The role of UN-Water GLAAS in monitoring WASH
Peregrine SwannGLAAS Consultant
IRC Symposium Addis Ababa 7-9 April 2013
1
2
Background to GLAAS
Links to other initiatives
GLAAS products
Some important findings
The missing bits
Feedback from GLAAS 2012 process
Making GLAAS more relevant
Contents of GLAAS presentation
The story begins with the UN Human Development
Report 2006 - Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and
the global water crisis
Part of the ‘4 foundations of success’ recommended by the HDR was greater global action to meet the WASH challenge.
GLAAS, JMP and the SWA High Level Dialogue are central to this global response
Background to GLAAS
3
4
UN-Water GLAAS 2010 first full report with 42 developing countries and most donors participating – used in first SWA HLM
Report highlighted: the poor targeting of funding and extensive knowledge gaps
Regional highlights for Africasan; SACOSAN; EASAN
Background to GLAAS – first full report
GLAAS 2012 report includes 74 developing countries and all major donors
Report highlighted challenge of extending and sustaining coverage; managing WASH assets; and re-emphasized lack of robust data, particularly on financial flows to WASH
5
GLAAS links to other initiativesGLAAS:
sister report to the JMP - GLAAS measures inputs and enabling environment; JMP focuses on sector outcomes
provides a regular (biennial) global update on the inputs and the enabling environment for WASH
an instrument used by Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) to:
provide the evidence for the biennial HLMs
help countries prepare their WASH country profiles for the HLM
Works with other initiatives AMCOW, WSP in Africa
has helped catalyse stronger national monitoring but is keen to get closer to country monitoring processes
Some of the UN-Water GLAAS products
Biennial Report
Regional highlights
Ongoing research
Country + ESA templates (support
for SWA HLM)Country data repository
Tracking national financial flows into sanitation and drinking-water
7
Example from Ethiopia Country Profile prepared for SWA HLM 2012
8
Some important GLAAS 2012 findings
Sanitation, annual/biennialreview processes, 2011
Drinking-water, annual/biennialreview processes, 2011
Deaths due to inadequate WASH
9
Procedures for stakeholder participation
Sanitation
Drinking-water
10
Absorption of committed domestic funds, 2011
sanitationdrinking-water
Reported adequacy of WASH financing, 2011
sanitationdrinking-water
Insufficient finance to meet targets………..
…but poor utilization of funds allocated
11
GLAAS reveals the missing bits
GLAAS reveals some major data gaps, particularly
WASH financing at the sub-national level
WASH human resources capacity and gaps
Only 42% of urban/rural sanitation and drinking-water sectors are informed by reliable information monitoring systems
Only 40% of countries that have decentralized service delivery have decentralized fiscal responsibilities
12
Only 4 of the 74 countries surveyed could provide complete data on sources of funding including from h/hs. 17 countries provided data on sources excluding h/hs
The missing bits – data on financing WASH are sparse – and similarly on human resources
GLAAS will help countries to monitor expenditures through TRACKFIN (to be piloted in up to six countries soon) and to monitor HR with help from IWA (details TBC)
13
Feedback from GLAAS 2012 process
Some feedback from WSA – Africa Regional GLAAS Facilitator
Signing off the data an important part of the process
Collecting the data requires ‘a conversation not a meeting’
Link to national M&E mechanisms and to SWA dialogue
Important to recognize not a one-off process but a continuous one
14
Main changes to the 2013 questionnaire
Following an extensive review process:
No longer separate sections on sanitation, drinking-water and hygiene
Individual questions do separate urban, rural, sanitation, drinking-water, hygiene promotion
Combined question on policy with existence of national targets
Changed the question on sustainability (from list of drivers/constraints to continuity of service/reliability/water quality/climate change
Included a question on plans for universal access
15
Changes to the 2013 questionnaire
Added more on the human right and linked to universal access and the plan to realize the right
Asks whether claims for the right have been filed
Question on specific measures to extend services to certain population groups: poorest quintile; slums; remote/hard to reach; ethnic minorities; people with disabilities; other disadvantaged groups
Question on how these groups are informed of these special measures
Asks countries to specify main obstacles to extending services to disadvantaged groups
Separate section on monitoring
16
Type of institutions providing services - % of population served by formal providers; community-based providers; informal providers
Institutional accountability - question on complaint mechanisms
Government-led monitoring – reviews; oversight of private sector providers; hr needs; effluent quality; behaviour change + specific questions on monitoring service providers
Existence of performance indicators
Reporting of monitoring: availability of data; inputs to monitoring by the public
Changes to the 2013 questionnaire
17
HR
Identification of HR gap
Limiting factors for public sector to attain suitably qualified staff
Sufficiency of educational opportunities
Where does lack of qualified staff have main impact
Finance
WASH budget as % of national budget
Can sub-sector budgets be identified
Are allocations for capital vs. O & M disaggregated
How are local funding allocations made (in line with policies)
Changes to the 2013 questionnaire
18
The next steps
Revised questionnaire ready for piloting with sections on:
Governance – policies, strategies and action plans
Implementation – institutional arrangements; participation; coordination
Monitoring – gov’t led monitoring; disadvantaged groups; information systems; performance indicators; national assessment / reviews; publishing results
HR – HR strategy; causes of HR shortages; in-country education; professional networks
Finance – budgets; financial strategies; allocation criteria (equity, cost recovery strategies); utilization of allocated funds
19
The next steps
Questionnaire sent out in June to country focal points
June – September: national consultation and data gathering; sign off
Important that countries link GLAAS data collection with national reviews; the AU/AMCOW Pan African monitoring; and prep for SWA HLM commitments where they can
Return of questionnaires October
GLAAS data analysis and report preparation November 2013 – March 2014
Preparation of country profiles January – March 2014
High Level Meeting April 2014 - TBC
20
Some of the features of GLAAS
Regularity of report
Measurement of trends
Comparison between countries
Catalyses in-country monitoring
Link to global platform the SWA HLM
Monitors both developing countries and donors
Complements and does not compete with JMP
Highlights data gaps
Prepares country profiles
21
Making GLAAS more relevant to countries
Challenges that remain for GLAAS: Engaging better with country processes
Providing better feedback to countries
Working together on developing indicators, norms and standards relevant at both national and global level
Reducing reporting burden for countries
Making the GLAAS processes more relevant to countries
Benchmarking self-reported data
22
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/[email protected]
Further information:
22
Thank you
IRC Symposium Addis Ababa 7-9 April 2013
Peregrine SwannGLAAS ConsultantEmail: [email protected]