Supply Chain Analysis for Rural Sanitation Products and Services in Lao pdr
Appendix 5: Microfinance Questionnaire
Download 6.78 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Appendix 6: Focus Group discussion Guidelines
- References
Appendix 5: Microfinance QuestionnaireInterview Number: Data Entry Completed SSCA – Field Work Interviews Questionnaire – MFI
Directions: Explain the project (see background sheet). Highlight the target districts within the province. Clarify whether each answer applies only to the target districts, or more generally. Supervisor sign:
Appendix 6: Focus Group discussion GuidelinesFOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Profile and quota of FGDs per province Each FGD will have 6-10 participants. Participants will be recruited from contacts provided by Nam Saat, clients, as well as preliminary field visits. Time needed Each FGD would last for 1.5 to 2 hours. The FGD session will be arranged in town/village at an appropriate time. Required materials Materials required: notebook, pen, note sticker, marker, tape recorders (used only if participants agree), and flipchart. Also visual aids (e.g. diagrams of latrines, to aid discussion). A camera to take a photo, if participants agree. Notes to be taken by assistant moderator Participants’ details including name, sex, age, business/occupation, years in the business. Detailed record of participants’ comments/answers to all key questions. Summary of participants’ conversations with each other during the discussion. Aim for sentences that meet the theme in order to collect as much as possible quotes. Key steps to run a FGD There will be two facilitators – moderator and assistant moderator. Moderator: To facilitate, encourage participant to speak and keep the discussion on track and time. Makes sure all participants have equal opportunity to express their opinions. Assistant moderator: To help coordinate the discussion, take notes and record discussion. Moderator will start by introducing her/his whole team, objective of the project briefly, purpose of this FGD, approximate duration of this meeting, and emphasize a few research ethical codes of conduct, such as “Confidentiality”. Sit in circle. Moderator asks participants to write their names on note stickers and them on their shirts. Then moderator requests participants to briefly introduce themselves: name, age, and current occupation. Discuss through the key questions in the list below, starting with the ice-breaker.
Details of the participants:
Opening Hello my name is ______________________ and I am working for the survey team under the guidance of the government/NamSaat. We are conducting discussions in selected districts to learn more about your thoughts and practices surrounding the supply of sanitation products and services. Ice Breaker Thank you for your kind cooperation to participate in this discussion. First of all, may each of you briefly introduce yourself? Please tell me what I should call you, what are your occupation or daily activities and where do you come from? Have you join any sanitation meeting before? If yes, when was the last time? Does this happen often? What was the meeting about?
Key Questions per discussion What do you think is the main reason households do not have a latrine? (once you have a list of a few reasons, encourage participants to rank them. Hints: cost, not know the benefits, water access, transport distances/cost, etc) When and why do people build a latrine? (eg. when building a house, because of an NGO program, because they know the benefits) Has there been an increase in latrine construction in recent years? Why? Describe the typical latrine people buy (size, wet/dry, pit type, slab and pan, superstructure) What materials are required to build it? (see table next page. Use flip chart or large paper and have participants help you fill it in) How much do these materials cost? What about the cost of transport? What labour is required? How much does this cost? (how many men, how many days, how much per day) Is it skilled labour? How difficult is it for a household to get a latrine? What knowledge does a typical household have of what is required to build a latrine? Where do households buy everything they need for a latrine? How many shops/businesses must they visit? How difficult would it be for one shop to sell everything required? Do people ever take out a loan to build a latrine? Who do they borrow from? What is the interest rate and repayment terms? Is there much marketing of sanitation products and services? By whom? In what form (advertising, posters, brochures, etc)? Is the selling of products for latrines good business? (We do not mean are they good at it, or is their business a good one. We mean: is selling products for latrines profitable and does it provide sufficient income? Is it more or less profitable than their other products/businesses) Do you think products for latrines will increase in importance to your business? (Do they think the demand for latrine products will grow? What is the outlook for the latrine part of their business?) What are the main constraints your businesses face? (once you have a list of a few constraints, encourage participants to rank them. Hints: access to finance, competition, credit terms from suppliers, quality of roads, customers not paying, import tax) What could be done to increase the number of households with latrines in rural areas? What Govt/NGO sanitation programs have operated in this area in the last few years? Have businesses here been directly involved? Does the program buy materials and services? Or do households? What materials? In what quantity? Which are the strength for latrine building business in the district? Which are the weaknesses for latrine building business in the district? Which ones can be the opportunities for latrine building business in the district? Which ones can be the threats for latrine building business in the district?
