This updated data will be very useful for consumers, water providers, governments and consultants - you are really helping show how far we have gone towards achieveing the MDGs and how far we have to go for SDG 6,

I share the disquiet being expressed with the abandonment of limited and circumscribed sharing as an acceptable option for sanitation. It is the only technically viable option for many poor people who live in low rental compound housing. The reasons advanced in the document for not using it as an indicator are that it is not measured at present, and a wish for backward compatibility with the MDGs. But that to me is no reason not to try to measure it in future, as the upgrade from a public toilet to a compound level toilet is very real, both in terms of amenity and public health. There are various aspects of the SDGs which are tending to make the best the enemy of the good, and it would be a shame in this case to discount the best that can be done for those poor urban dwellers, typically in the lowest wealth quintile, who live in compound houses, thereby reducing governments' interest in making any interventions at all.

Improving sanitation requires accountability, which in turn requires monitoring, and we have found in Maputo that monitoring can be an effective promotional tool -and in CLTS community monitoring also has a key role. So it is not to my mind unreasonable to suggest that monitoring be improved so as to pick up indicators which we now know are important in guiding us toward the most serious sanitation problems, as well as for playing a promotional role.

Best regards
Peter Hawkins

Country Coordinator, WSP-Mozambique

www.wsp.org
www.worldbank.org/
Avenida Kenneth Kaunda 1224, CP4053, Maputo Mozambique World Bank - WSP

I am probably deeply in the minority here but I think the SDGs have become incredibly unwieldy and all sectors are doing exactly this ? arguing for greater nuance, greater inclusion of more indicators and the like and making the whole venture harder, not easier. I think that carries enormous risk.

Do I think that shared facilities matter ? of course. But do I feel that the abandonment of this understanding at the meta-level of the SDGs is a disaster ? hardly.

The SDGs should be an overarching framework that focuses the world on radical transformation by 2030. The best way to do that ? globally ? is to keep the SDG indicators simple, something that was lost in my mind over a year ago.

Each sector will still have work to do to make sure that the results we achieve ? as a sector ? are transformative and lasting. Transformative and lasting results are 2 things most would agree the WASH sector has not achieved to date but most would also argue are becoming more likely with better programming and more substantive monitoring ? especially at city/district and country levels.

I would think that the main job for the WASH community is to really push for better results, push for better ways to track these results over time and really hold ourselves to more ambitious outcomes. If we do that, and we show, between now and 2030, that cities are open defecation free and thriving because of creative solutions that included a range of options ? from on-site to shared facilities that are managed safely and hygienically ? then I am good regardless of how the SDGs try to understand all this. And if we as a sector are pushing for city-wide solutions then we are being driven by something bigger and more impactful than the SDGs. And again I am good with that.

Like I said, probably a minority view, but there you have it.

Ned



Ned Breslin

Water For People 100 East Tennessee Avenue Denver, CO 80209

Twitter: @NedBreslin www.waterforpeople.org

This moment brought to you by water www.waterforpeople.org/spring-campaign-2015 @waterforpeople

This is quite an interesting analysis of where things stand from Lucien Georgeson

www.epi.yale.edu/the-metric/5-takeaways-latest-sdg-negotiations

Indicators are both technical and political.

The indicators chosen to track the SDGs will undoubtedly influence what development actions take place on the ground. For example, MDG-7's goal to halve the proportion of the global population lacking access to clean water motivated the collection of data evaluating the percentage of the population with"improved/unimproved" water sources. Improved water sources, however, only refer to whether or not a piped water source exists. It tells nothing of the quality of that water. Although the MDG itself includes water quality, the final indicator measured represents a political negotiation between the ideal (i.e., "quality") and the practical (i.e., "improved/unimproved").

The choice of indicators, while technical, has political consequences and includes inherent value judgements. Many member states voiced their concerns that the technical development of indicators takes the SDGs out of an inclusive process. These countries entered the negotiations anxious to make sure that their voice would still be heard. South Africa, representing the G77 and China, stated that indicator development should be steered by both the intergovernmental process and broad, regionally-balanced engagement, with financial support to ensure participation of representatives from developing country statistical offices.

Oh yes, sorry I was muddling targets and indicators.

The assessment refers to the indicators not the targets, i.e. is it feasbile to measure the indicator (is the data easily available) etc.

Maybe I have missed or forgotten, but is the intention to set these indicators at a global level or allow each country to determine their own indicator?

Wait - it is 'easily feasible' that a given percentage of population use safely managed sanitation services...?

I guess this depends on what the % is.

Adding to Joe's posts about the UN-Water document, below is what the UN Statistical Commission came up with in March 2015 as targets & indicators for SDG 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. It includes an assessment of the feasibility, suitability and relevance of the proposed indicators. According to an insider "if you care about these new goals, pay close attention to the statisticians".

Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Target 6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water
Indicator 6.1.1 Percentage of population using safely managed drinking water services
Assessment: AAA

Target 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.

Indicator 6.2.1 Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services
Assessment: AAA

Indicator 6.2.2 Population with a hand washing facility with soap and water in the household
Assessment: BAA

Target 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and increasing recycling and safe reuse by [x] per cent globally.

