Community-led total sanitation

Last updated

CLTS triggering process: Community members in Ghana are drawing a map of open defecation for their community. CLTS triggering process in the Volta Region of Ghana.jpg
CLTS triggering process: Community members in Ghana are drawing a map of open defecation for their community.

Community-led total sanitation (CLTS): is an approach used mainly in developing countries to improve sanitation and hygiene practices in a community. The approach tries to achieve behaviour change in mainly rural people by a process of "triggering", leading to spontaneous and long-term abandonment of open defecation practices. It focuses on spontaneous and long-lasting behaviour change of an entire community. The term "triggering" is central to the CLTS process: it refers to ways of igniting community interest in ending open defecation, usually by building simple toilets, such as pit latrines. CLTS involves actions leading to increased self-respect and pride in one's community. [1] It also involves shame and disgust about one's own open defecation behaviours. [1] CLTS takes an approach to rural sanitation that works without hardware subsidies and that facilitates communities to recognize the problem of open defecation and take collective action to clean up and become "open defecation free".

Contents

The concept was developed around the year 2000 by Kamal Kar for rural areas in Bangladesh. CLTS became an established approach around 2011. Non-governmental organizations were often in the lead when CLTS was first introduced in a country. Local governments may reward communities by certifying them with "open defecation free" (ODF) status. The original concept of CLTS purposefully did not include subsidies for toilets as they might hinder the process. [2]

CLTS is practiced in at least 53 countries. [1] CLTS has been adapted to the urban context. [3] It has also been applied to post-emergency and fragile states settings. [4]

Challenges associated with CLTS include the risk of human rights infringements within communities, low standards for toilets, and concerns about usage rates in the long term. CLTS is in principle compatible with a human rights based approach to sanitation but there are bad practice examples in the name of CLTS. [5] More rigorous coaching of CLTS practitioners, government public health staff and local leaders on issues such as stigma, awareness of social norms and pre-existing inequalities are important. [5] People who are disadvantaged should benefit from CLTS programmes as effectively as those who are not disadvantaged. [6]

Definitions

Open defecation is the practice of defecating out in the open, rather than using a toilet.

"Open defecation free" (ODF) is a central term for community-led total sanitation (CLTS) programs. It primarily means the eradication of open defecation in the entire community. However, ODF can also include additional criteria, such as: [7]

Even more stringent criteria which may be required before a community is awarded "ODF status" might include: [7]

Aims and rationale

A facilitator and the community during a triggering in Malda District, West Bengal, India CLTS triggering in Malda District, West Bengal, India 2.JPG
A facilitator and the community during a triggering in Malda District, West Bengal, India
School-led total sanitation "triggering" event: These school children in West Bengal, India are looking at a glass of water and fresh feces. Flies will pass from the water to the feces and back, which demonstrates how water can get polluted with pathogens. CLTS triggering in Malda District, West Bengal, India.JPG
School-led total sanitation "triggering" event: These school children in West Bengal, India are looking at a glass of water and fresh feces. Flies will pass from the water to the feces and back, which demonstrates how water can get polluted with pathogens.
This is what CLTS tries to stop: Open defecation in rural Bihar, India. Open defecation in rural Bihar, India.JPG
This is what CLTS tries to stop: Open defecation in rural Bihar, India.

CLTS focuses on community-wide behavioral change, rather than merely toilet construction. The process raises the awareness that as long as even a minority continues to defecate in the open, everyone is at risk of disease. CLTS uses community-led methods, such as participatory mapping and analyzing pathways between feces and the mouth (fecal–oral transmission of disease), as a means of teaching the risks associated with OD.[ citation needed ]

The concept originally focused mainly on provoking shame and disgust about open defecation. It also involved actions leading to increased self-respect and pride in one's community. With time, CLTS evolved away from provoking negative emotions to educating people about how open defecation increases the risk of disease. Currently, CLTS triggering events focus more on promoting self-respect and pride. [1]

CLTS shifted the focus on personal responsibility and low-cost solutions. CLTS aims to totally stop open defecation within a community rather than facilitating improved sanitation only to selected households. Combined with hygiene education, the approach aims to make the entire community realize the severe health impacts of open defecation. Since individual carelessness may affect the entire community, pressure on each person becomes stronger to follow sanitation principles such as using sanitary toilets, washing hands, and practicing good hygiene. To introduce sanitation even in the poorest households, low-cost toilets are promoted, constructed with local materials. The purchase of the facility is not subsidized, so that every household must finance its own toilets. [8] [9]

Use or non-use of subsidies

Prior to CLTS, most traditional sanitation programs relied on the provision of subsidies for the construction of latrines and hygiene education. Under this framework, the subsidised facilities were expensive and often did not reach all members of a community. In addition, the subsidies may have reduced the feeling of personal responsibility for the toilets.[ citation needed ]

The original concept of CLTS did not include subsidies for toilets. [2] CLTS proponents at that time believed that provoking behavior change in the people alone would be sufficient to lead them to take ownership of their own sanitation situation, including paying for and constructing their own toilets. This was not always the case.

