350 likes | 710 Views
Kolkata Metropolis. 10th most populous Metropolis in the world (12.4 million)Highest population density in IndiaComprises of 3 Municipal Corporations with population of 5.8 million
E N D
1. Urban Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) Case Study
Kalyani Municipality
Kolkata (India)
By
Dr. Shibani Goswami
&
Dr. Kasturi Bakshi
2. Kolkata Metropolis 10th most populous Metropolis in the world (12.4 million)
Highest population density in India
Comprises of 3 Municipal Corporations with population of 5.8 million & 38 Municipalities with population of 6.6 million
Has 55.1% of the urban population of the state of West Bengal
33% of this urban population live in slums
3. KMA Slums Total no. of slums 9000
Total population of slums 4.1 million
Deplorable environmental conditions
Poor sanitation is a major health hazard
DFID is funding for slum improvement since 1991-92.
4. Kolkata Urban Services for the Poor (KUSP) KUSP is funded by DFID since 2003-04
Total budget is Rs. 714.77 million( US$ 17.7 million)
30.9% of total budget is for infrastructure improvement, with highest priority for household toilet construction
Cost of each H/H toilet is Rs.9900/- (US$ 236) provided free of cost to the slum dwellers
5. Urban Community Led Total Sanitation ? CLTS programme has been successful
in rural areas of Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh & Haryana in India
Concept of urban CLTS was conceived in late 2005 under KUSP
6. Background of CLTS Pilot Lack of community participation in accessing primary & public health care services amongst the urban slum communities observed
Traditionally community depends on services delivered by Municipal Health Care system as passive recipient
CLTS was the entry point to community Led Health Initiatives
7. Objectives Of CLTS Pilot Initiation of community driven health and sanitation improvement
Empowerment of local communities
Test out the model and approach of “Self Mobilisation” of urban slum community through facilitation (shift from the present mode of community “participation for material incentives/ subsidy” to more “interactive participation”)
8. Why Kalyani Municipality? Kalyani Municipality liked the idea of CLTS and offered to participate
The Chairman of Kalyani Municipality showed political will to make Kalyani an Open Defecation Free (ODF) City
The chief health officer of Kalyani Municipality showed keen interest in CLTS approach and coordinated and facilitated the implementation of the entire programme
9. Background of Kalyani Municipality & Slums One of the Municipalities out of 38 with population of 0.1 million
Total 52 Slums in Kalyani Municipality having 10947 families
Many of the slums are existing for the last 40-50 years
Most of the slum residents are migrants from neighboring states and refugees from
Bangladesh
Livelihood is mostly daily wage laborer, vendors, hawkers, maid servants etc.
10. What has been done over the past ten years, to improve sanitation profile of slum families before CLTS? MDP sector 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
More than 35 million Rupees (about US$ one million) spent for construction of H/H toilets for free
Rampant open defecation was practised even by those who had own toilets
11. 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
12. Process of CLTS Pilot in Kalyani Sensitised and exposed the stakeholders like:
Elected Municipal Councillors and all departmental heads of the municipality
Local NGOs and CBOs
Health Workers
Community people including local community leaders
13. Sensitisation of Councillors & Dept. Heads of Municipality It was made clear that
Increasing the number of toilets only was not the goal
Goal was to create ODF environment
It was behavioral change, and not the model of toilet which was important to achieve this goal.
Community Led Total Sanitation is the approach which totally eliminates open defecation.
14. Goal of CLTS was explained in seminars and workshops
Hands-on training on CLTS were arranged with slum communities
Post triggering follow-up ensured in CLTS t slums
Developed field facilitators Sensitization of Local NGO, CBO & Health Workers on
15. Methodology Used in Slum Community A total Participatory approach adopted where PRA tools were used extensively
Facilitated community sanitation profile appraisal & analysis through:
- Transect walk
- Defecation area mapping
- Fecal oral contamination analysis
- Feces calculation
- Calculation of H/H medical expenses
‘Handing over the stick’ at the ignition of moment by facilitators
No outsider advised to construct toilets or lectured on the problems of Open Defecation or model of appropriate toilet models
It was made clear that there was no subsidy of any kind
Participatory Planning was facilitated
17. Community of Jhil Par Colony in Kalyani Municipality making a social map showing houses with open pit latrines and defecation areas
18. How it was possible to clean up entire Kalyani using CLTS ?
Dr. Kasturi Bakshi
Chief Health Officer
Kalyani Municipality
19. Policy Decision by Board of Councillors Unanimous decision taken
To stop subsidy for construction of toilets
To give full support to CLTS Pilot in 5 slums
To give support to the communities who stop open defecation totally
5 most backward slums were selected for piloting
20. What Community People didn’t know? Community people were fully aware of the ill effects of open defecation but they did not know -
The concept of sanitary toilet
Sanitary toilets can be constructed at an affordable cost by all
Medical expenditure will only be reduced if everybody uses sanitary toilet
21. What is a sanitary toilet?
Any toilet that can break the fecal oral contamination cycle, which means, the micro-organisms from the human waste is unable to contaminate the food or drink that we take, is a sanitary toilet.
The toilets should fulfill three criteria:
1) No fowl smell
2) Waste should not be visible
3) No insect or animal should be able to reach the waste.What is a sanitary toilet?
Any toilet that can break the fecal oral contamination cycle, which means, the micro-organisms from the human waste is unable to contaminate the food or drink that we take, is a sanitary toilet.
The toilets should fulfill three criteria:
1) No fowl smell
2) Waste should not be visible
3) No insect or animal should be able to reach the waste.
22. Progress of CLTS First Triggering was done in Bhutta Bazar and it failed due to high expectation for subsidy which was provided in the neighbouring slum
Simultaneously triggering was done in 4 other slums
CLTS clicked in all these 4 slums as there was no expectation for outside subsidy
Bhuttabazar also became ODF but took longer time than others
All 5 slums eliminated open defecation in 6 months
Good number of Natural Leaders emerged
23. Example of Vidyasagar Colony In Vidyasagar Colony, number of toilets increased from initial 9 to 213 in 6 months without subsidy
Platform of 69 hand tube wells repaired and plastered with cement by community themselves.
Many years old clogged drain cleaned up by the community
26. Community took collective action locally towards making their environment ODF
The poorest also joined in making the slum ODF
Established mechanism for monitoring of progress of CLTS
Started non-formal / adult education on their own after achieving ODF status
Empowered community banned sale of country liquor in the slums
27.
28. Monitoring
29. Monitoring
30. Outcome Gastro Intestinal disorder declined
(as per health centre records)
31. Outcome After piloting in 5 slums, CLTS spread simultaneously in many more
Out of 52 slums, 44 slums are 100% ODF within 2 years
More than 1500 poor slum dwellers have built toilets on their own so far and using them
Gastrointestinal (especially diarrhoea and worm infestation) disorders have gone down significantly
32. Challenges at Policy Level Subsidy and associated local politics are the hurdles of community self mobilisation
Political will of Municipality Leadership & attitude of Councillors
Mind-set of technical people & philanthropic attitude of “doing for the poor”
Non-flexibility of hardware design, project log frame & expenditure as approved by the Donors
33. Challenges at Implementation Level Tribal slums were more resistant initially
Less social solidarity in some migrant communities with floating population
Un-authorised slum with no legal entities
Local political leader acting as gate-keeper
Dependency on subsidy
34. Message We need to shift from the “Blue print” approach to “Community Led Innovative” approach which is more flexible.
People can do it. Just empower them
35. THANK YOU