Indicator 6.3.1 Percentage of waste water safely treated
Assessment: BAA

Indicator 6.3.2 Percentage of receiving water bodies with ambient water quality not presenting risk to the environment or human health
Assessment: CBB

Here is the Commission's explanation of the Assessment codes

Countries were asked to rate on a scale of A to C the feasibility, suitability and relevance of the proposed provisional indicators for each target:

1. Feasibility:
A: Easily feasible (methodology exists and data is available)
B: Feasible with strong effort
C: Difficult, even with strong effort

2. Suitability:
A: We support this indicator
B: We need to discuss and/or consider other indicators
C: We do not support this indicator

3. Relevance:
A: Very relevant
B: Somewhat relevant
C: Not relevant

The UN document has the following proposed indicators for sanitation

• Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services [progressive elimination of inequalities in access]
• Population with a hand washing facility with soap and water in the household [progressive elimination of inequalities in access]

And the following supplemental indicators:

• Percentage of population using a basic sanitation service [progressive elimination of
  inequalities in access]
• Percentage of population practicing open defecation
• Percentage of pupils enrolled in schools that provide basic sanitation services
• Percentage of pupils enrolled in schools with basic hand washing facilities
• Percentage of pupils enrolled in schools with basic menstrual management facilities
• Percentage of beneficiaries using health care facilities providing basic sanitation services
• Percentage of beneficiaries using health care facilities with basic hand washing facilities
• Percentage of beneficiaries using health care facilities with basic menstrual management facilities

The JMP document has the following indicators:

• Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services
• Percentage of population using a basic sanitation service
• Percentage of population using a shared sanitation service
• Percentage of population using an unimproved sanitation facility
• Percentage of population practicing open defecation
• Percentage of pupils enrolled in schools that provide basic sanitation
  services
• Percentage of patients using health care facilities providing basic sanitation services
• Percentage of population with handwashing facilitieswith soap and water at home
• Percentage of pupils enrolled in schools with basic handwashing facilities
• Percentage of pupils enrolled in schools with basic menstrual management facilities
• Percentage of beneficiaries using health care facilities with basic handwashing facilities
• Percentage of beneficiaries using health care facilities with basic menstrual management facilities

I am not sure if there is anything substantially different about these proposals - anyone have a thought?

In the Sanitation Ladder discussion we recently had, Patrick Bracken said:

As Krischan noted, from the JMP's perspective there has been a significant shift from their MDG indicator considering access to improved sanitation as the top rung of a monitoring ladder, (i.e. flush toilets, connection to a piped sewer system, connection to a septic system, flush / pour-flush toilets to a pit latrine, VIP latrines, or composting toilets) to what is their current proposed top rung "of safely managed sanitation" (defined as the population using an improved sanitation facility which is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or transported to a designated place for safe disposal or treatment).
There is here a definite and clear movement towards looking at the entire sanitation system, with the system boundaries possibly being set at city / town / settlement level (if the JMP choose to use SFDs as one tool to assist monitoring).
For me already this means that in the coming years monitoring MUST be based on functionality - "safely managed" cannot be assessed in any other way.

from here: forum.susana.org/forum/categories/185-th...st-2015-period#12228

My question is whether these indicators are actually evidence of a systems approach.. or whether this will just end up with a more complicated ladder based on technology.

See also the expert advice to UN Water, March 2015 www.unwater.org/fileadmin/user_upload/un...rs_Ver2015-03-19.pdf

Interesting that target 6.2 now talks about adequate sanitation and the experts say:

The target is specific and action-oriented. Adequate sanitation implies both safe separation of excreta
from human contact and safe disposal or treatment of excreta. Hygiene implies hand washing. Equitable
implies progressive elimination of inequalities. Needs of women and girls implies provision of facilities
for menstrual management. Each element is measurable. Note that experts consider ending open
defecation and ensuring universal access to a basic water service achievable by 2030, but universal
access to ‘adequate’ is unlikely to be achieved in all countries2
.

Note by moderator: An earlier discussion from two years ago is availabe here on the forum:
forum.susana.org/forum/categories/182-mi...anitation-monitoring
+++++++++++


Attached is an updated version (April 2015) of the JMP document "WASH post-2015: proposed indicators for drinking water, sanitation and hygiene".

It incorporates recommendations of the UN Statistical Commission to provide three core indicators for the water and sanitation targets of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6. In addition, JMP has:

proposed other supporting indicators which JMP would routinely report on, including other rungs on the water and sanitation ladders, WASH in schools and WASH in health care facilities.

In response to Joe's question, here is the JMP definition of "safely managed sanitation":

Population using a basic sanitation facility* which is not shared with other households and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or transported to a designated place for safe disposal or treatment.

* Basic sanitation facilities [MDG ‘improved’ indicator] include the following types: flush or pour flush toilets to sewer systems, septic tanks or pit latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines, pit latrines with a slab, and composting toilets.

Interesting to note is that the JMP no longer supports their initial proposal to include ‘limited sharing’ (no more than five families) in the list of basic sanitation facilities because it:

found that few surveys distinguish between ‘limited’ and ‘unlimited’ sharing, so the measurability of a ‘limited sharing’ indicator is not strong. Accordingly, we have proposed to continue reporting on ‘no sharing’ and ‘unlimited sharing’ in the SDG period. This would also provide backward compatibility with the MDGs and avoid moving the goalposts for those that have not yet achieved them. However, we remain open to further discussion on how sharing fits with the ladder concept and how it should be reported in future.