Dear all,

Thank you for contributing to our topic and raising so many important issues with regard to the SDG indicators on sanitation.

The summary is now available here .

- Katrin

Dear Rose, dear Martin, dear discussion participants,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful contributions to our discussion on SDG indicators.

The official part of the discussion is hereby closed but you are of course welcome to continue to post in this thread.

Next week, I will provide a summary of the posts published up until now and will inform you here how to access it once it is available.

Best,
Katrin

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you very much for taking the time to contribute to this post. There have been some interesting discussions and I think many questions answered. Although the indicators have not yet been finalized and we still have a little more time, I think we have to ask ourselves if the targets have the correct words to enable us to include all we want to monitor. At the end of the day, if national governments find in useful and important to "unpack" the indicators further through further disaggregation or to include additional information. This may not be reported in a global monitoring instrument but will nethertheless find its way into national monitoring frameworks. Much of this could be monitored from community-based sources.

In terms of definition of what is adequate or equitable sanitation, a lot of discussions have been held with experts working on the SDG framework and linkages between the realization of this target and other targets in the other SDG goals. The discussions in this post have emphasized the fact that universal access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene is essential for the achievement of other targets proposed namely: Poverty (1.2.); nutrition (2.2); health (3.2, 3.3, 3.8, 3.9); education (4.1); gender 5.2); infrastructure (9.1); inequalities (10.2); human settlements (11.1). This means that adequate sanitation will have to encompass safe removal of excreta from human contact as well as safe disposal or treatment. This calls for a broad definition of hygiene beyond hand-washing.

Ending open defecation is also implied in the universal access to adequate and equitable sanitation.

The reference to women and girls implies among other things the physical access that provides privacy, security during use but mainly the aspect of adequately providing for menstrual hygiene management (which in has consideration for disposal). Overall hygiene is likely not to be realized without water!

If we look how far effective monitoring has come, considering for example the sanitation was not considered until the Jo`burg summit we have come a long way. There is a lot of opportunity to make similar advances over the next few years and advances both in monitoring tools and data platforms will no doubt be necessary to achieve this target.

Thank you again and all the best, let`s keep up the pressure!
Rose & Martin

Sorry for coming into the debate at the end. To answer Katrin's question on whether countries have the resources to implement the universal targets: this is the subject of a new World Bank study that will be published in the next 2 months which estimates the costs of the various WASH-related targets. Basic WASH is financially feasible based on historic spending patterns, although more is needed for sanitation and hygiene. Safely managed water and sanitation will cost a lot more than we have been spending in the sector globally, while there is very significant regional variation. Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have the greatest resource challenges for meeting both basic and safely managed services. Hence we need to look more at financing mechanisms that enable access to the poor, we need to be aware and work on some major challenges beyond financing (behavior change, institutional capacity, sustainability...); and we need to focus on basic for all before we start spending valuable public resources and energy on the higher-level service for the already served or the better off. I could go on... but those are the main points.

Dear all,

Thank you for sharing your experiences and raising questions on this discussion thread so far.

This is just a short notice that the official part of this discussion will end soon. Contributions published during the official part of the discussion will be included in the summary which will be published next week (further information to follow).

You will of course be able to continue the conversation after that point. However, if you would like your ideas and thoughts to be included in the official summary of our discussion, NOW is the time to hit the reply button!

- Katrin

Nelson Gomonda asked to help post the following on his behalf:

