JMP > Welcome to the WHO & UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme: Comment

WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation

Contributor

Title

Step

PDF

Status

Monitor household water quantity and quality, Measure knowledge and capacity, Establish top-level ultimate target, Measure "use of handwashing facilities"

archived

Capture, citizens, database, improved society

archived

Consolidated comments from SACOSAN ICWG meeting (7 countries)

archived

towards more inclusive indicators.

archived

Applicability of the published surveillance methodology (WHO, 1997) in the context of highly vulnerable hydrogeological conditions and revisions required

archived

WaterAid comments on draft proposal for consolidated drinking water, sanitation and hygiene targets, indicators and definitions – November 29th, 2012

archived

Some general issues

archived

Some general and sanitation issues

archived

Microbial water quality monitoring at the household level and the methods to do it

archived

Water and Sanitation for the Special (Disabled) Persons

archived

Make better use of disaggregated data in the indicators

archived

Consolidated document water, sanitation and hygiene targets and indicators post 2015

archived

Sustainability of Water System

archived

Sanitation facilities in Schools and Health centres.

archived

Comments from WSUP (Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor)

archived

Environmental Hygiene is a Necessary Component of Post-2015 Sanitation Goals

archived

comments of UNESCWA

archived

Basic should be safe

archived

Latin America & the Caribbean use a technical jargon to indicate higher water services - Introducing Effective Coverage complex indicator

archived

Why only Disadvantaged groups?

archived

Dissadvateged and Vulnerable for LAC is important to explicitly talk about Indigenous groups and People of African Descent

archived

Option B: 3 targets

archived

Consolidated feeback of Water Initiatives Division of Swiss Development Cooperation

archived

Comments by WHO\EURO\WSN on the draft paper on post-2015 monitoring

archived

Comments of DfID

archived

Comments of German Development

archived

Comments from UN-ESCWA

archived

General comments and thoughts on need for a specific water, sanitation, hygiene goal and supporting targets for post-2015

archived

Comments from WASH United on all working groups

archived

A transparent and objective process of short-listing indicators and targets

archived

Consider improvements in data collection and analysis

archived

Great job done! Comments from WECF please see in detail attached

archived

My general comments on the document

archived

Comments of UNESCWA

archived

Comments of UNESCWA

archived

Comments of UNESCWA

archived

WASH in Schools indicators

archived

My comments on Consultation document

archived

Comments from a LAC perspective

archived

Comment

I would like to share with you a presentation which briefly touches upon some of the issues raised in the consultation (and adds some additional ones, namely the priority assigned by governments to current MDGs for water and sanitation). It is available at:

http://www.cepal.org/drni/noticias/noticias/6/47566/aj_buenos_aires_07_2012a.pdf

It is --unfortunately-- in Spanish, but I believe that it is perfectly understandable even for those who only speak English. In any case, the main points are in the attached file and below.

•	Water supply and sanitation services are important for various reasons (in addition to traditional public health considerations): this is useful because it could help us formulate new arguments for effective sector prioritization in public policies and also in the search for alliances for sector development.

•	A vast majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries (76%) have already reached or is likely to achieve MDG in access to water.

•	In the case of sanitation, majority of countries (54%) are unlikely to reach MDG, but about a third have already achieved the goal.

•	It is worth noting that in most countries (73% for water supply and 80% for sanitation) the rate of expansion of coverage actually has slown down since 2000 (in comparison with the 1990s) or remained without change; in the very few, it has accelerated. This slowdown in coverage expansion since 2000 contrasts with more favourable economic conditions in the 2000s in comparison with the 1990s. So, one may ask, are MDG in water and sanitation a real priority for governments?

•	As for the definition of MDG for the future (post 2015), their current definition, based on technology, is useful but fails to consider a number of relevant qualitative aspects of access:

o Service quality: For example, is it acceptable to count as access to water, intermittent service --water that is actually available a few hours a day or a few days a week--, or water that must be boiled before consumption? So, should service quality be considered in the definition of any future goals?

o Affordability: Water tariffs have increased is many countries towards self financing but few countries have effective subsidy systems for the poor. As a result, in many larger cities, the poor pay up to 10% (and more) for official service (not water vendors). Should affordability be considered in the definition of any future goals?

o Technological solutions: Now almost all forms of coverage/access, most minimally acceptable technological solutions, are counted towards coverage, but at least in most cities in our region, people demand, aspire to and usually can afford piped access (water and sewerage). Also there are cities in which use of alternative solutions have led to groundwater pollution. Should not the definition of access be made more rigorous in terms of acceptable (site-specific) technology?

o Sustainability: Since tariffs often still do not cover the full cost of service provision, service providers seldom invest in infrastructure replacement as needed and many water sources are destroyed or threatened by pollution, are any achievements sustainable? So, should sustainability be considered, and how?

