1 / 31

Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities

Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities Action Research Learning from East Java, INDONESIA October 2012

curt
Download Presentation

Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Achieving and Sustaining Open Defecation Free Communities Action Research Learning from East Java, INDONESIA October 2012 Nilanjana Mukherjee

  2. Outline • Context and Rationale • Research Questions • Methodology • Key Findings • Key Learning & Recommendations

  3. Part of a global WSP initiative to test a combination of scaling up approaches …….. Scaling Up Rural Sanitation project, East Java, INDONESIA • East Java Province - 37 million people • Home to 20% of Indonesia’s poor • All 29 districts covered Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

  4. Project Results in East Java 2007- 2011 • 1.4 million people gained access to improved • sanitation – 10 times the national rate • > 6200 communities triggered with CLTS (70% with government budget) • 40% communities verified as Open Defecation Free, • BUT ………’Hit rates’ vary 5-98% across districts !

  5. Key Research Questions • What factors affect collective behavior change at scale towards Open Defecation Free (ODF) communities ? • What factors influence the sustainability of the behavior change achieved? • How can government programs and institutions best support these changes ?

  6. Study sites: 80 communities in 20 Districts

  7. Participatory Action Research with CLTS-triggered communities . • Randomization within 4 strata of triggered communities. QUICKLY ODF Within 2 months of triggering LATE ODF In 7 -12 months of triggering NOT ODF 1 yr.post-triggering +High Coverage >80% Response to Triggering NOT ODF 1 yr post-triggering +Low Coverage <50%

  8. Research Instruments • 160 Focus Group Discussions with community groups, including • separate FGDs with Open defecator and sharer households • participatory analysis tools • 574 household sanitation observations and interviews with latrine owners. • Content analysis of gathered information.

  9. Key Findings Access gained and sustained 2. Factors associated with ODF achievement 3. Factors associated with ODF sustainability 4. What poor consumers want and will pay for

  10. QUICKLY ODF communities gained most access in the least time - most efficient scale-up model % households with sanitation

  11. Do They Remain ODF? Quickly ODF: 95% still verifiably ODF, 4 - 28.5 months after ODF declaration Late ODF: yes, but…some OD continues in 20% communities Flags for Local Goverments: ODF outcomes materializing after many months need rigorous verification ! Once verified and given ODF certificates, communities still need periodic sustainability checks.

  12. Key Findings Factors associated with ODF achievement

  13. What characterized QUICKLY ODF communities? - 1 (Factors working in favor) • Highsocial capital • 2. Triggering in response to demand from community leaders. • 3. High-quality CLTS triggering : • gender-and- socially inclusive , • proper use of 3 or more CLTS tools, • triggering delinked from advice on latrine building. • 4. No history of receiving external subsidies. Contd... • . • -

  14. What characterized QUICKLY ODF • communities? - 2(Factors working in favor) • Post-triggering • 5. Households able to access preferred types of latrines at affordable rates because of easier payment termsbrokered by community leaders for all households. • 7. Regular community monitoring of both behavior change and construction, with enforcement of sanctionsagainst Open Defecators. • . • -

  15. What characterized LATE ODF • communities ? • Leaders uninvolved in triggering- less mutual self-help action – less social capital. • 2. Lower - quality CLTS process (2 or fewer CLTS tools used, or used incorrectly,/facilitators discussed latrine building, subsidies, sanitation credit during triggering.) • 3. Consumers reject low-cost dry pit solutions as undesirable. • 4. Reliance on slow financing mechanisms like project- provided revolving funds. • 5. Community monitored construction, not behavior change. • -

  16. What characterized NOT ODF, but High -coverage communities? (Where Change began, but failed to gather momentum) • 1. CLTS triggering quality poor • 2. Had all received external sanitation subsidies - had high expectations of further subsidies; • 3. Little post-triggering monitoring by external agents or communities themselves . • 4. Community unaware of lower-cost options for smell-free, pour-flush systems. • -

  17. What characterized NOT ODF Low- Coverage communities ? • (Where change process failed to take off) • Situated next to river, canal, sea. • “We enjoy defecating in running water. It is clean, convenient, and free of cost. ………….”The fish eat it up.” • “Shit is not something to be kept in homes. The river takes it away” • “As long as rivers flow, why spend money/time to build latrines?”…..(FGDs) • 2. Situated in remote swamp • areas lacking transport and • market access. • Contd…

  18. What characterized NOT ODF and Low coverage communties ? - 2 • (Where change process failed to take off) • 3. CLTS triggering quality very poor, • Lack of social capital (leaders not trusted, conflicts between hamlets, no collective action traditions) • Leaders did not buy-in to ideas of ODF communities and subsidy-free approaches. • Complete lack of post-triggering monitoring by anyone…external agents or communities. • -

  19. Key Findings Factors associated with ODF sustainability

  20. Communities that Sustained their ODF status had: • Continued post-ODF behavior monitoring by both community and external agency. • Community-devised systems functioning for detecting and sanctioning open defecation. • Households enabled (by communities themselves) to acquire low-cost, but somewhat durable sanitation solutions of their choice, in the drive to become ODF.

