This document summarizes a study on CLTS (Community Led Total Sanitation) and low-cost latrine options in 4 districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Key findings include large increases in latrine coverage after CLTS implementation but continued open defecation. The most common latrine type was 3-chamber bricks with lining. Poverty was the main reason for lack of latrines. Recommendations focus on selecting villages where sanitation is a priority, strengthening local institutions, ensuring latrine design options come from technical experts, and developing long-term projects and policies to sustain gains in sanitation coverage.

1. Research Study on
CLTS and Low Cost
Latrines Options
A study by IRSP with support of CESSD

2. 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

3. Objective of the Study
The 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

4. 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

5. Sampling
District Villages No. of FGDs No. of KIIs KIIs with
Men Women
Nowshehra Babaji Killay 1 1 1 Sanitation
Vendor/Mason
&
CLTS ExpertZando Banda
Chel
1 1 1
Abbottabad Bagh 1 1 1 Sanitation Specialist
&
Sanitation Vendor
Kallo Maira 1 1 1
Mansehra Jabba 1 1
Naka Guldar 1 1
Chitral Lotinga 1 1 1 AKBSP &
ICBeori Payan 1 1 1

6. Major Findings
21%
51%
3%
65%
86%
69%
93%
71%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra
Latrine Coverage Before & After CLTS
Before After

7. Type of Latrines
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
3-chanmbers
bricks linning
Precast Rings Soakage Pit Flush (Direct to
Drain)
Dry pit
10%
0%
85%
5%
0%
5%
0%
85%
10%
0%
15%
0
75%
10%
0%
15%
70%
0% 10%
5%
Type of Latrines adopted by communities
(district wise)
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra

8. Reasons for NOT constructing Latrines
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Poverty Lack of water No space No drainage
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

9. Overall Open Defecation Trends
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra
14%
31%
7%
29%
Overall Open Defecation Trends

10. Open Defecation Trends by people having
latrines
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra
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

11. OD places used by people who have no latrines
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fields Hills Fields Disposed
off in open
Hills Fields Streets Waste
Dumps
Hill
Men Women Children
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

12. Sustainability & Replicability of low cost latrines
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
People constructing
latrines
Men start using latrines OD Decreased Covering feaces with
soil
10%
40%
50%
0%
20%
45%
35%
0%
15%
35%
50%
0%
20%
50%
20%
10%
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra

13. Suggestion by the Community for 100% Latrine Coverage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Subsidy for poors Sewerage System Awareness Water Supply Reward
Mechanism
80%
0%
20%
0% 0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0%
20%
0%
10%
50%
20%
60%
30%
10%
0% 0%
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Nowshehra

14. Availability of Trained Masons
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Abbottabad Chitral Mansehra Noshehra
40%
0%
0%
30%

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Thank You