Data reconciliation
At country level, differences may be observed in the figures on the use of drinking-water sources and sanitation facilities presented by different agencies. Often there are also differences between these national estimates and those at the MDG level. [read more…]
At the origin of these discrepancies lies the issue of institutional fragmentation. Responsibilities for rural drinking-water and sanitation may be with different national bodies, who may each apply their own monitoring definitions, methods and procedures. The same is true, often at the municipal level, for urban drinking-water and sanitation. What is the nature of these different approaches? Can definitions be harmonized? Is it possible to align numbers so discrepancies can be reduced? Can barriers between sectoral institutions be overcome in the area of monitoring? Ultimately, can national monitoring of sanitation and drinking-water be fitted into a common framework ?
This challenge has been addressed by JMP over the past two years in collaboration with a small number of countries. The first results of these data reconciliation and alignment processes are enlightening and promising.
Different actors in charge of monitoring
At national level, it is common for different line ministries to monitor national access to drinking-water and sanitation. The National Statistics Office (NSO) is usually responsible overall for all national data, however individual line-ministries responsible for actual service provision often have their own monitoring mechanisms. Where NSOs largely rely on household surveys and census data, line-ministries often track progress based on recorded outputs of the sector. [read more…]
Measuring different aspects
Line ministries responsible for water supply and sanitation often measure the provision of drinking-water supply and sanitation facilities and/or the number of service connections. NSOs tend to use household surveys and censuses to measure the actual use of drinking-water and sanitation facilities by household members. This difference is important as a service once provided may no longer be operational, or simply may not be used for various reasons. [read more…]
Using different definitions of access
NSOs and different line ministries may use different definitions of access and these, in turn, may differ from the definitions used for the MDG coverage estimates. Understanding the differences in definitions is key to the process of comparing national and MDG coverage estimates. [read more…]
How coverage is measured for MDG monitoring
Since the MDG targets are based on the use of improved sanitation and drinking-water facilities, the JMP relies on nationally representative household surveys and censuses usually conducted by NSOs. In order to be able to compare coverage rates and progress among countries, standard definitions of access are used across all countries. [read more…]
Reconciling JMP and country estimates
Over the past two years, JMP has worked with a number of pilot countries to:
- develop a common understanding of monitoring methods;
- explore the possibility of harmonizing or aligning monitoring approaches;
- encourage greater collaboration among national agencies, and between national agencies and JMP.
Once definitions are clarified at national level, it is possible to make national and JMP definitions correspond better. The JMP objective is to ensure comparability between countries. Efforts by JMP to reconcile data have advanced understanding of the different approaches taken by countries. However, it is not within the JMP’s mandate or capacity to carry out such a process in every country. JMP is therefore collaborating with other country-based organizations to pursue this task.