Kamal Kar and Robert Chambers stated in their 2008 CLTS Handbook:

It is fundamental that CLTS involves no individual house-hold hardware subsidy and does not prescribe latrine models.

— Kamal Kar, Robert Chambers, CLTS Foundation Handbook, 2008 page 8 [10]

In time, NGOs and governments began to see the value of the approach and ran their own schemes in various countries, some with less aversion to subsidies than Kamal Kar. [2]

Phases

Pre-triggering

Pre-triggering is the process by which communities are assessed to be suitable for CLTS intervention. This involves visits and a number of different criteria, which are used to identify communities likely to respond well to triggering. [10] During pre-triggering, facilitators introduce themselves to community members and begin to build a relationship. [10]

Triggering

A tool called "triggering" is used to propel people into taking action. This takes place over a day with a team of facilitators. [10] The team visits a community which is identified as practicing open defecation and encourages villagers to become aware of their own sanitation situation. This aims to cause disgust in participants, and the facilitators help participants to plan appropriate sanitation facilities.[ citation needed ]

Using the term "shit" (or other locally used crude words) during triggering events or presentations – rather than feces or excreta – is a deliberate aspect of the CLTS approach, as it is meant to be a practical, straight forward approach rather than a theoretical, academic conversation. [2] [10]

The "CLTS Handbook" from 2008 states that there is no "one way" of doing triggering in CLTS. [10] A rough sequence of steps is given in this handbook which could be followed. Facilitators are encouraged to modify and change activities depending on the local situation.

The UNICEF manual approved for use of CLTS in Sierra Leone suggests the following steps for the triggering process: [11]

The "ignition" phase occurs when the community becomes convinced that there is a real sanitation problem, and motivated to do something about it. [12] Natural Leaders are members of the community who are engaged by the process, and able to drive change. [13]

The goal of the triggering process is to let people see the problem first-hand, thereby evoking disgust. However, it has been reported that communities which respond favorably tend to be motivated more by improved health, dignity, and pride than by shame or disgust. [1]

Post-triggering

After a positive response to the ignition phase, NGO facilitators work with communities to deliver sanitation services by providing information and guidance relevant to the local situation.[ citation needed ]

There are many challenges that occur in the post-triggering phase. These are mainly related to the supply of durable and affordable latrine hardware and technical support on latrine construction. [1] Toilet owners may need advice how to upgrade and improve sanitation and handwashing facilities using local materials. [1]

Applications and scale

Millions of people worldwide have benefited from CLTS which has resulted reductions in open defecation and increases in latrine coverage in many rural communities. [1] Practitioners have declared many villages as "ODF villages", where ODF stands for "open defecation free".

CLTS is practiced in at least 53 countries. [1] CLTS has spread throughout Bangladesh and to many other Asian and African countries with financial support from the Water and Sanitation Program of the World Bank, DFID, Plan International, WaterAid, CARE, UNICEF and SNV. Large INGOs and many national NGOs have also been involved. [14] Many governments have in the meantime initiated CLTS processes or made it a matter of national policy. [1]

Community-led Total Sanitation as an idea had grown beyond its founder and is now often being run in slightly different ways, e.g. in India, Pakistan, Philippines, Nepal, Sierra Leone and Zambia. [15] [16] Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were often in the lead when CLTS was first introduced in a country. India was an exception – here the government led the somewhat similar "Total Sanitation Campaign" which has been turned into the "Clean India Mission" or Swachh Bharat Abhiyan in 2014.

CLTS as an idea now has many supporters around the world, with Robert Chambers, co-writer of the CLTS Foundation Handbook, describing it this way:

"We have so many "revolutions" in development that only last a year or two and then fade into history. But this one is different. In all the years I have worked in development this is as thrilling and transformative as anything I have been involved in."