  21. Communities that failed to sustain • their ODF status had: • Little behavior and access monitoring after ODF declaration, by communities and/or external agents. • Very low-cost/no-cost solutions chosen by households or community leaders to become ODF, - easily damaged, and not repaired/replaced. • Lack of information in communities about low-cost, progressively upgradable improved sanitation options. • 4. Sharing arrangements breaking down. • 5. Sharers continuing with open defecation along with sharing.

  22. Key Findings What poor consumers want and will pay for

  23. 6 Rich Households In-between households Poor Households 5 4 $ 216-432 3 $108 – 163 2 $32 – 55 SANITATION LADDER of Who built what- at what cost in East Java (2008-2010 ) 1 $ 543 -1304 $ 5 – 25 Labor + 0 cost OD

  24. Rich Households 6 Middle income households Poor Households Ceramic pan, pour flush water seal WC, 2-pit septic tank, + tiled bathroom 5 Rp.2-4 million Ceramic pan, pour-flush water seal WC and 2 pit septic tank 4 Rp.1 – 1.5 million Ceramic pan, pour-flush water seal WC, to 1 pit lined with 2 concrete rings 3 Rp.300,000 – 500,000 Cemented offset pit slab, wooden lid, 1 pit lined with 2 concrete rings 2 Rp.50,000– 300,0000 Rp.5-12 million Who built what and at what cost in East Java (2008-2010) Pit Latrine cemented slab, and wooden lid 1 Labor + 0 cost Pit Latrine- wooden/ bamboo slab and wooden lid OD

  25. When CLTS ignited demand for improved sanitation, local markets failed to meet expectations of poor consumers. • Poorest invest $5 -55 in a starter level permanent latrine - which only buys improved dry pits – NOT a preferred option • Preferred option - pour-flush latrine, cost $108 ++ in local markets. • When available with installment credit or deferred payments, the poor paid up to $80-85 to get pour-flush latrines. • Open Defecator households commonly owned color TV, cell phones, bicycles, all bought with installment credit. • .

  26. KEY Learning -1 • QUICKLY ODF communities most efficient model for scale up. Gained most access and fastest, and sustained ODF outcomes better than all other categories. • ODF outcomes materializing after many months are more prone to slippage - need rigorous verification. • Sanitation behavior change is difficult to ignite in waterfront communities. They need special strategies for triggering and follow-up. • Open Defecators and Sharers have very different motivations for existing behavior, - need to be targeted differently for behavior change.

  27. KEY Learning - 2 • 5. Good quality CLTS triggering is essential to start the collective behavior change process. BUT it alone does not guarantee achievement of ODF outcomes. • Provided CLTS triggering is of adequate quality, progress to ODF achievement and sustainability is hastened by: • Community’s social capital • Leadership involvement in change. • Availability and affordability of latrine attributes desired by consumers. • Absence of externally provided subsidies. • Post-triggering behavior and progress monitoring by external agencies together with communities. • East Java’s poorest open defecators have the ability to acquire improved sanitation facilities of their choice – if available on easier payment terms.

  28. RECOMMENDATIONS for Sector institutions working to scale up rural sanitation

  29. To get biggest bang for the program buck…. Invest in market research to improve supply side options for the poor beforestarting demand generation at scale. Devise and implement a local ‘hardware subsidy funds management strategy’ Cluster communities for intervention according to special triggering strategies and follow-up support needed. Provide CLTS triggering in response to expressed demand from village leadership. Contd..

  30. To get biggest bang for the program buck…. Institutionalize funding and accountability for post-triggering and post-ODF monitoring at scale. Establish process quality standards and QA mechanisms for CLTS facilitation by institutions, based on study findings.

  31. Full report, 2012 , Research Brief, 2011 Available on www.wsp.org THANK YOU ! The Research Team: Nilanjana Mukherjee, bubul44@gmail.com with AminRobiarto, Saputra, Effentrif, DjokoWartono Field Team: RoniePrasetyo, WidaIndrayanti, PrachinoKurniawan, Toni Fathoni

More Related