Dear all,

I am part of the "reference group on Post-2015 Global Sanitation Monitoring" (on behalf of SuSanA and on behalf of the German ministry BMZ).

I want to share with you and invite your comments on a document and e-mail I recently received from Eddy Perez, the lead of this working group (he has encouraged us to share this widely). It is about possible indicators for a future kind of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) after 2015. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. I could collate any input I receive and send it back to Eddy.

++++++++++++++++++
Colleagues:

Attached please find the minutes of the Post 2015 Sanitation working group meeting held in WDC during February 2012. It would be great to get your input on the following:
• review proposed draft global goal and targets - and provide comments for improving or adding as needed. Please include rationale if proposing something different.
• review long list of global indicators (table one) and propose any additional ones that you feel are missing and should be considered.
• suggestions for concrete data bases/ sources for any of the proposed long list of indicators - including if any global database (possibly maintained by WHO) contains information on sanitation facilities in health facilities.
• sharing of any existing evidenced based studies that could validate any of the proposed indicators -
• carry out new research to test the validity of the proposed targets and indicators including the validity of the assumption that lowest wealth quintile contains marginalized populations
• suggestions for defining the information to be collected on "full management of excreta" and a functioning sanitation service chain, and assess possible sources of data.
• opinion on whether Target 4 only relates to urban sanitation.
• what monitoring mechanisms (and combinations of monitoring mechanisms) are best suited to gathering and tracking the necessary data ( JMP? JMP plus?, something else?).




Please note that these minutes and your comments will be posted in a web platform being set up by WHO for the purposes of ensuring wide stakeholder input. Please also feel free to share these minutes ( and questions) widely among your colleagues and partners.

Regards,

Eddy


********************************************
Eduardo A. Perez
Water and Sanitation Program -WSP
Senior Sanitation Specialist
World Bank
1818 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
USA
website: www.wsp.org & www.worldbank.org/watsan

My name is Ned Breslin and I am the CEO of Water For People. I have been working in the water and sanitation sector since 1987 and am part of a group of people who are being asked to comment on the post-2015 sanitation targets. I wrote a counter proposal that is attached for a number of reasons:

1. The indicators suggested by the core group are not in my opinion sound indicators. Some are nice to know but would not change programming based on results (like desludging companies - the fact that there are more desludging companies or less is interesting but less desludging companies might not mean sanitation is falling behind at all and so could misguide future programming); some are overtly political statements (separate budgets for sanitation), and so I felt they needed to be reconsidered. I offered a range of alternatives in the attached

2. I completely disagree with the underlying assumption that it will take 80-100 years to reach full sanitation coverage. I believe that it is critical to set a hard goal and drive towards that, and so I offer an alternative. I believe the goal of 80-100 years is a bad move for a range of reasons - its sends a particularly alarming statement to the world about how leaders in the field who drafted this think about sanitation challenges and I believe we need an alternative, aggressive goal; I think such a goal is driven by exhaustion with how hard it is to make sanitation work rather than building on success, looking for new innovations and by pushing for a better outcome sooner.

3. I believe that new technology is making conventional monitoring (of which the sanitation sector is not great at anyway) obsolete. Hopefully the sanitation sector can look to new technologies, new platforms and new approaches to field-based monitoring as a catalyst for better programming and not simply assume what we use today is what we will be using in even 10 years.

My thanks

Hi all

See the post which outlines a current project "WASH SMS" to use cellphones to collect data. This avenue should be seriously considered as a data collection and monitoring methodology in the "indicators for post-2015".

What are your thoughts on the use of a mobile technology solution?

Kind regards
Trevor

Absolutely!!! New technologies create new possibilities and offer new hope in my mind at least

Dear all,

I am writing to you as a member of the JMP post-2015 Water Working Group, one out of four expert groups working to develop and propose alternative goal, target(s) and indicator options for an improved post-2015 global WASH monitoring system.

Our group has now developed an e-survey on the hitherto developed draft goal, targets and indicators for drinking water (please note that goal, target(s) and indicator options relating to sanitation, hygiene and equity and non-discrimination are worked on by the other 3 working groups). Trough this survey we aim to gather inputs from as many sector experts/ stakeholders as possible in order to inform the discussions at our next face to face meeting in London in late June.

The debate is currently still at a point where your input can make a difference. Hence my request, please take 30 minutes to answer the e-survey (until 18 June 2012).

For more information on the survey, see below the official text of the working group or visit our website http://watermonitoring2015.org/.

Thanks in advance!


