Community-Led Total Sanitation

Q: Community-Led Total Sanitation is very popular and the approach seems to be copied by many countries. What is your opinion of the CLTS approach?
(Indonesia Sanitation Sector Development Project (ISSDP))

Answer: (by Christine Sijbesma, senior programme officer at IRC)
Please find herewith the (to my knowledge) lastest paper on the Community Led Total Sanitation Campaign. It´s an IDS working paper by Kamal Kar and Petra Bongartz, published in 2006: Update on some recent development in Community-Led Total Sanitation. [2,6 MB]

Although CLTS is a good campaign approach and may also work well in closely knit urban communities, it can in my view be improved:

• Gender and a gender equity approach are absent – who take part in e.g. the initial inventory, in discussion and information on latrine options, in decision-making on choice of technology and design, in local leadership, in training of local leaders, in expansion to other communities (one program pays local leaders USD 8 per day to train and guide other communities), in recognition? All data I saw were non-sex disaggregated.
• Although cases of solidarity with the very poor have been reported, there is no systematic approach to assist the them, although the methodology does allow this. It only excludes external subsidy as non-sustainable, often inequitable and discouraging action. There are proven ways for systematic solidarity with the poor through internal help in kind/cash in various forms which could be included in CLTS. The PRA tools of classifying and mapping welfare levels (which are in the toolsfile) help planning and accountability of support to the worst-off.
• While problem identification and action are community-led, knowledge sharing could be more systematic. It is now up to each individual household to make/improve designs – sharing know-how and technical skils is not a systematic component. I noted the same in Payakumbuh. People did not visit each others’ toilet, design and building were still a private matter. It would be good to systematically include knowledge sharing on design and construction e.g. through discussing designs and ways of building in male and female FGDs and inter-household visits from households (couples!) who are still planning their toilets to households who have already constructed;
• Durability (and so sustainability) of the cheapest models is frequently low – while the approach can easily include planned upgrading of initial models over time, this issue seems not to be addressed systematically;
• The emphasis is on outputs (100% toilets/no more open defecation) - there is no systematic monitoring and reporting of outcomes (e.g. hygienically used and maintained toilets, water collected by all family members for flushing and handwashing; toilet brush, handwashing soap present, potties for infants, infant and baby stools enddisposed in toilet) , nor consolidation and independent checking of data at above-community level.
• Although a key issue, toilets are not the only area for action – other hygiene aspects can be linked
  
  For more information on CLTS, take a look at the Livelihoods Connect Hot Topic ´Community Led Total Sanitation´. This site is part of the research project Going to Scale? The Potential of Community-Led Total Sanitation, managed by the Institute of Development Studies.