Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings

2 2 Improve livelihoods, incomes and food security 1m extremely poor island char residents Reduce environmental risks Improve family assets Increase access to markets and services Female self confidence Monitor and communicate CLP Objectives

3 3 FundingUKP 70 m Aus$ 15 m DurationApril 2010 – January 2016 Working areaKurigram, Gaibandha Rangpur, Nilphamari, Lalmonirhat Pabna, Tangail Management agent Maxwell Stamp PLC ClientsIsland char households (67,000 extreme poor CPHHs; 6 cohorts)

4 4

5 5

6 6 Selection criteria OccupationNo formal employment Land ownershipNo land ownership Productive assetsUp to Tk 5,000 CreditNo loan from a micro-finance institute Residency6 months on island char Assets and incomeNot receiving cash / asset grants from another programme

7 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 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 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 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 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 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 18 Plinth Occupancy Proportion of CPHHs still residing on their raised plinth Base: All sampled CPHHs

19 19 Plinth Occupancy Reasons why CPHHs are not residing on their raised plinth Base: CPHHs no longer residing on raised plinth

20 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 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 22 Sanitation % of CPHHs with access to a sanitary latrine at baseline and 'endline'

23 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

24 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 25 Water Proportion of CPHHs with access to safe water at time of survey Base: All respondents

26 26 Water Reasons why households do not have access to safe water Base: Households without access to clean water

27 27 Hygiene Evidence of soap/ ash in 72% of CPHHs compared to 33% for cohort 2.2 at baseline

28 28 Vegetable production and composting High proportions cultivating pit crops (70- 80%) Low proportions cultivating bed crops (<10%) Reasons: space/ shade/ perceived benefits

29 29 Sustaining and growing assets Proportion of households with assets (land/ cattle) at the time of the survey

30 30 Social development

31 31 Social development Base: All respondents Proportion of households where female respondent has correct knowledge of SD issues

32 32 Social development Base: All respondents Proportion of households where joint decisions are made on various issues

33 33 To summarise Evidence 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 34 Recommendations Monitoring/ learning Water seals (quality/ understanding importance of water seals) Platforms ‘Light’ follow up support in exited villages

35 35 Thank you!

36 36 Actual and predicted rates of erosion of CPHHs

37 37 Impact IndicatorCLP-1Cohort 2.1 at baseline Mean value of productive assets (Taka) 34,178871 Income pppd (Taka)3222 Expenditure pppd (Taka)2618 Cash savings (Taka)2,491554 Mean number food groups consumed last 7 days 7.45.7


Download ppt "1 A study to assess the sustainability of CLP-1 activities Key Findings."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google