Urban community-led total sanitation: opportunities, barriers and lessons from Nanded, India

• There is a strong interplay between caste, gender, class and the sanitation crisis in rapidly urbanising areas. • The worst affected are marginalised residents as well as sanitation workers and migrants. • Local action and communities alone cannot address problems of faecal sludge and wastewater management. • CLTS programmes need to address second and third generation challenges as well as sustainability and equity. • Safely managed sanitation needs to be a political priority in rapidly urbanising areas. This article focuses on the sanitation challenges of rapidly urbanizing localities in the global South by drawing on the case of Nanded city in Maharashtra, India. Nanded had a short-lived experiment with urban Community-led Total Sanitation (CLTS) between 2011 and 2012 and is today officially considered to be highly successful in urban sanitation according to India’s Clean India Mission. However, in reality many challenges remain, especially for its marginalised residents especially around sewage, waste and faecal sludge management (FSM) (considered to be second and third generation challenges). The article thus seeks to: (1) Trace the story of CLTS implementation, its successes, legacy and limitations; and (2) Examine urban sanitation challenges that are often missed in official programmes especially with respect to marginality, waste, co-production and community action. Through qualitative research methods and two phases of research, first in 2012 and then between 2022 and 2024, we explore past and current perceptions and experiences of diverse communities around sanitation, waste and CLTS. We argue that while there is strong potential for urban sanitation programmes inspired by CLTS to positively improve sanitation in urban areas, they need to recognise historical and current drivers of marginality around class, caste, gender and geography that continue to shape sanitation access and safety. The focus of urban sanitation programmes also need to go beyond toilets and behaviour change programmes, largely targeted at poor and marginalised residents, to also address waste and faecal sludge management problems which cannot be tackled at the community level. Finally, to systematically tackle second and third-generation sanitation challenges, community action must be accompanied by institutional change, state buy-in, investment and co-production engaging different actors, from state agencies to citizens and other stakeholders. The findings have relevance for everybody seeking to achieve safe and equitable urban sanitation for all in rapidly urbanising contexts.