Best regards,
Philipp


Background
At the first Consultation on post-2015 monitoring (Berlin, 3-5 May, 2011) it was agreed that working groups are needed to review technical proposals for alternative goal, target(s) and indicator options and propose a short-list of these options. In January 2012 WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) announced the establishment of four expert working groups on drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and equity and non-discrimination. The outputs of these expert working groups will inform the various ongoing political processes led by the UN Secretary General and are expected to culminate in a post-MDG summit at the UN General Assembly in September 2013. The JMP post2015 Water Working Group is comprised of a core group and resource group of experts from national government ministries, statistical bureaux, technical agencies and development partner organisations from a range of countries. The Working Group was established in January 2012 and has held a series of teleconferences and one face-to-face meeting to assess the goal, targets and indicator options using a number of criteria for selection based on (ease) of uptake and use, technical quality and relevance and data collection effort and cost. The group has developed a website on which it shares all relevant documents including summaries of meetings: http://watermonitoring2015.org/

Broad stakeholder inputs and timing of the e-survey
As part of its commitment to an open and inclusive process the Water Working Group wishes to include the views of as many sector stakeholders as possible about the development of technical proposals for the post-2015 period. However there is only limited time available as Group proposals need to be finalised by October 2012 in order to inform the wider political process. We would therefore welcome your views by taking part in a short e-survey which has questions about the draft proposed goal, target and indicators, as well as other issues relating to the desirable elements of an enhanced system of global monitoring. In order to inform discussions at the next meeting of the Water Working Group we request that you respond to this short questionnaire by the 18th of June 2012 at which date we will close the survey. Depending on response rates and progress by the Working Group we may then run a second survey in September.

Sharing the results of the e-survey
After the first round of the e-survey the responses will be collated and analysed. The results of this process will then be posted on the Water Working Group website for further dissemination and comment.

This e-survey has been designed with 2 main parts as follows:

Part A: provides you with the opportunity to give your views on the draft proposed goal, targets and indicators currently being considered by the Working Group and asks you about the relevance of global data collection for national stakeholders and how this can be best aligned with, national and local sector data needs and collection processes;

Part B: asks your opinions on the existing capacity to monitor the data and how this may happen, at what level, and how often; and seeks to understand what incentives you think there are for national stakeholders to participate in data collection which supports a global monitoring system;

What to do next?
Please go to the Water Working Group website where you will find a description of the proposed draft goal, target and indicators and share your views by completing the e-survey.

Dear all,

You may well have seen it already via other channels, but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the JMP (Joint Monitoring Program) has now published a so-called "Long list" for proposed goals, targets and indicators for Post-2015 MDG goal(s) on water and sanitation. And they are asking for feedback and comments by 20 September.

Here is the document:


At the SuSanA meeting, we were fortunate that Darren Saywell gave an explanation of the current situation and thinking behind this for the Sanitation working group where he is a core group member (I am a reference group member). I encourage you to look at the files we uploaded for Darren's presentation here on the SuSanA website:
www.susana.org/lang-en/meetings/16th-sus...ing-stockholm-sweden

You can also see all the information and JMP's discussion forum here:
www.wssinfo.org/post-2015-monitoring/working-groups/sanitation/

At the SuSanA meeting, we thought it would be nice if SuSanA as a whole could give a joint response/statement. Now I don't know if that is still feasible given that we only have one week left, but we could try. E.g. if some or even many SuSanA members comment here, then we could merge comments and send them in as a "SuSanA response".
Note that e.g. WSUP have already provided a response and this is visible on the JMP website here:
www.wssinfo.org/post-2015-monitoring/wor...tx_displaycontroller[target_group]=sanitation

As a guidance, ensure that you click through Guy's presentation which he gave at the Stockholm World Water Week (link as given above or see direct link here: www.susana.org/images/documents/04-meeti...kholm-draft27aug.pdf)

It helps to understand that there is an MDG process and (new) an SDG process (Sustainable Development Goals). Maybe in future we will only have SDGs (which are also of relevance to developed countries) and no more MDGs.

Please also note that this Long List which we are invited to comment on, will need to be massively condensed. Out of all the proposed goals and targets only 1-2 will remain in the end, so clever ideas of merging several into one would surely be a good thing. I suppose the number of indicators could be somewhat larger, but maybe not more than 4? (just my guess)

If you have any questions about this process please ask. I look forward to reading your comments.

Some of my own personal opinions on this and feedback which I would possibly give:

• I like for sanitation that we no longer define access based on which technology we "allow" and which we don't but according to the function and characteristics, based on human rights criteria (accessibility, availability, affordability etc. (actually the affordability criterion is not included; I wonder why not)).
• I find it really difficult to get my head around how all these possible goals and targets could be merged into 1 or 2.
• I don't like that we are now talking about absolute numbers (80% use...) instead of relative numbers like before (reduction by half of those people without access...). I was told by Chris Zurbrügg that this is mainly because of the difficulties in establishing the correct baseline. For the current MDGs, the baseline is actually 1990.
• The definition of "adequate sanitation" will be extremely important and must be well thought out.