— Robert Chambers from Institute of Development Studies, The Guardian, 30 May 2011 [17]

The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) coordinated research programmed on CLTS since about 2007 and regards it as a "radically different approach to rural sanitation in developing countries which has shown promising successes where traditional rural sanitation programmers have failed". [18]

Today there are many NGOs and research institutes with an interest in CLTS, including for example the CLTS Knowledge Hub of the Institute of Development Studies, the CLTS Foundation led by Kamal Kar, The World Bank, [19] WaterAid, [20] Plan USA and the Water Institute at UNC, [21] SNV from the Netherlands and UNICEF. [22]

Applications to urban situations, schools and other settings

Since about 2016, CLTS has been adapted to the urban context. [3] For example, in Kenya the NGOs Plan and Practical Action have implemented a form of urban CLTS. [23] [24] CLTS has also been used in schools and the surrounding communities, which is referred to as "school-led total sanitation". [25] The school children act as messengers of change to households.[ citation needed ]

CLTS has also been applied to post-emergency and fragile states settings. [4] There has been some experience with this in Haiti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Philippines and Indonesia. In 2014, UNICEF reported positive outcomes with CLTS in fragile and insecure contexts, namely in Somalia and South Sudan. [26]

People who are disadvantaged should benefit from CLTS programmers as effectively as those who are not disadvantaged. [6] This is referred to as equality and nondiscrimination (EQND). [6]

Effectiveness

To be successful in the longer term, CLTS should be treated as part of a larger WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) strategy rather than as a singular solution to changing behavior. [1]

A systematic review of 200 studies concluded in 2018 that the evidence base on CLTS effectiveness is still weak. [1] This means that practitioners, policy makers, and program managers have little available evidence to inform their actions.

There is currently a lack of scientific review about the effectiveness of CLTS, although this has been changing since 2015. A study in 2012 reviewed reports by NGOs and practitioners and found that there was little review of the impact of local Natural Leaders, that anecdotes were used without assessing impacts, and that claims were made without supporting evidence. [27] It concluded that these kinds of reports focus on the 'triggering' stage of CTLS instead of the measurable outcomes. A peer-reviewed article considered the sustainability of CLTS in the longer term: It found that there was little monitoring or evaluation of the impacts of CLTS, even though large international organizations were involved in funding the process. [2]

Reviews about the effectiveness of CLTS to eliminate open defecation, reduce diarrhea and other gastrointestinal diseases, and decrease stunting in children are currently underway. [28] In some cases, CLTS has been compared with India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) when assessing the effectiveness of the approach. [29] However, this comparison may be invalid, as the presence of subsidies in the TSC process may fundamentally change the effectiveness of the CLTS process. [30]

One small study compared different CLTS programmed. [31] Participants from NGOs involved in delivering CLTS reported that although they included some of the activities described in the guidance materials, they often omitted some and included others depending on the local situation. Some reported that subsidies were included, and some offered specific design and construction options.[ citation needed ]

A cluster-randomized controlled trial in rural Mali conducted during 2011 to 2013 found that CLTS with no monetary subsidies did not affect diarrhea incidences,[ spelling? ] but substantially increased child growth (thereby reducing stunting), particularly in children under two years of age. [32]

Challenges and difficulties

A health worker (centre) gets villagers to draw a map of the area, showing the main features like the road and the river (a village near Lake Malawi, Malawi). Actions to end open defecation in a village in Malawi (1).jpg
A health worker (centre) gets villagers to draw a map of the area, showing the main features like the road and the river (a village near Lake Malawi, Malawi).
Villagers go to the place where meals are prepared to observe how flies are attracted to human feces and carry diseases by landing on the food (village near Lake Malawi, Malawi). Actions to end open defecation in a village in Malawi (2).jpg
Villagers go to the place where meals are prepared to observe how flies are attracted to human feces and carry diseases by landing on the food (village near Lake Malawi, Malawi).
Villagers making a transect walk or 'walk of shame' to the open defecation places, singing 'let us end open defecation' (village near Lake Malawi, Malawi) Actions to end open defecation in a village in Malawi (3).jpg
Villagers making a transect walk or 'walk of shame' to the open defecation places, singing 'let us end open defecation' (village near Lake Malawi, Malawi)