Size: . WWet or Dry? Offset pit?: Yes/No .
This is a guide. It is not necessary to fill in every row. You can include a range for prices, but try to get them to agree on the most common amount. ReferencesADB/NSC (2006) Participatory Poverty Assessment II: Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Vientiane: National Statistics Centre / Manila: Asian Development Bank via Lao Statistics Bureau. http://www.nsc.gov.la/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=80 Carlin, W., Schaffer, M. E., Seabright, P. 2006, Where are the Real Bottlenecks? A Lagrangian Approach to Identifying Constraints on Growth from Subjective Survey Data, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Discussion Paper 2006/04, May. EMC (Emerging Markets Consulting) 2009, Supply Chain Analysis and Strategy Development, Water and sanitation in Kampong Speu Cambodia, December. GIZ 2012, Enterprise Survey 2011, Volume 1: Main Report, Human Resource Development for a Market Economy program. GoL (Government of Lao PDR) 2012, Decree on Poverty and Development Standards for 2012-2015, No. 201/Gov., 25 April. Howard, P. 2013, Towards universal sanitation: the Cambodian case. Hystra 2012, Marketing Innovative Devices for the Bottom of the Pyramid, Final Report, March. IMF 2013, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013. Jenkins & Sudgen 2006, Rethinking Sanitation: Lessons and Innovation for Sustainability and Success in the New Millennium, Human Development Report Occasional Paper, UNDP. Lao Ministry of Health 2012, National Plan of Action for Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene, LSIS 2012, Lao Social Indicator Survey (LSIS) 2011-12 (Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey/Demographic and Health Survey), December. O'Toole, C., Kay, N., Murphy, G., Siedschlag, I. 2014, ‘EU firms’ access to external financing’, VoxEU.org, 29 June, accessed at http://www.voxeu.org/article/financial-markets-and-sme-investment-dearth . Path 2013, Sanitation Financing, Final Report, September 2011–August 2013, August. Pedi, D., Sophanna, M., Sophea, P., & Jenkins, M. 2013, Rural Consumer Sanitation Adoption Study – an analysis of rural consumers in the emerging sanitation market in Cambodia, December. Plan International 2011, Sanitation and hygiene practices observed in 9 villages in Bokeo province, November. Sijbesma, C., Truong, T.X. and Devine, J. 2010, Case Study on Sustainability of Rural Sanitation Marketing in Vietnam, Water and Sanitation Program Technical Note, April 2010 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 2013, ‘Development Partners Share Outcomes of 11th High Level Meeting with the President’, Press Release, 20 November. UNICEF 2012, The State of the World's Children 2012, New York. WHO-UNICEF 2014, Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, Estimates on the use of water and sanitation facilities, accessed at http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ resources/Lao_People_s_Democratic_Republic.xls Willetts, J., 2013, Supporting the poor to access sanitation in Bokeo Province, Laos, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, for Plan Laos and Plan Australia, June 2013. World Bank 2011, Lao PDR Investment Climate Assessment, Washington, D.C.. World Bank 2012, World Development Indicators 2012, Washington, D.C. World Bank 2013a, Cambodia Investment Climate Assessment 2012, unpublished draft. World Bank 2013b, Lao PDR Investment Climate Assessment 2013. Preliminary findings presentation to the Trade and Private Sector Working Group, 13 April 2013. World Bank 2014, ‘Lao Development Report on Human Resources Development’, presentation by Lars Sondergaard, 26 February 2014. WSP 2008a, Economic Impacts of Sanitation in Southeast Asia, Research Report February 2008. WSP 2008b, Sanitation Demand and Supply in Cambodia, Field Note, October. WSP 2009, Market Research Assessment in Rural Tanzania for New Approaches to Stimulate and Scale up Sanitation Demand and Supply, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, February 2009. WSP 2011, Introductory Guide to Sanitation Marketing, Water and Sanitation Program Toolkit, September. WSP 2012a, Findings from Hygiene and Sanitation Financing Study in Lao PDR, October 2012 WSP 2012b, Development and marketing of affordable technology options for sanitation in Lao PDR, WSP 2012c, Sanitation Marketing Lessons from Cambodia: A Market-based Approach to Delivering Sanitation, Water and Sanitation Program: Field Note, October. WSP 2012d, What Does It Take to Scale Up Rural Sanitation?, Water and Sanitation Program: Working Paper, July. WSP 2012e, Policy and Sector Reform to Accelerate Access to Improved Rural Sanitation, Water and Sanitation Program: Working Paper, June. WSP 2013, Economic Assessment of Sanitation Interventions in Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Water and Sanitation Program Technical Paper 81293, August. Sy, J., & Warner, R., 2014, Tapping the Markets: Opportunities for Domestic Investments in Water and Sanitation for the Poor. Directions in Development. Washington, DC: World Bank 1 Throughout this report, US$1 = 8,000 kip. 2 ຕະຫຼອດໄລຍະການລາຍງານນີ້, 1 ໂດລາ = 8,000 ກີບ. 3 Source: Results of poverty reduction for 2011-2013, Poverty Reduction Committee, Prime Minister Office. 