Thank you for your thoughtful reflections. You raise an important point regarding the evidence base for sustained and progressive sanitation improvements following CLTS. While critiques of the approach are common, documented examples of communities successfully moving up the sanitation ladder do exist though they are admittedly fewer and less publicized.In many cases, progress has been observed where CLTS has been complemented with post-triggering support, strong local leadership, and access to affordable materials. However, comprehensive statistics and long-term evaluations remain limited, which is why continued discussion and shared learning are so valuable.I appreciate your contribution to this conversation and hope others can share additional positive cases or data to strengthen the evidence base.
Kind regards,

Kapalu

Hello Kapalu,

Thank you for such an insightful post. What I have always wondered is what analysis and evaluation of this method is revealing about the successes of the CLTS approach. We are often quick to criticise and say that the entry level of the CLTS ladder may not be sustainable, but has there been any documented successful progression along this ladder? Specifically, are there examples of communities that started at the lowest level, managed to sustain their facilities, and eventually moved up to more improved sanitation options? What do the statistics look like?

I would really like to see evidence of such transitions, considering much of the sector opinion on the CLTS approach that I have come across appears to be quite critical of its outcomes, and very few writings highlight positive or successful cases. Therefore, thank you for starting this conversation. I look forward to hearing from others who may have more positive experiences or evidence of successful implementation.

Regards,
Chaiwe

CLTS at a Crossroads: Why Community Energy Needs Technical Backing

Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) has transformed how villages confront open defecation, replacing subsidies with community action, pride, and local innovation. But a growing question is emerging across research and practice: Can communities truly build safe, lasting sanitation facilities without some level of technical support. New evidence suggests that while community-led energy is powerful, it often needs a technical handrail to ensure long-term safety, durability, and public health impact. CLTS was designed around a simple but radical belief: people understand their own challenges best, and when motivated, they can drive lasting change without external hardware support. Through pre-triggering visits, triggering walks, and strong follow-up, communities gain the confidence to stop open defecation and build their own toilets using local materials. In many countries, this process has sparked genuine pride, creativity, and a new sense of ownership over sanitation.

But evidence from Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, and Indonesia reveals a recurring challenge: many community-built latrines fall short of the technical standards needed to ensure health and long-term sustainability. Common issues poor ventilation, collapsing pits, inadequate lining, leaking superstructures, and confusion around groundwater safety show that motivation alone isn't always enough. In some cases, latrines quickly fail, forcing households back to open defecation.

Interviews with leading sanitation experts echo the same concern. While everyone agrees on the power of CLTS to spark behaviour change, most believe that communities still need light-touch but meaningful technical support whether understanding basic design principles, choosing safe pit locations, or learning how to manage full pits and structural weaknesses. The challenge is providing this guidance without undermining the community-led spirit that makes CLTS so effective.

Climate and soil conditions also matter greatly. Areas with high water tables, unstable soils, or heavy rains often require technical input simply to keep toilets standing. Even the most determined community cannot compensate for collapsing pits or flooded superstructures without guidance rooted in engineering and environmental science.

What is emerging is not a rejection of CLTS, but a more balanced model: Let communities lead but support them just enough to ensure the latrines they build are safe, hygienic, and durable. Many practitioners now suggest a two-phase approach: ignite demand first, allow communities to innovate, and then offer targeted technical advice that strengthens not replaces their ownership.

CLTS remains one of the worlds most powerful behaviour-change movements in sanitation. But for it to deliver on its promise of health, dignity, and sustainability, technical support should not be viewed as a contradiction. Instead, it may be the missing link that helps communities climb the sanitation ladder safely and confidently.