Human rights

The CLTS behavioral change process is based on the use of shame. This is meant to promote collective consciousness-raising of the severe impacts of open defecation and trigger shock and self-awareness when participants realize the implications of their actions. The triggering process can however infringe the human rights of recipients, even if this was not intended by those promoting CLTS. There have been cases of fines (monetary and non-monetary), withholding of entitlements, public taunting, posting of humiliating pictures and even violence. [33] [34] In some cases CLTS successes might be based on coercion only. [35] On the other hand, CLTS is in principle compatible with a human rights based approach to sanitation but there are bad practice examples in the name of CLTS. [5] More rigorous coaching of CLTS practitioners, government public health officials and local leaders on issues such as stigma, awareness of social norms and pre-existing inequalities are important. [5]

Catarina de Alburquerque, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water and Sanitation, is quoted as saying that "Observers have also recognized that incentives for encouraging behavior change and the construction of latrines are sometimes unacceptable, and include public shaming, including photographing, of those who still practice open defecation." [2]

More debate is still needed regarding human's rights consequences of post-triggering punitive measures. [1]

Toilet standards and toilet types

CLTS does not specify technical standards for toilets. This is a benefit in terms of keeping the costs of constructing toilets very low and allowing villagers to start building their own toilets immediately. However, it can produce two problems: first in flood plains or areas near water tables, poorly constructed latrines are likely to contaminate the water table and thus represent little improvement. Second, long-term use of sanitation facilities is related to the pleasantness of the facilities, but dirty overflowing pits are unlikely to be utilised in the longer term. [36] A related issue here is that CLTS does not address the issue of latrine emptying services or where they exist, how they dispose of waste. This has led some researchers to say that the success of CLTS is largely down to the cultural suitability of the way it is delivered and the degree to which supply-side constraints are addressed. [37]

If villagers do not know about alternative toilet options (like urine-diverting dry toilets or composting toilets), and are not told about these options by the facilitators of the CLTS process, they may opt for pour flush pit latrines even in situations where groundwater pollution is a significant problem.[ citation needed ]

Reuse of treated excreta as fertiliser

Feces are given a strong negative connotation in the CLTS approach. This can cause confusion for villagers who are already using treated human excreta as a fertiliser in agriculture and can, in fact, discourage the reuse of human excreta.[ citation needed ]

Long-term usage rates (sustainability)

There is also concern about the number of people who go back to open defecation some months after having been through the CLTS process. A Plan Australia study from 2013 investigated that 116 villages were considered Open Defecation Free (ODF) following CLTS across several countries in Africa. [38] After two years, 87% of the 4960 households had fully functioning latrines – but these were considered the most basic and none of the communities had moved up the sanitation ladder. 89% of households had no visible excreta in the vicinity, but only 37% had handwashing facilities present. When broader criteria for declaring communities ODF was used, an overall "slippage rate" of 92% was found. [38] Some researchers suggest that this means support is needed to support communities to upgrade facilities in ODF villages which have been triggered by CLTS. [31]

A study in 2018 has found little evidence for sustained sanitation behavior change as a result of CLTS. [1]

History

Kamal Kar presented information about CLTS at a meeting of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance in Sweden in 2010. Kamal Kar about CLTS (4957723325).jpg
Kamal Kar presented information about CLTS at a meeting of the Sustainable Sanitation Alliance in Sweden in 2010.

In 1999 and 2000, Kamal Kar was working in a village called Mosmoil in Rajshahi, Bangladesh, and decided that a system of attitudinal changes by villagers might have a longer-lasting effect than the existing top-down approach involving subsidies from NGOs and government. [14] The Bangladeshi government began a programme of installing expensive latrines in the 1970s, but the government decided this was too costly, and many of the original latrines were abandoned. [39] In the 1990s, a social mobilisation plan was begun to encourage people to demand and install better sanitation systems, but early success did not last, according to Kar. At that point Kar, a participatory development expert from India, was brought in by Wateraid and he concluded that the problem with previous approaches was that local people had not "internalised" the demand for sanitation. He suggested a new approach: abandoning subsidies and appealing to the better nature of villagers and their sense of self-disgust to bring about change. The CLTS Foundation is the organisation set up by Kar to promote these ideas.[ citation needed ]

It eventually became standard practice for NGOs to leave the community quite soon after "triggering" activities.[ citation needed ] When communities took the lead, change in sanitation practices was more longer term and sustainable.[ citation needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sanitation</span> Public health conditions related to clean water and proper excreta and sewage disposal

