lack of customers and/or demand (20%). Figure 4.20 illustrates the common constraints faced by sanitation suppliers:

Figure 4.20: Common constraints faced by sanitation suppliers (Base = 479)

1%1%3% 1%

7%

8%

8%

20%24%

27%

Lack of capitalLack of materialsLack of customers/demandLack of trained staffLack of transport to move goodsLack of licence or permitToo many competitorsLack of staffLack of space to expandCustomers not paying (on time)

11% of respondents had access to finance through family and friends, 8% through self-help groups and 5% through Savings and Credit Associations (SACCOs).

58


Figure 4.21: Responses on the best ways to increase customers (Base = 161)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1Educating customers on sanitation Educating customers on latrine optionsImprove the quality of the product District enforcement of bylawsLower cost of product AdvertisementsSensitisation from ward leadership (health officer) Sensitisation from village leadershipFundis working together in partnership

When asked about the best ways to stimulate demand for sanitation products and services, educating customers on sanitation (25%) and educating customers on latrine options (25%) were the two most common responses. Figure 4.21 above illustrates the percentage of respondents that cite examples on how customer demand for services could be increased.

4.6.2 Opportunities Sanitation suppliers were able to supply (build) more latrines than were demanded by customers. Table 4.6 below shows the statistics on the average number of latrines that could be built and improved by sanitation suppliers.

Table 4.6: Statistics on the number of latrines that can be built and improved in one week (Base = 161, 145) Minimum Average MaximumLatrines built 0 2 10

Latrines improved 0 4 15

As Table 4.6 shows, the average number of latrines that suppliers indicated they could build in one week was two. Suppliers responded that they were able to provide and build far more latrines than are currently demanded, with some suppliers indicating they could build up to ten new latrines per week. 69% of respondents indicated that if the number of customers doubled, they would still be able to meet demand.

Given that the majority of service providers in rural areas survive by working across a range of areas (e.g. providing sanitation services, construction and farming), greater consumer demand would perhaps offer the opportunity for providers to specialize in offering sanitation services on a full time professional basis.

Sanitation suppliers indicated that there were many areas where they needed support. Figure 4.22 below shows the areas of support that sanitation suppliers are most in need of.

Figure 4.22: Areas of support that respondents are most in need of (Base = 164)

59


1%

61%

23%

4%

4%4%

1%1%1%Training

Access to finance

IncreaseddemandAccess to trainedstaffWorking tools

Location ofbusinessTransport

BusinessadvertisementLiteracy

The majority (61%) of responses indicated that training was the area of support they were most in need of. This response contradicts responses provided throughout the survey which suggests that access to finance and materials were the main constraints to developing the business.

60


61


5 Analysis and results (Supply and Demand)

5.1 Summary of sanitation options demanded and supplied As shown from the results of the demand-side survey there is little demand for improved sanitation products or services. This is due to a variety of reasons including: low income of those living in rural areas; limited access to credit; limited awareness of improved sanitation goods and services available; difficulty accessing the materials necessary for improving sanitation; and households prioritizing other goods, (e.g. livestock, bicycles, mobile telephones) over improving sanitation.

When asked what one thing households would improve in their latrine if they had the opportunity, the most common response (45%) was a permanent superstructure. Installing a permanent superstructure is a type of service that can most likely be provided by a household member and would not necessarily require a fundi trained in latrine construction. Supplier services are really only needed for more sophisticated latrines, for cement slabs and possibly for digging and lining pits.

There was very little demand for improved sanitation products. 4% of households identified adding a ceramic bowl/basin and less than 1% identified adding a slab as a desired improvement.

This lack of demand corresponds to a lack of a supply market for these goods and services. The supply market was characterized by small-scale providers, who undertook sanitation service provision to supplement other income generating activities (e.g. farming or construction). They had poor access to credit to develop their business; experienced challenges in accessing basic materials and had limited awareness of improved sanitation products and practices.

When fundis were asked about the most common upgrade purchased by customers, the most common responses were to build a new pit (34%) and to line the pit (24%). This indicates that households make only basic improvements to their latrine to make it functional and usable rather than making more sophisticated improvements, such as installing a slab. This may be due to a lack of awareness on the part of consumers of the products available and the benefits of improved sanitation. It may also be due to limited awareness on the part of suppliers of how to build/maintain improved latrines and also challenges in accessing/purchasing improved products in the rural markets.

5.2 Price The price of products (relative to household expenditure) affected consumer demand for products and services.

Table 5.1 below provides an indication of the minimum and maximum cost of building an improved latrine using data gathered from the product range assessment.

