Debate: Should CLTS be implemented in its purest form?

Published on: 21/10/2011

One of the interesting and innovative sessions during an IRC learning week was a debate on Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) titled: ‘CLTS should be implemented in its purest form’.

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) focuses on igniting a change in sanitation behaviour rather than constructing toilets. It does this through a process of social awakening that is stimulated by facilitators from within or outside the community. It concentrates on the whole community rather than on individual behaviours. Collective benefit from stopping open defecation (OD) can encourage a more cooperative approach. People decide together how they will create a clean and hygienic environment that benefits everyone. Ref: Kamal Kar with R. Chambers, 2008

Participants were divided into four groups: a group arguing in favour of the motion, a group against the motion, judges that have to come to a verdict and the audience that can vote ate the end.

The rules for the debate were as follows:

• Groups were given two short rounds each to argue.
• Five minutes for preparation on both sides.
• Five minutes for both sides in round one to argue out their petition (three minutes for main points and two for additional points)
• Two minutes recession to prepare for final argument.
• Four minutes for round two i.e. each side had two minutes for main points and two for minor points

Arguments

Very interesting arguments were raised by both groups.

Points raised for the motion	Points raised against the motion
CLTS is suitable in all cultures It is beneficial to the local communities It is a powerful tool for promoting good sanitation The community is kept active during the process	community members have a lot of pride and cannot stand being shamed On the issue of sustainability, the technical aspect is not clear Community health clubs are the best approach because it builds on the culture You cannot eradicate open defecation only without addressing the other issues

The group arguing against CLTS in its purest form based their plea on culture and sustainability issues that are hampering CLTS. This grouped supported their arguments with quite a number of examples from Africa and Asia.

Verdict

Before the verdict, the judges observed that:

• There was little evidence from both groups in terms of studies and theories
• Why CLTS is different from other approaches was not clearly stated
• The issue of shame was not fully answered by the group arguing for the statement

The group arguing against the motion won the victory on the grounds that they supported their arguments with more examples. The Young Professionals of the Southern Youth Zone Programme participated actively in this debate. They were happy to be part of the winning team.

Cartoon

Is implementing CLTS in its purest form against our culture???

Text and cartoon: Basilia Nanbigne, Southern Youth Zone exchange participant from Ghana going to Uganda.