Sanitation refers to public health conditions related to clean drinking water and treatment and disposal of human excreta and sewage. Preventing human contact with feces is part of sanitation, as is hand washing with soap. Sanitation systems aim to protect human health by providing a clean environment that will stop the transmission of disease, especially through the fecal–oral route. For example, diarrhea, a main cause of malnutrition and stunted growth in children, can be reduced through adequate sanitation. There are many other diseases which are easily transmitted in communities that have low levels of sanitation, such as ascariasis, cholera, hepatitis, polio, schistosomiasis, and trachoma, to name just a few.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fecal–oral route</span> Disease transmission via pathogens from fecal particles

The fecal–oral route describes a particular route of transmission of a disease wherein pathogens in fecal particles pass from one person to the mouth of another person. Main causes of fecal–oral disease transmission include lack of adequate sanitation, and poor hygiene practices. If soil or water bodies are polluted with fecal material, humans can be infected with waterborne diseases or soil-transmitted diseases. Fecal contamination of food is another form of fecal-oral transmission. Washing hands properly after changing a baby's diaper or after performing anal hygiene can prevent foodborne illness from spreading.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WaterAid</span> International NGO, focused on water, sanitation and hygiene

WaterAid is an international non-governmental organization, focused on water, sanitation and hygiene. It was set up in 1981 as a response to the UN International Drinking Water decade (1981–1990). As of 2018, it was operating in 34 countries.

Human waste refers to the waste products of the human digestive system, menses, and human metabolism including urine and feces. As part of a sanitation system that is in place, human waste is collected, transported, treated and disposed of or reused by one method or another, depending on the type of toilet being used, ability by the users to pay for services and other factors. Fecal sludge management is used to deal with fecal matter collected in on-site sanitation systems such as pit latrines and septic tanks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Toilet Day</span> United Nations holiday on 19 November

World Toilet Day (WTD) is an official United Nations international observance day on 19 November to inspire action to tackle the global sanitation crisis. Worldwide, 4.2 billion people live without "safely managed sanitation" and around 673 million people practice open defecation. Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims to "Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all". In particular, target 6.2 is to "End open defecation and provide access to sanitation and hygiene". When the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020 was published, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said, "Today, Sustainable Development Goal 6 is badly off track" and it "is hindering progress on the 2030 Agenda, the realization of human rights and the achievement of peace and security around the world".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pit latrine</span> Toilet that collects human waste in a hole in the ground

A pit latrine, also known as pit toilet, is a type of toilet that collects human waste in a hole in the ground. Urine and feces enter the pit through a drop hole in the floor, which might be connected to a toilet seat or squatting pan for user comfort. Pit latrines can be built to function without water or they can have a water seal. When properly built and maintained, pit latrines can decrease the spread of disease by reducing the amount of human feces in the environment from open defecation. This decreases the transfer of pathogens between feces and food by flies. These pathogens are major causes of infectious diarrhea and intestinal worm infections. Infectious diarrhea resulted in about 700,000 deaths in children under five years old in 2011 and 250 million lost school days. Pit latrines are a low-cost method of separating feces from people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bucket toilet</span> Basic form of a dry toilet with a bucket

A bucket toilet is a basic form of a dry toilet whereby a bucket (pail) is used to collect excreta. Usually, feces and urine are collected together in the same bucket, leading to odor issues. The bucket may be situated inside a dwelling, or in a nearby small structure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sustainable sanitation</span> Sanitation system designed to meet certain criteria and to work well over the long-term

Sustainable sanitation is a sanitation system designed to meet certain criteria and to work well over the long-term. Sustainable sanitation systems consider the entire "sanitation value chain", from the experience of the user, excreta and wastewater collection methods, transportation or conveyance of waste, treatment, and reuse or disposal. The Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA) includes five features in its definition of "sustainable sanitation": Systems need to be economically and socially acceptable, technically and institutionally appropriate and protect the environment and natural resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Improved sanitation</span> Term used to categorize types or levels of sanitation for monitoring purposes

Improved sanitation is a term used to categorize types of sanitation for monitoring purposes. It refers to the management of human feces at the household level. The term was coined by the Joint Monitoring Program (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation of UNICEF and WHO in 2002 to help monitor the progress towards Goal Number 7 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The opposite of "improved sanitation" has been termed "unimproved sanitation" in the JMP definitions. The same terms are used to monitor progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 6 from 2015 onwards. Here, they are a component of the definition for "safely managed sanitation service".

