1. 2016 UNC Water and Health Conference
Monitoring SDG Target Experience from Uganda
Richard Matua
Directorate of Water Development
Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda

2. Presentation Overview
Process of Implementation
Institutional Set-up
Harmonization with National Monitoring Process
Data availability
Lessons Learned

3. Process of Implementation
Please Note: I am suggesting to use this illustration, but we may show it in two or three consecutive slides to only present parts of it at a time.
The first point of this slide is to show that actual stakeholder identification and nomination requires a lot of time
Richard was only nominated at the beginning of September (2.5 months into PoC phase) – red spot
The second point of this illustration is to show that actual capacity building in methods and tools is required,
Furthermore, it can be highlighted that data is not readily available but exists
We could hint towards the planned primary data collection

4. Two Level Collaboration
The first point of this slide is that “two level coordination/collaboration” is required, both from an institutional but also from a data perspective.
It will be highlighted, that WW and Ambient Water Quality by nature are set in two different parts of the ministry. Depending on which part leads on 6.3, the target will have a focus on one or the other. In Uganda, the DWRM has a clear focus on “ambient water quality”, therefore, testing of did not find any attention at first.

5. Harmonisation with National Monitoring Process
Golden Indicators
Uganda national indicators for WASH services
Yearly Sector Performance Review
Working on aligning Golden Indicators to the SDG indicators
Challenge: Different data sources

6. Golden Indicator 4.1 Household Sanitation
% of people with access to improved sanitation in 2015/2016
Rural: 79%
Urban: 85%
JMP (2015) (incl. shared)
Rural: 26%
Urban: 73%
References: JMP (2015). Country files: + Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2016

7. Data availability - Challenges
Functionality of improved facilities is not easily verifiable (e.g. septic tanks)
contained/not contained
Safe disposal in situ
currently not covered by surveys
Informal faecal sludge emptying
Data on treatment is available

8. Safely managed – Public Facilities
The MWE-DWD is mandated to provide sanitation in public places, such as
markets
highways
bus stations
Would these be covered as “limited services”?
What about faecal sludge management from these facilities?

9. Safely managed – Limited Services
63% of improved household facilities in urban areas are shared
typically by the urban poor
Monitoring management of faecal sludge from these facilities is important

10. Lessons learned
Bureaucratic processes, such as the nomination of stakeholders, require time
Implementation of methodology is feasible
some time and resources required
Progressive data availability by integrating new questions into surveys

11. Lessons learned
Coordination and collaboration between ministries and service providers is paramount
Local collaboration between Target 6.2 and 6.3 is crucial
Target 6.3 requires a separate task team for each indicator (6.3.1 and 6.3.2)

12. Thank you and Goal 6 Team Uganda!