I fully agree with the Observations made by Rose and most of the recommendation prescribed in her response her merit some further consideration.
What I perceive will be the real challenge with the achievement of the targets specified for sanitation is the dynamics of monitoring at country level. All the monitoring efforts at the moment are placing more energy on impact level type of indicators but we can only realise change at government level if the monitoring process track the Inputs, Processes, Outputs, Outcomes, and of course at later stage the Impact.
Apart from placing focus on Baseline surveys and studies and studies monitoring processes will be futile exercises in the first three years into the implementation of SDGs because governments may not have started realising the much desired result of their effort at impact level. If we are to track progress, then it will be important to place focus on monitoring the means of implementation (policies, capacity, finances) which would mean tracking inputs, processes (activities), outputs and to some extent outcomes.
This simply means monitoring efforts in the first two years of implementing SDGs will require a set of indicators that probably are not being captured at the global levels are there is much emphasis on impact level indicators.
The following tries to shed some light on the type of indicators that are required for effect tracking of progress at various levels of implementation and monitoring.
Inputs: there is need to track the raw materials that provide a basis for intervention. Inputs can include money, technical expertise, relationships and personnel.
Activities/Processes: Example activities include tracking staff gaps and capacity required to deliver including equipment, construction works and facilities, commissioning various guidelines, and forms of technical assistance.
Outputs: the tangible and intangible products that result from processes/activities. Outputs may include personnel and gaps filled, experts trained.
Outcomes: the benefits that interventions are designed to deliver.
Impacts: the higher level goals and targets being achieved.
When I follow discussions on indicators, I feel there are the most important lower levels not being addressed.

Dear all,

First of all, I would like to thank you all very much for taking your time to share your thoughts on these difficult and challenging issues, Before people start posting on Katrin's questions, I would like to address Kim's interesting post on the interlinkages between sustainable sanitation and a number of the other SDGs. I think the table that Kim posted shows in a very clear way how important sanitation and, more precisely, sustainable sanitation is for achieving a number of the other SDGs. Also, to my understanding, the formulation of SDG 6.3 and of the higher WASH SDGs does address at least some of the sustainability issues raised by Kim, albeit not as clearly as it ideally could have been. As I see it, organizations which want to work on sustainable sanitation issues will also have support/encouragement to do so through the lenses of the other SDGs mentioned in Kim’s post, and should definitely also stress the links that sustainable sanitation has with the fulfilment of these other SDGs, However, it would seem too complicated to me to generate indicators that cut across several SDGs – perhaps, instead, the linkages with these other SDGs might be better used in situations of advocacy with decision-makers, for example, rather than for actual monitoring purposes. It would be great to hear other opinions on this topic.

I’d also like to comment on Tim’s post regarding the fact that too much focus on "safely managed" sanitation could divert resources from the basic sanitation services which the world is still very much in need of. This issue is of great importance, as I think that there must be a strong focus on basic services during the implementation of the SDGs; nevertheless, those organizations working on the provision of basis services should also be encouraged to think strategically about the sustainability of the services, in such a way that the infrastructure will continue to provide services for the foreseeable future and, wherever possible, also contribute to those SDG goals mentioned by Kim in addition to the sanitation SDG itself.

With regard to the issue of the helminths, I think it was a great idea by Elisabeth to try and ask the authors for a comment. Unfortunately, I do not know them myself; does anybody else know the authors mentioned by Elisabeth and, if so, could they ask them to contribute to this discussion. I am not sure how easily the prevalence of helminth infection could be used as an indicator under the WASH SDG. If stool samples in health clinics were routinely screened for helminths, for example, a lack of their presence could depend on functioning sanitation (and related hygiene practice and water supply services), of course, but could also be a result of a deworming campaign in the area.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all of the above – and/or on other related issues of interest. Thanks!

Thank you all for the the insightful contributions towards this theme so far!
I totally agree with KimAnderson on the discussion on linking the different goals and targets that contribute to sustainable sanitation ``if we invest in achieving high functional level on sanitation, it is possible to contribute to many of the SDG targets``. This is going to be even more relevant at country level since resource constraints are already a challenge in the WASH sector. This integrated indicators approach will indeed enable the WASH sectors identify new ways of collaboration to leverage resources and attract new investments to achieve the Target 6.2. We cannot underestimate the obvious linkages between health and environmental benefits enjoyed due to improved sanitation and hygiene – one needs to look at challenges faces by populations residing in densely populated informal settlements in developing countries, for instance.
This reinforces earlier points by Claudia on multi-purpose indicators being identified and Muench`s link between impacts of sustainable sanitation and health. There is indeed a plethora or research, surveys and tools that exist showing the socio-economic, health, and general well-being that are impacted by improved and sustainable sanitation approaches at different levels and for different groups/areas.
Yet, at country level, drawing these linkages in that integrated, multi-purpose indicator approach means: scrutiny of policies, mandates, coordinating roles and responsibilities of different sectors, explicit budget allocations to public and school sanitation, further profiling sanitation, developing holistic programming, reviewing guidelines among others. This is going to call for a lot of unified action not only from government sectors but also from partners in the way programming for sanitation is done. How the national planning to the actual realization of sustainable sanitation in Target 6.2. is going to be achieved is something that hasn’t yet been discussed.
I am looking forward to more response as we move towards closing this discussion! Thanks again for taking time to contribute.