I copy here 2 screenshots of the most relevant pages from the document to get you interested (but please refer to the entire document).





Regards,
Elisabeth

I do think it is important that we have a voice in this discussion. Recently I was at a WASH meeting at DFID where the proposed sum of money and number of people they wanted to reach was just not possible, and what was possible would be large number of pit toilets with hygiene practice. I am very concerned that this will be the view of the decision makers behind the creation of the SDG goals. The need to reach as many people as possible will be the priority, not the need to provide long-term and sustainable solutions.

Although they are being called the Sustainable Development Goals I see the word sustainable only once, and then it is replaced by adequate; this is my biggest bugbear. Personally I would like to see the word sustainable replace the word adequate, but I take the long view. There is a political expediency here as well that we have to consider. Do we dilute our suggestions to create a mass level (pits) with a parallel level (sustainable) that at some point wil overtake the mass level, but is more politically acceptable? Or do we suggest that a percentage of the overall target be sustainable so we can prove it is scaleable?

I would be interested to see what others think.

Dear David,

These are interesting points that you raise. Is "sustainable sanitation" always more expensive than "conventional sanitation" (just to give one example: UDDTs compared to pit latrines)? Yes, if you only look at the construction costs. No if you look at a whole of life cost, and if you make the borders of the analysis wider, i.e. to also include those costs related to groundwater pollution, health problems from flies etc. But who looks beyond the construction costs? Not many people.
This was also raised in a posting by Jonathan Parkinson here on the forum:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/69-rel...eeting-in-cairo#1911

As to your other question: in the proposed Goal they speak about sustainable sanitation. But in the target, the term "adequate sanitation" pops up. I can kind of follow that logic because to measure access we need to have a situation of either yes or no. There cannot be any "maybes". We have a nice definition for sustainable sanitation - see SuSanA vision document: , but it cannot be measured in terms of "yes, sustainable" or "no, not sustainable". Because it gives a direction, a vector, not a final state. And that is done like this on purpose.

Whereas the attempt to define adequate sanitation (see posting above), would allow someone to walk around with a check list, check the different criteria, such as number of people sharing, open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and so forth and then decide: "access gained yes or no". These criteria could be seen as a proxy to measure whether the sanitation system is likely to be sustainable and used in the longer term by all or not. Which is why that definition of adequate sanitation is very crucial (and not yet ideal in my opinion, e.g. the bullet points "safe" and "durable" would be subjective to assess).

Regards,
Elisabeth

P.S.
Also here you see the debate set up by IRC about the same Long List, here now with a focus on WASH in schools. Very interesting arguments on both sides:
www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Are_the..._the_right_direction

The title of their debate is: Are JMP Post-2015 indicators on WASH in schools a step in the right direction?

Many moons ago I wrote this www.wherevertheneed.org.uk/2010/news001/, which only serves to reinforce the value for money argument.

Our experience is that at current prices and with a minimum life of thirty years, the cost per person for an ecosan is £2 (€2.40) per person per year. We think it is very good value. Unfortunately, society at large is only interested in short term gains, not long term, and as yet no sustainable system can deliver at the speed politicians need. It is important to remember that this will be a political requirement/expedient, and most western politicians know they have a 4/5 years shelf life.

Hullo everybody?

I am Arnold Asiimwe a Civil Engineer from Uganda, working with Water and Sanitation Development Facility South West (wsdf/sw) which is under the Min. of Water and Environment. I m employed as an Engineer in Charge of Sanitation.

I have just joined the forum and thank everybody for the generous contribution and sharing of knowledge and experience.

Can one help me to distinguish between sanitation coverage and access? How do we measure coverage and access?

MDG number 7 target 10 talks about sustainable access, is this enough when the coverage is low/small?

Thanks
Regards
Arnold Asiimwe Eng.

Dear all

Please have a look at this great presentation from Darren Saywell (Plan International USA) which we filmed at the recent 16th SuSanA meeting in Stockholm, where he explains how the process works and where more consultation is required.



Please lets see more comments here on the forum in this regard.
Let us know if you have already submitted comments on

Here is the direct link to the pdf of the first presentation that Darren speaks to: www.susana.org/images/documents/04-meeti...kholm-draft27aug.pdf

Here is the direct link to the pdf of the second presentation that Darren speaks to: www.susana.org/images/documents/04-meeti...ion-in-stockholm.pdf
Regards
Trevor