4 National Statistic Center, Ministry of Planning and Investment, 2014, www.nsc.gov.la. 5 Feedback on the Inception Report from Project sponsors indicated an interest in microfinance and a desire to understand more about its potential role in the chain. 6 Data are the minimum estimated number of suppliers in the district. 7 It is not known if supplying construction materials is the primary or secondary source of income for these business owners. 8 Total revenues for these businesses are not known. 9 However, two suppliers in Houay Xai account for half of this. Excluding these two, the material suppliers interviewed sold an average of 135 pans and bowls each in 2013. 10 Estimates of total concrete producers in some districts are a minimum. See Table 2. 11 Material suppliers’ upfront costs include shop space and acquiring stock. It is not known how these costs compare to those for concrete producers. 12 The formal fee for business registration is 70,000 LAK (US$8.75) plus a fee based on the amount of registered capital (for example: 300,000 LAK fee for 75 million LAK registered capital). A registered business is also subject to annual income tax. 13 Sums to more than 100% because masons can do both types. That is, most masons (85%) have constructed both brick-lined and ring-lined pits. 14 The district centers visited have at least: two building material suppliers; two concrete producers; and multiple masons. 15 Project’s ToR 16 37% of total latrine owners spent more than 700,000 LAK for their latrine. However, 36% of latrine owners did not spend anything for their latrines (they either built it themselves from available materials or they received it from a program). 17 This latrine includes 4 100cm concrete rings, zinc roof, and a wood frame with bamboo walls and door. 18 This in part derives from the demand for labor being pushed up by Lao’s significant mining industry. Although not labor intensive, income from mining pushes up the demand for labor in service industries, increasing labor costs throughout the economy (and not only in mining areas, since labor is mobile). Similarly, demand from the mining industry may contribute to higher prices for some construction materials. 19 Apparently the limit for this road. 20 68% reported providing delivery. It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that more than this have a truck (for collecting products from their upstream suppliers for example). 21 More data is required to estimate the number of latrines that could be made from inputs and moulds per truck delivery. 22 The number of households in each district below the official poverty line is shown in Table 2. 23 769 non-latrine owners surveyed. 24 Some reported a particular percentage price increase for all items sold, not specifically pans. 25 As noted above, average labor costs in Lao PDR increased by around 65% between 2009 and 2012 (World Bank 2013b). 26 It is not known if more affluent consumers are more knowledgeable about latrines. 27 Note that this could be affected by selection bias. That is, local Nam Saat officials sometimes helped research teams to locate potential interviewees, and officials are more likely to know actors who have been involved in programs. 28 Customers in Phaoudom do have the option of buying directly from Thailand. 29 Reported during focus group discussion. SNV confirms that Vietnamese masons are often cheaper than local masons. 30 The extent to which the supply chain reaches the rural poor is discussed separately below. 31 The client usually provides food and shelter, except for NGO sanitation projects (hence masons charge a higher fee for NGO project work). 32 84% of material suppliers have a regular supplier for many or all of their products. 33 They were asked about their main or key suppliers. Many stores may have multiple potential suppliers but only buy from one. 34 They may not necessarily be located in these districts, but are supplying to them. 35 The high margin on pans in Salavan appears incongruous. 