Drinking water supply and sanitation in Pakistan is characterized by some achievements and many challenges. In 2020, 68% Pakistanis, 72% Indians, 54% Bangladeshi had access to the basic sanitation facilities. Despite high population growth the country has increased the share of the population with access to an improved water source from 85% in 1990 to 92% in 2010, although this does not necessarily mean that the water from these sources is safe to drink. The share with access to improved sanitation increased from 27% to 38% during the same period, according to the Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation. There has also been considerable innovation at the grass-root level, in particular concerning sanitation. The Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi and community-led total sanitation in rural areas are two examples of such innovation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Toilet</span> Piece of hardware for the collection or disposal of human excreta

A toilet is a piece of sanitary hardware that collects human urine and feces, and sometimes toilet paper, usually for disposal. Flush toilets use water, while dry or non-flush toilets do not. They can be designed for a sitting position popular in Europe and North America with a toilet seat, with additional considerations for those with disabilities, or for a squatting posture more popular in Asia, known as a squat toilet. In urban areas, flush toilets are usually connected to a sewer system; in isolated areas, to a septic tank. The waste is known as blackwater and the combined effluent, including other sources, is sewage. Dry toilets are connected to a pit, removable container, composting chamber, or other storage and treatment device, including urine diversion with a urine-diverting toilet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in Nigeria</span>

Responsibility of water supply in Nigeria is shared between three (3) levels of government – federal, state and local. The federal government is in charge of water resources management; state governments have the primary responsibility for urban water supply; and local governments together with communities are responsible for rural water supply. The responsibility for sanitation is not clearly defined.

The Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) was a United Nations-hosted organization contributing to Sustainable Development Goal 6, Target 6.2 on sanitation and hygiene. It was established in 1990 and closed at the end of 2020. WSSCC advocated for improved sanitation and hygiene, with a focus on the needs of women, girls and people in vulnerable situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open defecation</span> Humans defecating outside (in the open environment) rather than into a toilet

Open defecation is the human practice of defecating outside rather than into a toilet. People may choose fields, bushes, forests, ditches, streets, canals, or other open spaces for defecation. They do so either because they do not have a toilet readily accessible or due to archaic traditional cultural practices. The practice is common where sanitation infrastructure and services are not available. Even if toilets are available, behavior change efforts may still be needed to promote the use of toilets. 'Open defecation free' (ODF) is a term used to describe communities that have shifted to using toilets instead of open defecation. This can happen, for example, after community-led total sanitation programs have been implemented.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Swachh Bharat Mission</span> Indian campaign to eliminate open defecation

Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, or Clean India Mission is a country-wide campaign initiated by the Government of India on 2 October 2014 to eliminate open defecation and improve solid waste management and to create Open Defecation Free (ODF) villages. The program also aims to increase awareness of menstrual health management. It is a restructured version of the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan which was launched by the Congress in 2009.

Water supply and sanitation in Zimbabwe is defined by many small scale successful programs but also by a general lack of improved water and sanitation systems for the majority of Zimbabwe. Water supply and sanitation in Zimbabwe faces significant challenges, marked by both successful localized efforts and widespread deficiencies in infrastructure. According to the 2019 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), conducted by UNICEF, disparities persist in access to clean drinking water and sanitation facilities. While overall access to improved drinking water sources increased to 77.1% in 2019 from 76.1% in 2014, significant gaps remain between urban and rural areas, as well as within urban centers. For instance, 97.3% of urban households have access to improved water sources compared to only 67.9% of rural households. Similarly, disparities exist across regions, with Harare boasting the highest access at 96.6%, contrasting sharply with 64.8% in Matabeleland South. Additionally, approximately 67.8% of households have access to improved, non-shared sanitation facilities, indicating ongoing challenges in this domain. Urban areas, in particular, grapple with chronic water shortages amid rising consumption demands. There are many factors which continue to determine the nature, for the foreseeable future, of water supply and sanitation in Zimbabwe. Three major factors are the severely depressed state of the Zimbabwean economy, the willingness of foreign aid organizations to build and finance infrastructure projects, and the political stability of the Zimbabwean state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Failures of water supply and sanitation systems</span>

Failures of water supply and sanitation systems describe situations where water supply and sanitation systems have been put in place (for example by the government or by non-government organizations but have failed to meet the expected outcomes. Often this is due to poor planning, lack of choice of appropriate technology depending upon the context, insufficient stakeholder involvement at the various stages of the project and lack of maintenance. While Hygiene Behavior Change is important in achieving the health benefits of improved WASH systems, the achievement of sustainability of WASH infrastructure depends on creation of demand for sanitation services.

