In South Africa, the prevalence of state subsidies, providing financial support to meet national sanitation framework objectives, has led to an absence in the literature analysing CLTS. However, budget shortfalls, prolonged wait times and inadequate results, outlined in my previous post, evidences the value of carving out a space for CLTS, away from state subsidises. Learning from other case studies across the continent, this post explains CLTS processes and their impact upon women.
The Process
CLTS fosters a new way of participating that is not imposed from above, emphasising community facilitation to promote natural leaders to construct their own solutions. CLTS begins with an informal talk, using crude, local words for ‘shit’ to help dismantle the taboos surrounding defecation. A ‘transect walk’, or ‘walk of shame’ throughout the community is subsequently undertaken, whereby participants spot areas of open defecation. The realisation that they are quite literally ‘eating each other’s shit’ collectively ‘triggers’ the community, igniting behavioural change. The facilitator is not meant to preach or embarrass, rather, they provide a ‘sanitation mirror’ in which participants become aware of and dissatisfied with the unsanitary conditions in which they live. This motivates the communal construction of latrines to eradicate open defecation.
Gender Impacts
By including men and women within CLTS, the latrines are gender-sensitive to the context they are embedded, by choosing a location that adheres to the sexual safety of women, whilst abiding cultural norms. For example, in South Africa, there is an expectation for the father-in-law to not use the same toilet as the daughter-in-law, hence two toilets would be constructed, as confirmed in contexts where CLTS has taken place, to encourage their sustainable use.
CLTS has the potential to promote gender equality principles in South Africa by blurring traditional gender roles. Women are encouraged to carry out typically male-dominated tasks, like digging for and constructing of latrines, in addition to adopting leadership positions.
Limitations
However, a limitation to including women within CLTS is that it steepens the unequal division of household labour. For example, female participants in Uganda deemed men as ‘lazy’ and ‘uncooperative’. As men located issues of sanitation within the domestic sphere, women assumed most of the CLTS responsibilities, in addition to fulfilling unpaid household duties. In contrasting villages, where male family members forbade women to participate, the safety of the toilets was reduced.
Learning from this, CLTS in South Africa must include men and women within conversations facilitating the latrine’s location and design. Development facilitators must not abandon the community, but support them in monitoring sanitation progress over time. This helps to ensure the toilets are maintained and used sustainably, providing feedback to motivate the reassignment of roles if women feel overburdened or unsafe.
In South Africa, the removal of state subsidies is unlikely, because this would abrogate socio-economic rights and basic services protected within South Africa’s constitution. Therefore, CLTS approaches would be 'mixed' with elements of top-down governance. However, 'mixing' has proven to reduce the effectiveness of CLTS, hindering the emergence of natural leaders, as ‘outsiders’ continue to offer solutions and education. Participants are therefore unable to take control of their sanitation situation, remaining passive actors of a beneficiary.
Nevertheless, CLTS does have the potential to eliminate open defecation and remedy some gendered issues in South Africa, provided the role of government is rethought. For example, from funding ‘outsider’ facilitators to investing in local staff, to help mobilise communities towards CLTS. This is crucial to reduce the pressure of delivering sanitation services, whilst advocating for sustainable change.
Comments
Post a Comment