62


Table 5.1: Estimated price of an improved latrine Item Component Min price Max pricePit lining 100 interlocking cement blocks 2,000 5,000 Pit excavation Labor 20,000 30,000 Ventilation pipe 5 meter long PVC pipe 12,500 20,000 Walls Straw or metal gauge 12,500 18,000 Roof Straw of metal gauge 12,500 18,000 Slab Cement 3,500 30,000 Total 63,000 121,000 Data gathered from the demand survey indicates that on average, total monthly expenditure for households was 95,000 TSh. It should also be noted that households had very little access to credit. Over 80% of households surveyed indicated that they would save money or sell agriculture/livestock to obtain the money to pay for a new latrine or make improvements to an existing latrine, rather than accessing credit.

As Table 5.1 shows, the approximate costs of building an improved latrine is between 63,000 TSh and 121,000 TSh, compared to an average household monthly expenditure of 95,000 TSh. An improved latrine therefore represents a purchase equivalent to between approximately 66% and 127% of monthly household expenditure.

63


6 Conclusions: Demand-side study

6.1 Summary of key findings from the demand-side assessment 6.1.1 Households surveyed were poor which impacted on their ability to afford

improvements to their sanitation facilities A high proportion of those surveyed (64%) stated that financial constraints were the main impediment to improving their latrine. 42% cited financial constraints as the main impediment to building a latrine.

6.1.2 Access to credit was limited for households Whilst many respondents (54%) suggested that they could borrow money for small household expenditures (e.g. medicine), obtaining larger sums of money proved to be more difficult. 91% of respondents indicated that they would not be able to borrow money for a more significant expenditure such as the purchase of a latrine.

6.1.3 Sanitation was not a high priority for some households In three of the five districts (Rufiji, Kiteto and Musoma) sanitation did not rate as such a high priority for households compared to other investments (e.g. mobile telephones, school fees, bicycles and livestock). In Iringa and Sumbawanga respondents tended to prioritize sanitation above other competing priorities.

Given the limited resources at their disposal, households considered that they may derive more long term benefits from consumer goods rather than sanitation. For example, animals provide a source of food, a mobile phone or a bicycle may enable the household to hold down a job, school fees may be considered a long term investment (e.g. for old age, when children obtain better jobs and are able to support their families).

In addition there was a lack of understanding or compliance with basic hygiene practices. 40% of latrines visited had visible feces on the floor and only 5% had soap nearby.

6.1.4 Latrine coverage was relatively high, however most households did not have access to improved sanitation products or facilities

When asked where members of the household currently relieved themselves27, the majority of households (79%) stated that they used ‘a latrine for this household only’. 10% stated that they defecated in the open and 10% stated that they shared a latrine with other households or used their neighbors latrine.

Access to improved sanitation was limited. 70% of those surveyed stated that they used a traditional pit latrine with no slab. Knowledge about building an improved latrine was also limited, with 66% of those surveyed agreeing or strongly agreeing that no-one in their household knew how to build an improved latrine or to improve a latrine to have a safe slab. 83% of households did not have access to hand washing facilities at the latrine they used.

6.1.5 There were a range of drivers to improving sanitation practices A range of drivers were identified which could act to improve sanitation practices in the districts surveyed.

Improved health was cited a key driver. The majority of respondents surveyed had a good understanding of the link between improving latrines, general hygiene and improving health, with 57% citing the most important reasons for having a latrine was the promotion of health and avoiding disease;

27 Respondents were asked to consider the most regular place currently used

64


Shame was also a significant driver. In total, 89% of respondents agreed that people in the community would feel ashamed if they did not have a latrine. This ranged from 98% in Iringa to 68% in Kiteto. Similarly, 90% of respondents agreed that people would think badly of someone who did not keep their latrine clean;

Lack of privacy and safety were cited as key reasons for respondents’ dissatisfaction with their current place of defecation. Privacy was also cited as the greatest benefit of making improvements to a latrine (56%).

Generally most respondents (59%) agreed that it was not normal for people to defecate in the open in their community. However these responses varied widely between districts. In Sumbawanga, Iringa and Musoma over 50% of respondents stated that open defecation was not normal. In Kiteto and Rufiji, most respondents agreed that it was.