This is a list of Indian states and territories by the percentage of households which are open defecation free, that is those that have access to sanitation facilities, in both urban and rural areas along with data from the Swachh Bharat Mission, National Family Health Survey, and the National Sample Survey. The reliability of this information can be questioned, as it has been observed that there is still open defecation in some states claimed "ODF".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emergency sanitation</span> Management and technical processes required to provide sanitation in emergency situations

Emergency sanitation is the management and technical processes required to provide sanitation in emergency situations. Emergency sanitation is required during humanitarian relief operations for refugees, people affected by natural disasters and internally displaced persons. There are three phases of emergency response: Immediate, short term and long term. In the immediate phase, the focus is on managing open defecation, and toilet technologies might include very basic latrines, pit latrines, bucket toilets, container-based toilets, chemical toilets. The short term phase might also involve technologies such as urine-diverting dry toilets, septic tanks, decentralized wastewater systems. Providing handwashing facilities and management of fecal sludge are also part of emergency sanitation.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Venkataramanan, Vidya; Crocker, Jonathan; Karon, Andrew; Batram, Jamie (2018). "Community-Led Total Sanitation: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Evidence and Its Quality". Environmental Health Perspectives. 026001–1 (2): 026001. doi:10.1289/EHP1965. PMC   6066338 . PMID   29398655.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Galvin, M (2015). "Talking shit: is Community-Led Total Sanitation a radical and revolutionary approach to sanitation?". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. 2 (1): 9–20. Bibcode:2015WIRWa...2....9G. doi:10.1002/wat2.1055. S2CID   109255503.
  3. 1 2 Myers, Jamie; Cavill, Sue; Musyoki, Samuel; Pasteur, Katherine; Stevens, Lucy (15 June 2018). Innovations for Urban Sanitation. Practical Action Publishing Ltd. doi:10.3362/9781780447360. ISBN   9781788530170. S2CID   134862963.
  4. 1 2 Greaves, F. (2016) 'CLTS in Post-Emergency and Fragile States Settings', Frontiers of CLTS: Innovations and Insights 9, Brighton: IDS
  5. 1 2 3 4 Musembi and Musyoki (2016). "CLTS and the Right to Sanitation, Frontiers of CLTS issue 8". Brighton: IDS. Archived from the original on 10 December 2020.
  6. 1 2 3 House, S., Cavill, S. and Ferron, S. (2017) 'Equality and non-discrimination (EQND) in sanitation programmes at scale', Part 1 of 2, Frontiers of CLTS: Innovations and Insights 10, Brighton: IDS
  7. 1 2 Cavill, S. with Chambers, R. and Vernon, N. (2015) 'Sustainability and CLTS: Taking Stock', Frontiers of CLTS: Innovations and Insights Issue 4, Brighton: IDS, ISBN   978-1-78118-222-2, p. 18
  8. ↑ Water and Sanitation Program; World Bank (May 2005). Lessons Learned from Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan; Scaling-Up Rural Sanitation in South Asia (PDF) (Report). pp. 65–66. Retrieved 28 April 2008.
  9. ↑ Kar, Kamal (September 2003). IDS Working Paper 184: Subsidy or self-respect? Participatory total community sanitation in Bangladesh (PDF). Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. ISBN   1-85864-525-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 May 2008. Retrieved 28 April 2008.: 3–5 
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kal, K and Chambers, R (2008) Handbook on Community-led Total Sanitation Plan UK and Institute of Development Studies
  11. ↑ UNICEF (2010). CLTS Training manual for natural leaders - UNICEF and Sierra Leone Government, Freetown, Sierra Leone
  12. ↑ Philip Vincent Otieno - Defecation mapping in progress CLTS FIRE IGNITED IN DRC Accessed 2015-02-16
  13. ↑ Bongartz, Petra et al. (eds) (2010) "Tales of shit: Community-Led Total Sanitation in Africa. Vol. 61. IIED, 2010. Accessed 2015-02-26
  14. 1 2 "The CLTS approach". Community-Led Total Sanitation. 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  15. ↑ UNICEF (2008). "Field Notes: UNICEF Policy and Programming in Practice" (PDF). UNICEF. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
  16. ↑ "PHWash | PhaTS". www.phwashresources.com. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 9 March 2017.