36 Hystra notes that “These gross margins are quite high when compared with ‘rich world’ benchmarks”. 37 These answers may also reflect a lack of villager knowledge about what services their mason can offer. 38 They were asked this specifically. Note that they may have thought they were being considered as a supplier to a sanitation project, and so answered affirmatively. 39 These brochures include a form of private sector sanitation behavior change marketing, with advertisements promoting the hygiene benefits of their products. 40 One exception is Lao Cement, which produces brochures. 41 Some more masons also reported doing work for government departments but it was not clear if these were sanitation projects. If these were sanitation projects, the percentage increases to 34%. 42 Although the work may not have taken place in these provinces. 43 Data in this section could involve some selection bias. Government officials helped teams locate interviewees, and officials are more likely to be familiar with actors who have been involved in projects. 44 It is not clear to what extent – and in what direction – this belief may have biased their answers. 45 Whereas people in urban areas get a latrine when they build a house. 46 Yet WSP (2012a) states that only 18% of latrines were provided by subsidy. 47. Also, they might not be able to afford one – or believe they cannot afford one. 48. Those villages with subsidized toilets had an average 69% toilet coverage (range from 38% to 100%), but 17% of these toilets were broken and/or not currently being used (in one village 61% of toilets were not being used, because of insufficient water supply) (Plan International 2011). 49 Micro businesses defined here as having 1 or 2 staff and small businesses as having 3 to 19 staff. 50 Where delivery times from Thailand are relatively quick, the need to carry much stock is reduced anyway. 51 There is no scale benefit in terms of official import duty since this is a percentage of the value of the imports. Other import fees (such as inspection charges) may be a fixed amount. 52 National protected products mean the products which are traded, imported, exported must be approved, supervised by government authorities in the forms of quota, etc. 53 Project’s Tor 54 “Market” defined here as the number of latrines being bought. As discussed earlier, potential demand for latrines is far greater than this if affordability can be improved. That is, the addressable market is un-penetrated. 55 Although low population density constrains the market, it also means that some sanitation problems such as moving or emptying pits are not as acute as in high-density urban settings. 56 EMC calculation: 4.1 million rural people (67% of the population in Lao PDR), 5 people on average per household, and 50% without improved facilities (WHO-UNICEF JMP 2014). 57 The health benefits from latrine ownership accrue not only to the latrine owner but also to others in the village. 58 Within a limit. Monopoly supply is generally not desirable. 59 Ideal latrines costs are high not only because of materials used but also because of the size of the latrine, which may also include bathroom. 60 Around 60% of non-adopters in one Cambodian study said that deliver was important (Pedi et al 2013). 61 Some of the larger players in the chain, such as Lao Cement and Thai manufacturers, are more active in marketing. 62 Such as the Cambodia MSME Project, funded by USAID. 63 Cambodia may have a stronger history of households purchasing latrines from private suppliers than in Lao PDR. 64 The project targeted existing concrete producers. They were already producing the concrete components of latrines, and were present in numbers at provincial and district centers. These became a “one-stop-shop” for the new latrine product. 65 Sessions will be audio recorded to ensure accuracy of data collection if there is only one note taker present. 66 Facilitators are to confirm and note the group’s representation below. Directory: sites sites -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 sites -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 sites -> Glossary for Chapter 1 Algorithm sites -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose sites -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations sites -> Physical custody of 1033 program property accountibility form statement of Physical Custody: By signing for the below 1033 property I am a Law Enforcement Officer of the aforementioned Law Enforcement Agency sites -> Nstructions for Acquiring Excess Equipment online, through the 1033 Program sites -> Memorandum of agreement Download 6.78 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||