WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) Monitoring the MDG sanitation target Definitions, Indicators and their measurability Henk van Norden UNICEF – Regional Office for South Asia SACOSAN4 - 6 April 2011

MDG target and indicators MDG 7 Target 7C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation Indicator for sanitation: Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility Though the target is formulated as ……… The official indicators to measure progress towards this target are exactly what is currently being measured by the JMP: ………………….

“Improved” means…. An improved sanitation facility: “ a facility that hygienically separates human waste from human contact” The proxy indicator “improved” means:…………..

JMP categories of improved/unimproved sanitation facilities Improved type of sanitation facilities * Flush/pour flush to: * Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) latrine piped sewer system * Pit latrine with slab septic tank * Composting toilet pit latrine Unimproved type of sanitation facilities * Flush/Pour flush to elsewhere * Hanging toilet/hanging latrine * Pit latrine without slab/open pit * No facilities, bush or field * bucket Unimproved * Public and shared sanitation facilities of both an improved and unimproved type

Criticism of current sanitation indicator Disposal in pit or sewer is not always “hygienic” May contaminate groundwater Sewage often discharged to river or sea Does not measure actual cleanliness of toilet Improved-type public and shared sanitation facilities are not counted as ‘improved’ Improved facilities may not be used by all household members at all times Does not cover ‘total sanitation’

MDG Task Force definition of “basic sanitation” “The lowest-cost option for securing sustainable access to safe, hygienic and convenient facilities for excreta and sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living environment both at home and in the neighborhood of users” Let’s see what The MDG Task Force on water and sanitation agreed on back in 2003 as the definition of ‘basic sanitation’. They thought very long and hard about this definition and if we look it at and now it includes probably everything we would like to see included in this definition as well. You could argue that solid waste disposal should be added to it or specify levels of treatment of sullage or solid waste, but remember it describes BASIC sanitation – say a minimal acceptable level. Now let’s examine how many indicators are potentially hidden in this comprehensive definition of basic sanitation…………………………….

MDG Task Force definition of “basic sanitation” “The lowest-cost option for securing sustainable access to safe, hygienic and convenient facilities for excreta and sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living environment both at home and in the neighborhood of users” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Start reading the definition again pointing out “lowest cost” and rhetorically asking the audience that if it doesn’t meet the lowest cost option if it still can be counted as basic sanitation – than click and read through the rest emphasizing each adjective. “A quick count comes to 16 different indicators” – 12 of which I put in a matrix ----- next slide 14 15 16

Indicator matrix for MDG Task Force definition of “basic sanitation” Flush Toilet? The lowest-cost option for securing sustainable access to safe, hygienic and convenient facilities for excreta and sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living environment both at home and in the neighborhood of users” The Task Force definition is all inclusive, complete and an excellent design standard for basic sanitation. Now let’s test some of the existing sanitation facilities against these criteria: Question: Does the flush toilet down the hall meet this definition of basic sanitation? To a large extend yes but it is probably not the lowest cost option and doesn’t tell us anything about sullage disposal or how it affects the neighborhood downstreams, but we all agree it is probably one of the most acceptable and desired sanitation options when a regular water supply is available . Does a VIP latrine meet this definition?  next slide

Indicator matrix for MDG Task Force definition of “basic sanitation” VIP latrine? The lowest-cost option for securing sustainable access to safe, hygienic and convenient facilities for excreta and sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living environment both at home and in the neighborhood of users” Does a VIP latrine meet this definition? Likely except maybe for the sullage disposal and there too we do not know the impact on high water tables of the VIP latrines. Likewise we can assess if a twin-leaching pit as commonly found in India meets all criteria?

Concluding An indicator is only good (useful) if it comes with clearly defined categories data can be collected in a cost-effective, practical manner Comprehensive definitions often cannot be measured in a cost effective and practical way, across countries and over time At global, regional and national levels, only very few indicators are needed to inform decision-makers (at the outcome level) Programmes/projects get more information through surveys and rapid assessments (at the input and output levels)

Thank you! JMP web-site: www.wssinfo.org JMP country files Graphs on sanitation coverage trends All household survey and census data Regional and global coverage estimates JMP policies and procedures document

Criteria for indicators Purpose of having an indicator: To collect information that has relevance to what is sought, when what is sought cannot be measured directly A good indicator can be unambiguously measured to provide an approximation of reality Some considerations for determining indicators: Easily measurable Robust data collection mechanism Collected against a reasonable cost Comprehensive yet concise Policy relevant Acceptable Developed preferable with participation/consultation Allow for comparability over time 10 degrees Celcius is a precise measurement of the temperature which we INDICATE as Cold, 40 degrees is precise and our indicator is Warm, while 80 degrees Celsius we call Hot. When we don’t have a thermometer we use indications like cold or very cold, warm, hot, or very hot! When we can’t exactly measure exactly what we want to measure for not having the thermometer or right or affordable instrument we use an indicator. And as a rule an indicator falls short of what we really want to know, because what we want to know can’t be directly measured. Of course the indicator that we use must meet some criteria for it to be a good and useful indicators

Why is the MDG sanitation indicator a good global indicator? Easily measurable through non-sanitation sector specific household surveys and censuses Cost effective Robust Periodic Approximation (…) for a hygienic toilet facility Comparable over time and between countries Comprehensive yet concise Policy relevant at global/regional and national level

Indicator matrix for MDG Task Force definition of “basic sanitation” Composting toilet? The lowest-cost option for securing sustainable access to safe, hygienic and convenient facilities for excreta and sullage disposal that provide privacy and dignity while ensuring a clean and healthful living environment both at home and in the neighborhood of users” Or a composting toilet? The orange colored boxes are indicators which are very difficult to define and/or unambiguously measurable. They each probably need a series of other indicators to describe the concepts they represent.