Some
recent reports in certain sections of the media have raised questions about certain
aspects of the Swachh Bharat Mission Gramin. They have quoted, and at times
misquoted, national surveys to infer misleading findings. The Ministry of
Drinking Water and Sanitation would like to clarify these issues raised in the factually
incorrect and misleading reports:
Claim: Swachh Bharat
Mission is essentially a toilet construction-led programme, and does not focus
on toilet usage
Facts: The metric “Open Defecation
Free”, which was defined in 2015 shortly after the launch of Swachh Bharat
Mission (SBM), is essentially a measure of toilet usage. Unless every member of
every household of a village uses a toilet for defecation, the village cannot
be declared ODF. (Latest ODF figures may be found on the SBM dashboard:
sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/)
Sanitation coverage in rural India has gone up from
42% to 64% since the launch of SBM, and the Rapid Survey of Swachhta Status of
the NSSO conducted in May-June 2015 says that 95.6% of people who had toilets,
used them.
Claim: There is no
independent monitoring of the SBM, resulting in the non-disbursement of the
World Bank loan amount, which is adversely affecting the implementation of the
SBM.
Facts: There are, in fact, several
independent verification mechanisms in place for SBM. The NSSO carried out the
Rapid Survey of Swachhta Status in May-June 2015. The Quality Council of India
is presently carrying out a similar exercise covering nearly 100,000
households. Additionally, the Ministry has instituted National Level Monitors
who verify all ODF districts, with a special focus on the villages on the banks
of the Ganga. All of these are in addition to the Independent Verification
Agency (IVA) which has been hired as part of the World Bank loan.
It is also important to note that the World Bank
loan agreement is only a small component of the overall budget available for
Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin)– less than 10% of the total projected government
outlay (Centre and States). It must also be clarified that the Bank loan is
included in the overall budget and is not an additionality, and hence it has no
adverse financial bearing on SBM progress.
Finally, the loan agreement was signed only on March
30, 2016, and not in 2015 as claimed in some reports.
Claim: A large
percentage of self-declared ODF villages remain unverified.
Facts: There is a
multi-stage verification system at the district and state level. The SBM-G
guidelines recommend that a village be verified within three months of
declaration of ODF. Of the 2 lakh ODF declared villages, nearly 1.5 lakh have
been declared ODF only in the last year. Over 1 lakh villages have already been
verified, and the Ministry is laying a strong eMphasis on the States for
verifying the remaining villages at the earliest. Completion of verification of
all villages which have been ODF for more than three months is now a pre-condition
for release of funds to States from the next second installment onwards of
2017-18.
Claim:
Information,
education and communication (IEC) is neglected under SBM as the IEC budget
spends are low.
Facts:
Behaviour
change through IEC is the cornerstone of SBM. There is a major focus on IEC at
the national, state and district levels. The Centre spends 3% of the Union SBM
budget on IEC, while the States are supposed to spend 5% of their respective
State+Centre budgets on IEC. As per a recent order issued by the
Ministry, spending
the stipulated amount by States on IEC will be a pre-condition for release of
funds to States from the next second installment onwards of 2017-18.
That said, it is important to realize that apart
from the money spent by states on IEC, the Ministry and States mobilize
tremendous support from development partners and carry out IEC activities
through them, which don’t reflect in the official IEC spending. It must also be
emphasized that change in deep-rooted habits is not merely a function of amounts
spent on IEC, but is brought about by wholesome behaviour change communication
efforts.
<><><><><>