o Service cycle: Should we limit future goals to access to its narrowest sense or rather also include --as would be expected-- at the very least, wastewater treatment and watershed protection?

o Efficiency: Should it be reflected somehow in the definition of any future goals, since it is critical both for equity --reduces costs and makes access more affordable-- and service sustainability.

o Human rights: The recognition of human right to water and sanitation implies rapid, deliberate and specific steps towards immediately ensuring a basic level of access to all, so we should speak in terms of progress towards universal access.

o Finally: In view of all of the above, should not any objectives be city/area/country specific? Obviously, countries are at a different level of economic development and can afford different forms of access, and what is appropriate in a sparsely populated rural area with abundant unpolluted water is likely to be unacceptable in a city of millions in a water scarce area.

Country

Institution

Position

Working group

General comment on overall strategy to capture all dimensions of water adequately.

archived

Comment

A good effort so far on the “water supply and sanitation” side of things. But there is more to be captured than this: e.g., water for food, energy, environment/ecosystem aspects etc. So I think we need a bit of strategic thinking. There are numerous options, essentially:

(1)Targets/indicators for each major area (drinking, sanitation, environment, food security etc. which would most likely be integrated under broader goals -e.g poverty, and env. Sustainability etc. – much along the construct of the existing MDGs but of course there needs to be much improvement etc.)
(2)An overarching goal on “Water” under which the various sub-sets of interests could fit.
(3)Or a blend of both

Personally I think we should go for a single overarching goal. This would be along the lines of “ Water security by …… “ – I’m aware we are still working on the terminology and if legal/political  issues with “security” persist it might be wise to continue with a longer construct of the term (= say the same thing using more words) but we need to focus on the principle (not wording) at present.

With an overarching Water Goal – the various institutional interests would be reflected further down the “tree” – as targets, sub-targets, indicators etc. depending on construct. As I mentioned in Stockholm – we need to avoid being constrained by thinking each sub-topic has to have its own goal, target(s), and indicators (there will not be enough room to capture the full suite of interests that way). I also think we need clear thinking on what we mean by “indicator”  versus the metric(s) to measure it. E.g., the JMP data (etc.) can be either an indicator or a metric to measure one – depending on the target and goal.

For example:

GOAL 1 (the water goal)  = “Water security” (suitably phrased) ; 
Target= 1.1 = “water quality”; 
Indicators = 1.1.1  “drinking water supply” (metric = JMP data? + other?); 1.1.2 “waste water treatment” (metric = ?); 
Target 1.2 = “water quantity”
Indicators = 1.2.1 water for food (somehow) (metric = crop water productivity etc.); 1.2.2  incidence of drought/flood (metric s # deaths, economic costs etc.); 1.2.3 “quantified situation re. water stress” (metric = TWA/TRWR). 
Target 1.3 = “sustain water related ecosystem services”; 
Indicators: 1.3.1 “improved drinking water supply delivered through ecosystem restoration”, 1.3.2 “progress in rehabilitation of soils” etc.;  [requires a lot more thought this one!]

These are illustrative – the point being to focus on the construct, not the actual content (yet). In this example (much better worked out) – we could feasibly capture everything in one goal and three targets.

The work so far rightly notes that politicians are not going to go for a long list of targets and want it simple. So the strategy is to move into overarching targets and get everbody’s topic in as indicators.

What would be useful to know is what everybody else is up to. Because if there are (estimated) “7”  Goals – it would be useful to have an idea of the competition.

If we are after simplicity: One interesting option might be an overarching Goal on “water, food and energy security” – then split the three up into targets etc.   If that were done then I can only think of two more required goals (1-poverty; 2-environment). The whole thing can be done with three goals  (but this is unlikely).

And I think we need to figure out what strategy re. sanitation – because its either  “water” related  or a “poverty” related  (or both). I suppose the same could be said re. drinking water. There are going to be calls for drinking/sanitation to be more prominent (quite rightly) – so strategy required (in theory, they might get as high as “targets”  under a poverty goal – but down as indicators/metrics in a water goal).

If we can agree on what shape the “tree”  is then we can split this up into sub-groups to work on the branches (e.g. myself and others figuring out how ecosystems figure in this – are we a branch or the roots?).

I’m not sure this helps. But I do think we need a strategy on the big picture before going into the details.

Regards,

David

Country

Institution

Position

Working group

Comments from the UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia

archived

Country can fix target based on need, priority and capacity. Globally direction is more important than time bound goal.

archived

Welcome!

archived

stakeholders, representation, youth, governance

archived

It is great to see that the consultative process on goals, targets and indicators has started.

archived

representation, regions, Oceania

archived

separator

Post-2015 Monitoring.

separator

Guided Tours.

separator

About the JMP.
Contacts.