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/glaasglaas@who.int

Further information:

22

Thank you

IRC Symposium Addis Ababa 7-9 April 2013

Peregrine SwannGLAAS ConsultantEmail: ps_consulting@btinternet.com