EcoAir Biobased CLP PRMicrosoft Word - EcoAir Biobased CLP PR.docx Created Date 20181017122307Z ...
1 A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings.
-
Upload
norma-bradford -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
3
Transcript of 1 A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings.
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