| Date post: | 04-Aug-2015 |
| Category: |
Government & Nonprofit |
| Upload: | irc |
| View: | 66 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Untapped potential of U-CLTS in tackling the
emerging challenges of urban sanitation
Dr Kamal KarChairman, CLTS Foundation
For the Roundtable discussion on urban sanitation in line with U-CLTSVenue: IRC , The Hague
Setting the Urban context
• In 2014, 54% of the world’s population was residing in urban areas. By 2050, 66% of the world’s population is projected to be urban.• Close to 50% of the world’s urban dwellers reside in relatively
smaller settlements (towns/cities) of less than 500,000 inhabitants. Roughly one in eight live in the 28 mega-cities with more than 10 million inhabitants.• By 2030, about 3 billion people, or about 40% of the world’s
population, will need proper housing and access to basic infrastructure and services such as water and sanitation systems.
Problems due to rapid urbanization in developing countries
• Lack of necessary infrastructure for water and sanitation, energy, transportation, waste management & sewerage• Unequal access to services• Lack of safe housing and proliferation of slums• Rapidly increasing Rural to Urban migration, unauthorized settlement,
threat of eviction, unequal relationship between landlord and tenant,• Lack of interest of the word councilors/ elected people’s representatives
in case of illegal settlements as they don’t have voting rights (Mymensing/Dhaka slums)• Often slum dwellers are used as pawns by politicians • Emerging risks and dangers of public health
Understanding the geographical context of urban vs rural
• There are variations in Urban settlements which may be classified under : Urban, peri-urban/semi rural etc. Thus, providing different opportunities for CLTS to work in urban areas• Several overlap exist between urban and rural areas for synergies to be
formed:• Peri urban towns are distinctly different from high concentration
metropolitan cities/ big cities in terms of livelihoods, mobility etc.
Understanding the geographical context of urban vs rural
• Unlike rural, in urban slums human excreta and solid waste cannot necessarilty be absorbed underground in its entirity unless transported outside the slums either through underground sewerage or surface solid waste collection mechanism.• However, there are Community dynamics and relationships exist
among the urban poor groups which could also be harnessed in urban CLTS.
Case Study - Kalyani
Background• Kalyani is a town 52 k. m. north of Calcutta in Nadia district of
West Bengal• According to 2011 census, the population was 100,620• This town is surrounded by 54 slums, out of which 51 slums
existed when the intervention was made in 2005-6.• Most of the slum residents were originally migrants from
neighboring states and refugees from Bangladesh ( 1-2 generations)• The then Chairman of Kalyani Municipality was keen to apply
CLTS approach and make Kalyani a Open Defecation Free (ODF)
What was done over the past ten years, to improve sanitation profile of 10947 slum families before CLTS?
•MDP sector supported by HUDCO built 700 toilets costing Rs. 5,000/- each • Refugee Rehabilitation Department built 3300 toilets costing
about Rs. 8,500 each • KUSP built 365 toilets costing Rs. 9,900/- each during year
2006-07
Fate of free toilets in a slum of Kalyani Municipality
Experience with Subsidized Toilets
• Low usage• Facilities used for other purposes than the purpose for which
it was built• Poor maintenance• Lack of ownership• Subsidy cannot cover 100% population of all slums• Total dependence on external subsidy
Background
•CLTS was implemented in the 51 slums in 2005. • The programme was implemented under the Kolkata
Urban Services for the Poor (KUSP) funded by DFID•Kalyani declared the first urban ODF town in India in
January 29, 2009
Community of Jhil Par Colony in Kalyani
Municipality making a social map showing
houses with open pit latrines and defecation
areas
Calculation of shit and house hold medical expenses
Monitoring of CLTS Programme was done at different levels
Different coloured cards indicate the status of
different wards regarding CLTS
At the Municipality Board Room
Local Community Innovation in Kalyani
Local Community Innovation in Kalyani
Paved the bases of hand pumps
Cleaning up a clogged drain
A colony in Kalyani declaring themselves ODF
Outcome
• Gastrointestinal (especially diarrhoea and worm infestation)
disorders went down significantly• Community empowerment resulted in positive social
developments such as initiating non-formal / adult education programmes on their own after achieving ODF status, ban on the sale of country liquor in the slums
President of India recognized the success of Kalyani Municipality and awarded its Chairman the National Urban Water Award on August 13, 2009
Key findings• Areas of rural-urban overlap in the slums of Kalyani
• Unlike rural CLTS, the community did not have total decision making control due to: lack of availability of space to dig toilets in-situ, threat of eviction which made investment on sub structure a risk etc.• Moving up the sanitation ladder in Kalyani happened gradually at
different stages:• Community built their own toilets immediately after CLTS triggering• After one year, the communities upgraded their toilets with their
own money• A visit after 8 years revealed that government programmes
provided upgraded toilets – acceptance of this was much more as the community already had achieved collective behaviour change and sustained them over the years.
Lessons learnt
•Whether or not government intervention comes instead of waiting for that best is to intervene with CLTS• This paves the way for future government intervention for any
improvement• Scaling up increased two/three fold after Kalyani municipality
started using NLs/CCs
Moving up the technology ladder
