Research Study on CLTS and Low Cost Latrines OptionsA study by IRSP with support of CESSD

Background• Sanitation coverage in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is not

encouraging as community based resources and capacities are still to be mobilized

• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is the only province in Pakistan which doesn’t has the Water & Sanitation Policies which were to be prepared and approved by provincial government after 18th amendment April 2010

• For improved sanitation, IRSP implemented a project on Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) in 4 districts of KP in 2014

• CESSD still working in these districts for better water & sanitation coverage

Objective of the StudyThe objective of this research is to;• Determine/ assess existing low latrines

use/practices/availability, • OD trends in communities and openness to latrine use

This study also desired to identify gaps in CLTS and latrine provision related interventions in KP as well as to identify lessons learnt and best practices from donor organizations and WASH Programs partner’s perspectives

Scope of the Study• The technical scope of the Study is to assess

the existing low cost latrine options and to identify new one(s) as well as to find out the gaps in CLTS processes, implementation, adaptation of existing low cost latrines technologies option and linking the sanitary marketing with communities

• The Geographical Scope of the study is 4 districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa i.e. Abbottabad, Chitral, Mansehra and Nowshehra

Sampling District Villages No. of FGDs No. of

KIIsKIIs with

Men Women

Nowshehra

Babaji Killay 1 1 1 Sanitation Vendor/Mason

&CLTS ExpertZando Banda

Chel1 1 1

Abbottabad

Bagh 1 1 1 Sanitation Specialist

& Sanitation

Vendor Kallo Maira 1 1 1

Mansehra Jabba 1 1Naka Guldar 1 1

Chitral Lotinga 1 1 1 AKBSP & ICBeori Payan 1 1 1

Major Findings

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

21%

51%

3%

65%

86%69%

93%

71%

Latrine Coverage Before & After CLTS

Before After

Type of Latrines

3-chanmbers bricks linning

Precast Rings Soakage Pit Flush (Direct to Drain)

Dry pit 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

10%

0%

85%

5% 0%

5%

0%

85%

10%0%

0.15

0

0.75

0.10

15%

70%

0% 10% 5%

Type of Latrines adopted by commu-nities (district wise)

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra

Reasons for NOT constructing Latrines

Poverty Lack of water

No space No drainage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

85%

0%

10%5%

90%

0%0%

10%

75%

15% 0%

10%

80%

0% 0%

20%

Reasons for not constructing latrines

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra

Overall Open Defecation Trends

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

14%

31%

7%

29%

Overall Open Defecation Trends

Open Defecation Trends by people having latrines

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

10%

0%

10%

20%

0% 0%0%

0%

20%

0%

10%

30%Open Defecation Trends by the people having latrines at home

Men Women Children

OD places used by people who have no latrines

Fields Hills Fields Disposed off in open

Hills Fields Streets Waste Dumps

Hill

Men Women Children

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50% 50%

20%

0%

80%

0%

75%

15%10%

20%

80%

0% 0%

100%

0%

25%

70%

5%

60%

40% 40%

0%

60%

0%

80%

20%

0%

100%

0% 0%

100%

0% 10%

65%

25%

0%

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra

Sustainability & Replicability of low cost latrines

People constructing latrines

Men start using latrines

OD Decreased Covering feaces with soil

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

10%

40%

50%

0%

20%

45%

35%

0%

15%

35%

50%

0%

20%

50%

20%

10%

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra

Suggestion by the Community for 100% Latrine Coverage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80%

0%

20%

0% 0%

100%

0% 0% 0% 0%

20%

0%10%

50%

20%

60%

30%

10%0% 0%

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra

Availability of Trained Masons

Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

40%

0%0%

30%

Gaps in CLTS Process & projects

• Village Selection Criteria is not defined. If sanitation is not the priority of the village then CLTS triggering cannot be successful

• Facilitator is backbone of the CLTS triggering. Only he/she can make the project successful

• Local Institutions are neglected in CLTS triggering and post PRA follow up

• Follow up mechanism is either completely missing or very poor

• There is huge gap in demand and supply in terms of latrines.

• Local Masons and Vendors are not considered to be part of the PRA who are the most important stakeholders of the whole process

Gaps in CLTS Process & projects• Linkages of Low cost options of latrines are

either missing or very poor • The CLTS projects are limited to ODF only.

Other aspects of sanitation are missing. No funds or project extension available to achieve the total sanitation

• The CLTS is not prioritized at government level. There seems little commitment of the government agencies and political will

• The nutrient value of the human waste (urine & excreta) is neglected in all projects

Recommendations • Pre-defined criteria is needed for

village selection• Non-expert facilitator should be

avoided whether CRP or SO/SM• Natural Leaders and Local

Institutions should be given lead role during and post triggering process

• More energies and funds are needed to build the capacity of local institutions

• Short term projects in CLTS cannot work. Long term projects are needed more focused on Post PRA

Recommendations• Cost of latrines is inversely proportional

to cost of environment. Lower the cost, greater is damage to environment. Govt. investment are needed in terms of sewerage system (STU) that can reduce the cost of household latrines

• More investments are needed to empower local institutions

• Local Masons are Vendor should be part of PRA or post PRA strategy

Recommendations• No latrine design should be given in PRA

by facilitator. A technical person (engineer, mason, vendor) should lead in giving low cost options to the community

• As a tradition, dry pit option should be avoided by facilitator. This was found the most rejected option by all communities during the study. Therefore it can be lead to process failure in case of collapse

• Strategies and planning is needed to use the nutrients value of human waste

• Collective efforts of all donor, government, implementing partners and academia are needed. Working in isolation cannot work anymore

Thank You