I agree with Kim and Elisabeth. Many of the other goals depend on Goal 6 delivering safe sanitation. Aiming for anything else will likely mean they can't be achieved either.

Dear all,
Not sure if my post should go in this theme either.. Anyway, I would like to pose a question if we really should limit the discussion to “Access to safe sanitation”. I think that there is high risk that we continue focusing on counting the number of toilets being implemented without really considering the broad set of sustainability aspects of these installations. If we look at the whole set of goals and targets in the SDGs (and do not only focus on goal 6 on water and sanitation) it is clear that the SDGs aim for the broad definition of sustainability, i.e. addressing health, gender equity, sustainable rural and urban development, sustainable production, improving water quality, conserving natural ecosystem. Hence, I think that we really need to be talking about access to sustainable sanitation, which not only cares for the different user needs but in addition protects natural environment and as far as possible safely recovers natural resources to produce these multiple benefits, e.g. improved nutrition, food security, water security, energy security..

I would like to share a graph that SEI has been developing in an ongoing study, soon to be published together with UNEP (Title: Making Wastewater Management and Sanitation More Sustainable: -Showcasing the shift from Waste Disposal to Resource Recovery). In this graph we try to link the 'functional sanitation ladder' concept with the SDG targets. The columns show the ladder steps and the rows the goals and the numbers are references to the specific targets being addressed (for list of targets see for example sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html).
It becomes quite evident that if we invest in achieving high functional level on sanitation, it is possible to contribute to many of the SDG targets. This opportunity can also potentially attract new sectors and new investments to the sanitation sector, since it can address a broad sustainable development agenda..

Achieving multiple SDG benefits when moving up the functional sanitation and wastewater management ladder [SEI 2015]



Since the total number of indicators are said to be limited (probably less than number of targets) it will be important to encounter multi-purpose targets by linking different goals and targets. So besides depicting the potential multiple benefits of sustainable sanitation, the graph also shows where to initially look for these integrated indicators.

Looking forward to hear your opinion on this and receive your feedback on the graph!!
Thanks and all the best,
Kim

Dear all,

My contribution might not fit 100% into this theme on indicators but it fits even less in the other 3 themes, so I am putting it here.

I came across a post that Joe made on the forum on 1 May which I would like to pick up again (forum.susana.org/forum/categories/159-in...an-development#13151)

Joe had posted:

An interesting new study in the open-access journal PLOS Neglected Diseases:

I am not sure what to post here from the study - but it is basically saying that too little notice is being given of helminth infections and that policies to tackle them, such as deworming, should "should become an essential component of the SDGs"

The full paper is here: journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10...journal.pntd.0003618

+++++

Title:

Helminth Elimination in the Pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals: A "Worm Index" for Human Development
Peter J. Hotez , Jennifer R. Herricks

I copy here something from the paper:

Given the strong associations between helminthic and other NTDs and mental, physical, and economic human development, vulnerable and excluded populations, and HDI, in the coming months and years it may become essential to give due consideration to eliminating helminth infections as a means to achieve SDGs. Of course, poverty, “Water, Sanitation and Hygiene” (WASH), and nutrition play an important role in health outcomes. As we look to reduce poverty and increase WASH and nutrition, we must also focus on chronic diseases such as helminth infections that reinforce the cycle of poverty and malnutrition. Therefore, we suggest that the NTDs need to be an important consideration in any discussion about the SDGs, and helminth control and elimination as proposed by the 2012 London Declaration for NTDs must be embraced by the SDGs and the sustainable development community [23].