6.1.6 There is weak sectoral co-ordination and collaboration in the water and sanitation sectors

There are numerous stakeholders operating in the water and sanitation sectors including: the Ministries of Health and Social Welfare; Water, Lands and Human Settlement; Industry; Local Government and Regional Administration; development partners and NGOs28. However, anecdotal evidence from the field and desk research29 suggests that there is weak co-ordination and sectoral collaboration in the water and sanitation sectors. Furthermore, there is limited guidance available to define how these numerous players are coordinated and how they can collaborate.

District, ward and village governments have a significant role to play in scaling up sanitation demand and supply and, in the surveyed districts, are currently undertaking a range of activities as shown in Table 6.1 below.

28 NGOs operating include: UMABU (Musoma); EPCO; Uhai Community Development Group; faith based organisations, e.g. the Pentacostal Church of Tanzania (Rufiji); Population Services International (PSI) (Sumbawanga); PSI; Marie Stopes International; Asante Sana; Iringa Primary Health Care Institute (Iringa); Water Aid and Kinnapa (Kiteto). 29 Report on the National Consultative Meeting on Sanitation, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, 2007

65


Table 6.1: Overview of activities being undertaken in districts surveyed30

District Activity Iringa Education seminars and training; choosing pilot areas for research; conducting

hygiene and sanitation competitions among villages; monitoring visits by staff from rural health centers.

Kiteto Awareness raising in the community; house to house inspections on hygiene status; enforcing district sanitation by laws; demonstration of pit latrines; training; monitoring visits from staff from rural health centers; training of health workers; competitions for rural poor; data collection; donor co-ordination.

Musoma Health education, monitoring and evaluation, inspections, providing building materials to remote villages, and construction and renovation of wells.

Rufiji Sanitation clubs in schools to provide health education; training suppliers to make slabs; building latrines in schools; introduction of hygiene promotion, e.g. hand washing; adverts in hospitals about improved latrine usage; provision of water supply in the district.

Sumbawanga Plans on latrine construction; public education campaigns on improving hygiene and water supply; preparation of action plans on water and sanitation; building latrines to demonstrate new technologies; training of latrine builders.

However, districts face a number of challenges including: lack of trained personnel; limited or no resources targeted towards water and sanitation activities; transport difficulties, which impacts monitoring and evaluation activities (e.g. in Rufiji due to the size of the district).

It should be noted that in three of the districts surveyed (Iringa, Musoma and Kiteto) no comprehensive plan had been developed for sanitation and resources have not been allocated specifically for sanitation related activities.

30 Examples cited by district staff in each of the five districts surveyed

66


7 Conclusions: Supply-side study

7.1 Summary of key findings from the supply-side assessment 7.1.1 Service providers are mainly informal suppliers and are not coordinated

Almost all respondents (98%) were small scale independent construction workers who undertook other activities (e.g. farming) as their main source of income. Most of the businesses (95%) were informal and unregistered. Anecdotal evidence from the field suggests that service providers are not coordinated and can be located through informal networks rather than through more formal means (e.g. associations).

7.1.2 Limited demand for improved sanitation products There is little demand from households for sanitation products and services, in part due to the cost of sanitation products relative to household income. None (0%) of suppliers surveyed cited consumer demand as a motivation for supplying water and sanitation services. There is also a lack of awareness of the improved options available. In order to scale up sanitation supply, a greater demand for sanitation products needs to be generated.

7.1.3 Limited sanitation services are being offered to consumers The range of sanitation services provided to consumers is limited. For example only 27% of suppliers provided upgrading services and 12% emptying services.

7.1.4 Access to finance for sanitation suppliers is a major constraint to business development

The major constraint to business development was identified as lack of capital (75%). 11% of respondents had access to finance through friends and family, 8% through self help groups and 5% through SACCOs. Lack of capital makes it difficult for suppliers to purchase tools and supplies essential to develop their businesses.

7.1.5 Technical capacity constraints with regard to local service providers Whilst many service providers (55%) had received training, most (78%) did not have access to training on new sanitation products and technologies. Only 55% were able to construct a pit latrine with slab; 50% could construct flush/pour systems; less that 5% could construct mound latrines; and less than 2% could construct composting toilets. There is a need to provide training to suppliers so that they can provide affordable, quality products at a sustainable price margin along with a responsive supply mechanism.

7.1.6 Challenges in the physical supply of sanitation products, technologies and materials Findings from the survey suggest that accessibility of materials was a significant issue. The most difficult materials to locate were cement (31%), wire mesh (26%) and slabs (16%). Respondents indicated that the most significant constraints regarding materials were fluctuating prices (50%) followed by inconsistent availability (24%), distances traveled to obtain materials (14%) and transportation difficulties (10%).