1

A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities

Key Findings

2

Monitor and communicate

Female self confidence

Increase access to markets and services

Improve family assets

Reduce environmental risks

Improve livelihoods, incomes and food

security 1m extremely poor island char residents

CLP Objectives

3

Funding UKP 70 m

Aus$ 15 m

Duration April 2010 – January 2016

Working area Kurigram, Gaibandha

Rangpur, Nilphamari, Lalmonirhat

Pabna, Tangail

Management agent

Maxwell Stamp PLC

Clients Island char households (67,000 extreme poor CPHHs; 6 cohorts)

4

5

6

Selection criteria

Occupation No formal employment

Land ownership No land ownership

Productive assets Up to Tk 5,000

Credit No loan from a micro-finance institute

Residency 6 months on island char

Assets and income Not receiving cash / asset grants from another programme

7

Core package of support• Productive asset

(primarily cattle)• Stipends • Homestead raised on a

plinth• WATSAN• Livelihoods training

(asset maintenance, homestead gardening etc.)

• Weekly social development meetings (18 months)

• Health vouchers

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Key differences between CLP-1 and CLP-2

• Broadly the same but with some differences:– Numbers and cohorts– Area– Phasing out some CLP-1 activities: education, health– Partnerships “crowding-in” (GO, NGO, private)– Building social capital at the community level– Piloting and scaling up success e.g. low cost sanitary

latrines– Etc.

15

Sustainability study objectives

• Plinth occupancy– CPHHs still residing?– Payments for right to

reside?

• Water and sanitation– Access to a CLP

latrine and sanitary condition?

– Access to safe water?– Improved hygiene

practices?

• Livelihoods– H’stead gardening;

composting?– Growing and diversifying

assets?– Maintenance of cattle?

• Human Development– Improved knowledge,

attitudes & practice

16

Methodology

• Sample unit: CLP-1 core participants• Factors influencing sustainability

– Geography– Phase– 20 ‘domains’

• Combined ATP1&2 into ‘earlier’ and ATP3&4 into ‘later’ phases (10 domains)

• Sample size 2,821• December 2010/ January 2011 • Data collection outsourced• Mixed method approach

17

Plinth Occupancy

• Over 90,000 households on a raised plinth

• 74% still residing on raised plinth

• Jamalpur: 87%• Bogra: 59%• Erosion, relocation

(own choice) and eviction

18

Plinth OccupancyProportion of CPHHs still residing on their raised plinth

Base: All sampled CPHHs

87

5969

75 75 74

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19

Plinth Occupancy

Reasons why CPHHs are not residing on their raised plinth

Base: CPHHs no longer residing on raised plinth

12 10

40

30

62 0

05

1015202530354045

Evicted Did not takepossession

Eroded Move toother places

(own will)

Move otherplace due to

threat oferosion

Sold plinth Other

20

Plinth Occupancy

• Land claimant had at one time demanded cash payment: 26% (early) and 23% (later) cohorts (Sirajganj).

• Demand for non cash payments minimal

21

Sanitation• 62,000 slab latrines installed

• Sanitary latrine definition

• 80% and 70% of earlier and later cohorts currently have access to a latrine (sanitary and unsanitary)

• Open defecation is down. Around 6% of adult males and females compared to around 20% new recruits (cohort 2.2)

• High proportions of CPHHs with access to a latrine but ‘unsanitary’

22

Sanitation% of CPHHs with access to a sanitary latrine at baseline and 'endline'

10

44

6

56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Baseline Sustainability study (recipients of latrine)

ATP1&2

ATP3&4

23

Sanitation

Proportion of hhs with a latrine that has either a broken water seal and/ or plastic pan at time of survey (all households)

Base: All respondents with a latrine

51%

41% 42%

30% 28%31%

35%

25%

44%

30%

40%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later

Jamalpur Bogra Gaibandha Kurigram Sirajganj Total

24

Water• CLP-1 provided tubewells and

platforms

• Currently, the main source of drinking water is from others’ TW (52% -56%) followed by own TW (44% - 40%)

• Access to ‘safe water’ definition– From a TW on raised plinth– Platform– 10 minute round trip– (40 feet +)

25

WaterProportion of CPHHs with access to safe water at time of survey

18%

12% 12% 12%

16%

19%

16%

23% 22%

14%

17%16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later Earlier Later

Jamalpur Bogra Gaibandha Kurigram Sirajganj Total

Base: All respondents

26

WaterReasons why households do not have access to safe water

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Earlier Latter Earlier Latter Earlier Latter Earlier Latter Earlier Latter Earlier Latter

Jamalpur Bogra Gaibandha Kurigram Sirajganj Total

Does not have a cement platform Not on a raised plinth More than 10 minutes return journey There significant cracks in the platform

Base: Households without access to clean water

27

Hygiene

• Evidence of soap/ ash in 72% of CPHHs compared to 33% for cohort 2.2 at baseline

28

Vegetable production and composting

• High proportions cultivating pit crops (70-80%)

• Low proportions cultivating bed crops (<10%)

• Reasons: space/ shade/ perceived benefits

29

Sustaining and growing assetsProportion of households with assets (land/ cattle) at the time of the survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

With land With land and cattle

Earlier

Later

30

Social development

31

Social development

0102030405060708090

100

Legal age marriageboys

Legal age marriagegirls

Law against dowry Law against violenceagainst women/ girls

% w

ith c

orre

ct k

now

ledg

e

Early (%) Later (%) Cohort 2.2 (b'line %)

Base: All respondents

Proportion of households where female respondent has correct knowledge of SD issues

32

Social development

Base: All respondents

Proportion of households where joint decisions are made on various issues

0102030405060708090

100

Use of contraceptives Use of savings Buying clothes Marriage age ofchildren

% C

PH

H j

oin

t d

ecis

ion

s m

ade

Early (%) Later (%) Cohort 2.2 (b'line %)

33

To summariseEvidence of soap/ ash near water point is up

Cultivation of bed crops and composting limited

Households are diversifying

Increased knowledge Increased joint decision making

74% CPHHs still on their plinths

Access to latrines is up Open defecation is down

BUT water seals is an issue

Households accessing water from a TW

BUT platforms are an issue

34

Recommendations

• Monitoring/ learning

• Water seals (quality/ understanding importance of water seals)

• Platforms

• ‘Light’ follow up support in exited villages

35

Thank you!

36

Actual and predicted rates of erosion of CPHHs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 50 100 150

Age of plinth (months) when CPHHs are eroded

% o

f C

PH

Hs

Predicted erosion rate (cumulative % of CPHHs eroded)

Actual erosion rate (cumulative % of CPHHs eroded)

37

Impact

Indicator CLP-1 Cohort 2.1 at baseline

Mean value of productive assets (Taka)

34,178 871

Income pppd (Taka) 32 22

Expenditure pppd (Taka) 26 18

Cash savings (Taka) 2,491 554

Mean number food groups consumed last 7 days

7.4 5.7