How do you feel about these statements? Does anyone know if the health goals have in the meantime included such indicators? Helminths are so closely linked to lack of sanitation...

The paper also says:

To date, unlike MDG 6, which includes combatting “AIDS, malaria, and other diseases,” the preliminary SDGs outlined at Rio+20 do not list specific diseases. Yet over the last decade, increasing evidence links the major neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) to a significant adverse impact on both human and economic development, especially for the major helminth infections, i.e., hookworm and the intestinal helminth infections, schistosomiasis, and lymphatic filariasis [2]. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010), these helminth infections rank among the leading NTDs in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), accounting for approximately 10 million DALYs [3].

As I've said elsewhere (www.forum.susana.org/forum/categories/19...eries-about-the-sdgs) I really wish we'd understand not only our "own" SDG better but also the health SDG and - above all - make personal direct connections with the people involved there.

Perhaps it would be an idea to contact the authors and ask them if their call has had any impacts?
It's Peter J. Hotez , Jennifer R. Herricks, does anyone know them?

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dear all,

Thank you for sharing your ideas and thoughts on the topic of SDG indicators. For those of you who have joined the discussion late, I would like to provide a brief summary of the issues addressed so far and point to some of the questions that have been raised to facilitate further discussion:

(I) ISSUES ADDRESSED SO FAR:

(a) Timeline SDG indicators
For details on the indicator development process, see unstats.un.org/sdgs/
* September 7: The deadline to submit your request for the SDG discussion to the UN statistical committee is September 7. See links under “Open Consultation on the global indicator framework” at unstats.un.org/sdgs/
* Oct 26-28: Second meeting of the Inter Agency Expert Group on SDG indicators
* November: final list of global indicators will be agreed on by end of November
* March 2016: Final list of global indicators will be submitted to UNSC

(b) Inclusion of Gender indicators in 6.2 and 6.3.
As Claudia stresses (#14822) it is not clear yet how to address the target of “paying special attention to the needs of women and children”.
Inclusion of the following two indicators is suggested:
(a) % of people using safely managed sanitation services including menstrual hygiene management (MHM) in working and learning environments/institutions (target 6.2.)
(b) % of schools with pupils using safely managed sanitation services with separate toilets for males and females, including MHM (target 4.2.)
OR Absenteeism of school girls and boys at the age of 14-16 years
For further information, please see the two attachments to Claudia’s post.

What is your opinion on the issue of gender sensitive indicators? What could adequate gender sensitive indicators be in your opinion?

(c) Lobbying for inclusion of Hygiene indicators:
As Rose highlights (#14826) there is broad support for the inclusion of the following hygiene indicator under target 6.2: ‘percentage of population with handwashing facilities with soap and water at home’ but it was not included in the list prepared by UNSD so SuSanA partners are encouraged to signal their support on the online platform .

(d) Indicators that monitor progress both for safe and basic sanitation services
As Tim points out (#14823), SDG indicators should monitor progress on both basic services and safely managed services to ensure that those with no service are given improvements as a priority, rather than just upgrading existing services for the relatively wealthy.

For more details on safe v. basic sanitation, also refer to the specific discussion here (forum.susana.org/forum/categories/203-th...sus-basic-sanitation)

(II) DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

Are the two indicators for Goal 6, Target 6.2 adequately defined?

Do developing countries have the necessary capacities and resources for such scaling up of efforts? (-> universal coverage is the target)

How will the numerous data sets and data collection/management systems be harnessed in a way to ensure that they can be effectively verified and utilized in-country?

How will the Human Right to Water and Sanitation monitoring framework be effectively linked to the water and sanitation monitoring framework on access, in a mutually reinforcing way as part of in-country capacity strengthening?

I look forward to your thoughts and opinions on the matter!

Best,
Katrin