  17. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/may/30/mdg-sanitation-offtrack-but-community-led-approach-is-working by Robert Chambers Accessed 2015-02-27
  18. ↑ 'Beyond Subsidies - Triggering a Revolution in Rural Sanitation' Institute of Development Studies (IDS) In Focus Policy Brief 10 July 2009.
  19. ↑ WEPA (2013) Community-based Sanitation lessons learned from Sanimas Programme in Indonesia Accessed 2015-03-04
  20. ↑ WaterAid (2011) Revitalising Community-led Total Sanitation: A process guide Archived 2 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine . Accessed 2015-03-04
  21. ↑ Plan USA and The Water Institute at UNC (2014) Testing CLTS Approaches for Scalability Accessed 2015-03-04
  22. ↑ UNICEF (2009) Field notes: UNICEF Policy and Programming in Practice - Community Approaches to Total Sanitation Archived 2 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine Accessed 2015-03-04
  23. ↑ "The Addis Agreement: Using CLTS in urban and peri-urban areas". 2016. Archived from the original on 23 January 2021.
  24. ↑ Kath Pasteur and Preetha Prabhakaran (2014) Lessons in Urban Community Led Total Sanitation from Nakuru, Kenya, implemented by Practical Action and Umande Trust in collaboration with County Government of Nakuru, health services department, CLTS Foundation
  25. ↑ ed. by James Wicken; et al. (2008). Beyond construction : use by all - a collection of case studies from sanitation and hygiene promotion practitioners in South Asia. Delft: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and WaterAid. p. 181. ISBN   978-9937-2-0472-9.{{cite book}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
  26. ↑ UNICEF (2014) CLTS in Fragile and Insecure Contexts: Experience from Somalia and South Sudan, UNICEF WASH Field Note, Eastern and Southern Africa Sanitation and Hygiene Learning Series
  27. ↑ Venkataramanan, V (2012) "Systematic Literature Review (Grey Literature) of Publications on Community-led Total Sanitation" The Water Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Accessed 2015-02-16
  28. ↑ "Research projects on CLTS". Projects. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance. Retrieved 18 June 2015.
  29. ↑ Patil, Sumeet; Arnold, Benjamin; Salvatore, Alicia; Briceno, Bertha; Ganguly, Sandipan; Colford Jr., John; Gertler, Paul (26 August 2014). "The Effect of India's Total Sanitation Campaign on Defecation Behaviors and Child Health in Rural Madhya Pradesh: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial". PLOS Medicine. 11 (8): e1001709. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001709 . PMC   4144850 . PMID   25157929.
  30. ↑ "An Open Letter in response to the World Development Report 2015". Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 23 March 2015.
  31. 1 2 Sigler, R; Mahmoudi, L; Graham JP. (2015). "Analysis of behavioral change techniques in community-led total sanitation programs". Health Promot Int. 30 (1): 16–28. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dau073 . PMID   25209916.
  32. ↑ Pickering, Amy J; Djebbari, Habiba; Lopez, Carolina; Coulibaly, Massa; Alzua, Maria Laura (2015). "Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial". The Lancet Global Health. 3 (11): e701–e711. doi: 10.1016/s2214-109x(15)00144-8 . hdl: 11336/53931 . PMID   26475017.
  33. ↑ Engel, S; Susilo, A (2014). "Shaming and Sanitation in Indonesia: A Return to Colonial Public Health Practices?". Development and Change. 45 (1): 157–178. doi:10.1111/dech.12075.
  34. ↑ Bartram, J; Charles, K; Evans, B; O'Hanlon, L; Pedley, S (2012). "Commentary on community-led total sanitation and human rights: Should the right to community-wide health be won at the cost of individual rights?". Journal of Water and Health. 10 (4): 499–503. doi: 10.2166/wh.2012.205 . PMID   23165706.
  35. ↑ Time to Acknowledge the Dirty Truth Behind Community-led Sanitation by Liz Chatterjee in the Guardian
  36. ↑ Black, M. and B. Fawcett (2008) The Last Taboo: Opening the Door on the Global Sanitation Crisis. London: Earthscan
  37. ↑ Mara, D; Lane, J; Scott, BA; Trouba, D (2010). "Sanitation and Health". PLOS Medicine. 7 (11): e1000363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000363 . PMC   2981586 . PMID   21125018.
  38. 1 2 Tyndale-Biscoe, P, Bond, M, Kidd, R (2013) ODF Sustainability Study, Plan Australia
  39. ↑ Ahmed, SA (2008) "Community Led Total Sanitation in Bangladesh:Chronicles of a People's Movement" Archived 27 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine IDS Conference paper Accessed 2015-02-27
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.